SWOH75 - All thatVivian and Nelson (in all of his incarnations here) seem to do is posthearsay/gossips/rumors.  Until I see proof of wrong-doing in print, I'llreserve judgement on the HUD matter.  

Posted: 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 9, 2013

MIDDLETOWN

HUD finds ‘deficiencies’ in Middletown’s action plan

By Michael D. Pitman

Staff Writer

    MIDDLETOWN— The U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development has rejected Middletown’s plan to eliminate more than 1,000subsidized housing vouchers — also known as Section 8 — over the next fiveyears becausethe proposal failed to meet the federal agency’s statutory or regulatoryrequirements, officials said.

    HUD informed the city of its decision in aJune 13 letter that outlined five “substantive” deficiencies within the city’sfive-year and annual plan. A recurring criticism ofthe plan from HUD was that the city had not done enough to consider the impactof the voucher reductions on low-income families with children, minorities andpersons with disabilities or to fully justify their actions.

    The federal housing agency made severalrecommendations about how city officials could address the identifieddeficiencies and gave them until mid-August (roughly 60 days) to makecorrections and respond back.

    The letter, which was presented to CityCouncil members Tuesday, comes as HUD is preparing for a three-day visit to Middletown next week for a CivilRights Compliance review of the city’s Section 8 program.

    City Council and administrators have arguedthat Middletown has more low-income,subsidized housing per capita than any city in Ohio, and that it is puttinga strain on city services and negatively impacting Middletown’s image and economicdevelopment efforts. Section 8 housing accounts for 14.3 percent of Middletown’s total housing stock.City officials proposed cut of 1,008 vouchers would bring that number closer to10 percent, which they maintain is ideal.

    Most council members interviewed Tuesday byThe Journal said they weren’t surprised by HUD’s response and said they stillsupport efforts to curb the number of Section 8 vouchers by 60 percent. ButCouncilman A.J. Smith, who has been a constant dissenting voice on the issue,said he still believes the city should stop the reduction attempt.

    “What I want to see is the (MiddletownPublic Housing Agency) is being run efficiently and effectively, and it’sserving those folks that it’s supposed to serve,” Smith said. “No more and noless; and that’s not what we are doing right now.”

    Smith said he would rather have the ButlerMetropolitan Housing Authority take over the city’s Section 8 program so it cangive voucher holders more piece of mind, and city staff can focus its time onother things. The city’s 1,662 Section 8 vouchers is nearly double the combinednumber of Section 8 vouchers in Butler County.

    In August 2012, HUD had a review of thecity’s Section 8 program, and in September 2012, the agency asked the city foran action plan “given the extremely low leasing percentages and virtual absenceof a waiting list.” The city only had 89.3 percent of its vouchers filled andthe federal requirement was to have 95 percent of them filled.

    HUD also wanted an action plan to addressthe city’s late and undocumented housing inspections.

    The latter of the two plans requested wassent to HUD in December after it was approved by the Middletown Public HousingAgency, which consists of the seven-member City Council. HUD, which“disapproved” the five-year and annual plan, sent its response on June 13citing the five deficiencies and suggested remedies to the city’s 6-page actionplan.

    The former of the two plans was submittedto HUD in October after the MPHA voted 6-1 to support the plan authored byCommunity Revitalization Director Doug Adkins. The plan states the city needsto eliminate more than 60 percent of its vouchers over the next five years,which was reflected in the five-year and annual plan.

    HUD spokeswoman Donna White offered nocomment beyond the June 13 letter saying, “At this point, the letter speaks foritself.”

    City Manager Judy Gilleland said staff isworking on a response “and will provide it in a timely manner.” She offered nocomment specific to the letter.

    The June 13 letter from HUD “shows that wehave some work to do” in making the city’s case for its stance, said MayorLarry Mulligan.

    “HUD has its mission to fulfill, which iscertainly important, and we’re trying to focus on the needs of the Middletown community and all ofour citizens and to strike that balance to support and sustain withoutcrippling the entire city,” the mayor said. “It’s a careful balance and that’sa message we have to work with HUD to fully explain.”

    Vice Mayor Dan Picard said he is“concerned” about the letter, but doesn’t regret the city’s direction ineliminating 1,008 vouchers.

    “I am very concerned about what’s going on,the potential costs and it’s something we need to stay on top of,” he said. “Ithink we’re doing what we have to do, and I hope that we get to the point wherewe want to be, and I have confidence we can. I’m just concerned what it’s goingto take to get there.”

    The city’s costs inattempting to essentially give back Section 8 vouchers to HUD, Picard said,will be significant. Outside counsel has been retained to prepare for the CivilRights Compliance review by HUD next week, and staff has spent countless hoursin responding to HUD’s correspondence.

    The city’s Section 8 program receives about$10 million from HUD, which is tied to the number of vouchers held by the city.Millions of dollars are paid to Section 8 landlords. Only a few hundredthousand dollars goes to the city, which is split with Nelson & Associateswhich manages the program.

UNMATCHED COVERAGE

TheMiddletown Journal has been the only consistent news agency covering the debatebetween the U.S. Housing and Urban Development and the city of Middletown about reducing 1,008Section 8 vouchers.

PLAN DEFICIENCIES

The letter cities five “deficiencies” ofthe plan and have provided suggested remedies:

·                      MPHA must examine its actionsand its impact on families with children, minorities and persons withdisabilities. Of the 1,662 vouchers, 675 are designated for the non-elderlydisabled population and only 417 of those are issued. HUD is requesting recordsthat outline actions taken by the city to further fair housing and anyimpediments the city have experienced.

·                      The MPHA’s missionstatement “does not adequately address” the mission for serving the needs oflow income, very low income and extremely low income families for the next fiveyears. Any mission statement must include how the city will service the needsof families that fall into these classifications during that time frame.

·                      The MPHA’s goals andobjectives do not address serving low income, very low income and extremely lowincome families over the next five years. The city needs to include how it willservice the needs of the families during that time frame.

·                      The city did not identifythe housing needs of low income, very low income and extremely low incomefamilies, including the elderly, families with disabilities, households ofvarious races and ethnic groups, and other families on the Section 8 waitinglist. The city needs to provide that data.

·                      Because housing needs werenot identified, stating the “MPHA does not anticipate opening the waiting listdue to be over leased and over budget authority” is not accurate. The cityneeds to provide a strategy to service the housing needs of the city.

Council reactions

MiddletownCity Council members react to the HUD letter that spells out five deficiencieswith its five-year and annual plan, which outlines its intent to reduce 1,008Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers from the MPHA program.

Mayor Larry Mulligan: “The bottom line is, it shows that we have some work to doyet to explain our case and our rationale for it. HUD has its mission tofulfill which is certainly important, and we’re trying to focus on the needs ofthe Middletown community and all of our citizens and tostrike that balance to support and sustain without crippling the entire city.”

Councilwoman Anita Scott Jones: “I’m not surprised by anything that was in there (theletter). HUD has its job to do and I trust that if there is something that we needto do that (Community Revitalization Director) Doug (Adkins) and all of thoseinvolved will do it.”

Councilwoman Ann Mort: “It’s another step in the process. We aretrying to work our way down that process and I’m sure not too many folks haveasked to go in the other direction.”

Councilman A.J. Smith: “I’m not surprised. This is exactly what I anticipated,which is why I didn’t support it (in October).”

Vice Mayor Dan Picard: “I m very concerned about what’s going on, the potentialcosts and it’s something we need to stay on top of. I have no regrets at all(in MPHA’s decision). I think we’re doing what we have to do and I hope that weget to the point we want to be, and I have confidence we can. I’m justconcerned what it’s going to take to get there.”

Council members Josh Laubach and Joe Mulligan could not be reachedfor comment.