Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-12-19; City Council; 5700; Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan10 CITY OF CARLSBAD Initial AGENDA BILL NO: Jr 70 0 Dept. Hd. _ Cty. . Atty DATE: December 13, 797R Cty. Mgr. DEPARTMENT: Redevelopment/Planning SUBJECT: AFFIRMATIVE FAIR HOUSING MARKETING PLAN Statement of the :latter The Redevelopment Coordinator has completed his research into the above noted subject. Based upon the attached report it appears as though the County is justified in requiring the City to have an affirmative fair housing marketing plan as previously outlined. In addition, newly adopted State housing element guidelines will require that the City have some form of affirmative marketing program as part of a housing element implementation package by the end of 1979. The options available at this time are: 1. Adopt the County program and contract with them for administration. 2. -Formulate and administer a local program. 3. Withdraw from participation in the Block Grant Program. Exhibit: Redevelopment Coordinator's memo dated December 21,•1978 Recommendation If Council desires to continue to receive HCD funding, then it should direct staff to prepare documents for adoption and local administration of an AFHMP. Council action: 12-19-78 Council directed staff to prepare documents for adoption and local administration of an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan. Memorandum Date: December 12, 1978 To: Paul Bussey, City Manager From: Jack Henthorn, Redevelopment Coordinator Subject: Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan At it's meeting of December 5, 1978, Council was advised of the County's policy requiring that Housing and Community Development Block Grant recipients comply with the County's Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan, or formulate a similar plan for local administration. On December 8, 1978, I met with a representative of the Contract Compliance office to discuss the AFHMP and it's impact upon the city's development review process. of primary concern was whether or not a less complex system could be utilized to meet the combined requirements of the Federal, State and County levels. Historical Perspective In 1972, as a condition of receiving funds from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Developmen, the County prepared documents which would insure affirmative marketing of housing. in 1974 a program was adopted to ensure receipt of HCD funds. It was subsequently found that the State pre-empts local entry into this area through the Rumford Act and specifically reserves sanction activity for itself. On January 12, 1977, the State Fair Employment Practices Comission found the County in violation of State statute. This put the County into the position of having a document which was acceptable to the Federal Government, but deemed to violate State statute. In turn, the County could not, by Federal regulations, pass responsibility onto the State. The County subsequently petiti,ned the State for permission to administer an AFHMP for purposes of obtaining Feaeral funding This gave rise to a City of Sari Diego/County/Building Contractor's Association/HUD/State of California dialogue. As a result of this effort a cooperative venture between government and builders was developed which enables funding to be received through an AFHM program based upon advertising and education. PURPOSE Builders utilizing any type of Federal or State funding are currently required to meet the requirements outlined in the County's document. The effect of the AFHMP is basically to ensure that conventional developers undertake efforts to promote their projects to all segments of the population. It is important to note that neither the City nor the County can exercise any sanctions against developers who do not comply with the AFHMP. In fact, this total area is reserved to the State. IMPACT Although the packet forwarded is rather voluminous, when the process was explained by tha County staff it appeared rather simple. The filing process entails approximately 1 to 3 hours of time dependent upon the size of the project, the existence of demographic data, and the builder/developer's past involve- ment with the process. According to County Staff, most builders are encouraged to process through the Local Building Contractor's Association which will process the development for a fee of less than five dollars per unit. In addition to lowering the cost to the developer by making their services available, the program reduces the cost to the governmental entity due to BCA's familiarity with the program. CONCLUSION From research to date and the meeting of December 8, 1978, it is concluded that AFHMP is a legitimate requirement relative to HCD funding. As noted in the Historical Perspective section above, the requirement stems from the original Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and is complicated by State statute. The County staff indicates that the provisions of the AFHMP need apply only to development initiated after adoption of the plan by the City. Therefore, only initial sales of new development would be subject to the provisions of the AFHMP. OPTIONS ANALYSIS r2he County indicates that in order to meet the HUD/State/County guidelines, the following options are available: (1) Adopt the County AFHMP and contract with the County for administration. (2) Formulate and administer a local program. (3) withdraw from participation in the Block Grant Program. -2- The County has indicated a willingness to administer the AFHMP for the City on a cost basis via a mutually approved agreement. At this point in time, the County cannot provide an estimate of costs. In addition, no determination has been made edas to hetser their cost would include overhead or be made up Of only. Further, the contract approach raises questions of whether or not future changes in the County program would reflect local concerns. This is especially true in terms of the level of informa- tion required to be filed and processing/procedural changes. Local administration of the program would undisputedly ensure local control of all aspects of the program, including its inclusion as a part of the City's overall Housing Element revision program. In light of recent changes in State Statute, the City is faced with subs•:antially revising its Housing Element to bring it into compliance with recently formulated State HUD guidelines. One portion of the guidelines deals with affirmative action to ensure that housing is available to all segments of the community. The program offered by the County or a model appears to address and meet the state requirement. It appears as though local administratio. of an AFHMP in conjunction with the Carlsbad Housing Authority's involvement in Section 8 and Section 23 program would provide a fairly comprehensive approach to meeting the new Housing Element requirements. Since the City/Housing authority structure is currently operational the costs associated with administration of a local program should be minimal. In fact, the majority of the costs would in all proba- bility be related to file space and clerical activity associated with filing. The actual processing would be accomplished via form letters and check lists. The third option available is to forego further expenditure of block grant funding. This option would prevent future expenditure of grant funding. Dependent upon the determination of the County this could jeopardize up to $360,000.00 in funding, i.e. years 3, 4, and 5. FINDING The County's insistence that the City adopt an AFHMP as a condition of receiving Block Grant funding is supported by existing Federal Regulations. In addition, the State housing element guidelines will require the City to have a similar program in operation by the end of calendar year 1979. -3- S� It appears at this time as though the question is not one of whether or not the City is, or will be, required to have an AFHMP, but one of when it will be required to have one operational. RECOMMENDATION If Council desires to continue to receive HCD recommended that staff be directed to prepare and local administration of an AFHMP. funding, then it is documents for adoption QC