COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager’s Office

DATE:

July 13, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

July 18, 2006

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

John Maltbie, County Manager

SUBJECT:

County Manager’s Report #13

A.

Resolution in support of AB 2634 (Lieber), Housing elements

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of AB 2634 (Lieber), Housing elements.

B.

Resolution in support of AB 2638 (Laird), Housing trust fund

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of AB 2638 (Laird), Housing trust fund

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Offer a full range of housing choices

Goal(s): Goal 9—Housing exists for people at all income levels and for all generations of families.

BACKGROUND:

AB 2638 would make a number of changes to the Local Housing Trust Fund Matching Grant Program (LHTF), which was created by the Legislature but funded by the Proposition 46 housing bond approved by voters in November 2002.

The Local Housing Trust Fund Matching Grant Program (LHTF) provides matching fund resources local housing trusts that are dedicated to creating affordable rental housing. To be eligible, housing trusts must have demonstrated local funding support as well as an approved housing element. LHTF matches local funds dollar-for-dollar up to $2 million. LHTF grant funds must be used as loans for the construction of rental housing for individuals and families earning less than 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). Projects that receive LHTF funding must maintain these income restrictions for at least 55 years. In addition, LHTF prevents using both LHTF funds with a similar program called the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP).

AB 2638 would relax some of the LHTF conditions. It allows:

•

Projects to use both LHTF money as well as Multifamily Housing Program funds;

•

Extends the time period by which housing trusts must encumber LHTF funds, from 30 months to 54 months; and

•

Requires that any unused funds returned to the state be returned to LHTF rather than the Multifamily Housing Program.

AB 2638 would also create flexibility in new awards with possible future funding. This flexibility would expand the use of funds to include emergency shelters and ownership housing and expand the targeted populations to include moderate-income families.

There are 30 housing trusts (21 cities, nine counties and one nonprofit) in California. San Mateo County is one of six communities to receive the maximum $2 million LHTF grant, through HEART, the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County. .

DISCUSSION:

The intent of LHTF was to encourage the creation of housing trusts, the leveraging of local funds and the construction of more affordable housing. However, many housing trusts have had difficulty utilizing the LHTF funds due to the overly restrictive conditions. Despite the use of local housing trust funds leveraged with LHTF funds, projects continue to struggle with the high cost of housing development. As a result, housing trust advocates argue they need both more time and more flexibility in utilizing LHTF funds. Enabling the use of both LHTF and MHP funds for the same project will help to bridge cost gaps.

According to HEART, San Mateo County has already encumbered the $2 million of LHTF funds as well as a $2 million County match. With these funds, HEART anticipates construction of nearly 400 units of rental housing dedicated to individuals and families with incomes less than 60 percent of San Mateo County’s AMI.

While HEART has fully encumbered the County’s LHTF grant, the increased flexibility of AB 2638 will better enable HEART to access unused funds returned by other housing trusts as well as any additional funding that may be allocated to LHTF.

The future of LHTF is unknown. The Department of Housing and Community Development has awarded all LHTF funds. While returned funds would be reallocated under AB 2638, no new funds have been dedicated to the program. Some housing trust advocates were working to include a dedication of funds for LHTF through the recently approved housing bond (Proposition 1C), which will appear before voters in November 2006. However, the final version of Proposition 1C does not include funding for LHTF. Advocates also plan to work for a permanent housing funding sources, likely to be on the 2008 ballot, which they hope will include LHTF funding.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Potentially positive.

C.

Resolution in support of SB 1732 (Bowen), Voting: provisional ballots, if amended to ensure that provisional ballots are accessible to people with disabilities

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of SB 1732 (Bowen), Voting: provisional ballots, if amended to ensure that provisional ballots are accessible to people with disabilities.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Realize the potential of our diverse population

Goal(s): Goal 2—Civic engagement—including voting—is uniformly high among the diverse population.

BACKGROUND:

SB 1732 would require that provisional ballots be paper ballots and would state that this amendment is declaratory of existing law.

Current law allows a person claiming to be properly registered, but whose eligibility cannot be immediately determined, to vote using a provisional ballot. Typical reasons for requesting a voter use a provisional ballot include, in part: the voter’s name is not on the official roster and the elections officer cannot determine the voter’s eligibility on Election day; a voter has moved within a county but did not re-register; or records indicate the voter requested an absentee ballot, but fails to return it. The provisional ballots are counted as part of the official canvass if the Elections Official’s office can establish the claimant’s right/eligibility to vote the ballot or the local Superior Court so orders the ballot be counted.

DISCUSSION:

While SB 1732 would clarify that provisional ballots be in paper, it exacerbates an existing problem regarding the accessibility of provisional ballots. Existing law fails to address accommodations or alternative provisional voting processes for individuals with disabilities who may not be able to independently complete a paper provisional ballot.

The lack of accommodations is contrary to the Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA), which, in part, contains provisions addressing the opportunity for individuals with disabilities fully to access and to participate in the election process. Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder and Chief Elections Officer Warren Slocum also opposes SB 1732.

By expressly limiting provisional ballots to paper ballots, SB 1732 would, advocates fear, further, or more expressly, limit the ability of individuals with disabilities to vote independently.

The Commission on Disabilities recommended an oppose position. The Legislative Committee recommends that the Board adopt a resolution in support if SB 1732 can be amended to ensure that provisional ballots are accessible to people with disabilities. In addition to conforming with HAVA, amending SB 1732 would ensure that people with disabilities have access to provisional ballots.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown