HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Senior Housing Program Proposal CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE December 14, 1987
Oral Communication
SUBJECT Endorsement of the Alameda County Senior Housing
Programs Proposal for Development of Affordable
Housing for Very Low Income Seniors and Disabled
Persons throughout Alameda County.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED A. Draft resolution endorsing Dublin's
participation in a countywide program for
the development, construction and
acquisition of multi-family rental housing
for very low income seniors and disabled
persons.
B. Alameda County Senior Housing Program's
Proposal for Development of Affordable
Housing for Low Income Seniors as accepted
by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors,
including appendices and footnotes.
C. Letter to the Honorable Mayor Linda Jeffery
from Alameda County Supervisor Edward R.
Campbell (Chairman of the Alameda County
Senior Housing Task Force) , requesting
support of the senior housing program,
exclusive of attachments.
D. City Council Resolution No. 56-87, adopted
on July 27, 1987, endorsing in principle a
general obligation bond issue to finance the
construction of housing in Alameda County J
for low income seniors and the disabled.
RECOMMENDATION 1. Hear Staff presentation.
2. Adopt resolution endorsing:
Q� - the City of Dublin's participation in a
�V countywide program for the development,
construction and acquisition of multi-
family rental housing developments for
very low income elderly and disabled
persons; and
- the calling by the county of a countywide
election to authorize the implementation
of the program.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT The development cost of this program will be
completely financed through one or more general
obligation bond issues totaling $142,728,000.
It is projected that the bond issue will result
in an additional property tax assessment of
between $20 and $25 per year per $100,000 of
assessed property value to all taxable
properties in the City.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Planning Department
Dublin Housing Authority
Alameda County:
Jack Shephard
ITEM NO. s, Lynda Gardener
DESCRIPTION
I. BACKGROUND
In April of this year the Alameda County Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution approving the preparation of a proposal to develop housing in _
Alameda County for very low income seniors and the disabled, to be financed
through the issuance of general obligation bonds. The resolution directed
Alameda County's Planning Director to work with Alameda County cities and
other affected county departments to develop the proposal. As a result of
this resolution, the Alameda County Senior Housing Technical Advisory
Committee was formed. The committee was made up of representatives of the
cities (including Dublin) , county staff, a non-profit housing development
corporation and representatives from California Congress of Seniors. It was
the committee's responsibility to develop the proposal for presentation to the
Board of Supervisors.
In July of this year the City Council adopted Resolution No. 56-87,
endorsing in principle a general obligation bond issue to finance the
construction of housing in Alameda County for low income seniors and the
disabled (Exhibit D) . Other jurisdictions throughout the county adopted
similar resolutions. With this countywide support, the committee proceeded to
prepare for proposals to the Board of Supervisors.
On October 13th of this year the committee's proposal was submitted to
the Board of Supervisors for review. The proposal was accepted and is
included in full as Exhihbit B. The proposal is intended to assist the very
low income elderly (up to 50% of median income and over 62 years old) and the
disabled. The Board of Supervisors directed county staff to present the
"Proposal for Development of Affordable Housing for Low-Income Seniors" to the
Conference of Mayors and the city councils of each city in the county for
approval. The Conference of Mayors endorsed the proposal in late October. As
of today, 11 of 14 Alameda County cities (Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville,
Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton and San
Leandro) have endorsed the program. The issue is now before the City Council
for consideration.
II. ISSUES
During tonight' s meeting, the Council will hear a presentation from
Mr. John Shepherd, Alameda County's Housing and Community Development
Coordinator. It will focus on the "Proposal for Development of Affordable
Housing for Low-Income Seniors" as endorsed by the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors.
Endorsement of the proposal means that .the Council supports the following
issues:
1. The issuance of a $142,782,000 general obligation bond to finance the
development of between 1,700 and 2,000 units of housing for very low income
seniors and the disabled throughout the County. This will be decided through
a countywide election to authorize the implementation of the program in either
June or November of 1988.
0
2. The City of Dublin will participate in the program by having an
allocation of at least 50 units of this housing to be developed in the City if
the program is supported by Alameda County voters. The City Council will have
the power to approve or deny any proposal submitted to the City through this
program.
3. General obligation bond monies utilized to develop these units in Dublin
would be paid for by Dublin property owners through property tali assessment at
a minimum of $20 and a maximum of $25 per year per $100,000 of assessed
property values. The assessment would occur for a period of at least 20 years
and would not exceed 40 years, depending upon the interest rate at which the
bond is financed. With a higher interest rate comes a longer assessment
period. That interest rate will be fixed throughout the life of the bond.
The assessments would affect all taxable properties in the County.
-2-
Two other important issues pertain to ownership and management. At this
time the premise of the proposal is -- once a project has been constructed, it
must be sold to the County. In the case of the vacant portion of Arroyo *Vista
land owned by the Dublin Housing Authority (which is a potential candidate for
a project through this program) if a project was constructed here, it would
have to be sold to the County once it was completed. However, according to
Alameda County staff this premise is not conclusive. County staff has
indicated that final ownership of land currently owned by public jurisdictions
(cities, housing authorities, etc.) can be negotiated as part of all project
approvals. Through the planning review process, the City will be able to
review, comment and make recommendations to the County pertaining to how
ownership of public land and projects will be established. If the ownership
structure does not satisfy the City's needs, then the City has the right to
deny the project.
The same situation applies to management of the project. Through the
planning review process, the City will be able to review, comment and.make
recommendations to the County pertaining to who will manage the projects after
construction. If the decision on who will manage the property does not
satisfy the city's needs, then the City has the right to deny the project.
In both cases however, the final decision on who owns the land and who
manages the property will be made by the County, with full consideration of
the. City's input.
The enclosed proposal (Exhibit B) describes the program in more detail.
Jack Shepherd will be available to answer any questions you may have.
Prior to scheduling the election, the County is asking each of the 14
city councils in the county to review the proposal and approve their city's
participation in the program (subject to their approval of each development to
be located in the city) and the county's calling of a countywide election to
implement the program.
III. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution endorsing:
1. Dublin' s participation in a countywide program for the development,
construction and acquisition of multi-family housing for very low income
seniors and disabled persons; and
2. The calling by the county of a countywide election to authorize the
implementation.
-3-
RESOLUTION NO. - 87
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------7-----------=-----------------------
ENDORSING PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY IN A COUNTYWIDE PROGRAM FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION OF MULTI-FAMILY
RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS FOR VERY LOW INCOME ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS
WHEREAS, on December 14, 1987, the City Council received an oral
presentation from Alameda County's Senior Housing Program regarding the
Proposal for Development of Affordable Housing for Very Low-Income Seniors and
the Disabled; and
WHEREAS, the County of Alameda (the "County") proposes to implement
a countywide program for the development, construction and acquisition of
multi-family rental housing developments containing in the aggregate not to
exceed 2,000 dwelling units reserved for occupancy by very low income elderly
and disabled persons; and
WHEREAS, the County proposes to- call a•countywide.election to
authorize the development, acquisition, and construction of the developments
and to authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds through the County
to finance the program; and
WHEREAS, one or more of such developments may, subject in each case
to the approval of the City Council of Dublin (the "City Council") , be located
in the City of Dublin (the "City") ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the participation by
the City in the County's program and to approve the calling by the County of
the election on a countywide basis;
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
1. The participation by the City in the County's housing program for very
low income elderly, or disabled persons and families is hereby approved
subject to approval hereafter by the City Council of each development to be
located in the City.
2. The calling by the County of a countywide election to authorize the
implementation of the program is hereby approved.
13. This resolution shall not create, or authorize the creation of, any
liability of the City or any of its funds or properties for any purpose of the
program.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and
approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of December, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
tX B is I
1
t ,. 7 y '� ,r;�, r :.r � .,r o3 ' r� r t :,, f..r/ �Ya T.u �:,1'.•Y"' f . 7'!twr Rr i Y s `.9r 3E k
s"},r 1' ar s 5 r t 4 1 r t 7,•,•t rs3(,t' 4"s .d7 ,"-,;*t^Is sdq�a
rJ� ,* It Y+ !' ,'t r Err /'�FT'a:. •"lo-7f e'SJ' }+,J '9:---'Lr i5...ytt'
cr r{ �� l �t y. .,Y rtt s ( r rr r•x�4,^^'e t ,,y, 3 J,+3 S{¢yrl,•r'F iTr 't`: rah t '�! '�"�, trt'`✓y.• f
� I , 1 "! Y 1.�f't1 f " t lr.i f:' r - t,. x.Y•(}'V t � >I�?'_. cy r yG 4dy / cF" J" r r r..�� 5., s .T.
r '� a- r t •Jt � �'`3, ��f�.a ..w rr+x/ r ,il<: j Ir'rY.-„ �J.3''(,�t F ,t.. •r r rF f-1'S y a
'!"':;f?%— f � hn, � •: / ,� �' .fix Ix sy k-.r{ r=4.s.,ry.J r+. i� ?rcr *t,.r,. r;' .t7`• ,� u: r r- a r s d '��,
t; ! � :,•,• t{.t.a:� _';�Sti",� tC a1 J.r�•�r :r*r r'c-� PG ✓1�{ t 'frr ~r +li 8C r l f Jr/�✓�{r� �t sr: J �.s i-al" � e �a✓^,•.�s/ r . r " _
.f �I y i r .,r. f ry t... V t 3 h*. ♦�� � 37' ,r v�a }" / �r".«7rn �>: -I3 t" r.r {ry1. zy. d .x :F::t q}• r(t.» ,r
�...( 0. -� t ma,br•{k' J'}!r f.rt / ;t r}... } J'�a1 t5t tir ,rt'f+-•4 u' z.f'(i j.ra.S-fi•,- �'�f.r 5' t T nkh">,.r••:a fr �",/y''1r;fY rl.' Y.^.
( .l'! -� " •7. lrr P+t -. lniti,.•�r .3 f r7 z )y�'TS4rJ`r#}•'�.t", t ,/,ry�,ls- ,.-,p,r•i'r t-}.}�1T lSl.,r 9.ps:,o r , 1 1�. y. L' ,V
i.,•, �rl r� Jr:•'1< 3 fir!} %' 'f ,.� a ,,,�'�,'rrrt.a -4 l.x N rr r :dy;�"Gf r ! r r�'r`+ y, �.j.y ��I :`•D � .'
C'9,1 k x• ,.rt✓ .I•✓ �, - .., y ,.
r ✓�] rr•':•,�. r.1F ... ..M At �s. 1./Y r'"ydr �•ri Xt T r ;.w+°rr '�.{'f ,Yf,SyJr p!"'rL"F„1 Q!tt�;.�rN",i`4 j(Y`fF,7' J� titlt y it 1t ,r ;: t "63• {',"�;.,rYk
tt l r.' f Z. ti d!' ro _ ;✓r! _a:Jt'`� '� a r .. r t� 4•fJ�{,, t�r. r yr :fk ' ,. .4'� 1.o•°!rt 1 s>wr .. 1
7r •: t !' " n.t.. r e�' r t' .r` J �3;":.3�t "frf 1 �# x }'` �•'�
rls.,§. z� �'1 T.
,C A r /'�d i i.� d• or. { " { r 3 r <r r lr� } t, { wPk i Old 1 V•,1981 -r
t1 r't t ��rr L; :T kJ" .. 1 1 S rs �'y x rl•Jtf t 9 J�16yi t �yYy1;4 Ir1X
<_ fJ r •rd, 7" ''•. + i>/ 5..,-3 �i >� r-�,t Jt.aJ....J• .3 r• /4/ .C. {>s rF 11 S-j.
r }.-..;r ' } ,Fr t `,, { r ? x * -r ?,S•k ..y d �n -C •r.
.r,!f'�t°J9 1 y i'SS.T r4• t > k 1�. . ! r .It• ;,�'l:�'• y >c•,:�•.r
PLANNING
t. r "tt {�, �� �`jl...Y rM' [ 4-t^k f' L L� J � >4�•T.l ti i Y '>}.'�:ri '✓,!' .1.D
y vnr "`�Tl J L- Y z,(` � � l l/ s.r'' ( yt' + P t �. ,� .'7 f .•r � i ,r ,��:
a l at j t r J� �r t�'x'r v ��'_` -��s./.�'K � r�YY c�? tr _ •% �;♦ rf / "(" " t� ✓ .;j
4
/ 1' t'ty J J J 1 r r •J F!' f 1_-r-i 1s lr '��.ct✓ ,'� ! ♦' tlr 1. s� _.� '�7"' tt � # - t Ss C..:^'f'at_�+ l;. .-�
J •.+ !J � r,'orry ! i w. t !' 1 �"/' ,c 'Yj 7y.'� f.i '.rS;� 3 .+\.r ld l.L, ! r'"'ri 4 s 1' �ie �•�
_ r s i A' F J ` t r .; .f. 1 ,� � •s .,a./ /`! ,+/ r Y f 1- � ..J
r w >•. '" j �"r T � ✓ -:.y 1 F. Nr'" Jr � s 3�..•i' F{ I v' ! 7 .. r
r ( tt
f ' !a a , r c'y f "` .•r ' (c " ° ::Alamedar County tf
' F J r `r y•' `� '', ,a 'senor Housing Program `` •: " ,.. ;Ff�~ / -'` -� ✓° y .,� w,
y 1 .� r r r f / 'k• cy { 6. tr f"• ! 1"f�..A` i s ^t .p
, 1"-` _ \ L _, i>, •r .,A,r T' Tt r -t- a.�l 7N -4 .r�'r .`'.t-,h z a• >i +':'3
f1 "�` t";y, `.-r_ f kys.•T; c y i,x{ - # lix t !� '��
� t`r',. � r ( ,+ 7 t�• a r C:^•ct•! d' r s t �yl f+. 4 ti r 4,. � t ��'y '� 4 y :l• ~ 1 t.y�r a >If r 7 >n
r e p
t 1 W _ J 1• f \ r a - Jr
rr ~� PROPOSAL
. .-FOR.:
DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE_ HOUSING
• � • � : � FOR
LOW-INCOME SENIORS , !
Accepted
by the _
Alameda County .
Board of Supervisors }._
October 13, 1987
HIBITt
S, 7 1 j
'i. .- ,1 � � ` .t '1•, ` .t 'tr L.�..�....,.:....•.:-w.r+��.•.er+r.. "'^•^.�_•!�"n:T.".•` ,..PK..-'---.+T4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY. ... . . ...... ... . . ........... . .. .............. .... ..... ...iii
I. INTRODUCTION... ..... .. ........................... ...... ....1
Background... .... .. ..... ................................. .... ...1
Next Steps........ ........ .. .. ............ .............. ..... .2
Organization of the Report... ........ ..... ................. .....2
II. NEED FOR AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING.............. ................. .2
III. PROJECTS AMID BUILDINGS. . ..... .. ... .... .. ..... . ..... . .... ... . ... .. .7
IV. RESIDENTS AND RENTS.. ... . ......... . ........................... ... .7
Residents......... ... .. ............... .......... . ...............7
Rents.... ....... . ..... . .. ............ ........ .. ................. .8
V. ALLOCATION AND SELECTION OF PROJECTS.......................... .. ..8
Allocation of Units... . .................. ..... ............. . ....8
Project Selection.. ..... .. . .. ..... . ....... .................. . .. .9
Project Selection Criteria... .... ..... . ..................... .. . .9.
VI. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. . . . . . .. . .... ... ... ... .... .......... ..... .... . .9
VII. OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND MONITORING. ... .... .. ........ . .... ... . .10
Ownership and Management. . . . . .......... .. . . .. . ... . .. ...... .... .10
Monitoring..... . . . . .. . . . . . ..... . . .... .... ...... ... ... ...... .. ..10
VIII. FINANCIAL PROPOSAL.. . ... ... .... .............. . ... .. . .. . ..........11
Development Financing. . .. . . ... .. . ...... .. .... . . ... ... ..... .....11
Operating and Maintenance Costs. . . ... ... . .. . .. .. . . ... .. .... . . ..11
IX. BOND ELECTION. .. .. . . .. . . . ... . . ... .. ........ .. .. . . . ....... .. ... . ..11
APPENDICES
A. Alameda County Senior Housing Technical Advisory Committee
Membership Roster... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . .... .. . .. . . . . . .. .. ... .. . . . .A-1
B. Needs Assessment Methodology.. . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . ..... . . .B-1
C. Supply of Affordable Senior Housing. .... . ... . . .. .. . .. .. .. ..... . .. .0-1
D. Development timeline. . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . ... . . .. . .. .. .. ... .. .... . . .D-1
E. Financial proposal background. . .... . ... .. ... ... . .. . . . . .. . .. ... . . . .E-1
F. City council resolution. . .. . .. . . . .. . . ....... ...... . .. .... ..... .. . .F-1
G. Election timetable..... . . .. . . . . . ... ......... .. ..... .. ... .. .... .. . .G-1
i
LIST OF TABLES, GRAPHS, AND EXHIBITS
Table One: Comparison of Need and Supply of Rental Housing for Very
Low-Income Seniors: Alameda County, By County Sub-Areas, 1990......... .. . . .4
Graph One: Need and Supply of Affordable Rental Units for the Elderly:
Alameda Alameda County, 1990... ..................................... .
Table Two: Potential "Opt Outs" of Low-Income Senior Housing: Alameda
County, by 1996.... ....... .. ... .. . .. ....... ........................... .. ... .6
Exhibit One: Alameda County Senior Housing Program: Ballot Language. . . . . . .13
Appendix B:
Table B-1: Projections of Population 65+ and 62+: Alameda County,
1985-2000. ............ .. .. .. ............ ....................................B-4
Table B-2: Population Projections: Cities as Percent of County Population:
Alameda Alameda County, 1980-2000. . . ..... ...................... ..................
Table B-3: Population Projections for People 62 and Older: Alameda County,
by City, 1980 to 2000.. .. .... . . ....................... .............. .. .... .B-6
Table B-4: Population Projections for Noninstitutionalized People 62+:
Alameda County, by City, 1980 to 2000.... .............. .... ..... .... ... .. . .B-7
Table B-5: Householders 62+ Below 50% of Median Income: Alameda County, •. .B-8
1980. . . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. ... . . . .. . .. ... . . ................... . ... . ..
Table B-6: Noninstitutionalized People 62+ with Incomes Below 50% of Median:
Alameda County, by City, 1980 to 2000.. . .......... ........ ......... .... . ..
Table B-7: Percentage of Very Low-Income Senior Renters vs. Owners: B-10
Alameda County, 1980. .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . ....... . ... .. . .. . . . .. ....... .
Table B-8: Comparison of Need and Supply of Housing for Very Low-Income
-11
Seniors: Alameda County, by County Sub-Area, 1990.. .. . ... . . . ..... . . . ... . . .3
Appendix C:
Table C-1: Supply of Affordable Elderly Housing: North Alameda County,
9/6/87. . . . ... . . . .. .. . .. . ... . . .. . .. .. ... .. . .... ......... . ...... ... .. .. .. . . . . .0-2
Table C-2: Supply of Affordable Elderly Housing: South Alameda County, '
9/6/87. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. ... . .. . .... . ... ....... . .......... .. . . . . . . .0-4
Table C-3: Supply of Affordable Elderly Housing: East Alameda County,
9/6/87. . . . . ... .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . ... ... ..... ........ .... . ... . .. . .. .0-6
ii
Appendix D:
Table D-1: Post-Election Time Schedule for Senior Housing Program: .D-2
First RFP Cycle, 6/88 -- 6/91...... .............................. ... ... ... .
Table D-2: Post-Election Time Schedule for Senior Housing Program: •D-3
Second RFP Cycle, 5/90 — 6/93.... ........ .......................... .... .. .
Table D-3: Post-Election Time Schedule for Senior Housing Program:
Third RFP Cycle, 10/91 -- 9/94. ....... .............. ......... ........... ... .D-4
Appendix E:
Table E-1: Development of Prototypical Costs — Senior Housing Program:
Current Costs.... .... .. . ....... ... ..... ....... ......... ............. .. . . . . . .L-3
Table E-2: Development of Prototypical Costs — Senior Housing Program:
Costs at First RFP 1/89. ..... . .. ........... ........... ............... ... .. ..E-5
Table E-3: Summary of General Obligation Bond Costs: Alameda County Senior
Housing Program. ..... .... .. .... . .. ........ ...................... ....... ... . .E-7
Table E-4: Estimated Individual Property Tax Assessment:
Alameda County Senior Housing Program.... . .... ....... .. ... .......... . .. . . ... .E-8
Table E-5: Estimated Individual Property Tax Assessment:
Alameda County Senior Housing Program.. .......... ..... .. . ... ...... .. . ... . . . .E-9
Table E-6: Estimated Individual Property Tax Assessment: T�10
Alameda County Senior Housing Program. .... . .... ..... ... . .. ... ... .. ... . .. .. .
Table E-7: Estimated Individual Property Tax Assessment:
Alameda County Senior Housing Program.. ... ....... .... . . .. . . ... . . .... . . . . . . .E-11
Table E-8: Estimated Individual Property Tax Assessment: -12
Alameda County Senior Housing Program. . . .......... .. .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . .
.. .. . . .L
Appendix F:
Exhibit F-1: Sample City Council Resolution Supporting Senior Housing
Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .... . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . ._-2
iii
Alameda County
Senior Housing Program
PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS
SUMMARY
The Alameda County Senior Housing Program will create 1,700 units of
affordable housing for very low-income elderly citizens throughout Alameda
County, financed through a general obligation bond. The Senior Housing
Program will help fill a serious gap between the need and supply of affordable
housing for very low-income senior citizens of the county. Projections show
that by 1990, there will be approximately 12,000 more low-income senior rental
households than there are affordable senior apartments.
The 1,700 housing units, including both new construction and purchase and
substantial rehabilitation, will be designed specifically to meet the needs of
elderly people and to encourage independence and continued community
involvement. The typical project is envisioned as a three to four story
building with between 30 and 50 apartment units. The apartments will be
primarily one bedroom, with some two-bedroom units, and will allow for a wide
range of daily activities. Projects will fit into existing neighborhoods in
locations with access to transportation, shopping and a variety of facilities
and services. All developments will be accessible to the disabled.
Residents will be very low-income people, 62 years or older. In addition, ten
percent of the units in the Program will be reserved for very low-income
disabled people, either elderly or nonelderly depending on project
configuration.
The units will be dispersed throughout the county. Each city and the
unincorporated county will receive an allocation of 50 housing units. The
remaining 950 units in the Program will be allocated to three county
sub-areas, based on need.
Projects will be selected by a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process
in which the developer purchases the property, constructs or rehabilitates the
buildings, and sells the completed project to the County for public or
nonprofit ownership. The County will issue the RFP's and initially review
submitted proposals. Proposals will then go through a review process
including city approval (in addition to regular planning approval) and review
by an area selection committee made up of one delegate from each city in the
area and one delegate from the County. The selection committees will
recommend proposals for each area to the Board of Supervisors for its
approval.
The development costs of the Program will be completely financed through a
general obligation bond issue of approximately $142.7 million. Rents from the
developments will pay for all operations and maintenance.
The bond issue and approval of development of the units is currently scheduled
to go before Alameda County voters in either June or November 1988.
iv
Alameda County
Senior Housing Program
PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS
I. INTRODUCTION
Background
This report proposes an implementation plan for one of the recommendations
which the Alameda County Senior Housing Needs Task Force presented to the
Board of Supervisors in October 1986. After studying the housing needs of low
and moderate income elderly people in the county, the Task Force presented a
four-part program to the Board of Supervisors: 1) the creation of 51950 new
units of affordable rental housing for low and moderate income elderly
residents; 2) the provision of low-cost home repair services to low and
moderate income elderly homeowners; 3) the recommendation that local
communities provide assistance for mobile home owners who are interested in
purchasing their mobile home parks; and, 4) the creation of a new task force
to develop strategies to meet the special needs of frail elderly in the county.
The first priority for implementation was the creation of new affordable
rental housing to meet the large unmet need for such housing which was
identified by the Task Force. The primary proposal of the Task Force, the
creation of 5,950 new units of affordable senior housing, was divided into
three components: the construction of 1,700 units of publicly owned rental
housing financed through general obligation bonds; the construction of 21400
units under for-profit ownership financed through housing revenue bonds and
subsidized land; and the creation of 1,850 units under nonprofit ownership
financed with donated land in addition to housing revenue bonds. The Board
accepted the report. Subsequently, the Senior Housing Needs Task Force made
presentations to each city council in the county. The proposal for the
creation of new, affordable rental housing for elderly and disabled people has
met with strong support from the councils as a general concept.
Along with accepting the report of the Senior Housing Needs Task Force, the
Board directed staff to develop a detailed report on the implementation of the
first component: the creation of 1,700 units of publicly owned rental housing
financed through a general obligation bond. To this end, the Board appointed
one of its members to work with a representative from the Conference of Mayors
and County staff to develop the feasibility and implementation plan. The
Alameda County Senior Housing Technical.Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed in
June, 1987 to assist in these efforts. The 27 members of the TAC represent
all of the cities within the county, as well as housing authorities, nonprofit
housing corporations and representatives of the senior and disabled
communities. Appendix A contains a roster of TAC members.
To carry out its work, the TAC broke into three subcommittees: Design
Criteria; Allocation and Selection of Projects; and Residency, Ownership, and
Management. Between June and September 1987, the TAC held numerous
subcommittee and full committee meetings to develop and refine the development
proposal.
-1-
On October 13, 1987, the Board of Supervisors accepted the TAC "Proposal for
Development of Affordable Housing for Low-Income Seniors," dated October 1,
1987, with the exception of the ownership and management section, which was
revised. This report includes the revised section.
Next Steps
The next steps for the implementation of the Senior Housing Program (SHP) will
include presentation of this report to the 14 city councils in the county for
their approval, formal authorization of the bond election by the Board of
Supervisors, and the formation of an election committee to carry out the
campaign for voter approval of the bond. The city councils in the county have
supported the SHP in general concept. Now this more detailed plan will be
presented and each city council will be asked to approve its city's
participation in the Program, and to support the Board's calling of the
election to authorize the Program's implementation. By the end of 1987, the
SHP will be presented to all of the city councils in the county. Early in
1988, the Board will consider the formal. authorization of the bond election in
June or November, 1988.
Organization of the Report
This report is divided into eight primary parts: A brief update of the need
for the program; a general picture of the types of housing developments which
will be included in the program; a description of who will be eligible for the
program and the rent structure; a system for allocating the units around the
county and for selecting which proposed developments will be built; the
development process; the criteria for ownership, management, and monitoring of
the units developed; a discussion of the proposed costs and financing
mechanism for the program; and an outline of the election procedures necessary
to authorize the use of a general obligation bond. Appendices supplement the
information on the projected need for the housing units, the program
description, and the election, and lay out a development timeline for the
program.
II. NEED FOR AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING
The Alameda County Senior Housing Needs Task Force explored the need for
affordable housing for low and moderate income seniors in the county by
examining the Housing Assistance Plans in the county, and conducting a
statistical analysis of the 1980 Census, public meetings, a city survey, and
interviews with service providers. The analysis demonstrated a sizeable need
for affordable senior housing in the county as of 1985. This report updates
the Task Force needs assessment by projecting the need through the year 2000,
and by specifically limiting the analysis to independent seniors who are
renters and who have incomes below 50 percent of median income. In addition,
this update develops an estimate of "net need" by subtracting existing and
proposed affordable units from the gross projected need.
The updated needs analysis shows a need for approximately 12,000 additional
senior housing units by 1990. Projecting the number of very low-income,
noninstitutionalized renters 62 or older to 1990, and comparing it with the
supply of affordable units in 1987, North County shows a need for
-2-
approximately 4,600 units, South County a need for approximately 5,600
additional units, and East County a need for approximately 1,500 units (See
Table One) . Graph One illustrates the projected disparity between the need
and supply of housing affordable to low-income elderly.
This large gap in the demand and supply of affordable senior housing is a
conservative estimate. If the population of low-income elderly is not
restricted to those who are renters, and homeowners are included in the
figures, the need becomes even greater: a total of over 32,300 units
county-wide. While not all very low-income elderly homeowners will move to
rental housing, some will move if the rental housing is affordable and meets
their needs. Elderly homeowners often experience both financial and physical
difficulties maintaining their homes. In addition, single-family dwellings
may no longer meet their need for social interaction and support. The exact
number of homeowners who will shift to rental housing if it is available is
impossible to determine, but it is possible to say that the actual demand for
affordable elderly units in the county will probably fall between the renter
only figure of 11,788 and the homeowner-.included figure of 32,373.
In addition, the need for affordable rental housing could increase over the
next several years beyond these projections due to the owners of existing
affordable units "opting out" of Section 8 contracts as they come up for
renewal and prepaying subsidized mortgages which require that tenants be low
and moderate income people. Over 750 units may become unaffordable by the
mid-1990's due to "opt outs." The problem is potentially most severe in North
County, where 573 of these units are located. Table Two shows the potential
"opt out" senior units in the county.
A description of the methodology used in the need projections is in Appendix
B. Data on the supply of affordable senior housing units is in Appendix C.
-3-
TABLE ONE
COMPARISON OF NEED AND SUPPLY OF RENTAL HOUSING FOR VERY LOW-INCOME SENIOR
ALAMEDA COUNTY, BY COUNTY SUB-AREAS, 1990
1990 1987
Rental
HHs 62+
Area ; < 50% median ; # of Units * ; "Net" Need
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
------------ ------------ ------------
NORTH COUNTY ; 12, 219 -7, 559 ; 4,660
SOUTH COUNTY 7, 934 2, 266 ; 5, 648
EAST COUNTY ; 1 ,970 490 1 , 480
TOTAL ; 22, 123 ; 10, 335 11,788
needrts9.wks
** = Includes only non-institutionalized people.
* = Includes Section 8 Existing Certificates and Vouchers.
Sources : Alameda County Housing and Community 'Development.
"Proposal for Development of Housing for Low-Income
Seniors, " Appendices B and C.
-4-
�
/
cn
/
. |
Graph One:
NEED SUPPLY . OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS
For fhe Elderly * , Alameda Counfy, 1990
o
IIM Households (32+ Number of UnIts.
below 50% of' rne.rlkiri Income & renters.
TABLE TWO:
POTENTIAL "OPT OUTS" OF LOW-INCOME SENIOR HOUSING
Alameda County, by 1996
Area ; # of Assisted Units
------------ -------------------------
NORTH CO 573
SOUTH CO 179
EAST CO ; 31
----------------------------------------
TOTAL 783
Sources: Northern California Association for
Nonprofit Housing, 6/19/87.
Alameda County Housing and Community
Development.
optout.wks
-6-
III. PROJECTS AND BUILDINGS
The 1,700 housing units, including both new construction and purchase and
substantial rehabilitation, will be designed specifically to meet the needs of
elderly and disabled people. The building design and site locations will
encourage independence and provide opportunities for continued growth and
human contact. The smallest project size will be 20 units. No maximum size
is recommended, but the selection process will encourage small and
medium-sized projects that fit into existing neighborhoods. The typical
project is envisioned as a three to four story building with between 30 and 50
units.
Community space will be included in projects with over 40 units and encouraged
in smaller projects. Projects will be encouraged to include appropriate space
for social service providers to meet with residents. Multi-story projects
will have at least one elevator. All projects will include fire alarm systems
and emergency call systems. Energy efficient design will be incorporated into
all buildings.
Congregate care will be allowed but the Senior Housing Program will not pay
for operational costs or exceptional capital costs. Multi-generational
projects will be allowed but the SHP will pay only the costs associated with
the senior and disabled units.(1)
In addition to building design, projects will be selected on the basis of
pedestrian access, transportation, shopping, and neighborhood and off-site
characteristics, as they relate to the special needs of the elderly. A
variety of facilities and services should be accessible by foot or public
transit. All sites will be accessible to the disabled.
Each apartment unit will be designed to allow for the widest possible range of
daily activities. Design features with institutional connotations will be
avoided and a sense of home fostered. All units will be accessible to the
disabled in terms of circulation, front-controlled appliances, and installed
grab bars. In addition, ten percent of the units in the Program will include
moveable cabinets so that they are fully adaptable for people in wheelchairs.
Most units will have one bedroom, although two-bedroom units will be allowed,
up to approximately ten percent of the senior designated units built in the
program (153 units) . In addition, 20 percent of the fully adaptable units will
have two-bedrooms (34) . Single room occupancy hotels (SROs) will not be
eligible for the SHP.
IV. RESIDENTS AND RENTS
Residents
The units built or acquired through the Senior Housing Program will be
reserved for very low-income people, 62 years or older.(2) In addition, ten
percent of the units will be reserved for very low-income elderly and
non-elderly disabled people. Completely adaptable units which are integrated
into senior projects will be reserved for elderly disabled people. Completely
adaptable units which are built in separate projects may be occupied by either
elderly or nonelderly disabled people.
-7-
During initial rent up, preference will be given to people residing, working
or having immediate family in the city where the project is located. : Those
without housing or living in-substandard housing will have priority. After
initial rent up, the city residency priority will be eliminated. . Priority for
residents of Alameda County will be maintained during the life of the
Program.(3)
Rents
Projects will charge a flat rent sufficient to cover operating expenses and
reserves. A small additional rent will be charged for two-bedroom units. The
County will review all rents and rent increases. Based on a survey of current
operating expenses for low-income housing developments, rents will be between
$195 and $225 per unit per month (in current dollars).. Included in these
rents are reserves to cover long-term replacement and maintenance
expenses.(4)
V. ALLOCATION AND SELECTION OF PROJECTS
Allocation of Units
The units will be distributed throughout the county. First, each city and the
unincorporated county will receive an allocation of 50 units. Second, the
remaining units will be proportionately allocated to three County sub-areas
based on the need in that area, as shown in Table One above. The three
sub-areas and allocations are:
Area Allocation
NORTH COUNTY
Alameda 50
Albany 50
Berkeley 50
Emeryville 50
Oakland 50
Piedmont 50
Assigned allocation 300
Unassigned allocation 350
Total North County 650
SOUTH COUNTY
Fremont 50
Hayward 50
Newark 50
San Leandro 50
Union City 50
Unincorporated 50
Assigned allocation 300
Unassigned allocation 450
Total South County 750
-8-
T
EAST COUNTY
Dublin 50
Livermore 50
Pleasanton 50
Assigned allocation 150
Unassigned allocation 150
Total East County 300
Total Units 1700
If a city decides not to use its allocation, the units will revert to the pool
for the area where the city is located. (5)
Project Selection
Projects will be selected through a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP)
process, in which the developer controls the property, constructs or
rehabilitates the buildings, and sells the completed project to the County.
Three RFP cycles are anticipated -over a six year development period. The
development timeline is described in the following section.
The County will issue the RFD's for projects and County staff will review
submitted proposals based on completeness and conformance with the selection
criteria. Staff will refer proposals to appropriate city councils for
approval of projects located in their jurisdictions. At the same time, staff
will refer ranked proposals to a selection committee for each area described
above, which will consist of one delegate from each city in the area and one
delegate from the County. The area selection committees will review and
recommend proposals for each area to the Board of Supervisors for its
approval.
Project Selection Criteria
Responses to RFP's will be evaluated using two categories of criteria: 1)
requirements which must be met before a proposal will be considered; and 2)
additional criteria which will be used to rank proposals. All projects must:
1) meet specified design criteria; 2) have at least 20 units; 3) receive city
council approval; 4) have development costs at or below the maximum
established; 5) meet required percentages for minority and women-owned
business participation; and 6) pay prevailing wages. County-level local
hiring preference will also be given. The criteria for ranking proposals
include: 1) developer experience; 2) location, including both the neighborhood
in which the project is located and the jurisdiction in which the project is
located if it has not received its minimum allocation of units; 3)
construction financing committment; 4) costs below maximum; 5) amenities
and/or unit size above minimum; 6) additional design criteria.
VI. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The development process, which will take place after voter approval of the
general obligation bond, will involve three Request For Proposal cycles and
take place over approximately six years, as currently conceived. Each
-9-
RFP cycle will involve the County issuing a Request For Proposals and
evaluation of the responses by the County, the cities in which proposed
projects are locate(q, and the sub-area selection committees. After projects
are selected, the County will sign a letter of intent with selected developers
and enter into a negotiations phase. During the negotiations, the final
outlines of the projects will be developed, permits and approvals will be
sought, and a management entity will be brought into the process, if one has
not already been participating in the proposal development. When an
acceptable final proposal has been negotiated, the County will sign a
comnittment to purchase the units from the developer upon satisfactory
completion.
After the signing of the commitment letter, it is anticipated that project
construction will take between nine and 12 months to complete. During the
final four months of construction, the entity which will manage the completed
units will begin marketing and tenant selection.
Phasing project development will help prevent market absorbtion problems,
allow for smoother administration of the development process, and encourage
better projects as lessons learned in the first RFP process are incorporated
into subsequent cycles.
A detailed development timeline is in Appendix D.
VII. OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND MONITORING
Ownership and Management
The specific ownership and management structure for the Senior Housing Program
will be guided by four principles, designed to ensure the long-term integrity
of the Program. 1) The Program will comply with all legal restrictions of a
public purpose bond issue. 2) The County will monitor and enforce standards
of occupancy, maintenance, and financial accountability. 3) The County will
set initial rents, approve rent increases, and establish and maintain a common
reserve pool. 4) Operating and maintenance costs will be kept as low as
possible consistent with maintaining the high quality of the housing. These
principles establish that the County will maintain control of the housing to
ensure that it is used to serve its intented purpose and that there will be
cost effective and quality management of the housing.
All projects will have resident managers.
Monitoring
A central entity, either within the County or under contract to it, will
monitor projects in terms of standards of occupancy, maintenance, and
financial responsibility. This entity will conduct annual audits to ensure
occupancy, maintenance, and financial compliance. Monitoring requirements
will be kept to a minimum so that they do not overly burden managers.
-10-
VIII. FINANCIAL PROPOSAL
Development Financing
The development costs of this program will be completely financed through one
or more general obligation bond issues totaling $142,728,000. Development
costs account for the bulk of the expense, approximately $137.2 million. The
bond will also cover issuance and administrative expenses.
Determining the financial feasibility of the Senior Housing Program involved
estimating the land and building costs of the units in the Program, estimating
the administrative costs which the County -will incur to run the development
program, and estimating the bond issuance expenses. Inflation and land
appreciation rates were also estimated to account for development occurring
between 1988 and 1994. The expense estimates were then compiled to determine
the total size of the bond, and used to estimate the amount which property
owners will pay in property taxes to pay for the Program. See Appendix E for
detailed financial calculations.
It is projected that a bond issue of $142,728,000 will result in an additional
property tax assessment of between $20 and $25 per year per $100,000 of
assessed property value, depending on the interest rate at which the bonds are
sold.
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Rents from the developments will pay for all operations and maintenance.
Estimated rents were calculated based on a survey of current operating costs
of selected low-income housing projects in Alameda County. Rents are
estimated at between $195 and $225 per month in current dollars(3). Rents
are the only revenue available from the Program to cover operating and
maintenance expenses. There will be no additional subsidy. Rents will be
increased on an annual basis to cover increases in operating costs.
IX. BOND ELECTION
The proposed Senior Housing Program requires voter approval under both Article
13 A) , Section 1 (b) , and Article 34 of the California constitution. Article
13 A) requires that any general obligation bond must be approved by two-thirds
of the voters in the jurisdiction issuing the bond. Article 34 requires vote:
approval of housing projects when a public entity will be developing,
constructing, or acquiring the housing as a low-rent project.(8)
Bond counsel has determined that these two items can be composed into one
ballot measure. It is currently anticipated that the Senior Housing Program
will be on the ballot in June or November 1988. The proposed ballot language
for the election is presented in Exhibit One.
The Alameda County SHP will approach each city council in the county to
approve its city's participation in the Program (subject to its approval of
each development to be located in its city), and to approve the Board's
calling of the election to authorize the Program's implementation. The
resolution which will be presented to the city councils is in Appendix F.
-11-
The conduct of County general obligation bond elections is governed by
statutory provisions in the Election Code. -These provisions lay out a
timeline of events which must occur for the general obligation bond election
to take place. A detailed outline and timetable for placing County general
obligation bond issue on the June' 7, 1988 ballot, and for issuing the bonds
after the successful election, are found in Appendix G.
After approval of the Senior Housing Program by the County Board of
Supervisors, an election committee will be formed to work for voter approval
of the Program and the bond.
0762H
-12-
Exhibit One
Alameda County
Senior Housing Program
BALLOT LANGUAGE
"Shall the County of Alameda incur a bonded indebtedness in a principal not to
exceed $142,728,000 for the purpose of developing, constructing, and acquiring
within the County of Alameda multifamily rental. housing developments
containing a maximum of 2000 dwelling units reserved for occupancy by
low-income elderly and disabled persons?" -
-13-
FOOTNOTES
1. There will be a maximum dollar amount funded by the bond which will be
allowed for .capital costs of project common space and amenities. Developers
may supplement this. Small-scale commercial activities related to services
needed by seniors will be allowed, but capital costs for commercial space may
not come from bond issue.
2. "Very low-income" is defined as people with incomes of less than 50 percent
of median income at time of occupancy. Assets will be allowed but imputed or
actual income from assets will be included in income. No annual
recertification of income will be required. Definitions of "elderly,"
"handicapped," and "disabled" will be those developed by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
3. The Senior Housing Technical Advisory. Committee considered the option of
maintaining the city residency priority after initial rent up, but decided to
eliminate it for two primary reasons. First, city residency priority on an
on-going basis would be difficult and cumbersome for project managers to
administer. Second, the Senior Housing Program will be supported by property
owners county-wide and it was felt that the most significant residency was
that of the county.
The TAC also considered a proposal to give priority to residents of cities
which do not have any units in the program built within their boundaries, in
projects built in other cities. For example, City A is not able to use the 50
units allocated to it. Under this scenario, residents of City A who are
eligible for the Program, would recieve priority for filling 50 units in
Senior Housing projects in City B. This option was eliminated primarily for
the same reasons cited above for eliminating the city residency priority after
initial rent up.
4. The survey of low-income project operating costs encompassed three housing
authorities, one nonprofit housing corporation and one for-profit developer.
Operating expenses before contribution to replacement reserves ranged from
$160 to $190 per unit per month. An additional monthly expense of $30 per
unit was added for replacement reserves. Five dollars per unit per month was
added to cover monitoring expenses. Since rents must cover all operating
expenses, the resulting rents range from $195 to $225. Since utility and
other costs differ in different parts of the county, the exact rent will
depend on project location and associated costs. Rents will be kept as low as
possible, while ensuring project feasibility and long-term stability.
The TAC considered a variety of rent structures, including charging a
percentage of tenant incomes or charging a base rent plus additional rent up
to a percentage of tenant income. The flat rent alternative was selected
because of the difficulty in administering "percentage of income" based rents
while ensuring that all project operating costs and reserves would be covered
by rents.
5. If a city does not use its allocated minimum number of units by the second
RFP cycle, the allocation will revert to the pool for that area. In the third
RFP, preference will be given to suitable projects within that city.
-14-
6. Nonprofit owners and managers will be selected based on evaluation of the
following criteria: 1) at least two years experience owning and managing
low-income housing for the elderly in Alameda County; 2) operating and
financial performance as evidenced by audited financial statements and
reserves; 3) willingness and ability to cover some portion of unforeseen
expenses; 4) tenant relations reputation; 5) insurability; and 6) staff and
board member qualifications. If no acceptable nonprofit with at least two
years experience owning and managing low-income housing for the elderly in
Alameda County is interested in owning and managing a project, nonprofits with
similar experience in the nine-county Bay Area may apply.
7. The TAC proposed that the housing authority in the jurisdiction where the
housing is built (if one exists) be given priority to own and manage the
projects, given that it met program guidelines. If there is no housing
authority in the jurisdiction, or if the housing authority elects not to lease
the project, then nonprofits and other housing authorities would be allowed to
submit proposals to own and manage it. An exception to this rule would be
that if a nonprofit acted as a developer, the County would give it priority to
own and manage the project, as long as the nonprofit met selection criteria
and program guidelines.
This recommendation was presented to the Board of Supervisors, along with the
recommendation from County staff that the issue of the ownership and
management structure be left open at this point to allow for further research
and analysis on issues (discussed below) that would influence the most
desirable ownership structure. The County Administrator also expressed
concerns about the question of ownership and management of the housing as
presented in the TAC report. In analyzing the question of ownership and
management and arriving at the conclusion that the issue should remain open at
this point, the County considered a variety of factors: 1) legal and
financial restrictions of the bond financing; 2) the cost and quality of
operating and maintaining the housing; 3) County adminstration of rents and
common reserves; and 4) County monitoring and enforcement of standards for
occupancy, maintenance, and financial accountability.
In regard to legal and financial limitations of bond financing, both public
and nonprofit ownership are possible under federal and state law. Nonprofit
ownership is limited to a portion of the issue, approximately ten percent, in
order for the bond to be considered a governmental use bond, rather than a
private activity bond, under federal regulations. Requirements of a private
activity bond, such as the requirement for a public hearing before the bonds
are issued at which all projects must be identified by location, number of
units and amount of financing, would require that the bonds be issued in
several series. This would allow the County less flexibility in timing the
marketing of the bond to achieve the most favorable interest rate and reduce
the investment earnings which are the inflationary hedge to cover increases in
project costs. In light of these restrictions, nonprofit ownership is a
possibility for only a limited portion of the housing.
-15-
The question of ownership will not affect the bond rating, and therefore will
not affect the interest that will be paid on the bonds. The rating of a
general obligation bond issue is based upon an evaluation of ability and
willingness to pay the debt on the part of the jurisdiction issuing the debt.
In California, the ability and willingness to pay the GO bond debt centers on
the jurisdiction's capability to levy and collect the property tax, not on the
housing financed by the proceeds of the issue.
The cost and quality of operating and maintaining the housing are central to
the entire success of the program. However, issues involved in reaching a
final determination of the optimum ownership-management structure in light of
these issues are complex and technical. Further analysis is needed to
determine the most efficient ownership-mangement configuration that will meet
the objectives of the Senior Housing Program.
In terms of cost, a key element is that rents must be set at an affordable
level. However, all operating and maintenance costs must be paid by the
residents, as there are no other subsidies from federal, state, or local
sources. Different ownership-management arrangements will have a significant
impact on costs. Staff reviews have shown a wide range in cost estimates
depending on the number of projects and the mangement entity involved, however
the information so far reviewed does not lead to any firm conclusions in
regard to the best ownership-management structure. Another aspect of cost
that will be affected by different ownership-mangement structures is
liability, both property and general liability. Different structures will
present different liability exposures for the County and for the other
entities, and costs to cover the exposure will vary accordingly. Of course,
cost considerations must be balanced by considerations with respect to the
quality of management. Management must provide quality service to make the
housing work to meet the need for which it is being built today, as well as to
meet the needs of seniors in the future.
Regarding County administration of rents and reserves, the County will set the
initial rents, approve rent increases, and establish and maintain a common
reserve pool. These tasks can be carried out regardless of whether the County
directly owns the projects or has agreements with owners or leasees of.the
housing.
In regard to monitoring and enforcement of standards, whether the County
directly owns the housing or transfers ownership to another entity, there will
be annual audits of the fulfillment of occupancy, maintenance, and financial
standards. What varies from one ownership alternative to another is the
mechanism for enforcement of the standards being monitored. If the County
directly owns the housing, the enforcement mechanism will be a contract with a
management entity. If the County leases the housing, the lease will be the
enforcement vehicle. If the County transfers ownership, enforcement of
standards will be through deed restrictions which will include a reversionary
clause in cases where the deed restrictions are not met.
Because resolution of the precise ownership-management structure does not
affect the general outline of the proposal or its feasibility and will require
additional research and analysis, it may appropriately be deferred
-16-
.I �• f b
RECD
r
_ E �
X19
DUBU
PLANNING
APPENDIX A:
MEMBERSHIP ROSTER
ALAMEDA COUNTY SENIOR HOUSING TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A-1
ALAMEDA COUNTY SENIOR HOUSING;PROGRAM
OMMI
. TECHNICAL ADVISORY C TTEE
r yr.
r
Rod Barger John Hovey
Senior Planner 'Executive Director
City of Dublin City of Livermore Housing
Authority
Ophelia Basgal
Executive Director - Hunter L. Johnson
Alameda County/City of Dublin Executive Director .-
Housing Authority 'Emeryville Redevelopment
Agency/City of Emeryville ..
Claudia Cappio
City Planner Jackie Kehl'.
City of Albany Hsg. Counselor/Advocate
Community Resources for
Bob Chastain - Independent Living
Independent Consultant
Oakland Housing Organization John Klein
Housing Coordinator
Harold Davis City of San Leandro
Executive Director
City of Oakland Housing Carol Lamont
Authority Community Development
Coordinator
Sylvia Ehrenthal City of Fremont
Director of Community
& Economic Development Dept. Nathan Landau
City of Hayward Associate Planner
Planning & Community
Scott Erickson Development Department
Junior Planner City of Berkeley
City of Pleasanton
Kathy Livermore
Hal Foster Planner
President City of Piedmont
Satellite Senior Homes, Inc.
Peter Margen
Carol Galante Technical Specialist
Executive Director Access California
Eden Housing, Inc. -
Bob Martin
Barbara Hempill President
Sr. Admin. Asst. Congress of Calif. Srs.
City of Livermore Region III ,
Norman Hinds Tom Matthews
Commissioner Executive Director
Commission on Aging City of Alameda Housing
Authority
A-2'
j
r •.
Christine Steiner
Roy Schweyer . .
Housing Manager ' , Housing-:Counselor
City of Oakland . µ "'City,of'San Leandro%j
John N. Shepherd F:' Ronald N. Sutherland. --.-_- .
HCD Coordinator 'Community,Services
Alameda County Housing & Coordinator =` -
Community Development City of Newark.. . .
Vernon Smith Ted Tarail
HCD Coordinator Exec. Vice Pres.
Community Development Dept. Congress of Calif. Srs.
City of Union City .Education & Research Fund
1545A
A-3 ,
APPENDIX'B
NEEDS ASSESSMENT METHODOLGY
B-1 ;
METHODOLOGY AND EXPLANATION OF NEEDS PROJECTIONS
Updating the projected need for housing affordable to very low-income senior
citizens of Alameda County began with a series of projections. We projected r
the noninstitutionalized, low-income senior population by city, reduced it to
the percentage of this population who are renters, and then compared the
low-income senior renter population in 1990 with the supply of affordable
senior rental units in the county. (The survey of the supply of units is
found in Appendix C.) The resulting figure, shown in Table One in the body of
the. report, is the projected "net need" for affordable elderly rental housing.
The first step in determining the net need was to project the county's elderly
population. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has projected the
population of people 65 and older for Alameda County as a whole. Because the
Senior Housing Program will be available to low-income elderly people over 62
years old, the ABAG figures for population over 65 were adjusted to arrive at ;
estimates of the over 62 population. It was assumed that the relationship
between the number of people over 62 in 1980 and the number of people over 65
in 1980 (from the 1980 Census) would remain constant in subsequent years.
That is, for the county as a whole, there will be 23.17 percent more people 62
and older than there are people 65 and older. Using this relationship, the
ABAG projections of the over 65 population for the years 1985 though 2000 were
converted to project the number of people 62 and older for those years. These i
figures are shown in Table B-1. The county 1980 population of people over 65
years old and people over 62 years old are taken from the 1980 Census.
The next step was to distribute the county's elderly population (defined as 62
and older) by city. The distribution is based upon the percentage of the
county's elderly population which each city had in 1980, adjusted by the i
percentage change in each city's proportion of the projected total population
for each five year period. For example, in 1980 38.23 percent of the county's
elderly population lived in the City of Oakland. ABAG projects that the
percentage of the county's total population who live in Oakland will decrease
by .8 percent between 1980 and 1985 and by 1.2 percent between 1985 and 1990.
Therefore, the percentage of people 62 and older who are projected to live in
Oakland in 1985 is approximately 37.43 percent (38.23% minus .8%) . The
percentage of people 62 and older projected to live in Oakland in 1990 is
36.23 percent (37.43% minus 1.2%) . Table B-2 shows the projected change in
each city's percentage of the county's total population which were used to
distribute the projected elderly population by city. Table B-3 shows the
projected elderly population broken down by city.
The resulting figures for the elderly who live in each city were then reduced
by the percentage of institutionalized elderly people in each city in 1980 in
order to arrive at projections for independent elderly. It is assumed that
this percentage will remain constant throughout the projection period. The
percentage of noninstitutionalized elderly in each city and the resulting
projections are shown in Table B-4.
In Table B-5, the elderly population projections which were developed above
are used to derive the number of senior households, using a county-wide
average household size of 1.6 (Senior Housing Needs Assessment, Alameda County
Senior Housing Needs Task Force, May 1985) . This figure is further reduced to
the percentage of senior households with incomes below 50 percent of median
income
B-2
c .sit.
x l ;TABLE B-1 ,
PROJECTIONS `OF POPULATION 65+=AND 62-t r-'
Alameda County, <1985.•:- 2000
Population/Year -'" 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
65 and older ; 114, 206 120, 100 ,: . 125,900 -132,900 143,500
62 and older ; 140, 673 147,933 155,077 163,699 176, 756
----------------------------------------------------------------------
proj62.wks/tableBl .
Sources: ABAG "Projections ' 87. 1980 Census of the Population, Table P-1
Alameda County Housing and Community Development.
B-4
Y
TRBLE B-2:
' - POPULATION PROJECTIONS: CITIES RS PERCENT OF COUNTY POPULATION
RLAMEDS COUNTY, 1980-2000 Rs percent oP CD
V. CO V. CD % CO V. CO % CO Chaingo Chango Change Change
1980 1985- - 1990 1995 2000 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 BO-B5 85-90 90-95 95-2000
MORTH CO
Rlameda 63,e52 71,600 75,800 77,300 76,500 5.67 6.07 6.0'X. 5.9Y. 5.6'X. 0.2% .0% -0.2% -0.3-r
Rlbany. 15, 150 15,300 15,400 15,400 15,,%00 1.4'X. 1.3% 1.2% '1.2Y. 1.1% -0. 1?. , -0.1?. -0.lr .OR
Berkeley 103,329 107,?00 107,000 104, 100 102,500 9.3-X. 9.OR 8.5X. 7.9Y. 7.51 -0.3r -0.57 -0.6Y. -0.4r
Emor Vvi 1 le • 3,714 4,450 5,500 5,800 6,300 0.37 0.47 0.4'X. 0.47 0.5X. .OR - 0.1% .O'l. .OX
Oakland 339,337 356,000 360,000 365,400 368,200 30.TX. 29.9'X. 28.67 27.87 27.17 -0.8r -1.27 -0.W - -0.W.
J
Piedmont
10'.498 10,500 10,300 10, 100 10,000 0.97 O.9Y. 0.8% 0.87 0.Tr. -0. 17 -O I1 -0.1% ;. ►X
total 535,859 565,550 -: 574,000 5?8, 100 578,900 48_5% 47.5% 45.Tr. 44.0% 4 2.6% 1.Or t 1 8'r 1 Tr 1 5X
4 SOUTHCD .•r i ). 4 .;.i [? ,�'.
}
Fremont a 131,960 148,500 167,900 184,500 191'.400 11.97 12.5r. 13.47 14.0'X. 14.Ix , O:5r O 9'r O Tr
Hayi.ierd * ' 118,028 123,' 500 130,200 145,100 158,300 10.77 10.47 10.47 1 l.Or : 11 6r. -0.3r OR O Tr O.6?' f
Ce3tro Val ley 43,474 46, 100 47,800 48,800 50,300 3.97 3.97 3.8-X. 3.77 3.Tr -0.lr -O 1r OX'
San,Lorenzo 20,404 20,700 20,500 20,000 19,700 1.8Y. 1.Tr 1.67 1.5r 1:47 -=o.Ir ` -Q lX -0. r ,-o Ir'
Neuarft +F
32,126 37,100 40,700 41,700 42,500 2.97 3.1% 3.22 3.231. 3.12 0.7r O IX -0.lls s -0 17.
t San Leandro s
79,134 . 82,900 84,300 86,800 89,400 7.27 7.07 6.77. 6.67 . 6.6-X.
Union City s 39,449 48;700 53,200 54,300 55,400 3.67 4.17 4.2% 4.17 4.17 0.5% 0 iX
Subtotal' 464,875 507,500 544,600 581,200 607,000 42. 17 42.67 43.'.f'i� 44.Z'r 44.6X O.SX ` K O 7X p 0 W O 4X
EAST :
f Dublin +�
15,299 17,600 26,900 32,000 38,900 1.4X 1.5% 2.1% 2.4% 2.9l O.Ir O Tr 0 3'r ,O 4r
I ,
�
r Lf vermorn
49,612 54,400 57,100 61,900 67,500 4.51. 4.67 4.5r 4.Tr-'.. 5.Od O. it a y 0r O 2'r O ?-X
- -p eas-anton �t 35,319 41,700 49,200 55,200 62,700 3.27 3.51 3.9-r 4.2t 4.6X. ; O.Sl :. O 4�t O SX .
0.4
X.
=6-
t, Unincorporated 4,415 4,700 4,850 5,050 5,300 0.4'X. 0.47 0.4'X. 0.4% 0.47 Or .OX Ol ; OX
subtotal 104,645 118,400 138,050 154,150 174,400 9.5X. 9.91 11.07 11.Tr 12.8Y. ' 0.5X 1 Or O 8% 1. X.
ti
TOTAL- 1,105,379 1, 191,450 1,256,650 1,313,450 1,360,300 100.07 100.O-l. 100.OR 100.OR 100.0'X. O.Or } ` :'O.O/_ O.OY. O.Or
r
*"=,'Includes sphere of infltsQnca.
SOURCES: ABRG, Projections 187.
Rlamoda County Housing and Community Development.
:proj62.uks/change
Pa,"TICl1 PPOJECTIM FCP PE U 65+ AND PM E`62+ r r! 3
AL AHEDA CWRdT'(,'BY CI1Y, 1980 TO 2400
1 196U 1985 1990 `x {! ,3 1945 ,. 2040 4
AREA b5+. b2+ 65+" 65+ ;62+f 65+ 61± K ' :65+ ` .61+
NORTH CO 1 °
Alameda 1 1,109 4,515 10,351 10,885 ;11,251 11,686
Albany 1 2,357 2,780 2,798 .. 2,842 29914 :. 3,015
Berkeley 11,132 13,243 13,470 13,301 13,(M 13,436
Emeryville 1 321 439 511 642 684 1716
Oakland 1 44,795 53,780 55,344 56,106 57,870 61,156
Piedmont 1 1,576 1,677 . 1,873 1,867 1,BBB .. ; 1,979
Subtotal 67,896 61,634 84,353 85,650 67,690 .: 92,108
50tlTH CO i . . • . - .- .
1
1
Fremont 1 6,880 8,875 10,111 11,990 13,780 14,921
1
Hayward 1 8,325 10,627 10,714 11,224 11,972 : 15,049
Castro Valley 1 5,064 6,614 6,861 . 7,091 7,341 7,895
San Lorenzo 1,970 2,743 2,724 2,691 2,663 2,744
Newark 1,033 1,392 1,7711 2,050 2,059 2,134
San Leandro t 1 12,602 15,717 16,191 16,565 17,344 16,663
Union City 1 2,155 2,681 3,5B1 3,986 4,045 4,25-9
1
Subtotal 1 38,029 48,549 51,958 55,618 60,204 65,665
1
EAST CO 1
1
Dublin 1 372 519 684 1,745 2,327 3.260
1
Livermore 1 2,863 3,610 3,911 4,066 4,566 5,374
Pleasanton 1 1,641 2,091 2,650 3,42 4,083 5,127
1
Unincorporated 1 3,405 4,170 4,378 4,576 4,826 5,222
1 Subtotal 1 6,281 10,390 11,622, 13,809, 151M 18,983
TOTAL 1 114,206 140,673 1_20,100 147,933 125,900 155,077 132,900 163,699 143,500 176,756
+ = includes Ashland.
Sources: ABA6 ProJections'B7. 1980 Census of the Population Table P-1.
Alameda County Housing and Community Development
proi62.wks B-6
TAKE B-4: x j'
POPULATION PROJECTIONS FUh _..INSTITUTIONALIZED PEOPLE 62+
ALAMEDA CaNdiY BY CITY 1480 TO 20W
Percent.b5+'
t b rf Non6kitutlonalized r f
pn�1 1484 1485 1440 {1995 t 4 2000 x > a
AREA 61+ 62+ ., 62+ ", '62±. .s t `""°4 f 1 9�0 ;.� i a ,
i
NORTH CO t
R
Alameda B,167 9,537 .r' 10,430 _101366 V.,. 10,761 r :92.141 ,
Albany 1 2,754 2,578 2,619 `.;2,685 2,833 49.071
Berkeley 12,640 12,412 12,261 '' 12,055 12,380 95.451
Emeryville t 439 416 591 :630 715 100.00%
Oakland I 49,150 50,994 51,696 ',:53,322 56,349 "} fi.' > 91.391
Piedmont .1,877 1,725 1,121 ..1,140 1,824 100.00%
Subtotal 75,627 17,173 18,418 80,797 84,864 ': WA
SOUTH CO
Fremont 7,902 9,316 11,04E 12,641 13,748 84.041
1
Hayward 9,514 4,872 10,342 11,952 13,866 89.531
1
Castro Valley 6,059 6,322 6,5A 6,764 7,274 91.611
San Lorenzo 2,743 2,510 2,480 2,454 2,528 100.001
Newark 0 1,392 1,632 1,884 1,898. 1,967 100.001
San Leandro } 15,024 14,918 15,2B2 15,981 17,146 95.541
,
Unicn City 4 2,303 3,305 3,673 3,727 3,924 85.891
,
Subtotal 44,437 47,874 51,246 55,472 60,503 NIA
EAST CO
Dublin 519 630 1,608 2,144 3,004 100.001
Livermore 3,437 3,604 3,746 4,209 4,951 95.211
1
Pleasanton 1,939 2,441 3,153 3,762 4,724 .92.75"".
Unincorporated 3,349 4,034 4,216 4,449 4,812 80.311
Subtotal 4,244 10,704 12,124 14,W 17,441 . NIA
,
,
TOTAL 11 129,715 136,305 142,888 150,0 162,863 92.211
t = includes Ashland.
Sources: 1490 Census ai the Population Table P-1.
Alameda County Housing and Community Development
proj62.wkslnoninst B-7 '
TRBLE 8-5:
NONINSTITUTIONRLIZED PEOPLE 62+ WITH INCOMES BELOW 507 OF MEDIRN
Alameda County, by City, 1980 to 2000
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
1 median.
<50% median <50% median <5W.. median <50% median <507.
Rte - 1 62+ 62+ HH 62+ HH 62+ 62+ HH 62+ HH 62+ 62+ HH 62+ HH 62+ 62+ HH- 62+ HH 62+ 62+ HH 62+ HH
NORTH cc 1
Rlame9,!;37 a 1 8,767 5,479 2,620 9, 7 5,961 2,851 10,030 6,269 2,998 10,366 6,479 3,096 10,767 6,729 5,218
• I
Rlbany 1 2,754 1,721 823 2,578 1,611 771 2,619 1,637 783 2,6@5 1,678 803 2,@33 1,771 947
1
p�lroloy 1 12,640 7,900 3,778 12,412 7,758 3,710 12,261 7,663 3,665 12,055 7,534 3;603 12,3@0 7,758 3,700
EronJville 1 439 274 131 476 298 142 591 369 177 . 630 394 188 715 447 214.
1
Oakland 1 49,150 30,719 14,690 50,994 31,871 15,242 51,696 32,310 15,451 53,322 33,326 15,957 56,349 35,21 @`,, 16,942.
1
r Piedsorlt I 1,977 1,173 561 1,725 1,078 516 1,721 1,076 514 19740 1,09@ 520 ;1,824 1,140 545
! _
Subtotal I 75 627 267 27 723 48 577 23 231 78 918 49 32 BO 797 50 498 24 '149 @4 @69 x53 043 25,366
47 f a 604 7 4 23 599
g
a a f a a + a f a --
SOUTH CO
Fremont 1 7,902 4,939 2,362 9,316 5,823 2,784 11,048 6,905 3,302 12,697 7,936 3,795 13,749 @,595 49309
! +.t.,
tieyiserd t' 9,514 5,946 2,844 9,872 6,170 2,951 10,342 6,464 3,091 11,952 7,470 3,572 .15,@66 8,666 49144
Castro Valley 1 6,059 3,787 1,811 6,322 3,951 1,890 6,534 4,094 1,953 6,764 4,228 ! 2,022 7,274 4,546' ` 2,174 •,
San Lof^enzo t 2,743 1,714 620 2,51 O 1,569 750 2,490 1,550 741 2,454 1,554 ,; 735 ' 2,528 1,580
1
IioRfarfc I 1,392 870 416 1,632 1,020 488 1,889
1,181 565 1,999 1,186 567 ` "1,967 �1`,229 ' 598
s - !
S anLmandro 15,024 9,390 4,491 14,918 9,324 4,459 15,282 . 9,551 4,568 15,981 9,989 4,777"r 17;196 10,749 ;; 5,140
~Union City 1 2,303 1439 689 3,305 2,066 988 3,673 2,296 1,09@ 3,727 2,329 1,114 5,924 r 2,455 ` yls1T3 yg _`
t .�
rSubtotal 1 44,937 26,086 13,431 47,874 29,921 14,309 51,246 32,029 15,317 ' 55,472 34,670• 16,580 60,505 `'t 37,814: ; 19,084 `;'
5
EAST CO
! t 1
Ii��aiin'. I ' 519 155 630 394 189 1,608 1,005 481 2,144 1,340 641 3,004 1,979 @9@ �
651 1 a 258 . 480
8 2,077 3,746 2,341 1,120 4,209 2
3,437 2,1 f a a
yx
- .., ' ♦;
Pleasanton I 1,959 1,212 680 2,441 1,526 730 3,153 1,971 942 3,762 2,351- 1,124 4,724` 2,955 1,412 $ ?
Uniaicorporated I 3,349 2,093 1,001 4,034 2,521 1,206 4,216 2,635 1,260 . 4,449 2,791 1;550 4;912 5,00@ 1,439
1 t•,
Subtotal 1 9,244 5,778 2,763 10,709 6,693 3,201 12,724 7,953 3,803 14,563 9,102 :: 4;353 . • 17,491 , ,`. 10,932 59229
rq 1 .
' 16 8 101 a 799`
150,833 271 45 f 062 4@,678
e5,191 40,740 142,888 89,305 42,708 129,715 81 a 072 38a 770 136,305
•,Saircass ' ABRS Projections'87. 1980 Census of the Population Table P-1.
Alameda County Housing and Community Development ;
"y RlamQ r
de Co. Senior Housing Needs Task For ce Final Report.
pro j poo2.uica
_ :�•:.
`::ate •'1.�•• . .y �1��
ter•• _ � _ •�..r 'C_
r
TABLE B- s
' HOUSEHOLDERS 62+ ,BELV.. 50%,OF MEDIAN INCOME i , `"
Alameda Countyt,
Number.:of 'F �
Household .income ; ' Householders" 62+
Less than $5,000 , ;19;925 , r
$5,000 to $9, 999 ;: ; - y.;,.'_ '21, 985'
Total $0 - $9, 999 ; r ''; "41;910
. All incomes ; 87, 637 -
Percent 62+ ,
Householders below ;
F - _
50% median income ; 47:8%
pro jpoo2.wks/50median `
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
1980 Census of the Population, Table P-11:
Alameda County Housing and Community Development.
Note: Median household income in Alameda County, 1980 = $18, 700
50% of median HH income = $9, 350.
B-9
y:,E at
BLE "B-7: z k
PERCENTAGE OF VERY L,.. 'INCOME- SENIOR RENTERS VS... w�NEk5
.Alameda ._County.;:;1980 r , }
y x Tenure t
Household
Income - ; ,Owners �: Renters =`
Less than $5,000 ; :7, 959 `' . 11;966
$5,000 to $9, 999 12, 221 '. E "'-'9, 764
Total $0 - $9, 999 ; 20, 180 21, 730
Percentage of � . r
very low-income 48. 2% .51.8% `
seniors ,
projpoo2.wks/ownrent
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing .arid Urban Development:
_ 1980 Census of .the Population,'-Table P-11. .:.._.. .-,.
Alameda County'. Housing :and Community Development.
Note: "Very low-income". = income less than 50% of median income. .
Median household income in Alameda County, 1980 = $18, 700
50% of median HH income = $9, 350.
B-10
COMPARISON OF NEED AND SUPPLY ,OF,-HOUSING,-FOR-VERYLOW-INCOME'(SENIORS •:
ALAMEDA COUNTY;rBY: COUNTY _SUB-AREA, . 1990 ,
HHs 62+
Area ; < 509 median ; # 'of Units * ; "Net" Need .`
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
------------ ------------ ' ------------ ------------
NORTH COUNTY ; . 23, 588
SOUTH COUNTY ; 15, 317 ; 2, 286 ; 13,031
EAST COUNTY ; . 3, 803 490: :.3;313 :
TOTAL 42, 708` ::' 10, 335
netneed9.wks
** = Includes only''non-institutionalized people. n F
* = Includes Section 8 Existing Certificates and Vouchers.
Source: Alameda County Housing and Community Development.
"Proposal for Development of Housing for Low-Income
Seniors, " Appendices B and C.
Netneed90 .wks
B-11
t a r i
' ; y
l !
i f.''ear, r G _
t
APPENDIX C:
SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE SENIOR RENTAL HOUSING
C-1
,t t+.
TABLE C-1 z T
r
SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE :ELDERLY:HOUSING r r 2
NORTH .ALAMEDA: 000NTY 9/11/87
r a z
kf
AREA/TYPE
^. .-SUB
ALAMEDA 0 PROJECT NAME' , # OF UNITS �F.INANCIN6 iTOTALS _TOTAL
Existing Units ! Modulars J., 30
! Park Otis Sr. Com. : 65
! Total existing units _95
Sec.8 Cert !
& Vouchers ! 303
Proposed Units ! Webster Street .: 92 bonds 92
490 "
---------------
! SUB-
ALBANY to PROJECT NAME # OF UNITS FINANCING..-.TOTALS TOTAL
Existing Units ! None
!
Sec 8 Cert !
& Vouchers ! 14
14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUB-
BERKELEY ! PROJECT NAME # OF UNITS FINANCING TOTALS TOTAL
-=----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Units ! Amistad House 60 202/Sec.0
! Harriet Tubman Ter 90 236/5ec.8
! Lawrence Moore Manor 45 236/202/Sec.8
! Oregon Park 61 2210) (4)
! Redwood Gardens 151 202/Sec.8
! Strawberry Cr. Lodge 148 202
! Stuart Pratt Manor 44
! Total existing units 599
Sec.8 Cert !
& Vouchers ! (75 vouchers total , not used, not included) 384
983
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMERYVILLE ! PROJECT NAME # OF UNITS FINANCING TOTALS TOTAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Units 1 None
Sec.8 Cert !
& Vouchers ! 2`
! 2:
=---------------- -- -- - - -------- -
• _ s' ,r SUB
OAKLAND i PROJECT•.NAME`; , F i OF UNITS ` FINANCING rTOTALS TOTAL ;
Existing Units t Adell Court , 29
i Allen Temple-Arms 'I 75 ' 202/Sec 8 Fi
I T
I Allen` Temple.Arms
{ Baywood Apts - 77 ° t
i Beth Asher•y,t _ ` 50 -.236/202/Sec 8
i Beth Eden 54.' t°`'236/Sec 8 _
S Coit Hotel Apts 105
I Casa de las Flores 20 236%Sec 8
i Don On Yuen'- 49 _•.
Evergreen Terrace 80 _ 202/Sec
Glenbrook ,Terrace 66
i Hotel Oakland 314 - .221(0) (4)
i Lake Merrit .Apts. 54 .'_--- 221 (D) (4)
i Lakeside Apts. — 66 Sec.S/R.S.
i Linda Glen 42 .236/Sec.B
i Merritt Terrace 81
i Noble .Tower. 195
i Northgate Terrace 201 202 .
i Oak Center Towers 196 236/Sec.8 .
i Oak Grove Plaza So. 75 .<
Oak Grove Plaza No. -75
t Otterbein Manor 39 236/202/Sec.8
i Park Blvd Manor 41
i .Park Village 84 221(0) (4)
i Posada de Colores 100 202/Sec.8
i Printers Union Ret.Ct 200
i Rose of Sharon 140 236
i Satellite Central 151 .236/202/Sec.B
t Senior Citizens Apts 100
i Sojourner Truth Manor 88 236/Sec.8
i Southlake Tower 130 2210) (4)
i St Andrews Manor 60 236/202/Sec.8
i St Marks Hotel 100
St Marys Gardens ' 100
i St Patricks Terrace bb 236/202/Sec.8
i Valdez Plaza 1750 202/Sec.8
i Westlake Chr. Terr.I 199 202
Westlake Chr. Terr.II 200 236
i Total existing units 3902
Sec.8 Cert t
& Vouchers i 2045
Proposed Units i Center of Hope 38 202/Sec.8
i Sisters of Providence 64 202
I Total proposed units 102
6049
------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUB-
PIEDMONT i PROJECT NAME # OF UNITS FINANCING TOTALS TOTAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Units i None
Sec.8 Cert
& Vouchers i None
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ;
NORTH CO. { 7559
---
Sources: Alameda County Housing and Community Development.
HUD Printout 3/30/87.
"Where to Turn For'.Senior Housing in 'Ala6eda"Co°.-Alameda
Cminty Araa Anancv en Aaino. a- 7
1 ,. C-�
.1. S y��� a �i .t. �• r�: i 'f Jam.• .
r
TP31'- ^-2 t >r
y
SUPPLY OF;rAI JABLEIELDERLY HOUSINGf
SOUTH ALAMEDA%COUNTY - .9/11/87,w• '• th t � �� Ai
t r..xa r rt. :� t' �,+,�' -rJ sF '!' a rY y 4 � f •
AREA/TYPE
r'Gt •..r '+ .r .N1 f
------
1 r y;♦ :SUB '..
FREMONT 1. PROJECT.NAME� r a # .OF UNITS FINANCING TOTALS : TOTAL
----------------- -- -=--=-----=----=--------------------- .
- -.-
Existing Units I Casa Amigo-Fremont `72 =;231
Chapel- Way: .: 58
Good Shepard Residenc 32 202/Sec.8 '
Pasa- Tiempo . 43
Rancho Luna ..: .. :; .`26- 221 (D) (4)/5et:8
I Rancho Sol . - , 12 221 (D) (4) /Sec.8
1 Victoria.6ardens'-,I 75 231/Seca : .`,:
I Victoria Gardens II 94 221 (D) (4)/Sec.e
_
Total 'e units 462
-;
Sec 8 Cert
& Vouchers 1 252
Proposed Units I Sequoia Manor (1988) 80 202/SeC:.e
Total proposed units 80 :
1 -.
794
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUB-
HAYWARD 1 PROJECT NAME # OF UNITS FINANCING TOTALS TOTAL
--------------------------------- ---------------------------.---------------------
Existing Units 1 Eden Issei Terrace 100 202/Sec.8
1 Hayward Villa 78 221 (D) (4)
i Josephine Lum Lodge 150 236/Sec.8
1 Montgomery Plaza 50 221 (D) (4)/Sec.8
1 Wittenburg Manor 93 . • 202/Sec.8
1 Total existing units 471
. 1
Sec 8 Cert 1
& Vouchers 1 219
Proposed Units 1 Casa Sandoval (1988) 49 bonds
1 Total proposed units 49
739
--------------------------------=------------------------------------------------
1
SUB_
NEWARK 1 PROJECT NAME # OF UNITS FINANCING TOTALS TOTAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Units 1 Newark Gardens 150 202/Sec.8
1 Total .existing units 150
i
Sec 8 Cert 1
& Vouchers
161
1
-----------7-------------------------------------------------------------
I
SUB
. SAN LEANDRO 1 PROJECT NAME # OF UNITS FINANCING TOTALS TOTAL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Units 1 Eden Lodge 141 202/Sec.8
1 Fargo Senior Center 75 236/202/Sec.B
I Total existing units 216
Sec 8 Cert I
& Vouchers I .195 .
411 C-4
f r
i.
fABL �' •• 1 r v � xc- J J 4 �r 1 �` N n
' - -2,r{-dont r
--------- -- -- — w k � � to rf
SUB
r
UNION .CITY I PROJECT NAMES ' #,OF UNITS = FINANCING 'TOTALS {r5 ,TOIHL ,
. ------------------------------------------------
------------------- ---- -- - - - {♦ i
Existing Units f Dyer Camp ex r< 7 f`
Nidas Court r y ,':SO
Total existing units � l�i�i
rc r
y
Sec 8 Cert r' .
& Vouchers ` 44
1 144
ADDITIONAL
SOUTH CO
Sec 8 Cert -
& Vouchers 37
37
TOTAL
SOUTH CO. 2286
Sources: Alameda County Housing and Community Development. . . .
HUD Printout 3/30/87. '
"Where to Turn For Senior Housing in Alameda Co"Alameda
County Area Agency on Aging.
"New Senior Housing Survey Results," 12/87, City of San Leandro.
C-5 t
TABI -3
SUPPLY OF ~AFB jABLEELDERLY HOUSING
EAST ALAMEDA COUNTY :9/11/87 ' x. r` r
r ,•
AREA/TYPE
i------------- ' -- ••— � —3 .. _ — of ;., ,i 1 5U8
DUBLIN S PROJECT NAME " # OF_ UNITS ,;'; ..FINANCING TOTALS =;' TOTAL :=
-------------------------- ------ -'x 2`' -t -- -----
Existing Units ! None
Sec 8 Cert !
& Vouchers
---- - - SUB-,. .
LIVERMORE ! PROJECT _NAME # OF UNITS : FINANCING '':TDTALS TOTAL
Existing Units ! Hillcrest Gardens 54 236/202/Sec.B
! Vineyard Village 75 202/Sec.8 ,
Total existing units 129.'
Sec 8 Cert !
& Vouchers 57 ,
Proposed Units ! Richards Manor (1989) 67 bonds
! Total proposed units 67
253
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUB-
PLEASANTON PROJECT NAME # OF UNITS FINANCING TOTALS TOTAL
-------------------•--------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Units ! Kottinger Place 50
! Pleasanton Gardens 40 236/202/Sec.8
! Pleasanton Greens 31 Sec. 8
!
Total existing units 121
Sec 8 Cert !
& Vouchers ! 15
Proposed Units ! Willow Glen 100 Hodag
Total proposed units too
! 236
----------------7----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL , !
EAST CO. ! 490
Sources: Alameda County Housing and Community Development.
HUD Printout 3/30/87.
"Where to Turn For Senior Housing in Alameda Co" Alameda
County Area Agency on Aging.
"New Senior Housing Survey Results," 12/87, City of San Leandro.
,C-6
„ t
Y
Qg
nod-
_ f
APPENDIX D:
DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
D-1
IRBLE U-1:
POST-ELECTION TIME SCHEDULE FOP, SENIOR HOUSING PROGRAM
FIRST RFP CYCLE 6/88 — 6/91
1988 1989 1990 1991 POST `
6188 1189 1/90 1/91
-TF 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 1
.ELECT I ON - - - - - - - - -x
PROCEDURE - -x
<4 months)
RFP SELECTION
1) Iasuce RFP #1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
2) RFP recponsas duce - - ` --- - -•- - --- - -\- - -x
C2 months)
3) CO staff reviow - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - —x:
C3 waaks)
4) Cityreviau - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---x t i ;,
C5 uaroks)
5) Rroa •onto. -r-eview - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --x l
' (4 -
r 6)'.Bd of Sup 'approvaI- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ix
C2 uao<cs) z -
�;; .7) Sign,
'lattarrs of 1 s i s { 1 - i _ - - t -
Irrt;arrt u/darvelopers - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x: : - - 1 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - t I +`
J r ;: C 1 wook) z
jMEbQTIRTE/DEVFIOP
FINRL PROPOS La
v 1) Working.drauings and I
Planning approvals - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' C 8 .months) i t - = - s
'2) Nogo tiations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - z - - - -
_� Cl additional month)
.3) Sign 'committments - — - - - - - - - - - - - --- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
s
L IVIRSTSR SPECS DE OPm -
« rI551� BONDS - - - - - - - - - -•- - --- -
Within this timeframe) 1 z z r _ - - - - - - - - _1 - - - - - - t
CONSTRUCTIONCOMPLETE - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
C9-12 monthz)l f z 1 1 1 1 as I s s 1 1
RENT UP
1)' Pracmarkarting - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -f- -z-
' =ty •C120 daj-- prQ completion)
2) Rctiv ar
e m w-kting - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - >
(90 day= pro completion) t
3) Full occupancy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -i - -- - - -
C 1 year) 1
I55UE.RFP !t2 - - - - - - -f- - - - - --- - - - t - - - -.- - -1- - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - x t t 1
-
Source: Rlameda County Housing and Community Dovalopment.
t TABLE G-2:
POSE-Q_E.CT I ON TIME SCHEDULE FOR SENIOR HOUSING PROGRAM '
SECOND RFP CYCLE 5/90 — 6/93
t
1990 1991 1992 1993 POST
6/90 1/91 1/92 1/93
Tt�K 5 t 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ,12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 .2 3 4 5 6 1
1 1 — I
RFP SELECTION - t : - -
1) Izzue R'FP a2 - - - - - - - -x _
2) RFP rimes clue •
C 2 aor►tlzs) - S - - - - - - - i - 1 i _ _ t t
3) COs1•,aff r-avian - - - - - -
4) City reviau - - { _ 1 1
(5 uaeeiCS)
v) F1raa cnta_ reviaw - - - - - - - - - ---x 1 _ -
-
Snip appr-oval - - - - - - - - - - -•-x: I - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 a 1 t s s 1 t z 1 t ,
1 I 1 1 1 1•
-
,f 7) Sign lattara of
"
'I ra/davalopars - - - - - - - - - - -x I - - - 1 15 r4
# 1 ,
Cl a+Qe;c� i - s -
_ - -
S 1 f
NETI'
!�p
:FINAL PROPOSALS - S -
i)>Working draw f ngs and
Plarsning approvals - -- - -i-i- - - - - - -
C8 Imonths) : f -
` 23 Nagotialrioris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ t _ 1
y t7 C1 additforbal month) i _ t s
:3) Sign coamittaants - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
t ::MRSTER SPECS REV I _ 1 _ a t 1 t : - { • , C' f t+z i i 4 1 L +t '
CONSTRUCTION COf'31-ETE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
f C9-12 uorrtlts) 1
RpyT UP s 1 s : 1 c : 1 s s z 1 t r : 1 : a a : : z 1 -•s s s e. t t 7 r
1) Praaertcating - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C12O days pre cwPlation) e- -a- -1- a s s : 1 r s t s s
2) Activateicating - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - }full
s 1= r
C9O dsx3s Pr'Q,caaplation) r I - - i, 2. '°!- .,i
3) Full ocaa�errcy - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - _ -1- _ _ --- _ 1 } a _ ;r,t 1
C1 year) ! S a t
- -
{�,' ISSUEiZFP ='S - -
- - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - _ - - - - - - -x 1 z s 1 - s r 1 r z S i f4
poste 1 a4_ades
Source: Alaaada County Hou3ing and Community DevaloPI rvt-
i .
TABLE D-3: '
POST-ELECTION TIME SCHEDULE FOR SENIOR HOUSING PROGRAM
THIRD RFP CYCLE 10/91 -- 9/94
` 1994 POST
1991 . 1992 1993 1/94 6/"-9 10 11 12
_ 1/92 1/93 1
10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12- 1 2 -3 4 5 6 7 8- - - - ;
TASK 2 3 4 5 ; - 1
RFP SELECTION i 1 - - - s s z 1
- -x
1 I 1 s 1
1) Issue RFP s3 - -- - - - -- -
2) RFP rczporksas dun - - - - - - - - - -x
-C2 months)
3) CO staff review - - - - - - - - - - -x:
(3 weeks) x
---
4) City review - - - - - - - - - - - i -
C 5 weeks) - - - ----x z ! 1
5) Aroa omtn. review - - - - - - -
Yq 'C4 woks) { I
6) Bd of Sup approval
`
C2.weeks) 1 1 1 1
Sign' letters* of _ .. - - - - - - -
Intarrt.w1dev r
elopes r s s
NE60TIRTE/3EVEL0P : a z 1 s
s 1 s : : z s I - s z 1 s a 1
' FINRL PROPOSALS. : t
1) Woe-king drauinga 1 -
Plans r - - -
ing appovals -
-
s s s _ s 1 {
2) Nagotiatior+s 1 a z : 1 z s
'L C1• additional-month) z i I z s -s- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x _ I _ - 1 a
3). Sign committmenta•-r- - - - - - - i - - - = I z z 1 s s t s 1
_
MRSTER SPECS REV I SED — — — — _a
' s —s s I s 1 = — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — g_ F
-CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE • -
` C9-12 months) z sT
s s I I
1 z
z I _ z z x : !
RENT. 1UP s s s I s z a — — — — — --- ; : s _ -
_ _ a^ z a s t °s
.1) Premarketing - - - - z 1 s s f z : -1- - - - - - ! -
','xt � rC120%days pro•completion) - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ - _ - _
Acti.ro marketing - - - 1 s a -s- 1 -s_ _. _s- _ •_ a 1 a
(90 lotion) _ _ _a_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >1if94F 1 i
_ a z s s 1 zr
z a. a 1
: I-1 ri r
t t i
'{r r t1' yoar) z ! z I s z s s 1 s : Irs a- -
;postnla4•wka Y 1
Sourca Alameda County HousingY and Commune y Da pm
• • ' - .. .}.' a },
..,... . . a..
,
,
. i z t 7 3yfii i �
APPENDIX E:
FINANCIAL PROPOSAL BACKGROUND
FINANCIAL PROPOSAL BACKGROUND
This appendix outlines the methodology for determining the financial
feasibility of the-Senior Housing Program. First, land and prototypical
building costs were estimated to determine the size of the bond issue. Land
cost estimates were obtained from a survey of recent comparable land sales in
the three county sub-areas. Land cost estimates ranged from $8,000 to $25,000
per unit. An average cost of $15,000 per unit was used. Table E-1 is a
development pro-forma used to develop the prototypical cost per unit (in
current dollars) incorporating the estimated average land cost. Building
costs in Table E-1 were obtained from a survey of recent comparable projects
which fit the design criteria of the Senior Housing Program. These costs were
reviewed by Alameda County developers in both nonprofit and for-profit firms
as a final check of their feasibility.
Table E-2 projects the prototypical building and land costs to the time of the
first RFP in January 1989. Land costs are projected to increase by ten
percent annually. All other costs are projected to increase at five percent
annually. Multiplying the average cost per unit from Table E-2 by the number
of units to be developed in the Senior Housing Program gives the resulting
development costs in Table E-3. Table E-3 also estimates the costs of
administering the Program over the projected six year development time period
and the costs of issuing the bonds. These estimates were obtained from
discussions with financial consultants and bond counsel, as well as County
staff estimates of staff needed to administer the Program.
Table E-4 estimates the individual property tax assessment (per $100,000 of
assessed property value) which will result from the projected size of the bond
issue. Table E-4 assumes a 40 year life of the bond, and estimates the
assessment for three interest rates on the bond. The projected individual
assessment ranges from approximately $20 to approximately $25 depending on the
interest rate.
Tables E-5 through E-8 are estimates of the individual property tax rate if
the term of the bond is shortened. Shortening the term may also slightly
lower interest rates and so lower interest rates were used to project the
assessments in Tables E-7 and E-8. These tables show an individual assessment
range of approximately $21 to $29 per $100,000 of assessed property value.
Depending upon the applicable interest rates at the time the bonds are issued,
the term of the bond will be lengthened to keep the individual assessment
range between $20 and $25 per $100,000 of assessed value. Therefore, the
projected individual property tax assessment is between $20 and $25 per
$100,000 of assessed property value.
0774H
E-2
31t 1 , V f
- r. r rw p 1 •:r -
f , t T
.TABLE E-1 IY
DEVELOPMENT OF PROTOTYPICAL'.COSTS ,SENIORHOUSING :PROGRAM V : .
9/6/87
PROJECT: Current Costs 3
ASSUMPTIONS
HARD COSTS SOFT 'COSTS
Genr' l Requirements .. 6% Arch fee . 4%
Overhead 2% Contingency: 10
Profit 3% -
Bond Premium 0% _
Land cost/unit $15,000
Bldg cost/s.f. liv.area $55. 1 ...OTHER ;
CONSTRUCTION INTEREST # of Units-71 81
--------------------------------- # 1 :bdrm units 73
Average draw 60.0% s.f /unit . 540
Interest 10. 5% # 2 bdrm units 8
Points 2.0% s.f ./unit 800
Months 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COST BREAKDOWN
TOTAL PER UNIT
--------------------------------------------
HARD COSTS
Land . 1 , 215,000 15,000
Building only 2, 525, 599 31, 180
On-site Improve 404, 685 4, 996
Unusual site cond 0 0
Off-site improve 20 ,000 247
(curb, gutter, sdwalk)
Covered parking 21,000 259
Gnr' 1 Requirements 177 ,017 2, 185
Overhead 62,966 777
Profit 94, 449 1 , 166
Bonding 0 0
TOTAL HARD COSTS 4, 520 , 716 55, 811
SOFT COSTS
Arch fee 180, 829 21232 ....
TAB' =1, cunt 3 f
�. `f off-{ S i.: —+, J+ T! {. } •• ,
r TOTAL Per"UNIT
Insurance 15,000 185 -
Taxes 0 r,= 0 �
Title/Recording 10,000 "123
Legal
251000 ..:', 309
Organ/Audit 5,000 62 .
Other fees 324,000 4,000 - '
(Bldg, Traffic - s_
Sewer,Water, Park)
TOTAL SOFT COSTS 559;829 6, 911 =
SOFT & HARD COSTS 5,080, 545 62, 723 '• }'
Contingency 508,054 6,272
Const. Int. & pts 329, 196 4,064
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL COSTS 5, 917, 795 73,059
costs3 .wks
ASSUMPTIONS
1 . 2-3 story woodframe construction
2. All units accessible in terms of circulation and
grab bars.
3 . Two elevators
4. Emergency call in all units.
5. Includes community building.
6 . Intercom security system
7 . Balconies/patios
8. Covered parking/parking ratio = 50%
9 . Fire alarms , sprinklers , 1 hr. wall construction.
10 . Slab on grade foundation, ' no unusual site or off-site conditions.
11 . Interior corridor design (adds C 279 to s.f . of units) .
12. No demolition or building removal required.
Sources: Eden Housing, Incorporated.
BRIDGE Housing Development Corporation. '
Alameda County Housing and Community,Development.
costs3 .wks
. •ir . .- .. e �` •` ^r` � � ; S i.r Lit'-f 4 r � 't
v
TABLE E-2:
v
DEVELOPMENT OF PROTOTYPICACCOSTS .-=' SENIOR HOUSING 'PROGRAM
9/10/87
r
PROJECT: Costs at First RFP = 1/89 ." '.
ASSUMPTIONS _
HARD COSTS SOFT COSTS
Genr11 Requirements 6% Arch fee 4%
Overhead 2% . .. Contingency 10%
Profit 3%
Bond Premium 0% OTHER
Land cost/unit $17,325 ---------------------------
Bldg cost/s.f . liv.area ., $59. 3 # of Units 81
# 1 bdrm units 73
CONSTRUCTION INTEREST - s.f./unit 540
--------------------------------- # 2 bdrm units 8
Average draw 60.0% s.f./unit 800
Interest 12.0% Inflation/land/yr 10%
Points 2.0% Inflation/other/yr 5%
Months 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COST BREAKDOWN
TOTAL PER UNIT
--------------------------------------------
HARD COSTS
Land 1, 403, 325 17, 325
Building only 2, 718, 176 33, 558
.On-site Improve 435, 542 5, 377
Unusual site cond 0 0
Off-site improve 21 , 525 266
(curb, gutter, sdwalk)
Covered parking 22 , 601 279
Gnr' l Requirements 190 , 515 2, 352
Overhead 67, 767 837
Profit 101 , 651 1 , 255
Bonding 0 0
TOTAL HARD COSTS 4, 961 , 102 61, 248
SOFT COSTS
Arch fee 198, 444 2, 450
E-5
- 'ILE E-2, .cont r
' - .. � * � f �i , •.+� � - Sri z;� F � ° ,2
/�y'y,� _
. AL' -PER. UNIT
Insurance 16,144 Y199
Taxes 0 p
Title/Recording .` 10, 763 133
Legal
_26'906 -'
. 332..
Organ/Audit 5, 381 66
Other fees : 348,705 4;305
(Bldg, Traffic
Sewer,Water, Park)
TOTAL SOFT COSTS 606, 343 7, 486
SOFT & HARD COSTS 5, 567,445 68, 734
Contingency : 556, 744 ' 6, 873
Const. Int. & pts 412, 280 5,090
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL COSTS 6, 536, 469 80 , 697
--------------------------------------------
costs89 .wks
ASSUMPTIONS
1 . 2-3 story woodf rame construction
2. All units accessible in terms of circulation and
grab bars.
3 . Two elevators
4. Emergency call in all units.
5. Includes community building.
6 . Intercom security system
7 . Balconies/patios
8 . Covered parking/parking ratio = 50%
9 . Fire alarms , sprinklers , 1 hr. wall construction.
10 . Slab on grade foundation, no unusual site or off-site conditions.
11 . Interior corridor design (adds C 27% to s.f. of units ) .
12. No demolition or building removal required.
Sources : Eden Housing, Incorporated.
BRIDGE Housing Development Corporation.
Alameda County Housing and Community Development.
cost589.wk5
E-6
v s
} ''.-..TABLE E-3
SUMMARY OF: GENERAL- OBLIGATION BOND ,COSTS tf _ ''
Alameda County--Senior."Housing'Program �
;.9/6/87
Item ; Estimated Amount•,
1) Development 137, 185,000 ,-
2) Administration 2;744;000
(@ 2%) 1 y
3) Bond Issuance ; ` 2,799,000
(@ 2%)
4) TOTAL ISSUE ; $142, 728,000
Source: Alameda County Housing and Community Development.
sumcost2.wks
E-7 ,
n u
-4.
TABLE 'E
r
ESTIMATED INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY •TAX ASSESSMENT.r a; r
Alameda County:-Senior,'Housing .Program '
9/6/87 -
Assumptions
Size .of - Issue .142 728 000 -
Assessed Value' 52,975,304,810 .'
Years bond outstanding 40
INTEREST RATE
. 7.00' -
Monthly payment 886,956
=: -
Annual Payment
Y - .. . 10,64tiz,477 . -
_ Assessment Rate 0..000201
Assessment per. $100,000 $20.09
INTEREST RATE . 6.00%
Monthly payment 992,404
Annual Payment 11 ,908,854
Assessment Rate 0. 000225
Assessment per $100,000 $22. 48
INTEREST RATE 9.00%
Monthly payment 1 , 100,949
Annual Payment 13,211 ,386
Assessment Rate 0.000249
Assessment per $100,000 '$ 4.94
Source: Alameda County Housing and Community
Development.
assess2.wks
E-8
j
TABLE. E 5:
ESTIMATED "IND.IVIDUAL` PROPERTY :TAX ._ASSESSMENT;'
Alameda County'.Seniorr•.Housing Program
9/6/87 ,
Assumptions
Size of Issue -, -14297281000
Assessed Value 52,9759304,810
Years bond outstanding 30
INTEREST RATE 7.007.
Monthly payment . 949,573
Annual Payment 11 ,394,875
Assessment Rate 0.000215
Assessment per $1009000 $21.51
INTEREST RATE 8.00%
. Monthly payment 170479288 -
Annual Payment . 12,567,450
Assessment Rate 0.000237
Assessment per $100,000 $23.72
INTEREST RATE 9.00%
Monthly payment 1 , 148,42
Annual Payment 107781 ,061
Assessment Rate 0.000260
Assessment per $1007000 4�216.01
Source: Alameda .County Housing and Community
Development.
assess2.wks
E-9
, r r
r `
... '- .•y ,— . M `+ - is Y v � Y .t -
TABLE E-b:
• ESTIMATED INDIVIDUAL` PROPERTY,.TAX ASSESSMENT..;,
Alameda County-.•Senior •Housing:"Program 3
9/6/87
.
Assumptions-.- -
_.. Size of Issue .142,72 @,000 -
Assessed Value 52,9759304;810 °.
Years bond outstanding x ..20
7.00%
_INTEREST RATE
-: -`-
Monthly payment 19106,569 -
Annual Payment 13,278 824
Assessment Rate 0.000251
Assessment per *100,000 $25.07
INTEREST RATE 8.00%
Monthly payment 1 , 193,834
Annual Payment 149326,010
Assessment Rate 0.000270 .
Assessment per $100,000 $27.04
INTEREST RATE 9.00%
Monthly payment
1 , 84, 161
Annual Payment 15,409,930
Assessment Rate 0.000291
Assessment per $100,000 $29.09
Source: Alameda County Housing and Community .
Development.
assess2.wks
E-10 -
e
TABLE E 7: P: `
7 E` �, >t F Y
: ESTIMATED IND IV I DUAL` PROPERTY TAX :ASSESSMENT :
Alameda County .Seni m or .Housing Progra z= rt:
9/6/87 . z -
-Assumptions
Size of Issue
Assessed Value 52,975,041810
Years bond outstanding 30
INTEREST RATE -:. : •' :,. 6.85%
Monthly payment ' -. . . 935,238
Annual Payment - 11 ,2229860 ---
Assessment Rate 0.000212
Assessment per ;100,000 $21. 19
INTEREST RATE 7.85%
Monthly payment 1 ,032,401
Annual Payment 12,388,817 _
Assessment Rate 0.000234
Assessment per $100,000 $23.39
INTEREST RATE 8.85%
Monthly payment 1 , 13:,,051
Annual Payment 13,596,612
Assessment Rate 0.000257
Assessment per• $100,000 w25.67
Source: Alameda County Housing and Community
Development.
assess2.wks
E-11
t, TABLE .E-8: .
ESTIMATED -INDIVIDUAL-` PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT '
• Al ameda County,:Sendor. .Housing Pr.ogr.am ,u
9/6/87 : !..
Assumptions
_. ... .
. Size of Issue 14297289000 . _
Assessed Value 52,97593041810
Years bond .outstanding 20
INTEREST RATE T_... .:,: ._.._._: �:
6.85%...-
-77
.Monthly. payment 13 1 ,0 3125,7 _ _. ..
9 54
Annual Payment
052 .
Assessment Rate 0.000248
Assessment per $100,000 $24.78
INTEREST RATE 7.85%
Monthly payment 19180,545 -
Annual Payment 14, 166,55
Assessment Rate 0.000267
Assessment per $100,000 $26.74
INTEREST RATE 8.85%
Monthly payment 1 ,270,424
Annual Payment 15,245,090
Assessment Rate 0.000268
Assessment . per $100,000 - -$28.78
Source: Alameda County Housing and Community
Development.
assess2.wks
E-12
r
' r'•�7<rrY3 �—t � I� � .�yY � errs
.t 1 • i.S j r 1 �. _ .
APPENDIX F; . .
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
F-1
EXHIBIT F-1:
Sample City Council Resolution Supporting
Senior Housing Program
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF APPROVING PARTICIPATION
BY THE CITY IN A COUNTYWIDE PROGRAM FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION OF
MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
FOR VERY LOW INCOME ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS
WHEREAS, the County of Alameda (the "County") proposes to
implement a countywide program for the development, construction and
acquisition of multifamily rental housing developments containing in the
aggregate not to exceed 2,000 dwelling units reserved for occupancy by low
income elderly and disabled persons;
WHEREAS, the County proposes to call a countywide election
to authorize the development, acquisition and construction of the developments
and to authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds of the County to
finance the program;
WHEREAS, one or more of such developments may, subject in
each case to the approval of the City Council of the City of
(the "City Council") , be located in the City of (the "City");
and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the
participation by the City in the County's program and to approve the calling
by the County of the election on a countywide basis;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of as follows:
1. The participation by the City in the County's housing
program for elderly and disabled very low income persons and families is
hereby approved, subject to the approval hereafter by the City Council of each
development to be located in the City.
2. The calling by the County of a countywide election to
authorize the implementation of the program is hereby approved.
3. This resolution shall not create, or authorize the
creation of, any liability of the City or any of its funds or properties for
any purpose of the program.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
passage and approval.
1588A
F-2
t f I J ,•
i rtl
' nr
,t J r •0
APPENDIX-G:
•ELECTION TIMETABLE
August 14, 1987*
OUTLINE AND TIMETABLE FOR PLACING COUNTY
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUE ON APRIL 12, 1988 OR -JUNE 7, 1988
BALLOT AND ISSUING BONDS AFTER A SUCCESSFUL ELECTION
Statutory provisions authorizing the -issuance of County general
obligation bonds are found at Government Code §29900 et seq. Statutory provisions
governing the conduct of County general obligation bond elections are found at
Election Code §§3780 et seq. ; 5300 et seq.; and 23300 et seq.
BOND ELECTION
April 12, 1988 June 7, 1988
Election Election
1.Not later than Not later than Passage of Resolution Ordering a Bond
January 15, 1988 March 11, 1988 Election:' -
[This date is [This date is
the deadline for the deadline for The Board of Supervisors must adopt
adoption of the adoption of the an order calling for a bond election.
resolution resolution The order must state all of the
ordering the ordering the following:
consolidation of consolidation of
the election. the election.
(a) the purpose for the indebtedness;
Both resolutions Both resolutions
must be adopted must be adopted (b) the proposed principal amount of
on the same day. on the same dav, bonds;
See number 3, See number 3,
below,] below.] .(c) the maximum rate of interest;
(d) the date of the bond election; and
* Please note that this is time dated information. This outline should not be
relied upon after the date stated above. Please contact an Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe public finance attorney regarding applicable statutory updates.
4275a
G-2 '
April 12, 1988 June 7 ' 1988
Election Election
(c) to build or construct bridges,
roads or highways. Gov. Code
§29900) . Article XIIIA of the
California Constitution further limits
the use of such bonds to acquire or
improve land and buildings. Bond
proceeds are not available for
acquiring furnishings or equipment.
Limitation on Indebtedness:- The total
amount of bond indebtedness cannot
exceed 1.250 of the taxable property
of the County; however where certain
water conservation and flood control
projects and the construction of
certain select County roads are
included projects, the total amount of
bond indebtedness may be up to, but
may not exceed, one quarter of 150 of
the taxable property of the County as
Y shown by the last equalized assessment
roll. (Gov. Code§ 29909 and Rev. &
Tax Code § 135)
2. First publication First publication Publication or Publication and Posting
not later than not later than of Order- _
February 22, 1988 April 11, 1988
The order calling the election must be
published in at least one newspaper
published in. the County once a week
for a minimum of four weeks. The
first notice shall be published no
later than 50 days before the
election. If no newspaper is
published in the County, the order
must be published in a newspaper
published in the nearest county and
copies of the order must be
conspicuously posted in five public
places in the County. Posting must
take place at least 14 days before the
�,. election. (Elec. Code §§ 2653 and
2554 and Gov. Code §§ 6042 and 29906)
4275a
G-3
x �r�
�9Er
<�
U4 Vf
• .}' l$- � 'fa� 7 r V t .r z.N T s xa _
April 12' 1988 t June�7 `'1988
Election ' ' Election
(e) the manner of holding the
election and.the procedure for voting
for or .against the proposition.
(Gov' 'Code §29901:5) .
If .,the proceeds of the issue are to
be .contributed to a`joint powers
agency,..additional findings of
< benefit must be made.' (Gov. Code
§29901) : !
Date of Election: The election must
rbe-held on an established election
'. day,--,unless the County is a charter
. ' County with election days specified
.in its charter. (Elec. Code §§2502
and 2503)
Established Election Days are (3 -each
year) :
r- 1(a). The second Tuesday in April
(even numbered years) ;
1(b). The first Tuesday after the
first Monday in March (odd numbered
years) ;
2. -The first Tuesday after the first
Monday in June; and
3. The first Tuesday after the first
Monday in November. (Elec. Code
§2500)
Purpose of the Indebtedness: A
County may issue bonds or refunding
bonds (a) to refund any outstanding
County indebtedness, evidenced by
bonds or warrants; (b) for any
j purposes .for which the Board of
Supervisors is authorized to expend
the funds of the County; and
J '
G-4 .
4275a
April. 12, 1988 June 7, 1988
Election Election
3. Not later than Not later than Consolidating an Election
January 15, 1988 March 11, 1988
The election may be consolidated with
any other election and must be
consolidated with a statewide
election scheduled for the same day.
However, counties of the first class
(populations greater than 4 million
persons) need not consolidate with a
statewide election if their board of
supervisors finds that the
consolidation cannot be adequately
. handled. Statewide elections are
held on the first Tuesdays after the
first Mondays in June and November,
respectively, in even numbered
years. Consolidations are to be
effected by following Elec. Code
§ 23300 et seq. (Elec. Code §§ 2501,
2502 and 23300)
To consolidate an election the Board
of Supervisors must adopt a
resolution ordering consolidation at
least 88 days prior to the date of
election. The resolution ordering
consolidation must be adopted at the
same meeting where the order calling
the election is passed. (Elec. Code
§§ 23301, 23301.5 and 23302)
If a statewide special election is
called less than 88 days prior to the
date of such special election, the
Board of Supervisors may call a
special election to be consolidated
with the statewide special election
if the call is issued within four
days of the proclamation or effective
date of the statute calling for the
statewide special election. (Elec.
Code § 23302.3)
4275a
G-5
April 12, 1988 June 7, 1988
Election Election
4. [These deadlines [These deadlines Set Deadline for Filing Ballot
depend on the time depend on the time Arguments and Rebuttals
needed by the County meeded by the
Clerk to have the County Clerk to The County Clerk shall fix a
arguments printed.] have the arguments reasonable time for filing ballot
printed.] arguments. Notice of the deadline
shall be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation in
the County. (Elec. Code §37844 and
Gov. Code §6061)
Ballot arguments are to conform to
the- requirements of Elections Code
Sections 3783, 3785 and 3785.1 and
are to be selected pursuant to
Elections Code Section 3786.
Upon selection of a ballot argument,
the Clerk shall mail a copy of the
argument to the authors of the
contrary argument. The deadline for
filing rebuttals which conform to the
requirements of Elections Code
Section 3787 is 10 days after the
deadline for filing direct
arguments. (Elec. Code §3787)
5. [This deadline [This deadline Formation of Election Precincts and
depends on the time depends on the Appointment of Election Officials by
needed by the County time needed by the the Board of Supervisors
Clerk to have the Clerk to have the
voter pamphlet voter pamphlet The Board of Supervisors may form
printed.] printed.] bond election precincts by adopting
those established for general
election purposes or by consolidating
precincts inside cities and towns, to
a number not exceeding six in each
bond election precinct, and shall
appoint only one inspector, two
judges, and one clerk for each bond
election precinct. (Gov. Code
§ 29905 and Elec. Code § 1630)
4275a
G-6 .
April 12, 1988 ;'June :7, 1988
Election Election
The County Clerk must publish once in
a newspaper of general circulation in
the County the list of polling places
designated for each election
precinct, followed by the names of
the precinct board members
appointed. (Elec. Code §1642 and
Gov. Code §6061)
6. [This deadline [This deadline County Counsel's Analysis of Bond
depends on the time depends on the Issue
needed by the County time needed by the
Clerk to have the County Clerk to The County Clerk shall forward a
voter pamphlet have the voter copy of the proposed bond issue to the
printed.] pamphlet printed.] County Counsel or district attorney,
who shall then prepare an analysis .of
no more than 500 words of the
measure. The County Counsel's ;
analysis is to be printed in the
ballot pamphlet, preceding the ballot
argument. (Elec. Code §3781)
7. [These deadlines [These deadlines Public Examination of Voter's
depend on date the depend on date the Pamphlet Prior to Submission
County Clerk plans County Clerk plans for Printing
to submit voter to submit voter -
pamphlet for pamphlet for Not less than 10 days before the
printing.] printing.] County Clerk submits the voter
pamphlet for printing, the County
Clerk shall. make a -copy of the voter
pamphlet available for public
examination in the County Clerk's
office.
During this 10 day period any voter
of the jurisdiction may seek a writ
of mandate or an injunction requiring
that any or all of the voter pamphlet
be amended or deleted. A perempting
writ or injunction will be issued
only upon clear and convincing proof
that the material is false,
misleading or inconsistent with the
requirement of law. (Elec. Code
§ 3795, § 5330 and § 10013.5)
4275a
G-7
April 12, 1988 June 7,'. 1988
Election Election
8. Not later than Not later than Mail Sample Ballot and Voter
February 3, 1988 April 28, 1988 Pamphlet,
Including Tax Rate Statement
Not more than 40 nor less than 10
days before the election, the County
Clerk must mail the ballot arguments,
tax rate statement (as described
below), sample ballot, and County
Counsel's analysis, if any,- to each
registered voter. (Elec. Code §§3783
and 10010)
;All official publications addressing
the bond issue must include a tax
rate statement. The tax rate
statement should include the best
estimate from official sources as -to
all o°. the following:
(1) The tax rate (per $100 of
assessed valuation on all property to
be taxed) needed to fund the bonds
for .the fiscal year following the
initial sale of bonds;
.. (2) The tax levy needed to fund the
bonds for the fiscal year following
the final sale of bonds if the bonds
are sold in. series and an estimate of
the year in which that rate will
apply; and
(3) the highest tax rate needed to
fund the bonds and the fiscal year(s)
in which that rate is expected to
occur.
The statement may also describe any
intent to use revenues other than ad
valorem taxes to fund the bonds and
effect such a policy would have on
the tax rate(s) expected to be
levied. (Elec. Code §§5300 through
5305)
i
4275a
G-8
April 12, 1988 June 7 ° 1988
Election Election
If two-thirds of the voters vote in
favor of the proposition the bonds
may be issued. (Gov. Code §29908)
9. Not later than Not later than Canvass of Returns and Statement
April 14, 1988 June 9, 1988 and Resolution of Results
An official canvass shall be
conducted by the County Clerk
commencing no later than the first
Thursday following the election at
any public place as the County Clerk
designates. The canvass shall be
'conducted by opening the returns 'and
determining the vote for and against
each measure and declaring the result
thereof.: (Elec. Code §§17082-17084)
10. Not later than Not later than The County Clerk stall prepare a
May 10, 1988 July 5, 1988 certified statement of the results of
the election and submit it to the
Board of Supervisors within 28 days
of the election. The statement of
result shall show:
(a) the total number of ballots cast.
(b) the number of votes cast at each
precinct for and against each measure.
-(c) ' the total number of votes cast
for and against each measure. (Elec.
Code §§17088, 17089)
The Board of Supervisors must adopt a
resolution declaring the results of
the election. (Elec. Code § 17111)
4275a
G-9
April 12, 1988 June 7, 1988
Election Election
BOND ISSUANCE
1. [Prior to bond [Prior to bond Fioard of Supervisors Resolution
sale.] sale.]
The Board of Supervisors must pass a
resolution prescribing the form of
the bonds (which may conform to
Government Code Section 29919) and
fixing the maturity of the bonds (not
exceeding 40 years) ; providing for
essentially level debt service; as
described in Government Code Section
: 29910.1; stating the total amount of
bonds to be sold, the maximum
acceptable interest rate (not to
exceed 120) and the call provisions
of the bonds; stating the
denominations of the bonds; and
providing-for the place of payment of
the bonds. (Gov. Code §§ 29910
r- through 29916 and 53531)
2. [Prior to bond [Prior to bond Financial Advisor Contract
sale.] sale.]
If the -Board of Supervisors
determines that a financial advisor
is necessary or desirable to aid in
structuring the bond issue, the Board
of Supervisors must enter into a
contract with the financial advisor
pursuant to Government Code
Sections 53690 and 53691.
3. (Not later than [Not later than CDAC Notice
30 calendar days 30 calendar days
prior to bond sale.] prior to bond Notice of the proposed bond sale must
sale.] be mailed to the California Debt
Advisory Commission. (Gov. Code
§ 8855)
4275a
G-10
June 7,
April 12, 1988 1988 r,
Election Election
4. [Not later than [Not later than .. Financial Publication Notice .
15 calendar days 15 calendar days
prior to bond sale.] prior to. bond If the amount of bonds• to be sold
sale.] exceeds $1,000,000, the Board of
Supervisors must cause notice of the
sale to be published in a.financial
publication generally circulated
throughout California. (Gov. Code
§ .53692)
S. [This deadline , This deadline Official Statement
exists because of exists because of
the deadline in the deadline in The Board of Supervisors may prepare
item 6 below.] item 6 below.] or have prepared an official
statement: The official statement is
typically 'ready by the date of.
publication for the advertisement of
bids (see below) .
6. [Prior to bond [Prior to bond Offering Bonds for Sale
sale.] sale.]
r- The Board of Supervisors will offer
the bonds for.sale at the times, in
the amounts and in the manner
prescribed by resolution of the
Board. - The_ bonds may not be sold at
a discount. * (Gov. Code § 29918)
7. Form of Bonds
The form of bonds is to be prescribed
by the Board of Supervisors and may
conform to the form in Government
Code Section 29919. The bonds are to
be signed by (1) the Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors or such other
member authorized in a resolution of
the Board of Supervisors passed by a
four-fifths vote of all its members
and (2) the County Treasurer or
Auditor and countersigned by the
County Clerk. These signatures may
be facsimile signatures. The bonds
must be in-registered form.
4275a
G-11 .
n
April 12, 1988 June 7, 1988
Election Election
(Internal Revenue Code of 1986
§ 148) ; Gov. Code §§ 29917, 5053,
5054 and 5061)
8. [Following bond [Following bond Bond Delivery
sale.] sale.]
The bonds are to be delivered to the
purchaser thereof, and the purchaser
is to pay for the bonds on the date
determined by the Board of-
Supervisors. Bond proceeds are to be
deposited in the County treasury and
credited to the proper improvement
fund. (Gov. Code § 29921)
9,. [On or before the [On or before the Form 8038
15th day of the 15th day of the
second calendar second calendar Reporting form 8038 must be
month after the month after the filed with the IRS. (Internal
close of the close of the Rev. Code § 149(e))
calendar quarter calendar quarter
in which the bonds in which the bonds
are issued.] are issued.]
10. [At the time of. Tax for Payment of Bonds
levying other -
County taxes] The Board of Supervisors must
annually levy a tax for the purpose
of paying the principal (redemption
price) and. interest on the bonds.
(California Constitution Article XVI,
Section 18; Gov. Code §§ 29922 and
29923)
4275a
G=12
OF AC q�T
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
i
oc;,
ST 7,
EDWARD R.CAMPBELL C;7: `?
SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT
October 22, 1987
The Honorable Linda Jeffrey
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mayor Jeffrey:
Earlier this year the Berkeley City Council endorsed the Alameda County Senior
Housing Program in general concept. Since that time the Board of Supervisors
has approved the Program and directed staff to take the next steps in its
development. As you are aware, the Conference of Mayors has also endorsed the
Program.
The Senior Housing Program presents public officials in Alameda County with an
exciting opportunity to help house low-income senior citizens. As you recall,
the Alameda County or Housing Prog will create 1,700 units of
affordable housing for very low-income elderly citizens in Alameda County,
financed through a general obligation bond. The housing will be dispersed
throughout the county. Each city and the unincorporated county will receive
an allocation of 50 housing units. The remaining 950 units will be allocated
to three county sub-areas, based on need. The project selection process will
include city representation, in addition to regular city planning approval of
projects located within your jurisdiction.
The enclosed Proposal describes the Senior Housing Program in more detail.
The Proposal was developed through the efforts of a Technical Advisory
Committee composed of representatives from each city, the housing industry,
and the County.
The bond issue and approval of development of the units is currently
anticipated to go before Alameda County voters in either June or November
1988. Prior to scheduling the election, the County is asking each of the
fourteen city councils in the county to review the proposal and approve their
city's participation in the program (subject to their approval of each
development to be located in the city) and the County's calling of a
county-wide election to implement the program. _
EXHIBIT c
1221 OAK STREET • SUITE 536 • OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 94612 - (415)874-7367
.. .. ,'`'i -!t �s 1�N n r ac t� � i iF}•s iJ-,'� 5 R �� �".� aiY:�! -i�°+ � J^r.zvrY?/a'7 3' Yr. i j t,7 Jr .c F.
. /' f•1 � � '"' '3- `P��istrJy7 lr "i&�""4`�x 4�t%+'S .✓tt �`sp"„p TrS � 1pfr s• i
S21 t 33af ]`s...Nx„sy3 a >' y-n, aix<J 'E• �f�.. a�' K rJ rsi t 3 ',. -!`+"L' - k
i t♦f f s 41 1
•� _• .,.i "! ,a !. ."j 51'FO '.t } q y k`d"3 "!,�i ip " ',ii �L 1-E.rti y.�Y�,' ye a 4 Y.
nda Jeffrey J
October!f•L 1187 �✓ C t b 4S /Y 5 dY
F r S 3 r 3 51 5 3 J3 f�n*J� tyd1 we7J 4` JJ 24+ a
Nr two , � Y 5 / ,Y5 � S '{ 'Plry f'�'��, 3 bif tJ��L -. {. Y q * _•
page F; r h r Srr 1S ... _.Y �r lY""wXtiF ft r fz}ate �� rt t kf h r
1
1 { Y y;. +I S t `*>Y T sr a f yf,,..`X# 3 •'r t F 4. c .t ...
-L .1 lw. t _ ,.✓r 4� J. t )aka t' f
I am writing to ask'you to put this item on your`city.council's agenda,before
mid-December. . Enclosed is a proposed resolution. .:The County's Housing`and ::>
Community Development Program-staff would.be happy..to'present.the.issue .to the i. :.
Council and to provide you 'or your staff with:any additional Information
needed. Please call Jack Shepherd or Linda Gardner -at 6705405. ,,
Sincer , 7
J � �
E ward R. Campbell, Chai n
encl. Alameda County Senior Housing Program Proposal },.,
City Council Resolution .
0798H
3 ,
' t -..yid+! \ � , .'Yp� •n is 13 ii"F tsl t �i£ 1 Kt / t! '
5 n ` c
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, r
ATTEST:
City Cler
. EXHIBIT D