Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1981.04.01 - 13901L, Chairman MISCELF:U.,01JS RESOLUTION 81 14 BY: TTeT IC SERVICF: T1 RI IN RE: C .•MMTINITY DEVELOeFiLr micHICAN HOUSING COALITIOi.,ii TO TitlF COUNTY BOAH) OF COTUNTSSIONERS April 2, 1981 Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentl , men: 1.,T=EAS, the County as a. recipient of Ccdmns:i :d•Yelopment. funds is responsible for increasing housing opportunities in the County; and WhEREAS, fe iiichlau Housing Coalition, Inc has developed a contract with the lord Foundation for the assessmsn', of successes and failures in assisted housing; and UFfiliLAS, the 0a.!,!nd County CO MDUR itv Development Division is sec t. • assistance U1 increasir huu :jug opportunities in the County partf.eutarly in • field of new construction of assisted housing; and WhERRAS, the program is currently being ciemds‘ 1 in an efficient and prof ens Lana 1 manner with. the Ford Found at ion; and WHEREAS, this activity is a recommended and eligible emnenditure of romimn - 'Ay Development funds and funds are currently avamlahi e fmu.' Fn • .F.esU._ prior year allocations. WHEREAS, this activity has been approved by the Oakland County Community Development dousing Council. BOW THEREFORE RE IT RESOLVED that the Chairperson of the Oakland County Commis execute the necessary a.gre ,.!,•••! hLh Lime Coalition, Inc. Co, the implementation of the program to be completed. withim six (0 month period at a cost not to exceed $15,253,00. Mr. Chair , on behalf of the Public Services Committee, I move the adoption of the fore•oing resolution. ,-, 1, Public Services Committee Agreement between Michigan Housing Coalition, Inc. and the Counte_of through the Community Development Division. This agreement is designed to assist the County in its housing assistance implementation efforts. The County, upon receipt of Community Development Block Grant funds, is responsible for the expansion of housing opportunities for low and moderate income households. In past years, the County has had difficulty implementing the housing strategy. This agreement will provide assistance in the implementation . efforts. In summary, the Michigan Housing Coalition will provide the following three services: 1) Evaluate the County's developer packet and propose changes needed to maximize the packets' effective use. 2) Assess attempts at assisted housing in Oakland County since 1975; identify specific reasons for noncompletions and present findings to the County. 3) Provide a list of sources of infoLfflation at local, state and federal levels. This agreement totals $15,253.00; the final report will be completed in a six month period. This agreement was developed by the Housing Assistance Plan subcommittee, comprised of ten representatives of the participating communities. The Housing Council, comprised of all 45 participating communities approved the agreement on December 15, 1980. Recommendations on Allocation of Block Grant Contingency Funds to Eligible Projects. The subcommittee on Finance (representing ten participating comee held several meetings and has reviewed several requests from local units for allo- cation of -a portion of the contingency funding for projects. ' The committee has attempted to restrict its approvals to projects that would advance or enhance the construction of publicly assisted housing in one or more of the cooperating local units. The committee sought to keep individual allocations to a maximum of $40,000. Funds will be used for projects of long lived benefit and, of course, projects within the HUD Block Grant Guidelines. The committee now has three projects to present. 1. Sidewalk construction on public right-of-way to an existing senior bou3,7117 site $7,600--in the Village of Lake Orion. 2. Beautification and major landscaping on public right-of-way around the newly opened senior citizen housing center--$40,000--(this is one-half of originally requested project) in the City of Hazel Park. 3. Replacement of an overage undersized water main in public right-of-way to meet requirement of water supply and fire flow for an approved public housing project application--$32,250--in the City of Ferndale. By way of review, this committee has previously approved the following for contingencies: City of Oak Park $28,000 Neighborhood stabilization program City of Walled Lake $40,000 Sidewalks adjacent to senior hoes City of Farmington $40,000 Sidewalk and barrier removal near senior citizen housing The Housing Council representing the 45 participating communities approved the agreement on December 15, 1980. ' MEB/sjb n- Detroit, Michigan 6226 Development Assessment/Developer Outreach: Proposed Services of the MHC Development Project for the Oakland County Community Development Program's HousLng Assistance Plan Implementation Activities,. Hay 14, 1980; Revised August 26, 1980. Purposes of the Service 0 This proposal has developed from correspondence and conversations among Oakland County Community Development staff, M5C staff and Board nembers, and the Housing Assistance Flan Subcommiptee of the County's Rousing Council. It describes possible Olitional activities within the MHO Development Project specifiCally de- ei:ged to assist Oakland County in its housing assistance imple- rentation efforts -- particularly in the field of new construction of assisted family housing. Descriptions of NEC's overall develop- rent project are available on request. That project is funded at a retropolitan-wide level by a grant from the Ford Foundation. T The proposed -MHO services to Oakland County would have two pnrposes: - A. To evaluate the impact of the county's developer packets in eliciting developer interest in doing assisted develop- rents, and to propose ary changes needed to naximi2,e the effective use of such materials by the county; and B. TO do a relatively complete and concrete assessment of attempts at assisted housing developo'ent in Oakland County since 1975 -- those completed and not completed, to identify specific reasons for noncompletions among developments pro- - posed, and present implications of these findings for county action. C. TO provide a list of sources of•tnformation at the local, state, and federal level, concerning assisted housing development programs and their • implementation. Description of the Services A. Developer Packet Evaluation The developer packets used by the County stprtin7 in 1979 will b- evaluated in several Nr.ys: - 1. Through feadbael( from seleCced developers, builders, and other professionals par!Acioatioo, in the NC Develoomet Ei-ojec"c._ (see Attachment A, list of prpjeet Iarticipeets 2. Through analysis of the responses or lack of response from developers who were sent the packets, in relation to the . size, experience, and other known characteristics of the developers; 3. Through interviews 'with each developer Who received a packet, covering several issue areas: a. The developer's awareness of, and experience in, government financed and insured assisted housing; b. The developer's stated reasons for their response non-response to the packets; c. Issues underlying the developer's stated. reasons, related to his/her styles of initiating and planning development, approach to government programs and officials, understanding of the block grant program In Oakland County, etc.; d. The developer's perceptions of how the county can best facilitate their participation in government assisted femily housing development, particularly J n the present period of econoltic constriction and . - high interest rates. 4. Through examination of examples of developer outreach activities used in other jurisdictions in the nation. 5. The final report of the project will include a detailed . - presentation of the data collected on developer res ,00nse, vith.specific recoM'mendations for changes in the county's packet and its use in developer outreach activities. Note: -Central to the MC analysis of developer response/non-response will be the experience and judgement of developers participating in the MC Development Project, rather than only the input of non-developers. e B. Development ASsessment Under this proposed set of MEC services, the Coalition's Ford Founda- tion-funded assessment of successes and failures in assisted fpetly housing development will be enlarged in Oakland County ---from the sarple of 3 to 6 such development efforts, to a relatively complete look at such development attempts since 1975 In addit'on to the following kinds of data, this service .can provide the start of an assisted housing "tracking system" for the county, retrospect- ively to 1975. The following steps are proposed: -1. Developirent of an inventory of all proposals subnitted since 1975 for new or substentially rehebilitated assisted Lousing ie2 Oakland County, indicating: a. Developer/Sponsor b. Proposed location c. Develop-,ent plan description d. Government programs to have been used e. Outcome: i. Approved & completed . ii. Approved & pending . . iii. Denied, by level of denial and reason(s) iv. Withdrawn, by stage of withdrawal and reason(s) Note: Insofar as the above inventory information is available centrally and pertains to proposed assisted family developments,' it will be provided at no charge to the county under the MC Ford grant workplan. Additional inventory items win be billable to the county under this proposed contract for services with MEC. It is expected that this inventory will yield 15 to 25 development proposals since 1975 in Oakland county, approximately 6 of which will have actually been built or will be pending during this contract. . 2. Data on each of the proposed developments in the county would be gathered through agency and NEC file searches, interviews with developers, sponsors, and investors; and interviews with local officialsand other citizens involved - with the developments. Information would be gathered in the following categories: a. Site (selection, control, preparation) b. Design (basis, -changes, source) c. Financing (choice, availability, process) d. -Market (identification, rnrketing, income mix/subsidization e. Approval (administrative, policy level, community) f. Development (technique) 3, Data collection instruments designed and tested under the EEC Ford grant would be used to identify obstacles encountered in Oakland County attempts to do subsidi ° development, and whether and how such problems were overcome, for each of the developments studied. 4. The final report under the contract will include sum -naries - cif data collected for each attempted development andanalysis of key factors related to the development's success or failure. . C. Resource Listing Under this item, requested by the HAP Subcommittee of the County's Housing Council, MEC will compile a detailed listing of resources related to assisted housing programs for use by County and municipal staff. The listing will include the following kinds of information: 1. Listings for ..i Farmers Rome Administration, and Michigan State Housing Development Authority; 2. Listings arranged also by specific program Section 80 Sec. 235, Sec. 515, etc.); Whenever possible„specific staff names, addresses and phone numbers will be included, and arrPnged in auch a way as to permit updating of the directory. D. Contract Administration And Reporting Procedures 1. To .simplify the process of making progress reports and invoicing contract costs, IC recommends that these two functions be combined, and done on a monthly basis. Each monthly regular submission, therefore, would include the following items: a. List of specific achievements under each activity area listed in the contract; b. Current month and contract-to-date itemi- zation of expenses in carrying out activities; c. Invoice for current nonth's expenses. 2. Final written reports on the results of the contract. shall be initially submitted in draft form to the County, for joint review with MiIC, prior to issuance as reports in their final form (these reports are not the sane as the monthly reports of achievement 3. MEC shar be responsible for attending meetings of the County Housing Council and Citizen Advisory Committee - to report on the results of work carried out under this contract. 4. The final written report of this project shall be produced in a high quality, bound format, in sufficient quantity for distribution to appropriate parties in the county and participating jurisdictions; 5. The final payment (10 percent of contract amount) shall be paid only after submission of a satisfactory final re -soIL, and may be reduced in areunt by the CD:134-; ifi is not submitted on schedule without, pricf aeseet of County representatives. g- Anticipated Monthly Expene 2 >nt Category/Activity , 33 i 33 Goo ICHIGAN 0USING COALITION: °posed Oakland County Development Services Contract; Monthly Activity & Spending Plan Administration $ 720 Overall Coordination & Reporting (8 hours professional time per month X 6 months 0 $15/hr.) Clerical Support (non-CETA) . 1092 (6 llours clerical time per week X 26 weeks C $7/hr.) • Office Rent (approx, 15 percent of tot!%1 rent charge Office Supplies 180 Office Eouipment (file cabinets) 180 Fringe Expenses (15 percent Of &T personnel) 1 ;650 Phone Toll Calls 300 Postage ], TOTAL ADMINISTRATION: $ 4,632 Program Implementation L)cvolopor Packcd EvalLtatl,on 6o 120 120 120 120 120 120 182 182 182 182 182 182 75 75 75 75 " 75 75 30 30 30 30 30 30 go 90 275 275 275 275 275 275 . 50 50 50 50 50 50 10 : 10 10 10 10 10 8.32 2'32 7 2 742 Collection & analysis of feedback from advisors •40 hours) Goo Goo Travel: 200 mi. e 19 Analysie of response/noa-response of dcvolopers in comparison with developer chamctorit3tic (4O hour) Anticipated Monthly Expense rt Thtf_Tr.‘7../Activity 45o 45o 450 95 95 95 300 300 300 100 100 100 Goo Goo Goo Goo 48 48 48 45 600 48 900 Goo. 48 Research and compile listing within final report; 24 hours 180 lao• 360 Production of Final Report Cof;t11 of printing and binding report 07AL 170:717,CT .7PIEMNTATI0N cl. Ad 1,59 500 o 621 500 3,4-0 C Oakland County Development Services Contract; Monthly Activity & Spending Plan 3. Interviews & analyses with each developer (30 G 3 hours each) 90 hours 1/350 Travel: 30 .X 50 miles G 190 285 4. Examine developer outreach elsewhere • 60 hours 900 Purchase related publications 300 5. Write portion of final report with • c7ecif1e recommendations; Go hours 900 7i:•ve:t.o .I.,rmnt Assessment 1. Do Inventory of Attempted Developments , (covered in MHC Ford Foundation Grant) 2. •Collect data on Oakland County developments and proposals not 'covered by Ford' grant; est. 15 developments X 16 hours; 240 hours 3,600 Travel: 100 mi. X 15 © 190 280 Analyze data for patterns and write df,ngs and. implications within final report; Go hours HmIcing Program Resource Listing xic 900 Nichi.7.an Housin7. Coalition -- Develo:-.en_yro`ect Participants in 1979 Project Planning Sessions 1. Builders, Developers, Architects and other Development Professionals Norman Naimark, Builder and Chairperson, Michigan Housing Coalition Development Committee Emanuel Ravet, North Cranbrook Associates Horace Rodgers, development attorney - Leonard Siegal, architect Leo Sklar, North Cranbrook Associates Robert Tucker, architect 2. Local Governments and their Contracting Agencies • John Madole, Director, Oakland County Community Development Program Marcia Berkley, staff, Oakland County Community Development Program Terrance N. Jarvis, Coordinator, Wayne County Community Development Program Joseph Sutschek, Acting City Administrator, City of Southfield William Rose, Community Development Director, City of Centerline and past president, Mich. Community Development Directors Association Marjorie Maas, staff, Downriver Community Conference 3. Housing Finarice Agencies Stephen W. Brown : Area Manager, Detroit Area Office ; HUD Richard Goodwin : Colft:nrnity Planning & Development, ETD A.O. Les Berman ; Community Planning & Development, -HUD A.O. Bella Marshall, Director, Detroit Office, Michigan State Housing Development Authority • 4. Areawide Planning Agency - Robert O. McMahon, Housing Programs Manager, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) - Members of SEMCOGis Housing & Community Development Advisory Subcommittee (elsewhere on list: Berkley, Maas : Rose ; Schrupp ; Steiner) • 5. Independent Non-Profit Agencies Sharon Howell, Professor of Speech Communication, Oakland University, and }WC member Edward J. Kaczperski, EEC Board Member and Executive Director ; Nev Haven Area Non-Profit Housing Corporation Joyce Nittenthal, MHC Board Member, Chairperson of MEC Oaviand County Monitoring Committee Clifford C. Schrli.pp, Director, Fair Housing Center and riC Board Member Frank E. Steiner ; Executive Director, Michigan Eo•'sing Coalitie7. #81114 April 2, 1981 Moved by Lanni supported by Price the resolution be adopted. Moved by P-rice supported by Moore the resolution be referred back to Public Services Committee. A sufftctent majority not having voted therefor, the motion failed. Vote on resolution: AYES': Aaron, Doyon, Moore, Per inoff, Pernick, Price. (6) NAYS; Caddell, Cagney, DiGiovanni, Fortino, Gabler, Gosling, Hobart, Jackson, Kasper, Lanni, McDonald, Moffitt, Montante, Murphy, Olsen, Page, Patterson, Peterson, Whitlock, Wilcox. (20)_ A sufficient majority not having voted therefor, the resolution was not adopted.