oregon state housing council council aubre l. dickson ......mayra arreola zee koza marissa madrigal...

Council Members:Aubre L. Dickson, Chair

Mayra Arreola Tammy Baney

Michael C. Fieldman Zee D. Koza

Marissa Madrigal Adolph “Val” Valfre, Jr.

OREGON STATE HOUSING COUNCIL

MEETING MATERIALS PACKET

Orchards at Orenco, Hillsboro, Oregon

Meeting Details

Date: April 3, 2015 Time: 9:00 a.m. Location: OHCS Conference Room 124a/b, 725 Summer Street NE, Suite B Salem, OR 97301 Call‐In: 1‐877‐273‐4202; Participant Code: 4978330

Meeting Packet Page 1

Oregon State Housing Council | 725 Summer St. NE Suite B, Salem, OR 97301-1266 | (503) 986-2000






AGENDA Date: April 3, 2015 Time: 9:00 a.m. Location: OHCS 124a/b Call‐In: 1‐877‐273‐4202; Room Number: 4978330

1. Roll Call

2. Public Comment

3. Draft Meeting Minutes for Approval February 6, 2015 March 6, 2015

4. Individual Development Account (IDA) Awards

5. OHSI program update

6. Legislative Update

7. Housing Stability Council Subcommittee‐ Charter and Membership

8. Report of the Director

9. Report of the Chair

Next meeting: May 1, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in OHCS, Conference Room 124a/b (725 Summer Street NE, Salem, OR 97301). Call‐In: 1‐877‐273‐4202; Room Number: 4978330








FEBRUARY 6, 2015 | MEETING MINUTES

Housing Council Member Attendance Present Aubre Dickson, Chair Mike Fieldman Tammy Baney Val Valfre

Not Present Mayra Arreola Zee Koza Marissa Madrigal

Call to Order and Roll Call Chair Dickson called the February 6, 2015 meeting to order and asked for a roll call. Mayra Arreola, Tammy Baney, Zee Koza and Marissa Madrigal were absent. Tammy Baney joined the meeting in progress. Until her arrival, in the absence of a quorum, the council members moved to the non‐business discussion items. 2015 LIHTC NOFA Update Julie Cody, OHCS Assistant Director Housing Finance provided Council members with an update on the 2015 LIHTC NOFA, advising that the Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs)were releasedon January 30, 2015. The Department will be accepting questions through a formal Q&A process until April 3, 2015 and will periodically release frequently asked questions with the Department’s responses. The Department will be facilitating NOFA training sessions in Salem next week. Applications for this NOFA are due on April 17, 2015 and scoring will take place during the remainder of April and May before submitting final recommendations to Director Van Vliet in June. Staff will be presenting the 2015 NOFA award recommendations to the Council at the July 17, 2015 meeting. In addition to the LIHTC NOFA, staff will be looking at other Multifamily NOFAs for release in 2015 and will be bringing recommendations to the Council in March. Those recommendations will include the use of GHAP funds for small projects, to cure construction defects, supportive housing for Veterans, and mobile home park preservation. Allocations to these smaller NOFAs are still being thought through, but will be included in the recommendations brought back to the Council.

Mike Fieldman asked if the Department had any sense about the timing of the smaller GHAP NOFAs. Cody responded that the GHAP NOFAs will likely be released late spring. Director Van Vliet asked Cody to describe the selection of scoring committee members and structure.

Cody reported that the selection committee will consist of last year’s participants, generally, with the exception of Mayra Arreola who has volunteered to represent the Housing Council. Previously, Chair Dickson represented the Council.. Should any previous participant need to drop out, Michelle Haynes, has volunteered to participate. The committee members will be assigned to score regions where little or no conflicts of interest exist and scoring is structured in the same way as last year.

Chair Dickson acknowledged Tammy Baney joining the meeting and with the required quorum for voting moved to the business items of the agenda. Public Comment Chair Dickson paused to provide opportunity to make public comment to anyone on the phone line, hearing no one the Council moved to the next agenda item.

Draft Meeting Minutes for Approval January 15, 2015

Chair Dickson noted that specific changes had been made to the draft minutes and Council members should have received the revised version, which was also posted to the Housing Council Website. Chair Dickson asked Council members for any additional comments, additions or corrections to the draft January 15, 2015 meeting minutes. There being none, Chair Dickson requested a motion to approve the draft minutes. The motion was read: Motion: Mike Fieldman moved and Val Valfre seconded that the Housing Council approve the draft meeting minutes. Vote: In a roll call vote the motion passed without dissent. Mayra Arreola, Zee Koza and Marissa Madrigal were not present for the vote.

Legislative Updates

Director Van Vliet introduced Rem Nivens, Assistant Director for Public Affairs. Nivens provided Council members with the Department’s legislative updates, advising Council members that the Director will be presenting to the House Human Services and Housing Committee on Monday (February 9, 2015) and Wednesday (February 11, 2015). Monday’s presentation is essentially a primer on OHCS and housing issues in Oregon. On Wednesday the Committee will hold the initial public hearing on the OHCS’s governance bill, HB 2442. Chair Dickson will be attending this hearing and speaking on behalf of the Council. Department staff have been working with Oregon Opportunity Network (OON) and CAPO on consensus amendments and Nivens expects that our partners will be present at the hearing in

support of the agreed upon bill. Nivens informed the Council that based on conversations and compromise with OON, OON will not be moving their governance bill forward. Mike Fieldman asked what time the House Human Services and Housing Committee would be meeting. Nivens answered 3:00 p.m. Val Valfre asked what amendments were made to HB2442. Alison McIntosh, OHCS Government Relations and Communications Liaison, responded that CAPO requested minor language changes, which have been made. The Oregon ON amendments call for stronger language regarding the new Housing Stability Council’s oversight of the Department and added, among other things, considerations for the Governor to use when appointing new members (e.g. ensuring a range of expertise). OHCS has a summary of the amendments that can be provided if Council members would like additional information. Nivens notified the Council that based on conversations with the Legislative Fiscal Office (LFO), the Department’s budget presentation could be scheduled within the next couple of weeks. Although there is no specific request of Council members associated with that presentation, we will let them know so that they can watch the Department’s presentation. OHCS is formally requesting $349,000 of additional funding for the Oregon Foreclosure Avoidance (OFA) Program in order to continue to provide counseling services through the end of the biennium. OHCS will be making a request for as part of the legislature’s Budget Reconciliation bill. Nivens reminded the Council that OHCS made a request to the Emergency Board in September 2014 to provide $1,181,300 for the remainder of the biennium for counseling services. We were awarded $659,300 with the understanding that we could return if demand warranted. Director Van Vliet reported that the requested talking points regarding the $100 million are not ready yet. The Department is working with external bond counsel, the state DOJ bond attorneys and the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to get a clear understanding of what is and is not possible using this particular source of funding. While the Department has answers to some of the lingering questions, Director Van Vliet stated that she would rather wait to publish anything to ensure that there are not multiple versions of the “one‐pager.” The Department is aware that there are a lot of questions among the partners and is working on getting answers. Director Van Vliet wanted to specifically address the question of whether the proposed $85 million in general obligation bonds can be used for affordable housing, stating that –OHCS is confident that there are a variety of ways to structure and finance deals using XI‐Q bonds. Figuring out all of the boundaries will be a long road, chaperoned by bond counsel, but Article XI‐Q Bonds are a viable financing tool.

Director Van Vliet asked that Council members pass on that message when the question of viability comes up among partners. Despite the details that need to be worked out she wants to maintain the focus on the at‐risk families with children targeted by this investment in housing. To that end, OHCS is working hard with the leadership at DHS to deepen our alignment. Although, the House Human Services and Housing Committee does not control this appropriation the Director plans to do a light touch on the $100 million during her presentation on Monday, February 9th. Director Van Vliet has been meeting with Legislators who have a shared understanding of the need for more affordable housing and who have imparted that they are also cautiously optimistic. The Director has been sharing with legislators the Department’s intent to use the Housing Council (hopefully the future Housing Stability Council) to vet deal structuring, implementation and as the central public body/place for the broader policy and trade‐offs discussions. In those meetings with legislators the Director has also conveyed that the Council will be committed to both social and geographical equity. The Director asked Council members for their thoughts about potentially creating a subcommittee or two to take up the policy trade‐offs and to do the deep dive into the technical financing work. Val Valfre stated that utilizing and creating a leadership role for the Council in the way the Director described is a great idea. He fully supports moving forward. Tammy Baney agreed with Valfre, adding that she is happy to see the Council being deployed in this way. Mike Fieldman recalled that the initial thinking behind the $100 million was that the funds would not be tied to tax credits and asked if that was still the thinking going forward. The Director answered that the initial thought was that the ownership role required when using Article XI‐Q bonds would conflict with the requirements associated with tax credits. The Department’s Bond Counsel is looking into several proposed scenarios to let us know what is possible so at this point the Department is not ruling anything out. Fieldman reminded Van Vliet that the rationale for keeping the funding sources separate was to maximize the flexibility of the funds and enable their use for small projects. Director Van Vliet responded that this is still the thinking and that she intends to use the Council to look deeper at the best uses of the funds that fit within the legal parameters. She wanted to assure Council members that she has not gotten the impression from the Legislature that the Department needs to have all the answers now. OHCS needs to be able to demonstrate honest progress and feasibility, but there is time to work through the finer points. Fieldman inquired about the Department’s thinking on paying for services.

Director Van Vliet responded that the Department is linked arm and arm with DHS to strategize about how to work through their field office structure, which is already funded, to ensure the wrap around services are targeted at and connected to these families. Fieldman commented that he has seen great success using the model of partnering with DHS’ local child welfare offices in his community. The Director thanked Fieldman and stated that this is exactly the kind of conversation she hopes to be having over the months to come. She further advised that she will submit a proposed structuring of Housing Council subcommittees for their review at the next meeting in March. Tammy Baney asked the Director to let Council members know if there is any way that they can help. Val Valfre commented that he looks forward to similar conversations in the months to come.

Report of the Director Director Van Vliet stated that she did not have anything additional to report out.

Report of the Chair Chair Dickson reported that he participated in productive conversations with Oregon Opportunity Network (OON) at their recent brown bag lunch event. He advised that he will be in Salem on Wednesday, February 11, for the House Human Services and Housing committee hearing on the Department’s governance bill (HB 2442)and would be speaking on behalf of the Council. He also mentioned that OON would be in attendance at the hearing. Mike Fieldman mentioned that he will be attending the hearing and speaking on behalf of CAPO. Chair Dickson then invited attendees to reach out to him with any questions and/or concerns and thanked everyone for attending the meeting.

With no other official business the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:53 a.m.

4/3/2015 4/3/2015 Aubre Dickson, Chair Date Margaret S. Van Vliet, Director Date Oregon State Housing Council Oregon Housing and Community Services








MARCH 6, 2015 | MEETING MINUTES

Housing Council Member Attendance

Present Aubre Dickson, Chair Mayra Arreola Mike Fieldman Tammy Baney Zee Koza Marissa Madrigal Val Valfre

Not Present

Call to Order and Roll Call Chair Dickson called the March 6, 2015 meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. and asked for a roll call. All Council members were present for the meeting. Public Comment Chair Dickson paused to provide opportunity for anyone present or on the phone to make public comment, hearing none the Council moved to the next agenda item. Draft Meeting Minutes for Approval February 6, 2015

Chair Dickson noted for Council members that the February 6 meeting minutes were not included in the meeting materials and will therefore be deferred to the March 6, 2015 meeting for approval. February 18, 2015

Chair Dickson asked Council members for any comments, additions or corrections to the draft February 18, 2015 meeting minutes. There being none, Chair Dickson requested a motion to approve the draft minutes. The motion was read: Motion: Val Valfre moved and Zee Koza seconded that the Housing Council approve the draft meeting minutes for the February 18 meeting. Vote: In a roll call vote the motion passed without dissent. Governor’s Transition Governor Brown

Director Van Vliet advised Council members that the transition in the Governor’s office does not give her a reason to believe that any of the Department’s day‐to‐day operations will change. Governor Brown met with the agency heads and assured them that she does not have substantial

changes planned and that she does not intend to disrupt much of the government improvement work in progress. Director Van Vliet had a chance to speak briefly with the Governor and mentioned that she would like to brief her on the $100 million bond proposal to create new affordable housing units in the Governor’s Budget. Director Van Vliet was encouraged by Governor Brown’s knowledge of the proposal and receptiveness to discussing it further. Van Vliet is in the queue to have a meeting with the Governor.

Acting Chief Operating Officer

Michael Jordan, Department of Administrative Services (DAS) Director and State Chief Operating Officer (COO) resigned yesterday (March 5, 2015). His resignation will be effective April 1, 2015. Jordan’s successor has not yet been named, but the State Chief Financial Officer (CFO), George Naughton, will serve as acting COO for the time being. Federal Subpoena

OHCS was one of 10 state agencies named in the federal subpoena related to the investigation of former Governor Kitzhaber and former first lady Cylvia Hayes. Director Van Vliet assured Council members that she believes the Department has nothing to worry about and that she is confident that nothing turned over in connection to the production of documents will reflect negatively on the Department. OHCS was named in the subpoena, due to the large body of work that agency staff did in connection with the Prosperity Initiative. The subpoena language was very broad and cumbersome; Oregon Department of Justice is currently negotiating with the US Department of Justice to narrow the scope of this request. In the interim, staff are working diligently to comply under the direction of Oregon DOJ. Marissa Madrigal, thanked staff for continuing the important work of the Department amidst the transition. She acknowledged that the related personnel and priority shifting associated with this transition creates a level of uncertainty that is very stressful and difficult for employees to deal with in addition to maintaining the day‐to‐day operations. Legislative Updates Director Van Vliet, Rem Nivens, Assistant Director of Public Affairs and Alison McIntosh, Government Relations and Communications Liaison, provided Council members with the following legislative updates. OHCS Agency Priority Legislation HB 2442

Director Van Vliet advised Council members that HB 2442, OHCS’ governance bill, had a positive public hearing and passed out of the House Human Services and Housing Committee. The bill also passed on the house floor with a vote of 56‐0. The bill was carried by Representative Keny‐Guyer, who was very invested in the process. A few modest language changes were made to the bill to address legitimate stakeholder concerns.

Mike Fieldman asked if there were‐3 Amendments to the bill that will be incorporated when it gets to the Senate side. Director Van Vliet confirmed that there are ‐3 Amendments that represent a technical fix to the statutory language to ensure that the CAPO advisory role is similar to the Council’s. This change is consistent with the intent of the bill. SB 244

Van Vliet announced that she presented to the Senate Committee on Human Services and Early Childhood on SB 244. The presentation was very short with very few questions. The bill passed out of Committee and went on to a vote of 30‐0 on Senate floor. SB 244 consists of minor changes to statutory language across the General Housing Account Program (GHAP) and the Housing Development Grant Program (HDGP) to create efficiencies. HB 2441

Claire Seguin, OHCS Assistant Director of Housing Stabilization, testified regarding HB 2441, the Department’s legislation that aims to extend the Individual Development Account Initiative (IDA) program sunset and makes a small change to expand eligibility. Van Vliet noted for Council members that there are other, non‐OHCS, bills that would expand the eligibility, asset classes and increase the cap on the IDA program.

Oregon Foreclosure Assistance

The Full Ways and Means Committee approved OHCS’ formal request for $349,000 of additional funding for the Oregon Foreclosure Avoidance (OFA) Program. This approval will enable providers to continue to provide counseling services through the end of the biennium (June 30, 2015). Demand for this program has been hard to predict so the Department has had to go back to the legislature for additional funding a few times. Director Van Vliet informed Council members that there are additional bills related to housing that staff are tracking closely and specifically spoke about: SB 296, which is a Department of Revenue bill that transfers the Elderly Rental Assistance

Program (ERA) from the DOR to OHCS over the course of two years; and SB 516 which, if passed, would modify the existing requirements for OHCS’ management of

the Document Recording Fee to require that 75% of the fee generated in a given county would go back to that county. OHCS was not invited to testify, Alison McIntosh was called to answer specific questions on behalf of the agency. The Department did provide a fiscal impact statement and advised Committee members that there are potential administration issues, but remains neutral with regard to the passage of this bill.

OHCS Budget Presentation February has had a lot of legislative activity for the agency; in addition to the Department’s priority bills, Director Van Vliet presented the Agency Request Budget to the Ways and Means Transportation and Economic Development Subcommittee. The budget presentation consisted of 88 slides, which the Director covered in two 90‐minute hearings held over the course of two days.

There was a lot of information to cover due to the complex funding streams and diversity of programs administered by the Department. The committee members asked good questions, nothing alarming about the way in which the information was received. The Department worked hard to meet with the committee members in advance of the budget hearings to get a sense of whether concerns or issues existed, needing to be addressed by staff. The budget presentation did contain one slide of information about the $100 million bonding proposal for new housing in the Governor’s Budget. Although, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Transportation and Economic Development (TED) does not make decisions about the State’s bond appropriations, the Capitol Construction Committee does. The Department will be keeping TED Subcommittee members informed of our efforts to see that proposal through to fruition. Director Van Vliet advised Council members that the advocacy around the $100 million proposal has been less than what she would consider ideal. She has had many conversations with our partners recently and has been assured that the advocacy efforts will increase going forward and asked Council members to continue to be champions of the proposal with their constituencies and in the Capitol. Council members were provided with a one‐page informational handout on the $100 million proposal, which is posted on the State Housing Council website. Staff are continuing to work with bond counsel and DOJ representation to vet the viability of various development scenarios and will provide that information out as soon as it is ready. In the interim, Director Van Vliet asked Council members to speak to the need for increased state investment in affordable housing and advised Council members that they should reach out for support from the Department regarding any questions they encounter for which they do not know the answer. Mike Fieldman noted that CAPO recently held a legislative education day and that the $100 million proposal was one of the three talking points used by CAPO leadership when meeting with legislators. Tammy Baney stated that she would be meeting with the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) and would request that the $100 million be added to the legislative agenda so that they have it at the forefront of their efforts as well. Director Van Vliet advised that the presentation contains information that the Council members have seen before as part of the Agency Request Budget overview, presented at the July 11, 2014 Council meeting. The presentation also contains a lot of technical elements, required by Legislative Fiscal Office (LFO). Van Vliet noted for the Council that certain recommendations in the Governor’s Budget did not align with what some of the advocates were expecting. The Governor’s Budget recommends $1,000,000 for Foreclosure Counseling for the 2015‐2017 Biennium; this funding level would effectively phase out the program. There are a number of advocates arguing for additional funding.

The Governor’s Budget recommended keeping status quo funding levels for the Emergency Housing Account Program (EHA) and the State Homeless Assistance Program (SHAP). EHA and SHAP are funded primarily with general fund, although EHA does receive some of the document recording fee allocation. Advocates are working to raise awareness of homelessness in Oregon in an effort to see the funding increased. Mike Fieldman advised Council members that one campaign specifically? Targets raising awareness of the homeless youth in Oregon. Advocates are collecting 20,000 pairs of socks, which they will deliver to the Capitol steps on March 11, 2015. The 20,000 socks represent the homeless children in Oregon in hopes that the legislature will make a $20,000 million total investment in EHA and SHAP (which would represent an increase of $8 million). Val Valfre asked about the inclusionary zoning bill, if it would be moving forward and whether Director Van Vliet knew how that bill was being received among legislators. Director Van Vliet responded that inclusionary zoning had a hearing scheduled for the same time as the Department’s budget presentation and many advocates and partners were in attendance for that hearing Director Van Vliet stated that she is not entirely aware of how it is being received, and added that the Department is neutral on the inclusionary zoning bill. With nothing further to report, Van Vliet called for questions from Council members. Chair Dickson asked if OHCS plans for any work before the end of the legislative session to mitigate the impact of phasing out the foreclosure counseling program. Director Van Vliet answered that the 16‐18 grantee agencies do receive both funding from the State (through the Oregon Foreclosure Assistance program‐ OFA) and Federal government (through the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling program‐ NFMC). OHCS has been working with those agencies to strategically maximize those funding sources. No additional work has been done beyond that. Tammy Baney asked if the recommendation in the Governor’s Budget is based on data showing decreased need for funding or if any studies have been done that indicate that the State should no longer continue funding the program. Director Van Vliet answered OHCS was not asked, nor did the Department provide any specific information to the Governor’s office regarding this recommendation, but there are a lot of different ways of looking at foreclosure data and it is difficult to predict future need for foreclosure counseling services based on historical data. Van Vliet added that she believes the recommendation to phase out OFA is more of a philosophical decision to no longer use the general fund to pay for these services to continue and to shift those funds to some of the other pressing needs in the state.

Val Valfre reported to Council members that he has been doing some work around HB 3082 which would change the threshold for maintaining tax credits from 60% to 80% of area median income for tenants. Currently when a tenant reaches 60% the tenant must vacate or the property forfeits the tax credit creating a benefit cliff for those tenants. Valfre added that a family of four making 60% of the area median income would be extremely disadvantaged if forced into the private market, even if the tenant has good rental history. In Washington County, 60% area median income for a family of four is $41, 000 annually; this bill would raise that threshold to $50, 500, which he feels is a prudent move. 2015 Multifamily NOFA Recommendations Julie Cody, OHCS Assistant Director Housing Finance, walked the council members through the 2015 Multifamily NOFA recommendations and related chart regarding the historical funding offered each year from the 2012 CFC process to the projected 2016 offerings. Cody called the Council's attention to the motion on page four of the meeting packet and informed Council members that the Department is seeking approval of the recommendations to release four additional NOFAs in 2015. The recommendations presented are summarized below in addition to any questions presented during the meeting. *NOTE* The formal 2015 Multifamily NOFA recommendations are posted to the State Housing Council website under the March 6, 2015 meeting materials. Open NOFAs There are currently three open NOFAs:

1. The Preservation NOFA, which consists of the lottery backed bonds (LBB) appropriated to OHCS last session;

2. LIHTC NOFA; and 3. HOME NOFA.

With the January 30th release of the LIHTC and HOME NOFAs, the funding process is now on the right schedule and the Department is hopeful that the change will increase ease of process for all involved. Increased Funds Availability Cody announced that the Department proposes to offer $92.6 million in 2015. She acknowledged that this is a significant increase over what the Department has offered in the past. Cody explained that the increase is the result of: New appropriations (Lottery Backed Bonds (LBB) and Veteran’s Document Recording Fee

(DRF)); lower take rate since moving to the NOFA process due to the new application process and

schedule; historical cash balances that have not been committed; and internal changes to the forward allocation methodology used by the Department.

Cody further explained that OHCS will be taking a prudent look at cash balances to better manage how and when to allocate so that balances don’t accrue over time. Cody added the clarifying point that because the Department always has revenue coming in from various funding streams (monthly, quarterly and annually), OHCS will never get to a zero balance. Marissa Madrigal asked if the interest on the historical cash balances went back to the General Fund or back into the program.

Cody responded that the interest goes back into the program. General Housing Account Program (GHAP) GHAP funds represent the largest increase in available funds; the typical offering is $8 million and the proposed 2015 offering is $27 million. The $27 million is made up of: $8.6 million cash balance $8 million forward allocation $3 million new allocation‐ Veteran’s DRF $4 million resulting from lower take rate previously offered but never committed ($2 million

offered in 2013 and $2 million in 2014) $3 million uncommitted

Tammy Baney asked if there is a set reserve amount the Department is required to have. Cody answered that there is no set reserve, but allocating only the cash on hand is too conservative. The multifamily finance team is working with OHCS fiscal on a prudent reserve. The NOFA recommendations include a forward allocation of $8 million of GHAP funds. It does not include any forward allocation of Housing Development Grant Program (HDGP) funds at this time as there is still work to be done to determine the best way to manage our approach. Mike Fieldman asked if there is a cap on GHAP funds per project. Cody answered that there is a $500,000 cap on projects that are receiving funds from other OHCS funding sources. The proposed Gap Financing NOFA would not have this cap. Housing Development Grant Program (HDGP) The recommendations do not include any forward allocation or forecasting from this account so that the Department can continue to refine the funding process. The cash balance that accrues will provide OHCS with a reserve that can be used for funding opportunities that arise throughout the year. Mike Fieldman asked about the source of HDGP.

Cody answered that HDGP represents the 5% of the Public Purpose Charge allocated to OHCS for the sole purpose of affordable housing development. Lottery‐backed Bonds and Mobile Home Park Preservation (MHPP) $7.5 million in Lottery‐backed bonds were appropriated to OHCS last session and staff had originally recommended reserving $1.5 million of the new funding for Mobile Home Park Preservation projects. The recommendation has changed to allocating the full $7.5 million for preservation of federal rent subsidized housing projects. The Mobile Home Park Preservation NOFA will pull from the GHAP funds which are easier to use for those projects. Mike Fieldman asked how MHPP projects have been funded in the past. Cody answered that a 2011 budget note included MHPP as an eligible use of LBB which opened the door to fund these projects with LBB proceeds. Fieldman asked how much OHCS has allocated to MHPP. Heather Pate, OHCS Multifamily Finance section manager, answered OHCS has issued three NOFAs since the budget note in 2011, offering $1.2 million for each NOFA and capping each project at an award of $600,000. The $600,000 cap is being examined by staff as MHPP project are taking longer and costing more than expected (particularly when they involve a tenant co‐op). Fieldman encouraged staff to examine the effectiveness of the NOFA process timing and the unique challenges presented by MHPP projects taking into consideration how the timing required by new laws governing MHPP projects intersect or clash with the funding requirements. Cody responded that the last NOFA was tailored to feedback the Department received from stakeholders, which included feedback from CASA of Oregon. The MHPP NOFA is not competitive and the recommended funds are more than have ever been used for this purpose. The NOFA will close when the funding runs out. Marissa Madrigal recognized that the historical balances and forward allocation will create a bubble of funding for 2015 and asked how confident the Department is in its ability to forecast going forward. Caleb Yant, OHCS Chief Financial Officer, responded that fiscal is working on the process for managing the funding streams. GHAP is primarily funded by the document recording fee (DRF) which is fairly predictable. Other funding streams are not as predictable and all have different pay schedules so they are working on developing a rigor around forward allocation that is dictated by the Department’s risk tolerance. The work is on‐going, but Yant will report back to the Council in the months to come on the Department’s progress.

Multifamily Weatherization NOFA The multifamily weatherization NOFA is funded by the Public Purpose Charge (PPC) which are funds that are available only to Pacific Power and Portland General Electric service areas. The funds must be used for new construction with green efficiencies totaling 20% above what is required by current building code. The NOFA recommendations include $6 million to develop a pilot program for looking at ways to make building cheaper which might include using external firms to leverage OHCS dollars. An additional $4 million is included to provide gap financing for projects coming in through the LIHTC and HOME NOFAs. Tammy Baney raised a concern about utilizing funds to create more units and not dedicating any to address substandard housing. Baney asked if some of these funds could be or are being used to bring substandard housing up to code so that energy bills are manageable and homelessness does not result from over burdensome expenses. Cody answered that the public purpose charge (PPC) funds used for the Multifamily Weatherization NOFA are the same type of funds that CAP agencies use for weatherization services (offered through the ECHO program). This recommendation increases the amount of the multifamily development funding, but the additional funds are not being taken from the ECHO program portion of the PPC. Baney asked if the recommendations also included an increase in funding to CAP agencies. Cody answered no; these recommendations are only multifamily development. Baney asked if ECHO would also be eligible to receive additional funding to ensure that there is a balance between what is being put into new development and the investment into helping people stay in their homes. Cody answered that the majority of the PPC allocation to OHCS goes to ECHO. Tim Zimmer, Weatherization Services section manager explained that 13% of the total PPC comes to OHCS for weatherization, 85% goes to the ECHO program and 15% goes to Multifamily Development. Mike Fieldman asked if the 85/15 spilt was an administrative choice or if it is part of the statutory mandate. Zimmer responded that the split was an administrative decision that has been in place since the start of the program and the Advisory Committee on Energy was heavily involved in that decision‐making process.

Fieldman encouraged OHCS to reexamine that practice. Tammy Baney asked Mike Fieldman if he felt that the recommendation was sound from the CAP agency perspective. Fieldman answered that he feels it would be beneficial to increase funding for weatherization efforts to bring substandard housing up to code. Cody clarified that this NOFA is aimed at acquisition rehab projects. Director Van Vliet commented that there is more work to do with CAP agencies on allocating ECHO funds. There is uneven capacity amongst the CAP agencies suchthat not every CAP agency has the capacity to utilize the ECHO funds they receive resulting in large ending fund balances. The Department’s primary goal is to deploy our resources in a timely manner, consistent with the intent of the funding. Caleb Yant and Claire Seguin are working with CAPO leadership to identify projects in the pipeline so that if money is held it is justifiable. Fieldman asserted that 75% of the large ending fund balance came from the large metro areas and not the rural areas of the state. Fieldman added that his experience in rural areas shows that the money goes out and there is a waiting list for these services. Cody advised Council members that the PPC appropriation comes in from the Pacific Power and PGE rate payers and is allocated out based on the number of residential meters in a given area. Chair Dickson asked if the funds are solely limited to PGE/Pacific Power or if the Department has plans to look outside the service areas. Cody answered that the funds cannot be utilized outside the service areas, but the idea is that there is potential to leverage funds. This is a new NOFA in an attempt to get previously uncommitted funds out the door. Mike Fieldman requested that the language be amended to include the requirement that ideas are generated with input from the low‐income energy efficiency industry, not the energy efficiency industry, to ensure that the ideas capture energy and weatherization efficiencies expertise with issues specific to affordable housing. Fieldman also recommended that staff review the rules and policy practices tied to funding sources to ensure that they are not self‐imposed or overly restrictive. With no further questions or comments Chair Dickson requested a motion. Motion: Tammy Baney moved and Val Valfre seconded that the Housing Council approve the release of four multifamily rental housing Notices of Funds Availability (NOFAs), with the following two amendments to the multifamily weatherization NOFA:

1) That the funds available be limited to $4,000,000 instead of the proposed $6,000,000 (reserving $2,000,000 to potentially deploy for additional weatherization services pending further review by OHCS in collaboration with CAPO leadership); and

2) that ideas are sought from the low‐income energy efficiency industry not solely the energy efficiency industry.

The approval was further conditioned upon the Department providing regular reports to the Council on progress toward implementation and stakeholder feedback. Vote: In a roll call vote the motion passed without dissent. Mike Fieldman asked if the selected contractor for the Multifamily Weatherization NOFA and identified projects/ideas would be coming to the Council for review before being decided on. Cody asked if Fieldman wanted to provide input on the contract itself or on the selection of the actual contractor. Fieldman clarified that he would like to see the ideas that come out of the work being done and to be able to provide feedback on identified projects. Director Van Vliet agreed that the Council would be reviewing and providing input into the process. Val Valfre commented that the housing development community is very happy with the Department’s decision to move to a less conservative method for forward allocating funds. Director Van Vliet stated that the Department is committed to being transparent and raising the bar with respect to OHCS’ accountability and communication. Rent Guarantee Program Overview Claire Seguin, OHCS Assistant Director of Housing Stabilization provided Council members with a synopsis of the Rent Guarantee program and its development. Seguin also provided Council members with a program comparison chart, highlighting the similarities and differences between the Rent Guarantee and Housing Choice programs in addition to historical data about access to those programs. OHCS started the Rent Guarantee program in 2005, initially allocating $500,000 to help low‐income people with poor credit, criminal backgrounds etc… to get into stable housing. The program was phased out in June 30, 2014. OHCS had great relationships with the partners involved with the program; the partners we very supportive. Mike Fieldman asked how the program was initially advertised. Seguin answered that OHCS put out a Request for Proposal (RFP). Fieldman asked if the program was limited to a certain number of partners.

Seguin answered that there was no limit to the number of partners. The 10 partners were the ones that applied and wanted to move the program forward. Val Valfre commended Seguin on her research and commented the comparison chart provided good information and highlighted the fact that there was a real constituency of people that used the Rent Guarantee program that don’t qualify for a Section 8 Voucher (e.g. people getting out of criminal corrections facilities or have various evictions in their rental history). The Rent Guarantee provided a much wider net that made the difference between someone being homeless and not homeless. Valfre was a member of the working group on the Section 8 legislation and he was unaware that it would not receive new money, instead pulling from the Rent Guarantee program fund. Seguin acknowledged that she had heard the same from other sources as she did the research for this discussion. Valfre stated that he has reached out within his community in addition to other areas and advised that there is a lot of interest in the continuation of the Rent Guarantee program. Valfre asked what can be done to get the program back into a funded position. Director Van Vliet thanked Valfre for his comments and stated that she fundamentally agrees; the Rent Guarantee program is a valuable tool that prompts a Landlord to feel secure when considering a tenant that they ordinarily would not. Director Van Vliet welcomed input from the Council on how to move forward and offered a couple potential options for initiating conversations around reestablishing the Rent Guarantee program. Option 1 The Council could draft a letter to the Department and/or to the legislature stressing the

importance of the Rent Guarantee program and to request that they consider funding the program.

The Housing Choice Advisory Committee (HCAC) is currently evaluating the program now and the focus is solely on Section 8 Voucher holders to determine whether or not the narrowed eligibility should continue or if it would make the most sense to open the eligibility back up. There have been three claims and OHCS has paid out just under $15,000 since the program has been operational in July 1st, 2014 and Van Vliet stated that there is no reason to think that the number of claims will jump up remarkably over the next few months. Option 2 The HCAC continues their evaluation of the Housing Choice program and potentially comes

back to the Council with any findings and recommendations in a couple of months. At that time the Department can work to determine if changing the Housing Choice program

eligibility requirement can be accomplished with internal changes to the administrative rules or if the change will require conversations with the legislature.

Van Vliet worries about tying up OHCS resources without having adequate funding to keep the program running. In 2005 OHCS, for good reason, dedicated agency resources to the Rent Guarantee program, allocating $500,000 without asking the legislature for any funding. During the 2013 Legislative session when the Section 8 bill was passed, the program was established and the legislature looked at the $500,000 as unused funds, added a small appropriation and repurposed the funds for the Housing Choice program. Mike Fieldman commented that having a “second chance” renters program like the Rent Guarantee program is critical; and, if the program is restarted, he requested that the Department look closely at how the program is advertised to partners to ensure the benefit of the mitigation fund are maximized statewide. Fieldman asked Val Valfre to explain the thinking behind setting up the Housing Choice program for Section 8 Voucher holders, as it seems to him that Vouchers in some ways are incentive for a landlord so individuals already have a tool to access affordable housing. Valfre answered that the Section 8 legislation work group was a coalition of landlords, legal aid and the representative from various housing authorities. The legislation was asked for by landlords in order to make the Section 8 (Housing Choice program) work for all involved. The program placed extra demand on OHCS to administer. Valfre drew the Council’s attention to the correlation between the tenant readiness education requirement and the significantly smaller claim amounts associated with the Rent Guarantee program. Valfre feels as though the education piece is extremely important and he also mentioned that the Rent Guarantee program was administered by direct service providers who know the needs of their communities which takes the administrative burden off of the Department. Chair Dickson agreed with Valfre and Fieldman about the value of the Rent Guarantee program and mentioned that there is an important alignment with the reentry housing efforts. Incentivize landlords to rent where they would not otherwise do so. Chair Dickson mentioned that the Rent Guarantee program requiring funding to be expended is counterintuitive to the way this program works since not spending it down demonstrates that the program is successful. The funding is not simply a stand‐alone insurance policy; there are additional requirements and a structure in place to mitigate the use of funds. Fieldman stated that the education component is both critical and typically unfunded. CAP agencies pull from their own funds to pay for education, which is in some cases cost‐prohibitive. Tammy Baney asked Chair Dickson if the Council wanted to consider drafting a letter to capture the key points of the conversation.

Chair Dickson agreed and Director Van Vliet offered OHCS staff to draft a letter for their review with input from CAP agencies and housing authorities. Consolidated Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee Update Val Valfre, Consolidated Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee Chair, and Shoshanah Oppenheim, OHCS Federal Planning and Policy manager, reported on the 1st meeting of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee on February 24th, 2015 and provided Council members with the Advisory Committee roster. The membership includes representatives from Housing Authorities, Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Department of Human Services, Public Safety and Council member Zee Koza. The Consolidated plan is a collaborative report‐OHCS partners with Oregon Business Development Department (OBDD) or Business Oregon and Oregon Health Authority (OHA). The three agencies are working together to create a 5‐year look ahead at how we will provide housing to the balance of state and the state housing plan that the Department will be providing to the Legislature. The Advisory Committee has already begun providing insight and is taking a strategic look at how OHCS manages the Federal Consolidated Plan and the State’s Strategic Housing Plan. Val Valfre reported that the second meeting will include a review of the needs assessment and the analysis of impediments to fair housing. Valfre commended Director Van Vliet and Shoshanah Oppenheim on the diverse membership. Valfre identified success factors of the committee: Identify and alleviate barriers to affordable housing Engagement of stakeholders Representative view of the state Strong emphasis to reach the underrepresented

Mike Fieldman asked what the time frame is for completing the Consolidated Plan. Oppenheim answered that the Consolidated Plan is due to HUD in November so the next steps are to initiate the outreach strategy through a series of community conversations with services providers and community members. The participants will screen the film American Winter, followed by a community conversation about needs. Housing Stability Council Proposed Subcommittees Director Van Vliet provided Council members with a proposal via email and assured Council members that the concerns submitted via email have been captured. She noted that the Council will not lose oversight over the work of the subcommittees and that the Council will maintain the ability to direct subcommittees. Van Vliet committed to doing additional internal work to inform how the subcommittees are structured. Chair Dickson asked when the proposed subcommittees would be established.

Van Vliet answered that nothing is prescribed, but she would like to have the subcommittees set up by May. She feels that having the subcommittee charter and membership complete by June would demonstrate good progress on behalf of the agency. Valfre asked if the initial concerns about the ability to utilize the General Obligation Bonds have subsided. Van Vliet answered yes. There have been subsequent meetings with bond counsel that haven’t resulted in anything in writing, but yes. Fieldman wanted to make sure that the policy issues are included in the finance structuring committee. Van Vliet answered that the goal of the proposal was to point out that there is a need to do both the policy work and services integration work, while also doing the housing development work. The two subcommittees would work separately and report back to the larger Council who would then have a full view of both sides. Fieldman made the recommendation that experts with the client population be included on the finance structuring subcommittee to keep the conversations aligned with those interest and considerations. Valfre commented that he will work to get the word out – looking at affordable housing in a new way creates a lot of excitement. Report of the Director Utilities letter

Letter included in the packet from Pacific Power and PGE in support of HB 2442, acknowledging that OHCS intends to disband the Advisory Committee on Energy and that the State Housing Council and CAPO would be taking the responsibilities of that committee. The utilities do not want to lose access to information or influence on the decisions related to their rate payer funds. The letter advises that the utilities are happy to transition to the new governance model. Mike Fieldman asked if ACE would be a subcommittee of the Council. Van Vliet answered yes; our intent is to have a subcommittee structure, but not including that structure in statute as it would tie us to a model that will not work in practice. HUD 811

Oregon received a $2.3 million HUD Section 811 grant award. The application was worked on by OHCS in collaboration with OHA, DHS and project owners. The grant provides for rent assistance that can be attached to a specific apartment for individuals with disabilities, mental illness or addictions issues. The award will result in 80 vouchers and the rent assistance is for a 5‐year

period. The $2.3 million represents the total award; it is not an annual allocation. OHCS will be working with project owners to figure out how to make it work. Val Valfre asked if the grant will go out in an RFP. Cody stated that the Department is not sure how it will be moving forward, but meetings with OHA and DHS partners have been scheduled to begin work. HUD is also providing training that staff will be engaging in beginning next week.

National Housing Trust Fund

HUD has issued an interim administrative rule and the earliest the money will be allocated is 2016. Oregon would be receiving approximately $3 million, but that number could change. Participating Jurisdictions could get their own HTF allocations, which needs further discussion. In the meantime, OHCS will work on any necessary steps that need to be taken to receive the funds. Regional forum on ending veteran homelessness‐

Director Van Vliet reported that she participated in a regional forum regarding President Obama’s Mayor’s Challenge to cities and mayors to end veteran homelessness by January 2016. Oregon has two mayors, Kitty Piercy of Eugene and Charlie Hales of Portland. The Mayors’ Challenge is part of a big push to meet the federal deadline to end veteran’s homelessness. Report of the Chair Chair Dickson thanked the Department for the staff work to make the meeting very informative and commented that he appreciates the transparency with respect to where we are at with which the information was presented. The Chair also thanked everyone for their participation in the discussions. Chair Dickson asked Julie Cody if the NOFA scoring committee had been finalized. Cody answered that staff are confirming with the proposed scoring committee members. Adjourn With no other official business the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:37 a.m.

4/3/2015 4/3/2015 Aubre Dickson, Chair Date Margaret S. Van Vliet, Director Date Oregon State Housing Council Oregon Housing and Community Services

HARDEST HIT FUND

UPDATE

Program Data Through December 31, 2014

HISTORY OF THE HARDEST HIT FUND

The Hardest Hit Fund

provided $7.6 billion to 18

states and the District of

Columbia to assist

struggling homeowners

through locally tailored

programs administered by

each state’s respective

housing finance agency

(HFA) in order to help

prevent foreclosures and

stabilize housing markets.

These areas were designated

“hardest hit” because they

experienced steep home

price declines and/or severe

unemployment in the

economic downturn.

2

State Statewide Launch Allocation

($ Million)

June 2010

Unemployment

Dec. 2014

Unemployment

AL February 2, 2011 $163 10.3% 5.7%

AZ September 20, 2010 $268 9.6% 6.7%

CA January 10, 2011 $1,975 12.3% 7.0%

DC April 19, 2011 $21 10.0% 7.3%

FL April 18, 2011 $1,058 11.4% 5.6%

GA April 1, 2011 $339 10.0% 6.9%

IL July 25, 2011 $446 10.4% 6.2%

IN May 10, 2011 $222 10.1% 5.8%

KY April 1, 2011 $149 10.0% 5.7%

MI July 12, 2010 $499 13.2% 6.3%

MS May 16, 2011 $102 11.0% 7.2%

NC December 1, 2010 $483 10.0% 5.5%

NJ May 8, 2011 $301 9.6% 6.2%

NV February 21, 2011 $194 14.2% 6.8%

OH September 27, 2010 $570 10.5% 4.8%

OR December 10, 2010 $220 10.5% 6.7%

RI December 1, 2010 $79 12.0% 6.8%

SC January 20, 2011 $295 10.7% 6.5%

TN March 1, 2011 $217 10.1% 6.6%

ACTIVE PROGRAMS BY HFA

3 *Includes principal reduction/curtailment, buy-and-modify, recast, and modification-enabling programs.

**State HFAs no longer accepting new applications in select programs as of December 31, 2014

State Mortgage Payment

Assistance Reinstatement

Second Lien Reduction

Transition Assistance

Principal Reduction*

Blight Elimination

AL

AZ

CA

DC

FL

GA

IL

IN

KY

MI

MS

NC

NJ

NV

OH

OR

RI

SC

TN

PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS

• Programs fall into five basic categories: unemployment assistance, reinstatement*, transition

assistance, principal reduction (which includes permanent loan modifications, second lien removal, and

buy-and-modify programs), and blight elimination.

• The 19 HFAs administer a total of 73 programs. Part of Treasury’s role is to standardize the

operational and design elements of these programs where possible to facilitate servicer participation.

HFAs are able to modify and amend services with Treasury’s approval.

• As of December 31, 2014, Rhode Island, Illinois, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon

and Tennessee had stopped accepting applications in anticipation of full commitment of program funds.

4

The chart on the left illustrates program and administrative allocations as a percentage of the total $7.6 billion Hardest Hit Fund as of 12/31/14.

The chart on the right reflects the percentage of ~$4.2 billion in total assistance and permitted expenses spent through 12/31/14.

* Reinstatement programs primarily target un- and under-employed homeowners, but may include assistance for other eligible financial hardships.

Transition

Assistance

0%

Unemployment

47%

Reinstatement*

12%

Principal Reduction

(incl. Modification

and Second Lien

assistance)

25%

Blight Elimination

5% Administrative

Expenses

11%

Allocations by Program Type (in %)

Transition

Assistance

0%

Unemployment

Assistance

54%

Reinstatement*

15%

Principal

Reduction (incl.

Modification

and Second

Lien assistance)

18%

Blight Elimination

1%

Administrative

Expenses

12%

Assistance by Program Type (in %)

HHF FUNDS DRAWN TO DATE

Of the $7.6 billion allocated to HHF, HFAs have drawn from Treasury $5.0 billion, or 65.5%, as of

12/31/2014. HFAs must have no more than 5% of their total allocation on hand when requesting funds.

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Oregon

Rhode Island

Washington, D.C.

Ohio

North Carolina

New Jersey

Tennessee

Illinois

Kentucky

California

Michigan

Arizona

Nevada

Florida

South Carolina

Mississippi

Indiana

Georgia

Alabama

State (% Cap Disbursed)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

Q3

2010

Q4

2010

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

2011

Q4

2011

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

2012

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

2013

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

2014

Mil

lio

ns

Homeowners Assisted and Assistance Provided

Through December 31, 2014

Homeowners Assisted Assistance Provided ($ Millions)

6

$3.73 billion

AGGREGATE GROWTH OVER TIME

UNIQUE APPLICANTS BY STATUS

As of December 31, 2014, HFAs have approved and funded roughly 218,500 unique applicants.

Another 27,500 applicants are in process, 135,500 have withdrawn, and 135,000 have been denied.

9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AL AZ CA DC FL GA IL IN KY MI MS NC NJ NV OH OR RI SC TN

In Process

Approved

Denied

Withdrawn

CUMULATIVE ASSISTANCE PROVIDED

All HFAs combined have spent approximately $3.7 billion in program funds through the end of Q4

2014. HFAs have also incurred approximately $512.5 million in administrative expenses (a

significant portion of which is attributable to program start-up). Now that HFAs are in program

implementation phase, administrative expenditures are driven by items such as counseling fees,

marketing, and outreach initiatives.

10

$13.4

$30.2

$43.7

$57.2

$62.7

$77.8

$85.8

$87.0

$102.2

$127.7

$137.9

$175.4

$205.7

$211.8

$290.9

$292.2

$384.5

$462.8

$884.1

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,000

DC

AL

MS

IN

RI

KY

NV

AZ

GA

SC

TN

OR

NJ

MI

NC

IL

OH

FL

CA

Millions

PERCENT OF PROGRAM FUNDS SPENT

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AL IN GA AZ MI CA FL MS NV SC KY NC TN OH IL NJ DC RI OR

Assistance Provided as a Percent of Program Allocation

As of December 31, 2014

PERCENT OF PROGRAM CAP SPENT: GROWTH OVER ONE YEAR

12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AL IN GA AZ MI CA FL MS NV SC KY NC TN OH IL NJ DC RI OR

Assistance Provided as a Percent of Program Allocation

12/31/2013 12/31/2014

Number of Unique Borrowers Receiving Assistance 288 11,620

Number of Unique Borrowers Denied Assistance 232 2,951

Number of Unique Borrowers Withdrawn from Program 71 13,479

Number of Unique Borrowers in Process 182 N/A

Total Number of Unique Borrower Applicants 773 28,232

Total Assistance Provided to Date 10,175,470$ 175,361,351$ Total Spent on Administrative Support, Outreach, and

Counseling 869,697$ 33,994,496$

Above $90,000 1.04% 0.44%

$70,000- $89,000 2.08% 1.07%

$50,000- $69,000 10.76% 5.96%

Below $50,000 86.11% 92.53%

Above 120% 1.74% 1.40%

110%- 119% 2.78% 1.26%

100%- 109% 4.86% 2.07%

90%- 99% 4.86% 2.66%

80%- 89% 5.21% 3.32%

Below 80% 80.56% 89.28%

Program Expenditures ($)

OREGONHFA Performance Data Reporting - Borrower Characteristics

QTD Cumulative

Unique Borrower Count

Borrower Income ($)

Borrower Income as Percent of Area Median Income (AMI)

2014 | Quarter 4 Page 1 of 20


QTD Cumulative


Baker 2 33

Benton 2 162

Clackamas 18 1060

Clatsop 2 112

Columbia 8 266

Coos 5 208

Crook 1 116

Curry 4 81

Deschutes 13 693

Douglas 7 297

Gilliam 0 5

Grant 0 20

Harney 0 29

Hood River 0 65

Jackson 20 701

Jefferson 1 102

Josephine 6 371

Klamath 6 303

Lake 0 18

Lane 33 1149

Lincoln 3 143

Linn 11 467

Malheur 0 67

Marion 46 1000

Morrow 0 20

Multnomah 54 2040

Polk 8 323

Sherman 0 2

Tillamook 0 75

Umatilla 6 130

Union 2 79

Wallowa 0 25

Wasco 1 64

Washington 23 1011

Wheeler 0 3

Yamhill 6 380

Geographic Breakdown (by county)



QTD Cumulative


American Indian or Alaskan Native 6 203

Asian 8 299

Black or African American 3 238

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 3 80

White 244 9,818

Information Not Provided by Borrower 24 982

Hispanic or Latino 27 993

Not Hispanic or Latino 261 10,611


Male 128 6,285

Female 160 5,330


American Indian or Alaskan Native 0 25

Asian 3 41

Black or African American 0 16

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 2 10

White 89 1,114


Hispanic or Latino 6 174

Not Hispanic or Latino 96 1,183


Male 42 599

Female 60 764


Ethnicity

Race

Sex

Ethnicity

Co-Borrower

Borrower

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)

Race

Sex



QTD Cumulative


Unemployment 149 7,978

Underemployment 85 1,883

Divorce 2 114

Medical Condition 0 599

Death 7 148

Other 45 898

<100% 80.90% 64.53%

100%-109% 7.64% 10.45%

110%-120% 3.82% 8.31%

>120% 7.64% 16.71%

<100% 78.13% 58.02%

100%-119% 13.19% 20.43%

120%-139% 4.86% 12.37%

140%-159% 2.43% 4.86%

>=160% 1.39% 4.32%

Current 56.94% 61.14%

30+ 4.17% 8.16%

60+ 4.86% 5.44%

90+ 34.03% 25.27%

1 74 2,265

2 74 3,481

3 55 2,117

4 52 2,030

5+ 33 1,727

Household Size

Delinquency Status (%)

Current Combined Loan to Value Ratio (CLTV)

Current Loan to Value Ratio (LTV)

Hardship


Number of Borrowers Receiving Assistance1

371 11,144

% of Total Number of Applications 52.92% 42.06%

Number of Borrowers Denied2

139 2,371


Number of Borrowers Withdrawn263 12,853


Number of Borrowers In Process 128 N/A

% of Total Number of Applications 18.26% N/A

Total Number of Borrowers Applied 701 26,496Number of Borrowers Participating in Other HFA HHF Programs

or Program Components287 4023

Denied

Approved

Program Intake/Evaluation

OREGON

QTD Cumulative

HFA Performance Data Reporting - Program Performance

MORTGAGE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Total

In Process

Withdrawn



OREGON

QTD Cumulative



Median 1st Lien Housing Payment Before Assistance 1,051$ 1,132$

Median 1st Lien Housing Payment After Assistance -$ -$

Median 2nd Lien Housing Payment Before Assistance -$ -$

Median 2nd Lien Housing Payment After Assistance N/A N/A

Median 1st Lien UPB Before Program Entry 140,311$ 154,184$

Median 1st Lien UPB After Program Entry N/A N/A

Median 2nd Lien UPB Before Program Entry -$ -$

Median 2nd Lien UPB After Program Entry N/A N/A

Median Principal Forgiveness3N/A N/A

Median Length of Time Borrower Receives Assistance N/A 12

Median Assistance Amount 2,774$ 11,432$

Assistance Provided to Date 6,529,409$ 125,851,226$

Total Lender/Servicer Assistance Amount -$ -$

Borrowers Receiving Lender/Servicer Match (%) 0.00% 0.00%

Median Lender/Servicer Assistance per Borrower -$ -$

Median Length of Time from Initial Request to Assistance

Granted 147 158

Number 209 7,157

% 56.33% 64.22%

Number 24 823

% 6.47% 7.39%

Number 27 597

% 7.28% 5.36%

Number 111 2,567

% 29.92% 23.03%

Delinquent (90+)

Delinquent (60+)

Delinquent (30+)

Current

Other Characteristics

Assistance Characteristics

Program Characteristics

General Characteristics



OREGON

QTD Cumulative



Borrowers No Longer in the HHF Program (Program

Completion/Transition or Alternative Outcomes) 276 9,266

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 2 889

% 0.72% 9.59%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 1

% 0.00% 0.01%

Number 0 1

% 0.00% 0.01%

Number 0 729

% 0.00% 7.87%

Number 0 11

% 0.00% 0.12%

Number N/A N/A

% N/A N/A

Number N/A N/A

% N/A N/A

Number 274 7635

% 99.28% 82.40%

Re-employed/Regain Appropriate Employment Level

Loan Modification Program

Program Completion/Transition

Other - Borrower Still Owns Home

Deed in Lieu

Short Sale

Reinstatement/Current/Payoff

Deed in Lieu

Cancelled

Foreclosure Sale

Alternative Outcomes

Program Outcomes



OREGON

QTD Cumulative



Six Months Number N/A 9,628

Six Months % N/A 95.86%

Twelve Months Number N/A 8611

Twelve Months % N/A 95.39%

Twenty-four Months Number N/A 6446

Twenty-four Months % N/A 94.42%

Unreachable Number N/A 0

Unreachable % N/A 0.00%

4. Borrower still owns home

1. Total receiving assistance does not align with unique borrowers because 83 participants received Reinstatement in

the previous quarter.

Homeownership Retention4

3. Includes second mortgage settlement

2. Cumulative total does not align with previously reported figures as borrowers move to other evaluation categories


Number of Borrowers Receiving Assistance 204 4,290


Number of Borrowers Denied1519 8,054


Number of Borrowers Withdrawn162 1,355




Total Number of Borrowers Applied 860 13,774Number of Borrowers Participating in Other HFA HHF Programs



OREGONHFA Performance Data Reporting - Program Performance

LOAN PRESERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

QTD Cumulative

Approved

Denied

Withdrawn

In Process

Total





QTD Cumulative


Median 1st Lien Housing Payment After Assistance N/A N/A




Median 1st Lien UPB After Program Entry N/A N/A



Median Principal Forgiveness2N/A N/A

Median Length of Time Borrower Receives Assistance N/A N/A


Assistance Provided to Date 771,971$ 14,181,437$

Total Lender/Servicer Assistance Amount -$ -$

Lender/Servicer Match (%) 0.00% 0.00%

Median Lender/Servicer Assistance per Borrower -$ -$


Granted 140 134

Number 120 2,640

% 58.82% 61.54%

Number 12 500

% 5.88% 11.66%

Number 13 352

% 6.37% 8.21%

Number 59 798

% 28.92% 18.60%





Current

Delinquent (30+)

Delinquent (60+)

Delinquent (90+)





QTD Cumulative


Completion/Transition or Alternative Outcomes) 148 3856

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 148 3856

% 100.00% 100.00%

Number N/A N/A

% N/A N/A

Number N/A N/A

% N/A N/A

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Deed in Lieu

Short Sale

Program Outcomes





Short Sale

Deed in Lieu


Foreclosure Sale

Cancelled





QTD Cumulative

Six Months Number N/A 3,467













Number of Borrowers Receiving Assistance 13 160


Number of Borrowers Denied115 185


Number of Borrowers Withdrawn19 286




Total Number of Borrowers Applied 127 721Number of Borrowers Participating in Other HFA HHF Programs




LOAN REFINANCING ASSISTANCE PILOT PROJECT

QTD Cumulative

Approved

Denied

Withdrawn

In Process

Total





QTD Cumulative


Median 1st Lien Housing Payment After Assistance 1,116$ 1,019$




Median 1st Lien UPB After Program Entry 144,000$ 138,400$



Median Principal Forgiveness282,537$ 80,471$



Assistance Provided to Date 2,105,866$ 22,263,672$

Total Lender/Servicer Assistance Amount 1,846,702$ 18,459,830$

Borrowers Receiving Lender/Servicer Match (%) 100.00% 100.00%

Median Lender/Servicer Assistance per Borrower 106,028$ 91,805$


Granted 450 126

Number 1 30

% 7.69% 18.75%

Number 0 4

% 0.00% 2.50%

Number 0 4

% 0.00% 2.50%

Number 12 122

% 92.31% 76.25%


Current

Delinquent (30+)

Delinquent (60+)

Delinquent (90+)








QTD Cumulative



Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number N/A N/A

% N/A N/A

Number 0 96

% 0.00% 100.00%

Number N/A N/A

% N/A N/A

Number N/A N/A

% N/A N/A

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%





Short Sale

Deed in Lieu



Foreclosure Sale

Cancelled

Deed in Lieu

Short Sale

Program Outcomes





QTD Cumulative

Six Months Number N/A 124













Number of Borrowers Receiving Assistance 3 60


Number of Borrowers Denied1

6 146


Number of Borrowers Withdrawn1

1 24% of Total Number of Applications 5.26% 10.04%



Total Number of Borrowers Applied 19 239Number of Borrowers Participating in Other HFA HHF Programs

or Program Components 0 0


REBUILDING AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE PILOT PROJECT

QTD Cumulative


Approved

Denied

Withdrawn

In Process

Total




QTD Cumulative



Median 1st Lien Housing Payment After Assistance 1,251$ 1,210$

Median 2nd Lien Housing Payment Before Assistance 391$ 384$

Median 2nd Lien Housing Payment After Assistance -$ -$


Median 1st Lien UPB After Program Entry 233,000$ 211,638$

Median 2nd Lien UPB Before Program Entry 43,719$ 47,945$

Median 2nd Lien UPB After Program Entry -$ -$

Median Principal Forgiveness2

N/A N/A



Assistance Provided to Date 768,224$ 13,065,016$

Total Lender/Servicer Assistance Amount N/A N/A

Borrowers Receiving Lender/Servicer Match (%) N/A N/A

Median Lender/Servicer Assistance per Borrower N/A N/A


Granted N/A N/A

Number 3 60

% 100.00% 100.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0% 0.00% 0.00%





Current

Delinquent (30+)

Delinquent (60+)

Delinquent (90+)




QTD Cumulative




Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number N/A N/A

% N/A N/A

Number 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00%

Number N/A N/A

% N/A N/A

Number N/A N/A

% N/A N/A

Number 0 0% 0.00% 0.00%

Program Outcomes

Short Sale

Deed in Lieu



Foreclosure Sale

Cancelled

Deed in Lieu

Short Sale








QTD Cumulative


Six Months Number N/A 46






Unreachable Number N/A 0Unreachable % N/A 0.00%



2. Includes second mortgage settlement 3. Borrower still owns home


North Mall Office Building 725 Summer St NE, Suite B

Salem, OR 97301-1266 PHONE: (503) 986-2000 FAX: (503) 986-2020 TTY: (503) 986-2100 www.ohcs.oregon.gov

March 27, 2015 To: Members, State Housing Council

From: Margaret S. Van Vliet, Director Oregon Housing and Community Services

Re: Establishment of committees to guide work on the $100M housing bonds

Given your evolving policy role and the high degree of stakeholder and practitioner interest in establishing a careful and transparent process, I am recommending that we utilize the exisiting public meeting structure and process of the State Housing Council as the mechanism for analysis and deliberation related to the $100 million of new housing money, proposed in the 2015‐2017 GRB. I am grateful that you are willing to be the central body to help shape our policy discussions and, pending legislative approval, our eventual implementation strategy. Based on recent discussions, including your joint meeting with CAPO, I suggest that you establish two committees: a policy committee and a financial structuring committee. These committees would take overall guidance from the entire council, and would report periodically on their deliberations, approach, and emerging recommendations. It is my intention that we discuss the work of these Committees at your April meeting, and come to consensus on the scope of each. Policy Committee The primary work of the policy committee will be to:

examine statewide family housing needs and opportunities;

propose strategies to reach traditionally under‐served communities, including communities of color, and rural communities still struggling with economic recovery;

consider avenues to balance resources among competing priorities; and

suggest allocation methodologies, including key elements that could or should be used in any future competitions for funds.

The policy committee will also propose specific strategies to ensure that once the housing is in place, local partnerships and/or relevant state agencies are equipped to effectively refer at‐risk families and provide effective services and/or case management for such families. In general, the goal for placing families in units provided under the $100M program is that they will become stable and eventually gain greater economic independence. The Council and the policy committee should test that goal and potentially refine and define hoped‐for outcomes.

State Housing Council – $100 million Committee Structure

Page 2 of 2

Membership:

One or two Housing Council members

One or two CAPO board members

Representatives from leadership within Department of Human Services [Lois Day – Child Welfare;

Oregon Housing Authority

Additional members with expertise in equity issues and establishing metrics‐based outcomes

Financial structuring committee The primary work of this committee will be to consult with bond counsel, state treasury, representatives of the financial services industry, and both for‐profit and non‐profit sector subject matter experts in housing development to help guide the real‐estate related investment criteria. Membership:

One or two members of this council

A subject matter expert in affordable housing development from the non‐profit sector A subject matter expert in affordable housing development from the for‐profit sector A subject matter expert in affordable housing financing structures including private equity

A banker

A subject matter expert in bonding as a funding mechanism

My staff and I will come prepared to present on these committees at the next Housing Council meeting, and hope to invite participants soon after our April meeting. We would like to begin meeting in May, and would work to stage this so that we are all prepared to answer questions as they arise throughout the legislative process, without getting too far ahead of said process. Finally, I will take responsibility for assigning staff support to keep both moving productively, within the limits of existing staffing constraints. I am committed to the development of policy and implementation strategies that reflect strong partner, employee, legislative and stakeholder engagement coupled with sound financial analysis. I am confident that should the Legislature chose to commit these funds, together we will be able to make a significant difference for families who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness across Oregon.

oregon state housing council council aubre l. dickson ......mayra arreola zee koza marissa madrigal...

Documents