To:dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/event_testimony/housing.docx · Web viewThe scheduled walk through for DGS and DCOA is on May 17, 2017, and the results of the walkthrough are to

COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION

C O U N C I L M E M B E R A N I T A B O N D S , C H A I R P E R S O NF I S C A L Y E A R 2 0 1 8 C O M M I T T E E B U D G E T R E P O R T

TO: Members of the Council of the District of Columbia

FROM: Councilmember Anita BondsChairperson, Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization

DATE: May 18, 2017

SUBJECT: Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization on the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget for Agencies Under its Purview

The Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization (Committee), having conducted hearings and received testimony on Mayor Muriel Bowser’s proposed operating and capital budgets for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 for the agencies under its purview, reports its recommendations for review and consideration by the Committee of the Whole. The Committee also comments on several sections in the FY 2018 Budget Support Act of 2017, as proposed by the Mayor, and recommends new subtitles.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY

A. Fiscal Year 2018 Agency Operating Budget Summary Table.................................3B. Fiscal Year 2018 Agency Full-Time Equivalent Table...........................................5C. Summary of Committee Budget Recommendations................................................6

II. AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Introduction ...........................................................................................................18B. Mayor’s Office on Returning Citizens (AA0).......................................................19C. Office on Aging (BY0) .........................................................................................25D. Office of the Tenant Advocate (CQ0) ..................................................................38E. Department of Housing and Community Development (DB0).............................47F. Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (DX0)......................................................68G. Housing Finance Agency (HF0) ...........................................................................74H. Housing Production Trust Fund Subsidy (HP0)....................................................83I. Housing Authority Subsidy (HY0)........................................................................84J. Housing Production Trust Fund (UZ0)..................................................................99

C O U N C I L B U D G E T D I R E C T O R C E R T I F I C A T I O N : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D A T E : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

III. FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST ACT RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................106

IV. FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET SUPPORT ACT RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................106

A. Recommendations on Budget Support Act Subtitles Proposed by the Mayor1. Title II, Subtitle B, Public Servants and First-Responders Housing

Incentive Amendment Act of 2017..........................................................1062. Title II. Subtitle C, Housing Production Trust Fund Amendment Act of

2017..........................................................................................................1103. Title II. Subtitle D, Housing Preservation Fund Establishment

Act of 2017..............................................................................................112

B. Recommendations for New Budget Support Act Subtitles1. Title XX, Subtitle X, District of Columbia Housing Authority

Rehabilitation and Maintenance Fund Administration Amendment Act of 2017..........................................................................................................115

2. Title XX, Subtitle X, Common Interest Communities Remedial Funding Act of 2017..............................................................................................116

3. Subtitle X, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Omnibus Act Effective Date Clarification Amendment Act of 2017............................................120

4. Title XX, Subtitle X, Rental Unit Fee Amendment Act of 2017.............1215. Title XX, Subtitle X, Public Accessible Rent Control Housing

Clearinghouse Amendment Act of 2017..................................................124

V. COMMITTEE ACTION AND VOTE.............................................................128

VI. ATTACHMENTS..............................................................................................129

A. Tuesday, April 11, 2017 Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Witness List and Testimony.

B. Tuesday, April 25, 2017 Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Witness List and Testimony.

C. Monday, May 01, 2017 Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Witness List and Testimony

D. Thursday, May 04, 2017 Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Witness List and Testimony

2

I. SUMMARY

A. FISCAL YEAR 2018AGENCY OPERATING BUDGET BY FUND TYPE

FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

Committee Approved

DX0 – ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS LOCAL FUND $787,721.57 $958,661.00 $933,555.00 $92,998.83 $1,026,553.83GROSS FUNDS $787,721.57 $958,661.00 $933,555.00 $92,998.83 $1,026,553.83

BY0 – OFFICE ON AGING FEDERAL GRANT FUND $7,628,898.88 $7,731,644.50 $7,591,728.31 $7,591,728.31FEDERAL MEDICAID PAYMENTS $0.00 $1,037,479.27 $2,345,115.22 $2,345,115.22LOCAL FUND $31,010,967.51 $30,263,426.30 $34,730,921.00 $936,299.00 $35,667,220.00OPERATING INTRA-DISTRICT FUNDS $4,442,430.97 $1,661,717.47 $476,958.00 $476,958.00

PRIVATE DONATIONS $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00GROSS FUNDS $43,083,297.36 $40,694,267.54 $45,144,722.53 $936,299.00 $46,081,021.53

DB0 – DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL GRANT FUND $2,309.87 $0.00 $0.00

OPERATING INTRA-DISTRICT FUNDS $39,311,400.23 $53,753,868.13 $54,586,726.22 $54,586,726.22SPECIAL PURPOSE REVENUE FUNDS

('O'TYPE) $90,603,227.63 $101,177,928.60 $100,000,000.00 $100,000,000.00LOCAL FUND $1,626,808.71 $5,882,247.84 $4,546,000.00 $4,546,000.00FEDERAL GRANT FUND $20,852,643.09 $10,084,432.21 $23,104,294.99 $23,104,294.99

GROSS FUNDS $152,396,389.53 $170,898,476.78 $182,237,021.21 $0.00 $182,237,021.21

HY0 – HOUSING AUTHORITY SUBSIDY LOCAL FUND $55,695,553.00 $69,947,560.00 $76,312,250.00 $76,312,250.00GROSS FUNDS $55,695,553.00 $69,947,560.00 $76,312,250.00 $0.00 $76,312,250.00

HF0 – HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS $0.00 $11,740,000.00 $12,320,209.52 $12,320,209.52GROSS FUNDS $0.00 $11,740,000.00 $12,320,209.52 $0.00 $12,320,209.52

UZ0 – HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS ($3,538,811.32) $55,054,224.00 $48,317,389.00 $48,317,389.00

ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS-DEDICATED TAX $90,441,539.75 $44,945,776.00 $51,682,611.00 $51,682,611.00GROSS FUNDS $86,902,728.43 $100,000,000.00 $100,000,000.00 $0.00 $100,000,000.00

HP0 – HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND SUBSIDY LOCAL FUND $90,179,389.00 $55,054,224.00 $48,317,389.00 $48,317,389.00GROSS FUNDS $90,179,389.00 $55,054,224.00 $48,317,389.00 $0.00 $48,317,389.00

AA0 – MAYOR’S OFFICE ON RETURNING CITIZENS LOCAL FUND $0.00 $490,297.61 $490,625.05 $300,000.00 $790,625.05GROSS FUNDS $0.00 $490,297.61 $490,625.05 $300,000.00 $490,625.05

3

CQ0 – OFFICE OF THE TENANT ADVOCATE OPERATING INTRA-DISTRICT FUNDS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

LOCAL FUND $2,738,195.72 $2,982,566.00 $3,162,633.00 $845,594.00 $4,008,227.00GROSS FUNDS $2,738,195.72 $2,982,566.00 $3,162,633.00 $845,594.00 $4,008,227.00

TOTAL GROSS FUNDS $431,783,274.61 $452,766,052.93 $468,918,405.31 $2,124,891.83 $470,793,297.14

4

B. FISCAL YEAR 2018 AGENCY FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT TABLE

FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Mayor

ApprovedFY 2018

Proposed

FY 2018 Committee Variance

Committee Approved

DX0 – ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS LOCAL FUND 2.52 2.50 2.50 1.00 3.50GROSS FTES 2.52 2.50 2.50 1.00 3.50

BY0 - OFFICE ON AGING FEDERAL GRANT FUND 5.10 5.00 4.00 4.00

FEDERAL MEDICAID PAYMENTS 0.00 11.34 24.55 24.55LOCAL FUND 26.52 31.00 37.45 37.45OPERATING INTRA-DISTRICT FUNDS 67.23 15.66 3.00 3.00PRIVATE DONATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00

GROSS FTES 98.85 63.00 69.00 0.00 69.00

DB0 – DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL GRANT FUND 27.25 35.48 27.08 27.08 LOCAL FUND 50.33 53.50 73.96 73.96OPERATING INTRA-DISTRICT FUNDS 75.89 80.00 77.96 77.96PRIVATE DONATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00

SPECIAL PURPOSE REVENUE FUNDS ('O'TYPE) 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00GROSS FTES 153.47 169.48 179.00 0.00 179.00

HY0 – HOUSING AUTHORITY SUBSIDY LOCAL FUND 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00GROSS FTES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00HF0 – HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00GROSS FTES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

UZ0 – HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS-DEDICATED TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00GROSS FTES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HP0 – HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND SUBSIDY LOCAL FUND 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00GROSS FTES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

AA0 – MAYOR’S OFFICE ON RETURNING CITIZENS LOCAL FUND 0.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 7.00GROSS FTES 0.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 7.00

CQ0 – OFFICE OF THE TENANT ADVOCATE LOCAL FUND 15.47 18.00 19.00 3.00 22.00OPERATING INTRA-DISTRICT FUNDS 0.00 0.00 0.00GROSS FTES 15.47 18.00 19.00 3.00 22.00

C O U N C I L B U D G E T D I R E C T O R C E R T I F I C A T I O N : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D A T E : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

C. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS

OFFICE ON RETURNING CITIZEN AFFAIRS (AA0)

Operating Budget RecommendationsThe Committee recommends approval of the Mayor’s FY 2018 operating budget

for the Office on Returning Citizen Affairs in the amount of $490,625 with the following changes:

1. Add 2.0 FTEs and enhance funding for non-personnel services.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $198,980 in recurring funds from the Committee on Transportation and the Environment to be used as follows:

2 Case Managers – each at $99,490 (salary + fringe) Enhance funding for non-personnel services – $1,020

2. Increase funding for the creation and implementation of a strategic plan by $100,000.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $50,000 from the Committee on Transportation and the Environment and a transfer of $50,000 from the Committee on Business and Economic Development to Activity 5008 - CSG 40 to go towards the creation and implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan.

Capital Budget RecommendationsThe Office on Returning Citizens has no associated capital funds.

Policy RecommendationsThe Committee recommends that the Office on Returning Citizen Affairs

implement the following policy recommendations:

1. Work to expeditiously fill the vacant Director of Operations position in May or June 2017 and that the individual selected have experience managing grants. This qualification will be particularly essential in light of ORCA’s anticipated receipt of at least one grant from OVSJG.

2. Work closely with the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice and the partner agencies involved in the Portal to clearly define the role ORCA will play with regard to the Portal, and how to make the transition for returning citizens as seamless as possible as they move from the one-time touchpoint of the Portal to long-term follow up services through ORCA.

3. Create a job description for the two open case manager positions so they may be filled as soon as funds are available.

6

4. Actively engage the returning citizen community during the first phase of the strategic planning process, and carefully analyze the data collected in order to create a comprehensive plan that will reflect the community’s self-identified and prioritized needs.

5. Meet with the Committee on a quarterly basis to provide an update on the strategic planning process and ORCA’s developing relationship with the Portal.

OFFICE ON AGING (BY0)


for the Office in the amount of $45,144,723 with the following changes:

1. Increase the Alzheimer’s funding by $500,000.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $500,000 from the Committee on Transportation and the Environment to the D.C. Office on Aging (DCOA) - Activity 9430 - CSG 50 to provide support to anti-dementia related activities, dementia support and assistance, and money management programs

2. Increase the case management services in lead agencies funded by DCOA by $208,000 to support additional case management within lead agencies.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $208,000 from the Committee on Transportation and the Environment to the D.C. Office on Aging (DCOA) - Activity 9430 - CSG 50 to provide support to support additional case management for a growing senior population.

3. Increase the funding of a telephone hotline in Ward 3 by $100,000 to assist seniors to access services.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $100,000 from the Committee on Transportation and the Environment to the D.C. Office on Aging (DCOA) - Activity 9430 - CSG 50 to support additional case management for a growing senior population for seniors in Ward 3, since Ward 3 is one of two wards in the District that do not have a senior wellness center, and are therefore are more disconnected from services.

4. Establish a volunteer intergenerational program.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $128,299 from DHCD’s Unified Fund to the D.C. Office on Aging – Activity 9430 – CSG 50 to establish a volunteer

7

intergenerational program to bring together the younger and older generations for seniors to share their wealth of knowledge. A portion of the funds should be used to provide stipends for participating seniors.

Capital Budget Recommendations

The District of Columbia Office on Aging has no additional funding in the proposed capital budget.

Policy RecommendationsThe Committee recommends that the District of Columbia Office on Aging


1. The Committee recommends that DCOA continue to track the dates ADRC interacts with clients to determine if the time elapsed between follow up communications has improved, and the types of needs requested to the office. The Committee also suggests the Office work with the Mayor’s Office on Latino Affairs to build relationships and obtain assistance to engage Spanish speaking constituents.

2. The Committee recommends offering more support to villages and to ensure that villages are being supported throughout the city, because their need is great, the effort relies primarily on volunteers, and their success can be driven by a handful of passionate individuals.

3. The Committee recommends the Office work together with the Committee to come up with creative solutions that utilize service providers already in the District, such as taxis or shared ride services, or metro buses. The Office has programs within the District, but the Committee believes increased access to transportation reduces the risk of isolation, and promotes opportunities to enhance one’s mental and physical wellness, and is thus important to emphasize in the budget.

4. The Committee recommends that the Office develop an innovative transportation plan that will project to reach 30,000 seniors in a fiscal year; in turn, the Committee pledges to work with the Office to find the funding in the upcoming fiscal year 2019.

5. The Committee has concerns about adequate nutrition for District seniors, and recommends that DCOA continue to work with grantees to ensure that the need for meals are met, although funding remains flat. The Committee recommends the Office work with the Committee to determine if there are programs that can be brought to the District that target both meal delivery and socialization.

8

OFFICE OF THE TENANT ADVOCATE (CQ0)


for the Office of the Tenant Advocate in the amount of $3,162,633 with the following changes:

1. Add 4.0 FTEs and enhance funding for IT support personnel.


2 Attorney Advisors - $103,874 (salary + fringe) 1 Program Analyst - $89,609 (salary + fringe) to conduct economic

research and analysis Enhance the IT Specialist position by $48,236.15 (salary + fringe)

The Committee recognizes a transfer of 1.0 FTE authority from the Committee on Finance and Revenue to be used as follows:

1 Attorney Advisor - $103,874 (salary + fringe)

During the OTA’s budget hearing on April 11, 2017, public witnesses strongly urged that the OTA could significantly increase its help to tenants if the OTA’s budget were increased to permit the OTA to hire more attorneys and support staff. Consequently, the Committee recommends this transfer, which the Committee believes represents an important investment in providing legal help and other services to the District’s tenants.

2. Establish the Rental Unit Fee Fund under the auspices of OTA.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $1,377,686 from revenues collected from the $8.50 increase in the Rental Unit Fee pursuant to Rental Unit Fee Amendment Act of 2017 (from $21.50 to $30.00). These funds will be collected by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs during its standard process of collecting the Rental Unit Fee, and then transferred to the Rental Unit Fee Fund administered by the Office of the Tenant Advocate. The budgetary increase will be used for expenses incurred by OTA to help ameliorate the District’s affordable housing crisis.

3. Funding for the Rent Control Housing Clearinghouse.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $250,000 from the Committee on the Business and Economic Development and a transfer of $250,000 from the DHCD Unified Fund to the Office of the Tenant Advocate – Activity 1041 – CSG 41, in order to fund the Rent Control Housing Clearinghouse.

9

Capital Budget RecommendationsThe Committee recommends that the Office of the Tenant Advocate implement

the following capital budget recommendations:

1. Set-aside one-time funding for office build-out at the Department of General Services.

The Committee recognizes a set-aside of $250,000 within the Committee on Transportation and the Environment in the Department of General Services – Capital Project PL108C – Big 3 Buildings Pool, in order to fund the office build-out to house the additional 4 FTEs provided for in subsection (a)1 immediately above.

Policy RecommendationsThe Committee recommends that the Office of the Tenant Advocate implement

the following policy recommendations:

1. Work to implement expeditiously the Rent Control Housing Clearinghouse. In L21-0036, the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Support Act of 2015, the Committee authorized DHCD to establish a user-friendly, internet-accessible, searchable database for the submission, management, and review of all documents and relevant data that title II of the Rental Housing Act of 1985 requires housing providers to submit to the Rental Accommodations Division of DHCD (the “Clearinghouse”). Within two years of the effective date of L21-0036, the Clearinghouse was required to be completed such that documents could be submitted to the Rental Accommodations Division through the online clearinghouse.

However, more than a year and a half after the effective date of L21-0036, the Committee has seen no progress on the database. Therefore, the Committee is withdrawing its authorization for DHCD to implement the Clearinghouse, and is redirecting the responsibility for this critical task to the OTA.

In order to help ensure that the project is successful, the Committee is dividing the process into two phases. The first phase is the development by the OTA of a demonstration project to establish the initial framework for the Clearinghouse. The Committee is confident that based on the OTA’s past and current reputation for “getting things done”, the OTA will fulfill this important responsibility and bring the District significantly closer to the realization of the Clearinghouse. The Committee encourages and urges the OTA to excel in the quality of the project, and to complete its work on the Clearinghouse as soon as possible, if not even before the required deadlines.

2. Work to further enhanced interagency coordination. The Committee applauds the OTA’s efforts at interagency coordination, and encourages the OTA to explore further developing and implementing joint initiatives to improve

10

interagency communication and coordination to serve better constituent needs. Interagency coordination between agencies remains an ongoing challenge citywide. The lack of coordination impedes the administration and enforcement of rental housing laws, and it is wasteful of government resources and public funds.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (DB0)


for the Department of Housing and Community Development in the amount of $182,237,000 with the following changes:

1. Utilize the funds from the DHCD Unified Fund.

The Committee utilize the one-time funding of $378,299 from the DHCD Unified Fund and transfer $250,000 to the Office of the Tenant Advocate - Activity 1040 – CSG 41 for the rent control database. The remaining $128,299 is to be transferred to the Office on Aging - Activity 9430 - Community Based Support Program in CSG 40 to create a volunteer intergenerational program and provide stipends to participating seniors.

2. Increase to the Employer Assisted Housing Program (EAHP).

The Committee recognizes and implements a move of $700,000 from Activity 4510 – CSG 41 to Activity 3040 – CSG 50 to enhance funding for the EAHP budget. The Committee also recognizes and implements a move of $700,000 from Activity 2010 – CSG 50 to Activity 4510 – CSG 41 to reallocate costs for DHCD loan servicing contract to Intra-District funds, as stipulated in the Mayor’s Errata Letter.

3. Return funds to Affordable Housing Project Financing.

The Committee recognizes and implements a move of $10,000,000 from Activity 2025 – CSG 50 to Activity 2010 – CSG 50 to return the funds set aside by the agency to support Housing Preservation that have been replaced by local funds, as stipulated in the Mayor’s Errata Letter.

4. Establish the unique fund titled Housing Preservation Fund.

The Committee recognizes and implements an appropriation of $10,000,000 along with the establishment of the unique fund in the financial systems by the OCFO to Fund 0101 for the Housing Preservation Fund, as stipulated in the Mayor’s Errata Letter.

11


The Department of Housing and Community Development has no additional funding in the proposed capital budget.

Policy RecommendationsThe Committee recommends that the Department of Housing and Community

Development implement the following policy recommendations:

1. The Committee urges DHCD to continue to work expeditiously to promote and fill the remaining number of vacancies that are outstanding within the Department with capable experts, and in particular, to staff up the Preservation Unit. The Committee will continue to monitor the vacancy levels to ensure that all the essential positions are filled.

2. The Committee encourages DHCD to actively pursue the development of this preservation fund to ensure that DHCD properly leverages and builds up this revolving fund for the preservation of affordable housing in the District.

3. The Committee recommends that the agency select projects and proposals based on the housing needs of our residents, and simultaneously urges DHCD to comply with the statutory mandates and continuously monitor all the affordable housing projects for proper income certification.

4. The Committee urges the agency to ensure that the services related to TOPA are cohesive and unified, incorporating the pre=application legal and technical assistance as mandated by the Committee in FY 2017, in order to pave the way for homeownership opportunities for District residents.

5. The Committee recommends that DHCD continue to take market conditions into consideration for all down payment assistance programs and ensure that the funds are being spent in an expeditious manner, particularly in light of the changing roles and processes within the program. The Committee also urges DHCD to monitor the processes of the EAHP program to implement necessary reforms aligned with the improvements of HPAP as needed.

6. The Committee strongly encourages DHCD to ensure that the government is able to continuously and consistently reduce the number of vacant and blighted properties throughout the District, and to dispose of the entire PADD inventory in a timely manner.

12

ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS (DX0)


for the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions in the amount of $933,555 with the following changes:

1. Add 1.0 FTE Authority to the OANC.

The Committee accepts the transfer of recurring funds from the Committee of the Whole – Office of the D.C. Auditor to the Office of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, Activity 1000 – CSG 11 and 14 to fund the following FTE to review ANC quarterly financial reports and other documents:

1 Program Analyst - $85,399 (salary + fringe)

2. Enhance the IT budget.

The Committee accepts the transfer $7,600 in recurring funds from the Committee of the Whole – Office of the D.C. Auditor to the Office of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, Activity 1000 – CSG 40 to host and maintain the software to perform its quarterly financial reviews.

Capital Budget RecommendationsThe Office of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions has no associated capital

funds.

Policy Recommendations The Committee recommends that Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions


1. The Committee recommends that OANC provide a report to the Committee following the first two quarters of quarterly report review and quarterly allotment disbursal, describing any particular improvements to the ANC quarterly budgeting process under OANC’s administration, as well as any difficulties encountered.

2. The Committee recommends that OANC continue to advocate for an increase to ANC allotments in the DX0 budget for future fiscal years such that, at minimum, when adjusted for inflation, those allotments match the purchasing power that they had in FY 2011, since which the allocation has remained flat.

13

Ultimately, the Committee hopes that the total allocation for ANC allotments might reach $1.25 per resident, up from the current level of approximately $1.01 per resident.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY (HF0)

Operating Budget Recommendations

The Committee recommends approval of the FY 2018 budget for the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency in the amount of $12,320,000, as proposed by the Mayor.


The District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency has no associated capital funds.

Policy Recommendations

The Committee recommends that the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency implement the following policy recommendations:

1. Closely examine underwriting of existing LIHTC projects that have been affected by recent pricing volatility in order to ensure that the projects stay on track.

2. Explore the feasibility of creating products that are specifically tailored for small and medium-sized developers.

3. Work closely with the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Greater Washington Urban League to increase efficiencies in the administration of HPAP.

HOUSING AUTHORITY SUBSIDY (HY0)


for the District of Columbia Housing Authority in the amount of $76,312,250 with the following changes:

14

1. Address the lack of funding for new LRSP-subsidized affordable units

The Committee recommends that the Mayor and the Committee of the Whole address the lack of funding for new LRSP-subsidized affordable units through project- and sponsor-based LRSP by finding additional funding for that program for FY 2018 or by reflecting a future commitment to fund LRSP operating subsidies in the Four-Year Financial Plan. This would not only allow for project- and sponsor-based LRSP commitments to be made in FY 2018, for which nothing additional is currently budgeted, but would also allow DCHA to meet additional demand for those operating subsidies in FY 2017.


The Housing Authority Subsidy has no associated capital funds.

Policy RecommendationsThe Committee recommends that the District of Columbia Housing Authority


1. The Committee recommends that DCHA update the Committee upon filling each of its vacancies within DCHAPD, and provide confirmation to the Committee when DCHAPD is at full strength. DCHA reported 6 vacancies in its Office of Public Safety as of the FY 2017 Performance Oversight Hearing. The agency is awaiting the graduation of one new cadet from the MPD Police Academy to fill a special police officer position, and plans to fill the other 5 vacancies (one special police officer and 4 senior police officers) by the end of Fiscal Year 2017.

2. The Committee recommends that, in the future, DCHA seek additional funding for project- and sponsor-based LRSP projects in the fiscal year in which they are committed, rather than that in which they are to be online. For the second fiscal year in a row, the Mayor’s proposed budget includes no increase in funds for project- and sponsor-based LRSP. This reflects the Mayor’s new budgeting practice of appropriating these funds in the year projects come online, rather than the year they are committed. This lack of an up-front appropriation limits the ability of both the Council and the public to provide comment and oversight regarding the goals of the Mayor and DCHA as to how much of these subsidies will be awarded in any given fiscal year.

3. The Committee recommends that DCHA apply all available federal capital funding, and any available FY 2017 LRSP surplus that is transferred to the R&M Fund, in such a way that prioritizes maintenance and repair related to health and safety first, followed by bringing the existing public housing stock to 20-year viability.

15

4. The Committee recommends that DCHA provide the Committee with quarterly reports of all reported instances of housing providers refusing to accept voucher holders.

5. The Committee recommends that DCHA develop and seek funding for new programs to assist voucher holders in finding placements, both to mitigate the difficulties many voucher holders face in the open market, where housing providers often attempt to avoid accepting voucher holders, and so that funding may be operationalized more quickly.

6. The Committee recommends that DCHA provide the Committee with quarterly reports as to the agency’s sale of its scattered sites, including the addresses, number of bedrooms, sale price, affordability targets with respect to each sale, and a description of how the proceeds of each sale will be reinvested into public housing in the District.

7. The Committee recommends that DCHA continue to actively inform public housing residents in clear language as to the conditions of the right to return to redeveloped New Communities Initiative properties. This includes clearly informing residents of the dates at which they must have lived at the property in order to qualify.

8. The Committee recommends that DCHA judiciously apply its new authority to apply a Payment Standard of up to 175% of Fair Market Rent, so as to ensure that any consequent reduction in the number of vouchers that are distributed in any given year (since each voucher would thereby potentially be of higher value) is marginal.

9. The Committee recommends that DCHA expeditiously conclude its discussions with DMPED as to how much funding DMPED is able to provide for ongoing repair and maintenance needs at New Communities Initiative Sites that have yet to be redeveloped, and to report this amount to the Committee.

10. The Committee therefore recommends that the Mayor find funding in the future to more rapidly pull applicants from the DCHA tenant-based voucher waitlist and distribute tenant-based voucher funds.

HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND (UZ0)


The Committee recommends approval of the FY 2018 budget for the Housing Production Trust Fund in the amount of $100,000,000, as proposed by the Mayor.


The Housing Production Trust Fund has no associated capital funds.

16

Policy Recommendations

The Committee recommends that the Department of Housing and Community Development implement the following policy recommendations:

1. Carefully design future RFPs to ensure HPTF meets the statutory requirements and the 40/40/20 rule: 40% spending on the 0-30% AMI level; 40% spending on the 31-50% AMI level; and 20% spending on the 51-80% AMI level.

2. Carefully monitor the HPTF’s administrative expenses in the interest of operating in the most efficient manner possible.

3. Implement the 39 recommendations regarding HPTF administration, management, monitoring, and compliance included in the Auditor’s report.

HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND SUBSIDY (HP0)


The Committee recommends approval of the FY 2018 budget for the Housing Production Trust Fund Subsidy in the amount of $48,317,000, as proposed by the Mayor.


The Housing Production Trust Fund Subsidy has no associated capital funds.

UNFUNDED COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FULL COUNCIL

The Committee recommends, subject to funding, the following items for consideration:

1. Fund $5.1 million over the course of the four-year financial plan for L21-0239, “Elderly and Tenants with Disabilities Protection Amendment Act of 2016”

2. Fund $26.5 million over the course of the four-year financial plan for L21-0268, “First-Time Homebuyer Tax Benefit Amendment Act of 2016”

3. Fund $2 million for project- and sponsor-based Local Rent Supplement Program vouchers

4. Fund $1.6 million for tenant-based Local Rent Supplement Program vouchers to use towards the reduction of the waiting list

17

II. AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS

A. INTRODUCTION

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1The Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization is responsible for matters relating to development, maintenance, preservation, and regulation of the housing stock, including rental housing; neighborhood revitalization, development, improvement, stabilization, and urban affairs; homelessness (jointly with the Committee on Human Services for the purposes of oversight); and matters regarding Advisory Neighborhood Commissions; and the concerns of the aging.

Committee Chair Anita Bonds began her tenure as Chairperson of the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization at the beginning of Council Period 22. She is joined on the Committee by Councilmembers Elissa Silverman, Robert C. White Jr., Brianne Nadeau, and Trayon White, Sr. The Committee has continued to monitor agency performance and expenditures in an effort to increase transparency and improve efficiency throughout government.

The Committee held budget oversight hearings to solicit public input on the proposed budgets for the agencies under its purview on the following dates:

April 11, 2017 Office of the Tenant Advocate, Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Production Trust Fund, Rental Housing Commission

April 25, 2017 Office on Aging

May 1, 2017 Office on Returning Citizens Affairs, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions

May 4, 2017 Housing Finance Agency, District of Columbia Housing Authority

The Committee received important comments from members of the public during these budget oversight roundtables. Copies of witness testimony are included in this report as Attachments A, B, C, and D. A video recording of the hearings can be obtained through the Office of Cable Television or at oct.dc.gov. The Committee welcomes public input on the agencies and activities within its purview.

18

B. OFFICE ON RETURNING CITIZEN AFFAIRS (AA0)

Operating Budget Fund Type Gross Funds

FY 2016

ActualsFY 2017

ApprovedFY 2018

ProposedCommittee

VarianceFY 2018

CommitteeAA0 - OFFICE ON RETUNING CITIZEN AFFAIRS

100 LOCAL FUND $0.00 $490,297.61 $490,625.05 $300,000.00 $790,625.05GROSS FUNDS $0.00 $490,297.61 $490,625.05 $300,000.00 $490,625.05

Operating Budget Fund Type Gross Funds FTEs

FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

AA0 - OFFICE ON RETUNING CITIZEN AFFAIRS 100 LOCAL FUND 0.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 7.00

GROSS FTES 0.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 7.00

Operating Budget by CSG Gross Funds

FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

AA0 - OFFICE ON RETUNING CITIZEN AFFAIRS 11--REGULAR PAY - CONT FULL TIME $0.00 $359,470.51 $359,883.02 $158,550.00 $518,433.0212--REGULAR PAY - OTHER $0.00 $0.00 $0.0013—ADDITIONAL GROSS PAY $0.00 $0.00 $0.0014--FRINGE BENEFITS - CURR PERSONNEL $0.00 $73,861.10 $73,776.03 $40,430.00 $114,206.03PERSONNEL SERVICES (PS) $0.00 $433,331.61 $433,659.05 $198,980.00 $632,639.0520--SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $0.00 $14,666.00 $14,666.00 $1,020.00 $15,686.0040--OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES $0.00 $42,300.00 $42,300.00 $100,000.00 $142,300.00NONPERSONNEL SERVICES (NPS) $0.00 $56,966.00 $56,966.00 $101,020.00 $157,986.00GROSS FUNDS $0.00 $490,297.61 $490,625.05 $300,000.00 $790,625.05

19

OPERATING BUDGET BY PROGRAM GROSS FUNDS

FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

AA0 - OFFICE ON RETUNING CITIZEN AFFAIRS

5000 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS $0.00 $490,297.61 $490,625.05 $300,000.00 $790,625.05GROSS FUNDS $0.00 $490,297.61 $490,625.05 $300,000.00 $790,625.05

1. COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

a. Agency Mission and Overview

The Office on Returning Citizen Affairs (ORCA) is the agency tasked with connecting the District of Columbia government to the District’s returning citizen community. ORCA’s mission is to “coordinate and monitor service delivery to returning citizens.”1 The agency serves as a liaison between the Mayor, the returning citizen community, and District government agencies, and provides constituent services and information to the returning citizen community through programmatic and outreach activities. In previous years, ORCA was included as one of five divisions within the Department of Corrections (DOC) budget. Beginning in the FY 2017 budget, ORCA was shifted to the Office of Community Affairs within the Executive Office of the Mayor.

ORCA has no divisions. It operates through the Executive Director, who manages a team of 3 regular staff composed of a workforce development specialist, a community and service specialist, and a staff assistant. The agency is working to fill one vacancy, the Director of Operations position, which has been vacant since the beginning of the 2017 calendar year.0

b. Mayor’s Proposed Fiscal Year 2018 Operating Budget

Proposed Operating Budget Summary

The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 operating budget for ORCA is $490,625, an increase of $327 from FY 2017, or .07%. The FTE level of 5.0 in FY 2018 reflects no change from FY 2017. The FY 2018 proposed operating budget for ORCA is comprised entirely of local funds, and includes no special purpose revenue, federal funds, or intra-District funds.

Committee Analysis and Comments

1 D.C. Official Code § 24-1302 (a).0 Office on Returning Citizen Affairs (hereinafter ORCA) Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight

Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 1, 2017 (testimony of Brian Ferguson, Executive Director).

20

Returning Citizens Portal of Entry: The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 budget includes $2.3 million for the creation of a “Returning Citizens Portal of Entry” (the Portal). The Mayor has proposed that funding be distributed among several District agencies, including the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services, Department of Behavioral Health, Department of Motor Vehicles, and Department of Employment Services, which will all detail FTEs to provide Portal services. Approximately $276,000 is to be set aside for acquiring a physical space for the Portal. The Portal will provide re-entry services to individuals being released from the custody of the Department of Corrections. The Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice (DMPSJ) estimates that DOC will release an average of 365 individuals per month through the Portal.0

The Committee acknowledges that plans for the Portal are not yet finalized, so there are certain details that are still unclear. The Committee also recognizes that the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice anticipates that the Portal will eventually be scaled up, particularly if the effort to start bringing inmates back to the District six months before they are released into the community is ultimately successful. However, the Committee has several concerns regarding the Portal and its relationship with ORCA.

First, ORCA’s statutory purpose is to connect returning citizens to services and resources in the District government and the community. It seems duplicative to create another entity to fulfill that exact purpose. Furthermore, it is unclear whether ORCA will have a physical presence at the Portal, which calls into question the relationship between the two entities from the outset. ORCA’s role serving the returning citizen community must be clearly defined as it relates to the Portal from its inception. Finally, while the Committee applauds the Mayor’s decision to devote additional resources to support for the returning citizen community, the Committee is concerned about the decision to allocate these resources in a manner that will serve such a small percentage of the District’s returning citizen population. The Portal will be accessible only to individuals being released from DOC’s custody, which means that the thousands of returning citizens being released directly from the Federal Bureau of Prisons or from halfway houses will not benefit from the Portal. In contrast, ORCA is tasked with providing services to the District’s entire population of returning citizens. The Committee stresses the need for ensuring that all returning citizens are able to access the services and support they require for successful reintegration into the community, and the Committee recommends that ORCA work closely with the Deputy Mayor and the agencies participating in the Portal to fulfill this need.

Case Management: Throughout the 2017 performance and budget oversight

process, there was consistent and vocal demand for ORCA to begin offering case management services.0 Returning citizens represent a vulnerable population, and many 0 Returning Citizens Portal Factsheet, May 2017 (circulated by the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and

Justice).0 See ORCA 2017 Performance Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood

Revitalization, March 8, 2017; ORCA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 1, 2017.

21

individuals require a holistic assessment, connection to a suite of services, and long-term, sustained follow-up assistance. Myriad agencies and organizations in the District offer services and programs that could benefit returning citizens, but the reality is that returning citizens often need additional support and guidance navigating the system and accessing the available resources. With its current staff and resource levels, ORCA does not have the capacity to provide these necessary services to even a fraction of the District of Columbia’s returning citizen population.

Recognizing this need, ORCA has applied to the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants (OVSJG) for a grant that will provide funding for 2 case managers for the remainder of FY 2017.0 The Committee commends ORCA for proactively seeking additional resources to address its needs. In addition, the Committee recommends that the agency accept a budgetary enhancement for the funding of 2 full-time case managers beginning in FY 2018.

Strategic Plan: In FY 2015, the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) Inspections and Evaluations Division conducted an inspection of ORCA that was aimed at assessing the agency’s organization, management, and level of expertise, as well as the services it provided to its clients.0 The inspection revealed that ORCA lacked the mechanisms and resources necessary to fulfill its mission and goals.0 The report included 12 recommendations to improve service delivery to returning citizens and to better align ORCA’s operations with its statutory requirements. ORCA agreed with 7 of these recommendations; however, since the OIG report was published, ORCA has seen virtually no increase in funding, and continues to operate with very limited resources.0 This has made it difficult for the agency to implement many of the report’s recommendations.

One key area of weakness identified in the OIG report was ORCA’s lack of an up-to-date and effective strategic plan, which impedes the agency’s ability to serve and advocate for returning citizens.0 A comprehensive strategic plan would allow ORCA to clarify its relationship with District agencies and community-based organizations, and to strengthen the agency’s ability to effectively connect returning citizens to available resources. Creating and implementing such a plan is even more crucial in light of the creation of the Returning Citizens Portal of Entry, as the strategic plan will help to define ORCA’s role in and relationship to the Portal.

ORCA has prioritized complying with this recommendation, and is currently in the first phase of a three-phase process to develop a comprehensive five-year strategic

0 See ORCA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 1, 2017 (testimony of Brian Ferguson, Executive Director).

0 District of Columbia Office of Inspector General, Report of Inspection: Office on Retuning Citizen Affairs (September 2015).

0 See id.0 ORCA received a budgetary enhancement of $41,000 in FY 2016; an enhancement of $73,930 in FY

2017 to fund one additional FTE; and an additional $327 in the Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 budget.0 District of Columbia Office of Inspector General, Report of Inspection: Office on Retuning Citizen

Affairs, at 10 (September 2015).

22

plan. ORCA, in partnership with the Council for Court Excellence, was able to secure funding for completion of the first phase of the plan through a grant from OVSJG. The first phase of the planning process will involve research and outreach activities to compile data on the District’s returning citizen community and their needs.0 This phase is scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2017.0 The second phase of the planning process will involve analyzing the data collected in the first phase and actually creating the plan. This phase is scheduled to be completed by January 31, 2018. Completing the second phase of the planning process by January 2018 would allow the agency to make informed recommendations regarding its budgetary needs in FY 2019. The third and final phase of the planning process will involve implementation of the strategic plan. The Committee recommends that ORCA fully engage its community partners and stakeholders throughout the planning process.

c. Mayor’s Proposed Fiscal Year 2018-2023 Capital Budget

Proposed Capital Budget Summary

The Office on Returning Citizen Affairs has no associated capital funds.

2. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

a. Fiscal Year 2018 Operating Budget Recommendations

The Committee recommends approval of the Mayor’s FY 2018 operating budget for the Office on Returning Citizen Affairs in the amount of $490,625 with the following changes:

1. Add 2.0 FTEs and enhance funding for non-personnel services.


2 Case Managers – each at $99,490 (salary + fringe) Enhance funding for non-personnel services – $1,020

2. Increase funding for the creation and implementation of a strategic plan by $100,000.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $50,000 from the Committee on Transportation and the Environment and a transfer of $50,000 from the Committee on Business and Economic Development to Activity 5008, CSG 40 to go towards the creation and implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan.

0 See ORCA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 1, 2017 (testimony of Emily Tatro, Policy Analyst, Council for Court Excellence).

0 Id.

23

b. Fiscal Year 2018 Capital Budget Recommendations

The Office on Returning Citizen Affairs has no associated capital funds.

c. Fiscal Year 2018 Policy Recommendations

The Committee recommends that the Office on Returning Citizen Affairs implement the following policy recommendations:

1. Work to expeditiously fill the vacant Director of Operations position in May or June 2017 and that the individual selected have experience managing grants. This qualification will be particularly essential in light of ORCA’s anticipated receipt of at least one grant from OVSJG.

2. Work closely with the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice and the partner agencies involved in the Portal to clearly define the role ORCA will play with regard to the Portal, and how to make the transition for returning citizens as seamless as possible as they move from the one-time touchpoint of the Portal to long-term follow up services through ORCA.

3. Create a job description for the two open case manager positions so they may be filled as soon as funds are available.

4. Actively engage the returning citizen community during the first phase of the strategic planning process, and carefully analyze the data collected in order to create a comprehensive plan that will reflect the community’s self-identified and prioritized needs.

5. Meet with the Committee on a quarterly basis to provide an update on the strategic planning process and ORCA’s developing relationship with the Portal.

24

C. OFFICE ON AGING (BY0)

OPERATING BUDGET BY FUND TYPE (GROSS FUNDS)

FY 2016 ActualsFY 2017

ApprovedFY 2018

ProposedCommittee

VarianceFY 2018

CommitteeBY0 - OFFICE ON AGING

FEDERAL GRANT FUND $7,628,898.88 $7,731,644.50 $7,591,728.31 $7,591,728.31

FEDERAL MEDICAID PAYMENTS $0.00 $1,037,479.27 $2,345,115.22 $2,345,115.22

LOCAL FUND $31,010,967.51 $30,263,426.30$34,730,921.0

0 $936,299.00 $35,667,220.00OPERATING

INTRA-DISTRICT FUNDS $4,442,430.97 $1,661,717.47 $476,958.00 $476,958.00

PRIVATE DONATIONS $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00

GROSS FUNDS $43,083,297.36 $40,694,267.54$45,144,722.5

3 $936,299.00 $46,081,021.53

OPERATING BUDGET FUND TYPE GROSS FUNDS FTES

FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

BY0 - OFFICE ON AGING FEDERAL GRANT FUND 5.10 5.00 4.00 4.00FEDERAL MEDICAID PAYMENTS 0.00 11.34 24.55 24.55LOCAL FUND 26.52 31.00 37.45 37.45OPERATING INTRA-DISTRICT FUNDS 67.23 15.66 3.00 3.00PRIVATE DONATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00GROSS FTEs 98.85 63.00 69.00 0.00 69.00

OPERATING BUDGET BY CSG GROSS FUNDS


ApprovedFY 2018

ProposedCommittee

VarianceFY 2018

CommitteeBY0 - OFFICE ON AGING 11 REGULAR PAY - CONT FULL TIME $1,806,043.67 $2,236,298.10 $2,231,356.80 $2,231,356.80 12 REGULAR PAY - OTHER $3,384,685.55 $2,767,708.85 $3,198,195.61 $3,198,195.61 13 ADDITIONAL GROSS PAY $24,491.07 $0.00 $0.00 14 FRINGE BENEFITS - CURR PERSONNEL $1,072,182.21 $1,038,273.59 $1,158,716.23 $1,158,716.23 15 OVERTIME PAY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00PERSONNEL SERVICES $6,287,402.50 $6,042,280.54 $6,588,268.64 $0.00 $6,588,268.64 20 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $80,914.48 $159,633.12 $124,254.92 $124,254.92 31 TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH, $11,441.00 $0.00 $11,441.00 $11,441.00

25

TELEGRAM, ETC 40 OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES $418,086.63 $612,610.36 $384,729.73 $384,729.73 41 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - OTHER $8,415,953.64 $9,322,934.35 $9,343,392.00 $9,343,392.00 50 SUBSIDIES AND TRANSFERS $27,746,671.52 $24,444,943.17 $28,562,636.24 $936,299.00 $29,498,935.24 70 EQUIPMENT & EQUIPMENT RENTAL $122,827.59 $111,866.00 $130,000.00 $130,000.00NONPERSONNEL SERVICES $36,795,894.86 $34,651,987.00 $38,556,453.89 $936,299.00 $39,492,752.89GROSS FUNDS $43,083,297.36 $40,694,267.54 $45,144,722.53 $936,299.00 $46,081,021.53



ApprovedFY 2018

ProposedCommittee

VarianceFY 2018

CommitteeBY0 - OFFICE ON AGING

1000 AGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES $5,019,841.58 $3,724,659.94 $3,891,139.76 $3,891,139.76

9200 CONSUMER INFO., ASSISTANCE AND OUTREACH $5,781,927.23 $3,015,824.24 $3,207,630.86 $3,207,630.86

9300 INHOME & CONTINUING CARE PROGRAM $7,397,155.97 $0.00 $0.00

9400 HOME AND COMMUNITY BASED SUPPORT PROGRAM $24,884,372.58 $23,313,797.36 $27,405,965.91 $936,299.00 $28,342,264.91

9500 NUTRITION $0.00 $10,639,986.00 $10,639,986.00 $10,639,986.00GROSS FUNDS $43,083,297.36 $40,694,267.54 $45,144,722.53 $936,299.00 $46,081,021.53



The District of Columbia Office on Aging (DCOA) was established by the Government Reorganization Procedures Act of 1975, effective October 29, 19750. The mission of DCOA is to advocate, plan, implement, and monitor programs in health, education, employment, and social services that promote longevity, independence, dignity, and choice for older District residents (age 60 and older), people with disabilities (ages 18-59), and their caregivers.0 DCOA operates as both a State and Area Agency on Aging for the District, and is structured to carry out advocacy, leadership, management, programmatic, and fiscal responsibilities. DCOA provides consumer information, assistance, and outreach for its constituents and their caregivers so they can be better informed about aging issues, improve their quality of life, and maintain their independence.0 In addition, the agency provides elder rights assistance, health and

0 D.C. Law 1-24; D.C. Official Code § 7-503.02.0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 4, Office on Aging (BY0).0 Id.

26

wellness promotion, counseling, case management services, legal, transportation and recreational services, and finally, caregiver services to assist aging in place.0

DCOA primarily directs its efforts towards the operation of the Aging and Disability Recourse Center (ADRC) and agency funding of their Senior Service Network (the Network). The ADRC, a one-stop shop for long-term care information, provides benefits and assistance for older adults, persons living with disabilities, and caregivers. This facilitation provides individuals seeking help with information, counseling, and referrals to different organizations within their Senior Service Network. The Senior Service Network is a collection of 20 community-based organizations operating 37 programs that provide a wide range of social and health services throughout the eight wards of the city.0 Several Network organizations operate the six Senior Wellness Centers throughout the District of Columbia. These are frequently the Lead Agencies in individual wards, and are thus responsible for turning DCOA referrals into necessary services. The Senior Centers are located in Ward 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.0 In Ward 2 and 3, DCOA relies on grantees to offer services for residents. DCOA is led by a Director, who is appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council. It operates through the following four programs:0

Consumer Information, Assistance and Outreach – provides information, assistance, and outreach for a variety of long-term care needs to older adults, persons living with disabilities, and caregivers regarding long-term care services and supports offered in the District;

Home and Community-Based Support – provides services for District residents who are 60 years of age or older so that they can live as independently as possible in the community including health promotion, case management services, nutrition, homemaker assistance, wellness, counseling, transportation, and recreational activities;

Nutrition Services – provides meals, food, and nutrition assistance to District residents 60 and over to maintain or improve their health and to remain independent in the community;

Agency Management – provides administrative support and the required tools to achieve operational and programmatic results. This program is standard for all agencies using performance-based budgeting.

0 Id.0 See DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Performance Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing

and Neighborhood Revitalization, February 16, 2017 (testimony of Laura Newland, Executive Director)(p3).

0 See Attachment #17(c) DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Advance Answers Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, April 11, 2017.

0 See Attachment #1, DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Performance Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, February 6, 2017.

27



The Mayor’s FY 2018 budget proposal for the DCOA is $45,144,723 an increase of $4,450,455, or an 11% increase from the current fiscal year. The proposed budget supports 69 FTEs, an increase of 6 FTEs, or 9.5% increase, from FY 2017 approved level.

Local Funds0: The Mayor’s proposed budget is $34,731,000, an increase of $4,467,000, or 14.8%, increase from FY 2017 approved budget. This funding supports 37.4 FTEs, an increase of 6.4 FTEs, or 20.8% increase, from the FY 2017 approved level.

Federal Grant Funds0: The proposed budget is $7,592,000, a decrease of

$140,000, or 1.8% decrease, from the FY 2017 approved budget. This funding supports 4 FTEs, with a decrease of 1.0 FTEs, or 20% decrease, from the FY 2017 approved level.

Federal Medicaid Payments0: The proposed budget is $2,345,000. This funding supports 24.6 FTEs, an increase of 116.5% from the FY 2017 approved level.

Intra-District Funds0: The proposed budget is $477,000, a decrease of $1,185,000, or 73.1% decrease, from the FY 2017 approved budget. This funding supports 3 FTEs, a decrease of 12.7 FTEs, or 80.8% decrease, from the FY 2017 approved level.


Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC): The D.C. ADRC provides a single, coordinated system of information and access for individuals seeking long-term services and support. This is accomplished through the provision of unbiased, reliable information, counseling, and service access to older adults (60 years and older), individuals with disabilities (18 to 59 years old), and their caregivers.0 Essentially, the ADRC facilitates the acquisition of services specific to the unique needs and desires expressed by each person. By connecting residents with this individualized level of care, DCOA is able to assist residents “cut through the red tape” to access services.

The Committee heard from residents about the ADRC staff’s knowledge of programs and services, their interpersonal skills, and the respect shown by the staff. However, there were also some suggested areas of improvement stated at the

0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 4, Office on Aging (BY0), Table BY0-2

0 Id.0 Id.0 Id.0 Available at: https://dcoa.dc.gov/page/aging-and-disability-resource-center-adrc

28

Performance Oversight Hearing on February 16, 2017. Based on public testimony, the Committee is satisfied with the improvements the Office has made since the Campbell and Company Report on the ADRC in 2016. The report stated, “Compared to 2015, 2016 results indicate a significant improvement in overall satisfaction by clients with 78 percent agreeing that they were satisfied with the services they received through ADRC, compared with 60 percent in 2015.”0 The report stated that Spanish-speaking clients would greatly benefit from more Spanish-speaking ADRC staff.0

The Committee recommends that DCOA continue to track the dates ADRC interacts with clients to determine if the time elapsed between follow up communications has improved, and the types of needs requested to the office. Further, the Committee urges the Office to work with the Mayor’s Office on Latino Affairs to build relationships and obtain assistance to engage Spanish speaking constituents.0

Lead Agencies: As part of the strategic plan, DCOA expands their umbrella of assistance through the use of lead agencies. They provide a number of services0, one of the most important being case management. Case management is a collaborative process of assessment, planning, facilitation, care coordination, evaluation, and advocacy for options and services to meet an individual's and family's comprehensive health needs through communication and available resources to promote quality, cost-effective outcomes.0 For this reason, the Committee is appreciative and accepts the transfer from the Committee on Transportation and Environment for $208,000 to be used for case management services by the lead agencies of DCOA.

Safe at Home: For some time, the Department of Housing and Community Development’s (DHCD) Single Family Home Rehabilitation Program that provided grants of up to $75,000, to qualified seniors to finance major home repairs so that they could age in place, had issues and was undergoing a period of reform. During this time, while the program remained popular, it was also reported that there were delays in getting through its lists of projects. As a response to such issues, in 2015, Councilmembers Allen and Bonds introduced legislation and created the framework for a new program called Safe at Home. This program provides grants up to $10,000 for in-home modifications and small repairs that enable seniors to age in place.0

Director Newland testified at the February 16, 2017 performance oversight hearing,

“As you know, Madam Chair, we partnered with the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) to create Safe at Home in FY16, a program that promotes aging in place for seniors and adults with disabilities by offering

0 See Question 23(c) DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Performance Oversight Advance Answers Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, February 6, 2017

0 Id. 0 Id.0 See Question 44 DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Performance Oversight Advance Answers Before the

Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, February 6, 2017 0 Available at: http://www.cmsa.org/Home/CMSA/WhatisaCaseManager/tabid/224/Default.aspx0 Safe at Home Act of 2016, effective November 26, 2016 (D.C. Law 21-168)

29

home accessibility adaptions to reduce the risk of falls and reduce mobility barriers. The Safe at Home Program began operating on January 4, 2016, and the original budget in the pilot year was $1 million with a projection to serve up to 100 clients. By the end of the fiscal year, the Safe at Home budget was $1.75 million. I'm proud to announce that what was originally started as a $1 million pilot, has become the largest DCOA program with $8.7 million committed in fiscal year 2017.“0

The Committee applauds the Mayor’s support of the program and the decision to place $3,000,000 into the program for FY 2018.

2016 Special Needs Assessment:0 The Needs Assessment was created for three purposes: (1) to improve overall agency efficiency; (2) to identify high-value areas for improvement, expansion or innovation; and (3) to implement a sustainable approach for establishing priorities and procedures to meet the needs of individuals 60 years of age and older in DC.0 The Needs Assessment was a necessary document that sought to bring a face to the 107,000 seniors living in District, identify their needs, and determine whether they are able to access the resources of the Office on Aging.0

The Committee learned that: (1) About 90,000 of 108,000 seniors in the District do not access the great programs and facilities of DCOA; (2) 25% of seniors live below 150% of the federal poverty line0; (3) The District residents need to see increased communication of current programming, as well as new, innovative programming to combat senior isolation. Social isolation can lead to numerous psychological and physiological disorders. Those who are isolated are more likely to be targeted by crime, more vulnerable to medical emergencies, and more likely to be victims of depression.0

Executive Director Newland knows this. In her April Budget Hearing, Director Newland stated “Seniors living alone are at higher risk of social isolation and loneliness, which is tied to a number of negative health outcomes, including depression, heart disease, weakened immune system, and dementia.”0 She continued, “If you’ve read our 2016 senior needs assessment, you’ll recognize that our immediate goal this fiscal year

0 See DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Performance Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, February 16, 2017 (testimony of Laura Newland, Executive Director)(p5)

0 Available at: https://dcoa.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcoa/publication/attachments/DCOA%20Needs%20Assessment%202016.pdf

0 DCOA 2016 Special Needs Assessment (September 30, 2016) (Available at: https://dcoa.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcoa/publication/attachments/DCOA%20Needs%20Assessment%202016.pdf)

0 Id.0 $1507/month for a single person; $2030/month for a couple (Available at:

http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/poverty-guidelines.pdf)0 See AARP FOUNDATION ISOLATION FRAMEWORK Report(2016), Available at:

http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/aarp_foundation/2012_PDFs/AARP-Foundation-Isolation-Framework-Report.pdf

0 See DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, April 25, 2017 (testimony of Laura Newland, Executive Director)(p5)

30

must be to improve our communications.”0 Director Newland also went on record that the Office is developing a comprehensive communications plan and that the Office will be targeting at-risk isolated seniors, as well as seniors throughout the District.

The Office has hired a Director of Communications, and the Committee is confident that Director Newland understands the problem, and is dedicating resources to combat it. The Committee recommends that DCOA have a communications plan in place, and share the plan and their goal for numbers of seniors engaged by the office in FY 2018 with the Committee. The Committee looks forward to working with the Office to implement a plan that will utilize the factual analysis of the Assessment to pair programs with as many residents as possible.

Eliminating Service Overlap: The Committee recognizes the efforts of the Office to take a deep dive into its grants program and to determine areas to save money in the upcoming fiscal year. The Office has placed an emphasis on spending local dollars wisely, which includes on eliminating service overlap for sub-grantees. The Committee commends the Office for its efforts to make every dollar count, but also recommends the Office work with its sub-grantees to pursue alternative sources of income and grant funding, as well as work with its lead agencies to ensure they are operating with fiscal responsibility.

In FY 2016 and FY 2017, DCOA and the Department of Health Care Finance (DHCF) worked with grantees that provide case management and transportation services to identify Medicaid-enrolled clients and began the process for grantees to become Medicaid-approved providers. DHCF has worked closely with their grantees as they become Medicaid providers.

Case management is a vital service provided by DCOA. Another case management service is provided through Medicaid’s Elderly and Individuals with Physical Disabilities Waiver (EPD Waiver). Through a program evaluation of the EPD Waiver, DCOA found that their lead agencies were, at times, providing case management services to individuals on the EPD Waiver and the District was double paying for these services.0 For FY 2017, DCOA required lead agencies to become Medicaid providers to eliminate this duplication of service and save on case management services.

Senior Villages: Senior Villages (Villages) are neighborhood based, non-profit volunteer organizations that assist older adults to remain in their own homes and communities. Currently, 11 Villages exist within the District. Members of Villages are able to age in place and avoid social isolation while simultaneously receiving services from volunteers and at no cost to the District Government. Services provided by Senior Villages include transportation, education and wellness education, medical assistance, and snow shoveling during snow storms. The Committee recognizes the importance of grassroots organizations like Villages in addressing the needs of the District’s growing 0 See DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and

Neighborhood Revitalization, April 25, 2017 (testimony of Laura Newland, Executive Director)(p7)0 See DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and

Neighborhood Revitalization, April 25, 2017 (oral testimony of Laura Newland, Executive Director)

31

aging population and making D.C. age-friendly.0 It is important that Villages maintain this grassroots foundation. However, this Committee finds it necessary to provide support to these important organizations.

The Committee would like to applaud the Mayor for recognizing the valuable contribution that senior villages make in the District, and for placing $300,000 in the FY 2018 budget to support their administration and capacity building. The Committee heard testimony in February 2017 that the initial application process, though fair, would have been easier had more notice been given to applicants. However, the Office has given to the public, and the Committee, its assurance that the process will be transparent, laid out, and any village applicant may meet with the Office to assist with the application process.0 The Committee will follow up with the Office as the process plays out.

Wellness Centers: The Agency operates Senior Wellness Centers in Ward 1, Ward 4, Ward 5, Ward 6, Ward 7, and Ward 8. Senior Wellness Centers provide comprehensive programs that promote the health and wellness of D.C. senior residents through classes that focus on wellness, health promotion, and disease prevention.0 Activities conducted through the Senior Wellness Centers are important to keeping seniors engaged and active throughout the District.

The Senior Wellness Centers are consistently one of the most popular topics of conversation at DCOA hearings. Residents want increased space for larger classes, to be more accommodating to those with mobility issues, and to expand building space in general. Time and again, senior after senior testified that the centers have not grown, but the number of seniors have. The Committee sympathizes with the residents, who clearly have shown the need for expansion of facilities. The Mayor placed $350,000 towards the Department of Parks and Recreation (“DPR”) Senior Fit and Well programs already running throughout the District. Additionally, $4 Million dollars was placed in the Department of General Services (“DGS”) capital budget, which will be further described below. Though these expenditures are critical, they only seem to scratch the surface of the problem. The linkage between physical activity and stronger physical health are endless;0 senior wellness needs to be a priority of the Office. The Committee is

0 Available at: http://agefriendly.dc.gov/0 See DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Performance Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing

and Neighborhood Revitalization, February 16, 2017 (oral testimony of Laura Newland, Executive Director)

0 Available at: http://dcoa.dc.gov/service/senior-wellness-centers.0 See http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/More/CardiacRehab/Whats-the-Link-Between-

Physical-Activity-and-Health_UCM_307377_Article.jsp#.WRN6ZI8rKM8(stating even with risk factors for heart disease such as high blood pressure, diabetes or high cholesterol, people who enjoy regular physical activity have lower death rates than people who have no risk factors but who aren't physically active); See also Relationships between exercise or physical activity and other health behaviors. Public Health Rep. 1985 Mar-Apr; 100(2): 172–180 (stating physical activity may indirectly influence health behaviors such as overeating, smoking, substance abuse, stress management, risk taking, and others, and substantial evidence indicates that physical activity is positively associated with weight control and caloric intake)

32

encouraged by the pilot program of the Office to start a Virtual Senior Center,0 and looks forward to working with the Office as the details of the pilot become more formulated.

The Committee will monitor the level of funding and ensure that the quality of programming provided at the Senior Wellness Centers is adequate. Additionally, an issue was raised with the availability of transportation to and from the Senior Wellness Center. The Office testified under oath that all busses to the senior centers have been restored, but this will be an issue moving forward.0 The Committee recommends the Office work together with the Committee to come up with creative solutions that utilize service providers already in the District, such as taxis, shared ride services, or metro buses. The Office has programs within the District, but the Committee believes increased access to transportation is important to emphasize in the budget, as it reduces the risk of isolation and promotes opportunities to enhance one’s mental and physical wellness.

Alzheimer Funding: In FY 2015, DCOA received a federal grant of $1,000,000 for three years. This grant has helped provide much funding across the District, targeting programs that aid citizens who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, approximately 9,000 older residents today in the District. However, the grant ends on September 30, 2017. The Committee accepts the transfer of $500,000 from the Committee on Transportation and the Environment, which will be directed towards filling the gap left behind by the deferral grant. The funding will go towards programs like Club Memory, Dementia Navigator, Money Management Program, and several others. These programs are critical to assisting vulnerable residents combat the disease, as well as manage their money and lives and helping residents avoid financial exploitation.

Case Management in Ward 2 & 3: Ward 2 and 3 are the only wards in the District without senior centers. Because these areas lack a structure that gives them access to the Office on Aging, their senior and disabled populations are vulnerable to social isolation and lack of access to information and resources. The Committee would like to thank the Committee on Transportation and the Environment for their transfer of $100,000, which will go to the operation of a phone bank that will connect residents with resources.

Transportation Services: DCOA provides necessary transportation service to seniors throughout the District. One of its key programs is the Seabury Connector. Seabury Connector Card functions as a debit card for seniors, which allows them the independence to travel within the District at a subsidized cost.

Seabury Connector is a vital part of the DCOA’s transportation efforts, but DCOA has been looking for additional ways to meet the needs of its population and wisely use District resources. Through the Transportation Collective, DCOA hopes to better align the District’s transportation services.0 DCOA, the District Department of 0 See Question 17b DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Performance Oversight Advance Answers Before the

Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, February 6, 2017 0 See DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and

Neighborhood Revitalization, April 25, 2017 (oral testimony of Laura Newland, Executive Director).0 Id.

33

Transportation (DDOT), the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), D.C. Taxi Cab Commission, and the Department of Health Care Finance (DHCF) make up the Transportation Collective.0

Working with these sister agencies will allow DCOA to strengthen service delivery while remaining prudent with District resources. DCOA realized that 80% of their Seabury transportation request were medically related.0 DCHF, a sister agency, currently administers the Medicaid-funded transportation services, which operate on a per capita, per month payment basis.0 By shifting Medicaid beneficiaries and their Medicaid-eligible trips to the DCHF transportation program, DCOA believes it can save more money moving forward with the transportation budget.

The Committee recommends the Office develops an innovative transportation plan that will project to reach 30,000 seniors in a fiscal year. In turn, the Committee pledges to work with the Office to find the funding in the upcoming FY 2019.

Nutrition: One of the most frequently stated needs at the FY 2018 DCOA Performance and Budget Hearings was the need to feed D.C.’s seniors. DCOA implements the four programs seen in Exhibit A below. District seniors testified to the need for and their enjoyment of varying nutrition programs. DCOA created the Nutrition Task force to address concerns about food insecurity and access to healthy food options for District seniors. The Nutrition Task Force created a prioritization scale to ensure that seniors most in need of home delivered meals were being served.0

The Committee’s concerns about adequate nutrition for District seniors will keep this topic at the forefront throughout the remainder of FY 2017 and FY 2018. DCOA is working with grantees to ensure that the need for meals are met. However, funding remains flat while many constituents testified to the growing need. The Committee received testimony regarding the issue of the waiting list and will continue to work with DCOA to address this issue. The Committee is encouraged by the Director’s stated ambition to take a national look at this problem and see if some programs that have been successful elsewhere, could also be successful here in the District.

Exhibit A0

Description FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018Congregate Meals $4,080,028 $4,748,401 $4,748,401Home Delivered Meals $3,983,514 $4,831,706 $4,831,706Nutrition Supplements $21,000 $21,000 $21,000

0 See DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, April 25, 2017 (oral testimony of Deborah Royster, Seabury Executive Director).

0 Id.0 Id.0 See Question 29, DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Performance Oversight Advance Answers Before the

Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, February 6, 2017. 0 See Question 42, DCOA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Performance Oversight Advance Answers Before the

Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, February 6, 2017.

34

Commodity and Farmers Markets $991,817 $988,729 $988,729*Includes actual federal funds awarded which was received after the budget was formulated

Capital Funds Breakdown (through Department of General Services): Though not mentioned in the chapter of DCOA, there is a capital project that has been funded for the amount of $4,000,000, with the Department of General Services (“DGS”) in FY 2018. The scheduled walk through for DGS and DCOA is on May 17, 2017, and the results of the walkthrough are to serve as the foundation for the allocation of the $4,000,000 amongst the 6 wellness centers. The capital funding will be used for not only facility maintenance, but security and ADA upgrades, which will make up the bulk of the funding. The agency will also ensure that the older senior wellness centers will be provided interior refreshers, such as fresh paint and wallpaper.

The Committee recommends that DCOA communicates to the Committee as the renovation plan for the Senior Wellness Centers formalize. In general, the funding will be used to replace aging HVAC systems, as well cosmetic interior designs such as fresh paint and wallpaper. In addition, the funding will be used to make the wellness centers more ADA accessible (Americans with Disabilities).



The D.C. Office on Aging has no additional funding in the proposed capital budget.



The Committee recommends approval of the Mayor’s FY 2018 operating budget for the Office in the amount of $45,144,723 with the following changes:

1. Increase the Alzheimer’s funding by $500,000.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $500,000 from the Committee on Transportation and the Environment to the D.C. Office on Aging (DCOA) - Activity 9430 - CSG 50 to provide support to anti-dementia related activities, dementia support and assistance, and money management programs.

2. Increase the case management services in lead agencies funded by DCOA by $208,000 to support additional case management within lead agencies.

35

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $208,000 from the Committee on Transportation and the Environment to the D.C. Office on Aging (DCOA) - Activity 9430 - CSG 50 to provide support to support additional case management for a growing senior population.

3. Increase the funding of a telephone hotline in Ward 3 by $100,000 to assist seniors to access services.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $100,000 from the Committee on Transportation and the Environment to the D.C. Office on Aging (DCOA) - Activity 9430 - CSG 50 to support additional case management for a growing senior population for seniors in Ward 3, since Ward 3 is one of two wards in the District that do not have a senior wellness center, and are therefore are more disconnected from services.

4. Establish a volunteer intergenerational program

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $128,299 from DHCD’s Unified Fund to the D.C. Office on Aging – Activity 9430 – CSG 50 to establish a volunteer intergenerational program to bring together the younger and older generations for seniors to share their wealth of knowledge. A portion of the funds should be used to provide stipends for participating seniors.


The D.C. Office on Aging has no additional funding in the proposed capital budget.


The Committee recommends that the District of Columbia Office on Aging implement the following policy recommendations:

1. The Committee recommends that DCOA continue to track the dates ADRC interacts with clients to determine if the time elapsed between follow up communications has improved, and the types of needs requested to the office. The Committee also suggests the Office work with the Mayor’s Office on Latino Affairs to build relationships and obtain assistance to engage Spanish speaking constituents.

2. The Committee recommends offering more support to villages and to ensure that villages are being supported throughout the city, because their need is great, the effort relies primarily on volunteers, and their success can be driven by a handful of passionate individuals.

36

3. The Committee recommends the Office work together with the Committee to come up with creative solutions that utilize service providers already in the District, such as taxis or shared ride services, or metro buses. The Office has programs within the District, but the Committee believes increased access to transportation reduces the risk of isolation, and promotes opportunities to enhance one’s mental and physical wellness, and is thus important to emphasize in the budget.

4. The Committee recommends that the Office develop an innovative transportation plan that will project to reach 30,000 seniors in a fiscal year; in turn, the Committee pledges to work with the Office to find the funding in the upcoming fiscal year 2019.

5. The Committee has concerns about adequate nutrition for District seniors, and recommends that DCOA continue to work with grantees to ensure that the need for meals are met, although funding remains flat. The Committee recommends the Office work with the Committee to determine if there are programs that can be brought to the District that target both meal delivery and socialization.

37

D. OFFICE OF THE TENANT ADVOCATE (CQ0)

OPERATING BUDGET FUND TYPE GROSS FUNDS

FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

CQ0 – OFFICE OF THE TENANT ADVOCATE

OPERATING INTRA-DISTRICT FUNDS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

LOCAL FUND $2,738,195.72 $2,982,566.00 $3,162,633.00$845,594.0

0 $4,008,227.00

GROSS FUNDS $2,738,195.72 $2,982,566.00 $3,162,633.00$845,594.0

0 $4,008,227.00


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

CQ0 – OFFICE OF THE TENANT ADVOCATE LOCAL FUND 15.47 18.00 19.00 3.00 22.00OPERATING INTRA-DISTRICT FUNDS 0.00 0.00 0.00

GROSS FUNDS 15.47 18.00 19.00 3.00 22.00


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee


11 REGULAR PAY - CONT FULL TIME $1,186,002.07 $1,517,839.28 $1,624,328.48 $277,808.68 $1,902,137.1612 REGULAR PAY - OTHER $56,270.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.0013 ADDITIONAL GROSS PAY $3,703.65 $0.00 $0.0014 FRINGE BENEFITS - CURR PERSONNEL $267,762.83 $393,690.93 $396,336.14 $67,785.32 $464,121.4615 OVERTIME PAY $8,740.78 $0.00 $0.00PERSONNEL SERVICES $1,522,479.35 $1,911,530.21 $2,020,664.62 $345,594.00 $2,366,258.6220 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $10,345.22 $10,500.00 $10,500.00 $10,500.0040 OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES $837,056.41 $489,535.79 $686,468.38 $686,468.3841 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - OTHER $235,999.31 $390,000.00 $440,000.00 $500,000.00 $940,000.0050 SUBSIDIES AND TRANSFERS $119,000.00 $176,000.00 $0.00 $0.0070 EQUIPMENT & EQUIPMENT RENTAL $13,315.43 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00NONPERSONNEL SERVICES $1,215,716.37 $1,071,035.79 $1,141,968.38 $500,000.00 $1,641,968.38GROSS FUNDS $2,738,195.72 $2,982,566.00 $3,162,633.00 $845,594.00 $4,008,227.00

38


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee


1000 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES $631,878.77 $462,573.13 $621,687.76 $637,846.00 $1,259,533.763000 LEGAL REPRESENTATION $974,713.01 $1,279,243.01 $1,364,812.20 $207,748.00 $1,572,560.204000 POLICY ADVOCACY PROGRAM $184,553.69 $236,584.15 $222,388.01 $222,388.015000 OTA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE $107,771.35 $105,121.92 $105,609.85 $105,609.856000 EMERGENCY HOUSING $594,725.55 $545,935.79 $559,868.38 $559,868.388000 CASE MNGT AND COMM

OUTREACH $244,553.35 $353,108.00 $288,266.80 $288,266.80GROSS FUNDS $2,738,195.72 $2,982,566.00 $3,162,633.00 $845,594.00 $4,008,227.00



The mission of the Office of the Tenant Advocate (OTA) is to advocate for the rights and interests of the District’s tenants, and to educate and inform tenants, tenant organizations, and the people of the District about tenant-related laws, rules, and policy matters. The OTA was established as an independent agency effective October 1, 2007, and according to the “Office of the Chief Tenant Advocate Establishment Act of 2005”, effective October 20, 2005 (D.C. Law 16-33; D.C. Official Code § 42-3531.07), the OTA:

Provides education and outreach to the tenant community about laws, rules, and other policy matters involving rental housing and tenant rights;

Represents the interests of tenants in legislative, regulatory, and judicial matters;

Advises tenants on filing complaints and petitions regarding disputes with landlords; and

Refers tenants who seek representation in administrative or judicial actions to attorneys or legal services, and provides funding for representation in certain instances.

The OTA provides a broad range of services to approximately 350,000 renters0, a number that is constantly rising as the District continues to grow at a rapid pace.0 Although a small agency in terms of budget and staffing, OTA’s mandate is critical to achieving housing affordability as rental housing affects approximately 50% of the District’s residents.

0 Budget hearing testimony of Johanna Shreve, Chief Tenant Advocate, OTA, April 20, 2016, page 4.0 Id.

39

More specifically with respect to legal representation, the OTA is responsible for advising tenants on resolving disputes with landlords, identifying legal issues and the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords, and providing legal and technical assistance for legal actions such as filing tenant petitions. The OTA also provides in-house representation for tenants in certain cases and refers other cases to pro bono or contracted legal service providers and attorneys.

The OTA has developed the following strategic objectives for FY 2018:

Develop education programs that improve and increase knowledge about the District’s statutory tenant rights;

Advocate for beneficial changes in legislation and judicial rules in the interest of tenants and tenant organizations;

Provide effective legal guidance or representation to tenant clients;

Provide prompt emergency housing assistance to tenants displaced by natural disaster or administrative governmental action; and

Create and maintain a highly efficient, transparent, and responsive District government.



The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 operating budget for OTA is $3,162,633 (composed entirely of local funds), which represents a 6% increase from its approved FY 2017 budget. The agency would increase its current FY 2017 staffing level by 1 FTE, for a total of 19 FTEs.


The Mayor’s proposed FY 2017 operating budget submission for the OTA will increase overall by $180,067, from $2,982,566 to $3,162,633. The increase reflects additional funds of $340,771 and 1.0 FTE to support the OTA’s Emergency Housing Assistance program (“EHAP”).

The proposed budget submission includes a net increase in personal service in the amount of $45,103, to align the budget with anticipated salary and fringe benefits adjustments. The OTA will also relocate 1.0 FTE from the Case Management Administration and Community Outreach program to the Administrative Service program. The OTA’s proposed budget includes a net reduction of $45,103 in non-personal services across multiple programs to offset the proposed increases in personal services. This adjustment includes a reduction of $85,353 in Other Services and Charges, offset by an increase of $40,250 in Contractual Services. The budget also represents a loss in one-time funding provided by the Committee in FY16 of $176,000 for the EHAP.

40

The agency has 6 programmatic divisions: Legal Representation, Policy Advocacy, OTA Educational Institute, Emergency Housing, Case Management Administration and Community Outreach, and Administrative Services. The Office of the Tenant Advocate has no program structure changes in the FY 2018 proposed budget.

Legal Representation: The proposed FY 2018 budget for this Division increases by $86,000 to $1,365,000, with no increase in FTEs.

This program provides case management services and legal advice to tenants about their rights and remedies regarding landlord-tenant disputes. Legal representation implements the agency’s statutory duty to represent tenants at its discretion and as it determines to be in the public interest, in federal or District judicial or administrative proceedings.

This program contains the following 3 activities:

In-House Legal Representation, which provides agency clients with in-house legal representation in certain high-impact cases, and refers others to pro bono or contracted legal service providers and attorneys, or helps them find other representation;

Legal Hotline, which provides general advice regarding tenant rights in response to informal inquiries; provides a web-based “Ask the Director” forum and responds to Mayoral, Council, inter-agency, and community inquiries about tenant rights and rental housing law; engages the community in a regular “Live On-line Chat” through the agency website to discuss tenant rights and rental housing matters; and

Legal Service Provider, which provides funding to contracted non-profit legal service providers and attorneys, who qualify through the agency’s RFQ process, to enhance their capacity to provide tenants with appropriate legal assistance.

In FY 2016, OTA’s attorneys served 1,043 District tenants and tenant associations.0 OTA’s legal team has more than paid for itself through monetary benefits to the tenant community, through damage awards and settlement agreements. During the past three years, the combined efforts of OTA’s attorney litigators and contracted legal service providers have returned $13,733,520 to the District’s tenant community.0 In FY 2016 alone, representation by OTA attorneys resulted in $1,761,046 being returned to the tenants, a 196% return on the District’s FY 2016 investment of $899,906.0

Policy and Advocacy Program: The budget for the policy advocacy office was decreased by $14,000 from to $222,000, with no change in the number of FTEs.

By advocating for changes in laws and rules, Policy Advocacy implements the OTA’s statutory duty to represent the interests of tenants and tenant organizations in 0 OTA, Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Report: DC Office of the Tenant Advocate, April 11, 2016. (Due to

circumstances beyond the OTA’s control, the OTA has not yet issued its Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Report.)

0 Id., page 5.0 Id.

41

legislative, executive, and judicial issues. The OTA’s policy advocacy efforts in the legislative, regulatory, judicial, and administrative realms are aimed at promoting a more balanced and more effective system of tenant protections in the District.

This program also tracks developments in rental housing legislation and regulations at both the local and federal levels, keeps other District agencies and stakeholders apprised of the changes, develops legislative, rulemaking, and other policy recommendations, and coordinates policy discussions with governmental and community colleagues. The program also organized regular discussions with agency stakeholders, advised tenants, advocates, attorneys, governmental colleagues, and others regarding rental housing laws, and served as the agency’s in-house statutory and regulatory expert. Finally, the program provides support to community-based programs that inform tenants regarding their legislative and regulatory legal protections.

OTA Educational Institute Education and Outreach: The proposed FY 2018 budget for the OTA Educational Institute does not change and remains at $106,000, with 1 FTE.

The OTA Educational Institute implements the agency’s statutory duty to provide education and outreach to tenants and the community about laws, rules, and other policy matters involving rental housing, including tenant rights under the petition process and formation of tenant organizations. This program also conducts informational presentations in various settings throughout the community, provides a formal series of educational and outreach forums, and develops educational material regarding rental housing laws, rules, and policies.

Tenant rights education and outreach efforts are a critical part of OTA’s mission. In FY 2015, OTA participated in over 40 outreach events that were attended by over 5,400 people.0 In FY 2012, OTA established the “Tenant Education Institute.” The Institute’s curriculum includes workshops on the foundations of tenants’ rights, empowering tenant associations, rent control for the elderly and disabled, Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act rights, and the fundamentals of leases. In FY 2015, and again in FY 2016, OTA continued to hold a variety of workshops on these issues. Finally, the OTA intends to explore ways to harness state of the art technology and utilize innovative communication tools to maintain an effective and adaptive education and outreach program.0

Emergency Housing: The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 budget for emergency housing is increased by $14,000 to $560,000, with 0 additional FTEs. Emergency Housing implements the agency’s statutory duty to provide emergency housing assistance to qualified tenants in certain situations by:

Providing financial assistance to temporarily house tenants displaced by fires, floods, and government closures, and in other appropriate circumstances;

0 Id..0 Budget hearing testimony of Johanna Shreve, Chief Tenant Advocate, OTA (April 11, 2017), page 6.

42

Providing assistance to tenants regarding the packing, moving, and storing of personal possessions;

Providing first month’s rent, and security deposits, utility deposits, and application fees, as applicable, for replacement rental housing; and

Coordinating with other District agencies and community-based organizations to ensure that displaced tenants receive appropriate services.

Demand for OTA’s EHAP services continues to grow. EHAP provides emergency housing assistance to tenants displaced due to the closure of the unit by a government agency, a fire, or other circumstance that renders the accommodation uninhabitable. EHAP assistance can take the form of hotel or motel accommodations for up to 14 days, help with moving and storage of personal property, the first month’s rent, and security and utility deposits.

EHAP is one-of-a-kind in the U.S. and that it primarily benefits tenants in areas where poor housing conditions are predominant.0 The program plays an important role in preventing homelessness, the threat of homelessness, and displacement from the District altogether.0 In FY 2015, there were 347 individuals displaced, by no fault of their own, with 143 households being affected. In FY 2013 for example, the OTA handled 104 emergency housing cases, and by the end of April of 2013, the agency had spent its full fiscal year allocation of $250,000 for EHAP.

Case Management Administration and Community Outreach: The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 budget for Case Management Administration and Community Outreach is reduced by $65,000 to $288,000, with 2.0 FTEs (one fewer FTE than in FY 2017).

The Case Management Administration provides legal and technical assistance to tenants regarding rental housing disputes with landlords, including identifying legal issues and the respective rights and responsibilities of the tenant and landlord, and assisting with follow-up action items, such as completing and filing tenant petitions and monitoring rental housing case hearings. The program also implements the agency’s statutory duty to advise tenants and tenant organizations on filing complaints and petitions, including petitions in response to disputes with landlords.

Community Outreach provides outreach and educational programs regarding tenant rights and rental housing matters and sends “rapid response” letters to tenants affected by certain administrative actions to apprise them of their rights and of the OTA’s availability to provide further assistance.

Administrative Services: The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 budget for administrative services is increased by $159,000 to $622,000, with 5.0 FTEs (2 more FTEs than in FY 2017).

0 Id., page 4.0 Id.

43

Administrative Services (Agency Management) provides administrative support and the required tools to achieve operational and programmatic results. This program is standard for all agencies using performance-based budgeting. Administrative services at the OTA include information technology, language access, and performance management.


The Office of the Tenant Advocate has no associated capital funds.



The Committee recommends approval of the Mayor’s FY 2018 operating budget for the Office of the Tenant Advocate in the amount of $3,162,633 with the following changes:

1. Add 4.0 FTEs and enhance funding for IT support personnel.


2 Attorney Advisors - $103,874 (salary + fringe) 1 Program Analyst - $89,609 (salary + fringe) to conduct economic

research and analysis Enhance the IT Specialist position by $48,236.15 (salary + fringe)

The Committee recognizes a transfer of 1.0 FTE authority from the Committee on Finance and Revenue to be used as follows:

1 Attorney Advisor - $103,874 (salary + fringe)

During the OTA’s budget hearing on April 11, 2017, public witnesses strongly urged that the OTA could significantly increase it help to tenants if its budget were increased to permit the OTA to hire more attorneys and support staff. Consequently, the Committee recommends this transfer, which the Committee believes represents an important investment in providing legal help and other services to the District’s tenants.

2. Establish the Rental Unit Fee Fund under the auspices of OTA.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $1,377,686 from revenues collected from the $8.50 increase in the Rental Unit Fee pursuant to Rental Unit Fee Amendment Act of 2017 (from $21.50 to $30.00). These funds will be collected by the

44

Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs during its standard process of collecting the Rental Unit Fee, and then transferred to the Rental Unit Fee Fund administered by the Office of the Tenant Advocate. The budgetary increase will be used for expenses incurred by OTA to help ameliorate the District’s affordable housing crisis.

3. Funding for the Rent Control Housing Clearinghouse.

The Committee recognizes a transfer of $250,000 from the Committee on the Business and Economic Development and a transfer of $250,000 from the DHCD Unified Fund to the Office of the Tenant Advocate – Activity 1041 – CSG 41, in order to fund the Rent Control Housing Clearinghouse.


1. Set-aside one-time funding for office build-out at the Department of General Services

The Committee recognizes a set-aside of $250,000 within the Committee on Transportation and the Environment in the Department of General Services – Capital Project PL108C – Big 3 Buildings Pool, in order to fund the office build-out to house the additional 4 FTEs provided for in subsection (a)1 above.


The Committee recommends that the Office of the Tenant Advocate implement the following policy recommendations:

1. Work to implement expeditiously the Rent Control Housing Clearinghouse. In L21-0036, the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Support Act of 2015, the Committee authorized DHCD to establish a user-friendly, internet-accessible, searchable database for the submission, management, and review of all documents and relevant data that title II of the Rental Housing Act of 1985 requires housing providers to submit to the Rental Accommodations Division of DHCD (the “Clearinghouse”). Within two years of the effective date of L21-0036, the Clearinghouse was required to be completed such that documents could be submitted to the Rental Accommodations Division through the online clearinghouse.

However, more than a year and a half after the effective date of L21-0036, the Committee has seen no progress on the database. Therefore, the Committee is withdrawing its authorization for DHCD to implement the Clearinghouse, and is redirecting the responsibility for this critical task to the OTA.

In order to help ensure that the project is successful, the Committee is dividing the process into two phases. The first phase is the development by the OTA of a demonstration project to establish the initial framework for the Clearinghouse. The Committee is confident that based on the OTA’s past and

45

current reputation for “getting things done”, the OTA will fulfill this important responsibility and bring the District significantly closer to the realization of the Clearinghouse. The Committee encourages and urges the OTA to excel in the quality of the project, and to complete its work on the Clearinghouse as soon as possible, if not even before the required deadlines.

2. Work to further enhanced interagency coordination. The Committee applauds the OTA’s efforts at interagency coordination, and encourages the OTA to explore further developing and implementing joint initiatives to improve interagency communication and coordination to serve better constituent needs. Interagency coordination between agencies remains an ongoing challenge citywide. The lack of coordination impedes the administration and enforcement of rental housing laws, and it is wasteful of government resources and public funds.

46

E. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (DB0)


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee

Variance

FY 2018 Committee

DB0 - DEPT. OF HOUSING AND COMM. DEVELOPMENT

PRIVATE DONATIONS $2,309.87 $0.00 $0.00

FEDERAL GRANT FUND $39,311,400.23$53,753,868.

13$54,586,726.

22$54,586,726.

22OPERATING INTRA-DISTRICT

FUNDS $90,603,227.63$101,177,92

8.60$100,000,00

0.00$100,000,00

0.00SPECIAL PURPOSE REVENUE

FUNDS ('O'TYPE) $1,626,808.71$5,882,247.8

4$4,546,000.0

0$4,546,000.0

0

LOCAL FUND $20,852,643.09$10,084,432.

21$23,104,294.

99 $23,104,294.

99

GROSS FUNDS $152,396,389.53

$170,898,476.78

$182,237,021.21 $0.00

$182,237,021.21


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

s

DB0 - DEPT. OF HOUSING AND COMM. DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL GRANT FUND 27.25 35.48 27.08 27.08LOCAL FUND 50.33 53.50 73.96 73.96OPERATING INTRA-DISTRICT FUNDS 75.89 80.00 77.96 77.96PRIVATE DONATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00SPECIAL PURPOSE REVENUE FUNDS ('O'TYPE) 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00GROSS FTEs 153.47 169.48 179.00 0.00 179.00


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee

Variance

FY 2018 Committee

DB0 - DEPT. OF HOUSING AND COMM. DEVELOPMENT

11--REGULAR PAY - CONT FULL TIME $13,117,071.23

$15,020,101.60

$14,969,781.20

$14,969,781.20

12--REGULAR PAY - OTHER $922,413.31

$1,038,237.40

$2,049,454.37

$2,049,454.37

13--ADDITIONAL GROSS PAY $118,651.1 $175,633.3 $175,633.3 $175,633.3

47

5 7 7 7 14--FRINGE BENEFITS - CURR PERSONNEL

$2,878,268.21

$3,596,893.17

$3,642,116.36

$3,642,116.36

15--OVERTIME PAY $48,602.96 $0.00 $0.00

PERSONNEL SERVICES (PS) $17,085,006.86

$19,830,865.54

$20,836,985.30 $0.00

$20,836,985.30

20--SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $187,382.66

$226,107.57

$242,445.64

$242,445.64

30--ENERGY, COMM. AND BLDG RENTALS $11,403.43 $14,282.00 $3,571.00 $3,571.00 31--TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH, TELEGRAM, ETC

$149,748.99

$165,968.15

$200,759.30

$200,759.30

32--RENTALS - LAND AND STRUCTURES $1,440,804.67

$2,156,300.00

$2,349,596.55

$2,349,596.55

34--SECURITY SERVICES $6,004.87 $80,002.00 $76,261.00 $76,261.00 35--OCCUPANCY FIXED COSTS $15,395.37 $1,798.00 $81,993.00 $81,993.00

40--OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES $1,888,164.75

$1,198,958.59

$767,697.14

$767,697.14

41--CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - OTHER $11,309,135.50

$12,209,416.06

$10,002,877.46

$10,002,877.46

50--SUBSIDIES AND TRANSFERS $118,245,151.28

$134,776,470.14

$147,602,074.85

$147,602,074.85

60—LAND AND BUILDINGS $1,900,000.00 $0.00 $0.00

70--EQUIPMENT & EQUIPMENT RENTAL

$158,191.15

$238,308.73 $72,759.97 $72,759.97

80--DEBT SERVICE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

NONPERSONNEL SERVICES (NPS) $135,311,382.67

$151,067,611.24

$161,400,035.91 $0.00

$161,400,035.91

GROSS FUNDS $152,396,389.53

$170,898,476.78

$182,237,021.21 $0.00

$182,237,021.21


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee

VarianceFY 2018

CommitteeDB0 - DEPT. OF HOUSING AND COMM. DEVELOPMENT

1000 - AGENCY MANAGEMENT $8,123,777.55

$13,159,953.33

$10,902,709.49

$10,902,709.49

100F - AGENCY FINANCIAL OPERATIONS

$103,076,795.65

$106,633,913.11

$112,594,339.82

($700,000.00)

$111,894,339.82

2000 - DEVELOPMENT FINANCE $23,760,638.32

$32,671,566.26

$41,614,917.43

$700,000.00

$42,314,917.43

3000 - RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

$9,532,344.71

$7,985,428.65

$5,296,318.47

$5,296,318.47

4100 - PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION

$2,445,493.70

$3,226,855.56

$5,233,276.37 $0.00

$5,233,276.37

4500 - PORTFOLIO AND ASSET MANAGEMENT $2,309.87 $0.00 $0.00

7000 - PROGRAM MONITORING $1,486,523.53

$2,054,854.30

$1,655,232.03

$1,655,232.03

8100 - HOUSING REGULATION ADMINISTRATION

$1,954,251.54

$2,301,442.28

$2,253,003.19

$2,253,003.19

48

9100 - RENTAL HOUSING COMMISSION

$704,351.43

$1,038,128.65

$1,039,627.69

$1,039,627.69

100F – AGENCY FINANCIAL OPERATIONS

$1,309,903.23

$1,826,334.64

$1,647,596.72

$1,647,596.72

GROSS FUNDS $152,396,389.53

$170,898,476.78

$182,237,021.21 $0.00

$182,237,021.21



The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) was established by the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1975, effective July 3, 1975 (21 DCR 2793). The agency’s mission is to “create and preserve opportunities for affordable housing and economic development and to revitalize underserved communities.”0 DHCD focuses on three strategic objectives: 0

1. Preserving and increasing the supply of quality affordable housing;2. Increasing homeownership opportunities; and3. Revitalizing neighborhoods, promoting community development, and

providing economic opportunities.

In addition to these three strategic objectives, DHCD has added “reducing homelessness, bringing vacant and blighted properties back into productive use, and becoming an age-friendly city” into their mission, according to an official PowerPoint presentation that is circulating the public domain.0 DHCD is led by a Director, who is appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council. The agency operates through the following nine divisions:

Development Finance Division: Provides funding for the development of rental, homeownership, and community facility developments that serve District of Columbia neighborhoods. This division provides funding through the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) and a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) that targets communities of need and prioritizes the types of development needed to revitalize neighborhoods. The majority of these funds come via intra-District funding from the Housing Production Trust Fund. This division also houses the Preservation Project Financing activity that demonstrates the recent policy pivot toward emphasizing the preservation of previously subsidized affordable housing units for residents with low-to-moderate income.

Residential and Community Services Division: Works through neighborhood-based organizations to provide comprehensive housing counseling, small business technical assistance, and façade improvement opportunities; administers various down payment assistance programs such as the District’s Home Purchase Assistance Program

0 Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), Mission and Vision: http://dhcd.dc.gov/page/mission-and-vision-0.

0 Id.0 DHCD PowerPoint presentation, Overview of Proposed FY18 Budget, Polly Donaldson, Director

49

(HPAP) and the Employer Assisted Housing Program (EAHP); and provides rehabilitation resources in the form of grants and loans to income eligible owner-occupant and rental units that address health, safety, and building code violations, through programs including the Lead Safe Washington Program and the Single Family Rehabilitation Program.

Property Acquisition and Disposition Division: Stabilizes neighborhoods by (i) encouraging property owners to rehabilitate and/or occupy their vacant or abandoned residential property; (ii) acquiring vacant, abandoned and deteriorated properties through negotiated friendly sale, eminent domain, donation, or tax sale foreclosure; and (iii) disposing of such properties by selling them to individuals or developers to be rehabilitated into high-quality affordable and market-rate single-family and/or multifamily for-sale housing in District neighborhoods. The activity line called the Vacant and Blighted Program, which was added in the FY 2017 budget, acquires vacant, blighted, abandoned, and deteriorated properties through negotiated friendly sale, eminent domain, donation, or tax sale foreclosure when owners are unwilling or unable to maintain their properties.

Portfolio and Asset Management Division: Provides portfolio management and oversight of outstanding loans to DHCD and manages the allocation of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). This division also monitors the status of existing loans to ensure compliance with loan covenants and collections of loans that are due and conducts the reviews of the risks and relationships of potential borrowers to protect the department’s assets.

Program Monitoring Division: Provides contract and regulatory compliance, as well as quality assurance, particularly in regard to federal grant programs that have extensive requirements such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs.

Housing Regulation Administration: Administers residential housing regulations relating to condominium conversions and registrations, rent adjustment procedures, licensing, and other related matters. This includes the tenant opportunity to purchase program, rental stabilization, inclusionary zoning, and affordable dwelling unit compliance.

Rental Housing Commission: Enforces the Rental Housing Act of 1985, including serving as a neutral arbiter on appeals of disputes between tenants and landlords from the Office of Administrative Hearings and Rent Administrator.

Agency Management: Provides administrative support and the required tools to achieve operational and programmatic results. This division is standard for all agencies using performance-based budgeting.

50

Agency Financial Operations: Provides financial management services to, and on behalf of, District agencies so that the financial integrity of the District of Columbia is maintained. This division is standard for all agencies using performance-based budgeting.



The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 gross funds budget for DHCD is $182,237,000, an increase of $11,339,000 from FY 2017, or 6.6%.0 The FTE level of 179.0 in FY 2018 reflects an increase of 9.5 FTEs from 169.5 FTEs in FY 2017. 0

Local Funds0: The Mayor’s proposed local funds budget is $23,104,000, an increase of $13,020,000, or 129.1%, from the FY 2017 approved budget of $10,084,000.

This funding level supports 74.0 FTEs, an increase of 20.5 FTEs, or 38.2%, compared to the FY 2017 approved level.

Special Purpose Revenue Funds0: The Mayor’s proposed special purpose revenue funds budget is $4,546,000, a decrease of $1,336,000, or 22.7%, from the FY 2017 approved budget of $5,882,000. This funding supports 0.0 FTEs.

Federal Funds0: The Mayor’s proposed federal funds budget is $54,587,000, an increase of $833,000, or 1.5%, compared to the FY 2017 approved level. This funding supports 27.1 FTEs, a decrease of 8.4 FTEs, or 23.7%, compared to the FY 2017 approved level.

Intra-District Funds0: The Mayor’s proposed intra-district funds budget is comprised of the $100 million appropriation for Housing Production Trust Fund0. This funding supports 78.0 FTEs, a decrease of 2.0 FTEs, or 2.6%, compared to the FY 2017 level.


Staffing: DHCD was approved 169.5 FTEs for FY17, and the Mayor’s proposed budget increases these staffing levels to 179.0 FTEs.

0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Department of Housing and Community Development (DB0), B-66. Table DB0-2

0 Id.0 Id.0 Id.0 Id.0 Id.0 B20-0708 – Housing Production Trust Fund Baseline Funding Amendment Act of 2014, effective

March 11, 2015 (D.C. Law 20-208; 61 DCR 12725)

51

As of May 2017, DHCD has a total of 14 FTE vacancies, which are locally funded.0 Of the new FTEs in the Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 budget, the most significant increase is an addition of 5.0 FTEs to the Portfolio & Asset Management Division (PAMD), which manages the monitoring and compliance of the Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF), federally and locally funded projects to ensure affordability covenants are complied with for HPTF, federal, and local affordability periods.0 It also manages “workouts” associated with HPTF, federally or locally funded projects that are out of compliance, and manages the subordination process of HPTF loans that are undergoing refinancing or recapitalization. 0

The Committee urges DHCD to continue to work expeditiously to promote and fill the remaining number of vacancies that are outstanding within the Department with capable experts. The Committee will continue to monitor the vacancy levels to ensure that all the essential positions are filled.

Preservation Project Financing: The Mayor’s FY 2017 budget for DHCD incorporated a new activity under the Development Finance Division titled Preservation Financing, now renamed Preservation Project Financing, with an allocation of $10,000,000.0 This initial appropriation underscored the significance of preservation financing and preservation initiatives in the Mayor’s budget. The Mayor’s budget proposal for FY 2018 provides an additional $10,000,000 to this line item.

This policy pivot was a direct result of the 18-member Preservation Strike Force, which was established on June 4, 2015 via Mayor’s Order0. The Strike Force was led by the Director of DHCD and included the Chairperson of the Committee on Housing and Community Development (now renamed as the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization), other District officials, and selected stakeholders from the private sector. This group was tasked with developing an action plan with recommendations, slated to expire in 2020, to preserve the existing affordable housing in the District. The action plan was released on June 11, 2016 and the 6 recommendations are as follows:0

1. Establish a Preservation Unit, located within a District government agency, to be the District’s central resource for preserving existing assisted affordable housing in the marketplace and identifying opportunities to place “naturally affordable” unassisted units under covenant or otherwise preserve their affordability. Among other responsibilities, the unit will also be responsible for creating and

0 Agency Operational Dashboard, as of May 11, 2017, Office of the Budget Director0 Correspondence from DHCD, May 10, 2017 from Polly Donaldson, Director0 Correspondence from DHCD, May 10, 2017 from Polly Donaldson, Director0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Department of Housing and

Community Development (DB0), B-68. Table DB0-40 Available at: http://dhcd.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhcd/publication/attachments/Preservation

%20Strike%20Force%20-%20Establishment%20Order.pdf0 Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Preservation Strike Force Final Report

(https://dhcd.dc.gov/node/1200052)

52

maintaining a database of housing that is affordable through restrictive covenants or market-driven forces.

2. Provide seed funding to a Public-Private Preservation Fund to facilitate early investments in preservation deals by focusing public dollars for preservation transactions, and also leveraging greater amounts of private capital, to preserve affordable housing.

3. Develop a Small Properties Preservation and Affordability Program within DHCD to assist properties with 5 to 50 units with funds for renovations and repairs.

4. Implement DOPA (District Opportunity to Purchase Act) by releasing draft regulations that allow the District to take greater advantage of DOPA through the assignment of ownership to pre-qualified developers.

5. Improve preservation under TOPA (Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act) and TOPA exemptions by providing financial incentives for preservation in TOPA transactions, including predevelopment activities, legal services, third party reports, and acquisition bridge financing. This assistance should also include a mechanism for collecting accurate data about the outcomes of TOPA transactions.

6. Programs to allow low-income senior renters to age in place by formulating strategies to allow such residents to remain in place. Examples include tenant-based vouchers or other rental assistance to seniors on a fixed income or renovations of buildings, units, and homes to create more accessible housing options for seniors to age in place.

The Preservation Fund is one of the 6 recommendations and action items listed above. The Preservation Fund seeks to create a flexible and nimble source of capital to preserve existing affordable housing with affordability covenants shorter than 40 years, and provide greater affordability to limit the displacement of current residents living in existing affordable housing.0 The goal of the fund is to preserve affordability for all federally and city-assisted affordable rental homes in the District by leveraging local funds at a 3-to-1 ratio to facilitate early investments in preservation deals and leverage greater amounts of private capital.0 The Committee will monitor the development of this preservation fund to ensure that DHCD will leverage and properly build up this revolving fund.

Performance Management and Strategic Planning: DHCD maintains a dashboard database of DHCD’s affordable rental and homeownership projects, which can be accessed on the agency’s website.0 The purpose of this pipeline application is to provide stakeholders with real time updates on the status of the projects in the DHCD pipeline, including those that are currently in underwriting, under construction, completed, leasing, or on the market for purchase. This application contains information on properties, projects, loans, grants, tax credit allocations, and units.0 This dashboard includes all projects financed, or in the pipeline to be financed, by DHCD’s Development 0 Correspondence from DHCD, May 10, 2017 from Polly Donaldson, Director 0 Id.0 DHCD performance dashboard: https://octo.quickbase.com/db/bit4krbdh?a=q&qid=65 0 DHCD Responses to Questions in Advance of the Performance Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal

Years 2016/2017, February 21, 2017 (Question #32, submitted responses of Polly Donaldson, Director)

53

Finance Division since the beginning of FY 2011 (October 1, 2010).

This database serves as an internal accountability tool for the agency, and a means to improve transparency and communication with the public to allow better tracking of projects in the DHCD pipeline. Such data provides a clear view of how the HPTF, as well as other funding sources, are utilized and parlayed into actual units coming online to serve the District residents.

In FY 2017 to date, a total of 74 projects have been completed for a total of 3,891 units of affordable housing across all eight Wards.0 These projects include various types of assistance, including new construction, substantial rehabilitation, additional or gap financing, pre-development costs, acquisition, and critical repairs.

Funding for Development Projects: The Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) is the annual competitive solicitation process in which a host of programmatic funding is allocated to affordable housing projects. DHCD issued a NOFA/Request for Proposals (RFP) twice in FY 2016 to provide financing for affordable housing, and laid out clear criteria about how projects will be selected. This vehicle serves as a mechanism to acquire capital financing, as well as services and operational funding for the production of permanent supportive housing units.

The first official RFP for FY 2016 was the Development Finance Division (DFD) Spring 2016 RFP issued on March 31, 2016, with a closing date of May 31, 2016.0 This was also a Consolidated RFP, where DHCD partnered with DBH, the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), Department of Health (DOH) and DHS to consider projects that will produce new affordable housing units or preserve existing units for new construction and rehabilitation of vacant buildings (creating net new units), primarily for households earning below 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or between 31% - 50% of AMI.0 The RFP prioritized projects that would create Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) for individuals and families who were once homeless and continue to be at imminent risk of homelessness.0

In FY 2017 to date, DHCD has issued a Spring 2017 RFP on March 31, 2017 with applications due by June 14, 2017.0 The Spring 2017 RFP was also a Consolidated RFP for affordable housing projects utilizing funds from HPTF, DBH Grant Funds, HOME, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), the National Housing Trust (NHTF), LRSP, HCVP, ACC, and DHS Supportive Services Funds.0 The Committee looks forward to working with the agency to ensure that projects are selected based on the

0 DHCD performance dashboard: https://octo.quickbase.com/db/bit4krbdh?a=q&qid=65 0 DHCD – 2016 DHCD Notice of Funding Availability website: http://dhcd.dc.gov/publication/2016-

dhcd-notice-funding-availability0 Id.0 Id.0 DHCD – 2017 DHCD Notice of Funding Availability website:

https://octo.quickbase.com/db/bjc34b76f?a=showpage&pageid=55 0 Id.

54

housing needs of our residents, while simultaneously complying with all the criteria stipulated in the statute for affordable housing projects. Throughout the year, in addition to affordable housing RFPs, DHCD also issues various solicitations or requests for proposals for funding for community facilities, to cover property dispositions administered by the Property Acquisition and Disposition Division (PADD) and funding for the TOPA acquisition assistance program.

Since the beginning of FY 2016, DHCD has received:0

29 applications in response to its Consolidated RFP; 5 applications in response to the Community Facilities RFP; 18 applications in response to PADD Solicitations for Offers; and 12 applications for TOPA acquisition assistance.

Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA): TOPA requires that, under certain circumstances, an owner of a housing accommodation must give tenants an opportunity to buy their homes before selling, razing, or discontinuing the housing use of the building. TOPA applies to all types of rental housing, including single-family rental units, two- to four-unit rental buildings, and buildings with five to hundreds of rental units.

The Council originally passed the Rental Housing Conversion and Sale Act of 1980 primarily to try to address the following problems:0

1. A continuing housing affordability crisis in the District;2. A severe shortage of rental housing available to residents of the District;3. The depletion of the rental housing stock due to the conversion of rental units

to condominiums or cooperatives; and4. The severe adverse effects of conversions on lower income tenants, particularly

the elderly and tenants with a disability, which often resulted in forced displacement, overcrowding, unsustainably high housing costs, and widespread fear and uncertainty among tenants.

The 1980 Council was determined that those most directly affected by a conversion, the tenants, would have a strong voice in any decision concerning whether their rental housing would be converted to condominiums or cooperatives. Therefore, the Council included certain requirements in TOPA intended to more effectively guarantee that tenant housing would be preserved at a cost that existing tenants, who could otherwise be involuntarily displaced and forced into substandard housing conditions, could afford. TOPA not only provides legal protections to tenants regarding their opportunity to purchase their rental housing, but also protects seniors and persons with a disability by allowing them to opt to remain in their homes as long as they wish under the District’s rent control regime.

TOPA allows tenants to exercise their rights in different ways. Some tenants

0 Id. at question #320 D.C. Official Code § 42-3401.01(a).

55

choose to preserve or create affordable rental housing, while others opt for long-term affordable homeownership through limited equity cooperatives or condominiums with resale restrictions. Still others sponsor market-rate condominium conversions that often offer discounted prices to existing residents. And finally, some tenants elect to receive payments that can at least partially offset the costs of their displacement, and that can be used to acquire a home or to rent elsewhere. Whatever the outcome, over the years there have been numerous successful tenant-sponsored conversions that further the purposes of TOPA, and that would not have occurred but for the passing of the Rental Housing Conversion and Sale Act of 1980. DHCD reports that in FY 2016, 3 TOPA projects closed with the loan amounts totaling at $13,844,276 of HPTF money.0 In FY 2017, 1 project closed with a HPTF loan of $2,633,306 and 13 projects are in the process of underwriting for a total loan amount of $66,871,849.0 Finally, in FY 2018, 1 project is slated to go into underwriting.0

For 35 years since the passage of the Rental Housing Conversion and Sale Act of 1980, the public policy of the District has been to preserve the rights of District residents to remain in their homes whenever their homes are being sold. Over the years, the threat of condominium conversions has caused widespread fear and uncertainty among many tenants, particularly lower income and elderly tenants and tenants with a disability. Low-to-moderate income tenants can be the most adversely affected by TOPA conversions, as associated costs are usually beyond their ability to pay, resulting in forced displacement, overcrowding, disproportionately high housing costs, and the loss of additional affordable rental housing stock.

Unfortunately, for many low-to-moderate income tenants, simply collecting sufficient funds to retain an attorney to help them with the complex TOPA process can be an insurmountable barrier. Additionally, funds are needed for the technical requirements to complete applications for assistance from DHCD’s First Right Purchase Assistance Program. Without this essential seed money, tenant organizations may flounder, causing the tenants to forfeit their TOPA rights and possibly lose their homes.

Therefore, the Committee proposed a subtitle in the FY 2017 Budget Support Act of 2016 to provide seed money to low-moderate income tenant organizations who have received a TOPA offer. The seed money would be used to help them hire an attorney and receive technical assistance to jumpstart the process of buying their homes under TOPA. As of April 2017, approximately $193,000 of the original balance the Committee set aside of $544,000 was expended.

In FY 2016, three buildings accessed DHCD financing to complete a TOPA purchase, and no TOPA projects have closed in FY 2017 to date.0 In DFD’s pipeline, there are 13 TOPA projects that applied for DHCD financing in FY 2015, FY 2016, and

0 Correspondence from DHCD, May 12 2017 from Danilo Pelletiere, Housing Development/Policy Advisor

0 Id.0 Id.0 Id. at question #52

56

FY 2017 to date.0 In FY 2016, there were 50 properties for which a tenant organization registration application and a statement of interest in purchasing were filed.0

The Mayor’s proposed budget for FY 2018 includes an increase to this program by approximately $10.5 million in order to streamline all services related to TOPA into one program activity.0 The Committee hopes to see the agency endeavor the services related to TOPA to be cohesive and unified in order to pave the way for homeownership opportunities for the residents in the city.

Home Purchase Assistance Program (HPAP): HPAP provides interest-free loans for down payment and closing cost assistance to low and moderate income District residents to become first-time homebuyers in the District.0 The loan amount is based on a combination of factors including income, household size, and the amount of assets that each applicant must commit towards a property purchase.0 The loan is subordinate to a private first trust mortgage. The 0% interest loan is deferred for the first 5 years and amortized over 40 years.0

The theories of economic, social, and psychological benefits of homeownership are numerous and well-recognized. Studies have shown that homeownership leads to wealth-building, which in turn leads to an enhanced quality of life, improved health, and enriched parenting. Greater residential security and quality housing reap the benefits of higher levels of high school and post-secondary completion, better school performance, improved youth behavior, increased social capital, and greater political participation. Nevertheless, obstacles to homeownership are many, including the daunting barrier of families being able to save enough for a down payment, a hurdle this program seeks to break down.

As a result of the “Home Purchase Assistance Program Amendment Act of 2015”, introduced by Councilmember Bonds and her colleagues0, effective as of January 31, 2017, the maximum loan amount for an eligible applicant was increased to $80,000 and payments are now deferred for recipients with incomes below 80% of AMI until the house is sold, no longer owner occupied, or refinanced.0 The new breakdown of the assistance based on income is as follows:

0 Id.0 Id.0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Department of Housing and

Community Development (DB0), B-68. Table DB0-40 DHCD Home Purchase Assistance Program (HPAP) website: http://dhcd.dc.gov/service/home-purchase-

assistance-program-hpap0 Id.0 Id.0 Council of the District of Columbia, Legislative Information Management System (LIMS) website:

http://lims.dccouncil.us/Legislation/B21-0481?FromSearchResults=true0 Id. at question #58

57

Further improvements include the addition of a second administrator, the DC Housing Finance Agency (DCHFA), in March 2017, which is expected to increase the rate at which applicants can benefit from the program and also enhance coordination with the array of other DCHFA homebuyer assistance products.

In addition, DHCD HPAP has established underwriting eligibility, loan documentation and settlement practices consistent with industry standards for community lending programs. The overlays of the HPAP program on top of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSE) requirements involve minimum credit score and debt ratio standards which support the unique program process needs.0 The DHCD HPAP staff and administrators work with HPAP stakeholders through regular communication on individual transactions, making reasonable accommodations and providing interpretations of guidelines through industry forums. DHCD has pledged to continuously seek, adjust, and leverage the industry adopted practices, which reflect the GSE automated underwriting experience.0

As of April 2017, the appropriation balance for FY 2017 was $20,283,716. As of April 5, 2017, the expenditure balance was $5,445,977, with an encumbered balance of $1,421,051, leaving the available balance at $13,333,738.0 The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 budget for HPAP is $15,261,000, an increase of $786,000 from FY 2017.0 DHCD expects this increase, along with other reforms, including the addition of the second Administrator, to streamline the program, increase the number of applications, and

0 Id.0 Id.0 FY17 Year to Date Pivot Table, April 5, 2017, Council of the District of Columbia Office of the Budget

Director0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Department of Housing and

Community Development (DB0), B-68. Table DB0-4

58

ultimately produce a greater number of new District homeowners. The Committee will continue to monitor this program and ensure that the funds are being spent in an expeditious manner, particularly in light of the changing roles and processes within the program.

Employer-Assisted Housing Program (EAHP): Administered by the Residential and Community Services Division, this program helps District of Columbia government employees to become homeowners in the District. Employees of District government agencies are currently eligible for matching down payment funds up to $1,500 and a deferred loan of up to $10,000 to be used towards the purchase of a single-family home, condominium, or cooperative unit located in the District of Columbia.0 The maximum allowable purchase price is $625,500. The EAHP funded property must be owner-occupied and the employee’s primary residence. The following table shows the number of applications, closings, funds distributed, and average purchase price for the EAHP program for FY 2015, FY 2016, and FY 2017 to date.0

Applications Closing Dollar Volume of EAHP

Assistance

Average Price of Homes Purchased

FY 2017 (4 months)

61 27 $288,677 $272,400

FY 2016 158 91 $965,066 $309,846FY 2015 138 60 $655,000 $257,921

TOTAL 357 178 $1,908,743 $840,167

The breakdown of purchases by Ward from EAHP recipients for FY 2015, FY 2016 and FY 2017 to date is as follows:0

Year Ward1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

FY 2017 4 months

1 0 0 3 4 0 10 9

FY 2016 2 1 1 2 9 2 43 31FY 2015 3 2 0 0 6 0 29 20

TOTAL 6 3 1 5 19 2 82 60Percentage of total all years

3% 2% 1% 3% 11% 1% 46% 34%

0 D.C. Code § 42-2502; D.C Code §42-2504.0 Id. at question #670 Id. at question #69

59

Since the establishment of this program in 2000, there have been no changes to the amount of assistance, despite the rapidly changing housing market in the District of Columbia. Increasing the deferred payment loan ceiling from $10,000 to $20,000 will afford more District government employees, including public school and public charter school teachers, police officers, firefighters, and EMTs the opportunity to become homeowners in the District. In the District, homeownership rates fall well short of the national average: just 41% of District residents are homeowners.0 Research shows that limited access to affordable mortgages, weak credit histories, and lack of down payment funds are among the greatest barriers that prevent many District residents from even thinking about homeownership.0

Further, the Committee expanded the matching funds to provide an increase for all District government employees and an even greater increase for first responders. The matching funds for all District of Columbia government employees were increased to $1,000, up to $5,000, for every $2,500 set aside by the employee. The first-responders will receive matching funds of $1,500, up to $15,000, for every $2,500 set aside by the employee. Finally, the Committee went a step further and added a $10,000 grant for first responders who agree to a five-year service obligation, which will begin at the date of settlement on the housing unit. The grant must be repaid if the property is sold, transferred, or ceases to be the first responder’s principal residence within 5 years after the purchase.

Currently, the median price for a home in the District is $446,000.0 By potentially reducing the mortgage amount and the monthly payment amount, homeownership becomes a more attainable goal. The Committee supports this increase and believes that it will spur more District government employees to apply for EAHP. The Committee will continue to monitor the program to ensure that District government employees are able to utilize this program to its maximum capacity, in order to encourage homeownership in the District.

Single Family Residential Rehabilitation Program (SFRRP): Administered by the Residential and Community Services Division, this program provides financial assistance to low-income homeowners for home repairs to alleviate D.C. building code violations and assist homeowners in repairing physical threats to health and safety, and modify or eliminate barriers to accessibility for persons with mobility or other physical impairments. In particular, this program seeks to allow the District’s senior population to age in place. There are three specific programs under this title, as follows:

Program Title Program DescriptionRoof Repair Program Provides a grant for seniors of up to $15,000 to

replace and/or repair the roof. This grant pays for

0 See, DC Association of Realtors DC Homebuyer’s Guide, available at http://www.dcrealtors.org/publications/docs/DC_homebuyers_guide.pdf.

0 Id. 0 See, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/where-we-live/wp/2016/07/13/median-price-of-a-home-in-

d-c-region-soars-to-record-high/?utm_term=.fa6ff9b986bb.

60

exterior roofing and gutter work only.

Handicapped Accessibility Improvement Program (HAIP)

Provides a grant of up to $30,000 for accessibility modifications needed to adjust most physical barriers within a home for persons with mobility or other physical impairments.

Permanent Deferred Loans for Seniors

This benefit allows households where the head of household is over 62 years of age to have the first $10,000 of their loan, provided as a permanently deferred loan. Deferral of additional amounts is considered on a case-by-case basis.

The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 budget for SFRRP is $5,145,000, which represents an increase of $3,156,000 from FY 2017.0 The approved budget for FY 2017 was $1,990,000 and as of April 5, 2017, this line item reflected a remaining balance of $345,502.0 As of January 31, 2017, SFRRP received 27 applications. On an annualized basis, this represents a 12.5% increase over the number of applications received in FY 2016 (69).0 DHCD believes that 70-75 applications received per year will spend the entire allocated budget.0 Additionally, a total of 130 seniors (65+ year old applicants) applied in FY 2015, FY 2016, and FY 2017 to date.0

DHCD has stated that this program has successfully refined its application and internal approval process, and has eliminated any backlog.0 For the remainder of the current fiscal year, the program will focus on the construction process for the grant and loan agreements now in place for customers.0 Finally, the program is anticipating the completion of a Critical Home Repair solicitation (issued on April 14, 2017 with a closing date of May 26, 2017),0 which will retain a partner that can provide expedited repair for deteriorated roofs and other emergency repair situations. The Committee will remain vigilant in addressing the complaints of the constituents and continue to follow up with DHCD to make sure that the stipulated reforms will be implemented in a timely manner.

Property Acquisition and Development Division (PADD): The Property Acquisition and Disposition Division (PADD) seeks to stabilize neighborhoods by decreasing the number of vacant and abandoned residential properties in the District and transforming them into homeownership opportunities for residents at all income levels. PADD has three main functions: (1) encourage property owners to rehabilitate and/or occupy their vacant and abandoned residential property; (2) acquire vacant, blighted,

0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Department of Housing and Community Development (DB0), B-68. Table DB0-4

0 FY17 Year to Date Pivot Table, April 5, 2017, Council of the District of Columbia Office of the Budget Director

0 Id. at question #720 Id.0 Id. at question #730 Id. at question #720 Id.0 DHCD – RFPs RFAs SFOs website: https://dhcd.dc.gov/service/rfps-rfas-sfos

61

abandoned and deteriorated properties through negotiated friendly sale, eminent domain, donation, or tax sale foreclosure; and (3) dispose of properties in the inventory by selling the properties to individuals or developers for rehabilitation into high quality affordable and market-rate single-family and/or multifamily for-sale housing.0

As of February 21, 2017, DHCD’s PADD inventory consisted of 161 properties across all 8 Wards, of which a significant portion were located in Wards 7 and 8.0 In the DHCD response letter dated April 3, 2017 to the Committee, DHCD stated that the agency owns 162 properties that can be divided into approximately 100 sites, ranging from vacant buildings to empty lots.0 The Committee is concerned by DHCD reports that the median holding period for PADD properties with available acquisition dates was 1028 days, with one property having been in the inventory for 7126 days.0

In FY 2016 and FY 2017 to date, DHCD has issued several solicitations to dispose of the PADD inventory. On June 1, 2016, DHCD released five SFOs for the development of 25 District-owned properties in Wards 4, 5, 7 and 8.0 Through these solicitations, DHCD looked for public offers to build projects that promote vibrant, walk-able, mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods and combat blight in the District. The original application deadline was September 1, 2016, but was extended for a select number of properties.0 Further, on March 24, 2017, Mayor Muriel Bowser and Deputy Mayor Brian Kenner held the Third Annual March Madness event at which DHCD presented a number of additional sites that were recently released, including four scattered sites in Ward 8 (released May 2, 2017); three scattered sites on Alabama Avenue SE (to be released on May 25, 2017); and three scattered sites on High Street SE (released May 2, 2017).0 Regarding the disposition of the PADD inventory in the three most recent fiscal years, DHCD reported the following: 0

FY 2015: 39 parcels were issued via Solicitation for Offers (SFOs); FY 2016: 30 parcels issued via SFO, 28 parcels executed Property

Disposition Agreements (PDAs), and one parcel closed; and FY 2017 to date: 6 parcels issued via SFO, 4 parcels executed PDAs, and

4 parcels closed.

0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Department of Housing and Community Development (DB0), B-71

0 Id. at question #910 Correspondence from DHCD, April 25, 2017 from Polly Donaldson, Director0 Id. at question #920 DHCD - DHCD Seeks Offers to Transform 25 Vacant and Blighted Properties into Vibrant

Neighborhood Developments: https://dhcd.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhcd/release_content/attachments/DHCD%20Press%20Release%20PADD%20SFO%206%201%2016.pdf

0 DHCD – RFPs RFAs SFOs website, DHCD Seeks Offers to Transform 25 Vacant and Blighted Properties into Vibrant Neighborhood Developments: https://dhcd.dc.gov/node/1165034

0 DMPED – March Madness 2017 Presentation: https://dmped.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dmped/publication/attachments/2017%20March%20Madness%20Presentation%20Deck%20Final.pdf

0 Id.at question #94

62

Despite these efforts and reported numbers, Committee members voiced strong concerns at the FY 2016 performance oversight hearing regarding the outstanding PADD inventory list at DHCD and the maintenance of such properties. At the hearing and in the follow-up response letter from DHCD, the agency shared that at the end of 2017, “every vacant and blighted property in our inventory will be in the process of transformation into affordable housing and mixed-used communities.”0 The Committee will remain vigilant in monitoring the flow of disposition of these PADD properties, to ensure that the government is able to continuously and consistently reduce the number of vacant and blighted properties throughout the District.

Rental Housing Commission: The Rental Housing Commission (“Commission”) is a three-member, independent quasi-judicial body with direct reporting responsibility to DHCD on administrative, management, and budgetary matters. The Commission holds appellate hearings on appeals regarding disputes concerning the District’s rent control laws from either the Rent Administrator or the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The Commission is part of the Executive Branch of the D.C. Government.0

The three Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council. One of the commissioners is designated the Chairman of the Commission, and each Commissioner must be a member in good standing of the District of Columbia Bar.

The Commission has three statutory functions designed to preserve and increase the supply of quality affordable rental housing for the residents of the District. These duties include the responsibility to:

Issue, amend, and rescind regulations that are promulgated for enforcement of the Rental Housing Act of 1985;

Certify and publish the annual adjustment of general applicability to rents, which is based upon annual changes to the Consumer Price Index for the greater Washington, D.C. area; and

Decide appeals brought to the Commission from the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Rent Administrator.0

Regretfully, past problems in confirming qualified commissions resulted in a lack of a quorum for a substantial portion of FY 2010 and a smaller portion of FY 2011.0 As a result, the Commission did not operate and fulfill its statutory duties for a period of one year from January 17, 2010 to January 31, 2011. This situation resulted in excruciatingly long periods of time for cases to be decided, despite the fact that important rent control cases had lain dormant before the Commission for ages. However, in August of 2011, the Council approved incoming-Mayor Gray’s two nominations to the Commission, which 0 Correspondence from DHCD, April 25, 2017 from Polly Donaldson, Director0 DHCD Responses to Questions in Advance of the Performance Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal

Years 2014/2015, February 25, 2016, at question #109.0 Id.0 Id. at question #112b.

63

resulted in the restoration of the Commission’s customary statutory functions and operations.

The Commission’s current full complement of Commissioners is as follows:0

Peter B. Szegedy-Maszak, Chairman, commenced service in 2008, re-appointed, December 2, 2014, and whose term expires on July 18, 2017.

Diana Harris Epps, Commissioner, appointed July 17, 2016, and whose term expires on July 18, 2019.

Michael T. Spencer, Commissioner, appointed: July 17, 2016, and whose term expires on July 18, 2018.

Backlog of Cases: The Committee’s longstanding concerns about the length of time the Commission has taken to resolve cases in the past has finally appeared to be addressed. Although for a number of years, the RHC struggled with clearing its backlog of long-pending cases, the Committee is encouraged that the Commission reports that it has reduced its overall backlog of cases pending final decision.0 Further, in FY 2016, the Commission reduced its backlog of cases on appeal (cases for which a hearing has been held but no decision has been issued) from 5 cases at the start of FY 2016, to 1 at the end of FY 2016 (or by 80%). Further, the number of cases that are greater than 3 years old was reduced from 2 to 0 (or by 100%).0 The Commission now estimates that the total number of hours required to resolve each case is 160-200 hours.0

Regulations for the Rental Housing Act of 1985: The Commission has the duty under the Rental Housing Act of 1985 (D.C. Law 6-10; D.C. Official Code §§ 42-3501.01 et seq.) to promulgate implementing rules and regulations. Due to staffing concerns that led to the severe backlog of cases discussed above, the Commission had only last issued comprehensive regulations in 1986, despite numerous changes in the Rental Housing Act, decisional case law, and the changes in the rental housing market in the District in the intervening years. To cite one example, the Commission has yet to issue regulations implementing legislative changes nearly 10 years ago -- under the Rent Control Amendment Act of 2006 -- that significantly changed the District’s rent control law.

Current regulations also do not reflect transfer of the Rent Administrator’s adjudicatory functions to the Office of Administrative Hearings, a change that dates to the same time-period. Housing providers, tenants, and judges are left to make their best judgments as to how to implement these and other legislative changes. These regulations are vital to protecting tenants’ rights and preserving affordable housing in the District.

0 DHCD Responses to Questions in Advance of the Performance Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Years 2016/2017, February 21, 2017, at question #118.



0 Id. at question #120.

64

However, the Committee is now pleased that during FY 2016 the Commission, working with the Interim Rent Administration and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), has completed a first draft of a notice of proposed rulemaking to update 14 DCMR §§ 3800-4400. Throughout FY 2016, the Commission repeatedly met with an expanded, interagency working group that included the Office of the Tenant Advocate (OTA) and the Housing Provider Ombudsman (HPO) to review and revise the draft rulemaking.0

The Commission reports that as of the first week of March, 2017, the Commission has completed a revised draft of its proposed rulemaking to update 14 DCMR §§ 3800-4400, based on comments and concerns raised in through the interagency working group convened during FY 2016.0 The Commission had circulated draft regulations to Office of the Tenant Advocate (OTA) and to the Housing Provider Ombudsman (HPO) at DHCD, and in the process developed an interagency working group. The Commission explained that the goal of the working group was to revise the draft to include the known or likely concerns of public stakeholders, while keeping an eye on the process moving forward. The Commission reports that it is satisfied that the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of the comments and recommendations from each agency and official involved, which according to the Commission, has resulted in the production of a greatly improved draft rulemaking that will be better received by public stakeholders during the formal notice and comment period.0

While the Committee heartily applauds the Commission for its significant progress in drafting the much needed regulations for the Rental Housing Act of 1985, the Committee is concerned that long-overdue amendments to the regulations are being formulated with insufficient stakeholder input prior to publication for comment. Unfortunately, the draft of the working group does not reflect any non-governmental stakeholder input on the scope of the draft regulations or the key policy issues to be addressed.

To date, the Commission has sought input from only the Rent Administrator, the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Office of the Tenant Advocate and to the Housing Provider Ombudsman. While these agencies certainly have expertise on many of the topics being addressed, they are not “stakeholders”. What is missing from the process to date is consideration of the views of the individuals and businesses most affected by the regulations, as well as the organizations that practice in this area every day.

Informal stakeholder review of draft regulations before publishing them as for notice-and-comment serves two key functions. First, it maximizes transparency and ensures input early in the process from the parties who will be most affected. Second, it results in a more efficient and effective rulemaking process, because many points of concern and possible contention can be resolved informally, avoiding a lengthy notice-and-comment process. Input through the public comment process often may come too late, after the scope of the rules has been determined and key policy decisions have been made. The Committee believes that public comment stage can be an effective tool for fine-tuning new rules, but the affected community stakeholders should have an

0 Id. at question #117.0 Id. at question #121.0 Id. at question #121.

65

opportunity to provide insight into the scope of the amendments and key policy decisions at the formative stage of drafting the amendments.

While a process of convening a series of stakeholder meetings that includes representatives from all sides can be time consuming, it is a wise investment of resources that helps to ensure high-quality and balanced rulemakings. The process also helps to prevent a lengthy notice-and-comment process in which multiple rounds of subsequent revisions may be required. Finally, this opportunity to clarify the intent of the government drafter might also help to avoid unnecessary future litigation.



The Department of Housing and Community Development has no additions in the proposed capital budget.



The Committee recommends approval of the Mayor’s FY 2018 operating budgetfor the Department of Housing and Community Development in the amount of $182,237,000 with the following changes:

1. Utilize the funds from the DHCD Unified Fund.

The Committee utilize the one-time funding of $378,299 from the DHCD Unified Fund and transfer $250,000 to the Office of the Tenant Advocate - Activity 1040 – CSG 41 for the rent control database. The remaining $128,299 is to be transferred to the Office on Aging - Activity 9430 - Community Based Support Program in CSG 40 to create a volunteer intergenerational program and provide stipends to participating seniors.

2. Increase to the Employer Assisted Housing Program (EAHP).

The Committee recognizes and implements a move of $700,000 from Activity 4510 – CSG 41 to Activity 3040 – CSG 50 to enhance funding for the EAHP budget. The Committee also recognizes and implements a move of $700,000 from Activity 2010 – CSG 50 to Activity 4510 – CSG 41 to reallocate costs for DHCD loan servicing contract to Intra-District funds, as stipulated in the Mayor’s Errata Letter.

3. Return funds to Affordable Housing Project Financing.

66

The Committee recognizes and implements a move of $10,000,000 from Activity 2025 – CSG 50 to Activity 2010 – CSG 50 to return the funds set aside by the agency to support Housing Preservation that have been replaced by local funds, as stipulated in the Mayor’s Errata Letter.

4. Establish the unique fund titled Housing Preservation Fund.

The Committee recognizes and implements an appropriation of $10,000,000 along with the establishment of the unique fund in the financial systems by the OCFO to Fund 0101 for the Housing Preservation Fund, as stipulated in the Mayor’s Errata Letter.


The Department of Housing and Community Development has no additional funding in the proposed capital budget.



1. The Committee urges DHCD to continue to work expeditiously to promote and fill the remaining number of vacancies that are outstanding within the Department with capable experts, and in particular, to staff up the Preservation Unit. The Committee will continue to monitor the vacancy levels to ensure that all the essential positions are filled.

2. The Committee encourages DHCD to actively pursue the development of this preservation fund to ensure that DHCD properly leverages and builds up this revolving fund for the preservation of affordable housing in the District.

3. The Committee recommends that the agency select projects and proposals based on the housing needs of our residents, and simultaneously urges DHCD to comply with the statutory mandates and continuously monitor all the affordable housing projects for proper income certification.

4. The Committee urges the agency to ensure that the services related to TOPA are cohesive and unified, incorporating the pre=application legal and technical assistance as mandated by the Committee in FY 2017, in order to pave the way for homeownership opportunities for District residents.

67

5. The Committee recommends that DHCD continue to take market conditions into consideration for all down payment assistance programs and ensure that the funds are being spent in an expeditious manner, particularly in light of the changing roles and processes within the program. The Committee also urges DHCD to monitor the processes of the EAHP program to implement necessary reforms aligned with the improvements of HPAP as needed.

6. The Committee strongly encourages DHCD to ensure that the government is able to continuously and consistently reduce the number of vacant and blighted properties throughout the District, and to dispose of the entire PADD inventory in a timely manner.

F. ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS (DX0)


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

DX0 - ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS 100 LOCAL FUND $787,721.57 $958,661.00 $933,555.00 $92,998.83 $1,026,553.83GROSS FUNDS $787,721.57 $958,661.00 $933,555.00 $92,998.83 $1,026,553.83


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

DX0 - ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS 100 LOCAL FUND 2.52 2.50 2.50 1.00 3.50GROSS FTES 2.52 2.50 2.50 1.00 3.50


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

DX0 - ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS 11--REGULAR PAY - CONT FULL TIME $172,840.63 $180,492.05 $183,086.00 $70,345.00 $253,431.00 12--REGULAR PAY - OTHER $31,678.25 $32,079.87 $32,993.50 $32,993.50 14--FRINGE BENEFITS - CURR PERSONNEL $27,773.63 $32,310.93 $31,115.44 $15,053.83 $46,169.27

15--OVERTIME PAY $326.83 $0.00 $0.00PERSONNEL SERVICES (PS) $232,619.34 $244,882.85 $247,194.94 $85,398.83 $332,593.77 20--SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $907.66 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 40--OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES $194.99 $6,090.14 $3,672.06 $3,672.06

68

41—CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - OTHER $0.00 $25,000.00 $7,600.00 $7,600.00 50--SUBSIDIES AND TRANSFERS $553,999.58 $677,688.01 $677,688.00 $677,688.00 70--EQUIPMENT & EQUIPMENT RENTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00NONPERSONNEL SERVICES (NPS) $555,102.23 $713,778.15 $686,360.06 $7,600.00 $693,960.06GROSS FUNDS $787,721.57 $958,661.00 $933,555.00 $92,998.83 $1,026,553.83


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

DX0 - ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS 1000 - AGENCY MANAGEMENT $233,721.99 $280,972.99 $255,867.00 $92,998.83 $348,865.83 2000 - ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS $553,999.58 $677,688.01 $677,688.00 $677,688.00GROSS FUNDS $787,721.57 $958,661.00 $933,555.00 $92,998.83 $1,026,553.83



The mission of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) is to advise the D.C. government on the public policies that currently affect and may potentially affect their neighborhood areas.0 This mission includes considering such issues as police protection, economic development, health, safety, and zoning in their respective neighborhoods.0 As the organ of District government with the closest official ties to individual residents, Commissioners are the government’s liaison to local communities, thus enabling more effective service by the District government. 0

In each of these areas, the intent of the ANC structure is to ensure input from an advisory board that is made up of the residents of the neighborhoods that are directly affected by a government action. The ANCs are therefore the body of government with the closest official ties to the people of a neighborhood.

The ANCs present their positions and recommendations on issues to various District government agencies, the Executive Branch, and the Council. They also present testimony to independent agencies, boards, and commissions, usually under the rules of

0 Gottlieb Simon, About ANC: Available at http://anc.dc.gov/page/about-anc (accessed May 16, 2017).0 Id.0 Id.

69

http://anc.dc.gov/page/about-anc

procedure specific to those entities. By law, the ANCs may also present their positions to federal agencies.

The Commissioners are supported in their mission by the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, which provides technical, administrative, and financial reporting assistance to the 40 ANCs and the 296 Single Member District Commissioners who comprise them.0 The OANC is established, pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 1-309.15(a), “to provide technical, administrative, and financial reporting assistance to the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions.”

New OANC Financial Oversight Duties in FY 2017-18: Beginning in April 2017, OANC assumed responsibility for ANC financial oversight and quarterly allotment approval duties, previously performed by the Office of the D.C. Auditor, as required by the “Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Omnibus Amendment Act of 2016” (Omnibus Act).0

Accordingly, the Omnibus Act amended the legal mandate for the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions to include the review of Commission quarterly financial reports, the approval or disapproval of Commission expenditures, and the release of Commission quarterly allotments pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 1–309.13.



The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 budget for the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) and the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (OANC) is $933,555, a decrease of $25,106 compared to FY 2017.0 This budget consists of local funds only.

The decrease to the budget is accounted for by the conclusion of the OANC sign language interpretation pilot program, which ends at the close of FY 2017.0

Within DX0, OANC is allotted $255,868 for FY 2018. The remainder of DX0, $677,688, is distributed among the ANCs themselves in quarterly allotments.

The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 budget grants OANC 2.5 FTEs.0 These staffing levels are identical to FY 2017. The Mayor’s budget does not fund staff for the ANCs 0 Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (hereinafter OANC) Fiscal Years 2016/2017

Performance Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, March 8, 2017 (testimony of Gottlieb Simon, Executive Director).

0 Law 21-269; D.C. Official Code § 1–309.01 et seq. 0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 1, Advisory Neighborhood

Commissions (DX0), A-15.0 OANC Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and

Neighborhood Revitalization, May 1, 2017 (testimony of Gottlieb Simon, Executive Director).0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 1, Advisory Neighborhood

Commissions (DX0), A-15.

70

themselves, which are authorized by statute to procure their own full-time or part-time staff with their quarterly allotments.0

Local Funds: The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 local funds budget for the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions and the OANC is $933,555, a decrease of $25,106 compared to FY 2017. The agency has 2.5 FTEs: the Executive Director, the Deputy Director, and one Outreach Assistant.

Special Purpose Revenue Funds: The Mayor’s proposed budget for OANC does not include any special purpose revenue funds.

Federal Funds: The Mayor’s budget for OANC does not include any federal funds.

Intra-District Funds: The Mayor’s proposed budget for OANC includes no intra-district funds.


No Increase to Advisory Neighborhood Commission Allotments: The DX0 budget allocation includes funding for the operations of OANC as well as the allocation for ANC quarterly allotments. While the allocation for OANC has consistently seen increases to personal services for cost-of-living adjustments, the allocation for ANC quarterly allotments has not been adjusted for inflation since FY 20110. Furthermore, this allocation has remained flat despite a rapidly increasing estimated population for the District as a whole.

The Executive Director of OANC, Gottlieb Simon, testified at the FY 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing that the current funding level for ANC allotments represents a 25% decrease compared to Fiscal Year 2009. Further, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the dollar amount of the current allocation for ANC allotments has 29% less purchasing power than that in Fiscal Year 2009 when adjusted for inflation.0

The Committee recommends that OANC continue to advocate for an increase to ANC allotments in the DX0 budget for future fiscal years such that, at minimum, when adjusted for inflation, those allotments match the purchasing power that they had in FY 2011. Ultimately, the Committee hopes that in the near future the total allocation for ANC allotments might reach $1.25 per resident, up from the current level of approximately $1.01 per resident (based on the 2015 District population estimate of 672,288, available on the D.C. Office of Planning’s web page0).

0 D.C. Official Code § 1–309.13(o).0 OANC Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and

Neighborhood Revitalization, May 1, 2017 (testimony of Gottlieb Simon, Executive Director).0 “United States Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator”, available at

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (accessed May 12, 2017).0 “2010 - 2015 Annual Estimates of the Population for the US, Regions and States”, available at

https://planning.dc.gov/node/1176686 (accessed May 12, 2017).

71

Budget Decrease: The overall decrease to the DX0 allocation is accounted for by the conclusion of the OANC sign language interpretation pilot program, which ends at the close of FY 2017.0

New OANC Office Space: The Committee noted in FY 2016 that, at that time, OANC operated in a very small office space shared by all three of its employees. This occasionally made it difficult for OANC to maintain privacy for meetings with Commissioners or others who visit OANC to address a sensitive concern. In the third quarter of FY 2017, OANC moved into a much larger office space in the John A. Wilson Building, with a separate spaces for the director’s office, a meeting room with a conference table, and a workspace for OANC employees.

New OANC Financial Duties in FY 2017-18: Beginning in April 2017, OANC assumed responsibility for ANC financial oversight and quarterly allotment approval duties, previously performed by the Office of the D.C. Auditor, as required by the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Omnibus Amendment Act of 2016 (“Omnibus Act”).0 However, the Mayor’s FY 2018 proposed budget did not reflect the transfer of associated personnel and costs from ODCA to OANC.

The Committee therefore recognizes and accepts a transfer of 1.0 FTE and $92,999 in recurring funding from the Office of the D.C. Auditor to the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, for the following purposes: (1) 1.0 FTE and $85,399 for a program analyst to be responsible for the review of financial reports and other documents submitted on behalf of each Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANC) to ensure each Commission is in compliance with the District laws and regulations, and (2) $7,600 for related information technology costs.

The Committee also recommends that OANC provide a report to the Committee following the first two quarters of quarterly report review and quarterly allotment disbursal, describing any particular improvements to the ANC quarterly budgeting process under OANC’s administration, as well as any difficulties encountered.

ANC Omnibus Act Effective Date Clarification: The applicability statement in the Omnibus Act erroneously implied that the intent of the Committee was that none of the provisions of that Act, with the exception of the shifting of duties from the ODCA to OANC, would apply until the few provisions with a fiscal impact were funded. The Committee’s intention was that only those provisions of the Omnibus Act that have a fiscal impact would not apply until funded. A substantial portion of the provisions in the Omnibus Act have no fiscal impact, and their application should not be delayed until other unrelated provisions are funded. Therefore, the Committee supports the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Omnibus Effective Date Clarification Amendment Act of 2017, which would permit the provisions of the Omnibus Act with no fiscal impact to go into effect beginning in Fiscal Year 2018.

0 OANC Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 1, 2017 (testimony of Gottlieb Simon, Executive Director).

0 Law 21-269; D.C. Official Code § 1–309.01 et seq.

72



The Committee recommends approval of the Mayor’s FY 2018 operating budget for the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions in the amount of $933,555 with the following changes:

1. Add 1.0 FTE Authority to the OANC.

The Committee accepts the transfer of recurring funds from the Committee of the Whole – Office of the D.C. Auditor to the Office of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, Activity 1000 – CSG 11 and 14 to fund the following FTE to review ANC quarterly financial reports and other documents:

1 Program Analyst - $85,399 (salary + fringe)

2. Enhance the IT budget.

The Committee accepts the transfer $7,600 in recurring funds from the Committee of the Whole – Office of the D.C. Auditor to the Office of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, Activity 1000 – CSG 40 to host and maintain the software to perform its quarterly financial reviews.


The Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions has no associated capital funds.


The Committee recommends that the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions implement the following policy recommendations:

1. The Committee recommends that OANC provide a report to the Committee following the first two quarters of quarterly report review and quarterly allotment disbursal, describing any particular improvements to the ANC quarterly budgeting process under OANC’s administration, as well as any difficulties encountered.

73

2. The Committee recommends that OANC continue to advocate for an increase to ANC allotments in the DX0 budget for future fiscal years such that, at minimum, when adjusted for inflation, those allotments match the purchasing power that they had in FY 2011, since which the allocation has remained flat. Ultimately, the Committee hopes that the total allocation for ANC allotments might reach $1.25 per resident, up from the current level of approximately $1.01 per resident.

74

G. HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY (HF0)


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

HF0 - HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

620 ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS $0.00 $11,740,000.00 $12,320,209.52 $12,320,209.52GROSS FUNDS $0.00 $11,740,000.00 $12,320,209.52 $0.00 $12,320,209.52


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 Committee

HF0 - HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY 620 ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0GROSS FTEs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance

FY 2018 CommitteeApproved

HF0 – HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

11 REGULAR PAY – CONT FULL TIME $0.00 $5,233,000.00 $5,588,498.52 $5,588,498.52

14 FRINGE BENEFITS – CURR PERSONNEL $0.00 $1,635,000.00 $1,714,451.00 $1,714,451.00

15 OVERTIME PAY $0.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00PERSONNEL SERVICES (PS) $0.00 $6,898,000.00 $7,332,949.52 $0.00 $7,332,949.52

20 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS $0.00 $110,000.00 $113,300.00 $113,300.0030 ENERGY, COMM. AND BLDG

RENTALS $0.00 $135,000.00 $139,050.00 $139,050.0031 TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH,

TELEGRAM, ETC $0.00 $100,000.00 $103,000.00 $103,000.0033 JANITORIAL SERVICES $0.00 $82,000.00 $84,460.00 $84,460.0034 SECURITY SERVICES $0.00 $25,000.00 $25,750.00 $25,750.0040 OTHER SERVICES AND

CHARGES $0.00 $1,800,000.00 $1,854,000.00 $1,854,000.0041 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES –

OTHER $0.00 $2,400,000.00 $2,472,000.00 $2,472,000.0070 EQUIPMENT & EQUIPMENT

RENTAL $0.00 $190,000.00 $195,700.00 $195,700.0080 DEBT SERVICE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

NONPERSONNEL SERVICES (NPS) $0.00 $4,842,000.00 $4,987,260.00 $0.00 $4,987,260.00GROSS FUNDS $0.00 $11,740,000.00 $12,320,209.52 $0.00 $12,320,209.52


75

FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance


HF0 - HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY1000 HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY $0.00 $11,740,000.00 $12,320,209.52 $12,320,209.52

GROSS FUNDS $0.00 $11,740,000.00 $12,320,209.52 $0.00 $12,320,209.52



The District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency (DCHFA) was established in 1979 to support and expand homeownership and rental housing opportunities for low- to moderate-income residents of the District of Columbia. DCHFA accomplishes this by issuing mortgage revenue bonds, which in turn lowers homebuyers’ expenses of purchasing homes, as well as the developers’ costs of developing rental-housing units. DCHFA’s multifamily financing program involves the financing of affordable housing through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds, taxable bonds, 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and McKinney Act Savings Funds.

DCHFA is a corporate instrumentality with a legal existence separate from the District government. By statute, the agency’s budget is independent of the D.C. Government’s Executive Branch. The agency has its own financial reporting system and is not tied to the financial reporting system of the District. DCHFA’s Board of Directors approves the agency’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year in the fourth quarter of the current fiscal year.0

DCHFA receives no dedicated taxes or special purpose funding. All revenues that support the agency are generated by the agency through fees and other revenues associated with its programs. The agency is entirely self-supporting, and none of its proposed budget funds are derived from District Government revenues. To support its operations and lending programs, the agency utilizes a variety of revenue sources, including the issuance of tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds, earned income, fees and grants. Nevertheless, the agency’s budget is subject to the Council of the District of Columbia’s review and is included in the annual Budget Book. The agency is governed by a Board of Directors and does not utilize District full-time equivalent employee levels (FTEs). DCHFA administers the following programs:

Multifamily Programs

0 See District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency (hereinafter “DCHFA”) Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 4, 2017 (testimony of Todd A. Lee, Executive Director).

76

Mortgage Revenue Bond Program (MMRB): The MMRB program provides tax-exempt and taxable bonds, tax credits, and McKinney Act Savings Loan funds as financial tools that are integral to development of the community’s ability to provide affordable, safe and decent housing to low-income and special needs populations. The multi-family mortgage revenue bond and tax credit products assist developers in accessing low-cost institutional debt and equity tools that enhance return on investment. When combined with 4% Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and other subsidies, DCHFA’s mortgage revenue bond product, provides competitive, below-market rate pricing in order to preserve, rehabilitate, or construct affordable, mixed-income housing in the District.

Under the MMRB Program, nonprofit, for-profit and 501(c)(3) developers can access tax exempt, taxable and 501(c)(3) bonds for the following eligible uses: acquisition, construction and permanent loans, fixed and variable rate loans, rated and un-rated tax exempt and taxable bond financing, and credit enhanced or un-enhanced financing, including financing under FHA Multifamily Insurance Programs, DCHFA-HUD Risk Sharing Program, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, DUS lending and Letter of Credit.0

The financing can be used to rehabilitate or construct the following: rental housing (affordable, mixed income, and market rate), cooperatives (Limited Equity), elderly housing, assisted-living facilities, and transitional housing.0 Federal regulations require that developers/sponsors who utilize MMRB financing set aside at least 20% of their units for individuals or families earning at or below 50% of the area median income (AMI) or at least 40% of their units for individuals or families earning at or below 60% of AMI.0 Projects approved for MMRB financing that will be financed through the sale of tax exempt private activity bonds are then eligible to receive 4% low income housing tax credits (LIHTCs).0

4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC): The 4% LIHTC Program was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-154). Its purpose is to incentivize development and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is the District’s authorized allocating agency for 4% LIHTCs. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between DHCD and DCHFA, DCHFA underwrites and administers 4% LIHTCs.

LIHTC is a companion financing tool for MMRB financing, and is funded through the sale of tax-exempt private activity bonds.0 Developers apply to allocating agencies for tax credit allocations, then seek equity from third-party investors in

0 DCHFA, Mortgage Revenue Bonds, available at http://www.dchfa.org/DCHFAHome/Developers/ProgramDescriptions/MortgageRevenueBonds/tabid/134/Default.aspx (last accessed May 8, 2017).

0 Id.0 Id.0 Id.0 DCHFA, 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC), available at

http://www.dchfa.org/DCHFAHome/Developers/ProgramDescriptions/4LIHTC/tabid/135/Default.aspx (last accessed May 8, 2017).

77

exchange for the tax credits.0 This infusion of equity effectively reduces the cost of projects, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will be financed.0

In order to realize LIHTC benefits, developers must comply with either the “20-50 test” or the “40-60 test”. Under the “20-50 test”, at least 20% of the units in a project must be set aside for individuals or families earning at or below 50% of the area median income (AMI). The “40-60 test” requires that at least 40% of the units in a project be set aside for individuals or families earning at or below 60% of AMI. LIHTCs can be used to generate part of the required equity a borrower must contribute to the financing, or they can be utilized to offset the borrower's tax payments.0

McKinney Act Loan Program: McKinney Act Loans are short term predevelopment “bridge” loans that can be used to finance the acquisition, predevelopment, and rehabilitation costs associated with housing development, and are available to both nonprofit and for-profit developers.0 The funds may be used for one or the more of the following purposes: pre-development and development soft costs, acquisition, construction or rehabilitation, down payment closing cost assistance, mortgage interest rate buy down, credit enhancement or loan guarantee, ancillary or functionally related recreational, health, educational or social services facilities that are integral to housing occupied by very low income persons and families, and equity bridge loans.0

Single Family Programs

DC Open Doors: DC Open Doors provides home purchase loans and down payment assistance to first-time and repeat homebuyers. The program offers both FHA and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mortgage loan products that provide up to 3.5% down payment assistance to borrowers earning at or below 120% of AMI. The program also forgives 20% of the initial 3.5% down-payment loan per year. DCHFA administers DC Open Doors via a network of national and local lenders. DC Open Doors is compatible and has been used with the following programs and products: DC Employer Assisted Housing Program (EAHAP), DC Negotiated Employee Affordable Home Purchase Program (NEHAP), DC Home Purchase Assistance Program (HPAP), DCHFA’s Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, and Wells Fargo City LIFT Down Payment Assistance Program.0 Working with participating lenders and real estate agent partners, the program has quickly grown in popularity. In 2016, DCHFA celebrated the milestone

0 DCHFA Responses to FY 2018 Budget Oversight Pre-Hearing Questions (April 24, 2017) (Question #II-5 from submitted responses of Todd A. Lee, Executive Director).

0 Id.0 Id.0 DCHFA, McKinney Act Loan Program, available at

http://www.dchfa.org/DCHFAHome/Developers/ProgramDescriptions/McKinneyActFunds/tabid/136/Default.aspx (last accessed May 8, 2017).

0 Id. 0 DCHFA Responses to 2017 Performance Oversight Pre-Hearing Questions (Feb. 3, 2017) (Question #21

from submitted responses of Todd A. Lee, Executive Director).

78

of providing $200 million of assistance to District homebuyers through the DC Open Doors program.0

HomeSaver Phase I and Phase II: The HomeSaver Program is a federally funded foreclosure prevention initiative that provides onetime and ongoing monthly mortgage assistance to eligible unemployed and underemployed District of Columbia homeowners.0 The HomeSaver Mortgage Assistance Program (Phase I) was so successful that DCHFA had committed all but $2.9 million of its Phase I funding allocation when the Agency suspended applicant intake by November 2013.

After in-depth research, as well as collaboration with the Treasury and the DC Office of Tax and Revenue, DCHFA established the HomeSaver Phase II-Tax Lien Extinguishment Program (Phase II) in order to further leverage HHF resources.0 HomeSaver Phase II provides onetime assistance to eligible District of Columbia homeowners at risk of foreclosure due to delinquent real property taxes.0

On February 19, 2016, the Treasury announced plans to obligate up to $2 billion in additional Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds to the Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) and extend the program through 2020.0 As a result, DCHFA received an allocation of $4,924,602.0 On April 20, 2016, the Treasury announced the recipients of the final $1 billion allocation in funds under the HHF program.0 DCHFA was selected from a competitive application process to receive funds in the amount of $3,123,331 in this final round.0 These two awards totaled $8,047,933 in HHF funding for the agency in FY 2016.0

In November 2016, the Treasury granted DCHFA approval to make changes to both Phase I and Phase II of the program.0 These changes allowed the funds to be utilized for “catch-up” payments for up to 9 months.0 Phase II parameters were also changed to allow a one-time catch-up on not only real property taxes, but also on condominium fees,

0 DCHFA, DC Open Doors Funds $200 Million in Mortgage Assistance Loans, Nov. 8, 2016, available at http://www.dchfa.org/Portals/0/Documents/PressReleases/Press-Release-DC-Open-Doors-Funds-$200-Million-in-Mortage-Assistance-Loans.pdf.

0 DCHFA Responses to 2017 Performance Oversight Pre-Hearing Questions (Feb. 3, 2017) (Question #1 from submitted responses of Todd A. Lee, Executive Director).

0 Id.0 Id.0 U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, Press Release: Treasury Announces Additional Investment in Hardest Hit Fund,

Feb. 19, 2016, https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl0358.aspx.0 DCHFA Responses to 2017 Performance Oversight Pre-Hearing Questions (Feb. 3, 2017) (Question # 1

from submitted responses of Todd A. Lee, Executive Director).0 U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, Press Release: Treasury Announces Allocation of Final $1 Billion Among

Hardest Hit Fund States, April 20, 2016, https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl0434.aspx.

0 DCHFA Responses to 2017 Performance Oversight Pre-Hearing Questions (Feb. 3, 2017) (Question #1 from submitted responses of Todd A. Lee, Executive Director).

0 Id.0 Id. at Question #9.0 Id.

79

reverse mortgages where the servicer stepped in to pay, and similar situations.0 Additionally, the assistance cap increased from $38,400 to $60,000 per household.0

Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC): DCHFA launched a new product, the

Mortgage Credit Certificate, on June 16, 2016. The MCC provides borrowers with a tax credit of up to 20% of the interest annually paid. This product may be used in conjunction with DC Open Doors Loans. From the launch of the MCC in June 2016 through February 2017, 32 DC Open Doors Loans closed with MCCs, totaling an underlying loan amount of $9,630,013.0 During the same period, 13 non-DC Open Doors loans closed with MCCs, totaling an underlying loan amount of $4,673,730.0

Summary of DCHFA generated funds and associated agency revenues: 0

Issuance of Multifamily Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds

o In FY 2016, DCHFA generated $9,077,000 from the issuance of Multifamily Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds (MMRB).

o In FY 2016, the Agency issued $134.6 million in MMRBs.

Financing of single family home loans

o In FY 2015, DCHFA generated $396,828 in revenue from the financing of single family mortgage loans.

o In FY 2015, the Agency financed $62.9 million in single family mortgage loans.

Investment of bond proceeds and related funds

o In FY 2016, DCHFA realized a $58.2 million return on its investment of bond proceeds and related funds. The use of these funds is restricted.

o In FY 2015, the Agency had $244 million in investments.

General Funds

o In FY 2016, DCHFA added $16,666,451 of operating revenue to its general funds.

o As of April 2017, DCHFA had $66.1 million in holdings.

4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits

0 Id.0 Id.0 Id.0 Id.0 DCHFA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Budget Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Year

2018 (April 24, 2017) (Question #II-6 from the submitted responses of Todd A. Lee, Executive Director).

80

o In FY 2017, DCHFA generated $1.049 million in revenue from its administration of 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits.

o In FY 2017, the Agency underwrote and otherwise administered $11.6 million in LIHTC equity.

McKinney Act Savings Funds

o In FY 2017, DCHFA generated $108,000 in revenue from loaned McKinney Act Savings Loan Funds.

o The Agency currently has $5.8 million in holdings generated from McKinney Act Savings Loan Funds.

Compliance and Asset Management Group

o In FY 2017, DCHFA generated $231,000 in revenue through its Compliance and Asset Management Group.



The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 operating budget for DCHFA is $12,320,000 which represents an increase of 4.9% from the FY 2017 approved budget of $11,740,000. DCHFA receives no dedicated taxes or special purpose funding.0

DCHFA’s budget is comprised entirely of Enterprise and Other funds, which makes it easier for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to avoid double-counting monies that appear in certain transfer paper agencies and Enterprise agencies.


Notable Budget Increases: The agency’s proposed FY 2018 proposed operating budget represents a 6.3% total increase in personal services, comprised of a 6.8% increase in regular pay and a 4.9% increase in fringe benefits. The budget also includes a 3% increase in each of the following nonpersonal services categories: supplies and materials; energy, communication and building rentals; telephone, telegraph, telegram, etc.; janitorial services; security services; other services and charges; contractual services – other; and equipment and equipment rental.

Master Bond Parity Indenture: The agency is in the process of developing a Master Bond Parity Indenture as a separate legal framework through which it may issue bonds to the public market.0 This framework, known as a parity indenture, is an avenue for issuing bonds to the public market. It defines the type of bonds an investor may 0 All revenues that support the agency are generated by the agency through fees and other revenues

associated with its programs.

81

expect to purchase through the indenture, and is unique because all of the investments in the indenture will generally support each other.0 The purpose of creating the parity indenture is to provide flexible loan options for affordable multifamily housing projects through the issuance of bonds, notes, and other obligations issued under a Master Resolution.0 This will allow the agency to have access to a broader capital base. DCHFA expects to launch the parity indenture during the summer of 2017.0

Home Purchase Assistance Program (HPAP): On December 16, 2016, the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) announced that it was adding DCHFA as a co-administrator of the HPAP for the final 6 months of FY 2017 (March 1, 2017 – September 30, 2017).0 Per the Subrecipient Grant Agreement between the two agencies, $4,924,000 will be administered through the end of FY 2017.0 Between March 1, 2017 and May 1, 2017, DCHFA received more than 50 HPAP applications.0 As of May 1, 2017, the agency had not yet administered any HPAP funds but had 38 applications in-process, each of which it expects to fund at loan closing.0 The agency is planning on hiring one underwriter and one loan processor to assist in the co-administration of HPAP.0 DCHFA will be reimbursed for its administrative costs with Community Development Block Grant funds.0




2. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS0 DCHFA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Budget Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Year

2018 (April 24, 2017) (Question #II-6 from the submitted responses of Todd A. Lee, Executive Director).0 DCHFA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and

Neighborhood Revitalization, May 4, 2017 (testimony of Todd A. Lee, Executive Director).0 DCHFA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Budget Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Year


Neighborhood Revitalization, May 4, 2017 (testimony of Todd A. Lee, Executive Director).0 DCHFA Responses to 2017 Performance Oversight Pre-Hearing Questions (Feb. 3, 2017) (Question #21

from submitted responses of Todd A. Lee, Executive Director).0 DCHFA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Budget Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Year


Neighborhood Revitalization, May 4, 2017 (testimony of Lisa Hensley, Director of the Office of Single Family Programs).

0 DCHFA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Budget Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Year 2018 (April 24, 2017) (Question #I-9 from the submitted responses of Todd A. Lee, Executive Director).

0 Id. at Question #II-9.0 Id.

82


The Committee recommends approval of the FY 2018 budget for the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency in the amount of $12,320,000, as proposed by the Mayor.




The Committee recommends that the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency implement the following policy recommendations:

1. Closely examine underwriting of existing LIHTC projects that have been affected by recent pricing volatility in order to ensure that the projects stay on track.

2. Explore the feasibility of creating products that are specifically tailored for small and medium-sized developers.

3. Work closely with the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Greater Washington Urban League to increase efficiencies in the administration of HPAP.

83

H. HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND SUBSIDY (HP0)


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance


HP0 - HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND (SUBSIDY) 100 LOCAL FUND $90,179,389.00 $55,054,224.00 $48,317,389.00 $48,317,389.00GROSS FUNDS $90,179,389.00 $55,054,224.00 $48,317,389.00 $0.00 $48,317,389.00


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance


HP0 - HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND (SUBSIDY) 50--SUBSIDIES AND TRANSFERS $90,179,389.00 $55,054,224.00 $48,317,389.00 $48,317,389.00GROSS FUNDS $90,179,389.00 $55,054,224.00 $48,317,389.00 $0.00 $48,317,389.00


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance


HP0 - HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND (SUBSIDY) 1000 - HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND (SUBSIDY) $90,179,389.00 $55,054,224.00 $48,317,389.00 $48,317,389.00

GROSS FUNDS $90,179,389.00

$55,054,224.00

$48,317,389.00 $0.00

$48,317,389.00

84

I. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSING AUTHORITY (HY0)


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance


HY0 - HOUSING AUTHORITY SUBSIDY 100 LOCAL FUND $55,695,553.00 $69,947,560.00 $76,312,250.00 $76,312,250.00

GROSS FUNDS $55,695,553.00

$69,947,560.00

$76,312,250.00 $0.00

$76,312,250.00



ApprovedFY 2018

ProposedCommittee

Variance


HY0 - HOUSING AUTHORITY SUBSIDY 50--SUBSIDIES AND TRANSFERS $55,695,553.00 $69,947,560.00 $76,312,250.00 $76,312,250.00GROSS FUNDS $55,695,553.00 $69,947,560.00 $76,312,250.00 $0.00 $76,312,250.00



ApprovedFY 2018

ProposedCommittee

Variance


HY0 - HOUSING AUTHORITY SUBSIDY 2000 RENTAL ASSISTANCE SUPPORT $7,140,000.00 $7,140,000.00 $7,140,000.00 $7,140,000.00

3000 LOCAL RENT SUPPLEMENT $29,555,553.00 $58,607,560.00 $64,972,250.00 $64,972,250.004000 PUBLIC SAFETY $4,000,000.00 $4,200,000.00 $4,200,000.00 $4,200,000.005000 REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE $15,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00GROSS FUNDS $55,695,553.00 $69,947,560.00 $76,312,250.00 $0.00 $76,312,250.00



The mission of the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) is to provide quality affordable housing to low-income households, foster sustainable communities,

85

and cultivate opportunities for residents to improve their lives.0 The agency maintains five continuing goals:

(1) Create opportunities, through collaboration and partnerships, to improve the quality of life for DCHA residents;

(2) Increase access to quality affordable housing;

(3) Provide livable housing to support healthy and sustainable communities;

(4) Foster a collaborative work environment that is outcome-driven and meets the highest expectations of the affordable housing industry; and

(5) Effectively communicate DCHA’s accomplishments and advocate for its mission.0

DCHA was established by the District of Columbia Housing Authority Act of 1999. 0 The Executive Director leads the agency and is appointed by the 11-member DCHA Board of Commissioners.

The Executive Director is supported by several agency divisions, including the Office of Administrative Services, the Client Placement Division, the Office of Resident Services, the Office of Capital Programs, the Office of Audit and Compliance, the Office of Fair Hearings, the Office of Financial Management, the Office of General Counsel, as well as in-house Human Resources, Information Technology, Operations Support, and Public Affairs offices.0

DCHA also maintains its Office of Public Safety that is funded equally by local funds and federal funds. DCHA employs on-site public safety officers who are as equipped and jurisdictionally empowered as officers of the Metropolitan Police Department. This District of Columbia Housing Authority Police Force (DCHAPD) represents the District’s commitment to the safety of public housing residents, as well as personal, District, and federal property.

Local funding for DCHA is accounted for in three categories: the Local Rent Supplement Program, the Rental Assistance Program, and the Office of Public Safety.0 Other agency functions are funded by the federal government, with the majority in the form of grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).0

0 DCHA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Performance Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Years 2016/2017, February 16, 2017 (Question #48, submitted responses of Adrianne Todman, Executive Director).0 Id.0 Effective May 9, 2000, D.C. Law 13-105, § 3; 47 DCR 1325.0 http://www.dchousing.org/doc.aspx?docid=75 (accessed may 15, 2017).0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Housing Authority Subsidy (HY0), B-187.0 DCHA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Performance Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Years 2016/2017, February 16, 2017 (Question #12, submitted responses of Adrianne Todman, Executive Director).

86

http://www.dchousing.org/doc.aspx?docid=75

DCHA provides housing assistance with local funds in several ways. DCHA administers both local rent subsidies and federal Housing Choice voucher programs, with a portion of local subsidies allocated to households as tenant-based vouchers, and another portion allocated as operating subsidies for developers or properties that must maintain affordable units according to DCHA requirements in order to maintain eligibility.0 DCHA’s Rental Assistance Program also provides rental assistance to low-income households,0 0 More than 13,000 low-income households are currently able to maintain housing in the District through these housing assistance programs. 0

DCHA also serves as the landlord for the nearly 20,000 residents of the more than 8,000 federally-owned public housing units in the District.0 Public housing units provide very low-income families, seniors, and persons with a disability the financial assistance they need to live in habitable, affordable, and safe rental homes.

While the primary mission of DCHA is to provide quality affordable housing to low-income families, DCHA also closely collaborates with other District agencies and organizations to help public housing residents lead independent and productive lives.0 This is accomplished through on-site programs that improve job skills, continue education, promote public safety, and encourage youth summer employment, education, and recreation.0

Project-Based and Sponsor-Based LRSP: Project-based and sponsor-based Local Rent Supplement Program (LRSP) vouchers are an important tool for easing the rent burden on low-income families. DCHA uses project-based and sponsor-based LRSP funds to provide operating subsidies for affordable units created through the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) solicitation process, which allocates Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF) funding packages that include project-based and sponsor-based LRSP funds.

Project- and sponsor-based LRSP funding is an important tool by which the District can ensure that 40% of HPTF funding spent in a given fiscal year creates units affordable for residents at 30% of Area Median Income (AMI) or below.0 This funding is also supports the production of new Permanent Supportive Housing units, which support the implementation of the Homeward D.C. Plan and must comprise 5% of all new rental properties funded by DHCD.0

0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Housing Authority Subsidy (HY0), B-189.0 Id.0 DCHA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Performance Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Years 2016/2017, February 16, 2017 (Question #50, submitted responses of Adrianne Todman, Executive Director).0 Id. at Questions #51, 54.0 http://www.dchousing.org/topic.aspx?topid=3 (Accessed May 15, 2017).0 http://www.dchousing.org/topic.aspx?topid=101 (Accessed May 2, 2016).0 Id.0 DCHA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 4, 2017 (testimony of Scott Bruton, Vice President for Housing Policy, Coalition for Nonprofit Housing and Community Development).0 Id.

87

http://www.dchousing.org/topic.aspx?topid=101%20

http://www.dchousing.org/topic.aspx?topid=3

Project-based and sponsor-based funds are awarded to bidders who agree to maintain LRSP-backed affordable units that meet standards outlined in their agreements with DCHA.0 Units subsidized by sponsor-based LRSP funding must include on-site supportive services.0 Units subsidized by project-based LRSP are not required to maintain such on-site supportive services.0

Tenant-Based LRSP: Tenant-based LRSP vouchers are given directly to qualifying tenants who meet income and eligibility criteria. Applicants must have incomes at 30% AMI or below. In FY 2016, DCHA distributed 693 tenant-based LRSP vouchers.0 However, in FY 2017, DCHA has not distributed any tenant-based LRSP vouchers to individuals or families on the waitlist, as all additional tenant-based LRSP funding was designated for referrals from the Department of Human Services (DHS) in furtherance of the Homeward D.C. Plan.0 This is also the case for the Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget, with the $6.3 million enhancement to tenant-based LRSP designated for DHS referrals.0 DCHA maintains a waitlist for tenant-based LRSP vouchers, which was closed in April 2013.0 There are currently 39,440 families on the waitlist.0

In FY 2017, and in the Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget, DCHA was budgeted an allotment of tenant-based voucher funds for individuals referred by DHS. These funds subsidize rental costs for residents in Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) or Targeted Affordable Housing (TAH). PSH includes rental subsidies as well as supportive services for homeless residents facing drug or health problems for as long as the resident needs those services, while TAH provides more temporary housing subsidies to homeless individuals who do not require the supportive services associated with PSH.

PSH and TAH in the District are administered according to established best practices that the U.S. Congress codified in the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act;0 these programs represent the District’s commitment to the “Housing First” approach to addressing homelessness. Housing First entails providing housing and supportive services to homeless clients to the extent of their need and without burdensome conditions on the client, affording homeless residents the stability necessary to attain self-sufficiency more quickly and with the least expense to themselves and to the public.

0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Housing Authority Subsidy (HY0), B-189.

0 Id.0 Id.0 DCHA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Performance Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Years 2016/2017, February 16, 2017 (Question #52, submitted responses of Adrianne Todman, Executive Director).0 See id. at Question #53.0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Housing Authority Subsidy (HY0),

B-190.0 Id. at Question #61.0 Id. at Question #60.0 Briefing Memorandum for Budget Meeting with Councilmember Bonds, May 8, 2017 (D.C. Department of Human Services).

88

In FY 2017, the LRSP allocation for DHS referrals included only vouchers designated for residents in the TAH program. In the Mayor’s FY 2018 budget proposal, the tenant-based LRSP allotment contains a $6.3 million enhancement to support both PSH and TAH. This funding will serve 279 homeless households in PSH, and 185 households in TAH,0 and comprises the entirety of the enhancement to the DCHA local budget in FY 2018.0

Rental Assistance Program: The Rental Assistance Support Program provides rental assistance to low income households.0 Its annual allocation of $7,000,000 local dollars has been dedicated to providing housing assistance payments to 461 families as of FY 2017.0 These families had previously been on the waiting list for the federal HCVP, which is administered locally by DCHA. When continuous cuts to federal funding minimized the likelihood of these families being housed under the HCVP, the District budgeted local funding for them to receive vouchers.

Public Safety: The District of Columbia Housing Authority Police Department (DCHAPD) is a police force under DCHA’s Office of Public Safety that employs sworn officers whose jurisdiction is concurrent with that of an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department. DCHAPD also employs special police officers with arresting power on District public housing properties, security officers who screen visitors to public housing, and public safety administrative personnel.0

New Communities Initiative: DCHA collaborates with the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) in implementing the New Communities Initiative (NCI).0 NCI is intended to improve the quality of life for families and individuals living in the following four neighborhoods in the District of Columbia: Northwest One (Ward 6); Barry Farm (Ward 8); Lincoln Heights/Richardson Dwellings (Ward 7); and Park Morton (Ward 1).0 These designated New Communities sites are characterized by high rates of poverty, unemployment, and dilapidated housing stock.0 NCI seeks to revitalize such distressed public housing sites by building mixed-income and vibrant communities.0 NCI operates under four guiding principles: (1) one-for-one replacement of units, (2) the opportunity to stay or return, (3) the redevelopment of mixed

0 DCHA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, February 16, 2017 (testimony of Nathan Bovelle, Deputy Executive Director).0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Housing Authority Subsidy (HY0),

B-190.0 Id. at B-1890 DCHA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Performance Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Years 2016/2017, February 16, 2017 (Question #50, submitted responses of Adrianne Todman, Executive Director).0 DCHA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, February 16, 2017 (testimony of Nathan Bovelle, Deputy Executive Director).0 http://dcnewcommunities.org/about-nci/ (accessed May 16, 2017).0 Id.0 Id.0 Id.

89

http://dcnewcommunities.org/about-nci/

income housing, and (4) the policy of building first prior to demolition where feasible in order to minimize temporary displacement.0

The Housing Authority Board of Commissioners: The Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (the Board), is given broad authorization by D.C. Official Code § 6-211 to regulate and determine the activities of DCHA. The Board promulgates rules and regulations both for the activities of DCHA and for Board elections. The Board is also empowered to evaluate the Executive Director of DCHA, and any DCHA contract valued greater than $250,000.

The Board is comprised of 11 Commissioners: 5 are nominated by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council, and one of these five must be a Housing Choice Voucher Program recipient; 3 Commissioners are elected to the Board residents of District public housing properties; 1 Commissioner is named by the Central Labor Council; 1 Commissioner is named by the D.C. Consortium of Legal Service Providers; and lastly, the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development serves as an ex-officio member of the Board.0

Housing Providers Association: DCHA benefits from the counsel of the D.C. Housing Providers Association (DCHPA), a group representing over 5,000 housing providers in the District who are currently participating in DCHA voucher programs. The DCHPA is not a part of DCHA, but meets at DCHA headquarters and provides policy advice to DCHA with respect to voucher programs.0



The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 gross funds budget for the Housing Authority Subsidy is $76,312,250, reflecting an increase of $6,364,690 compared to FY 2017.0 The agency does not fund any FTEs with local funding.0

Local Funds: The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 local funds budget is $76,312,250, reflecting an increase of $6,364,690 compared to FY 2017.0 The agency does not fund any FTEs through local dollars.0

Special Purpose Revenue Funds: The Mayor’s proposed budget does not include any special purpose revenue funds.0

0 Id.0 D.C. Law 13-105; D.C. Official Code § 6–211.0 DCHA Fiscal Years 2016/2017 Performance Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, February 16, 2017 (testimony of Adrianne Todman, Executive Director).0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Housing Authority Subsidy (HY0),

B-187.0 Id.0 Id.0 Id.0 Id.

90

Federal Funds: The Mayor’s proposed budget does not include any federal funds for the Housing Authority Subsidy.0

Intra-District Funds: The Mayor’s proposed budget does not include any intra-district funds.0


No Increase to LRSP: For the second fiscal year in a row, the Mayor’s proposed budget includes no increase in funds for project- and sponsor-based LRSP. This lack of an up-front appropriation limits the ability of both the Council and the public to provide comment and oversight regarding the goals of the Mayor and DCHA as to how much of these subsidies will be awarded in FY 2018, or in any given fiscal year. It also undersells the District’s commitment to subsidizing affordable housing through the LRSP, and potentially reduces the LRSP surplus that might be available for the DCHA Rehabilitation and Maintenance (R&M) Fund in any given year.

DCHA’s current remaining (FY 2017) budget authority for project- and sponsor-based LRSP contains approximately $820,000 to support the creation or preservation of affordable housing for extremely low income households at 0-30% of AMI through the FY 2017 DHCD Consolidated NOFA. DCHA anticipates that the demand for project-based and sponsor-based funds in the FY 2017 DHCD NOFA, as well as any subsequent FY 2018 DHCD NOFAs, will exceed what is currently available given that there were no FY 2017 project- or sponsor-based funds appropriated. Without an enhancement to the FY 2018 project- and sponsor-based LRSP, or a commitment via the District’s Four-Year Financial Plan to enhance the project-based and sponsor-based program budget in future fiscal year allocations, DCHA’s ability to support the DHCD Consolidated NOFA is limited to $820,000 for FY 2017 and FY 2018.

Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Mayor and the Committee of the Whole address the lack of funding for new LRSP-subsidized affordable units through project- and sponsor-based LRSP, by finding additional funding for that program for FY 2018 or by reflecting a future commitment to fund LRSP operating subsidies in the Four-Year Financial Plan. This would not only allow for project- and sponsor-based LRSP commitments to be made in FY 2018, for which nothing additional is currently budgeted, but would also allow DCHA to meet additional demand for those operating subsidies in the current fiscal year (FY 2017).

The Mayor’s Proposed Budget also contains no increase compared with FY 2017 to the allotment for tenant-based LRSP vouchers that would serve individuals on the waitlist, 0 which included 39,440 people as of the second quarter of FY 2017.0 The Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget indicates that the proposed $6.3 million enhancement 0 Id.0 Id.0 Id.0 DCHA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Performance Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Years 2016/2017, February 16, 2017 (Question #60, submitted responses of Adrianne Todman, Executive Director).

91

to the tenant-based LRSP allotment is reserved for referrals from DHS in furtherance of the Homeward D.C. Plan which,0 while crucial for helping homeless residents attain permanent housing and stability, does not directly pull individuals or families from the DCHA waitlist.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Mayor find funding in the future to more aggressively address the DCHA tenant-based voucher waitlist, which some residents joined as long as 10 or more years ago.

Project- and Sponsor-Based Local Rent Supplement Program: The project- and sponsor-based component of the LRSP provides operating subsidies to housing providers for rental units set aside for tenants with incomes of 30% of AMI or below. This incentivizes the development of new affordable housing in the District of Columbia. DCHA participates in the annual consolidated NOFA in order to commit LRSP funds as operating subsidies for developments that set aside units for low-income residents. 40% of the Housing Production Trust Fund is statutorily set aside for the production of affordable units, and LRSP funding provides operating subsidies that helps make that affordability possible.0

Prior to Fiscal Year 2017, LRSP had previously seen systemic surpluses year-to-year, which had reverted to the general fund by operation of law if not spent at the conclusion of the fiscal year. This is because projects for which project- and sponsor-based LRSP funds are committed are in some cases not yet online before a given fiscal year ends.0 Housing providers relying on the future availability of such funds are assured that the commitment remains if the development continues as agreed but, by the time the development is online and funds may be transferred to the housing provider, DCHA must fulfill that commitment from its then-current fiscal year budget allocation. For example, a surplus of nearly $8.3 million dollars in LRSP funds at the conclusion of FY 2015 was reprogrammed to agencies outside of the housing cluster. However, the Mayor ensured that this amount, already committed to projects that were bid out during the preceding fiscal year, was budgeted again in the year in which those projects were to come online.

Beginning in FY 2017, recurring LRSP surplus is required to be deposited in the R&M Fund,0 recognizing that public housing properties in the District face numerous short and long term maintenance and other capital needs.0 However, the Mayor has instituted the practice of deferring the allocation of project- and sponsor-based LRSP funding for any given project until the fiscal year in which the projects come online.0 This has the dual effect of (1) potentially decreasing the amount of surplus that would be

0 Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2, Housing Authority Subsidy (HY0), B-190.

0 DCHA Fiscal Years 2017/2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 4, 2017 (testimony of Scott Bruton, Vice President for Housing Policy, Coalition for Nonprofit Housing and Community Development).0 Correspondence with DCHA, February 25, 2016.0 The District of Columbia Housing Authority Rehabilitation and Maintenance Fund Amendment Act of 2016 (D.C. Law 21-160 § 5131; D.C. Official Code 6–202).0 See DCHA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Budget Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Years 2017/2018, May 4, 2017 (Attachment #4).

92

deposited in the R&M Fund in any given year, and (2) eliminating the ability of the Council to give input and perform oversight as to the amount of LRSP project- and sponsor-based subsidies to be committed in any given year (since the funds would not be allotted to DCHA until the fiscal year in which committed units are already online).0

LRSP and the Homeward D.C. Plan: DCHA administers tenant-based vouchers set aside under its LRSP program to house homeless individuals and families in Targeted Affordable Housing or Permanent Supportive Housing. DHS refers these individuals and families to DCHA in furtherance of the Homeward D.C. Plan, which aims to achieve the elimination of chronic homelessness in the District (such that any instance of homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring) by 2020. Targeted Affordable Housing is provided for low-income residents who no longer need the wraparound supportive services of Permanent Supportive Housing, but need a longer-term solution than Rapid Re-Housing.

Public Safety: At the FY 2017 budget oversight hearing, DCHA testified as to the need for increased DCHAPD officer patrol presence at certain properties.0 Accordingly, the Committee recommended that DCHA receive the transfer of $200,000 from the Department of Housing and Community Development for public safety officers, and that DCHA should apply that funding to increase the total DCHA police force by 3 officers. The Committee’s ultimate goal is that public housing residents are able to enjoy the same benefit of public safety as their privately housed neighbors.

DCHA reported 6 vacancies within the DCHAPD as of the FY 2017 Performance Oversight Hearing.0 The agency plans to fill these vacancies (2 special police officers and 4 senior police officers) by the end of Fiscal Year 2017.0 The Committee recommends that DCHA update the Committee upon making each of these new hires, and provide confirmation to the Committee when DCHAPD is at full strength.

HUD Fair Market Rent and DCHA Payment Standards: Pursuant to HUD regulations, a DCHA voucher may be used to pay rent for a unit with a monthly rent equal to or less than a specified percentage of the Fair Market Rent (FMR), which varies based on the number of bedrooms in a given unit. HUD permits DCHA to set this percentage, or “Payment Standard”, up to a determined percentage of FMR.0 HUD has

0 DCHA Budget Oversight Hearing before the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 4, 2017 (testimony of Nathan Bovelle, Deputy Executive Director)

0 Id. (testimony of Scott Bruton, Vice President for Housing Policy, Coalition for Nonprofit Housing and Community Development).0 DCHA Performance Oversight Hearing before the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on

Housing and Community Development, February 24, 2016 (written testimony of Adrianne Todman, Director).

0 DCHA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Performance Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Years 2016/2017, February 16, 2017 (Question #2, submitted responses of Adrianne Todman, Executive Director).0 DCHA Budget Oversight Hearing before the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on

Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 4, 2017 (testimony of Nathan Bovelle, Deputy Executive Director).

0 Id.

93

consistently set the Payment Standard for DCHA at higher than 100% so that units in areas that very low-income tenants normally could not afford may become accessible to public housing residents.0 This not only ensures a dignified standard of living for voucher holders, but also creates potential for them to stay in their home communities and to live near their workplaces or necessary medical facilities.

In 2015, HUD authorized DCHA to raise the Payment Standard to 130% of FMR, beyond the long-standing 110% ceiling. In FY 2016, the Committee recommended that DCHA seek the authority to apply a Payment Standard of at least 150% for FY 2017, and DCHA was in fact given authority by HUD at the outset of FY 2017 to apply a payment standard up to 175%0. The Committee recommends that DCHA judiciously apply this new authority, so as to ensure that any consequent reduction in the number of vouchers that are distributed in any given year (since each voucher would thereby potentially be of higher value) is marginal.

Placement of Tenant-Based Voucher Holders: The Committee notes that underspending of tenant-based voucher funds in the past is in part due to the difficulty some voucher holders face in finding a unit affordable to the voucher. The Committee expects that DCHA’s new authority to raise the Payment Standard to 175% will alleviate this underspending to some extent as voucher holders more easily find appropriately priced units and DCHA is able to begin paying their rental subsidies.

However, several voucher holders testified before the Committee that they are repeatedly turned away by housing providers due to minimum income requirements or the housing provider’s assertion that it does not accept voucher holders. The Committee notes that the latter is an illegal practice under the District law prohibiting discrimination against a prospective tenant based on source of income or manner of payment,0 and urges voucher holders and DCHA to report any instance of such behavior to law enforcement.

Rehabilitation, Repair, and Maintenance of Public Housing: Public housing residents and advocates have been vocal at oversight hearings during Council Periods 21 and 22 with respect to repairs and maintenance of public housing. Residents have repeatedly reported at oversight hearings that they experience water dripping from their ceilings, often from the same place in the same room in different units, suggesting building-wide problems.0 Residents have also reported mold, insect and rodent infestations, and exacerbated asthma symptoms.0

Furthermore, under the President’s proposed federal budget for FY 2018, DCHA would expect to see a 70% decrease in available federal capital funding,0 compounding a

0 Id.0 DCHA Budget Oversight Hearing before the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on


0 D.C. Official Code § 2–1402.21(a).0 See generally public witness testimony. 0 Id.0 DCHA Budget Oversight Hearing before the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on

Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 4, 2017 (testimony of Nathan Bovelle, Deputy

94

40% decrease in capital funds reflected in the FY 2017 federal budget0. This would leave DCHA with less than $5 million in federal funding available for capital needs.0 Another factor limiting the availability of federal funding for capital needs is a $6.2 million per year debt service payment that DCHA must pay out of its federal capital budget. That $76 million loan was taken out in 2006, and will mature in 2025.0 That funding was applied to needs at DCHA senior properties, specifically for modernizing or repairing common areas, air conditioning, heating, water and waste pipes, and elevators.0

In response to this continuing and greatly underfunded need, the Committee created the non-lapsing DCHA Rehabilitation and Maintenance Fund (R&M Fund) that went into operation in FY 2017.0 Surplus LRSP funds are to be automatically deposited into the R&M Fund at the end of each fiscal year. The $15,000,000 for housing repairs, reprogrammed from FY 2016 LRSP surplus funds, was the inaugural balance for the R&M Fund, which can also accept annual appropriations in addition to surplus LRSP funds. The Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget does not include annual appropriations to the R&M Fund; however, DCHA projects a surplus of $19 million in LRSP funds at the conclusion of FY 2017, which would be available for capital needs in FY 2018.0

The Committee supports the “Housing Authority Rehabilitation and Maintenance Fund Administration Amendment Act of 2017”, which would make clear that the Chief Financial Officer shall control the R&M Fund, and shall reimburse the Housing Authority for qualifying expenditures (which may include maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of public housing properties within the District, per the Housing Authority Rehabilitation and Maintenance Fund Amendment Act of 20160). This will bring the administration of the R&M Fund into conformity with that of the Rental Assistance Support program, the LRSP, and the Office of Public Safety within the local Housing Authority Subsidy.

As to NCI sites, the Committee is concerned about the availability of funds for repairs and maintenance at those sites during phased redevelopment, during which some residents currently remain or will remain for some period of time. It had been stated previously that DMPED would provide funding for such needs.0 At the FY 2018 Budget

Executive Director).0 DCHA Responses to Questions in Advance of the Performance Oversight Public Hearing on Fiscal Years 2016/2017, February 16, 2017 (Question #36, submitted responses of Adrianne Todman, Executive Director).0 DCHA Budget Oversight Hearing before the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on


0 Id.0 Id. 0 The District of Columbia Housing Authority Rehabilitation and Maintenance Fund Amendment Act of 2016 (D.C. Law 21-160 § 5131; D.C. Official Code 6–202).0 DCHA Budget Oversight Hearing before the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 4, 2017 (testimony of Nathan Bovelle, Deputy Executive Director).0 D.C. Law 21-160 § 5131; D.C. Official Code 6–2020 DCHA Budget Oversight Hearing before the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on


95

Oversight Hearing, DCHA testified that DMPED has committed in more recent conversations to provide between $7 million and $8 million for these needs.0 The Committee urges DCHA to prioritize the conclusion of this conversation with DMPED in order to solidify the amount of funding that will be available as soon as possible, and to report this amount to the Committee.0

New Communities Initiative and the Right to Return: A point of emphasis from advocates and residents during both FY 2016 and FY 2017 is the District’s commitment to the right to return for public housing residents who must relocate due to NCI redevelopment at a public housing site.0 In 2016, the Committee and the full Council unanimously passed the “Sense of the Council Resolution in Support of a New Communities Initiative Relocation and Return Rights Strategy of 2016” supporting a generous application of the right to return principle for residents in public housing communities within NCI sites as long as those residents continue to meet the qualifications for public housing.

The right to return is one of the guiding principles of the NCI. In FY 2017, the Committee urged DCHA to fulfill the Council’s “Sense of the Council Resolution in Support of a New Communities Initiative Relocation and Return Rights Strategy of 2016” and work with all stakeholders to establish criteria for return that are uniform and fair to tenants.

During the FY 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing, DCHA testified that those current public housing residents of Barry Farm who are currently living at Barry Farm as well as those who relocated with a voucher or to another public housing property after October 2012 would be those afforded the right to return at the conclusion of Barry Farm’s redevelopment.0 The corresponding date for residents at Park Morton is November 2014.0 No such dates have yet been set for the Lincoln Heights site, and the Northwest One site is subject to differing dates based on the mixed government-owned housing and LRSP-subsidized housing on that site.0 Residents who relocated from an NCI property by taking a voucher or moving to another public housing site after the applicable date will be guaranteed the ability to return to the respective NCI development upon its completion, provided that they meet the other typical eligibility criteria for public housing.0

Scattered Sites: With approval from HUD, DCHA has undertaken the sale of vacant government-owned single-family homes, or “scattered sites,” and has directed the proceeds of such sales toward the production of affordable housing.0 In September 2013,

0 Id.0 Id.0 See generally public testimony.0 DCHA Budget Oversight Hearing before the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, May 4, 2017 (testimony of Nathan Bovelle, Deputy Executive Director).0 Id.0 Id.0 DCHA Budget Oversight Hearing before the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on


0 See http://wamu.org/news/15/09/13/want_to_buy_some_public_housing_dc_has_got_some_for_sale

96

HUD permitted DCHA to rehabilitate and sell 12 such properties at market rate, with the proceeds going toward the preservation and creation of affordable housing. In October 2015, HUD approved the market-rate sale of 12 scattered sites, again with proceeds going to the creation of affordable housing and a commitment to replacing the sold units, one-for-one. In February 2016, 8 recently renovated scattered site homes were approved for sale for affordable homeownership to families whose income is less than 80% of AMI.0

The Committee recommends that DCHA provide the Committee with quarterly reports as to the agency’s sale of its scattered sites, including the addresses, number of bedrooms, sale price, affordability targets with respect to each sale, and a description of how the proceeds of each sale will be reinvested into public housing in the District.



The District of Columbia Housing Authority’s local budget does not include capital funding.



The Committee recommends approval of the Mayor’s FY 2018 operating budget for the District of Columbia Housing Authority in the amount of $76,312,250 with the following changes:

1. Address the lack of funding for new LRSP-subsidized affordable units

The Committee recommends that the Mayor and the Committee of the Whole address the lack of funding for new LRSP-subsidized affordable units through project- and sponsor-based LRSP by finding additional funding for that program for FY 2018 or by reflecting a future commitment to fund LRSP operating subsidies in the Four-Year Financial Plan. This would not only allow for project- and sponsor-based LRSP commitments to be made in FY 2018, for which nothing additional is currently budgeted, but would also allow DCHA to meet additional demand for those operating subsidies in FY 2017.

0 DCHA Performance Oversight Hearing before the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on Housing and Community Development, February 24, 2016 (testimony of Adrianne Todman, Director).

97


The Housing Authority Subsidy has no associated capital funds.


The Committee recommends that the District of Columbia Housing Authority implement the following policy recommendations:

1. The Committee recommends that DCHA update the Committee upon filling each of its vacancies within DCHAPD, and provide confirmation to the Committee when DCHAPD is at full strength. DCHA reported 6 vacancies in its Office of Public Safety as of the FY 2017 Performance Oversight Hearing. The agency is awaiting the graduation of one new cadet from the MPD Police Academy to fill a special police officer position, and plans to fill the other 5 vacancies (one special police officer and 4 senior police officers) by the end of Fiscal Year 2017.

2. The Committee recommends that, in the future, DCHA seek additional funding for project- and sponsor-based LRSP projects in the fiscal year in which they are committed, rather than that in which they are to be online. For the second fiscal year in a row, the Mayor’s proposed budget includes no increase in funds for project- and sponsor-based LRSP. This reflects the Mayor’s new budgeting practice of appropriating these funds in the year projects come online, rather than the year they are committed. This lack of an up-front appropriation limits the ability of both the Council and the public to provide comment and oversight regarding the goals of the Mayor and DCHA as to how much of these subsidies will be awarded in any given fiscal year.

3. The Committee recommends that DCHA apply all available federal capital funding, and any available FY 2017 LRSP surplus that is transferred to the R&M Fund, in such a way that prioritizes maintenance and repair related to health and safety first, followed by bringing the existing public housing stock to 20-year viability.

4. The Committee recommends that DCHA provide the Committee with quarterly reports of all reported instances of housing providers refusing to accept voucher holders.

5. The Committee recommends that DCHA develop and seek funding for new programs to assist voucher holders in finding placements, both to mitigate the difficulties many voucher holders face in the open market, where housing providers often attempt to avoid accepting voucher holders, and so that funding may be operationalized more quickly.

6. The Committee recommends that DCHA provide the Committee with quarterly reports as to the agency’s sale of its scattered sites, including the addresses, number of bedrooms, sale price, affordability targets with respect to each sale, and a description of how the proceeds of each sale will be reinvested into public

98

housing in the District.

7. The Committee recommends that DCHA continue to actively inform public housing residents in clear language as to the conditions of the right to return to redeveloped New Communities Initiative properties. This includes clearly informing residents of the dates at which they must have lived at the property in order to qualify.

8. The Committee recommends that DCHA judiciously apply its new authority to apply a Payment Standard of up to 175% of Fair Market Rent, so as to ensure that any consequent reduction in the number of vouchers that are distributed in any given year (since each voucher would thereby potentially be of higher value) is marginal.

9. The Committee recommends that DCHA expeditiously conclude its discussions with DMPED as to how much funding DMPED is able to provide for ongoing repair and maintenance needs at New Communities Initiative Sites that have yet to be redeveloped, and to report this amount to the Committee.

10. The Committee therefore recommends that the Mayor find funding in the future to more rapidly pull applicants from the DCHA tenant-based voucher waitlist and distribute tenant-based voucher funds.

J. HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND (UZ0)



Approved FY 2018 ProposedCommittee

Variance


UZ0 - HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND 610 ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS-DEDICATED TAX ($3,538,811.32) $55,054,224.00 $48,317,389.00 $48,317,389.00 620 ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS $90,441,539.75 $44,945,776.00 $51,682,611.00 $51,682,611.00GROSS FUNDS $86,902,728.43 $100,000,000.00 $100,000,000.00 $0.00 $100,000,000.00


FY 2016 Actuals

FY 2017 Approved

FY 2018 Proposed

Committee Variance


UZ0 - HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND 610 ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS-DEDICATED TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 620 ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

99

GROSS FTEs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



ApprovedFY 2018

ProposedCommittee

Variance


UZ0 - HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND 11--REGULAR PAY - CONT FULL TIME ($36.03) $0.00 $0.00PERSONNEL SERVICES (PS) ($36.03) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 31--TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH, TELEGRAM, ETC ($2,110.21) $0.00 $0.00 41--CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - OTHER $86,904,874.67 $100,000,000.00 $100,000,000.00 $100,000,000.00NONPERSONNEL SERVICES (NPS) $86,902,764.46 $100,000,000.00 $100,000,000.00 $0.00 $100,000,000.00GROSS FUNDS $86,902,728.43 $100,000,000.00 $100,000,000.00 $0.00 $100,000,000.00



ApprovedFY 2018

ProposedCommittee

Variance


UZ0 - HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND 1000 - HOUSING PROUCTION TRUST FUND $86,902,728.43 $100,000,000.00 $100,000,000.00 $100,000,000.00GROSS FUNDS $86,902,728.43 $100,000,000.00 $100,000,000.00 $0.00 $100,000,000.00



The Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF or the Fund) is the District’s primary tool for funding affordable housing projects and programs. Since 2001, HPTF funds have contributed to the production or preservation of over 9,500 units of affordable housing across every ward of the District.0 Through grants and loans to both for- and non-profit developers, the HPTF can be used for either rental or homeownership housing opportunities. HPTF is also seen as an effective financing tool, as it often serves as “gap financing” for projects that have substantial amounts of private financing, and only require a partial contribution from the District.

Although the HPTF was established in 1988, it did not receive regular funding until FY 2001, when the District made a one-time $25 million contribution. The “Housing Act of 2002” dedicated 15% of the District’s real estate recordation and

0 Based on the 2017 report released by the District of Columbia Office of the Auditor, the exact number of units produced or preserved using HPTF funds is a point of contention. See Office of the District of Columbia Auditor, DHCD Should Improve Management of the Housing Production Trust Fund to Better Meet Affordable Housing Goals 3 (March 16, 2017) (“This review found that data to be unreliable and we are not confident in the accuracy of the total number of projects and units.”).

100

transfer taxes each year to fund the HPTF.0 In FY 2007, a subsidy account for this entity was created to show the annual transfer of dedicated deed recordation and deed transfer taxes from the District’s General Fund to the HPTF. Beginning in FY 2013, these funds were deposited directly into the HPTF; as a result, there is no transfer of dedicated taxes through the General Fund. There was a transfer of local funds to the HPTF through this Agency in FY 2013, FY 2014, and FY 2016. A local funds transfer is also budgeted for FY 2017 and is proposed for FY 2018.

The HPTF is administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), which is also the largest recipient of HPTF resources. Funds are also distributed to other agencies, including the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) and the Department of Human Services (DHS), via intra-district transfers0, as well as to developers.

To ensure the HPTF is used to create and preserve affordable housing for households whose income levels are below the area median income (AMI), accompanying legislation was passed that imposes several statutory spending requirements. The law requires 40% of HPTF expenditures to go toward housing affordable for households at or below 30% of the AMI, 40% of expenditures to go toward housing affordable for households at 31-50% of AMI, and 20% of expenditures to go toward housing affordable for households at 51-80% of the AMI.0

Table 1: HPTF Income Limits0

INCOME BAND

Household Size

1 person 2 person 3 person 4 person

5 person 6 person 7

person 8 person

0 - 30% 22,806 26,064 29,322 32,580 35,838 39,096 42,354 45,61231 - 50% 38,010 43,440 48,870 54,300 59,730 65,160 70,590 76,02051 - 80% 60,816 69,504 78,192 86,880 95,568 104,256 112,944 121,632

In addition, the statute requires half of the funds in the HPTF to be used for the purpose of assisting in the provision of rental housing.0 It also restricts administrative costs of the Fund to no more than 10% of its budget.0 The Mayor is required to file an annual report that reports on the actions and spending of the HPTF.0

0 § 2, 36 DCR 444; Apr. 19, 2002; see also Mar. 16, 1989, D.C. Law 7-2020 The term “intra-district transfer” refers to the payment process that creates an advance of cash from one

agency fund to another agency fund.0 D.C. Official Code § 42-2802(b-1).0 DHCD, DHCD Rent and Income Limits – 2016, available at

https://dhcd.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhcd/publication/attachments/DHCD%20Income%20and%20Rent%20Limits%206-2016.pdf.

0 D.C. Official Code § 42-2802(b-1).0 D.C. Official Code § 42-2802(b)(10).0 D.C. Official Code § 42-2803.02.

101

DHCD has also established rent limits for residents who obtain a rental unit that has been funded with HPTF money. The District of Columbia has experienced rapid growth and development over the past several years, resulting in an increased cost of living. However, incomes have not risen at the same rate.0 A recent study showed that 64% of the District’s lowest-income residents devote 50% or more of their income to housing, as do one-third of moderate-income families.0 Such high housing costs may force families to forego necessities, move frequently, or endure unsafe or unhealthy living conditions. The HPTF rent limits help alleviate these pressures by ensuring that qualified individuals do not spend a majority of their income on rent.

Table 2: HPTF Rent Limits0

0 - 30% 31 - 50% 51 - 80%Efficiency 570 950 1,5201 Bedroom 651 1,086 1,7372 Bedroom 733 1,221 1,9543 Bedroom 814 1,357 2,1724 Bedroom 895 1,493 2,3895 Bedroom 977 1,629 2,606

The HPTF has a 9-member Board, which is appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council, and serves to advise the Mayor on the development, financing, and operation of the Fund.0 The Housing Production Trust Fund Advisory Board (Board) was established by the Council of the District of Columbia under the Housing Production Trust Fund Act of 1988.0 The Board may review the uses of the HPTF for conformity with the purposes of the Act, and the Board must have access to records related to the HPTF to perform this review.



The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 operating budget is $100,000,000, which is the same amount as the FY 2017 approved budget of $100,000,000. The budget is comprised of dedicated taxes and local funds. This budget does not support any full-time equivalents (FTEs) since the HPTF is a paper agency administered by DHCD.

0 Wes Rivers, Going, Going, Gone: DC’s Vanishing Affordable Housing, DC FISCAL POLICY INSTITUTE (March 12, 2015).

0 Id.0 DHCD, DHCD Rent and Income Limits – 2016, available at

https://dhcd.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhcd/publication/attachments/DHCD%20Income%20and%20Rent%20Limits%206-2016.pdf.

0 D.C. Official Code § 42-2802.01.0 Effective on June 8, 1990 (DC Law 8-133; D.C. Official Code § 42-2802.01).

102

Dedicated Taxes: The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 dedicated taxes budget is $51,683,000, an increase of $6,737,000, or 15%, from the FY 2017 approved budget of $44,946,000.

Local Funds: The Mayor’s proposed FY 2018 local funds budget is $48,317,000, a decrease of $6,737,000, or 12%, from the FY 2017 approved budget of $55,054,000.


Compliance with Statutory AMI Requirements: Over the past several years, DHCD has struggled to meet the HPTF’s statutory AMI spending requirements, often spending a disproportionate amount on housing for 51-80% AMI. In an effort to bring spending into compliance, beginning with the 2015 Consolidated Request for Proposals, the agency has placed greater emphasis on the lower AMI units.0 The Committee commends DHCD on its efforts and looks forward to working with the agency as it continues to refine its processes and procedures to improve compliance with the statutory requirements.

Table 3. HPTF Spending by Income Category0

0 - 30% AMI 31 - 50% AMI 51 - 80% AMIStatutory Mandate 40% 40% 20%

FY 2014 10% 23% 67%FY 2015 33% 15% 52%FY 2016 45% 21% 34%FY 2017

(to-date plus projected) 22% 37% 41%

FY 2018 (projected) 33% 57% 10%

Administrative Costs: Addressing the District’s housing needs requires utilizing as much of the HPTF’s resources for actual programs and tangible projects as possible. This can be accomplished by working efficiently and minimizing administrative overhead. District law caps administrative expenses at 10% of funds deposited into the Fund.0 However, the statute does not speak to the ratio of administrative expenditures to program expenditures. The Committee is concerned that the costs associated with the administration of the HPTF are disproportionate to the level of programmatic expenditures. The HPTF is the District’s most important tool in its efforts to produce and

0 DHCD Response to 2017 Performance Oversight Pre-Hearing Questions, Feb. 24, 2017 (Question #105).

0 Id.0 D.C. Official Code § 42-2802(b)(10).

103

preserve affordable housing, and, while the value of good stewardship and careful administration cannot be overstated, it is imperative that DHCD maximize the proportion of HPTF funds that go towards projects. Furthermore, DHCD has indicated that HPTF funds have been used for a variety of other DHCD programs and services.0 The Committee wants to ensure that any administrative expenditures drawn from the HPTF are used to support only projects that have received HPTF funds.

DHCD has stated that, while it has been in compliance with the 10% limit in the past, it expects to incur additional administrative costs beyond this cap moving forward.0 The agency cited its extensive backlog of projects, as well as adjustments it must make as a result of recent audit findings, as justification for its need for additional administrative resources.0 In response to this need, the FY 2018 Budget Support Act, as introduced by the Mayor, permitted an additional 5% of “the fund balance carried forward” in FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019 to be used for administration of the Fund.0 The Committee is concerned that this language lacks clarity, particularly in light of the fact that DHCD’s accounting practices, historically, have not mirrored those of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. This discrepancy affects the definition of what funds are covered by the term “fund balance carried forward,” and may lead to confusion and a lack of transparency. In addition, the Committee is concerned that the inability to precisely predict the amount that will actually be “carried forward” each year will negatively impact DHCD’s ability to effectively budget for its administrative costs.

To avoid the uncertainty that would result from tying the permissible administrative costs to the year-end fund balance, the Committee recommends amending the statutory language to allow for 15% of the funds deposited into the Fund to be used for Fund administration. This would meet DHCD’s stated need for additional funds for HPTF administration while allowing the agency to anticipate the exact amount it could permissibly allocate for administrative costs with precision and certainty.

Audit Results: On March 16, 2017, the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor released an audit of the HPTF. The audit examined a sample of 14 projects from DHCD’s list of multifamily projects from FY 2001 – FY 2015, including one project from each year.0 The selected projects represented a variety of types of projects, types of developers, and funding purposes.

The audit’s results showed systemic deficiencies in DCHD’s compliance, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms in relation to the agency’s management of HPTF funds. Specifically, the audit revealed that, through inadequate income 0 DHCD Response to FY18 Budget Follow-up Questions, April 28, 2017 (Question #7) (“The additional

16% [of FY 17 year to date expenditures that have gone to administrative costs] was used for other DHCD programs and services, including but not limited to the Property Acquisition and Disposition Division, Single Family Residential Rehabilitation Program and matching funds for the Lead Safe Washington Program”).

0 DHCD Response to FY18 Budget Follow-up Questions, April 28, 2017 (Attachment #2).0 See id. at Question #8.0 Bill 22-0244, the “Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Support Act of 2017”.0 The Committee recognizes that the audit was historical rather than current in nature, and that it did not

include any projects that received federal funds or Low Income Housing Tax Credits.

104

certification requirements and procedures, DHCD had failed to ensure that HPTF projects were actually benefiting eligible households.0 Additionally, the audit found that approximately $1.1 million in uncollected loan repayments were due from the 14 sample projects alone.0 As the sample represented less than 10% of the 158 multifamily projects that have received HPTF funds, it is likely that the total amount owed to the HPTF in uncollected loan repayments is much higher. Finally, the audit showed that DHCD has not complied with various requirements such as commissioning an annual HPTF audit, timely submitting quarterly and annual reports, completing an annual outreach plan, and conducting an annual housing needs assessment.0

In response to the audit, DHCD has acknowledged the need for improvement in several key areas, and has already started implementing some of the audit’s recommendations.0 The Committee appreciates DHCD’s dedication to improving the management of the HPTF, and looks forward to supporting the agency as it works to address the issues raised in the audit.






The Committee recommends approval of the FY 2018 budget for the Housing Production Trust Fund in the amount of $100,000,000, as proposed by the Mayor.





1. Carefully design future RFPs to ensure HPTF meets the statutory requirements and the 40/40/20 rule: 40% spending on the 0-30% AMI level;

0 Office of the District of Columbia Auditor, DHCD Should Improve Management of the Housing Production Trust Fund to Better Meet Affordable Housing Goals 8-23 (March 16, 2017).

0 Id. at 21-22.0 Id. at 25-32.0 See DHCD, DHCD Response to draft report entitled “To Better Meet Affordable Housing Goals DHCD

Should Improve Management of the Housing Production Trust Fund” (Feb. 24, 2017).

105

40% spending on the 31-50% AMI level; and 20% spending on the 51-80% AMI level.

2. Carefully monitor the HPTF’s administrative expenses in the interest of operating in the most efficient manner possible.

3. Implement the 39 recommendations regarding HPTF administration, management, monitoring, and compliance included in the Auditor’s report.

III. FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST ACT APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATIONS

On Tuesday, April 04, 2017, Chairman Mendelson introduced, on behalf of the Mayor, the “Fiscal Year 2018 Federal Portion Budget Request Act of 2016” (Bill 22-0241).

IV. FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET SUPPORT ACT RECOMMENDATIONS

On Tuesday, April 04, 2017, Chairman Mendelson introduced, on behalf of the Mayor, the “Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Support Act of 2017” (Bill 22-0244). The bill contains a number of subtitles for which the Committee has provided comments in addition to new subtitles that the Committee recommends.

A. RECOMMENDATIONS ON BUDGET SUPPORT ACT SUBTITLES PROPOSED BY THE MAYOR

1. Title II. Subtitle B., Government Employer-Assisted Housing Program Amendment (renamed Public Servants and First-Responders Housing Incentive Amendment Act of 2017)

106

a. Purpose, Effect, and Impact on Existing Law

The Government Employer-Assisted Housing Program (EAHP) provides assistance to employees of the District of Columbia Government who are purchasing a home in the District for the first time. The EAHP funded property must be owner-occupied and the employee’s primary residence. Employees of District government agencies are currently eligible for matching down payment funds up to $1,500 and a deferred loan of up to $10,000 to be used towards the purchase of a single family home, condominium, or cooperative unit located in the District of Columbia.0 The maximum allowable purchase price is $625,500.

This subtitle, as introduced in the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Support Act of 20170, amends EAHP by increasing the maximum amount of funding for a deferred payment loan from $10,000 to $20,000. The Committee has also incorporated Bill 22-0105, the “First Responders Housing Incentive Program Amendment Act of 2017”0, which was introduced on February 7, 2017 by Councilmember Charles Allen, along with Councilmembers Bonds, Cheh, Evans, Grosso, McDuffie, and Todd. This legislation also expands EAHP by increasing the matching funds for all public servants: for every $2,500 a participating government employee sets aside, the District will provide matching funds of $1,000, up to $5,000.

Furthermore, for each police officer, correctional officer, firefighter, paramedic, or emergency medical technician (EMT) who sets aside $2,500, the District will provide matching funds of $1,500, up to $15,000. The legislation provides an additional grant of $10,000 to first responders who agree to a five-year service obligation, which will begin at the date of settlement on the housing unit. If the property is sold, transferred, or ceases to be the first responder’s principal residence within five years after the purchase, the grant must be repaid. The Committee has made one change to the legislation, which is the inclusion of correctional officers working at the Department of Corrections (DOC).

b. Committee Reasoning

Increasing the maximum deferred payment loan from $10,000 to $20,000 will afford more District government employees, including public school and public charter school teachers, police officers, firefighters, and EMTs, the opportunity to become homeowners in the District. In the District, homeownership rates fall well short of the national average: just 41% of DC residents are homeowners.0 Research shows that access to affordable mortgages, weak credit histories, and lack of down payment funds are among the greatest barriers that prevent many District residents from even thinking about

0 D.C. Code § 42-2502; D.C Code §42-2504.0 See, Bill 22-0244, the “Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Support Act of 2017”, available at

http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/37853/B22-0244-Introduction.pdf. 0 See, Bill 22-0105, the “First Responders Housing Incentive Program Amendment Act of 2017”,

available at http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/37358/B22-0105-Introduction.pdf. 0 See, DC Association of Realtors DC Homebuyer’s Guide, available at

http://www.dcrealtors.org/publications/docs/DC_homebuyers_guide.pdf.

107

http://www.dcrealtors.org/publications/docs/DC_homebuyers_guide.pdf

http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/37358/B22-0105-Introduction.pdf

http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/37853/B22-0244-Introduction.pdf

homeownership.0 Currently, the median price for a home in the District is $446,000.0 By potentially reducing the mortgage amount and the monthly payment amount, homeownership becomes a more attainable goal. The Committee supports this increase and believes that it will spur more District government employees to apply for EAHP.

Additionally, it is critical that we incentivize our first-responders to live in the District, as this allows them to be invested in the communities they serve. As noted by Eduardo Ferrer, Legal & Policy Director, DC Lawyers for Youth:

“Living in the community in which you work—whether as a homeowner or a renter—gives you a heightened sense of responsibility to realize its success. [L]iving in the community in which you work encourages you to learn the history of your home, get to know your neighbors, and build community. It becomes the place where you spend your money, pay your taxes, volunteer your time, and lay down your roots.”0

Unfortunately, the cost of homeownership, as noted above, significantly affects the numbers of first-responders that seek to purchase homes in the District. During the Committee’s hearing on Bill 22-0105, David Hoagland, an active member of the Washington, D.C. Firefighters Association, Local 36, expressed this concern:

“I am proud to call the District my home, but I face real hurdles in regard to making homeownership as a District of Columbia Firefighter a reality. With the current median home price in the District at upwards of 500,000, a significant financial investment is required in order to make a down payment. Existing programs like the Housing Purchase Assistance Program (HPAP) and DC Open Doors provide some help but I do not qualify for meaningful assistance from these programs.”0

This same sentiment was echoed by members of the Department of Corrections (DOC) Labor Committee:

“DC Department of Corrections is in the throes of its own recruiting and retention crisis. [N]ew staff in their 20’s and 30’s are making decisions about where to work, where to live, and how to support their families that will shape their lives for decades to come. Bill 22-0105…is an important

0 Id. 0 See, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/where-we-live/wp/2016/07/13/median-price-of-a-home-

in-d-c-region-soars-to-record-high/?utm_term=.fa6ff9b986bb. 0 Committee on the Judiciary & Public Safety and Committee on Housing and Neighborhood

Revitalization Joint Public Hearing on Bill 22-0041, the “Force of 4,200—Police Officer Recruitment and Retention Act of 2017” and Bill 22-0105, the “First Responders Housing Incentive Program Amendment Act of 2017” (written testimony of Eduardo Ferrer, Legal & Policy Director, DC Lawyers for Youth).

0 Committee on the Judiciary & Public Safety and Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Joint Public Hearing on Bill 22-0041, the “Force of 4,200—Police Officer Recruitment and Retention Act of 2017” and Bill 22-0105, the “First Responders Housing Incentive Program Amendment Act of 2017” (written testimony of David Hoagland, Member, Washington, D.C. Firefighters Association, Local 36).

108

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/where-we-live/wp/2016/07/13/median-price-of-a-home-in-d-c-region-soars-to-record-high/?utm_term=.fa6ff9b986bb

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/where-we-live/wp/2016/07/13/median-price-of-a-home-in-d-c-region-soars-to-record-high/?utm_term=.fa6ff9b986bb

first step to addressing this problem and employees of the Department of Corrections should be specifically included.”0

As a result of the concerns echoed by the DOC Labor Committee, the Committee has incorporated correctional officers into the definition of first responders for purposes of this subtitle. The Committee hopes that these changes will draw prospective and new first-responders to the District and disincentivize them from moving to more affordable surrounding communities, taking their experience with them.

c. Section-by-Section Analysis

Sec.2011. Short title.

Sec. 2012. Amends the Government Employer-Assisted Housing Amendment Act of 1999 to increase the maximum amount of funding for a deferred payment loan from $10,000 to $20,000; to establish a grant of up to $10,000 for first responders; and to increase District government matching funds to $1,000 for every $2,500 set aside by District government employees, up to $5,000, and to $1,500 for every $2,500 set aside by first responder participants, up to $15,000.

d. Legislative Recommendations for Committee of the Whole

Sec. 2011. Short title.

This subtitle may be cited as the “Public Servants and First-Responders Housing Incentive Amendment Act of 2017”.

Sec. 2012. The Government Employer-Assisted Housing Amendment Act of 1999, effective May 9, 2000 (D.C. Law 13-96; D.C. Official Code § 42-2501 et seq.), is amended as follows:

(a) Section 3 (D.C. Official Code § 42-2502) is amended as follows:

Paragraph (2) is amended by striking the phrase “$10,000; and” and inserting the phrase “$20,000;” in its place.

(2) Paragraph (3) is amended by striking the phrase “applicants.” and inserting the phrase “applicants; and” in its place.

(3) A new paragraph (4) is added to read as follows:

0 Committee on the Judiciary & Public Safety and Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Joint Public Hearing on Bill 22-0041, the “Force of 4,200—Police Officer Recruitment and Retention Act of 2017” and Bill 22-0105, the “First Responders Housing Incentive Program Amendment Act of 2017” (written testimony of John Rosser, Chairman, Fraternal Order of Police, DC Department of Corrections Labor Committee).

109

“(4) A grant of up to $10,000, for police officers, correctional officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, only, pursuant to section 6a.”.

(b) Section 4 (D.C. Official Code § 42-2503) is amended by adding a new subsection (d) to read as follows:

“(d) Nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit participation in the Home Purchase Assistance Program established by the Home Purchase Assistance Fund Act of 1978, effective September12, 1978 (D.C. Law 2-103; D.C. Official Code § 42-2601 et seq.).”.

(c) Section 5 (D.C. Official Code§ 42-2504) is amended as follows:

(1) Subsection (b) is amended to read as follows:

“(b) Except as provided in subsection (b-1) of this subsection, for each Participant in the Program who sets aside $2,500 under an Agreement, the District shall obligate $1,000 in the financial management system. The District shall match succeeding Participant saving increments of $2,500 with a $1,000 obligation until the District obligation totals $5,000. Matching contributions by the District shall not exceed $5,000 for any individual Participant. The District shall disburse its cash contribution at the time of settlement.”.

(2) A new subsection (b-1) is added to read as follows:

“(b-1) For each police officer, correctional officer, firefighter, paramedic, and emergency medical technician participating in the Program who sets aside $2,500 under an Agreement, the District shall obligate $1,500 in the financial management system. The District shall match succeeding Participant saving increments of $2,500 with a $1,500 obligation until the District obligation totals $15,000. Matching contributions by the District shall not exceed $15,000 for any individual Participant. The District shall disburse its cash contribution at the time of settlement.”

(d) A new section 6a (D.C. Official Code§ 42-2505a) is added to read as follows:

“Section 6a. First-Responders grant.

“(a) In addition to the assistance provided in section 5(b-1) and section 6, the Department shall make available a grant of up to $10,000 to provide financial assistance for the purchase of a housing unit to each police officer, correctional officer, firefighter, paramedic, and emergency medical technician who is a Participant.

“(b) In order to receive financial assistance for the purchase of a housing unit under this section, a police officer, firefighter, paramedic, or emergency medical technician must agree to a 5-year service obligation, which shall begin at the date of settlement on the purchase of the housing unit.

110

“(c) The loan shall be repaid by the Participant if:

“(1) Within 5 years after the date of settlement on the purchase of the housing unit, the housing unit is sold, transferred, or ceases to be the principal residence of the Participant.; or

“(2) The Participant does not complete the 5-year service obligation required by subsection (b) of this section.”.

2. Title II. Subtitle C., Housing Production Trust Fund Amendment


The Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF) is the District’s primary tool for funding affordable housing projects and programs. The HPTF is administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), which is also the largest recipient of HPTF resources. Addressing the District’s housing needs requires utilizing as much of the HPTF’s resources for actual programs and tangible projects as possible. This can be accomplished by working efficiently and minimizing administrative overhead. Current District law caps administrative expenses at 10% of funds deposited into the Fund.0

This subtitle, as introduced in the FY 2018 Budget Support Act of 2017, permitted an additional 5% of “the fund balance carried forward” in FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019 to be used for administration of the Fund.0 The Committee has changed the legislation to remove reference to “the fund balance carried forward”. In its place, the Committee has provided that an additional 5% of funds deposited into the HPTF may be used for administration of the Fund. This brings the total permissible amount to be spent on fund administration to 15% of funds deposited into the Fund per fiscal year.


DHCD has stated that, while it has been in compliance with the 10% limit in the past, it expects to incur additional administrative costs beyond this cap moving forward.0 The agency cited its extensive backlog of projects, as well as adjustments it must make as a result of recent audit findings, as justification for its need for additional administrative resources.0 While the Committee acknowledges the significant administrative burden involved in proper management of the HPTF, the Committee was concerned that this subtitle’s language as introduced lacked clarity, particularly in light of the fact that DHCD’s accounting practices, historically, have not mirrored those of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. This discrepancy affects the definition of what funds are covered by the term “fund balance carried forward,” and may lead to confusion and a lack of

0 D.C. Official Code § 42-2802(b)(10).0 Bill 22-0244, the “Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Support Act of 2017”.0 DHCD Response to FY18 Budget Follow-up Questions, April 28, 2017 (Attachment #2).0 See id. at Question #8.

111

transparency. Furthermore, the Committee was concerned that the inability to predict precisely the amount that will actually be “carried forward” each year would negatively impact DHCD’s ability to effectively budget for its administrative costs.

To avoid the uncertainty that would result from tying the permissible administrative costs to the year-end fund balance, the Committee proposes amending the statutory language to allow for 15% of the funds deposited into the Fund per fiscal year to be used for Fund administration. This would meet DHCD’s stated need for additional funds for HPTF administration while allowing the agency to anticipate the exact amount it could permissibly allocate for administrative costs with precision and certainty.


Sec. XX. Short title.

Sec. XX. Amends Section 3(b)(10) of the Housing Production Trust Fund Act of 1988 to allow up to 15% of the funds deposited into the Fund to be used for administration of the Fund.



This subtitle may be cited as the “Housing Production Trust Fund Amendment Act of 2017”.

Sec. 2022. Section 3(b)(10) of the Housing Production Trust Fund Act of 1988, effective March 16, 1989 (D.C. Law 7-202; D.C. Official Code § 42-2802(b)(10)), is amended to read as follows:

“(10) Funds for the administration of the Fund, not to exceed 15% per fiscal year of the funds deposited into the Fund pursuant to subsection (c) of this section; and”.

3. Title II. Subtitle D., Housing Preservation Fund Establishment


The purpose of this subtitle is to establish a special fund called the Housing Preservation Fund, to be administered by the Department of Housing and Community

112

Development (DHCD). The establishment of this fund was one of the 6 recommendations that resulted from the Preservation Strike Force, which was established on June 4, 2015 via Mayor’s Order.0

The Strike Force was led by Polly Donaldson, the Director of DHCD, and included the Chairperson of the Committee on Housing and Community Development (now renamed as the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization), other District officials, and selected stakeholders from the private sector. This group was tasked with developing an action plan to preserve the existing affordable housing in the District, with recommendations slated to expire in 2020. The action plan was released on June 11, 2016, and the 6 recommendations are as follows0:

7. Establish a Preservation Unit located within a District government agency, to be the District’s central resource for preserving existing assisted affordable housing in the marketplace, and identifying opportunities to place “naturally affordable” unassisted units under covenant or otherwise preserve their affordability. Among other responsibilities, the unit will also be responsible for creating and maintaining a database of housing that is affordable through restrictive covenants or market-driven forces.

8. Provide seed funding to a Public-Private Preservation Fund to facilitate early investments in preservation deals by focusing public dollars for preservation transactions, and also leveraging greater amounts of private capital, to preserve affordable housing.

9. Develop a Small Properties Preservation and Affordability Program within DHCD to assist properties with 5 to 50 units with funds for renovations and repairs.

10. Implement DOPA (the District Opportunity to Purchase Act), by releasing draft regulations that allow the District to take greater advantage of DOPA through the assignment of ownership to pre-qualified developers.

11. Improve preservation under TOPA (the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act) and TOPA exemptions, by providing financial incentives for preservation in TOPA transactions, including predevelopment activities, legal services, third party reports, and acquisition bridge financing. This assistance should also include a mechanism for collecting accurate data about the outcomes of TOPA transactions.

12. Programs to allow low-income senior renters to age in place by formulating strategies to allow these residents to remain in place. Examples include tenant-based vouchers or other rental assistance to seniors on a fixed income or renovations of buildings, units, and homes to create more accessible housing options for seniors to age in place.

0 Available at: http://dhcd.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhcd/publication/attachments/Preservation%20Strike%20Force%20-%20Establishment%20Order.pdf

0 Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Preservation Strike Force Final Report (https://dhcd.dc.gov/node/1200052)

113

https://dhcd.dc.gov/node/1200052

http://dhcd.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhcd/publication/attachments/Preservation%20Strike%20Force%20-%20Establishment%20Order.pdf

http://dhcd.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhcd/publication/attachments/Preservation%20Strike%20Force%20-%20Establishment%20Order.pdf

The subtitle is the second recommendation on the list above. The goal of the fund is to preserve affordability for all federally and city-assisted affordable rental homes in the District by leveraging local funds at a 3-to-1 ratio to facilitate early investments in preservation deals and leverage greater amounts of private capital.0


The Committee is wholeheartedly supportive of this initiative to leverage government dollars for the purposes of facilitating early investments from the private sector. As a member of the 18-member Preservation Strike Force, the Chair of the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization fully supports the establishment of this fund and the Committee does not seek to change any part of the subtitle, as introduced.



Sec. 2032. Establishes a special fund called the Housing Preservation Fund to be administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development.

d. Legislative Recommendation for Committee of the Whole

0 Correspondence from DHCD, May 10, 2017 from Polly Donaldson, Director

114


This subtitle may be cited as the “Housing Preservation Fund Establishment Act of 2017”.

Sec. 2032. Housing Preservation Fund.

(a) There is established as a special fund the Housing Preservation Fund (“Preservation Fund”), which shall be administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development in accordance with subsections (c) and (d) of this section.

(b) In fiscal year 2018, $10 million from local appropriations shall be deposited into the Preservation Fund.

(c) The Preservation Fund shall be used to provide debt and/or equity to finance housing preservation activities including acquisition bridge loans, predevelopment expenses (earnest money deposits, third party reports such as architectural, engineering, title reports, surveys), environmental remediation, critical repairs and other activities necessary to preserve the affordability of housing units; provided, that projects that receive funding from the Preservation Fund shall execute an affordability covenant with terms and conditions as determined by the Mayor.

(e) (1) The money deposited into the Preservation Fund, and interest earned, shall not revert to the unrestricted fund balance of the General Fund of the District of Columbia at the end of a fiscal year, or at any other time.

(2) Subject to authorization in an approved budget and financial plan, any funds appropriated in the Fund shall be continually available without regard to fiscal year limitation.

115

B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW BUDGET SUPPORT ACT SUBTITLES

The Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization recommends the following new subtitles to be added to the “Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Support Act of 2017”:

1. XX. Administration of Housing Authority Rehabilitation and Maintenance Fund


In response to continuing repair needs and other capital needs at Housing Authority properties, the Committee created the non-lapsing DCHA Rehabilitation and Maintenance Fund (R&M Fund), which went into operation in FY 2017. Surplus LRSP funds are to be automatically deposited into the R&M Fund at the end of each fiscal year, and the Fund can also accept annual appropriations. The Mayor’s FY 2018 Proposed Budget does not include annual appropriations to the R&M Fund; however, DCHA projects a surplus of $19 million in LRSP funds at the conclusion of FY 2017, which would be available for capital needs in FY 2018 without affecting the ability of DCHA to maintain payment of LRSP subsidies in FY 2018.

The Committee therefore supports the Housing Authority Rehabilitation and Maintenance Fund Administration Amendment Act of 2017, which would require that the R&M Fund shall be in the control the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, which shall reimburse the Housing Authority for qualifying expenditures. This will bring the administration of the R&M Fund into conformity with that of the RAD program, the LRSP, and the Office of Public Safety within the local Housing Authority Subsidy.


When agency funding is transferred to an agency on a reimbursable basis, the agency must provide documentation on what is being reimbursed, providing more certainty that the intended purpose of the funding is being fulfilled. Since the other components of the Housing Authority Subsidy are provided to the agency as a reimbursement, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has also developed a process to provide the Housing Authority with funding from the R&M Fund in the form of a reimbursement. To facilitate this, the subtitle also makes clear that the R&M Fund will be controlled by the OCFO and not the Housing Authority.



Sec. XX. Creates a new section 3(a) within the District of Columbia Housing Authority Act of 1999 to require that the Housing Authority R&M

116

Fund shall be controlled by OCFO, and that such funds shall be transferred to the Housing Authority on a reimbursable basis for qualifying expenditures.



This subtitle may be cited as the “District of Columbia Housing Authority Rehabilitation and Maintenance Fund Administration Amendment Act of 2017”.

Sec. 2. Section 3(c-1)(1) of the District of Columbia Housing Authority Act of 1999, effective May 9, 2000 (D.C. Law 13-105; D.C. Official Code § 6-202), is amended as to read as follows:

“(c-1)(1) There is established as a special fund the DCHA Rehabilitation and Maintenance Fund ("R&M Fund"), which shall be administered by the Chief Financial Officer. Funds in the R&M Fund shall be transferred to the Authority on a reimbursable basis for use in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection.”.

2. XX. Common Interest Communities Remedial Funding


This new subtitle establishes a program to provide non-taxable grants to cure housing and building code violations of common elements at low-income common interest communities, such as condominiums and cooperatives. Grants of up to $50,000 will be provided to eligible boards at a rate of $1,000 per unit in the common interest community. Grant funding may be used to repair common elements, including plumbing, electrical systems, roofs, entrance security, and to perform pest control. Repairs funded through the grant program must also fulfill or exceed environmental standards required for certification as a Green Communities project.

In order to be eligible for a grant under this subtitle, a common interest community must meet the following criteria:

(1) Two-thirds of the common interest community’s households shall have a household income of no greater than 60% of the area median income.

(2) The common interest community shall have at least 10 units.

(3) The common interest community’s board shall be a registered entity with the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.

(4) Board members shall have successfully completed a course of study as

117

prescribed by the Real Estate Commission, which includes training in ethics, and the financial, administrative, and facilities management of a common interest community.

The program will be administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development, and may be financed using Housing Production Trust Fund funds.


Many low-income common interest communities in the District are in a state of distress. Buildings are in serious need of repair, roofs leak, and utilities need upgrading, but maintenance has been deferred for years as many of these associations simply do not have adequate funds to address much needed repairs. Complicating the situation, some board members may lack the experience to make the important and difficult decisions required to manage a condominium or cooperative. This lack of experience may lead to poor management and financial planning of the community, which can exacerbate or even cause building deterioration.

As the bills for building repairs pile up, a vicious downward spiral occurs where condo fees must be increased to address repairs that have become even more expensive due to past neglect. As the condo fees increase, fewer and fewer members can afford the increases and stop paying, which places the burden of paying the fees onto the few remaining members who can still afford to pay -- until they, too, cannot afford to pay the fees. The final result is the possible collapse of the common interest community and the loss of the homes of the members, leading to possible homelessness.

The grant program established by this subtitle will help rehabilitate common interest communities, while at the same time incentivizing boards to receive specialized training aimed at improving their capacity to manage their communities effectively.



Sec. XX. Defines “Board”, “Common elements”, “Common interest community”, and “Green Communities” for purposes of this subtitle.

Sec. XX. Establishes a Common Interest Community Remedial Grant program (“CICRG”) to be administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide nontaxable grants to income-eligible boards to cure building and housing code violations of the common elements of the Common Interest Community.

Sec. XX Sets the eligibility requirements for the grant.

118

d. Legislative Recommendation for Committee of the Whole


This subtitle may be cited as the “Common Interest Communities Remedial Funding Act of 2017”.

Sec. XX. Definitions.

(a) For the purposes of this section:

(1) “Board” means an executive and administrative entity, by whatever name denominated and designated in the common interest community instruments to act for the unit owners’ association in governing the common interest community.

(2) “Common elements” means all portions of the condominium other than the units.

(3) “Common interest community” means real estate described in a declaration with respect to which a person, by virtue of the person’s ownership of a unit, is obligated to pay for a share of real estate taxes, insurance premiums, maintenance, or improvement of, or services or other expenses related to, common elements, other units, or other real estate described in the declaration.

(4) “Green Communities” means the sustainable building program developed by Enterprise Community Partners that establishes criteria for the sustainable design, construction, and operation of healthy, energy efficient, and environmentally responsible affordable housing.

Sec. XX Program description.

(a) There is established a Common Interest Community Remedial Grant program (“CICRG”) to be administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development (“DHCD”) for the purpose of providing nontaxable grants to income-eligible boards to cure building and housing code violations of the common elements.

(b) The CICRG shall not exceed $50,000 or an amount calculated by multiplying $1000 times the number of units in the common interest community, whichever is less.

(c) Remedial repairs to the common elements may include:

(1) Plumbing repairs;(2) Electrical repairs;(3) Roof maintenance, repairs, or replacement;(4) Entrance security and safety, including front door locking and

common area lighting:(5) Pest control as needed throughout the building complex; or(6) Other similar such remedial repairs to the common elements of the

building to cure building and housing code violations.

119

(d) CICRG grants shall fulfill or exceed the equivalent of the then-current edition of the Green Communities standard for certification as a Green Communities project, or other substantially similar or more stringent standards for sustainable construction and operation of multi-unit housing.

(e) Any contractor performing work pursuant to a CICRG grant shall be fully licensed, certified, and eligible to perform work in the District of Columbia.

(f) The DHCD shall:

(1) Develop a grant application form specific to the CICRG grant program that shall require the information and documentation necessary to determine eligibility for the program.

(2) Provide written notification to the applicant of approval or denial of their grant application within 60 days after the receipt of a completed application. If the application is denied, the notification shall include the reason for the denial and any process for reconsideration.

(g) The DHCD may use Housing Production Trust Fund financing for CICRG grants.

(h) CICRG spending shall not exceed $1 million in any fiscal year.

Sec. XX Eligibility requirements.

To be eligible for a CICRG grant, a common interest community shall meet the following requirements:

(1) Two-thirds of a common interest community’s households shall have a household income, as defined by D.C. Official Code § 47-1806.06(b)(2), of no greater than 60% of the area median income, as defined by section 2(1) of the Housing Production Trust Fund Act of 1988, effective March 16, 1989 (D.C. Law 7-202; D.C. Official Code § 42-2801(1).

(2) A common interest community shall have at least 10 units.(3) A common interest community’s board shall be a registered entity with the

Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.(4) Board members shall have successfully completed a course of study as

prescribed by the Real Estate Commission, which includes training in ethics, and the financial, administrative, and facilities management of a common interest community.

Sec. XX Section (3)(b) of the Housing Production Trust Fund Act of 1988, effective March 16, 1989 (D.C. Law 7-202; D.C. Official Code § 42-2802(b)), is amended by adding a new paragraph (12) to read as follows:

“(12) Common Interest Community Remedial Grants pursuant to the Common Interest Communities Remedial Funding Act of 2017.”.

3. XX. Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Effective Date Clarification

120


The applicability statement for the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Omnibus Act of 2016 (Omnibus Act) erroneously implied that the intent of the Committee was that none of the provisions of the Omnibus Act, with the exception of the transfer of duties from the Office of the D.C. Auditor to Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, would apply until the few provisions with a fiscal impact were funded. Therefore, the Committee supports the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Omnibus Effective Date Clarification Amendment Act of 2017, which would permit the provisions of the Omnibus Act with no fiscal impact to go into effect beginning in Fiscal Year 2018.


The Committee’s intention was that only the provisions of the Omnibus Act that have a fiscal impact would not apply until funded. A substantial portion of the provisions in the Omnibus Act have no fiscal impact, and no purpose would be served by delaying their application until the other unrelated provisions are funded.



Sec. XX. Amends section 3 of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Omnibus Amendment Act of 2016 to allow the provisions of the Act that have no fiscal impact to go into effect without requiring those provisions that have a fiscal impact to also be funded.



This subtitle may be cited as the “Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Omnibus Act Effective Date Clarification Amendment Act of 2017”.

Sec. XX. Section 3 of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Omnibus Amendment Act of 2016, effective April 7, 2017 (D.C. Law 21-269; 64 D.C. Reg. 17), is amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 3. Applicability.

“(a) Section 2(g)(1)(B)(ii) and the amendatory section 18(c) within section 2(i) shall apply upon the date of inclusion of their fiscal effects in an approved budget and financial plan. Section 2(g)(1)(A), (h)(4)(B), (h)(5)(A), (h)(7), (h)(8), and amendatory sections 18(a), (b), (d), and (e) within section 2(i) shall apply on April 1st, 2017.

“(b) The Chief Financial Officer shall certify the date of the inclusion of the fiscal effect in an approved budget and financial plan, and provide notice to the Budget

121

Director of the Council of the certification.

“(c)(1) The Budget Director shall cause the notice of the certification to be published in the District of Columbia Register.

(2) The date of publication of the notice of the certification shall not affect the applicability of this act.”.

4. XX. Rental Unit Fee Increase


This new subtitle authorizes the Rental Housing Commission to publish annually the most recent Rental Unit Fee, as increased according to the Consumer Price Index. The subtitle further increases the Rental Unit Fee required by section 401 of the Rental Housing Act of 1985 from $21.50 to $30.00, and requires that the fee be annually increased according to the CPI. The Rental Unit Fee is required to be paid by each housing provider, including those housing providers exempt from rental control. The additional revenues raised by the fee increase will be dedicated towards helping to ameliorate the District’s affordable housing crisis.


The Rental Unit Fee goes back to at least L1-0033, the Rental Accommodations Act of 1975, when housing providers were required to pay an annual fee of $2 per unit. By the time of L6-0010, the Rental Housing Act of 1985, the fee had risen to $10 per unit each year. Over the years, the 1985 $10 fee was increased four times to $21.50 per unit in 2009. The uses of the Rental Unit Fee has varied, with no designated use of the fee in the Rental Housing Act of 1985. However, in 2000, the fee was directed towards the abatement of nuisances, then in 2004 additional uses for the fee were to fund a tenant ombudsman, a housing provider ombudsman, and an Advisory Neighborhood Commission liaison. Then in 2006, a portion of the fee was dedicated for use by the Office of the Chief Tenant Advocate. Finally, in 2009, the fee was entirely scooped-up and was sent back to be used for the abatement of nuisances.

Currently, along with other sources of revenue, the Rental Unit Fee is being used for nuisance abatement. In FY 2016, a total of $5,935,343.33 was deposited in the fund, and $5,418,463.39 was expended (91% expended). Of this amount, $3,484,714.30 was from the Rental Unit Fee. The Committee recommends an $8.50 increase in the fee to $30.00. The $8.50 increase is computed by multiplying the $21.50 fee established in 2009, by the approximate average rate of increase in rent in Washington, D.C from 2009 to 20170, and then rounding down to $30 dollars. The currently unallocated additional

0 Rent trend data in Washington, District of Columbia, April 2017, https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-washington-rent-trends/; Twenty-Five American Cities with the Biggest Rent Hikes, May 5, 2011, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2011-05-05/twenty-five-american-cities-with-the-biggest-rent-hikes; Is Rent Too Damn High in the DC Area,

122

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2011-05-05/twenty-five-american-cities-with-the-biggest-rent-hikes

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2011-05-05/twenty-five-american-cities-with-the-biggest-rent-hikes

https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-washington-rent-trends/

$8.50 increase would raise $1,377,686 in FY 2018, $1,499,246 in FY 2019, $1,638,635 in FY 2020, and $1,782,886 in FY 2021. These funds would go into a Special Purpose Revenue under the auspices of the Office of the Tenant Advocate for the purposes of helping to ameliorate the District’s affordable housing crisis.

The Committee believes that monies raised by a fee on rental units should be directly used to improve housing affordability in the District. Although funds raised by the current $21.50 fee are already obligated to nuisance abatement (and will continue to be used for nuisance abatement), all additional fees raised by the fee increase would go to the Office of the Tenant Advocate. The Committee believes that these fee increases are best justified if this current increase and all future increases were dedicated towards addressing the District’s affordable housing crisis.



Sec. XX. Amends section 202(a)(3) of the Rental Housing Act of 1985 to authorize the Rental Housing Commission to publish annually the most recent Rental Unit Fee, as increased pursuant to the Consumer Price Index. The section further amends section 401 to increase the Rental Unit Fee from $21.50 to $30.00, and requires that the fee be annually increased according to the CPI.

Sec. XX01. Short title.

This subtitle may be cited as the “Rental Unit Fee Amendment Act of 2017”.

Sec. XX02. The Rental Housing Act of 1985, effective July 17, 1985 (D.C. Law 6-10; D.C. Official Code § 42-3501.01 et seq.), is amended as follows:

(a) Section 202(a)(3) (D.C. Official Code § 42-3502.02(a)(3)) is amended as follows:

“(1) Subparagraph (C) is amended by striking the word “and”.

“(2) Subparagraph (D) is amended by striking the phrase “section 215.” and inserting the phrase “section 215; and” in its place.

“(3) A new sub-paragraph (E) is added to read as follows:

“(E) The most recent Rental Unit Fee, as increased pursuant to section 401(a)(3).”.

(b) Section 401 is amended as follows:

October 20, 2010, http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/is_rent_too_damn_high_in_the_dc_area/2591; Rental Housing Market Condition Measures: 2009, October 2010, https://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-7.pdf.

123

https://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-7.pdf

http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/is_rent_too_damn_high_in_the_dc_area/2591

(1) Section 401(a) is amended to read as follows:

“(a) Each housing provider required to register under this chapter, including those otherwise exempt from rental control and registration pursuant to § 42-3502.05(a)(3), shall pay a rental unit fee of $30.00 for each rental unit in a housing accommodation registered by the housing provider.

“(1) The rental unit fee shall be paid annually to the District government at the time the housing provider applies for a basic business license or a renewal of the basic business license; or in the case of a housing accommodation for which no basic business license is required, at the time and in a manner that the Commission may determine.

“(2) The first $21.50 of each rental unit fee shall be deposited in the fund established pursuant to § 42-3131.01(b). Any fees remaining shall be deposited in the Rental Unit Fee Fund established pursuant to this section.

“(3) The rental unit fee for each rental unit shall be adjusted annually, beginning on the January 1 following the effective date of this act, by an amount equal to the change during the previous calendar year, ending each December 31, in the Washington, D.C., Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for all items during the preceding calendar year.”.

(2) A new section 401a is added to read as follows:

“(401a)(a) There is established as a special fund the Rental Unit Fee Fund (“Fund”), which shall be administered by the Office of the Tenant Advocate (“OTA”) in accordance with subsections (c) and (d) of this section.

“(b) The source of revenue for the Fund shall be any amount greater than $21.50 of each fee charged to housing providers pursuant to section 401(a) of this chapter.

“(c) Money in the Fund shall be used for expenses incurred by OTA in the course of its fulfillment of its statutory duties.

“(d) Money in the Fund shall not be used for any other purpose other than what is provided in subsection (c) of this section.”.

(c) Section 205(a-1) is amended to read as follows:

“(a-1) Whenever a housing provider comes into possession of a housing accommodation as a result of a transfer pursuant to section 402(c)(2) of the Rental Housing Conversion and Sale Act of 1980 (D.C. Law 3-86; D.C. Official Code § 42-3404.02(c)(2)), and at the time of the transfer the housing accommodation was not already exempt from sections 205(f) through 216, and sections 218 and 219 of this act, then then housing provider shall not be eligible for the exemption provided by subsection (a)(3) of this section.”.

124

5. XX. Public Accessible Rent Control Housing Clearinghouse

b. Purpose, Effect, and Impact on Existing Law

This new subtitle mandates the development of a demonstration project to establish the initial framework for the establishment of a searchable, real-time, online database of all rental housing accommodations subject to Title II of the Rental Housing Act of 1985. The District’s rent control program is one of the city’s most significant policy tools for maintaining affordable housing. However, despite the existence of rent control since 1985, the District still does not know how many units are actually subject to rent control. One research source states that the “best estimate” of the number of rent control units is approximately 4,818 properties with 79,145 housing units that are potentially subject to rent control.0 In order to resolve this near complete lack of accurate data, this demonstration project is being mandated, and will become the basis for the subsequent development of the full-scale Rent Control Housing Clearinghouse. The clearinghouse will become the portal for the filing of all the many forms required of housing providers, and will also serve as a user-friendly interface that provides information relevant to tenants seeking and living in rent control accommodations.


The District’s Rent control program is one of the city’s most significant policy tools for maintaining affordable housing. Most rental units occupied before January 1, 1976 are subject to rent control, which generally allows an annual rent increase limit of CPI-W0 plus 2 %, but not more than 10 %. For elderly or disabled tenants, the maximum annual increase is CPI-W only, but not more than 5 %. Larger rent increases are permitted when a rental unit becomes vacant. Additionally, a housing provider may request larger increases for hardship, capital improvements, services and facilities, substantial rehabilitation, and voluntary agreements.

However, despite the existence of rent control since 1985, it is still not known how many units are actually subject to rent control. The best information comes from “A Rent Control Report for the District of Columbia”, Prepared by NeighborhoodInfo DC, in June 2011. This research’s “best estimate” is that there are approximately 4,818 properties with 79,145 housing units potentially subject to rent control. However, the Committee concludes that in order to properly review how well rent control is working to preserve affordable housing, it is vital that better and more complete data become available. Much work needs to be done to improve the District’s rent control regime, and to help policymakers going forward, it is critical to establish a database of rent control-related information upon which decision making can be based. Better data, including better data accessibility and management, is the critical ingredient for improving rent

0 A Rent Control Report for the District of Columbia” by Neighborhood Info DC, June 20110 Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for all items, in the Washington,

D.C. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area

125

control compliance and enforcement. The database may also serve as the vehicle to create better policy-making.

Furthermore, housing providers are required to submit as many as 20 different forms for the nearly 80,000 rental units to the Rental Accommodations Division of the D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development. This process is time consuming and costly, and the paper-based aspect of the process is prone to human error.

The existing rent control law requires the Mayor to “establish an electronic database for the filing, storage, and retrieval of rent stabilization program documents.” (D.C. Code§ 42-3502.05(g)(2)) The current system known as FileNet has been in place for time immemorial, and is decades behind current data technology. FileNet is only available to licensees, thus requiring users to travel to DHCD to access the most basic of information. To say that modernization is overdue and is acutely needed would be a vast understatement.

FileNet consists of forms scanned into a database in unsearchable PDF-format, with the forms themselves being searchable only by property address. DCRA licenses FileNet to DHCD and is responsible for populating and maintaining the database. This requires DHCD’s Rental Accommodations Division to send boxes of accumulated filings to DCRA and wait for periodic scanning. The scanning and updating of FileNet is backlogged three years. Despite the existence of FileNet, anyone conducting rent control research typically must search the paper as well as the electronic filings, and even with this apparently redundant search, the record is likely to be incomplete. The Committee is concerned that this state of affairs compromises rent control compliance and enforcement, and it discourages tenants from using the tenant petition process to challenge unlawful rent increases and other related actions.

Finally, without a user-friendly, online, searchable database easily available to the general public, tenants seeking and living in rent control accommodations are at a serious disadvantage when they attempt to find out important information about rent control accommodations.

The Committee believes that the eventual establishment of a searchable, real-time, online database of all rental housing accommodations subject to Title II of the Rental Housing Act of 1985 will significantly help in the enforcement of the Rental Housing Act. Additionally, the information input by housing providers concerning the near 80,000 rent control units will provide an up-to-date and rich source of data for policy making regarding improvements to the District’s rent control regime.

The implementation of the database is being assigned to the Office of the Tenant Advocate (“OTA”). In order to help ensure the success of the database, the project will take place in two phases. The first phase is the development of a demonstration project, which will be a scaled down version of the full database. This phase will last two years, and requires quarterly reports. The final report requires a recommendation by the OTA of the time-period required for the completion of the full-scale database.

126



Sec. XX. Amends section 203a of the Rental Housing Act of 1985 to require the Office of the Tenant Advocate to develop a demonstration project to establish the initial framework for the establishment of to establish of a searchable, real-time, online database of all rental housing accommodations in the District of Columbia.


This subtitle may be cited as the “Public Accessible Rent Control Housing Clearinghouse Amendment Act of 2017”.

Sec. XX. Section 203a of the Rental Housing Act of 1985, effective July 17, 1985 (D.C. Law 6-10; D.C. Official Code § 42-3502.03c), is amended as follows:

(a) Subsection (a) is amended to read as follows:

“(a) The Office of the Tenant Advocate (“OTA”), with the assistance of and close consultation with the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Tax and Revenue, the Office of the Rental Accommodations Division (“RAD”), the Housing Provider Ombudsman, and the Office of the Chief Technology Officer, shall develop a demonstration project (“demonstration project”) to establish the initial framework of a user-friendly, internet-accessible, and searchable database for the submission, management, and review of all documents and relevant data that sections 201 through 223 of this act requires housing providers to submit to the RAD. The demonstration project shall be the basis for the subsequent development of the full-scale Rent Control Housing Clearinghouse.”.

(b) New subsections (a-1) and (a-2) are added to read as follows:

“(a-1) The Chief Tenant Advocate may contract to implement the database established by this section.

“(a-2) Any contract under this section shall be in accordance with the Procurement Practices Reform Act of 2010, effective April 8, 2011 (D.C. Law 18-371; D.C. Official Code § 2-351.01 et seq.).”.

(c) Subsections (c)(20), is amended by striking the phrase “RAD” and inserting the phrase “OTA” in its place.

(d) Subsection (e) is amended to read as follows:

“(e) The demonstration project shall be completed within 2 years of the effective date of this act.”.

127

(e) Subsection (f) is repealed.

(f) Subsection (g) is amended to read as follows:

“(g) The OTA shall report on a quarterly basis to the Council on the progress of the demonstration project. Following completion of the demonstration project, OTA shall prepare a final report that includes OTA’s recommendations for the development of a permanent rent control housing database.”.

128

V. COMMITTEE ACTION AND VOTE

On Thursday, May 18, 2017, in Room 500 of the John A. Wilson Building, the Committee met to consider and vote on the Mayor’s FY 2018 Budget Report for the agencies under its jurisdiction. Chairperson Anita Bonds 1determined the presence of a quorum consisting of herself and Councilmembers Elissa Silverman, Robert C. White Jr., Brianne Nadeau, and Trayon White Sr.

Chairperson Bonds provided a brief overview of the report and a summary of the changes to the Mayor’s proposed budget as recommended by the Committee before opening the floor for discussion. After a brief discussion, Chairperson Bonds then moved the Committee’s Fiscal Year 2018 Budget recommendations for approval, with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes to reflect the Committee’s actions. The Members voted 5-0 in support of the proposed recommendations, with the members voting as follows:

Members in favor: Councilmembers Bonds, Silverman, R. White, Nadeau, T. White

Members opposed: Members voting present:Members absent:

Chairperson Bonds adjourned the meeting.

129

VI. ATTACHMENTS

A. Tuesday, April 11, 2017 Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Witness List and Testimony

B. Tuesday, April 25, 2017 Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Witness List and Testimony

C. Monday, May 01, 2017 Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Witness List and Testimony

D. Thursday, May 04, 2017 Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Oversight Hearing Witness List and Testimony

130

This page intentionally blank.

131

ATTACHMENT A

132

C O U N C I L O F T H E D I S T R I C T O F C O L U M B I AC O M M I T T E E O N H O U S I N G A N D N E I G H B O R H O O D R E V I T A L I Z A T I O NA G E N D A / W I T N E S S L I S T1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004

COUNCILMEMBER ANITA BONDS, CHAIRPERSONCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION

ANNOUNCES A BUDGET OVERSIGHT HEARING

on

Office of the Tenant AdvocateDepartment of Housing and Community Development

Housing Production Trust FundRental Housing Commission

on

Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:00 AM John A. Wilson Building, Room 500

1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20004

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. OPENING REMARKS

III. WITNESS TESTIMONY

Office of the Tenant Advocate

1. Tom Gregory 4000 Mass. Ave Tenants Association2. Giovani Cappeletti 4000 Mass. Ave Tenants Association3. Michael Sindram Justice for All/ Disabled Veteran4. Jim McGrath TENAC

Executive Witness

1. Johanna Shreve Chief Tenant Advocate, Office of the Tenant Advocate

133

Department of Housing and Community Development/ Housing Production Trust Fund/ Rental Housing Commission

1. Steve Glaude President & CEO, CNHED2. Venus Littles Public Witness3. Nate Moon Public Witness4. Juanita McKenzie Public Witness5. Kyle Todd Executive Director, Rhode Island Avenue NE Main

Street6. Abel Nuñez Executive Director, CARECEN7. Anabell Martinez Housing Director, CARECEN8. Walda Yon Housing Department Director, Latino Economic

Development Center (LEDC)9. Jay Shepley Public Witness10. Dora Beltran Housing Counselor, CARECEN11. Scott Bruton Vice President, Housing Policy CNHED12. Delmy Diaz Public Witness13. Michelle Maluweti Business Coach, Latino Economic Development

Center14. Johnny Seikaly Fresh and Healthy Foods, LLC15. Jenna Giandoni Public Witness16. India Goins Public Witness17. Desiree Tedeschi Public Witness18. Evette Banfield Vice President, Economic Development Policy and

WealthBuilding Strategies, CNHED

19. Sean Moore Director, Small Business Development, Congress Heights

Community Training & Development Corporation20. Kya Winbush Public Witness21. Kirby Vining Public Witness22. Sarah Scruggs Deputy Executive Director, MANNA23. Nisa Harper Public Witness24. Janet Sharp Member, People for Fairness Coalition25. Jackie Grant Sr. Public Witness 26. O.B. Public Witness 27. Markus Larsson Executive Director, Life Asset28. Michael Sindram Justice for All/ Disabled Veteran 29. Meg Maguire First Congregational United Church of Christ

134

30. Robert Wohl Tenant Organizer, Latino Economic Development Center

31. Robert Warren Director, People for Fairness Coalition32. Emilia Cortes Gomez Director, Small Business Technical Assistance

Program,Greater Washington Hispanic Chamber of

Commerce33. Tecoy Bailey-Wade Peer Support Specialist, Open Arms Housing34. Deborah Jones Executive Director, Ward 7 Business Partnership35. Harry Gural President, Van Ness South Tenants Association

Executive Witness

1. Polly Donaldson Director, Department of Housing and Community Development

VI. ADJOURNMENT

135

ATTACHMENT B

136




on

Office on Agingon

Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 10:00 AM John A. Wilson Building, Room 412


I. CALL TO ORDER

II. OPENING REMARKS


Office on Aging

Romaine Thomas Chairperson, Commission on Aging

1. Celia Boykin Public Witness2. Mabel Hart Public Witness3. Evelyn McKenly Public Witness4. Loretta Spears Public Witness5. Mary Tatum Public Witness6. Urbane Bass Public Witness7. Joan Bailey Public Witness8. Carol Clomax Public Witness9. Mark C. Miller DC Long-Term Care Ombudsman10. Laurie Blackman Assistant Director, Howard University

Multidisciplinary Gerontology Center

137

11. Lauren Badger Anti-Hunger Program Associate, D.C. Hunger Solutions

12. Gloria Higgins Public Witness13. Claudette Garnette Public Witness14. Blanche Hamilton Public Witness15. Alberta Bryant Public Witness16. Ida Smith Public Witness17. Jean Butler Public Witness18. Carmen Blackman Public Witness19. Dorothy Whitley Public Witness20. Rosa Pizzi Executive Director, Vida Senior Centers21. Marla Lahat Executive Director, Home Care Partners22. Irma Tschorn Public Witness23. Samuel Arias Public Witness24. Kathalene Kilpatrick Public Witness25. Josephina Campos Public Witness26. Leroy Cammel Public Witness27. Paulett Costley Director of Senior Services, East River Family

Strengthening Collaborative28. Anthony Baker Public Witness29. Marie Wilson Public Witness30. Cathrine Graham Public Witness31. Bernard Herbert Public Witness

*********10 Minute Break*****************

32. Mandy Wrinkle Director, CSFP AND SFMNP, Capital Area Food Bank

33. Mary Williams Public Witness34. Shaunice Wall Public Witness35. Gloria Vincent Public Witness36. Cassandra Hardison Public Witness37. Diane Burrell Public Witness38. Kathleen Brisbane Public Witness39. Harry Hayes Public Witness40. Wes Morrison Public Witness41. Karen Harrison Public Witness42. Sally White Executive Director, IONA Senior Services43. Leland Kiang Information Referral Manager, IONA Senior

Services44. Julia Quinn Dementia Navigator, IONA45. Christine Kenny Money Management Program Manager, IONA 46. Sharon Sellers Community Dementia Program Manager, Sibley

Hospital47. Marti Bailey Director, Sibley Senior Association & Community

Health

138

48. Beverly Ford Public Witness49. Mary Williams Public Witness50. Florestine Jones Public Witness51. Carolyn Dungee President, Hilda and Charles Mason Charitable

Foundation 52. Ronald Grey Samuel Kelsey Senior Building53. Deborah Royster CEO, Seabury Resources for Aging54. Vivian Grayton Project Director, Ward 5, Home First, Age-In-Place55. Courtney Williams Public Witness56. Maddie Byers Public Witness57. Adam Heller Public Witness.58. Rinaldo Washington Program Director Ward 8, Family Matters of

Greater Washington

59. Ron Swanda Volunteer Advocate for Seniors in DC60. Betty Gentle Advocacy & Community Engagement Specialist,

SOME61. Cecelia Thompson Public Witness62. Debra Gent Public Witness63. Elizabeth Fox Public Witness64. Beatrice Evans Public Witness65. Octavia Hammond Public Witness

*********10 Minute Break*****************

Executive Witness

1. Laura Newland Executive Director, DC Office on Aging

VI. ADJOURNMENT

139

ATTACHMENT C

140




on

Mayor’s Office on Returning Citizen Affairs

Advisory Neighborhood Commissions

on

Monday, May 1, 2017 at 10:00 AM John A. Wilson Building, Room 500


I. CALL TO ORDER

II. OPENING REMARKS


Office on Returning Citizen Affairs

1. Emily Tatro Policy Analyst, Council for Court Excellence2. Theodore Whitehouse Reentry Subcommittee Chair, Council for Court

Excellence3. Malcom Young Project Director, Project New Opportunity4. Norman Brown Deputy Director, Project New Opportunity5. Charles Feinberg Public Witness6. Kevin Petty President/ CEO, The Amazing Gospel Souls, Inc.7. Monique Diop Public Witness8. Sylvia Stokes Public Witness9. Lois Sawyer Chairperson, DC Reentry Task Force

141

Executive Witness

1. Brian Ferguson Director, Mayor’s Office of Returning Citizen Affairs

Advisory Neighborhood Commissions

1. (No Witnesses)

Executive Witness

1. Gottlieb Simon Executive Director, Office of the Advisory

Neighborhood Commissions

VI. ADJOURNMENT

142

ATTACHMENT D

143




on

Housing Finance Agency

District of Columbia Housing Authority

on

Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 11:00 AM John A. Wilson Building, Room 120


I. CALL TO ORDER

II. OPENING REMARKS


Housing Finance Agency

1. (No Witnesses)

Executive Witness

1. Todd A. Lee Executive Director, Housing Finance Agency

District of Columbia Housing Authority

1. Hyman Cole Public Witness2. Claire Zippel Policy Analyst, DC Fiscal Policy Institute

144

3. Scott Bruton Vice President of Housing Policy, CNHED4. Amber W. Harding Attorney, Washington Legal Clinic for the

Homeless5. Abena Discrow Public Witness6. Nechama Masliansky Senior Advocacy Advisor, SOME (So Others Might

Eat)7. Monica Kamen Co-Director, DC Fair Budget Coalition8. Kevin Breckenridge District of Columbia Association of REALTORS9. Lajuan Public Witness 10. John Histle Executive Director, Good Faith Communities

Coalition11. Rev. James E. Terrell Pastor, Second Baptisit Church of DC and President

Council of Churches of Greater Washington12. Rachel Reilly Public Witness13. Robert Warren Executive Director, People for Fairness Coalition14. Detrice Belt Public Witness15. Paulette Matthews Public Witness16. Emma Owens Public Witness17. Daniel del Pielago Organizing Director, Empower DC18. Mel Zahnd Disability Rights DC, Universal Legal Services19. Bobbie Jean Wills Public Witness20. Michelle Hamilton Public Witness21. Margaret Dwyer Public Witness22. Vivian Mercer Public Witness23. Sarah Novick DC Organizer, Jews United for Justice24. Frances Lampkin Public Witness25. Reginald Black Public Witness26. Daima Lewis Public Witness27. Glenward Smith Public Witness28. Michael Sindram Justice for All/ Disabled Veteran 29. Lindsey Jones-Renaud Public Witness30. Charles Crews Public Witness31. Cedric Burgess Public Witness32. Sam Jewler Public Witness33. Ruby Steigerwald Public Witness34. Berlin Dean Public Witness35. Linda Brown Public Witness36. Paris Norouzi Executive Director, Empower DC37. Aja Taylor Advocacy Director, Bread for the City38. Chris Otten DC for Reasonable Development39. Lori Leibowitz Coordinator, Neighborhood Legal Services Program

145

Executive Witness

1. Nathan Bovelle Deputy Executive Director, DC Housing Authority

VI. ADJOURNMENT

146