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