New research from CLPHA and Econsult Solutions shows that PHAs generate and induce multiple streams of economic activity benefitting those who reside in public housing, as well as local employers, governments, and industries. "The Economic Impact of Public Housing: Ongoing Investment with Wide Reaching Returns," highlights four key findings:
Public Housing is an Economic Driver
Housing authorities generate economic impacts that ripple through the community, city, and region. PHAs own and manage large property portfolios as well as directly support real estate markets through Housing Choice Vouchers and other housing assistance payments.
- Every $1 million PHAs spend on capital investments generates $1.89 million in economic activity and supports 11 full-time jobs
- From FY13-17, PHAs in Akron, Charlotte, Kansas City, Los Angeles, New York, and Oklahoma spent $4.5 billion on capital needs and generated an estimated $7.6 billion in economic activity, supporting 7,600 full-time jobs
Public Housing is Workforce Housing
While the majority of public housing residents are elderly and/or disabled, among work-able households, most are either working, subject to work requirements, or have worked recently.
Public Housing is a Long-Term Investment
The 1.1 million public housing units around the country are a significant investment by the federal government, with a replacement cost of $183 billion.
Public Housing is a Tax Revenue Generator
Public housing is a critical element of regional and local infrastructure due to its proximity to transportation, business centers, educational opportunities, other housing, and community centers, as well as its multiple economic intersections and influence on the economic growth of their cities.
- 6 PHAs generate $69 million in city tax revenue and $215 million in state tax revenue each year.
CLPHA is pleased to announce that three Members of Congress will address attendees on the first day of CLPHA’s Fall Membership Meeting. Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. David E. Price (D-NC), and Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH) will each give remarks about their legislative priorities for public and affordable housing and related programs.
Click here to view the latest preliminary agenda for CLPHA's Fall Meeting.
Don’t miss hearing from our distinguished speakers. Register for CLPHA’s Fall Membership Meeting Today!
|
|
||
|
|
Missouri – 1st Congressional District Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay is Missouri’s senior Democrat in Congress and represents the 1st Congressional District. Succeeding his father, the Honorable Bill Clay, Congressman Clay is currently serving his 10th term. He was first elected to the U.S. House in 2000 after serving 17 years in both chambers of the Missouri State legislature. He is the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development & Insurance. In that leadership role, he is fighting to restore consumer protection, fair housing and a real chance for millions of working families to achieve the American dream. Chairman Clay has also made it his special mission to take on the discriminatory and destructive practice of red-lining in minority neighborhoods by banks, insurance companies and appraisers who have been allowed to exclude entire sections of American cities on the basis of race. Mr. Clay is also a senior member of the Oversight and Reform Committee, which has major oversight and investigative responsibilities for the operations of the federal government. He is also on the front lines of protecting our environment as a proud member of the House Natural Resources Committee where he continues his outspoken advocacy for renewable energy, clean air, safe water and doing something about climate change before it is too late. A graduate of the University of Maryland, he also holds honorary degrees from Lincoln University, Harris-Stowe State University, the University of the District of Columbia and Logan College. |
|
|
|
||
Congressman Wm. Lacy Clay (D)
|
|
||
|
|
North Carolina - 4th Congressional District David Price represents North Carolina's rapidly growing, research-and-education-focused 4th district that includes parts of Orange, Durham, and Wake counties. A senior member of Congress, Price currently serves on the House Appropriations Committee and is the Chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee. He also serves on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. He is also a key member of the House Budget Committee. Before he began serving in Congress in 1987, Chairman Price was a professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Duke University. He is the author of four books on Congress and the American political system. After receiving his undergraduate degree at UNC-Chapel Hill, he went on to Yale University to earn a Bachelor of Divinity and Ph.D. in Political Science. A strong supporter of affordable housing, education, accessible health care, and improved transportation alternatives, Chairman Price has led the way on improved funding for housing programs such as Choice Neighborhoods, Public Housing Capital Fund, Public Housing Operating Fund, and Housing Choice Vouchers. |
|
|
|
||
Congressman David E. Price (D)
|
|
||
|
|
Ohio – 4th Congressional District Steve Stivers is currently serving his fifth term as a Member of Congress and represents Ohio’s 15th Congressional District. Congressman Stivers has served on the Financial Services Committee throughout his time in Congress, which oversees the banking, insurance, real estate, public and assisted housing, and securities industries. He is one of two Co-Chairs of the Congressional Public Housing Caucus. Throughout his career, Congressman Stivers has worked to encourage job creation, promote economic development, and put our country’s fiscal house in order. He is the lead sponsor of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which would restrict the federal government from spending more than it brings in. Prior to running for Congress, Congressman Stivers served in the Ohio Senate. He also worked in the private sector for the Ohio Company and Bank One, where he focused on promoting economic development and encouraging job creation. A career soldier, Congressman Stivers has served over 30 years in the Ohio Army National Guard and holds the rank of Brigadier General. He served the United States overseas during Operation Iraqi Freedom in Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar and Djibouti, where he led 400 soldiers and contractors and is proud that each and every one returned home safely to the United States. Congressman Stivers received the Bronze Star for his leadership throughout the deployment. He received both his bachelor’s degree and his MBA from The Ohio State University and resides in Columbus with his wife Karen and their two children. |
|
|
|
||
Congressman Steve Stivers (R)|
|
On September 19, 2019, the full Senate Appropriations Committee agreed to, and unanimously passed, their version of the FY20 funding bill for Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies (T-HUD) on a recorded vote of 31 to 0, with a manager’s amendment making technical changes to the bill offered by T-HUD Subcommittee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-ME), as the only amendment agreed to by the committee.
Chairwoman Collins said about the bill, “(t)his legislation will support job creation and economic development, allow us to make critical improvements to our infrastructure, provide housing assistance for low-income seniors and other vulnerable populations, and enhance oversight of the FAA’s aviation safety and aircraft certification programs.”
The previous week, the Senate appropriations committee agreed to allocations for the 12 subcommittees with T-HUD receiving $74.3 billion in total discretionary funding. Of that amount in today’s action, the discretionary funding level allocated to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) totaled $48.6 billion, an increase of $2.3 billion above the FY19 enacted level.
In a familiar pattern and reprise of repudiating Trump Administration budget proposals, the Senate T-HUD bill reflects Congress’ continuing commitment to fund critically important housing and community development programs the Administration has proposed rescinding, cutting, or eliminating.
As T-HUD subcommittee ranking member Jack Reed (D-RI) stated during subcommittee markup, the bill “rejects draconian cuts from the Trump Administration and provides needed resources to prevent and end homelessness, and a real path out of poverty. But we’ve got to do more. We must make forward-looking investments in our national infrastructure, including our roads, bridges, housing, and new technologies. This bill is a concrete example of bipartisan progress, but much more is possible if we focus on building bridges, not walls.” During full committee consideration, Reed further stated, “we have a housing problem,” citing the issues of housing affordability, homelessness, housing shortages, and more.
In a major win for housing authorities, the bill includes close to verbatim language offered by CLPHA and other public housing industry groups to reject HUD’s attempt to force PHAs to execute a highly problematic revised ACC without mutual agreement by public housing agencies. The ACC language in the Senate bill reads,
“Sec 233. None of the funds made available by this or any prior Act may be used to require or enforce any changes to the terms and conditions of the public housing annual contributions contract between the Secretary and any public housing agency, as such contract was in effect as of December 31, 2017, unless such changes are mutually agreed upon by the Secretary and such agency: Provided, That such agreement by an agency may be indicated only by a written amendment to the terms and conditions containing the fully authorized signature of its chief executive. Provided Further, That the Secretary may not withhold funds to compel such agreement by an agency which certifies to its compliance with its contract.”
Overall, for CLPHA members the funding levels in the Senate bill are generous in some accounts and challenging in others. The T-HUD bill is expected to be packaged together with other subcommittee appropriations bills into a minibus and offered for passage on the Senate floor. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s vow to pass as many spending bills as possible before the beginning of the 2020 fiscal year on October 1st ran into budget realities since several bills were threatened with “poison pill” riders, including abortion, border wall funding, immigration, farmer bailouts, and other controversial amendments.
However, given the late timeframe on T-HUD and other bills, a continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government funded past September 30 is more likely. The House of Representatives today passed HR 4378, a CR to keep the government funded until November 21st. The Senate is expected to take up the CR next week.
Whether or not the Senate T-HUD bill receives floor consideration before the full Senate, the stage is set for the Senate bill to go into conference with the earlier House-passed T-HUD appropriations bill, HR 3055, in order to work out differences between the two funding measures, and before final passage of 2020 appropriations for HUD.
CLPHA’s updated funding chart accompanies this article, and we will shortly provide a more detailed analysis of the Senate funding bill to CLPHA members, along with selected passages and rationale of policy directives and recommendations from the Committee Report.
For further information, contact CLPHA’s Legislative Director Gerard Holder at gholder@clpha.org.
Today, HUD released its fourth notice on implementation of the Housing Opportunities Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA), bipartisan legislation passed unanimously and enacted in July 2016 to streamline PHA operations and regulations.
The new notice seeks comment on several HOTMA provisions, including income calculations, occupancy standards, and asset limits. Sections 102, 103, and 104 of HOTMA contain many statutory changes to the United States Housing Act of 1937.
The statutory changes proposed in the notice would apply to public housing, Section 8, HOME, HOPWA, and HTF programs. The main issues for which HUD is seeking comment that apply to public housing and Section 8 programs are summarized below.
Income Reviews and Calculations (Section 102)
- In revising the definition of family income, HUD asks for input on the challenges of instituting HOTMA provisions on income definitions for public housing, the HCV program, and PBVs, but not for PBRA.
- HOTMA states that if a family’s adjusted income increases by 10% or more, the PHA must conduct a reexamination of the family’s income within a “reasonable amount of time” after the PHA is made aware of the change. HUD is seeking comment on what constitutes a “reasonable amount of time.”
- For interim income reexaminations, HUD is also seeking comment on whether it should require that PHAs use the Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) system for interim reexaminations, or only for initial and annual reviews.
- HUD is seeking comment on the administrative impacts of the safe harbor provision that allows PHAs to use income determinations from other types of public assistance. The Department is also seeking feedback on developing rules for using other income determinations when a household has income determinations from multiple types of public assistance, and whether it should expand the list of public assistance programs that can be used for income determinations.
- In the HOTMA provision stating that a PHA will not be out of compliance for income review and calculation due to any “de minimis error” made by the PHA, HUD is seeking comment on its proposed definition of a “de minimis error” as one where the PHA’s calculation of a family’s income varies from the correct income by 5% or less.
- While a HOTMA provision would eliminate the disallowance of earned income (EID) for rent determinations, HUD is seeking comment on allowing households currently receiving the EID benefit to continue to do so until their allowed time expires.
- HOTMA includes a simplified definition of annual income, and HUD is seeking comment on redefining it to include the imputed return on assets over $50,000 of actual income for assets that cannot be calculated.
- HUD is seeking comment on whether certain other income sources, such as payments from a nonrevocable trust fund and insurance payments, should be considered income in the simplified definition of annual income.
- HOTMA creates new income exclusions and grants HUD the authority to name additional exclusions. HUD is seeking comment on whether other income sources should be excluded, such as income for all veteran’s disability benefits.
- HUD is seeking comment on the hardship exemption for health and medical expenses, and how a PHA should determine that a family is unable to pay their rent due to changes in these expenses. HUD also asks for comment as to whether PHAs should be allowed to establish their own policies for making this determination.
- Under HOTMA, PHAs may allow additional deductions so long as the deductions do not “materially” increase federal expenditures. HUD proposes that PHAs adopting additional deductions would not be eligible to receive any additional program funding to cover the increased costs attributable to the additional deductions, and HUD is seeking comment on this definition of “material.” HUD is also seeking comment on whether additional deductions, such as work-related income, could be used as an employment incentive.
Income Limitations (Section 103)
- While HUD is not specifically requesting comment on HOTMA’s provisions for terminating over-income families, the notice states that because HOTMA requires PHAs to submit annual reports on over-income families in public housing, HUD is developing a tool and process that will allow PHAs to submit these data.
Income Assets (Section 104)
- Under HOTMA, families receiving housing assistance may not have net assets exceeding $100,000, including real property suitable for occupancy that the family owns or partially owns. HUD proposes if a family owns or partially owns property suitable for occupancy, the family would need to demonstrate that it does not have the right to occupy or sell the property, which would exclude the property from the asset test. HUD is seeking comment on the test to exempt the property, and how families would demonstrate that one of the conditions apply.
- HOTMA also excludes domestic violence victims from the real property restriction, and HUD is seeking comment on how this provision should be administered.
- HUD proposes some clarifying changes regarding items excluded through HOTMA for the asset test. Specifically, they ask whether the asset test should exclude personal property items valued at $50,000 or less, such as a car or medical equipment.
Comments are due on November 18. CLPHA will be submitting comments and scheduling a member call to solicit feedback on the notice. For questions about the notice, please contact Senior Research & Policy Analyst Emily Warren at ewarren@clpha.org.