Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us |
|
Monday, June 17, 2024 |
|
New City Manager |
Post Reply | Page <1234 8> |
Author | |
Vivian Moon
MUSA Council Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
Vivian Moon
MUSA Council Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
Vivian Moon
MUSA Council Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
Vivian Moon
MUSA Council Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
Vivian Moon
MUSA Council Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Attachment Set
forth below are direct quotes from the report along with HUD's clarification
and/or correction: SECTION 8 ANALYSIS REPORT: HUD's first point regarding
reduction of vouchers was that they would not seriously consider a reduction of
voucher levels while the City maintains a local preference for When we discussed the possibility
of partial voucher transfers, HUD referred us to HUD Notice PIH 2007-06 (HA),
issued on HUD's reliance upon a
"substantiated compelling reason " started the staff process that
lead to the creation of this report. If a substantiated compelling reason
is required to transfer vouchers and HUD won't permit partial transfers while
the City remains high in poverty, what else could be used as a compelling
reason to gain HUD approval? HUD RESPONSE: At no time did HUD
officials make statements concerning reduction of vouchers relative to the
City's local preference for HUD Notice 2007-6, "Process for Public Housing
Agency Voluntary Transfers of Housing Choice Vouchers, Project-Based Vouchers
and Project-Based Certificates" issued Middletown should not act in
anticipation that such a transfer request would be granted when the sole
purpose is to reduce housing assistance to those in need in Middletown.
Currently MPHA has around 1,500 families being served by the program as well as
a lengthy waiting list. A partial or total transfer of the program to another
PHA would not necessarily result in a reduction in the families served by the
program but rather a change in administration of the program to another PHA. SECTION 8 ANALYSIS REPORT: HUD's
next point was that if we operated our program similar to the Parma
program, we would keep all vouchers active, provide service to over 1600 low
income families, be compliant with HUD program requirements, retain
administrative income from the vouchers, execute the Master Plan objectives,
and still achieve the reduction of vouchers within the City that we seek. HUD RESPONSE: HUD's discussion
about SECTION 8 ANALYSIS REPORT: Staff
recommends reducing the payment standard to 90% of FMR within the City of HUD RESPONSE: MPHA's payment standards are
currently set at 100% of the FMR. In accordance with 24 CFR 982.505 9(c) (3)
when the payment standard amount is decreased during the term of the HAP
contract, the lower payment standard amount generally must be used to calculate
the monthly housing assistance payment for the family beginning at the
effective date of the family's second regular reexamination following the
effective date of the decrease in the payment standard amount. Movers and new
admissions within the city would be effected 8 immediately; however, payment standard amounts for families under HAP
contracts cannot be reduced until the second reexamination. HUD does monitor rent burdens of
families assisted by the program and can require a PHA to increase payment
standard amounts within the basic range when 40% or more of families occupying
a particular unit size pay more than 30% of monthly adjusted income as the
family share. It may well be that one payment
standard within In addition, if use of vouchers
outside SECTION 8
ANALYSIS REPORT: Under the MPHA Current Administrative Plan, Section
XVI/(d): The dwelling unit shall be in compliance with HUD lead based paint
regulations, 24 CFR, Part 35, issued pursuant to the Lead Based Paint Poisoning
Prevention Act, 42 USC 28001, and owner shall provide a certification that
the dwelling is in accordance with such HUD regulations. Recommended Changes: The current plan language does
little to document compliance with HUD regulations and/or HUD RESPONSE: The Housing Choice Voucher Program is
subject to the following subparts of 24 CPR Part 35: Subpart A, Disclosure; Subpart B, General Lead-Based Paint
Requirements 9 and Definitions for All Programs;
Subpart M, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance; and Subpart R, Methods and Standards
for Performing Lead Hazard Evaluation and Reduction Activities. Lead based
paint performance requirements are included as part of the Housing Quality
Standards ("HQS") inspections and must be met before a unit can be
assisted or continue to be assisted where the unit and family are subjected to
these requirements. MPHA is proposing to require a
risk assessment for any housing unit constructed prior to 1978 before the HQS
inspection. If lead based paint is discovered on assessment, the owner must
abate each lead based paint surface before commencement of assistance. The changes to the HQS inspection
process and HUD lead based paint requirements that MPHA is proposing to
implement far exceed the requirements required by the regulations. HUD
regulations exempt certain units from lead based paint requirements. Exempt
units include units where a child under the age of six does not reside or is
not expected to reside as well as efficiency units and Single Room Occupancy
("SRO") units. In
addition, in the HCY
program, risk assessments are only required where a child has been identified
as having an environmental intervention blood lead level. To implement the
changes that MPHA is proposing to require as part of HQS inspections would
involve a variation to the HQS acceptability criteria and require HUD approval
as provided in 24 CFR 982.401 (a) (4) (i). Be advised that this office would
not entertain such a proposal as it would severely restrict housing choice.
Roughly 75% of rental occupied housing in SECTION 8 ANALYSIS REPORT: For units constructed prior to 1978, owners must complete and submit
the MPHA Lead Paint Owner's Certification, Housing Choice Voucher Program as
part of the Request for Tenancy Approval (RTA). The lead based paint inspector
must be licensed by the State of HUD RESPONSE: The form being
proposed for use would incorporate standards that exceed HQS, as stated above,
which this office will not consider. The referenced forms in the HUD Guidebook
are only for units where a risk assessment is required, i.e. where a child is
determined to have had an elevated blood lead level -not for all units. SECTION 8 ANALYSIS REPORT: While the City does not employ a rental
registration ordinance to regulate rental units, having a City Building
Inspector perform initial inspections is advantageous in three ways. First, the
timing, paperwork and other problems being experienced with initial inspections
would be alleviated by direct scheduling between Consoc and the City on these
inspections. Second, the inspector is a certified lead based paint risk
assessor by the State of Ohio and this serves as a quality control check that proper
lead based paint inspections are being performed and paperwork is being turned
in with the Request for Tenancy Approval for 10 new
units. Finally, the inspector is also trained on inspecting to the standards in
the International Property Maintenance Code, the local property code. Under 24 CFR § 982.306(c)(6), the PHA
may deny approval of an assisted tenancy when the owner has a history or
practice of renting units that fail to meet State or local housing codes.
Utilizing the City's code enforcement software, the inspector can run a report
of prior violations by any owner or address to determine if such a history or practice exists. Where
appropriate, documentation and reporting would be submitted to the program
administrator for potential denial of the owner based on past practices. HUD RESPONSE: MPHA is proposing to
use the International Property Maintenance Code in conducting its HQS
inspections. As noted above, this change to the inspection process would
involve a variation to the HQS acceptability criteria and require HUD approval
as provided in 24 CFR 982.401 (a) (4) (i). A modification to MPHA's HQS
inspections using portions of the International Property Maintenance Code was
approved by this office in 2002. Any further modifications would require HUD
approval. SECTION 8 ANALYSIS REPORT: Local Preferences [24 CFR 982.207; HCVp. 4-16J The PHA is permitted to establish
local preferences and to give priority to serving families that meet those
criteria. HUD specifically authorizes and places restrictions on certain types
of local preferences. HUD also permits the PHA to establish other local
preferences, at its discretion. Any local preferences established must be
consistent with the PHA plan and the consolidated plan, and must be based on
local housing needs and priorities that can be documented by generally accepted
data sources. HUD RESPONSE: Changes to the
occupancy policies and preferences will require a modification to the 2010 PHA
Plan submitted to this office. MPHA may not adopt the modification until a
meeting of the Board of Commissioners/City Council is held and the meeting at
which the modification is adopted is open to the public. Additionally, the
modifications cannot be implemented until notification of the modification is
provided to HUD and approved by HUD in accordance with the review procedures
provided in 24 CFR 903.23 . SECTION 8 ANALYSIS REPORT: The City has supported Hope House for years. We are utilizing HOME funds
in 2010 to assist with $80,000 in renovations for the new Women's Shelter on
Girard. The shelter will be a transitional shelter for 3-6 months to allow victims of domestic violence the
opportunity to safely get away from their abuser and to rebuild their lives. We have recommended a local preference for
victims of domestic violence. We have also recommended a large reduction in
vouchers operating within the City. If it would be appropriate, expanding the number of
vouchers in the SRO program would use more of the City of HUD RESPONSE: The SRO Program is funded by HUD through the Office of Community
and Planning Development. The ACC is separate and apart from the ACC for the
Housing Choice Voucher Program. The subsidy is project based and has nothing to
do with the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Vouchers are not used in SRO
projects
|
|
luke
MUSA Immigrant Joined: Apr 25 2014 Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
On face, it would appear Middletown's Section 8 Analysis got an F from HUD.
For $12,000, the head hunter at UD should have checked each candidates LinkedIn profile. Doug needs a spellchecker, to clean up many errors. Didn't know he managed a staff of 100, thought it was about 5. Novel idea council and city manager. Fix roads, defeat cronyism, attract jobs, improve education, and bring in new residents. That takes care of the vouchers. Using it as a crutch for your failures is stale, and invites discrimination review. A new ordinance is being prepared. If you don't drive a Lexus, or a BMW, the city wants you out. There is no place in Middletown, for GM nor Ford vehicles. A Toyota Prius is required if working at MUM. What was that theme from Rawhide- "drive em out, move em out, beat em out, Rawhide." |
|
Vivian Moon
MUSA Council Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
MiddletownUSA
Over the past five years we have had many long and heated debates and discussions about the Section 8 Program on this blog and it’s effect on the City of Middletown. I agree that it is a confusing issue to discuss because there are many different types of HUD housing in the I will also agree that I and Nelson Self, over the years, may have overwhelmed you with facts about these different HUD programs, if so we do apologize to you, because our real intent was to inform you and give you the real facts of these programs and not what you were hearing from those at City Hall. I will also admit that I did not know how to scan and upload these original documents to this site so you had proof of the information we were trying to covey about the huge amount of misinformation you were receiving for City Hall. For this we also apologize. However while I and Nelson Self may have failed to communicate our message on this very difficult and confusing issue in a clear and concise manner...the true facts of the Section 8 Program remain the same...the citizens of Middletown have been terribly misinformed about this program and it’s impact on this community. Since 2010, HUD, CONSOC, Section 8 Program, the landlords and the tenants have been used as a whipping post, and blamed for all the current problems in The facts clearly show that this entire situation was caused by a….. TOTAL FAILURE, IN SEVERAL KEY DEPARTMENT, AND THE LACK OF VISION AND LEADERSHIP AT CITY HALL OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS |
|
processor
MUSA Resident Joined: May 07 2013 Status: Offline Points: 151 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ms. Moon,
Thank you for all of the information you've been providing on Section 8. It's been very helpful to me and has furthered my limited understanding of Section 8. I have a very basic question. On what legal basis does HUD have the authority to tell the city of Middletown what they can and can't do with their Section 8 program? |
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
processor, I hope you'll indulge, perhaps humor me, on my attempt to answer your question. I am not an expert on HUD Section 8, but like the school levy, assimilated rapidly, the statutes and processes associated with funding new buildings. Likewise, I thank Ms. Moon for her work and dissemination of factual data.
To your question, legally, since Middletown leaders requested the addition section 8 vouchers, as it appears to me, HUD has indicated legally, there are options for Middletown, but none which would negatively negate their desired wish to reduce vouchers they already had requested. To do so, would be a violation of federal law. To be clear, as HUD appears to have communicated, Middletown can move, or have moved, the full administration of the vouchers to alternative sources of administration. By doing so, Middletown would lose the administrative fee of 10 percent, of thereabouts. But, that would not mitigate nor remove the legally bound vouchers already in place at the city's request. As the city has also relied previously upon NSP, NSP2 grants, in the future, grant requests could be impacted upon the city's action. One would assume if the city made an attempt to arbitrary reduce its vouchers by 50-60%, without HUD's approval, HUD would automatically take action, move the current vouchers to the newly appointed administrator, and the city and HUD enter into a legal war costing the city's insurer hundreds of thousands in legal fees, and undoubtedly impact the city's credit rating, reviewed in July, associated with potential liabilities. My take away from the HUD letter and accompanying Section 8 piece authored by UC is Middletown faces enormous housing stock problems in all sectors for many, many years, including commercial. The land bank ends in December of 2014. One would suspect many vacated houses will be siting empty, with no wrecking ball funding to be found. That negatively hastens, and worsens, an already dismal financial picture for property tax valuation going forward. In sum processor, I don't think legally, the cit can undo what it did, and get rid of excess vouchers it needs based upon its socio economic demographics, as the voucher administration will just be moved to Hamilton, and the federal money that follows. HUD would say, as they did in the report, 'congrats Middletown, for taking care of your poor.' And, they provided the answer on the chicken and egg, who came first. They said Middletown's poor determined voucher need which HUD accommodated, and not vouchers given, brought in poverty. Council has the answer. Spend hundreds of thousands in legal fees fighting the federal government, or accept their error made, and live with the consequence. Regardless, housing stock overabundance will remain for years, and without the previous wrecking ball provided by the federal government and state. Welcome Mr. Adkins to the job of building a city to 25,000. |
|
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill
|
|
over the hill
MUSA Citizen Joined: Oct 19 2012 Location: middletown Status: Offline Points: 952 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thank you Vivian and Nelson for the Imformation you have provided. It gives Imformation most citizens have not been privy to. What they have been told at dinner parties is not true it is here in black and white if people choose to read it. Than you!
|
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
processor....I forgot about a previous reference by someone that Middletown appealed the HUD ruling and one assumes, audit. A HUD expert would have to find that answer associated with what that entails; does it stay any administrative movement, can Middletown reduce its vouchers while appealing, to get off the Section 8 Kingpin of Ohio throne, I don't know. Perhaps July 1 will provide an answer, if Middletown no longer has administration is moved to Hamilton.
How do un-brand a city from the damage already done by the way processor, to reputation. Bring in a consultant for reputation management, alter the city name? |
|
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill
|
|
Vivian Moon
MUSA Council Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have a very basic question. On what legal basis does HUD have the authority to tell the city of Middletown what they can and can't do with their Section 8 program?
It is NOT MIDDLETOWN'S PROGRAM Section 8 is a Federal Funded Program and the City of Each year both parties sign and agree to any and all changes in the Section 8 Program |
|
processor
MUSA Resident Joined: May 07 2013 Status: Offline Points: 151 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Acclaro,
Am I understanding you correctly that the only right HUD has is contractual? That the city signed a contract with HUD? If so, do you have, or can you obtain the contract? |
|
processor
MUSA Resident Joined: May 07 2013 Status: Offline Points: 151 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ms. Moon,
Just saw your post. If the city were to forsake the money used to administer the program and pass an ordinance to limit the number of vouchers in the city limits, what recourse would HUD have especially since their agreement is only an annual one? |
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
processor; I know contract law very well. I didn't have the time to go into the weeds on HUD federal title sections, nor intend to.
As there are two parties to the agreement, it is clear HUD would not agree to reduce the vouchers to a number less than current, which will render the ordinance moot. For the city, it would therefore be: accept what you have, or you have nothing, including other federal grant support. My opinion of course. I would also believe landlords would assert compensatory claims against the city and tort, for violations associated with public policy. And, the damage to Middletown's reputation is soiled further. Vouchers did not ruin Middletown processor, the lack of economic development has. If the city wants zero vouchers, go for it. |
|
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill
|
|
Perplexed
MUSA Citizen Joined: Apr 22 2009 Status: Offline Points: 315 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Every 12 months the City of Middletown is statutorily required to file a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Annual Action Plan with the Cleveland Area Office of HUD. Upon agreement of "The Plan" by HUD, a HCV grant agreement is signed by HUD and the City of Middletown.
I am certain that Doug Adkins has originals or copies of these documents. During my employment with the city, these records were solely in the possession of Marty Kohler. The City Manager or City Clerk may also have copies of same. |
|
Perplexed
MUSA Citizen Joined: Apr 22 2009 Status: Offline Points: 315 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Acclaro, you are correct about the lack of emphasis on Economic Development over the past 15 years (or longer).
The planners and bureaucrats have brought Middletown: the downtown mall, the Maple Pork (Park) housing subdivision, extravagant NSP housing activities, the de-emphasis of housing rehabilitation, the de-emphasis of the First-Time Buyer Downpayment/Closing Cost Assistance Program, Lake Middletucky, extravagant expenditures of limited funds for downtown demolitions and other real estate deals, the loss of thousands of dollars on foreclosed HUD homes conveyed to the city, the scrapping of 2007-08 efforts to meaningfully involve local realtors and mortgage bankers in HUD-assisted homeownership endeavors, etc. etc. Once again, take a drive through Ward 2 neighborhoods to observe the devastation of the wrecking ball. Also, please note that hundreds of thousands of housing revolving loan funds were emptied to provide for the Ohio Moving Forward blitzkrieg. The future is bleak. It's time for Forbes Magazine to do an update on the conditions in Middletown. |
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Perplexed; I am not a landlord in any means associated with HUD housing or property rentals of any sort.
How long would it take to extinguish a contractually bound agreement between HUD and the city of Middletown....one year, July of this year, assuming that is fiscal, 2, 3, 5 years? Simply curious. And, in your professional opinion, would HUD be willing to reduce them? If the vouchers were distributed to Butler to administrate, would an ordinance barring a number in Middletown, put the vouchers back into county hands to be spread against areas outside Middletown? Thanks your your reply....curious only from my end. |
|
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill
|
|
processor
MUSA Resident Joined: May 07 2013 Status: Offline Points: 151 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Acclaro,
Most contracts have end dates and/or out clauses. Just because there is a contract doesn't mean that there is no way out of it. Also, if the contract doesn't stipulate the number of vouchers HUD may have little recourse if the city chooses to reduce the number of vouchers. I don't understand on what basis a landlord could sue the city if the number of vouchers are reduced. The city doesn't have contracts with individual landlords. The huge number of vouchers certainly did not, by themselves, cause Middletown's problems, however they are not helping turn the city around. The city is turning into one big housing project with all of their typical ills and is further eroding Middletown's image and chance of turning around. It's our money going to support the additional police service required not to mention the costly issues this causes the school system. |
|
Vivian Moon
MUSA Council Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I don't understand on what basis a landlord could sue the
city if the number of vouchers are reduced. |
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
processor, I don't disagree with your position, and indeed, share it, that it was unwise to elevate Section 8 vouchers. I also completely agree that by having the highest percent in Ohio doesn't create a healthy brand image.
Tenants under federal law, and for that matter, state, have rights. Undoubtedly, HUD would have concerns associated with individuals (tenants), and would assume, without contract review, there to be a provision which would allow for some degree of transitional time for any decrease. If all cities decided at once, at end of year term, to abolish their vouchers, chaos would be expected. I suspect the feds factored that in their calculus. I would also expect there to be an addendum for some aspect of automatic renewal, unless there to be fraud, misappropriation of funds, neglect, et al. I have not read any contract with a tenant nor landlord, but suspect, there would be a class action suit brought by the landlords if the funds went away, whether they prevailed or not. I recall Mr. Picard stating it would be a costly battle. As this problem has been known for some period of time, why is the remedy of extinguishing a one year contract only coming forth now, and not 3-4 years ago? I understood the city was offering residents in the program an opportunity to move to another area, and make use of the voucher, which had little impact. If Hamilton receives the vouchers and opens property, it would seem the problem corrects itself. |
|
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill
|
|
VietVet
MUSA Council Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
We talked way back when about the number of vouchers given to a community being based on population. If Middletown's population is declining, shouldn't the number of vouchers be also? We talked about Middletown, based on population only being required to carry around 700 vouchers. If this is the law of the land, why is Middletown still required to carry 1662, more than twice the amount it is suppose to have? "Because they ask for more at one time" shouldn't be the answer on a on-going basis. The city should be able to dump the 1662 (less the required 700) back to HUD at some given time,shouldn't they? Experts? |
|
I'm so proud of my hometown and what it has become. Recall 'em all. Let's start over.
|
|
Perplexed
MUSA Citizen Joined: Apr 22 2009 Status: Offline Points: 315 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Acclaro -
Ohio recipients of HCV funds are statutorily required to file a multi-year Consolidated Plan with the HUD Cleveland Area Office. If memory serves me correctly, said Consolidated Plan covers either a three- or five-year period. The HCV Annual Action Plan that I noted in prior posts, is required to be submitted to the HUD Cleveland Area Office for each individual year of a multi-year Consolidated Plan. I don't know which year the city is currently operating under. And, if I recall, didn't HUD deny approval of a new Annual Plan or Consolidated Plan in the past few years? The best answer to this is to contact HUD Cleveland Area Office legal counsel or senior administrative staff. |
|
Vivian Moon
MUSA Council Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
We talked about Middletown, based on population only being required to carry around 700 vouchers. If this is the law of the land, why is Middletown still required to carry 1662,
I don't know where this 700 number came from...or that being the law of the land? I need for you to understand...reducing vouchers is like un-ringing a bell...and as difficult. You can not displace 1,000 families + kiddies because City Hall made a mistake in 2000. That is discrimination. The only thing that is going to make this better now is JOBS |
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thank you. Perhaps the term is ending, and all will be transferred to Hamilton.
|
|
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill
|
|
Post Reply | Page <1234 8> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.571 seconds.
Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Site by Xponex Media | Advertising Information |