Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Senior Housing Task Force Report 3 y,p-2� CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 27, 1987 ORAL COMMUNICATION SUBJECT Alameda County Senior Housing Needs Task Force Final Report and Recommendations to Dublin City Council. EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1. Draft Resolution endorsing, in principle, a general obligation bond issue to finance the construction of housing in Alameda County for low income seniors and the disabled 2. Alameda County Senior Housing Needs Task Force Final Report 3. Letter to the City Manager from John N. Shepherd, Alameda County Housing and Community Development Coordinator, inclusive of the following attachments: - Draft Resolution for adoption by City - Copy of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Resolution Number R-87-317 adopted April 21, 1987, approving preparation of a proposal for the development of housing for low income seniors and disabled financed through the issuance of general obligation bonds - Executive Summary of Final Report of the Alameda County Senior Housing Needs Task Force - Financial Feasibility Plan to Implement the Alameda County Senior Housing Needs Task Force - Special Addendum to Senior Housing Report RECOMMENDATION t (�►� : 1. Hear presentaiton. 2. Adopt Resolution endorsing in principle a general obligation bond issue to finance the construction of housing in Alameda County for low income seniors and the disabled. FINANCIAL STATEMENT • Undetermined. DESCRIPTION • I. Background On April 21, 1987 the Alameda County Board of Supervisors adopted County Resolution Number R-87-317. This Resolution approved the preparation of a proposal to develop housing in Alameda County for low income seniors and the disabled, financed through the issuance of general obligation bonds. The Resolution appointed Supervisor Charles Santana as the Board's representative to work with County Staff and Staff from the Conference of Mayors to oversee the development of the proposal. In addition, the Resolution directed Alameda County's Planning Director to work with Cities and other affected County departments to develop the proposal. ITEM NO. 3. / COPIES TO: Planning Department 3 As a result of this Resolution, the Alameda County Senior Housing Technical Advisory Committee was formed. The Committee is made up of representatives from Alameda County Cities (including Dublin) , County Staff, a non-profit housing development corporation, and the California Congress of Seniors. This Committee is in the process of developing the proposal for presentation to the Board of Supervisors in November of this year. Supervisor Santana and Ilene Weinreb (Vice-Chair of the Senior Housing Needs Task Force) will be working on the proposal with John Shepherd (Alameda County's Housing and Community Development Coordinator) . II. Issues During tonight's meeting, the Council will hear presentations by Ilene Weinreb and John N. Shepherd. The presentations will focus on the Alameda County Senior Housing Task Force Final Report (Attachment 2) . This report shows a need for low income senior housing in Alameda County. Your review of the report and any questions you might have on this issue should be directed to Ms. Weinreb and Mr. Shepherd. In order to show support of the plan to provide housing for low income seniors and the disabled throughout out Alameda County, a Resolution has been prepared for your review. Adoption of this Resolution indicates that the City recognizes that there is an affordable housing problem for low income seniors and the disabled in the County and that it does in principle support a general obligation bond issue to finance construction of housing for these individuals. In the Final Report, the Task Force recommends that Alameda County pass a general obligation bond issue including an Article 34 referrendum requirement. If approved, local elections will be held to consider whether housing for low income seniors and the disabled will be allowed in the City. III. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution endorsing, in principle, a general obligation bond issue to finance the construction of housing in Alameda County for low income seniors and the disabled. -2- RESOLUTION NO. 56 - 87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ENDORSING IN PRINCIPLE A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUE TO FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING IN ALAMEDA COUNTY FOR LOW INCOME SENIORS AND THE DISABLED WHEREAS, on July 27, 1987 the City Council received the Report of the Alameda County Senior Housing Needs Task Force; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the Senior population is the most rapidly growing segment of the population; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that a large portion of the Senior and Disabled populations are on fixed incomes and have low incomes; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the private market is not and cannot fulfill this need for affordable housing without public support and there is a limited amount of Federal and State assistance to support housing for Low Income Seniors and the Disabled; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the need to join with other neighboring communities to take action to meet this need; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does endorse, in general principle, a General Obligation Bond Issue to finance construction of housing for Low Income Seniors and the Disabled in Alameda County; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council and Staff will work with the County and other Cities in the County to develop the bond issue. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of July, 1987 AYES: Cm. Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder, and Mayor Jeffery NOES: None ABSENT: None Ma/fr * ATTEST: City Cler 1 ExkL bLt 0 RECEIVED ',A, 1. 71987 TABLE OF CONTENTS DURUN PLANNWG I• STATEMENT OF BACKGROUND II. , FINDINGS 1 A. Shortage of Affordable Housing i. The Rental Market 5 -Section 8 Availability -Tax-exempt bond rental construction -Homeowners in the rental market B. Substandard and Lack of Suitable Housing. .•.••.... .•..• i. Rental Housing . .9 ii. Homeownership •• C. Escalating Rents. .... ...... .. .......................... . ............. . ...12 III. CONCLUSION.. ................. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS... V. ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES.... ... ................ .. ....... ...... . ... .... I6 APPENDICIES APPENDIX A. Senior Housing Needs Task Force Membership Roster APPENDIX B. Senior Housi S ng Needs Assessment, Alameda County, Executive umma ry APPENDIX C. Results of Task Force Housing Survey APPENDIX D. Summaries of Senior Housing Needs Task Force Community ity APPENDIX E. List of Key Informants and Summary of Interviews LIST OF TABLES TABLE I. Department of Finance Population Projections, 1980-2020 Vacancy Rates in Alameda County TABLE III. Existing Rental Subsidy Need for households in 1ow/moderate income senior Alameda County TABLE IV. 1980 Census Data, Age by Poverty Status EXHIBIT 2 Statement of Background The Alameda County Senior Housing Needs Task Force was formed of 1984 to address the problems faced by in September retaining ng adequate and affordable housing. The ask Force,ce, which hn finding al or consisted of a handful of concerned citizens, grown to nhtoh o include representatives from each of the cities in the county in addition ncmume '4 involved with housing and senior orga�etions.(1) n to members Asked by the County Administrator to document the need of affordable • housing among Alameda County seniors, the Task Force questions in order to posed .ma following e two affected by proceed with a needs assessment: How many seniors were The Task Force also gathered and what was the impact on the senior population? the count demographic data about the number of seniors in the C unty, their geographical placement, income, and general housing cha field of characteristics. The Task Force wanted to obtain testimony from experts is to illucidate and define°theme d from the elderly living in Alameda Count Based ,upon the scope of the study, County methodology incorporating scope y, the Task Force developed a research document need. The combbjnatiosgofnthe fo]lowiaggfourtresearch measures it to the basis from which the findings, research strategies form ngs, conclusions and recommendations are derived. Statistical Analysis 1) The Task Force utilized interns from the University of Census Data of California, Berkeley,Department of City and Regional Planning, to provide the statistical analysis of the 1980 census data related to housing and income status of seniors in the county and overall housing characteristics of that grouping. Some of this material had never before been obained Survey from the Census tapes. (2) 2) The Task Force distributed a survey to each city manager in the county, requests current senior hoist ng information about housing and ng concerns, extent of subsidized existing need.(3) Public Meetings 3) The Task Force sponsored public meetings in Oakland, Dublin, Hayward and San Leandro to learn from the seniors themselves who are from different areas of the County, about their housing concerns. Letters and calls to the Department on Aging were received from those seniors unable to attend the meetings. Furthermore, questionnaires were distributed to each individual at each hearing to elicit information from those participants uncomfortable with public speaking.(4) Interview with Key y 4) The Task Force interviewed 22 service providers and administrators involved with housing and aging as a further means of gathering g g issues information concerning the g emaoftatfve housing for the elderl problem of affordable Throughout the earlier meetings of the Task Force, discussion broadly addressed a number of elderly concerns addressed special needs of tel frail elderly including tm living y ruppdrtgve an to meet g situation. The Task Force concluded rthatyto- addressiadequatelyethe independent ,. needs of the frail elderly, a separate study would be required Task Force did not i no re the importance of supportive Although the g P pportive services as it relates *See recommendation No. 3, page 25. -1- , to housing of the frail elders report. Based upon the preliminary issue will not be the focus of the surveys ort. of Based upon t managers, ry findings of the census data and the - discussion to three identifiable problems:Task Force limited the scope of the units; financial strains for homeowners min maintaininggt of affordable with low or non-existent mortage a8 their properties rental subsidized Section 8 senior apartments.nts; and the limited availb ityof even =' of low-and .t moderte income who can function This focused the analysis on seniors For the purpose of our discussion the definitionofoorapartme, low or home. moderate income, affordable housing, and suitable h senior, low and Senior: housing follows:(6) A senior is defined as anyone 65 or over accords the 1980 census data. ' For purposes of according to • the age group of 60-64 will be included. This chhang i will be noted in the text when a This change Very Low income: appropriate. Households falling in a cate o percent of the �' that is less then 50 regional median income. Low-income: Households falling regional median n income. 51 and 80 percent of the Moderate income; Households falling between 81 and 120 percent of the regional median income. Affordable Housing: Housing for which the household pays no more than 30 percent of the total gross household income, including utilities. Suitable Housing: Housing that is up to standard of city housing that does not re and rsate codes; sacrifice physical or metalehealthdtolmaintain and inhabit the residence. Discussion of the findings Alameda County of the fi di include the overall impact Although the elderly quantity available on the elderly ou in in y cohort share similar concerns inthe affordable housing. ecurit unique problems of the renter and the homeowner security and accessibility to services, the discussion will address separately uni affordable pr housing. retaining the The renters and homeowners face different p em sometimes requiring different solutions. The Task Force found that the problems affordable housing were inseparable from mtheeoveralloconcerns moderate income elderly. g and retaining Task Force agrees Although the conclusions are broadly of the row and affordable rental uhatsone need takes precedence: set forth,c the acknowledging low and moderate income seniors. construct new that 1) federal support for Furthermore, disappeared, and 2) mortgage new construction has almost disappeared,low income seniors,and revenue bonds do not adequately meet the needs of need low develop i mfinancial the Task Force from its early nmedemo f Sacioa hetretegt, plan is recentedei the strategy. That financial plan is presented Implementation plt between the aeon ores of in the each city,, this sr inc that additional ts strategies that cities can adopt, Y, this report seniors in their includes aen homes. Not al in to keep low and moderate income Alameda County, apply to all the cities of -2- 0 The Alameda County Senior Housing Task Force clearly understands meeting the housing needs of the low and moderate income senior wl that easy. But the findingsreveal that without immediate attention, the impact be the shortage will adversely affect the noon the impact of • elderly and compound the quality of life for the moderate income elderly. _ problems already facing the low and very low income ta' - Introduction "As the population of America a becoming the norm, The number of ages, more and smaller households are rapidly and, ns fact,The people people over 60 years of age are growing P ple over 75 are proportionately the ifa test age group in America. Elden in central in cities and rural Elderly people are no to graying" ral areas; the suburbs are now concentrated only Y ng" as the younger migrant households of the 1950' and experiencing 9 a place.." (7) • The national trend of the aging Ors "age in illuminates a. similar g ng population, as described above, see the elderly imilar trend surfacing in Alameda • Y growing at a steady County. In Alameda County we Population increased Y rate. From 1980 to 1985, the population 1l.tX n increased among by 11.2X (12,788 more seniors) with the over 64 127,400 seniors ng those in the 70-74 age gall greatest increase Finance, niors residing in Alameda County. group. There are a data projections y' According to the Department approximately of Alameda County seniors indicate an increase of 26,500 in the m 020..(8 in But number `' . senior population.groups (over 75) will groat an even faster rate than the overall ra Population. (9) a than the overall Senior households in 1.60 persons households Alameda County are small. On the average Alameda persons County 32a97d with a figure for the County households of2.53. contain Count ( ) seniors live. C10) In Public agencies concerned alone.(u) must study ages trend to me with senior issues as well as must rental housing determine future housing private developers affect low ng is in demand, rorendaratirnet If and moderate income seniors. the tighter rental market will . from their neighborhoods in search Many elderly will be forced to move from will neighborhoods unsatisfactory,borho ds in of affordable housin their needs• placing them in units no longer many, the • • longer citable to THE FINDINGS Shortage of Affordable Housing "I understand that business brings jobs and money, but we cannot neglect the need for low rent housing. People on a fixed income cannot afford the increasingly high rents. Therefore needed. We have to get together andopressurenother Sauthoritiesito to problem." Angelina Merril, at the public meeting in Hayward. solve this It is rare to reach a consensus quickly on any given issue, yet public • testimony and extensive interviews with senior representatives throughout the county agree: the shortage of affordable housing has reached epidemic proportions. Particularly hard hit are low and moderate income Alameda elderly is the County. As of 1980, there were almost 50,000 (69%) senior households falling in this category; '44% were renters and 56% were homeowners.(12) -The Rental Market There are 27,130 senior renter households. (13) For those who do not receive Section 8 subsidies and are currently looking for rental housing, the prospects of locating affordable units are dim. Elderly are competing for affordable units with people living alone an apartment and thus capable of paying young working people willing to share of the local papers advertise vacancies higher rents. The classified section rental units, but low rental units have long waitingclistsndominiums and The vacancy rate as an indicator reflecting the r housing ng general shortage of .;._..., g was 1.2% County wide in 1984.(14) Alameda County ranks in the bottom 25% of residential vacancy rates among 26 major California regions b surveyed the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. According to this survey y by vacancies are well dispersed throughout the county and no area has a vacancy rate of more than 1.8Z.(15) Steve Belcher of Oakland, characterizes the shortage in the following manner: "Six percent is the vacancy rate whey developers usually start considering building new rental housi where percent reflects moving in and out of a builds housing. Three percent apartment becomes available, it's word of mouth.".oBa Based upon the ovacancy arate in the county, one can characterize the situation as critical and more importantly not meeting the needs of the people. Unfortunately, respondents throughout the County agreed, the only affordable units for an elderly person on a fixed income given current market prices are subsidized units. Task Force findings indicate that the number of assisted housing units for the low and moderate income elderly is grossly short of the need. County wide there are 7,575 rental subsidy units but a stated need of 18, 702 units. (16) -Section 8 Availability The requests from Public Housing Authorities to the Federal government for Section 8 Certificates far outnumber the actual allotment from t Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) . For 1985, only 5,000 Section 8 Certificates were issued to Public Housing Authorities accross the nation; there were 25,000 requests. This number of requests is a conservati figure as Public Housing Authorities acknowledge the limited Section 8 tive allotments by asking what is "reasonable" in light of availabilit fr rather than what is "needed" in the Y om HUD community. According to Kathy Elliot, -c r' "there is no guarantee that eligible Alameda County senior citizens are to to be recipients of Section 8 funds. " Locally g ing y the Alameda County Housing Authority accept applications once or twice a year. Senior citizens usually occupy one bedroom only units. Their incomes seldom change, so once they obtainaSe do or studio Certificate they.will remain in the ro ctin 8 , institutionalized. This p gram until they die or are iii the Alameda County results in a very low turn-over. Because of this, 1984 and y Housing Authority last accepted applications in October of will not accept new applications until March of 1986. The County and the Housing Authorities of the cities have waiting lists lists both applicants people already Section 8 Certificate holders and mailing g As of November 1985, 1100oseniors applicants to the Section 8 lip program. city's Housing Counselor requesting application d Leandro have telephoned the According to Linda Peterson of the Alameda CountyoHousing Authority,8 Hr yng. the applications for Section 8 Certificates have been fr mhe it o Leand ra. Peterson a most of seniors have explained, "San Leandro is an older community, of San A. lived there most of their life, and they want to remain mosi of the community." main in the In Oakland, elderly people seeks wait fnom e to three seeking a one bedroom apartment will have to have fn a years before the Housing Authority will permit them to application on file. Once their name is on the waits face any where from a one year to five waiting list, seniors Staff at the Oakland Housing year wait for a one bedroom apartment. then one bedroom apartments. Authority stated that studios were more available Generally, the key informants interviewed state that waiting lists for housing can range anywhere from eight months to five . Galante of Eden Housing, years. In Hayward, Carol seniors face a three to�five year ewait for non-profit corporation, stated that there are three subsidized or partially subsidized hoinrounits. In Nis fo low income families and seniors, and the other two are for seniors One only. for list for available space entails a two to three year wait. In Pleasanton, seniors face a three n1y. The at the North County housing meeting subsidized housing tests ng units.for subs testimony housing from one to two � estimated waiting lists for subsidized housing, residents to do two years. Given the high cost and limited availability of Freshman, a property manager move for manymHUDctron 8 units. oucorrryg to h Ruth resident) oupro ert " They are either too incapcitatedtto careyforcthemselves independently or they pass on." The result of the long waiting lists is often frustration and dispair on the part of the elderly resident. Subsidized housing p r s can come to a guarantee of the low rent apartment theyiseeke closest seniors -Tax-Exempt Bonds: Not meeting the needs of the low-income elderly The partnership between the Federal Government and private developers produce new low-income housing has declined during the Reagan administration as funds for to and counties areenowehavingsubsidized low almost income housing tie and for sabeinozed and affordable housing.almost , ve diminished. Cities ally on local and prate study by the Bay Area Council, although "availability g According to the April 1985 rental project financing is one of the singlemostimportant-fxemor bonds for Bay Area's rental housing boom," very factors in the targeted to households with incomes less of the units being built are even for the below-market rate units requiredninl projects d this hold true financed thh h frough f tax-exempt bonds. The seniors who depend on SSI as their major source of income cannot afford this housing. If married, the senior household income falls somewhere between $12,000 and $13,000 annually, and drasticall low the senior is a single female. Y er if The failure of the tax-exempt bond to address the needs of the low income renter is evident throughout the county. Ia Fremont ``' revealed that most seniors do not qualify for "low incomelre testimony financed by bonds. rental units" Y According to Caroline Chouinard of CAUSE, there are four new "low income" apartments financed by bonds in Fremont. The apartment managers have set an income of $1400 a month for a $447 rent rat . Ther many seniors who orignially supported the bond measure cannot qualifyhforft the new housing. he In Pleasanton, the demand for adequate housing affordable to senior citizens has far exceeded the limit. Chandler Lee, Pleasanton's City Planner, described a proposed senior housing project. According to Lee, 5% of the total units are to be available to the very low income. The actual cost of these units for very low income cannot exceed $300 a month. The next 44% of the units cannot exceed $450. The additional 51% of the units will be rented at market rate. Again, based on affordability, single elderly SSI recipients would have to pay more than 30% of their income to rent any of the proposed units. In Livermore, a proposed senior housing Below market rate units will rent from $350 to pro In drawing board. San Leandro, the City has no plans for senior housing. Accordi senior projects cannot rent at affordable rates forgthe Christine w income elderel, new without being underwritten by the government or the developer. y a .� In Albany, Jean MacDonald explained that many seniors can pay only $125 a s' ; month for rent and therefore must have subsidized housing. "We don't have subsidized housing here, and in Berkeley they are booked. Ideally we need •4 have adult housing, senior housing, here in Albany, that is reasonalby to priced. .reasonably being anywhere from two hundred to three hundred and fifty dollars. ..it may not be realistic but that is where incomes are.. ." Steve Belcher, in Oakland, summarized the extent of the problem. "There is no way you are going to make rents go down," he said, "even rent control cannot do that." Belcher doesn't believe that a few hundred units of affordable housing are meeting the extent of the need but claims, "we are doing what we can. . .It sounds hopeless, but that is reality." -Homeowners in the Rental Market Research indicates that there are many elderly homeowners presently remaining in their homes at a time in their life when rental housing would be preferable. It is difficult to establish the number of elderly in this predicament. Many elderly cognizant of the housing shortage are too frustrated to begin what is considered a futile search for affordable rental units. If elderly homeowners were to alternative, the actual demand for rental chousi gf and a the scopelofothenhous using an shortage would be greater than what is currently assessed. using "Supposing you are a 70 year old woman and you cannot take care of our house. You decide to move. You want to stay friends live nearby, your church is here. You lcannot do it, " affirms YGeor e Sandy, President of the Congress of California Seniors, g apartments "There are no (available) . " . CI) Cr- In the City of Livermore, Barbara Hempill has a list of approximately 120 seniors, the majority homeowners, hoping that an apartment complex in Springtown will be built. A majority of the people on the list are unable to maintain the coat of homeownership. In Albany, Jean MacDoanld told the Task Force that, "...it's horrible...some people have sold their homes and found rental's here but that was a while back. .• they cannot keep it up and now they have toe move away because eof increased ose cost of rental units. One bedroom apartments now rent between $550 and $600 a month." According to True French of the Senior Companion Program in Oakland, more and more of the callers are frail elderly looking for a small unit and for security. Many of the callers are elderly women, living alone in a large house, often isolated, because they are not mobile. a living environment But they strongly desire do he where they can be independent. They cannot affford nor y want or really need a nursing home. In San Leandro, Christine Steiner has received calls from homeowners seeking smaller quarters or desiring housing in places similar to Eden Lodge. According to Steiner, "For some of the seniors, the idea of moving ::.; :.'` senior home development is really appealing.ppeali ou into a move you have to give them a viable option oveou want to encourage them to Thus, informants agree, some homeowners remain in their house because limited housing options. a of Substandard and Lack of Suitable Housing As a result of the shortage of affordable housing, more and more seniors are living in housing that is no longer suitable or appropriate for their needs. , This can range from housing that is not up to code with city and county standards (substandard) to housing inaccessible to services. Many elderly according to respondents, reside in housing that limits their type of daily activities. For example, older buildings, although structurally sound may have three floors and no elevator. For the elderly resident, this kind of housing is no longer a comfort but an obstacle to daily living. -Rental Housing Interviews with community leaders involved with senior organizations and issues indicate that the elderly often move into substandard housing for lack of other types of suitable living arrangements. Tragically, elderly people will rarely report substandard conditions, fearful of eviction or a rent increase. Repeatedly, during the interview process, we were told that seniors were intimidated by their "landlords" and would rather remain in substandard conditions then risk losing what limited housing they had acquired. According to True French of the Senior Companion Program in Oakland,"A lot of the seniors live in inferior accommodations where there are health and safety violations. It is not just older women, seniors in general are afraid of rocking the boat. They know that anytime you complain you are going to have someone in the bureaucracy come down and put pressure on the owner and in turn the owner is going to put pressure on them. Any kind of corrective work is going to mean their rent is going to go up." It is clear that as the interviews proceded, the incidence of elderly living in substandard conditions were not isolated. The frequency of these accounts were most often cited in Oakland and Berkeley. These two cities together house 5,526 (62X) of the County's seniors living below the poverty level.(17) Respondents suggested that a large percentage of the elderly in substandard units were minorities. According to Rhita Wilson, minorities are most often subject to substandard housing for they historically fall into the lowest income bracket. The 1980 census substantiates her claim. According to census data, minorities make up 23.5% of the senior population and fall into the lowest income group. Wilson cited one case out of many in which a resident was living in a home unfit for shelter. "She was having to fight the rats and the roaches. There was no lock on her door. . .the stairs were bad, it was just a flat, and the lady was frail. " According to Wilson, that was not an unusual situation for minorities living in the Oakland area. Mary Hanna, a key informant working predominantly with black residents of West Oakland agrees that the historical disparity of incomes between the white population and people of color result in a greater number of minorities housed in substandard conditions. -Homeownership: The homeowner most often finds himself or herself in ill-suited housing when income no longer meets housing cost demands. There are approximately 71,000 senior households in Alameda County. About 44,000 of these units are owner-occupied by individuals over 65 years of age. (18) One fourth of the households have no mortgage and where mortgages or mortgage payments exist, these payments represent in most cases, less then 30% of total owner costs for senior households in Alamdea County. (19) On the surface, it would appear that the elderly homeowner requires minimal resources for housing needs. The statistics do not take into account long term expenses associated with homeownership, particularly maintenance costs essential to older structures. Antiquated plumbing and heating systems, painting and roofing are major expenses. When we view the cost of homeownership in this context, many elderly-are living in housing ill suited to their needs. This is not to say that the homeowner should move from the home. The shortage of available affordable housing makes moving almost impossible for the low/moderate income senior homeowner. In Alameda County, there are almost 18,000 (40X) senior owner occupied households struggling to maintain homes on less then $10,000 per year.(20) These are the elderly who are house rich/cash poor. Christine Steiner described for the Task Force, house rich/cash poor seniors living in San Leandro. According to her testimony, many seniors from all outward appearances seem to be financially secure. They may buy their clothes at a • thrift shop, and their homes look nice because they have acquired furniture in earlier years when their income was more adequate. According to Jean MacDonald, "Quite often in Albany, people feel there is no big financial need on the part of the senior citizens. I call it a group of genteel poverty in many cases. At age 65. a senior citizen is suddenly on a reduced income; most especially hit are the older women. Quite often they are not in good (financial) shape. They might be married and have the benefit of two social. security checks, but when suddenly widowed, their income is reduced drastically." True French of the Senior Companion Program in Oakland agrees, "We get people from Montclair who are in their own homes. . .but that is all they have . They don't have the option for services. . .they don't have money for food." Thus, the house rich/cash poor homeowner finds it virtually impossible to �•�,, maintain an older home without a support system from either relatives, neighborhood associations or local government. Particularly hard hit by the maintenance costs are elderly women living alone. 1980 census figures indicate that 66% of the senior women are either single, divorced, wi&owed or separated and threfore living alone, as compared with 28% of the senior males. A sampling of the different cities in Alameda County describes the county wide problem facing homeowners with limited resources. Mae Hernandez, an advocate for senior citizens in the Dublin area, brought a list of problems and needs of 60 senior citizens who were unable to attend a public hearing on housing held in July of this year. According to her list, seniors who own homes fear high medical costs and expensive home repairs will force them to sell their homes. In Livermore, the coordinator for the city's senior services told the Task Force that the problems are similar. Maintenance costs are forcing seniors from their homes, often displacing them from the community. These findings were substatiated by Barbara Hempill, Senior Administrative Assistant for the City of Livermore. According to Lillian Bell, Director of the Senior Service Center of Fremont, many of the seniors' homes have leakly roofs and backed up plumbing, but repairs are just too expensive. " Yard work presents another problem for senior homeowners throughout the County. In Albany, for example, Jean MacDonald told the Task Force, "Seniors want to have someone fix their yard because they can't. . . those who are disabled are stuck between a rock and a hard place if they don' t have the means to afford a regular gardner. ..very few want to move out. . .I know one lady that had a new roof put on and then could not afford to pay her hospital bill. . . She had to come up with $10,000. We helped her with a month of emergency food and shelter allowance which covered her utilities. " Clearly we see seniors making desperate choices in their lives to maintain their home. There comes a time both physically and financially that the homeowner senior on a fixed income cannot maintain the house. "It is survival of the fittest for senior homeowners," said Ester O'Dell, manager of Starwood Estates in Dublin. "Those who can't (survive) will have to sell, and those who can will remain homeowners." While trying to survive, elderly people sometimes attempt to increase their income by renting a room in their house. Often times they want not only additional income but someone to assist them with the yard and minor repairs. Such a solution is not always successful, particularly when the homeowner's view of a "fair" exchange for service and rent is not shared by potential renters. • Additionally, home equity conversion is for some, a means of assisting the homeowner in maintaining current property. Generally the issue of home equity has both positive and negative' aspects. On the one hand, equity is a positive resource and on the other, a problem, when one attempts to convert it to cash. Programs for home equity conversion such as the Reverse Annuity Mortgage (RAM) , are suitable most often for the elderly in their eighties and nineties and those individuals with a home valued minimally at $65,000. The younger elderly risk losing their home when the term of the loan is completed. And on a very personal level, many seniors want to leave their homes to their children. Thus, without assistance from government and private agencies, housing once beneficial to the resident is slowly deteriorating and no longer suitable. ------- Escalating Rent Exacerbating the shortage of affordable and suitable housing is the steady increase in the cost of renting an apartment. The message from public meetings throughout the county is clear: rents are skyrocketing and senior citizens can no longer adjust to the rising cost. Countless telephone calls to the Department of Aging, to the Oakland Rent Arbitration Board, and senior services county wide, in addition to a constant flow of letters to the Senior Housing Task Force serve as qualitative indicators as to the scope and intensity of the problem. Since 1982, rent levels have increased faster then inflation, reversing a decade long trend of declining real rents. According to the Consumer Price Index for the 5-County SanFrancisco/Oakland area, rents rose 9.6 percent in 1982, 9.9% the following year, and 8.4% in 1984 (21) In San Leandro, for example, rents for one apartment complex have risen by 47% within the last 18 months. The complex was recently sold, and the new owner plans to raise the rent every nine months. This has created a hardship for many elderly tenants on fixed incomes. Many seniors in San Leandro have had rent increases of $120 to $200 a month due to the sale of the residential building by the owner. Although some seniors may pay only $250 a month in rent, given their limited income of approximately $520, the rent for them is clearly non-affordable. In the city of Dublin, Esther O'Dell told the Task Force that rents now range from $500 to $700 a month for a one bedroom apartment. O'Dell, who .is a manager of an apartment building explained that rents have increased 500% in the last nine years. "I used to have over 40 senior tenants, and now, I only have 11. Something has to be done to curb the increasingly high rents," said O'Dell. During the Senior Housing Needs Task Force Community Meeting held in Dublin, the issue of high rents was prominent in the discussion. For John McCuaig, a former construction worker on disability compensation, the rent for his one bedroom apartment has risen 14% in the last year. "I can understand why the rent has risen," he said, "Hacienda Business Park has made this a high rent area. However, I cannot understand why the rent increases have doubled the 7% inflation rate. They are forcing the senior citizens into the streets." Rose Dellamonica, another participant at the meeting and a Senator in the State Senior Legislature, sees a pattern developing in the Dublin area. "Many older people moved to the suburbs ten years ago to escape the high cost of housing in North County; and now, they are facing the same dilemma again. The seniors are being priced out of the housing market because they cannot compete with the two income family." The City of Livermore has not escaped the problem of escalating rents. Marie Schwiekert, Coordinator of Senior Services for the City of Livermore, told the Task Force that seniors are paying over four hundred dollars a month for rent, while for many their monthly income is approximately five hundred dollars. Testimony from the North County public meeting summarizes the problem and need. "You cannot pay fifty percent of your income for shelter and take care of the other things in life thay you need. We need food, clothing, a little entertainment now and then, a cup of coffee and a piece of pie. . .But when its close to social security day, you cannot do it. Now I understand what has happened in Washington, I do know the President has said we will never eliminate the safety net. Well I can see the safety net has a lot of torn lining in it, and it is going to get worse. I think it's incumbent upon the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to enact or to put pressure on the powers that be to see that seniors in Alameda County can survive. There are enough people who are homeless on the streets now. People must have standards to live by. We are all used to certain standards during our growing up period, it's a darn shame that when you get to your sixties or seventies or early eighties, you are forced to drop your standards...you thought the least you could get is shelter." North County, and particularly the urban area of Oakland, have seen the elderly devastated by rent increases. Rhita Wilson of the Residential Rent Arbitration Board of Oakland encounters daily, elderly men and women who fall victim to the escalating rents. ".. .we had a lady in here yesterday who was moving and she didn't understand her legal rights. Her rent has gone up, she didn't want to leave her neighborhood. She was going to what she thought of as a much inferior neighborhood. She was concerned about not having her friends around her, and the inability to be mobile in her neighborhood. We have seniors on a regular basis who cannot stand for a 15% increase. A lot of seniors are living right up to their income.. . ." According to Wilson, the rent ordinance regulates rent at an 8% level but includes provisions for the landlord to exceed the 8% guideline. Attorney Kathy Elliot illustrated the tragic results of that particular rent provision during the public hearing on housing in July of this year. "An elderly woman, living in private housing in Oakland had been paying the same rent for se veral.years. The landlord decided he needed more money and doubled the rent. The provision (allowing over 8% in certain instances) in the Oakland ordinance upheld the landlord's action. The elderly woman had to move out of the County." Unfortunately, rent increases are not limited to private housing. The Rose of Sharon in Oakland, a senior housing development subsidized by HUD has been subject to a rent increase. Residents are being asked to bear a $50 to $75 increase. Obviously, without additional income, seniors of this residence are now going to pay beyond 30% of their income as designated in public housing guidelines. According to Elliot, "The Rose of Sharon houses about 150 residents. The majority of these people are on fixed incomes, many are on SSI which is a fixed income of $504 to $524 a month. Presently they are paying anywhere from 30 to 40 percent of their income for rent. ..HUD has approved a rent income for this project of 25% over the present rent."" Conclusively, the elderly renter on a fixed income cannot respond to the level of rental increases. Whether they seek housing in North county, South. county or the Valley, the rent for what we call an "average" one bedroom apartment is exorbitant in relation to their monthly income. III/ • CONCLUSION • Although housing 'needs of the elderly are as diverse as those for married couples, families, and single individuals, the elderly as a group do have special 'concerns in relation to housing. Both testimony and interviews reveal that security and public transportation are major issues in terms of suitable housing. The size of the housing as well as the location and adaptability of the unit are important. Finally, renters are concerned with the quality of rental management. The respondents of the task force, when asked to select what they consider to be appropriate housing, make the following suggestions: - Security is a number one concern among the elderly in Alameda County. All newly constructed housing should be located in relatively low crime areas and the building itself should provide some safety features but not to the extent that they resemble a fortress. Buildings should be well lit both inside and outside. - Housing should be within walking distance to facilities providing goods and services such as banks, stores and medical centers, and near a busline. r . Housing located on infrequent bus routes is neither suitable nor beneficial for the elderly resident. Many elderly without a car are highly dependent on the bus or supportive public services like Dial-A--Ride in order to attend to daily activities. All respondents agree that studio units are not acceptable nor desirable living arrangements. Many elderly spend a great deal of time inside their apartments, and studio units do not provide a "home-like" atmosphere, nor do they provide sufficient space for furniture and belongings that have been acquired over a life-time. Units should be one bedroom and/or two bedrooms. -Scattered housing sites throughout the county can allow maximum opportunity for elderly to remain in their community. Although low rise or high rise construction has both proponents and opponents, existing neighborhood patterns of residential use are important considerations for site selection and design. - Housing should be constructed with the aging process upper-most in mind. Small additions such as guard rails for the shower, adjustable cabinets in the kitchen for height and corridors that are wheel chair accessible, can ensure the long term suitability of the housing for the resident.The needs of the residents will change over the years and building with adaptive space in mind can assist the resident in maintaining his/her apartment if and when they become frail. -Management is a critical aspect of elderly housing. On-site management, if effective, adds to the security of the resident. It is important that management be receptive to the needs of the residents. Pilot projects have successfully demonstrated that elderly residents with proper management training can fulfill the role of manager. Generally, respondents active in the field of housing believe that affordable housing must be constructed within the context of an entire community. In addition, the internal design of the apartment, the site location, and the on-going operations of the complex are of equal importance. Recommendations • 1) The Alameda County Senior Housing Needs Task Force recommends to the county that 3,000 new units of affordable rental housing for low and moderate income elderly residents be constructed within the next three years. The need for affordable housing has been documented Land it is apparent that private developers in the housing market cannot adequately meet the special needs of the low and moderate income senior population with present available private market instruments) A bonus to the creation of 3,000 additional affordable units for seniors fs the positive effect on the tight rental market. The current competition between elderly renters and younger couples both seeking affordable housing will be eased. 2) The Task Force findings indicate that the low/moderate income homeowners face severe problems in meeting home maintenance and repair costs. The Task Force recommends that priority be given to the development of special services in three key areas of Alameda County* which will provide electrical, plumbing, simple housing repair, outdoor maintenance for low and moderate income homeowners at a very low fee. The Task Force recommends tIat_ the 4lamedasCounty-Depitrtment on Aging give high priority -to the creation of such a service with Rederil, State, County and Citfunds. 3) A new separate task force should be formed to develop strategies to meet ;:he special needs of frail elderly who are now or could live independently but cannot do so without supportive services. • V *These services should be located in North County, South County, and in the Livermore /Pleasanton area. • Strategies to Age in Place The absence of federal support and limited state and local funding prohibit some cities from undertaking construction of affordable housing for the elderly members in their communities. Cities can develop strategies to assist older renters and homeowners who want to remain in their home. Below are suggestions of programs and the utilization of funds to maintain the existing housing stock and adapt it to meet the needs of the elderly.(22) * Rehabilitation low interest loans and grants for repairs necessary to maintain the house or rental complex in safe and sanitary condition. * Installation of security devices, ie. dead-bolts, window locks, peep-holes. * Provision and installation of smoke detectors. * Weatherization programs for renters and owners. * Debris removal program for home owners. In addition, local government can support and encourage the use of programs to help older adults remain independent. Examples of programs include: * Meals on Wheels Program for homebound Community meal sites. • u' . * Senior centers, adult day care programs, Adult day health programs, Alzheimer disease support groups. * Creation of neighborhood Home Alert Programs. * Home health services. • * Provision of job development services for the creation of part-time and full-time jobs for older persons who need them and want them. * Provision of alternative housing options such as shared housing, group homes, granny flats or accessory structures. * Provision of personal care and household assistance through home services and friendly visitors service. Apart from the strategies outlined above, the passage of specific legislation can alter the current housing trends adversely affecting the low and moderate income senior as well as narrow the gap between the housing supply and demand. Assembly bills relevant to senior housing needs include: *Legislation requiring just cause evicition for seniors (AB1378) . The proposed legislation will "give the tenant prescribed civil remedies for violation of the bills provisions. The bill would also prohibit the landlord from increasing rents and changing other terms in order to terminate tenancy protected by the bill. --- -- Senate Bill 338, if adopted by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of 600 million dollars and utilize the moneys for the "purpose of financing the construction or ownership, or both, of rental housing developments" available to elderly or handicapped households of low-income. In addition to the above legislation, the 1985 California Senior Legislature supports construction of low and moderate income housing through incentives such as the dedication of public land, subsidized interest rates for financing, the encouragement of utilization of "air space" over government owned parking facilities, certain tax advantages and more flexible land use and development approval standards.. Although the Senior Legislature acts in an advisory capacity, it represents a large voice for California seniors and pursues strategies that can engage entire communities in the political process. The above strategies, in order to adequately meet the needs of the low and moderate income senior, must be coupled with the intent to increase the supply of affordable housing. - -- - - .. FOOTNOTES 1. See Appendix A. , •Senior Housing Needs Task Force Membership Roster. 2. See Appendix B.. , Senior Housing Needs Assessment, Alamdeda County Executive Summary, prepared by Rocio Clueot and Lesley Watson. 3. See Appendix C. , Results of Housing Task Force Survey, Chapter IV, IBID. 4. See Appendix D., for Summaries of the public meetings and selected correspondence to the Senior Housing Needs Task Force. 5. See Appendix E., for Summary of Interviews and list of Key Informants. 6. The definition for Senior (greater than 64 years of age) was determined to facilitate analysis of the 1980 census data. Although some agencies define senior as greater than 61 years of age, it is difficult to find and apply data within this age range. Most data uses 5 year aggregates. The income determinations of very low, low and moderate are based upon those used by the State and County Departments of Housing and Community Development. The definition of affordable is based on the widely used federal guideline from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 7. See Urban Lind Institute, Housing for a Maturing Population, Washington; Urban Land Institute, 1983, page 4. 8. See Table I. for data projections provided by the Department of Finance. 9. See unpublished Senior Need 1985-1995 in Alameda County, report prepared by Kathryn Phegan, Ph.D. , for Beulah Home in Alameda County. 10. Figures based on 1980 census data, mean household size and number of senior household by number of seniors residing in Alameda County. 11. Figure based on Department of Aging, Area Plan of Aging, 1984-85 12. Figures based on 1980 Census data; STF5 Census of Housing, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 1979 median income. 13. See 1980 Census Data; STF5 Census, IBID. 14. See Alameda County Housing Vacancy Survey prepared by Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, September, 1984. 15. See Table II. ; Vacancy Rates of Alameda County. 16. See Table III. ; Existing Rental Subsidy Need for Alameda County low and moderate income seniors. 17. See Table IV. ; Extracted from Senior Needs 1985-1995 in Alameda County; IBID. 18. Figures based on 1980 census data; IBID. 0 19. Figures based on a sub-sample of 1980 census data (Elder •File) . 20. Figures based on 1980 census data, CTF5 census, IBID. 21. Based on the publication of the Bay Area Council Inc. , of April 1985 Rental Housing in the Bay Area: Opportunity Knocks Again. 22. Strategies were developed from respondents at public meetings, key informants and research from the Urban Land Institute; Housing for a Maturing Population • . . C <1111:111 • TAB • \ _ . 1 1M3LE 1 Department of. Finance Population Projections: 1980-2020 a 1 I I 1 W I v r 0 .... I 1 < I w V O r O . . . . . N I` ••• V V 0 0 0 0 0 .� _ I W I .s J q Id. . . . . . 1 O 1 L 1 O O n q ..., v N p .... 0 .,1 V 1 J 1 .1 .M V N N 1•. p 1 w 1 W 1 r V O . .. . . N O I� . J V. v O V ... . . . O I = ; .` N N n N v g V.-•N... . . . . . . v t r I 1 V J ~ V N N N V/M .V N N N N ... �. ... q V Q N I W / n _` ....N h 0 w 1 1 1 .-..1 t+. I W I ICI/` . . . . .`N. .. . .40 rw N •1 o v .1 .r O. .^ O 1 r V V ..I N ... ,... 1 a I I V n 1 I I • 1 i .... V I I I ^ 1 1 I I W I N O w N..1 w N J N I a • t t < t V .t J N g O . . . . . . .�0 N.v N w w .-. v 0 v Sr N I I 1 N O w O q .I V N N I W 1 40 N..r A v N N h Sr A I 1 ]L 1 V r w P. O N. . ... . . . N n 1 ../ 1 •t ••••O . . . . . .... N N I I y . . • . . w N w w • I ? I I .. ...... NJ.INN N Ni.O.. N .1 .1 n v X. 1 I N-a ...NNnO J Sr O NNN O q.-.v .Jj v w ry I `t 1 I ^ O N r 1 1 N A I 1 1 .•I 1 I •e v o n O r I 1 I •'1 I I r N N I I I I 1 ^. .r I 1 1 I 1 I I -� 1 ...-.w rf A I 1 I 1 < I ON.0 T1kNNhgN g O w N 0 v vN N .O w V I 1 I I . 1 VrN OO V . .. O NJgN V 0A.1 V No. I . 1 Nwwgyl.t.,�w I 1 0 1 .f OMJN.. .. . .NAN 1 < 1 qN O . . . .NN WI 01 I . . . . q0 NVTI . 1 I- 1 80 In.TTIAO wv,, I 1 1•• 1 gN...........N/D .OA NA.ON ....try~ 1 O 1 p'�vr V•'+NA A..►rw V I I I N ,c8 G8 w. N. . ..... I I"' 1 TIVN.-.M w ONE I I I . b/0 V I 1 N V NN.. . ... . I < 1 1 N A... I I TI Nv Jrr I ... O I ^ 1 W 1 1 t l 1 r ..I q n 1 W 1 I O I I 1 < I W I I 1 J I j .f w.fwJw.t w.t w.t w.t g'.7 w.t = I 1 VI I < I W 1 .� 1 1 1 1 NNI.ITI. , NN...... .....vv j 1 I I 1 O 1 JOYI��NNTOI/•NIT V V NIf10NON ON b V W t I 1 1 1 .A • 1 I / < 1 < ON O < I W 1 O .pi v 1 1 ; < ; .......0.„......O N 1 I b/0 V .r^•= ONO. I 1 / 1 1 1 4 / 1 W 1 ..�01...... / / I 1 .+ 1 NO I 1 < 1 NI TINO 1 .I 1 NNNO 1 N 1 S 1 ^N/Q 1 < 1 N.TTIAN......ww... ...t.tOA 8.188. v I I /b I W I .N N.f h AN.N.O N...... I.1 O ) = 1 N•"INNgv NNbO I .wi 1 W 1 w.t TlTi.fNNN.N w .e.TrM O 1 IL i NQw... O.f...... ~^� I 1 1 N n/DA �I''IN.T V...O / 1 ~~ . i V NNNN.... "..N I a .+ 1 I I I W 1 I / I I J I ONV/�VN r I 1 1 I < I .N..0OO.pnw...ly .O V O TIT1T/w 1 W I .T Aw N Nis .0./.7.0.7 y00N h ,. .• } = I . I _< 1 M.7 O...TI M.r......... . , ....e. I ' ; 1 ...... ..w A/0 N N N.-..J.. �0 N M ...V O 1�1 } 1 I 0 O.r A n...t.O N ^ s_'1 I 1 r .7 N.T TIN. P1 We .7NTI . . 1 N .7.111 / N O b I I - I ..M O 1 1 .� .pi.v..~.A ^. 1 1 1 -0 I I N o.�' I I 1 I I ^+V 1 1 < / A.r ...w.•. t 1 / t F 1 M..... I .4 I N w...M V N............. I / O 1 ....ANTI. �7.7/1II . 1 1c I M1 w T1..A...O.7 V. ....p N N.... Op. w I 1 1•• 1 1 I 1 .401...1%.0000 we...n,T1.r1.►MN TI 0...010.1~ 1 0 1 re `�A O 1 1 1 ... .......r.� I... ; . . . . • . . . . . . I < 1 I N 0.ova I O / ..1 �. 8.4 Tt w N W 1 a < I I .. N b.y 1 < 1 1 _ W I I I 1 .t I j bv.7 = I 1 , 1 < I W I J i l l i l l l l l i t '� I 1 I 1 CO 1 0 ............1 1 1 1 1 1 ; ~ v 1 I I / < 1 < N O N O N p < i W / J / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /O V 1 < / < _ 1 I / 1 'Q I. 1 / W I 1 I ^ + I 1 w I N N.4N I W / 1 I b I W / NTIw.. ... 1 J, / b b.•.N V ../....... . I 8. I IL 1 .-.V Mw N I >C I V'V.7.f V...q w.T►t.A.r TIw "O` vA .. t ... 1 I IA O V v w �` I W / w CO.r N N T/.0 w.f Q a I a TI V.0 w I IV 1 1 pew P • I �+ .. _ 1 .. I 1 a y ...w... .T O w a 1 t •• t 1 1 I W I 1 I a / I I 1 1 } Z i .0 V O V..00ONV N...V ONO 'NN1 YITI10 is.- t < 1 NN...............Nr Or.9.�^ A A .q 1 I 1 N rr... V NV N } 1 i V NM..N.r.•1n /O M �'" `7 1 I rn .� 1 t ' wn..v V _ 1 I 1 1 I v ^' J O I 1 I '7 1 1 .M' w .." - 1 ; 1 1 1 n 1 1 / I 1 .r I .. . ....._ 1 1 I < I wgVNA/� JOis ONw.-.w00... .tq �,,, I I -. I ►' I .. . .... ... ... .q gvwONV V qO O V I ..I I A 1 1 O I . . .•1 N O w OAb w N .O I < 1 .. ... ..r /• I I N 1 .`NO.. .. .. . . .. . . .• ` . . . . I P. I 1 I1 I r.. .. ..,,....r P.N N N. . . . .r... P. r ..r ~ I O I N.. .. .. .r Y • . . g v N r N h O .. I < I I . N^ .... I l . . . . . . . O O v O N J ..r w O I'. v q I 1 ; .: r r r w N 1 p 1 N r I L, I 1 < I 1 r I C I 1 O 1 I I J 1 t wt / 1 I t Z = t I sr < I W I r ^ N... . . N .I. V V P. n q .O J J < ♦ I V w • I .- _ I V 1 J O N O .n p y. O ./I O .,. O H O .n O ul O Vl .• v 0 1 I W 1 -I ^ ^ b ,. v I U ` O ~ O N O.N O N O N O .n + N O N O • , I ... N N J J an N ... w _ • , TABLE fi ALAMEDA COUNTY HOUSING VACANCY RATES AS OF SEPTEMBER, 1984 CITY NUMBER OF UNITS PERCENT OF TOTAL HOUSING VACANT ALAMEDA 506 1.7 BERKELEY 365 0.6 FREMONT 445 0.9 HAYWARD 451 0.7 LIVERMORE 164 0.9 NEWARK 336 3.0 OAKLAND 2,497 1.6 °PLEASANTON 96 0.5 SAN LEANDM! 367 1.0 SAN LORENZO 58 0.7 • UNION CITY 110 0.8 TOTAL ALAMEDA COUNTY 5,395 1.2 *Figures based on Survety by the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco • • ., -- _ • TABLE III *EXISTING RENTAL SUBSIDY UNITS **RENTAL SUBSIDY NEEDS OF FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME LOWER INCOME ELDERLY HODS SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS • • ALAMEDA 100 1,343 • • ALBANY none BERKELEY 450 1,336 DUBLIN • 208 EMERYVILLE none FREMONT 396 747 • HAYWARD 378 • 935 • • LIVERMORE 150 385 NEWARK 150 OAKLAND 5300 • 10,745 none PLEASANTON. -125 ' SAN LEANDRO 218 125 • • UNION CITY &0O ALAMEDA COUNTY NOT' APPLICABLE • 3,086 TOTAL 7,575 6:Clash) 18,702 (6*6'33) *Figures based on survey of each city. manager's dffice. • **These figures are based on the Housing Assistance Plan(HAP) of 7 cities in Alameda County and the Alameda County HAP, which includes the unicoporated areas and the remaining 7 cities RAP estimates are conservative in view of the fact that Federal funds for housing have been c t`. • ..• ._ TABLE IV «•. ': 1900 CENSUS DATA • • AGE BY POVERTY STATISTICS • CITY AGE ABOVE BELOW % OF • BELOtj • POVERTY POVERT COUNTY POVER'*Y IN THE CITY County 60 - 64 42,492 3,150 100% 6.9 65+ 97,360 9,036 8.5 Alameda 60 - 64 3,231 .97 5.6 65+- '6,587 •516 5 t 7.3 Albany 60 -.64 623 23 3.6 65+ 2,238 146 1.24 6.1 w +1 Berkeley 60 - 64 3,366 245 6.8 65+ 9,527 985 '10.14 9.3 Emeryville . . 60 - 64 163 12 .6% 6.9 • 65+ 264 50 15.9 Fremont 60 - 64 3,245 119 5.2. 3.5 65+ 5,701 515 8:3 Hayward 60 - 64 3,879 253 6.1 65+ 6,941 • 511 6'3 .6.9 uakland 60 - 64 13,365 1,787 51.§%11'8 65+ .•37,635 4,541 -- 10.8 Livdrmore 60 - 64 17279 a7 2.3. 8.4 65+ 2,500 229 Newark 60 - 64 683 3 .4 65+ 943 52 "5; 5.2 Piedmont • 60 - 64 523 17 3.1 • 65+ 1,475 74 '8t•4.8 Pleasanton 60 - 64 833 18 65+ 1,397 133 1.1% 8:7 San Leandro 60 - 64 4,295 196 65+ 9,896 559 6"2% 5.6 union City 60 - 64 873 49 1.5% 5.3 65+ 1,578 128 HCD ,Ej! ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Housing & Community Development Program May 12, 1987 Richard Ambrose, City Manager City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Rich: SUBJECT: Presentation of Alameda County Senior Housing Needs Task Force Final Report and Recommendations to Dublin City Council Per our conversation this week, I am sending a copy of the Executive Summary of the Alameda County Senior Housing Needs Task Force Final Report, a copy of the Board of Supervisors resolution approving the preparation of a proposal for implementation of a senior housing program, and a draft resolution in support in general principle of a general obligation bond issue to finance the construction of housing for low income seniors and the disabled. Please feel free to modify the draft as you see fit before presenting it to the City Council for adoption. The Task Force report documents the need for housing for low income seniors, particularly rental housing. The Task Force recommended the production of 5,950 units countywide over the next five years through a three part program. The first component of the program, and the one that the County is now focusing on, is the construction of 1,700 units of housing for low income seniors and disabled financed through the issuance of a general obligation bond. Representatives from the Conference of Mayors and Board of Supervisors are working with the County Planning Director to prepare a detailed proposal to present to the Board of Supervisors in November, 1987 and put before the voters in either June or November 1988. As part of the process to prepare the proposal, a technical advisory committee with representatives from the county, each city, private housing groups, seniors, and the disabled community has been formed. EXHIBIT_3 224 W.WINTON AVENUE• ROOM 169• HAYWARD, CA 94544.415/670-5404 Richard Ambrose June 8, 1987 page two The Chairperson, Sara Conners, and Vice-Chairperson, Ilene Weinreb, have presented the Task Force report and recommendations to nine councils to date and the response has been very supportive. Task Force members would like to present the Task Force Report and recommendations to the Dublin city council and ask for their support at the earliest possible date. Please contact Ms. Weinreb or myself regarding a specific date. If you have any questions or need more information, please give me a call at 670-5404. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, 2 -4711500444' John N. Shepherd Housing and Community Development Coordinator JNS:bg 1057A cc: Ilene Weinreb Larry Tong . ` DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION BY CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ENDORSING, IN GENERAL PRINCIPLE, A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUE TO FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING IN ALAMEDA COUNTY FOR LOW INCOME SENIORS AND THE DISABLED WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has received the report of the Alameda County Senior Housing Needs Task Force; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin recognizes that the senior population is the most rapidly growing segment of the population; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin recognizes that a large portion of the senior population is on fixed incomes and have low incomes; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin recognizes the need for appropriately designed and affordable housing for low income seniors and the disabled; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin recognizes that the private market is not and cannot fulfill this need for affordable housing without public support and that there is a limited amount of federal and state assistance to support housing for low income seniors and the disabled; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin recognizes the need to join with other neighboring communities to take local initiative to meet this need; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin does endorse, in general principle, a general obligation bond issue to finance construction of housing for low income seniors and the disabled in Alameda County; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council and staff will work with the County and other cities in the county to develop the bond issue. 0932A/5 •• 1 . /^ tir ? Z THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA On motion of Supervisor George , Seconded by Supervisor Peratd and approved by the following vote, George, Knox, Perata and Chairman Campbell - 4 - Ayes: Supervisors R Noes: Supervisors None Excused Supervisors Santana - 1 THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: APRIL 21, 1987 . NUMBER.._R.-.2;,41.7--_ • - RESOLUTION APPROVING PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL FOR THE - % DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME SENIORS AND DISABLED FINANCED THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF G NERAL . OBLIGATION BONDS BE IT RESOLVED that as part of the Senior Housing Program approved in principle by this Board of Supervisors on October 14, 1986, this Board 1. Approves the preparation of a proposal for the development of housing for low income seniors and disabled financed through the issuance of general obligation bonds; 2_ Appoints Supervisor Charles' Santana -as the Board's representative to work with the representative from the Conference of Mayors and County staff to develop the proposal; and 3. Directs the Planning Director to work with other affected County departments and the cities in the county to develop the proposal and to present it to your Board in November, 1987. O=ZTIFY t re-IF. FOREGOING IS A C; iCT COPY CF A RESOLUTION ACC?TED HE BOARD CF SUFERVISCZ; ALLME ;CUNT:. C.NL•FC;:.NIA XD 9 1 19E. APR 21 198 >TS. v.;LLtAM MtHRWE1N. CLERK CF.F. • 7217-sejal) BY f / File 13238 Agenda •1,11 Reso '-/6R-87-317 • 4/21/87 • June 25, 1986 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINAL REPORT OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SENIOR HOUSING NEEDS TASK FORCE At the suggestion of the Alameda County Administrator's Office, the Senior Housing Needs Task Force has documented in this report the special housing problems and needs of both renters and homeowners in Alameda County. The Task Force, comprised of official representatives of the fourteen cities in Alameda County, carried out its responsibilities by completing the following: 1) A statistical analysis of the 1980 census data related to housing and income status of senior residents of Alameda County and the overall housing characteristics of this group. 2) A survey of the special senior housing needs of the fourteen f cities of Alameda County completed by housing specialists in each `• of the cities. 3) Three public meetings in North County, South County, and the Livermore-Amador Valley to hear testimony from seniors regarding their housing concerns. 4) In depth interviews with 22 service providers and administrators involved in the fields of housing and aging. Our findings are listed below: GENERAL FINDINGS From the 1980 census : • There were 114,206 residents of Alameda County 65 years of age and over. • 69,462 of these were women. • 32,974 seniors lived alone. -1- • 28,406 or 25% of the seniors in Alameda County are minorities including Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans. C • 46,440 were 75 years of age and over. • 50% of seniors age 65 and over reported per capita incomes under $5,000 a year. From 1980 to 1985 the 65 and over population increased by 11.2% (12,788 more seniors) with the greatest increase 16.7% (4,837) in the 70 - 74 year age group. The California Department of Finance projects an increase of 39,121 (62.5% growth) in the number of seniors in Alameda County 75 years and over by the year 2000. It also projects an increase of 8,726 (or a 73.5% growth) in the number of seniors 85 years and over by the year 2000. The number of women in both age groups will exceed men by more than 50%. V.. SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF RENTERS • There are 27,130 senior renter households (38.2% of all senior households) . This is a figure far greater than the national average. • There is a serious shortage of rental housing at affordable rates in all 14 cities and unincorporated areas of Alameda County. • The vacancy rate as an indicator reflecting the general shortage was 2.4% county-wide in 1985. • 60% of seniors had gross rents comprising over 30% of household income. • Older women living alone on limited fixed incomes (particularly if over 75 years of age) face critical problmes in finding an apartment if they have to move. C -2- , • • The number of rental units in the housing market has declined in such cities as Oakland and Berkeley due to the purchase and rehabilitation of inner city homes by middle income younger people. to Moderate income senior renters have also been seriously hurt because of the rising rents throughout the county (some rents have been rising 100%, 200% and 300% in the past two to three years) . HOME OWNERS • Houses that seniors own are generally older and therefore in greater need of repairs. (Most seniors live in homes built before 1950) . • Low and moderate income seniors have difficulty in maintaining their homes because of the high costs of electrical , plumbing, painting, roofing repairs, etc. • Even where there are home repair programs (and there are very few) , funds are inadequate to meet the needs of major or minor repairs for C. substantial numbers of seniors who qualify for such help. • "Do it yourself repairs" are not an option for frail elderly or most older women living alone. • All but the wealthiest seniors who own their own homes, have limited choices available if they wish to move. • Many mobile home parks in Alameda County have a disproportionate number of seniors. They have been facing critical problems of increase in space rentals . RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the Housing Assistance Plan of Alameda County there is an indicated need for 18,702 units of affordable housing for low and moderate income elderly. The Task Force recommends that 5,950 units of affordable Crental housing be constructed within the next 5 years . The construction of -3- . . these units will also ease the tight rental market. This will reduce the current competition between elderly renters and younger couples who are both seeking affordable housing. The Task Force also recommends that priority be given to the development of special services in Alameda County which will provide electrical , plumbing , simple housing repair, outdoor maintenance, etc. , for low and moderate income home owners at a low fee. It is important that local communities encourage and support mobile home owners who are interested in purchasing their mobile home parks. Further, they should be helped to obtain additional state funds for this purpose. The special needs of frail elderly who are now living or could live independently, is an area of critical need. A Task Force should be created to explore this problem more completely and make recommendations for program development. (. (V -4- • FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF C THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SENIOR HOUSING NEEDS TASK FORCE Background Information The Task Force has recommended that 5,950 units of affordable rental housing be constructed in Alameda County within the next five years for low and moderate income seniors. To look at the seniors who will be helped by this housing, seniors were divided into three major income categories. These income categories and related rentals are the HUD guidelines. Tenant would pay no more than 30% of his/her income as rent. Income Categories ('. * 1) Very low income - or persons up to 50% of median income. Single Person - up to $975 a month. Couple - up to $1,113 a month. 2) Low Income - 50% to 80% of median income. Single Person - up to $1 ,558 per month. Couple - up to $1,779 per month. 3) Moderate Income - 80% to 120% of median income. Single Person - up to $2,336 per month. Couple - up to $2,672 per month. * Seniors on SSI receive $533 a month (single person - Maximum rent - $159.90) $989 a month (couple - Maximum rent - $296.70) c -5- ICI • • It was decided that the Task Force would concentrate its efforts on helping . to provide additional rental housing for these income categories (very low, low and moderate income elderly persons) . The next analysis was made to determine which categories of older persons could be served by the proposed housing. Levels-of-Function Categories: 1. Housing for independent, healthy individuals or couple aged 65 and over. 2. Housing for somewhat handicapped but able to live independently with some assistance (help with shopping, cleaning, etc. ) . 3. Housing for more seriously handicapped but still able to live independently with greater assistance (because of personal care needs such as bathing, injections, and more extensive home health care) . 4. Group living with some independence but needs nursing and home health assistance on a daily basis) . 5. Residents of residential care facility such as Homes for Jewish Parents, Altenheim, which provides room, board, congregate living arrangements for frail older persons. The facility also provides some skilled nursing facilities for its own residents. 6. Residents of Intermediate Care Facility - Provides some nursing assistance and supervision of residents not capable of independent living. Residents are basically ambulatory (or not sick enough to require 24 hour care) but they need some personal and nursing care. 7. Residents of Skilled Nursing Facility - Provides medical and nursing care including 24 hour availability of licensed nursing personnel . 8. Patients at general hospital facility for acute care. The Task Force recommends that housing be provided primarily for the first two Clevels-of-function categories. -6- Currently very little money is available for rental housing on the Federal level . The same is true on the state level in comparison with the overall need. The need for lower income rental housing in Alameda County is 18,702 units. This need is based on the Housing Assistance Plan of 7 cities in Alameda County and the Alameda County Housing Assistance Plan, which includes the unincorporated areas and the remaining 7 cities. The Task Force has proposed three different components which will be used to provide 5,950 rental housing units. This is a partial fulfillment of the needs in Alameda County. NO. 1 The first component is public ownership and public developer or private developer. It would mean that a city, county, or a housing authority would develop and administer the apartments. In this component, funding could be obtained by a General Obligation Bond Issue. In order to provide 100 units of housing for very low income seniors at rents of no more than 30% of their income (rental range $160 to $300 a month for a one bedroom apartment) , the subsidy will need to be about $35,000 a unit. This would mean a subsidy of $3,500,000 for the 100 units. Under this component, it is suggested that each city in Alameda County assume responsibility for 100 units of housing for very low income seniors. It is also proposed that the county assume a similar responsibility for providing an additional 300 units for the unincorporated areas of the county for very low income seniors. The General Obligation Bond Issue will provide for the total cost of construction. -7- • . , 0 NO. 2 Private Developer/For-Profit Owner (with public subsidy to buy down a number of slots for low and moderate income seniors) . In this component, funds would be used to buy down 100 units of low and moderate income housing from a private developer in order to reduce the rents to a range of $300 to $400 a month for one bedroom apartment for low income seniors. Also, this component can be used to provide 50 units of moderate _ income housing at rentals of $475 - $500 a month. To do this would require a subsidy of about $12,000 for a one bedroom unit for low income seniors and an in-kind subsidy by the cities or the county for moderate income seniors. The in-kind subsidy could include filing costs, costs of permits, inspection costs, etc. For each 100 units of low income housing, the subsidy would need to be about $1,200,000. It is recommended that 100 units of this model be provided by each of the fourteen cities in Alameda County and 300 units in the unincorporated areas. In addition, it is also recommended that 50 units of moderate income housing be provided in each city by the in-kind subsidy approach. Mortgage revenue bonds will be used for this component. In addition such techniques as below market rate land leasing or land grants will be used. NO. 3 Private Developer/Non-Profit Owner. In this component the non-profit organization obtains public land that is donated by the city or by some individual (for tax purposes) to the non-profit organization. Also, the non- profit organization secures mortgage revenue bonds which can be sold through the city, county or a housing authority. This combination of land subsidy and C. -8- f • mortgage revenue bonds will reduce the costs by $15 ,000 to $20,000 a unit. For each 100 units, the capital costs will be about $4,000,000 instead of $6,000,000. As a consequence, the rents can range for low income seniors from $350 to $395 a month for a one bedroom apartment. These rents will enable the owner to cover long and short term operational costs and some amortization. In addition, a number of units can be made available to moderate income seniors at rentals from $475 to $550 a month. These rentals will make it possible for the owner to cover long and short term operational costs plus some mortgage amortization. It is recommended that 1,700 additional units fdr low and moderate income seniors be provided under this component (1,140 units for low income and 560 for moderate income older persons) . The same formula can apply. Each city should consider the provision of 100 units and the county should explore the feasibility of providing 300 units in the unincorporated areas. While these components will provide 5,950 units of very low, low and moderate income housing, the use of mortgage revenue bonds in Plans 2 and 3 will provide an additional 6,800 market rate units for middle income elderly. This will be provided because of the requirements for the issuance of mortgage revenue bonds. GENERAL SUMMARY The Task Force recommends that Alameda County pass a general obligation bond issue including the Article 34 referendum requirement. Also, that Alameda County and the cities continue to work with the state and federal legislators to obtain additional financing for housing for very low, low and moderate income elderly. 6/25/86 -9- A *• SPECIAL ADDENDUM TO SENIOR HOUSING REPORT While this Task Force has recommended that another body deal with the subject of housing for seniors needing moderately extensive home health and personal care needs or even greater assistance (level of function categories 3 through 8), it seems fairly obvious that categories 7 and 8 are already extensively available in Alameda County. Categories 5 and 6 also are already widely available in the County. Some cities may have so many frail elderly fitting into categories 3 and 4 that they may choose to provide some of their elderly apartment complexes with the space and equipment needed to provide this kind of housing. It will cost additional money which they will have to obtain from other sources. They would have that option under the plan recommended by the Task Force. We have, however, determined that people in category 2 (those who are handi- capped but able to live independently with some homemaker assistance) and some of those in category 3 (those needing both personal care and home health care) can be served under the program we are recommending because: 1. All units newly constructed under this program will be handicapped accessible (an insignificant cost at time of construction but often very costly if retrofit is necessary) . 2. All apartment buildings under this program will provide one or two small rooms where health care personnel can examine and provide service for some of the needs of the residents (podiatrist, general physical examination, etc.) . 3. All apartment buildings under this program will provide a common room where the residents can have meetings, parties, etc. A small kitchen adjacent to the common room should be provided in the larger complexes. This would provide for warmup of food, refriger- ation, and minor cleanup for potlucks , etc. In the smaller complexes a small built-in unit in the common area itself could be substituted. 4. We know that additional social day care facilities for the frail elderly are needed in all parts of the County. If new ones are constructed they should be on the same campus as one of their apartment buildings to cut down on transportation costs. The cost of operation is $10 to $20/day per client. 5. We also know that an adult day health care facility for frail elderly is needed in each part of the County even though most of "' " the frail elderly can be well provided for in social day care facilities (see No. 4 above) at considerably less cost than an adult day health care facility which costs from $35 to $50/day per client. Again, where possible, these should be provided on the campus of one of the apartment buildings. • -10- Special Addendum to Senior Housing Report Page Two. By providing both social day care and adult day health care facilities, people can live independently for a significantly longer period of time. This saves both them and the public money and provides an individual with control over his/her own life. 6. From our interviews , from public testimony, and from experts in senior housing from around the county, it was clear that those elderly who want to maintain a "household" , need at least a one bedroom apartment. We should not attempt to force them into studios. It is important that we spend the modest amount of additional money to provide the one bedroom units that are desired. People have accumulated a lifetime of possessions and need to be surrounded by them to be comfortable. On the other hand, there are some people, predominantly men, who only want a room with a hot plate and a small refrigerator. They prefer to eat out and they are happiest if they don't have too many encumbrances. It is silly and wasteful to provide a full apartment for these people. They really don't want it. We should meet the needs of both these populations in this program. C' 6/25/86 -11-