Housing Authority of Portland Board of Commissioners Meeting · Talbot, Korvola & Warwick...

Housing Authority of Portland Board of Commissioners Meeting

Multnomah County Building 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd.

(located at the east end of the Hawthorne bridge) Portland, Oregon

September 21, 2010, 6:15 PM

www.hapdx.org

HAP co-sponsored the fourth annual Hoopin' it up Basketball and Activities Camp this August. The free four-day camp primarily serves children and teens living at our public housing properties. Campers attend life skills, writing, and arts classes in the morning and focus on basketball skills and agility in the afternoon.

Housing Authority of Portland Board of Commissioners Meeting

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND

INDEX FOR ELECTRONICALLY DISTRIBUTED BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS BOARD MEETING PACKET FOR SEPTEMBER 21, 2010

Page 2 Index Page 4 Notification Letter Page 6 Agenda/Consent Calendar Page 8 Minutes Page 18 Executive Directors Report Page 24 Staff Reports Page 63 Dashboard Report Page 67 Resolutions

PUBLIC NOTICE:

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

will meet on Tuesday, September 21, 2010

At 6:15 pm At the Multnomah County Building – Commission Room

501 SE Hawthorne Blvd, Portland

Housing Authority of PortlandBoard of Commissioners PacketSeptember 2010

3

TO: COMMUNITY PARTNERS FROM: STEVE RUDMAN DATE: September 15, 2010 The Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Portland will meet on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at the Multnomah County Building – Commission Room 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd, Portland at 6:15 P.M. The commission meeting is open to the public. The meeting site is accessible, and persons with disabilities may call 503-802-8423 or 503-802-8554 (TTY) for accommodations (e.g. assisted listening devices, sign language, and/or oral interpreter) by 12:00 pm (noon), Friday, September 17, 2010.


4

CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES


5

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING

Multnomah County Building – Board Room 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd

Portland, Oregon September 21, 2010 – 6:15 PM

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME PUBLIC COMMENT General comments not pertaining to specific resolutions. Any public comment regarding a specific resolution will be heard when the resolution is considered. MEETING MINUTES (Consent Calendar/Minutes TAB) Topic Minutes of July 20, 2010 Board of Commissioners Meeting

CONSENT CALENDAR ( Consent Calendar/Minutes TAB) Following Resolutions: 10-09 TOPIC Presenter/POC Phone # 02 Authorize Amendment to the

Moving to Work Agreement Attachment A

Todd Salvo Michael Buonocore

503.802.8535 503.802.8546

03 Authorize Amendments to the Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) and Admin Plan for Work Preference at New Columbia

Dianne Quast Rachael Duke Ben Wickham

503.802.8338 503.802.8408 503.943.9675

REPORTS / RESOLUTIONS Following Resolutions: 10-09 TOPIC Presenter/POC Phone # REPORT Executive Director’s Report

(Exec Director TAB) Steve Rudman 503.802.8455

REPORT Coalition of Communities of Color Report

Dr. Ann Curry-Stevens, Coalition of Communities of Color

04 Authorize Adoption of the Strategic Directions

Katie Such 503.802.8505


6

05 Authorize Approval of FY2010 Audited Financial Statements

Todd Salvo Peter Beyer Tim Gillette, Talbot, Korvola & Warwick

503.802.8535 503.802.8538

REPORT Full Year FY2010 and 1 st Quarter FY2011 Financials Compared to Budget

Todd Salvo Julie Satterwhite

503.802.8535 503.802.8354

REPORT Rent Assistance Update: Special Initiatives

Jill Riddle 503.802.8565

REPORT Hillsdale Terrace Report and Status Update

Mike Andrews 503.802.8507

06 Authorize Hillsdale Terrace Habitat for Humanity Partnership

Mike Andrews 503.802.8507

07 Authorize Construction Contract for $300,000 at Humboldt Gardens

Mike Andrews John Manson

503.802.8507 503.802.8511

08 Authorize Construction Contract for Jeanne Anne Apartments

Mike Andrews John Manson

503.802.8507 503.802.8511

ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Portland may meet in Executive Session pursuant to ORS 192.660(2). Only representatives of the news media and designated staff are allowed to attend. News media and all other attendees are specifically directed not to disclose information that is the subject of the session. No final decision will be made in the session. THE NEXT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS The Board of Commissioners will meet Tuesday, October 19 at 6:15 PM. This meeting will take place at the Multnomah County Building, 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd., Portland.


7

1

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES

July 20, 2010 Housing Authority of Portland

135 SW Ash Street, Portland, OR 97204 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Vice Chair Harriet Cormack, Chair Emeritus Jeff Bachrach, Commissioners Gretchen Kafoury, Brian Lessler, Amie Pico, and Jim Smith STAFF PRESENT Steve Rudman, Katie Such, Mike Andrews, Peter Beyer, Adrian Boly, Michael Buonocore, Trevor Calton, Robert Dell, Betty Dominguez, Rachael Duke, Rebecca Gabriel, Pamela Kambur, John Keating, John Manson, Shelley Marchesi, Jill Riddle, Todd Salvo, Celia Strauss, Jerry Walker, Ben Wickham, Cinna’Mon Williams COUNSEL Steve Abel Vice Chair Harriet Cormack called the meeting to order at 6:18 PM. PUBLIC COMMENT No attendee requested to deliver public comments. MEETING MINUTES Vice Chair Cormack asked for a motion to adopt the minutes of the June 15, 2010, Board of Commissioners Meeting. Commissioner Kafoury moved to adopt the minutes; Commissioner Lessler seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Vice Chair Cormack – Aye

Chair Emeritus Bachrach – Abstained Commissioner Kafoury – Aye Commissioner Lessler – Aye Commissioner Pico – Aye Commissioner Smith – Aye

CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Lessler moved that Resolutions 10-07-01 and 10-07-02 be removed from the Consent Calendar so that the Board could discuss them. Commissioner Kafoury seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Vice Chair Cormack – Aye

Chair Emeritus Bachrach – Aye


8

2

Commissioner Kafoury – Aye Commissioner Lessler – Aye Commissioner Pico – Aye Commissioner Smith – Aye

Resolution 10-07-03 Authorize Contract for Exterior Brick Sealing at Ho lgate House Resolution 10-07-04 Authorization of New Procurement Rules Resolution 10-07-05 Authorize the Sale of 42 nd Street House from the Special Needs Portfolio Chair Emeritus Bachrach moved to approve the remaining Consent Calendar resolutions (10-07-03, 10-07-04, and 10-07-05). Commissioner Lessler seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

Vice Chair Cormack – Aye Chair Emeritus Bachrach – Aye Commissioner Kafoury – Aye Commissioner Lessler – Aye Commissioner Pico – Aye Commissioner Smith – Aye

REPORT Executive Director’s Report Katie Such delivered the Executive Director's report. She reminded the Board that it would meet on August 17 regarding HAP's strategic plan and would not have the regular August Board of Commissioner's Meeting. Such pointed out that the recent shooting of a resident at New Columbia continued to sadden the community. She was gratified that many partner organizations (jurisdictional, nonprofit, and homeowners) have sought to provide support and have engaged in town hall meetings. The remainder of the agenda included a request for the Board to authorize a services contract with a partner organization, the purchase of the Jeanne Anne apartments, and adjusting the Section 8 voucher payments standards for studios and one-bedroom units in downtown Portland. Resolution 10-07-08 Authorizing HAP to Adjust Payment Standards for Stu dios and One Bedrooms in Downtown Portland Jill Riddle presented the resolution to the Board. The payment standard is the maximum that HAP will pay for a voucher. HAP's current standard for studio and one-bedroom units approaches or is below the minimum rent for such units within downtown Portland. Because downtown Portland has many services that benefit Section 8


9

3

participants and because HAP can afford to increase the payment standard for such units within downtown Portland, the Board is being asked to allow the area-specific adjustment. HAP's ability to adjust the standard is not dependent on its Moving to Work (MTW) authority. HAP has hitherto avoided adjusting standards to avoid administrative complexity, but the current situation warrants the change. The cost of the adjustment is expected to start at $138,000 per year. Riddle clarified for Chair Emeritus Bachrach that, regardless of the payment standard, participants could pay more for their units if they had the extra resources to do so. Susan Emmons, of Northwest Pilot Project, was invited to share her perspective on the adjustment. Emmons enthusiastically supported the adjustment and viewed it as a means to preserve economic diversity in downtown Portland—rather than seeing gentrification force those with lower income out of the downtown area. Vice Chair Cormack asked whether other geographic areas would benefit from adjusted payments standards. Riddle said that the downtown area showed the most need. Chair Emeritus Bachrach asked where HAP properties were in the range of rents surveyed by the Metro Multifamily Housing Association. Riddle could not recite the placements of HAP's properties, but confirmed that HAP properties were a part of the survey. Katie Such noted that HAP’s affordable housing portfolio has income constraints that would make its rents much lower than the rest of the market. Riddle added that the more HAP spends per unit, the greater the federal funding it will receive the following year. Commissioner Smith moved to adopt the resolution. Commissioner Kafoury seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:


REPORT New Columbia Update Ben Wickham presented the report, regarding the recent shooting death at New Columbia, to the Board. Wickham pointed out that community initiatives were underway before the incident. After the incident, even more partner organizations have sought to engage with the community, so there is currently opportunity to make the community better. Prior to the incident, HAP staff had begun working full-time at improving the community. Service providers had also leased space on the property and had been working with community members. Efforts of management have focused on getting and keeping good residents through the use of screening criteria, a standardized application process, and consistent (nonpunitive) enforcement of lease provisions and standards of


10

4

behavior. Katie Such added that lease enforcement had regularly been cited as important during outreach sessions for HAP's strategic plan. Chair Emeritus Bachrach asked for confirmation that the property was averaging 63 notices to vacate. Wickham responded that it was, and that they were not all for problem behavior. Wickham doubted that any other HAP properties approached that average, noting the property's size and that the residents were at-risk. Use of courts to achieve compliance or eviction is a last step. Current statistics show that the property management company is getting more out of the enforcement process than the previous management company. Because HAP does seek to help at-risk people, staff does what they can to help residents achieve compliance. Commissioner Lessler requested more insight into the numbers of violation notices at the property. Wickham noted that the notices spike in the summer simply because of greater outdoor presence, increased potential for uncut grass, and failure to pay larger water and sewer bills. Commissioner Smith asked if there were any demographic trends to the violation notices. Wickham noted that they centered on public housing units, which made sense, since higher-risk households’ move into them. Overall, notices usually resulted in compliance without court involvement; court involvement often resulted in stability agreements, and only the remainder required eviction. A violation starts a six-month probationary period during which eviction can be pursued. It is not pursued if the violation is due to financial problems. Outside of this probationary period, subsequent violations are not cumulative. Deputy Executive Director Such added that HAP was working diligently to connect residents with service providers. Also, the number of youth at New Columbia has prompted direct efforts at youth violence prevention, which HAP can undertake only with the help of partner organizations. Wickham summarized that enforcement is part of a living, breathing community. HAP uses the property management company to pursue enforcement while it uses HAP staff to foster connections between residents and services. Commissioner Lessler asked if enforcement increases the property's vacancy rate. Wickham noted that the waiting lists maintained for the property keeps the vacancy rate low, but the turnover rate is still relatively high. Commissioner Pico asked why New Columbia would have more violations than other properties. Wickham suggested that it was tied to how large the property is and that the concentration of residents at the property introduces factors not present at other properties (e.g. more single mothers live at New Columbia, which can correspond to problems from guests of those households). Vice Chair Cormack and Katie Such discussed how residents of Columbia Villa were furnished with a right to return to the redeveloped property, whereas residents affected by the Humboldt Gardens and Hillsdale Terrace redevelopments had been or would be required to submit to the application process.


11

5

Commissioner Kafoury recollected a shooting in Columbia Villa in 1988. Tragedies such as that and the current situation can be hard to take for staff who is simply trying to help the community. REPORT & PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Amendments to the Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) and Admin Plan for Work Preference at New Co lumbia Vice Chair Cormack opened the public hearing for the amendments to the New Columbia ACOP and Administrative Plan. Ben Wickham and Rachael Duke presented the report to the Board. Wickham noted that the proposed amendments are part of introducing a culture of work to New Columbia, as recommended by Team 180 (a team brought together to address problems at New Columbia). The amendments would not affect current residents, just those moving into the property from the waiting list. The amendments would give a preference to households with an adult who is working or in a work training program. The culture of work will also bring role-model households into the community. There will be no ongoing requirement for a household that received the preference, but HAP would do all it could to encourage the household to stay on a working path. The amendments are not an isolated effort, but would add to multiple other programs to support working households at New Columbia (e.g. the voluntary Opportunity Housing Initiative (OHI) and the WorkSource center in the Trenton building). Wait-list households without the preference would be reviewed in chronological order. Vice Chair Cormack received clarification that this report constituted the public hearing that initiates the comment period for the amendments. The Board would be asked to approve the amendments in September. HAP's Resident Advisory Committee will review and comment on the amendments during the comment period. Commissioner Lessler asked what monitoring would be done of the attempts at creating a culture of work. Wickham responded that monitoring a voluntary program would be difficult. Duke added that staff were using creative means to follow up with residents who should benefit from the culture of work—encouraging them to follow through with the concept. Such noted that initiating mandatory standards would require much more public outreach and discussion, especially given the bad state of the economy. Commissioner Pico asked for details on the participation in OHI at Humboldt Gardens. Duke replied that former residents who could participate in OHI but chose not to were not invited to return. Seventy, out of one-hundred potential households at Humboldt Gardens were participating in OHI. Some were excelling at the program, and others have needed more support. If a participating household is not achieving program goals, it is asked to relocate. Almost half of the seventy participating households had gained employment, the remainder had enrolled in schools. A Bridges to Housing program has helped populate the program at Humboldt Gardens.


12

6

Vice Chair Cormack closed the public hearing for the amendments to the New Columbia ACOP and Administrative Plan. REPORT & PUBLIC HEARING Amendment to the MTW Plan Attachment A Vice Chair Cormack opened the public hearing for the amendments to HAP's MTW Plan, Attachment A. Todd Salvo presented the report to the Board, pointing out that the Board would vote on the amendment in August. The amendment specifies how subsidies are calculated, which will solve problems with voucher administrative funding. Katie Such added that she hoped this would be the last change to the MTW Plan's Attachment A that HUD will recommend. Vice Chair Cormack closed the public hearing for the Amendment to the MTW Plan's Attachment A. REPORT Economic Participation Report Cinna’Mon Williams presented the annual Economic Participation Report. HAP was still committed to meeting or exceeding its goal that 20% of project subcontracting utilize target businesses and its goal that 20% of project labor be from target populations. Williams pointed out that the Sweet 16 (capital improvement projects at 16 of HAP's public housing properties) would exceed the 20% subcontracting goal. Vice Chair Cormack asked about contractors' success with the HUD Section 3 (employing people with incomes below 80% of the area median income) requirements. Williams responded that HAP staff was pursuing more training in Section 3 compliance before asking the Board to integrate it with HAP's Economic Participation Policy. Resolution 10-07-06 Authorizing a Professional Services Contract with V olunteers of America for Youth Prevention Services Rachael Duke presented the resolution to the Board. She noted that Multnomah County Mental Health and Addiction Services worked in partnership with HAP to write the request for proposals (RFPs) and to select the contractor. Volunteers of America will provide preventative (not treatment) services targeting youth and seeking involvement from entire families. The program performed well with the previous contractor, LifeWorks Northwest, and HAP expects it to continue doing so. HAP will provide 15% of the program's funding; the County will add leveraged resources. Vice Chair Cormack asked how the County came to work with HAP to manage this program. Duke replied that it was a result of the County wanting to target populations at HAP properties. The contract covers HAP properties that have shown a need for a program like this, with the addition of Plaza Townhomes—to bring that property's similar program under the larger effort provided in this agreement. New Columbia has similar programs specific to it. Katie Such pointed out that this program was one of the few opportunities HAP had to help smaller properties that often do not get the attention that New Columbia does.


13

7

Commissioner Kafoury moved to adopt the resolution; Commissioner Pico seconded. The vote was as follows:


Resolution 10-07-01 Authorize Capital Improvements at Eastwood Court an d Carlton Court Apartments Resolution 10-07-02 Authorize Capital Improvements at Lexington Court Mike Andrews and John Manson presented Resolutions 10-07-01 and 10-07-02 to the Board. The resolutions would authorize the set of public-housing capital improvements planned to follow the Sweet 16. Two hard bids were solicited for the work; these resolutions would authorize contracts with the lowest bidder. Commissioner Lessler acknowledged that the low bidder was as much as 20% under the next lowest bidder. He asked whether, HAP should be unable to perfect a contract with the lowest bidder, a contract with the next-lowest bidder would still fit HAP's budget for the work. Manson affirmed that such a contract would be within HAP's budget and added that staff was confident that a contract with the lowest bidder could be perfected. Manson also confirmed for Commissioner Lessler that the work authorized by Resolution 10-07-01 was split evenly between Eastwood Court and Carlton Court. Andrews and Commissioner Lessler clarified how HAP uses HUD Capital Grant funding as soon as possible after it becomes available. Vice Chair Cormack received consent from the Board and counsel to vote on the two resolutions at once. She asked for details on Resolution 10-07-02—that Pavilion was the lowest bidder at $849,000 with 42% target business utilization. Commissioner Lessler moved to adopt the resolutions; Chair Emeritus Bachrach seconded. The vote was as follows:



14

8

Resolution 10-07-07 Authorization to Purchase the Jeanne Anne Apartment s Mike Andrews and Betty Dominguez presented the resolution to the Board. Andrews offered that the proposed purchase would deepen HAP's relationship with the City of Gresham, accomplish the objectives of HAP's Public Housing Preservation Initiative (PHPI), and recognize the collaboration of staff from multiple HAP departments to learn from previous situations, identify ideal properties, and structure a robust transaction. Dominguez noted that PHPI funds would be used for the $2,765,000 purchase and initial rehabilitation. Due diligence included a capital needs assessment and inspections by HAP's own staff, which both indicated that the buildings were in good shape. Initial rehabilitation work would make three units and community spaces ADA-compliant, replace the property's swimming pool with a playground, install fencing to reduce foot traffic, and address health and safety concerns. Subsequent rehabilitation would be conducted as units turned-over. Bids for the rehabilitation work would be solicited in August, and staff would ask for Board authorization to sign the resulting contract in September. Dominguez summarized that the property had large family units and would be an ideal test case for HAP's strategy to blend operating subsidies (once approved). Commissioner Kafoury asked when the City of Gresham would officially agree to the additional public-housing units within its boundaries. Dominguez responded that she would work on that with Gresham staff after the purchase transaction had closed. Commissioner Kafoury asked how many PHPI units remained to be replaced. Dominguez and Andrews reported that replacements were planned for 140 out of 162 units. They, along with Commissioners Kafoury and Pico, clarified how PHPI funds are allocated and the replacements that are part of current HAP development projects. Commissioner Lessler noted a definite improvement in the relationship that the City of Gresham has with HAP. Chair Emeritus Bachrach asked of plans for the project’s $200,000 developer fee. Dominguez responded that the fee would pay for HAP staff overhead. Bachrach requested a breakdown of the project's hard costs and internal costs when the Board is asked to authorize the rehabilitation contract. Commissioner Pico asked why all of the property's units were not inspected and whether they were inspected by the same HAP staff that performed the Section 8 inspection. Dominguez answered that an inspection contractor was selected through procurement guidelines. HAP’s Real Estate Operations maintenance staff inspected the property. All units were not inspected because the team ran out of time during the day on which tenants were notified that the inspections would take place. Andrews offered that the number of units inspected provided a good sample for the property. Commissioner Lessler moved to adopt the resolution. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion.


15

9

The vote was as follows: Vice Chair Cormack – Aye Chair Emeritus Bachrach – Aye Commissioner Kafoury – Aye Commissioner Lessler – Aye Commissioner Pico – Aye Commissioner Smith – Aye

REPORT Hillsdale Terrace Community Advisory Committee Proc ess Mike Andrews and Pamela Kambur presented the report to the Board. Andrews recalled that he had previously discussed with the Board means of making HAP's next HOPE VI grant application more competitive. Proceeding to engage a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was forwarded as one method of doing so. Kambur has identified potential CAC members and invitations to them will be delivered in the coming weeks. She expected that a critical initial step would be making the members certain of the CAC's role—furnishing advice to HAP's Board and serving as a communications bridge between HAP and the community. Kambur expects to invite 40 members, with 32 to 35 agreeing to attend, and any particular meeting of the CAC having 25 to 30 attendees. Potential members include residents of Hillsdale Terrace, representatives of community groups in southwest Portland, and representatives of service providers. Experience with CAC's has shown a group of this size and representation is workable. Commissioner Kafoury thanked Vice Chair Cormack for agreeing to chair the CAC. Commissioner Pico appreciated the inclusion of youth representatives on the CAC. She and Kambur clarified that HAP was hoping to have high school or college-aged representatives. Vice Chair Cormack discussed with Andrews and Kambur how the CAC would first be presented with information on the redevelopment plans thus far. Design workshops would be tied into CAC meetings. Chair Emeritus Bachrach voiced concern that HAP should have strategies for ensuring the site is livable until the grant is awarded and strategies for the property if it does not receive the HOPE VI grant. Andrews responded that, for the immediate term, properly used dehumidifier units should help with most of the problems discovered in the units. Vice Chair Cormack asked Board members to contact Kambur if they had any additional questions. ADJOURN There being no further business, Vice Chair Cormack adjourned the meeting at 8:21 PM.


16

10

EXECUTIVE SESSION Following adjournment, the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Portland did not meet in Executive Session pursuant to ORS 192.660(2). Attached to the Official Minutes of the Housing Aut hority of Portland are all Resolutions adopted at this meeting, together with copies of memoranda and material submitted to the Commissioners and conside red by them when adopting the foregoing resolutions. A taped recording of th e proceedings is also kept on file. Celia M. Strauss Recorder, on behalf of Steven D. Rudman, Secretary ADOPTED: September 21, 2010 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF P ORTLAND _________________________________ Lee E. Moore, Sr., Chair ATTEST: _______________________________ Steven D. Rudman, Secretary


17

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S

REPORT


18

1

M E M O R A N D U M

Office of the Executive Director

DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Steve Rudman SUBJECT: September Executive Director’s Report At this month’s board meeting, we are pleased to welcome representatives of the Coalition of Communities of Color to share highlights from their recent report with us. We also will present our strategic directions for formal approval, hear the results of this year’s audit and a report on our fiscal year 2010 results, and review the various initiatives underway in the Rent Assistance department. In addition to resolutions related to construction projects at the Jeanne Anne Apartments and Humboldt Gardens, the Development team will update you on our HOPE VI application for Hillsdale Terrace and ask you to authorize a partnership with Habitat for Humanity that will strengthen our bid. Strategic Directions Building on our discussion at the August work session, we are bringing the strategic directions forward for final consideration. I want to thank each of you for your dedication to this planning effort and the considerable time you have given it. The directions we are embracing will serve as an excellent guide for the agency over the next several years. It is reassuring to know that they have been shaped by an extensive outreach process and that our community and jurisdictional partners support the paths we have chosen. I also am excited because our work is at the forefront of working with communities of poverty, and our partners who serve the same households are excited to join us on this journey. Where it makes sense, we will work with our partners to align our resources. Seniors (and persons with disabilities who are aging), adults who are able to work, and youth are among the groups that will receive this type of focus during


19

2

the life of the plan. Using youth as an example, we will work with Multnomah County to make sure our families know about the SUN school resources available to them and also build bridges to programs that provide employment opportunities, scholarships, and incentives for youth. Coalition of Communities of Color Report Earlier this year, a coalition of organizations representing people of color presented a report on how these communities are faring in Multnomah County. The report was an ambitious undertaking – a detailed examination of the disparities Multnomah County’s communities of color face in everything from education, to earning power, to housing. We have invited the coalition to present highlights from their report at the September board meeting. In addition to hearing from one of the report’s authors, Dr. Ann Curry-Stevens of Portland State University, I’ve asked staff to discuss actions we are taking in response to the report findings that involve HAP. The report concludes that communities of color face more difficulties accessing housing support programs and notes that access to public housing is particularly limited. Our waitlist demographics for public housing and Section 8 show both lists serving communities of color equitably. However, the percentage of people of color admitted to our public housing is lower than the percentage of people of color living in poverty in our community. During June, we met with coalition representatives to discuss the results and remedies we might take to address this situation. For the short-term, we followed the coalition’s counsel and took immediate steps to broaden our reach and remove barriers when we opened some of our public housing waiting lists in July. We expanded our community partner contact list, extended the advance notification period for agencies, and developed a “tip” sheet to help ensure applications were completed correctly. Longer-term, both our Section 8 and public housing departments are considering steps to improve equity. These measures range from better data collection to looking at elements of our public housing screening process that may have unintended consequences. You will find a summary of the steps we have taken and those that are under consideration in your board materials. Fiscal Year 2010 Audit and Financial Statements I am pleased with the results of this year’s audit. We are in good financial shape, and we outperformed our budget. Under the able leadership of Chief Financial Officer Todd Salvo and Controller Peter Beyer and their team, we continue to improve our financial reporting and are finding ways to refine and improve our internal controls. Looking at the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, with HUD funding improvements, including the addition of funding from the American Recovery and


20

3

Reinvestment Act, the agency topped $100 million in revenue for the first time. Our balance sheet remains sound, with resources available to continue our Public Housing Preservation Initiative, as well as other critical agency initiatives. Rent Assistance Reports At this month’s meeting, we are reporting on several initiatives and programs managed by our Rent Assistance team. In 2008, we created a Moving to Work Initiatives Fund that assigned excess Section 8 funding – the difference between program costs and the annual Section 8 funding we receive from HUD – to special initiatives. At September’s meeting, we will provide an interim report on the five initiatives that are being funded through this program. A final analysis will come in early 2011. We are issuing a significant number of vouchers over the next several months, which will provide a deeper data set for the pilot program outcomes and put us in better position to recommend which of the initiatives should be continued. That said, it is useful to look at this interim report for early outcome data. The best news in the data on these initiatives is that our success rate – the percentage of people who have been assigned a voucher and then find a place to rent – has improved from 73% percent two years ago to nearly 90% today. However, it is not yet clear that two of the pilots intended to improve the success rate – the Landlord Guarantee Fund and the Rent Well tenant education program – were significant drivers in the rate increase, although participants in these programs did find a place to rent more quickly than those who did not participate. A third initiative, covering security deposits for homeless veterans issued VASH rent assistance vouchers, has had a similar effect in reducing the time involved in finding a place to rent. We are also reporting on initiatives involving agency-based rent assistance administered by Northwest Pilot Project and SE Works, agencies that provide services to high barrier people who often don’t qualify for housing assistance. Among other outcomes, these households leased up more quickly than those with fewer barriers, demonstrating that the right supports, along with flexible rent assistance, can lead to success for the hardest to house. On the project-based voucher front, we have worked hard with great success over the past two years to work with our partners to ensure full compliance with HUD regulations governing the use of this resource. Through these and other program improvements, we also have increased voucher utilization, which was hovering around 90% to more than 96% -- a tremendous achievement that means that more people who face significant barriers are being housed. In all, we have 1,131 project-based vouchers in use at properties throughout the community, with another 197 that will come on line this year and next.


21

4

The last report I will highlight is on Short Term Rent Assistance (STRA), limited housing assistance that we administer through 19 social service agencies on behalf of four jurisdictions. When we assumed responsibility for the program, one of our goals was to improve administrative efficiency. Over the years of our stewardship, administrative costs have dropped from 23% to between 12 and 15%. We have argued that with scale, we could lower those costs even further. The infusion of economic recovery act funding over the last year has proven that: our administrative costs for that period were 9%. In addition, despite the ravages of our economy, the program continues to deliver on its outcomes, with only the three-month housing retention outcome dipping very slightly below its goal. I have long believed that this program, and the support it provides, is one of our community’s most valuable housing assistance assets, and these results reinforce my confidence. I encourage you to spend time with all of the rent assistance reports in this month’s board packet – they are rich with detail and insights into how these initiatives are working. HOPE VI Bid at Full Throttle In August, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued the requirements for the next round of HOPE VI funding, with an application due date of November 22. A cross department agency team is moving ahead aggressively to prepare our bid, improving on the very solid foundation of our first application. As we discussed at an earlier board meeting, we are establishing a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) during the application phase so that we have the benefit of a diverse set of views as we shape our plans. Vice Chair Cormack will serve as the committee’s co-chair, along with a Hillsdale Terrace resident we are in the process of identifying. The committee will meet four times between now and early November. Three of the sessions will be combined with design workshops that we hope residents and the general public will attend. In addition to forming a CAC, we are working on strategies to address the concerns HUD shared with us in a debrief on our first application. We recently learned that the State of Oregon has awarded the project 9 percent tax credits, which will help to demonstrate the solidity and surety of our financing. The many partnerships we secured on behalf of the project for our first application will carry forward, with education and health becoming even stronger areas of focus in our rebid. We also are looking for ways to improve our connectivity with the neighborhood in all directions, which we believe will result in a more compelling design and master plan. Finally, we are adding a homeownership element to our application. At this month’s board meeting we will seek your approval to establish a partnership with


22

5

Habitat for Humanity to support affordable homeownership in the vicinity of the redevelopment. Upcoming Events The next work session of the board is on October 6 at 5:00 p.m., and the next board meeting is on October 19 at 6:15 p.m. Community Advisory Committee meetings for Hillsdale Terrace are slated for September 23, October 4, October 21, and November 4, starting at 5:45 p.m. at Hillsdale Community Church, 6948 Capitol Highway. I strongly encourage you to attend at least one of the sessions, especially if you have not participated in our HOPE VI community processes before.


23

STAFF REPORTS


24

HAP Q4 FY10 Financial Results 1

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

• The twelve months ending March, 2010 produced a $4.1 million operating loss. However this was $0.5 million better than anticipated in the budget

• Total Net assets increased by $22.2 million, favorable to budget by $18.2 million

Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net AssetsComparison of Budget and Actual

Time.FiscalYear: Property Code HAP5All Board GroupingHAP5All: For the period of F10-March(2010)

YTD YTD AnnualActual Budget $ Variance % Variance Budget

Operating Revenues

Dwelling Rental 10,486,309$ 10,839,911$ (353,602)$ -3.3% 10,839,911$ Non-dwelling Rental 1,217,955 1,321,570 (103,615) -7.8% 1,321,570

Total Rental Revenues 11,704,264 12,161,481 (457,217) -3.8% 12,161,481

HUD Subsidies -Housing Assistance 63,876,248 63,308,086 568,162 0.9% 63,308,086 HUD Subsidies -Public Housing 9,711,586 9,288,392 423,194 4.6% 9,288,392 HUD Grants 5,902,331 5,470,124 432,208 7.9% 5,470,124 Development Fee Revenue, Net 1,517,232 1,199,259 317,973 26.5% 1,199,259 State, Local & Other Grants 1,427,696 1,803,654 (375,958) -20.8% 1,803,654 Other Revenue 3,225,787 3,140,271 85,516 2.7% 3,140,271 ARRA Operating Revenue 3,133,953 - 3,133,953 0.0% -

Total Operating Revenues 100,499,098 96,371,267 4,127,831 4.3% 96,371,267 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Operating Expenses

PH Subsidy Transfer 1,210,962 1,241,166 30,204 2.4% 1,241,166 Housing Assistance Payments 61,135,925 58,869,214 (2,266,710) -3.9% 58,869,214 Administrative Personnel Expense 13,581,381 13,507,834 (73,548) -0.5% 13,507,834 Other Admin Expenses 5,848,028 5,476,144 (371,884) -6.8% 5,476,144 Fees/overhead charged - - - 0.0% - Tenant Svcs Personnel Expense 1,864,298 1,783,733 (80,565) -4.5% 1,783,733 Other Tenant Svcs Expenses 1,930,511 1,657,457 (273,054) -16.5% 1,657,457 Maintenance Personnel Expense 4,307,577 4,340,163 32,587 0.8% 4,340,163 Other Maintenance Expenses 5,140,289 4,451,942 (688,347) -15.5% 4,451,942 Utilities 3,786,863 3,984,101 197,238 5.0% 3,984,101 Capitalized Labor (374,628) (455,823) (81,195) 17.8% (455,823) Depreciation 5,211,812 5,216,720 4,908 0.1% 5,216,720 General 989,960 929,411 (60,549) -6.5% 929,411 Impairment Charge - - - 0.0% -

Total Operating Expenses 104,632,978 101,002,062 (3,630,916) -3.6% 101,002,062

- - - 0.0% -

Operating Income (Loss) (4,133,880) (4,630,796) 496,915 -10.7% (4,630,796)

- - - 0.0% -

Other Income (Expense)Investment Income 575,632 503,795 71,837 14.3% 503,795 Amortization (60,869) (41,872) (18,997) 45.4% (41,872) Investment in Partnership Valuation Charge (530,245) - (530,245) 0.0% - Gain (Loss) on Sale of Assets 5,023,094 6,454,700 (1,431,606) -22.2% 6,454,700 Interest Expense (2,444,494) (2,312,932) (131,562) 5.7% (2,312,932) Chg in Derivative Contract Value 283,158 - 283,158 0.0% -

Net Other Income (Expense) 2,846,276 4,603,691 (1,757,415) -38.2% 4,603,691 - - - 0.0% -

Capital ContributionsHUD Nonoperating Contributions 9,070,289 4,016,917 5,053,372 125.8% 4,016,917 Other Nonoperating Contributions 10,252,837 - 10,252,837 0.0% - Nonoperating contributions made - - - 0.0% - ARRA Nonoperating Contributions 4,137,635 - 4,137,635 0.0% - Reserve Funded Capital Contributions

Net Capital Contributions 23,460,761 4,016,917 19,443,844 484.0% 4,016,917 - - - 0.0% -

Other Equity Changes - - - 0.0% -

INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS 22,173,156$ 3,989,812 18,183,344$ 455.7% 3,989,812

- - - -


25


REVENUE ANALYSIS• Total Revenues of $100.5 million were $4.1 million favorable to budget through the twelve months of FY 2010

• Dwelling Rental Revenue was $0.4 million unfavorable to budget primarily due to lower than budgeted occupancy in both public housing and the affordable portfolio

• HUD Housing Assistance subsidy of $63.9 million was $0.6 million greater than budget. Project Based Housing Assistance subsidy of $1.7 million was recorded as ARRA Revenue as opposed to HUD Subsidies due to HUD sourcing these funds from ARRA appropriations, reducing what would have been a $2.3 million favorable variance. HUD funding per voucher came in at $582 compared to the budgeted amount of $572 accounting for $1.9 million of the variance and Section 8 administrative fees were higher than planned resulting in $0.3 million favorable variance

• HUD Subsidies – Public Housing of $9.7 million was $0.4 million greater than budget due to the timing of payments associated with Fiscal Year 2009. HUD underfunded the agency in FY2009 Q4 which shortfall was then paid in FY2010

• HUD Grants of $5.9 million was $0.4 million favorable to budget due to leasing more units for Shelter Plus Care than budgeted and an extension of the GOALS ROSS Employment Grant. These above budget revenue amounts support portions of the higher than budget expense results described later

• Development Fees of $1.5 million exceeded budget by $0.3 million due to Resource Access center development fee amounts being accrued sooner than expected, offset by a lower than expected development fees accrued during FY 2010 for James Hawthorne. These variances are budget timing differences

• State, Local & Other Grants of $1.4 million were $0.4 million less that budget due to Short Term Rent Assistance (STRA) being funded with ARRA funds and recorded as ARRA Operating Revenue as opposed this this grant category

• ARRA revenue of $3.1 million reflects $1.7 million in Project Based Housing Assistance offsetting the reduction in HUD Subsidies Housing Assistance indicated above. In addition STRA received $1.1 million of ARRA Homeless Prevention Rapid Rehousing funds, and incurred operating expenses associated with ARRA funded projects and have therefore received operating revenue to offset these expenses of $0.3 million. These funds were not anticipated in the budget

Operating RevenueFor the period of F10-March(2010)


Operating Revenues

Dwelling Rental 10,486,309$ 10,839,911$ (353,602)$ -3.26% 10,839,911$ Non-dwelling Rental 1,217,955 1,321,570 (103,615) -7.84% 1,321,570


HUD Subsidies -Housing Assistance 63,876,248 63,308,086 568,162 0.90% 63,308,086 HUD Subsidies -Public Housing 9,711,586 9,288,392 423,194 4.56% 9,288,392 HUD Grants 5,902,331 5,470,124 432,208 7.90% 5,470,124 Development Fee Revenue, Net 1,517,232 1,199,259 317,973 26.51% 1,199,259 State, Local & Other Grants 1,427,696 1,803,654 (375,958) -20.84% 1,803,654 Other Revenue 3,225,787 3,140,271 85,516 2.72% 3,140,271 ARRA Operating Revenue 3,133,953 - 3,133,953 0.00% -

Total Operating Revenues 100,499,098$ 96,371,267$ 4,127,831$ 4.28% 96,371,267$


26


EXPENSE ANALYSIS

• Operating Expense of $104.6 million was greater than budget by $3.6 million resulting from:

• Housing Assistance Payments exceeded budget by $2.3 million as Housing Choice Vouchers utilization was above plan, Short-term Rent Assistance funded by ARRA ($0.6 million), Shelter Plus Care ($0.3 million) and SRO/Mods ($0.3 million). Partially offsetting this result was lower than budgeted cost per voucher of $5.54

• Other Administrative Expenses were $0.4 million unfavorable to budget due to a number of items either unbudgeted or modestly above original estimates including Development Contribution for the Youth Center gym at New Columbia, Close-out/Development Expenses associated with James Hawthorne and the Hillsdale HOPE VI application, software for the new phone system, unbudgeted courtesy patrol at Rosenbaum, and consultants for the Strategic Plan

• Other Tenant Services Expense was $0.3 million greater than budget due to relocation associated with the Sweet 16 rehabilitation projects originally budgeted as a capital expense. This relocation is funded by ARRA and capital fund

• Other Maintenance Expense was $0.7 million greater than budget due to the purchase of appliances for some Sweet 16 properties, bed bug extermination in both Public Housing and the Affordable Portfolio, maintenance associated with our former tax credit properties converted to HAP ownership at year 15, rehabilitation work at the Plaza affordable property, Fairview maintenance that will be funded out of reserves in August, and work performed at several of our Special Needs properties

• Utilities were $0.2 million favorable to budget due to the success of the Agency’s water conservation rehabilitation at agency properties

Operating ExpenseFor the period of F10-March(2010)


Operating Expenses

PH Subsidy Transfer 1,210,962$ 1,241,166$ 30,204$ 2.43% 1,241,166$ Housing Assistance Payments 61,135,925 58,869,214 (2,266,710) -3.85% 58,869,214 Administrative Personnel Expense 13,581,381 13,507,834 (73,548) -0.54% 13,507,834 Other Admin Expenses 5,848,028 5,476,144 (371,884) -6.79% 5,476,144 Fees/overhead charged - - - 0.00% - Tenant Svcs Personnel Expense 1,864,298 1,783,733 (80,565) -4.52% 1,783,733 Other Tenant Svcs Expenses 1,930,511 1,657,457 (273,054) -16.47% 1,657,457 Maintenance Personnel Expense 4,307,577 4,340,163 32,587 0.75% 4,340,163 Other Maintenance Expenses 5,140,289 4,451,942 (688,347) -15.46% 4,451,942 Utilities 3,786,863 3,984,101 197,238 4.95% 3,984,101 Depreciation 5,211,812 5,216,720 4,908 0.09% 5,216,720 General 989,960 929,411 (60,549) -6.51% 929,411 Impairment Charge - - - 0.00% -

Total Operating Expenses 104,632,978 101,002,062 (3,630,916) -3.59% 101,002,062

Operating Income (Loss) (4,133,880) (4,630,796) 496,915 -10.73% (4,630,796)


27


OTHER INCOME/(EXPENSE) ANALYSIS

• Other Income (expense) was $2.8 million, and unfavorable to budget by $1.8 million

• Investment in Partnership Valuation charge of $0.5 million is due to the conversion of Peter Paulson to an agency owned affordable property.

• Gain on Sale of Assets of $5.0 million, unfavorable to budget by $1.4 million. The sale of 39 units scattered site units resulted in a gain of $5.7 million offset by the write-off of property and equipment replaced during rehabilitation in real estate operations of $0.7 million. The budget anticipated the sale of 47 scattered site units

• Unbudgeted income associated with Changes in Derivative Contract Values of $0.3 million was due to non-cash valuation changes in interest rate swaps connected to variable rate bond financing for Trouton & Cecelia tax credit partnerships

• Capital Contributions of $23.5 million were $19.4 million greater than budget due to the budget not reflecting $4.5 million of HOPE VI funds received for Humboldt Gardens, other non-operating contributions and ARRA non-operating contributions

• HUD Non-operating Contributions of $9.1 million consists of $4.5 million of HOPE VI funds received for Humboldt Gardens, $0.5 million in Replacement Housing Funds Grant for New Columbia bond payments, and Capital Fund grants of $4.1 million

• Other Non-operating Contributions of $10.3 million reflect a total of $1.3 million from Oregon Housing and Community Services Housing Plus grant funds related to the redevelopment of University Place ($1.1) Resource Access Center ($0.1) and Martha Washington ($0.1), $4.7 million like kind contribution of land and building by Multnomah County related to the redevelopment of Martha Washington, $0.8 million in like kind contribution of weatherization and appliances from Multnomah County, $3.2 million from PDC for the Resource Access Center, and $0.3 million from Bank of America Community Development for New Columbia Community Campus Corporation (N4C) debt forgiveness

• ARRA Non-operating contributions of $4.1 million consists of Public Housing project spending related to the Sweet 16

Other Income/Expense For the period of F10-March(2010)


Other Income (Expense)Investment Income 575,632$ 503,795$ 71,837$ 14.26% 503,795$ Amortization (60,869) (41,872) (18,997) 45.37% (41,872) Investment in Partnership Valuation Charge (530,245) - (530,245) 0.00% - Gain (Loss) on Sale of Assets 5,023,094 6,454,700 (1,431,606) -22.18% 6,454,700 Interest Expense (2,444,494) (2,312,932) (131,562) 5.69% (2,312,932) Chg in Derivative Contract Value 283,158 - 283,158 0.00% -

Net Other Income (Expense) 2,846,276 4,603,691 (1,757,415) -38.17% 4,603,691

Capital ContributionsHUD Nonoperating Contributions 9,070,289 4,016,917 5,053,372 125.80% 4,016,917 Other Nonoperating Contributions 10,252,837 - 10,252,837 0.00% - Nonoperating contributions made - - - 0.00% - ARRA Nonoperating Contributions 4,137,635 - 4,137,635 0.00% - Reserve Funded Capital Contributions - - - 0.00% -

Net Capital Contributions 23,460,761 4,016,917 19,443,844 484.05% 4,016,917


INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS 22,173,156$ 3,989,812$ 18,183,344$ 455.74% 3,989,812$


28


CHANGE IN ASSETS

• Total Assets of $345.3 million increased $11.8 million from March 31, 2009

• Current Assets decreased $24.7 million to $40.5 million• Cash & Cash Equivalents increased $14 million due to scattered site sale proceeds received, the receipt of the Martha

Washington acquisition fee, $1 million in development fees collected, the transfer from investments noted below offset by advances made on development activities primarily associated with the RAC, Martha Washington and James Hawthorne

• Investments decreased $8.2 million due to the maturity of a Certificate of Deposit investment that was not reinvested and held in Cash & Cash Equivalents

• Accounts Receivable increased $4.5 million due to accruals for capital fund projects and University Place totaling $2.3 million and a PDC Grant for the Resource Access Center of $2.8 million, offset by collection of $0.4 million in Housing Choice Voucher funds accrued at prior year end and $0.4 million for the final payment of the City of Portland's New Columba Grant

• Current Portion of Notes Receivable – Partnerships decreased $35 million due to the payoff of construction bonds for Trouton LLP ($18.5 million) and Humboldt Gardens LLP ($16.6 million)

• Noncurrent Assets increased $36.5 million to $296 million• Notes Receivable increased $9.7 million as $3.1 million of developer fees funded from a tax credit equity contribution was

reinvested in the Trouton LP along with $6.1 million of funding for Humboldt gardens sourced from HOPE VI funds, NC lot sale proceeds and reinvested developer fees and $0.5 million pass through loan for Martha Washington from Mental Health Housing Funds and OHCS grant

• Notes Receivable – Partnerships increased $21.4 million due to the issuance of the Resource Access Center (RAC) Bond of $23 million offset by $0.6 million early retirement of the Peter Paulson Bonds and $1 million regularly scheduled payments of other tax credit bonds

• Notes Receivable – Conduit Financing decreased $5.1 million. See notes under Liabilities• Land, Structures, Equipment, Net increased $10 million due to the addition of University Place ($5.2 million), $9.3 million in

Public Housing Capital Fund Projects, $0.5 million in Affordable Housing Improvements and $3 million from Peter Paulson’s conversion from tax credit to agency owned. These increases are offset by normal depreciation ($5.2 million) and the reduction of $1.7 million in book value related to the sale of scattered sites and PH Capital Fund disposals and $1.2 million ofWork in Progress transferred to the new Resource Access Center and Martha Washington tax credit partnerships

Statement of Net Assets

March 31, 2010 March 31, 2009 Incr (Decr)

Asse tsCurrent Asse tsCash and Cash Equivalents 20,918,908$ 6,964,645$ 13,954,263$ Investments 9,771,632 17,940,994 (8,169,363) Accounts Receivable, Net 7,865,101 3,390,551 4,474,549 Intra Agency Accounts Receivable 0 0 - Prepaid Expenses 780,617 741,678 38,939 Inventories 0 0 - Current Portion of Notes Receivable-Partnerships 1,153,640 36,158,720 (35,005,080)

40,489,897 65,196,588 (24,706,691)

Restricted Asse tsFamily Self-Sufficiency Funds -A 1,004,776 1,256,326 (251,550) Tenant Security Deposits -A 847,054 804,287 42,766 Construction Funds Escrow 10,982 10,913 69 Residual Receipts Reserve 131,377 130,642 735 Funds held in Trust 3,933,958 3,785,659 148,298 Debt Amortization Fund 2,848,419 2,787,414 61,006

8,776,566 8,775,241 1,325

Noncurrent Asse tsDue from Partnerships 13,147,914 12,403,457 744,457 Notes Receivable 73,285,027 63,591,479 9,693,549 Notes Receivable -Partnerships 77,289,382 55,848,023 21,441,360 Notes Receivable -Conduit Financing 0 5,075,000 (5,075,000) Deferred Charges, Net 994,137 1,043,394 (49,256) Investment in Partnerships 3,192,442 3,395,570 (203,129) Land, Structures, Equipment, Net 128,084,676 118,107,507 9,977,169

295,993,579 259,464,429 36,529,149

T OT AL ASSET S 345,260,042$ 333,436,258$ 11,823,783$


29


CHANGE IN LIABILITIES & NET ASSETS

• Current Liabilities decreased $32.7 million to $16 million

• Accounts Payable increased $2 million due to outstanding payables related to public housing capital improvements and accrual of rent assistance payments

• Accrued Interest Payable increased $1.1 million primarily due to the conversion of Peter Paulson to agency ownership and the inclusion of this liability on the agency balance sheet

• Current portion of Bonds Payable – Partnership decreased $35 million due to the payoff of construction related bonds for Trouton LLP ($18.5 million) and Humboldt Gardens LLP ($16.6 million)

• Noncurrent Liabilities of $144.9 million increased $22.3 million

• Notes Payable increased $6.6 million resulting from PDC draws of $5.2 million for University Place construction and a $2.0 million addition of Peter Paulson’s notes payable. These increases were offset by normal principle payments

• Bonds payable – Partnerships increased $21.4 million, commensurate with the increase in Notes Receivable - Partnerships associated with the Resource Access Center

• Bonds Payable – Conduit Financing decreased $5.1 million due to the pay off of the final conduit bonds issued on behalf of other developers 11 years ago

• Net Assets increased $22.2 million to $184.4 million


March 31, 2010 March 31, 2009 Incr (Decr)

Lia bilitiesCurre nt LiabilitiesAccounts Payable $4,261,348 2,262,377$ 1,998,971$ Accrued Interest Payable 2,615,541 1,484,415 1,131,126 Other Accrued Liabilities 3,985,996 4,457,893 (471,896) Deferred Revenue 831,369 1,031,679 (200,310) Tenant Security Deposits -L 887,270 849,580 37,690 Family Self-Sufficiency Funds -L 1,008,505 1,211,925 (203,419) Line of Credit 0 0 - Current Portion of Bonds Payable -Partnerships 1,153,640 36,158,720 (35,005,080) Current Portion of Notes & Bonds Payable 1,261,502 1,202,530 58,972

16,005,172 48,659,119 (32,653,947)

Noncurrent LiabilitiesNotes Payable 48,735,677 42,132,716 6,602,961 Bonds Payable 18,688,736 19,401,068 (712,331) Bonds Payable -Partnerships 77,289,382 55,848,023 21,441,360 Bonds Payable -Conduit Financing 0 5,075,000 (5,075,000) Other Liabilities 161,285 113,700 47,585

144,875,081 122,570,507 22,304,574

Net Assets (Deficit) 184,379,789 162,206,632 22,173,156

T OT AL LIABILIT IES AND NET ASSET S (DEFICIT ) 345,260,042$ 333,436,258$ 11,823,783$


30


PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

• The three months ending June, 2010 produced $1 million operating income, $1.2 million better than anticipated in the budget

• Total Net assets increased by $4.2 million, favorable to budget by $2.8 million

Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net AssetsComparison of Budget and Actual

Time.FiscalYear: Property Code HAP5All Board GroupingHAP5All: For the period of F11-June(2010)


Operating Revenues

Dwelling Rental 2,946,852$ 3,196,423$ (249,571)$ -7.8% 12,851,956$ Non-dwelling Rental 338,022 306,382 31,640 10.3% 1,231,516


HUD Subsidies -Housing Assistance 16,977,433 16,409,771 567,662 3.5% 65,646,466 HUD Subsidies -Public Housing 2,631,136 2,588,403 42,732 1.7% 10,247,964 HUD Grants 1,432,015 1,488,694 (56,679) -3.8% 5,970,238 Development Fee Revenue, Net 484,908 1,339,375 (854,467) -63.8% 4,017,621 State, Local & Other Grants 424,459 295,609 128,850 43.6% 1,182,400 Other Revenue 1,038,720 1,120,365 (81,646) -7.3% 4,424,345 ARRA Operating Revenue 1,009,560 548,056 461,504 84.2% 2,338,099

Total Operating Revenues 27,283,106 27,293,080 (9,974) 0.0% 107,910,604 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Operating Expenses

PH Subsidy Transfer 299,811 367,807 67,996 18.5% 1,456,216 Housing Assistance Payments 15,807,418 15,799,488 (7,931) -0.1% 63,197,932 Administrative Personnel Expense 3,445,853 3,543,200 97,347 2.7% 14,298,878 Other Admin Expenses 1,426,798 1,661,276 234,478 14.1% 6,014,986 Fees/overhead charged - - - 0.0% - Tenant Svcs Personnel Expense 404,507 412,910 8,404 2.0% 1,671,519 Other Tenant Svcs Expenses 432,764 579,312 146,548 25.3% 2,241,609 Maintenance Personnel Expense 1,077,346 1,107,353 30,008 2.7% 4,408,606 Other Maintenance Expenses 1,031,239 1,445,163 413,924 28.6% 5,029,136 Utilities 959,131 987,815 28,684 2.9% 4,010,364 Capitalized Labor (97,572) (91,962) 5,610 5.0% (373,939) Depreciation 1,430,711 1,441,867 11,156 0.8% 6,030,908 General 55,794 242,519 186,725 77.0% 966,668 Impairment Charge - - - 0.0% -

Total Operating Expenses 26,273,799 27,496,747 1,222,947 4.4% 108,952,883

- - - 0.0% (1)

Operating Income (Loss) 1,009,307 (203,667) 1,212,974 -595.6% (1,042,279)

- - - 0.0% 2

Other Income (Expense)Investment Income 86,594 91,039 (4,445) -4.9% 362,077 Amortization (14,041) (10,542) (3,499) 33.2% (42,121) Investment in Partnership Valuation Charge (386,100) - (386,100) 0.0% - Gain (Loss) on Sale of Assets 1,324,239 1,130,256 193,984 17.2% 4,405,366 Interest Expense (675,948) (725,030) 49,082 -6.8% (2,871,872) Chg in Derivative Contract Value (416,299) - (416,299) 0.0% -

Net Other Income (Expense) (81,554) 485,723 (567,277) -116.8% 1,853,450 - - - 0.0% -

Capital ContributionsHUD Nonoperating Contributions 606,032 798,440 (192,408) -24.1% 3,691,164 Other Nonoperating Contributions 946,937 - 946,937 0.0% - Nonoperating contributions made - - - 0.0% - ARRA Nonoperating Contributions 1,755,983 344,629 1,411,354 409.5% 5,001,281 Reserve Funded Capital Contributions

Net Capital Contributions 3,308,952 1,143,069 2,165,883 189.5% 8,692,446 - - - 0.0% -


INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS 4,236,704$ 1,425,125 2,811,580$ 197.3% 9,503,617

- - (1) 2


31


REVENUE ANALYSIS

• Total Revenues of $27.3 million were equal to budget for the three months

• Dwelling Rental Revenue was $0.2 million unfavorable to budget due to a later conversion than anticipated of Dawson Park and Pearl Court tax credit properties to agency owned affordable properties

• HUD Housing Assistance subsidy of $17 million was $0.6 million greater than budget. HUD funding per voucher came in at $608 compared to the budgeted amount of $582 ($0.9 million) offset by Administrative fees that were $0.2 million less than budgeted due to pro-ration at 92% compared to the budgeted 95% and Project Based Housing Assistance ($0.1 million) funded by ARRA and reflected in the ARRA revenue favorability

• Development Fees of $0.5 million were less than budget by $0.9 million due to the timing of the Martha Washington fee which will be reflected in Q2 and Resource Access Center fees that were earned earlier than anticipated and reflected in FY 2010

• ARRA revenue of $1 million reflects $0.1 million offsetting the reduction in HUD Subsidies Housing Assistance indicated above. In addition STRA received $0.9 million of ARRA Homeless Prevention Rapid Rehousing funds, which is $0.4 million greater than budget due to accelerated timing of spending. We anticipate this variance to be reduced in the coming months as the total budget has not changed

Operating RevenueFor the period of F11-June(2010)


Operating Revenues

Dwelling Rental 2,946,852$ 3,196,423$ (249,571)$ -7.81% 12,851,956$ Non-dwelling Rental 338,022 306,382 31,640 10.33% 1,231,516


HUD Subsidies -Housing Assistance 16,977,433 16,409,771 567,662 3.46% 65,646,466 HUD Subsidies -Public Housing 2,631,136 2,588,403 42,732 1.65% 10,247,964 HUD Grants 1,432,015 1,488,694 (56,679) -3.81% 5,970,238 Development Fee Revenue, Net 484,908 1,339,375 (854,467) -63.80% 4,017,621 State, Local & Other Grants 424,459 295,609 128,850 43.59% 1,182,400 Other Revenue 1,038,720 1,120,365 (81,646) -7.29% 4,424,345 ARRA Operating Revenue 1,009,560 548,056 461,504 84.21% 2,338,099

Total Operating Revenues 27,283,106$ 27,293,080$ (9,974)$ -0.04% 107,910,604$


32


EXPENSE ANALYSIS

• Operating Expense of $26.3 million was less than budget by $1.2 million resulting from:

• Other Administrative Expenses were $0.2 million favorable to budget primarily due to the timing of legal expenses associated with Pearl Court and Dawson Park, as well as lower legal and tenant screening expenses in Public Housing, other professional services and software purchases

• Other Tenant Services Expense was $0.1 million less than budget due to contract tenant services less than budget for the period

• Other Maintenance Expense was $0.4 million less than budget due to lower than anticipated expenditures for maintenance projects in both public housing and the affordable portfolio during the first quarter

• General Expenses were $0.2 million less than budget primarily due to the reversal of allowance for bad debt required with the conversion of Dawson Park and Pearl Court to agency owned affordable properties

Operating ExpenseFor the period of F11-June(2010)


Operating Expenses

PH Subsidy Transfer 299,811$ 367,807$ 67,996$ 18.49% 1,456,216$ Housing Assistance Payments 15,807,418 15,799,488 (7,931) -0.05% 63,197,932 Administrative Personnel Expense 3,445,853 3,543,200 97,347 2.75% 14,298,878 Other Admin Expenses 1,426,798 1,661,276 234,478 14.11% 6,014,986 Fees/overhead charged - - - 0.00% - Tenant Svcs Personnel Expense 404,507 412,910 8,404 2.04% 1,671,519 Other Tenant Svcs Expenses 432,764 579,312 146,548 25.30% 2,241,609 Maintenance Personnel Expense 1,077,346 1,107,353 30,008 2.71% 4,408,606 Other Maintenance Expenses 1,031,239 1,445,163 413,924 28.64% 5,029,136 Utilities 959,131 987,815 28,684 2.90% 4,010,364 Depreciation 1,430,711 1,441,867 11,156 0.77% 6,030,908 General 55,794 242,519 186,725 76.99% 966,668 Impairment Charge - - - 0.00% -

Total Operating Expenses 26,273,799 27,496,747 1,222,947 4.45% 108,952,883

Operating Income (Loss) 1,009,307 (203,667) 1,212,974 -595.57% (1,042,279)


33


OTHER INCOME/(EXPENSE) ANALYSIS

• Other Income (expense) nets to $0.1 million of expense, and unfavorable to budget by $0.6 million

• Investment in Partnership Valuation charge of $0.4 million is due to the conversion of Dawson Park and Pearl Court to agency owned affordable properties

• Gain on Sale of Assets of $1.3 million was favorable to budget by $0.2 million. The sale of 9 scattered site units, compared to a budget of 7 units, resulted in a gain of $1.1 million and the sale of the Grove Hotel contributed $0.2 million

• Unbudgeted expense associated with Changes in Derivative Contract Values of $0.4 million was due to non-cash valuation changes in interest rate swaps connected to variable rate bond financing for Trouton & Cecelia tax credit partnerships

• Capital Contributions of $3.3 million were $2.2 million greater than budget

• HUD Non-operating Contributions of $0.6 million consists of Public Housing project spending related to the Sweet 16, Lexington Court, Eastwood Court, Carlton Court and Hollywood East

• Other Non-operating Contributions of $0.9 million reflect $0.5 million in RAC project grant from PDC, $0.07 million grant from Multnomah County for weatherization and $0.35 million grant from Oregon Housing for the Martha Washington passed through the agency to the partnership

• ARRA Non-operating contributions of $1.8 million consists of Public Housing project spending related to the Sweet 16

Other Income/Expense For the period of F11-June(2010)


Other Income (Expense)Investment Income 86,594$ 91,039$ (4,445)$ -4.88% 362,077$ Amortization (14,041) (10,542) (3,499) 33.19% (42,121) Investment in Partnership Valuation Charge (386,100) - (386,100) 0.00% - Gain (Loss) on Sale of Assets 1,324,239 1,130,256 193,984 17.16% 4,405,366 Interest Expense (675,948) (725,030) 49,082 -6.77% (2,871,872) Chg in Derivative Contract Value (416,299) - (416,299) 0.00% -

Net Other Income (Expense) (81,554) 485,723 (567,277) -116.79% 1,853,450

Capital ContributionsHUD Nonoperating Contributions 606,032 798,440 (192,408) -24.10% 3,691,164 Other Nonoperating Contributions 946,937 - 946,937 0.00% - Nonoperating contributions made - - - 0.00% - ARRA Nonoperating Contributions 1,755,983 344,629 1,411,354 409.53% 5,001,281 Reserve Funded Capital Contributions - - - 0.00% -

Net Capital Contributions 3,308,952 1,143,069 2,165,883 189.48% 8,692,446


INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS 4,236,704$ 1,425,125$ 2,811,580$ 197.29% 9,503,617$


34


CHANGE IN ASSETS• Total Assets of $347 million increased $1.7 million from March 31, 2010

• Current Assets increased $3.1 million to $43.5 million• Cash & Cash Equivalents increased $3.7 million due to $1.5 million in scattered site sale proceeds received and

$3.0 million in Tax Credit Partnership funds received (see below) offset by payments of Accounts Payable• Accounts Receivable decreased $1.1 million due to a reduction in Development receivables for the RAC and

James Hawthorne offset by an increase in receivables from HUD for capital fund expenditures• Restricted Assets increased $1.3 million from March 31, 2010 due to the conversion of Pear Court and Dawson Park

from tax credit to agency owned affordable properties• Funds held in Trust increased $0.3 million• Debt Amortization Fund increased $0.9 million

• Noncurrent Assets decreased $2.7 million to $293.3 million• Due from Partnerships decreased $1.2 million due to $3.0 million payments from TC partnership (consisting of

$2.4 million from Humboldt for Developer Fee as well as other tax credit GP Fees) and $0.2 million due to the reclass of Dawson Park's Due from Partnership to Due from Properties. These were off set by $1.5 million in RAC Omnibus Draws and $0.5 million increase in RAC Developer Fees due

• Notes Receivable – Partnerships decreased $7.7million resulting from the removal of Pearl Court ($5.5 million) and Dawson Park ($1.9 million) receivables plus regularly scheduled principal payments.

• Land, Structures, Equipment, Net increased $6 million due to the conversion of Pear Court ($6.4 million) and Dawson Park ($1.9 million) from tax credit entities to agency owned affordable properties as well as $2.4 million in Public Housing Capital Fund Projects. These are offset by the sale of The Grove Hotel ($3.3 million), sale of scattered sites, and normal depreciation


June 30, 2010 March 31, 2010 Incr (Decr)

Asse tsCurrent Asse tsCash and Cash Equivalents 24,617,147$ 20,918,908$ 3,698,239$ Investments 10,178,587 9,771,632 406,956 Accounts Receivable, Net 6,807,935 7,865,101 (1,057,166) Intra Agency Accounts Receivable 53,383 0 53,383 Prepaid Expenses 738,647 780,617 (41,970) Inventories 0 0 - Current Portion of Notes Receivable-Partnerships 1,153,640 1,153,640 -

43,549,339 40,489,897 3,059,442

Restricted Asse tsFamily Self-Sufficiency Funds -A 899,723 1,004,776 (105,053) Tenant Security Deposits -A 986,038 847,054 138,984 Construction Funds Escrow 10,996 10,982 14 Residual Receipts Reserve 131,560 131,377 183 Funds held in Trust 4,268,236 3,933,958 334,278 Debt Amortization Fund 3,793,785 2,848,419 945,365

10,090,339 8,776,566 1,313,773

Noncurrent Asse tsDue from Partnerships 11,990,703 13,147,914 (1,157,210) Notes Receivable 73,539,279 73,285,027 254,252 Notes Receivable -Partnerships 69,596,613 77,289,382 (7,692,769) Notes Receivable -Conduit Financing 0 0 - Deferred Charges, Net 1,159,443 994,137 165,306 Investment in Partnerships 2,978,953 3,192,442 (213,489) Land, Structures, Equipment, Net 134,048,315 128,084,676 5,963,639

293,313,307 295,993,579 (2,680,271)

T OT AL ASSET S 346,952,985$ 345,260,042$ 1,692,943$


35


CHANGE IN LIABILITIES & NET ASSETS

• Current Liabilities decreased $0.8 million to $15.2 million

• Accounts Payable decreased $1.5 million due to payment of year end accruals

• Accrued Interest Payable increased $0.7 million primarily due to the conversion of Pear Court and Dawson Park from tax credit entities to agency owned affordable properties and the inclusion of this liability on the agency balance sheet

• Noncurrent Liabilities of $143.1 million decreased $1.8 million

• Notes Payable decreased $1.7 million resulting from PDC's assumption of the Grove's Note Payable of $3.5 million as part of the Grove's sale, offset by draws of $.2 million for University Place construction and a $.5 million addition of Dawson Park’s notes payable and $1.1 million addition of Pearl Court's notes payable.

• Bonds payable increased $7.4 million due to the reclassification of Pearl Court (5.5 million) and Dawson Park (1.9 Million) bonds from Bond Payable - Partnership to Bonds Payable resulting from the Tax Credit conversions

• Bonds Payable – Partnerships decreased $7.4 million due to Pearl Court and Dawson Park bonds transferring to Bond Payable. See above

• Net Assets increased $4.2 million to $188.6 million


June 30, 2010 March 31, 2010 Incr (Decr)

Lia bilitiesCurre nt LiabilitiesAccounts Payable $2,775,711 4,261,348$ (1,485,638)$ Accrued Interest Payable 3,306,188 2,615,541 690,647 Other Accrued Liabilities 4,331,429 3,985,996 345,433 Deferred Revenue 752,145 831,369 (79,224) Tenant Security Deposits -L 1,026,132 887,270 138,862 Family Self-Sufficiency Funds -L 891,107 1,008,505 (117,398) Line of Credit 0 0 - Current Portion of Bonds Payable -Partnerships 884,336 1,153,640 (269,304) Current Portion of Notes & Bonds Payable 1,261,502 1,261,502 0

15,228,550 16,005,172 (776,622)

Noncurrent LiabilitiesNotes Payable 46,987,350 48,735,677 (1,748,327) Bonds Payable 26,093,388 18,688,736 7,404,652 Bonds Payable -Partnerships 69,865,917 77,289,382 (7,423,465) Bonds Payable -Conduit Financing 0 0 - Other Liabilities 161,285 161,285 -

143,107,941 144,875,081 (1,767,140)

Net Assets (Deficit) 188,616,493 184,379,789 4,236,705

T OT AL LIABILIT IES AND NET ASSET S (DEFICIT ) 346,952,985$ 345,260,042$ 1,692,943$


36

1

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Jill Riddle, Director of Rent Assistance Yvette Hernandez, Housing Program Supervisor SUBJECT: Section 8 Waiting List Leasing Success Rate

The Rent Assistance Department would like to provide you with an update on the leasing success rate for applicants issued a Section 8 voucher between October 2009 and January 2010. Leasing rates during this time escalated from the prior year’s average of 76% to a 91% success rate and are still climbing. The purpose of this briefing is to provide an update on leasing success rates for Section 8 voucher recipients. Background: The Rent Assistance Department pulled a total of 322 names from the Section 8 waiting list from October 09 – January 2010. Of the 322 pulled, 239 responded, met eligibility criteria, and were issued a Section 8 voucher. Of the 239 issued a voucher; 214 or 91% were successful leasing a unit within Multnomah County. In addition to programmatic changes, our improved leasing success rate is the result of our Leasing/Landlord teams’ increased case management efforts, as well as our work with the landlord community. Voucher holders that are unsuccessful leasing a unit within 30 days are identified and contacted to determine their barriers to rental success; thus enabling HAP staff to connect them to resources within our community and to landlords willing to give second chances to folks with a criminal or eviction history. We are committed to forging strong relationships with landlords through staff outreach and dialogue with individual landlords. The result has been increased housing options for those we serve. Our goal is that our utilization rates continue to improve and that applicants issued a voucher are successful in their quest to find a safe place to call home. Waiting

List Pulls

# Pulled # No Response

Denied

Vouchers Issued

Vouchers Expired

Successful Lease-up

Oct. 09 67 10 7 50 – 75% 3 47 – 94%

Nov. 09 35 6 3 26 – 72% 3 23 – 89% Dec. 09 90 17 7 66 – 74% 6 60 – 91% Housing Authority of Portland

Board of Commissioners PacketSeptember 2010

37

2

Jan. 10 130 27 6 97 – 75% 11 86 - 89% Total 322 60 23 239–

74.5% 23 – 10% 216–90.7%

Waiting List Pulls #Pulled Vouchers Issued Successful Lease-up 2007 207 156 75.4% 2008 238 224 79.2% 2008 335 247 73.7% 2008 141 104 73.8% 2008 166 136 81.9% 2009 87 67 77% Total 1,219 934 76.6%


38

1

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Jill Riddle, Director, Rent Assistance Rachel Devlin, Community Initiatives Manager, Rent Assistance SUBJECT: Report on Rent Assistance Special Initiatives In August 2008, the Board approved the creation of a Moving to Work Initiatives Fund, created from fungible dollars that had been excess1 in prior years, to be used for new initiatives. Over the last two years, the Rent Assistance Department has implemented five new initiatives. We last updated you on these programs in February, and now, with a year of data accumulated, we can offer an initial analysis of effectiveness. However, a significant number of vouchers were issued in August/September, so we intend to provide a secondary analysis at year-end, when we will make recommendations regarding the continuation of each initiative. This memorandum serves as an update on the implementation of these initiatives; no board action is needed this evening. Background: Each initiative was designed to accomplish one or more of the following: expand the number of households and populations HAP serves, improve people’s abilities to utilize their Section 8 vouchers, increase the number of landlords willing to work with the Section 8 program, and help families move towards self-sufficiency. The initiatives are: Section 8 Landlord Guarantee Fund (LGF) - $400,000 Set Aside As part of our communication with the landlord community about increasing the number of landlords accepting vouchers, we were urged to create this fund to cover damage to units caused by Section 8 tenants. Access to the fund is provided for two years from the tenant’s move-in date and payment is limited to a maximum of two months rent. The goal is to improve the lease-up rate for Section 8 and increase the number of landlords accepting vouchers.

Rent Well Tenant Education Class for Households on Section 8 Waitlist - $100,000 Set Aside Rent Well is a 6-week course designed to help people with barriers (evictions, criminal history, bad credit) learn to mitigate these barriers and increase their likelihood of 1 Excess dollars result when our average per voucher cost is lower than that provided by HUD, resulting in surplus funds, even vouchers are fully utilized. Because of HAP’s Moving to Work status, unutilized dollars are considered fungible and can be used for special initiatives. Housing Authority of PortlandBoard of Commissioners PacketSeptember 2010

39

2

renting. Graduates have access to a guarantee fund similar to HAP’s LGF. HAP has contracted with Transition Projects Inc. to offer the course to families on the Section 8 waitlist with the goal reducing the rate that families turn back vouchers due to an inability to find landlords willing to rent to them. Security Deposits for Households Using Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Vouchers In 2008 and 2009, HAP was awarded 105 vouchers for homeless veterans receiving support services from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Lease-up for this effort was slow, for HAP and nationwide, and the VA reported that lack of security deposit funding hampered their abilities to help homeless veterans find housing. HAP opted to use reserve2 funds to pay for deposits for this population (this effort is not currently funded with Moving to Work funds), with a goal of improving lease-up and keeping all vouchers fully leased. This initiative, along with changes at the VA, was effective in improving lease-up, and HAP was awarded another 60 VASH vouchers in July 2010. The initial vouchers are fully utilized and HAP has begun leasing up the 60 new vouchers. Pilot with Department of Human Services - $750,000 Set Aside HAP is collaborating with the Department of Human Services (DHS) to provide joint housing stability and self-sufficiency services to families. DHS selected the families, who then received rent assistance from Section 8 and were enrolled in GOALS (one of HAP’s Family Self-Sufficiency programs). There is regular communication between DHS case managers and GOALS staff in order to assist the families in moving towards self-sufficiency. The goal is for 70% of families to gain employment and 80% of those households to achieve self-sufficiency and give up HAP and DHS subsidies. Agency Based Assistance - $600,000 Set Aside; $376,000 Contracted to Partners to Date This program contracts funds to community partners (SE Works and NW Pilot Project [NWPP]) who provide rent assistance, paired with case management, for households who meet one of the following criteria: 1) ineligible for/unlikely to succeed on Section 8; 2) likely to face devastating results (death, recidivism, homelessness, etc.) without immediate housing assistance; 3) short term need for subsidy during efforts to achieve self-sufficiency. The goal is to demonstrate the success of service-enriched rent assistance as evidenced by: 1) successful lease-up; 2) housing stability; and 3) increased income and/or self-sufficiency. NWPP’s clients are 55+, disabled, homeless, and have zero income. NWPP works with Central City Concern to fast track benefits applications for participants, who will receive Section 8 vouchers at the end of the two-year pilot. SE Works’ clients are transitioning, or recently released, from prison and finding employment is a condition of parole. SE Works time-limits the rent assistance to 18 months. 2 The Short Term Rent Assistance program has reserves made up of excess Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) funds as a result of how funding for that program was accrued and paid out. HAP and our jurisdictional partners (Multnomah County, Portland, and Gresham) determined that security deposits for VASH were an appropriate use of this small portion of the reserves ($27K to date out of $600K). Housing Authority of PortlandBoard of Commissioners PacketSeptember 2010

40

3

Data Highlights The attached “Lease Up Analysis” shows trends in lease-up for the five initiatives, and the “Agency Based Assistance Data” provides demographics and outcome data on households being served through that program. The Lease Up data represents vouchers issued from November 2009 through May 2010. Of note are the following: Landlord Guarantee Fund (LGF): The households with access to the LGF appear to have leased up faster than those who did not have access to the LGF. Only 8% of those with LGF access had their vouchers expire compared with 14% of those who did not have LGF access. This suggests the LGF is having a positive impact on lease-up and helping reduce our turn back rate – however there is further analysis below. The LGF does not appear to have achieved the secondary goal of attracting new landlords to the program. However, the group given LGF access was three times the size of the group without access – this will be balanced by the next round of vouchers issued, where the majority did not receive access, so this outcome will be reassessed at year end. Rent Well: All households close to the top of the Section 8 waitlist received notice of the class, and people self-selected for enrollment. HAP’s hope that the class would attract the households with a higher number of barriers was not borne out in the data, which shows class participants have the same average number of barriers as those who did not choose to participate. Further, the graduates have the same turn back rate (expired vouchers) as those who did not enroll. However, the Rent Well graduates leased up significantly faster than any other group of voucher holders – likely the result of the course’s focus on housing search. We will examine this data again after the next round of lease up, but current indicators suggest that at $350 per household, this may not be the best use of our resources, given that it does not appear to impact the number of households successfully leasing up. LGF vs. Rent Well: Using the group who did not have access to the LGF or Rent Well (41 households) as a baseline for lease-up success, it is noteworthy that the success rate is 90%, as compared with 76%, which was the rate at the time that the new initiatives were implemented. This speaks to the new methods employed by HAP’s leasing team to support people in the leasing process. Compared with this baseline group, lease-up success was not significantly different for the group who received access to the LGF, but did not take Rent Well. However, the households who took Rent Well, whether or not they had access to the LGF, demonstrated significantly faster lease up. VASH: This data is fairly definitive. Once security deposit funds were made available, the average number of days it took for veterans to lease up decreased by 17%. However, the median days to lease has increased, which is likely indicative of the larger sample size and the number of housing barriers for this population, all of whom are homeless at the time of program entry. Pilot with DHS: This group shows the second fastest lease-up time, after Agency Based Assistance. These families received housing search assistance from GOALS staff and had access to security deposit assistance from DHS. While the average Housing Authority of PortlandBoard of Commissioners PacketSeptember 2010

41

4

increase in annual income does not appear substantial ($1121), it does reflect an 8.6% increase in less than two years. Agency Based Assistance: These households had the highest number of screening barriers (see “Agency Based Assistance Data”) and yet demonstrate the fastest lease-up, demonstrating that the hardest to house populations can lease up quickly with the right supports. Early outcome data regarding income demonstrates success. Nine of NWPP’s 11 clients have attained social security benefits, bringing their income from zero up to an average of $882/mo. Nationally, the waiting time for social security benefits is over two years, when factoring in the inevitable appeals. But with support from Central City Concern’s BEST team for some of the clients, and with outstanding follow-through by NWPP’s staff on others, the average time for these clients to attain benefits was just four months. SE Works has also had success increasing clients’ income. The average income at entry was $539/mo and those clients still enrolled have an average monthly income of $690. For clients with positive exits, the average income at exit was $1858/mo ($2432/mo if you factor out the client who chose to exit and move in with family). Unfortunately, SE Works has also seen a number of clients struggle with drug and alcohol relapses, resulting in program termination. Policy revisions are underway to better support clients with addiction histories and to incentivize clients to focus on finding employment in a shorter timeframe. Policy Implications All of these initiatives, whether deemed effective or not, will inform future decision-making around resource allocation. Specifically, as it relates to pilots focused on income acquisition (ABA, DHS), we intend to measure the total funds expended on participants over time, by HAP and our partners, compared with funds expended for regular Section 8 voucher holders. HAP anticipates that our systems alignment efforts, wherein HAP’s resources are paired with community partners who can provide in-depth supports to participants, will result in a lower overall cost per household.


42

RENTAL BARRIERSNWPP SE Works TOTAL % of TOTAL

PARTICIPANTS 11 14 25

HOUSING BARRIERS

Eviction History 1 3 4 16%

Current Landlord Debt 2 4 6 24%

Criminal History 5 14 19 76%

Probation/Parole History 3 14 17 68%

Past Housing Denial Due to Credit 9 13 22 88%

No Rental History 7 1 8 32%

Bad Landlord Reference 1 3 4 16%

Substance Abuse Impacted Housing 2 9 11 44%

No Money for Deposit/Move-in 11 14 25 100%

# Reporting 0 or 1 Barriers 0 0 0 0%

# Reporting 2 Barriers 1 0 1 4%

# Reporting 3 Barrier 5 0 5 20%

# Reporting 4+ Barriers 5 14 19 76%

SECTION 8 ELIGIBILITY

NWPP SE Works TOTAL % of Total

PARTICIPANTS 11 14 25

HOUSEHOLDS WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED FOR SECTION 8

Denied for Drug-Related Criminal History 1 1 4%

Denied for Identify Theft Conviction 3 3 12%

Denied for Assault/Burglary 2 2 8%

Denied for Do Not Rehouse Status 2 2 8%

Denied for Other 4 4 16%

ABA OUTCOMES

NWPP SE Works

Avg Monthly Income at Entry $0 $539

Avg Monthly Income Currently $882 $690

Avg Monthly Income at Entry N/A $299

Avg Monthly Income at Exit N/A $1,858

Avg # of Months Enrolled N/A 5

Avg Cumulative Subsidy Received N/A $1,409

% Clients Stably Housed 3 Months After Exit N/A 100%

Avg Monthly Income at Entry $0 $823

Avg Income at Exit $337 $418

Avg # of Months Enrolled 5.5 7.5

Avg Cumulative Subsidy Received $3,060 $2,581

% Clients Stably Housed 3 Months After Exit unknown

Hasn't been 3

months

# Months for Disabled Clients to Attain Benefits*

(two clients have not yet gained benefits) 4 N/A

Average # Months to Attain Employment (for those working) N/A 2.7

% Clients Retaining Housing Throughout Program 82% 79%

*According to Central City Concern, the average time it took for disabled persons in Oregon to attain

disability benefits in 2007 was 2.5 years.

Clients Still Enrolled

Clients Who Have Exited Due to Success

All Clients

Clients Who Were Terminated for Program Violations

Agency Based Assistance Data

September 2010


43

September 2010


44

# Issued Vouchers (Oct-Jan)

# Leased To Date

% Leased To Date

% Still Searching % Expired

% Leasing Under 60

Days

Average Days to Lease

Median Days to Lease

Average # Barriers

(not counting lack of $ for

deposit)

Of Those Leased, %

Leasing with "New"

Landlords

Average Annual

Income at Time of

Application

Average Annual

Income for Households Still Enrolled

All VouchersREPRESENTS OVERALL AVERAGES 236 213 90% 1% 9% 66% 48 42 1 18% $7,510

Not Given LGF Access 50 43 86% 0% 14% 58% 49 42 1.6 19% $7,693LGF Access 186 170 91% 1% 8% 68% 47 42 0.9 18% $7,456

Completed HAP's Rent Well 30 26 87% 3% 10% 80% 39 35 1 19% $5,643Completed Another Agency's Rent Well 4 4 100% 0% 0% 100% 29 23 2 50% $13,413Failed to Finish Rent Well 15 15 100% 0% 0% 73% 52 51 0.8 20% $2,655No Rent Well 187 168 90% 1% 10% 62% 49 42 1 18% $8,129

No LGF or Rent Well 41 37 90% 0% 10% 61% 51 42 1.6 19% $7,297LGF & Completed Rent Well 25 24 96% 4% 0% 88% 37 35 1 21% $5,499LGF but No Rent Well 161 146 91% 1% 9% 65% 49 42 0.9 18% $7,796Rent Well but No LGF* 9 6 67% 0% 33% 67% 38 39 1.4 17% $9,498

Past Eviction 20 20 100% 0% 0% 85% 48 50 2.5 20% $7,234Debt with Past Landlord 22 20 91% 0% 9% 85% 43 43 2.6 5% $3,971Bad Landlord Reference 16 16 100% 0% 0% 81% 40 32 3 6% $3,820No Rental History 13 13 100% 0% 0% 54% 53 57 1.8 15% $6,355Criminal History 45 44 98% 0% 2% 64% 46 37 2.4 20% $5,027Denied Housing in Past Due to Credit 31 28 90% 0% 10% 65% 46 44 2.6 7% $7,518Lack of Transportation for Housing Search 16 15 94% 6% 0% 50% 63 60 1.6 20% $7,455No Funds to Pay for a Deposit 68 63 93% 1% 6% 63% 51 46 1.3 19% $7,468

VASH - Issued Before Deposit Program 28 54% 65 47 $8,344VASH - Issued After Deposit Program 40 60% 54 53 $8,344

DHS Pilot Participants 21 21 100% 0% 0% 81% 37 31 N/A N/A $13,039 $14,160

Combined SE Works/NWPP Participants 25 25 100% 0% 0% 88% 35 22 3 N/A $3,936 $9,576* For this category, because of the small sample size, the figures are skewed. 100% of those who leased up did so in under 60 days.

# Classes Offered

Avg Cost Per Class

Total # HHs

EnrolledTotal # HHs Graduated*

% Graduated**

Cost Per Graduating

HH10 $1,990 111 71 64% $351

* Several households enrolled 2 family members, so the number of individual graduates is higher.

** Graduation rate is consisent with community standards.

Agency Based Assistance

Not currently trackedNot currently tracked

ABA lease up averages are for entire program, which began in the summer of 2009.

Households issued

vouchers in this time

period are not required to

report changes in income until

their biannual review.

Landlord Guarantee Fund + Rent Well

VASH lease up averages are for only those who leased up. Average income is for the Oct-Jan voucher issues.

DHS lease up averages are for entire program, which began in late 2008.

Rent Well: Graduation Rates and Cost p/Household

Lease Up Analysis for Section 8 Special InitiativesData for tenant-based vouchers issued after November 1, 2009

Veteran Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers

Pilot with Department of Human Services (DHS)

Housing Barriers (Participant Self-Report)

Rent Well Tenant Education Pilot

Landlord Guarantee Fund Pilot


45

1

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Dena Ford-Avery, Assistant Director Rent Assistance Eryn Bujosevic, Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Report on Rent Assistance Department Project Based Voucher Program This memorandum services to provide overall highlights of the Project Based Voucher (PBV) Program including information regarding the Audit Process, Voucher Utilization, and Inspections Process, no board action is needed. Background: Currently, the Rent Assistance Department has 1,131 Project-Based Section 8 vouchers in use. Approximately 40 buildings (over 50%) serve disabled and homeless residents and are required to provide supportive services for tenants. 101 PBV units have been dedicated to families participating in Bridges to Housing (B2H), a critical tool in the 10 Year Plan To End Homelessness helping to ensure folks with significant barriers to renting have access to decent, safe, and affordable housing. We have another 197 awarded units yet to come on-line for 2010 and 2011. This includes: 100 units at the Resource Access Center, 67 awarded in the last two joint NOFA’s with our jurisdictional partners, 15 to Human Solutions and 15 to Innovative Housing, Inc. As you can see the growth of the program continues to be on-going and is seen as a valuable community resource. Program Audits We have rolled out an audit process for our Project Based Voucher program to ensure full compliance with HUD rules and policies. We began this process in April of this year. There were 58 total number of HAP contracts to audit during this round. As of this update, we have completed 28 building audits representing 477 units. The main focus areas for audit staff have been: leasing, wait list selection and management, inspections, and utilization all with a focus on fair housing practices. (See chart of buildings audited to date).


46

2

To ensure compliance with required rules and reporting HAP provides training to staff at buildings new to the PBV program. We provide written guidelines for various steps in the process, including unit turnover and have created PBV forms. We work with each property to ensure that not only are required corrections completed, but that property management is actively improving how they write their policies, organize their wait list, and interact with PBV tenants and potential applicants. Since our owner’s training of one year ago, some property management companies have implemented their own internal trainings to better equip their staff regarding the rules and policies around managing buildings with project based vouchers. Voucher Utilization Under-utilization, vacancy of an awarded unit, has been a huge concern to HAP for the past several years. As noted in the background, there are several contractors failing to fully utilize their contracted number of units. In the past year we have worked hard to ensure utilization is at a 95% minimum threshold. In 2008 we were at 90.1% overall, currently as of the end of August, 2010 we have achieved an overall average of 96.4%. (See handout attached). Rent Assistance staff continues to work hard to ensure every voucher allocated is fully utilized. Through post-evaluation work and ongoing trainings, we have implemented program improvements such as increased review by HAP, better reporting and information sharing, technical assistance regarding waitlist management, and the ability to recapture unutilized PBV units after 120 vacant days (none recaptured thus far). Inspections HAP has implemented many changes in regard to inspections. The changes have led to increased leasing and shorter lag times between request and inspection. We have systems in place that reduce the administrative burden for landlords such as inspecting only 20% of the units for buildings with a good track record of inspections, reducing the amount of time for initial inspections, as well as other customer service reforms.


47

Project Based Voucher Audit Summary Start Date: 4/6/10 Projected end date: end of January 2011 Total number of HAP contracts to audit during this round: 58 Number of audits completed: 28 Number of units represented in the completed audits: 477 Properties left: CCC, HAP, NWHA, Human Solutions, Rose CDC List of Properties Audited: Cascadia Clinton Ridge Emerson Corner Alberta Plaza Lafayette Court Midland Commons West Gresham Catholic Charities Esperanza Court Howard House Kateri Park Sacred Heart Villa

Community Partners for Affordable Housing The Watershed Hacienda CDC Clara Vista Townhomes Villa de Clara Vista Miraflores Innovative Housing Broadway Vantage Cornerstone Hewitt Place Musolf Manor Village Square

PCRI, Inc. PCRI Scattered Sites REACH Patton Park Pine Street Ritzdorf Court Station Place Towers Westshore Sawash Housing, LLC Nelson Court Tistilal Village

Transition Projects, Inc. Clark Center Annex


48

HAP Project Based Vouchers2008 - 2010 Occupancy Report

Property Code Project Name Units 2008 2009 2010sc804 Morrison PBA 30 97.8% 99.2% 100.0%sc805 Foster/Musolf 77 87.2% 97.8% 99.4%sc807 Mainstream PBA 25 61.3% 61.5% 99.0%sc810 12th Ave Terrace 118 98.7% 97.2% 97.9%sc816 Cambridge Court 20 54.6% 88.3% 95.0%sc817 The Jeffrey PBA 30 70.0% 88.1% 93.3%sc818 Esperanza Court PBA 14 46.4% 99.4% 98.2%sc819 Broadway Vantage 15 60.0% 98.9% 97.5%sc821 Clark Center Annex PBA 10 98.3% 99.2% 97.5%sc822 Leander Court PBA 11 96.2% 88.6% 98.9%sc823 Patton Park Apartments 12 89.8% 94.8%sc828 The Watershed PBA 40 92.9% 98.8% 99.7%sc851 Pine Street PBA 1 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%sc861 Midland Commons Emerson Corner PBA 22 82.2% 87.1% 94.3%sc862 Springwater Commons PBA 9 97.2% 100.0% 97.2%sc863 Green Tree Court PBA 7 89.6% 93.8% 92.7%sc864 Howard House PBA 12 96.5% 95.8% 100.0%sc866 Hotel Alder PBA 35 92.4% 94.0% 93.2%sc867 Village at the Headwaters PBA 14 99.4% 97.0% 99.1%sc868 Lincoln Woods PBA 14 98.8% 99.4% 92.9%sc869 Arbor Glen Apartments PBA 20 87.0% 97.9% 95.0%sc870 Ritzdorf PBA 22 97.7% 99.6% 98.9%sc871 Lents/Beyer/CS PBA 23 97.1% 97.5% 97.8%sc872 Gladstone/Village Ct PBA 5 80.0% 80.0% 95.0%sc873 Fountain Place PBA 20 97.1% 98.8% 96.3%sc874 Kafoury PBA 11 54.5% 78.0% 100.0%sc875 Rockwood Station PBA 20 94.2% 91.7% 91.9%sc876 Hamilton/Pearl Ct PBA 5 111.1% 110.0% 100.0%sc878 Clinton Ridge PBA 8 91.7% 112.5% 100.0%sc879 Interstate Crossing PBA 11 86.4% 91.7% 94.3%sc881 Hewitt Pl/Village Sq PBA 8 96.9% 85.4% 93.8%sc882 Emerson Court PBA 4 79.2% 100.0% 93.8%sc883 West Gresham PBA 25 93.3% 95.3% 99.0%sc884 Willow Tree PBA 3 94.4% 91.7% 95.8%sc885 Kateri Park PBA 20 79.4% 66.7% 96.9%sc886 Westshore PBA 6 83.3% 100.0%sc887 Fenwick PBA 8 100.0% 99.0% 100.0%sc888 8 NW 8th PBA 47 88.7% 87.0% 88.5%sc889 Station Place PBA 76 99.3% 98.8% 99.0%sc890 Cornerstone PBA 4 95.8% 95.8% 90.6%sc8900 Miraflores PBA 8 80.0% 100.0%sc8901 Sacred Heart PBA 12 100.0% 100.0%sc8902 Sandy PBA 14 78.6%sc8903 Shaver Green PBA 8 100.0% 100.0%sc8904 Madrona Studios PBA 10 100.0%sc8905 Eastgate Station Apts PBA 20 40.0%sc8906 James Hawthorne Apts PBAsc8907 Martha Washington PBAsc891 Mayfield PBA 6 100.0% 97.2% 100.0%sc892 Victoria Inn PBA 15 93.3% 98.3% 95.8%sc893 Rose CDC Scattered PBA 6 100.0% 113.9% 100.0%sc894 Patton Home PBA 16 98.4% 98.4% 99.2%sc895 PCRI Scattered PBA 20 81.3% 90.0% 76.9%sc896 Fairfield PBA 1 100.0% 83.3%sc897 Clara Vista PBA 46 93.3% 91.1% 97.8%sc898 Tistila/Nelson PBA 9 100.0% 94.4% 94.4%sc899 Ash Creek Commons PBA 5 98.3% 100.0% 87.5%sc8nc New Columbia PBA 73 95.1% 96.1% 96.6%

Totals 1,131 90.1% 92.6% 96.4%

Highlighted cells are less than 90% occupied for the calendar year.New projects calculate the lease up percentage only from the first month of occupancy.

14 projects were less than 90% occupied for 2009 (16 in 2008).Only 5 projects are less than 90% occupied for 2010 (January through August).Two of the 5 projects (Sandy PBA and Eastgate Station PBA) are new in mid-2010.

9/2/2010


49

1

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Jill Riddle, Director Rent Assistance Ian Slingerland, Rent Assistance Program Manager SUBJECT: Report on Shelter Plus Care Program Program Overview Shelter Plus Care (S+C) is a permanent housing program funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that provides rental assistance and supportive services to its participants. Participant households generally pay 30% of their adjusted monthly income for rent. In addition, S+C will also pay for a security deposit (up to one-month’s rent) and property damage claims (up to one-month’s rent) under most circumstances.

S+C is administered in partnership with a variety of non-profit social service agencies. Our partner agencies select households for participation, maintain waitlists, and provide supportive services to the participants.

To be eligible for S+C as household must be: • experiencing homelessness, and • very low-income, and • must include a head of household with a permanent disability.

HAP currently serves between 510-520 households with our Shelter Plus Care program utilizing $3.6 million in annual funding. Shelter Plus Care Funding and Match The Shelter Plus Care Program is funded by HUD through McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Program grants. HAP administers six S+C grants in partnership with eight Sponsor Agency partners. Sponsor Agencies match, 1 for 1, the rent assistance provided through the grants with supportive services. The supportive service match is calculated in aggregate over the life of the grant; the match is not calculated on a household by household basis.


50

2

HAP’s S+C grants were initially funded for five years through the local community’s competitive Continuum of Care process. After the initial 5 year grant period, grants are renewed annually. All of HAP’s S+C grants are in annual renewals. S+C grants are funded in a way that allows grantees, in most cases, to serve more households than are in the grant award. When S+C grants are renewed for the first time, they are renewed based on the number of units actually leased up at the time of renewal, not based on the number of units in the initial grant application. This has allowed HAP to expand the capacity of the S+C program overtime. S+C Grant Information Grant Current

Award Population Served

Sponsor Agencies

Initial unit award

Renewal unit award

Current units

Shelter Plus Care 4

$248,064

Families with developmental, mental health, and/or chemical dependency

Multnomah County Developmental Disabilities and Cascadia

11 20 29

Shelter Plus Care 6

$349,092 Singles with mental health disability

Luke-Dorf 19 43 52

Shelter Plus Care CAP

$422,844 Singles with mental health disability and HIV+ status and families with disabled adult

Cascade AIDS Project and Human Solutions, Inc.

19 48 54

Shelter Plus Care ICH

$1,694,532

Chronically homeless individuals with disabilities

Central City Concern and JOIN

162 212 230

Shelter Plus Care VAC

$469,956 Single, disabled veterans and families including adult with mental health disability

Veterans Affairs Administration and Cascadia

60 50 64

Shelter Plus Care CPT

$436,956 Singles with mental health disability

Cascadia 30 72 81

Total 290 445 510

Shelter Plus Care Demographics Current S+C Households American Indian or Alaska Native Head of Household 5% Asian Head of Household 1% Black or African American Head of Household 21% Multi-Racial Head of Household 4%


51

3

White 70% Hispanic 8%

Chronically Homeless at Program Entry 59%

Prior to Program Entry Living on street or place not meant for human habitation 34% Emergency Shelter 42% Transitional Housing Program 23%

Monthly Income of Current SPC Households: No income 35% Under $500 4% $501-$1,000 50% $1,001-$1,500 8% $1,501-$2,000 2% $2,000+ 1% Shelter Plus Care Length of Stay

Length of Stay in Shelter Plus Care Program Current Households Left Program in Most Recently Completed Grant Years

Less than 1 month 1% Less than 1 month 0% 1 – 2 months 1% 1 – 2 months 0% 3 – 6 months 7% 3 – 6 months 5% 7 – 12 months 12% 7 – 12 months 25% 13 – 25 months 37% 13 – 25 months 35% 25 months – 3 years 16% 25 months – 3 years 22% 4 years – 5 years 15% 4 years – 5 years 12% 6 years – 7 years 9% 6 years – 7 years 1% 8 years – 10 years 1% 8 years – 10 years 0% Over 10 years 1%

Over 10 years 0% Supportive Services Received by Shelter Plus Care Participants Services received by adults exiting S+C in most recently completed grant years Outreach 71% Case Management 99% Life Skills Training 54% Alcohol or Drug Abuse Services 59% Mental Health Services 74% HIV/AIDS Related Services 12% Other Health Care Services 46% Education 0% Housing Placement 87% Employment Assistance 10% Transportation 12% Other 3% HEARTH Act In 2009, Congress passed and the President signed the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (HEARTH). The HEARTH act will bring significant changes to HUD’s current McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Programs. HUD is currently drafting regulations for HEARTH. It is believed that the HEARTH act will result in increased flexibility and improvements to HUD’s homeless programs.


52

4

HEARTH will not impact the upcoming 2010 Continuum of Care funding cycle, and it is anticipated that HEARTH changes will be phased in over the following two Continuum of Care funding cycles. There are three current program types funded through the competitive Continuum of Care. These are:

• The Supportive Housing Program which funds development, leasing, and operations of transitional housing programs, permanent supportive housing programs and supportive services.

• The Shelter Plus Care program, and • The Moderate Rehabilitation/Single Room Occupancy program. (HAP has five

projects that received funding through this program). Ultimately, the HEARTH act will combine these three programs into one Continuum of Care program that includes all the same eligible activities as the current programs, and the local Continuum of Care will have some opportunity to evaluate current projects and potentially reprioritize funding.


53

1

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Jill Riddle, Director, Rent Assistance Ian Slingerland, Rent Assistance Program Manager SUBJECT: Report on Short Term Rent Assistance Program The Housing Authority of Portland’s Short Term Rent Assistance (STRA) program provides limited housing assistance to eligible households in Multnomah County who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. It consolidates into one unified program administered by HAP funding from six funding sources. Funding comes to the program via four jurisdictions (City of Portland, City of Gresham, Multnomah County, and HAP). Prior to STRA, each of the four local jurisdictions had its own short term rent assistance program, with its own program model and requirements. This report provides a brief overview of the program and program outputs and outcomes. Program Overview STRA provides nineteen social service partner agencies with funding for a range of short term housing. Funds are used for emergency hotel/motel vouchers, eviction prevention assistance, and housing placement assistance. Funds are allocated with the following targets for assistance: • 15% for safety off the streets (emergency hotel/motel vouchers) • 45% for helping homeless households obtain permanent housing • 40% for helping households maintain permanent housing The nineteen social service partner agencies were selected through a competitive procurement process. The will be a new RFP to select STRA partners for the period beginning July 1, 2011. The current STRA partners are:

• Cascade AIDS Project • Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare • Catholic Charities/El Programa Hispana • Central City Concern • Human Solutions, Inc • Immigrant and Refugee Community

Organization • Insights Teen Parent Program • JOIN: A Center for Involvement


54

2

• Multnomah County Developmental Disabilities Services

• Native American Rehabilitation Association, NW

• Native American Youth and Family Center • Neighborhood House • Northwest Pilot Project • Outside In • Impact Northwest • SE Works • Self Enhancement Inc • Transition Projects, Inc • Volunteers of America- Home Free (serving as lead for a collaborative of domestic violence

agencies)

In addition to the funding targets identified above, the procurement process targeted resources towards particular community needs (families, singles, domestic violence, street outreach, culturally specific services, medically vulnerable, special needs, etc.). STRA Funding Funds resulting from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) began flowing through STRA in July 2009, bringing the annual funding level to approximately $3.5 million. The funding future for STRA is somewhat uncertain. Historically, the City of Portland funded STRA with approximately $1 million in general funds, in addition to providing STRA with approximately $320,000 in HOME funds. Beginning with the 2008-09 STRA year (July – June), Portland used ARRA resources to increase its commitment to STRA to approximately $2.3 million annually, but, at the same time, Portland removed its general funds from the system. In July 2011, the ARRA resources will be gone; when the ARRA resources leave the system, the participating funding jurisdictions will need to identify replacement resources of $1 million just to keep STRA capacity at the lower pre-ARRA funding level. HAP is in conversation with the jurisdictions about this issue and potential solutions. Administrative Efficiency STRA has increased administrative efficiency in our community’s short term rent assistance system. The estimated cost of rent assistance system administration for the full year before the implementation of STRA was 23% of total system costs. STRA system administration costs for HAP between 2005 and 2009 were between 12% and 15%. HAP has argued that our relative administrative costs would decrease with added scale to the program. Within STRA exists the infrastructure to administer short-term rent assistance; significantly more direct client assistance and provider program expense could be administered through STRA with limited increases in HAP’s costs. The experience of the 2009-2010 STRA year has supported this argument. With the added scale provided by Recovery Act resources, HAP system administration costs went down to 9%. The Recovery Act resources incorporated into STRA are complex to administer relative the other resources within STRA. Our experience incorporating these resources into STRA has also highlighted that the amount of administrative efficiency to be found with added scale is determined, in part, by the type and complexity of the resources added to the “pot.”


55

3

STRA Demographics July 2009-June 2010 Households Served by STRA (includes households served with only emergency hotel vouchers): Families with children 51% Female Head of Household (includes singles) 69% Disabled Head of Household 32% Senior Head of Household (55 or older) 16% Veteran Head of Household 4% Homeless at Entry in STRA 23% STRA Demographics July 2009-June 2010 Cont. Households Served by STRA (includes households served with only emergency hotel vouchers): American Indian or Alaska Native Head of Household 6% Asian Head of Household 2% Black or African American Head of Household 25% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Head of Household 1% Multi-Racial Head of Household 2% Other Head of Household 9% White 54% Hispanic 19%

Monthly Income at Entry of Adults Leaving STRA assistance during year: No income 31% Under $500 15% $501-$1,000 28% $1,001-$1,500 15% $1,501-$2,000 7% $2,000+ 4%

STRA Outputs July 2006 through June 2010 Total unduplicated households receiving assistance 6,7001

Total unduplicated households receiving homeless placement or eviction prevention assistance

4746 (71%)

Average length of rent assistance provided 2.6 months

Percent of households receiving rent assistance that received only one month of assistance

54%

Percent of households receiving assistance (other than emergency hotel/motel vouchers) more than once (non-consecutively) between 2006-2010

29%

Average gap between assistance for households receiving non-consecutive assistance

187 days

Percent of Households in unsubsidized rental housing at end of STRA assistance (includes households served with emergency hotel vouchers)

66%

Percent of Households in subsidized housing/program at end of STRA assistance 10%

STRA Outcomes STRA is a flexible, outcome-based program. Individual providers have tremendous discretion to match housing assistance with the unique needs of the households they 1 Total numbers for 2006 through 2010 exclude most households assisted by domestic violence providers in 2009-10 because of changes the ways and type of information DV providers are allowed to report.


56

4

serve. The ability of STRA providers to couple housing assistance with appropriate services and relationships of support is critical to the program’s success, but there are no service mandates. Instead, STRA providers are expected to meet the following housing retention goals for all households served with eviction prevention or housing placement assistance: • 90% housing retention at 3 months after end of assistance • 80% housing retention at 6 months after end of assistance • 70% housing retention at 12 months after end of assistance The STRA program remains successful at meeting these housing goals despite the ongoing economic challenges faced by low-income households in our community. (Although, in the 2009-10 STRA year, the 3-month housing retention outcomes did dip slightly below the goal). Housing retention outcomes for 2008-09 and 2009-10 are displayed in the table below. The housing retention outcomes for the 2008-09 year are further program down by: • Household composition • Subsidized vs. unsubsidized housing at the end of assistance This further breakdown of the retention outcomes indicates that there is remarkably consistent success across the diversity of households and needs served by STRA. Short Term Rent Assistance Program: Post-Assistance Housing Retention Outcomes

Permanent Placement Eviction Prevention

3 months

6 months

12 months

3 months

6 months

12 months

2008-09 Total 92% 89% 78% 91% 84% 78%

2008-09 Exit to unsubsidized housing

88% 81% 74% 92% 87% 77%

2008-09 Exit to subsidized housing 94% 92% 81% 96% 90% 86%

2008-09 Household type: Female Single Parent

88% 79% 69% 91% 89% 79%

2008-09 Household type: Male Single Parent

100% 100% 57% 92% 71% 55%

2008-09 Household type: Two-Parent Household

90% 89% 73% 94% 89% 82%

2008-09 Household type: Single Person

90% 85% 77% 93% 85% 76%

2008-09 Household type: Couple w/o children

96% 88% 76% 95% 81% 73%

2009-10 Total 88% 83% 75% 89% 84% 74%


57

Hillsdale Terrace Redevelopment Update September 21, 2010

Date BOC review & actions

6.5.08 BOC review of briefing report (existing conditions)

8.12.08 BOC resolution authorizing Michael Willis Architects for A&E services (Res 08-08-01)

2.17.09 BOC review of staff recommendations (redevelopment options)

3.17.09 BOC resolution to pursue comprehensive redevelop-ment (Res 09-03-05)

6.3.09 Work session (udates)

8.12.09 Work session (updates)


9.15.09 BOC project update


10.20.09 BOC resolution to authorize application for FY 2009 HOPE VI funding (Res10-03-04)

3.16.10 BOC acting as Contract Review Board – resolution to adopt findings supporting CMGC process exemption from competitive bidding

4.3.10 BOC resolution authorizing CFC application (9% LIHTC)

6.15.10 BOC update (no award)

7.20.10 BOC update (CAC process)

8.20.10 Development Committee review (duplex lots & Habitat partnership)

Building community connections, both physical and social

9.21.10 BOC update & resolution establishing partnership with Habitat for Humanity

CAPITAL HWY/SW VERMONT

SW

26

SW CALIFORNIA ST

Next steps:

o Four Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings:

o September 23

o October 4

o October 21

o November 4

o Three HDT meetings with residents/ updated survey

o October BOC meeting

o November BOC meeting (requesting approval to submit FY 2010 HOPE VI funding)

o November 22 - FY 2010 HOPE VI application submittal deadline


58

Contract # Contractor Contract Amount Description DepartmentExecution

DateExpiration Date

C0706 Neighborhood House $5,000Summer Programming to Engage Families and Provide Educational Activities for Youth at New Columbia

REO 8/2/2010 10/31/2010

C0718 Synergo, LLC $5,000Provides Summer Programming for Youth at North Portland HAP Properties

REO 8/4/2010 9/3/2010

C0748 Human Solutions

MOU -- Bridges to Housing (B2H) Provides Rent Subsidy to Homeless Families. HAP is the owner of Powellhurst Woods, Townhouse Terrace, Demar Downs, Harold Lee Village and Hunter's Run. Five Units Located in These Units Will be Made Available to the B2H Program. Human Solutions Commits $86,031 Annually in Funding and Staff Time to Support Services Outlined in this Agreement

REO 8/20/2010 5/31/2013

C0747 Kay Reid $3,500Provide Written Stories of Achievements of Youth Living at New Columbia

EXEC 8/30/2010 12/31/2010

C0700 Forrest Marketing $10,000Branding Consultant -- Agency Name Change

EXEC 7/1/2010 12/31/2010

C0707 Staffing PartnersNTE $99,000

AnnuallyTemporary Staffing Services for the Agency; Informal RFP

DBS 7/8/2010 6/30/2012

C0712 Bonnie Newman $5,000 Foot Care Services at High-rises REO 7/13/2010 6/30/2011

C0709 Brooks StaffingNTE $99,000


DBS 7/14/2010 6/30/2012

C0716 Czopek & Erdenberger $45,000Feasibility Study for New Market West Building

DCR 7/14/2010 5/31/2011

T0692 Works Partnership LLC NTE $99,000Task Order Contract for On-Call Architectural Services; IRFP 04/10-103

DCR 7/20/2010 7/20/2011

C0722 PSI, Inc. $1,822 Special Inspection Services at Carlton Court (Trash Enclosures)

DCR 7/29/2010 12/31/2010

C0710 Employment TrendsNTE $99,000


DBS 7/29/2010 6/30/2012

C0714 Northwest Masonry Restoration $135,463 Masonry Restoration at Holgate House Apartments; RFB 06/10-106

DCR 8/3/2010 10/25/2010

C0726 Vancouver Painting $19,370

Painting of Exterior Doors at SE Townhomes; RFB 06/10-107 (Tillicum North, Tillicum South, Harold Lee Village and Hunter's Run)

DCR 8/23/2010 12/31/2010

C0719 Pavilion Construction $993,675 Lexington Court Apartments Modernization; RFB 01/10-99

DCR 8/2/2010 1/3/2011

C0701 Siegner & Company $3,510Commercial Painting Contractors for Medallion Apartments

DCR 7/2/2010 7/19/2010

C0720 Pavilion Construction $2,683,265 Eastwood Court and Carlton Court Apartments Modernization; RFB 01/10-96

DCR 7/29/2010 4/9/2011

Procurement & Contracts Department MONTHLY CONTRACT REPORT Contracts Approved 7/1/10 -- 8/31/10

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

9/3/10 Page 1 of 2 Procurement and Contracts Department


59

Contract # Contractor Contract Amount Description DepartmentExecution

DateExpiration Date

C0696-2 Great Kate! Construction Company $1,382 Misc. Door, Heater, Fire Extinguisher at Carlton Court Community Building

DCR 8/13/2010 8/11/2010*

C0695-2 Great Kate! Construction Company $1,329 Misc. Door, Heater, Fire Extinguisher at Lexington Court Community Building

DCR 8/13/2010 8/11/2010*

C0551-1 First Response $90,000 Extends Contract Term for Security Services at Hollywood East Development

REO 8/16/2010 6/30/2011

C0556-1 First Response $60,000 Extends Contract Term for Security Services at Northwest Tower High-rise Building

REO 8/16/2010 6/30/2011

C0497-11 LRS Architects $3,770 Design Finishes for the Martha Washington Apartments

DCR 8/16/2010 8/5/2010*

C0497-12 LRS Architects $2,875 Additional Design Finishes for the Martha Washington Apartments

DCR 8/16/2010 8/5/2010*

C0261-1 Janus Youth Programs, Inc. $10,000Extends Programming Services for Community Garden Project for New Columbia Residents

DCR 8/25/2010 8/31/2011

C0506-1 Hodaie Engineering $7,280Ads Work for Design Changes and LEED Appeal for the Martha Washington Apartments

DCR 8/30/2010 12/31/2010

C0505-1 Heritage Consulting Group $45,000 Adds Preservation Consulting Work for the Martha Washington

DCR 7/1/2010 12/31/2010

C0641-2 PBS EnvironmentalExtends Contract Term for Environmental Services at Stark Manor and Townhouse Terrace

DCR 7/2/2010 10/31/2010

C0395-13 R & H Construction (-199,674)Represents Amount Saved or Not Spent Based on Final Cost of James Hawthorne Apartments Project

DCR 7/12/2010 3/1/2010*

C0674-4 Walsh Company $2,188 Authorized Changes to Non-ARRA Celilo Court Apartments

DCR 7/20/2010 9/1/2010

C0696-1 Great Kate! Construction Company $9,433 Fixtures, Wiring and Floor Work for Carlton Court Community Room Renovation

DCR 7/27/2010 8/11/2010

C0695-1 Great Kate! Construction Company $9,679 Concrete, Fixtures and Wiring for Lexington Court Community Room Renovation

DCR 7/27/2010 8/11/2010

C0322-3 Holst Architects $22,000Change Order No. 3 Envelope Consultant for the RAC

DCR 7/30/2010 9/1/2011

* = Final Completion of Field and/or Work Orders Following Substantial Completion Date

AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING CONTRACTS

9/3/10 Page 2 of 2 Procurement and Contracts Department


60

Relocation

Project 0 1 2 3 4 S8 PH Private Purch. Other TotalRelocation to Date 0 4 11 122 10 72 49 14 4 8 147Relocation Remaining 0 0 0 14 1 15TOTAL RELOCATION 0 4 11 136 11 162

SalesTotal Total Gross Net Internal Net to

Project 0 1 2 3 4 Units Properties Proceeds Proceeds Costs HAPActual Sales to Date 4 11 93 10 118 106 22,699,426$ 21,651,321$ 1,198,358$ 20,452,964$ Projected Sales on Remaining Portfolio 43 1 44 44 8,161,903$ 7,733,800$ 472,886$ 7,260,913$ TOTAL SALES - PROJECTED 0 4 11 136 11 162 150 30,861,329$ 29,385,121$ 1,671,244$ 27,713,877$

1:1 Replacement# of New Total Total Total $ / New Total

Project 0 1 2 3 4 PH Units Units Proj. Cost $/Unit PH Unit InvestmentsCurrentThe Jeffrey 20 20 80 16,600,000$ 207,500.00 - - Martha Washington 25 25 108 18,043,118$ 167,065.91 76,080$ 1,902,000$ Resource Access Center 30 30 130 46,951,074$ 361,162.11 40,583$ 1,217,500$ Rockwood Station 25 25 195 271,514$ 1,392.38 N/A 271,514$ Jeanne Anne Apts 3 20 23 46 46 4,426,487$ 96,227.98 96,228$ 4,426,487$ SUB-TOTAL: 75 3 45 23 0 146 559 86,292,193$ 154,369$ 53,545$ 7,817,501$

Yet to Replace 16

Potential

Hillsdale Terrace(3) 8 122 41,460,112$ 339,836.98 750,000$ 6,000,000$ Hillsdale Terrace (Duplex Lots) tbd tbd tbd 900,000$ Hillsdale Terrace (City Contribution) tbd tbd tbd 3,200,000$ Lifeworks Northwest 3 13 13 29 29 tbd 17,241$ 500,000$ SUB-TOTAL: 0 3 13 13 0 37 151 41,460,112$ 339,837$ 286,486$ 10,600,000$

Avg. Invest.per PH unit

TOTAL REPLACEMENT: 75 6 58 36 0 183 710 127,752,305$ 494,206$ 100,642$ 18,417,501$

Capital Improvements# of Total HAP

Project PH Units Proj. Cost ProceedsMisc Upgrades tbd 452,200$ - Sweet 16 296 12,075,341$ 803,000$ Demar Downs ADA - Sweet 16 addtnl scope N/A 187,200$ 46,800$ Hollywood East 288 1,700,000$ 484,300$ Gallagher/Sellwood 197 18,728,648$ 4,000,000$ Eliot Square - part of the Fam4 30 1,461,750$ 1,451,000$ Fam4 (Carlton, Eastwood, Lexington) 75 4,906,745$ 1,575,000$

TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: 886 39,511,884$ 8,360,100$

Unit Size

Unit Size

PHPI: Activity and Investment Summary as of July 31, 2010

Unit Size Means of relocation


61

ARRA Administration# of Total HAP

Positions Positions Proj. Cost Proceeds

TOTAL ARRA ADMINISTRATION: 10 659,891$ 137,382$

NET PROCEEDS AVAILABLE 798,894$

(1) Net Proceeds are Gross Proceeds net of sales commissions, concessions, title and escrow fees and any other costs paid from escrow. Net Proceeds do not include internal selling costs ($1,198,358 through July 2010).

(2) Included are four units sold through the American Dream Homeownership program.

(3) 68 total PH units; replaces existing 60 units, 8 are new. PHPI encompasses 1:1 replacement as well as capital improvements.

(4) The Property Count now includes 2 of the four units sold through the American Dream Homeownership program. The property sales occurred prior to the sales team initiative and were included in the unit count, but not the property count on prior reports.


62

DASHBOARD REPORT


63

Housing Authority of Portland - Dashboard Report For August of 2010

Property Performance Measures

1 40 40 0 1 0 15 15 10 0 0 40Occupancy

Number of Physical Rentable Vacant OccupancyProperties Units Units Units Percentage Studio/SRO 1 Bdrm 2 Bdrm 3 Bdrm 4 Bdrm 5+ Bdrm Total

Public Housing 44 2,053 1,989 76 96.2% 512 843 352 335 11 0 2,053Public Housing Mixed Financed Owned * 2 65 65 0 100.0% 0 15 40 10 0 0 65Public Housing Mixed Finance Tax Credit * 5 426 425 22 94.8% 130 94 88 62 45 7 426

Total Public Housing 51 2,544 2,479 98 96.0% 642 952 480 407 56 7 2,544Affordable Owned with PBA subsidy 6 496 496 13 97.4% 72 229 104 91 0 0 496Affordable Owned without PBA subsidy 11 1164 1,164 66 94.3% 312 311 396 131 14 0 1,164

Total Affordable Owned Housing 17 1,660 1,660 79 95.2% 384 540 500 222 14 0 1,660Tax Credit Partnerships 18 2,048 2,048 63 96.9% 631 569 456 230 145 17 2,048

Total Affordable Housing 35 3,708 3,708 142 96.2% 1,015 1,109 956 452 159 17 3,708Eliminate Duplicated PH Properties/Units -7 -491 -490 -22 -130 -109 -128 -72 -45 -7 -491

Combined Total PH and AH 79 5,761 5,697 218 96.2% 1,527 1,952 1,308 787 170 17 5,761Special Needs (Master Leased) 36 422 422

Total with Special Needs 115 6,183 6,119* property/unit counts also included in Affordable Housing Count

Financial 06/30/10Three months ending 6/30/2010

Properties Units Properties UnitsPublic Housing $247.34 $350.29 $597.63 $497.59 $93.89 $6.15 25 1,349 20 736Affordable Owned $598.91 $212.44 $811.34 $451.20 $10.44 $349.71 16 1,592 1 68 11 4 0Tax Credit Partnerships $458.03 $41.09 $499.12 $300.70 $8.67 $189.75 18 2,048 0 8 9 0

* DCRcounts differ from occupancy and financial data due to The JeffreyPublic Housing Demographics

# of % of Average Average Unit Adults no Family with Elderly DisabledPublic Housing Residents Households Households Family Size Size Children Children Not Elderly

0 to 10% MFI 400 17.4% 2.1 1.7 9.3% 8.2% 0.5% 4.5% 4.6% 11.7% 0.8% 0.2% 0.5% 3.7% 13.7%11 to 20% 1,018 44.4% 1.7 1.5 33.3% 11.1% 11.4% 21.8% 10.3% 31.2% 1.8% 1.4% 0.4% 3.9% 40.5%21 to 30% 530 23.1% 1.7 1.5 16.9% 6.2% 7.2% 10.6% 5.0% 16.7% 0.7% 0.9% 0.1% 2.5% 20.6%31 to 50% 266 11.6% 2.3 1.8 6.1% 5.4% 2.5% 3.9% 3.1% 7.7% 0.4% 0.5% 0.2% 1.8% 9.8%51 to 80% 73 3.2% 2.5 1.9 1.8% 1.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 2.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.8% 2.4%Over 80% 9 0.4% 4.0 2.8 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%All 2,296 100.1% 1.9 1.6 67.5% 32.6% 22.3% 41.5% 24.1% 69.7% 3.7% 3.2% 1.2% 12.8% 87.3%

Waiting List0 to 10% MFI 2,983 48.3% 2.2 1.7 1.2% 18.2% 19.3% 24.3% 2.8% 1.5% 0.9% 4.6% 42.2%11 to 20% 1,856 30.0% 2.5 1.7 1.3% 12.4% 11.1% 15.9% 1.5% 1.3% 0.5% 2.9% 26.7%21 to 30% 817 13.2% 2.6 1.8 0.9% 4.9% 4.4% 7.2% 0.4% 1.1% 0.1% 1.5% 11.4%31 to 50% 452 7.3% 2.7 1.9 0.7% 2.1% 2.4% 3.9% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 1.0% 6.2%51 to 80% 70 1.1% 2.3 1.8 0.1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0%Over 80% 3 0.0% 1.7 1.3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%All 6,181 100.0% 2.4 1.7 4.3% 38.0% 37.7% 52.0% 5.1% 4.4% 1.6% 10.0% 87.4%

Other Activity#'s,days,hrs

Public HousingNames pulled from Wait List 217Denials 6New rentals 25Vacates 33Evictions 2# of work orders received 1,329# of work orders completed 1,073Average days to respond 7.1# of work orders emergency 1Average response hrs (emergency) 33

# of Properties DCR Not

Applicable

# of Properties not meeting

DCR

Non His- Panic/Latino

Ethnicity % (hoh)Households % Family Type (head of household)

Unit Mix

NOI# of Properties/units Positive Net Operating Income (NOI)

Black African American White Native

AmericanHispanic/

LatinoHawaiian/

Pacific Islnd

Race % (head of household)

Asian

Per Unit Per Month Fiscal YTD ending 6/30/2010

Operating Expensew/o HMF

# of Properties meeting Debt

Coverage Ratio (DCR)

TotalRevenue

# of Properties/units Negative Net Operating Income (NOI)Subsidy

RevenuePropertyRevenue

HAP Management Fees (HMF)

1


64


Rent Assistance Performance Measures

Utilization and Activity

Average HUD Subsidy Remaining Waiting List Voucher Average HUD SubsidyVouchers Vouchers Utilization Voucher Over(Under) Waiting List Names New Vouchers Vouchers Inspections Utilization Voucher Over(Under) New Vouchers VouchersAvailable Paid Percentage Cost Utilized Size Pulled Leased Terminated Completed Percentage Cost Utilized Leased Terminated

Tenant Based Vouchers 6,671 6,601 99% $577 -$196,058 1,451 300 29 36 679 99% $580 -$1,337,897 282 296Project Based Vouchers 1,184 1,104 93% $508 -$149,641 27 13 51 96% $481 -$712,094 200 142SRO/Mod Vouchers 512 484 95% $397 10 15 167 94% $442 -$233,633 93 104

All Vouchers 8,367 8,189 98% $557 -$345,699 66 64 897 98% $559 -$2,283,624 575 542

Demographics

# of % of Average Average Unit Adults no Family with Elderly Disabled Black White Native Asian Hawaiian/ Hispanic NonTenant Based Voucher Participants Households Households Family Size Size Children Children Not Elderly American Pacific Islnd Hispanic

0 to 10% MFI 653 10.3% 1.8 1.8 6.5% 3.8% 0.3% 0.8% 4.7% 5.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.6% 9.7%11 to 20% 1,941 30.6% 1.9 1.9 19.2% 11.4% 6.2% 12.0% 10.6% 17.6% 1.3% 1.9% 0.2% 1.9% 28.7%21 to 30% 2,088 32.9% 2.3 2.1 18.2% 14.8% 7.9% 12.1% 11.1% 19.3% 1.0% 2.1% 0.2% 2.0% 31.0%31 to 50% 1,372 21.6% 3.1 2.5 7.0% 14.7% 3.0% 4.9% 8.5% 11.7% 0.7% 1.2% 0.1% 1.3% 20.4%51 to 80% 271 4.3% 3.6 2.9 1.0% 3.3% 0.3% 0.6% 1.9% 2.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 4.1%Over 80% 15 0.2% 4.9 3.1 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%All 6,340 100.0% 2.4 2.2 51.8% 48.2% 17.8% 30.4% 36.8% 56.0% 3.3% 5.8% 0.6% 5.9% 94.1%

Waiting List0 to 10% MFI 489 33.7% 2.2 1.3% 9.4% 16.4% 13.1% 1.9% 1.5% 0.6% 2.3% 27.6%11 to 20% 402 27.7% 2.0 2.9% 12.5% 9.4% 15.3% 1.6% 1.5% 0.3% 1.3% 24.3%21 to 30% 268 18.5% 2.3 3.7% 5.4% 5.3% 11.4% 0.6% 1.2% 0.1% 1.4% 15.4%31 to 50% 281 19.4% 2.5 1.9% 3.9% 7.6% 9.7% 0.8% 1.0% 0.1% 1.2% 16.0%51 to 80% 11 0.8% 2.5 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%Over 80%All 1,451 100.0% 2.2 9.9% 31.4% 38.8% 50.0% 4.9% 5.2% 1.2% 6.3% 84.0%

Short Term Rent Assistance

Shelter Plus Care 514 $270,334 $526Short Term Rent Assistance 322 $174,918 $543

Resident Services

Resident ProgramsHouseholds

Served/Participants

Congregate Housing Services Public Housing 89 $64,672 $727* as of previous month

Resident Services Coordination Public Housing 66 28 296 1471 16 28 102 2212

Community Supportive Services Public Housing 93 68 2Section 8 29 14 0

GOALS Program Public Housing 74 $113,033 3 0 $635 5 $0 -$3,114Section 8 242 $646,699 3 8 $16,133 3 $0 $1,228

Crisis Intervention

Support System

Enhanced# Events

Current Month Activity Calendar Year To Date

Escrow $ Forfeited

Avg Annual Earned Income Increase Over

Last Year

# Event Attendees

# HH Enrolled

Average Funds per Participant

# in Self Sufficiency # In GOALS

Monthly Funding Amount

Average Cost per Household

Current Month Status

Unduplicated Number Served

Ethnicity % (hoh)

# HH Stabilized

# HH Transitioned

Health and Safety Stabilized

Households % Family Type (head of household) Race % (head of household)

Housing Program Served

# of Households Participating

$ Amount of Assistance Provided

Terminations or Exits

NewEnrollees

Escrow $ Disbursed

# of Participants # of GraduatesEscrow $

Held

2


65


Agency Financial Summary

Three months ending 6/30/2010

Subsidy Revenue $6,456,189 $19,608,569 $18,564,585 $1,043,984Grant Revenue $1,364,188 $2,866,034 $1,917,589 $948,445Property Related Income $1,215,871 $3,541,808 $3,161,022 $380,786Development Fee Revenue $198,381 $484,908 $0 $484,909Other Revenue $302,781 $781,786 $645,513 $136,274

Total Revenue $9,530,635 $27,283,106 $24,288,708 $2,994,398Housing Assistance Payments $5,625,322 $15,807,418 $15,079,119 $728,299Operating Expense $3,062,814 $9,035,670 $9,106,455 ($70,785)Depreciation $502,571 $1,430,711 $1,241,022 $189,689

Total Expense $9,190,707 $26,273,799 $25,426,595 $847,204Operating Income $339,928 $1,009,307 -$1,137,887 $2,147,194

Other Income(Expense) -$573,638 -$81,554 $2,539,041 ($2,620,595)Capital Contributions $1,339,862 $3,308,952 $5,468,668 ($2,159,716)

Increase(Decrease) Net Assets $1,106,152 $4,236,705 $6,869,822 ($2,633,117)Total Assets $346,952,985 $346,952,985 $345,260,042 $1,692,943Liquidity Reserves (as of 3/31/2010) $10,363,683 $28,142,522 $18,124,516 $10,018,006 * from 6/30/2009 to 3/31/2010

Development/Community Revitalization

New Development / Revitalization Construction Construction Current Total Cost PerUnits Start End Phase Cost Unit

Hawthorne Apartments * 48 Apr-09 Mar-10 Post Construction $7,914,653 $164,889Multnomah Village Lots tbd tbd tbd Concept tbd tbdThe Resource Access Center 130 Nov-09 Apr-11 Construction $46,951,074 $361,162Hillsdale Terrace tbd tbd tbd Concept tbd tbdHillsdale Terrace - Duplex Lots tbd tbd tbd Concept tbd tbdJeanne Anne 45 Oct-10 Aug-11 Predevelopment $4,426,487 $98,366Martha Washington 108 Aug-09 Jun-10 Construction $18,043,118 $167,066The Jeffrey 80 Jun-10 Sep-10 Construction $16,600,000 $207,500

Capital ImprovementAinsworth 88 tbd tbd Predevelopment $1,980,000 $22,500Sweet 16 296 May-09 Sep-10 Construction $12,262,541 $41,428Gallagher Plaza/Sellwood Center 197 Dec-11 Jun-13 Concept $18,728,648 $95,069Hollywood East 288 Apr-10 Aug-10 Construction $1,700,000 $5,903FAM4 105 Aug-10 Apr-11 Concept $5,359,501 $51,043Holgate House 80 Aug-10 Oct-10 Construction $171,000 $2,138Misc Upgrades tbd tbd tbd tbd $452,200

Legend* Formerly known as University Place

Increase (Decrease)Month Fiscal Year to

Date Prior YTD

3


66

RESOLUTIONS


67

1

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Jill Riddle, Rent Assistance Director Todd Salvo, Chief Financial Officer Michael Buonocore, Program Director for Policy and Planning SUBJECT: Amendment to HAP’s Attachment A of the Moving to Work (MTW) Resolution 10-09-02 The Board of Commissioners is requested to approve resolution 10-09-02 authorizing the execution of the “Third Amendment to Moving to Work Agreement” between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Housing Authority of Portland. As required, a public hearing was conducted at the July 2010 Board of Commissioners meeting regarding this Amendment. There were no comments from the public at the meeting and there have been no comments received since that meeting. Background Attachment A of HAP’s MTW Agreement describes how our subsidy streams are calculated in order to determine our funding levels each year. In May, we brought you an amendment to Attachment A that resolved a problem with the funding formula that caused us to lose money when we used fungible Section 8 voucher funds. We discovered during a recent site visit by HUD staff that this fix did not address the administrative fees we earn when we issue vouchers. Therefore, if we use Section 8 funds on programs other than traditional vouchers (such as agency-based assistance) or other MTW programs and for any reason our Section 8 vouchers issued decline, the Section 8 administrative fee will also decline. Staff has worked with HUD to develop this “Third Amendment” that establishes an amount for our administrative fees based on our current level of voucher utilization (currently near 100% utilization). This base amount will be established from Section 8 voucher data in calendar 2010 and adjusted annually thereafter by inflation and proration factors only. The actual number of Section 8 vouchers outstanding in subsequent years will not affect the calculation of administrative fees under this amendment. Any new


68

2

increments of Section 8 vouchers received by the Agency will, however, be added to the administrative fee calculation. This change is important to ensure the continuation of administrative fees when Section 8 vouchers are not fully utilized or when funds are used in locally developed programs not considered traditional Section 8 vouchers. Budget Implications and Financial Impact on HAP Amending Attachment A to change the calculation of administrative fees to the 2010 base will ensure that HAP maximizes these funds and will allow the Agency to exercise fungibility with its Section 8 funds without the loss of these fees. Risks / Opportunities The amendment eliminates the risk of losing administrative fees if the number of traditional Section 8 vouchers in subsequent years is lower than the established 2010 base. This amendment will ensure all streams of Section 8 funding support our ability to use our MTW authority. Recommendation With no public comment received regarding this amendment, staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve the Amendment to Attachment A of HAP’s MTW agreement. Exhibits Third Amendment to Moving to Work Agreement Between Department of Housing And Urban Development and Housing Authority of Portland.


69

3

RESOLUTION 10-09-02

RESOLUTION 10-09-02 AUTHORIZES THE HOUSING AUTHORIT Y OF PORTLAND TO EXECUTE THE “THIRD AMEDMEMT TO THE MOVING TO WOR K AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DE VELOPMENT AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF POTLAND WHEREAS, Attachment A of HAP’s Moving to Work Agreement describes the method by which HAP’s Section 8 subsidy and administrative fees are calculated; WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HAP have determined that this “Third Amendment” provides for the appropriate and optimal method of calculating administrative fees for an MTW Agency that uses Section 8 funds for local MTW programs; and WHEREAS, the “Third Amendment” will ensure that HAP will not lose Section 8 administrative fees when using Section 8 funds for local MTW programs; and WHEREAS, HAP conducted a public hearing on the proposed Amendment at the July 20th, 2010 Board of Commissioners meeting, in accordance with HUD requirements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the Chair of the Housing Authority of Portland is authorized to execute the “Third Amendment to Moving to Work Agreement Between U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Housing Authority of Portland.” Adopted: September 21, 2010 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND _________________________________ Lee E. Moore, Sr., Chair Attest: ______________________________ Steven D. Rudman, Secretary


70

07/01/2010

Housing Authority of Portland Attachment A

1

THIRD AMENDMENT TO

MOVING TO WORK AGREEMENT BETWEEN

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND


This Third Amendment to the Amended and Restated Moving to Work (“MTW”) Agreement dated March 5, 2009 (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the United States of America through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the Housing Authority of Portland (“Agency”) and is effective as of the date of execution by HUD. Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. Attachment A to the Agreement is amended as follows: The following language is added to the end of Section 3 of Attachment A to the MTW Agreement: For purposes of the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) administrative fee funding, the Initial Year is calendar year 2011 (January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011). Administrative Fee eligibility will be based on voucher leasing during the base period, defined as the calendar year immediately preceding the initial year. For the initial period (CY), the fee eligibility will be calculated by applying the current year's administrative fee rates to that base period's leasing. For subsequent years, the fees will be based upon applying each subsequent year's administrative fee rates to the base period's leasing. This methodology will apply only to those vouchers for which administrative fees are not already included in a combined calculation of both housing assistance and administrative fees. In every year, fee eligibility will be pro-rated at the same level as applies to all other agencies. Administrative fees for vouchers added to the agency's inventory after the base period will be paid according to each year's appropriation requirements.


By_________________________________ Chair of the HAP Board Date of Execution by Agency____________

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

By_________________________________

Its_________________________________

Date of Execution by HUD______________


71

1

DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Quast, Director of Real Estate Operations Benjamin Wickham, Asset Manager SUBJECT: Working Preference at New Columbia Resolution 10-09-03 Summary: In the time since construction at New Columbia was completed and the property was fully occupied, we have bent our efforts toward the creation of a stable, peaceful, and productive community. To this effect, in January 2009 a small group of folks from HAP, dubbed Team 180, was assembled to review New Columbia’s progress at the 3-year point. This group crafted the New Columbia 180-day plan, which was presented to the Board in 2009. Over a six-month period, Team 180 recommended crucial changes such as the replacement of the property manager, as well as the implementation of the Opportunity Housing Initiative (OHI) program at New Columbia. This working preference proposal represents the continuing efforts of the folks who made up Team 180 to keep New Columbia moving toward the important goals mentioned at the outset. In brief, our proposal consists of the implementation of a working preference for those applicants desiring to live in Public Housing or Project-Based Section 8 housing at one of the partnerships comprising New Columbia. The working preference involves a requirement that applicant households have at least one adult member working, in school, or in a participating job training program. As explained at the July Board meeting, under HUD rules, changes to the Admissions and Continuing Occupancy Policy (ACOP) require a public hearing, as well as a resolution from the Board of Commissioners. The July Board meeting constituted an official hearing on this matter; this meeting also served to open the required 45-day comment period. We have now completed the hearing period, and are presenting a resolution asking the Board for formal adoption of this preference. Background: An important ingredient in the stability of our residents is the ability and desire to make progress toward self-sufficiency. Humboldt Gardens is an excellent example


72

2

of a community where the majority of households are participating in self-sufficiency programming. We are very pleased with the results of our emphasis on work at Humboldt Gardens. At New Columbia, there are significant numbers of working-able adults living in subsidized housing who are making little or no effort to move toward self sufficiency through educational opportunities, job training, or the pursuit of suitable employment. This is reflected by the fact that we currently have 83 households living in subsidized housing who have been certified at zero income, many of whom are working-able. (Note: working-able is herein defined as a household having at least one adult under 55 who is not disabled. In any situation wherein the head of household is 55 or older and/or disabled, that household qualifies as elderly/disabled. We propose including Humboldt Garden in the proposed changes to the ACOP for this definition. This definition of working-able is currently being considered for work able households in Section 8 and Public Housing for Rent Reform). In order to address this issue, the Opportunity Housing Initiative (OHI) has been implemented at New Columbia with the intention of enrolling 50 residents in Public Housing and Project-Based Section 8. However, in view of the fact that we do not have the resources to enroll a larger percentage of the resident population in OHI, we are herein proposing a supplemental strategy, namely the implementation of a working preference, to promote a move toward self-sufficiency at New Columbia. Neither the OHI program at New Columbia nor the working preference will involve term limits on housing subsidy. Policy Implications New Columbia currently features 297 apartments with Public Housing subsidy and 73 Project-Based Section 8 apartments, for a combined total of 370 fully subsidized apartments. A separate formal waiting list is maintained for each of these two programs, organized according to bedroom size. At this time, applicants on each waiting list are prioritized chronologically, that is in the order that they submitted a completed application. By introducing a working preference, anyone applying for housing who can demonstrate that they meet the working preference criteria would immediately be given a higher priority that those not meeting the working preference, and would thus be offered housing first. Households already living at New Columbia will not be directly affected by the working preference. Implementation Plan Upon the adoption of the attached resolution, New Columbia staff will introduce the working preference to all current applicants. In order to accomplish this, all households currently enrolled in the Public Housing and Project-Based Section 8 waiting lists will receive correspondence describing the new preference criteria. This correspondence will invite them to provide evidence that they meet the working preference criteria, thus qualifying them to receive a priority position on the waiting list. An important caveat is that any household considered elderly or disabled would receive the same priority as a household meeting the working preference; among


73

3

this prioritized group, chronology again becomes the deciding factor. Elderly and/or disabled households would, of course, not be expected to meet the working preference criteria at the time of admission, nor on an ongoing basis. preference, with potentially up to 50% being comprised of households meeting the working preference criteria. It is important to note that this will not hinder our ability to fill vacant apartments. However, working-able applicants who do not meet the working preference criteria may spend a longer time on the waiting list prior to receiving an offer of housing. Budget Implications and Financial Impact on HAP Our proposal to implement a working preference at New Columbia involves neither direct additional cost to HAP nor to the New Columbia partnerships. Although there will be a slight additional administrative cost initially as the management office contacts all households currently on the waiting list, this can be mitigated by combining implementation with a purge of the waiting list, which is a standard procedure in the management of our waiting lists and involves corresponding with each existing applicant. The HAP staff working at New Columbia will take on some additional responsibility as applicants receiving the preference take occupancy. Our staff has the ability to handle this additional work without creating any additional direct costs to the agency. Risks and Opportunities We see the implementation of a working preference as an opportunity to bring in families who will serve as a positive role model for others in the community. It is vital for folks living at New Columbia to see examples of working-able families who are progressing toward self sufficiency. In addition, our communication with and support of these families from the outset of their becoming part of the community allows us to provide them with the resources needed for success. We have found that often the ability to pick up the phone and call someone who is already familiar with your situation and can assist you to connect with needed resources is a boon to our residents. Recommendations At the July 20 Board of Commissioners’ meeting, the Board agreed to open a public hearing process on this matter. As no objections or comments were made, we now request that the Board move forward with this process. We therefore recommend that the Board of Commissioners adopt the attached resolution authorizing revisions to the ACOP that would allow the immediate implementation of a working preference at New Columbia, as described herein.


74

4

RESOLUTION 10-09-03

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGES TO THE ADMISSIONS AND CONTINUING OCCUPANCY POLICY (ACOP) WHICH WILL ALLOW NEW COLUMBIA TO ESTABLISH A WORKING PREFERENCE. THE PREFERENCE WILL GIVE PRIORITY TO THOSE APPLICANTS CONSIDERED WORKING-ABLE, AS DEFINED IN THIS RESOLUTION, AND WHO MEET THE WORKING PREFERENCE CRITERIA, WHICH IS OUTLINED IN THE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM WHEREAS, the board of commissioners of the Housing Authority of Portland conducted a public hearing regarding the implementation of a working preference at New Columbia during the July 20, 2010 board meeting; and WHEREAS, the board meeting was announced as the commencement of the required 45-day public comment period; and WHEREAS, no comments or statements in opposition to the implementation of a working preference at New Columbia were received during this period; and WHEREAS, HAP staff overseeing operations at New Columbia have developed an implementation plan as explained in the attached memorandum; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Real Estate Operations Department at HAP is authorized to make changes to the ACOP necessary in order to implement a working preference at New Columbia. The working preference will be administered according to the following policy: Households already living at New Columbia will not be directly affected by the working preference. New Columbia staff will introduce the working preference to all current applicants. In order to accomplish this, all households currently enrolled in the Public Housing and Project-Based Section 8 waiting lists will receive correspondence describing the new preference criteria. This correspondence will invite them to provide evidence that they meet the working preference criteria, thus qualifying them to receive a priority position on the waiting list. Anyone applying for housing who is working-able, and who can demonstrate that they meet the working preference criteria would immediately be given a higher priority that those not meeting the working preference, and would thus be offered housing first. Working-able is herein defined as a household having at least one adult under age 55 who is


75

5

not disabled. In any situation wherein the head of household is 55 or older and/or has a disability, that household qualifies as elderly/disabled. Any household thus considered elderly or disabled would receive the same priority as a working-able household meeting the working preference; among this prioritized group, chronology (the order in which the application is submitted) becomes the deciding factor. Elderly and/or disabled households would, of course, neither be expected to meet the working preference criteria at the time of admission, nor on an ongoing basis. ADOPTED: September 21, 2010 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND

_________________________________ Lee E. Moore, Sr., Chair

ATTEST: _______________________________ Steven D. Rudman, Secretary


76

1

RESOLUTION 10-09-04

RESOLUTION 10-09-04 AUTHORIZES THE HOUSING AUTHORIT Y OF PORTLAND (HAP) TO ADOPT THE STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS FINALIZED S EPTEMBER 2010 AND DIRECTS STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE STRATEGIC DIRECT IONS WHILE CARRYING OUT HAP’S MISSION. WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners desires to set the strategic course for HAP over the next three to five years; and WHEREAS, the strategic planning process began in November of 2009 and engaged more than 2,400 members of the HAP community, nearly 200 community partners, as well as HAP’s leadership and its workforce; and WHEREAS, this major outreach effort revealed a strong spirit of community partnership and a remarkable degree of agreement on future directions; and WHEREAS, the four strategic directions focus on prioritization of housing resources, HAP’s place on the housing-services continuum, partnership within the HAP community, and HAP’s role in the regional housing market; and WHEREAS, the three guiding principles of the strategic directions are equity, strategic partnerships, and organizational development; and WHEREAS, HAP’s budget, Moving to Work plans, and other significant agency work plans will align with the Strategic Directions; and WHEREAS, HAP’s staff will implement the strategic directions in the next three to five years while carrying out HAP’s mission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Portland that the Strategic Directions finalized September 2010 and incorporated by reference are hereby adopted. Adopted: September 21, 2010 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF P ORTLAND _________________________________ Lee E. Moore, Sr., Chair Attest: ________________________________ Steven D. Rudman, Secretary Housing Authority of PortlandBoard of Commissioners PacketSeptember 2010

77

H

OU

SIN

G A

UT

HO

RIT

Y O

F P

OR

TL

AN

D

Framing the Future: Strategic Directions and Next Steps

Housing Authority of Portland

HO

US

IN

G

AU

TH

OR

IT

Y

OF

P

OR

TL

AN

D

F

RA

MIN

G T

HE

FUTU

RE

September 2010


78

2

Thank you

September, 2010

To our stakeholders,

The Housing Authority of Portland has provided affordable homes for low-income families and individuals for nearly seventy years. We are a successful developer, owner, and manager of a large and complex real estate portfolio with a variety of financing and subsidies, and we are a major administrator of rent assistance. Despite difficult economic times and a troubled real estate market, we are on solid ground in the delivery of this core mission. Knowing this will always be at the heart of our day-to-day work, we set out to define the strategic directions that will help us better focus on the “people” side of the equation: over 15,000 low-income households, including more than 10,000 youth.

We initiated this planning process in November 2009 to explore these possibilities. People who live and work in all corners of the community we serve offered their time and ideas to help us identify how we can be most effective in all areas of our mission, especially in collaboration with our local and regional partners.

We offer our deepest appreciation for their participation, and we invite you to read this report, which outlines our directions and the next steps we will take in pursuing those paths. As we move deeper into the implementation planning phase in the coming months, we pledge to keep you abreast of other opportunities to give us input. Thank you for helping us frame the future.

Our best,

Steve Rudman, Executive Director Lee Moore, Chair, Board of Commissioners


79

3

Strategic planning provides a platform to assess, reflect, and commit to new directions. HAP’s planning process, while by definition future-focused, is firmly grounded in our mission and values.

Our Mission

HAP’s mission is to assure that the people of the community are sheltered.

HAP has a special responsibility to those who encounter barriers to housing because of income, disability, or special need.

HAP will continue to promote, operate, and develop affordable housing that engenders stability, self-sufficiency, self-respect, and pride in its residents and represents a long-term community asset.

HAP will be a community leader to create public commitment, policy and funding to preserve and develop affordable housing.

Our Values

Our cornerstone values are Respect, Fairness, and Honesty

Our organizational values are Service, Support, and Stewardship

Our business values are Partnership, Innovation, and Excellence

HAP also benefits from its Moving to Work (MTW) status, which allows more flexible programming tailored to local needs and goals. Nationally, MTW has three main objectives: to provide incentives to families with children seeking employment and self-sufficiency; to increase housing choices for low-income households; and to increase organizational and cost efficiencies. The strategic plan and its proposed implementation activities use HAP’s MTW flexibility to meet these objectives and serve more households wherever possible.

Overview of the Process

Our Process Over the past several months, with the assistance of local consulting firm Decisions Decisions, HAP has engaged the community in a spirited dialogue to consider strategic directions for the future. Each interaction focused on issues directly relevant to the particular individual or group engaged. A list of participants can be found on pages 10-11; a separate report provides a detailed summary of their input and is available upon request.

More than 2,400 members of the HAP community – residents and program participants – were involved through listening sessions and written surveys. The Resident Advisory Committee (RAC) played an active role in planning and implementing this unprecedented outreach effort.

Almost 200 community partners – other jurisdictions, housing providers, service providers, for-profit housing industry, and minority community representatives – were engaged through individual conversations, focus groups, and an online survey.

Every member of HAP’s Board of Commissioners, leadership team, and workforce participated through individual interviews, group discussions, and written surveys.

This major outreach effort revealed a strong spirit of community partnership and a remarkable degree of agreement on future directions.

The information was analyzed, organized, and evaluated by HAP’s leadership and consultants. HAP’s Board discussed their recommendations and set preliminary directions.

This led to a second round of outreach – involving dozens of stakeholders – to introduce and discuss these new strategic directions. HAP’s senior leadership and consultants met with the RAC, jurisdictional partners, advocates, community development corporations, service providers, and representatives of communities of color.

Altogether, these efforts resulted in a broad consensus on strategic directions and a commitment to work together as even stronger partners in the future.


80

4

Strategic Directions

Direction 1: Prioritization of Housing Resources HAP will align a larger portion of its housing resources with community partners in order to better serve priority populations, distinguishing between the needs of very low-income work-able families, seniors and people with disabilities.

Direction 2: Housing-Services Continuum HAP will provide for core resident services, including enhanced property management to support housing stability and foster self-sufficiency, with its own staff and partner agencies. HAP will coordinate the delivery of other types of resident services through strategic partnerships with local providers.

Direction 3: Partnership within the HAP Community HAP will strengthen its relationship with residents and program participants by working with them to develop a more defined set of mutual responsibilities, expectations and accountability.

Direction 4: Role in the Regional Housing Market HAP will leverage its expertise in affordable housing operations, development, and rent assistance administration to further local and regional housing goals. HAP will increase its responsiveness to housing needs in mid-County and East County through the alignment of resources and coordination with local representatives. HAP will expand its work with neighboring counties when there are opportunities to collaboratively address issues on a regional basis. HAP will serve as a policy advocate and strategic partner in the metropolitan area.


81

5

Guiding Principles

Organizational Development HAP will take full advantage of the strength of its management and staff by instituting policies and practices that support their ability to be effective. HAP will continue to hone its efforts in effective recruitment, retention, management, and professional development. This requires clear and open communication, commitment to inclusion, collaboration among departments, planning for long-term succession, and a sense of partnership with organized labor. Concurrently, HAP will work to identify any organizational infrastructure and capacity changes that would be needed in order to achieve the strategic directions and implementation steps.

The following principles will guide the agency as it pursues its strategic directions:

Equity HAP will work with representatives of diverse communities to ensure fairness and cultural competence in all HAP activities: housing, services, employment, and contracting. HAP has a proven track record of achieving economic equity in contracting with women, minority and emerging small businesses. This success extends to increasing workforce opportunities for low- and very low-income people in our community, including our residents and participants. Through its recently unveiled economic equity initiative, HAP will work to increase access to opportunities for low-income and disadvantaged communities in all areas of its business and to support the efforts of the larger community to increase equity and inclusivity.

Strategic Partnerships

HAP will strategically align itself and collaborate with partners to fill gaps in community needs and achieve common ends. HAP has strong relationships with jurisdictional and community partners that expand the capacity to serve low-income households beyond the ability of any one agency. However, there remain significant opportunities to deepen existing partnerships and develop new ones that are more grounded in mutual accountability, risk taking and long-term planning in order to maximize impacts. HAP will dedicate time and resources to develop these partnerships to make best use of agency resources and fulfill community-wide goals in affordable housing and poverty reduction.


82

6

Prioritization of Housing Resources

1 Direction

HAP will align a larger portion of its housing resources with community partners in order to better serve priority populations, distinguishing between the needs of very low-income work-able families, seniors and people with disabilities.

2010-11 Determine the proportion of resources dedicated

to the priority populations such as seniors, people with disabilities, and work-able families, with the majority of resources continuing to serve those on the traditional wait list / lottery.

Develop criteria for determining underserved groups within the priority populations, such as those with culturally-specific needs, and align goals and resources with community partners that serve those groups.

Consider increasing HAP’s commitment to agency-based assistance programs, such as Short Term Rent Assistance, to provide shallow, shorter-term subsidy in conjunction with service providers that address targeted populations and serve more households.

Maximize MTW funding flexibility to create tools such as Local Blended Subsidy that will better leverage HAP’s financial resources.

2011-12 Create multiple tracks for moving people into and

out of HAP housing, considering short-term and long-term housing needs as well as partnerships with service providers.

Moving Forward Based on an evaluation of local needs, resources, and gaps, HAP will work with its stakeholders, jurisdictional partners and other partners to determine how its resources might be more strategically utilized and aligned with other community assets in the following ways:

Determine how many more households may be served through short-term and intermediate-term assistance.

2012-13 Implement a long-term strategy for HAP-served

populations who are aging and have increasing needs but do not yet require nursing care. Con-sider developing or renovating housing that al-lows elderly and disabled populations to transi-tion from independence to aging in place.

Ongoing Pursue HUD opportunities, including competitive

processes for funding, to serve specific popula-tions.

Measure effectiveness of different levels of sub-sidy for different populations in achieving the intended outcomes. Create metrics for success at the beginning of such local programming, budget funds for ongoing and regular data col-lection and evaluation, and evaluate conse-quences – intended and unforeseen – of such prioritization.

Background HAP currently uses waiting lists and lottery systems to allocate most of its housing resources, with some as-sistance targeted to populations with specific needs. While this will continue to be the approach for the major-ity of applicants, there are opportunities to align HAP’s resources with those of local partners who can provide services to improve housing and economic outcomes for low-income households, as well as to respond to emerging priorities in the community. There is also an opportunity to leverage housing resources to serve more households. Understanding that prioritizing additional housing resources would reduce the amount that is allocated to the general waiting list, most stakeholders agreed with the approach of increased prioritization.


83

7

Direction HAP will provide for core resident services, including enhanced property management to support housing stability and foster self-sufficiency, with its own staff and partner agencies. HAP will coordinate the delivery of other types of resident services and service-enriched housing through strategic partnerships with local providers.

Housing-Services Continuum

2

2010-11 Identify service gaps through annual planning,

determine which buildings and populations have the most need for on-site services coordinators (whether provided by HAP or through partners) and work to connect residents with appropriate service providers in the community.

Continue efforts to significantly broaden participation, and sharpen the service-delivery approach, in HAP’s self-sufficiency programs.

Pursue a partnership with Oregon’s workforce system to increase access for HAP participants in job development, training, and internship opportunities.

Advance current planning to enhance strategic partnerships. Assess needs across public housing and Section 8, as well as across population types, then develop and strengthen relationships with providers who can meet those needs.

2011-12 Enhance on-site resident services through co-

located partner agency staff and through volun-teerism in buildings serving elderly and disabled populations.

Ongoing When working with community-based providers,

HAP and those providers will determine the pa-rameters to ensure joint responsibility, clear ex-pectations, and mutual accountability, including provisions for specific metrics and outcomes.

Through annual planning, determine unmet resi-dent services needs and assess those most likely to be funded through philanthropic organi-zations. Work with partners to pursue mutual fundraising towards these ends. Explore oppor-tunities such as AmeriCorps and community ser-vice - oriented programs that leverage additional resources and opportunities for resident skill building.

Moving Forward HAP will continue providing core resident services in-house, while increasing its emphasis on strategic partnership development through the following activities:

Background In recent years, HAP has made progress in sharpening its focus around the provision of housing as its core competency and mission, while working with partners to provide needed services for residents and partici-pants. The strategic planning process affirmed that its stakeholders see HAP’s role as providing enhanced property management – connecting people to the services they need –and that local providers have the ex-pertise to meet other human service needs. With this clarity, HAP will move forward in deepening partner-ships that leverage greater resources than any one agency may be able to garner on its own and that move toward systemic solutions of the issues faced by the HAP community.


84

8

2010-11 Simplify the rent calculation method for public

housing and Section 8, in order to remove disincentives to employment for low-income families, as well as to make the process easier to understand, less prone to error, and less intrusive.

Continue to work with legal counsel, HAP staff and third party property managers to continually refine a livability and public safety focus and increase consistency in lease enforcement. Engage the landlord community to support lease and program enforcement.

2011-12 Work with residents and participants to define

mutual roles and responsibilities, and encourage resident involvement in establishing core values for apartment communities.

Ensure consistent application of HAP’s values and its relationship within the HAP community across all HAP properties, including those managed by third parties. Empower residents to communicate with their property managers in support of those values.

Implement a tiered self-sufficiency program with varying levels of service and connection to community partners depending on household needs and barriers to work. Implement a track that emphasizes the value of education and job training. Encourage efforts to leave housing assistance through increased self-sufficiency.

Partnership within the HAP Community

3 Direction HAP will strengthen its relationship with residents and program participants by working with them to develop a more defined set of mutual responsibilities, expectations and accountability.

Moving Forward HAP will build on the positive working relationship with its Resident Advisory Committee and on the feedback that residents and participants provided during the strategic planning process in the following ways:

Background HAP has recently increased efforts to engage the community of residents and participants in proactive com-munication and problem solving. Results have been positive and were reinforced by very strong interest in active participation during the strategic planning process, demonstrating a desire to partner in working for the betterment of the communities and the agency.

Increase efforts to engage the 10,000 children and youth living in public housing and Section 8 households, focusing on the areas of youth em-ployment, education, recreation, and positive community involvement. Connect parents and families with resources that serve youth.

2012-13 Empower members of the HAP community to

take more ownership of their communities and pilot incentives that encourage engagement to improve community livability and reinforce com-munity values.

Define and strengthen HAP’s volunteer program, both for members of the HAP community and for other local residents. Assess opportunities for volunteerism, volunteer recruitment and the use of stipends or incentives.

Develop resident and participant communications that reflect HAP’s expectations for its residents and participants as well as expectations that resi-dents and participants should have of HAP (including customer services standards). Revamp HAP’s internet presence, as well as its written communication and its orientation materials.

Ongoing

As opportunities arise, pursue resource develop-ment and ways to leverage HAP’s investment.


85

9

2010-11 Assess the impacts and costs of a name change

in order to facilitate a decision by HAP’s Board of Commissioners.

Jointly fund a City of Gresham staff position for housing and community development planning and to serve as a liaison between HAP and Gresham.

Actively explore opportunities for greater coordination and mutually beneficial activities outside of Multnomah County. Continue collaborative efforts with housing authorities in Clackamas, Washington and Clark Counties, including the consideration of creating a regionally-based Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) rent assistance program.

2011-12 Work with HUD to explore the creation of a

formal rent assistance consortium with local county housing authority partners.

Role in the Regional Housing Market

4

Ongoing Expand HAP’s role as a policy leader and

advocate on behalf of regional housing needs by identifying opportunities for more housing resources at a legislative and national level.

Build durable collaborations in mid and East-county based on mutual benefit and respect; alignment of policies, priorities, and resources; and responsiveness to local needs in keeping with HAP’s mission.

Consider using HAP’s capacity to assume the roles of master developer or asset manager for large, complex projects when requested by public and nonprofit partners.

Direction HAP will leverage its expertise in affordable housing operations, development, and rent assistance administration to further local and regional housing goals. HAP will increase its responsiveness to housing needs in mid-County and East County through the alignment of resources and coordination with local representatives. HAP will expand its work with neighboring counties when there are opportunities to collaboratively address issues on a regional basis. HAP will serve as a policy advocate and strategic partner in the metropolitan area, including acting as a funding champion.

Moving Forward HAP staff will strengthen existing connections and build new relationships to increase its ability to provide leadership and integration with the larger metropolitan area in the following ways:

Background HAP serves all of Multnomah County and used the strategic planning process to explore perceptions around its relationship outside of Portland proper, as well as interest in growing trends in regional planning and ser-vice delivery. Partners want to see HAP increase support of mid and East Multnomah County, as well as build a foundation for opportunities on a regional scale.


86

10

Jacob Fox, Portland Housing Bureau

Donita Fry, NAYA Family Center

Joanne Fuller, Department of Human Services, Multnomah County

Bob Gillespie, Oregon Housing and Community Services

Tim Gillette, Talbot, Korvola & Warwick, LLP

Michelle Haynes, REACH CDC

Jose Hernandez, El Programa Hispano

Kayse Jama, Center for Intercultural Organizing

Roy Jay, African American Chamber of Commerce

Thomas Jensen, CASA VIDA

Nathan Johnson, Boys and Girls Club

Marc Jolin, JOIN

Deborah Kafoury, Commissioner, Multnomah County

Komi Kalevor, Portland Housing Bureau

Beth Kaye, Portland Housing Bureau

Daniel Ledezma, office of City Commissioner Nick Fish

Michelle Lewis, Children's Justice Alliance

Mary Li, Community Services - Office of School & Community Partnerships, Multnomah County

Robert Liberty, Metro

Sgt. Marvin Madtson, Gresham Police Department

Traci Manning, Central City Concern

Andrew Mason, Open Meadow

Joy McCray, US Dept of Housing and Urban Development

Patricia McLean, Human Solutions

Ed McNamara, Turtle Island Development

Victor Merced, Oregon Housing and Community Services

Andy Miller, Portland Housing Bureau

Michael Parkhurst, City of Gresham

Nancy Pearson, Portland Youth Builders

Judi Pitre, Black United Fund

Chief Mike Reese, Portland Police Bureau

Jeff Reingold, Income Property Management

Sources of Stakeholder Input

External stakeholders

Mike Abbate, Gresham Planning Office

Kate Allen, Portland Housing Bureau

Trell Anderson, Clackamas County Housing Authority

Fran Ayaribil, Loaves and Fishes

Shane Bemis, Mayor, City of Gresham

Tony Bernal, Transition Projects Inc

Liora Berry, Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare

Kris Billhardt, VOA Home Free

Lauren Booth, Children's Justice Alliance

Tom Brenneke, Guardian Real Estate Services

Sam Brooks, Oregon Association of Minority Entrepreneurs

Sherrie Burrell, Dept of Human Services

Marj Cannon, Metropolitan Family Services

Paula Carder, PSU - College of Urban & Public Affairs

Brenda Carpenter, NW Pilot Project

Vince Chiotti, Oregon Housing and Community Services

Leslie Coefield, Lifeworks NW

Jeff Cogen, Chair, Multnomah County

Tanya Colie McGee, Providence Elder Place

Rick Crager, Oregon Housing and Community Services

Tom Cusack, US Dept of Housing and Urban Development, retired

Larry Dalton, Department of Human Services

Jean DeMaster, Human Solutions

Jillian Detweiler, TriMet

Eileen Devine, Veterans Administration

Phil Donovan, NW Public Affairs

Patricia Edge, Big Brothers - Big Sisters

Susan Emmons, NW Pilot Project

Rey Espana, NAYA Family Center

Ian Finch, NAYA Family Center

Nick Fish, Commissioner, City of Portland Housing Authority of PortlandBoard of Commissioners PacketSeptember 2010

87

11

Sources of Stakeholder Input

Molly Rogers, Housing Development Center

Zarod Rominski, Outside In

Alice Rouyer, City of Gresham Redevelopment Commission

Peggy Samolinski, SUN Schools

Nick Sauvie, ROSE CDC

Jill Sherman, Gerding Edlen Development Co.

MaryLee Stahl, Lifeworks NW

Jessica Stevens, Girl Scouts

Sarah Stevenson, Innovative Housing, Inc.

Susan Stoltenberg, Impact NW

Jonathan Trutt, NW Housing Alternatives

Val Valfre, Washington County Dept of Housing Services

Margaret Van Vliet, Portland Housing Bureau

Kelly Walker, Mount Hood Community College

Bob Walsh, Walsh Construction Co.

Becky Wehrli , Community Leader

Ramsay Weit, Community Housing Fund

Serena Wesley, Self Enhancement Inc

Jeri Williams, Office of Neighborhood Involvement

Jim Winkler, Winkler Development

Sue Wiswell, ROSE CDC

Amy Youngflesh, Portland Community College

Six members of the HAP community participated in Focus Groups; their names have been omitted to preserve their privacy.

Internal stakeholders

Board members (individual interviews)

Senior managers (questionnaires)

Employees (staff survey)

Union leaders (Small group interview)

Resident Advisory Committee

O’dell Carmicle

Irina Faer

LaTasha Frison

Alvaro Gongora

Myra Harrell Fleming

Anne Kornfeld

Darrell LaVallee

Benita Legarza

Terry McLain

Aloha Palmer

Martha Perez

Amie Pico

Patrick Smith

Listening Sessions with members of the HAP community

March 13, PCC Cascade Campus, 48 attendees

March 20, NW Children’s Theater, 28 attendees

March 21, Rockwood Branch of Multnomah County Library, 23 attendees

Survey of HAP residents

398 responses

Survey of Section 8 voucher-holders

1,942 responses

Online survey of community partners

80 responses

For more information about HAP’s strategic planning and implementation steps, contact: Michael Buonocore Program Director for Policy and Planning 503.802.8546 [email protected] Thank you! Housing Authority of Portland

Board of Commissioners PacketSeptember 2010

88

1

MEMORANDUM 10-09-05

DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Todd Salvo, Chief Financial Officer Peter Beyer, Controller SUBJECT: Motion to Approve FY 2010 Audited Financial Statements; Auditors' OMB

A-133 Compliance Report and Auditors' Report to the Audit and Finance Committee

AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Housing Authority of Portland Financial Statement Commentary For the year ended March 31, 2010 Financial Highlights The Authority’s Statement of Net Assets continued to reflect favorable liquidity and growth in net assets during 2010. Specifically: - Total assets increased $11.2 million from $343.8 million at March 31, 2009 to $355.0 million at March 31, 2010 primarily due to the increase in notes and accrued interest receivable of $8.8 million, cash and investments of $5.7 million, capital assets of $5.5 million and assets available for sale of $4.0 million. This was offset by a $13.6 million decrease in notes receivable - partnerships related to the payment of construction financing. - Total liabilities decreased from $183.0 at March 31, 2009 to $172.4 million at March 31, 2010 primarily due to the payment of bonds payable – partnerships of $13.6 million offset by an increase of accounts payable of $2.0 million. - Total operating revenues increased $3.8 million to $101.0 million as the Authority received new American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) operating subsidies of $3.1 million. - Total operating expenses of $105.1 million increased $4.4 million from the prior year, primarily due to higher housing assistance payments of $3.3 million and administration costs of $1.0 million.


89

2

- Operating results for 2010 yielded an operating loss of $4.1 million compared to an operating loss of $3.5 million for 2009. The operating loss in 2010 includes depreciation of $5.6 million. - Net assets grew $21.8 million to $182.7 million at March 31, 2010. This growth was primarily due to the proceeds from sale of public housing scattered site properties, HUD capital contributions and other non-operating contributions offset by the operating loss of $4.1 million. The Auditors have issued an opinion that the Authority’s basic financial statements present fairly the financial position of the Authority as of March 31, 2010. AUDITORS' OMB CIRCULAR A-133 COMPLIANCE REPORT The independent auditors conduct certain compliance tests and issue an Audit of Federal Awards in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. The independent auditors provided an opinion that the Authority was materially in compliance with the applicable requirements of each major federal program. However, the Auditors did identify three findings associated with this audit which are reflected in the report. AUDITORS REPORT TO THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE The auditors have issued a report that provides necessary communication on matters related to the conduct of the audit. There were no additional recommendations included in this report. MOTION TO APPROVE The Audit & Finance Committee recommends acceptance and approval of the FY 2010 Audited Financial Statements; Independent Auditors' OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Report and Independent Auditors' Report to the Audit & Finance Committee as presented.


90

1

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Michael Andrews, Director, Development & Community Revitalization Betty Dominguez, Assistant Director Development & Community

Revitalization SUBJECT: Authorizes the Executive Director to enter into a Development Agreement

and other documents related to a transaction with Habitat for Humanity Portland/Metro East, in connection with the affordable homeownership phase of a HOPE VI redevelopment of Hillsdale Terrace

Resolution 10-09-06 The Board is being asked to authorize the Executive Director to enter into a Development Agreement and other documents related to a transaction with Habitat for Humanity Portland/Metro East (Habitat for Humanity), in connection with the affordable homeownership phase of a HOPE VI application for the redevelopment of Hillsdale Terrace, to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in November of this year. Background Subsequent to HUD’s notification in May that the Housing Authority of Portland (HAP) did not win its HOPE VI application, staff engaged in several follow-up conversations with HUD representatives concerning how the next application might be made more competitive. Given that points were not won in the category of “off-site housing,” staff began to develop a strategy for addressing that weakness; namely to acquire site control over a property in the vicinity of the primary development that would allow for the incorporation of off-site housing into the revitalization plan. HAP and Habitat for Humanity have enjoyed a mutually successful relationship through the course of HAP’s previous two HOPE VI projects. Enlisting their participation in the redevelopment of Hillsdale Terrace was a natural fit and staff approached Habitat for Humanity to determine their interest. The Site Habitat for Humanity attempted previously to acquire a site located at 6875 SW Capitol Hill Road, owned by the Greater Portland Bible Church (Church) and spent time Housing Authority of PortlandBoard of Commissioners PacketSeptember 2010

91

2

analyzing development options for the property. However, the parties could not come to agreement on the purchase price and Habitat for Humanity abandoned the attempt. Following staff’s outreach to them, Habitat for Humanity contacted the Church and learned that the property was still for sale, at the same price of $200,000. The half-acre site currently houses one single-family home which is vacant. Habitat would demolish the single structure and at its sole expense, design and construct seven affordable homeownership units within three multi-family buildings. The site, a half mile from Hillsdale Terrace, is ideally located for affordable homeownership well situated for inclusion in Hillsdale’s overall redevelopment plan. The Development Agreement The Church (Seller) has agreed to a sales price of $200,000. The Seller would enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Habitat for Humanity, while HAP would enter into a Development Agreement with Habitat. The Development Agreement and Purchase and Sale Agreement are necessary to demonstrate site control to HUD. The documents preserve HAP’s financial role in the project, which would be conditioned upon an award of HOPE VI funds. A $100,000 earnest money deposit would be due to the Sellers at execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement; this deposit would be funded by HAP. A Deed of Trust will be recorded against the property by Habitat for Humanity as a means of securing the $100,000. Additionally, Habitat for Humanity has agreed to support HAP with the HOPE VI application as appropriate, including a letter of support to be included in the application. In the event HAP receives a HOPE VI award, Habitat for Humanity would proceed to purchase the property, funding the balance of the purchase price at closing within a certain time frame following the announcement of the HOPE VI award. Habitat would proceed to develop seven homeownership units on the site within two years of the site acquisition and within the timeframes mandated by the HOPE VI award. Habitat would provide former Hillsdale Terrace residents a first right to purchases these homes. HAP’s $100,000 initial investment would remain in the project. Should HAP not receive a HOPE VI award, the Seller would have the option to either accept the $100,000 earnest money deposit as the total purchase price for the property and proceed to closing with Habitat, or terminate the Purchase and Sale Agreement and return the $100,000 earnest money deposit to Habitat for Humanity at which time the Trust Deed would be released. If a HOPE VI award is not received, regardless of the Seller’s decision, the $100,000 would be returned to HAP by Habitat for Humanity as soon as possible and no later than 9 months from the date of the HUD announcement. Policy Implications Gaining site control of this parcel through a Development Agreement with Habitat for Humanity will allow for off-site, homeownership units to be incorporated into the HOPE VI redevelopment, thus improving the competitiveness of the HOPE VI application by making it eligible for an additional point. Further, this partnership will result in an increase in the number of affordable homeownership units in Southwest Portland, a relatively affluent community with access to quality schools, services and public transportation, and present an opportunity for returning Hillsdale residents to achieve homeownership. Housing Authority of PortlandBoard of Commissioners PacketSeptember 2010

92

3

Budget Implications and Financial Impact on HAP HAP will advance $100,000 to Habitat. If HAP’s HOPE VI application is successful the funds will remain in the Habitat project as a permanent contribution in accordance with the terms of the Development Agreement. If the application is not successful the advance will be recovered from Habitat within 270 days of the announcement by HUD. Risks and Opportunities There is little risk to HAP in this partnership. With a successful HOPE VI application the funds become a permanent contribution. An unsuccessful application would result in a return of the funds by the Church to Habitat for Humanity in accordance with the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the two organizations, and ultimately to HAP by Habitat for Humanity per the Development Agreement. The funds will be collateralized by the property giving added security to Habitat for Humanity. Operational Implications There are no operational implications to HAP. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 10-09-06.


93

4

RESOLUTION 10-09-06

AUTHORIZES THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A TRANSACTION WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY PORTLAND/METRO EAST, IN CONNECTION WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP PHASE OF A HOPE VI REDEVELOPMENT OF HILLSDALE TERRACE WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of Portland (the “Authority”) seeks to encourage the provision of long-term housing for low-income persons residing in the City of Portland, Oregon (“City”); and WHEREAS, HAP intends to submit a HOPE VI application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the redevelopment of its Hillsdale Terrace property located in SW Portland, by November 22, 2010; and WHEREAS, HAP further intends to provide for the inclusion of off-site housing and affordable homeownership in the Hillsdale Terrace revitalization plan; and WHEREAS, HAP proposes to enter into a Development Agreement with Habitat for Humanity Portland/Metro East (Habitat for Humanity) which result shall be the development by Habitat for Humanity of seven affordable homeownership units on property located in close proximity to Hillsdale Terrace, and WHEREAS, Habitat for Humanity has agreed to provide former Hillsdale Terrace residents a first right to purchase said homeownership units; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Portland authorizes the Executive Director to enter into a Development Agreement and other documents related to a transaction with Habitat for Humanity Portland/Metro East, in connection with the affordable homeownership phase of a HOPE VI redevelopment of Hillsdale Terrace. Adopted: September 21, 2010 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND Lee E. Moore, Sr., Chair Attest: ____________________________ Steven D. Rudman, Secretary


94

1

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Michael Andrews, Director, Development & Community Revitalization

Donna Kelley, Asset Manager Julie Livingston, Project Manager SUBJECT: Authorizes installation of snow guards, photovoltaic panels, and

measurement & verification equipment at the Humboldt Gardens mixed-use building

Resolution 10-09-07 The Board of Commissioners is requested to authorize the Executive Director to execute a Change Order to Contract IR0008 between HAP and Walsh Construction Company in the amount of $267,050. Background Humboldt Gardens is a 130-unit mixed-finance property located at the intersection of North Vancouver Avenue and Alberta Street. It was developed with a $16.9 million 2005 federal HOPE VI grant. Humboldt Gardens is one of HAP’s most environmentally-friendly developments, with a focus on stormwater management, indoor air quality, and water and energy efficiency. The property is the site of the City of Portland’s first combined public/private bioswale; housing units are continuously ventilated; only-formaldehyde-free and VOC-free interior finishes were specified; dual-flush toilets and horizontal axis washing machines were installed; and high-efficiency windows, insulation, light fixtures, and appliances were installed. The development has been certified as a Green Community by Enterprise Community Partners and the US Green Building Council is currently reviewing the mixed-use building for LEED certification. Walsh Construction Company was the Construction Manager/General Contractor. The final Certificate of Occupancy—for the 56-unit mixed-use building—was issued in August 2008. When the contract was fully reconciled and closed out in December 2008, the CM/GC returned approximately $400,000 in savings to HAP. After the extent of savings was known, staff and the design team reviewed the construction add-back list and revisited project goals. Snow guards, a solar water pre-


95

2

heat system and measurement & verification equipment had been on the add-back list. The decision to include or not include these items had been made early in construction, before the extent of savings was known. The development team decided these three items were the best post-occupancy investments for the following reasons:

Snow guards: Approximately 50% of the mixed-use building has a sloped, standing seam metal roof. There is a risk that built up snow will slide off the metal roof on to the sidewalk below during heavy snow events. Snow guards will prevent this from happening. 12 kW photovoltaic array: The roof of the mixed-use building has very good solar access, but installation of a solar water pre-heat system would require invasive plumbing work throughout the building and the replacement of brand new equipment. The design team researched options that would be less expensive, work with existing equipment, and provide some financial benefit to the agency. The 12kW array is relatively simple to install and will offset the house meter, lowering the property’s electrical bill by approximately $100/month. Measurement & verification equipment: Residents receive utility bills directly. The collection of data by site staff is possible, but is time-consuming and interferes with other priorities. The installation of simple data collection equipment will allow HAP to (1) identify leaks and insure building systems are operating at peak efficiency, (2) measure our return on investment for building systems, and (3) target super-user residents for water and energy conservation education.

In order to maintain all warrantees, work will be completed by Walsh Construction Company under the terms of the original construction contract. Budget Implications Funds are available to pay for all improvements. These funds are available only to the Humboldt Gardens development and are only available for construction-related activities. Fully loaded costs are as follows:

Snow guards: $20,830 12 kW photovoltaic array: $116,167. This may be offset by incentives and tax credits totaling $42,918. Measurement & verification equipment: $130,053

Risks and Opportunities This construction savings is development proceeds. If it is not spent on construction, it must be returned to either or both the US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HOPE VI grant partner) and the State of Oregon’s Housing & Community Services Department (Low Income Housing Tax Credit partner). Spending the money as planned on the measurement and verification equipment will provide real data for staff in REO and DCR on which to base future decisions on the efficacy of construction materials and building systems.


96

3

Conclusion/Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 10-09-07.


97

4

RESOLUTION 10-09-07 RESOLUTION 10-09-07 AUTHORIZES THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A CHANGE ORDER TO CONTRACT IR0008 BETWEEN HAP AND WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE HUMBOLDT GARDENS MIXED-USE BUILDING WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of Portland is managing general partner of the Humboldt Gardens mixed-finance development in North Portland; and WHEREAS, Walsh Construction Company was the Construction Manager/General Contractor for the construction of Humboldt Gardens in 2006-2008; and WHEREAS, the CM/GC returned approximately $400,000 in saving to HAP following close-out of the construction contract; and WHEREAS, the money is considered development proceeds and may only be spent on construction-related activities; and WHEREAS, HAP staff and the Humboldt Gardens design team have researched cost-effective measures to improve both public safety and the energy performance of the Humboldt Gardens mixed-use building; and WHEREAS, Walsh Construction Company can complete the construction improvements under the terms of the initial CM/GC contract; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Portland, Oregon authorizes the Executive Director to execute a Change Order with Walsh Construction Company in the amount of $267,050. ADOPTED: September 21, 2010 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND Lee E. Moore, Sr., Chair ATTEST: Steven D. Rudman, Secretary


98

1

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Michael Andrews, Director, Development and Community Revitalization John Manson, Assistant Director, Construction Services SUBJECT: Authorize Site Improvements at Jeanne Anne Apartments Resolution 10-09-08 The Board of Commissioners is requested to authorize HAP to enter into a contract with the lowest responsible bidder for site improvements at the Jeanne Anne Apartments. Background In July of 2010 the Board approved the acquisition of the Jeanne Anne Apartments. The purpose of the purchase was to replenish the stock of public housing resulting from the sales of single family homes per the Public Housing Preservation Initiative (PHPI). Previously, in July of 2007, HAP adopted PHPI designed in part to plan, fund, and address unmet capital needs in public housing. The sales of those homes will provide in part, the funding for the purchase of the apartments and for the proposed modifications and upgrades.

The property is comprised of 46 units (23 three-bedroom, 20 two-bedroom, and 3 one-bedroom) in six buildings that ring two common areas—one grassy and one with a pool. Unit square footages are generous (1,149, 857, and, 723, respectively). Located on East Burnside in the heart of the Rockwood neighborhood, immediate surrounding uses are primarily multi-family with some commercial/retail along the nearest cross-street, 181st Avenue. The MAX light rail system runs down Burnside and bus transportation is available on 181st. The scope of work, developed jointly by staff of the Development and Community Revitalization (DCR) and Real Estate Operations (REO) departments, is being divided into two phases. Phase I will take place immediately and will address the needs of the exterior. These tasks will include providing ADA access around the site; decommissioning and backfilling the pool, and then replacing it with play space and equipment; fencing; landscaping; security lighting; a new garbage container area; and some deck repair.


99

2

Phase II will focus on the interiors and will include selective rehab in all of the units. Phase II will also renovate three units into ADA units and convert one apartment into an office/community space. This phase will be bid in October and go to the Board in November. In support of the renovation effort, staff solicited proposals from three Architectural and Engineering teams from our list of on-call architects and selected Iselin Architects to work through program and schematic design, preparation and issuance of bid documents, and selection of a low-bid contractor. Hahn/G2 is providing environmental consulting services, and AKS Engineers is providing landscape design. All of these consultants will stay on board for Phase II. A bid solicitation notice for Phase I construction work was advertised in early September in the Daily Journal of Commerce, The Skanner, the Portland Observer, the Asian Reporter and the El Hispanic News. Bids were due on September 17. HAP staff is in the process of performing due diligence to determine the lowest cost, responsive and responsible bidder. Initial results, highlighting the apparent low bidder, will be presented at the Board meeting. Upon approval from the Board and completion of due diligence, HAP will issue a Notice to Proceed no later than October 4. Improvements The Jeanne Anne site improvements will accomplish two items of significant importance. The first is to make the entire site ADA compliant. This is a prerequisite for HAP to convert from a market-rate property to public housing. The second matter the site improvements will focus on is safety. At this time, there are a lot of overgrown trees and shrubs along the property line and adjacent to the buildings. These will be trimmed or removed. In addition, there is free access across the entire property that transients and non-tenants take advantage of. A fence will be added to deter this foot traffic. The guidelines the team is using to accomplish this is through the use of the City of Portland Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) program with the goal to make the site tenant-friendly and safe. Risks and Opportunities The project will be funded through PHPI, based on a budget established in July. Acquisition has taken place leaving improvements to be accomplished in two phases. The project’s two-phase approach will mitigate risk in a couple of ways. First, it will allow the site work to start earlier to take advantage of more favorable weather in the fall. The second risk that will be minimized is that costs for the first phase will be used to guide programming and final design for Phase II. Should the costs come in higher or lower then expected the program for Phase II can be modified to fit the remaining budget. Residents will not be relocated for Phase I work. All of the work will take place on the exterior. HAP DCR and REO staff will coordinate work with the contractor to ensure residents are safe and not obstructed by construction activities.


100

3

Conclusion/Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 10-09-08.


101

4

RESOLUTION 10-09-08

RESOLUTION 10-09-08 AUTHORIZES THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT JEANNE ANNE APARTMENTS WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of Portland, Oregon (HAP) owns and operates Jeanne Anne Apartments, a 46-unit housing property; and WHEREAS, HAP solicited, received, and opened bids for site improvements at Jeanne Anne in compliance with HAP’s Public Contracting Rules; and WHEREAS, HAP staff is in the process of reviewing bids to determine the lowest responsive bid and responsible bidders; and WHEREAS, in accordance with HAP’s Public Contracting Rules, a contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and WHEREAS, HAP Construction Services and Real Estate Operations staff collaborated on a scope of improvements designed to address ADA and safety requirements to better meet the needs of residents; and WHEREAS, Jeanne Anne site improvements are consistent with goals and priorities established in HAP’s Public Housing Preservation Initiative; and WHEREAS, approval by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Portland is required prior to the execution of construction contracts exceeding $100,000, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Portland hereby authorizes the Executive Director to execute a contract with the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for this project. Adopted: September 21, 2010 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND _________________________________ Lee E. Moore, Sr., Chair Attest: ______________________________ Steven D. Rudman, Secretary


102

Date post:	18-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Housing Authority of Portland Board of Commissioners Meeting · Talbot, Korvola & Warwick...

Documents