Housing Stability Council Policy and Operations Analyst Ms. Freeman addressed the Council and...

Housing Stability Council MEETING MATERIALS PACKET

Plaza Townhomes Portland Oregon

November 3, 2017 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Oregon Housing & Community Services Conference Room 124 A/B

Salem, Oregon 97301

Oregon Governor Kate Brown

Housing Stability Council Oregon Housing and Community Services

725 Summer St. NE, Suite B

Salem OR 97301-1266

PHONE: 503-986-2000

FAX: 503-986-2020

TTY: 503-986-2100

Council Members: Aubre L. Dickson, Chair Tammy Baney

Michael C. Fieldman

Anna Geller Zee D. Koza

Gerardo F. Sandoval, PhD

Tricia Tillman Adolph “Val” Valfre, Jr.

Charles Wilhoite

TIME TOPIC MOTION ACTION

1. 9:00 Meeting Called to Order Roll Call

2 mins Call Roll

2. 9:05 Public Comment 10 mins Comment

3. 9:15 Meeting Minute Approval (pages 3-15) October 6, 2017

5 mins Approval

4. 9:20 Multifamily Weatherization Program Proposal (pages 17-36) Dan Elliott, Senior Policy Analyst, Energy Services

20 mins Briefing & Discussion

5. 9:40 EHA & SHAP Policy Briefing, Discussion & Approval (pages 37-74) Claire Seguin, Assistant Director, Housing Stabilization

2016-17 One-time-only Summary – Roserria Roberts, Homeless Program Coordinator EHA/SHAP Policy Discussion – Claire Seguin, Assistant Director, Housing Stabilization 2017-19 EHA/SHAP Allocation Approval – Marilyn Miller, Homeless Services Manager

60 mins Page 65

Briefing, Discussion & Approval

6. 10:40 BREAK 15 mins

7. 10:55 Single Family Section (pages 75-79) Kim Freeman, Single Family Section Manager

For Approval: - Residential Loan Consent Calendar

10 mins Page 75

Approval

8. 11:05 Multifamily Funding Decisions (pages 81-84) Casey Baumann, Underwriting Section Manager

Conduit Bond: - Kaiser Apartments – Tyler Gull, Loan Officer (tentative)

10 mins Page 81

Approval

9. 11:15 Multifamily & Asset Management Modernization And Consolidation Update (MAMMAC) (pages 85-89)

Michael Hill, Senior Systems Analyst, Information Services

15 mins Briefing

10. 11:30 Housing Stabilization update (pages 91-102) Claire Seguin, Assistant Director Housing Stabilization

Rent Guarantee Framework Briefing – Ariel Nelson, Government Relations & Communications Liaison

20 mins Briefing

11. 11:50 Report of the Director Report

12. 12:15 Report of the Chair Report

13. Meeting Adjourned

AGENDA November 3, 2017 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.

Oregon Housing and Community Services, Room 124 A&B 725 Summer St NE, Salem OR 97301

Call-In: 1-877-273-4202; Participant Code: 4978330

November 3, 2017 Housing Stability Council Page 1


Oregon Housing Stability Council Oregon Housing and Community Services

725 Summer St. NE, Suite B

Salem OR 97301-1266

PHONE: 503-986-2000 FAX: 503-986-2020

TTY: 503-986-2100

October 6, 2016

Oregon Housing Stability Council Meeting Minutes

Acting Chair Valfre called the meeting to order at approximately 9:04 am and asked for the roll call:

Council member Present Excused By Phone

Tammy Baney X

Mike Fieldman X

Anna Geller X*

Zee Koza X

Gerardo Sandoval X

Latricia Tillman X

Acting Chair Adolph “Val” Valfre X

Charles Wilhoite X

Aubré Dickson X

*Councilmember Geller joined the meeting at approximately 9:15 a.m.

Public Comment

Acting Chair Valfre invited those in the room and on the phone to provide public comment

Alison McIntosh (Neighborhood Partnerships) – Ms. McIntosh introduced herself to the Council and is

providing testimony today about the Oregon Foreclosure Avoidance (OFA) program. She provided

written comments as well and you can reference her letter on pages 31-33 in the meeting materials

packet.

Ms. McIntosh urged the Council to make sure the OFA program continue to provide the best possible

level of service to clients facing foreclosure; provide access to counseling statewide; maintain

foreclosure counseling through 6/30/19 with current funding; and maintain expertise within the

foreclosure counseling network. She said that she recognized the difficulty of the decisions that must be

made about OFA and that none of the options are perfect.

Ms. McIntosh told the Council that the Housing Alliance was working on a proposal for 2019 that would

fully fund the OFA program without using general fund dollars. She is asking for the impossible: asking

all agencies to take a 40% cut while maintaining the same level of service; and asking OHCS to consider

a similar cut to administrative funds to maintain the OFA program.

Emily Reiman (NEDCO) – Ms. Reiman introduced herself to the Council and is providing testimony on

the OFA program today. She echoed the comments of Ms. McIntosh and further stated that the OFA

program is in a place of “no right answers” and “no good solutions.” Ms. Reiman further stated it would

be better to serve at a 60-70% level across the state for the entire biennium, rather than run out prior to

the end of the biennium. One of her main concerns is having a solution that has a pay differential from

rural to urban based agencies. She believes that the primary divide is not urban and rural. The current

OHCS proposal causes her concern because of the way the funds will be spread across state agencies.

Her final request was for an expedited process for contracts approval; it takes too long and can be a


October 6, 2017


burden for small as well as larger agencies to have to “carry” a program as they wait for contacts to be

approved.

Acting Chair Valfre asked for any additional comments, receiving none, he closed public comment.

New Councilmember Introductions

Acting Chair Valfre introduced the two new Councilmembers for the record. He introduced Latricia

Tillman and Charles Wilhoite and then asked each of them to introduce themselves to the room. Ms.

Tillman expressed her excitement to be a part of the Council and she looks forward to learning more

about housing in Oregon during her service. Mr. Wilhoite expressed his pleasure at being named to the

Council and looks forward to furthering work he is already doing as a Trustee of the Meyer Memorial

Trust. You may reference their biographies by visiting the Housing Stability Council website.

Acting Chair Valfre then expressed his pleasure at finally having all seats on the Council filled. He also

stated that Council has been augmented very well with the addition of Ms. Tillman and Mr. Wilhoite. He

thanked them for agreeing to join the Council.

Approval of September 8, 2017 Meeting Minutes:

Acting Chair Valfre asked for comments/corrections for the September 8, 2017 meeting notes. He

offered two minor corrections and staff and will make the changes and update the meeting minutes

accordingly. He then asked for further updates/corrections. Hearing none he then asked for the motion.

Councilmember Fieldman moved to accept the September 8, 2017 meeting minutes as amended and

Councilmember Geller seconded the motion. Acting Chair Valfre called for a vote:

September 8, 2017

Council member Motion Yes No Abstain Excused Tammy Baney X

Mike Fieldman X X

Anna Geller 2nd

X

Zee Koza X

Gerardo Sandoval X

Latricia Tillman X*

Adolph “Val” Valfre X

Charles Wilhoite X*

Chair, Aubré Dickson X

Vote: 4:0:1:2 | PASS

*Please note: Councilmembers Tillman and Wilhoite were not counted as part of the quorum or majority vote for

this item because they were not members of the Council on September 8, 2017. The quorum and majority vote is 4

for this vote only.


https://www-auth.oregon.egov.com/ohcs/OSHC/Pages/oregon-state-housing-council-members.aspx#Latricia Tillman

https://www-auth.oregon.egov.com/ohcs/OSHC/Pages/oregon-state-housing-council-members.aspx#Latricia Tillman

https://www-auth.oregon.egov.com/ohcs/OSHC/Pages/oregon-state-housing-council-members.aspx#Charles_Wilhoite

http://www.oregon.gov/ohcs/OSHC/Pages/index.aspx

October 6, 2017


Residential Loan Consent Calendar – Kim Freeman, Single Family Section Manager

Ms. Freeman informed the Council that she has brought 20 loans to the Council for approval today and

the details of the loans can be found on pages 17-24 in the meeting materials packet.

Ms. Freeman then pointed out that the loans are across the state in both rural and urban areas. She also

told the Council that she and her team expect to bring 30-35 loans next month. She offered to answer

any questions the Council might have.

Councilmember Wilhoite asked how the calculation of home to value was derived. Ms. Freeman told the

Council that the reports that are shown depict the individual loan information in a non-standard manner.

She will send out the Single Family Residential loan introductory packet for the new members to help

them understand the program and what is depicted in the reports brought forward each month.

Acting Chair Valfre then asked for the motion.

Councilmember Wilhoite moved to accept the consent calendar as presented and Councilmember

Fieldman seconded the motion. Acting Chair Valfre called for a vote:

Consent Calendar for Approval:


Mike Fieldman 2nd

X

Anna Geller X

Zee Koza X

Gerardo Sandoval X

Latricia Tillman X

Acting Chair, Adolph “Val” Valfre X

Charles Wilhoite X X

Aubré Dickson X


Single Family – Oregon Foreclosure Avoidance (OFA) Program Design Discussion – Julie Cody,

Assistant Director, Housing Finance, Kim Freeman, Single Family Section Manager & Natasha

Detweiler-Daby, Policy and Operations Analyst

Ms. Freeman addressed the Council and provided background on the OFA program. You may reference

the memo on the program on pages 25-28 and the public comments on the proposed program design on

pages 30-58. Ms. Freeman went on to highlight for the Council the recent downward trends seen for

foreclosure counseling across Oregon. Ms. Freeman also told the Council that some rural

homeownership centers have expressed concern for deep cuts they say would eliminate their

participation in the OFA program.

Assistant Director Cody then told the Council that the Oregon Homeowner Stabilization Initiative

(OHSI) program has also found that access for rural areas in the state is spotty and not as reliable as in

urban areas.

Ms. Freeman told the Council that there is not an overall recommendation from across the

Homeownership centers on program design. She then outlined the recommendation for OFA from the


October 6, 2017


staff at OHCS. OHCS staff believes that the recommendation will provide funding for 22 months and

quite probably for the entire 24 months of the biennium.

Assistant Director Cody further stated that the agency would redistribute the funds between agencies if

the funds were not being utilized.

Councilmember Fieldman said he wanted to reinforce the difference between providing services

between urban and rural areas. He says there are really three areas: urban, rural and frontier. He further

stated that when we are trying to deliver services to frontier communities the services agencies are

running up against barriers to service delivery (i.e. no internet, limited phone service, traveling long

distances, etc.). He then expressed his desire to make the funds last for the full biennium. Are there any

other resources at OHCS that can be added to the OFA funds to make the dollars last the entire

biennium? He wanted to encourage OHCS to look internally for the funds if OFA funds fall short of the

full biennium. Ms. Freeman told the Council that it would be possible for OHCS to return any unused

portion of the admin fee to the OFA fund.

Councilmember Geller then asked if OHCS was able to cover all expenses for the OFA program with

the admin fees. Ms. Freeman told the Council that for the previous biennium all expenses were covered

by the admin fees.

Councilmember Sandoval observed that the data shows that the number of foreclosures are down and

the legislature does not appear to be supportive. Could we just let the program run as it is and when the

funds run out let the legislature figure out a path forward?

Councilmember Wilhoite commended the staff for their work in trying to make the dollars stretch over

the entire biennium. He then asked why the funds were not expended fully in the 2015-17 biennium. Ms.

Freeman told the Council that the reason the funds were not fully used was due to decreased demand for

the OFA dollars. He stated that it appears the funds were reduced to be in line with actual expenditures.

He thinks the proposal makes very good sense to him. Councilmember Wilhoite then asked where a

client would be referred if their local rural center did not have the program. Ms. Freeman told the

Council that the person could be referred to an urban center for assistance. The reimbursement to the

Homeownership Centers is based on the location of the center not the address of the client.

Ms. Detweiler-Daby told the Council that the lower price threshold for reimbursement for OFA services

in urban areas is based on economies of scale that are greater at the urban centers.

Councilmember Tillman asked how OHCS arrived at the 60/40 split between urban and rural. Assistant

Director Cody told the Council that the split was based on historic data for the OFA program and where

the funds have been used in the past. She also told the Council that staff would monitor the activity over

the biennium and make adjustments on the actual usage that shows up in the data.

Councilmember Tillman stated that the urban/rural divide may not be the correct split. Maybe it should

be based on the ability of the client to access technology or the desire to meet face-to-face for counseling

sessions. She thought there might be a need for provider consolidation to reduce expenses and reach

more Oregonians.


October 6, 2017


Councilmember Wilhoite asked if OHCS is providing 100% of the funding for the Homeownership

Centers. Assistant Director Cody told the Council that the Homeownership Centers have other sources

of funding, but OHCS is trying to provide 100% of the funding for OFA.

Councilmember Wilhoite then asked who funded the program pre-2012. Assistant Director Cody told

the Council that there was not a crisis pre-2012 and that the legislation was passed to address the

foreclosure crisis in Oregon. Ultimately if this is unfunded by the legislature, it will become an unfunded

mandate. Assistant Director Cody told the Council that OHCS is trying to bridge the funding gap while

looking to find an alternative way to fund OFA in the future. OHCS wants the Homeownership Center

infrastructure to remain intact while we look for a solution.

Director Salazar told the Council that the challenge we have with the funding structure this biennium is

how does the agency respond to the need today and recognize the need to move to the potential for a

new structure for this program in the future.

Councilmember Fieldman agreed with the idea of maintaining the needed infrastructure for the OFA

program. There is a real value in maintaining the infrastructure. Technology is great, but not everyone

has the best technology and they could be would be left behind and unable to access the program.

Acting Chair Valfre said he believes the over-arching need is to have funding for the entire biennium.

He believes we are working on a model that has worked in the past, and we are not looking to the future.

We need to determine who would lose service due to a lack of technology and focus the face-to-face

counseling for those individuals.

Councilmember Geller agreed and we should not base changes on preferences for face-to-face over the

use of technology.

Director Salazar thanked the Councilmembers for their comments and feedback on OFA and reminded

them this item is not up for a vote. The Director told the Council that one of the takeaways was that

OHCS should look at OFA through the lens of the client rather than just the provider location. OHCS

will retool the OFA program design and balance that with the need to get the contracts out quickly to the

provider agencies. OHCS will also keep the Council updated over the course of the biennium on the

OFA program (i.e. activity, spend-down of funds, etc.).

Ms. Freeman told the Council that the grant agreement is in draft form and ready to go to DOJ for final

approval once the fee structure is finalized.

Multifamily Funding Decisions – Casey Baumann, Underwriting Manager

Oak Leaf Manufactured Park Preservation – Rick Abrego, Loan Officer

Mr. Baumann and Mr. Abrego introduced themselves to the Council. Mr. Abrego then introduced

Heather Buck (St. Vincent DePaul) to the Council as well. Mr. Abrego then presented a high-level

overview of the Oak Leaf Mobile Home Park project. You may reference the project data sheets on

pages 59-61 in the meeting materials packet.

Mr. Abrego then offered to address any questions the Council had for him.

Councilmember Tillman asked if this was the mobile home park where the residents would have been


October 6, 2017


displaced due to redevelopment along Killingsworth Ave. Ms. Buck affirmed that this is the mobile

home park that was in the news recently. Councilmember Tillman said, knowing the background about

his park helps to provide context about the work being done to stave off gentrification in the

neighborhood.

Acting Chair Valfre asked how resident services would be provided to the residents. Ms. Buck told the

Council that St Vincent DePaul has an overall program for resident services for their properties with one

person who oversees them all. They have a shared services model in place in the St Vincent DePaul

Mobile home park unit for resident/social services.

Councilmember Fieldman said it was nice to see the rehab of a manufactured home park.

MOTION: To approve a Manufactured Dwelling Parks GHAP grant reservation in an amount up to

$1,190,000 to St. Vincent DePaul Society of Lane County, Inc. for purchase and rehabilitation of Oak

Leaf Mobile Home Park located in the City of Portland

Acting Chair Valfre asked for the motion.

Councilmember Wilhoite moved approve to the Oak Leaf Mobile home park motion and

Councilmember Tillman seconded the motion. Acting Chair Valfre called for a vote:

Oak Leaf Mobile Home Park:


Mike Fieldman X

Anna Geller X

Zee Koza X

Gerardo Sandoval X

Latricia Tillman 2nd

X



Aubré Dickson X


Newton Creek Manor Mobile Home Park – Rick Abrego, Loan Officer

Mr. Abrego introduced the sponsors to the Council: Karen Reed and Brian Shelton-Kelly from

Neighborworks Umpqua. He then provided an overview of the project for the Council. You may

reference the summary on pages 63-65 in the meeting materials packet.

Mr. Abrego then offered to answer any questions the Council had about the project.

Councilmember Wilhoite asked how and why Neighborworks Umpqua decided to take on this project.

Mr. Shelton-Kelly told the Council that the rehab of this park is a very real need in Roseburg driven less

by gentrification issues and more by the overall deterioration of the park and the lack of an affordable

housing stock for the community. Neighborworks Umpqua has a long history of preservation of

affordable housing stock in the region. This may be our first park, but we do not intend for it to be our

last.

Councilmember Fieldman asked Mr. Shelton-Kelly to also give some background on the other work

they do in the region to boost affordable housing. Mr. Shelton then provided an overview of the


October 6, 2017


programs and services offered by Neighborworks Umpqua. To find out more visit the Neighborworks

Umpqua website by clicking here. Ms. Reed told the Council that this particular park was brought to the

attention of Neighborworks Umpqua by the owner who wanted to sell, yet wanted to preserve the

affordable housing stock in the park.

Councilmember Fieldman pointed out that Neighborworks Umpqua is a very strong partner in their

community and he looks forward to their good work in the future.

General discussion about Manufactured Home parks:

Councilmember Fieldman said that in existing parks there are units that are in dire need of replacement.

He believes there may be a way for OHCS to address the need for replacement of older units in existing

parks.

Councilmember Tillman wanted to know if there was any coordination being done with cities and

counties when the parks are rehabbed. She also wanted to know if there were any habitability standards

in place when the state invests funds in a park.

Acting Chair Valfre asked about the affordability terms. He noticed only a 20-year affordability term in

the paperwork for this project. Mr. Abrego told the Council that the “years of affordability” for this

project is 60 years and not 20. Mr. Abrego will make the update to the paper work.

BOND RECOMMENDED MOTION: To approve a Manufactured Dwelling Parks GHAP grant

reservation in an amount up to $1,190,000 to NeighborWorks Umpqua, for purchase and rehabilitation

of Newton Creek Manor Mobile Home Park located in Roseburg, Douglas County.


Councilmember Fieldman moved to approve the Newton Creek Manor motion and Councilmember

Wilhoite seconded the motion. Acting Chair Valfre called for a vote:

Newton Creek Manor Mobile Home Park Approval:


Mike Fieldman X X

Anna Geller X

Zee Koza X

Gerardo Sandoval X

Latricia Tillman X


Charles Wilhoite 2nd

X

Aubré Dickson X


Eastside Campus Apartments – Tyler Gull, Loan Officer

Mr. Gull introduced himself and Stef Kondor (Central City Concern) to the Council. Please reference

pages 67-70 for project specific details.

Mr. Gull then offered to answer any questions the Council had about the project.


http://www.nwumpqua.org/

October 6, 2017


Councilmember Wilhoite stated for the record that he serves on the US Bank advisory board and the

Legacy board and on the board at Meyer Memorial Trust.

Director Salazar asked for some additional information on the partnership with the Health systems. Stef

Kondor, Director of Real Estate Development at Central City Concern told the Council that this project

is an integrated healthcare and housing project. The kick-start for this project ($20 million) came from

the healthcare consortium. Click here for more details about this project and here for a news release.

Ms. Kondor then also provided more details about the specific unit composition for this project.

Councilmember Tillman asked for more information on the expectations for use of MWESB (Minority-

owned, Women-owned and Emerging Small Businesses) vendors and contractors. Ms. Kondor told the

Council that their goal was to utilize at least 20% MWESB in this project and she believes the project is

at 21-22% to date.

Councilmember Geller offered her appreciation for Central City Concern and the great work they have

done over the years.

Councilmember Wilhoite seconded the appreciation expressed by Councilmember Geller. He asked for

a summary of the developer fee for this project. Mr. Gull told the Council that the maximum allowable

fee is 14% and CCC is only asking for 7.4%; an amount well below the acceptable level for this type of

project. Councilmember Wilhoite stated it was noteworthy to highlight the fact that CCC would be

taking a much lower percentage in developer fee for this project.

Acting Chair Valfre expressed his pleasure at seeing this project utilizing Mental Health dollars.

Bond Motion: Move to approve Pass-through Revenue Bond Financing in an amount up to and not to

exceed $12,200,000 to Eastside Campus Limited Partnership for the construction of Eastside Campus

Apartments, subject to the borrower meeting OHCS and U.S. Bank underwriting and closing criteria,

documentation satisfactory to legal counsel and Treasurer approval of the bond sale.


Councilmember Wilhoite moved to approve the Bond Motion for Eastside Campus Apartments and

Councilmember Geller seconded the motion. Acting Chair Valfre called for a vote:

Eastside Campus Apartments Bond Approval:


Mike Fieldman X

Anna Geller 2nd

X

Zee Koza X

Gerardo Sandoval X

Latricia Tillman X



Aubré Dickson X



http://www.centralcityconcern.org/housingishealth

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/09/6_healthcare_organizations_inv.html

October 6, 2017


Weatherization Motion: Move to approve a reservation of a Low Income Weatherization Fund grant in

an amount not to exceed the lesser of eligible weatherization components or $387,081 to Eastside

Campus Limited Partnership for the construction of Eastside Campus Apartments project.


Councilmember Fieldman moved to approve the Weatherization Motion for Eastside Campus

Apartments and Councilmember Tillman seconded the motion. Acting Chair Valfre called for a vote:

Eastside Campus Apartments Weatherization Approval:


Mike Fieldman X X

Anna Geller X

Zee Koza X

Gerardo Sandoval X

Latricia Tillman 2nd

X


Charles Wilhoite X

Aubré Dickson X


Acting Chair Valfre adjourned the meeting for a short break at approximately 10:05 a.m.

Acting Chair Valfre reconvened the meeting at approximately 10:15 a.m.

Housing Finance Transaction Thresholds Proposal – Julie Cody, Assistant Director, Housing

Finance & Natasha Detweiler-Daby, Housing Finance Operations & Policy Analyst

Assistant Director Julie Cody introduced herself and Natasha Detweiler-Daby to the Council. Assistant

Director Cody provided a high-level overview of the work done on this proposal since the September 8,

2017 Council meeting. Please reference the memo on pages 71-75 of the meeting material packet for

additional details.

Ms. Detweiler-Daby then provided the background information on this topic to the Council. She

explained the rationale behind the recommendation and outlined the potential risks associated with the

recommendations. OHCS staff will continue to keep the Council up to date on the multifamily housing

activity through reports and frequent updates.

Acting Chair Valfre stated that he believes this updated recommendation reflects the suggestions and

inputs from the Council at the September meeting. Councilmember Fieldman agreed.

Councilmember Geller thanked staff for the work they have done on this recommendation. She then

asked if there was a document called “Housing Council adopted policy parameters.” Ms. Detweiler-

Daby said there was not a document, but that we would refer back to past HSC meetings to identify

those policies that have been approved by the Council. Councilmember Geller is concerned about the

word “adopted” and what it means in this context. Additionally, Councilmember Geller is concerned

about when a project has to come back for additional funding and the amount pushes the total over the

threshold that said project will not be reviewed. Assistant Director Cody told the Council that if the

additional request puts the entire project over the top limit of the threshold then that project would come

before the Council for approval. Councilmember Geller said she thought this recommendation is a good


October 6, 2017


one and she appreciates the work done by OHCS staff. She then asked that the reporting document be a

fluid document that could change as the needs of the Council evolve over time.

Voting discussion:

Councilmember Geller asked how to distinguish the votes of the Council: when are the votes an integral

part of the “checks and balances” for the agency and when are the votes advisory only. Is the HSC

expected to be advisory only? Director Salazar told the Council that this is an important topic for the

staff and Council to consider. This topic does not only need to be explained better to the Council, but it

is an open question with some confusion around what the statutes and rules say about the Council.

Currently we have an effort underway with the help of Solid Ground Consulting to better define the

Council, Councilmember roles and responsibilities and create a charter.

Acting Chair Valfre then suggested that the word “adopted” be stricken from the motion. Assistant

Director Cody then gave the Council some context around the use of the word “adopted.” When staff put

the word “adopted” into the motion the following are the types of decisions they were referring to: LIFT

framework, specific funding solicitations, QAP, Consolidated Plan, etc.

Councilmember Fieldman wondered if we could use a word like normal, or regularly accepted, or

customary instead of adopted. Director Salazar suggested that we could substitute the word customary

for adopted in the motion.


MOTION: To update the transaction thresholds for requiring Housing Stability Council approval in Oregon

Administrative Rule 813-001-0007 to be:

- With respect to a multifamily housing project, a housing grant or other housing funding award

equal to or greater than $1,000,000.00, or where the OHCS award will be greater than 50% of the

total development budget for a project, provided that the total development budget of said project

is $1 million or greater, or where the proposed OHCS award is outside of Housing Stability

Council customary policy parameters.

Councilmember Wilhoite moved to adopt the motion and Councilmember Fieldman seconded the

motion. Acting Chair Valfre called for the vote:

Housing Finance Transaction Thresholds Proposal for Multifamily:


Mike Fieldman 2nd

X

Anna Geller X

Zee Koza X

Gerardo Sandoval X

Latricia Tillman X



Aubré Dickson X*


*Councilmember Dickson had to drop off the call at approximately 10:30 a.m. right after this vote.


October 6, 2017


LIFT 2.0 Framework – Julie Cody, Assistant Director, Housing Finance, Heather Pate, Multifamily

Section Manager & Natasha Detweiler-Daby, Housing Finance Operations & Policy Analyst

Ms. Detweiler-Daby provided a high-level overview of the LIFT 2.0 Framework proposal. Please

reference pages 77-93 in the meeting materials packet for additional details.

Ms. Detweiler-Daby reviewed the progress to date of the LIFT 1.0 projects that gained approval. She

told the Council that staff is working will all of the stalled projects and trying to get them moving again.

For the funds that cannot be utilized under the LIFT 1.0 program, OHCS will “recycle” the funds into

LIFT 2.0. Councilmember Wilhoite asked how much the total would be for LIFT 2.0 in the first year.

Ms. Detweiler-Daby told the Council it would be $40 million in new funds plus the $3 million left over

from LIFT 1.0.

Assistant Director Cody then reviewed the rural definition that will be used in LIFT 2.0 (page 14 of the

PowerPoint presentation).

Ms. Detweiler-Daby then reviewed the Homeownership components of the LIFT 2.0 Framework.

Director Salazar told the Council that staff had heard “loud and clear” the suggestion that the agency

have dialogue with the legislative champions for the LIFT program. Director Salazar reported that she

has spoken with the Governor’s office and with Speaker Kotek about LIFT 2.0. The Director further

stated for the record that the intent of the agency would be to create as many units as possible while

incentivizing innovation, cost containment and lower per unit subsidy in the scoring criteria for the LIFT

NOFA. The agency will also work to provide technical assistance to help project sponsors navigate the

new program. The Director believes these steps will help to bring the LIFT 2.0 program into alignment

with the legislative intent for the program.

Councilmember Sandoval asked if LIFT 1.0 had any housing projects specifically providing housing

opportunities for farmworkers. Councilmember Tillman then said it looks like the LIFT 2.0 is trying to

address the rural issues from LIFT 1.0, but it does not seem that LIFT 2.0 is addressing the inequities

that exist for communities of color. Can staff tell her what is included in the LIFT 2.0 framework that

addresses the inequities for communities of color? Urban does not equal communities of color. How will

LIFT 2.0 incentivize developers to create housing for communities of color? Assistant Director Cody

stated that the program does acknowledge that communities of color exist in rural Oregon too. She also

stated that the only way you can come in as an urban project is if they are serving communities of color,

but a rural project could certainly also serve communities of color. Councilmember Tillman then asked

how many of the projects in LIFT 1.0 that were characterized as rural also focused on communities of

color. Ms. Detweiler-Daby told the Council that at least half of the projects characterized as rural were

also focused on communities of color. Director Salazar further explained the intent of LIFT 2.0 is to be

very intentional when reaching out to communities of color; focusing on service partnerships; opening

the door to more culturally specific services (more than just DHS). LIFT 2.0 also emphasizes the

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and utilizing MWESB partners on the projects. We are still

trying to crack the historical barriers for housing providers who have not gotten funding before.

Councilmember Wilhoite stated when you look at a brand new program you really don’t know the

answers and we are still in the test mode for LIFT. Do we need to provide Technical Assistance for

every award? We want success and supplying TA could help LIFT 2.0 be more successful.


October 6, 2017


Councilmember Geller then stated that she appreciates the work OHCS staff has done on LIFT 1.0. She

further stated that she believes OHCS must follow the wording of the statute to be successful and satisfy

the legislature. She would like to see the subsidy or cost to be at a higher value when scoring the

applications.

Councilmember Sandoval asked if you have to pick rural or community of color. Ms. Detweiler-Daby

told the Council that choosing the community is a “pathway in” to qualify for LIFT funding.

Councilmember Tillman asked if there would be an opportunity to update or improve LIFT 2.0 before

the second bond sale. Assistant Director Cody told the Council that staff would be looking at

opportunities to improve the LIFT program between the two bond sales to maximize success and

remove barriers and provide additional Technical Assistance.

Acting Chair Valfre asked for the motion. Assistant Director Cody summarized the requests from the

discussion and offered the following motion to the Council.

MOTION:

Housing Stability Council approves the LIFT 2.0 Program Design Framework as presented with the

following revisions:

Clear statement that it is the Agency’s intent is to create as many units as possible;

Direct staff to add points for Primary Consideration to clearly give preference to projects seeking

lower subsidy per unit;

Direct staff to add points for building innovation and cost containment as laid out in the statute; and

Direct staff to provide some level of technical assistance to help project sponsors to navigate the new

program.

Councilmember Geller made the above motion and Councilmember Wilhoite seconded the motion.

Acting Chair Valfre called for a vote:

LIFT 2.0 Framework Approval:


Mike Fieldman X

Anna Geller X X

Zee Koza X

Gerardo Sandoval X

Latricia Tillman X


Charles Wilhoite 2nd

X

Aubré Dickson X


After the vote Director Salazar took a moment to thank Assistant Director Cody and the Housing

Finance division for their work on the LIFT program. She then wished Ms. Detweiler-Daby well as she

leaves today on parental leave to have her second baby.

She also thanked the new Councilmembers for their insightful comments on LIFT 2.0.


October 6, 2017


Housing Stabilization Update – Claire Seguin, Assistant Director, Housing Stabilization

Assistant Director Seguin introduced herself to the team and then introduced the Community Action

Partnership of Oregon members for their presentation.

Janet Merrell (Executive Director of CAPO) was first up to present. She provided an overview and

background information on Community Action.

Ms. Merrell also brought along several of her colleagues to provide summary information for the

Council.

Director Salazar welcomed the CAPO team and then told the Council the reason behind the presentation

today is to give the Council a good understanding of the work and world of the Community Action

Network. The idea is to bring the CAPO programs under the purview of the Housing Stability Council.

Councilmember Fieldman offered that it is a step that has been mandated in legislation.

John Reeves (MWCAA) – he provided an overview of Head Start and other activity in Salem Oregon.

Renee Bruce (CAO) – she provided an overview of coordinated entry model.

Martha Lyon (CSC) – she provided her experience working with community partners.

Jeff Sargent (YCAP) – He provided an overview of homeless services.

Acting Chair Valfre thanked all of the CAPO presenters for their time today. He further stated that what

they do is important.

Councilmember Fieldman then said “what you do in the home is as important as actually having a

home.” And the presentations today helped to highlight that point.

Assistant Director Seguin then wrapped up the presentation and pointed out the EHA and SHAP

materials in the packet for the Council to review. The CAPO network is OHCS’ partner in the work

involved in dispersing the EHA and SHAP funds. There will be future policy decisions coming to the

Council in reference to EHA and SHAP. Please reference pages 123-134 for additional details.

Report of the Director

Director Salazar provided the following updates:

Statewide Housing Plan Outreach events are in process. Click here to access the current outreach

schedule. Director Salazar encouraged the Councilmembers to join any of the events that fit into their

schedules.

Report of the Chair

Acting Chair Valfre provided the following updates:

He expressed his thanks to all of the presenters today.

He will be retiring from his day job at the end of 2017, but will remain active on the Council. He wished

everyone a good weekend.

Acting Chair Valfre then adjourned the meeting at 1:10 p.m.


http://www.oregon.gov/ohcs/DO/shp/2017-Statewide-Housing-Plan-Outreach-Schedule.pdf


Housing and Community Services North Mall Office Building

725 Summer St NE, Suite B

Salem, OR 97301-1266

PHONE: (503) 986-2000

FAX: (503) 986-2020

TTY: (503) 986-2100

www.ohcs.oregon.gov

November 3, 2017

To: Housing Stability Council Members

Margaret Solle Salazar, Director

From: Claire Seguin, Assistant Director Housing Stabilization

Tim Zimmer, Energy Program Manager

Dan Elliott, Senior Energy Policy Analyst, Multi-Family

RE: Multifamily Energy Program Update

Program Update:

At the Housing Stability Council meeting in August, Council members were provided an

overview of the background, history of funding, and current delivery model of the multi-family

low-income weatherization program. Currently this program has been delivered and allocated

through the Department’s Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process (including 9% Low

Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME, and other sources) as well as 4% Low Income Housing

Tax Credit and associated conduit bond programs.

The funding available for this program may be used for low-income housing projects if they

include energy efficiency measures and are located within PGE or Pacific Power service

territories in Oregon.

In assessing the prior year’s program performance, staff made recommendations to the Council

for the exploration of a new approach to the program design and implementation that would set

aside $4 million in Public Purpose weatherization funds to create a new strategy to broaden

program reach and incentives to participants not familiar with Oregon Housing and Community

Services (OHCS).

The Council was also introduced to the Department’s consultant TRC Engineers, Inc. who

provided a market assessment for the Council’s review and input. The market assessment

provided clarity regarding the scope of work and the development of strategy and product

design.

Discussion with the Council in August followed by discussions with stakeholders and interested

parties has since taken place. Program design and development have moved forward to be ready

prior to and congruently with the upcoming NOFA.

At this November meeting, the Department is presenting information to the Council for review

and input into recent program development efforts as well as a rule making element.

The Council will then be asked to approve the final program design at the December meeting.


Multi-Family Energy Program

At the August Council meeting, one issue the Council considered was how the new program

design could accommodate multifamily properties that have not historically participated in

OHCS programs, including the ability to make improvements to “Naturally Occurring

Affordable Housing” and the appropriate affordability restrictions to come along with the

weatherization work on those projects.

Today we will provide the Council with an update of program development including the

following:

Stakeholder outreach summary and feedback on program design (TRC)

Brief overview of Oregon Multifamily Energy Program (OMEP) incentive details,

packages, process, and next steps (timeline)

Defining an appropriate affordability covenant with property owners Marketing Plan and

Outreach (see attached)

After initial feedback from stakeholders, review of the Department’s existing eligibility and

regulatory agreement, review of other states’ affordable housing multi-family energy programs,

and engaging our consultants we are recommending two eligibility requirement paths for the

program.

One program path fitted for portfolio project needs (NOFA and bond projects) – these are

properties that would apply to OHCS for other development or rehabilitation funds; and a second

program path for projects “outside” this process that do not include any of the Department’s

associated funds:

Program path #1 eligibility– With a regulatory agreement

NOFA and bond projects that will use our OMEP incentives will be required to execute and

record a regulatory agreement to ensure affordability restrictions are in place:

1. A minimum of 50% of units will be restricted to households at 60% Area Median

Income (AMI) and below. We recommend using county-level AMI levels to better

match incomes in different areas of the state.

2. Recommend ten year affordability restriction. Gross rents paid (rent charged plus the

utility allowance) cannot exceed 30% of household income for the housing to be

deemed affordable.

3. Recommend to continue offering these projects a “loan option” for these funds as

needed

Program path # 2 eligibility –

These projects would request OMEP resources outside of the OHCS NOFA process. Project

owners would choose from a menu of available weatherization options, without requesting other

OHCS funds. We anticipate this category could include Naturally Occurring Affordable

Housing and could bring in new properties into weatherization work while also achieving some

level of affordability protections on the property.

1. With an award of weatherization funds of at least $3000 per unit, the owner would

agree to restrict a minimum of 50% of units in the property to households at 80%

AMI and below. We recommend using county-level AMI levels. Owner would

agree to a ten year affordability restriction. (see below)

2. Where the OMEP investment is less than $3000 per unit, the owner would have

three options for demonstrating income eligibility (50% of units affordable at 80%

AMI or below).


Multi-Family Energy Program

a. Income documentation of existing residents.

b. Public assistance program documentation (Section 8, HAP, PBV, SNAP, WIC,

TANF, LIHEAP, etc.) of existing residents.

c. Rent Affordability Standard. The owner would need to demonstrate the monthly

affordable rent for a household with an income at 80% AMI of below.

d. Owner would agree to demonstrate using a covenant tool not to raise rents on

existing residents as a result of the weatherization improvements

Questions for Consideration:

1. As discussed in the marketing plan, have we engaged appropriate key stakeholders?

2. Does the initial program design and infrastructure identify leverage opportunities

with complementary programs?

3. How can we further strengthen an effective and equitable delivery of services for

outreach to historically under-resourced rural service areas?

4. Do the recommended affordability covenants and options meet with immediate

program target needs while broadening the customer base?

5. What is an appropriate level of affordability restrictions to ensure a broad level of

participation while meeting the states administrative obligations and program goals?

Future Steps:

Actions needed from the Housing Stability Council in December:

Approve proposed affordability covenant criteria

Approve proposed program design components including efficiency paths and

incentives

Approve temporary administrative rule

The next steps in November for the program will be to finalize temporary administrative rules

for a developed program that is scheduled to launch in mid-December prior to the NOFA

offering. This will allow time for the NOFA respondents to acquire energy efficiency funding

commitments for inclusion with their project applications.

The temporary rules will be in place no longer than 180 days upon implementation. The

temporary rules will allow us for immediate launch while giving us the ability to make changes

prior to and leading up to establishing permanent rules for the program. During this time the

Department will review program processes, evaluate market responses, and report findings back

to the Housing Stability Council for advisory actions and continual briefings.

We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing and giving input on the development of

the new program and look forward to working with you on this exciting opportunity.


4120 SE International Way, Suite A110,

Milwaukie, OR 97222

Email: [email protected]

Multifamily Energy Program Marketing Plan

July 10, 2017

Submitted To:

Dan Eliot

725 Summer St. NE, Ste. B

Salem, OR 97301


Low-Income Multifamily Weatherization | State of Oregon Housing and Community Services Department

2 | TRC Energy Services

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND GOALS .................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Marketing Goals ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Market Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 3

2. TARGET AUDIENCES, MARKET CHANNELS, AND MESSAGING ........................................ 5

2.1 Key Target Audiences, Tailored Messaging, and Customer Segmentation ..................... 5

2.2 Network and Marketing Channels ............................................................................................ 6

2.3 Potential Campaigns ................................................................................................................... 8

3. STRATEGIES AND TACTICS ...................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Direct Outreach and Lead Nurturing........................................................................................ 9

3.2 Content Marketing ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Events ........................................................................................................................................... 10

4. EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING ................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Ongoing Tracking and Monitoring ......................................................................................... 12

4.2 Monthly Reporting .................................................................................................................... 12

5. CUSTOMER SERVICE PLAN AND SURVEY ........................................................................... 13

5.1 Customer Service Channels ..................................................................................................... 13

5.2 Project Support at Each Stage ................................................................................................ 13

5.3 Customer Survey........................................................................................................................ 17




Sophia Hartkopf, BPI, MFBA

Program Manager 1. INTRODUCTION AND GOALS

This document outlines the marketing and outreach plan for the Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) Multifamily Energy Program (OR-MEP) in 2017 and 2018 program years. This program is an expansion of the program previously known as the Multifamily Low Income Weatherization Program (MF-LIWP).

This document outlines TRC’s marketing and outreach strategies to promote this enhanced program to the Oregon multifamily market and meet program goals.

This marketing plan addresses marketing-related deliverables including:

Network and marketing channels (Section 1.1)

Tailored messaging (Section 2.3)

Marketing events and presentations (Section 3.3)

Customer service plan and survey (Section 5)

1.1 Marketing Goals

TRC’s marketing and outreach activity will support two core program goals:

The primary goal is to increase participation through two avenues:

Support multifamily retrofit and new construction projects and document their adoption of electric saving design improvements and upgrades

Provide project support for up to $2.6 million in incentives by December 31, 2018

The secondary goal is to increase market engagement by educating and empowering stakeholders (e.g., developers, property owners, property managers, contractors, energy consultants, raters) to improve energy specifications in their retrofit and new construction multifamily buildings.

1.2 Market Conditions

To develop the strategy TRC evaluated Oregon multifamily market conditions (the findings of this evaluation are in a separate document titled the Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment). TRC will focus marketing and outreach resources where they will be most effective and worthwhile, leveraging the opportunities and challenges identified in the market assessment and below.

Challenges

The biggest challenge to meeting the program participation goal is multifamily developer/owner access to capital and other resources. Affordable housing developers and property owners that aspire to maximize efficiency in their multifamily buildings may delay improvements or select less efficient measure specifications because of insufficient funding, inadequate staffing resources to make the energy improvement projects happen, or lack of knowledge about which improvements make the most sense for their project. This marketing plan proposes creative solutions to promote program funding opportunities and links stakeholders with the necessary resources to make these energy improvement projects a reality.

An additional challenge is geographic distribution of prospective program participants. Most multifamily new construction and existing buildings are located in major urban areas; however, there is also need in less populated, rural areas, where fewer multifamily buildings exist. These rural properties are harder to engage. TRC’s team is based in Milwaukie, OR, right outside of Portland. This location provides ideal access to the Portland metropolitan area, which includes 30 percent of OHCS housing stock. However, recognizing the need in less populated areas, TRC’s marketing strategy proposes solutions to reach participants in underserved




locations (i.e., Southern and Eastern Oregon) through a combination of in-person and online engagement activities.

Opportunities

Based on previous OHCS participation trends, TRC anticipates high demand for OR-MEP funding. If this prediction comes true, TRC will divert otherwise unspent marketing resources from a concerted direct outreach campaign to providing participants with additional technical support.

TRC sees the opportunity to partner with other programs both inside and outside of OHCS. This includes: the Oregon Weatherization Assistance Program, other energy efficiency ratepayer-funded programs (such as the Energy Trust of Oregon), and financing providers (such as MPower). Partnerships with these organizations will assist the program in expanding program reach and resources, and reaching traditionally underserved regions and demographics while enabling participants to access additional funding opportunities and to expand the breadth of their energy improvements.





Program Manager 2. TARGET AUDIENCES, MARKET CHANNELS, AND MESSAGING

TRC will first reach out to key market stakeholders to stimulate their interest in the program, using strategic and targeted messaging.

2.1 Key Target Audiences, Tailored Messaging, and Customer Segmentation

TRC will customize engagement activities for each target audience to appeal to their values and priorities. Engagement activities will take two forms:

Broad marketing via web presence and emails to the OR-MEP list serve. Depending on the goal of the email campaign, TRC will either issue an email to the full list, including general messaging that appeals to all sectors, or segment the list to deliver targeted messaging that appeals to each segment’s interests.

Direct outreach via email or phone call to specific individuals, as needed to recruit additional participants. TRC will incorporate each prospective participant’s value propositions into outreach messaging.

The following sections outline the key target audiences (referred to as segments above).

Developers

A key program participant group is developers of multifamily new construction projects. Some developers focus on high end luxury amenities in tight urban markets, which only allocate affordable units in their buildings because of inclusionary zoning, while others want to ensure affordable housing availability for underserved communities in rural or gentrifying markets. Developers serve as the primary project contact, responsible for securing funding, managing design partners, and overseeing permitting and construction. To maximize the influence that OR-MEP can have on projects, TRC plans to engage with developers when their projects are early in the design phase, offering design support and raising awareness for program incentives and technical support.

The primary value proposition for developers to participate in OR-MEP is to offset development and construction costs with incentives. A secondary value proposition is the no-cost, valuable design assistance resources that the program can provide, augmenting the design assistance received from the project’s design team (especially for projects that are aiming to achieve the aggressive targets of Zero Net Energy or Passive House).

Property Owners and Managers

A second key participant group is property owners and managers of existing multifamily buildings. Property owners own one or multiple properties, and are often the prime decision makers when it comes to making property improvements. Property managers typically have more day-to-day interaction with the properties they manage. Through standard maintenance and resident interactions they can identify maintenance issues and improvement opportunities to present to the property owner.

The primary value propositions for property owners and managers are to reduce operating costs, reduce maintenance needs, improve resident comfort, and provide affordable housing for underserved populations. Market-rate1 property owners (some of whom also house low-income residents) are more driven by value

1 The primary property owner this program will target is the dedicated affordable housing owner, meaning an owner that manages deed-restricted low-income housing. However, there is also great opportunity to work with property owners who manage unrestricted housing if the owner agrees to maintain rent affordability for its tenants as a result of program funding.




propositions that impact their bottom line such as, reduced resident turnover and vacancy rates, increased operating income, reduced resident complaints, and increased property value.

Contractors

Contractors make up a third key participant group. These specialty trades play a key role in advising their developer, owner, and manager clients on what types of improvements they should incorporate in their buildings, and provide the services to execute those improvements. Contractor companies can vary significantly in their offerings. Some contractors only do large-scale new construction projects, while others only do small retrofits or specialize in specific systems or products such as HVAC and insulation.

Despite this range in offerings, the primary value proposition for contractors is consistent: program incentives give contractors an opportunity to propose enhanced scopes of work and expand their client services.

Additional Target Audiences

To fully serve the market, TRC will also build relationships with other industry stakeholders who communicate with, have influence over, or can encourage developers and owners to participate in the program. These stakeholders may include:

Apartment associations and affordable housing agencies

Utility, statewide, or complementary programs

Energy consultants

Building officials

Lenders

Architects and engineers

Realtor and building associations

TRC will also consider the resident demographics at prospective properties, some of which house residents with very specific needs. Population types include the following:

General population

Seniors

Agricultural workforce

Families

Veterans

Other at-risk populations, such as tribal groups, and residents with disabilities

2.2 Network and Marketing Channels

TRC will build relationships with partner organizations, and leverage these partnership channels to promote the program and to refer prospective participants to additional resources.

Affordable Housing Associations

Affordable housing associations are the most effective channels for reaching affordable housing developers, owners, and managers. TRC will reach out to the following associations early on and maintain engagement with these associations throughout the program cycle.

Network for Oregon Affordable Housing

Oregon Affordable Housing Management Association

Oregon Housing Preservation Partnership

Oregon Opportunity Network


https://noah-housing.org/

http://oregonaffordablehousingmanagement.com/

http://www.preserveoregonhousing.org/

http://oregonon.org/




Program Manager

Apartment Associations

Apartment associations tend to primarily serve the rental market, which typically includes a large portion of for-profit property owner companies. By partnering with the following organizations, TRC can expand program reach, especially in rural and more remote locations, and can reach non deed-restricted housing with low-income residents.

Multifamily NW

Portland Area Rental Owners Association

Rental Housing Alliance Oregon

Southern Oregon Rental Owners Association

Northwest Real Estate Investors Association

Salem Rental Housing Association

Trade Associations

Contractors and other design team members play a key role in referring their property developer, owner, and manager clients to energy programs, and supporting them throughout the program participation process. TRC will work with the following associations to make sure they are aware of the program.

Oregon Energy Coordinators Association

Associated General Contractors – Oregon Columbia Chapter

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) Pacific Northwest Chapter

American Institute of Architects - Oregon

Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association

Oregon Home Builders Association

Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland

Oregon Air Conditioning Contractors Association

NW College of Construction

Government Agencies and Housing Authorities

TRC will work with the Portland, Oregon HUD field office to distribute information about the program including providing program information in the Northwest HUDLines Newsletter. TRC will research prospective properties listed on several databases including USDA’s searchable database, Fannie Mae’s Green Preservation Plus, and other financing programs. We will work with housing authorities to promote the program to align with their funding opportunities and work directly with Housing Authority-owned or funded projects.

Weatherization Agencies, Utilities and Certification Programs

TRC will reach out to complimentary utility, certification, and weatherization programs during the program design process, which will include the following.

Community Action Partnership of Oregon

Energy Trust of Oregon Multifamily Programs

MPower Oregon


http://www.multifamilynw.org/

https://paroa.wildapricot.org/

https://rhaoregon.org/

http://soroa.net/

http://www.northwestreia.com/

http://www.salemrha.com/

http://www.warmandsafenow.com/

https://www.agc-oregon.org/

http://www.abcpnw.org/

http://aia-oregon.org/

http://www.pmcaoregon.com/

http://www.homebuildersportland.org/

http://www.oracca.org/

http://www.nwcoc.com/



Bonneville Power Administration

Certification programs, such as:

• DOE Zero Energy Ready Homes

• Passive House Institute US

• Enterprise Green Communities

• Earth Advantage

• Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

• ENERGY STAR

Whenever possible, TRC will align program requirements to ensure participants can leverage multiple programs where appropriate.

2.3 Potential Campaigns

TRC will deliver email campaigns on a bi-monthly basis, with additional short promotional emails (i.e., for trainings, events, deadlines) as needed. Following is a sample of messages that appeal to the multifamily market.

Buildings don't use energy. People do.

Conserve water and cut (energy) costs on multifamily properties

Energy efficiency and your community

Energy efficiency is key to attracting millennials

Energy upgrade tips: impact your net operating income

Engaging with residents saves energy

Financial forecast: how to retrofit without refinancing

How energy upgrades in common areas can pay for themselves

How to operate and maintain your property to save energy

Increase property value through energy efficiency upgrades

Making the most of energy efficiency improvements (energy loading order)

Split incentives: finding value beyond energy bill savings

Prior to program launch, TRC will work with OHCS stakeholders to assess which of these topics are most relevant to them, and structure marketing campaigns accordingly.





Program Manager 3. STRATEGIES AND TACTICS

TRC will use a combination of direct outreach, content marketing, and event attendance to meet OR-MEP enrollment goals and inform the market about energy savings opportunities.

3.1 Direct Outreach and Lead Nurturing

Direct outreach has proven to be TRC’s most effective strategy for reaching and building relationships with prospective program participants. During the launch phase, TRC will focus on identifying new participants and raising awareness for the program.

Identify Prospective Participants

Prior to launching the program, TRC will work with OHCS to develop a list of prospective participants. OHCS plans to issue an email to members of its Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) list serve, inviting them to opt-in to notifications specific to OR-MEP. TRC will host an opt-in form using the MailChimp email platform. The form will ask new subscribers to provide their contact information (e.g., name, email, phone, company, city) and details that will allow TRC to customize outreach to their specific interests (e.g., role, existing building and/or new construction, affordable housing portfolio size). These subscribers will form the foundation of TRC’s direct outreach list.

TRC will also identify additional prospective participants by partnering with weatherization agencies, trade associations, affordable housing organizations, and utilities. To ensure that this outreach list is representative of OHCS housing stock, TRC will evaluate the distribution of subscriber cities across the state.

Initial Outreach at Program Launch

At time of program launch, TRC will issue an email via MailChimp to notify the OR-MEP subscriber list that the program application is available and to advise on the first steps to participate. TRC will customize this email for each subscriber’s interests, leveraging the following segmentation:

Group 1: New construction developer

Group 2: Existing property owner or manager

Group 3: Energy consultant, contractor, architect or finance

Group 4: Role unknown, or subscriber belongs to multiple categories

TRC’s tracking database will monitor which subscribers open and/or click the email and launch workflows to trigger additional engagement activities. This process is called lead nurturing.

Lead Nurturing for Interested Projects

TRC will configure workflows to regularly engage subscribers. Please refer to the customer service plan in Section 5 for TRC’s lead nurturing and project intake processes.

3.2 Content Marketing

To supply prospective participants with information about the program, TRC will develop content and adapt it for multiple collateral items, including email campaigns, program website postings, and factsheets.

Branding and Print Collateral

To build recognition for the program and educate prospective participants, TRC will leverage the OHCS brand identity to develop suite of collateral, including the following resources.

Online collateral: Website, email template, advertising banners, slide deck template, brief video




Print collateral: Factsheet, letter template, form template, spreadsheet template, case study template

Display collateral: Conference banner, giveaways

Emails and Blog

To make the program and its benefits known to a broader audience, TRC will develop content to share via email and on the program blog. The blog will host longer and more frequent posts, and emails will announce shorter versions of those blog posts and timely program updates. Emails will typically include multiple components, including the following.

Calls to action (e.g., register for a webinar, submit an interest form)

Technical and financing tips and resources

Program process information (e.g., how to take advantage of a program design charrette or benchmarking support)

Webinar Orientation

Webinars are a simple and economical means to reach a large audience. TRC will host an orientation webinar to share about the program benefits and how to participate. This session will include multiple breaks for attendees to ask questions. TRC will record this session and post it to YouTube and the program website for on-demand access. As needed, TRC will schedule additional live orientation webinars.

In addition to the orientation webinar, TRC will also deliver a series of trainings that we will outline in the Training Plan (separate document).

3.3 Events

To maximize awareness for the OR-MEP, and to have opportunities to meet prospective participants in-person and build relationships, TRC plans to attend several events during the program cycle.

Event Schedule

TRC will represent the OR-MEP and OHCS, at events ranging in size, location, and audience. Event representation can take on various forms, from basic attendance, to sponsorship with multiple attendees.

During stakeholder engagement activities, TRC will touch base with marketing channels to identify prospective events relevant to the affordable multifamily sector in Oregon. With feedback from OHCS, TRC will develop a detailed event schedule for conferences and meetings to attend in 2017 and 2018. Some of the larger events may include the following:

YEAR MONTH ORGANIZATION CONFERENCE

2017/2018 September Oregon Opportunity Network Fall Industry Support Conference

2017/2018 September Multifamily NW Spectrum Educational Conference and Trade Show

2017/2018 November Multifamily NW Reverse Trade Show

2018 TBD Casa of Oregon Farmworker Housing Conference

2018 TBD Oregon Affordable Housing Management Association

Annual Affordable Housing Conference

TRC will also participate in smaller events through regular association meetings, where staff will have an opportunity to deliver a brief announcement for OR-MEP, or a longer program orientation presentation.





Program Manager

Event Preparation and Follow-Up Strategy

TRC uses a checklist to prepare for, attend, and follow up after events. The checklist tracks details such as, event target audience, TRC attendees, speaking and sponsoring logistics, attendance best practices, and debrief activities.

TRC will set goals for each event, and the primary goal will typically be recruiting a certain number of prospective leads. Following the event, TRC will enter leads into the project tracking database and launch a workflow to follow up with the project to provide more details about the program. TRC will track event outcomes to determine which events are the most worth-while, and will use those results to help evaluate future event attendance.




4. EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING

TRC will assess the effectiveness of its marketing efforts throughout the course of the program, documenting both the effectiveness of broad marketing efforts like email outreach and event representation, and direct outreach activities.

4.1 Ongoing Tracking and Monitoring

Our intake process will allow us to identify which marketing campaigns (e.g., email marketing, industry event participation) generated the greatest number of leads, how many leads converted to enrollment, and how many enrolled projects completed the program. These tools will allow TRC to refine components of the marketing plan and replicate the most successful marketing campaigns to ensure maximum lead generation and enrollment conversion rates.

4.2 Monthly Reporting

TRC will provide marketing updates in each monthly report to OHCS, including the following data points:

Deliverables: summary of deliverables in progress and recently completed

Events: for each event, a summary of the event, number of contacts met, number of leads

Outreach: lead nurturing update, including number of projects at each stage





Program Manager 5. CUSTOMER SERVICE PLAN AND SURVEY

TRC supports projects from the point of initial interest in the program, as they refine their project energy scope and reserve incentives, during construction, and at the end, processing incentive requests.

5.1 Customer Service Channels

To provide comprehensive customer service, TRC will engage with projects through multiple channels. For all channels, TRC will respond to inquiries within two business days.

Phone

TRC will offer a toll-free phone number for OR-MEP. TRC call center staff will answer phone inquiries on business days between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM, and will return voicemails within two business days. To facilitate the intake process, TRC will develop talking points for call center staff.

Email

TRC will host a dedicated email for OR-MEP. TRC project intake staff will return emails within two business days. To facilitate the intake process, TRC will develop email templates for email correspondence. TRC staff will use an email signature that clearly communicates TRC’s role in support of the OR-MEP and OHCS.

Application Portal

During the program design process, TRC will work with OHCS to develop a program application portal that will serve as a document repository and communication channel. The portal will include an application form, and fields to upload additional files.

In Person

On a case-by-case basis, TRC will be available to meet with project teams in person. TRC may arrange some meetings in conjunction with events, while some will take place as stand-alone meetings, either in office or in the field.

Web Meeting

As needed, TRC will also offer web meetings with phone and screen share functionality. These meetings will facilitate activities such as design and enrollment support.

5.2 Project Support at Each Stage

TRC divides the program participation process into three stages: (1) screening, (2) enrollment, and (3) construction and verification.

Screening

TRC is available to screen projects through multiple channels, including at events, on the phone, and via email. The first stage of the screening process consists of a qualification discussion with a lead, or prospective participant. The goal of this stage is to confirm that a candidate is interested in participating in the OR-MEP. If it is interested, the lead converts to an opportunity. TRC continues the conversation, confirming that the project is likely to meet OR-MEP requirements. If it is likely to meet requirements, the opportunity converts to a project, and TRC invites the Pproject to apply for the program.

TRC creates workflows to track and automate the project screening process as much as possible. The following pages display the screening workflow for OR-MEP.





Program Manager





Program Manager

Enrollment Process

Once TRC confirms that the project is likely to meet program requirements, or determines that the project team would like additional support from the program before it can enroll, TRC will assign a dedicated energy advisor, who will serve at that project team’s primary program contact for the remaining stages of project participation. This energy advisor is available to provide technical resources and to support the project team as they apply.

Construction and Verification

Each project’s energy advisor will maintain communication with the project team throughout construction, and will help verify that projects install measures as established during the enrollment process. TRC will notify projects when they complete all tasks and documentation, and clearly communicate when to expect incentives.

5.3 Customer Survey

As part of the completion process, prior to processing incentive requests, TRC will request that participants complete a survey to provide feedback on their experience with the program. TRC will finalize this survey prior to program launch. Questions will include the following:

Please list the type of projects your company works on.

In what areas do you anticipate constructing or retrofitting projects in the next three years?

How many multifamily units does your company/organization currently maintain?

Please rate your overall satisfaction with the Multifamily Energy Program.

Please rate your overall satisfaction with the information TRC provided during the technical review.

Please rate your overall satisfaction with the verification process.

Please rate your overall satisfaction with TRC and their responsiveness.

Rate the influence of the following factors on your decision to incorporate energy efficient features in your project:

• Multifamily Energy Program incentives

• Multifamily Energy Program technical support

• Multifamily Energy Program representative

• My energy consultant/rater

What are the benefits of participating in the Multifamily Energy Program?

What energy measures do you typically prioritize to improve energy efficiency at your properties?

What other programs have you participated in?

Have you attended any TRC multifamily energy efficiency trainings?

Would you participate in the Multifamily Energy Program again?

Would you encourage others to participate in the Multifamily Energy Program?

What actions would you have taken without Multifamily Energy Program incentives or information?

Please describe how we can improve the Multifamily Energy Program.

TRC will review survey responses and incorporate feedback into program policies, when applicable.


Oregon Housing and Community Services

Housing Stabilization Division

The Increased Impacts of the EHA & SHAP One-time Only Summaries Housing Stability Council Meeting

November 3, 2017


2016 One-time EHA/SHAP Allocation

In the legislative session of 2016, the Legislature awarded OHCS additional EHA and SHAP funds to help address the increasing statewide homeless crisis • $7,600,000 EHA • $1,900,000 SHAP

OHCS brought to HSC options for additional eligible spending components. • HSC approved the addition of acquisition and/or

rehab/conversion • For creation of shelter and transitional housing • Not for creation of permanent units




The EHA and SHAP funds were allocated to the community action agencies

in June 2016.

• Allocated by formula

• The funds had to be spent for charges incurred before July 1, 2017

• The agencies had just a year to spend:

• Their regular general fund allocations and

• New allocations approximately 130% greater than their general fund

allocations



Some agencies really stepped out of the box:

• Innovations in doing business

• Developing partnerships

• Increasing shelter supply

• Landlord engagement

• Expanding community awareness and support




Activities are eligible for the Community Capacity Building component if

they:

• Increase services and access to shelter

• Engage landlords

• Create partnerships with community stakeholders and area service

providers

• Have measurable and tangible outcomes

• Align with OHCS Key Performance Measures


2016 One-time EHA/SHAP Allocation Five CAAs completed acquisition and rehabilitation activities to bring more shelter and transitional unit capacity to their communities, including purchase of: • Two manufactured homes for transitional housing • A facility for a day center • Two portable accessible shelter units • Two houses for family transitional housing • And a long-term lease and rehab of a rental complex for transitional housing Three of these five projects are in rural communities outside of the I-5 corridor. Ten CAAs completed Community Capacity Building projects. • Total spent was $1,435,547



• Emergency Housing Assistance (EHA)

One-time Funding By The Numbers

Funding Allocated: $7,600, 000 Funding Actual: $7,390,210






• State homeless Assistance Program (SHAP)


Funding Allocated: $1,900,00 Funding Actual: $1,866,831






• Hope Village (tiny houses) – Assisted partner,

Rogue Retreat, to construct tiny homes as

transitional housing

• Warming Shelter – Provided warming shelter,

partnering with Rogue Retreat

• Renovated Day Youth Center

What was done at ACCESS?


• Increased street outreach to chronically

homeless

• Nearly tripled homeless prevention capacity

• Increased emergency shelter capacity through

hotel/motel vouchering

• Shelter Rehab upgrades at two family shelters

What was done at CAO?



• EHA OTO projected HHs served: 40

• EHA OTO actual HHs served: 64

• With DHS, assisted households with the greatest barriers

gain or retain housing

• Helped the local warming station with much needed

supplies

• SHAP projected HHs served: 25

• SHAP actual HHs served: 67

What was done at CAPECO?




• Increased support to a domestic violence shelter

• SHAP OTO projected HHs served: 283

• SHAP OTO actual HHs served: 498

• Provided funding for a new shelter in Tillamook

County including funds for data collection

What was done at CAT?



• Provided assistance to 11 households that

received eviction notices

• Moved 10 households permanent housing

• Partnered with motels to accept rental

vouchers for homeless families

• Assisted an additional 83 households

What was done at CCNO?




• Additional funding was provided to 2 shelters:

– A domestic violence organization & families and children reside

in transitional housing for one year

• Partnered with Transportation Reaching People (TRP) to

provide transportation to warming centers

• Helped host shower services to 384 people and 304

households experiencing homelessness

What was done at CCSSD?



• EHA OTO funds served 55 HHs (150 adults and 88

children)

• Paid utility and or rental arrearages for households

with prior rental barriers

• Paid rent and utilities for Project Dove, a homeless

program, to continue operations throughout the year

• Partnered with the Oregon Food Bank to serve 20-25

meals per day

What was done at CINA?




• Piloted the Foundations (workforce project) program to

move families into rental housing with case management

• Partnered with Jackson Street Youth Services to provide

outreach to homeless and runaway youth



What was done at CSC?



• Purchased one property with two homes

– One for transitional housing for six families

– One home will house two families

• Provided homeless prevention and rapid rehousing

funding and services

• Paid for shelter operations and provided residents

with services

What was done at KLCAS?






• Emergency Shelter served 78 family members

and 353 single individuals

• A landlord helpline and increased collaborative

partnerships

What was done at LC?



• Increased homeless prevention rental & financial

assistance for people at risk of losing their homes

• Increase case management

• Partnered with the Housing Authority to build on

existing relationships in the community.

• Purchased hotel/motel vouchers for homeless

families and individuals

What was done at MCCAC?


• Opened the first women’s domestic violence shelter in

East County/Gresham

• Funds used through Multnomah Stability Initiative

Program for Eviction Prevention

• Expanded the motel/voucher services and supported the

creation of a domestic violence scattered site shelter

• Supported the opening of Bradley Angle’s new Tami Best

(scattered site) shelter

What was done at MULTCO?



• Increased shelter capacity via the ARCHES Day Center

• EHA OTO projected # HHs served: 180

• EHA OTO actual # HHs served: 1523

• Increased number receiving homelessness prevention, short-term

rental, and rapid re-housing assistance

• Support for the Grace House, St. Francis, St. Joseph and Sable

House shelters across Marion and Polk counties

• SHAP OTO projected # HHs served: 293

• SHAP OTO actual # HH served: 336

What was done at MWVCAA?


• Rent subsidy payment match and case management

• Paid for past utility and rental arrears to secure housing

• Increased emergency shelter capacity through motel

vouchers

• Leveraged resources included United Way funding,

Mosaic Medical referral priority, Legal Aid, and the DHS

SPRF contract

What was done at NIMPACT?



• Served an additional 63 farmworker households in 6

towns

• Provided direct rental assistance and utility

assistance

• Leveraged additional outreach to farmworker

communities via PSAs and Spanish radio segments

What was done at OHDC?


• Rehabbed a facility into a four bedroom, two-bathroom

transitional facility

• Rehabbed the Airport Apartment adding one additional

unit

• Leveraged Energy and Weatherization funds to lower the

rehab on the Airport Apartment Rehabilitation

• Assisted three individuals obtain and maintain

employment

What was done at ORCCA?



• EHA OTO projected HHs: 100

• EHA OTO actual HHs: 236

• Rental/deposit assistance for 121 households (306 individuals)

• Assisted Grants Pass youth shelter with funding for upgrades

of appliances

• Upgraded 2 family units owned by the agency



What was done at UCAN?


• Position created to build relationships with

landlords, property managers, and counsel tenants

• 107 housing search/placements provided to clients

• Helped to stabilize client housing

• Rehab/conversion repairs on two existing

transitional shelter facilities

What was done at YCAP?



• Short time-span to implement & launch project

• Too little time to meet requirements

• Some landlords unwilling to rent to homeless

• The need for separate tracking

• Securing low cost housing

• Heightened rhetoric and fear of ICE raids

• Diminished referrals from partner agencies

What are some of the challenges?


Questions?

Thank you




725 Summer St NE, Suite B Salem, OR 97301-1266

PHONE: (503) 986-2000 FAX: (503) 986-2020 TTY: (503) 986-2100

www.ohcs.oregon.gov

Date: October 26, 2017



From: Claire Seguin, Assistant Director of Housing Stabilization

Re: Emergency Housing Assistance (EHA) and State Homeless Assistance Program (SHAP)

funding overview, allocation approval and policy discussion

The Housing Stability Council will be discussing 4 primary items at the November 3, 2017

meeting:

1. The 2016-17 One Time Only (OTO) EHA/SHAP allocation impacts summary (attached

PowerPoint)

2. The policy issues introduced at the October meeting (contained in this memo)

3. The Discretionary Spending Plan for Council Affirmation (attachment)

4. The APPROVAL of the Phase I, II , and III allocations for 17-19 EHA/SHAP funding

(memo and hand-outs)

An unprecedented investment and opportunity

The Oregon Legislature has acknowledged Oregon’s housing crisis and the increasing needs of

our homeless populations by providing an historic $40 million investment in EHA/SHAP

funding. OHCS and our partners take the stewardship of this investment very seriously. We

recognize the potential for dramatic impact with these funds. We have particular focus on more

innovative delivery systems, reaching the hardest to serve populations, improved data collection,

and statewide systems integration.

Background

Since 1991, the Emergency Housing Assistance Program has funded assistance for low and

very low-income persons who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. The program targets

people age 65 and older, people with disabilities, farmworkers, and Native Americans. This

funding source is delivered locally by Oregon’s 17 Community Action Agencies (CAA) to all 36

Oregon counties and, Oregon Human Development Corporation (OHDC) which serves the

farmworker population statewide.


EHA is OHCS’s most flexible homeless program by serving a broader homeless population that

includes all unstably housed persons (i.e. doubled up, couch surfing, etc.). Service components

include outreach, shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-housing, prevention, supportive in-home

services, community capacity building, and facility acquisition, rehab and conversion.

The State Homeless Assistance Program (SHAP) was established by the Oregon Legislature in

1987 and transferred from Dept. of Human Services to OHCS in 1991. SHAP funds are

delivered locally by Oregon’s 17 Community Action Agencies. The program funds emergency

shelters and auxiliary services directly related to emergency shelters. Service components

include shelter operations, shelter resident services and facility acquisition, rehab and

conversion.

Allocation Process

EHA and SHAP allocations are historically allocated from OHCS directly to Community Action

Agencies (CAA), using a funding formula, at the beginning of each biennium. The EHA

program also includes a specific carve-out of funding to the Oregon Human Development

Corporation (OHDC) to serve farmworkers. All allocations except for OHDC/farmworkers are

done by formula based on data elements that represent community need. The allocation for

OHDC is established by the agency director with guidance from the Agriculture Workforce

Housing Facilitation Team (AWHFT). The EHA and SHAP allocation formulas have the

following weighted data elements:

EHA: Severe Housing Burden (35%) Federal Poverty Threshold (55%) Homelessness

(10%)

SHAP: Severe Housing Burden (30%) Federal Poverty Threshold (45%) Homelessness

(25%)

Program general fund allocations for 2017-19 are being allocated in phases:

EHA Phase I: $6,800,000 EHA Phase II: $6,800,000 EHA Phase III: $10,112,307

SHAP Phase I: $1,800,000 SHAP Phase II: $9,201,055

OHDC (farmworker) Phase I: $200,000

OHDC (farmworker) Phase II: $400,000 (Discretionary Fund)

OHCS takes an administrative allocation of 10% for both SHAP and EHA general funds. An

additional 5% of EHA general funds is set aside as discretionary funding which is allocated in

accordance with EHA discretionary policy. Current discretionary policy includes three eligible

uses: Contingency Fund to meet unexpected funding reductions, federal matching requirements


and emergencies impacting low income/homeless households; Continuum of Care (CoC) Fund to

ensure CoCs have the capacity to meet HUD requirements for successfully competing for project

funding; and Competitive Innovative Fund to enhance, strengthen and demonstrate best and

promising practice strategies for reducing homelessness. CAA network grantees (inclusive of

OHDC) are the eligible entities to apply for funding.

System Performance Results

In 2016, the OHCS homeless system of funds served 15,617 households representing 27,096

persons compared to 12,516 households representing 22,091 persons served in 2015. EHA and

SHAP funding represent a significant proportion of the homeless system and received an

additional $10 million in 2016 which likely had a direct impact upon the increase in client

service capacity represented in the increased numbers. In 2016, the permanent housing retention

performance measure rate was 92% compared to the 80% benchmark. This measurement is the

number of persons exiting to permanent housing who were contacted six months later and

reported that they were still living in permanent housing.

In the 2017 legislative session, the legislature allocated $30 million in new funds for the EHA

and SHAP programs, up from a baseline level of $10 million which has been the standard in

previous biennia. In recognition of this historic investment, OHCS is working closely with our

Community Action Agency grantees, as well as OHDC, to build robust work plans and to engage

the Council in dialogue around the network’s plans, to ensure the best possible investment of

resources. The November 2017 Council meeting will showcase the details of the Community

Action Agency partner work plans, along with OHCS recommendations on the use of EHA

Discretionary funds which support OHCS’ commitment to data-driven decision making,

Oregon’s Continuum of Care network, and innovation and support for our hardest to serve target

populations. This represents greater Council engagement on the EHA and SHAP programs,

which is aligned with the Council’s recent adoption of a new framework to more directly engage

with the Community Action Partnership of Oregon and the Housing Stabilization programs of

OHCS.

Policy areas for Council member discussion and information

EHA & SHAP Expanded/Enhanced Usage

Increased Real Estate Acquisition Flexibility--Last year the council approved a new program

allowing acquisition and rehabilitation of real estate utilizing EHA funds. To evaluate the

pilot year of the program, OHCS met with the CAPO Real Estate sub-committee and had

discussions with OHCS staff. This program has great support from the Director and our CAA

partners. 5 key questions emerged for your consideration.

EHA Real Estate discussion questions:


1. In what ways are these projects different from our traditional affordable housing

development projects? What specific considerations should we factor in to the program

update? (see acquisition and rehab conversion attachments)

2. How long should the use restrictions last? Currently the restrictions last 20 years.

3. Are we comfortable with our current level of monitoring and compliance (self-

certification) in new projects going forward? What would additional compliance look

like?

4. What percentage of an agency’s allocation should be used for real estate versus client

services?

5. What program design considerations should we think about as we address the new statute

language which allows EHA funds to be used to “align with federal programs”?

Fiscal & Program Operations-

Caleb Yant, CFO for OHCS, co-hosted a training in October with our national industry

organization (NASCSP) and Community Action Partnership of Oregon (CAPO) to discuss these

new policy ideas. He will present an update and next steps.

Spend Down and Reallocation of Unspent Funds--Funding reallocation is performed

when a CAP agency recognizes the inability to spend funds. The process is managed by

CAPO and reallocates funds to different CAP agency that has the capacity to spend

additional funds. OHCS recognizes the need for a more proactive process to ensure

concerns are recognized early, training and technical assistance is provided, and funding

only leaves a community as an option of last resort.

Timeliness of Request for Funds Submissions--OHCS hasn’t mandated timeframes by

which funds must be drawn by CAP agencies. This leads to ambiguity in tracking and

reporting of fund utilization. The combination of this need and a greater emphasis for

improved financial reporting dictates the creation of this policy.

EHA Discretionary

System Delivery Infrastructure Capacity Building--OHCS has received consistent

feedback from our partners regarding the need for additional capacity for improvements

in data collection, establishing by-name registries, and implementing coordinated entry.

You will see these allocations called out in our EHA Discretionary Spending Plan. This

represents a direct response to our partners identified need and a continued commitment

to improved data collection and data driven decision making.

Competitive Agriculture Worker Funding -- Based on feedback from the Agriculture

Worker Housing Facilitation Team (AWHFT), the Director of OHCS has authorized the


design and distribution of a competitive request for funds (RFP) to expand services for

this target population. This will be the first time that OHCS offers an open competition

for these funds. OHCS will rely on input from the AWHFT for the creation of this new

process.

OHDC-This agency is called out in the statute as an EHA recipient. They are called out as

the provider of farmworker specific services. Historically, the CAA partners have been

allocated their funding by formula. OHDC has had no specific methodology for

determining their EHA allocations. For this biennium, the Director has used a flat rate of

$200,000 from program funds and $400,000 from the EHA discretionary funds. This total

reflects a rough calculation based on the historic base allocation plus a percentage

increase calculated on the overall Legislative allocation increase.

Discussion:

Going forward, how could we determine a consistent methodology for equitable

fund allocation for this target population? For this agency?

Conclusion:

The Governor, the Legislature, the CAA network, and the Housing Stability Council have an

important opportunity to use this EHA/SHAP investment to make significant progress toward

our goals of reducing homelessness, reaching the hardest to serve, and of building a high

performing system to serve the most vulnerable Oregonians. OHCS is committed to

continued implementation of best practices, research, data collection and analysis, and

dedicated leadership of this work. The CAA work plans coupled with our Discretionary

Spending Plan offer a significant leap towards our shared goals. Thank you for your

commitment to this work.


Summary of Phase II 2017-19 Funding Requests

Projected Use of Funds for Acquisition – EHA and SHAP

Acquisition Total Cost

EHA

EHA Budgeted Project Description Target Population Projected # Units/Clients

Concept is Approved Based on Current Program Design

$250,000 $54,121 Purchase and rehab of a vacant care center. The facility will be converted to multi-family housing. EHA will be

used for the acquisition.

Existing clients who have been unable to

find housing; any other households that

qualify.

20 - 24 units No

Acquisition Total Cost

SHAP

SHAP Budgeted Project Description Target Population Projected # Units/Clients


$250,000 $72,678 Purchase and rehab of a vacant care center. The facility will be converted to multi-family housing. SHAP will be

used for the acquisition.

Existing clients who have been unable to

find housing; any other households that

qualify.

20 - 24 units No

$196,617 $196,617 Purchase and rehab a building to provide services including shelter,

personal coaching, and assistance to improve social determinants of health.

Homeless families working with DHS

Child Welfare.

10 families Yes

$270,000 $126,000 Purchase or lease option a facility to convert to a shelter appropriate for

family use.

Families 5 families Yes


Summary of Phase II 2017-19 Funding Requests

Projected Use of Funds for Rehabilitation or Conversion -- EHA

Rehab/ Conversion Total Cost

EHA Budgeted

Project Description Target Population Projected # Units/Clients


$500,000 $100,000 Rehabilitation of a Day Center, to include new flooring, ceiling and plumbing work, and installation of a kitchen, showers and

laundry area.

Homeless men, women and families.

100 contacts/ day; 52,000

contacts/ biennium

Yes

$50,000 $50,000 Renovate CAA’s offices to provide easier access for chronically homeless persons. Renovations include a ramp, grab bars, automatic front door and private intake

offices.

Chronically homeless persons.

Unknown No

$304,000 $157,563 Rehabilitation of a 14 unit apartment complex. The units rehabbed with EHA

funds will be used for transitional housing.

The general population of households which will

best benefit from transitional housing and

optional services.

4 – 14 households Yes

Projected Use of Funds for Rehabilitation or Conversion -- SHAP

Rehab/ Conversion Total Cost

SHAP Budgeted

Project Description Target Population Projected # Units/Clients


$500,000 $400,000 Rehabilitation of a Day Center, to include new flooring, ceiling and

plumbing work, and installation of a kitchen, showers and laundry area.

Homeless men, women and families.

100 contacts/ day; 52,000 contacts/

biennium

Yes

$20,000

$20,000 Rehabilitation of an unused space in an existing shelter. Will be a family

unit.

Homeless households with

children.

One family Yes





PHONE: (503) 986-2000 FAX: (503) 986-2020 TTY: (503) 986-2100

www.ohcs.oregon.gov

November 3, 2017


From: Marilyn Miller, Homeless Section Manager

Claire Seguin, Assistant Director of Housing Stabilization

Subject: EHA Discretionary Fund 2017-19 Spending Plan

Date: November 3, 2017

Informational for Council Affirmation

Background

Historically, five percent of the Emergency Housing Assistance (EHA) funds have been set aside for

OHCS discretionary use with the advice of the Community Action Agency Partnership of Oregon

(CAPO). The purpose of the EHA Discretionary Funds is to stabilize, enhance, and expand community-

based, local homeless programs or projects that prevent and reduce the incidence of homelessness.

The original policy was submitted to CAPO for review on August 27, 2013 and revised based on the

feedback provided by CAPO members. The policy was again reviewed by CAPO this year and resulted

in a revision to one of the funding categories. The current policy is summarized below.

Policy Summary

The EHA Discretionary Policy allows for funding within three priority use categories:

Contingency Fund to meet federal match requirements and/or address unexpected funding reductions

including emergency situations that have potential harm for low income and homeless households;

Continuum of Care (CoC) Planning/Implementation Fund to ensure an effective network of Continuums

of Care;

Competitive Innovative Fund to demonstrate best and promising practices for addressing homelessness.

Currently, the eligible entities to receive funds are the Community Action Agencies, OHDC and CAPO.

This spending plan reflects OHCS’ commitment to data informed decision making, implementation of

best practice models, research-based interventions, a collaborative system approach and a commitment

to those hardest to serve.


Discretionary Spending Plan

A total of $1,543,582 of EHA discretionary funds is available for allocation within the current 2017-19

biennium. This amount includes $1,394,842 from the new EHA allocation and $148,740 carried over

from the 2015-17 biennium.

Contingency Fund Proposed Investment: $200,000

Funding would be available to implement inclement weather strategies to prevent homeless Oregonians

from losing their lives due to extreme winter weather or other emergency housing situations that are

potentially life threatening. This is a high priority that has been called out by the Governor and

legislature. Funds would also be available to provide required matching funds for federal Continuum of

Care and Emergency Solutions Grants to prevent loss of grant funds. This is supported by the recently

adopted legislation (SB 821) that allows EHA to align with federal strategies and resources targeted to

prevent and end homelessness.

Continuum of Care Planning/Implementation Fund Proposed Investment: $300,000

Oregon has seven Continuums of Care that compete nationally for HUD funding to address

homelessness. This network is distinct from the Community Action Agency network, although there is

CAA involvement in varying degrees in CoC’s across the state. HUD has established a federal priority

on permanent supportive housing projects which are badly needed to address the state’s current shortage

of such housing for homeless households. Funds would be used to strengthen the infrastructure of our

CoCs to meet HUD requirements for retaining eligibility to receive federal funds and successfully

compete nationally. Specific eligible projects/activities would include: development/implementation of

coordinated entry, service standards, expanded data collection and reporting capabilities, conducting the

annual point in time counts, and expanded CoC membership and CoC engagement in Oregon’s Initiative

to reduce Veterans homelessness. The HUD regional office and SSVF TA/training resources are

currently, and will continue to be, aligned with this funding to ensure the success of all seven of

Oregon’s continuums.

Competitive Innovative Fund Proposed Investment: $363,582

This is a competitive fund to support and expand the utilization of best and promising practices as well

as demonstrate new innovative strategies for addressing homelessness. Projects could include efforts to

increase access and alignment with mainstream resources, strengthen organizational data driven

evaluation, development/implementation of culturally relevant service strategies for underserved or

target populations or landlord engagement and incentive activities intended to increase private

permanent housing options for homeless households.

Farmworkers Service Expansion: $530,000

These Innovative funds would provide an additional $400,000 to Oregon Human Development

Corporation to expand their homeless services to farmworkers in additional counties and cities

throughout the state. The EHA statute specifically creates a farmworker component to the EHA

program and names OHDC as a service delivery partner.

A second component of this category is the creation of a competitive farmworkers innovative grant fund

($130,000) that would be open to entities outside of our current grantee network. This is a new

approach to our delivery system in an effort to reach a vulnerable, target population. We discussed this

option with the OHCS Agricultural Workforce Housing Facilitation Team, which is a legislatively

established task force that works to address the needs of Oregon’s agricultural workers. This body

expressed support for the idea of providing funds in a timely fashion to OHDC, while opening the door

for innovative approaches with these additional funds that could be accessed by other providers.


Enhanced Service System Capacity: $150,000

This Innovative Fund investment is designed to implement system strategies to improve and increase the

effectiveness of OHCS and partner efforts to reduce homelessness through increased access to

mainstream services. The proposed 2017-19 project would focus on the leadership, expansion and

sustainability of the statewide SSI/SSDI Outreach, Access, and Recovery (SOAR) program which has

historically lacked the resource investment to reach the national success experienced by other states.

The SOAR effort in Oregon is an initiative designed to increase access to SSI/SSDI for eligible adults

who are experiencing or who are at risk of homelessness and have a mental illness, medical impairment,

and/or a co-occurring substance use disorder. SOAR is a best practice collaborative approach to

assisting potentially eligible SSI/SSDI clients to successfully apply and receive SSI/SSDI long term

assistance that can help stabilize their permanent housing.





PHONE: (503) 986-2000 FAX: (503) 986-2020 TTY: (503) 986-2100

www.ohcs.oregon.gov

Date: October 24, 2017



From: Claire Seguin, Assistant Director of Housing Stabilization Division

Marilyn Miller, Homeless Services Section Manager

Re: Emergency Housing Assistance (EHA) and State Homeless Assistance Program (SHAP)

Funding Allocations

Purpose: To inform and receive approval from the Housing Stability Council to release and allocate

EHA and SHAP 2017-19 program funds.

Background

Emergency Housing Assistance (EHA) and State Homeless Assistance Program (SHAP) are the primary state

general funds allocated to OHCS for services and assistance to prevent and reduce homelessness. A description

of the programs including targeted populations and allowable service components was provided to the Council in

the October 6, 2017 meeting agenda packet.

The legislature increased the investment of state general funds in EHA and SHAP from a base service level of

$20,123,060 to $40,123,060 for the 2017-19 biennium. Of this amount, $34,713,362 is dedicated to funding local

homeless reduction and farmworker programs through the Community Action Agency network, including the

statewide farmworker organization, Oregon Human Development Corporation (OHDC). The balance of the total

$40,123,060 is designated for SHAP and for OHCS administration of the programs.

Allocation Process

The 2017-19 program allocation process is being done in phases in accordance with the following:

EHA Phase I: $6,800,000 EHA Phase II: $6,800,000 EHA Phase III: $10,112,307

SHAP Phase I: $1,800,000 SHAP Phase II: $9,201,055

Phase I resources were disbursed per funding formulas to Community Action Agencies in August 2017, shortly

after adoption of the OHCS budget. OHCS opted to separate the funding into phases for this biennium to allow

grantees time to create and submit work plans for OHCS review, and to create an opportunity for the Housing

Stability Council to consider the funding approaches prior to releasing funds. The enclosed funding allocation

tables reflect grantee requests by service component for Phase I and II. The current timeline calls for requesting

grantee workplan and budgets for the expenditure of EHA Phase III funding on November 6, 2017 and OHCS

approval and allocation to grantees by December 20, 2017.

Requested Action

Move to approve the allocation of $34,713,362 of EHA and SHAP program funds to our CAA network grantees.


OHCS 2017-2019 EHA ALLOCATION

Funds Distributed: 08/04/17 Funds to be Distributed Upon Approval of

Phase II Workplan/Budget Funds Distributed: To Be Determined


OHCS 2017-2019 SHAP ALLOCATION

SHAP

Biennium 2017-19

Program Year SHAP 19

Grant Period 7/1/17-6/30/19

ACCESS 56,971.00$ 569,706.00$ 6.19%CAO 83,368.00$ 833,683.00$ 9.06%CAPECO 15,546.00$ 155,461.00$ 1.69%CAT 36,288.00$ 362,874.00$ 3.94%CCNO 11,277.00$ 112,772.00$ 1.23%CCSSD 57,735.00$ 577,345.00$ 6.27%CINA 10,039.00$ 100,393.00$ 1.09%CSC 56,048.00$ 560,481.00$ 6.09%KLCAS 19,118.00$ 191,183.00$ 2.08%LCHHS 102,643.00$ 1,026,428.00$ 11.16%MCCAC 10,930.00$ 109,307.00$ 1.19%MULTCO 214,416.00$ 2,144,162.00$ 23.30%MWVCAA 84,380.00$ 843,798.00$ 9.17%NIMPACT 49,276.00$ 492,763.00$ 5.36%NOHA -$ -$ 0.00%OHDC -$ -$ 0.00%ORCCA 27,159.00$ 271,595.00$ 2.95%UCAN 61,892.00$ 618,913.00$ 6.73%YCAP 23,019.00$ 230,193.00$ 2.50%TOTAL 920,105.00$ 9,201,057.00$ 100.00%

% of Agency

FundsTotalProgramAdminAgency

557,021.00$ 207,174.00$

101,495.00$ 326,586.00$ 139,915.00$

8,280,952.00$

98,377.00$ 923,785.00$ 172,065.00$ 504,433.00$

1,929,746.00$ 759,418.00$ 443,487.00$

-$ -$

244,436.00$

519,610.00$ 90,354.00$

750,315.00$ 512,735.00$

OriginatorOrigination Date 8/28/2017 Reshmi Koikkara

Allocation

DescriptionPhase II Allocation

Funds Distributed: To Be Determined Upon

Approval of Phase II Work Plan/Budget

Agency Program

Amount

Agency Admin

Amount

Net Agency

Amount

8,280,949.00$

920,106.00$

9,201,055.00$

Funds Distributed: 08/04/17


Summary of Phase I 2017-19 EHA Funding Requests

Grantee Phase I

Allocation

Admin HMISStreet

OutreachPrevention Shelter

Rapid

Re-housing

Transitional

Housing

In Home

ServicesCapacity Bldg. Acq. Or Rehab

ACCESS 432,625$ 43,263$ 30,283$ 359,079$

CAO 670,633$ 67,063$ 154,514$ 179,126$ 90,804$ 179,126$

CAPECO 131,392$ 13,139$ 3,048$ 2,812$ 31,165$ 11,102$ 70,126$

CAT 209,020$ 20,902$ 13,440$ 88,290$ 86,388$

CCNO 89,609$ 8,961$ 5,188$ 41,746$ 8,710$ 25,004$

CCSSD 453,621$ 45,362$ 45,770$ 131,097$ 133,410$ 97,982$

CINA 74,121$ 7,412$ 1,482$ 34,838$ 2,223$ 19,271$ 8,895$

CSC 437,464$ 43,746$ 201,234$ 122,490$ 69,994$

KLCAS 144,360$ 14,436$ 7,218$ 10,105$ 38,977$ 4,331$ 37,534$ 20,210$ 11,549$

LCHSD 747,582$ 74,758$ 29,903$ 201,847$ 351,364$ 89,710$

MCCAC 76,555$ 7,656$ 2,572$ 39,380$ 26,947$

MULTCO 1,474,614$ 93,933$ 441,205$ 652,664$ 286,812$

MWVCAA 647,349$ 64,735$ 19,420$ 97,102$ 194,205$ 271,887$

NIMPACT 361,901$ 36,190$ 25,333$ 235,236$ 65,142$

OHDC 100,000$ 8,260$ 1,600$ 90,140$

ORCCA 175,069$ 17,507$ 17,507$ 8,755$ 26,260$ 26,260$ 26,260$ 26,260$ 26,260$

UCAN 422,095$ 42,210$ 12,663$ 8,442$ 181,500$ 177,280$

YCAP 151,993$ 15,199$ 136,794$

Total 6,800,003$ 624,732$ 139,374$ 184,628$ 2,004,099$ 1,609,554$ 1,976,466$ 153,347$ -$ 107,803$ -$

NOTE:

Projected Use of Funds

● EHA Grantee funds are being allocated in three phases-Phase I & II $6,800,000 each and Phase III $10,112,307 for a total of $23,712,307


Summary of Phase I 2017-19 SHAP Funding Requests

Grantee Phase I

Allocation

Admin HMISStreet

Outreach

Shelter

Operations

Shelter

Resident

Services

Shelter Rehab

or Conversion

ACCESS 111,451$ 11,145$ 100,306$

CAO 163,093$ 16,309$ 92,392$ 54,392$

CAPECO 30,413$ 2,935$ 6,035$ 4,833$ 16,610$

CAT 70,988$ 7,100$ 6,620$ 52,546$ 4,722$

CCNO 22,062$ 2,206$ 19,856$

CCSSD 112,946$ 11,295$ 101,651$

CINA 19,640$ 1,964$ 590$ 15,908$ 1,178$

CSC 109,647$ 10,965$ 1,096$ 97,586$

KLCAS 37,401$ 3,740$ 33,661$

LCHSD 200,800$ 20,080$ 12,048$ 168,672$

MCCAC 21,384$ 2,138$ 9,435$ 9,811$

MULTCO 419,462$ 41,946$ 377,516$

MWVCAA 165,072$ 16,507$ 1,651$ 110,598$ 36,316$

NIMPACT 96,399$ 9,640$ 26,992$ 59,767$

ORCCA 53,132$ 5,313$ 5,845$ 12,220$ 12,220$ 17,534$

UCAN 121,078$ 12,108$ 6,054$ 65,382$ 31,480$ 6,054$

YCAP 45,032$ 4,503$ 30,397$ 10,132$

Total 1,800,000$ 179,894$ 34,094$ 5,845$ 1,222,365$ 324,082$ 33,720$

NOTE:


● SHAP is being allocated in two phases due to the impact of winter weather on the need for shelter - Phase I $1,800,000 and

Phase II $9,201,055 for a total of $11,001,005.


Summary of Phase II 2017-19 EHA Funding Requests

102517 FINAL

Grantee Phase II Allocation


Admin. HMIS Street Outreach

Prevention Shelter Rapid Re-housing

Transition Housing

In Home Services

Capacity Bldg.

Acquisition or Rehab

ACCESS $432,625 $43,263 $33,026 $37,336 $105,000 $20,000 $105,000 $39,000 50,000

CAO $670,634 $67,063 $60,000 $237,980 $67,610 $237,981

CAPECO $131,386 $13,139 $7,200 $4,200 $70,986 $4,000 $31,861

CAT $209,020 $20,902 $28,000 $96,558 $12,000 $51,560

CCNO $89,609 $8,961 $7,500 $56,148 $5,000 $12,000

CCSSD $453,622 $45,362 $270,760 $112,500 $25,000

CinA $74,121 $7,412 $20,000 $46,709

CSC $437,464 $43,746 $25,000 $103,700 $80,000 $185,018

KLCAS $144,360 $14,436 $15,000 $2,500 $15,000 $3,500 $15,000 $12,000 $30,924 $36,000

LANE $747,582 $74,758 $569,825 $11,000 $42,000 $49,999

MCCAC $76,555 $7,655 $4,000 $44,900 $20,000

MULT $1,474,614 $110,596 $995,365 $368,653

MWVCAA $647,349 $64,735 $9,000 $4,000 $50,000 $200,000 $131,000 $20,000 $68,614 $100,000

NIMPACT $361,901 $36,190 $70,650 $130,978 $120,000 $4,083

OHDC $100,000 $8,257 $1,600 $90,143

ORCCA $175,069 $17,506 $157,563

UCAN $422,095 $42,210 $9,000 $75,000 $130,385 $140,500 $25,000

YCAP $151,993 $15,199 $2,500 $55,000 $56,000 $23,294

Total $6,799,999 $641,390 $212,476 $183,036 $3,022,728 $680,763 $1,124,402 $74,000 $30,924 $476,008 $354,272

NOTES:

EHA Grantee funds are being allocated in three phases—Phase I & II $6,800,000 each and Phase III $10,112,307 for a total of $23,712,307

Projected # of unduplicated households served with both Phase I and II is 14,617


Summary of Phase II 2017-19 EHA Funding Requests

102517 FINAL

CAA Grantee Service Area Phase I Projected HH Served

Phase II Projected HH Served

ACCESS Jackson County 300 300

Community Action (CAO) Washington County 680 250

Community Action Program of East Central Oregon (CAPECO) Gilliam, Morrow, Umatilla, and Wheeler Counties 85 160

Community Action Team (CAT) Columbia, Clatsop and Tillamook Counties 1,190 1,190

Community Connection of NE Oregon (CCNO) Union, Wallowa, Grant and Baker Counties 35 38

Clackamas County Social Services (CCSS) Clackamas County 240 1,000

Community in Action (CinA) Malheur and Harney Counties 84 0

Community Services Consortium (CSC) Linn, Benton and Lincoln Counties 900 900

Klamath/Lake Community Action Services (KLCAS) Klamath and Lake Counties 120 136

Lane County Human Services (LANECO) Lane County 511 584

Mid-Columbia Community Action Council (MCCAC) Hood River, Wasco and Sherman Counties 30 30

Multnomah County Dept. of Human Services (MULTCO) Multnomah County 1,975 685

Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (MWVCAA) Marion and Polk Counties 350 1050

NeighborImpact (NIMPACT) Jefferson, Crook and Deschutes County 60 60

Oregon Human Development Corporation (OHDC) Statewide Farmworkers—EHA focus on Hillsboro, Woodburn, Hood River and Wasco Counties, Hermiston, Ontario and Klamath Falls

80 80

Oregon Coast Community Action (ORCCA) Coos and Curry Counties 784 15

United Community Action Network (UCAN) Douglas and Josephine Counties 280 280

Yamhill Community Action Partnership (YCAP) Yamhill County 45 110

Total Projected Households Served 7,749 6,868


Summary of Phase II 2017-19 SHAP Funding Requests

102517 FINAL

Grantee Phase II Allocation


Admin. HMIS Street Outreach Shelter Operations

Shelter Resident Services

Shelter Rehab or Conversion

Acquisition

ACCESS $569,706 $56,971 $27,736 $184,998 $250,000 $50,000

CAO $833,683 $83,368 $750,315

CAPECO $155,461 $15,543 $6,000 $24,000 $104,918 $5,000

CAT $362,874 $36,288 $31,146 $52,000 $213,440 $30,000

CCNO $112,772 $11,277 $7,500 $93,995

CCSSD $577,345 $57,735 $519,610

CinA $100,393 $10,039 $1,000 $500 $9,000 $7,176 $72,678

CSC $560,481 $56,048 $25,000 $150,000 $74,915 $254,518

KLCAS $191,183 $19,118 $27,500 $7,500 $24,065 $63,000 $50,000

LANE $1,026,428 $102,643 $122,094 $418,483 $383,208

MCCAC $109,307 $10,930 $5,000 $18,377 $75,000

MULT $2,144,162 $214,416 $1,000,000 $929,746

MWVCAA $843,798

NIMPACT $492,763 $49,276 $2,487 $225,000 $70,000 $20,000 $126,000

ORCCA $271,595 27,159 $31,000 $15,819 1,000 $196,617

UCAN $618,913 $61,892 $35,000 $30,000 $257,675 $234,346

YCAP $230,193 $23,019 $7,000 $72,244 $79,530 $48,400

Total $9,201,057 $835,722 $206,369 659,156 $3,289,008 $2,901,709 $70,000 $395,295

NOTES:

SHAP is being allocated in two phases due to the impact of winter weather on the need for shelter—Phase I $1,800,000 and Phase II $9,201,057 for a total

of $11,001,055

Projected # of unduplicated households served with both Phase I and II is 24,128 (data is missing from 1 grantee)

Final allocation data not yet available from MWVCAA


Summary of Phase II 2017-19 SHAP Funding Requests

102517 FINAL

CAA Grantee Service Area Phase I Projected HH Served

Phase II Projected HH Served

ACCESS Jackson County 30 300

Community Action (CAO) Washington County 200 268

Community Action Program of East Central Oregon (CAPECO) Gilliam, Morrow, Umatilla, and Wheeler Counties 50 136

Community Action Team (CAT) Columbia, Clatsop and Tillamook Counties 150 350

Community Connection of NE Oregon (CCNO) Union, Wallowa, Grant and Baker Counties 45 115

Clackamas County Social Services (CCSS) Clackamas County 140 750

Community in Action (CinA) Malheur and Harney Counties 200 200

Community Services Consortium (CSC) Linn, Benton and Lincoln Counties 600 1,500

Klamath/Lake Community Action Services (KLCAS) Klamath and Lake Counties NA 656

Lane County Human Services (LANECO) Lane County 5,254 10,354

Mid-Columbia Community Action Council (MCCAC) Hood River, Wasco and Sherman Counties 20 50

Multnomah County Dept. of Human Services (MULTCO) Multnomah County 465 850

Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (MWVCAA) Marion and Polk Counties NA NA

NeighborImpact (NIMPACT) Jefferson, Crook and Deschutes County 20 40

Oregon Coast Community Action (ORCCA) Coos and Curry Counties 200 500

United Community Action Network (UCAN) Douglas and Josephine Counties 280 300

Yamhill Community Action Partnership (YCAP) Yamhill County 45 60

Total Projected Households Served 7,699 16,429

NOTE: NA means that data is not yet available





Salem, OR 97301-1266 PHONE: (503) 986-2000

FAX: (503) 986-2020

TTY: (503) 986-2100

www.ohcs.oregon.gov

To: Oregon State Housing Stability Council

From: Brad Lawrence, Loan Officer; Heather Pate, Multifamily Housing Finance Section Manager


Re: Kaiser, Conduit Bond funding request

BOND RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Pass Through Revenue Bond Financing in an

amount up to and not to exceed $13,234,157 to Kaiser Limited Partnership for the construction of Kaiser,

subject to the borrower meeting OHCS, Lender and Investor underwriting, closing criteria and

documentation satisfactory to legal counsel and Treasurer approval of the bond sale.

SUMMARY:

Project Sponsor Community Development Partners

Properties Hillhouse

1900 Hill St. SE

Albany, OR 97322

Linn County

Santiam Terrace

855 Chicago St. SE

Albany, OR 97322

Linn County

Walnut Court

842 NE 2nd St.

Corvallis, OR 97330

Benton County

Owner CDP Kaiser LLC

Description The acquisition/rehabilitation project will have 120 residential units,

which contain 40 studios, 48 one bedroom units, 8 two bedroom

units, 16 three bedroom units, 5 four bedroom units, and 3 five

bedroom units. All rental units are affordable to households at or

below 60% of the area’s median family income (MFI). In addition,

all 120 units will be receiving section 8 project based vouchers.

Affordability FUNDING

SOURCE

# OF

UNITS

%

INCOME

%

RENTS

# OF

YEARS

LIHTC/BOND 120 60 60 30

LIWX 1 60 60 60

Target Population

Workforce, Family, and Children


Environmental Review Phase I environmental reviews were completed with no

evidence of environmental conditions with the subject

property. However, since these properties were originally built

in 1972-73, it’s recommend to implement Operations and

Maintenance plans to manage asbestos and/or lead based paint

abatement that is identified.

Finance Committee Approval October 24, 2017

FINANCING STRUCTURE:

Construction Lender Citi Community Capital

Permanent Lender Citi Community Capital

Equity Investor Aegon USA Realty Advisors, LLC

General Contractor LMC Construction

Project Financing

SOURCES: USES:

OHCS Sources:

Tax Exempt Bonds (Long Term) $10,611,717

Tax Exempt Bonds (Short Term) $2,622,440 Acquisition $6,635,001

Short Term Use of Bonds ($2,622,440) Construction $4,977,032

4% LIHTC Equity $5,190,941 Development $4,666,169

Weatherization $165,902

Non-OHCS Sources:

Deferred Developer Fee $309,642

TOTAL Sources and Uses: $16,278,202

Bond Structure

The total tax-exempt conduit bond amount is $13,234,157, of which $2,622,440 will be short-

term, draw down bonds used for the construction of the project and the remaining $10,611,717

will be long-term debt. Citi will be the construction and permanent lender.

Scope of Work: Immediate & Short Term Repairs (all sites are included below)

Site improvements: Grading repairs, asphalt pavement repairs, concrete drive repairs, concrete

flatwork repairs, landscape improvements, wood fence repairs, sport court repair.

Structural Frame and Building Envelope: Structural engineering, facade repairs, repaint facades,

roof leak repair, and elevated walkway repair.

Mechanical Electrical Systems: Domestic water pressure analysis, seismic strap water heaters,

electrical load analysis, and install GFCI outlets.

Accessibility: ADA improvements


Hillhouse: Repairs will include new lighting, siding, windows, new metal roofs, insulation,

exterior painting, patios, sidewalks, parking lot and landscaping.

Santiam Terrace: Repairs will include new stairs, guardrails, lighting, and various minor repairs.

Walnut Court: Repairs will include new stairs, guardrails, lighting, new windows, and new

heating/cooling units to be installed in all units.

Developer Fee

Total Developer Fee: $1,829,831 15.74% (maximum allowed $1,860,057 or 16%)

Deferred Developer Fee: $309,642 Repayment projected within 4 years

Cash Developer Fee: $1,520,189

Operating Budget

Per IRC Section 42, the Sources, Uses and Operating Budget for this project have been reviewed.

It has been determined that the Project is feasible and should remain financially viable for the tax

credit affordability period.

Affordability Restrictions:

Unit Type Number

of Units

Percent Median

Income as Adjusted

for Family Size Will

Not Exceed

Rents Not to Exceed the Following Percent

of Median Income Described in the Most

Current Table of LIHTC Program Rents

Determined by OHCS

Studio 40 60% 60%

1 Bedroom 48 60% 60%

2 Bedroom 8 60% 60%

3 Bedroom 16 60% 60%

4 Bedroom 5 60% 60%

5 Bedroom 3 60% 60%

Operating Expenses: $4,654 PUPA excluding resident services

The operating expenses are within the range we would typically see for similar properties.

Debt Coverage Ratio

First full year of operations: 1.15

DCR at year 15: 1.34

DCR at year 30: 1.51

Location, services, marketing and amenities

The bond programs are non-competitive and therefore Projects must meet only the minimum

threshold program requirements and are not scored based on need and impact. The management

agent and resident services plans have been reviewed and approved by OHCS Asset

Management and Compliance (AMC).


Locations

1. Hillhouse Apartments is a 2.79 acre site located in the Albany, OR area.

Located in the 208.01 Qualified Census Tract

Public Transportation – 300 feet

Grocery – 0.7 miles

Hospital – 2.2 miles

2. Santiam Terrace Apartments is a 1.89 acre site located in the Albany, OR area.





3. Walnut Court Apartments is a 0.76 acre site located in the Corvallis, OR area.





Resident Services

The bond and 4% LIHTC programs are non-competitive and therefore Projects must meet only

the minimum threshold requirements. The resident services plan has been reviewed and approved

by AMC.

Computer w/ software designed to assist

residents with connecting to social

services and programs via internet

Annual Community Event

Quarterly Newsletter

Amenities

Community Rooms

Laundry Rooms

Playgrounds

On-site Leasing Offices

Conclusion

Based on the review of the Kaiser application materials submitted by the sponsor, it is recommended that the motions on page 81 be approved. The approval will be contingent upon the satisfaction of the lender and equity investor’s underwriting and closing requirements.



MAMMAC Project

Presentation to:

Housing Stability Council

November 3rd, 2017


The MAMMAC Project

2

Main presenter

Michael Hill Senior Systems Analyst

_______________

Multifamily & Asset Management Modernization And Consolidation (MAMMAC) A technology based project to replace aging data management systems in the Multifamily Finance and Asset Management & Compliance sections with an advanced single system of record.



PROJECT SNAPSHOT

3

Aim To replace data systems used by Multifamily and Asset

Management with a unified COTS Solution

Business Case Current systems are old (1990s) disparate (x3), insecure and

inaccurate. Emerging COTS solutions.

Total Spend $950,000 over 5 years, $200k Implementation

Total Hours 2,380

Timeline Migration Feb 2018 | Close Project June 2018

Constraints OSCIO Stage Gate Oversight (>$150,000)

Sponsor Caleb Yant (CFO)

Project Manager Michael Hill (Senior Systems Analyst)

Current Status ORANGE


BUSINESS CASE

4

• Agency Need – Systems being replaced are outdate and unreliable |

too many shadow systems.

• Secretary of State Mandate – agency response to recommendations

highlighted in 2016 Performance Audit.

• Strategic Goal – Agency is driving towards being more data driven, a

single system of record that tracks projects from initiation into

compliance ensures data consistency.

• Opportunity – The selected software is modern and efficient and has

been developed with other HFA’s across the county, upgrading gives

OHCS the opportunity to learn new best practices and improve

workflows.



EXPECTED OUTCOMES

5

• Consistency of Data – the new system will replace two core systems

and multiple sub-systems for recording data ensuring that each

project has one record.

• Improved Usability – the current systems are very old, the new

system is interconnected, web based, and offers a greatly improved

user experience.

• Triaged Data – the migration phase of the implementation will allow

the Agency to complete the cleaning of the existing data and provide

a reliable foundation of data.

• Improved Reporting – the new system offers powerful reporting tools

and with clan, reliable data as a foundation the Agency will be better

able to regularly produce informative reports.


STAGE GATE OVERSIGHT

6

• State CIO Oversight requested by agency to ensure quality and success.

Current Stage - 3



PROLINK SOLUTIONS

7

RFP Process resulted in the selection of ProLink Solutions as the successful proposer. OHCS is nearing the end of negotiations and expects to sign contracts shortly. The ProLinkHFA solution offers the following: • Single backend database • Hosted COTS environment • Internal + external communications portal (Procorem) • SmartDOX document automation • Annual user group event to prioritize feature development

More information available at: prolinksolutions.com


UPCOMING PHASE

8



QUESTIONS

9





Salem, OR 97301-1266

PHONE: (503) 986-2000

FAX: (503) 986-2020

TTY: (503) 986-2100

www.ohcs.oregon.gov



Margaret Salazar, Director

From: Ariel Nelson, Government Relations Liaison

Claire Seguin, Assistant Director, Housing Stability

RE: Rent Guarantee Program (HB 2724) Implementation Overview

Background

The 2017 Oregon Legislature enacted HB 2724, which restores a mitigation fund at OHCS that

covers a portion of landlords’ expenses for damages caused by a tenant who has completed a

tenant education program such as Rentwell or Ready to Rent.

In preparation for implementation of HB 2724 and the Rent Guarantee program on January 1,

2018, OHCS convened a Rules Advisory Committee (RAC) to provide guidance on creation of

the program framework, request for application, and administrative rules. The RAC members

and materials discussed follow this memo.

Council Role

HB 2724 explicitly requires administrative rules for the Rent Guarantee program to be approved

by the Housing Stability Council. The intent of today’s briefing is to provide Council with an

update on program implementation and a preview of the draft administrative rules. The RAC met

on Monday, October 30th and feedback from that meeting will be incorporated in a final OHCS

recommendation to Council at the December 1 meeting. Council will be asked to approve final

administrative rules for Rent Guarantee at that time.


Rent Guarantee Draft Program Framework (HB 2724)

Revised: 10/3/2017

GUARANTEE LIMITATIONS

$2,000 per tenant

$5,000 max. for any single landlord for all agreements in program

Minimum term of guarantee is first 12 months of tenant occupancy

LANDLORD ELIGIBILITY

Owner/operator of rental housing approved to participate in program by program provider.

Has written contract with program provider

Has written lease/rental agreement with tenant

Agrees to provide a minimum rental term of 12 months from the date landlord/tenant agreement begins, providing tenant remains compliant with agreement

Cannot apply to HCLGP for same damages obtained in RGP

Certifies dwelling meets minimum habitability standards

PROGRAM PROVIDER ELIGIBILITY

Has written contract with OHCS, duration of not less than 1 fiscal biennium

Successfully responds to RFA

Has current experience providing tenant readiness education or can provide access to tenant readiness education through subcontract

Has experience placing persons in low-income households into permanent housing

Demonstrates organization capacity to administer program, track and report data and performance measurement, enter data using OHCS HMIS, can timely process request for payment payments, can operate on a reimbursement basis for financial assistance

TENANT ELIGIBILITY

Income at or below 60% AMI

Experiences barriers to housing stability - Homelessness or unstably housed - Poor credit history - Criminal background history - Eviction history

Successfully completed OHCS-approved tenant readiness education

Is placed in housing due to this program (not already an existing tenant)

Resident of Oregon

TENANT READINESS EDUCATION

Certified or experienced trainer

Curriculum extends over multiple weeks

Tenants receive pass/fail grade, those who pass receive completion certification

Sets maximum number of acceptable absences

Covers the following areas: - Landlord/tenant law - Application/screening process - Understanding a lease/rental agreement - Personal finance/budgeting/how credit reports are used - Energy conservation - Fair housing rights/responsibilities - What makes a good tenant/communicating with landlord - Barriers to obtaining housing - Tips for moving in/moving out - Care/maintenance of unit/maintenance responsibilities - Termination notices - Recovering your deposit



Revised: 10/3/2017

STANDARDIZED GENERAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Habitability standards

Release of information

Confidentiality

Termination policy

Grievance and appeals process

Nondiscrimination

Fair housing

Limited English proficiency

Conflict of interest

ALLOWABLE EXPENSES

Expenses occurred upon move-out of tenant within the first 12 months of tenancy and limited to total program limit of $2,000

Repair/replacement fixtures/structures beyond normal wear/tear (limited to costs identified in Schedule of Damages)

Unpaid rent (limited to 1 month’s unpaid rent plus up to a 30-day notice period, if eviction required for non-compliance of agreement)

Debris removal (limited to costs identified in schedule of damages)

Eviction costs

Damages by pet/services animals included on tenant’s rental agreement (limited to costs identified in schedule of damages)

REQUEST FOR FUNDS

Program provider uses OHCS OPUS fiscal system

Provider completes claim form with supporting attachments

OHCS issues notice of allocation

Provider submits request for funds

OHCS approves request for funds

Provider remits funds to landlord

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Program provider uses OHCS HMIS data system (requires service agreement and annual fee)

Quarterly/Annual demographic/funding report (HMIS tracking basic demographic; supplemental report tracking the following): - Tenant last name, first initial - County of dwelling - Monthly gross income - Amount of guarantee - Guarantee start/end date - Months of tenancy - Risk factors (criminal history, eviction history, poor credit history) - Pass/fail tenant readiness - Claims paid

Quarterly/annual Financial Status Report (OPUS)

Questions: Do we allow administration expenses (5%, 10% or other – HMIS license, data entry, reporting, processing payment requests)? - Limited funding (if no admin can serve 75 HHs; if 10% admin can serve 67

HHs; if 5% admin can serve 71 HHs)

Do we try to create formula for fund dispersal and if so, what factors should we use; if not – will we evenly divide the avail funds by the number of successful RFAs?



Revised: 10/3/2017

Criteria for acceptable RFA: - Experience providing (or have contract with) tenant readiness education –

how current should experience be, how much experience? - Experience placing low-income HHs in permanent housing – how much and

what type of experience? - Experience working with local landlords/service providers – how much and

what type of experience? - Demonstrate organization capacity – what would be sufficient?


Draft – 10/3/17

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

DIVISION __

RENT GUARANTEE PROGRAM (RGP)

813- -0000

Purpose and Objectives OAR chapter 813, division, is promulgated to accomplish the general purpose of ORS 458.505, 458.375,

458.377, and 458.600 to 458.650, and particularly 458.650, which designates the Housing and

Community Services Department as the state agency responsible for administering state and federal

antipoverty programs in Oregon. The Rent Guarantee Program addressed in this division is one such

program subject to department administration and has as its purpose to provide incentives and financial

assistance to landlords that rent or lease to low-income households by guaranteeing payments to

landlords for unpaid rent and for eviction and property damage costs within limits established by the

department.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 456.555

Stats. Implemented: ORS 458.505, 458.620 and 458.650

813- -0011

Definitions All words and terms that are used in OAR chapter 813, division, are defined in the Act and below. As

used in OAR chapter 813, division, unless the context indicates otherwise:

(1) "Application" means the program provider's response to the department’s request for application

for a program grant.

(2) “Department” means the Housing and Community Services Department for the state of Oregon.

(3) “Fund” means the Rent Guarantee Program Fund created within the State Treasury, separate and

distinct from the General Fund.

(4) “Funding agreement” means grant agreement or other written agreement, together with all

incorporated documents and references, to be executed by and between the department and

program provider in form and substance satisfactory to the department as a condition precedent

for receipt of program funding from the department.

(5) "Household income" means the total household income from all sources before taxes. Income

under this definition may be reduced by deductions allowed by the department in compliance

with program requirements. Income does not include assets or funds over which the applicant or

household has no control.

(6) “HUD” means the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

(7) “Landlord” means an owner of a dwelling unit that has entered into a rental or lease agreement

with a tenant, including a person who is authorized by the owner to manage the premises or to

enter into a rental agreement and has entered into a program agreement with the program

provider.

(8) "Low income household" means a household with an annual household income that is sixty (60)

percent or less of the area median income based on HUD determined guidelines, adjusted for

family size.


Draft – 10/3/17

(9) “Program” means the Rent Guarantee Program administered by the department pursuant to this

division and other applicable law.

(10) “Program manual” or “manual” means the Rent Guarantee Program Operations Manual, as

amended from time to time, incorporated herein by this reference. The manual may be accessed

online on the department’s website.

(11) "Program provider" means an organization that meets legislative requirements, with whom the

department has contracted to administer program services at the local level.

(12) “Program requirements” means all funding agreement terms and conditions (including work plan

objectives), department directives (including deficiency notices), and applicable state, local, and

federal laws and regulations (including these rules, other applicable department rules and the

manual), executive orders, local ordinances and codes.

(13) “Program services” means allowable services for unpaid rent, eviction costs, and property

damage costs, as defined in the department program manual and eligible for funding under the

program.

(14) “Tenant” means a low-income individual or a family, in Oregon, that experience barriers to

obtaining housing, including, but not limited to poor credit history or ratings; criminal

background history; and/or history of housing evictions; and will be entering into a rental or

lease agreement with a qualified landlord; has completed tenant readiness education and has not

had any prior program claims.

(15) “Tenant Readiness Education” means the department approved curriculum of personal

budgeting, tenant/landlord relationships and other relevant matters taught to eligible tenants for

participation in the program.



813- -0021

Administration (1) The department may contract with program providers to provide program services at the local

level.

(2) The department normally will allocate program funds to program providers through the

submission of an application in response to the department’s request for application, available

funding, and criterion set by the department.

(3) A program provider shall comply with the terms of the funding agreement and all other program

requirements as determined by the department.

(4) The department may use funds to pay the administrative costs associated with the delivery of the

program within limitations determined by the department.



813- -0045

Use of Funds (1) Program funds will be used for eligible services and activities as further defined in the funding

agreement and program manual.


Draft – 10/3/17



813- -0050

Request for Proposal (1) Prior to providing any program services, a program provider shall meet all requirements

established by the department for the form and content of a request for application in response to

the department’s request for application.

(2) The program provider shall adhere to the department's requirements and deadlines identified in

the department’s request for application. A submitted application is subject to approval,

including as modified by the department or disapproval by the department.



813- -0061

Reporting and Recordkeeping (1) Program providers shall maintain accurate financial records satisfactory to the department, which

document, inter alia, the receipt and disbursement of all funds provided through the program by

the department; and have an accounting system in place satisfactory to the department, which

meets, inter alia, generally accepted accounting principles.

(2) Program providers also shall maintain other program records satisfactory to the department. Such

records shall be in substance and format satisfactory to the department.

(3) Program providers shall provide the department with all required reports, data, and financial

statements in substance and format satisfactory to the department, by department-determined

submission deadlines.



813- -0065

Compliance Monitoring (1) The department will conduct reviews, audits and other compliance monitoring as it deems

appropriate with respect to each program provider, inter alia, to verify compliance with program

requirements. Program providers will cooperate fully with the department in its compliance

monitoring.




RENT GUARANTEE RULES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Bend / Central OR Neighbor Impact

Sonia Capece 2303 SW 1st St Redmond OR 97756

541.548.2380 [email protected]

Multnomah Transition Projects www.tprojects.org

Caitlyn Kennedy Rent Well Program Administrator

665 NW Hoyt St Portland, OR 97209


Clackamas Elizabeth Kayla Wilson

[email protected]

Washington Community Action www.caowash.org

Linda King Housing Program Specialist Supervisor

1001 SW Baseline St Hillsboro, OR 97123


Douglas County Housing Authority of Douglas County

Jamie Ambrosini, Deputy Director

902 W Stanton Roseburg, OR 97471


Jackson County ACCESS

Matthew Vorderstrasse Participant Support Supervisor

3630 Aviation Way Medford, OR 97504

541.779.6691 ext. 365

[email protected]

Douglas / Josephine Counties UCAN

Kelly Wessels Chief Operating Officer

280 Kenneth Ford Dr Roseburg, OR 97470


Harney/Malheur Counties CinA

Chris Sarter-Soto 915 SW 3rd Ave Ontario, OR 97914


Baker / Grant / Union/ Wallowa Northeast Oregon Housing Authority

Di Lyn Larsen-Hill Family Self-Sufficiency Program Manager

PO Box 3357 La Grande, OR 97850

541.963.536, ext. 32

[email protected]

Oregon Housing Authorities

Ryan Fisher [email protected]

NEDCO Emily Reiman [email protected]

Washington County Housing Services

Val Valfre [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.tprojects.org/

http://www.tprojects.org/



http://www.caowash.org/







79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2017 Regular Session

Enrolled

House Bill 2724Sponsored by Representative KENY-GUYER, Senator DEMBROW, Representative HEARD; Repre-

sentatives GORSEK, MCLAIN, NEARMAN, SANCHEZ, SOLLMAN (Presession filed.)

CHAPTER .................................................

AN ACT

Relating to the Rent Guarantee Program.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

SECTION 1. As used in this section and section 2 of this 2017 Act:

(1) “Landlord” means an owner of a dwelling unit that has entered into a rental or lease

agreement with a tenant.

(2) “Low income household” means a household of one or more individuals whose com-

bined incomes are at or below 60 percent of the area median income and includes, but is not

limited to, a household of one or more individuals who are homeless or at risk of becoming

homeless.

(3) “Tenant” means an individual or a family who has or will be entering into a rental

or lease agreement with a landlord.

SECTION 2. (1) The Housing and Community Services Department shall develop and im-

plement the Rent Guarantee Program for the purpose of providing incentives and financial

assistance to landlords that rent or lease to low income households by guaranteeing pay-

ments to landlords for unpaid rent and for eviction and property damage costs as described

in this section. Department administration of the program is subject to Oregon Housing

Stability Council policy, rules and standards.

(2) A tenant is eligible to participate in the program if the tenant:

(a) Resides in a low income household;

(b) Experiences barriers to obtaining housing including but not limited to:

(A) Poor credit history or ratings;

(B) Criminal background history; or

(C) A history of housing evictions; and

(c) Successfully completes the tenant training and certification process implemented by

the department under subsection (3) of this section.

(3) As part of the program implemented under this section, the department shall provide

training to, and a certification process for, tenants from low income households for the

purpose of providing tenants with information on how to achieve and maintain a successful

tenancy and providing reliable accreditation of tenants to landlords that are considering

renting or leasing to tenants from low income households.

(4) A landlord may submit a request for financial assistance to the department in ac-

cordance with rules adopted by the council. Financial assistance to landlords under the

program is limited as follows:

Enrolled House Bill 2724 (HB 2724-A)


(a) Reimbursement for unpaid rent and payment of eviction and damage costs are limited

to circumstances involving rental or lease agreements entered into with tenants determined

to be eligible under subsection (2) of this section;

(b) Financial assistance is limited to reimbursement for unpaid rent and eviction and

damage costs incurred during the first 12 months of any single rental or lease agreement;

(c) Reimbursement for unpaid rent is limited to a maximum of $2,000 per eligible tenant;

(d) Financial assistance paid under the program to a landlord is limited to a maximum

of $5,000 per landlord; and

(e) Payment of financial assistance is contingent on the landlord’s submission of a com-

plete and accurate reimbursement request, verification of unpaid rent and eviction or dam-

age claims by the department or program provider described in subsection (6) of this section

and cooperation with the collection of data to measure program performance outcomes as

described in subsection (6) of this section.

(5) Before receipt of payments of financial assistance under the program, a landlord must

provide to the department or the program provider described in subsection (6) of this section

a report containing information required by rule adopted by the council. The report must

contain, at a minimum, the following:

(a) Information regarding eligible tenants with which the landlord entered into tenancy

agreements including, but not limited to, the length of tenancy and reason for termination

of tenancy, if applicable; and

(b) The amounts of unpaid rent and eviction and damage costs not reimbursed by finan-

cial assistance received by the landlord under the program.

(6)(a) The department may contract with a public or private provider to administer the

program within an individual county or region of this state and to distribute financial as-

sistance to eligible landlords as provided in this subsection. The department is not subject

to the provisions of ORS chapter 279A or 279B in awarding a contract under the provisions

of this subsection. The department shall, in consultation with the council, establish criteria

for proposals, prepare and publish requests for proposals, receive proposals and award con-

tracts to eligible providers. Eligible providers must, at a minimum:

(A) Have experience providing tenant readiness education sufficient to provide tenant

training and certification as described in subsection (3) of this section;

(B) Have experience placing persons in low income households into permanent housing;

(C) Have experience working collaboratively with local landlords and service providers;

and

(D) Demonstrate the organizational capacity to administer the program, including the

ability to track data and performance measure outcomes and to timely process requests for

and payments of financial assistance.

(b) Program providers shall, in accordance with rules adopted by the council:

(A) Enter information into the homeless management information system maintained by

the department;

(B) Provide reports regarding the number of landlords and tenants participating in the

program, demographic information about tenants, identified tenant risk factors and the

number and amount of requests for financial assistance made under the program;

(C) Review and verify requests for financial assistance and make payments in accordance

with established department processes for distributing funds; and

(D) Collect data to measure the following program performance outcomes:

(i) Increased housing stability, as measured by the percentage of total program partic-

ipants who reside in and maintain permanent housing for a minimum of 12 months;

(ii) Increased landlord participation, as measured by the percentage increase in the

number of landlords participating in the program; and



(iii) Successful tenant readiness education, as measured by the percentage of tenants

successfully completing the tenant training and receiving certification as described in sub-

section (3) of this section.

(7) Nothing in this section prohibits a landlord from participating in the Housing Choice

Landlord Guarantee Program under ORS 456.375 to 456.390 or the Housing Choice Voucher

Program under 42 U.S.C. 1437f(o).

(8) The department may not pay financial assistance under the Rent Guarantee Program

from any source other than available funds in the Rent Guarantee Program Fund established

in section 3 of this 2017 Act. Amounts due and payable under the program shall not consti-

tute a debt of the state or a lending of the credit of the state within the meaning of any

constitutional or statutory limitation.

(9) The department shall submit an annual report to the interim legislative committees

of the Legislative Assembly related to housing no later than September 15th of each year

regarding the implementation and status of the program, the number of participants in the

program, amounts of financial assistance requested and paid and the performance outcomes

measured by the program.

(10) The council, in consultation with the department, shall adopt rules to implement the

provisions of this section.

SECTION 3. (1) The Rent Guarantee Program Fund is established within the State

Treasury, separate and distinct from the General Fund. Interest earned by the Rent Guar-

antee Program Fund shall be credited to the fund.

(2) Moneys in the Rent Guarantee Program Fund shall consist of:

(a) Amounts donated to the fund;

(b) Amounts appropriated or otherwise transferred to the fund by the Legislative As-

sembly;

(c) Amounts received from state or federal sources to be deposited into the fund;

(d) Income derived from moneys in the fund; and

(e) Other amounts deposited in the fund from any source.

(3) Moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated to the Housing and Community

Services Department to carry out the provisions of section 2 of this 2017 Act.

(4) The department may use moneys in the fund to pay the administrative costs associ-

ated with the fund and with implementing and maintaining the Rent Guarantee Program

under section 2 of this 2017 Act.

SECTION 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation

made to the Housing and Community Services Department by section 1, chapter _____,

Oregon Laws 2017 (Enrolled House Bill 5012), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2017, is in-

creased by $223,247 for the Rent Guarantee Program.



Passed by House July 5, 2017

..................................................................................

Timothy G. Sekerak, Chief Clerk of House

..................................................................................

Tina Kotek, Speaker of House

Passed by Senate July 7, 2017

..................................................................................

Peter Courtney, President of Senate

Received by Governor:

........................M.,........................................................., 2017

Approved:

........................M.,........................................................., 2017

..................................................................................

Kate Brown, Governor

Filed in Office of Secretary of State:

........................M.,........................................................., 2017

..................................................................................

Dennis Richardson, Secretary of State



Members:

Aubre Dickson, Chair

Tammy Baney

Michael C. Fieldman

Anna Geller

Zee D. Koza

Gerardo F. Sandoval, PhD

Tricia Tillman

Adolph “Val” Valfre, Jr.

Charles Wilhoite

Housing Stability Council 725 Summer St NE, Suite B

Salem OR 97301-1266

Phone: 503-986-2000

FAX: 503-986-2020

TTY: 503-986-2100

Housing Stability Council Policy and Operations Analyst Ms. Freeman addressed the Council and...

Documents

Transcript of Housing Stability Council Policy and Operations Analyst Ms. Freeman addressed the Council and...