HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.B- City Manager 6.B
RESOLUTION (ID # 4380) DOC ID: 4380 G
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Budget Amendment
From: Brandon Mims M/CC Meeting Date: 05/02/2016
Prepared by: Brandon Mims, (909) 384-
5122
Dept: City Manager Ward(s): All
Subject:
Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Approving
a Substantial Amendment to the Consolidated Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year
2015/2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Program Action Plan; Authorizing the City
Manager to Amend the 2015/2016 Fiscal Year Budget; and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Such Documents as Requested by the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development to Effectuate the Supplemental Appropriation.
(#4380)
Current Business Registration Certificate: Not Applicable
Financial Impact:
There will be no impact to the General Fund.
Mayor to open the hearing...
Motion: Close the hearing; and adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)
HUD's Neighborhood Stabilization Program provides emergency assistance to state and
local governments to acquire and redevelop foreclosed properties that might otherwise
become sources of abandonment and blight within their communities. The
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) provides grants to every state, certain local
communities, and other organizations to purchase foreclosed or abandoned homes and
to rehabilitate, resell, or redevelop these homes in order to stabilize neighborhoods and
stem the decline of house values of neighboring homes. The program is authorized
under Title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
NSP funds may be used for activities which include, but are not limited to:
❑ Establish financing mechanisms for purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed
homes and residential properties;
❑ Purchase and rehabilitate homes and residential properties abandoned or
foreclosed;
❑ Establish land banks for foreclosed homes;
Updated: 4/25/2016 by Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna G Packet Pg.214
4380
❑ Demolish blighted structures;
❑ Redevelop demolished or vacant properties
In addition, the use of NSP funds must also meet one of the following CDBG national
objectives:
❑ Housing Activities: Providing or improving permanent residential structures that
will be occupied by a household whose income is at or below 120% of area
median income.
❑ Area Benefit Activities: Benefiting all the residents of a primarily residential area
in which at least 51% of the residents have incomes at or below 120% of area
median income.
❑ Limited Clientele Activities: Serving a limited clientele whose incomes are at or
below 120% of area median income.
NSP grantees develop their own programs and funding priorities. However, grantees
must use at least 25% of the funds appropriated to house individuals or families whose
incomes do not exceed 50% of the area median income. Activities may not qualify
under NSP using the CDBG "prevent or eliminate slums and blight" or "address urgent
community development needs" national objectives.
Eligible Beneficiaries
All activities funded by NSP must benefit low- and moderate-income persons whose
income does not exceed 120 percent of the area median income (AMI). The 2015 AMI
for a family of four in San Bernardino is $74,500.
NSP Funding Overview
There have been three rounds of funding for NSP. The Housing and Economic
Recovery Act of 2008 provided a first round of formula funding to States and units of
general local government, and is referred to herein as NSP1. The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act provided a second round of funds in 2009 awarded by
I competition, and is referred to herein as NSP2. The third round of funding, NSP3, was
provided in 2010 as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and was allocated
by formula. The City received funding in two of three rounds, NSP 1 and NSP 3 only,
as follows:
Funding Year Program Funding Amount
2008 NSP 1 $8,408,558.00
2010 NSP 3 $3,277,401.00
NSP 1
Updated: 4/25/2016 by Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna G Packet Pg. 215
6.B
4380
The NSP 1 allocation was done via a two-step formula that first made statewide
allocations and then local allocations. The raw data and step-by-step information on
how each allocation was calculated are attached as EXHIBIT A. The total allocation
and estimated program balance are reported in the table below.
Allocation Estimated Remaining Balance
$8,408,558.00 $1,500,000.00
A total of 53 projects were completed using NSP 1 dollars. They are listed in EXHIBIT
C.
NSP 2
The City of San Bernardino was not an applicant in NSP 2.
NSP 3
The NSP 3 allocation was done via an analysis of which communities were
experiencing foreclosure the most. Need was determined by an analysis of the
estimate number of loans 90 days delinquent across America. The raw data and step-
by-step information on how each allocation was calculated are attached as EXHIBIT B.
Allocation Estimated Remaining Balance
$3,227,401.00 $991,873.00
A total of eleven projects were completed using NSP 3 dollars. They are listed in
EXHIBIT C.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
NSP (all years) was established for the purpose of providing emergency assistance to
stabilize communities with high rates of abandoned and foreclosed homes, and to assist
households whose annual incomes are up to 120 percent of the area median income
(AMI). Funds for the program are expected to be utilized by the City until eligible
activities can no longer be funded. At that point, NSP is anticipated to become CDBG
(with its applicable restrictions). Presently, the City still has a total of approximately
$2,491,873.00 of NSP funds as follows:
Funding Year Program Funding Amount
Available
2008 NSP 1 $1,500,000.00
Updated: 4/25/2016 by Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna G Packet Pg.216
s:g
4380
2010 NSP 3 $991,873.00
Additionally, certain properties were purchased by the City using NSP funds and later
the blighted structures were demolished, leaving vacant lots. Of the lots purchased, a
total of eight remain. Staff is recommending amending the 2015/2016 Action Plan to
complete the NSP program goals by constructing single-family residences on three of
the lots. This action requires approval of the Mayor and Common Council.
BASIS FOR ESTIMATES:
In December 2014, NSP funds were used for the construction of three single family
homes on vacant lots within the City. Each property had a total rehabilitation cost of
between $250,000.00 and $300,000.00 including unforeseen expenses not originally
budgeted. Staff recommends using the same floorplan and bases all cost estimates on
these completed projects. EXHBIT D shows the floorplan used previously.
ALTERNATIVES/ANALYSIS:
Presently, three of eight NSP lots are suitable for construction of a single family home:
❑ 202 East 19th Street,
❑ 2096 Genevieve Street, and
❑ 923 North Pico Avenue.
EXHIBIT E includes maps of these properties, showing their vacant status in residential
neighborhoods.
The other five lots were formerly four-unit structures, and therefore are not
recommended for this single family home building program:
❑ 2069 East 19th Street,
❑ 2165 East 19th Street,
❑ 1888 Argyle Avenue,
❑ 2044 Sunrise Lane, and
❑ 2156 Sunrise Lane.
Based on estimates provided by the City's existing NSP contractor on a floorplan that
has been previously constructed in the City, it is anticipated that the total cost to build
complete homes at the aforementioned sites is $300,000 and will take a total of
approximately 180 days.
Alternatively, the Mayor and Common Council could direct staff to find other uses for
these funds. Any potential other uses would have to meet the NSP program
Updated: 4/25/2016 by Georgeann"Gigi" Hanna G Packet Pg. 217'
4380
regulations.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adopting the Substantial Amendment will amend the City's 2015/2016 Action Plan,
thereby amending the City's 2015/2016 Budget to include the funding necessary to
design, bid and build the NSP homes, a total of $1,491,873.00 to be added to the
current budget of $1,000,000 for a total NSP budget for fiscal year 2015/16 of
$2,491,873. The breakdowns are as follows:
NSP 1 FUND 120
GL Account No. Type (Rev/Exp) Proposed Budget
Adjustments
120-060-0000-4695 Revenue 1,000,000.00
120-100-0014-5502 Expense 850,000.00
120-100-2350-5502 Expense 150,000.00
NSP 3 FUND 122
GL Account No. Type (Rev/Exp) Proposed Budget
Adjustments
f' 122-060-0000-4695 Revenue 491,873.00
122-100-0014-5111 Expense -
122-100-0014-5502 Expense 392,686.00
122-100-2058-5502 Expense 99,187.00
The NSP dollars being added to the 2015/2016 budget are made up of original
allocation (carryover) and program income (ex. Sell of NSP property). There are no
new NSP funds, the program ended in 2013. A detailed budget adjustment is included
as EXHIBIT F.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
As required by the Office of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), this Substantial
Amendment will be available for public review from April 2, 2016 to May 2, 2016, on the
City's website, www.sbcity.org <http://www.sbcity.orq>, and at the following locations:
❑ San Bernardino City Clerk's Office, 300 North "D" Street, 2nd floor
❑ Feldheym Central Library, 555 W. 6th Street
The San Bernardino City Council will hold a Public Hearing to solicit public comment
from interested citizens, non-profit public service organizations and other public
agencies. The Public Hearing will be held on May 2, 2016, 5:30 p.m. at San Bernardino
Updated: 4/25/2016 by Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna G Packet Pg.218
6.B
4380
City Council Chambers, located at 300 North "D" Street, Council Chambers.
The City of San Bernardino encourages citizen participation in the NSP process.
Anyone who wishes to comment on the Substantial Amendment can submit comments
to Brandon Mims at Mims Br(a),sbcity.org <mailto:Mims Br(a)_sbcity.org> or(909) 663-
2282.
City Attorney Review:
Supporting Documents:
EXHIBIT A - NSP1 Methodology & Allocations (PDF)
EXHIBIT B - NSP3 Methodology & Allocations (PDF)
EXHIBIT C - NSP PROJECTS (PDF)
EXHIBIT E - Locations of Proposed Projects (PDF)
EXHIBIT E - Floorplan (PDF)
EXHIBIT F - Budget Adjustment (PDF)
NSP Substantial Amendment Resolution(DOC)
Updated: 4/25/2016 by Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna G Packet Pg.219"
(}uauapuawV Iel;ue;sgnS dSN 08SO suol;eoolIV+g MolopogpW WSN -V 1181HX3 :juew438;4y
m EXHIBIT A
Methodology for AIlocation of$3.92 billion of Emergency Assistance for the Redevelopment of
Abandoned and Foreclosed Homes
Section 2301 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 calls for allocating$3.92 billion for
state and local governments(as such terms are defined in section 102 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974(42 U.S.C. 5302))for emergency assistance with redeveloping abandoned
and foreclosed homes. The statute calls for the funds to be used to:
(A)"establish financing mechanisms for purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed upon homes
and residential properties, including such mechanisms as soft-seconds,loan loss reserves, and
shared-equity loans for low-and moderate-income homebuyers;
(B) purchase and rehabilitate homes and residential properties that have been abandoned or
foreclosed upon,in order to sell,rent,or redevelop such homes and properties;
(C) establish land banks for homes that have been foreclosed upon; and
(D)demolish blighted structures." (2301(c)(3))
The statute directs that the funds be allocated to "States and units of general local government with the
greatest need,as such need is determined in the discretion of the Secretary based on
(A)the number and percentage of home foreclosures in each State or unit of general local
government;
(B) the number and percentage of homes financed by a subprime mortgage related loan in each
State or unit of general local government; and
(C) the number and percentage of homes in default or delinquency in each State or unit of general
local government." (2301(b)(3))
It further notes that the formula is to be developed within 60 days of enactment(2301(c))and that no
state shall receive Iess than 0.5 percent of the amount appropriated(2302).
The statute also provides direction to grantees that they should give priority emphasis in targeting the
funds that they receive to "those metropolitan areas,metropolitan cities,urban areas,rural areas,low-
and moderate-income areas,and other areas with the greatest need,including those--
(A) with the greatest percentage of home foreclosures;
(B) with the highest percentage of homes financed by a subprime mortgage related loan; and
(C) identified by the State or unit of general local government as likely to face a significant rise in
the rate of home foreclosures."(2301(c)(2))
Allocation
• Grantee Universe. The statute calls for allocating the Neighborhood Stabilization Program(NSP)
funds to state and local governments. The initial grantee universe is comprised of the 1,201 state
and local governments funded in FY 2008 under the regular Community Development Block Grant
formula. However,if a local government receives an allocation based on their relative need (as
discussed below)of less than$2 million,its allocation amount is rolled up into the state
government grant. Of the 1,201 eligible state and local governments, 308 grants are made to states
and local governments(including Puerto Rico,the District of Columbia, and the four insular areas).
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Formula Methodology 9/26/2008 Page 1
I
i
(1u9wpu9wy IeguelsgnS dSN : 08£ti) suo11e3011y V A13Olopog18w WSN -`d 1181HX3 :luauayoelly N
EXHIBIT A N
Because this funding is one-time funding and the eligible activities under the program are different a
enough from the regular program,HUD believes that a grantee must receive a minimum amount of
$2 million to have adequate staffing to properly administer the program effectively. In addition, a
fewer grants will allow HUD staff to more effectively monitor grantees to ensure proper
implementation of the program and reduce the risk for fraud,waste, and abuse.
• Minimum Grant to States. The statute calls for no state(including Puerto Rico)to receive less j
than 0.5 percent of the appropriation. This equates to $19.6 million as a minimum grant for each
state government. To meet this requirement,HUD first allocates finds based on relative need(see
below)to each state as a whole(both entitled and non-entitled areas). If the state as a whole would
receive less than$19.6 million,the state total is increased to $19.6 million. Sub allocations to the
state government and local governments are then made as follows:
• Each state government is allocated$19.6 million.
• If the statewide allocation is more than$19.6 million,the remaining funds are allocated to
state and local governments proportional to their relative need.
• If a local government receives less than$2 million under this sub-allocation,their grant is
rolled up into the state government grant.
Note, this approach provides state governments with proportionally more funding than their
estimated need under the assumption that state governments hill serve both those areas not
receiving a direct grant and those areas that do receive a direct grant, making sure that the total of
all funds in the state are going proportionally more to those places (as prescribed by the statute):
• "tit)ith the greatest percentage of home foreclosures;
• with the highest percentage of homes financed by a subprime mortgage related loan; and
• identified by the State or unit ofgeneral local government as likely to face a significant rise
in the rate of home foreclosures." (2301(c)(2))
• Two step allocation-statewide allocation. The statute calls for allocating funds based on the
number and percent of foreclosures, subprime loans, and loans delinquent or default. HUD staff
experience is that the best source of data on those factors comes from the Mortgage Bankers
Association National Delinquency Survey(MBA-NDS). This survey has been conducted for over j
30 years and provides information on more than 70 percent of all active mortgages every quarter.
The data are available at the state level. For the subprime and delinquency variables,HUD uses
data from the second quarter of 2008. For foreclosures,HUD uses the sum of all foreclosure starts
for all of 2007 and the first half of 2008.1
However,because the MBA-NDS only covers about 70 percent of all active mortgages,and the
distribution in coverage could be different from state-to-state,HUD adjusts the MBA-NDS data
using(a) statewide data from the 2006 American Community Survey on number of owner-
occupied dwelling with a mortgage and(b) increases that number by the fraction of mortgages
made between 2004 and 2006 that were investor-owned in the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
HUD elected to use this measure of"foreclosure starts"over a period of time rather than"currently in foreclosure"
because we wanted to capture the volume of foreclosures independent of state laws and other actions locally that may affect
how long a property is in the foreclosure process.
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Formula Methodology 9/26/2008 Page 2
(1 uau uaw I e ue s n S dSN 08£ti) suol;eoo Ilt '8 (60I 0 o 4 1 a
W bdSN -d 1181HX3 :;uauagoe;;y N
N
EXHIBIT A
(HMDA) dat2. Since approximately 44 percent of single-family rental units have a mortgage
(2001 Residential Finance Suzvey)and the investor owned properties are a significant contributor
to the inventory of foreclosed homes,HUD staff believe it is important that loans made to investors a
be included in estimating the statewide total of mortgages in place,particularly since
homeownership rates vary from state to state.
The statewide allocation is calculated using the following formula:
t
Statewide Allocation=Appropriation
I
{ [0.7* (State's foreclosure starts in last 6 quarters) * (State foreclosure rate) + I
National foreclosure starts in last 6 quarters National foreclosure rate
0.15 * (State's Number of subprime loans) * (State subprime rate) +
National number of subprime loans National subprime rate
i
0.10 * (State's number of loans in default) * (State default rate ) +
National number of loans in default National default rate
I
0.05 * {State's loans 60 to 89 days delinquent) * (State 60 to 89 day dq L&J-]
National loans 60 to 89 days delinquent National 60 to 89 day delinq rate
1
(State vacancy rate in Census Tracts with more than 40%of the loans High-costa) }
National vacancy rate in Census Tracts with more than 40% of the loans High-cost
r
Where the rate of a foreclosures, subprime loans,defaults,or delinquencies in a state relative to the
national rate of that problem cannot increase or reduce a state's share of the problem by more than
I 30 percent and a state's vacancy rate difference relative to the national average cannot increase or I
decrease a state's proportional share of the problems by more than 10 percent. If a statewide
allocation is less than$19.6 million,the statewide grant is increased to $19.6 million. Because this
approach will result in a total allocation in excess of appropriation, all grants above$19.6 million
are reduced pro-rata to make the total allocation equal to the total appropriation.
i
Note that 70 percent of the fiinds are allocated based on the number and percent of foreclosures, 15 j
percent for subprime loans, 10 percent for loans in default,and 5 percent for delinquent loans. The
higher weight on foreclosures is based on the emphasis the statute places on targeting foreclosed
homes.5
Z This is calculated as total mortgages=ACS Owner Occupied with mortgage*[1+(HMDA investor mortgages/HMDA
renter mortgages)].
3 Vacancy data are from a June 2008 extract of USPS data on addresses vacant for 90 days or longer in urban areas. Data
on high cost loans are based on the sum of HMDA data for 2004 to 2006 on loans being made at 3 basis points or more
above prime. The vacancy rate is calculated as the sum of vacant addresses in areas with high cost loans divided by all
addresses in the state. The national rate is 1.1 percent.
a HUD was unable to identify reliable data on foreclosures,subprime loans,or delinquencies for the Insular areas. As such,
HUD estimated insular area rates using the same model as it uses for the substate allocations. Only unemployment rate is
used because there are not OFHEO or HMDA data available for insular areas.
s Delinquency rates and subprime rates correlate very highly with the foreclosure rate. As such,changing the weights has
only a small impact on actual allocations.
I
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Formula Methodology 9/26/2008 Page 3
I
I
(;uaurpuawV lel;ue;sgnS dSN : 08£ti) suolteoolly V A6010130449lN WSN-V 118IHX3 auauarloeIVV
N I
0o EXHIBIT A
co a
The statute specifies that fiends be targeted toward the places most likely to need assistance with
addressing the problems associated with abandoned homes due to foreclosure. To ensure that the
funds not only target to foreclosure,but also to abandonment caused by foreclosure,HUD adjusts a a
state's proportional share of need associated with foreclosures, subprime loans, and defaults and
delinquencies upward for states with relatively higher rates of vacancies of 90 days or more when
those vacancies are in neighborhoods with high concentrations of high-cost loans. States with
lower rates of vacancies have their share of need adjusted downward. Because high rates of high
cost loans are a good predictor of foreclosures,HUD uses the 90-day vacancy information from the
United States Postal Service as of,Tune 2008 in those neighborhoods with a high rate of high cost
loans as a proxy to predict abandonment risk. As noted above,a state's share of overall need can
only be adjusted up or down by 10 percent using this factor.
i
Two step allocation-sub-state allocation. Substate allocations work like a mini-formula. The
appropriation amount is the amount calculated for the statewide allocation. A new formula is then
applied to divide that"pie"up among the CDBG eligible grantees within that state.
Data on foreclosures, subprime loans, and delinquencies are available from various private sources
at county, zip code, and metropolitan levels. Those sources,however,have varying levels of
coverage and transparency as to how the data are collected and aggregated. In addition,the short
time frames needed to make this allocation made it unlikely that access to these private data could
be negotiated with the vendors in a timely manner to meet the deadlines for this allocation. There
are no public data sources collected evenly across the United States on most foreclosures,
delinquencies, and subprime loans. Nonetheless,there are data from public data sources that can
reliably predict where the foreclosure crisis is occurring or may occur. HUD analysis shows that
75 percent of the variance between states on foreclosure rates can be explained by three variables
available from public data:
I
• Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight(OFHEO)data on decline in home values
as of June 2008 compared to peak home value since 2000. I
• Federal Reserve Home Mortgage Disclosure Act(HMDA)data on percent of all loans '
made between 2004 and 2006 that are high cost.
• Labor Department data on unemployment rates in places and counties as of June 2008.
i
Because these three variables are publicly available for all CDBG eligible communities and they
are good predictors of foreclosure risk,HUD used them to estimate foreclosure rates in each
jurisdiction within a state.
Using a simple linear regression, we created a model to estimate the foreclosure rate for each
entitlement community,using the following formula:6
Model Foreclosure Rate=-2.211
- (0.131*Percent change in MSA OFHEO current price(June 2008)relative to the maximum in past 8
years)
+ (0.152*Percent of total loans made between 2004 and 2006 that are high cost')
6 This regression has an R-square of 0.750(correlation 0.866).
7 A high cost loans is one with a rate spread is 3 percentage points above the Treasury security of comparable maturity.
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Formula Methodology 9/26/2008 Page 4
t
(1u9wpu9wV Iel;uelsgnS dSN OB£17) suolleoolly-g A6010poy19W I,dSN -V 1191HX3 4u9uaLloe4v
1C N
m EXHIBIT A
+(0.392"Percent unemployed in the place our county in June 20088). °,-
m
Y
This model foreclosure rate can then be multiplied times the estimated number of mortgages a
within a jurisdiction(number of HMDA loans made between 2004 and 2006 times the ratio of
ACS 2006 data on total mortgages in state/HMDA loans in state)to calculate the number of
foreclosures in a jurisdiction. This estimated number of foreclosures in the jurisdiction is
further adjusted such that when summed for all jurisdictions within the state it equals the total I
foreclosure starts in the state used for the statewide aIlocations.9
Each jurisdiction's allocation is thus calculated as follows:
Local Allocation=(Statewide allocation-$19,600,000)
i
[(Local estimated foreclosure starts in last 6 quarters)
State total foreclosure starts in last 6 quarters I
i
I
(Local vacancy rate in Census Tracts with more than 40%of the loans High-cost) ]
State vacancy rate in Census Tracts with more than 40%of the loans High-cost
Where the vacancy rate adjustment can't increase or reduced a local jurisdiction's allocation by
more than 30 percent.
Local governments with an allocation of less than$2 million have their grants rolled into the
state government grant allocation.
i
t
j
i
i
1 i
r
's
i
i
i
B Unemployment rate is capped at 10 percent to correct for anomalies in the estimated foreclosure rate created by extremely
high unemployment rates.
9 This model also has high predictive value relative to other sources of data on foreclosures and subprime loans. Relative to
the rate of statewide foreclosures from the private vendor RealtyTrac,this model has a correlation of 0.784. Relative to the
rate of problems for subprime and Alt-A loans available from First American Core Logic,the correlation is 0.846. Relative
to the 90 day delinquency rate from Equifax data,the correlation is 0.893. In general,all of these measures correlate well
with each other,but the correlation of the model against each of these measures is often higher than they are with one
another.
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Formula Methodology 9/26/2008 Page 5
(;uauapuawV let}ue}sgnS dSN : NCO suOl;e3011y tg A601OP044OW 4dSN -V-LISIHX3 .juauay0e;}y LO
t6 N
0o EXHIBIT A `14
to
Local Statewide Q.
ar
Percent of Percent of 0)
All All Y
Addresse Addresse U
Ss in as in
Jv6sddio Junsdicho d
n both 90 n both 90
days', days
vacantas vacantas
Percent of of June` o►June
Loans. 20118 and 2008 and Grantto
OFHEO Made In Census In census State
Price 200410 June Tracts Tracts Government
Dedine 2006 High 2008 Actual with with Grant From
from cost Unemploy Number Greater Greater Uncapped Cakulation Minimum Entglement
Maximum According meet Rafe Foreclosu than 40% than40% Vacancy Share of Impact of impact of Grant to Atlocatlom
Statewide as of Juno to HMDA for Prace re Stans o(Loana. or Loans Adustme Foreclosure Vacancy Pro•Rata Stale Less than Total
STA NAME A!!oca4on 2005 Dal, of County In State High Cost KghCosl nCRaOo Siads Adjtilsiment Adjustment Government $2m.."on A¢ocatlon:
AK _ALASKA STATE PROGRA S19900,000 -0314 232% 8.0.5 2,214 0.46% 0185 2.549 s0 SO So $19,600,000 50 $19,600,000
.-�-.. m - m e ...-_ ._ --... _. _.
AL QIRL!O:GHAL.1 $4f,oaJ�i20_.' _005' 47 °v 6.3% 33,699 11.46-7° 236=h 4852 51,746,599 8525,118,0 ., 30,9,835- $0 $0 $2,580214
AL J-..FFERSON COUNTY $41,851,120 0.0°% _27.4% 4.6- 33,699 1.91% 2364S 0.803 $2,438552 •$469.229- $268,553 $0 $0 $2,237,876
AL ALABAMA STATE PROGF $41891,720 0,0 2T015 5S:,; 33,699 0.81 236-X 0345 $12,400711 -S3720213f �183,744 $19,600000 $7,568789 $37,033,031
AR ARKANSAS STATE PRO( $19,000,000 _ -0.2°h 28.1°h. 5.87, 16,871 1.06,5 7.3551 0.781 $0 $0 $0 $19,600,000 $0 Si0500,000
AZ AVONDALE CITY 5127119,044 11.1,S 37.1°1; 4.1 Y, 81,020 1.31`0 1,19°n 1.100 $2216,354 8220,799 $28,887 $0 SO 52,466,039
AZ Ct tANDi_ER $121,119,049 -11.1;5 214:5 3.2:,, 81,020 0.20", 1.19;,1 0.164 $3,409,728 -51,022,918 528,29) $0 SO $2,415,100
AZ GLENDALE $121119,049 1115 354.1 441/, 81,020 401;5 119"0 3.358 $4,701,286 $1,410386 $72,439 $0 $0 56184112
AZ MAR;COPA COUNTY $121119049 111.5 26.1,> 427, 61,023 0.26'', 1.1915 0115 $14,082043 -$4224,613 $118,!137 S0 SO 59974,267
A7- MESA S121,119,049 -11.1,5 29.6h 3,951 81,020 1.54iA 1.191, 1.293 57,385,073 52,161,441 $113,151 SO $0- 59,659,665
AZ PHOENIX 5121,119,019 -11.15 346;5 5.05 81.020 2.39,S 1.195= 2.003 $30012,044 39,003,613 $462,439 $0 $0,$39,478,0196
AZ PIMA COUNTY 5121,119,09_ -5.9;5 18.695 4.7;5 81.070 0.70;5 1.19,1 0.545 $4359,155 -$1307,446_ $36,159 $0 $0 $3,086,667
AZ SURPRISE TCV.N $121,119,049 -11.155 27255 5.3;5 61,020 000;5 1.1S,'> 0,000 53,102,916 5930,875 $25,744 $0 SO $2,197,786
AZ TUCSON_ $121,119,099 -5.9 28.693 5.3% 81,020 1.505 1.19, 1.252 $5,750,969 $1,450,584 $65,357 $0 SO $7,286,911
AZ ARIZONA STATE FROG'R $121,119,049 -6.215 28.0-,5 66% 81020 0.7,,;5 11.P;, 0.625 $16,252,552 -$4875,766 _3734,845 $19,600,000 $7,258,575 534,370206
CA AL41 D COU,4TY $529,601,773 18.1% 149-i 5.915 419.327 OOOiS 0233', 0.000 $2,876,790 -S863037 $113,174 $O $0 $2,126,927
CA Ar7AHEIM $529,601,773 -17.5'5 24.0l', 6.8/ 419,327 00215 0.237, 0974 $3,588948 51,076,664 $141,191 $0 $0 $2653,455
--_I -
C.4 ANTIOCH 55291 773 -18.155 28.6'", 7.155 419,327 0.65;5 0.23; 2,806 $2,949,052 $864,718 $215460 50 $0 $4,049,228 '
CA APPLE VALLEY 5529,601,773 -22.9;5 56.995 86',5 419,327 1.92,5 0.23:5 8.321 $2,232,119 5669,636 $163,081 $0 $0 $3,064,836
CA QANERSFIECD $529,01,773 -19.155 33.5:1, 6.6;5 419,327 1.0795 023:, 4.624 $6,542,193 $1,962,659 $477,979 $0 $0 $8,982,836
CA CHULAVISTA 5529,601,773 -182-15 19.93 7.0% 419,327 00015 0.23„ _0.000__$3827,833 -$1,148,350 $150,589 50 50 $2,830,072 �
CA COMPTON 5520501,773 -14.3/ 44.0;11 12455 419,327 1.15'5 0.2355 4.995 $2,361,743 $708,523 $172,551 $0 $0 $3,242,817
CA CONTRA COSTA COUNT $529,601,7.73 -18.1`,5 15.035 5.555 419,327 0.07;; 0.23V, 0.283 $8,141J08 -52,442333 5320275 SO 50 $6,019,051
:65,637 $101,703 $0 $0 $3,602,842
CA CORONA 8$2$6„01;773 -22.9,5 25.911 6.0- 419,327 023-;° 0.2355 0,981 $3,476,770
CA ELK GROVE 5529,601,773 -23.515 21X': 5.6Y 419,327 0.009, 0.23;5 0.000 $3,232,136 -S969,641 $127,154 $0 $0 $2,389,651
CA FONTA14A $528,607,773 -22.915 35.5% 8.2:5 419327 0.23, 02315 0.990 $5,691,999 -$55,467 $316,777 $0 $0 55,953,309
CA FRESNO 5529,601,773 -20.495 32.345 9.1`,5 419,327 0.475 023f, _. 2.020 $7,988,844 $2.396,653 $583,672 $0 $0 $10,969,169
- >. ,M. -
CA FRESI��O COUNTY $529601,773 -20.41A 30.1`.> 9.74, 419,327 0.35111 023-i 1.537 $5,125,385 51,537,615 $374.455 $0 $O $7,037,465
CA HEMET $529,601,773 -22.9°,0 35.6i, 10.5;5 419,327 0.89!° 0.235 3.850 $2,103.674 $631102 $153.69"0 SO SO S2,888,473 7
,-nom.. .22 9111 39.2-15 10.2:5 419,327 1.8551 023- 8.027 $3,343,420 $1,003,028 $244,273 s0 $0 $4,590,7L9 '
CA HESPERIA 5529,841,773
CA KERN COUNTY $529,601,773 -19.155 35.6'5 9,1`5 419,327 1.6091 0.23n 6.952 58,165,250 $2,449,575 $596,561 SO SO 571,211,385
CA LAt4*TER 5528,541,773 -1S 35 41.655 10.1Y 419,327 1.9495 0,23--A 8.407 55,036,106 $1,525,832 $371,596 SO $O 55,983,533 I
CA LONG BEACH $529,601,773 -74.35 24.7-, 7.B i 419,327 0.21% 0.23 i 0.914 $5,251,191 -$450,673 $269,792 SO $0 $5,070,310
CA LOS�AGELES 5528801773 -14.3;, 24.1:1 7.845 419,327 0,19'6 02315 0.817 $38,104,363 •$6,992,028 $1,746,535 $0 SO $32,860,670
CA LOS ANGELES COUNTY $529,601,773 -14.3;5 21.3',5 6.3'11 4 19,327 0.12-x5 0.237A 0.536$22,787,433 -S5836230 $896,469 50 $0 $16,847,672
CA MODESTO $529,601,773 342',5 28.84, 9.41, 419,327 0.4855 0.2316 2065 $5,005,082 $1,771,795 $431,496 $0 SO $8,109,274
CA MORENO VALLEY 5529,601,773 -22.9' 40.2% 9.655 419,327 25770 0.23% 11-134 58,295,419 52488,626 $606,071 SO $0 $11,390,110
CA OAKLAND $528,601,773 •18AVS 24.91; 9.6=1 419,327 0.5015 0,2.3S4 2.156 $6,008,960 $1,802,638 $439,020 SO SO $8,250,880
CA ONTARIO S529,601,773 -22,91; 31.615 8.3;5 419.327 0.16/ 02355 0.687 53,703,718 -$1,111,115 $145,706 SO $0 $2,738,309
CA ORANGE COUNTY $529,601,773 -17.5% 12.7:5 4.7'x, 419,327 0,01% 0231'° 0.025 $4,444,401 -SI,333,320 $174,845 $0 $0 S3285,928
CA PALMDALE $529,601,773 •14.3;5 38.9;; 9.935 419,327 0.73% 023'.', 3.159 55,414,400 $1,624,320 S3 95,581 SO SO 57.434,301
CA POMONA 9529,601,773 -14.3'c 31215 7.9% 419,327 0.4155 023;5 1.757 $2,571,499 $771,450 $187,876 $0 $0 $3,530,82,5
CA RANCHO CUCAMONGA_ 5529,601,773 -22.911 212;5 5.0;5 419,327 0.00115 0.231 0.000 $2885,540 -$865,662 5113,519 SO SO 52,133,397
CA RIALTO $529,601,773 -22.910 406°% 10.1% 419,327 1.5455 0.2313 0.659 $3,977,664 $1,193,299 $290,612 SO $0 $5,461,574
CA RICHMOND $529601,773__-18.155 30.O; 10.3 i 419,327 1.41;5 0.2345 __ 6.095 $.2,436,968 $731,090 5178,047 $0 $0 $3,346,105
CA RIVERSIDE $529,607,773 -22.9'h 30.896 8,3% 419,327 0.2215 02311', 0.935 $6,666,685 .$434,995 $350225 $0 $0 $6591,978,.
CA RIVERSIDE COUNTY $529,601,773 -22.91,5 29.75 8.23; 419,327 0,3951 0.23;5 1.679 $15,371,909 570611,573 $2,584,304 $0 $0 $48,567,786
CA SACRAMENTO $529,601,773 -23.5% 29 O1 8.23; 419,327 0.6915 0.23'6 3.872 $9,660,773 $2,898,232 $705,825 $0 $0 $13,26d,829
CA SACRA!.'ENTO COUNTY $529,601,773 -23.5' 23.1:5 6.7% 419,327 0.3"" 0.23:5 1.323 $13,550,353 $4,065.106 $990,001 $0 SO $78605460
»..
CA SAN BERNARDINO S529,601,773 -229'5 42.7% 109% 419,327 219' 023',5 9.914 $S;T2395f $1,837,185 $447,421 SO $O $8,408,555
CA SAN BERNARDINO COUt $529,601,773 .22.910 34215 8.1`.5 419,327 L591 0.23°,, 6.888 $16,574,784 54,972,435 S1,210,969 $0 50 $22,758.188
-,71,,, _
CA SAN DIEGO 5529,601,773 182-15 15.01,5 5.9;5 419,327 O.OSiS 023'', 0.005 $12,771,342 -$3,831,403 8502,431 SO $0 $9.442,370
CA SAN DIEGO COUNTY S529,601,773 -18.235 15.9;5 5.9, 419,327 00015 0.23h 0.000 55,957,758 42,087.327 $273.722 SO SO $5,144,152
CA SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY $529,601,773 -36.5:; 27.07; 8.4n 419,327 0.125 0.23°f, 0.537 $12214,108 -$3664232 $480,509 $0 $0 S9,030,385
CA SANJOSE $529,601,773 -8.3,5 15.1% 6.7,, 419,327 0.00'15 023,5 0900 57,612,573 -$2,283,772 5299,482 $0 $0 $5,628,283
CA SANTA ANA $529,601,773 -175% 33.1% 8.455 419,327 0.40Y, 0.23:, 1.755 54,220,603 $1,266,182 5398,361 50 $0 $5,795,151
CA STANISLAUS COUNTY $529,601,773 -34.235 30.3;; 11.55, 419,327 0.385 0.23 1.593 $7,09"0,905 $2,129,071 $518506 SO $0 $9,744,482
CA STOCKTON $529,601,773 -36.8i5 33.85!, 11.9", 419,327 1,34% 023;, 5.819 58,645,957 52,653,787 5646,291 $0 $0 $12,146,038
CA VALLEJO $529,601,773 -26.9'A 30.3'3; 8.555 419,327 0.04% 0.23;5 0.186 53,594,907 -$7,078,472 $141.425 SO SO 52,657,861
CA VICTORVILLE $529,601;773 -22.991 40.Oi5 9S% 419,327 2.31`.5 0.23% 10.036 53,668,265 $1,160,479 $282619 $0 $0 $5,311,383
CA VISALIA $529,601,773 -17.0", 29.17 6.OY, 419,327 0.35% 023°S 1.516 $1,73 39,421 5521,826 Sl27,084 SO $0 $2,388.331
.. ..q.- -__ _ _..
CA OALJFORNIASTATEPRO $529,601,773 -15555 22.7%,. 8.4:, 419,327 0.77'-,(, 0.2351 0.732 $41,193,735 -511,041,157 $1,694596 $79,600,000$93624,332 uaiurrurra
I
(juawpumV Iel;uelsgnS dSN 08£'V) suolieaolly 19 A601op041OW £dSN -8 118IHX3 4uauayaeJJV
co
m EXHIBIT B N
v
HUD's Methodology for Allocating the Funds for Neighborhood Stabilization a
Program 3 (NSP3)
Overview
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
provided an additional $1 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)that
was originally established under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
I
The statute calls for allocating funds to States and local governments with the
greatest need, as determined by:
(A) "The number and percentage of home foreclosures in each State or unit of
general local government; i
(B) "The number and percentage of homes financed by a subprime mortgages
in each State or unit of general local government; and
(C) "The number and percentage of homes in default or delinquency in each
State or unit of general local government."
I
The statute also requires that a minimum of 0.5 percent of the appropriation, $5 million,
be provided to each state.
The Department has determined that for NSP3, the states and local governments
with the greatest need for neighborhood stabilization funding are those communities
that have high numbers of foreclosed and/or vacant properties in the neighborhoods
with the highest concentrations of foreclosures, delinquent loans, and subprime loans.
The basic formula allocates funds based on the number of foreclosures and vacancies
in the 20 percent of US neighborhoods (Census Tracts)with the highest rates of homes
financed by a subprime mortgage, are delinquent, or are in foreclosure. This basic
allocation is adjusted to ensure that every state receives a minimum of$5 million. The
net result is that these funds are highly targeted to communities with the most severe
neighborhood problems associated with the foreclosure crisis.
Estimating Greatest Need
To target the funds to States and local communities with the greatest need, HUD
estimated the number of loans 90 days delinquent or in foreclosure for each Census
Tract in America. This estimate was based on a model that was comprised of three
factors that explain most foreclosures and delinquent loans (see note 1):
i
Rate of Subprime Loans. This is measured with HMDA data on high cost and
high leverage loans made between 2004 and 2007. These data are available
at the Census Tract(neighborhood) level
i
I
I
NSP 3 Allocation Methodology--US Department of Housing and Urban Development Page 1
i
(1uewpu9uay Iel;ue;sgnS dSN : 08£ti) suo11e3ol1y+g A601op041aw £dSN -8 1181HX3 .Ju8uay3eJJV
m EXHIBIT B N
a
m
v
• Increase in Unemployment Rate between March 2005 and March 2010. a
These data are from the BLS Local Area Unemployment Statistics, at the city
and county level.
• Fail in Home Value from Peak to Trough. Home value data at the
Metropolitan Area level is available quarterly through March 2010 from the
Federal Housing Finance Agency Home Price Index.
In addition to wanting to capture loans that are currently delinquent or in the
foreclosure process, HUD sought to capture the aggregate impact of the foreclosure
crisis on individual neighborhoods between 2007 and 2010. To do this, HUD estimated
for each neighborhood the number of foreclosure starts between January 2007 and
March 2010 as well as the number of foreclosure completions between January 2007
and June 2010 (see note 2). Each neighborhood was assigned the larger of the two
estimates.
Finally, HUD has March 2010 administrative data from the United States Postal
Service on addresses not picking up mail for 90 days or longer. These data are very
good current indicators of neighborhood stress from vacant housing. This number is
adjusted using Census 2000 tract level data to remove vacant vacation properties from
the count.
The Formula
Using the estimated rate of loans in foreclosure or delinquent, HUD identified the
20 percent of neighborhoods likely to be most distressed. This equates to an estimated
serious delinquency rate (90 days delinquent or in foreclosure) of greater than 17.8
percent. Using the methodology described above, the national rate was estimated at
8.9 percent.'
For each place and balance of county in the United States we add up only from
I the 20 percent of neighborhoods with the greatest need the greater of the estimated
number of homes that either have started the foreclosure process or become RE4
between 2007 and 2010 and separately the number units 90 days or more vacant in
March 2010. 1
i
This "jurisdiction level"file is then used to run a formula to allocate the funds
available, $969,700,000. Sixty percent of these funds are allocated based on each i
jurisdiction's share of foreclosures and 40 percent of the funds are allocated based on
each jurisdiction's share of vacancies.
i This is less than the Mortgage Bankers Association National Delinquency Survey rate
of 9.54 percent for March 2010 and slightly more than the McDash Analytics rate of 8.39
percent as of July 2010.
NSP 3 Allocation Methodology—US Department of Housing and Urban Development Page 2
(;uampuemy lel;ue}sgnS dSN : OSSO suol;eaollb'19�C6olopoy;aW £dSN -8 1181HXd .;uamyaeI�V
m EXHIBIT B
i
Minimum Grant Threshold t
If a place gets less than HUD's established minimum grant threshold of$1 million, its
grant is rolled up into the county grant. If the county grant is less than the minimum G
grant threshold of$1 million, its grant is rolled up into the state grant.
State Minimum Grant of$5 million j
i
For any state government that would receive less than $5 million, its grant is increased
to $5 million with all grant amounts above the minimum grant threshold reduced on a
pro-rata basis to only allocate the amounts available. I
Note 9: Identifying Census Tracts with High Rates of Foreclosures, Delinquencies, and
Subprime Loans
To estimate which neighborhoods are likely to have high rates of foreclosures,
delinquencies, and subprime loans, HUD used a July 2010 extract of county level
serious delinquency rates from McDash Analytics to develop a predictive model using
public data that was available for every Census Tract in the United States. The
predictive model, which was weighted on number of mortgages in each county, was
able to predict most of the variance between counties in their serious delinquency rate
(R-square of 0.821). The model used is as follows:
0.523 (intercept)
+0476 Unemployment Change 3/2005 to 3/2010 (BLS LAUS)
-0.176 Rate of low cost high leverage loans 2004 to 2007 (HMDA)
+0.521 Rate of high cost high leverage loans 2004 to 2007 (HMDA) '
+0.090 Rate of high cost low leverage loans 2004 to 2007 (HMDA)
-0.188 Fall in Home Value Since Peak (FHFA Metro and Non-Metro Area)
i
The predictive rate of seriously delinquent mortgages was multiplied times the number i
of loans made between 2004 and 2007 (from HMDA) in a Census Tract to estimate the
number of seriously delinquent loans in a Census Tract.
Note 2: Calculating Number of Foreclosures at the Neighborhood Level
To estimate the number of homes in a neighborhood that have completed, or are at risk
of becoming Real Estate Owned in a Census Tract, was done by allocating the
statewide total of the greater of the sum of all foreclosure completions between January
2007 and June 2010 (from RealtyTrac)or the sum of all foreclosure starts between
January 2007 and March 2010 (from the Mortgage Bankers Association) based on each
Tracts share of a states estimated number of seriously delinquent loans. The estimated !
number of seriously delinquent loans was calculated by multiplying the estimated rate of
seriously delinquent loans times the number of mortgages made between 2004 and
2007 (from Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data).
i
1 NSP 3 Allocation Methodology—US Department of Housing and Urban Development Page 3
I
¢00000000000000000000a000000000AOOOOOOo
LL U) CV V: (O Mr r Oa r r r r r r O '7 C! O N (O (*)N N tD I-� r M N M 11 M10 ' MMMM
O V
C? U? C? -q- 00 CO � CO 00 CO CO CO to r- 00 1)) CO ai a) v M M V � rh of q CO 'T 0) "r .0 V' t 'T V
`1 T Cv ' N MM NMMM C? I? M M N It N (M It N NM L? R'N V C? V I I?
Q C N E
Z tit 7
d C L
O a. X
d] lO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O) M 01 10 CO r N 0 r U) V N N (D r W U)0) O O O W M '7 'n (O (P N CO r a) V f` U)
C T O N O Qr NMN a) OrN0 tom- N COhNN CO V tO CO t0 V
(0 (D (DOr V c0
4/ N L N ❑
d `(!
d M O a>i o T
0 V J N
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�.0 y (-- V: r C? (I m O) O M CO N 0 IP �O O CO h to N CO 01170 VNr 17 '11 f�- (D 01 'C (0 CO 01� 00 OR
M (D O 'q (D N (0 0 LO 0) (0 � 0 0) CO O CO U) m U1 (D U) U) �t(D U) p N CO U)N N a) h N tO U) N
0 T L (� ❑
U V)
(L o oa) oT
J U N v
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0
3 ,C (D h OU)rm V r OJ '1) (() a) (Oh t- (D U) V:V; U) 00 � ter (.: U) (0 O CO U) M W U) V t00 M CON
Q V)yO O) CS)c M (h MU> U) (p U) M 1012 V (O Ca CONU7 M(D h OJ 6f d) d1 V' N CO to (O0) U) 'r a) 00 h O CO
_ f9 N Q .- r Cl) r N r r M N r N M N N N N r M N N r r CO N
C +� N d 172
M In 0. 0 0 0 p T
U N
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0
N C G 'O000MM V- t-, U) t- W � (O NO V U) (0 r r N U) (D t0 a) N N (0 N (0 d' r": IQ a) M U) COO
E N r h M N U) V U) t V co V' M to V' (D(O(0 U) c- h- r N h CO h 0 O h 0) co r M O h O O M O
0 N
_O N C J
E C CU N (f1
L
=
U o
N
O (0 U) 1- 0 U) (DLO ) NN U) CO r N NON WN U)OhM _M OMU) w _M (O
CO C 'C7 L tD O h 0 V h M U) U) M r th tD U) h N CO M V h M M Q)7` O U) t+ V O CO h (O N
} a-r w O ` CM C!0) r O O M h (O (O rr N CO vi M(O U) h� r0) VrI (D OU) h- tD CO ED M CO V O V V'
O C d O (p (Oh IN (D d' M r (Dr NNrhr (O N CO
CO
r
X m 7 C' s n N
C4
W O j, y a)U)
C
rh (0 V rno0h V cD (� h W CO MM U) N CO V CON 0MMMMMMM NNNMM CO
U O a s r O � N M fN M V CMD m � M M M r M V O U (MD CO M tM0 CO O W U) cO o M oN0 V V (MD
`�' W (n O NN ;rN (V U) qM 0) M U) O 'O V NU)(D (D V' (0 (D Mr h CO V' V V V(0 CO t�- CO LO LO CO
O 3 Q C O
W 0 O O L N
O N
O L E .M.r
U- ('�
(D 0 00h U) CO r r- CD V (D V (f)M h 00) h U) h. N M h CO 0) N 0) M q- Mh Nt 0 L
C 00U) 00U) Nh O hCO V V V NO a) Mh CO V CO to IN U) NOr010)M (�)
N O 001700 V U1 N a1 O M h CO M f-MO OMN r M M r M O CO(0 r M V 170) 100) 1-
+-' _ 0 0 (0 0,60)0) I) V N CO CO a) h O CO h O(O h O h U) CO r O N(n N (V fh Vf V' O) M h U)
N @ O O (� O O U7 N N M O N U) O O t� N CO V (D (O h t(1 h h M O (D' (D W t 'r) CO Cn
'J U COOU) OOOOO N Cl) hr M N O rhM V U) (�U) W rM Occ NNhN V N t:r V M (D
O 0 LO Ili U1 LO Ir (0N CO 'V Mrl- M M 4) �NN MMM V N N
CQ U3 U)U)U)UJ W to flj U)w(!)M U)U3 C19 w U)U)In U)w w U)U)U)Ca Ca U)f9 f!)ff3 EA EA(fl(A
(p M Q
� a
z
m
m
i0
❑
Q) ZZ W z z
� ww w �LLI 0
0 `L° ww ww F- �z w ❑
CL �' FF -j -1 _ O��i o zU) � oc w
U U _j �
rn U) — z � wwUwaUOZ �z Qw 00 owZZO � Q ¢
w zww(9ww Xz ¢ WQ CO w0wtL00 wooE-- zOQ— gL ¢ OO > > ¢ z
zzzzz ZOOoonwo < oaf mzw(n Ezw w ¢ � -� rxwz ¢
$ 00- 00 ¢ wcnzzz� a � ¢ -j 0- (Dw0 ¢ Uw �¢O (r <wM9UwO .,� ol-
zz� zz(nOUO¢ wo � R=¢ zY� w2iz (nwo �F- 2w0zz0 -j �z
o Y� 0 �t� w = o> = �wo ¢OZ ¢ ¢ OwwOOWOQzO? ¢¢ ¢ f- ¢ va- 00
r� ¢¢ tn ¢ Q2QI-¢U0n. cn ��a0mUt> Z- � 2ooawwU) (0U) § 0U
U
0
Q
n CO r
C a (n
v
c4 � ¢ � ¢ � � � az a¢ ¢ ¢ Q aaQQ Q ` a �� � ci � �� � c � ��� � � c ��
rn
N
`O Attachment: EXHIBIT B- NSP3 Methodology&Allocations (4380 : NSP Substantial Amendment)
I
(juewpuawV Ieque;sgnS dSN 08£b) S103f ONd dSN -O 1I81HX3 :Iuaw4aeIIV o
U M '
m Exhibit C
� zn
a
a�
Address Type of Project I
691 W. 8th St Rehabilitation and Resale
571 W. 16th St Rehabilitation and Resale
RehabilitatFnn�and resale
1962 W. 17th St Rehabilitation and Resale
2104 E. 18th St Rehabilitation and Resale
_
rs II +
Rehabil�tatronzand Resale
754 W. 18th St Rehabilitation and Resale
Own—',
e �t Wi�
1804 W.20th St Rehabilitation and Resale
1218 N. BIackstone Rehabilitation and Resale
— 1�tata Z On ar�"R esalMIT,r ..
1659 Dumbarton Rehabilitation and Resale
rF d°'""r' A xr—{�Mr.,..-,k•. 5# 7'2�ds" �� *s � Z.. it ^•x ^Y, r,r^.. t".' �.i I
356Dumbarfo � ;x� l l t f t i sl ehbltat�oandZesale M"{ {'' }_
a.�`�
1873 W. Gilbert St Rehabilitation and Resale
1659 Guthrie Rehabilitation and Resale I
r'Frr`."'". i.'4 "'%
2S$ :KrSt �v� x r � `x Rhabilfahbn andl Resales
n.,Y.nc.... r fR'
1107 N L Street Rehabilitation and Resale `
1435 N Lugo Ave Rehabilitation and Resale
rc�a. °TB fh .�"A :-23t -arm. r1•-^"�
{545/S 2 Mllraloj , s ` * r ehaIlitaiC3n$nClResale
568 Mikalor Rehabilitation and Resale y
1725 Mountain View Rehabilitation and Resale
q �� � Rehalil�taion end Regale 4 �IJ
N
1665 Pennsylvania Rehabilitation and Resale
� 3
2091 Sepulveda Rehabilitation and Resale
ji
1519 W. Virginia Rehabilitation and Resale
1551 Wall Ave Rehabilitation and Resale
957 Western Ave Rehabilitation and Resale
2069 E. 19th St R Demolition
r r ,>-cr y :ice.k E !s I;F +a✓`,,,�I m" a .�
n �'^--'a .:.,.r. _ry,,g75: "'mt
i
i
(;uawpuawy IequelsgnS dSN 08Eti) S133f oMd dSN -0 1ISIHX3 :Iuawyae;;y
V M
m Exhibit C
cfl �
n.
a�
1888 Argyle Ave Demolition
a
174 W. Olive St Demolition
rr j"�"v r. I ._.k "?� 'S• �I{err^°'_. I n F a ?"� �'
923 N.Pico Ave pDemolition
2044 Sunrise Lane Demolition
� •rr.--�r .-- 4c r f'o .e�°"'�`"4 '�x e" s.xa'*- �w xigt,
2•1E56 E:Su�rtse�L'a�ce���Y{ � 5 �'� .-�-�Demolitzozz� ,�� � �, � ���;��� y�i '
1405 N.Lugo Ave. Rehabilitation and Rental
'a�'l-5,:..:.w/+r+-�m�^.mm+z�i' .,g• �s, rj � `p� " }'S�'^�s' �,� ,..,,�'s""�� +�..: �� �' 1t� I+I H.J
2104 E. 19th St. Rehabilitation and Rental
E121 S Er 9th St �Y �x 2ehal t on andRen#aI 4Erit 9 Y
2148 E. 19th St. Rehabilitation and Rental
_fir" 'ce^n �r. C. p A: •4, - 1,Vin- ^rul s•*2,�
ke 294 E� 19th St IMIyy� Re is ilzta#�o and lZen#al w` k F
2205 Sunrise Lane Rehabilitation and Rental
1464 W.Victoria Rehabilitation and Rental
,.�,bF.
.A-w 4r..,n •�
1405 N Lugo Avenue Rehabilitation and Rental
. xen''�ins.,.VIEW... itblatioi�andieF3t
1058 N. Sierra Way Rehabilitation and Resale
1146 N Sierra Way Rehabilitation and Resale
WIN
) T1igAvnuew1 ,,: ,{ iabtatzoxz and'nesaleu '
1353 Sepulveda Avenue Rehabtlztatzon and Rental
k�,Y420��Wall��,venue ��r��. Fart I.,,jG l ;��R�habYXa.�afiot�.fan�1��2.�esale;�FFS�JI�hu ``
1594 Belle Street Rehabilitation and Rental
h��''14�V.������t�eeet `,,���r�� •�;_`��`.''}'r� ��.;Reh�a`btl�t�`ati�n#arid,'Resale��F�E_������{
220 W. Orange Street Rehabilitation and Resale
*Note:Any repeated properties fisted were acquired by NSP1 and homes were rehabilitated with NSP3.
i
I
_ N
r
k' L
k£ t
ffi
! �e��• g `+1 z
of o
10 0
q t Rtr C>
CL
Ca
a. 'a
CO
OD
& `Tw °' o En
Cl)
V) N r
CL
Ca
4a 1 C
w
a
Os
N
° a,
CN
r
C
•�--� s} 'k f U)
ON � +
LU
g N a w
CL
� N
� O
w
CD
C
N,
W fl.
N Attachment: EXHIBIT E - Locations of Proposed Projects (4380 : NSP Substantial Amendment)
��.
2
\� !
§ n
. � k
f §
. § $
® \
2 §
/CO
.)
e q
� / D
CO
t =
& /
/ . \
/ \
. §
ƒ
� 7
$
/
C/) \
> m
. > +
> /
(D . . \
. � >
CrA ». @
C) §
' §. m
4
m k
2
E
« E
e
. ®
. l §
+:
. a
/\ �
Attachment: EXHIBI T E. Locations of Proposed Projects (4380 : NSP Sub bnm Amendment \
f
a
�I
L
0
CO
O N
at
o
0
U
C
O X
Y (p
CL
O cN�
O D
O CO
�O
� N
O e
N �
O E
M
cV
rn E
A E v
C3
CO E
_m
v
E
h
N
� O
M
Z r
i�
N
��a11
I V
r
N
a
U
0
c
b
� c
Q m
I �
U
z
j U
N +
ON
l +
i
CO
CL
CL
rT
E
� m
t
Attachment: EXHIBIT E - Locations of Proposed Projects (4380 : NSP Substantial Amendment)
.
LU
6
E Coneio Dr—. — X JJ
a J7 Garden pr ;
r„ w
Golden Ave N o� N Tippccaftc�e3 Ave .
"� uJ Tippecanac 5t
c" t1
Cedar ut t� Ceder St v
i z E Bohbett Dr UJ
Windsor Dr � `J � N
w
E5 �U
4 D LL
� , a"V ODUals'h
, - Valencia Ave A e
Fremc�ntia Dr Cresivicrtje u °CO
rz Parkside"Dr ti># ` X L a
Q N IW
_ �' t4 j�'1�3t%trTl�ti Ave N 1'datcrrnnn Ave -
w a,, , o
r- n r r 1 01
w Sepulveda Ave ; "' r'"1
ur N Lugo td Luga Ave
N Sierra'May rn-J N SiFtr
N'M
Genevieve mio Vii tV,ivy 1 w iu
u tai
E N Pershing Ave �� N Pershing Ave
M
N Attowhead Ave ,V Arrot'tl�ead Ave N Arrowhead Ave � N Af�r
`r N Ma/field Ave
o to U St
c° N Stoddard Ave c 0) i
rr as
F` tJ.l✓1� �. S 4 <L Led 1/l
c
N 1 ,t � '
G
M NGSt .r 1 NGSt EC O a v
NHSt Nllst NUlSt - N1-1
NISI
-J
ri-
to
o
,�.. "
v> U? 0) o, N Lr7
V —
LO
C*4
I
I ` W Mt Vernon Ave
N O "
M � n
Western Ave N a
CO
LO 21�1
x t
x �a
c h,ledical Center Dr o-
� 'I�aipalrl E
n IS UOGIM A! fi E E
5 \ O o
y u L r
° ,(l� C) « °l�uua d N m
C14 e v vo
7 LU
hl t:ahfcarrn<,St � d;Califarnia'St cJ � `°' E
\tFl, dk� C CD
CN
N 00\11
N N:;t.3teSt
"' Attachment: EXHIBIT E- Locations of Proposed Projects (4380 : NSP Substantial Amendment)
i
i
i
E
0
U
N
N
E
0
y
U:
u" Q In U)
UI p D
N
o)
V
U U CO
N
0)
Q V
U o
O CO c
L
a m c�
c
c c
o CU m
CO
(U m c
o (n
Ca
M to
U? > Q
a)
o C o
i C
-- o W 0 Z
Q �
N N 00)
[� a o
i o
E N
CL C
o I r
i
o a
C vi
0 Ca
CIO
CL o
o
..�
a
Attachment: EXHIBIT E - Locations of Proposed Projects (4380 : NSP Substantial Amendment)
I
(;uawpuawV Ie13ue;sgnS dSN 08£V) ueldaool_A - 3 1181HX3 .}u9wWel;y
Cl)
c; )NI tSd3N12iVd .10H R
� � N 1
QF' O. I
f0
CL
i
p tom,.if:'r s•.f ft���i`S'.
� r•s :.';i '�•':LF�''Y J
i•t°'� •'ire Jt�i�!�:
g
'•%'{:�'f'ii.iii
F• j• !�'•f.i bt i.
.3• a !. i�� j fy.Y.t�±.0
I
(juawpuawV 1e1;ue;sgnS dSN : OS£ti) ueldaoo13 - 31181HX3 :}uauayoelly
co
d M
N
to ']NI'S2l3NidVd I_ ,10H
a a
m
a
1
3
f
F
1-tt
- ra - .Nf-A Ss .4x•3 t-t �J�c• � s-N
c
t nl 1
ac
I�
a
D
o-x
a d
a go
z
JJ
J
i
I
I
(}uawpuawy Ie1;ue;sgnS dSN 08£ti) luew}snfpy 396pn8 -3 1181HX3 :;uaw43el}y
o� I
M
N
a
m
Y
V
Rf
CL
r
i
c o o 0 0 0 0
ooa o000
000 �o (q1 i
N OOO N ONO)
ak 0
Lq M to p� r 00 O
Q
O O i
T
N n m
N tm N C)
LL m LL m I
i
O O O O 00
4 0 0 O O O
f
't0 0 0 C a 00 ' t0 T
U C 0 00 U O VO' M O
0 a T o a
o o
aQ a` Q
0 0 0 0 0
O O 0 0 0
CO oo f° 000
LO 00 0 u> 00 C: °
o
C5 C5 a vOCio
N.a to N N,c
W 11J
7 N N O N VOi toil
FTR' UJW F�( WWW
LO m
f
W Zrn0O rnroo
E ;tr .1 c7 *7rp
0 UO drN
0 U N U O N
O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 O 0
O O O O N
? C7OOO Z U' OOOO
LL U-
C3 C3 CD
i
N N
cn
Z LL Z LL
N N N N
Ezzi
u N N N ti
' G r N C N N I
C2. CL E x 0 0 E x 7 0 0
im
d U U U N U U j
'p = C C 'O C a C C C
Q O t` O
' .C.. �_O d w O N w O
0 N 0 a d a
> to CO m C> 0 0) C> 0 0
m oa m N
0E as
I
f
t '
i
6.B.g
RESOLUTION NO:
1
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
2 SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE
3 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015/2016
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM ACTION PLAN; AUTHORIZING
4 THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE 2015/2016 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET; AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUCH DOCUMENTS AS
5 REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT TO EFFECTUATE THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION.
6 =
E
7 WHEREAS, in Fiscal Year 2015/2016 the City of San Bernardino, California (the "City"),
8 a
is entitled to receive funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban i
9
10 Development ("HUD") under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP") for the purpose of W
Cn
11 assisting individuals; and a.
Z
12 WHEREAS, NSP is subject to certain statutory and regulatory provisions governing the c
co
M
13 Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") program and as a direct recipient of CDBG
c
0
14 funds, has submitted to HUD and HUD has approved a Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2015- o
N
15 2019 and a Consolidated Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 (the "Action Plan"); and
16
WHEREAS, the City is required by its own Citizen Participation Plan, to prepare and
17 E
submit a substantial amendment to the annual Action Plan whenever a new project/activity is added, a
18
w
19 in accordance with the consolidated plan procedures for a substantial amendment under the annual
0
20 NSP program; and in
a.
Cn
21 WHEREAS, the City has provided citizens adequate opportunity to review and comment on z
c
22 the proposed substantial amendment to the annual Action Plan as stipulated by the City's Citizen E
23 �
Participation Plan; and Q
24
WHEREAS, the City owns 8 vacant lots and is seeking to amend the 2015-2016 Action
25
26 Plan to complete the NSP program goals by constructing single-family residences on three (3) of the
27 lots.
28
1
Packet Pg.240
6.B.g ;
1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND
ORDERED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
2 BERNARDINO,AS FOLLOWS:
3
Section 1. That the Mayor and Common Council hereby approve the Substantial
4
5 Amendment to the Consolidated Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 to include a
6 supplemental appropriation in the amount of $1,491,873 under the Neighborhood Stabilization
E
7 Program(NSP) for the purpose of funding necessary to design, bid and build the NSP homes. -0
a�
E
8 Section 2. That amending the City's 2015-2016 budget to include the funding necessary a
9 to design, bid and build the NSP homes, a total of$1,491,873 to be added to the current budget of 2
y
10
$1,000,000 for a total NSP budget for fiscal year 2015/2016 of$2,491,873. The breakdowns are as co
0.
11 in
follows: z
12 c
00
Cl)
7T-
13 NSP 1 FUND 120
c
0
14 Proposed Budget
GL Account No. Type(Rev/Ex ) Adjustments 0
15 120-060-0000-4695 Revenue 1,000,000.00
16 120-100-0014-5502 Expense 850,000.00 E
17 120-100-2350-5502 Expense 150,000.00
E
18 NSP 3 FUND 122
Proposed Budget
19 GL Account No. Type(Rev/Ex ) Adjustments w
122-060-0000-4695 Revenue 491,873.00
20 rn
122-100-0014-5111 Expense -
Cn
21 122-100-0014-5502 Expense 392,686.00 ?
22 122-100-2058-5502 Expense 99,187.00
E
23
Section 3. That the City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to amend the 2015- Q
24
25 2016 Fiscal Year Budget to execute, after review and approval by the City Attorney, and submit to
26 HUD the appropriate applications, agreements and ancillary documents that are prepared and
27 herein approved, a copy of which are on file with the City Clerk, and are incorporated herein by
28 reference as though fully set forth at length.
2
Packet Pg.241
1 Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption and execution in the
b the City manner as required 2 q by Y Charter.
3
4
5
6
E
7 c
/// E
8 a
9
10
CO
11 N
z
12 CO
13 o
f 14
y
15
16
17
E
18
c
19
20 0
a.
21 z
c
22
23 w
24
25
26
27
28
3
'Packet Pg.242.
6.B.g
I RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE
2 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015/2016
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM ACTION PLAN; AUTHORIZING
3 THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE 2015/2016 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET; AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUCH DOCUMENTS AS
4 REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
5 DEVELOPMENT TO EFFECTUATE THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION.
6 _
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and E
7
_
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, E
8
9 held on the day of , 2016,by the following vote to wit:
N
10 Council Members: Ayes Nays Abstain Absent cn
11 Cn
MARQUEZ
12 0
IBARRIOS
13 VALDIVIA =
0
14 SHORETT 2
0
15 NICKEL d
w
16 RICHARD
E
17 MULVIHILL
E
18 a
w
19 Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk
20 cn
0.
21 z
22 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of , 2016.
s
23 r
w..
a
24 R. Carey Davis, Mayor
25 City of San Bernardino
Approved as to Form:
26 Gary D. Saenz, City Attorney
27 By:
28
4
Packet Pg. 243