SWOH75 - All that Vivian and Nelson (in all of his incarnations here) seem to do is post hearsay/gossips/rumors.  Until I see proof of wrong-doing in print, I'll reserve 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 and Urban Development has rejected Middletown’s plan to eliminate more than 1,000 subsidized housing vouchers — also known as Section 8 — over the next five years because the proposal failed to meet the federal agency’s statutory or regulatory requirements, officials said.

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

    The federal housing agency made several recommendations about how city officials could address the identified deficiencies and gave them until mid-August (roughly 60 days) to make corrections and respond back.

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

    City Council and administrators have argued that Middletown has more low-income, subsidized housing per capita than any city in Ohio, and that it is putting a strain on city services and negatively impacting Middletown’s image and economic development 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 to 10 percent, which they maintain is ideal.

    Most council members interviewed Tuesday by The Journal said they weren’t surprised by HUD’s response and said they still support efforts to curb the number of Section 8 vouchers by 60 percent. But Councilman 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 (Middletown Public Housing Agency) is being run efficiently and effectively, and it’s serving those folks that it’s supposed to serve,” Smith said. “No more and no less; and that’s not what we are doing right now.”

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

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

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

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

    The former of the two plans was submitted to HUD in October after the MPHA voted 6-1 to support the plan authored by Community Revitalization Director Doug Adkins. The plan states the city needs to 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 no comment beyond the June 13 letter saying, “At this point, the letter speaks for itself.”

    City Manager Judy Gilleland said staff is working on a response “and will provide it in a timely manner.” She offered no comment specific to the letter.

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

    “HUD has its mission to fulfill, which is certainly important, and we’re trying to focus on the needs of the Middletown community and all of our citizens and to strike that balance to support and sustain without crippling the entire city,” the mayor said. “It’s a careful balance and that’s a 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 in eliminating 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. “I think we’re doing what we have to do, and I hope that we get to the point where we want to be, and I have confidence we can. I’m just concerned what it’s going to take to get there.”

    The city’s costs in attempting to essentially give back Section 8 vouchers to HUD, Picard said, will be significant. Outside counsel has been retained to prepare for the Civil Rights Compliance review by HUD next week, and staff has spent countless hours in 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 hundred thousand dollars goes to the city, which is split with Nelson & Associates which manages the program.

UNMATCHED COVERAGE

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

PLAN DEFICIENCIES

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

·                       MPHA must examine its actions and its impact on families with children, minorities and persons with disabilities. Of the 1,662 vouchers, 675 are designated for the non-elderly disabled population and only 417 of those are issued. HUD is requesting records that outline actions taken by the city to further fair housing and any impediments the city have experienced.

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

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

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

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

Council reactions

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

Mayor Larry Mulligan: “The bottom line is, it shows that we have some work to do yet to explain our case and our rationale for it. HUD has its mission to fulfill which is certainly important, and we’re trying to focus on the needs of the Middletown community and all of our citizens and to strike 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 (the letter). HUD has its job to do and I trust that if there is something that we need to do that (Community Revitalization Director) Doug (Adkins) and all of those involved will do it.”

Councilwoman Ann Mort: “It’s another step in the process. We are trying to work our way down that process and I’m sure not too many folks have asked 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 potential costs 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 we get to the point we want to be, and I have confidence we can. I’m just concerned what it’s going to take to get there.”

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

City staff most responsible for the unwarranted escalation of HUD Housing Choice Vouchers are: Ron Olson (City Manager), Neil Barille (Planning Director and Angela Tucker (Community Development Coordinator). However, Marty Kohler did tell me on several occasions how the expanded Section 8 program was rejuvenating and stabilizing Ward 2. You may be surprised to hear me say this, but, it is the truth. Marty was on staff only when the last Housing Choice Vouchers were requested by the city and approved by HUD.

Thank you Perplexed
I believe this statement brings us full circle in our discussion of the Section 8 Program.

Has the Section 8 Program DEVISTATED the City of Middletown as Mr. Adkins has stated?

Or has the Section 8 Program rejuvenated and stabilized Ward 1 and Ward 2?

If City Hall had been frugal and used the HUD funds in the areas of greatest need would we even be discussing this program and these areas today?

Or has the Section 8 Program become the whipping post for City Hall because of their failed plans, wasteful spending and lack of leadership over the past 15 years?

When it comes to other plans and expenditures of CDBG and HOME funds prior to 2007, my sentiments are well known and documented.

You couldn't be more wrong.  Based on the Bank One deal, I don't believe Adkins should be named city manager.  Nor do I think Landen should be either.  That doesn't mean others outside the city don't think he has the qualifications to be city manager.  
SWOH75
Well where was all your outrage several months ago when Mr. Adkins did the very same deal, the same way with the Masonic Temple that was donated to Art Central? A building owned by City Hall with a value of over $5,000, that was not appraised, nor was it put up for public bid…AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Maybe you need to do your research.

All that Vivian and Nelson (in all of his incarnations here) seem to do is post hearsay/gossips/rumors.  Until I see proof of wrong-doing in print, I'll reserve judgement on the HUD matter.  
HUD has stated that MPHA had missing records and was not in compliance….that means wrong doing has occurred. If you are looking for a transcript of the meetings those are private and we may never know what really happened…only the final outcome of the case. 
If you think I’m sooo wrong…jump on it SW…prove my research wrong…with your own hard facts.
 
I am fully in agreement that Howington is the best candidate of the five, from what I can tell based on what has publicly been made available.   Still, I think a more non-traditional candidate/turn-around expert would be a better fit. 
At least we agree on something