In this issue:

In Delaware
* End of Legislative Session Yields Proposals on Manufactured Housing
* Joint Sunset Committee to Review the Governor’s Council on Housing

Elsewhere
* Connecticut Housing Advocates Win $100 Million Housing Trust Fund
* HAC Reports on Advantages of Self-Help Housing
* Data and Details Available on Proposed Affordable Housing Fund
* Website Focuses on Resolving Land Use Disputes
* Recommendations on Nonprofit Governance and Ethics Published
* HUD FMR Briefing: 50th Percentile Areas Emerges as Major Issue

End of Legislative Session Yields Proposals on Manufactured Housing
In June, Senator George Bunting, along with various co-sponsors, introduced a number of important bills relating to the future operation of manufactured housing in Delaware.

SB 203. Sponsor: Bunting
Status: House Passed
Title: An Act to Amend Title 24 of the Delaware Code Relating to Manufactured Home Installation
Synopsis: Would establish a new board to license installers of manufactured housing in Delaware.

SB 208. Sponsor: Bunting
Status: Senate Agriculture Committee
Title: An Act to Amend Title 25 of the Delaware Code Relating to Manufactured Home Communities
Synopsis: Would require manufactured housing community owners to disclose to each prospective tenant the rents and fees it has charged for a particular lot for the five years immediately preceding.

SB 209. Sponsor: Bunting
Status: Senate Agriculture Committee
Title: An Act to Amend Title 25 of the Delaware Code Relating to Manufactured Homes and Manufactured Home Communities
Synopsis: Would establish the Delaware Board of Manufactured Housing to resolve disputes rules, standards, or rents established pursuant to the provisions of the new manufactured housing communities law.

SB 210. Sponsor: Bunting
Status: Senate Agriculture Committee
Title: An Act To Amend Title 25 of the Delaware Code Relating to Manufactured Housing Rents and Fees
Synopsis: Would clarify the terms "fee," "charge," and "rent" under the new manufactured housing law.

SB 211. Sponsor: Bunting
Status: Senate Agriculture Committee
Title: An Act to Amend Title 25 of the Delaware Code Relating to the Sale or Rent of Manufactured Home Communities
Synopsis: Would require, under specific circumstances, that the owner of a manufactured home community notify all tenants 60 days prior to completing any sale or transfer of the community and sell to a tenant cooperative association if its offer is equal to or greater than the best third party offer.

SB 212. Sponsor: Bunting
Status: Senate Agriculture Committee
Title: An Act to Amend Title 25 of the Delaware Code Relating to Rent Increases
Synopsis: Would require that rent be reasonable and be related to the operating costs and market conditions associated with maintaining the manufactured home community within which the lot is situated.

Joint Sunset Committee to Review the Governor’s Council on Housing
In the next legislative year, the Joint Sunset Committee of the Delaware General Assembly will be reviewing the operation of the Governor’s Council on Housing. This process includes an opportunity for public comment. Please look for more on this subject in future Affordable Housing Bulletins.

The members of the Joint Sunset Committee are:

• Senator Robert I. Marshall, Chair (D) (302) 744-4168
• Representative William A. Oberle, Jr., Vice-Chair ( R ) (302) 744-4173
• Senator Colin R.J. Bonini ( R ) (302) 744-4169
• Representative Deborah D. Hudson ( R ) (302) 744-4249
• Senator George H. Bunting, Jr. (D) (302) 744-4144
• Representative Michael P. Mulrooney (D) (302) 744-4351
• Senator Charles L. Copeland ( R ) (302) 744-4135
• Representative Robert J. Valihura, Jr. ( R ) (302) 744-4262
• Senator David P. Sokola (D) (302) 744-4139
• Representative John J. Viola (D) (302) 744-4351

Connecticut Housing Advocates Win $100 Million Housing Trust Fund
Connecticut affordable housing advocates achieved a round of major victories this year including the passage in the State legislature of a new $100 million Housing Trust Fund on June 28. The legislature also approved funding to create an additional 500 units of supportive housing and expand the state’s Rental Assistance program, and increased state bonding to support the rehabilitation of Connecticut’s state-financed public housing, among other uses. Lawmakers also adopted a new document recording fee to support affordable housing, farmland preservation, open space and historic preservation, but that legislation’s fate is uncertain, as opponents charge that the program exceeds the state spending cap and are calling for a gubernatorial veto.

"This year, housing was no longer seen as just a poor people’s issue," said Jeffrey Freiser, Executive Director of the Connecticut Housing Coalition. "Legislators were talking about teachers and police officers who cannot afford to live in the communities they serve, about young adults who cannot afford to raise their own families in the towns where they grew up," said Freiser. "Lowest income households will be better served, but now there is a broader constituency for affordable housing."

The Connecticut Housing Coalition reported that State Treasurer Denise L. Nappier opened the year calling for the creation of the Housing Trust Fund, emphasizing that the state’s economic growth depended on an adequate supply of affordable housing. New political leadership in the state, including Governor M. Jodi Rell and those in the legislature’s top posts, gave housing higher priority than in past years.

Throughout the legislative session, housing activists pressed their case at public hearings, lobby days and local meetings with legislators. The Connecticut Housing Coalition was joined by the Partnership for Strong Communities and the multi-issue One Connecticut network in marshalling their forces in support of an ambitious housing agenda. In addition to housing, community development and economic justice organizations and advocates, business leaders also urged a greater state commitment to housing affordable to their workers.

The Housing Trust Fund legislation evolved as a compromise agreement forged among the Treasurer’s office, the administration and lawmakers. The final measure differs from the Treasurer’s initial proposal in that it finances the Housing Trust Fund with general obligation bonds rather than state unclaimed property, and places the program at the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) instead of the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA). The bonding is authorized at $20 million a year over the next five years, providing resources at a faster rate than originally proposed.

In addition to the expanded housing opportunities that the new Housing Trust Fund will create, Freiser said that Connecticut is already a national leader in providing supportive housing for those who have been chronically homeless, with over 2,200 units already developed. The new state budget provides funding for supportive services, operating expenses and capital costs for the next 500 units to be developed in the state. In offering her budget proposal, Freiser reports Governor Rell as saying, "Even though we face a difficult budget year, I am recommending that we continue investing in supportive housing. This is an approach that is working, an approach that is making a difference in people’s lives and an approach that is a wise investment of taxpayers’ money."

Thanks to Jeff Freiser and Lynne Ide at the Connecticut Housing Coalition for the information for this article. For more information, contact Jeffrey Freiser, Connecticut Housing Coalition, at 860-563-2943, jeff@ct-housing.org or visit their web site at: www.ct-housing.org.

[NLIHC, Memo to Members, 7/5/05]

Website Focuses on Resolving Land Use Disputes
Developed by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Consensus Building Institute, http://www.resolvinglandusedisputes.org includes quizzes, case studies, definitions, and more to help all parties in disputes.

HUD FMR Briefing: 50th Percentile Areas Emerges as Major Issue
On Thursday June 30, the HUD Economic Analysis division of Policy Development and Research formally presented the proposed 2006 FMRs in a briefing, attended by NLIHC and other housing groups. The briefing largely confirmed the changes previously reported in Memo (see Memo 6/3 and 6/10). In the discussion that followed participants raised a number of issues, including the abolition of rural state minimums, the use of 70th percentile statewide public housing rents in setting the threshold for substandard quality units, and the ongoing usefulness of Random Digit Dialing Surveys. The issue of which areas would likely qualify as 50th percentile areas in 2006, caused the greatest controversy.

In 2000, HUD issued a rule providing for higher 50th percentile FMRs (as opposed to the 40th percentile) in areas where affordable rental units and voucher recipients were highly concentrated. Under the old FMR area definitions, and using the 1990 Census data available at the time, 39 FMR areas qualified for 50th percentile status.

The controversy this year stems from two separate aspects of the current re-evaluation of the 50th percentile areas.

The first has to do with scheduling. With the changes in the FMR area definitions, the 50th percentile areas also had to be reassessed. As previously reported, HUD had not completed this work by the time the proposed 2006 FMRs were released June 2. The Federal Register notice stated that a separate notice would be published in "approximately six weeks" that would "identify any areas newly eligible for 50th percentile FMRs and those that remain eligible or no longer remain eligible for continued use of the 50th percentile FMRs." HUD released a list of 40th percentile FMRs for current 50th percentile areas to help them assess the likely impact of losing their eligibility.

The difficulty is that HUD currently intends to release this list "in August" while comments on the proposed FMRs are due August 1. It was suggested that there be an additional comment period. However, the HUD position was that since it is implementing existing regulations it does not need to provide a comment period and changes are likely to be minimal. Participants argued, however, that organizations are likely to pay more attention to the process and submit comments in general if they know up front that the geography changes will affect their effective FMR for 2006.

The second issue that was raised in the discussion, is that HUD has determined that according to regulations, areas could lose their 50th percentile status if "the concentration of voucher holders in the area did not lessen" and the PHAs issuing the vouchers did not meet "minimum deconcentration objectives" for the past three years. Advocates should be aware that HUD has begun to look into how to implement these regulations, which require that a review of 50th percentile areas occur after three years. The regulations also provide that if a PHA loses 50th percentile status it cannot get it back for three years.

Issues with this include how to determine the impact of the 50th percentile rents on deconcentration, both from the perspective of changes in data and given changes in the program, particularly given recent dollar based constraints on the use of vouchers.

The other major issue covered is how to appeal a proposed FMR. On the one hand, HUD officials again stressed that they will only accept rent survey data in granting an appeal of a specific FMR. Other data such as rent reasonable data is not considered. On the other hand, they suggested that they would like to hear about other problems with their proposal. Thus, advocates and PHAs are encouraged to submit comments as well as more formal appeals before the August 1 deadline.