What is Fair Housing?

Transcription

Draft Report
City of Avondale
FY2006-FY2009 Consolidated Plan and
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Duns No. 00-248-6884
Draft Report
April 26, 2006
City of Avondale
FY2006-FY2009 Consolidated Plan and
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Duns No. 00-248-6884
Prepared for
City of Avondale
City Manager’s Office
11465 West Civic Center Drive
Avondale, AZ 85232
Phone: 623.478.3025 Fax: 623.478.3803
Prepared by
BBC Research & Consulting
3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 850
Denver, Colorado 80209-3827
Phone: 303.321.2547 Fax: 303.399.0448
www.bbcresearch.com
bbc@bbcresearch.com
Table of Contents
I.
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Consolidated Plan and AI ........................................................................................ 1
Socioeconomic and Housing Market Conditions ............................................................................ 2
Special Needs Populations.............................................................................................................. 3
Fair Housing ................................................................................................................................... 4
Strategic Plan and Action Items ...................................................................................................... 5
II.
Community and Housing Needs
Summary ................................................................................................................................... II–1
Note on Mapping....................................................................................................................... II–2
Population and Household Characteristics.................................................................................. II–3
Income and Income Distribution .............................................................................................. II–17
Housing Supply and Condition ................................................................................................ II–22
Market and Needs Analysis ....................................................................................................... II–34
Findings and Conclusions......................................................................................................... II–55
Attachments:
•
III.
Avondale Development Map
Citizen Input
Summary Findings .................................................................................................................... III–1
Community Telephone Survey .................................................................................................. III–1
Citizen Survey Key Findings....................................................................................................... III–2
Respondent Demographics ....................................................................................................... III–3
Housing Survey Findings .......................................................................................................... III–6
Community Needs Survey Findings......................................................................................... III–12
Key Person Interviews and Public Forum ................................................................................. III–22
Public Comments and Responses ............................................................................................ III–26
Attachments:
•
Citizen Participation Plan
•
FY 2005-FY2009 Maricopa HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan
•
Telephone Survey
•
Public Outreach Notices and Publications
•
Public Forum Attendees
•
Public Forum Worksheets and Presentation
•
Public Hearing Presentation and Council Resolutions
•
Public Comments
BBC R ESEARCH & C ONSULTING
i
Table of Contents
IV.
Fair Housing Analysis
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. IV–1
Summary Findings .................................................................................................................... IV–1
Analysis of Impediments and Background ................................................................................. IV–2
Fair Lending Analysis ................................................................................................................. IV–4
HMDA Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. IV–5
Key Person Interviews.............................................................................................................. IV–15
Fair Housing Complaint Data .................................................................................................. IV–16
Legal Cases.............................................................................................................................. IV–16
Barriers to Affordable/Fair Housing and Land Use Policy Review .............................................. IV–19
Citizens’ Fair Housing Concerns .............................................................................................. IV–25
Fair Housing Activities ............................................................................................................. IV–26
Fair Housing Action Plan.......................................................................................................... IV–27
V.
FY2006-FY2009 Strategic Plan
Attachments:
•
Strategic Plan Supplement
VI.
FY2006 Action Plan
VII
Projects and Needs Tables
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of the Consolidated Plan and AI
Beginning in fiscal year 1995, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
required local communities and states to prepare a Consolidated Plan in order to receive federal housing
and community development funding from four programs: the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI), the HOME Investments Partnership
Program (HOME); the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG); and Housing Opportunities for People with
AIDS (HOWPA).
The Purpose of the Consolidated Plan is:
1. To identify a city or state’s housing and community development needs, priorities, goals,
and strategies; and
2. To stipulate how funds will be allocated to housing and community development activities.
This report is the FY2006-2009 Four-Year Consolidated Plan for the City of Avondale (City). The City
is a recipient of CDBG funding and receives HOME and ADDI funding thought the Maricopa HOME
Consortium.
In addition to the Consolidated Plan, HUD requires that cities and states receiving CDBG funding take
actions to affirmatively further fair housing choice. Cities and states report on such activities by
completing an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) every three to five years. In general,
the AI is a review of impediments to fair housing choice in the public and private sector. This report also
contains the FY2006 AI for the City of Avondale.
This executive summary reports the findings from the Consolidated Plan and AI research. It also outlines
the City’s Four-Year Strategic Plan and one-year Action Plan which were crafted to respond to the
housing and community development needs identified in the research.
Research process. The research process for the Consolidated Plan and AI was both quantitative and
qualitative in nature. It involved collection and analysis of demographic, economic, housing and home
loan data; a review of the City’s housing and land use policies; an assessment of subsidized housing
conditions; and a detailed analysis of the affordable housing market. In addition, key-person interviews
were conducted with City residents and organizations involved in housing and community development.
A telephone survey of 194 Avondale residents was completed in December 2005. One public forum was
held on March 7, 2006, and 2 public hearings will be held on April 3 and April 17, 2006. The research
process is more fully described in each section of the report.
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY , P AGE 1
Socioeconomic and Housing Market Conditions
Understanding the current and future conditions that underlie the City’s economy and housing
markets is important for planning how to address the City’s needs. Sections II through IV of the full
Consolidated Plan present information about the City’s demographics, economy, housing market,
and community development conditions. The findings from these sections are summarized below.
Socioeconomic Profile
From 1990 to 2000, the population in the City of Avondale increased by approximately
1,963 persons per year. In comparison, from 2000 to 2005, 5,460 people were added to
the City each year for a compound annual growth rate of 12 percent. The annual
additions from 2000 to 2005 almost tripled the 10-year annual additions (1990 to
2000).
Racially, White persons comprised the majority of residents in Avondale at 62.8 percent
in 2000, followed by 24 percent reporting their race as “Other.” Ethnically, NonHispanics comprised the majority of residents in Avondale at 52.8 percent of the City’s
population. The City’s minority populations tend to live in a handful of neighborhoods
and Block Groups in the City including, but not limited to, Old Town Avondale, Las
Ligas, Cashion and Rio Vista.
The elderly population, those 65 years and over, made up 5 percent of the City’s
population in 2000. Compared to the Phoenix Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area
(PMSA) and Maricopa County, the City’s seniors made up a considerably smaller
proportion of the population (seniors were 12 percent of the population in both the
Phoenix PMSA and Maricopa County). Senior households were a small percentage of
the overall population in Avondale because 34 percent of the population was 17 years
of age or younger.
The Citywide poverty rate in 2000 was 13.1 percent. The map areas with poverty rates
higher than the Citywide rate are almost entirely located south of Interstate 10. The
area just south of Old Town Avondale along the Agua Fria River has the highest rate of
poverty in the City; 42 percent of persons in this Block Group are living below the
poverty threshold. This Block Group not only has the highest rate of poverty in the
City, but also the highest number of people living in poverty (754 persons).
Housing Market Conditions
Although most of Avondale’s housing stock is very new, there remain portions of the
City where the housing is largely substandard and likely at-risk of lead-based paint
hazards. Block Groups that are most at-risk for lead-based paint hazards are all
concentrated south of Interstate 10 close to the Old Town Avondale area and the
Cashion neighborhood. These are also areas where the majority of the City’s lowest
income households reside.
The largest affordability problem in the City occurs for extremely-low income renter
and owner households—those earning less than about $15,390 per year. Affordable
housing is very limited for these households.
Avondale in 2005 was less affordable than it was in 2000. From 2000 to 2003, the
City’s affordability indices increased fairly dramatically. However, both resale and new
homes’ affordability indices have taken a downward turn since 2004. At the end of
2005, both resale and new homes reached a 6-year affordability low; a household
earning the median income could no longer afford to purchase a median priced resale
home or new home. The decrease of affordable housing stock is not necessarily unique
to the City of Avondale; the overall affordability of housing in Maricopa County has
also decreased substantially over the past several years.
The City’s very-low income households tend to have multiple housing condition
problems as well as being cost burdened. These households tend to be concentrated in
Old Town Avondale, Cashion, Las Ligas and Rio Vista.
The Census data estimate that about 23 percent of Avondale’s renter households and
17 percent of the City’s homeowners were cost burdened in 2000. The data also show
that 14 percent of renters and 6 percent of homeowners were severely cost burdened,
paying 50 percent or more of their incomes for housing costs.
In 2000, the City had few options for rental households. By 2005, multifamily development
had increased and filled some of the previous gaps in rental housing.
The surplus of homes affordable to low-income owner households has increased by
more than 15 times, and the gap of units for upper-income households has more than
doubled.
Special Needs Populations
Due to lower incomes and the need for supportive services, special needs groups are more likely than the
general population to encounter difficulty paying for adequate housing and often require enhanced
community services. An analysis of the housing and community development needs of these populations
is included in the Consolidated Plan and revealed the following:
The City of Avondale was home to approximately 2,000 seniors in 2000. For the City’s
renter households, cost burden was greatest for the senior householders between the ages of
55 and 64 years – half of these householders were cost burdened in 2000.
A point-in-time count of persons experiencing homelessness in the City on January 25,
2005, found 13 single adult men and 1 single adult woman experiencing homelessness
in Avondale. In addition, there were 3 chronically homeless men and 1 chronically
homeless female. No children or persons in families with children were counted.
Using national incidence rates, there are an estimated 174 individuals with severe
developmental disabilities in the City that needed housing and supportive services. The
trend in serving these individuals is to move away from institutionalized care towards
smaller group homes and integrated community settings. Supportive services primarily
provide case management and counseling services, as well as job placement for those who
are able to participate in the employment sector. Additional services may be needed to help
persons with developmental disabilities find housing options.
According to the most recent data on HIV/AIDS populations, an estimated 34 people
living with HIV/AIDS in the City of Avondale need housing and supportive services.
The citizen telephone survey conducted for this study found that 17 percent of the
Avondale respondents had one or more people with a disability living in their households.
Although these individuals have access to various state and federal income and housing
subsidy programs to support their housing needs, these programs may not be adequate,
depending on individual needs.
There are approximately 2,418 individuals with substance abuse problems and 1,202
persons with mental illnesses that need supportive services. In addition, there are an
estimated 802 persons with mental illness that have housing needs.
Fair Housing
The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice revealed several impediments and a number of
areas for fair housing improvement in the City of Avondale:
Eight percent of Avondale residents reported experiencing housing discrimination; most
discriminatory incidences were related to race/ethnicity. Avondale residents who had
experienced housing discrimination were not informed about their options for
reporting the discrimination. Most did nothing or moved to get away from the
discriminatory activities. The City’s resources available for fair housing are not
transparent and easily accessible, which may contribute to residents’ lack of awareness.
In general, White applicants had the lowest loan denial rates across all loan types.
Denial rates for African American and Hispanic applicants were the highest among all
races and ethnicities.
The City’s zoning and code ordinances potentially discourage higher density residential
development due to the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet. The City
also has fairly strict landscaping requirements, which increases the cost of housing.
Due to a recent legal case in Sedona, Arizona, the City should review the conditional
use permitting process for group homes.
The City’s General Plan acknowledges the need and importance of affordable housing
and housing rehabilitation in the City. The Master Plan’s housing goals strive to
incorporate all levels of housing to create options for households of varying income
levels.
Given these concerns and potential barriers to fair housing in Avondale, the following
actions are recommended. More detail on these strategies is discussed at the end of Section
IV. – Fair Housing Analysis.
Strategy 1: The City should provide easily accessible information regarding the Fair
Housing Act and what to do in the event of housing discrimination.
Strategy 2: The City should improve awareness of fair housing issues.
Strategy 3: The City should invest in programs that assist special needs populations
with fair housing issues.
Strategy 4: The City should consider taking a more active approach to affordable
housing development and consider revising City policies that are potentially affordable
housing barriers.
Strategic Plan and Action Items
Based on the research conducted for the Consolidated Plan and AI, the City has developed the following
plan for addressing current and future housing and community development needs:
Strategic goals. The City has five overall goals for meeting its housing and community development
needs between FY2006 and 2009:
Strategy 1. Preserve the existing affordable housing stock.
Continue to pursue HOME funds through the Maricopa HOME Consortium, which
have been distributed to organizations that provide housing rehabilitation programs in
previous years.
Continue thorough code enforcement procedures to assist homeowners in bringing
units up to code.
Continue to offer the Residential Incentives Infill Program, which encourages
development of residential uses in areas of the City that are vacant or underutilized
through reduced fees and priority plan review.
Strategy 2. Improve public infrastructure and economic conditions in low-income,
economically-challenged neighborhoods.
Improve sidewalks, streets and street lighting in targeted low- to moderate-income
Block Groups.
Continue to offer the Commercial Incentives Infill Program in Old Town Avondale,
which encourages commercial development in vacant or otherwise underutilized areas
through reduced fees, priority plan review and sales tax rebates.
Increase neighborhood investment and participation.
Demolish substandard homes and relocate families.
Strategy 3. Support organizations that assist the City’s special needs population.
In addition to CDBG grants, continue to offer the Contributions Assistance Program
(CAP), as financially feasible, which awards General Fund monies to health and human
service organizations.
Continue programs that assist special needs populations through the City’s Social
Services Division.
Provide social services to low-income individuals.
Increase support to organizations that specifically provide activities and programs for atrisk youth.
Continue to supply emergency funding through the Community Action Program for
renter households in jeopardy of being evicted.
Strategy 4. Improve the City’s ability to address fair housing issues.
Increase all applicable City department staff’s awareness and knowledge of fair housing
issues.
Increase residents’ awareness and knowledge of fair housing issues by posting
information on the City’s website. The page should also give clear details about
consumers’ options for filing complaints, about following complaint procedures and it
should also contain appropriate links to complaint forms on HUD’s and/or the Arizona
Fair Housing Center’s website.
Explore possibilities of increased landlord/tenant training on the Fair Housing Act, and
continue to be involved in the West Valley Fair Housing Seminar.
Assist the elderly and disabled with bringing units up to City code.
Strategy 5. Increase homeownership within Avondale.
Continue to provide a first time homebuyers program and downpayment assistance
through the Individual Development Account Program available through the City’s
Social Services Division.
Explore the use of the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) program for
downpayment assistance, in conjunction with the Individual Development Account
Program.
SECTION II.
Section II.
In conjunction with the City of Avondale’s (City) FY2006-FY2009 Consolidated Plan, BBC
Research & Consulting (BBC) conducted a detailed analysis of the housing market in the City.
This document presents this community and housing needs analysis, which goes beyond what is
required by the Consolidated Plan regulations (specifically Sections 91.210).
The data collected and analyzed for this section were gathered from the 2000 U.S. Census; PCensus,
a provider of commercial data projections; the City of Avondale; Maricopa Association of
Governments; the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); the Multiple List
Service; and the Arizona Real Estate Center. These data represent the most recent housing data
available for the City at the time this report was completed (March 2006).
Summary
This housing and community needs analysis examines several different facets of Avondale’s housing
market, including condition, overcrowdedness, price, availability of assisted housing, cost burden and
the geographic distribution of housing characteristics.
Overall, from 2000 to 2005, the housing market in Avondale changed fairly dramatically, due in part
to the rapid growth in the City’s housing stock. From the data and analysis presented in the following
sections, we can conclude that the for-sale housing market in Avondale has targeted low- and
moderate-income households. Extremely low-income and middle- and upper-income households
appear to have limited options, as there have been shortages of homes for both income levels.
The supply of rental housing available to households at various income levels mirrored the same
trend as described above for homeownership housing. There were gaps in rental housing for the
City’s lowest and highest income rental households in 2000 and 2005. It should be noted that in
2000, the City had a shortage of rental units in every income category except for very low-income
households. Rental development since 2000 has closed the unit gap for low-income and moderateincome rental households; in fact, there were slight surpluses of these units in 2005.
Other major findings include the following:
The largest affordability problem in the City occurs for extremely-low income renter
S ECTION II , P AGE 1
The Census data estimate that about 23 percent of Avondale’s renter households and 17 percent
of the City’s homeowners were cost burdened in 2000. The data also show that 14 percent of
renters and 6 percent of homeowners were severely cost burdened, paying 50 percent or more of
their incomes for housing costs.
doubled.
Note on Mapping
In all the maps presented in the FY2006 –FY2009 Consolidated Plan, Block Group 1 in Census
Tract 820.15 is shaded a light green. A part of this Block Group is located within the City limits of
Avondale; however, the Block Group does not contain any households, as of the 2000 Census.
Therefore, this Block Group has been excluded from any mapping categories so as not to skew the
data.
Throughout this section, the maps refer not only to Census Block Groups, but City neighborhoods.
See the attached appendix, Avondale Development Map, for a detailed map of the City’s land uses
and neighborhood locations.
Population and Household Characteristics
This Community and Housing Needs Analysis begins with an overview of key demographic and
socioeconomic statistics. This section also contains a discussion of certain specific household types in
Avondale by race/ethnicity, age (including seniors), household size, disability and family structure.
Population levels and growth. The 2000 Census reported a population of 35,802 for the City
of Avondale, up from 16,169 in 1990. During the past decade, the City’s population grew at a
compound annual rate of 8.3 percent.
The Maricopa Association of Government (MAG) produces population estimates for all Maricopa
County cities. MAG’s estimate for the City in 2004 was 60,255. According to the City’s website, the
2005 population estimate was 63,100 people.
From 1990 to 2000, the population in the City increased by approximately 1,963 persons per year.
In comparison, from 2000 to 2005, 5,460 people were added to the City each year for a compound
annual growth rate of 12 percent. The annual additions from 2000 to 2005 almost tripled the 10year annual additions (1990 to 2000).
Exhibit II-1 shows the various population and household estimates and the change from 1990 to
2000, as well as estimates for 2004 and 2005.
Exhibit II-1.
Population and Household Trends, 1990, 2000, 2004 and 2005
1990
Census
2000
Census
Percent Change
1990 to 2000
2004
MAG*
Population
16,169
35,802
155%
60,255
Households
4,955
10,654
115%
n/a
Percent Change
2000 to 2004
68%
n/a
Note:
*Estimates. The City of Avondale's population estimate is posted on the City's website sourced Claritas.
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Census, City of Avondale website
per Claritas and Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Report, January 2005.
2005 City
of Avondale*
Percent Change
2000 to 2005
63,100
76%
n/a
n/a
Exhibit II-2 below maps the concentration of the City’s population in 2000 by Block Group. The
Block Groups with the most people are north of Interstate 10, with populations between 3,501 and
5,890 persons.
Exhibit II-2.
Population by Census Block Group, Avondale, 2000
Note:
Block Group 1 in Census Tract 820.15 highlighted green did not contain any people at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census. Therefore, this Block
Group has been excluded from the mapping categories.
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census and BBC Research and Consulting.
Race and ethnicity. According to the U.S. Census, 62.8 percent of Avondale’s population was
White and 4.9 percent was African American in 2000. Twenty-four percent of residents identified
1
their race as “Other.” Ethnically, 46.2 percent of the City’s population reported to be of
Hispanic/Latino descent in 2000. Exhibit II-3 distributes the population in Avondale by race and
ethnicity according to the 2000 Census.
Exhibit II-3.
Population by Race
and Ethnicity, 2000
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
Number
Percent
Total Population
35,802
100%
Race
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Asian alone
Black or African American alone
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone
Some other race alone
Two or more races alone
White alone
405
810
1,762
33
8,577
1,719
22,496
1.1%
2.3%
4.9%
0.1%
24.0%
4.8%
62.8%
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Not Hispanic or Latino
16,529
19,273
46.2%
53.8%
Exhibit II-4 shows the percent change in population by race and ethnicity from 1990 to 2000. The
fastest growing racial population in Avondale from 1990 to 2000 was Asian or Pacific Islander, which
grew 257 percent during the decade. It should be noted, however, that the Asian or Pacific Islander
population is very small in Avondale, so the large percentage increase does not necessarily mean a
large increase in numbers.
Exhibit II-4.
Percent Population
Change by Race and
Ethnicity, 1990 to 2000
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000.
Percent
Change
Race
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black or African American
Other Race
White
Total Population Change
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
78%
257%
127%
57%
138%
121%
99%
Location of households by race and ethnicity. Exhibits II-5 through II-7 on the following pages
depict the location of White, African American and Hispanic/Latino households in Avondale. As
shown in the maps, minority households are largely concentrated in the City center, clustered around
Interstate 10. In many cities nationwide, minority concentrations are a reflection of preferences—
e.g., minorities may choose to live near family and friends of the same race/ethnicity or where they
have access to grocery stores or restaurants that cater to them. In other cities nationwide, minority
populations are intentionally steered away or discouraged from living in certain areas. Housing prices
can also heavily influence where minorities live, to the extent that there are economic disparities
1
The U.S. Census considers Hispanic/Latino as an ethnicity, not a race. As a result, many people of Hispanic/Latino
descent report their race as “Other” or do not report their race on the decennial Census survey form and are categorized as
“Other.”
among persons of different races and ethnicities. In Avondale’s case, areas of heavy minority
concentration tend to occur in the oldest neighborhoods in the City.
Exhibit II-5 shows the distribution of Avondale residents who classified themselves as White in the
2000 Census. As shown in the map, White households are largely concentrated around the periphery
of the City limits and in the most southern Block Groups.
Exhibit II-5
Percentage of White Households, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
Block Group 1 in Census Tract 820.15 highlighted green did not contain any households at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census. Therefore, this Block
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census and BBC Research & Consulting.
Exhibit II-6 shows the location of African American households in Avondale. Citywide, African
American households represent 5 percent of occupied households. As shown in the map, much of the
area north of Interstate 10 and a few Block Groups close to Old Town Avondale contain African
American proportions that are higher than the Citywide proportion. At 10 percent, Block Group 3 in
Census Tract 612, just north of Old Town Avondale, has the highest percentage of African American
households in the City.
Exhibit II-6.
Percentage of African American Households, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
Source:
It is interesting to note that while African Americans are concentrated in Block Groups close to Old
Town Avondale and north of Interstate 10, they make up much less than 50 percent of residents
within those Block Groups. That is, African Americans in Avondale do not comprise the majority, or
even more than 10 percent, of residents in any one Block Group.
Exhibit II-7 displays the concentration of Hispanic/Latino households in Avondale. Citywide,
households of Hispanic/Latino descent comprise 46 percent of overall households. Areas of
Hispanic/Latino concentration primarily appear along the western edge of the City limits, in Old
Town Avondale and the Cashion neighborhood in east Avondale. Eighty-four percent of the
households in Block Group 1 of Census Tract 822.02 in the Cashion neighborhood are of
Hispanic/Latino descent, the highest percentage Citywide.
Exhibit II-7.
Percentage of Hispanic/Latino Households, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
Source:
Senior households. The elderly population, those 65 years and over, made up 5 percent of the
City’s population and totaled about 2,000 persons in 2000. Compared to the Phoenix Primary
Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) and Maricopa County, the City’s seniors made up a
considerably smaller proportion of the population (seniors were 12 percent of the population in both
the Phoenix PMSA and Maricopa County). Senior households were a small percentage of the overall
population in Avondale because 34 percent of the population was 17 years of age or younger.
Exhibit II-8 illustrates the age distribution of Avondale residents in 2000.
Exhibit II-8.
Age Distribution, 2000
Source:
65 to 74 (3%)
75 and over (2%)
55 to 64 (6%)
17 years and under (34%)
45 to 54 (12%)
35 to 44 (16%)
18 to 24 (9%)
25 to 34 (17%)
Exhibit II-9 below shows the location of the City’s seniors by Block Group, according to the 2000
Census. As shown in the map, the City’s residents are quite young; seniors occupy 10 percent or less
of the majority of households in the City’s Block Groups. Seniors occupy the highest proportion of
housing units in Block Groups in the western section of the City, south of Old Town Avondale, and
in a few Block Groups in northern Avondale. It should be noted that residents of Block Group 1 in
Census Tract 610.03 in northern Avondale are all over the age of 65; however, in 2000, only 12
persons lived in this Block Group.
Exhibit II-9.
Percent of Population Age 65 Years and Older, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
One hundred percent of the population in Block Group 1 of Census Tract 610.03 was over the age of 65 in 2000. Please note this Block Group only
contained 12 persons.
Source:
Persons with disabilities. Sixteen percent of Avondale residents over the age of 5 had a disability
in 2000. Exhibit II-10 shows disability by type for the City of Avondale.
Exhibit II-10.
Disability by Type, 2000
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Total population is the noninstitutionalized
population 5 years and over.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.
Number
of People
Sensory disability
Physical disability
Mental disability
Self-care disability
Go-outside-home disability
Employment disability
Percent of
Total Population
Two or more types of disabilities
253
649
322
3
236
1,552
2,184
1%
2%
1%
0%
1%
5%
7%
Total
5,199
16%
The most prevalent disability in the City, representing 7 percent of the City’s population, was the
Census category of persons with “Two or more types of disabilities.” Five percent of City residents
had an employment disability, the second most common type of disability. In Maricopa County and
the Phoenix PMSA, 18 percent of the population had a disability in 2000, which is slightly higher
than the 16 percent in Avondale.
Exhibit II-11 shows the distribution of persons living with a disability in the City as of the 2000
Census. Persons living with a disability comprise between 16 to 26 percent of the population in the
majority of the Block Groups in Avondale.
Exhibit II-11.
Percent of Population with a Disability, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
Source:
Large households. The average household size in Avondale was 3.35 persons in 2000. This
compared to an average household size of 2.67 persons for Maricopa County and the Phoenix
Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA). According to the 2000 Census, the average household
size of renters in Avondale was much smaller than the average household size of owners: renters
averaged 3.16 persons per household, compared to 3.41 persons per household for owners.
The Census defines large households as having 5 or more persons in a household. In 2000, these
households made up 23 percent of the total households in Avondale.
Racially, White households represented the majority of large households. Households classified as
“Some other race alone” represented a disproportionately high percentage of large households: 34
percent of large households in the City were of “Some other race,” but only 24 percent of total
households identified themselves in this racial category. Conversely, White households made up 63
percent of total households in the City, but only 55 percent of large households. Exhibit II-12 below
shows the number and percentage of large households by race and ethnicity.
Exhibit II-12.
Households with 5
or More Persons by
Race and Ethnicity, 2000
Source:
Percent
of Large
Number Households
Race
American Indiana and Alaskan Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander alone
Some other race alone
Two or more races
White alone
37
35
122
7
829
77
1,326
2%
1%
5%
0%
34%
3%
55%
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino
1,476
61%
Ethnically, Hispanic/Latino households comprised 61 percent of large households. Hispanics/Latinos
comprised a disproportionately high percentage of large households, when compared to their share of
total households in the City, which is 46 percent.
Family structure. Citywide, 36 percent of all households were married-couple households with
children in 2000. Out of Avondale’s 10,654 households, 20 percent (2,096) were female-headed
households in 2000. Exhibit II-13 depicts female-headed households by type.
Exhibit II-13.
Female-Headed
Households by Type,
2000
Source:
Household Type
1-person female householder
Female householder, no husband present
With children
Without children
Nonfamily female householder
Total
Number
Percent of Total
Female-Headed
Households
669
32%
771
505
147
37%
24%
7%
2,092
100%
The majority of female households were single-parent households (37 percent) followed by 32
percent of female households who were living alone and most likely seniors.
Exhibit II-14 shows the distribution of female-headed households in 2000. The Block Groups with
the highest concentrations of female-headed households are primarily clustered in west Avondale,
directly north and south of Old Town Avondale.
Exhibit II-14.
Female-Headed Households, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
Source:
Two out of the 5 Block Groups with high concentrations of female-headed households also have over
40 percent of these households designated as very low-income (see Exhibit II-17).
Of all households in the City of Avondale, 12 percent were single-parent households in 2000. Exhibit
II-15 shows that Block Groups with a higher percentage than the Citywide rate of single-parent
households were primarily concentrated south of Interstate 10 in west Avondale. The Block Groups
with the highest percentage of single-parent households are identified in dark purple below. At 30
percent, Block Groups 3 in Census Tract 614 has the highest percentage of single parent households
in the City.
Exhibit II-15.
Single Parent Households, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
Block Group 1 in Census Tract 820.15 highlighted green did not contain any households at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census. Therefore, this
Block Group has been excluded from the mapping categories.
Source:
Income and Income Distribution
This section provides income information for Avondale. It introduces many of the concepts that are
used later in this report to identify where gaps occur in housing provision and housing need by
income level.
The 2000 Census reported a median household income of $49,153 for the City of Avondale, up
from $24,292 in 1990. In comparison, Maricopa County’s median household income in 1990 was
$30,797 and $45,358 in 2000. In 1990, Avondale’s median households income was approximately
$6,500 less than the county’s; however, by 2000, the City had surpassed the county’s median by
almost $4,000.
The City of Avondale uses HUD income limits for its housing assistance programs. In 2000, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported a median family income (MFI)
of $53,100 for the Phoenix-Mesa Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), of which Avondale
is a part. In 2005, HUD estimated the City’s MFI at $58,600—a 19.2 percent increase from 2000.
Households in poverty. The Citywide poverty rate in 2000 was 13.8 percent. Exhibit II-16 below
highlights those Block Groups with poverty rates above the Citywide percentage.
2
Exhibit II-16.
Persons Living in Poverty, by Census Block Group, 1999
Note:
Darkly shaded Block Groups are above the Citywide rate (13.8 percent) of persons living below the poverty level.
Source:
2
The Census Bureau uses the federal government's official poverty definition. The Social Security Administration (SSA)
developed the original poverty definition in 1964, and federal interagency committees subsequently revised the definition in
1969 and 1980. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Directive 14 prescribes this definition as the official
poverty measure for federal agencies to use in their statistical work. To determine poverty status, a person's total family
income is compared with the poverty threshold appropriate for that person's family size and composition. If the total
income of that person's family is less than the threshold appropriate for that family, then the person is considered poor,
together with every member of his or her family. If a person is not living with anyone related by birth, marriage, or
adoption, then the person's own income is compared with his or her poverty threshold.
The map on the previous page shows that the Block Groups with poverty rates higher than the
Citywide rate are almost entirely located south of Interstate 10. Block Group 1 in Census Tract 614
(just south of Old Town Avondale along the Agua Fria River) has the highest rate of poverty in the
City; 42 percent of persons in this Block Group are living below the poverty threshold. This Block
Group not only has the highest rate of poverty in the City, but also the highest number of people
living in poverty (754 persons).
Low-income households. In general, housing needs are great not only for persons living in
poverty, but also for many low-income households. HUD defines low-income households more
broadly than households living in poverty. Like the poverty definition, HUD adjusts the definition of
low-income to incorporate family size. In addition, HUD uses several ranges to define the various
levels of low-income status.
Low-income households, by the HUD definition, earn between 51 and 80 percent of the MFI. In
2000, a family could earn between $26,551 and $42,480 in Avondale and be considered low-income.
In 2000, approximately 2,000 households in Avondale were considered to be low-income,
representing about 19 percent of the City’s households.
Very low-income households are defined as households earning between 31 and 50 percent of the
MFI. In 2000, very low-income households in Avondale were those households earning between
$15,931 and $26,550. According to the 2000 Census, about 1,200 Avondale households fell into this
category, representing 11 percent of Avondale’s households.
Extremely low-income households are defined as households earning 30 percent or less of the MFI.
In 2000, extremely low-income households in Avondale were those households earning less than
$15,930. According to the 2000 Census, about 1,300 Avondale households fell into this category,
representing 12 percent of Avondale’s households.
Exhibit II-17 below shows the location of very low-income households in Avondale.
Exhibit II-17.
Location of Households Earning Less than $26,550, by Census Block Group, 1999
Note:
Source:
As shown in the map, two Census Block Groups in the eastern part of the City (the Cashion
neighborhood) and Block Groups along the western edge contain the highest concentrations of very
low-income households. Avondale north of Interstate 10 has the lowest percentage of very lowincome households. However, no Block Group in the City is without some proportion of very lowincome households.
Per the map displayed in Exhibit II-17, there are 8 Block Groups in the City that have concentrations
of very low- income households greater than 40 percent. The following table lists these Block Groups
and their respective percentages of very-low income households.
Exhibit II-18.
Block Groups with
Concentrations of Very
Low-Income Households
above 40 Percent
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census and BBC
Research & Consulting.
Block Group
Census Tract
Percent
Very Low-Income
3
614
64 percent
1
614
63 percent
4
614
50 percent
2
822.02
47 per cent
4
610.05
45 percent
1
822.02
43 percent
1
612
41 percent
2
614
41 percent
At 64 percent, Block Group 3 in Census Tract 614 had the highest percentage of very low-income
households in the City.
Income by race/ethnicity. Exhibit II-19 shows the percentage of households that were very low-
income or below by race and ethnicity. For example, 35 percent of households identifying themselves
as “Some other race,” 31 percent of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and 37 percent of
the Hispanic/Latino households in Avondale were very low-income in 2000.
Exhibit II-19.
Percent of Households
that were Very LowIncome or below by
Race and Ethnicity, 2000
Source:
Percent Earning
< $26,550
Race
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone
Some other race
Two or more races
White alone
29%
18%
18%
31%
35%
30%
21%
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
37%
16%
Total households
24%
The disparity among races in the percentage of very low-income households is not unusual: in
general, minorities tend to have lower incomes than Whites in most cities. Indeed, according to the
2000 Census, the median income for White households in the City was $53,039, compared with
$34,539 for persons of “Some other race” and $34,561 for persons of Hispanic/Latino descent.
Housing Supply and Condition
This section of the housing market analysis contains an overview of the housing stock in Avondale in
terms of type, tenure (rented or owned) and condition, which includes overcrowded units and units
at risk of containing lead-based paint. Much of the detailed data in this section are from the 2000
Census and represent the most recent data available on the City’s housing stock, particularly housing
in poor condition.
Housing supply and type. From 1990 to 2000, the City of Avondale more than doubled its
housing stock by adding 5,699 units. Since the 2000 Census to November 31, 2005, approximately
12,000 new housing units have been permitted in Avondale. That is, if all permitted units are
developed, the City will have added twice as many housing units in the past 5 years as it did over the
entire past decade. These permits represent about 10,000 single family units and 2,000 multifamily
units.
In 2000, the majority (73.7 percent) of the City’s housing units were single family, detached units.
Twelve percent of the housing units contained 3 or more units, and 10.7 percent were mobile homes.
Exhibit II-20 shows the distribution of housing units by size as of 2000.
Exhibit II-20.
Distribution of Housing Units by Size and Type, 2000
100%
90%
80%
73.7%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10.7%
va
n,
V,
Bo
at,
R
ile
ho
m
e
etc
.
0.2%
Mo
b
mo
re
or
50
9
to
4
20
to
1
3.2%
2.8%
9
1.2%
10
2.1%
5t
o9
r4
ed
ach
att
1,
he
d
de
tac
1,
Source:
1.4%
2
1.5%
0%
3.3%
3o
10%
Rented or owned. The Census provides a breakdown of housing units by type and by household
tenure (owner/renter). In 2000, 78 percent of the housing units in Avondale were owner occupied;
22 percent were renter occupied. As shown in Exhibit II-21 on the following page, 88 percent of the
City’s housing units that were owner occupied in 2000 consisted of single family detached homes.
The majority of the homeowners not living in single family units lived in mobile homes (11 percent).
Just over 1 percent of homeowners occupied townhomes, condominiums or other types of attached
units.
The City’s renters mostly occupied single family homes (36 percent). An additional 20 percent of the
City’s renters lived in apartments in small complexes with between 3 and 9 units. It is interesting to
note that approximately the same proportion of owner- and renter-occupied mobile homes in 2000
(11 percent of owners and 10 percent of renters).
Exhibit II-21.
Tenure by Type
of Structure, 2000
Owner Occupied
Number Percent
Note:
Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source:
1-unit, detached
1-unit, attached
2 units
3 or 4 units
5 to 9 units
10 to 19 units
20 to 49 units
50 or more units
Mobile home
Boat, RV, van, etc.
Total
Renter Occupied
Number Percent
7,219
94
4
23
10
0
0
0
879
16
88%
1%
0%
0.3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
0%
860
77
144
289
200
121
101
342
250
6
36%
3%
6%
12%
8%
5%
4%
14%
10%
0%
8,245
100%
2,390
100%
Another way to look at housing units by type is to examine the use of the housing units by type. As
shown in Exhibit II-22 below, the majority of the City’s single family units (89 percent) were owner
occupied in 2000; 11 percent (or about 860 units) were renter occupied. The use of the City’s
duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and medium to large multifamily developments were largely for
rentals.
Exhibit II-22.
Type of
Structure by
Tenure, 2000
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau,
2000 Census.
Owner
occupied
units
1-unit, detached
1-unit, attached
2 units
3 or 4 units
5 to 9 units
10 to 19 units
20 or more units
Mobile home
Boat, RV, van
Total
Renter
occupied
units
Total units
by type
7,219
94
4
23
10
0
0
879
16
860
77
144
289
200
121
443
250
6
8,079
171
148
312
210
121
443
1,129
22
8,245
2,390
10,635
Percent of
units owner
occupied
Percent of
units renter
occupied
89%
55%
3%
7%
5%
0%
0%
78%
73%
11%
45%
97%
93%
95%
100%
100%
22%
27%
Housing age. Fifty-five percent of the City’s single family detached housing stock was built after
2000. This compares with 44 percent of the City’s multifamily housing stock. Exhibit II-23 shows
the number and percentage of units built each decade, by type.
Exhibit II-23.
Number and
Percent of Housing
Units by Age and
Tenure, 2005
Note: For units built from April
2000 to 2005, single family units
are assumed to be owner occupied
and multifamily units are assumed
to be renter occupied.
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau,
2000 Census and the Multiple List
Service courtesy of Al Gage.
Owner occupied
No. of
Units
1939 or earlier
1940-1949
1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990 - March 2000
April 2000 - 2005
Total
Percent
of Total
Renter occupied
No. of
Units
Percent
of Total
45
157
417
473
892
1,142
5,119
9,942
0%
1%
2%
3%
5%
6%
28%
55%
33
147
304
252
512
653
489
1,844
1%
3%
7%
6%
12%
15%
12%
44%
18,187
100%
4,234
100%
Housing in substandard condition. In the absence of a detailed housing condition survey, the
2000 Census provides the most current and readily available data on detailed housing conditions—
specifically, the number of units in very poor condition. The data produced by the Census capture
units that are severely substandard—lacking complete plumbing, lacking complete kitchens and units
without standard heating. Exhibit II-24 shows the number and proportions of units in Avondale that
had these condition problems.
Exhibit II-234
Housing Units Lacking Basic Amenities, 2000
Total Housing Units
Lacking complete plumbing facilities
Lacking complete kitchen facilities
No heating fuel used
Total
Source:
Total occupied
No. of
Percent
Units
of Units
Owner occupied
No. of
Percent
Units
of Units
Renter occupied
No. of
Percent
Units
of Units
10,635
58
61
141
260
8,245
38
29
58
125
2,390
20
32
83
135
0.55%
0.57%
1.33%
2.4%
0.46%
0.35%
0.70%
1.5%
0.84%
1.34%
3.47%
5.6%
As shown above, over 2 percent of the City’s units were in severely substandard condition in 2000—a
small portion of the City’s housing stock. The data by tenure show that a higher proportion of rental
units were in substandard condition than units occupied by owners (5.6 percent vs. 1.5 percent,
respectively). However, approximately the same number of owner and renter units were in
substandard condition in 2000.
The following three exhibits (II-25, II-26 and II-27) provide further detail on the three condition
indicators by Census Block Group. Mapping these indicators gives insight into the areas with
concentrations of substandard housing.
Exhibit II-25 shows the number of housing units in each Block Group lacking complete plumbing.
The exhibit demonstrates that Block Groups in central and southern Avondale have the highest
numbers of households lacking complete plumbing facilities. Block Group 1 in Census Tract
7233.01 had 33 units without complete plumbing, the largest number of all Block Groups in the
City.
Exhibit II-25.
Number of Households Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
The total number of Block Groups lacking complete plumbing facilities is 95 housing units more than the City of Avondale total without plumbing;
some Census Block Groups are not wholly included in the City limits.
Source:
Exhibit II-26 depicts the units lacking complete kitchen facilities. As shown in the map, the highest
concentrations of units without complete kitchen facilities are located in southern Avondale and in
one Block Group in the Cashion Neighborhood in east Avondale. Block Group 1 in Census Tract
7233.01 had the most units without complete kitchen facilities of all Block Groups in Avondale (28
housing units).
Exhibit II-26.
Number of Households Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
The total number of Block Groups lacking complete kitchen facilities is 63 housing units more than the City of Avondale total without kitchen
facilities; some Census Block Groups are not wholly included in the City limits.
Source:
Exhibit II-27 demonstrates that the Block Group with the highest number of units using wood, coal,
kerosene or no heating fuel at all is located south of Interstate 10 just south of Old Town Avondale.
This Block Group (Block Group 1 in Census Tract 614) has 63 units using wood, kerosene, coal or
no heating fuel, which comprises one-third of all units lacking standard heating amenities.
Exhibit II-27.
Number of Households Using Wood, Coal,
Kerosene or No Heating Fuel by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
The total number of Block Groups using wood or no fuel at all is 50 housing units more than the City of Avondale total without this amenity; some
Census Block Groups are not wholly included in the City limits.
Source:
Households with lead-based paint risk. Housing in substandard condition can present a variety
of problems and health risks to occupants. One of the most severe problems created by housing that
is older (generally built before 1979) and in substandard condition is the risk of lead-based paint
poisoning, particularly for young children.
As of the 2000 Census, there were 45 homeowners and 33 renter households living in units built
before 1939, and 574 homeowners and 451 renters living in housing constructed between 1940 and
1960. There were also as many as 125 homeowners and 135 renter households living in units with
some type of condition problem. Households with lead-based paint hazards were quantified using the
following assumptions.
All households occupying these units are low- or moderate-income; and
Fifty percent of housing built between 1940 and 1960, and all housing built before
1940 has a strong likelihood of containing lead-based paint.
Using the assumptions listed above, as many as 457 low- to moderate-income homeowners and 394
low- to moderate-income renter households in Avondale could be at risk of lead based paint hazards.
These at-risk households represent 3 percent of the City’s homeowners and 9 percent of the City’s
renters in 2005. The numbers indicate that a comparable number of homeowners and renters are atrisk of lead-based paint hazards.
Exhibit II-28 below shows Census Block Groups in the City that have more than 20 percent of units
occupied by households that earn less than 80 percent of the MFI ($53,100). The households in the
map below are also living in housing units built prior to 1979 (and therefore have some risk of leadbased paint).
Exhibit II-28.
Lead-Based Paint Hazards, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
Darker shaded areas represent Census Block Groups with households at risk of lead-based paint hazards.
Source:
Blocks Groups that are most at-risk for lead-based paint hazards are all south of Interstate 10, close to
Old Town Avondale area and the Cashion neighborhood. The majority of Block Groups in the City
have between 31 and 60 percent of households earning less than $53,100 who are also living in
housing built with lead-based paint hazard. The Block Groups without lead-based paint hazards are
all located north of Interstate 10.
Exhibit II-29 maps the Census Block Groups in the City that have the greatest risk of lead-based
paint hazards. Darkly shaded Block Groups have more than 20 percent of units occupied by
households earning less than 80 percent of the MFI ($53,100) and who are living in housing units
built prior to 1950. Housing built before 1950 indicates a greater risk of lead-based paint hazard than
homes built before 1979. Households with such a risk totaled 315 in 2000 and represented almost 3
percent of the City’s occupied households.
Exhibit II-29.
High Risk Lead-Based Paint Hazards, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
Darker shaded areas represent Census Block Groups with households at the greatest risk of lead-based paint hazards.
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau and BBC Research & Consulting.
The areas in the City with the highest risk for lead-based paint hazards are the Block Groups located
south of Interstate 10 in Old Town Avondale and the Cashion neighborhood.
Overcrowded housing. In addition to substandard housing condition, another key factor to
examine in evaluating housing condition is overcrowded housing. HUD defines an overcrowded unit
as having more than one person per room. According to 2000 Census data, about 10 percent of
owner occupied housing units were overcrowded, and 26 percent of renter occupied units in
Avondale were overcrowded. Exhibit II-30 shows the number of households in Avondale in
overcrowded conditions, by tenure.
Exhibit II-30.
Households Living in Overcrowded Conditions, 2000
Total occupied
1.01 to 1.50
1.51 or more
Total
Average Household Size
Source:
Owner occupied
No. of
Units
Percent
of Units
No. of
Units
660
733
1,393
6.2%
6.9%
13.1%
411
372
783
3.35
3.41
Percent
of Units
5.0%
4.5%
9.5%
Renter occupied
No. of
Units
Percent
of Units
249
361
610
10.4%
15.1%
25.5%
3.16
Avondale’s percentage of households that were overcrowded was considerably higher than the
national average, the state average and the Metroplex average. On average, overcrowded households
represented 3.1 percent of owner occupied households and 11.0 percent of renter occupied
households in the nation. In the state of Arizona, 5.4 percent of owners and 15.4 percent of renters
were living in overcrowded conditions. The Phoenix PMSA’s statistics were similar to the state of
Arizona with 4.6 percent of owners and 16.7 percent of renters living in overcrowded housing.
Exhibit II-31 illustrates the Block Groups that have a higher percentage of overcrowded housing
units than the City overall (13.1 percent). These households are located almost entirely south of
Interstate 10.
Exhibit II-31.
Households Living in Overcrowded Conditions, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
Darkly shaded Block Groups are above the Citywide rate (13.1 percent) of overcrowded housing units.
Source:
Exhibit II-32 shows the proportion of all overcrowded households represented by each Block Group.
Consistent with the previous map (Exhibit II-31), the highest concentration of overcrowded housing
units is around Old Town Avondale and the Rio Vista, Las Ligas and Cashion neighborhoods. The
darkest shaded Census Block Groups combined represent just over half of total households living in
overcrowded conditions.
Exhibit II-32.
Census Block Groups as a Percentage of All Households in Overcrowded Conditions, 2000
Note:
Sum of Block Groups living in overcrowded conditions is 265 housing units greater than the City of Avondale total; some Census Block Groups are
not wholly included in the City limits.
Source:
Households with members of Hispanic/Latino origin are more likely to be living in overcrowded
conditions than Non-Hispanic households. According to 2000 Census data, approximately 3 percent
of Non-Hispanic households lived in overcrowded conditions in Avondale, compared to 29 percent of
Hispanic/Latino households who lived in overcrowded conditions. Additionally, households who
identified themselves as Some other race, according to the Census definition, totaled approximately
2,000 in Avondale. This population was slightly smaller than the Hispanic/Latino population
(roughly half the size), but 32 percent were living in overcrowded households in 2000. The Native
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander population in Avondale totaled only 7 households in 2000 but 100
percent lived in overcrowded conditions.
Market and Needs Analysis
This section presents an analysis of the affordability of Avondale’s single family and rental market.
The section starts by introducing industry/HUD measures of housing affordability and discusses how
Avondale’s housing market has changed since 2000. Additionally, the section provides recent data on
the prices of the City’s single family homes and rental units, and concludes by identifying where the
City’s housing market is underserving certain income groups.
Affordability defined. In the housing industry, housing affordability is commonly defined in
terms of the proportion of household income that is used to pay housing costs. Housing is
“affordable” if no more than 30 percent of a household’s monthly income is needed for rent or
mortgage payments. When the proportion of household income needed to pay housing costs exceeds
30 percent, a household is considered “cost burdened.”
Housing programs generally focus on assisting lower income populations. As described in the Income
and Income Distribution section starting on page 17, HUD categorizes households into several
income categories using a formula based on the Median Family Income (MFI) in a given area. City,
state and federal programs use these income categories to target and monitor housing assistance and
need.
In 2005, Avondale’s MFI was estimated by HUD to be $58,600. Exhibit II-33 shows the maximum
earnings of families in various income categories for 2005, using the HUD definition of low-income.
The two right-hand columns in the exhibit show the affordable home price and rents for households
at the various defined income levels. These prices and rents represent the maximum home price and
rent that the households in the defined income categories could afford without being cost burdened.
Exhibit II-33.
HUD Income Categories
and Affordable Values,
2005
Source:
HUD and BBC Research & Consulting.
Maximum
Affordable
Home Price
HUD Income Category
Income
Limit
Median Family Income (MFI)
Upper-income (121% or greater of MFI)
Middle-income (100-120% of MFI)
Moderate-income (81-100% of MFI)
Low-income (51-80% of MFI)
Very low-income (31-50% of MFI)
Extremely low-income (0-30% of MFI)
$58,600
$205,768
$70,320 + $246,922 +
$70,320
$246,922
$58,600
$205,768
$46,880
$164,615
$29,300
$102,884
$17,580
$61,730
Maximum
Affordable
Rent
$1,465
$1,758 +
$1,758
$1,465
$1,172
$733
$440
As shown in Exhibit II-33, a household in Avondale that is considered extremely low-income by
HUD standards (earning $17,580 or less in 2005) could afford to buy a house priced at no more
than $61,730, or could afford to pay no more than $440 per month in rent.
In 2005, very low-income households (earning between $17,581 and $29,300) could afford a rent
payment of up to $733, and could afford to buy a house that cost up to $102,884.
The City’s low-income households (earning between $29,301 and $46,880) could afford a rent
payment of up to $1,172 and could afford to buy a house that cost up to $164,615.
Housing affordability in 2000. According to the 2000 Census, the median home value in
Avondale was $122,500. In 2000, the median gross rent (including utilities) was $583. The income
required to afford the median home in the City in 2000 was $34,886; the income required to afford
3
the median rent was $23,320.
In 2000, 67 percent of households could afford to purchase the median priced home. Seventy-eight
percent of households in the City could afford to pay the median rent. Overall, in 2000, it was less
expensive (by almost $300 per month) for median income households to rent than to buy a median
priced home. In other words, a household that can only afford to pay the median rent would need a
$300 monthly subsidy to afford the mortgage on a median-priced home.
The Census also reports the median home value for units on the market at the time the Census was
taken and median rents of units that were available for rent. At the time of the Census, the median
price of single family homes on the market in Avondale was $126,300, compared to a median value
of $122,500 for all occupied units. In 2000, 65 percent of households could afford to buy the
median priced home. The median rent asked (i.e., rental units that were available to rent) was $646,
compared to a median rent of $583 paid by renters. In 2000, 77 percent of households could afford
to rent a unit that was vacant and available for rent.
Exhibit II-34 summarizes the median values according to the 2000 Census, the income required to
afford such housing, and the percentage of Avondale residents who can afford rental and ownership
housing at the median levels.
Exhibit II-34.
Median Values and Affordability, 2000
Median
Value
Income Required
to Afford
Median Value
Percent of Households
that Could Afford
Median Value
Occupied Units
Single Family Unit
Rental Unit
$122,500
$583
$34,886
$23,320
67%
78%
$126,300
$646
$35,969
$25,840
65%
77%
Units on the Market
Single Family Unit
Rental Unit
Note:
The numbers assume loan terms of 5 percent down, 6 percent interest rate, and 30-year term, and are adjusted for PMI, hazard insurance, and
property taxes.
Source:
3
Required income assumes loan terms of 5 percent down, 6 percent interest rate, or 30-year term, and is adjusted for PMI,
hazard insurance, and property taxes.
Overall change in affordability 2000 to 2005. To estimate affordability of housing in 2005
and examine trends in prices since 2000, we obtained a listing of housing units that sold in Avondale
any time from January 1, 2000 to December 15, 2005. This dataset contains approximately 6,400
records of homes that were on the market at some point during this period.
To examine rental affordability, BBC conducted a point-in-time telephone survey of multifamily
rental units on the market as of January 24, 2006. BBC surveyed all apartment complexes found
through apartment finder internet resources. Rental data reflect rates for just over 2,100 rental units.
The apartments surveyed were all large complexes with over 100 units. By comparison, in 2000, there
were 1,020 rental units in buildings with 5 or more units.
Single family housing affordability. Real estate data obtained from the Multiple List Service from
January 1, 2005 to December 15, 2005, showed a median asking price of $235,000 for single family
homes. According to the Census in 2000, median price of single family homes on the market in
Avondale was $126,300. The median price of the single family home on the market in Avondale
increased by around $109,000 from 2000 to 2005—or about 86 percent.
Exhibits II-35, II-36 and II-37 illustrate why the median price of homes on the market has changed
so significantly from 2000 to 2005. One reason (demonstrated by Exhibit II-35 and II-36) is that
new housing built in the City has drastically increased in price since 2000.
Exhibit II-35 below graphs the price distribution of single family homes sold between 2000 and
December 15, 2005. The vast majority of homes were priced between $100,000 and $199,000.
Exhibit II-35.
Price Distribution of Sold Single Family Homes, 2000 to December 15, 2005
4,500
4,000
Number of Units
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Un
$1 der
0,0
00
$1
to 0,00
$1
9 ,0 0
00
$2
to 0,00
$3
9 ,0 0
00
$4
to 0,00
$5
9 ,0 0
00
$6
to 0,00
$7
9 ,0 0
00
$8
0
to
,
$9 000
9 ,0
00
$1
t o 0 0 ,0
$1
99 0 0
,00
0
$2
t o 0 0 ,0
$2
0
99 0
,00
0
$3
t o 0 0 ,0
$3
0
99 0
,00
0
$4
0
to
0
$4 ,000
99
,00
0
$5
0
to
0 ,0
$7
49 0 0
,0 0
0
$7
5
to
0 ,0
$9
99 00
,00
0
$1
,00
an
0
d a ,0 0
bo 0
ve
0
Source:
Avondale Multiple List Service courtesy of Al Gage and BBC Research & Consulting.
When a City issues a permit to develop a home, they request information on the value of the work to
be completed. Trends in valuation (as tracked by building permits) are another indicator of the
changes in housing costs. In general, the more that a house costs to develop, the more it will fetch in
the market (barring market downturns and shocks in supply and demand).
Exhibits II-36 shows the valuation of the City’s building permits from 2000 through 2005. The
graph shows a steady rise in valuation since 2000. That is, since 2000, the housing that has been
developed in Avondale has increased in development value, the most dramatic of increases occurring
between 2001 and 2002.
Exhibit II-36.
Single Family Building Permits, 2000 through 2005
B
$200,000
Valuation
B
$180,000
B
$160,000
B
B
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
B
$80,000
B
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
2000
Source:
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
City of Avondale Building Services Department and BBC Research & Consulting.
Actual market data also indicate that prices changed dramatically since 2000. Exhibit II-37 shows the
prices and proportion of homes on the market in Avondale by year. The exhibit illustrates that the
price changes in Avondale have been relatively dramatic and have shifted the price point of the home
market significantly upwards.
Exhibit II-37.
Changes in Price of Sold Single Family Homes, 2000 to December 15, 2005
100%
7%
5%
7%
10%
6%
16%
$300,000 and over
80%
60%
76%
88%
87%
72%
82%
40%
$100,000 to $199,999
20%
21%
17%
0%
$200,000 to $299,999
86%
2000
7%
6%
2001
2002
4%
2003
2%
2004
Less than $100,000
1%
2005
Source: Avondale Multiple List Service courtesy of Al Gage and BBC Research & Consulting
As shown in Exhibit II-37 on the previous page, from 2000 to mid-December 2005, the proportion
of homes priced for under $100,000 declined by 16 percentage points. The market during 2001 to
2004 observed more homes selling for between $100,000 to $199,999, and fewer homes selling for
under $100,000. However, in 2005, a dramatic shift occurred when the majority (72 percent) of
homes sold moved up a price bracket to $200,000 to $299,999, and 6 percent of homes sold for
$300,000 and over.
The City’s low-income households have generally experienced a decrease in the percentage of homes
affordable at their income level. Exhibit II-38 shows this trend, calculating affordable housing prices
based on the median family income for the respective year.
Exhibit II-38.
Proportion of Sold Housing Units Affordable to Low-Income Households,
2000 to December 15, 2005
25%
20%
B
B
B
% Affordable
B
15%
B
10%
B
5%
B
0%
2000
Source:
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Multiple List Service courtesy of Al Gage, HUD and BBC Research & Consulting.
At the peak in 2001, 24 percent of homes sold were affordable to households earning between 51 and
80 percent of the MFI; however, in 2005, this proportion had decreased to a mere 2 percent.
Numerically, in 2001, there were 150 homes sold that were affordable to the City’s low-income
households, and by 2005, this had decreased to 39 units.
Exhibit II-39 summarizes the affordability of single family housing units that sold from January 2000
to December 2005 in Avondale. Affordability was calculated based on HUD’s MFI for the respective
year.
The exhibit shows how limited the for-sale market is for extremely-low and very-low income
households. Fifteen percent of the sold homes were affordable to the City’s extremely-low and very
low-income groups over the six-year period from 2000 to 2005. For these income levels, buying in
Avondale’s market is difficult. For low-income households, however, and certainly moderate- to
upper-income households, Avondale’s market is much more affordable. In fact, the majority of
housing units for sale during 2000 through 2005 (76 percent) were affordable to households earning
between 0 and 100 percent of median family income. Only 24 percent of housing units in Avondale
over the six-year period were considered unaffordable to these households.
Exhibit II-39.
Number of Sold Housing Units Affordable
to Low- and Moderate-Income Households, 2000 to December 12, 2005
HUD Income Category
Single Family
Homes
Perent of
Single Family
Homes
902
213
3%
2,814
39%
Total affordable to HH earning 0-100% of MFI
12%
1,563
22%
5,492
76%
Total not affordable to HH earning 0-100% of MFI
1,773
24%
Grand Total
7,265
100%
Source
Multiple List Service courtesy of Al Gage, HUD and BBC Research & Consulting.
Affordability index. The Arizona Real Estate Center (AREC), in cooperation with Arizona State
University’s Center for Business Research, has been calculating affordability indices for the Phoenix
Metroplex since 1985. An index of 100 indicates that a household earning the median income can
afford to buy the median priced home. With an index of 90, for example, a household earning the
median income only has 90 percent of the necessary income to afford the median priced home in the
area.
The Real Estate Center calculates affordability indices for resale single family homes and for new
single family homes. In general, the City of Avondale has been quite affordable. From 2000 to 2005,
the City experienced its peak affordability in 2003 when the affordability indices for resale and new
homes reached 144 and 155, respectively. In other words, a household earning the median income in
2003 earned over 44 percent of the needed income to afford the median priced resale home. Likewise,
a household earning the median income earned over 55 percent of the needed income to afford the
median priced new home on the market. Exhibits II-40 and II-41 show the affordability trends of
both resale and new housing from 2000 to 2005.
Both exhibits detail a marked change over the past 2 years. From 2000 to 2003, the City’s
affordability indices were increasing fairly dramatically. However, both resale and new homes’
affordability indices have taken a downward turn since 2004. At the end of 2005, both resale and
new homes reached a 6-year affordability low; a household earning the median income could no
longer afford to purchase a median priced resale home or new home. This change in the affordability
index represents a 36 percent decrease in the affordability of resale homes and a 37 percent decrease
in the affordability of new homes from the peak affordability year (2003). The decrease of affordable
housing stock is not necessarily unique to the City of Avondale; the overall affordability of housing in
Maricopa County has also decreased substantially over the past several years.
Exhibit II-40.
Change in Affordability Index for Resale Homes, 2000-2005
160
140
120
138
141
144
132
125
100
91
80
60
40
20
0
Source:
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Arizona Real Estate Center and BBC Research & Consulting.
Exhibit II-41.
Change in Affordability Index for New Homes, 2000-2005
160
148
140
120
131
155
138
132
100
98
80
60
40
20
0
Source:
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Arizona Real Estate Center and BBC Research & Consulting.
Rental affordability. Akin to single family prices, rental prices have also increased more than
modestly since 2000. According to Census data, in 2000, the median contract rent (excluding
utilities) was $491. Rental data obtained from BBC’s telephone survey estimate a median rent of
$872. A comparison of these data suggests that since 2000, the median price of rental units has
increased by 78 percent.
Annually, HUD establishes Fair Market Rents (FMR) for metropolitan areas, which are used to
determine the subsidy that households are eligible to receive under the Section 8 program. Avondale
is located in the Phoenix-Mesa PMSA. The FMRs also have a role in determining the supply of units
available to households receiving Section 8.
The FY2005 FMRs are as follows:
Exhibit II-42.
Fair Market Rents,
Phoenix-Mesa PMSA, 2005
Source:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
2005
Efficiency
One
Two
Three
Four
$578
$677
$817
$1,190
$1,420
Exhibit II-43 shows the trend in FMRs during the past 20 years. As shown, the FMRs have almost
doubled since 1985. The rent levels have generally been on a steady increasing trend, with the
exception of the early 1990s when FMRs declined. From 2001 to 2002, the FMR increased the most
dramatically by $77. Most recently, from 2004 to 2005, the fair market rent decreased by $18.
Exhibit II-43.
Trends in Fair Market Rents for Two Bedroom Apartments, Phoenix-Mesa PMSA,
1985 to 2005
$1,000
$900
$760
$800
$700
$600
$500
$445
$490
$623 $634 $642
$561 $572
$575
$554 $557
$544
$549
$516 $539
$505 $513
$806
$835 $817
$683
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
Source:
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and BBC Research & Consulting.
Change in housing market gap, 2000 to 2005. Overall, from 2000 to 2005, the housing
market in Avondale changed fairly dramatically, due in part to the rapid growth in the City’s housing
stock. A common tool used to examine gaps in provision of housing at different income levels is
called a “gaps analysis.” In general, a gaps analysis compares the number of households at certain
income ranges to the number of renter and owner occupied housing units affordable to these
households. We conducted two gaps analyses for this study, one for the City’s housing market in
2000, and another in 2005. The 2005 gaps analysis updates the 2000 analysis, which used Census
data, by introducing rental data from BBC’s rental survey, building permit data from the City of
Avondale, and single family data from the Multiple List Service.
Housing gaps in 2000. Exhibit II-44 compares the number of households in Avondale with the
number of occupied renter and owner units at different HUD income ranges. The difference between
the number of households in the City and the number of occupied units represents an under- or
oversupply of housing units.
Avondale’s gaps analysis for 2000 showed three distinct characteristics:
The City had a shortage of rental units affordable to all households except those earning
between 31 and 50 percent of the MFI. This shortage was approximately 600 units.
That is, there were 600 fewer units than there were households in these income ranges.
The unit shortage was most severe at the extreme ends of the income spectrum; for
extremely low-income households the shortage was 126 units and for upper-income
households the shortage totaled 290 units.
However, the City also had an excess of rental units that were affordable to households
earning between 31 percent and 50 percent of the MFI. The excess units totaled
approximately 500, which is almost as large as the 600 unit shortage described above.
These excess units may have been occupied by extremely low-income households that
could not find affordable rental units and were therefore “overpaying” rent, or they may
have been occupied by low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income households that
were living in these units priced less than what they could afford.
The gaps analysis shows an unbalanced market for owner households. There was an
undersupply of housing for extremely low- and very low-income household approximately 300 units. For households in the low- to middle-income range, the City
had a large excess of approximately 1,500 units. The market takes another shift for
upper-income households; the data suggest that there were approximately 2,300 upperincome homeowners occupying units that were priced less than what they could afford.
Under- and Oversupply of Housing Units, 2000
Total
Source:
Number of
renter
households
Number of
occupied
rental units
660
454
552
260
158
305
2,390
534
958
525
162
97
15
2,291
Gap
in rental
units
(126)
504
(27)
(98)
(62)
(290)
Number of
owner
households
Number of
occupied
owner units
Gap
in owner
units
625
752
1,425
1,010
999
3,434
8,245
335
738
1,675
1,818
1,448
1,135
7,150
(290)
(14)
250
808
450
(2,298)
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, HUD and BBC Research & Consulting.
One limitation of the gaps analysis is that it tends to oversimplify reality. For example, a gaps analysis
assumes that households were living in units that were affordable for their specific income range. In
actuality, households may have been living in units that were more expensive than they could afford
for very good reasons—e.g., a household might purchase an expensive house in anticipation of future
income increases or an elderly household living on a fixed income may have been occupying a home
they have owned for a long time which has increased in value. The gaps analysis in Exhibit II-44
shows where the market was under- and oversupplying housing in 2000, assuming households desired
to occupy housing that is exactly affordable for their income ranges.
Exhibits II-45 and II-46 provide further insight into Exhibit II-44 by showing what people actually
paid for their housing in 2000. These data allow some insight into the trade-offs that households
voluntarily and involuntarily make when choosing a housing unit, helping to “correct” the surface
conclusions of a gaps analysis.
Exhibit II-45 on the following page shows the rents that were paid by Avondale households in 2000
by household income range. The darkly shaded areas highlight the approximate percentage of
households by income level who were living in units they could not afford—these households were
“overpaying” for housing. The lightly shaded areas represent households who were living in units that
were very affordable for their income range—these households were “underpaying” for housing.
Overpayment occurs when a household occupies a unit that is too expensive for their income category
(also known as “cost burden”). Underpayment occurs when a household is occupying a unit that costs less
than what they could afford.
The gaps analysis suggested that there was a shortage of approximately 126 housing units for
extremely low-income renter households in 2000. The first two columns of Exhibit II-45 show the
rents these extremely low-income households actually paid. Seventy-one percent of households on the
lowest part of the range (earning less than $10,000) lived in housing that was unaffordable to them,
renting for more than $200 per month. For households earning between $10,000 and $19,999, 24
percent were paying between $600 and $999 or more in rent and, as such, were overpaying for
housing.
In general, Exhibit II-45 shows that the vast majority of the City’s renters earning more than $35,000
per year in 2000 were living in housing units that were affordable to them. In fact, many of these
households could have afforded a higher rent than they were paying.
Exhibit II-45.
Rents Paid by Households by Household Income Range, 2000
Gross rent
Less than $200
$200-$399
$400-$599
$600-$799
$800-$999
$1,000+
Total
Household
income less
than $10,000
$10,000
to
$19,999
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
to
$99,999
$100,000
or more
29%
30%
16%
21%
3%
1%
100%
10%
25%
40%
20%
4%
0%
100%
2%
12%
41%
25%
11%
10%
100%
4%
9%
28%
28%
16%
15%
100%
4%
2%
25%
19%
19%
31%
100%
0%
13%
1%
7%
12%
67%
100%
0%
0%
48%
8%
0%
44%
100%
Percent of households who
are overpaying
71%
24%
20%
0%
0%
0%
0%
might be underpaying
0%
10%
14%
69%
69%
33%
56%
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, HUD, and BBC Research & Consulting.
Exhibit II-46 shows where the City’s owners were living in 2000, by home value. The exhibit
suggests that the City’s homeowners earning less than $35,000 per year were mostly overpaying for
their housing. Exhibit II-46 shows us that the vast majority of the City’s homeowners earning over
$75,000 were underpaying for housing—this is most likely a result of the lack of housing units in the
City for upper-income households; thus, these households have few options but to occupy housing
that are less expensive than what they can afford. In fact, 100 percent of households earning over
$100,000 a year were underpaying for housing in 2000. The exhibit also points to the concentration
of the City’s housing stock in the $100,000 to $199,999 range: the highest proportion of households
in every income category occupy housing in this range.
Exhibit II-46.
Values of Owner Occupied Housing by Household Income Range, 2000
Household
income less
than $10,000
Value
Less than $39,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $69,999
$70,000 to $79,999
$80,000 to $89,999
$90,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $299,999
$300,000 to $499,999
$500,000 or more
Total
$10,000
to
$19,999
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
to
$99,999
$100,000
or more
19%
7%
18%
10%
3%
8%
1%
29%
5%
0%
0%
20%
11%
8%
12%
14%
4%
5%
24%
3%
0%
0%
9%
4%
9%
11%
8%
7%
7%
42%
4%
0%
0%
3%
5%
4%
6%
5%
3%
7%
63%
2%
3%
0%
2%
1%
1%
3%
4%
3%
8%
74%
4%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
1%
1%
2%
84%
8%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
3%
76%
18%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
are overpaying
81%
49%
45%
5%
0%
1%
0%
might be underpaying
0%
0%
33%
25%
22%
91%
100%
Source:
Gaps analysis for 2005. Exhibit II-47 shows the updated gaps analysis for 2005. This gaps analysis
points out the most significant changes in the City’s housing needs since 2000:
The shortage of units for the City’s lowest income renters has increased by about 140
units, while the surplus of units renting for between $450 and $750 has increased by
approximately the same number. Renters with incomes between $29,000 and $59,000
can find affordable rental housing in the City with relative ease; however, the gap for
extremely low-income renters and middle and upper-income households remains.
From 2000 to 2005, the City’s extremely low-, very low- and upper-income owners
grew much more quickly than the corresponding supply of housing affordable. In 2005,
like in 2000, there were significant gaps in the number of units affordable to these
households. These households are occupying homes in the range of affordability for
low- to moderate-income households (homes priced between about $200,000 and
$250,000). Most noticeably, the surplus of homes affordable to low-income households
has increased by more than 15 times, and the gap of units for upper-income households
has more than doubled.
Exhibit II-47.
Under- and Oversupply of Housing Units, 2005
Total
Source:
Number of
renter
households
Number of
occupied
rental units
Gap
in rental
units
1,297
840
985
392
322
400
1,035
1,471
1,164
417
18
34
(261)
631
180
26
(304)
(366)
4,234
4,140
Number of
owner
households
Number of
occupied
owner units
1,481
1,890
3,456
2,478
2,495
6,386
766
1,437
7,278
3,642
2,444
1,524
18,187
17,092
Gap
in owner
units
(715)
(453)
3,823
1,164
(51)
(4,862)
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Multiple List Service courtesy of Al Gage, City of Avondale and BBC Research & Consulting.
“If I can’t afford market rate housing, what are my choices in Avondale?” Extremely
low- and very low-income households needing housing have limited options in Avondale. In 2005, if
they wanted to buy, they had approximately 2 percent of homes on the market from which to choose.
Exhibit II-48 shows characteristics of sold single family homes from 2000 to November 31, 2005.
Over the six-year period, on average, a sold single family home was built in 1999, cost approximately
$174,000, and had 1,778 square feet.
Single family housing priced less than $100,000 (and affordable to extremely low- and very lowincome household) had an average of 1,178 square feet and was 31 years old. As expected, these units
were smaller and older than higher priced housing.
Exhibit II-48.
Single Family Home Characteristics by Price, 2000 to November 31, 2005
Price Range
Less than $100,000
$100,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $299,999
$300,000 or more
Total
Source:
Average
Price
Average
Square Feet
Average
Price Per
Square Foot
Average
Year Built
$74,544
$150,473
$237,587
$334,169
$174,215
1,178
1,735
1,940
2,396
1,778
$63.30
$86.73
$122.48
$139.47
$97.98
1974
2001
1999
1995
1999
Multiple List Service, courtesy of Al Gage and BBC Research & Consulting.
Compared to homes priced less than $100,000, homes between $100,000 and $199,999 had over
550 more square feet on average and the average year built decreased by 27 years. This points to a
particular problem in the lower end of the housing market in Avondale: for-sale housing affordable to
the lowest income groups is not only limited, it is older and will need repairs sooner than newer
housing. Additionally, the City’s lowest income households who are occupying the oldest housing
stock are the least likely to have the disposable income to make improvements or even maintain their
homes.
The City’s lowest income renters and owners are also limited by geographic location of affordable
housing. Exhibit II-49 shows the distribution of single family housing by median value as of the 2000
Census. The affordability ranges correspond to the affordable house price by HUD income category
(e.g., the lightest shaded Block Groups have a median value affordable to extremely low-income
households).
Exhibit II-49.
Median Value Distribution, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, and BBC Research & Consulting.
There are no Block Groups in Avondale that are affordable to extremely low-income households. The
majority of Block Groups with median values affordable to very low-income household are located
close to Old Town Avondale, and the neighborhoods of Las Ligas, Rio Vista and Cashion. The
majority of single family homes in the City are affordable to moderate-income households and above
earning over $53,100 a year in 2000.
Exhibit II-50 below shows the distribution of rental housing units in Avondale by median rent in
2000. Affordable rental housing appears to be slightly more evenly distributed throughout the City.
However, like homeowners, there are no Block Groups in the City that are affordable to extremely
low-income renters. As in Exhibit II-49, the legend corresponds to the rental affordability categories
by HUD income ranges.
Exhibit II-50.
Median Rent Distribution, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
The Block Groups identified in orange did not contain any renter households in 2000. The Block Group highlighted light green did not contain any
renter or owner households in 2000. These Block Groups have been excluded from the data in this map.
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, and BBC Research & Consulting.
Options for households in need of housing subsidies. In Avondale, assisted housing for low-
income populations is provided by both public and nonprofit organizations. The type of assistance
varies from units owned by the Housing Authority of Maricopa County, units subsided with Section
8 vouchers, to units built using low-income housing tax credits. Including tax-credit units, there are
over 371 subsidized units in the City.
The following exhibit lists the subsidized developments in Avondale, excluding tax-credit
developments:
Exhibit II-51.
Subsidized Housing
Developments
Property Name
Avondale Senior Village
Source:
Arizona Department of Housing..
Vianney Villa (elderly)
Edgewater Apartments
Avondale Adult Day Health Care
No. of Units
Unknown
50
Unknown
40
Twilight Haven
7
Adult Therapeutic Foster Homes
2
Total Units
99
There are over 99 subsidized units for low-income persons in Avondale.
Neighborhood Housing Services of Southwest Maricopa County. Neighborhood Housing Services of
Southwest Maricopa County was originally Avondale Neighborhood Housing Services, but changed
its name in 2000 and extended services to all of southwest Maricopa County. The organization
provides various activities with the purpose of revitalizing neighborhoods. Services include: owner
occupied housing rehabilitation, infill development and new home construction, manufactured home
repair and replacement, fencing loans, septic systems loans, air conditioning and evaporative cooling
loans, homebuyer education, financial literacy education, resident leadership development, and one4
on-one homeownership case management and counseling. Most services are provided to low-income
households.
Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity is a nonprofit organization that has had a long presence
in the City of Avondale. Habitat builds affordable housing for low-income households by providing
no interest loans and by partnering with families in a “sweat equity” program to build their home.
Mercy Housing. Mercy Housing is a nonprofit organization that develops affordable housing coupled
with an array of services. Mercy Housing provides an affordable senior housing development,
Avondale Senior Village, located on Apache Street in Avondale. In general, Mercy Housing develops
affordable housing for families, seniors, formerly homeless populations, people with HIV/AIDS and
individuals with chronic mental illnesses and physical impairments. With the help of public and
private funding, Mercy Housing builds or rehabilitates housing according to community needs.
4
http://nfs.nw.org/report/nworeport_print.aspx?orgid=8177
The types of housing developed includes multi-unit rental apartments and single family homes, single
room occupancy apartments for formerly homeless adults, handicap-accessible units for individuals
5
with physical impairments and self-help housing programs for families ready for homeownership.
Community Action Program. The City’s Social Services Division and the Maricopa County Human
Services Department have partnered to provide emergency utility and rental payments to eligible
households who are at-risk of eviction and homelessness. This program is available to residents of
Avondale, Goodyear and Litchfield Park. The majority of funds have been allocated to residents of
Avondale. The City receives 30 requests a week for emergency assistance and serves approximately
1,200 families a year. Due to a lack of funding, the City is unable to fund approximately $13,000 in
eligible requests a month.
Individual Development Account Program. The City offers a downpayment assistance program
through the Social Services Division. The City matches participants’ savings that will be used for a
downpayment through the Individual Development Account Program.
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. The LIHTC program provides a developer with
federal tax credits to build or rehabilitate housing for low-income persons. LIHTC developments
usually serve slightly higher income populations (40 to 60 percent of MFI) than do Public Housing
Authorities or the Section 8 voucher program, which generally serve households at 30 percent of MFI
and less. Exhibit II-52 lists the LIHTC project in Avondale and the number of LIHTC units.
Exhibit II-52.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Properties, as of December 15, 2005
Development
Year
Total Units
LIHTC Units
Parkside Group Apartments
The Village at Avondale
Siesta Pointe Apartments
Rose Terrace Apartments
Total
Percent LIHTC Units
1992
1997
1999
2000
54
96
104
105
359
54
76
82
60
272
Source:
76%
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
There were a total of four LIHTC developments in the City, as of December 15, 2005. Seventy-six
percent (272) of total units in these developments were dedicated to low-income households.
Project-based Section 8. According to the Arizona Department of Housing, there is one project-based
Section 8 property in Avondale. This is a program that helps low-income people live in affordable
units that are in these particular properties. This development, Vianney Villa, has a total of 50 units
specifically for the elderly, all of which provide rental assistance.
5
http://www.mercyhousing.org/about/default.asp?action=what
Cost burdened. A general rule used by both HUD and many lending institutions states that
households should spend no more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. These costs include
mortgages, real estate taxes, insurance, utilities, fuels, and, where appropriate, costs such as
condominium fees or monthly mobile home fees. If households are spending more than this amount,
they are considered “cost burdened,” or “overpaying for housing.” If the share of income spent on
housing grows to 50 percent or more, households are considered “severely cost burdened.” The 2000
Census provides estimates of cost burdened households and includes some information about the
characteristics of households that experience cost burden.
The Census data estimate that about 23 percent of Avondale’s renter households (or 511 renter
households) and 17 percent of the City’s homeowners (or 1,236 households) were cost burdened in
2000. The data also show that 14 percent of renters (306 households) and 6 percent of homeowners
(448 households) were severely cost burdened, paying 50 percent or more of their incomes for
housing costs.
Exhibits II-53 and II-54 show the percentage of households who were cost burdened and not cost
burdened by tenure, age and household income. For the City’s renter households, cost burden was
greatest for the householders between the ages of 55 and 64 years – half of these householders were
cost burdened in 2000. In contrast, for the City’s homeowners, the youngest householders, those
between the ages of 15 and 24 were the most cost burdened; 44 percent paid more than 30 percent of
their income on housing. The City’s youngest homeowners were considerably more cost burdened
than any other age group. In fact, compared to householders between the ages of 45 and 54, the
youngest owner householders were more than twice as likely to be cost burdened.
Exhibit II-53.
Housing Cost Burden by Age, 2000
15-24
years old
25-34
years old
35-44
years old
45-54
years old
55-64
years old
65 years
and over
Renter Households
Percent not cost burdened
Percent cost burdened
252
64%
36%
714
65%
35%
686
66%
34%
334
59%
41%
208
50%
50%
193
70%
30%
Owner Households
Percent not cost burdened
Percent cost burdened
135
56%
44%
1,604
76%
24%
2,044
76%
24%
1,777
80%
20%
926
76%
24%
664
72%
28%
Note:
Source:
“Not computed” households are subtracted from the total households in each tenure category when calculating percentages.
Exhibit II-54 shows cost burden by HUD income categories. Lower income households were much
more likely to be cost burdened than moderate- to high-income households. Extremely low-income
renters were approximately 3 times as likely to be cost burdened than were low-income renters.
Extremely low-income owners were approximately 1.5 times as likely to be cost burdened compared
to low-income owners.
Exhibit II-54.
Housing Cost Burden by HUD Income Categories, 2000
Income
Limit
Median Family Income (MFI)-HUD
Total
Note:
Source:
$53,100
$15,930
$26,550
$42,480
$53,100
$63,720
$63,720 +
Specified Renter Occupied Units
Specified Owner Occupied Units
Percent
Cost
No. Cost
Total
Households Burdened Burdened
Percent
Total
Cost
No. Cost
Households Burdened Burdened
557
434
525
255
156
303
71%
52%
28%
11%
6%
3%
395
226
149
29
9
9
409
545
1,114
884
916
3,245
69%
56%
47%
32%
15%
5%
282
307
524
283
135
153
2,229
37%
817
7,113
24%
1,684
“Not computed” households are subtracted from the total households in each tenure category.
In sum, in Avondale, renter households who were cost burdened were disproportionately likely to be
between the ages of 54 and 65 with incomes less than $15,930 (or 0 to 30 percent of the MFI).
Owner households were disproportionately likely to be the City’s youngest homeowners earning less
than $15,930 in 2000.
Exhibit II-55 shows the location of cost burdened renter households by Block Group. The Block
Groups with the highest percentage of cost burdened renter households are primarily located north of
Interstate 10, and in a Block Group located in the Litchfield Mountain View neighborhood in west
Avondale. It should be noted that the northern Block Group with 100 percent of renter households
designated as cost burdened only has 13 renter households. It is interesting to note that only two of
the Block Groups with a high concentrations of cost burdened renters (between 51 and 75 percent)
has more than 20 percent of the households are designated as very low-income.
Exhibit II-55.
Cost Burdened Renter Occupied Households, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
It should be noted that the Block Group 2 in Census Tract 820.13 with 100 percent of renter households designated as cost burdened only has 13
renter households.
The Block Groups identified in orange did not contain any renter households in 2000. The Block Group highlighted light green did not contain any
renter or owner households in 2000. These Block Groups have been excluded from the data in this map.
Source:
Exhibit II-56 shows the percentage of cost burdened owner households by Block Group. The Block
Groups with the highest percentage of cost burdened households are located in Old Town Avondale
and north of Interstate 10. Block Group 2 of Census Tract 610.03 has the greatest number of cost
burdened owner households; 340 owner households are cost burdened. This Block Group is north of
Interstate 10 directly east of Estrella Mountain College.
Exhibit II-56.
Cost Burdened Owner Occupied Households, by Census Block Group, 2000
Note:
Block Group 1 in Census Tract 820.15 highlighted green does not contain any households at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census. Therefore, this
Block Group has been excluded from the mapping categories.
Source:
Findings and Conclusions
The report contains a detailed analysis of housing market conditions in the City of Avondale. The
data and analysis presented in this report examined several different facets of Avondale’s housing
market, including condition, overcrowdedness, price, availability of assisted housing, cost burden as
well as the geographic distribution of housing characteristics.
Major findings include the following:
The largest affordability problem in the City occurs for extremely low-income renter
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
The Census data estimate that about 23 percent of Avondale’s renter households and 17 percent
of the City’s homeowners were cost burdened in 2000. The data also show that 14 percent of
renters and 6 percent of homeowners were severely cost burdened, paying 50 percent or more of
their incomes for housing costs.
In 2000, the City had few options for rental households. By 2005, multifamily development
had increased and filled some of the previous gaps in rental housing.
doubled.
Avondale Development Map
138
High Schools/Community College
No.
400
401
402
403
Indian School Rd.
322
340
Loop - 101
326
403
151
117
144
324
504
401
339
Estrella
Community
College
119
505
120
128
Elementary/ Middle Schools
No.
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
301
123
106
100
315
Thomas Rd.
132
314
121
148
108
136
Holy Cross
Cemetary
131
122
110
135
511
107
115
137
502
300
ua
338
327
336
Fr
ia
211
Ag
328
215
313
R
330
309
109
114
134
Gateway
Pavilions
333
318
200 320
204
McDowell Rd.
Friendship Park
Youth Sports Complex
302
Interstate - 10
Avondale Automall
307
335
Coldwater
Plaza
312
150
303
323
304
208
310
209
311
112
316
Van Buren St.
210
332
317
202
203
141
331
305
400
Avondale
Civic Center
503
105
143
146
124
Coldwater
Park
Buckeye Rd.
Old Town Avondale
500
99th Ave.
142
207
501 506
No.
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
319
308
337
325
507
206
130
306
205 213 214
149
101
113
103
508
104
118
513
201
147
212
402
152
510
111
116
145
129
139
Field Ops
Station
Lower Buckeye Rd.
334
140
102
Litchfield Rd.
126
127
APS/SRP
Substation
No. DEVELOPMENT
200 Aventura Apts.
201 Avondale Senior Village
202 Coldwater Springs Apts. I
203 Coldwater Springs Apts. II
204 Crystal Springs Apts.
205 Desert Shoals Condominiums
206 Edgewater
207 Legacy Apts
208 Mountain View Apts.
209 Newport Apts.
210 Retreat at Waterford Square
211 Rio Santa Fe
212 Rose Terrace Apts.
213 Siesta Pointe Apts.
214 Village at Avondale
215 Village at Gateway Pavilions
* Estimates
107th Ave.
Avondale Blvd.
El Mirage Rd.
Dysart Rd.
Southern Ave.
DEVELOPMENT
Alameda Crossing
Algadon Business Center
Avondale Automall
Avondale Commerce Center
Avondale Commerce Park
Avondale Corporate Center
Avondale Fiesta Plaza
Avondale Gateway
Avondale Integrated Medical
Avondale Medical & Professional Plaza
Avondale Shopping Center
Avondale Town Center
Coldwater Plaza
Desert Lakes Office
Dysart Business Park
Dysart Commons
Estrella Vista Reception and Retail
Flowing Well
G & K Medical
Gateway Crossing
Gateway Office Park
Gateway Pavilions
Indian School Crossing
Interstate Commerce Center
Litchfield Park Plaza
Old Town Avondale
Palm Desert Plaza
Palmilla Plaza
Palmilla Shopping Center
Phoenix International Raceway
Rancho Santa Fe Medical Center
Rio Estrella Commerce Park
Rio Estrella Commercial
Safeway Center
Sanctuary Shopping Center
Shops at Avondale Boulevard
Tait Commercial
Tait Industrial
Walter A Miller Retail Center
West Valley Fine Arts Center
Westwind Plaza
Multiple Family Residential
Broadway Rd.
Avondale
WWTP
NAME
Avondale Elementary
Avondale Junior High
Canyon Breeze Elementary
Collier Elementary
Corte Sierra Elementary
Garden Lakes Elementary
Lattie Coor Elementary
Littleton Elementary School
Littleton Elementary District (Future Elementary)
Pendergast District (Future Elementary)
Quentin Elementary
Rancho Santa Fe Elementary
Rio Vista Elementary
Under Down Junior High
Commercial/ Industrial
321
iv
er
Water
Recharge
512
125
509
133
NAME
Agua Fria High School
Estrella Mountain Community College
La Joya High School
Westview High School
Gila River
DENSITY
22
13
20
20
15
20
22*
7*
14
25*
21
20
6
16
16
24
ACRES
19
3
14
18
27
7
9*
11*
5
8
20
17
29
7
12
11
STATUS
Active
Planned
Active
Planned
Active
Active
Active
Planned
Active
Active
COMPLETE
Expired
Active
Active
Planned
Approved
COMPLETE
Planned
Planned
Planned
COMPLETE
Active
COMPLETE
Active
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
Active
Active
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
Active
Active
Active
Expired
Approved
Approved
Planned
Active
Planned
Approved
COMPLETE
STATUS
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
Approved
COMPLETE
Planned
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
Approved
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
Single Family Residential
329
Phoenix International Raceway
Avondale Development Progress
Single-Family Residential Developments
Planned/ No Homes Under Construction
Freeways
Railroad
Avondale Planning Boundary
River Corridor
1-33% Complete
34-66% Complete
67-99% Complete
Multiple Family Residential
Complete
Parks
Rezoning Application Currently Under Review Single Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Multi-Family Residential
Commercial
Mixed Use
Industrial
Schools
City Facilities
Other Public/Quasi-Public Facilities
Substations
Total Population Estimate: 67,472
Population estimates can be calculated by multiplying the total
number of single-family units by the approximate average
persons per household in Avondale (3.43 for single-family and 2.52
for Multi-family)
0
1
2
Miles
Disclaimer:
Map Last Updated: 11/10/2005
The data contained in this map is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. This Development
Progress Map should be used for informational use only and does not constitute a legal document
for the description of these properties. Road rights-of-way, parcel lines, and other features are
shown for general reference only. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of this data.
No warranties either explicit or implied regarding its use are provided by the City of Avondale.
No.
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
DEVELOPMENT
Avalon Estates
Cambridge Estates
Cantada Ranch
Cashion
Coldwater Ridge
Coldwater Springs
Corte Sierra
Crystal Gardens I & II
Crystal Park Estates
Crystal Point
Crystal Ridge
Del Rio Ranch
Desert Springs Village
Diamond Ridge
Donatela I
Donatela II
Durango Park
Dysart Ranch
Fieldcrest
Fulton Estates
Garden Lakes
Garden Park
Garden Trails
Glen Arm Farms
Glenhurst
Harbor Shores
Hillcrest Village
Las Ligas
Las Palmeras
Litchfield Mountain View
Littleton Manor
Los Arbolitos
Oak Park
Palm Gardens
Palm Meadows
Pecan Groves
Rancho Santa Fe I
Rancho Santa Fe II
Rio Crossing
Rio Vista
Regal at Rio Vista Estates
Roosevelt Park
Roosevelt Park Phase II
Roy's Place
Sage Creek
Sanctuary
Starlight Trail
Tres Rios Landing
Upland Park
Village at Tres Rios Landing
Waterford Square
Westwind
Whyman Haciendas
TOTALS
* Permitted or completed as of 10/31/2005
TOTAL
ACRES
15
160
73
215
117
532
333
232
12
62
25
411
31
45
45
74
160
109
75
100
700
40
39
150
130
98
8
N/A
42
34
25
81
16.5
31
51
23
365
180
117
70
16
147
74
140
80
160
126
61
79
16
30
132
9
6072.5
TOTAL
UNITS
32
564
251
1000
487
1887
785
904
50
281
129
1284
174
210
151
236
552
293
279
282
2201
164
144
150
469
470
37
319
268
147
118
309
52
142
183
62
1202
797
345
300
52
481
462
442
425
561
394
147
331
104
217
534
32
21828
UNITS BUILT*
0
564
0
1000
487
1768
785
904
50
281
129
0
0
210
5
0
552
293
279
119
2201
164
144
150
469
470
0
319
268
147
118
309
0
142
183
62
1202
797
345
300
0
148
0
0
425
561
220
81
331
0
204
534
0
17720
% COMPLETE
0
100
0
100
100
94
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
100
3
0
100
100
100
42
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
100
100
100
100
100
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
31
0
0
100
100
56
55
100
0
94
100
0
DENSITY
2.2
3.53
3.42
4.65
4.16
3.60
2.36
2.36
4.17
4.53
5.16
3.43
5.90
4.67
3.36
3.20
3.45
2.69
3.72
2.86
3.14
4.10
3.69
1.00
3.90
4.80
4.58
N/A
6.43
4.32
4.72
3.81
3.63
4.58
3.58
2.70
3.29
4.42
3.76
4.28
3.75
4.00
6.21
3.15
5.48
3.75
3.52
4.35
4.19
6.40
6.84
4.07
3.70
STATUS
Planned
COMPLETE
Grading
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
Active
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
Planned
Grading
COMPLETE
Active
Active
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
Active
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
Planned
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
Planned
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
Planned
Active
Approved
Planned
COMPLETE
COMPLETE
Active
Active
COMPLETE
Approved
Active
COMPLETE
Grading
SECTION III.
Citizen Input
SECTION III.
Citizen Input
This section discusses the City of Avondale’s housing and community development needs, as
identified by citizens through telephone interviews, public forums and key person interviews. This
section partially satisfies the requirements of Subpart C Sections 91.205 and 91.210 of the
Consolidated Plan Regulations.
Summary Findings
This section reports the housing and community development needs collected through the public
outreach process conducted for the Avondale Consolidated Plan and fair housing analysis. This
public outreach process included a statistically significant telephone survey with Avondale residents;
collaboration and interviews with housing and social service agencies, including those serving special
needs populations; and public meetings and hearings.
The top housing and community development needs identified through this process include
rehabilitation of existing homeownership housing; increased investment in social service programs for
at-risk and idle youth; recreation and community centers; infrastructure repair (streets, curbs and
sidewalks) in the City’s older neighborhoods; and a need for step-up housing (i.e., executive homes
and condominiums).
Community Telephone Survey
A telephone survey was conducted in December 2005 of 194 residents living within the City of
Avondale limits. The households selected for the survey were chosen through a random digit dial
process. Davis Research, a telephone survey firm in California, fielded the survey. The survey
included enough households to ensure statistical significance — that is, the survey was representative
of the experiences and opinions of Avondale households overall. The telephone survey instrument is
located at the end of this section.
The residents were asked about their current housing situation, the needs of their neighborhood,
their opinions on the community development needs of the City and if they had experienced housing
discrimination. The phone survey respondents were given the option to conduct the survey in
English or Spanish. Approximately 93 percent of the surveys were conducted in English and 7
percent were conducted in Spanish. According to Census data, 8 percent of the City’s households
1
were linguistically isolated in 2000. Of the linguistically isolated households, 93 percent were
Spanish speaking households.
1
A linguistically isolated household is one in which no member 14 years old and over (1) speaks only English or (2) speaks a
non-English language and speaks English "very well." In other words, all members 14 years old and over have at least some
difficulty with English.
S ECTION III , P AGE 1
Citizen Survey Key Findings
Avondale residents are highly satisfied with their current housing situation. Only 4
percent of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with their current home or apartment –
and this is mostly because their home or apartment is in poor condition. The large
percentage of housing stock in Avondale that was recently developed explains the high
percentage of residents who are satisfied with their housing condition.
The most common homeownership barriers for renters are not having enough money
for a down payment and not qualifying for a mortgage.
Eighty-one percent of renters said their landlords make repairs promptly when needed.
Most renters said that their rental units do not need repairs. Of those renters needing
repairs 12 percent did not single out any one type of repair that was needed more than
others. The various types of repairs needed by renter households included
window/doors, heating/cooling, plumbing, appliances and roofing.
Only 13 percent of homeowners said there were home repairs they needed to make.
The most needed repair was flooring, followed by repairs to kitchens, landscaping,
plumbing, roofing and windows/doors.
Eight percent of survey respondents said they had experienced housing discrimination.
The most common reason for housing discrimination was race/ethnicity followed by
bad credit/bankruptcy/debts. Most respondents did not take any action, and instead
moved to another housing unit.
Respondents were asked whether their neighborhood had needs for 8 types of
community services. A recreation/community center was the community service
respondents said they need the most.
In a series of trade off questions to identify community preferences, the scenario that
showed the most clear-cut preferences for Avondale respondents asked the following
question: “Would you rather build more neighborhood services (grocery stores, banks)
or invest in programs to produce jobs?” The overwhelming majority of respondents (84
percent) would prefer to invest in job programs. Respondents also exhibited preferences
for affordable homeownership housing over affordable rental housing; home
rehabilitation grants over sidewalk and street repairs; youth programs to senior housing;
demolishing vacant buildings to enhancing street lighting; and enhancing water and
sewer systems over improving fire stations.
Respondent Demographics
This section compares select demographic and household characteristics of respondents to the telephone
survey with demographic and household characteristics of Avondale residents, according to the 2000
Census. It is important to compare survey data (based on a sample of households) with Census data
(which represents all households), to understand where the survey may over- or under-represent certain
households. However, because Avondale has grown so rapidly since the 2000 Census, there is a strong
likelihood that the survey data are better representative of Avondale households than is the 2000 Census.
Owner/renter. Of the 194 respondents, 145 were from owner occupied households (75 percent) and
2
46 were from renter households (24 percent) . The survey results were similar to the findings in the 2000
U.S. Census. Seventy-eight percent of residents according to the Census lived in owner occupied units
and 22 percent lived in rental units.
Age. Survey respondents had to be at least 18 years of age to participate in the survey. Forty-six percent
of respondents were between the ages of 35 and 54. Overall, the age of respondents surveyed was fairly
comparable to the Census’ tabulation of the population 18 and over. However, the telephone survey
captured a disproportionately larger sample of persons between the ages of 55 and 64; this age category
described 17 percent of respondents while only 9 percent of the total City population was between 55
and 64 in 2000. Conversely, a smaller percentage of persons between the ages of 18 and 34 was surveyed
– 29 percent of the survey population compared to 39 percent of the City proportion.
Large households. Survey respondents provided the number of members in their households,
including themselves. For the purpose of this survey, it is assumed that a large household contains
five or more persons. Of survey respondents, the most prevalent type of household was a 2-person
household, comprising almost one-fourth of respondent households. The survey respondents
represented fewer 1- and 2- person households than the City’s proportion, according to the 2000
3
Census . The number of large households surveyed (24 percent) and the number reported by the
Census (23 percent) were quite comparable. Exhibit III-1 displays the household size of survey
respondents.
Exhibit III-1.
Household Size,
Survey Respondents
Number
Percent of Total
1-person
14
7%
2-persons
46
24%
3-persons
44
23%
Source:
4-persons
43
22%
Avondale Community Telephone
Survey, December 2005 and BBC
5-persons or more
46
24%
193
100%
Note:
n = 193.
2
Households Size
Total
Three respondents refused to answer if they were owners or renters.
3
The 2000 Census reported that 13 percent of Avondale households contained 1-person households, and another 27
percent were 2-person households. Seven percent of survey respondents lived in 1-person households and another 24
percent were living in 2-person households.
Education. Ninety percent of survey respondents had at least completed high school or received
their GED. Ten percent had completed some high school or less. Twenty-eight percent of
respondents had attended trade/vocational school or had some college experience and just over 41
percent of survey respondents had at least completed college. Of these 79 college graduate
respondents, about 41 percent had completed some post-graduate work or received a degree (12
percent of total survey respondents).
Overall, survey respondents attained a higher level of education compared to Census data for
Avondale. More survey respondents had completed some post-graduate work or degree (12 percent),
compared to the Census’ 4 percent. Census data report that 69 percent of Avondale residents had
completed high school or their GED, compared to 90 percent of survey respondents who had
completed this level of education. Exhibit III-2 below compares the educational attainment of survey
respondents to the Avondale population as a whole.
Exhibit III-2.
Educational Attainment
100%
12%
4%
10%
Post-graduate work or degree
College graduate
80%
29%
31%
Trade school or some college
60%
28%
40%
20%
24%
High school graduate/GED
Some high school or less
21%
31%
10%
0%
Survey Respondents
Avondale Population
Note:
n = 192. The category “Trade school or some college” includes those with an Associate’s degree in the 2000 Census.
Source:
Avondale Telephone Survey, December 2005, U.S. Census, 2000 Census and BBC Research & Consulting.
Employment location. Forty-one percent of survey respondents and the workers in their family
were employed in Phoenix. Approximately 19 percent of survey respondents and the workers in their
family were employed in Avondale. Another 10 percent were employed in Goodyear. Four percent of
respondents did not have anyone in their households employed.
Income. More survey respondents fell into the upper-income category ($75,000 and above) and
fewer fell in the low-income range compared to 2000 Census tabulations. There was an 11
percentage point difference between the survey respondents and households earning between $10,000
and $35,000 (low-income households) as reported by the 2000 Census. Similarly, 37 percent of
survey respondents earned more than $75,000 (upper-income households), compared to 23 percent
of households in the 2000 Census. Exhibit III-3 below displays respondents’ income categories
compared to the 2000 U.S. Census.
Exhibit III-3.
Household Income
30%
27%
26%
25%
25%
Survey Respondents
20%
20%
18% 18%
16%
15%
12%
10%
Avondale Population
11%
8%
6%
5%
6%
ore
0o
rm
0,0
0
$1
5
$1
0
tha 0,0
n $ 00 t
15 o l
0 , 0 e ss
00
$7
th a 5 ,0 0
n $ 0 to
10
0,0 less
00
$5
0
tha ,000
n $ to
75 les
,0 0 s
0
$3
tha 5,00
n $ 0 to
50 les
,0 0 s
0
Le
ss
th a
n$
10
,0 0
0
0%
3%
$1
tha 0,00
n $ 0 to
35 les
,0 0 s
0
3%
Note:
n = 174.
Source:
Avondale Telephone Survey, December 2005, U.S. Census, 2000 Census and BBC Research & Consulting.
Race and ethnicity. Nearly sixty percent of telephone survey respondents indicated they were
White followed by 26 percent identifying as Hispanic/Chicano/Latino. The 2000 Census asked a
similar race question, which identified 63 percent of the Avondale population as White. In the 2000
Census, most Hispanics identified themselves racially as part of the Census’ Some Other Race
category. The percent of Hispanic/Chicano/Latino persons surveyed (26 percent) compared favorably
to the percentage of persons identifying themselves as part of the Some Other Race category in the
2000 Census (24 percent).
Two percent of survey respondents identified themselves as multi-racial, whereas 5 percent from the
2000 Census identified as Two or More Races. African American residents were slightly
overrepresented in the telephone survey; 10 percent of respondents were African American and only 5
percent from the Census identified as African American. The percent of American Indian/Native
American and Asian respondents was similar to the Census (American Indian/Native American were
2 percent of survey respondents and 1 percent according to the Census; Asians were 3 percent of
survey respondents and 2 percent according to the Census).
Disability. Survey respondents with disabilities were proportionately represented in the survey data
compared to 2000 Census data. Seventeen percent of survey respondents (33 persons) responded
“yes” when asked if they or any member of their household had a disability. Census data indicated
that 16 percent of the total population in Avondale had a disability. When asked how many people in
the household had a disability, 100 percent indicated only one person in the household had a
disability.
Housing Survey Findings
This section reports survey respondents’ answers to questions about their housing situation,
satisfaction, and housing needs, as well as experience with housing discrimination.
Housing type. Ninety-five percent of respondents lived in a single family home. Six percent of
respondents lived in apartments, 4 percent in mobile homes and less than 1 percent lived in
condominiums or townhomes.
Rent or mortgage payments. The majority of respondents (62 percent) paid a monthly
mortgage payment, 27 percent paid rent and 11 percent did not have any housing payment. Of those
persons not making a monthly housing payment, 95 percent owned their homes and 5 percent (1
respondent) stated that someone else was paying rent.
Approximately half of all respondents paid between $900 and $1,499 per month in rent or mortgage
payment at the time of the survey in December 2005. The exhibit below shows the distribution of all
respondents’ housing payments.
Note:
n = 134.
Source:
Avondale Telephone Survey,
December 2005 and
BBC Research & Consulting.
30%
Percentage of Respondents
Exhibit III-4.
Distribution of
Respondents Rent or
Mortgage Payments
25%
23%
24%
20%
15%
15%
10%
16%
10%
8%
4%
5%
0%
$100$499
$500$699
$700$899
$900$1,199
$1,200$1,499
$1,500$1,999
$2,000
Rent/Mortgage Payment
Exhibit III-5 below displays the payment distribution of renter and owner respondents.
Approximately half of the renter respondents paid between $500 and $899. Thirty percent of
respondents reported paying between $500 and $699, the highest concentration of any one payment
range. Just over half of owners with a mortgage paid more than $1,200 per month, with a
concentration of housing payment (32 percent) falling between $1,200 and $1,499
While well over half (63 percent) of renter respondents paid between $100 and $899 in rent, only 25
percent of respondents with a mortgage paid the same dollar amount. Owner respondents were
paying more for housing per month than were renter respondents.
Exhibit III-5.
Distribution of Housing
Payment by Tenure
n=133.
Source:
Avondale Telephone Survey, December
2005 and BBC Research & Consulting.
Renters
Note:
40%
32%
30%
30%
Owners
26%
22%
20%
18%
15%
15%
15%
9%
10%
7%
6%
3%
0%
2%
0%
$100$499
$500$699
$700$899
$900$1,199
$1,200$1,499
$1,500$1,999
$2,000
Rent/Mortgage Payment
Current housing satisfaction. Ninety-six percent of survey respondents indicated they were
either very satisfied or satisfied with their current home or apartment. Four percent indicated they
were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their current dwelling unit. As shown in Exhibit III-6, for
those who were dissatisfied with their units, the most common reason was poor condition, followed
by several reasons of equal responses such as the location is not convenient; no security; and theft and
robbery in neighborhood.
Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Current Home
Exhibit III-6.
Reasons for
Dissatisfaction
with Current
Home or Apartment
Note:
n = 14. May not total due to
rounding. Respondents were
allowed multiple responses.
Source:
43%
Poor condition
Theft or robbery
in neighborhood
14%
Location is
not convenient
14%
14%
No security
Too small
7%
Other
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Survey respondents who owned a home were more satisfied than renter households. Sixty percent of
respondents owning a home were very satisfied, while only 35 percent of renters claimed to be very
satisfied.
Reasons for not owning a home. Survey respondents who were renters were asked to identify
their current reasons for not owning a home. Respondents could select more than one reason. The
most common reasons for not owning a home were not having enough money for a down payment
and not qualifying for a mortgage. The identified reasons for not owning a home are shown in
Exhibit III-7 below.
Note:
n = 58. Respondents could select
more than one reason.
Source:
2005 and BBC Research & Consulting,
Not enough money
for a down payment
Reasons for Not Owning a Home
Exhibit III-7.
Reasons for Not
Owning a Home or
Condo/Townhome
28%
Cannot qualify
for a mortgage
22%
No houses in my
price range for sale
16%
Cannot afford monthly
mortgage payments
14%
10%
I would prefer to rent
Planning to move
or here temporarily
9%
Uncertain future
or may leave area
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Percentage of Repondents
Fifty-six percent of respondents who said they did not have enough money for a down payment had
incomes of less than $35,000. Thirteen percent had incomes between $35,000 and $50,000 and
another 27 percent earned between $50,000 and $75,000. For respondents who said they could not
qualify for a mortgage, one-third had incomes of less than $35,000. Almost forty percent of the
respondents who said they could not afford monthly payments had incomes less than $35,000.
Barriers to renters making repairs. As of December 2005, 12 percent of renters indicated that
their rental unit was not in need of repairs. Eighty-one percent of renters indicated that their
landlords made repairs promptly when needed, while 19 percent said their landlord did not make
repairs when needed. Of those interviewees stating that landlords do not make repairs promptly, the
types of repairs needed were varied; no one type of repair was particularly prominent. Renters’ needed
repairs included appliances, plumbing and windows/doors. Repairs categorized as “other” included
woodwork repair and general repairs. Exhibit III-8 displays the types of repairs needed by renters.
Note:
more than one type of repair.
May not total due to rounding.
Source:
Types of Repairs
Exhibit III-8.
Types of Repairs
Needed by Renters
Appliances
13%
Heating/Cooling
13%
Plumbing
13%
Roofing
13%
13%
Windows/doors
13%
Other
Electric
7%
Flooring
7%
Insulation
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Barriers to homeowners making repairs. Only 13 percent of homeowners indicated that there
were repairs that they had not made to their houses. Of homeowners needing repairs to their homes,
well over one-half (61 percent) said they had not made the repairs because they could not afford to.
Another 17 percent indicated they did not have the time to make the repairs and 11 percent said they
were in the process of completing the repair. Six percent had priorities other than repairing their
homes and another 6 percent cited other reasons. Of those households needing to do repairs, 41
percent earning less than $35,000 annually.
In a similar question, 51 percent of respondents stated that they could not maintain their homes.
When asked what they needed to better maintain their homes, 45 percent answered that they needed
more money. Another 32 percent said they needed more time to do the work themselves.
As shown in Exhibit III-9, the most common repair needed by homeowners was flooring.
Exhibit III-9.
Types of Repairs
Needed by Homeowners
Source:
2005 and BBC Research & Consulting,
Types of Repairs
Note:
more than one type of repair.
May not total due to rounding.
26%
Flooring
Kitchen
9%
Landscaping
9%
Plumbing
9%
Roofing
9%
9%
Windows/Doors
Accessibility
4%
Backyard
4%
Bathroom
4%
Fence
4%
Garage
4%
Heating
4%
Painting
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Respondents who were homeowners were asked if they would apply for a hypothetical City of
Avondale program to help them complete the needed home maintenance. Fifty-three percent of
homeowners responded that they would apply for a home maintenance assistance program through
the City, and 47 percent said they would not apply.
Sixty-seven percent of respondents who indicated they would apply for such a program had repairs
they had not made to their homes. (Thirty-three percent of people needing home repairs said they
would not apply for such a program). Of the respondents who would apply for the housing
maintenance program, 28 percent earned below $50,000 and, on the other side of the income
spectrum, 19 percent earned over $100,000. Of the respondents who would not apply for such a
program, 24 percent earned below $50,000.
Housing discrimination. Respondents were asked if they had ever experienced housing
discrimination. Ninety-two percent had not experienced housing discrimination and 8 percent said
they had experienced housing discrimination.
Of the 15 respondents experiencing housing discrimination, 53 percent were living in Avondale at
the time the discrimination occurred; the remaining respondents were either living in another
Metroplex city or another state. Exhibit III-10 displays the reasons that survey respondents said they
had experienced discrimination.
Exhibit III-10.
Reasons for Housing
Discrimination
Reason
Number
Percent
Race and/or ethnicity
6
40%
Note:
Bad credit/bankruptcy/debts
3
20%
n = 15. Survey respondents could
give multiple answers.
Don’t know
2
13%
Other
2
13%
Familial status
1
7%
Poor/affordability issue
1
7%
15
100%
Source:
Total
Of respondents who said they had experienced housing discrimination, 47 percent were of Hispanic
origin, 27 percent were White, 20 percent were African American and 5 percent were Native
American. Of those respondents disclosing income levels, 33 percent had household incomes between
$10,000 and $35,000; 25 percent between $50,000 and $75,000; 17 percent between $35,000 and
$50,000; 8 percent less than $10,000; and 8 percent between $100,000 and $150,000. Sixty percent
of respondents who said they had experienced discrimination owned their home, and 13 percent had
a disability or had a household member with a disability.
Compared to the City demographics overall, African Americans, Native Americans and low-income
persons are disproportionately likely to experience discrimination in Avondale. It is notable that
persons with a disability are not disproportionately likely to experience housing discrimination in
Avondale.
When asked what the respondents did about the discrimination, 67 percent did nothing, 20 percent
moved elsewhere, 7 percent called the housing authority and 7 percent filed a complaint.
Community Needs Survey Findings
This section reports survey respondents’ answers to questions about community needs and
preferences.
Neighborhood needs. Respondents were asked to indicate whether their neighborhood was in
need of various types of services. Respondents answered “yes” or “no” to a list of 8 types of potential
community service needs. The results are as follows:
Exhibit III-11.
Neighborhood Needs
100%
4%
1%
1%
1%
1%
4%
1%
13%
80%
30%
46%
50%
Don't
Know
50%
64%
60%
71%
59%
70%
No
40%
66%
53%
49%
20%
0%
Note:
Source:
Recreation/
community
centers
Clothing stores Restaurants
49%
Parks
35%
28%
28%
26%
Grocery stores/
markets
Banks
Laundromats
Hair salons
Yes
n = 194.
Avondale Telephone Survey, December 2005 and BBC Research & Consulting.
Of all 8 types of services, respondents felt most strongly about the need for more
recreation/community centers, followed by the need for more clothing stores. On the other end of
the spectrum, only 26 percent of respondents said that there was a need for more hair salons. When
asked about other types of services needed, the most common responses (in order of frequency) were
mall/shopping/better quality stores; upscale grocery stores/specialty grocers; gas stations; and police
security.
The next five exhibits display the responses to the above question about the need for community
4
services by the income level of respondents. Exhibit III-12 presents community needs as reported by
respondents earning between $10,000 and $34,999 a year. Respondents felt most strongly that there
was not a need for more banks in their community. Comparing these respondents’ views to the views
of all interviewees (as shown in Exhibit III-11), these households differed most significantly in their
view of the need for clothing stores. Whereas 53 percent of all respondents reported a need for more
clothing stores, only 32 percent of households between $10,000 and $34,999 thought their
neighborhood needed this service.
Exhibit III-12.
Neighborhood Needs for Survey Respondents Earning between $10,000 to $34,999
3%
100%
80%
50%
3%
7%
Don't
Know
54%
68%
71%
68%
68%
60%
75%
79%
No
40%
50%
20%
32%
46%
32%
29%
0%
Note:
Source:
4
Recreation/
community
centers
Parks
Grocery stores/
markets
Yes
29%
18%
18%
Banks
Laundromats
Hair salons
n = 28.
Response rates are only reported for income categories in which the sample size is greater than 10 households. Therefore,
due to a sample size, responses are not reported for households earning less than $10,000 a year.
Exhibit III-13 shows the results for households earning between $35,000 and $49,999 a year. These
respondents felt most strongly that there was not a need for more banks in their neighborhoods.
Compared to the combined results for all income levels, these respondents differed most significantly
in their view of the need for laundromats. Only 28 percent of overall respondents felt that their
neighborhood needed more laundromats; however, 42 percent (14 percentage points higher than the
general respondent population) felt that their community needed more of this service.
Exhibit III-13.
3%
100%
10%
16%
Don't Know
42%
80%
26%
65%
61%
42%
60%
71%
65%
77%
No
40%
64%
58%
20%
35%
0%
Note:
Source:
Recreation/
community
centers
42%
39%
Parks
29%
23%
Grocery stores/
markets
Banks
Laundromats
32%
Yes
Hair salons
n = 31.
The following exhibit demonstrates the views of households earning between $50,000 and $74,999 a
year. Respondents felt most strongly about the need for recreation/community centers. Respondents
earning between $50,000 and $74,999 annually differed the most from the overall results in Exhibit
III-11 in their view of the need for banks. Thirty-seven percent of households in this income range
answered “yes” to needing more banks in their community; however, only 28 percent of the overall
respondents felt that more banks were a necessity.
Exhibit III-14.
4%
2%
100%
15%
80%
28%
Don't Know
41%
57%
50%
61%
60%
63%
57%
64%
No
40%
72%
59%
20%
0%
Note:
Source:
43%
Recreation/
community
centers
48%
39%
Parks
Grocery stores/
markets
37%
Banks
28%
Laundromats
33%
Yes
Hair salons
n = 46.
Exhibit III-15 displays the community needs as viewed by respondents earning between $75,000 and
$99,999. These interviewees felt most strongly that there was not a need for more hair salons in their
neighborhood. When compared to the results of all respondents, these households differed the most
significantly in their view of the need for more parks. Forty-nine percent of the overall survey
population expressed the need for more parks whereas a larger percentage of households earning
between $75,000 and $99,999 (62 percent) saw a need for more parks.
Exhibit III-15.
100%
80%
3%
6%
3%
44%
32%
3%
9%
Don't Know
35%
47%
60%
74%
71%
73%
82%
No
40%
65%
47%
56%
62%
20%
0%
Note:
Source:
Recreation/
community
centers
Parks
26%
26%
Grocery stores/
markets
Banks
Yes
18%
18%
Laundromats
Hair salons
n = 34.
Respondents earning between $100,000 and $149,999 felt most strongly that there was not a need
for hair salons in the City. These respondent households differed the most from the overall survey
population results (Exhibit III-11) in their opinion of the laundomats as a needed service. Twentyeight percent of total survey respondents felt that their community needed more laundromats, while
only 10 percent of respondents earning between $100,000 and $149,999 thought this service was
needed.
Exhibit III-16.
5%
100%
10%
16%
37%
80%
Don't Know
47%
63%
32%
63%
60%
68%
74%
84%
No
40%
58%
53%
63%
20%
0%
Note:
Source:
Recreation/
community
centers
37%
37%
32%
Parks
Grocery stores/
markets
Banks
Yes
10%
11%
Laundromats
Hair salons
n = 19.
Exhibit III-17 reports the results for respondents that earned over $150,000 a year. These households
felt the most strongly about the need for recreation/community centers and the need for more
restaurants; eighty-two percent of respondents earning over $150,000 a year saw a need for both
these services. Households in Exhibit III-17 differed the most when compared to the overall survey
population in their opinion of the need for restaurants. The vast majority of respondents (82 percent)
earning over $150,000 a year responded “yes” when asked if more restaurants were needed in their
neighborhood; however, only 49 percent of total respondents saw this service as a necessity.
Exhibit III-17.
Neighborhood Needs for Survey Respondents Earning over $150,000
100%
80%
8%
15%
9%
18%
Don't Know
45%
55%
55%
55%
73%
60%
73%
No
40%
68%
55%
82%
20%
45%
45%
45%
27%
0%
Note:
Source:
Recreation/
community
centers
Parks
Grocery stores/
markets
Banks
Yes
18%
Laundromats
Hair salons
n = 11.
Community preferences. The telephone survey asked respondents to assume they had $1 million
to improve Avondale. They were given a series of trade off questions and asked to prioritize between
two activities. The results of the 6 scenarios are presented below in a series of pie charts.
Exhibit III-18.
Scenario 1: Would you rather build more affordable
rental housing OR build more affordable housing for people to buy?
Rental Housing (5%)
Don't Know (17%)
Affordable Ownership Housing (78%)
Note:
n = 193.
Source:
For Scenario 1, the vast majority of respondents (78 percent) would prefer to spend money building
homeownership affordable housing rather than building affordable rental housing. A higher
percentage of respondents who owned their homes (81 percent) would choose to build more
affordable homeownership housing compared to interviewees who rented (72 percent).
Exhibit III-19.
Scenario 2: Would you rather fix roads and sidewalks
OR provide grants for people to fix up their homes?
Don't know (4%)
Fix roads and sidewalks (45%)
Grants to fix up homes (51%)
Note: n = 193.
Source:
The preferences of survey interviewees were almost equally split with regard to fixing roads versus
providing grants for home repair. A little less than half would spend the $1 million on fixing roads
and slightly over half would spend the money providing grants for home repair.
Exhibit III-20.
Scenario 3: Would you rather build senior housing OR provide more programs for youth?
Don't know (6%)
Senior housing (33%)
Youth programs (61%)
Note: n = 194.
Source:
As shown above, the majority of interviewees would prefer to spend money on youth programs (61
percent) rather than on building senior housing when given the choice. By age range, respondents
between the ages of 25 to 34 and those between the ages of 65 to 74 were the most likely to choose
youth programs (76 percent of respondents aged 25 to 34 and 64 percent of respondents aged 65 to
74 preferred to invest in youth programs). On the other hand, the respondents most likely to choose
senior housing were between the ages of 18 and 24; 47 percent of respondents in this age group
preferred to invest in senior housing.
Exhibit III-21.
Scenario 4: Would you rather demolish vacant
run-down housing OR repair and enhance street lighting?
Don't Know (3%)
Enhance Street Lighting (36%)
Demolish Vacant Buildings (61%)
Note: n = 194.
Source:
When asked whether respondents would rather demolish vacant run-down housing or repair and
enhance street lighting, 61 percent indicated that they would rather tear down dilapidated housing.
Sixty-four percent of owners preferred to demolish run-down housing while a smaller percentage of
renters (52 percent) chose this option. The majority of respondents earning less than $35,000
preferred to repair and enhance street lighting (61 percent). On the other hand, 67 percent of
respondents earning over $35,000 chose the other option – to demolish run-down housing.
Exhibit III-22.
Scenario 5: Would you rather build more
neighborhood services (grocery stores, banks) OR invest in programs to produce jobs?
Don't know (2%)
More neighborhood services (14%)
Job programs (84%)
Note: n = 193.
Source:
Of all six scenarios, this question produced the greatest indication of one preference over another.
The overwhelming majority of respondents (84 percent) would spend $1 million on programs to
produce jobs rather than on building more neighborhood services such as grocery stores and banks.
The vast majority of respondents at each level of education chose to invest in job programs. One
hundred percent of interviewees earning less than $10,000 would invest in programs to produce jobs.
In general, as the income of the respondents increased, the percentage of respondents preferring to
use the $1 million for neighborhood services also increased.
Exhibit III-23.
Scenario 6: Would you rather expand water and sewer systems OR improve fire stations?
Don't Know (9%)
Improve fire stations (40%)
Expand water and
sewer systems (51%)
Note: n = 194.
Source:
Interviewees found it harder to choose between these two options more than any other question; this
question produced the highest percentage of “I don’t know” responses (9 percent). Taking into
account that 9 percent of respondents were uncertain, the results were fairly close; 51 percent
preferred to expand water and sewer systems and 40 percent would rather improve fire stations.
Key Person Interviews and Public Forum
In addition to the telephone survey, the City conducted a series of key person interviews to gather
information about needs from the perspective of community service providers and City officials. As
required by HUD, a public forum was held on March 7, 2006, to provide yet another venue for
citizens and stakeholders to contribute input on needs and to ask questions about the consolidated
planning process.
The City also held three public hearings for individuals to comment on the Draft Plan. Public
hearings were held on April 3, April 17, and May 1, 2006. At the first public hearing, BBC presented
the key findings from the Plan and specifically listed the City’s housing and community development
strategies for the next 4 years.
Key person interviews. From the beginning of December 2005 to the beginning of January 2006,
the City of Avondale’s conducted 29 interviews of key persons in the community including
supportive service providers, housing providers, representatives from government departments,
Councilpersons and the Mayor of Avondale. Interviewees were asked to identify high priority
housing, commercial and community service needs and barriers to affordable housing. Exhibit III-25
on the following page lists the most frequently mentioned needs and/or barriers. The responses are
listed in alphabetical order.
Exhibit III-25.
Housing and Community Development Needs Identified at Key Person Interviews
High Priority Housing Needs
Affordable homes for families earning between $40,000 and $60,000.
Homes in the central part of the City.
Inclusionary zoning.
Increase code enforcement.
Infill housing.
Mixed-use housing located near transit stations.

Rehabilitation/redevelopment of the older parts of Avondale - Las Ligas, Cashion, Old Avondale
and Rio Vista.
Step-up housing mixtures.
Townhomes, condos and executive housing.
Workforce housing.
Special Needs Housing
Emergency shelters (or increase bed capacity at current shelters).
Senior housing.
Transitional housing.
Barriers to Affordable Housing
Investor properties driving up home prices.
Lack of a skilled labor force.
Lack of homeowner education.
Market forces - supply and demand driving up home prices.
Neighborhoods with real or perceived crime rates.
People don't want to be a part of a program - sometimes a pride issue.
Stigma associated with the words "affordable housing."
High Priority Community Service Needs
Affordable childcare.
Financial institutions and banks.
Health care.

More aggressive police force, especially south of the freeway. New facilities are constantly
vandalized on the south side.
Parks in new development, especially by the Phoenix International Raceway.
Public transportation in and around Avondale and connecting the West Valley to Phoenix.
Transportation where the jobs exist.
Quality schools.
Recreation centers.
Sidewalk and road improvements. Eliminate dirt roads. Glendale Plant, Paint, Pave and Sign
program for parking lots.
The north lacks services. Most people will say the south but the south has the community
centers, parks and senior centers.
Water pressure issues north of the freeway.
Youth services.
High Priority Commercial Needs
Attract more businesses to Avondale. Light industrial should also be considered.
Consider projects that encourage pedestrian usage.
Landscaping to make areas more attractive.
Rebuild Western Avenue and develop a theme for the area.
Redevelopment on Main Street, MC 85, Western Avenue and Old Town Avondale.
Source:
City of Avondale Key Person Interviews and BBC Research and Consulting.
Advertising the process. The City of Avondale extensively publicized the opportunities for
participation in the Consolidated Plan. Throughout the Consolidated Plan process, the City made an
effort to involve adjacent governments and service organizations based in the Phoenix Metroplex
and/or Maricopa County.
The City’s CDBG Consolidated Plan Committee developed a strategy to advertise the Consolidated
Plan process via their “Spread the Word Campaign.” Bilingual flyers (Spanish and English)
announcing the public forums and comment period were posted at the following locations
throughout the City: Fire Station 172, Fire Station 173, Avondale Library, Avondale Community
Center, Cashion Community Center, Avondale Court, police headquarters, Avondale Field
Operations Department, City Hall and Estrella Mountain Community Center. In addition, the
City’s Grants Administrator had a sign holder available to travel to any meeting where potential
stakeholders might attend. The flyer was also emailed to 44 stakeholders on February 24, 2006.
Through the “Spread the Word Campaign,” an ad was published in the West Valley View on
February 14th and March 14th in English and Spanish. On March 4, 2006, The Southwest Valley
Republic published an article about the City consolidating planning process and listed the dates and
times of the public forum and public hearings. On March 23, 2006, the Arizona Business Gazette
published a lengthy article about the Consolidated Plan, the Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing, the Annual Action Plan, HOME, CDBG, and ADDI funding and listed the dates and
times of the public hearings. The same article was published in the West Valley View on March 30,
2006.
The City also took advantage of special events to post the flyers at the Child Safety Seat Fair and the
Under the Stars Concert, both occurring on February 16, 2006.
To encourage involvement of the City's minorities, non-English speaking residents, low-income
persons and persons with special needs (including persons with disabilities), the City made a strong
effort to involve organizations that assist these populations in the Consolidated Plan process by
contacting servide provides and reaching out to these communities. The City spread the word to lowincome citizens in the City by posting the flyer at the local Food City and Fry’s stores in CDBG
eligible areas. The City’s Field Operations Department also distributed flyers door-to-door in CDBG
eligible areas.
Copies of the notifications about the Consolidated Plan process appear in the Public Outreach
Notices and Publications portion of this section.
In addition, the City made its Draft Four-Year Consolidated Plan available on the City’s website at
www.avondale.org and at four locations throughout the City (two community centers, Avondale
library and City Hall).
Public forum. The City held the HUD-required public forum on March 7, 2006, to gather citizen
input on needs and offer an opportunity for residents to ask questions regarding the consolidated
planning process. The forum was held at the Avondale Community Center at 6:30 p.m. Eleven
residents and stakeholders attended the meeting. The forum began with a presentation of the CDBG
program by BBC Research & Consulting (BBC) and City staff. BBC described how the City has
geographically allocated CDBG funds received through Maricopa County and described the various
activities funded in prior years. Next, results from the citizen telephone survey were presented. The
attendees then went through an exercise where the participants were asked how they would spend
$400,000 in the City to improve housing and/or community development conditions. The attendees
also prioritized a list of 16 eligible CDBG and HOME activities by indicating whether each activity
should receive high funding, moderate funding, low funding or no funding. Only four activities
could be chosen per funding level. The community and housing needs mentioned by attendees are as
follows, listed in alphabetical order:
Exhibit III-26.
Housing and Community Development Needs Identified at Public Forum, March 7, 2006
High Priority Housing Needs
Energy saving appliances.
Rehabilitation of single family homes (roofing, plumbing, etc.).
Requirement to pay first and last month's rent.
High Priority Community Service Needs
Crime reduction programs.
Improvement of street lighting.
Neighborhood policing programs.
Preventative measure to curb garbage dumping in low-income areas.
Senior centers with large community spaces and kitchens.
Sidewalk , street and curb improvements.
Traffic calming measures or barriers to prevent fast driving in alleyways.
Youth centers.
Youth services to address idle youth.
High Priority Commercial Needs
Business development in existing neighborhoods.
Source:
City of Avondale public forum March 7, 2006 and BBC Research & Consulting.
The attendees of the public forum prioritized the 16 housing and community development activities
as shown on the following page. This process revealed that participants felt rehabilitation and
building of homeownership housing was a high need, while subsidies for rental households or
construction of new rental housing should not be funded, or funded at a low level. The other activity
that participants thought should receive high funding was social service programs for youth, seniors
and persons who are homeless.
The activity that received the highest percentage of “high funding” designations was rehabilitation of
existing owner occupied housing followed by investment in social services.
There were four activities that all received the highest percentage of “moderate funding” responses.
These activities were construction of new owner occupied housing; rehabilitation of existing rental
housing; crime reduction activities; and building code enforcement to reverse housing deterioration.
The activity that received the highest percentage of “low funding” designations by attendee s was
rental subsidies for low-income renters.
Two housing activities received the highest percentage of “no funding” responses by public forum
participants. These activities were first time homebuyer education and construction of new rental
housing. Exhibit III-27 below summarizes the results of attendees’ prioritization. For each activity,
the funding level with the highest percentage is shaded gray.
Exhibit III-27.
Public Forum Attendees Prioritization of CDBG and HOME Activities
Activity
Down payment assistance to prospective homebuyers
Rental subsidies for low-income renters
First time homebuyer education
Infrastructure development in low- and moderate-income areas
(e.g. water, sewer, streets, sidewalks)
Job training
Social services (e.g., youth programs, senior programs, persons
who are homeless)
Rehabilitation of existing owner-occupied housing
Construction of new owner-occupied housing
Rehabilitation of existing rental housing
Construction of new rental housing
Construction of emergency or transitional housing
Low interest loans to low-income entrepreneurs or to
retain businesses that employ low-income workers
Crime reduction activities
Building code enforcement to reverse housing deterioration
Land acquisition for economic development
Demolition of substandard structures
Total
Source:
High
Funding Level
Moderate
Low
None
3%
0%
3%
11%
4%
4%
2%
9%
10%
18%
5%
5%
6%
3%
17%
0%
8%
16%
7%
4%
0%
3%
8%
3%
18%
3%
5%
0%
3%
3%
2%
11%
11%
0%
4%
4%
5%
5%
3%
10%
5%
13%
0%
6%
6%
17%
14%
6%
8%
5%
5%
11%
11%
11%
9%
4%
5%
5%
0%
8%
0%
3%
11%
3%
100%
100%
100%
100%
City of Avondale public forum, March 7, 2006 and BBC Research & Consulting.
The final activity completed by public forums attendees was an open-ended question asking
participants to spend $400,000 to improve housing and/or community development conditions.
Frequently mentioned activities included the following:
Rehabilitation of aging housing in south Avondale;
Social services programs for youth and seniors,
Investment in street repair and street lighting;
Crime reduction activities; and
Code enforcement.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
S ECTION III , PAGE 26
Public Comments and Responses
Public comments pertaining to the City’s housing and community development needs were accepted
throughout the public input process (throughout the month of April). The 30-day comment period
for the Four-Year Consolidated Plan and Strategic Plan began on April 1, 2006, and continued until
May 1, 2006. During this period, the City made its Draft Four-Year Consolidated Plan available on
the City’s website at www.avondale.org and at the following locations:
City of Avondale
Avondale, AZ 85323
Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Avondale Library
328 W. Western Avenue
Avondale, AZ 85323
Phone: 623.478.3100
Monday – Thursday, 10 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Friday – Saturday, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Closed on Sundays
Avondale Community Center
rd
1007 South 3 Street
Avondale, AZ 85323
Cashion Community Center
10857 West Pima Street
Avondale, AZ 85323
Phone: 623.478.3060
The City also held three public hearings for individuals to comment on the Draft Plan. Public
hearings were held on April 3, April 17, and May 1, 2006. At the first public hearing, BBC presented
the key findings from the Plan and specifically listed the City’s housing and community development
strategies for the next 4 years.
Individuals who could not attend the public hearing were invited to provide written comments
regarding the Consolidated Plan and related needs to the City. Throughout the public comment
process, the City had an e-mail address available (jgaskins@avondale.org) to receive comments on the
Consolidated Plan. Written comments could also be mailed to the City: 11465 West Civic Center
Drive Avondale, AZ 85323.
A copy of the comments received during the public comment period and the City’s responses appear
at the end of this section.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
S ECTION III , PAGE 27
City of Avondale
The Consolidated Plan is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
requirement for a city to receive federal housing and community development funding. The
Consolidated Plan report examines the housing and community development needs of a city, sets
priorities for HUD grant monies to which a city is entitled, identifies the city’s performance in
meeting its goals, and establishes an action plan for meeting current and future needs. Each
Consolidated Plan is also required to have a strategy for citizen participation in the Consolidated Plan
process.
Between January and April 2006, the City of Avondale prepared its Four-Year Draft Consolidated
Plan covering the program years 2006-2009. This document outlines the City’s process and plan for
soliciting and receiving citizen input during the preparation review period of the Draft Consolidated
Plan as well as in the event that amendments are made to the Plan. Attached to this is the City’s
approved Citizen Participation Plan for all aspects of the Consolidated Plan process including: the
Housing and Community Development Plan, the Action Plan, amendments to the Housing and
Community Development Plan, and the Annual Performance Report.
Purpose of Citizen Participation Plan
The City of Avondale recognizes the importance of public participation in both defining and
understanding current housing and community development needs, and prioritizing resources to
address those needs. The City’s Citizen Participation Plan is designed to encourage citizens to
participate in the development of the Housing and Community Development Plan, any substantial
amendments to the Plan, and the annual performance report. The Plan is intended to encourage
citizens of all ages, genders, economic levels, races, ethnicities and special needs equal access to
become involved in the Plan each year. This Citizen Participation Plan was written in accordance
with Sections 91.100 and 91.105 of HUD’s Consolidated Plan regulations.
In order to ensure maximum participation in the Consolidated Plan process among all populations
and needs groups, and in order to ensure that their issues and concerns are adequately addressed, the
City of Avondale will follow the standards set forth in its adopted Citizen Participation Plan during
development of its Consolidated Plan and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report
(CAPER). The participation process will be developed and monitored by the City of Avondale
Department of Housing and Community Services.
P AGE 1
Glossary of Relevant Terms
CAPER. The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report as required by HUD
regulations, which reports the City’s completion of projects and activities as outlined within the
Action and Consolidated Plans and the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG).
Consolidated Plan. A three to five-year plan of a City’s Housing and Community Development
needs, resources, priorities, and proposed activities to be undertaken for the CDBG programs (a.k.a.,
Housing and Community Development Plan).
Action Plan. The yearly portion of the Consolidated Plan that identifies the specific activities and
projects to be undertaken by the City with CDBG funds during that program year.
CDBG. The Community Development Block Grant Program, as established under Title 1 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, Public Law 93-383 and the
funding received under such program, which assists communities to address housing and community
development needs, primarily for low- and moderate-income residents.
Relevant areas and programs. The City of Avondale FY2006-FY2009 Consolidated Plan covers
the geographic area within the city limits of Avondale. The City of Avondale is entitled to receive
CDBG funding from HUD during the program years between 2006 and 2009.
Citizen Involvement
The 2006 Consolidated Plan processes offered many opportunities for citizen participation. The City
makes a special effort to ensure the participation of persons with special needs and/or persons who are
often underrepresented in public process and organizations that represent such persons including low
income persons, persons of color, non-English speaking persons, persons with disabilities, persons
who are homeless and subpopulations. Participation was solicited and encouraged through the
following activities.
Community forum/public hearings. One public forum was held to present the preliminary
research findings of the citizen telephone survey and to collect citizen input. The forum was held on
March 7, 2006. Three public hearings were held on April 3 and April 17 and May 1, 2006 after the
Draft Consolidated Plan had been released to collect additional input into the Consolidated Plan
process.
Advertising the process. The City of Avondale extensively publicized the opportunities for
participation in the Consolidated Plan. Throughout the Consolidated Plan process, the City made an
effort to involve adjacent governments and service organizations based in the Phoenix Metroplex
and/or Maricopa County.
The City’s CDBG Consolidated Plan Committee developed a strategy to advertise the Consolidated
Plan process via their “Spread the Word Campaign.” Bilingual flyers (Spanish and English)
announcing the public forums and comment period were posted at the following locations
throughout the City: Fire Station 172, Fire Station 173, Avondale Library, Avondale Community
Center, Cashion Community Center, Avondale Court, police headquarters, Avondale Field
P AGE 2
Operations Department, City Hall and Estrella Mountain Community Center. In addition, the
City’s Grants Administrator had a sign holder available to travel to any meeting where potential
stakeholders might attend. The flyer was also emailed to 44 stakeholders on February 24, 2006.
Through the “Spread the Word Campaign,” an ad was published in the West Valley View on
February 14th and March 14th in English and Spanish. On March 4, 2006, The Southwest Valley
Republic published an article about the City consolidating planning process and listed the dates and
times of the public forum and public hearings. On March 23, 2006, the Arizona Business Gazette
published a lengthy article about the Consolidated Plan, the Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing, the Annual Action Plan, HOME, CDBG, and ADDI funding and listed the dates and
times of the public hearings. The same article was published in the West Valley View on March 30,
2006.
The City also took advantage of special events to post the flyers at the Child Safety Seat Fair and the
Under the Stars Concert, both occurring on February 16, 2006.
To encourage involvement of the City's minorities, non-English speaking residents, low-income
persons and persons with special needs (including persons with disabilities), the City made a strong
effort to involve organizations that assist these populations in the Consolidated Plan process by
contacting servide provides and reaching out to these communities. The City spread the word to lowincome citizens in the City by posting the flyer at the local Food City and Fry’s stores in CDBG
eligible areas. The City’s Field Operations Department also distributed flyers door-to-door in CDBG
eligible areas.
Copies of the notifications about the Consolidated Plan process appear in the Public Outreach
Notices and Publications portion of this section.
Consultation with Organizations, City Agencies and Adjacent Governments
When preparing the Consolidated Plan, the City actively consulted with public and private agencies
that provide housing, health, and social services in order to ensure that the interests and needs of all
groups are being adequately addressed. This consultation occurred through interviews conducted
with such organizations (including those that provide services to special needs populations), and
incorporation of data and reports produced by such organizations into the Consolidated Plan. From
the beginning of December 2005 to the beginning of January 2006, the City of Avondale’s
conducted 29 interviews of key persons in the community including supportive service providers,
housing providers, representatives from government departments, Councilpersons and the Mayor of
Avondale. Interviewees were asked to identify high priority housing, commercial and community
service needs and barriers to affordable housing.
Public Comment
Prior to the adoption of a Consolidated Plan, the City made available to interested parties the Draft
Consolidated Plan for a comment period of no less than 30 days. The public comment period began
on April 1, 2005, and continued through May 1, 2006.
P AGE 3
The Consolidated Plan will contain the amount of assistance the City expects to receive through
HUD CDBG grants and the top level strategic goals that will guide funding over the four-year
planning period.
The Plan was available on the City’s website at www.avondale.org and at the following locations:
City of Avondale
Avondale, AZ 85323
Avondale Library
Avondale, AZ 85323
Phone: 623.478.3100
Closed on Sundays
rd
1007 South 3 Street
Avondale, AZ 85323
Avondale, AZ 85323
Phone: 623.478.3060
The Council considered any comments or views of individuals or groups received in writing or orally
during the Consolidated Plan process and at the public hearings. The City held three public hearings
for individuals to comment on the Draft Plan. Public hearings were held on April 3, April 17, and
May 1, 2006. At the first public hearing, BBC presented the key findings from the Plan and
specifically listed the City’s housing and community development strategies for the next 4 years. A
summary of the written and oral comments during the comment period will be included at the end
of this section.
The City provided a written response to all written citizen complaints related to the Consolidated
Plan within 15 working days of receiving the complaints. Copies of the complaints, along with the
City’s response will be sent to HUD if they occur outside of the Consolidated Planning process and,
as such, do not appear in the Consolidated Plan.
Public access to records. The City provided all interested parties with access to information and
records related to the City’s Consolidated Plan and the City’s use of funds under all programs
covered by the Consolidated Plan during the preceding four years. The public was provided with
reasonable access to housing assistance records, subject to City and local laws regarding privacy and
obligations of confidentiality, during the performance report public comment period.
P AGE 4
Substantial Amendments
Occasionally, public comments warrant an amendment to the Consolidated Plan. The criteria for
whether to amend is referred to by HUD as Substantial Amendment Criteria. The following
conditions are considered to be “Substantial Amendment Criteria:”
1.
Any change in the described method of distributing program funds.
Elements of a “method of distribution” are:
2.
−
Application process;
−
Allocation among funding categories;
−
Grant size limits;
−
Criteria selection; and,
−
A change in funding of a particular activity which increases or
decreases the amount spent by 25 percent of the total funding
amount.
An administrative decision to reallocate all the funds allocated to an activity in the
Action Plan to other activities of equal or lesser priority need level, unless the decision
is a result of:
A federal government rescission of appropriated funds, or appropriations are
so much less than anticipated that the City makes an administrative decision
not to fund one or more activities; and/or
The governor declares a state of emergency and reallocates federal funds to
address the emergency.
Citizen participation in the event of a substantial amendment. In the event of a
substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan, the City will conduct at least two additional public
hearings. A public hearing notice will be published in the official newspaper at least 10 days prior to
consideration of the substantial amendment by the City. After the City makes its recommendation, a
period of 30 days will be made available for public comment. Near the end of this 30 days the City
Council will hold a public hearing to approve or disapprove the amendment.
The substantially amended sections of the Consolidated Plan will be available for review at the City
during the full 30-day public comment period. In addition, the substantially amended sections of the
Consolidated Plan will be made available on the City’s website for the full duration of the public
comment period.
Consideration of public comments on the substantially amended plan. In the event of
substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan, the Commission and Council will consider any
comments on the substantially amended Consolidated Plan from individuals or groups. Comments
must be received in writing or orally at public hearings. A summary of the written and public hearing
comments on the substantial amendments will be included in the final Consolidated Plan. Also
included in the final Consolidated Plan will be a summary of all comments not accepted and their
reasons for dismissal.
P AGE 5
Changes in federal funding level. Any changes in federal funding levels after the Draft
Consolidated Plan’s comment period has expired and the resulting effect on the distribution of funds
will not be considered an amendment or a substantial amendment.
P AGE 6
FY2005-FY2009 Maricopa HOME
Consortium Citizen Participation Plan
Maricopa HOME Consortium
Consolidated Plan 2005/2009
MARICOPA HOME CONSORTIUM
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
FY2005/2009
Applicability
This document implements the citizen participation planning regulations
applicable under Consolidated Plan submittal requirements noted under 24
CFR 91.105.
This citizen participation plan applies to the following
jurisdictions submitting Consolidated Plans covering FY 2005 through FY
2009, pursuant to:
24 CFR 91.400 for Consolidated Plan submission for the
The Maricopa HOME Consortium
The Maricopa Urban County
24 CFR 91.200 for Consolidated Plan submission for the
City of Chandler
City of Mesa
City of Glendale
City of Scottsdale
City of Tempe
City of Peoria
Town of Gilbert
The Maricopa HOME Consortium includes the Cities of Tempe, Glendale,
Chandler, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Peoria and the Town of Gilbert with
Maricopa County as the designated Lead Agency. The Consortium has
elected to establish July 1 through June 30 as the Program Year under
forthcoming Consolidated Plan submissions in FY 2005 through 2009. This
program year corresponds with each jurisdiction’s fiscal year.
Consolidated Plan Summary
HUD regulations noted in 24 CFR 91.105 require the preparation of
Consolidated Plans for the Maricopa HOME Consortium, Urban County, and
the entitlement communities of Scottsdale, Chandler, Glendale, Tempe,
Mesa, Gilbert and Peoria. The Consolidated Plan is prepared in draft form by
April in the year the Plan takes effect and includes needs, priorities and
longand
short-term
strategies
concerning
affordable
housing,
homeless/special needs and community development in the region. The
Consolidated Plan includes a five-year plan and an Annual Action Plan, and
serves as a long- and short- term investment guide for federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), HOME,
American
Dream
Downpayment
Initiative,
(ADDI)
and
Housing
Opportunities For Persons With Aids (HOPWA) resources in the region. The
Consolidated Plan is also consulted prior to the award of other funding
administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The Consolidated Plan prepared for the Maricopa HOME Consortium shall be
regional in nature and will focus on affordable housing and
1
homeless/special population needs, priorities and strategies pursuant to 24
CFR 91.4, while that prepared for the Urban County will address nonhousing and community development needs. The Consolidated Plans
prepared for the cities/town of Glendale, Tempe, Gilbert, Scottsdale, Mesa,
Chandler and Peoria are local in nature and shall address non-housing,
community development needs, priorities and strategies. Such local
Consolidated Plans may refer to the Maricopa HOME Consortium
Consolidated Plan to address affordable housing and homeless issues that
are deemed to be regional in nature, as well as refer to data and analyses
conducted concerning affordable housing for the individual locality. For
more information concerning the citizen participation process associated
with FY 2005 Consolidated Plans, please contact one or all of the following
individuals:
• Mr. Jim Prante, Community Development Director, Maricopa County at
(602) 240-2210, ext. 204.
• Mr. Pat Tyrrell, City of Chandler at (480) 782-3210.
• Mr. Gilbert Lopez, City of Glendale at (623) 930-3670.
• Ms. Kit Kelly, City of Mesa at (480) 644-2168.
• Ms. Liz Chavez, City of Tempe at (480) 350-8958.
• Mr. Mark Bethel, City of Scottsdale at (480) 312-2309.
• Mr. Bill Patena, City of Peoria at (623) 773-7167.
• Mr. Carl Harris-Morgan, Town of Gilbert (480) 503-6893.
Provisions of the Maricopa HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan
I and II. Encouragement of Citizen Participation and Information To Be
Provided
In order to encourage citizen participation, the following efforts shall be
undertaken by affected Maricopa HOME Consortium members. Affected
members are Maricopa County Community Development, the City of
Chandler, City of Mesa, City of Glendale, City of Scottsdale, City of Peoria,
Town of Gilbert and the City of Tempe.
1)
The Maricopa HOME Consortium members shall consult with housing
authorities in their jurisdictions to elicit participation of the residents of
public and assisted housing in plan development and review, which is
anticipated to be derived from PHA planning activities stipulated under
24CFR Part 903. As needed and applicable, affected Maricopa HOME
Consortium members will also consult with low-income residents of
targeted revitalization areas in which federal projects are anticipated.
Consortium members shall make Consolidated Plan information available to
local housing authorities on a continuing basis for any public hearings to be
held under the HUD Comprehensive Grant Program or Public Housing
Agency Plan established pursuant to 24CFR Part 903.
2)
Affected members of the Maricopa HOME Consortium shall each hold
at least two public hearings concerning the Consolidated Plan. The first
meeting shall be held during Consolidated Plan formulation and preparation,
2
while the second shall be held once draft Consolidated Plans have been
completed. One or both of the public meetings to be conducted by affected
Consortium members shall include the following items:
• The amount of CDBG, ESG, HOPWA and HOME resources anticipated to be
made available within affected member jurisdictions on a fiscal year basis,
and the eligible range of activities that may be undertaken concerning such
federal programs.
• The amount of CDBG, ESG, HOPWA and HOME resources anticipated to
benefit income qualified persons residing within affected member
jurisdictions on a fiscal year basis.
• Plans by affected HOME Consortium members to minimize the
displacement of persons from the intended uses of CDBG, ESG, HOPWA and
HOME resources anticipated to be invested during any given fiscal year.
• Perspectives on priorities and housing and community development needs
in each affected HOME Consortium member jurisdiction.
• Other aspects of the Consolidated Plans as applicable.
3)
On or before April 1st of any given year, affected Maricopa HOME
Consortium members will make available their draft Consolidated Plans and
the previous year’s Comprehensive Annual Performance Evaluation Report
(CAPER) to each housing authority, selected libraries, surrounding
municipal governments (as applicable), and selected other locations for the
mandatory 30-day public comment period to end no later than the 1st of
May of any given year. The public shall be notified of this opportunity for
review and comment in newspaper/s with general circulation in each
affected Consortium member’s jurisdiction and shall identify the locations
where citizens may review copies of draft Consolidated Plans and relevant
Comprehensive Annual Performance Evaluation Reports (CAPERs).
4)
In early September of each year, Maricopa HOME Consortium
members shall make available their draft Comprehensive Annual
Performance Evaluation Reports (CAPERs) for the previous fiscal year to
each housing authority, selected libraries, surrounding municipal
governments (as applicable); and selected other locations for the
mandatory 15-day public comment period to end no later than September
30.
Access To Records
All affected Maricopa HOME Consortium members shall provide citizens,
public agencies and other interested parties with reasonable and timely
access to public records relating to their past use of HOME, ESG, CDBG and
HOPWA and related assistance for the previous five years. This information
shall be made available to interested parties in alternate formats as
reasonably requested and shall be so noticed.
IV. Technical Assistance
All affected Maricopa HOME Consortium members will provide assistance to
very low- and low- income persons and groups representative of them that
3
request such in developing proposals for funding under the CDBG, ESG,
HOPWA, HOME or ADDI resources treated in their Consolidated Plans. Such
assistance will be provided to interested parties as requested and be
noticed as available to the public.
V. Public Hearings
Public hearings to be conducted by affected HOME Consortium members
shall be publicly noticed with a minimum one week lead time before the
actual meetings are conducted and be noticed in newspapers with general
circulation in the community. All postings shall include relevant information
to permit informed citizen comment.
Where appropriate to the local community or where requested in advance, a
bilingual staff person or translator shall be present at public hearings to
meet the needs of non-English speaking residents. All public hearings to be
conducted will be held at times and locations convenient to prospective
program beneficiaries, and be conducted with accommodation for persons
with disabilities when requested at least three working days in advance.
Specific determinations on the issues noted above shall be made by staff of
each affected HOME Consortium member on a case-by-case basis.
VI. Comments and Complaints - Any citizen, organization or group desiring
to make a complaint regarding the Consolidated Plans treated herein may
do so in writing to affected Maricopa Consortium members or verbally
during the execution of such public hearings. Any citizen, organization or
group may also make their views and/or complaints known verbally or in
writing to the affected City or County Managers and/or affected jurisdiction
Governing Bodies (City Council and Board of Supervisors). At all times,
citizens have the right to submit complaints directly to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development as well. All affected HOME Consortium
members shall respond in writing to written complaints, grievances, or
comments or to comments made at public hearings within 15 working days
from receipt of such. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is the final
disposition authority for complaints or grievances under the purview of
Maricopa County, while the City/Town Councils of Chandler, Mesa, Tempe,
Gilbert, Peoria, Scottsdale or Glendale are the final disposition authority for
complaints or grievances applicable to such jurisdictions.
VII. Adoption of Citizen Participation Plan – The Citizen Participation Plan is
a required component of the Consolidated Plan. This Citizen Participation
plan is anticipated to be adopted by the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors and City/Town Councils of Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert,
Scottsdale, Glendale and Peoria concurrent with the scheduled adoption of
each affected HOME Consortium member’s Five-year Consolidated Plan,
anticipated to occur on or before May 1st of 2005.
VIII. Comments Received At Public Hearings - Prior to transmitting any
Consolidated Plan, Annual Plan, substantial amendment or Consolidated
Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, members shall compile any
4
comments or views of citizens received in writing or orally at public
hearings. A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any
comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefore, shall be
attached to final submissions conveyed to HUD.
IX. Criteria and Process For Amendments To Consolidated Plan - Should any
affected HOME Consortium member cause one of the following items to
occur, an amendment to their Consolidated Plan would be required:
a) To make a substantial change in the allocation priorities or methods of
distribution delineated in the plans. “Substantial” in this context is defined
as:
Changes in any method of distribution for HOME, ESG or HOPWA resources
that will alter the manner in which funds are allocated to individual projects
or entities identified in the Annual Action Plan by at least 20% of any
annual allocation, subject to other program requirements in the CFR as
applicable.
Changes made to funding priorities in the Consolidated Plans over time
when not undertaken through annual submission requirements stipulated
by HUD.
Project deletions or changes made in allocation priorities or methods of
distribution that have the effect of changing the funding level of individual
CDBG projects within an eligible activity identified in its Annual Action Plan
by more than 10% of an entitlement jurisdiction’s annual funding level,
subject to other program requirements in the CFR as applicable.
Any new eligible activity funded with CDBG and not already identified in an
Annual Action Plan, as well as significant changes in the use of CDBG funds
from one eligible activity to another, in an amount greater than 10% of the
annual CDBG allocation.
b)
To carry out an eligible activity, using funds from any program
covered by the Consolidated Plans (including program income), not
previously described in the Annual Action Plans;
c)
To substantially change the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries
of an activity. Changes that are made to projects to be funded in the
Consolidated Plans over time when not undertaken through Annual Action
Plan submission requirements stipulated by HUD.
Should “substantial” amendments be made to any aspect of the
Consolidated Plans treated herein after its formal adoption, affected HOME
Consortium
members
will
undertake
the
following:
[refer
to
91.105(b)(2)(iv) and (b)(6)].
a)
5
In the instance of Maricopa County, inform affected units of local
government.
b)
Provide reasonable notice of the proposed amendment(s) in
applicable newspaper/s of general circulation to enable review and
comment by the public for at least 30 days. Conduct a public hearing on the
subject of the proposed amendment during the 30-day comment period
consistent with Sections III through VI noted herein.
c)
Submit such amendment(s) to their respective Governing Boards for
approval.
d)
Upon the termination of the 30-day comment period, periodically
notify HUD of any amendments executed, citizen comments received and
the response(s) by affected Consortium members to such comment(s).
All affected Maricopa HOME Consortium members will minimize the
displacement of persons assisted through the use of CDBG, HOME, ADDI,
ESG or HOPWA resources. The policies to be followed are separately
included in this document, and all Maricopa HOME Consortium members
have agreed to abide by the Contents. For efforts other than federally
funded acquisition or rehabilitation, Consortium members may utilize
adopted local policies concerning displacement assistance.
OTHER CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
People and agencies seeking resources from individual Maricopa HOME
Consortium members may need to comply with additional citizen
participation requirements imposed on them by such entities. For additional
information in this regard, contact the individuals or organizations noted
under the “Plan Summary” in this document.
6
ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
Preface
This policy is necessary to insure uniform, complete and accurate acquisition
and relocation activities, procedures and files. Acquisition may in some cases
be undertaken by the subrecipient, but only with the close coordination of CD
Staff and/or consultants.
The Maricopa County Community Development, in carrying out its
responsibility for CDBG, HOME and ADDI Program administration, and as the
designated "State Agency" responsible for acquisition and relocation
associated with CDBG, HOME/ADDI Program assisted projects will use staff,
other Maricopa County and professional consultants as necessary to comply
with the requirements of the Uniform Acquisition and Relocation Act of 1970
(PL 91-646), as amended.
7
MARICOPA
COUNTY
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
POLICIES
ON
DISPLACEMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
and/or HOME/ADDI FUNDED ACTIVITIES
Guideform Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Plan
under Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as Amended
The Maricopa HOME Consortium, in accordance with Federal Regulations for
Displacement, 24 CFR 570.606(b), hereby issues this statement of policy
regarding the displacement of persons by CDBG or HOME Program funded
activities.
Any entity receiving CDBG or HOME Program funds will replace all occupied
and vacant units that will be demolished or converted to a use other than as
low/moderate income housing.
All replacement housing will be provided within three years of the
commencement of the demolition or rehabilitation relating to conversion.
This includes any property obtained through a public undertaking. Before
obligating or expending funds that will directly result in such demolition or
conversion, the entity will make public and submit to the HUD Field Office the
following information in writing.
• A description of the proposed assisted activity;
• The general location on a map and approximate number of dwelling
units by size (number of bedrooms) that will be demolished or
converted to a use other than for low/moderate income dwelling
units as a direct result of the assisted activity;
• A time schedule for the commencement and completion of the
demolition or conversion;
• The general location on a map and approximate number of dwelling
units by size (number of bedrooms) that will be provided as
replacement dwelling units;
• The source of funding and a time schedule for the provision of
replacement dwelling units; and
• The basis for concluding that each replacement dwelling unit will
remain a low/moderate income dwelling unit for at least 10 years
from the date of initial occupancy (i.e.: Deed of Trust, Deed
Restriction, etc.).
The entity will provide relocation assistance, as described in 570.606(b)(2), to
each low/ moderate income household displaced by the demolition of housing
or by the conversion of a low/moderate income dwelling to another use.
Benefits will be provided relocatees and displacees according to the
calculation of benefits derived pursuant to requirements of regulations
promulgated under the Uniform Property Acquisition and Relocation Act of
1970, as amended
Assistance To Aliens
8
An alien who is not lawfully present in the United States is prohibited from
receiving assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act, per 49 CFR 24.208, and
assisted housing programs. Circumstances may dictate that determination
that an alien is ineligible would result in exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to a spouse, parent, child who is a United States citizen. Under these
circumstances a subrecipient may wish to request CD assist in making
relocation funds available. A final determination on the eligibility of the
request will be made by HUD before any assistance is provided.
Permanent Displacement
Displacement is defined as follows: Permanent movement of person(s) or
other entities from a dwelling unit or business location resulting from CDBG
funded code inspection, rehabilitation, demolition or acquisition.
In order to minimize displacement and mitigate adverse effects, the policy
shall consist of the following steps, in the event displacement is caused by
current or future CDBG or HOME Program funded projects:
• CD will avoid or minimize permanent displacement whenever possible
and only take such action when no other viable alternative exists.
• The impact on existing persons and properties will be considered in
the development of CDBG and HOME Program funded projects.
• Citizens shall be informed of CDBG or HOME Program project area(s)
through information made available as part of the annual proposed
and final statements on use of CDBG and HOME Program funds.
• Current regulations, HUD notices and policies will be followed when
preparing informational statements and notices.
• Written notification of intent will be given to eligible property owners
who may be displaced and/or relocated due to an approved project
activity.
• CD will assist those displaced in locating affordable, safe, decent and
comparable replacement housing.
• CD will ensure that "just compensation" for CDBG or HOME Program
acquired property (as determined by appraised fair market value) is
paid with relocation benefits, if applicable.
• CD will provide for reasonable benefits to any person permanently
displaced as a result of the use of CDBG funds to acquire or
substantially rehabilitate property.
Reasonable benefits will follow established policies set forth in applicable
federal, state and local regulations.
• Provision of information about equal opportunity and fair housing laws
in order to ensure that the relocation process does not result in
different or separate treatment on account of race, color, religion,
national origin, sex, or source of income.
• Displaced families will be given a preference through Section 8,
Conventional Public Housing or any other federally funded program for
which they might qualify. This priority is contingent upon availability of
certificates, voucher or placement coupon by the agency certified to
handle assistance in the jurisdiction.
9
Temporary Displacement
CDBG or HOME Program funded activities may involve temporary
displacement. While strict adherence to provisions of the Uniform Relocation
Act are not specified, it is the policy of CD that all subrecipients shall take
steps to mitigate the impact of CDBG or HOME Program funded code
inspections, rehabilitation, demolition or acquisition that results only in
temporary movement of person(s) from a dwelling unit. Such temporary
displacement primarily involves demolition and reconstruction of a singlefamily owner- occupied home.
Accordingly, the citizens involved in a
temporary movement shall be fully informed of the below matters and
appropriate steps shall be taken to insure that fair and equitable provisions
are made to:
• Insure that owners receive compensation for the value of their
existing house prior to demolition.
• Receive temporary living accommodations while their HOME Program
funded unit is being demolished and reconstructed.
• Move and temporarily store household goods and effects during the
demolition and reconstruction evolution.
• Reimburse all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in
connection with the temporary relocation, including moving costs and
any increased rent and utility costs.
10
AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING POLICY
Maricopa Home Consortium Affirmative Marketing Policy and Procedures for
HOME-Assisted Housing
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to establish a standard Affirmative Marketing
Policy and procedures for HOME-assisted housing containing five or more
housing units.
Policy
The public, property owners, and potential tenants shall be informed about
affirmative marketing aspects of the HOME-assisted housing activity, the
regulations and the goal of attracting persons from all racial, ethnic and
gender groups in the housing market area to the available housing. This
policy shall apply equally to all recipients of HOME funds.
Procedures
A.
Methods for informing the public, property owners, and potential
tenants about Federal Fair Housing Laws and the Affirmative Marketing
Policies should include the following.
Initial and subsequent unit occupants will be subject to the Affirmative
Marketing Policy.
The public and potential beneficiaries will be informed about affirmative
marketing in a number of ways. First, the affirmative marketing
requirements and the goal of attracting persons of all races/ethnic groups
and genders will be stated to the public in all articles and press releases
published in the local newspapers.
Property owners and subrecipients will be informed about the affirmative
marketing aspects of the HOME Program upon initial contact, whether by
telephone, letter or brochure. Owners may also be reached through articles
in local newspapers; especially in the real estate sections and such articles
will include information about affirmative marketing. All brochures, letters,
etc. sent to potential applicants for HOME funds will include a statement
about the affirmative marketing requirements.
B.
Requirements and practices regarding affirmative marketing to be
carried out by property owners should include the following.
Property owners and subrecipients will be required to carry out affirmative
marketing procedures in terms of advertising HOME-assisted units and
attracting tenants of all racial, ethnic and gender groups. When advertising
rental units, owners shall state in their ads that Section 8 tenants are
welcome in these particular units. HOME-assisted units to be occupied by
Housing Choice Voucher holders will be governed by the Housing Authority's
Equal Opportunity Housing Plan.
11
Property owners and subrecipients will be required to carry out affirmative
marketing procedures for the entire period of affordability of the HOME
assisted units.
In addition to requiring the affirmation of the Non-Discrimination and Equal
Opportunity Policy, the Consortium will provide a list of groups the owner
should contact when marketing the availability of their units to persons
least likely to apply. That list will include an appropriate local newspaper
such as the Glendale Star, Arizona Republic, El Sol, the Westsider,
Scottsdale Progress, Mesa Tribune, Tempe Daily News and Chandler
Chronicle. Also listed will be the local Community Action Programs such as
Glendale Community Action Program or Avondale Community Action
Program, and the local housing departments such as the Glendale
Community Housing Services Department or the Maricopa County Housing
Authority.
Procedures to be used by owners and subrecipients to inform and solicit
applications from persons in the housing market that are not likely to apply
for the housing without special outreach should include the following.
The Maricopa HOME Consortium will assist subrecipients in their efforts to
reach persons in the community and especially in the eligible
neighborhoods. The Housing Authorities have contacts in a number of
public agencies that can be used, and community gathering spots, such as
libraries, senior centers and laundromats, which often have bulletin boards
used to advertise apartment rentals. In addition, various media such as TV
and radio public service spots, local newspapers, etc., may be used to
announce the program and availability of HOME-assisted units.
D.
Affirmative Marketing record keeping and assessment should consist
of the following.
The Maricopa HOME Consortium will require that records be kept on all
program announcements, brochure distribution, articles, and radio-TV spots
relating to the HOME Program.
Persons calling to inquire about the
availability of HOME-assisted units may be asked how they first heard about
the program and whether they are aware of the Affirmative Marketing
Policy.
Property owners, subrecipients, and landlords of the HOME-assisted units
should be informed that they must keep records on any advertising of the
HOME-assisted units, whether by ad in a newspaper, a posted notice or a
sign in the unit window to provide evidence that the affirmative marketing
of the units to tenants is taking place.
In addition, landlords will provide information to the Housing Authority,
depending on unit location and on the lease status of Housing Choice
Voucher holders, so that the availability of the units for affirmative
12
marketing efforts is known.
Where a HOME-assisted unit is not subsequently occupied by a Housing
Choice Voucher holder, landlords will be asked to provide information about
characteristics of new tenants (income, race, family size, etc.), as part at a
review of the HOME-assisted units. When new tenants have moved in,
landlords will be asked to determine the means by which the tenants
learned about the availability at the unit, and evaluate the affirmative
marketing practices used to recruit such tenants, if possible.
The Maricopa HOME Consortium will document the race, ethnicity and
gender of the head of household of existing tenants prior to the investment
of HOME assistance; and if there is a change, the Consortium will also
document the race, ethnicity and gender of the head of household of the
first occupant of an assisted unit.
Failure to demonstrate good faith in the correction of violations of this
policy may result in termination of subrecipient agreements and/or
disqualification from future funding under this program.
E.
The Maricopa HOME Consortium will develop a minority/women
business outreach program following the minimum HUD standards and
requirements. The outreach efforts to be conducted for minority and
women-owned businesses will include the following items.
• A good faith, comprehensive and continuing endeavor
• A statement supporting public policy and commitment published in
the print media of widest local circulation
• An office and/or key, ranking staff person with oversight
responsibilities and access to the chief elected official
• The use all available and appropriate public and private sector local
resources
13
MINORITY BUSINESSES AND WOMEN’S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES POLICY
Minority Businesses and Women's Business Enterprises Policy and
Procedures For the Community Development Block Grant and Home
Programs, and Business Outreach Program Developments
Policy
The Maricopa HOME Consortium will comply with HUD's responsibilities
under Executive Orders 11625, 1234 concerning Minority Business
Enterprises (MBE) and 12138 concerning Women's Business Enterprises
(WBE) making all efforts to encourage the use of minority and women's
business enterprises in connection with public works contracts, CDBG, and
HOME funded activities.
The purpose at this policy is to take affirmative steps to assure that small
and minority businesses and women's business enterprises are utilized
when possible as a source of supplies, equipment, construction, and
services. These affirmative steps will include the following.
• The inclusion of qualified small and minority businesses and
women's business enterprises on solicitation lists, solicitation of
bidding for public works, professional service or rehabilitation
contracts
• Assurances that small and minority businesses and women's
business enterprises are solicited whenever they are potential
sources, particularly for purchases of supplies and materials
• The division of total requirements into smaller tasks or quantities so
as to permit maximum participation; where economically feasible,
and where allowable under federal and local procurement
requirements
• Where the requirement permits, establishment of delivery
schedules designed to encourage participation by small and
minority businesses and women's business enterprises
If any subcontracts are to be let, require the prime contractor to take the
affirmative steps noted above.
Procedures
The objective of these procedures is to establish and oversee a minority
outreach program within the Maricopa HOME Consortium to ensure the
inclusion, to the maximum extent possible, of minorities and women, and
entities owned by minorities and women.
To ensure the inclusion, to the maximum extent possible, of entities owned
by minorities and women, the Maricopa HOME Consortium will develop the
following program:
A.
The Maricopa HOME Consortium maintains an inventory of certified
minority businesses and women's business enterprises identifying their
capacities, services, supplies, and products.
14
B.
A notice to minority business enterprises and women's business
enterprises has been developed explaining the steps and procedures to be
followed in participating in contracts and business opportunities.
C.
The Maricopa HOME Consortium will advertise using the local media
such as the Westsider, El Sol, Glendale Star, Scottsdale Progress, Mesa
Tribune, Tempe Daily News, Chandler Chronicle, Arizona Republic, and
Business Gazette to market and promote contracts and business
opportunities for MBE and WBE. Cable public access is also utilized.
D.
The Maricopa HOME Consortium will participate and promote
meetings, conferences, seminars, etc, with minority businesses and
women's business enterprises, including the Arizona Minority Development
Council.
E.
A centralized record on the use and participation of minority
businesses
and
women's
business
enterprises
as
contractors/subcontractors in all HUD-assisted contracting activities will be
reported to HUD on the contract and subcontract activity report HUD-2516.
F.
To facilitate opportunities for minority businesses and women's
business enterprises to participate as vendors and suppliers of goods and
services, the Maricopa HOME Consortium has developed a solicitation and
procurement procedure. The procedure in place is as follows:
•
Bids should be advertised in the local newspapers, local cable TV,
Chambers of Commerce, and procurement assistance programs.
•
Information on procurement procedures should be made readily
available to minority businesses and women's business enterprises.
Maricopa County participates in the Arizona Minority Development Council
programs and trade shows. The business community is given the
opportunity to call the appropriate office and comment on the specifications
or terms at a bid or proposal. Changes made by addendum are issued to all
that were sent the original document. Copies are sent to local Chambers of
Commerce.
Additional actions and procedures undertaken by Consortium members to
foster outreach to minority businesses and women's business enterprises
will include, but is not limited, to the following.
• Maintenance and update of the inventory of minority businesses
and women's business enterprises
• Distribution of notices to minority businesses and women's
business
enterprises
in
accessing
Consortium
contracting
opportunities through a variety of means outlined below
• Continuation of the advertisement of bid opportunities and
certification procedures in the local media like the Westsider, El Sol,
Glendale Star, Scottsdale Progress, Mesa Tribune, Tempe Daily
15
•
•
•
16
News, Chandler Chronicle, Arizona Republic, and Business Gazette;
through Cable TV; via local Chambers of Commerce (procurement
assistance programs); through minority Chambers (procurement
assistance programs), and other relevant media opportunities
Continuation of participation with the Minority Businesses and
Women's Business Enterprises Program Office of Maricopa County,
thereby enabling an enhanced distribution of minority businesses
and women's business enterprises bid opportunities for all
Consortium contracting opportunities. Maricopa County, through it
Minority Businesses and Women's Business Enterprises Program
Office, is active in the National Minorities Contractors Association
and thus attends meetings, seminars, conferences and related
training sessions on a continuing basis to consistently enhance
outreach and promotion
Continuation of participation by Maricopa County on the Minority
Supplier Development Council and the Arizona Fair Housing
Partnership to foster enhanced minority businesses and women's
business enterprises outreach and promotion
Continuation of County endeavors regarding an IGA committee
consisting of State ADOT, State Civil Rights Office, City of Phoenix,
City of Tucson, Tucson Airport Authority and Pima County to
establish reciprocal certification arrangements for minority
businesses and women's business enterprises to foster minority
outreach, certification and promotion.
MONITORING
Monitoring is a continuous process of review to ensure adequate
performance and compliance with all applicable statutes, regulations, and
policies. To be an effective tool for improving performance and avoiding
non-compliance, monitoring requires the on-going application of
appropriate planning, implementation, communication, and follow-up during
each phase of an activity. The typical phases of an activity include the
initial allocation of funding, the written agreement, the monthly progress
reports, the requests for reimbursement of expenditures, and the closing
reports.
Forms of Monitoring
Monitoring may include the following procedures:
• review of monitoring reports, audits and management letters at
application
• review of federal requirements during contract signing
• review of periodic reimbursement requests/performance reports
• technical assistance (meetings, telephone calls, site visits, written
correspondence, etc.)
• desk reviews
• on-site reviews
• other comprehensive monitoring as warranted
Desk reviews consist of in-house reviews of documentation submitted to the
reviewer.
On-site reviews consist of reviews of program files, fiscal
systems and financial records.
Risk Assessment
The level of monitoring to be conducted will be determined by the risk
classification assigned to the entity. Entities receiving CDBG/HOME funds
will be evaluated annually to determine the appropriate risk classification.
Entities deemed to be “low risk” will be subject to desk review. Entities
deemed to be “high risk” will receive an on-site monitoring review.
To be classified as “low-risk”, an entity must generally meet the following
criteria.
• an on-site visit has been conducted within the last two years
• there have been no or insignificant compliance or performance
problems noted
To be classified as “high-risk”, an entity may meet one or more of the
following risk factors.
• the entity is new to the CDBG/HOME Program
• there has been a high rate of employee turnover or turnover in key
staff positions
• there has been noncompliance with one or more contract provisions
• there were significant findings and/or concerns noted in previous
desk reviews or on-site monitoring visits
17
•
•
•
•
there are significant unresolved audit findings
there has been a high incidence of citizen/vendor complaints
reimbursement requests/performance reports contain inaccurate or
incomplete information
there is a demonstrated need for on-going technical assistance
Please note the risk designations are not limited to the above-stated
conditions and may be assigned due to other circumstances, if required.
Monitoring Approach
To use limited administration funds more efficiently, eliminate duplicate
monitoring activities and create a more consistent approach throughout the
County, a team-monitoring approach will be used whenever feasible. To the
greatest extent possible, each entity will receive either a desk review or onsite review once each year. The reviews will be conducted using a
standardized monitoring tool developed by the Maricopa HOME Consortium
(Consortium).
Peer Review
A peer review process will be used for monitoring Consortium members.
Each Consortium member will be reviewed annually by a team consisting of
rotating personnel from the members of the Consortium.
Subrecipient Monitoring
Subrecipients may also be subject to team monitoring. Each subrecipient
will be monitored by the Consortium member(s) responsible for
administering the related CDBG/HOME agreements. This procedure will also
apply to monitoring of Community Housing Development Organizations
(CHDOs).
Refer to each Consortium member’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan for
additional requirements concerning the subrecipient monitoring efforts to
be undertaken with CDBG/HOME resources.
Monitoring Results
Desk reviews and on-site reviews will result in written letters documenting
any findings or concerns noted during the reviews. Whenever possible,
monitoring letters should be issued in draft format to activity administrators
for review and comment. Entities should be given ten days in which to
comment on the draft letters. Final monitoring letters will be issued to the
chief executive officers of the monitored entities. Any comments received
from activity administrators should be incorporated into the final monitoring
letters.
Desk reviews and on-site reviews may also generate suggestions for
improvements to program/financial systems. Any suggestions noted during
the monitoring may be documented in a separate memorandum addressed
to activity administrators.
18
Monitoring Maricopa County ESG Funds
The Maricopa County Department of Human Services will monitor ESG
resources on a continuing basis. Allocation of funds is completed on a
monthly basis, and all clients and data will be tracked according to
Department and HUD guidelines. Contract fiscal claims will be reviewed
monthly. An initial visit will be made after the contracts are awarded. A
formal desk review and monitoring visit will be completed in the second
quarter of the grant and a written plan will be prepared. The contractor will
resolve any corrective actions immediately. Fiscal audits are required of
contractors according to Federal and County guidelines. Contracts will be
reviewed and validated for environmental clearance. Maricopa County
Human Services Department staff will conduct a program and fiscal
monitoring annually.
19
HOME/ADDI & ESG SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
RECAPTURE/RESALE PROVISIONS
The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, 24 CFR §92.254, requires that
housing provided through homebuyer assistance must be secured for the
use of low-income households for a period of affordability. The affordability
period is determined based on the amount of the HOME/ADDI subsidy as
follows.
HOME Funds Provided
< $15,000
$15,500 - $40,000
>$40,000
Affordability Period
5 Years
10 Years
15 Years
Under the HOME/ADDI regulations, participating jurisdictions have two
options for controlling the resale of HOME/ADDI -assisted homebuyer
property during the affordability period. These are the recapture option and
the resale option. The participating jurisdiction must select which option it
will use prior to providing assistance to the homebuyer.
Recapture Option – Under this option, the HOME subsidy must be returned
to the HOME Program. This option allows the seller to sell to any willing
buyer at any price. Once the HOME/ADDI funds are repaid, the property is
no longer subject to any HOME/ADDI restrictions. The recaptured funds
must be used for another HOME/ADDI-eligible activity.
Resale Option – Under this option, the seller must resell the original home
to another income-eligible homebuyer. This sale must be at a price that is
affordable to the purchaser, although the seller is also allowed a fair return
on the sale. Under the HOME regulations, the participating jurisdiction must
define both the terms of affordability and fair return.
Maricopa HOME Consortium Policy Regarding Recapture/Resale
It is the policy of the Maricopa HOME Consortium that each member of the
Consortium may use either the recapture option or the resale option based
on what is most beneficial to the member and to the potential homebuyer.
Consortium members will select the method to be used prior to granting the
HOME/ADDI assistance to the potential homebuyers. Each Consortium
member will ensure the proper security instruments are executed to
guarantee the HOME/ADDI investment for the affordability period for the
selected recapture/resale option.
Members of the Maricopa HOME Consortium may also provide homebuyer
assistance through a contract with a CHDO or non-profit housing provider.
Members will negotiate with the CHDO or non-profit housing provider the
appropriate recapture/resale requirements for the program provided. This
provision shall be adequately addressed in CHDO/Subrecipient contracts,
and the proper security instruments shall be provided.
20
Owners who sell their property before the expiration of the affordability
period will be entitled to a fair return on their equity investment.
Homeowner’s equity includes the homeowner’s original contribution to the
down payment, payment of mortgage principal during the period of
ownership, value of any improvements added at the owner’s expense, and
the appreciated value of the property since its initial purchase.
If the recapture option is used, the fair return to the seller will be calculated
based on the net proceeds from the sale and the amount of the original
HOME investment in the property.
The HOME/ADDI subsidy shall be
recoverable by the Consortium member any time the house is sold before
the expiration of the affordability period. The method that will be used to
calculate the fair return and the HOME/ADDI subsidy to be recovered shall
be detailed in the required security instruments. If the affordability period
has been satisfied, the seller will be entitled to all net proceeds from the
sale of the property.
If the resale option is used, the housing must remain affordable to the
subsequent purchaser. The housing will be considered affordable if the
subsequent purchaser’s monthly payment of principal, interest, taxes and
insurance do not exceed 30% of the gross income of a family with an
income equal to 75% of median income for the area. If the property is no
longer affordable to qualified homebuyers at the time of resale, the
Consortium member may take steps to bring the property acquisition cost to
a level that is affordable. This may result in the actual sales price being
different to the seller than to the subsequent homebuyer. Upon the resale
of the home, the property must pass HUD Housing Quality Standards. The
Consortium member shall determine who is responsible for the necessary
repair costs to bring the property up to standards. These requirements shall
be detailed in the required security instruments. If the affordability period
has been satisfied, the seller shall be free to sell the home to any qualified
buyer.
In the case of a foreclosure or foreclosure sale, the period of affordability
shall be terminated. Upon receipt of notice that a foreclosure is pending,
the Consortium member or subrecipient shall take positive steps to assert
rights to a share of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale. The Consortium
member shall, to the extent feasible, recapture the original HOME/ADDI
investment. If the homebuyer has failed to make payments to the first
mortgage holder, the Consortium member will not be obligated to correct
any deficient payments. The amount recaptured shall be based on the
amount of the net proceeds from the foreclosure sale. If no net proceeds
are generated, the HOME/ADDI investment shall not be recaptured. The
method that will be used to calculate the amount of the recaptured funds
shall be detailed in the required security instruments. If the affordability
period has been satisfied, the Consortium member shall have no rights to
the net proceeds resulting from the foreclosure sale.
21
If the original homebuyer ceases to occupy the property as the principal
place of residence, voluntarily or involuntarily, or upon the death of the
owner (or where ownership is joint upon the death of the sole survivor
having the remaining interest), the original HOME/ADDI investment shall
become due and payable. The method that will be used to calculate the
amount of the recaptured funds shall be detailed in the required security
instruments. If the property is occupied as a principal residence by a lineal
descendant of a deceased owner, and the descendant’s income level
qualifies the descendant to receive HOME/ADDI assistance in the same
manner in which the deceased owner qualified according to the most recent
income limits, the Consortium member, at its discretion, can elect to allow
the occupant to live on the property for the remainder of the affordability
period.
If the affordability period has been satisfied, the Consortium
member shall have no interest in the occupants of the property.
*Security instruments are generally defined as deeds of trust, promissory
notes, and other similar documents
22
Telephone Survey Instrument
Hello, my name is _______________ and I am calling from Davis Research, an independent research firm. We are
not selling anything. We are doing a survey for the City of Avondale regarding housing-related issues and would like
to include your opinion. All of your responses to the survey are confidential. [If respondent asks, the survey should
take less than XXX minutes to complete.]
Screening Questions:
A.
Do you live within the Avondale city limits?
Yes [SKIP TO QUESTION 1a.]
No [CONTINUE]
(VOL) Don’t Know [CONTINUE]
(VOL) Refused
[CONTINUE]
B.
When you receive mail at your home, does the mailing label say “Avondale” as the city?
Yes [CONTINUE]
No [THANK AND TERMINATE]
(VOL) Don’t Know [THANK AND TERMINATE]
(VOL) Refused [THANK AND TERMINATE]
Housing Questions:
1a.
Do you own or rent the home you are currently living in?
Own
Rent
(VOL) Refused
1b.
What type of home do you currently live in?
Single family home
Condo/Townhome
Apartment
Mobile Home
Other [SPECIFY]
(VOL) Refused
2a.
In general, how satisfied are you with your current home or apartment?
Would you say you are:
Very satisfied [IF HOMEOWNER, SKIP TO Q.3a; IF RENTER, SKIP TO Q. 5a.]
Satisfied
[IF HOMEOWNER, SKIP TO Q.3a; IF RENTER, SKIP TO Q. 5a.]
Dissatisfied [CONTINUE]
Very Dissatisfied [CONTINUE]
(VOL) Refused
2b.
What is the primary reason that you are not satisfied with the home you are living in?
[ACCEPT ONLY ONE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING LIST.]
Rent/mortgage is too expensive
Too small
Too many people/too few rooms
Too expensive to maintain
Not in desired location
Location is not safe
Dissatisfied with nearby schools
Location is not convenient
Work commute is too long
Limited amenities
Poor condition
Other [SPECIFY]
(VOL) Refused
2c.
What are other reasons you are not satisfied with the home you are living in ? [DO NOT READ LIST.]
Rent/mortgage is too expensive
Too small
Too many people/too few rooms
Too expensive to maintain
Not in desired location
Location is not safe
Dissatisfied with nearby schools
Location is not convenient
Work commute is too long
Limited amenities
Poor condition
Other [SPECIFY]
(VOL) Refused
IF A RENTER, SKIP TO QUESTION 5a.
3a.
Are there repairs that you have not made to your home?
Yes
No [SKIP TO QUESTION 4a]
(VOL) Refused
3b.
Why haven’t you made the needed repairs? [PROMPT IF NEEDED; DO NOT READ LIST.]
Can’t afford them
Have other priorities
Can’t find a contractor to use
Other [SPECIFY]
(VOL) Refused
3c.
What repairs do you need to make the most? [DO NOT READ LIST.]
Painting
Appliances
Electric
Plumbing
Heating
Roofing
Siding
Windows/Doors
Insulation
Foundation
Accessibility (ramps, etc.)
Flooring
Other [SPECIFY]
(VOL) Refused
4a.
What do you need to better maintain your home? [PROMPT IF NEEDED; RECORD THREE REASONS.]
More money to get the work done
More time to do the work myself
Find contractor to do work
(VOL) Refused
4b.
If the City of Avondale had a program to help you get the home maintenance you need, would you apply for it?
Yes
No
(VOL) Refused
If no, why not? [RECORD RESPONSE.]
SKIP TO QUESTION 7a.
5a.
Does your landlord make repairs promptly when needed?
Yes [SKIP TO QUESTION 6.]
No
(VOL) Refused
5b.
If your rental is in need of repair, please tell me what repairs are needed.
[DO NOT READ LIST.]
Rental is not in need of repairs
Painting
Appliances
Electric
Plumbing
Heating
Roofing
Siding
Windows/doors
Insulation
Foundation
Accessibility (ramps, etc.)
Flooring
Other [SPECIFY]
(VOL) Refused
6.
What are some of your current barriers to owning a home or condo/townhome?
[PROMPT IF NEEDED; DO NOT READ LIST.]
None, I would prefer to rent.
Do not have enough money for a down payment.
Can’t afford monthly mortgage payments.
Can’t qualify for a mortgage.
Unfamiliar with/intimidated by the process of buying a home.
Desired housing type not available (single family home, condo/townhome, mobile home.)
Desired housing location not available.
No houses in my price range for sale.
Uncertain future or may leave area.
Other [SPECIFY]
(VOL) Refused
7a.
Think about the services in your neighborhood, such as grocery stores, banks, and parks and recreation
facilities. Please respond “yes” or “no” to each of the following questions to indicate whether you think
your neighborhood needs more of this type of service.
Does your neighborhood need more:
Grocery stores/markets?
Laundromats?
Parks?
Recreation/community centers?
Banks?
Hair salons?
Restaurants?
Clothing stores?
(VOL) Refused
7b.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
What other services do you think your neighborhood needs more of?
Other [SPECIFY]
(VOL) Refused
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
8.
Suppose you had $1 million you could use to improve Avondale. I’m going to describe some housing and
community development activities you could use this money for. Tell me what you would prefer.
Would you rather:
Build more affordable rental housing OR build more affordable housing for people to buy?
Fix roads and sidewalks OR provide grants for people to fix up their homes?
Build senior housing OR provide more programs for youth?
Demolish vacant run-down housing OR repair and enhance street lighting?
Build more neighborhood services (grocery stores, banks) OR invest in programs to produce
jobs?
Expand water and sewer systems OR improve fire stations?
None of the above. [DO NOT READ.]
(VOL) Refused
Now, I’m going to ask you a few questions about housing discrimination.
9.
To your knowledge, have you ever experienced housing discrimination? [DO NOT READ LIST.]
Yes [CONTINUE]
No [SKIP TO 11.]
(VOL) Don’t Know [SKIP TO 11.]
(VOL) Refused [SKIP TO 11.]
10a.
Where were you living when you experienced the discrimination?
[DO NOT READ LIST.]
Avondale
Other [SPECIFY]
(VOL) Refused
10b
What was the reason you were discriminated against? [DO NOT READ LIST. ALLOW MULTIPLE
RESPONSE. PROMPT ONCE FOR ADDITIONAL RESPONSES.]
I’m black/Hispanic/Asian/American Indian/not white.
I’m a student.
I’m a woman/man/gender.
I have children.
My religion/I’m Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Mormon/Buddhist/Atheist.
I’m a farm worker/ranch hand/migrant worker.
I’m physically disabled.
My partner/girlfriend/boyfriend and I are not married.
I’m mentally/developmentally disabled.
I’m poor/I couldn’t afford it.
I have bad credit/bankruptcy/debts.
I’m not a United States citizen/don’t have a green card/don’t have a social security number.
I’m gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered.
I have HIV/AIDS.
I’m on Section 8/receive government assistance for housing.
Other [SPECIFY]
(VOL) Refused
10c.
What did you do about the discrimination? [DO NOT READ LIST. ALLOW MULTIPLE
RESPONSES. PROMPT ONCE FOR ADDITIONAL RESPONSES.]
Don’t know/can’t remember.
Nothing.
Tried to get information/complain and couldn’t.
Talked to a lawyer/Legal Aid/ACLU/Attorney General’s office.
Called the Arizona/Phoenix Fair Housing Center.
Called HUD.
Called local government official/Mayor’s office/City Council.
Called housing authority.
Called a community organization.
Filed a complaint.
Other [SPECIFY]
(VOL) Refused
Demographic Information
Now I’d like to ask you a few questions about yourself, strictly for classification purposes.
11.
How many members are there in your household?
[RECORD NUMBER.]
(VOL) Refused
12.
Do you or do any members of your household have a disability?
Yes
If yes, how many household members have a disability? [RECORD NUMBER.]
No
(VOL) Refused
13.
In what year were you born?
[RECORD YEAR.]
(VOL) Refused
14.
What is the highest level of education you have had the opportunity to complete?
Some high school or less
High school graduate/GED
Trade/vocational school or some college
College graduate
Post-graduate work or degree
(VOL) Refused
15.
In what cities are the workers in your family employed?
Goodyear
Avondale
Phoenix
Other [SPECIFY.]
16.
Which ethnic or cultural group are you a member of?
[DO NOT READ LIST. ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES.]
Anglo/White
Hispanic/Chicano/Latino
African American/Black
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Oriental/Pacific Islander
Multi-racial
Other [SPECIFY.]
(VOL) Refused
17a.
Do you pay a monthly rent or mortgage?
Yes, I pay rent. [CONTINUE]
Yes, I pay a mortgage. [CONTINUE]
No [SKIP TO QUESTION 18.]
(VOL) Refused [SKIP TO QUESTION 19.]
17b.
How much do you pay per month in rent or mortgage?
$_____________________________
SKIP TO QUESTION 19.
18.
If you don’t pay a monthly rent or mortgage, which of the following best applies to your situation.
I exchange goods or services for rent.
Someone else is paying for my rent.
I own my home and it is paid off.
Someone else is paying for my mortgage.
Other [SPECIFY.]
(VOL) Refused
19.
Just for classification purposes, into what category does your total household income fall?
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to less than $35,000
$35,001 to less than $50,000
$50,001 to less than $75,000
$75,001 to less than $100,000
$100,000 to less than $150,000
Over $150,000
(VOL) Refused
20.
_____________________[RECORD ZIP CODE. DO NOT ASK OR CONFIRM.]
Thank you very much for participating in this survey.
Public Outreach Notices and Publications
The City of Avondale needs your input about how it plans to distribute affordable housing and
community development funds. Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) provides funding to cities to be used in low to moderate income areas. To receive these funds,
each city must complete a report called the Consolidated Plan. The City of Avondale is currently
looking for comments from Avondale residents that will help provide input for the plan.
How to get involved:
♦
Attend city meetings (community meetings & public meetings)
♦
Write letters or emails about your ideas for housing & community
development in low to moderate income areas.
♦
Comment on the draft Consolidated Plan.
To gather this information, the City is holding a series of community meetings about housing and
infrastructure issues. The meetings are scheduled for the following dates:
DATE
TIME
NAME / LOCATION
ADDRESS
March 7, 2006
6:30 p.m.
Neighborhood Meeting /
1007 South 3rd Street,
Avondale, 85323
April 1 through
May 1, 2006
between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Consolidated Plan Review Period:
View Draft Plan / Avondale City Hall
11465 W. Civic Center Dr.,
Avondale, 85323
April 3, 2006
7:00 p.m.
1st Public Hearing /
Avondale City Hall
Avondale, 85323
April 17, 2006
7:00 p.m.
2nd Public Hearing /
Avondale City Hall
Avondale, 85323
* Refreshments will only be available at the neighborhood meeting.
If you have more questions, are unable to make
the meeting or need to make arrangements for
meeting accessibility, please contact:
Janeen Gaskins:
Avondale, Arizona 85323
Phone: 623.4783025
Fax; 623.478.3803
Email: jgaskins@avondale.org
La Ciudad de Avondale está solicitando sugerencias para planear la distribución de los fondos para
las viviendas a precios razonables y fondos para el desarrollo de la comunidad. Cada año el
Departamento de Vivienda y Desarollo Urbano (HUD) provee fondos a ciudades para que los usen
en áreas con personas de ingresos bajos y moderados. Para recibir estos fondos, cada ciudad tiene
que completar un reporte llamado el Plan Consolidado. La Ciudad de Avondale está pidiendo que los
residentes presenten comentarios y sugerencias para la preparación de este Plan.
Cómo Participar:
♦
Asista a cualquiera de las juntas de la ciudad (juntas comunitarias y juntas públicas)
♦
Escriba cartas o envie correos electrónicos ofreciendo sus ideas para las viviendas en áreas
con personas de ingresos bajos y moderados y el desarrollo de la comunidad.
♦
Ofrezca comentarios sobre el borrador del Plan Consolidado.
La Ciudad ha programado una serie de juntas comunitarias para obtener información sobre los
temas de vivienda e infraestructura. Las juntas están programadas como sigue:
FECHA
HORA
NOMBRE/ SITIO
DIRECCIÓN
6:30 de la tarde
Junta Comunitaria/
Centro Comunitario de Avondale
1007 South 3rd Street,
Avondale, 85323
el 1 de abril al
1 de mayo, 2006
entre
8:00 de la mañana y
5:00 de la tarde
Período para la Revisión del
Borrador del Plan Consolidado/
Ayundamiento de Avondale
Avondale, 85323
el 3 de abril, 2006
7:00 de la tarde
Primera Junta Pública/
Avondale, 85323
el 17 de abril, 2006
7:00 de la tarde
Segunda Junta Pública/
Avondale, 85323
el 7 de marzo, 2006
* Habrá refrigerios disponibles solamente durante la junta comunitaria.
Si tiene más preguntas, no puede
asistir a la junta o necesita acomodos
especiales, favor de llamar a:
Janeen Gaskins:
Avondale, Arizona 85323
Phone: 623.4783025
Fax; 623.478.3803
Email: jgaskins@avondale.org
Notice of Public Hearing
CITY OF AVONDALE
DRAFT 2006-2009 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ANNOUNCEMENT
AND
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The City of Avondale will conduct public hearing to obtain citizen comments on City of Avondale
draft Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan covers the Fair Housing Plan, Community
Development Block Grant and the HOME Investment Partnership Program and a proposed 1st
year Action Plan. A summary of the proposed Consolidated Plan appears below.
Summary: The draft Consolidated Plan is prepared through an extensive consultation period
with citizens, local governments, public agencies and other interested parties on the housing and
community development needs of the City. The Consolidated Plan is a four-year strategy for
addressing the housing and community development needs of the community. The draft Plan
sets forth long-term goals to maintain viable communities through the development of decent
housing, a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities principally for lowand moderate-income persons. The four major section of the Plan contain a wide variety of
information. A description of each of the primary sections follows.
Community and Housing Needs: In this section the housing and community needs are
examined. The analysis includes housing market, housing conditions, and housing prices,
availability of assisted housing, cost burden and geographic distribution of housing
characteristics.
Citizen Input: This section reports the housing and community development needs collected
through the public outreach process conducted for the Avondale Consolidated Plan and fair
housing analysis. This public outreach process included a statistically significant telephone survey
with Avondale residents; collaborations and interviews with housing and social service agencies,
including those serving special needs populations; and public meetings and hearings.
Fair Housing Analysis: This section contains and analysis of impediments to fair housing
choice in Avondale. This included an analysis of data that highlights fair lending concerns; a
review of legal cases; a review of the City’s zoning, code ordinances, Master Plan; and citizen
input about fair housing issues. The section also has a fair housing action plan that suggests
strategies to promote fair housing.
FY 2006-2009 Consolidated: This is a detailed analysis of the housing market in the City.
This housing community needs analysis examines several different facets of Avondale’s housing
market, including condition, over crowdedness, price, availability of assisted housing, cost
burden and the geographic distribution of housing characteristics. This tool is used to help the
City direct is funding allocations for HUD monies.
FY 2006-2007 Action Plan: This section represents the four years Strategic Plan for the City
of Avondale. The program year start date is August 1, 2006 and the application is due to HUD on
May 15, 2006. This plan describes the geography of the city; describes the basis of allocations;
identifies the obstacle to meeting underserved needs and outlines a City’s proposed use of
available federal and other resources to address the priority needs and specific objectives in the
Consolidated Plan; the City’s method for distributing funds to not-for-profit organizations; and
the geographic areas of the City to which it will direct assistance. Avondale is contemplating
funding projects that include Housing Rehabilitation, Homebuyer Assistance and Infrastructure
improvements.
The Action Plan will describe City's planned use of approximately $620,000 in federal fiscal year
2006 funds for: the Community Development Block Grant Program (approximately $473,579);
the HOME Investment Partnership Program (estimated to be more than $143,808); and the
American Dream Down payment Investment (approximately $3,700).
The public hearings will be held
Monday, April 3, 2006 and Monday, April 17, 2006
At 7:00 P.M.
11465 West Civic Center Drive, Avondale, Arizona 85323
THE CITY OF AVONDALE ENDEAVORS TO MAKE ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS ACCESSIBLE TO
PERSONS WITH DISABILTIES. Accommodations for persons with disabilities will be made
available at the public hearings with 48 hours advance notice. Interpreters will also be available
upon request to meet the needs of non-English speaking persons. Individuals who seek
additional information regarding the hearings may call TDD at 623.478.3494.
Individuals who are unable to attend may submit comments to 11465 West Civic Center Drive,
Avondale, Arizona 85323 Attention: Janeen K. Gaskins, or e-mail jgaskins@avondale.org. Written
comments must be postmarked no later than May 1, 2006. E-mail comments must also be sent
by this date.
The comment period will begin April 1, 2006 and end May 1, 2006.
On April 1, 2006, copies of the Draft Consolidated Plan will be available at Avondale City Hall
offices and at the additional locations listed below. The Draft Consolidated Plan will also be
available on the City of Avondale website at www.avondale.org. In addition, copies can be
requested by e-mail (jgaskins@avondale.org) or by calling 623.478.3025.
Locations of the Consolidated Plan
Avondale Public Library – 328 West Western Avenue
Avondale Community Center -1007 South 3rd Street
Cashion Community Center – 10857 West Pima Street
City of Avondale City
Please be aware the full public notice for HOME funds is issued by Maricopa County Community
Development Department, the lead agency for Maricopa County Consortium. The public hearing
will held on April 19, 2006 at 9:30 am at the Phoenix Corporate Center, 3003 North Central
Avenue, Suite 1040, Phoenix, AZ. For more information contact Jim Prante at 602.240.2210.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AND SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON
THE MARICOPA HOME CONSORTIUM FY 2006 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN,
AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2005-2009 FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN,
AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2005 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, AND THE FY 2004
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT
The Maricopa HOME Consortium will hold a public hearing on April 19, 2006, at 9:30
a.m. at the Phoenix Corporate Center, 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 1040, Phoenix,
AZ. The purpose of the public hearing is to obtain citizen input and comment on the
draft Maricopa HOME Consortium FY 2006 Annual Action Plan (AAP),
amendments (if any) to the FY 2005-2009 Five-Year Consolidated Plan (CP),
amendments (if any) to the FY2005 AAP, and the FY2004 Consolidated Annual
Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER). The FY 2006 AAP details specific projects
that will be implemented to meet the strategies identified in the CP. The FY 2006 AAP
is for Year 2 of 5 under the CP. The Maricopa HOME Consortium AAP refers primarily
to affordable housing, homeless and supportive housing for all members of the
Consortium and the intended uses of federal resources for FY 2006. The Maricopa
HOME Consortium consists of Maricopa County, the Town of Gilbert, and the Cities of
Avondale, Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Scottsdale, Surprise and Tempe. The
Maricopa HOME Consortium CP governs the use of four formula grants and affects the
allocation of public housing certificates and vouchers.
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (FY 2006)
In the forthcoming fiscal year, a significant portion of the federal resources used by the
Consortium members for affordable housing are anticipated to be expended on housing
rehabilitation, homebuyer assistance and activities to increase the supply of affordable
rental housing in targeted geographic areas.
PROPOSED USE OF HOME AND ADDI FUNDS FOR FY 2006-2007
The Maricopa HOME Consortium anticipates receiving approximately $5,431,471 in
HOME funds for FY 2006 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). In addition, the Maricopa HOME Consortium expects to receive $114,011 in FY
2006 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) funds. These funds must be used
to meet the following objective.
•
Increase the supply of decent, safe, and affordable housing for low and
moderate income households
HOME and ADDI funds will be distributed to Consortium members in the following
manner:
Consortium
HOME
ADDI
Member
Allocation
Allocation
Avondale
$ 143,808
$ 3,773
Chandler
428,885
11,253
Gilbert
187,592
4,922
Glendale
690,327
18,113
Maricopa County
627,604
17,565
313,413
N/A
1,066,848
27,992
Peoria
202,654
5,317
Scottsdale
360,382
9,456
96,620
2,535
Tempe
498,618
13,083
CHDO Allocation
814,721
N/A
Grant Administration
Mesa
Surprise
*15% of total allocation must be allocated to CHDOs. CHDO funds can be allocated
anywhere in the Consortium service area.
PROPOSED USE OF CDBG FUNDS FOR FY 2006-2007
The commitment of CDBG resources for affordable housing varies for each Maricopa
HOME Consortium member. For details regarding the use of CDBG funds, please
contact each member individually. The FY 2006 AAP for each Consortium member may
also be consulted.
AMENDMENTS TO FY 2005-2009 FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN
•
•
The CP and related Citizens Participation Plan have been amended to
acknowledge that Avondale and Surprise are joining the Consortium effective
July 1, 2006. Information regarding housing priorities, goals, and objectives for
Avondale and Surprise for the reporting period has been incorporated into the
CP as appropriate.
Other amendments as may be highlighted in the draft FY 2006 AAP.
AMENDMENTS TO FY 2005 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
•
•
•
Reallocation – $202,476 from the Town of Gilbert’s prior year’s funding for
single-family housing acquisition to multi-family housing acquisition.
Reallocation – $337,113 in recaptured funds from prior year projects to Habitat
for Humanity Hillcrest Vista housing development.
Other amendments as may be highlighted in the draft FY 2006 AAP.
AMENDMENTS TO FY 2004 CAPER
•
None
CONTENT OF PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD
The agenda for the public hearing to be held on April 19, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. will include,
but not be limited to, the following items.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anticipated HOME and ADDI resources that will be made available within the
region. It is anticipated that $5,431,471 in HOME Funds and $114,011 in ADDI
funds will be available. HOME funds may be used for housing rehabilitation,
tenant assistance, new construction, homebuyer assistance, the acquisition and
rehabilitation of rental housing, and other related housing activities. ADDI funds
may be used for down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers.
Estimates associated with the number of very low and low-income persons
residing within the Consortium service area that are anticipated to benefit from
HOME and ADDI resources secured in FY2006.
Plans by affected HOME Consortium members to minimize the displacement of
persons from the intended uses of HOME and ADDI resources anticipated to be
invested during FY2006 and efforts to assist any persons displaced.
A review of the contents of the draft FY 2006 Maricopa HOME Consortium
Annual Action Plan and solicitation of written or verbal public comments on the
draft.
Amendments to the Maricopa HOME Consortium FY 2005-2009 CP (if any).
Amendments to the Maricopa HOME Consortium FY2005 AP (if any)
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND PLACES TO SECURE COPIES OR REVIEW THE
PLAN
Copies of the Maricopa HOME Consortium draft FY 2006 AAP, amendments (if any) to
the FY 2005-2009 CP and FY 2005 AAP, and the FY 2004 CAPER, will be available for
formal review and comment from March 27, 2006 to April 28, 2006 at the following
locations: (Maricopa County office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday.) Maricopa County Community Development, 3003 North Central, Suite 1040,
Phoenix, AZ
Maricopa County George L. Campbell Branch Library, 17811 N. 32nd Street,
Phoenix, AZ
Maricopa County Branch Library, 14010 N. El Mirage Road, El Mirage, AZ
Maricopa County Branch Library, 9401 S. 51st Avenue, Laveen, AZ
Maricopa County Branch Library, 22407 S. Ellsworth Road, Queen Creek, AZ
Maricopa County Public Housing Authority, 2024 N. 7th Street, Suite 101,
Phoenix, AZ
A summary of the Maricopa HOME Consortium FY 2006 AAP can also be accessed on
the Internet at www.maricopa.gov/comm_dev.
Comments on the draft documents should be directed to Jim Prante, Director, Maricopa
County Community Development, 3003 North Central, Suite 1040, Phoenix, AZ 85012,
phone
number
(602)
240-2210,
fax
(602)
240-6960,
email
jprante@mccd.maricopa.gov. Hearing impaired persons please use the Arizona
Relay Service number 711, or TDD/TTY (602) 240-6956.
In addition, the members of the Maricopa HOME Consortium will prepare AAPs for their
respective jurisdictions. Copies of each member’s AAP may be secured by contacting
the following individuals and organizations.
Mr. Jim Prante, Maricopa County Community Development, 3003 North Central,
Suite 1040, Phoenix, AZ 85012, phone number (602) 240-2210, fax (602) 2406960, email jprante@mccd.maricopa.gov.
Ms. Janeen Gaskins, City of Avondale, 11465 W. Civic Center Dr., Suite 220,
Avondale, AZ 85323, phone number (623) 478-3025, fax (623) 478-3802, email
jgaskins@avondale.org.
Mr. Pat Tyrrell, City of Chandler, 265 East Buffalo Street, Chandler, AZ 85225,
phone
number
(480)
782-3210,
fax
(480)
782-3009,
email
Patrick.Tyrrell@ci.chandler.az.us.
Mr. Carl Harris-Morgan, Town of Gilbert, 90 East Civic Center Drive, Gilbert, AZ
85296, phone number (480) 503-6893, fax (480) 503-6170, email
carlhm@ci.gilbert.az.us.
Mr. Gilbert Lopez, City of Glendale, 6829 North 58th Drive, Suite 104, Glendale,
AZ 85301, phone number (623) 930-3670, fax (623) 435-8594, email
glopez@glendaleaz.com.
Ms. Kathleen “Kit” Kelly, City of Mesa, PO Box 1466, Mesa, AZ 85211, phone
number
(480)
644-2168,
fax
(480)
644-4842,
email
Kathleen.Kelly@cityofmesa.org.
Mr. William “Bill” Patena, City of Peoria, 8401 West Monroe, Peoria, AZ 85345,
phone number (623) 773-7167, fax (623) 773-7256, email billp@peoriaaz.com.
Mr. Mark Bethel, City of Scottsdale, 7515 East First Street, Scottsdale, AZ
Mbethel@ci.scottsdaleaz.gov.
Ms. Christina Ramirez, City of Surprise, 15832 N. Hollyhock Street, Surprise, AZ
Christina_ramirez@surpriseaz.com.
Ms. Liz Chavez, City of Tempe, PO Box 5002, Tempe, AZ 85280, phone number
(480) 350-8958, fax (480) 350 8902, email liz_chavez@tempe.gov.
Information on the past performance of the Maricopa HOME Consortium and its
members associated with CDBG, HOME, and ADDI are also available from the parties
noted above, as are copies of the FY 2005-2009 Citizens Participation Plan.
Each of the aforementioned cities and towns will hold a separate public hearing and
execute a 30-day public comment period of their own concerning their individual FY
2006 AAPs. These documents discuss housing and non-housing community
development needs and strategies for the respective Consortium members, and will
address the use of CDBG, HOME and ADDI on a more detailed basis. Contact the
individual cities and towns for information or comments concerning these individual
documents. All pertinent documents may be made available in alternate formats.
Maricopa County does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national
origin, familial circumstance, sex, handicap or age in any of its policies, procedures or
practices. This nondiscrimination policy covers admission and access to or treatment or
employment in Maricopa County Community Development’s programs and activities.
Attendees with disabilities are encouraged to contact Maricopa County Community
Development for any special accommodations required.
Accommodations for Individuals with Disabilities: For assistance, call Maricopa County
Community Development, 3003 North Central, Suite 1040, Phoenix, Arizona 85012,
(602) 240-2210, or TDD/TTY (602) 240-6959. To the extent possible, additional
reasonable accommodations will be made available within time constraints of the
request.
Published in the AZ Business Gazette on Thursday, March 23, 2006.
Public Information Office
News Release
For immediate release: June 19, 2001
For immediate release: March 22, 2006
Contact:
Pier Simeri, Public Information: (623) 932-2400 ext. 213; (623) 764-1658
Janeen K. Gaksins, Grants Administrator: (623) 478-3025
PUBLIC INPUT SOUGHT ON CDBG PLAN
The City of Avondale will hold a public hearing April 3, 2006 to seek input on about how
it plans to distribute affordable housing and community development funds. Each year, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funding to cities to be used in
low to moderate income areas. To receive these funds, each city must complete a report called
the Consolidated Plan. The City of Avondale is currently looking for comments from Avondale
residents that will help provide input for the plan.
This public hearing is scheduled during the regular Avondale City Council meeting
on April 3, 2006. The Council meeting begins at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Building located at
11465 West Civic Center Drive, Avondale.
The CDBG Consolidated Plan prioritizes infrastructure, housing and community
development needs, and provides a framework for which applications for CDBG funds are made.
CDBG funds are revenues provided by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department.
Funds must be applied to low/low-moderate income areas of the community.
The Consolidated Plan also provides guidelines to measure the city’s efforts to meet
identified housing, community development, and infrastructure needs with CDBG and nonCDBG monies in CDBG eligible areas. The proposed plan will be the City of Avondale’s first
Consolidated Plan under the entitlement status. Entitlement status allows the city to receive
funding directly from HUD and also permits the city to have more control over the funding
allocations.
THE CITY OF AVONDALE ENDEAVORS TO MAKE ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS
ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILTIES. With 24 hours advance notice, special
assistance can be provided for sight and/or hearing impaired persons at this meeting. Please call
Janeen Gaskins, Grants Administrator at (623) 478-3025 to request an accommodation to
participate in this public meeting.
Public Forum Attendees
Avondale Consolidated Plan FY2006-2009
Public Forum
March 7, 2006, 6:30 p.m.
Sign-In Sheet
Thank you for attending the FY2006-2009 Consolidated Plan Public Forum.
organization.
NAME
ORGANIZATION
Betty Lynch
City of Avondale
Frank Scott
City of Avondale
Mayor Marie Lopez Rogers
City of Avondale
Sylvia Sheffield
City of Avondale
Jesuita Flores
Self
Gary Brennan
Prehab
Al Carrell
Pearl Carrell
Richard Carlin
Beverly Carlin
Jeff Burdich
Please print your name and
Public Forum Worksheets and Presentation
How would you spend CDBG and HOME dollars?
You have $400,000 to improve housing and/or
community development conditions of residents in Avondale.
Dollars
Activities
Location
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Must add to $400,000!
Total
1
CDBG/HOME ACTIVITIES AND PRIORITIZATION
The following are 16 potential activities that could be undertaken with HOME Investment Partnerships
Program or Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Please identify each activity as
appropriate for high, moderate, low, or no funding.
Please select:
Four activities as high funding
Four activities as moderate funding
Four activities as low funding; and
Four activities as no funding
That is, elect only 4 activities for each Funding Level.
Activity
Funding level
Down payment assistance to prospective homebuyers
High
Moderate
Low
None
Rental subsidies for low-income renters
High
Moderate
Low
None
First time homebuyer education
High
Moderate
Low
None
Infrastructure development in low- and moderate-income areas
(e.g. water, sewer, streets, sidewalks)
High
Moderate
Low
None
Job training
High
Moderate
Low
None
Social services (e.g., youth programs, senior programs, persons
are homeless)
High
Moderate
Low
None
Rehabilitation of existing owner-occupied housing
High
Moderate
Low
None
Construction of new owner-occupied housing
High
Moderate
Low
None
Rehabilitation of existing rental housing
High
Moderate
Low
None
Construction of new rental housing
High
Moderate
Low
None
Construction of emergency or transitional housing
High
Moderate
Low
None
Low interest loans to low-income entrepreneurs or to
retain businesses that employ low-income workers
High
Moderate
Low
None
Crime reduction activities
High
Moderate
Low
None
Building code enforcement to reverse housing deterioration
High
Moderate
Low
None
Land acquisition for economic development
High
Moderate
Low
None
Demolition of substandard structures
High
Moderate
Low
None
2
City of Avondale
FY2006 – 2009 Consolidated Plan
Heidi Aggeler, Director
Laura Doze, Research Associate
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, # 850
Denver, Colorado 80209
800.748.3222
aggeler@bbcresearch.com
ldoze@bbcresearch.com
www.bbcresearch.com
March 7, 2006, 6:30 p.m.
1
Purpose of the Consolidated Plan
In 1995, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) began requiring states and local communities to prepare a
Consolidated Plan in order to receive federal housing and community
development funding.
The purpose of the Consolidated Plan is:

To identify a jurisdiction’s housing and community development
needs, priorities, goals and strategies; and

To stipulate how Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds will
be allocated to housing and community development needs in
the community.
An Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and a plan to
address barriers must also be completed as part of a Consolidated Plan.
2
Objectives of CDBG and
HOME Programs
CDBG

Benefit low- and moderate-income persons

Prevent or eliminate slums or blight

Meet other urgent community development needs
HOME

Allow communities to custom design housing strategies

Strengthen business/government/non-profit partnerships

Build capacity of community-based housing groups
3
CDBG – Eligible Activities

Reconstruction/rehabilitation of homes or other property

Property acquisition for public purposes

Construction of public facilities and improvements

Demolition of property to prepare land for other uses

Provision of employment assistance (e.g., employment
training programs)

Provision of public services for special needs populations,
including youth, persons with disabilities, persons who are
homeless, seniors, victims of domestic violence, persons with
HIV/AIDS
4
CDBG – Eligible Activities (cont.)

Public infrastructure improvements (sidewalks, streets,
water/wastewater systems)

Assistance with special economic development activities for forprofit businesses

Implementation of crime reduction initiatives (e.g., program for
at-risk middle school children, program to remove graffiti)

Assistance to low-income homebuyers in purchasing a home

Enforcement of local building codes to reverse housing
deterioration and blight (i.e., code enforcement salaries)
5
HOME – Eligible Activities

Home purchase or rehabilitation financing for rentals or
homeownership

Construction or rehabilitation of units for rental or
ownership

Site acquisition and improvements

Demolition and relocation expenses

Tenant based rental assistance

Requirements: 25% local match, 15% allocation to local
Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs)
6
What Funding Will the City Receive?
(2006 estimated funding)
CDBG

The City has received CDBG monies in past years from
Maricopa County. This is the first year that Avondale
has been eligible to receive funds directly from HUD.

HUD figures as of January 2006: $473,579 in CDBG
funds.
HOME

The City receives HOME monies through the Maricopa
HOME Consortium.

HUD figures as of December 2005: $143,808 in HOME
funds from the Consortium.
7
Consolidated Plan Research Process

¾ Public forum and comment period
¾ Key person interviews

Telephone survey of Avondale residents

Demographic and socioeconomic analysis

Housing market analysis

Analysis of special needs populations

Four-year strategic plan
8
Telephone Survey Results
The telephone survey was conducted of 194 Avondale residents in
December 2005. The residents were asked about their current housing
situation, community needs and housing discrimination.
Avondale residents are highly satisfied with their current housing
situation. Only 4 percent of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with
their current home or apartment.
Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Current Home

43%
Poor condition
Theft or robbery
in neighborhood
14%
Location is
not convenient
14%
No security
14%
Too small
7%
Other
7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
9
Telephone Survey Results (cont.)
The most common homeownership barrier for renters is not
having enough money for a downpayment and not qualifying
for a mortgage.
Reasons for Not Owning a Home
Not enough money
for a down payment
28%
Cannot qualify
for a mortgage
22%
No houses in my
price range for sale
16%
Cannot afford monthly
mortgage payments
14%
10%
I would prefer to rent
Planning to move
or here temporarily
9%
Uncertain future
or may leave area
2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
10
Housing Condition

Most renters did not need repairs to their units.

Eighty-one percent of renters said their landlords make
repairs promptly when needed.

Of renters needing repairs, the most common repairs
included window/doors, heating/cooling, plumbing,
appliances and roofing.

Only 13 percent of homeowners said there were home
repairs they needed to make. The most needed repair was
flooring, followed by repairs to kitchens, landscaping,
plumbing, roofing and windows/doors.
11
Discrimination

Eight percent of survey respondents said they had
experienced housing discrimination.

Most respondents did not take any action, and instead

53 percent of households were living in Avondale at the time
of the discrimination.
Reason
Don't know
Other
Familial status
Poor/affordability issues
Percentage
40%
20%
13%
13%
7%
7%
12
Respondents were asked to indicate whether their neighborhood was in
need of various types of services. Respondents answered “yes” or “no” to
a list of 8 types of potential community service needs. The results are as
follows:
100%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
4%
4%
13%
80%
30%
46%
50%
50%
60%
64%
71%
59%
70%
35%
28%
28%
26%
Laundromats
Hair salons
40%
66%
53%
49%
20%
0%
Recreation/
Clothing stores
community centers
Restaurants
49%
Parks
Grocery stores/
markets
Banks
Don't Know
No
Neighborhood Needs
Yes
13
How Has the City Spent CDBG Monies?
Since 1978, the city has kept record of the types of projects
funded with CDBG monies from Maricopa County.

46 percent of grant money has been used to fund infrastructure
improvements (e.g. street lighting, expansion of water systems
and street and sidewalk improvements in Cashion and Las Ligas).

31 percent of grant money has been used for housing purposes
(e.g., rehabilitation of housing in Cashion and Las Ligas).

14 percent of grant money has been used for community centers
and parks (e.g., Avondale Community Center and Boys and Girls
Club).
14
How Has the City
Spent CDBG Monies? (cont.)

6 percent of grant money has been used for fire protection
purposes (e.g., fire trucks, fire pumpers and fire stations).

4 percent of grant money has been used for revitalization purposes
(e.g., revitalization of the central business district).

Less than 1 percent of grant money has been used for planning
purposes (e.g., Western Enterprise Communities Consortium).
15
How Has the City Spent HOME funds?

The city has applied for HOME funds 6 out of the last 14
years.

Funds have been primarily provided to Community Housing
Development Organizations (CHDOs), such as
Neighborhood Housing Services and Habitat for Humanity,
for housing purposes such as homebuyers’ assistance
programs and rental programs.
16
Your Turn – Needs & Priorities

What are the greatest needs in your community?

How would you prioritize the city’s activities?
17
What are the Greatest Needs?

What are the greatest housing needs in Avondale? In your
neighborhood?

What are the greatest community development needs in
Avondale? In your neighborhood?
18
Activities and Prioritization
On the worksheet provided, please identify

Four activities that should receive high funding

Four activities that should receive moderate funding

Four activities that should receive low funding

Four activities that should receive no funding
19
What is Fair Housing?
Fair Housing Act (FHA):

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibits
discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of dwellings
based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

Amended in 1988 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of
disability or familial status.

Requires accessibility provisions in certain residential
buildings ready for occupancy after March 1991.
Exemptions from FHA:

Housing developments for seniors, housing strictly reserved
for members of religious organizations or private clubs, and
multifamily housing of four units or less with the owner
occupying one unit.
20
Any Fair Housing Concerns in Your
Community?

Are people discriminated against when trying to find
housing in your community? What happens?

Are there other barriers that prevent people from finding
the housing they need?
21
How to Participate in
the Consolidated Plan Process

Attend more public hearings (see next slide and flyer for schedule)

Send an e-mail to jgaskins@avondale.org

Send a letter to:
Janeen Gaskins
City of Avondale
Avondale, AZ 85323
22
Public Hearing Schedule for
Avondale Consolidated Planning Process
The purpose of the public hearings listed below is to receive
comments on the Draft Consolidated Plan. BBC will present findings
to City Council and there will be opportunity for the public to
comment.
April 3, 2006
Avondale City Hall
7:00 p.m.
April 17, 2006
Avondale City Hall
7:00 p.m.
23
Next Steps

Public Comment Period: April 1 to May 1, 2006

Plan submitted to HUD: May 15, 2006

HUD review period: May 15 to July 15, 2006

Changes made to Plan after HUD review, if needed: July 2006

Resubmit Plan to HUD, if needed: July 2006

City Council approval of Plan: July/August 2006
24
Public Hearing Presentation
and Council Resolutions
City of Avondale
FY2006 – 2009 Consolidated Plan
Heidi Aggeler, Director
Laura Doze, Research Associate
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, # 850
Denver, Colorado 80209
800.748.3222
aggeler@bbcresearch.com
ldoze@bbcresearch.com
www.bbcresearch.com
April 3, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
1
Agenda

Background on Consolidated Plan

Demographic Data

Housing Market Data

Recommended Strategies
2
Purpose of the Consolidated Plan
In 1995, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) began requiring states and local communities to prepare a
Consolidated Plan in order to receive federal housing and community
development funding.
The purpose of the Consolidated Plan is:

To identify a jurisdiction’s housing and community development
needs, priorities, goals and strategies; and

To stipulate how Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds will
be allocated to housing and community development needs in
the community.
An Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and a plan to
address barriers must also be completed as part of a Consolidated Plan.
3
What Does the City Expect to Receive?
CDBG funding for FY2006 = $473,579
HOME funding for FY2006 = $143,808
American Dream Downpayment Initiative = $3,773
Past Uses of CDBG

46 percent – infrastructure improvements (e.g., streets and sidewalks).

31 percent – housing purposes (e.g., rehabilitation of housing).

14 percent – community centers and parks (e.g., Avondale Community
Center and Boys and Girls Club).

6 percent – fire protection (e.g., fire trucks).

4 percent – revitalization purposes (e.g., revitalization of the central
business district).
Past Uses of HOME

Funds provided to Community Housing Development Organizations
(CHDOs), such as Habitat for Humanity, for housing purposes (e.g.,
homebuyers assistance programs and rental programs).
4
Consolidated Plan Research Process

¾ Public forum, public hearings and 30-day
comment period
¾ Key person interviews

Telephone survey of Avondale residents

Demographic and socioeconomic analysis

Housing market analysis

Analysis of special needs populations

Four-year strategic plan
5
Population and
Household Characteristics

Avondale’s population growth has been very rapid.
¾ From 1990 to 2000, the population in the City
increased by approximately 1,963 persons per year.
In comparison, from 2000 to 2005, 5,460 people
were added to the City each year.

Persons living in poverty in 2000: 13.8 percent of the
population (4,941 persons).

Persons with a disability in 2000: 16 percent of the total
population (5,199 persons).

The elderly population (65 years +): 5 percent of the
population in 2000 (1,790 persons). By comparison,
seniors were 12 percent of the population in the Phoenix
PMSA and Maricopa County.

Avondale is a young City: 34 percent of the population in
2000 was 17 years of age or younger.
6
Housing Age
Both renter and owner occupied housing stock in the City is
quite new. Fifty-five percent of the owner occupied units were
built over the last 5 years. Similarly, 44 percent of the rental
units were built from 2000 to 2005.
Owner occupied
No. of
Units
1939 or earlier
1940-1949
1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990 - March 2000
April 2000 - 2005
Total
Percent
of Total
Renter occupied
No. of
Units
Percent
of Total
45
157
417
473
892
1,142
5,119
9,942
0%
1%
2%
3%
5%
6%
28%
55%
33
147
304
252
512
653
489
1,844
1%
3%
7%
6%
12%
15%
12%
44%
18,187
100%
4,234
100%
7
Price Trends of Single Family Homes
Since 2000, there has been a significant increase in the price of
single family homes. The proportion of homes sold for less than
$100,000 declined by 16 percentage points from 2000 to 2005.
100%
7%
5%
7%
10%
16%
$200,000 to $299,999
80%
83%
60%
76%
88%
87%
$100,000 to $199,999
86%
40%
82%
20%
Less than $100,000
17%
0%
2000
23%
7%
6%
4%
2001
2002
2003
2%
2004
1%
2005
8
Housing for Low-Income Households

The percentage of homes affordable to low-income
households has declined dramatically since 2000. At the
peak in 2001, 24 percent of homes sold were affordable to
households earning between 51 and 80 percent of the MFI;
however, in 2005, this proportion had decreased to a mere
2 percent.

Akin to single family prices, rental prices have increased
more than modestly since 2000.
¾ According to Census data, in 2000, the median
contract rent (excluding utilities) was $491. Rental
data obtained from BBC’s telephone survey
estimated a median rent of $872, as of January 2006.
This suggests that since 2000, the median price of
rental units has increased by 78 percent.
9
Discrimination

Eight percent of survey respondents said they had
experienced housing discrimination.

Most respondents did not take any action, and instead

53 percent of households were living in Avondale at the time
of the discrimination.
Reason
Don't know
Other
Familial status
Poor/affordability issues
Percentage
40%
20%
13%
13%
7%
7%
10
Respondents were asked to indicate whether their neighborhood was in
need of various types of services. Respondents answered “yes” or “no” to
a list of 8 types of potential community service needs. The results are as
follows:
100%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
4%
4%
13%
80%
30%
46%
50%
50%
60%
64%
71%
59%
70%
35%
28%
28%
26%
Laundromats
Hair salons
40%
66%
53%
49%
20%
0%
Recreation/
Clothing stores
community centers
Restaurants
49%
Parks
Grocery stores/
markets
Banks
Don't Know
No
Neighborhood Needs
Yes
11
Recommended Strategy 1
Preserve the existing affordable housing stock.

Continue to pursue HOME funds through the Maricopa
HOME Consortium, which have been distributed to
organizations that provide housing rehabilitation programs
in previous years.

Continue thorough code enforcement procedures to assist
homeowners in bringing units up to code.

Continue to offer the Residential Incentives Infill Program,
which encourages development of residential uses in areas
of the City that are vacant or underutilized through reduced
fees and priority plan review.
12
Improve public infrastructure and economic conditions in
low-income economically-challenged neighborhoods.

Improve sidewalks, streets and street lighting in targeted
low- to moderate-income Block Groups.

Continue to offer the Commercial Incentives Infill
Program in Old Town Avondale, which encourages
commercial development in vacant or otherwise
underutilized areas through reduced fees, priority plan
review and sales tax rebates.

13
Support organizations that assist the City’s special needs
population.

In addition to CDBG grants, continue to offer the
Contributions Assistance Program (CAP), as financially
feasible, which awards General Fund monies to health
and human service organizations.

Continue programs that assist special needs populations
through the City’s Social Services Division.

Increase support to organizations that specifically provide
activities and programs for at-risk youth.

Continue to supply emergency funding through the
Community Action Program for renter households in
jeopardy of being evicted.
14
Improve the City’s ability to address fair housing issues.

Increase all applicable City department staff’s awareness
and knowledge of fair housing issues.

Increase residents’ awareness and knowledge of fair
housing issues by posting information on the City’s
website. The page should also give clear details about
consumers’ options for filing complaints, about following
complain procedures and it should also contain
appropriate links to complaint forms on HUD’s and/or the
Arizona Fair Housing Center’s website.

Explore possibilities of increased landlord/tenant training
on the Fair Housing Act, and continue to be involved in
the West Valley Fair Housing Seminar.

Assist the elderly and disabled with bringing units up to
City code.
15
Increase homeownership within Avondale.

Continue to provide a first time homebuyers program and
downpayment assistance through the Individual
Development Account Program, available through the
City’s Social Services Division.

Explore the use of the American Dream Downpayment
Initiative (ADDI) program for downpayment assistance, in
conjunction with the Individual Development Account
Program.
16
Proposed Allocation of CDBG Funds
Total funding = $473,579

$200,000 for street and sidewalk repairs

$138,863 for homeownership assistance, home
rehabilitation and creation of affordable housing

$40,000 for public services

$94,716 for administrative costs
17
Recommended Fair Housing Strategies
1)
The City should provide easily accessible information
regarding the Fair Housing Act and what to do in the
event of housing discrimination (e.g., provide
information on the City’s website).
2)
The City should improve awareness of fair housing issues
(e.g., post fliers in the Civic Center).
3)
The City should invest in programs that assist special
needs population with fair housing issues (e.g., assist
elderly and disabled with bringing units up to code).
4)
The City should consider taking a more active approach
to affordable housing development and consider revising
City policies that are potential affordable housing barriers
(e.g., consider reducing minimum lot size).
18
How to Comment
on the Consolidated Plan

Send an e-mail to jgaskins@avondale.org

Attend the next public hearing:
April 17, 2006
Avondale City Hall
7:00 p.m.

Send a letter to:
Janeen Gaskins
City of Avondale
Avondale, AZ 85323
19
Public Comments
To be added to final Consolidated Plan.
SECTION IV.
SECTION IV.
Introduction
This section contains an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice in Avondale. This includes an
analysis of data that highlight fair lending concerns; a review of legal cases; a review of City code, zoning
regulations and the Master Plan; and citizen input about fair housing issues. Finally, the section
concludes with a Fair Housing Action Plan that suggests strategies to promote fair housing.
Summary Findings
This analysis of fair housing in the City of Avondale identified the following fair housing concerns:
Eight percent of Avondale residents reported experiencing housing discrimination; most
discriminatory incidences were related to race/ethnicity. Avondale residents who had
experienced housing discrimination were not informed about their options for reporting the
discrimination. Most did nothing or moved to get away from the discriminatory activities.
The City’s resources available for fair housing are not transparent and easily accessible,
which may contribute to residents’ lack of awareness.
In general, White applicants had the lowest loan denial rates across all loan types. Denial
rates for African American and Hispanic applicants were the highest among all races and
ethnicities.
The City’s zoning and code ordinances potentially discourage higher density residential
development due to the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet. The City also
has fairly strict landscaping requirements, which increases the cost of housing.
Due to a recent legal case in Sedona, Arizona, the City should review the conditional use
permitting process for group homes.
The City’s General Plan acknowledges the need and importance of affordable housing and
housing rehabilitation in the City. The Master Plan’s housing goals strive to incorporate all
levels of housing to create options for households of varying income levels.
S ECTION IV , P AGE 1
Given these concerns and potential barriers to fair housing in Avondale, the following actions are
recommended. More detail on these strategies is discussed at the end of this section in the Fair
Housing Action Plan.
Strategy 3: The City should invest in programs that assist special needs populations with fair
housing issues.
Strategy 4: The City should consider taking a more active approach to affordable housing
development and consider revising City policies that are potentially affordable housing
barriers.
Analysis of Impediments Background
The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) mandated review of impediments to fair housing choice in the public and private
sector. The AI is required for the City of Avondale to receive federal housing and community
1
development block grant funding.
The AI involves:
A review of a City’s laws, regulations, and administrative policies, procedures and practices;
An assessment of how those laws, policies and practices affect the location, availability and
accessibility of housing; and
An assessment of public and private sector conditions affecting fair housing choice.
According to HUD, impediments to fair housing choice are:
Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability,
familial status or national origin that restrict housing choices or the availability of housing
choices.
Any actions, omissions or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices or the
availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial
status or national origin.
1
The City is also required to submit a Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and an annual performance
report to receive funding each year.
Although the AI itself is not directly approved or denied by HUD, its submission is a required
component of a city’s or state’s Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development
(Consolidated Plan) performance reporting. HUD desires that AIs:
Serve as the substantive, logical basis for fair housing planning;
Provide essential and detailed information to policy makers, administrative staff, housing
providers, lenders, and fair housing advocates; and
Assist in building public support for fair housing efforts both within a city’s boundaries and
beyond.
Fair Housing Act. The Federal Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 and amended in 1988, prohibits
discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender/sex, familial status
and disability. The Fair Housing Act covers most types of housing including rental housing, home sales,
mortgage and home improvement lending, and land use and zoning. Excluded from the Act are owneroccupied buildings with no more than four units, single family housing units sold or rented without the
use of a real estate agent or broker, housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit
2
occupancy to members, and housing for older persons .
HUD has the primary authority for enforcing the Federal Fair Housing Act. HUD investigates the
complaints and determines if there is a “reasonable cause” to believe that discrimination occurred. If
reasonable cause is established, HUD brings the complaint before an Administrative Law Judge. Parties to
the action can also elect to have the trial held in a federal court (in which case the Department of Justice
3
brings the claim on behalf of the plaintiff) .
Community profile. The community and housing needs analysis for the AI was completed in
conjunction with that required for the Consolidated Plan. Please refer to Section II of the Consolidated
Plan for an analysis of socioeconomic and housing market conditions in the City, which provides a
context for the fair housing analysis. In particular, Section II contains information on the concentration
of households by race and ethnicity and provides statistics on the number of large households (more than
5 persons), female-headed households, and persons with disabilities in the City. Large households can
have more difficulty finding housing – particularly affordable rental housing – due to a lack of supply.
Female headed households and large households are also at greater risk of experiencing housing
discrimination based on familial status. Persons with disabilities face some of the greatest barriers to
finding adequate housing, since they often require housing that has accessibility features, is near public
transit, and is affordable. Persons with disabilities are also at high risk of experiencing housing
discrimination. An analysis of minority and income concentration in the City of Avondale did not raise
any fair housing concerns.
2
“How Much Do We Know? Public Awareness of the Nation’s Fair Housing Laws”, The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Office of Policy and Research, April 2002.
3
Ibid.
Fair Lending Analysis
Data and methodology. Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) ratings and Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA) data are commonly used in AIs to examine fair lending practices within a
jurisdiction. Fair housing complaint data are important to pinpoint the types of discrimination that are
most prevalent and detect improvements or deterioration in fair housing conditions. Used in
conjunction, these data sets can identify and then diagnose the reason for potential or existing housing
discrimination. Each data set is reviewed in turn below.
CRA review. The CRA requires that financial institutions progressively seek to enhance community
development within the area they serve. On a regular basis, financial institutions submit information
about mortgage loan applications as well as materials documenting their community development
activities. The records are reviewed to determine if the institution satisfied CRA requirements. The
assessment includes a review of records as related to the following:
Commitment to evaluating and servicing community credit needs;
Offering and marketing various credit programs;
Record of opening and closing of offices;
Discrimination and other illegal credit practices; and
Community development initiatives.
The data are evaluated and a rating for each institution is determined. Ratings for institutions range from
substantial noncompliance in meeting credit needs to an outstanding record of meeting community
needs. In the City of Avondale, there is only one financial institution for which CRA ratings are reported.
Although there are national banks that have branches in Avondale, CRA reviews are only conducted at
branch headquarters, the majority of which are located in Phoenix. The sole financial institution with a
CRA rating in Avondale, Columbia Bank, received a satisfactory rating during the last review in 1991.
Avondale residents are also likely to bank with institutions in surrounding areas, including Phoenix.
Exhibit IV-1 shows the CRA Ratings for 71 examinations of 31 financial institutions subject to CRA in
Avondale and Phoenix, as of February 2006.
Exhibit IV-1.
CRA Ratings, Avondale
and Phoenix, February
2006
Rating
Number of
Institutions
Percent
Note:
Outstanding
13
18%
Some banks have been examined more than
once.
Satisfactory
55
77%
Source:
FFIEC Interagency CRA Rating, February 2006.
Needs Improvement
3
4%
Noncompliance
0
0%
As shown in the exhibit, just over three-quarters of the institutions in Phoenix currently have a rating of
satisfactory, and eighteen percent are rated outstanding. Regulators apply a code from one through four
to measure CRA ratings, with one being equivalent to an outstanding rating and four being equivalent to
substantial noncompliant. The average rating for institutions in Phoenix is 1.86, or slightly better than
Satisfactory.
In recent years, the significance of CRA ratings in measuring community investment has been questioned
by many involved in local community development. As the financial condition of banks has improved,
audits have become less frequent, so CRA ratings are not always a recent measure of community
investment performance. Furthermore, the audit procedures required to measure CRA compliance are
not as comprehensive as might be required to fully understand an institutions’ performance. Finally, with
the expansion of online lending and bank mergers, measures of local lending have become less important
in measuring local access to credit. Therefore, it is important to examine other lending data along with
the CRA data when considering the performance of lending institutions.
HMDA Data Analysis
HMDA data consist of information about mortgage loan applications for financial institutions, savings
4
and loans, savings banks, credit unions and some mortgage companies. The data contain information
about the location, dollar amount, and types of loans made, as well as racial and ethnic information,
income, and credit characteristics of all loan applicants. The data are available for home purchases, loan
refinances, and home improvement loans.
HMDA data can provide a picture of how different applicant types fare in the mortgage lending process.
These data can be used to identify areas of potential concern that may warrant further investigations. For
example, by comparing loan approval rates of minority applicants with non-minorities who have similar
income and credit characteristics, areas of potential discrimination may be detected.
The Federal Reserve is the primary regulator of compliance with fair lending regulations. When federal
regulators examine financial institutions, they use HMDA data to determine if applicants of a certain
gender, race or ethnicity are rejected at statistically significant higher rates than applicants with other
characteristics. The Federal Reserve uses a combination of sophisticated statistical modeling and loan file
sampling and review to detect lending discrimination.
HMDA data are not available at the city level. Data are available by state, county, Metropolitan Statistical
Area and Census Tract. To accurately represent the geographic boundaries of the City of Avondale, the
HMDA data presented in this section have been aggregated for the 12 Census Tracts comprising the City
of Avondale, as of the 2000 Census. The data include Census Tracts that are both partially and fully
contained within the city limits of Avondale. Therefore, a portion of the loan applicants were not actually
Avondale residents, but residents of other cities or the unincorporated county living in the same Census
Tract as residents to Avondale. For ease of written communication, however, the HMDA data for the 12
Census Tracts will be referred to throughout this section as results for the City of Avondale.
Loan applications and action taken. The most recent HMDA data available are for the 2004
calendar year. During 2004, there were 18,895 loan applications made in Avondale for owner-occupied
home purchases, refinances or home improvements. Forty-seven percent of these applications consisted of
refinances, with an additional 40 percent made up of conventional home purchase loans and the balance
of 13 percent comprised of government guaranteed home purchase and home improvement loan
4
Financial institutions are required to report HMDA data if they have assets of more than $32 million, have a branch office in a
metropolitan area, and originated at least one home purchase or refinance loan in the reporting calendar year. Mortgage
companies are required to report HMDA if they are for-profit institutions, had home purchase loan originations exceeding 10
percent of all loan obligations in the past year, are located in an MSA (or originated five or more home purchase loans in an
MSA) and either had more than $10 million in assets or made at least 100 home purchase or refinance loans in the calendar year.
applications. Exhibit IV-2 shows total loan applications during 2004 by loan type (government,
conventional, refinance, home improvement), loan purpose, and action taken on the loan.
Exhibit IV-2.
Loan Applications Received by Loan Type, Avondale, 2004
Conventional
Home Purchase
Refinances
1,032
7,511
8,890
1,462
67%
68%
45%
29%
4%
9%
10%
12%
Denied
13%
11%
25%
47%
Withdrawn
Determined incomplete
14%
1%
10%
1%
13%
7%
9%
3%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Avondale
Government Guaranteed
Home Purchase
Total loan applications
Loan originated
Approved, not accepted
Total
Note:
Does not include loans for multifamily properties or non-occupants.
Source:
FFIEC 2004 HMDA Raw Data and BBC Research & Consulting.
Home
Improvement
As shown above, 67 percent of the applications for government guaranteed loans were originated and 13
percent of these applications were denied. The success rate was slightly higher for conventional loans,
originated 68 percent of the time. Refinance loans were originated for 45 percent of the applicants and
home improvement loans for 29 percent of applicants.
Average loan amounts by race and ethnicity. Exhibit IV-3 shows the average loan amounts by
loan purpose (purchase, improvement, or refinance) and race and ethnicity. In general, Hispanic
applicants requested lower dollar amounts than other racial and ethnic categories.
Exhibit IV-3.
Average Applicant Loan Amount by Race and Ethnicity, Avondale, 2004
Home
Home
Purchase
Refinance
$120,909
$144,178
Improvement
Race
American Indian or Alaskan Native
$51,600
Asian
$143,468
$142,759
$38,105
$137,911
$152,284
$46,035
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
$130,302
$137,432
$34,143
White
$147,573
$146,935
$41,968
Not Available
$137,310
$140,111
$60,861
Hispanic or Latino
$124,266
$125,084
$35,021
$145,576
$147,302
$42,318
Ethnicity
Note:
Does not include loans for multifamily properties or non-occupants.
Source:
FFIEC 2004 HMDA Raw Data and BBC Research & Consulting
Denial rates by race and income. Exhibit IV-4 on page 8 presents denial rates by race and ethnicity,
categorized by income level and loan type for Avondale. It is important to note that for the racial groups
American Indian/Alaskan Native and Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, the numbers of loan applications were
relatively small. As such, caution should be used in interpreting data about these racial and ethnic groups.
Government guaranteed loans. For government guaranteed home purchase loans, Asians had the
highest denial rate (21 percent) followed by Hispanic applicants at 17 percent and African American
applicants at 16 percent. The remaining racial groups’ denial rates were either 9 or 10 percent.
By income category, low-income American Indian/Alaskan Native applicants applying for government
guaranteed loans had the highest denial rate; 50 percent of these applicants were denied loans. For
applicants earning 80 percent or more of median family income, Asians had the highest denial rate (20
percent) and American Indian/Alaskan Natives applicants had the lowest denial rate of 0 percent.
Conventional loans. For conventional home purchase loans, African American applicants experienced
the highest denial rate at 22 percent, followed by Hispanic applicants and applicants where race
information was not available, both at 15 percent. White and Native Hawaiian applicants had the lowest
denial rates of 8 percent and 9 percent, respectively. American Indian/Alaskan Native and Asian
applicants fell in the middle of the distribution at 13 percent and 10 percent, respectively.
Refinance loans. For applicants desiring to refinance, American Indian/Alaskan Natives had the highest
denial rate of 43 percent followed by applicants whose race was not available (36 percent). White
applicants had the lowest denial rate of 20 percent. Denial rates for all other races and ethnicities were
quite similar: Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders and Asians at 24 percent; Hispanics at 27 percent; and
African Americans at 28 percent.
Among low-income refinance applicants, American Indian/Alaskan Native applicants had the highest
denial rates of 60 percent and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander applicants had the lowest denial rate of
25 percent. Among higher income applicants, American Indian/Alaskan Natives had the highest denial
rates (35 percent) and Asian and White applicants had the lowest rate of denial, 17 percent and 18
percent, respectively.
Home improvement loans. The low-income applicants in every racial and ethnic category applying for
home improvement loans were denied loans at rates of 50 percent or more. Overall, African American
applicants had the highest denial rate of 57 percent while Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders and
American Indian/Alaskan Native applicants had the lowest denial rate of 40 percent.
In general, White applicants had the lowest loan denial rates across loan types. Denial rates for African
American and Hispanic applicants were the highest across loan types.
Exhibit IV-4.
Mortgage Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity and Income, Avondale, 2004
Government Guaranteed Home Purchases
Race/Ethnicity
African American
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Hispanic
White
Not Available
Low Income
Applicants
(<80% of Median)
27%
50%
22%
16%
0%
13%
15%
Moderate, Middle and
Upper Income Applicants
(80% of Median or Greater)
10%
0%
20%
17%
14%
7%
6%
Conventional Home Purchases
Total
Applicants
16%
10%
21%
17%
9%
9%
10%
Low Income
Applicants
(<80% of Median)
20%
18%
15%
19%
15%
11%
21%
Refinances
Race/Ethnicity
African American
Asian
Hispanic
White
Not Available
Source:
Low Income
Applicants
(<80% of Median)
39%
60%
45%
32%
25%
28%
44%
24%
35%
17%
24%
24%
18%
32%
22%
10%
9%
13%
8%
7%
13%
Total
Applicants
22%
13%
10%
15%
9%
8%
15%
Home Improvement Loans
Total
Applicants
28%
43%
24%
27%
24%
20%
36%
Low Income
Applicants
(<80% of Median)
62%
67%
50%
61%
100%
53%
58%
56%
29%
44%
49%
25%
42%
45%
Total
Applicants
57%
40%
44%
54%
40%
44%
48%
S ECTION IV , PAGE 8
Approval rates by minority concentration. Exhibit IV-5 below examines the disposition of loan
applications from different Census Tracts in Avondale in 2004. The tracts are grouped by proportion of
minority residents. The HMDA data show that origination rates are similar across tracts with and
without minority concentration. Although there is some decrease in origination rates as minority
concentration increase, the magnitude is small.
Exhibit IV-5.
Loan Disposition by Minority Concentration, All Loan Types, Avondale, 2004
Less than
10% Minority
Total loan applications
Loan originated
10% to 19%
Minority
20% to 49%
Minority
50% to 79%
Minority
80% to 100%
Minority
0
2,934
9,428
4,354
2,115
0%
60%
55%
48%
54%
Approved, not accepted
0%
8%
10%
10%
9%
Denied
0%
17%
20%
24%
21%
Withdrawn
Determined incomplete
0%
0%
10%
5%
11%
4%
14%
4%
13%
3%
Total
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Source:
Denial ratios. Another indicator of access to credit is the ratio of loans denied to loans originated. A
higher ratio indicates more loan denials. Exhibit IV-6 shows the ratio of loans denied to loans originated
by race and ethnicity. As demonstrated in the exhibit, non-Whites (other than Native Hawaiians/Pacific
Islanders and Asians) have higher denial ratios than Whites and non-Hispanics.
Exhibit IV-6.
Ratio of Loans Denied to
Loans Originated by Race
and Ethnicity, Avondale,
2004
Note:
Does not include loans for multifamily
properties or non-occupants.
Denial Ratio
Total applicants
0.39
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native
0.62
Asian
0.27
Source:
0.49
FFIEC 2004 HMDA Raw Data and BBC
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0.26
White
0.26
Not Available
0.83
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
0.42
0.29
Denial rate by Census Tract. A further examination of loan approvals by race/ethnicity is provided in
Exhibits IV-7 and IV-8. As seen in the maps in the exhibits, Census Tracts with high percentages of
minorities tend to have above average denial rates. The yellow lines in the exhibits designate Census
Tracts with concentrations of minority populations.
Exhibit IV-7.
Percent of Conventional Home Mortgage Loans Denied, 2004
Note:
Census Tracts where minority populations exceed 50 percent of the population fall within the yellow outline (Census Tracts 612, 614, 822.01, 822.02,
7233.02 and 820.15). Census Tract 820.15 highlighted green does not contain any households at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census. Therefore, this
Census Tract has been excluded from the mapping categories.
Source:
Exhibit IV-8.
Percent of Home Improvement Loans Denied, 2004
Note:
Census Tracts where minority populations exceed 50 percent of the population fall within the yellow outline (Census Tracts 612, 614, 822.01, 822.02,
7233.02 and 820.15). Census Tract 820.15 highlighted green does not contain any households at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census. Therefore, this
Census Tract has been excluded from the mapping categories.
Source:
As shown in the maps, the areas with the highest denial rates are also areas with the highest minority
concentrations. The Census Tracts outlined in yellow all have minority populations that exceed 50
percent of the population. Census Tract 822.02 has the highest percentage of minority population, 87
percent, and also had the highest denial rate of 58 percent for home improvement loans. The minority
percentage and denial rate for home improvement loans in this Census Tract is much higher than the
overall average minority proportion (51 percent) and average denial rate (48 percent).
Approval rates by gender and income. Exhibit IV-9 shows denial rates for all types of loan
applications by gender and income.
Exhibit IV-9.
Loan Denials by Gender and Income, All Loan Types, Avondale, 2004
0% to 49% of MFI
50% to 79% of MFI
80% to 99% of MFI
100% to 119% of MFI
120% of MFI +
Totals
Total Loan
Applications
Male
Female
Joint
Not
Available
All
Applicants
1,135
3,773
2,801
2,766
6,370
16,845
40%
25%
22%
20%
19%
24%
37%
22%
14%
17%
17%
20%
33%
22%
23%
20%
17%
19%
47%
29%
31%
29%
22%
28%
38%
24%
21%
20%
18%
21%
Note:
MFI is median family income. The FFIEC uses the MFI for the Phoenix-Mesa PMSA as reported by HUD.
Source:
As would be expected, denial rates decline as incomes rise. Female applicants have a lower denial rate in
every income category than do male applicants. The most noteworthy difference is male applicants
earning 80 to 99 percent of median family income; male applicants have a denial rate 8 percentage points
higher than female applicants of the same income level. However, the denial rates between male, female
and joint applicants are not different enough to suggest gender discrimination in loan approvals.
Reasons for denial. HMDA data also contain summary information on the reasons for denial by type of
loan and applicant characteristics, which can help explain some of the variation in approval rates. Exhibits
IV-10 and IV-11 on the following pages show the reasons for denials of 2004 loan applications by race,
gender, and income for government insured and conventional home purchase loans. The numbers in
boldface type represent the most common reason for denial for each group of applicants.
Exhibit IV-10.
Reasons for Denial of Loan Applications for Government Guaranteed Home Purchase Loans, by Race, Gender and Income of Applicant,
Avondale, 2004
Debt-toIncome Ratio
Employment
History
RACE
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
White
Race not available
22%
0%
40%
24%
50%
16%
21%
0%
0%
0%
11%
0%
8%
0%
GENDER
Male
Female
Joint
Gender not available
24%
21%
18%
20%
INCOME
Less than 50% of MFI
50% to 79% of MFI
80% to 99% of MFI
100% to 119% of MFI
120% or more of MFI
Income not available
33%
22%
14%
8%
23%
33%
Source:
Credit
History
Unverifiable
Information
Credit
Application
Incomplete
Mortgage
Insurance
Denied
Other
Total
Collateral
Insufficient
Cash
0%
100%
40%
36%
50%
43%
14%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
20%
4%
0%
4%
7%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
4%
7%
78%
0%
0%
11%
0%
10%
36%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
0%
10%
14%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
6%
14%
0%
47%
36%
40%
20%
3%
0%
2%
0%
6%
6%
2%
20%
6%
6%
0%
0%
12%
12%
10%
40%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
12%
14%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
7%
5%
11%
0%
15%
0%
15%
41%
54%
46%
46%
67%
4%
0%
0%
8%
0%
0%
11%
2%
4%
8%
0%
0%
4%
2%
0%
0%
8%
0%
19%
12%
7%
15%
8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
15%
11%
15%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Exhibit IV-11.
Reasons for Denial of Loan Applications for Conventional Home Purchase Loans, by Race, Gender and Income of Applicant, Avondale, 2004
Debt-toIncome Ratio
Employment
History
Credit
History
Collateral
Insufficient
Cash
Unverifiable
Information
Credit
Application
Incomplete
Mortgage
Insurance
Denied
Other
Total
RACE
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
White
Race not available
6%
0%
17%
15%
33%
16%
12%
2%
0%
6%
5%
0%
2%
5%
22%
33%
6%
22%
0%
24%
25%
10%
0%
6%
4%
0%
6%
5%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
5%
4%
4%
0%
11%
6%
33%
7%
2%
10%
0%
28%
8%
0%
12%
18%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
45%
67%
28%
33%
33%
29%
30%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENDER
Male
Female
Joint
Gender not available
16%
17%
13%
11%
5%
4%
2%
2%
21%
20%
23%
28%
7%
2%
6%
4%
6%
6%
4%
4%
8%
2%
6%
2%
7%
16%
11%
23%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
33%
34%
28%
100%
100%
100%
100%
INCOME
Less than 50% of MFI
50% to 79% of MFI
80% to 99% of MFI
100% to 119% of MFI
120% or more of MFI
Income not available
31%
16%
8%
12%
11%
10%
3%
4%
2%
7%
2%
8%
22%
27%
26%
22%
19%
18%
4%
5%
6%
3%
7%
5%
4%
8%
4%
4%
5%
0%
2%
2%
2%
8%
11%
5%
8%
9%
11%
8%
14%
30%
0%
24%
29%
41%
34%
31%
25%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Source:
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
As demonstrated in the exhibits, poor credit history was the major reason for government guaranteed
loan application denials across race, gender, loan type, and income category. For conventional home
purchase loans, the “other” category was the primary reason for loan denial followed by poor credit
history. “Other” reasons for loan denial include length of residency and homes that serve as a
temporary residence.
Key Person Interviews
As part of the City’s fair housing analysis, key people who are knowledgeable about mortgage and
home improvement lending transactions in the City of Avondale were interviewed. These individuals
identified several fair lending concerns, which are discussed in turn below.
Foreclosure risks. There is a concern that mortgage lenders may be approving home loans to
higher risk borrowers, therefore increasing the possibility of foreclosure, and a concern that
homebuyers are experiencing predatory lending.
Predatory lending. Interviewees who work with Avondale citizens who need debt management and
credit counseling services pointed to a variety of fair lending concerns. There is concern that lenders
“over qualify” borrowers and allow them to purchase houses with mortgages that they cannot afford,
on top of existing expenses. The Arizona Department of Housing cited two cases of foreclosure due
to over qualification at the time of their interview.
What can be done to combat predatory lending? Numerous interviewees cited that the greatest
barrier to fair housing is the lack of education of homebuyers and housing professionals. Interviewees
emphasized the need for education and outreach activities such as: outreach to recent immigrants in
their native language; financial literacy training for families; providing homeowners with videos on
predatory lending; and personally counseling families who are considering predatory loans. The
Arizona Department of Housing is already engaged in all of the mentioned steps to combat predatory
lending. However, such activities are needed at the local level as well as at the state level.
Fair Housing Complaint Data
Citizens of Avondale who believe they have experienced discrimination may report their complaints
to the following entities: HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Opportunity (FHEO), the Arizona
Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division and the Arizona Fair Housing Center.
As part of the AI, each of these organizations were contacted and requested to provide summary
information about cases that had been filed by or against organizations or residents in Avondale.
HUD provided a list of complaints filed with the department between 1998 and 2005, provided the
basis of the complaints, and provided the type of organization the complaints were filed against.
According to HUD, there were 2 complaints filed in Avondale between 1998 and December 2005.
One complaint was issued against a mobile home park based on national origin. The case was closed
in July of 2000 with a determination of no reasonable cause. The other complaint was filed against
an apartment complex and based on physical disability. The case was closed in May of 2004 with a
successful conciliation.
The Arizona Fair Housing Center located in Phoenix, is a nonprofit fair housing agency that receives
CDBG funding from HUD to investigate complaints. Complaints can be filed by completing a form
available online at http://www.azfairhousing.com/pdf/complaint.pdf and faxing the form to 602548-1695.
Housing discrimination complaints filed with HUD may be done online at
(http://www.hud.gov/complaints/housediscrim.cfm), toll free at 1-800-669-9777, or by contacting
the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in Washington D.C.
When a complaint is received by HUD, HUD will notify the person who filed the complaint and
will normally notify the alleged violator and allow that person to submit a response. The complaint
will be investigated to determine whether there has been a violation of the Fair Housing Act.
A complaint may be resolved in a number of ways. First, HUD will try to reach an agreement
between the two parties involved. A conciliation agreement must protect the filer of the complaint
and the public interest. If an agreement is signed, HUD will take no further action unless the
agreement has been breached. HUD will then recommend that the Attorney General file suit.
If HUD has determined that a state or local agency has the same housing powers (“substantial
equivalency”) as HUD, they will refer the complaint to that agency and will notify the complainant
of the referral. The agency must begin work on the complaint within 30 days or HUD may take it
back. If, during the investigative, review, and legal process, HUD finds that discrimination has
occurred, the case will be heard in an administrative hearing within 120 days, unless either party
prefers the case to be heard in Federal district court.
Legal Cases
As part of the AI, recent legal cases were reviewed to determine significant fair housing issues and
trends in Avondale, the Metroplex and surrounding areas in Arizona. This section summarizes the
issues in each case that either occurred or had activity within the past ten years.
Legal cases in the Phoenix Metroplex. Several cases were located within the boundaries of the
City of Phoenix and in the surrounding areas near the City of Avondale. The majority of the cases
alleged discrimination based on familial status under the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act,
and/or the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Other cases discussed below involved
disability discrimination and discrimination based on race and national origin.
Rodriguez v. Chasteen (2001). Mr. Rodriguez contacted the Arizona Fair Housing Center (AFHC)
when he attempted to rent an apartment at Carol Mary Apartments in downtown Phoenix and was
told that children were not accepted at the complex for safety reasons. The AFHC investigated the
complaint by sending testers to the site. Test applicants with children were told that no units were
available, while applicants without children were told there were vacancies and encouraged to apply.
In June 2001, the AFHC and Mr. Rodriguez filed a lawsuit against Carol Mary Apartments alleging
familial status discrimination. In June 2003, the owner of the complex chose to settle out of court.
Ms. Chasteen, the owner of the apartment complex, had to submit to fair housing monitoring under
5
the Fair Housing Center and had to pay $11,000 to the Rodriguez family.
5
National Fair Housing Advocate Online, case database, http://www.fairhousing.com/
Ector v. Griffis & Blessing, Inc. and Daniels (1997). Mr. Ector, an African American man, claimed
that he was evicted from his apartment in Mesa, Arizona, because he dated White women. Mr. Ector
proceeded to pay his rent at Epernay Apartments in 1997 when the rental manager asked him if he
dated White women. Ector answered “yes” and later on that day he received an obscene note on his
door about interracial relationships. Ector filed a complaint with the apartment owners but received
no response. Later on in 1997, Ector decided not to renew his lease for a year, but to pay on a
month-to-month basis. Soon after this decision, Ector received a notice to vacate his apartment and
believed this action was due to his interracial relationships. In 2001, the parties entered into a
conciliation agreement; the conciliator cited that there was reasonable cause to believe Ector had
experienced racial discrimination and retaliation. The conciliation ended with a $97,500 settlement
6
to the Complainant.
Familial status discrimination case in Phoenix, Arizona (1996). In 1996, the Breton family and
the Arizona Fair Housing Center filed a lawsuit against Acacia Apartments in Northwest Phoenix.
The family was told upon visiting the complex that the complex’s owner and off-site manager did not
lease apartment to families with children. The Bretons filed a complaint with the Housing Center,
which sent testers to the site thereafter. The testers confirmed the “no kids” policy. In April of 1997,
the Breton family and the Housing Center accepted a $20,000 Offer of Judgment. The Housing
Center said that this case was significant because it was the first time the organization had “sought
7
frustration of mission and loss of resources damages as a plaintiff in a lawsuit.”
Other fair housing cases located outside of the Phoenix Metroplex:
Wilson v. Playa de Serrano (2004). Mr. Wilson challenged the court’s decision that the
development, Playa de Serrano, had sufficient bylaws to impose a requirement that his townhome be
occupied by a person 55 years of age or older. Playa de Serrano was established in 1969 in Pima
County as “an adult townhouse development.” With the passage of the Federal Fair Housing
Amendments Act in 1988, discrimination based on familial status was allowed when the community
fell into one of three categories. One exemption allowed familial discrimination in communities
designated for older persons – each lot must be occupied by at least one person over the age of 55. In
2002, Playa de Serrano attempted to comply with the Fair Housing Act and the Housing for Older
Persons Act (HOPA), enacted in 1995. The community passed an amendment to the bylaws that
stated that Playa de Serrano was an age-restricted community. Wilson sued Playa de Serrano in 2004
on the grounds that the restriction was invalid and injunctive relief. The trial court found that the
development complied with HOPA and therefore, the age restriction was legal. Wilson appealed the
court decision and asserted that Playa de Serrano’s declaration stating the community is “an adult”
community does not actually restrict occupancy to persons at least 55 years of age. Wilson reasoned
that the 2002 bylaws were insufficient to create an enforceable deed restriction limiting the age of
8
occupants to at least 55 years. The court reversed the decision in favor of Wilson.
The United States v. The Mortgage Super Center (2003). Mr. and Mrs. Keymolent filed a
complaint with HUD on February 21, 2003, alleging that The Mortgage Super Center and Nogales
Realty discriminated against them based on national origin by practicing discriminatory financing in
6
7
8
Ibid.
Ibid.
the refinancing of their home in Nogales, Arizona. Before HUD reached a decision about the merit
of the discrimination, the parties entered into a conciliation agreement. The Mortgage Super Center
and Nogales Realty were to pay the sum of $1,000 to the Keymolents within 10 days of the effective
date of the agreement. The Mortgage Super Center was required to refinance the Keymolent’s first
and second mortgages by consolidating the loans into one mortgage with a 30-year fixed interest rate.
The fixed interest rate was not to exceed the Complainant’s current interest rate of 9.125 percent.
The Mortgage Super Center was to also waive the pre-payment penalty and closing costs. Both
companies were required to attend fair housing training focusing on fair lending practices. The
Complainants, in turn, agreed not to sue either company. Nogales Realty paid its share of the $1,000
penalty. However, The Mortgage Super Center did not pay the monetary award, failed to refinance
the home loan as specified in the conciliation agreement, and did not provide proof of attending the
fair housing training. After several notices were sent to the Defendant with no response, HUD
9
referred the case to the Attorney General to enforce the conciliation agreement.
Disability discrimination case in Sedona, Arizona (2003). Recovery Alternatives, an organization
that provides housing for persons recovering from substance abuse, bought a home in Sedona that
was eventually intended as a group home after renovation. The organization obtained licensing and
completed renovations when Recovery Alternatives was told it had to be approved for a “conditional
use permit.” The process to obtaining a conditional use permit involved public hearings. Angry
neighbors convinced the city not to issue the permit. Recovery Alternatives then turned to the
Arizona Center for Disability Law for assistance. Recovery Alternatives filed suit with the Attorney
General’s Office in 2003 alleging that the city “failed to offer a waiver of the CUP requirement as a
reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities.” Under federal and state fair housing law,
persons who are addicted to alcohol or other substances, but are not currently using, are considered
individuals with disabilities and are protected from discrimination.
The city responded to the fair housing complaint by reclassifying the home and removing obstacles to
its opening. Sedona citizens, however, threatened to sue the city. The City delayed action until a
judge could clarify the issues. In June of 2003, the parties settled. Recovery Alternatives agreed not to
file a formal lawsuit. The city agreed to several conditions including permanently posting a fair
housing disclaimer in the City Hall, considering revisions to the Land Development Code, offering a
fair housing training session, purchasing the Complainant’s property for $382,000, and paying a
settlement amount of $148,334. In the end, Recovery Alternatives decided to locate the group home
10
elsewhere, as it would be in the clients’ best interest.
Cimarron Foothills Community Association v. Kippen (2001). The Kippens operated an elder care
facility out of their home in Tucson, Arizona. They cared for nine elderly persons who require
assistance with daily life activities. The Kippens used an RV as the mode of transportation to and
from doctor’s appointments and for vacations. The RV is necessary in order to accommodate the
residents, the medical equipment and provide a bathroom, which some residents need even on short
trips. The RV is not stored in a garage, and is therefore visible to neighbors. The Homeowners
Association responded to complaints about the RV and told the Kippens they could not park the RV
on the property without a garage. The Kippens initially complied with this request and kept the RV
in storage. However, this was inconvenient for the Kippens and they brought the RV back to the
9
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/supercentercomp.htm
10
premises. The Association then filed a lawsuit, seeking to force the Kippens to comply with the
“conditions, reservations and restrictions” of the community. The Kippens claimed that the RV was
reasonable and necessary for the residents to use their home. The court found that the RV was
extending a preference, not necessarily for the equal opportunity of the Kippens to enjoy their home.
The court ruled in favor of the Association and the Kippens appealed. In the appeal, the Kippens
failed to demonstrate the necessity of parking the RV on their lot unenclosed. The court upheld the
11
ruling in favor of the Association.
Canady v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Association (1999). The Prescott Canyon Estates
Homeowners Association, located in Prescott, Arizona, refused to waive the community’s minimum
age requirement (55) to allow a 26-year old severely developmentally disabled child to reside with his
parents, whom met the minimum age requirement. The trial court ruled in favor of the Homeowners
Association by citing that the age restriction was lawful and did not discriminate based on disability.
The Canady appealed and the court reversed the decision in favor of the family. The court ruled that
the Association violated fair housing laws by failing to make reasonable accommodations for the
developmentally disabled child. By allowing the child to live with his parents, the Estates would not
12
be relinquishing its status as a community for older persons.
Familial status discrimination case in Sierra Vista, Arizona (1997). The Southern Arizona Housing
Center and the Bajus family filed suit in July 1997 against the owner of Plaza Apartments in Sierra
Vista, Arizona. Leasing agents told the Bajus family that that could not rent an apartment at the Plaza
Apartments because the only available units were in the adult only section. The Sierra Vista Herald,
the local newspaper, had been running ads for Plaza Apartment since 1989, publicizing the adult only
component. After complaining to the Housing Center, the Center sent a tester to the site to request
an apartment. The tester woman was also told that there were two sections in the complex – one for
families with children and one for adults only. In 1998, the parties decided to settle and the owner of
Plaza Apartments paid the Complainants $64,000 and the Sierra Vista Herald paid another $11,000.
In addition to the $11,000 fine, the owners of the Herald published $15,000 worth of fair housing
advertisements over one year. The settlement covered legal fees and was split between the Bajus
family and the Fair Housing Center. The settlement was the first fair housing settlement in Arizona
13
involving a newspaper.
Barriers to Affordable/Fair Housing and Land Use Policy Review
This section discusses the housing and land use policies that may affect affordable and fair housing in
the City of Avondale. These include the City’s Fair Housing Policy, zoning regulations, city code,
land use codes and the Master Plan.
Fair housing policy. In the Housing Element section of the City’s General Plan, one of the
objectives under Goal 1 is to “ensure that no person seeking housing in Avondale is discriminated
against on the basis of race, gender, martial or family status, age, physical disability, or religion.”
Listed under Goal 1 is the City’s policy to continue to implement a Fair Housing Program.
11
12
13
Ibid.
Ibid.
The City’s website can be a wonderful resource for information about affordable and fair housing
issues. It appears, however, that the City is not currently utilizing this venue to provide information
about fair housing and the City’s policy. We recommend that the City develop a fair housing page
that describes the City’s Fair Housing Program, the Fair Housing Act and consumers’ rights under
fair housing laws.
The page should also give clear details about consumers’ options for filing complaints, about
following complaint procedures (e.g., information about when consumers might be expected to hear
back from the City or HUD) and it should also contain appropriate links to complaint forms on
HUD’s and/or the Arizona Fair Housing Center’s website. All of this information should be provided
in Spanish and English. We would also recommend a Frequently Asked Questions section with
answers to questions such as, “If I am not a U.S. citizen but I feel that I have been discriminated
against, what can I do?”
Zoning regulations. As part of the AI, we reviewed the City of Avondale’s zoning regulations and
code requirements to assess potential fair housing concerns and to identify development
opportunities. Items that positively and negatively affect fair housing choice are discussed below.
City code. In reviewing the City code, it is noted that Avondale has fairly strict landscaping
requirements such as fence requirements (height and material requirements) and parking lot
landscaping. It is important to note that for existing residential development, a rehabilitation funding
match can be used for landscaping and fences. Such requirements, in general, may increase the cost of
building housing, and decrease the affordability of homeownership housing and rental units.
Single-family policy. A review of the City’s single family policies revealed several possible
impediments to fair housing choice.
The minimum lot area for Planned Area Development Districts (PAD) and all residential districts,
including mobile home subdivisions, is at least 6,000 square feet. Although not extreme, the City
should consider decreasing the minimum lot size to encourage and allow for higher density
residential development.
Conditional use permits. Some uses that are not permitted in a specific zoning district are acceptable
if granted a conditional use permit. The City specifies land uses in each zoning category that are
considered acceptable uses of conditional permits. Such uses that require conditional use permits and
may present fair housing issues are: accessory dwelling units and group homes.
A guesthouse, accessory to the main dwelling unit, requires a conditional use permit and
cannot include kitchen amenities. We recommend that the City allow kitchens in accessory
dwelling units given that it is not uncommon for caretakers of persons with disabilities or
senior residents to reside with family members.
A group home also requires a conditional use permit. The process for obtaining a conditional
permit is time intensive and involves multiple steps, which may create an impediment for the
development of group homes. First, the Planning Commission holds a public hearing and
forwards a recommendation to City Council. City Council then holds a public hearing
regarding the proposed permit. City Council approves, conditionally approves or denies the
conditional use permit. Conditional use permitting processes for group homes is especially
noteworthy as an impediment to fair housing given the recent fair housing lawsuit in
Sedona, Arizona. A detailed description of the case is presented on page 20. We recommend
that the City take the recent case in Sedona, Arizona, as precedent and consider streamlining
the process for group homes.
Planned Area Development (PAD) Districts. Planned Area Development (PAD) Districts may be
designated on any parcel of land in the City. PADs encourage the development of large and small
tracts of land that are unified in ownership or are established as tracts of land that can achieve land
development patterns that will enhance the value of the area. A combination of land uses is allowed.
PAD Districts are restricted to no more than 15 percent of total homes having less than 1,300 square
feet for single family homes. The City may want to consider decreasing the minimum square footage
to 1,000 to allow for higher density and possibly more affordable development. Alternatively, the
City could change the proportion of 1,300 square foot units allowed from 15 percent to a higher
percentage.
Residential Infill Incentive Districts. The City allows for creation of Residential Infill Incentive
Districts with the purpose of encouraging development in areas of the City containing vacant or
underutilized land. The Districts exhibit some of the following characteristics:
There is a larger number of vacant, older or dilapidated buildings or structures.
There is a large number of vacant or underused parcels of property, obsolete or
inappropriate lot or parcel sizes or environmentally contaminated sites.
There is a large number of buildings or other places where nuisances exist or occur.
There is an absence of development and investment activity compared to other areas in
the city.
There is a continuing decline in population.
These Districts encourage development by waiving 50 percent of the building permit and plan review
fees. The City also offers priority plan review and permitting for projects within the infill districts.
The City currently has 3 residential infill districts. See the appendix at the end of this section for a
detailed map of the districts.
Multifamily policy. The text below describes the City’s requirements for multifamily unit
development. Besides strict landscaping requirements mentioned above, there are no notable
impediments to fair housing to highlight for multifamily development. The policy is highlighted
below:
Section 203 of the Residential Districts’ section of the Municipal Code states that the
purpose of the R-2 district is to promote the ownership of medium-level density
housing (condominiums, duplexes, townhomes and single family detached units) that
require minimum maintenance and offer reduced costs compared to single family
districts.
The purpose of districts R-3 and R-4 is to allow medium to high-density housing
including condominiums and multifamily rental units. The City deems these districts
appropriate areas of high activity close to commercial land uses.
Minimum lot area per unit in multifamily districts is 1,980 square feet and the
minimum net site area if 6,000 square feet.
Master Plan. The City of Avondale last updated its Master Plan in June of 2002. The Housing
Element of the Master Plan provides standards and programs to improve the quality, variety and
affordability of housing in Avondale. This section outlines the major themes of the Housing Element
section, and addresses components of other sections as pertaining to fair housing.
Housing Element. The Housing Element of the Master Plan recognizes that “a coordinated, strategic
plan and approach to neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing will be important to
continue to provide housing opportunities for all our residents. Other areas which the City will also
need to address is providing shelter for those without homes, stabilization of older neighborhoods,
coordination of the not-for-profit housing providers with each other, the City and the
neighborhoods.” The Master Plan lists goals, objectives and policies regarding housing development,
which are in-line with the issues raised through key person interviews.
Goal 1 of the Housing Element of the Master Plan involves preserving and enhancing the existing
housing stock to allow for safe and sanitary housing for all residents. One of the objectives under this
goal includes ensuring that no person experiences housing discrimination based on race, gender,
martial or family status, age, physical disability or religion. The City aims to carry out this objective
by continuing its Fair Housing Program and considering incentives to encourage the development of
affordable housing. Other policies to highlight include:
Investigating opportunities to provide low-interest loans to fund housing rehabilitation
to meet City code;
Working with providers to identify homes that do not meet City code and work with
property owners to bring structures up to code;
Continuing to implement neighborhood housing assistance programs; and
Encouraging government financial resources that promote affordable housing and
opportunities for rehabilitation of existing homes.
Goal 2 supports a variation of housing types throughout the City to meet the diverse needs of
Avondale residents. One objective under this goal mentions providing housing for residents of all
income levels by considering incentives for higher density residential development adjoining the
downtown. Secondly, the City encourages the dispersion of housing types and values throughout
Avondale. Policy issues relating to dispersion of housing include:
Encouraging multifamily housing at appropriate locations along transit lines, major
arterial streets and employment centers;
Encouraging subsidized housing located at scattered sites throughout the City;
Encouraging larger lot residential development at scattered locations through
the City; and
Encouraging move-up housing opportunities throughout Avondale.
Goal 4 in the Housing Element section of the Master Plan aims to promote the efficiency and
effectiveness of affordable housing and neighborhood stabilization programs. The objective of this
goal is to coordinate all organizations (non-profits, government organizations and neighborhood
organizations) involved in affordable housing for maximum effectiveness. The policy item listed
suggests forming Neighborhood Commissions to coordinate and implement housing and
improvement programs.
Other relevant sections of the Master Plan. The following text highlights areas in the Master Plan,
aside from the Housing Element section, that reference housing strategies and fair housing issues. In
the Executive Summary, the City consistently reports it heard the need for higher income housing at
the public hearings held for the Master Plan. The current Master Plan therefore “recognizes this
desire for a range of housing options by identifying areas for low density residential development
south of Broadway Road for executive housing.” In order to achieve lower density housing south of
14
Broadway, the City envisions providing areas of higher density development within the South Core.
Based on the City’s Land Use Plan, at build-out, the majority (68 percent) of residents in Avondale
will live in medium density residential developments. The table on the following page shows the
composition of residential developments in Avondale at build-out.
14
The South Core is bounded by the area ¼ mile north of Broadway Road, the transmission line, 119th Avenue and 115th
Avenue.
Exhibit IV-12.
Residential Land Use at
Build-Out
Source:
City of Avondale General Plan, June 17,
2002, Table 5 – 2002 Plan Land Use and
Projected Build-Out Population and BBC
Target
Density
per Acre
Projected
Build-Out
Population
Percent of
Build-Out
Population
Rural Low Density Residential
0
840
<1%
Low Density Residential
1
7,131
8%
2.5
63,303
68%
Medium High Density Residential
4
9,742
10%
High Density Residential
8
1,452
2%
Multifamily Residential
12
11,088
12%
93,556
100%
Land Use
Medium Density Residential
Total
Higher density residential development will comprise approximately 14 percent of the total
residential land-use (2 percent high density residential and 12 percent multifamily residential).
Land use goals and objectives identified in the Master Plan that encourage affordable housing and
might mitigate barriers to fair housing are as follows:
Ensure that multifamily housing units as a percent of total residential development is
appropriate to the needs of the community.
To support South Core retail development, require that at least 25 percent of all
housing in the South Core is at a net density of 10 dwelling units per acre or more.
These strategies could improve the quality of life for the City’s low-income households if public
transit and transportation infrastructure improvements occur in areas where low-income households
live and work. The City has identified transportation goals and objectives in the Growth Area
Element of the Master Plan. Such planning issues identified include:
The need for additional transportation infrastructure to support the growth in the area
between I-10 and McDowell Road.
To maximize the use of transportation infrastructure, growth areas should encourage
densities, land uses and infrastructure design that support multiple transportation
modes, including public and non-motorized transportation.
Impact fees. A review of the City’s impact fees and comparison of such fees to those of surrounding
communities did not reveal any impediments to fair housing choice. In fact, the City’s impact fees
are quite comparable to the surrounding cities.
Exhibit IV-13.
Impact Fees for a New Single Family Residence in Avondale, Goodyear and Glendale
Impact Fee Category
Avondale
Goodyear
Glendale
Police
$187
$323
$359
Fire
$489
$429
$339
Library
$264
$229
$514
Parks
$791
$1,187
$1,091
Transportation
$873
$824
$613
n/a
$327
n/a
$585
$391
$660
$3,289
$1,620
$4,200
n/a
$2,183
n/a
$267
n/a
n/a
Public Works
General Government
Water
Water Resource
Sanitation
n/a
n/a
$264
Sewer
Solid Waste
$3,254
$1,952
$1,740
Total
$9,999
$9,465
$9,780
Notes:
The City of Avondale and the City of Goodyear are both in the process of updating their impact fees. The update of Avondale’s fees is expected to
be completed in October 2006.
Source:
City of Avondale, City of Goodyear and City of Glendale.
Citizens’ Fair Housing Concerns
As part of the City’s Consolidated Plan and AI, in December 2005, a housing and community needs
telephone survey was completed of 194 residents living within the City limits. In addition to housing
needs, the residents were asked about discriminatory actions related to fair housing. The complete
findings from the survey are reported in Section III – Citizen Input. The following section highlights
the survey findings from the fair housing questions.
Housing discrimination. Respondents were asked if they had ever experienced housing
discrimination. Ninety-two percent had not experienced housing discrimination and 8 percent said
they had experienced housing discrimination.
Of the 15 respondents experiencing housing discrimination, 53 percent were living in Avondale at
the time the discrimination occurred; the remaining respondents were either living in another
Metroplex city or another state. Exhibit IV-14 displays the reasons that survey respondents said they
had experienced discrimination.
Exhibit IV-14.
Reasons for Housing
Discrimination
Reason
Number
Percent
6
40%
Note:
3
20%
n = 15. Survey respondents could
give multiple answers.
Don’t know
2
13%
Other
2
13%
Familial status
1
7%
Poor/affordability issue
1
7%
15
100%
Source:
Total
Of respondents who said they had experienced housing discrimination, 47 percent were of Hispanic
origin, 27 percent were White, 20 percent were African American and 5 percent were Native
American. Of those respondents disclosing income levels, 33 percent had household incomes between
$10,000 and $35,000; 25 percent between $50,000 and $75,000; 17 percent between $35,000 and
$50,000; 8 percent less than $10,000; and 8 percent between $100,000 and $150,000. Sixty percent
of respondents who said they had experienced discrimination owned their home, and 13 percent had
a disability or had a household member with a disability.
Compared to the City demographics overall, African Americans, Native Americans and low-income
persons are disproportionately likely to experience discrimination in Avondale. It is notable that
persons with a disability are not disproportionately likely to experience housing discrimination in
Avondale.
When asked what the respondents did about the discrimination, 67 percent did nothing, 20 percent
moved elsewhere, 7 percent called the housing authority and 7 percent filed a complaint.
Fair Housing Activities
The City has participated in two fair housing conferences within the last two years. On April 28,
2004, the City co-sponsored the West Valley Fair Housing Issues and Solutions seminar, along with
the cities of Goodyear, El Mirage, Tolleson, Buckeye and Maricopa County. The seminar was held at
the Avondale Civic Center. Seminar attendees included real estate agencies, property management
companies, city and county government officials, nonprofit organizations and Homeowners
Associations. Speakers included representatives from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Arizona
Bridge to Independent Living, Arizona Mortgage Lenders Association, Arizona Multihousing
Association, Neighborhood Housing Services of Phoenix and Neighborhood Housing Services of
Southwest Maricopa County. More than 50 people attended this event.
The City hosted the West Valley Fair Housing Fair on April 30, 2005 at the Avondale Civic Center.
The fair was hosted by a variety of cities and fair housing organizations. The purpose of the event was
to educate the public about fair housing issues. Attendees heard 4 brief presentations by the Attorney
General’s Office, Arizona Bridge to Independent Living, Arizona Mortgage Lenders Association,
Arizona Association of Realtors and Arizona Mutlifamily Association. Presentation topics included
knowing your rights, housing rights for persons with special needs, and predatory lending practices.
Representatives from various agencies were available to answer questions. The seminar provided food
available for purchase, toys for the children and a raffle. Over 80 people attended the fair in 2005.
The Arizona Department of Housing currently has a contract with Southwest Fair Housing
Council (SWFHC) to provide education and training throughout the 13 rural Arizona
counties, as well as Maricopa and Pima counties. Workshops and trainings are provided to
consumers and housing providers. A presence is provided at functions, such as county fairs,
to distribute fair housing materials; at least 15 sites are being established within each county
for the distribution of fair housing literature. Local radio talk shows will be conducted in
each county that has the capacity and partnerships will be formed with other local
organizations.
Fair Housing Action Plan
Based on the findings from the fair lending analysis, the review of legal cases, the review of City code,
zoning regulations, and the Master Plan, we recommend that the City adopt the following strategies
to promote fair housing. Please note that the Specific Housing Objectives section of the Strategic
Plan also contains strategies to promote fair housing. Therefore, there are some commonalties and
overlap of strategies.
Strategy 1: The City should provide easily accessible information regarding the Fair Housing Act and
what to do in the event of housing discrimination.
Objective 1: The City should develop a fair housing page that describes the City’s Fair
Housing Program, the Fair Housing Act and consumers’ rights under fair housing laws.
The page should also give clear details about consumers’ options for filing complaints,
about following complaint procedures (e.g., information about when consumers might
be expected to hear back from the City or HUD) and it should also contain appropriate
links to complaint forms on HUD’s and/or the Arizona Fair Housing Center’s website.
All of this information should be provided in Spanish and English. We would also
recommend a Frequently Asked Questions section with answers to questions such as,
“If I am not a U.S. citizen but I feel that I have been discriminated against, what can I
do?”
Objective 2: The City should designate a point person for fair housing questions and
concerns. The contact information should be available on the City’s website. This
contact can assist with complaint filing and recommend persons to the Southwest Fair
Housing Council or HUD.
Objective 1: The City should increase the fair housing awareness of City staff members.
The City could do this through a number of measures such as posting a fliers in
commons areas of the Civic Center that describe fair housing. The flyer should be userfriendly and easy to read.
Objective 2: The City should explore possibilities of increased landlord/tenant training
on the Fair Housing Act, and continue to be involved in the West Valley Fair Housing
Seminar.
Strategy 3: The City should invest in programs that assist special needs populations with
fair housing issues.
Objective 1: The City should provide funding for code enforcement to assist the elderly
and disabled with bringing units up to code.
Strategy 4: The City should consider taking a more active approach to affordable housing
development and consider revising City policies that are potentially affordable housing barriers.
Objective 1: The City should consider streamlining the conditional permitting process
for group homes, especially in light of the recent legal case in Sedona, Arizona.
Objective 2: The City should consider reducing the minimum lot size requirements for
residential districts to actively promote higher density and potentially facilitate more
affordable housing.
Objective 3: The City should continue to allow diverse lot sizes, which would
accommodate for all housing types including starter homes, executive homes,
condominiums, etc.
Objective 4: The City should consider decreasing the minimum square footage to
1,000 to allow for higher density and possibly more affordable development in the
Planned Area Development Districts. Alternatively, the City could change the
proportion of 1,300 square foot units allowed from 15 percent to a higher percentage.
Residential Infill Incentives Districts
I
Westerly
City Boundary
La Jolla Blvd
Van Buren St
Dysart Rd
Loma Linda Blvd
Central Ave
La Canada Blvd
Westerly
City Boundary
Dysart Rd (Alignment)
Western Ave
Westerly
City Boundary
Harrison St
5th St Alignment
i
Litchfield Rd
Ma
t
nS
CITY OF AVONDALE
Residential Infill Incentive District Number One
0
500
1,000
Feet
1,500 2,000
R
Riv
ive
er
r
Lower Buckeye Rd
a
a F
Fri
ria
a
PREPARED NOVEMBER 2004
ENGINEERING / GIS - MAPPING SECTION
Approximate Scale
125th Ave
I
Rio Vista Ln
127th Ave
El Mirage Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd
R
r sch
mee
r
e
V
d
Dysart Rd
127th Ave
Illini St
Approximate Scale
Broadway Rd
0
CITY OF AVONDALE
Residential Infill Incentive District Number Two
200 400
800
1,200
Feet
1,600
I
109th Ave
Buckeye Rd
S
Pima
t)
107th Ave
113th Ave
(
4th St
Durango St
Approximate Scale
0
CITY OF AVONDALE
Residential Infill Incentive District Number Three
200 400
800
1,200
Feet
1,600
SECTION V.
FY2006-FY2009 Strategic Plan
3-5 Year Strategic Plan
This document includes Narrative Responses to specific questions
that grantees of the Community Development Block Grant, HOME
Investment Partnership, Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS
and Emergency Shelter Grants Programs must respond to in order to be compliant
with the Consolidated Planning Regulations.
GENERAL
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary is optional, but encouraged. If you choose to complete it,
please provide a brief overview that includes major initiatives and highlights that are
proposed throughout the 3-5 year strategic planning period.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Executive Summary:
The City of Avondale’s Executive Summary is located in Section I. – Executive
Summary of the FY2006-FY2009 Consolidated Plan, which precedes this section.
Strategic Plan
Due every three, four, or five years (length of period is at the grantee’s discretion)
no less than 45 days prior to the start of the grantee’s program year start date.
HUD does not accept plans between August 15 and November 15.
Mission:
This section represents the Four-Year (FY2006-FY2009) Strategic Plan for the City of
Avondale, Arizona. The City of Avondale receives Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) directly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). In addition, the City can apply for HOME Investment
Partnerships Program (HOME) funds and American Dream Downpayment Initiative
(ADDI) funds through the Maricopa HOME Consortium. The City is required to
complete a Consolidated Plan, Four-Year Strategic Plan, Analysis of Impediments to
Fair Housing Choice (AI) and Annual Action Plan prior to receiving the block grant
funding. These documents describe the housing and community development needs
in the City and outline how the City proposes to use the HUD block grants to fulfill
the needs.
The City of Avondale has elected to use a four-year consolidated planning period.
The City's program year start date is August 1; therefore, the City's Consolidated
Plan, Four-Year Strategic Plan and/or Annual Action Plans are due to HUD no later
than May 15 of each program year.
1
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
General Questions
1. Describe the geographic areas of the jurisdiction (including areas of low income
families and/or racial/minority concentration) in which assistance will be directed.
2. Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the
jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA) (91.215(a)(1)) and the basis for
assigning the priority (including the relative priority, where required) given to
each category of priority needs (91.215(a)(2).
3. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs (91.215(a)(3)).
3-5 Year Strategic Plan General Questions response:
Geographic allocation. The City of Avondale plans to allocate funding in the low- to
moderate Block Groups (i.e., where 51 percent or more of households earn less than
80 percent of the HUD-defined area median income). The City has 15 Block Groups
that meet these criteria. Targeted neighborhoods that are located in these Block
Groups include, but are not limited to, Las Ligas, Old Town Avondale, Rio Vista and
Cashion.
The public services component of CDBG will be allocated Citywide. Public service
grants will be provided for assistance to organizations that service special needs
populations, including persons who are at-risk of homelessness, low-income seniors,
at-risk youth, and low- to moderate-income persons. The City’s physical
improvement activities (capital projects) funded with CDBG will also be allocated in
the City’s low- to moderate-income Block Groups. The City plans to continue using
CDBG monies to improve street and sidewalks, targeting the neighborhoods of Las
Ligas, Old Town Avondale, Rio Vista and Cashion.
A map showing the City’s low- to moderate-income Census Block Groups appears at
the end of this section. The City’s low- to moderate-income Census Block Groups are
concentrated south of Interstate 10 from the western to eastern City boundaries.
Some of the neighborhoods included in these Block Groups are Old Town Avondale,
Cashion, Las Ligas and Rio Vista.
Prioritization of funds. Funds will be made available Citywide to eligible activities
with the goal of improving infrastructure (streets and sidewalks), assisting social
service organizations that serve special needs populations and low- to moderateincome persons, improving the condition of the housing stock occupied by the City’s
lowest income citizens, and preserving the City’s affordable single family housing
stock.
Obstacles to meeting needs. The greatest obstacle to meeting needs in the City of
Avondale is lack of funding and the need to improve coordination between City
departments. The City receives approximately $470,000 in CDBG funds annually, an
amount that falls short of meeting needs.
2
City of Avondale
Managing the Process (91.200 (b))
1. Lead Agency. Identify the lead agency or entity for overseeing the development
of the plan and the major public and private agencies responsible for
administering programs covered by the consolidated plan.
2. Identify the significant aspects of the process by which the plan was developed,
and the agencies, groups, organizations, and others who participated in the
process.
3. Describe the jurisdiction's consultations with housing, social service agencies, and
other entities, including those focusing on services to children, elderly persons,
persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and homeless
persons.
*Note: HOPWA grantees must consult broadly to develop a metropolitan-wide strategy and other
jurisdictions must assist in the preparation of the HOPWA submission.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Managing the Process response:
Lead agency. The City Manager’s Office in Avondale is the lead agency within the
City that is responsible for overseeing development of the Consolidated Plan, as well
as administering the HUD block grants.
Community participation and organizational consultation. The City of
Avondale’s FY2006-FY2009 Consolidated Plan was prepared with a strong emphasis
on community participation from nonprofit organizations and City residents.
The City’s CDBG Consolidated Plan Committee developed a strategy to advertise the
Consolidated Plan process via their “Spread the Word Campaign.” Bilingual flyers
(Spanish and English) announcing the public forum and comment period were posted
at the following locations throughout the City: Fire Station 172, Fire Station 173,
Avondale Library, Avondale Community Center, Cashion Community Center,
Avondale Court, police headquarters, Avondale Field Operations Department, City
Hall and Estrella Mountain Community Center. In addition, the City’s Grants
Administrator had a sign holder available to travel to any meeting where potential
stakeholders might attend. The flyer was also emailed to 44 stakeholders on
February 24, 2006.
Through the “Spread the Word Campaign,” an ad was published in the West Valley
View on February 14th and March 14th in English and Spanish. On March 4, 2006,
The Southwest Valley Republic published an article about the City consolidating
planning process and listed the dates and times of the public forum and public
hearings. On March 23, 2006, the Arizona Business Gazette published a lengthy
article about the Consolidated Plan, the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, the
Annual Action Plan, HOME, CDBG, and ADDI funding and listed the dates and times
of the public hearings. The same article was published in the West Valley View on
March 30, 2006.
3
City of Avondale
The City also took advantage of special events to post the flyers at the Child Safety
Seat Fair and Under the Stars Concert, both occurring on February 16, 2006.
To encourage involvement of the City's minorities, non-English speaking residents,
low-income persons and persons with special needs (including persons with
disabilities), the City made a strong effort to involve organizations that assist these
populations in the Consolidated Plan process by contacting service provides and
reaching out to these communities. The City spread the word to low-income citizens
in the City by posting the flyer at the local Food City and Fry’s stores in CDBG eligible
areas. The City’s Field Operations Department also distributed flyers door-to-door in
CDBG eligible areas.
In addition, the City made its Draft Four-Year Consolidated Plan available on the
City’s website at www.avondale.org and at the following locations:
City of Avondale
Avondale, AZ 85323
Avondale Library
Avondale, AZ 85323
Phone: 623.478.3100
Closed on Sundays
1007 South 3rd Street
Avondale, AZ 85323
Avondale, AZ 85323
Phone: 623.478.3060
The City held one public forum during the consolidated planning process. Copies of
the notifications about the Consolidated Plan process appear in the Public Outreach
Notices and Publications portion of Section III. – Citizen Input.
The City also held three public hearings for individuals to comment on the Draft Plan.
Public hearings were held on April 3, April 17, and May 1, 2006. At the first public
hearing, BBC presented the key findings from the Plan and specifically listed the
City’s housing and community development strategies for the next 4 years.
4
City of Avondale
Citizen Participation (91.200 (b))
1. Provide a summary of the citizen participation process.
2. Provide a summary of citizen comments or views on the plan.
3. Provide a summary of efforts made to broaden public participation in the
development of the consolidated plan, including outreach to minorities and nonEnglish speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities.
4. Provide a written explanation of comments not accepted and the reasons why
these comments were not accepted.
*Please note that Citizen Comments and Responses may be included as additional files within the CPMP
Tool.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Citizen Participation response:
Summary of citizen participation process and efforts to broaden
participation. The City of Avondale extensively publicized the opportunities for
participation in the Consolidated Plan. Throughout the Consolidated Plan process, the
City made an effort to involve adjacent governments and service organizations based
in the Phoenix Metroplex and/or Maricopa County.
(Spanish and English) announcing the public forums and comment period were
posted at the following locations throughout the City: Fire Station 172, Fire Station
173, Avondale Library, Avondale Community Center, Cashion Community Center,
February 24, 2006.
March 30, 2006.
In addition, the City made its Draft Four-Year Consolidated Plan available on the
City’s website at www.avondale.org and at the following locations:
5
City of Avondale
City of Avondale
Avondale, AZ 85323
Avondale Library
Avondale, AZ 85323
Phone: 623.478.3100
Closed on Sundays
1007 South 3rd Street
Avondale, AZ 85323
Avondale, AZ 85323
Phone: 623.478.3060
populations in the Consolidated Plan process by contacting service providers and
reaching out to these communities. The City spread the word in low-income citizens
Copies of the notifications about the Consolidated Plan process appear in the Public
Outreach Notices and Publications portion of Section III. – Citizen Participation Plan.
The City also held three public hearings for individuals to comment on the Draft Plan.
Public hearings were held on April 3, April 17, and May 1,, 2006. At the first public
hearing, BBC presented the key findings from the Plan and specifically listed the
City’s housing and community development strategies for the next 4 years.
Citizen comments. The most frequently mentioned housing and community
development needs learned from the Citizen Participation Process include:
rehabilitation of single family homes; improvement of public infrastructure (streets
and sidewalks); supportive services for at-risk youth; emergency rental and utility
assistance; an increase in neighborhood safety and policing programs; and an
increase in step-up housing (e.g., executive housing and condominiums).
Section III. contains the City's full Citizen Participation Plan.
6
City of Avondale
Institutional Structure (91.215 (i))
1. Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its
consolidated plan, including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public
institutions.
2. Assess the strengths and gaps in the delivery system.
3. Assess the strengths and gaps in the delivery system for public housing, including
a description of the organizational relationship between the jurisdiction and the
public housing agency, including the appointing authority for the commissioners
or board of housing agency, relationship regarding hiring, contracting and
procurement; provision of services funded by the jurisdiction; review by the
jurisdiction of proposed capital improvements as well as proposed development,
demolition or disposition of public housing developments.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Institutional Structure response:
Institutional structure through which services are delivered. The City of
Avondale will utilize multiple funding sources and community resources in order to
carry out the strategic goals in its Four-Year Consolidated Plan. The City will use
federal funds, county funds, General Fund monies, private funds and project
leveraging to meet the goals of the Consolidated Plan. The City’s Social Services
Department uses General Fund monies to provide downpayment assistance. The
Social Services Division also coordinates with organizations such as the Maricopa
County Human Services Department to offer emergency rental and utility assistance.
Other organizations through which services are delivered include the Neighborhood
Housing Services of Southwest Maricopa County and the Housing Authority of
Maricopa County.
Strengths and weaknesses of system. The City of Avondale offers a few housing
assistance programs and many small community programs. The programs offered
are numerous for a city of Avondale’s size. The City is also very dedicated to
providing community and housing services as seen through the yearly allocation of
General Fund monies to the Social Services Division for downpayment assistance and
to the Contributions Assistance Program available for health and human service
agencies.
The City of Avondale offers many small programs, but the programs need to improve
coordination and therefore are not utilized as efficiently as possible. The City
currently has multiple departments offering different programs with minimal funding
available. In addition, there is a lack of staff to oversee all the programming. The use
of HUD funding will help to develop multifaceted programming that will yield
measurable outcomes.
7
City of Avondale
Monitoring (91.230)
1. Describe the standards and procedures the jurisdiction will use to monitor its
housing and community development projects and ensure long-term compliance
with program requirements and comprehensive planning requirements.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Monitoring response:
The City will designate a staff person to oversee the HUD funded activities.
The City plans to monitor its housing and community development programs as
specified in the program plans for each individual project. The City is also
investigating the possibility of developing a division or department that would cater
to neighborhood development type activities.
Where the activity is to be performed by a subrecipient, a contract between the
subrecipient and the City is approved by the City Council. The contract specifies what
will be done with the money allocated, and the rules and regulations that apply. In
addition, CDBG staff will meet with the subrecipients prior to the start of the grant
year to explain the required record keeping.
The monitoring process in the City of Avondale will consist of seven steps:
1. Notification to subrecipient of scheduled monitoring visit.
2. Entrance conference with subrecipient staff, to explain what will be done during
the visit.
3.
Review of documents justifying expenditures and work completed or in progress,
to determine the quality of the work and whether or not it complies with
regulations and codes.
4.
Where appropriate, review of income qualification documents.
5.
Exit conference to report tentative conclusions and findings to the subrecipient
staff.
6.
Written follow-up detailing any problems found and asking for a response
explaining how the problems will be corrected.
7.
Additional follow-up visit to see that problems have been corrected, when
necessary.
In most cases, monitoring visits will be conducted when work is complete, but in
some cases, particularly with new subrecipients, more frequent monitoring visits will
be conducted.
8
City of Avondale
Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies (91.215 (a))
1. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority
needs.
2. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies response:
The priority needs and strategies for the City of Avondale’s Four-Year Consolidated
Plan for FY2006-FY2009 were developed based on the findings from both
quantitative research (Community and Housing Needs Analysis) and qualitative
research (public forum). The priority housing needs were determined based on the
number of households that were cost-burdened, living in substandard and
overcrowded conditions, and/or that could not afford homeownership.
The City of Avondale diligently sought after citizen comments to help develop a plan
that would reflect the needs identified by the communities which would be most
affected. The results of telephone surveys, mail surveys, email surveys and one-onone interviews helped to assign priority to the City’s housing needs.
As identified through the citizen input process, the City of Avondale should consider
the following in assigning housing needs: improving the condition of the housing
stock occupied by the City’s lowest income citizens, preserving the City’s affordable
single family housing stock and increasing homeownership.
The priority needs for special needs populations and community development were
also derived through the citizen participation process in which attendees were asked
to prioritize needs in the City. This process revealed the need for youth and senior
services; improvement to infrastructure (streets, curbs, sidewalks and lighting);
crime reduction programs; and increased code enforcement.
Obstacles to meeting needs. The citizen participation component revealed that
one of the major barriers to providing services to persons in need has been lack of
funding and the lack of willingness to participate in long-term program
commitments. Other obstacles included the City’s need to improve coordination and
lack of designated staff to oversee the proper implementation of such programming.
Lead-based Paint (91.215 (g))
1. Estimate the number of housing units that contain lead-based paint hazards, as
defined in section 1004 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
of 1992, and are occupied by extremely low-income, low-income, and
moderate-income families.
2. Outline actions proposed or being taken to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint
hazards and describe how lead based paint hazards will be integrated into
housing policies and programs.
9
City of Avondale
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Lead-based Paint response:
Housing units with lead-based paint risk. As of the 2000 Census, there were 45
homeowners and 33 renter households living in units built before 1939, and 574
homeowners and 451 renters living in housing constructed between 1940 and 1960.
There were also as many as 125 homeowners and 135 renter households living in
units with some type of condition problem. Households with lead-based paint
hazards were quantified using the assumptions on the following page.
All households occupying these units are low- or moderate-income; and
Fifty percent of housing built between 1940 and 1960, and all housing
built before 1940 has a strong likelihood of containing lead-based paint.
Using the assumptions listed above, as many as 457 low- to moderate-income
homeowners and 394 low- to moderate-income renter households in Avondale could
1
be at risk of lead based paint hazards . These at-risk households represent 3 percent
of the City’s homeowners and 9 percent of the City’s renters in 2005. The numbers
indicate that a comparable number of homeowners and renters are at-risk of leadbased paint hazards.
Section II. – Community and Housing Needs and the Strategic Plan Supplement
contain a map of the Census Block Groups in the City that have the greatest risk of
lead-based paint hazards. The map, titled High-Risk Lead Based Paint Hazards,
shows the Census Block Groups that have more than 20 percent of units occupied by
households earning less than 80 percent of the median family income ($53,100) and
who are living in housing units built prior to 1950. The number of households with a
high-risk of lead-based paint hazards is estimated at 315.
Actions to reduce hazards. The City of Avondale will work with the State Historic
Preservation Office and other agencies to ensure that all projects have a lead-based
paint program, which would aid in identifying units with lead-based paint issues and
then assist with allocation of funding to alleviate the problem.
The City of Avondale currently has a Healthy Avondale Campaign that could help
facilitate this type of programming. The Healthy Avondale Campaign targets elderly
and low-income families and connects them with medical resources for diabetes and
high blood pressure. As a community outreach program, this would be an
appropriate program to identify lead-based paint hazards because the coordinators
are directly involved with Avondale citizens.
1
The actual number of households is probably lower due to overlapping conditions. For example, a household could be
living in a house that was both built before 1939 and is lacking complete plumbing.
10
City of Avondale
HOUSING
Housing Needs (91.205)
*Please also refer to the Housing Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook
1. Describe the estimated housing needs projected for the next five year period for
the following categories of persons: extremely low-income, low-income,
moderate-income, and middle-income families, renters and owners, elderly
persons, persons with disabilities, including persons with HIV/AIDS and their
families, single persons, large families, public housing residents, families on the
public housing and section 8 tenant-based waiting list, and discuss specific
housing problems, including: cost-burden, severe cost- burden, substandard
housing, and overcrowding (especially large families).
2. To the extent that any racial or ethnic group has a disproportionately greater
need for any income category in comparison to the needs of that category as a
whole, the jurisdiction must complete an assessment of that specific need. For
this purpose, disproportionately greater need exists when the percentage of
persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic
group is at least ten percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in
the category as a whole.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Housing Needs response:
Estimates of housing needs, projections of future needs, and disproportionate needs
are found in the following locations: Section II. – Community and Housing Needs,
the Housing Needs tables located at the end of the Four-Year Consolidated Plan, and
the exhibit below (also located in Section II. – Community and Housing Needs).
The table on the following page illustrates current housing needs for renter and
owner households and needs by specific special needs categories.
11
City of Avondale
2005
2010
Renter Households
Extremely low-income
Very low-income
Low-income
Moderate-income
Middle- and upper-income
261
0
0
0
670
373
0
0
0
958
Owner Households
Extremely low-income
Very low-income
Low-income
Moderate-income
Middle- and upper-income
715
453
0
0
4,913
1,022
648
0
0
7,026
141
64
802
174
702
34
205
93
1,165
253
1,020
49
Housing Needs
Persons
Elderly
Frail elderly
Persons with severe mental illness
Developmentally Disabled
Physically Disabled
HIV/AIDS
Sources: Interim Projections of Population, Housing and Employment by Municipal Planning
Area and Regional Analysis Zone, July 2003, Maricopa Association of Governments, Section VII
– Nonhomeless Needs Tables, Section II. – Housing and Community Needs 2005 Gaps Table.
Renters
Extremely low-income renters. The gaps analysis completed for the Consolidated
Plan found a current need for 261 units for renters earning less than $17,600 per
year. If extremely low-income renters experience the same household growth as the
City overall (projection data from the Maricopa Association of Governments) and no
new units are developed to assist this group, this need will increase to 373 units in
2010.
Very low-income renters. No current need; no future need estimated.
Low-income renters. No current need; no future need estimated.
Moderate-income renters. No current need; no future need estimated.
Middle and upper-income renters. The need is projected to increase from 670
units in 2005 to 958 units in 2010, given the same assumptions listed above.
12
City of Avondale
Owners
Extremely low-income owners. The gaps analysis completed for the Consolidated
Plan found a current need for 715 owner-occupied units for owners earning less than
$17,600 per year. If extremely-low income owners experience the same household
growth as the City overall (projection data from the Maricopa Association of
Government) and no new units are developed to assist this group, this need will
increase to 1,022 units in 2010.
Very low-income owners. The need will increase from 453 to 648 units, given the
same assumptions listed above.
Low-income owners. No current need; no future need estimated.
Moderate-income owners. No current need; no future need estimated.
Middle and upper-income owners. The need will increase from 4,913 to 7,026
units, given the same assumptions listed above.
Special Needs Populations
Elderly persons. The housing needs table completed for the Plan in Section VII.
was the basis for current and projected housing needs. If elderly persons experience
the same population growth as the City overall (projection data from the Maricopa
Association of Government) this need will increase from 141 persons with housing
needs to 205 persons with housing needs in 2010.
Frail elderly. Using the same methodology as described above, the population of
frail elderly with housing needs will increase from 64 to 93 persons in 2010.
Persons with severe mental illness. The population of persons with severe
mental illness and housing needs is projected to increase from 802 to 1,165 persons
by 2010.
Persons with developmental disabilities. The population of persons with
developmental disabilities and housing needs is projected to increase from 174 to
253 persons by 2010.
Persons with physical disabilities. The population of persons with physical
disabilities and housing needs is projected to increase from 702 to 1,020 persons by
2010.
Persons with HIV/AIDS. The population of persons with physical disabilities and
housing needs is projected to increase from 34 to 49 persons by 2010.
13
City of Avondale
Priority Housing Needs (91.215 (b))
1. Identify the priority housing needs in accordance with the categories specified in
the Housing Needs Table (formerly Table 2A). These categories correspond with
special tabulations of U.S. census data provided by HUD for the preparation of
the Consolidated Plan.
2. Provide an analysis of how the characteristics of the housing market and the
severity of housing problems and needs of each category of residents provided
the basis for determining the relative priority of each priority housing need
category.
Note: Family and income types may be grouped in the case of closely related categories of residents
where the analysis would apply to more than one family or income type.
needs.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Priority Housing Needs response:
Please see the Housing Needs table at the end of the Four-Year Consolidated Plan,
which contains the City’s priority needs.
A comprehensive response to items 2. above, complete with maps and charts, is
located in Section II. – Community and Housing Needs of the City of Avondale’s
FY2006-FY2009 Consolidated Plan.
The priority needs and strategies for the City of Avondale’s Four-Year Consolidated
Plan for FY2006-FY2009 were developed based on the findings from both
quantitative research (Community and Housing Needs Analysis) and qualitative
research (public forum). The priority housing needs were determined based on the
number of households that were cost-burdened, were living in substandard and
overcrowded conditions, and/or that could not afford homeownership.
As identified through the citizen input process, the City of Avondale should consider
the following in assigning housing needs: improving the condition of the housing
stock occupied by the City’s lowest income citizens, preserving the City’s affordable
single family housing stock and increasing homeownership.
also derived through the citizen participation process where attendees were asked to
prioritize needs in the City. This process revealed the need for youth and senior
14
City of Avondale
The citizen participation component revealed that one of the major barriers to
providing services to persons in need has been lack of funding and residents’
hesitation to participate in long-term program commitments. Other obstacles
included the City’s need to improve coordination and lack of designated staff to
oversee the proper implementation of such programming.
Housing Market Analysis (91.210)
*Please also refer to the Housing Market Analysis Table in the Needs.xls workbook
1. Based on information available to the jurisdiction, describe the significant
characteristics of the housing market in terms of supply, demand, condition, and
the cost of housing; the housing stock available to serve persons with disabilities;
and to serve persons with HIV/AIDS and their families.
2. Describe the number and targeting (income level and type of household served)
of units currently assisted by local, state, or federally funded programs, and an
assessment of whether any such units are expected to be lost from the assisted
housing inventory for any reason, (i.e. expiration of Section 8 contracts).
3. Indicate how the characteristics of the housing market will influence the use of
funds made available for rental assistance, production of new units, rehabilitation
of old units, or acquisition of existing units. Please note, the goal of affordable
housing is not met by beds in nursing homes.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Housing Market Analysis responses:
As requested by HUD in the Final Rule effective March 13, 2006, the City estimates
that there are 19 homes/mobile homes that are abandoned as of April 25, 2006. In
addition, as of April 25, 2006, the City estimates that there are 65 housing units that
are vacant due to structural damage or because the units have been designated an
unrepairable.
A comprehensive response to items 1. through 3. above, complete with maps and
charts, is located in Section II. – Community and Housing Needs of the City of
Avondale’s FY2006-FY2009 Consolidated Plan.
Specific Housing Objectives (91.215 (b))
1. Describe the priorities and specific objectives the jurisdiction hopes to achieve
over a specified time period.
2. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that
are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs
for the period covered by the strategic plan.
15
City of Avondale
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Specific Housing Objectives response:
The City’s Four-Year Housing Goals and Objectives include the following strategies.
Specific performance measures (e.g., number of households assisted and units
produced) appear at the end of the City’s Action Plan and in the required HUD tables.
Continue to pursue HOME funds through the Maricopa HOME Consortium,
which have been distributed to organizations that provide housing
rehabilitation programs in previous years.
Continue thorough code enforcement procedures to assist homeowners in
bringing units up to code.
Continue to offer the Residential Incentives Infill Program, which
encourages development of residential uses in areas of the City that are
vacant or underutilized through reduced fees and priority plan review.
Strategy 2. Improve public infrastructure and economic conditions in lowincome, economically-challenged neighborhoods.
Improve sidewalks, streets and street lighting in targeted low- to
moderate-income Block Groups.
Continue to offer the Commercial Incentives Infill Program in Old Town
Avondale, which encourages commercial development in vacant or
otherwise underutilized areas through reduced fees, priority plan review
and sales tax rebates.
Strategy 3. Support organizations that assist the City’s special needs
population.
In addition to CDBG grants, continue to offer the Contributions Assistance
Program (CAP), as financially feasible, which awards General Fund monies
to health and human service organizations.
Continue programs that assist special needs populations through the City’s
Increase support to organizations that specifically provide activities and
programs for at-risk youth.
16
City of Avondale
Continue to supply emergency funding through the Community Action
Program for renter households in jeopardy of being evicted.
Increase all applicable City department staff’s awareness and knowledge
of fair housing issues.
Increase residents’ awareness and knowledge of fair housing issues by
posting information on the City’s website. The page should also give clear
details about consumers’ options for filing complaints, about following
complaint procedures and it should also contain appropriate links to
complaint forms on HUD’s and/or the Arizona Fair Housing Center’s
website.
Explore possibilities of increased landlord/tenant training on the Fair
Housing Act, and continue to be involved in the West Valley Fair Housing
Seminar.
Continue to provide a first time homebuyers program and downpayment
assistance through the Individual Development Account Program available
Explore the use of the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI)
program for downpayment assistance, in conjunction with the Individual
Development Account Program.
Needs of Public Housing (91.210 (b))
In cooperation with the public housing agency or agencies located within its
boundaries, describe the needs of public housing, including the number of public
housing units in the jurisdiction, the physical condition of such units, the restoration
and revitalization needs of public housing projects within the jurisdiction, and other
factors, including the number of families on public housing and tenant-based waiting
lists and results from the Section 504 needs assessment of public housing projects
located within its boundaries (i.e. assessment of needs of tenants and applicants on
waiting list for accessible units as required by 24 CFR 8.25). The public housing
agency and jurisdiction can use the optional Priority Public Housing Needs Table
(formerly Table 4) of the Consolidated Plan to identify priority public housing needs
to assist in this process.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Needs of Public Housing response:
N/A to the City of Avondale. However, the City will collaborate with the Housing
Authority of Maricopa County to upgrade public housing units within the City.
17
City of Avondale
Public Housing Strategy (91.210)
1. Describe the public housing agency's strategy to serve the needs of extremely
low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families residing in the
jurisdiction served by the public housing agency (including families on the public
housing and section 8 tenant-based waiting list), the public housing agency’s
strategy for addressing the revitalization and restoration needs of public housing
projects within the jurisdiction and improving the management and operation of
such public housing, and the public housing agency’s strategy for improving the
living environment of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate families
residing in public housing.
2. Describe the manner in which the plan of the jurisdiction will help address the
needs of public housing and activities it will undertake to encourage public
housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in
homeownership. (NAHA Sec. 105 (b)(11) and (91.215 (k))
3. If the public housing agency is designated as "troubled" by HUD or otherwise is
performing poorly, the jurisdiction shall describe the manner in which it will
provide financial or other assistance in improving its operations to remove such
designation. (NAHA Sec. 105 (g))
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Public Housing Strategy response:
N/A to the City of Avondale.
Barriers to Affordable Housing (91.210 (e) and 91.215 (f))
1. Explain whether the cost of housing or the incentives to develop, maintain, or
improve affordable housing are affected by public policies, particularly those of
the local jurisdiction. Such policies include tax policy affecting land and other
property, land use controls, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges,
growth limits, and policies that affect the return on residential investment.
2. Describe the strategy to remove or ameliorate negative effects of public policies
that serve as barriers to affordable housing, except that, if a State requires a unit
of general local government to submit a regulatory barrier assessment that is
substantially equivalent to the information required under this part, as
determined by HUD, the unit of general local government may submit that
assessment to HUD and it shall be considered to have complied with this
requirement.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Barriers to Affordable Housing response:
Possible barriers to affordable housing. As part of the Analysis of Impediment to
Fair Housing Choice (AI) in Section IV. BBC reviewed City zoning regulations, City
code and the Master Plan to determine barriers to affordable housing.
Several possible barriers are identified in Section IV. The minimum lot area for
Planned Area Development Districts (PAD) and all residential districts, including
mobile home subdivisions, is at least 6,000 square feet. In reviewing the City code, it
18
City of Avondale
is noted that Avondale has fairly strict landscaping requirements such as fence
requirements (height and material requirements) and parking lot landscaping. It is
important to note that for existing residential development, a rehabilitation funding
match can be used for landscaping and fences. Such landscaping requirements, in
general, may increase the cost of building housing, and decrease the affordability of
homeownership housing and rental units. PAD Districts are restricted to no more
than 15 percent of total homes having less than 1,300 square feet for single family
homes.
In addition, key person interviews conducted for the City of Avondale’s Four-Year
Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice revealed that
investment properties that drive the price of housing up and the lack of a skilled
workforce are other possible barriers to affordable housing.
For a more detailed analysis of affordable housing barriers, see Section IV. - Fair
Housing Analysis.
Strategies to remove barriers. See Section IV. - Fair Housing Analysis for a
description of the City’s Fair Housing Action Plan, which discusses the City’s
strategies to remove barriers to affordable and fair housing.
The City also has fair housing as a component of the Specific Housing Objectives
(Section 91.215 (b)). The strategy is as follows:
Increase all applicable City department staff’s awareness and knowledge
of fair housing issues.
Increase residents’ awareness and knowledge of fair housing issues by
posting information on the City’s website. The page should also give clear
details about consumers’ options for filing complaints, about following
complaint procedures and it should also contain appropriate links to
complaint forms on HUD’s and/or the Arizona Fair Housing Center’s
website.
Explore possibilities of increased landlord/tenant training on the Fair
Housing Act, and continue to be involved in the West Valley Fair Housing
Seminar.
In addition, the City has developed a Residential Infill Incentive Plan, which includes
a waiver of 50 percent of the building permit and plan review fees. Eligible projects
also receive priority plan review.
19
City of Avondale
HOMELESS
Homeless Needs (91.205 (b) and 91.215 (c))
*Please also refer to the Homeless Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook
Homeless Needs— The jurisdiction must provide a concise summary of the nature
and extent of homelessness in the jurisdiction, (including rural homelessness where
applicable), addressing separately the need for facilities and services for homeless
persons and homeless families with children, both sheltered and unsheltered, and
homeless subpopulations, in accordance with Table 1A. The summary must include
the characteristics and needs of low-income individuals and children, (especially
extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either
residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered. In addition, to the extent information is
available, the plan must include a description of the nature and extent of
homelessness by racial and ethnic group. A quantitative analysis is not required. If a
jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a
description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology
used to generate the estimates.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Homeless Needs response:
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) conducted a point-in-time homeless
survey on January 25, 2005 for the county Continuum of Care. Countywide, there
were 7,278 sheltered and unsheltered individuals. See Table 1A in Section VII. for a
detailed breakdown of the characteristics of the population experiencing
homelessness.
As part of the Continuum of Care homeless count on January 25, 2005, MAG
produced data on the homeless street population by City. On January 25, 2005,
there were 13 single adult men and 1 single adult woman experiencing homelessness
in Avondale. In addition there were 3 chronically homeless men and 1 chronically
homeless female. No children or persons in families with children were counted.
Section II. - Community and Housing Needs contains details on the City’s households
with the greatest housing needs. The Census data estimate that about 23 percent of
Avondale’s renter households (or 511 renter households) and 17 percent of the City’s
homeowners (or 1,236 households) were cost burdened in 2000. The data also show
that 14 percent of renters (306 households) and 6 percent of homeowners (448
households) were severely cost burdened, paying 50 percent or more of their
incomes for housing costs.
Priority Homeless Needs
1. Using the results of the Continuum of Care planning process, identify the
jurisdiction's homeless and homeless prevention priorities specified in Table 1A,
the Homeless and Special Needs Populations Chart. The description of the
jurisdiction's choice of priority needs and allocation priorities must be based on
reliable data meeting HUD standards and should reflect the required consultation
with homeless assistance providers, homeless persons, and other concerned
20
City of Avondale
citizens regarding the needs of homeless families with children and individuals.
The jurisdiction must provide an analysis of how the needs of each category of
residents provided the basis for determining the relative priority of each priority
homeless need category. A separate brief narrative should be directed to
addressing gaps in services and housing for the sheltered and unsheltered
chronic homeless.
2. A community should give a high priority to chronically homeless persons, where
the jurisdiction identifies sheltered and unsheltered chronic homeless persons in
its Homeless Needs Table - Homeless Populations and Subpopulations.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Priority Homeless Needs response:
The City works to address the gaps in services and housing for persons at-risk of
experiencing homelessness through the Community Assistance Program offered by
the City’s Social Services Division. The program provides emergency utility and
rental payments to eligible households who are at-risk of eviction and homelessness.
This program is available to residents of Avondale, Goodyear and Litchfield Park. The
majority of funds have been allocated to residents of Avondale. The City receives 30
requests a week for emergency assistance and serves approximately 1,200 families a
year. Due to a lack of funding, the City is unable to fund approximately $13,000 in
eligible requests a month.
The City of Avondale is also a member of the Maricopa Association of Governments
Regional Homeless Board. The City participates in the homeless count efforts
through the Avondale Police Department.
One of the City’s strategies listed in the Specific Housing Objectives section of this
document specifically addresses the needs of the population at risk of being
homeless. See Strategy 3 below.
population.
21
City of Avondale
Homeless Inventory (91.210 (c))
The jurisdiction shall provide a concise summary of the existing facilities and services
(including a brief inventory) that assist homeless persons and families with children
and subpopulations identified in Table 1A. These include outreach and assessment,
emergency shelters and services, transitional housing, permanent supportive
housing, access to permanent housing, and activities to prevent low-income
individuals and families with children (especially extremely low-income) from
becoming homeless. The jurisdiction can use the optional Continuum of Care
Housing Activity Chart and Service Activity Chart to meet this requirement.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Homeless Inventory response:
New Life Center, located in the City of Goodyear, is an emergency shelter for women
and children who are victims of domestic violence. The shelter is a 64-bed facility
that provided 20,083 bed nights of shelter, safety and services to 987 women and
children in 2005. Unfortunately, the shelter is at capacity daily and, as such, it
turned away over 2,400 requests for shelter in 2005. Approximately 40 percent of
the population is adults and 60 percent is children. The shelter program is a 120-day
program, and the average length of stay is approximately 45 day.
The City’s Social Services Division and the Maricopa County Human Services
Department have partnered to provide emergency utility and rental payments to
eligible households who are at-risk of eviction and homelessness. This program is
available to residents of Avondale, Goodyear and Litchfield Park. The majority of
funds have been allocated to residents of Avondale. The City receives 30 requests a
week for emergency assistance and serves approximately 1,200 families a year. Due
to a lack of funding, the City is unable to fund approximately $13,000 in eligible
requests a month.
Mercy Housing is a nonprofit organization that develops affordable housing coupled
with an array of services. Mercy Housing has one development for seniors, Avondale
Senior Village, on Apache Street in Avondale. In general, Mercy Housing develops
affordable housing for families, seniors, formerly homeless populations, people with
HIV/AIDS, and individuals with chronic mental illnesses and physical impairments.
With the help of public and private funding, Mercy Housing builds or rehabilitates
housing according to community needs. The types of housing developed include
multi-unit rental apartments and single family homes, single room occupancy
apartments for formerly homeless adults, handicap-accessible units for individuals
with physical impairments, and self-help housing programs for families ready for
homeownership. 2
The table on the following page lists the subsidized housing available to low-income
residents in Avondale. Types of development include public housing units, lowincome housing tax credit units, project-based Section 8 units, and non-profit
developments.
2
http://www.mercyhousing.org/about/default.asp?action=what
22
City of Avondale
Property Name
Avondale Senior Village
No. of Units
Unknown
Parkside Apartments
54
Siesta Pointe Apartments
82
Vianney Villa (elderly)
50
Edgewater Apartments
Unknown
The Village at Avondale
76
Rose Terrace Apartments
60
Avondale Adult Day Health Care
40
Twilight Haven
7
Adult Therapeutic Foster Homes
2
Total Units
371
In Avondale, there are over 371 units available for low-income individuals.
PREHAB of Arizona operates a 24-hour emergency shelter and transitional housing
program for victims of domestic violence in the West Valley (location undisclosed for
safety reasons). Faith Housing Emergency and Transitional Shelter serves nearly 400
persons per year. Services offered at the shelter include meals, case management,
childcare, domestic violence counseling, substance abuse counseling, parenting
education and life skills classes. The Victim Outreach program, which provides
services but not housing to victims of domestic violence, serves 700 persons per
year. PREHAB also offers a crisis hotline for West Valley residents (800.799.7739).
Homeless Strategic Plan (91.215 (c))
1. Homelessness— Describe the jurisdiction's strategy for developing a system to
address homelessness and the priority needs of homeless persons and families
(including the subpopulations identified in the needs section). The jurisdiction's
strategy must consider the housing and supportive services needed in each stage
of the process which includes preventing homelessness, outreach/assessment,
emergency shelters and services, transitional housing, and helping homeless
persons (especially any persons that are chronically homeless) make the
transition to permanent housing and independent living. The jurisdiction must
also describe its strategy for helping extremely low- and low-income individuals
and families who are at imminent risk of becoming homeless.
2. Chronic homelessness—Describe the jurisdiction’s strategy for eliminating chronic
homelessness by 2012. This should include the strategy for helping homeless
persons make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. This
strategy should, to the maximum extent feasible, be coordinated with the
strategy presented Exhibit 1 of the Continuum of Care (CoC) application and any
other strategy or plan to eliminate chronic homelessness. Also describe, in a
narrative, relationships and efforts to coordinate the Conplan, CoC, and any other
23
City of Avondale
strategy or plan to address chronic homelessness.
3. Homelessness Prevention—Describe the jurisdiction’s strategy to help prevent
homelessness for individuals and families with children who are at imminent risk
of becoming homeless.
4. Institutional Structure—Briefly describe the institutional structure, including
private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions, through which
the jurisdiction will carry out its homelessness strategy.
5. Discharge Coordination Policy—Every jurisdiction receiving McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), Supportive Housing,
Shelter Plus Care, or Section 8 SRO Program funds must develop and implement
a Discharge Coordination Policy, to the maximum extent practicable. Such a
policy should include “policies and protocols for the discharge of persons from
publicly funded institutions or systems of care (such as health care facilities,
foster care or other youth facilities, or correction programs and institutions) in
order to prevent such discharge from immediately resulting in homelessness for
such persons.” The jurisdiction should describe its planned activities to
implement a cohesive, community-wide Discharge Coordination Policy, and how
the community will move toward such a policy.
3-5 Year Homeless Strategic Plan response:
The City’s Social Services Division and the Maricopa County Human Services
Department have partnered to provide emergency utility and rental payments to
eligible households who are at-risk of eviction and homelessness. This program is
available to residents of Avondale, Goodyear and Litchfield Park. The majority of
funds have been allocated to residents of Avondale. The City receives 30 requests a
week for emergency assistance and serves approximately 1,200 families a year. Due
to a lack of funding, the City is unable to fund approximately $13,000 in eligible
requests a month. The City endeavors to continue this program, as funding allows.
In addition, the City strives to provide residents with informative, practical and
innovative ways to manage their finances. The City has a program, Freedom to
Invest in Tomorrow (FIT), that provides free income tax assistance, financial
workshops and the Individual Development Account Program (IDA).
The IDA program, funded with General Funds, is a matched savings account to give
lower-income people the ability to eventually accumulate assets. The participants
have to meet income requirements and must qualify for a loan at the end of the
savings period. Participants save a sum of money every month for 6 to 10 months.
During this period, potential homeowners must attend at least 3 financial literacy
classes and a certified homebuyer education program. The FIT program is a tool the
City uses to prevent people from being financially burdened (and possibility at-risk of
homelessness) and to help educate them about homeownership, a possibility that
many of these individuals never thought possible. The City intends to continue this
program.
24
City of Avondale
through the Avondale Police Department.
One of the City’s strategies listed in the Specific Housing Objectives section of this
document specifically addresses the needs of the population at risk of being
homeless. See Strategy 3 below.
population.
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)
(States only) Describe the process for awarding grants to State recipients, and a
description of how the allocation will be made available to units of local government.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan ESG response:
N/A to the City of Avondale. The City of Avondale does not receive any Emergency
Shelter Grants funding through the state.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Community Development (91.215 (e))
*Please also refer to the Community Development Table in the Needs.xls workbook
1. Identify the jurisdiction's priority non-housing community development needs
eligible for assistance by CDBG eligibility category specified in the Community
Development Needs Table (formerly Table 2B), − i.e., public facilities, public
improvements, public services and economic development.
25
City of Avondale
needs.
4. Identify specific long-term and short-term community development objectives
(including economic development activities that create jobs), developed in
accordance with the statutory goals described in section 24 CFR 91.1 and the
primary objective of the CDBG program to provide decent housing and a suitable
living environment and expand economic opportunities, principally for low- and
moderate-income persons.
NOTE: Each specific objective developed to address a priority need, must be identified by number
and contain proposed accomplishments, the time period (i.e., one, two, three, or more years), and
annual program year numeric goals the jurisdiction hopes to achieve in quantitative terms, or in other
measurable terms as identified and defined by the jurisdiction.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Community Development response:
The City’s priority Community Development needs are listed in the Community
Development Needs table at the end of the Four-Year Consolidated Plan.
The priority needs for community development were derived through the citizen
participation process in which attendees were asked to prioritize needs in the City.
This process revealed the need for improvement to infrastructure (streets, curbs,
sidewalks and lighting) and increased code enforcement.
providing services in need has been lack of funding. Other obstacles included the
City’s need to improve coordination and lack of designated staff to oversee the
proper implementation of such programming.
Strategy 2 in Section 91.215 (b)), relates to community development organizations.
The strategy and specific goals are listed below.
26
City of Avondale
The City offers community development programs, as well as including
community development as a significant focus of the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan. The programs are summarized below.
Commercial Infill Incentives Plan. To facilitate commercial development in
areas of the City that are vacant or otherwise underutilized, the City offers a
Commercial Infill Incentives Plan that offers reduced fees, priority plan review
Capital Improvement Program. The City of Avondale’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) for FY2007-FY2011 specifies improvements to
and expansion of infrastructure in the City’s low- to moderate-income areas.
The Street Construction Fund lists repairs to sidewalks, streetlights and street
overlays Citywide for a 5-year total of $200,000. Specific streets located in
some of the City’s lowest income areas include: Central Avenue, Western
Avenue, sections of Van Buren and streets in Las Ligas. The Street CIP lists
CDBG funds as potentially providing $250,000 for street improvements per
year over the next 5 years.
Future police infrastructure that meet the needs of the community as
highlighted through the consolidated planning process include a family
domestic crime center ($350,000) and a training facility/classroom for officers
($1 million).
The Parkland CIP lists a new $3 million community recreation center to be
built in 2010. As evidenced in the telephone survey results in Section III. –
Citizen Input, Avondale residents strongly believe there is a need for more
community and recreation centers.
Additionally, Section III. revealed, through key persons interviews and the
public forum, the need to revitalize Western Avenue and create a unique
sense of community. The Library Development CIP lists a $3.7 million design
and remodel of Western Avenue, occurring in 2006-2007.
Throughout the consolidated planning process, the need for improved streets,
sidewalks, street lighting and sewer improvements continuously came to the
forefront. As seen in the Sewer Development CIP, the City plans to implement
Citywide sewer improvements and improvements to the sewer line on Central
Avenue (a low- to moderate-income area).
Improvements to the water delivery infrastructure are also planned in areas
of great need such as South Avondale, Cashion and Rio Vista. South Avondale
27
City of Avondale
water improvements will total $950,000 over the 5-year period, the well at
Cashion will total $150,000, and the replacement of the Rio Vista waterline
will cost $1.75 million.
Antipoverty Strategy (91.215 (h))
1. Describe the jurisdiction's goals, programs, and policies for reducing the number
of poverty level families (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and
revised annually). In consultation with other appropriate public and private
agencies, (i.e. TANF agency) state how the jurisdiction's goals, programs, and
policies for producing and preserving affordable housing set forth in the housing
component of the consolidated plan will be coordinated with other programs and
services for which the jurisdiction is responsible.
2. Identify the extent to which this strategy will reduce (or assist in reducing) the
number of poverty level families, taking into consideration factors over which the
jurisdiction has control.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan Antipoverty Strategy response:
The City’s strategy is to avoid clusters of low- to moderate-income housing.
An inclusionary housing plan is a potential option for the City of Avondale. As
noted in the Specific Housing Objectives section of this document, the City
has a focus on serving special needs populations, including those in poverty
and at-risk of homelessness.
population.
The City would like to work toward facilitating joint efforts to help provide a
variety of housing stock and price ranges that will allow low- to moderateincome families to take advantage of good school system, recreational
amenities, and other quality of life products that are often not available in
these communities.
28
City of Avondale
Avondale’s Freedom to Invest in Tomorrow (FIT) Program is based on the concept
that asset development is the best way out of poverty. The program provides free
income tax assistance, financial workshops and the Individual Development Account
Program (IDA). Financial literacy programs offer a variety of financial topics including
budgeting, saving, credit reports, credit scores, loans and mortgages and Wills and
Trusts, etc.
many of these individuals never thought possible.
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Coordination (91.315
(k))
1. (States only) Describe the strategy to coordinate the Low-income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) with the development of housing that is affordable to low- and
moderate-income families.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan LIHTC Coordination response:
N/A to the City of Avondale. However, the City has 4 low-income housing tax credit
projects within the City limits. The developments are: Parkside Group Apartments,
The Village at Avondale, Siesta Pointe Apartments and Rose Terrace. These
developments offer a total of 272 LIHTC units.
NON-HOMELESS SPECIAL NEEDS
Specific Special Needs Objectives (91.215)
over a specified time period.
29
City of Avondale
3-5 Year Non-homeless Special Needs Analysis response:
The City’s specific strategy to address special needs populations is as follows:
population.
derived through the citizen participation process in which attendees were asked to
prioritize needs in the City. This process revealed the need for youth and senior
The City strives to provide residents with informative, practical and innovative ways
to manage their finances. The City has a program, Freedom to Invest in Tomorrow
(FIT), that provides free income tax assistance, financial workshops and the
Individual Development Account Program (IDA). Financial literacy programs offer a
variety of financial topics including budgeting, saving, credit reports, credit scores,
loans and mortgages and Wills and Trusts, etc.
30
City of Avondale
The City of Avondale currently has a Healthy Avondale Campaign that targets elderly
high blood pressure.
The City also provides scholarships for youth and low-income families to participate
in recreation and sports activities.
The City funds a variety of senior services. In 2005, the City allocated $35,000 to
transportation services for elderly and disabled residents. Through the Social
Services Division, the City also provides senior programming, allowing seniors to go
on trips.
Non-homeless Special Needs (91.205 (d) and 91.210 (d))
Analysis (including HOPWA)
*Please also refer to the Non-homeless Special Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook.
1. Estimate, to the extent practicable, the number of persons in various
subpopulations that are not homeless but may require housing or supportive
services, including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental,
physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families), persons with
alcohol or other drug addiction, and any other categories the jurisdiction may
specify and describe their supportive housing needs. The jurisdiction can use the
Non-Homeless Special Needs Table (formerly Table 1B) of their Consolidated Plan
to help identify these needs.
*Note: HOPWA recipients must identify the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS
and their families that will be served in the metropolitan area.
2. Identify the priority housing and supportive service needs of persons who are not
homeless but require supportive housing, i.e., elderly, frail elderly, persons with
disabilities (mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their
families), persons with alcohol or other drug addiction by using the Non-homeless
Special Needs Table.
needs.
5. To the extent information is available, describe the facilities and services that
assist persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, and
programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health
institutions receive appropriate supportive housing.
6. If the jurisdiction plans to use HOME or other tenant based rental assistance to
assist one or more of these subpopulations, it must justify the need for such
assistance in the plan.
31
City of Avondale
3-5 Year Non-homeless Special Needs Analysis response:
The following strategies listed as part of the Specific Housing Objectives section of
this document address the City’s approach to meeting the needs of non-homeless
special needs populations.
population.
assistance through the Individual Development Account Program available
The City of Avondale held a forum on March 7, 2006, for providers of non-homeless
special needs populations and City residents to identify priority housing and
supportive service needs of persons who are not homeless, but require supportive
housing. The needs of non-homeless populations were prioritized based on the
feedback from the nonprofit forum. The service providers and residents were able to
identify the priority needs, rather than exact numbers, of these populations based on
the current and past clients’ needs. It is very difficult to truly quantify the needs of
these populations because they are often hidden or their needs can change
dramatically based on personal health, availability of caregivers, etc. BBC also used
incidence rates in order to estimate certain special needs population. The NonHomeless Special Needs Table in Section VII. quantifies the needs of the nonhomeless special needs populations, where available.
32
City of Avondale
The qualitative assessment revealed the top needs for non-homeless special needs
populations that appear in Section III. – Citizen Input of this Plan. Supportive service
needs identified through the public process were:
Social service programs for youth and seniors;
Investment in street repair and street lighting;
Crime reduction activities; and
Code enforcement.
Obstacles to meeting needs. As cited throughout this Plan, the major barriers to
Special need services. The City offers a number of programs targeted at
special needs populations. The City’s strategies
The programs are summarized below.
The City strives to provide residents with informative, practical and innovative ways
to manage their finances. The City has a program, Freedom to Invest in Tomorrow
(FIT), that provides free income tax assistance, financial workshops and the
Individual Development Account Program (IDA). Financial literacy programs offer a
variety of financial topics including budgeting, saving, credit reports, credit scores,
loans and mortgages and Wills and Trusts, etc.
high blood pressure.
The City also provides scholarships for youth and low-income families to participate
in recreation and sports activities.
33
City of Avondale
The City funds a variety of senior services. In 2005, the City allocated $35,000 to
transportation services for elderly and disabled residents. Through the Social
Services Division, the City also provides senior programming, allowing seniors to go
on trips.
The Contributions Assistance Program (CAP) is funded with General Fund monies and
is a competitive grant for health and human service organizations. Agencies funded
the previous year receive priority consideration. Grants cannot be used for ongoing
administrative costs. Funding is based on the following criteria:
The agency is a health and human services organization;
The agency is requesting funding for a specific project;
The agency must be able to generate other revenue sources; and
There must be a gain to the community from this assistance.
Organizations that were funded this year include: All Faith Community
Services, American Cancer Society, Boys and Girls Club, Central Arizona
Shelter Services, FSL Programs, Habitat for Humanity, KEYS, Neighborhood
Housing Services, New Life Center, Planned Parenthood, PPEP, Southwest
Community Network, Southwest Lending Closet, Southwest Valley Literacy
and Westside Food Bank. Funding for these organizations totaled $60,000.
The City’s Social Services Department provides a variety of community
services for residents. Seventy-five congregate meals are provided at the
community center a day, in addition to the 75 meals that are home delivered.
The City spends approximately $247,000 per year on congregate meals, and
$23,800 on home delivered meals.
Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA)
*Please also refer to the HOPWA Table in the Needs.xls workbook.
1. The Plan includes a description of the activities to be undertaken with its HOPWA
Program funds to address priority unmet housing needs for the eligible
population. Activities will assist persons who are not homeless but require
supportive housing, such as efforts to prevent low-income individuals and
families from becoming homeless and may address the housing needs of persons
who are homeless in order to help homeless persons make the transition to
permanent housing and independent living. The plan would identify any
obstacles to meeting underserved needs and summarize the priorities and
specific objectives, describing how funds made available will be used to address
identified needs.
2. The Plan must establish annual HOPWA output goals for the planned number of
households to be assisted during the year in: (1) short-term rent, mortgage and
utility payments to avoid homelessness; (2) rental assistance programs; and (3)
in housing facilities, such as community residences and SRO dwellings, where
34
City of Avondale
funds are used to develop and/or operate these facilities. The plan can also
describe the special features or needs being addressed, such as support for
persons who are homeless or chronically homeless. These outputs are to be
used in connection with an assessment of client outcomes for achieving housing
stability, reduced risks of homelessness and improved access to care.
3. For housing facility projects being developed, a target date for the completion of
each development activity must be included and information on the continued
use of these units for the eligible population based on their stewardship
requirements (e.g. within the ten-year use periods for projects involving
acquisition, new construction or substantial rehabilitation).
4. The Plan includes an explanation of how the funds will be allocated including a
description of the geographic area in which assistance will be directed and the
rationale for these geographic allocations and priorities. Include the name of
each project sponsor, the zip code for the primary area(s) of planned activities,
amounts committed to that sponsor, and whether the sponsor is a faith-based
and/or grassroots organization.
5. The Plan describes the role of the lead jurisdiction in the eligible metropolitan
statistical area (EMSA), involving (a) consultation to develop a metropolitan-wide
strategy for addressing the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their families
living throughout the EMSA with the other jurisdictions within the EMSA; (b) the
standards and procedures to be used to monitor HOPWA Program activities in
order to ensure compliance by project sponsors of the requirements of the
program.
6. The Plan includes the certifications relevant to the HOPWA Program.
3-5 Year Strategic Plan HOPWA response:
Specific HOPWA Objectives
3-5 Year Specific HOPWA Objectives response:
OTHER NARRATIVE
Include any Strategic Plan information that was not covered by a narrative in any
other section.
35
The City’s low- to moderate-income Census Block Groups are concentrated south of Interstate 10
from the western to eastern City boundaries. Some of the neighborhoods included in these Block
Groups are Old Town Avondale, Cashion, Las Ligas and Rio Vista.
Exhibit 1.
Low- to Moderate-Income Block Groups, Avondale, 2000
Note:
Block Group 1 in Census Tract 820.15 highlighted green did not contain any people at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census. Therefore, this Block
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census and BBC Research and Consulting.
S TRATEGIC P LAN S UPPLEMENT , P AGE 1
SECTION VI.
FY2006 Action Plan
First Program Year
Action Plan
The CPMP First Annual Action Plan includes the SF 424 and Narrative Responses to
Action Plan questions that CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG grantees must respond to
each year in order to be compliant with the Consolidated Planning Regulations. The
Executive Summary narratives are optional.
SF 424
Complete the fillable fields (blue cells) in the table below. The other items are prefilled with values from the Grantee Information Worksheet.
Date Submitted: 05/15/2006 Applicant Identifier
Date Received by state
State Identifier
Date Received by HUD
Federal Identifier
Type of Submission
Application
Pre-application
Construction
Construction
Non Construction
Non Construction
Applicant Information
City of Avondale
DUNS: 00-248-6884
City of Avondale
City Manager’s Office
Avondale
Arizona
85323
Country U.S.A.
Employer Identification Number (EIN):
Maricopa County
Program Year Start Date (8/2006)
Specify Other Type if necessary:
86-60000233
Applicant Type:
Local Government: City
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
Program Funding
Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers; Descriptive Title of Applicant Project(s);
Areas Affected by Project(s) (cities, Counties, localities etc.); Estimated Funding
Community Development Block Grant
14.218 Entitlement Grant
CDBG Project Titles
Description of Areas Affected by CDBG
Project(s)
Describe
$CDBG Grant Amount: $473,579
$Additional HUD Grant(s)
Leveraged
$Additional Federal Funds Leveraged
$Additional State Funds Leveraged
$Locally Leveraged Funds
$Grantee Funds Leveraged
$Anticipated Program Income
Other (Describe)
Total Funds Leveraged for CDBG-based Project(s)
Home Investment Partnerships Program
14.239 HOME
HOME Project Titles
Description of Areas Affected by HOME
Project(s)
First Program Year Action Plan
1
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
$HOME Grant Amount $143,808
American Dream
Downpayment Initiative
Leveraged: $3,773
Other (Describe)
Total Funds Leveraged for HOME-based Project(s)
Housing Opportunities for People with
AIDS
14.241 HOPWA
HOPWA Project Titles
Description of Areas Affected by HOPWA
Project(s)
$HOPWA Grant Amount
Describe
Leveraged
Other (Describe)
Total Funds Leveraged for HOPWA-based Project(s)
Emergency Shelter Grants Program
ESG Project Titles
$ESG Grant Amount
14.231 ESG
Description of Areas Affected by ESG
Project(s)
$Additional HUD Grant(s) Leveraged Describe
Other (Describe)
Total Funds Leveraged for ESG-based Project(s)
Congressional Districts of:
Applicant Districts
Project Districts
Is the applicant delinquent on any federal
debt? If “Yes” please include an additional
document explaining the situation.
Yes
No
Is application subject to review by state
Executive Order 12372 Process?
Yes
This application was made available to
the state EO 12372 process for review
on DATE
No
Program is not covered by EO 12372
N/A
Program has not been selected by the
state for review
2
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
Person to be contacted regarding this application
Janeen
K
Grants Administrator
623.478.3025
jgaskins@avondale.org
http://www.ci.avondale.az.us
Signature of Authorized Representative
Gaskins
623.478.3803
Rogene Hill
Date Signed
Narrative Responses
GENERAL
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary is optional, but encouraged. If you choose to complete it,
please provide a brief overview that includes major initiatives and highlights that are
proposed during the next year.
Program Year 1 Action Plan Executive Summary:
The City of Avondale’s Executive Summary is located in Section I. – Executive
Summary of the FY2006-FY2009 Consolidated Plan, which precedes this section.
General Questions
1. Describe the geographic areas of the jurisdiction (including areas of low income
families and/or racial/minority concentration) in which assistance will be directed
during the next year.
2. Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the
jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA) (91.215(a)(1)) during the next year
and the rationale for assigning the priorities.
3. Describe actions that will take place during the next year to address obstacles to
meeting underserved needs.
Program Year 1 Action Plan General Questions response:
Geographic allocation. The City of Avondale plans to allocate funding to the lowto moderate Block Groups (i.e., where 51 percent or more of households earn less
than 80 percent of the HUD-defined area median income). The City has 15 Block
Groups that meet these criteria. Targeted neighborhoods that are located in these
3
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
Block Groups include, but are not limited to, Las Ligas, Old Town Avondale, Rio Vista
and Cashion.
The public services component of CDBG will be allocated Citywide. Public service
grants will be provided for assistance to organizations that service special needs
populations, including persons who are homeless and at-risk of homelessness, lowincome seniors and at-risk youth. The City’s physical improvement activities (capital
projects) funded with CDBG will also be allocated in the City’s low- to moderateincome Block Groups. The City plans to continue using CDBG monies to improve
street and sidewalks, targeting the neighborhoods of Las Ligas, Old Town Avondale,
Rio Vista and Cashion.
A map showing the City’s low- to moderate-income Census Block Groups appears at
the end of Section V – Strategic Plan. The City’s low- to moderate-income Census
Block Groups are concentrated south of Interstate 10 from the western to eastern
City boundaries. Some of the neighborhoods included in these Block Groups are Old
Town Avondale, Cashion, Las Ligas and Rio Vista.
Prioritization of funds. Funds will be made available Citywide to eligible activities
with the goal of improving infrastructure (streets and sidewalks), assisting social
service organizations that serve special needs populations and low- to moderateincome persons, improving the condition of the housing stock occupied by the City’s
lowest income citizens, and preserving the City’s affordable single family housing
stock.
Obstacles to meeting needs. The greatest obstacle to meeting needs in the City of
Avondale is lack of funding and the lack of coordination between City departments.
The City receives approximately $470,000 in CDBG funds annually, an amount that
falls short of meeting needs.
This fiscal year, the City will focus on street and sidewalk improvements;
homeownership assistance, housing rehabilitation and creation of affordable housing;
and public services.
Managing the Process
1. Identify the lead agency, entity, and agencies responsible for administering
programs covered by the consolidated plan.
2. Identify the significant aspects of the process by which the plan was developed,
and the agencies, groups, organizations, and others who participated in the
process.
3. Describe actions that will take place during the next year to enhance coordination
between public and private housing, health, and social service agencies.
4
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
Program Year 1 Action Plan Managing the Process response:
Lead agency. The City Manager’s Office in Avondale is the lead agency within the
City that is responsible for overseeing development of the Consolidated Plan, as well
as administering the HUD block grants.
Community participation and organizational consultation. The City of
Avondale’s FY2006-FY2009 Consolidated Plan was prepared with a strong emphasis
on community participation from nonprofit organizations and City residents.
February 24, 2006.
March 30, 2006.
Notices and Publications portion of the Section III. – Citizen Input. The City also held
three public hearings for individuals to comment on the Draft Plan. Public hearings
5
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
were held on April 3, April 17, and May 1,2006. At the first public hearing, BBC
presented the key findings from the Plan and specifically listed the City’s housing and
community development strategies over the next 4 years.
Enhancing coordination. This program year, the City will seek out participation
from both public and private stakeholder by including them as board members and
inviting them to all related events that involve the disbursement of HUD funds.
Citizen Participation
1. Provide a summary of the citizen participation process.
2. Provide a summary of citizen comments or views on the plan.
3. Provide a summary of efforts made to broaden public participation in the
development of the consolidated plan, including outreach to minorities and nonEnglish speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities.
4. Provide a written explanation of comments not accepted and the reasons why
these comments were not accepted.
*Please note that Citizen Comments and Responses may be included as additional files within the CPMP
Tool.
Program Year 1 Action Plan Citizen Participation response:
Summary of citizen participation process and efforts to broaden
participation. The City of Avondale’s FY2006-FY2009 Consolidated Plan was
prepared with a strong emphasis on community participation from nonprofit
organizations and City residents.
February 24, 2006.
6
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
March 30, 2006.
Notices and Publications portion of the Section III. – Citizen Input. The City also held
three public hearings for individuals to comment on the Draft Plan. Public hearings
were held on April 3, April 17, and May 1, 2006. At the first public hearing, BBC
presented the key findings from the Plan and specifically listed the City’s housing and
community development strategies over the next 4 years.
Citizen comments. The most frequently mentioned housing and community
development needs learned from the Citizen Participation Process include:
rehabilitation of single family homes; improvement of public infrastructure (streets
and sidewalks); supportive services for at-risk youth; emergency rental and utility
assistance; an increase in neighborhood safety and policing programs; and an
increase in step-up housing (e.g., executive housing and condominiums).
Section III. contains the City's full Citizen Participation Plan.
Institutional Structure
1. Describe actions that will take place during the next year to develop institutional
structure.
Program Year 1 Action Plan Institutional Structure response:
Institutional structure through which services are delivered. The City of
Avondale will utilize multiple funding sources and community resources in order to
carry out the goals for the First Program Year Action Plan. The City will use federal
funds, county funds, General Fund monies, private funds and project leveraging to
meet the goals of the Consolidated Plan.
A few of the many organizations through which services are delivered include the
Neighborhood Housing Services of Southwest Maricopa County, Mercy Housing,
PREHAB, and the Housing Authority of Maricopa County.
7
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
This program year the City’s Social Services Division will continue to foster its
relationship with the Maricopa County Human Services Department to provide
emergency rental and utility assistance.
Additionally, the Social Services Division provides an array of supportive services and
the City intends to continue these programs. Programs include senior services and
the Individual Development Account (IDA) Program, which provides downpayment
assistance.
The City will continue to provide the Contributions Assistance Program (CAP), funded
with General Fund monies, that gives grants to health and human service agencies
for specific projects.
Monitoring
1. Describe actions that will take place during the next year to monitor its housing
and community development projects and ensure long-term compliance with
program requirements and comprehensive planning requirements.
Program Year 1 Action Plan Monitoring response:
The City of Avondale will work to begin implementing a monitoring program for all
HUD funded activities this program year. The City will send the appropriate staff
members to trainings that will best help implement program requirements. The City
will maintain a close relationship with other jurisdictions that have entitlement
experience. Policies and procedures will be revised as needed and discussed
frequently with City staff. This type of communication will be well documented to
guard against staff turnover and HUD regulation changes.
As discussed in the FY2006-FY2009 Strategic Plan, the City will strive to achieve the
following monitoring plan.
Where the activity is to be performed by a subrecipient, a contract between the
subrecipient and the City is approved by the City Council. The contract specifies what
will be done with the money allocated, and the rules and regulations that apply. In
addition, CDBG staff will meet with the subrecipients prior to the start of the grant
year to explain the required record keeping.
The monitoring process in the City of Avondale will consist of seven steps:
1. Notification to subrecipient of scheduled monitoring visit.
2. Entrance conference with subrecipient staff, to explain what will be done during
the visit.
3.
Review of documents justifying expenditures and work completed or in progress,
to determine the quality of the work and whether or not it complies with
regulations and codes.
8
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
4.
Where appropriate, review of income qualification documents.
5.
Exit conference to report tentative conclusions and findings to the subrecipient
staff.
6.
Written follow-up detailing any problems found and asking for a response
explaining how the problems will be corrected.
7.
Additional follow-up visit to see that problems have been corrected, when
necessary.
In most cases, monitoring visits will be conducted when work is complete, but in
some cases, particularly with new subrecipients, more frequent monitoring visits will
be conducted.
Lead-based Paint
1. Describe the actions that will take place during the next year to evaluate and
reduce the number of housing units containing lead-based paint hazards in order
to increase the inventory of lead-safe housing available to extremely low-income,
low-income, and moderate-income families.
Program Year 1 Action Plan Lead-based Paint response:
The City of Avondale currently has a Healthy Avondale Campaign that could help
facilitate a lead-based paint elimination program. The Healthy Avondale Campaign
targets elderly and low-income families and connects them with medical resources
for diabetes and high blood pressure. As a community outreach program, this would
be an appropriate program to identify lead-based paint hazards because the
coordinators are directly involved with Avondale citizens.
The City will look for other grant funding in conjunction with the Healthy Avondale
campaign to help educate the public about the dangers of lead-based paint and to
eliminate or mitigate the areas with lead-based paint issues.
HOUSING
Specific Housing Objectives
*Please also refer to the Housing Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook.
during the next year.
for the period covered by this Action Plan.
9
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
Program Year 1 Action Plan Specific Objectives response:
Active citizen participation will be a focal point for the City. The City staff will look to
have buy-in from private sector, community residents and other stakeholders in the
area. City staff will be active in developing comprehensive programming that aims as
solving more than one issue at a time.
In addition, the City’s Four-Year Housing Goals and Objectives include the following
that is relevant to the 2006 program year:
Continue to pursue HOME funds through the Maricopa HOME Consortium,
which have been distributed to organizations that provide housing
rehabilitation programs in previous years.
Continue thorough code enforcement procedures to assist homeowners in
bringing units up to code.
Continue to offer the Residential Incentives Infill Program, which
encourages development of residential uses in areas of the City that are
vacant or underutilized through reduced fees and priority plan review.
assistance through the Individual Development Account Program
available through the City’s Social Services Division.
Available resources. To achieve the goals and objectives identified above, the City
will use a combination of federal and county funds, and private funds for project
leveraging to meet the goals of the Consolidated Plan.
Federal funds – Federal assistance will largely consist of funds from the CDBG
program (totaling approximately $470,000 a year). This fiscal year, $138,863 of the
City’s CDBG monies will focus on housing activities including homeownership
assistance, housing rehabilitation and creation of affordable housing.
County funds – The City is receiving HOME and ADDI funds from the Maricopa
County HOME Consortium. HOME funds will be used for home rehabilitation and
ADDI funds will be used for downpayment assistance.
General funds – the City has allocated General Fund monies to the City’s Social
Services Division for the Individual Development Account Program, a downpayment
10
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
assistance program. The City has also set aside General Fund monies totaling
approximately $100,000 for the Contributions Assistance Program (CAP) for the
current program year. This program provides grants to health and human service
organizations. Finally, the City has approved supplemental requests of $457,300 for
supportive service organizations, separate from the CAP program.
Needs of Public Housing
1. Describe the manner in which the plan of the jurisdiction will help address the
needs of public housing and activities it will undertake during the next year to
encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and
participate in homeownership.
2. If the public housing agency is designated as "troubled" by HUD or otherwise is
performing poorly, the jurisdiction shall describe the manner in which it will
provide financial or other assistance in improving its operations to remove such
designation during the next year.
Program Year 1 Action Plan Public Housing Strategy response:
1. Describe the actions that will take place during the next year to remove barriers
to affordable housing.
Program Year 1 Action Plan Barriers to Affordable Housing response:
Possible barriers to affordable housing. As part of the Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice (AI) in Section IV., BBC reviewed City zoning regulations, City
code and the Master Plan to determine barriers to affordable housing.
Several possible barriers are identified in Section IV. The minimum lot area for
Planned Area Development Districts (PAD) and all residential districts, including
mobile home subdivisions, is at least 6,000 square feet. In reviewing the City code, it
is noted that Avondale has fairly strict landscaping requirements such as fence
requirements (height and material requirements) and parking lot landscaping. It is
important to note that for existing residential development, a rehabilitation funding
match can be used for landscaping and fences. Such landscaping requirements, in
general, may increase the cost of building housing, and decrease the affordability of
homeownership housing and rental units. PAD Districts are restricted to no more
than 15 percent of total homes having less than 1,300 square feet for single family
homes.
In addition, key person interviews conducted for the City of Avondale’s Four-Year
Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice revealed that
investment properties that drive the price of housing up and the lack of a skilled
workforce are other possible barriers to affordable housing.
11
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
Strategies to remove barriers. The City plans to continue the Residential Infill
Incentive Plan, which includes a waiver of 50 percent of the building permit and plan
review fees. Eligible projects also receive priority plan review. In addition, the City
will take a more active approach in encouraging affordable housing development by
considering revising City policies that are potential affordable housing barriers
(minimum lot size requirements, landscaping requirements).
As cited in Section IV. – Fair Housing Analysis, the City has an in-depth strategy to
address fair housing and affordable housing barriers. This program year the City
intends to focus on the following two goal:
Objective 1: The City should develop a fair housing page that describes
the City’s Fair Housing Program, the Fair Housing Act and consumers’
rights under fair housing laws. The page should also give clear details
about consumers’ options for filing complaints, about following complaint
procedures (e.g., information about when consumers might be expected
to hear back from the City or HUD) and it should also contain appropriate
links to complaint forms on HUD’s and/or the Arizona Fair Housing
Center’s website. All of this information should be provided in Spanish
and English. We would also recommend a Frequently Asked Questions
section with answers to questions such as, “If I am not a U.S. citizen but
I feel that I have been discriminated against, what can I do?”
Objective 2: The City should designate a point person for fair housing
questions and concerns. The contact information should be available on
the City’s website. This contact can assist with complaint filing and
recommend persons to the Southwest Fair Housing Council or HUD.
Objective 1: The City should increase the fair housing awareness of City
staff members. The City could do this through a number of measures
such as posting a fliers in commons areas of the Civic Center that
describe fair housing. The flyer should be user-friendly and easy to read.
Objective 2: The City should explore possibilities of increased
landlord/tenant training on the Fair Housing Act, and continue to be
involved in the West Valley Fair Housing Seminar.
12
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
HOME/ American Dream Down payment Initiative (ADDI)
1. Describe other forms of investment not described in § 92.205(b).
2. If the participating jurisdiction (PJ) will use HOME or ADDI funds for
homebuyers, it must state the guidelines for resale or recapture, as required
in § 92.254 of the HOME rule.
3. If the PJ will use HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by
multifamily housing that is that is being rehabilitated with HOME funds, it
must state its refinancing guidelines required under § 92.206(b). The
guidelines shall describe the conditions under which the PJ will refinance
existing debt. At a minimum these guidelines must:
a. Demonstrate that rehabilitation is the primary eligible activity and ensure
that this requirement is met by establishing a minimum level of
rehabilitation per unit or a required ratio between rehabilitation and
refinancing.
b. Require a review of management practices to demonstrate that
disinvestments in the property has not occurred; that the long-term needs
of the project can be met; and that the feasibility of serving the targeted
population over an extended affordability period can be demonstrated.
c. State whether the new investment is being made to maintain current
affordable units, create additional affordable units, or both.
d. Specify the required period of affordability, whether it is the minimum 15
years or longer.
e. Specify whether the investment of HOME funds may be jurisdiction-wide
or limited to a specific geographic area, such as a neighborhood identified
in a neighborhood revitalization strategy under 24 CFR 91.215(e)(2) or a
Federally designated Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community.
f. State that HOME funds cannot be used to refinance multifamily loans
made or insured by any federal program, including CDBG.
4. If the PJ is going to receive American Dream Down payment Initiative (ADDI)
funds, please complete the following narratives:
a. Describe the planned use of the ADDI funds.
b. Describe the PJ's plan for conducting targeted outreach to residents and
tenants of public housing and manufactured housing and to other families
assisted by public housing agencies, for the purposes of ensuring that the
ADDI funds are used to provide down payment assistance for such
residents, tenants, and families.
c. Describe the actions to be taken to ensure the suitability of families
receiving ADDI funds to undertake and maintain homeownership, such as
provision of housing counseling to homebuyers.
Program Year 1 Action Plan HOME/ADDI response:
The City will receive $143,808 in HOME funds and $3,773 in ADDI funds for the 2006
program year. HOME funds will be allocated to CHODs for housing rehabilitation and
ADDI funds will be used for downpayment assistance.
13
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
HOMELESS
Specific Homeless Prevention Elements
*Please also refer to the Homeless Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook.
1. Sources of Funds—Identify the private and public resources that the jurisdiction
expects to receive during the next year to address homeless needs and to
prevent homelessness. These include the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act programs, other special federal, state and local and private funds targeted to
homeless individuals and families with children, especially the chronically
homeless, the HUD formula programs, and any publicly-owned land or property.
Please describe, briefly, the jurisdiction’s plan for the investment and use of
funds directed toward homelessness.
2. Homelessness—In a narrative, describe how the action plan will address the
specific objectives of the Strategic Plan and, ultimately, the priority needs
identified. Please also identify potential obstacles to completing these action
steps.
3. Chronic homelessness—The jurisdiction must describe the specific planned action
steps it will take over the next year aimed at eliminating chronic homelessness
by 2012. Again, please identify barriers to achieving this.
4. Homelessness Prevention—The jurisdiction must describe its planned action steps
over the next year to address the individual and families with children at
imminent risk of becoming homeless.
5. Discharge Coordination Policy—Explain planned activities to implement a
cohesive, community-wide Discharge Coordination Policy, and how, in the coming
year, the community will move toward such a policy.
Program Year 1 Action Plan Special Needs response:
As part of meeting the needs of the special needs populations, the City intends to
focus on the following goal, as identified in the Strategic Plan.
population.
Program (CAP), as financially feasible, which awards General Fund
monies to health and human service organizations.
Continue programs that assist special needs populations through the
14
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
The City will work to address the gaps in services and housing for persons at-risk of
experiencing homelessness through the Community Assistance Program offered by
the City’s Social Services Division. The program provides emergency utility and
rental payments to eligible households who are at-risk of eviction and homelessness.
This program is available to residents of Avondale, Goodyear and Litchfield Park. The
majority of funds have been allocated to residents of Avondale. The City receives 30
requests a week for emergency assistance and serves approximately 1,200 families a
year. Due to a lack of funding, the City is unable to fund approximately $13,000 in
eligible requests a month. The City receives funding for this program through
Maricopa County Human Services Department and will continue this program in
FY2006.
In addition, the City strives to provide residents with informative, practical and
innovative ways to manage their finances. The City has a program, Freedom to
Invest in Tomorrow (FIT), that provides free income tax assistance, financial
workshops and the Individual Development Account Program (IDA).
many of these individuals never thought possible. The City intends to provide this
program during FY2006.
through the Avondale Police Department, and will continue to do so this program
year.
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)
(States only) Describe the process for awarding grants to State recipients, and a
description of how the allocation will be made available to units of local government.
Program Year 1 Action Plan ESG response:
15
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Community Development
*Please also refer to the Community Development Table in the Needs.xls workbook.
1. Identify the jurisdiction's priority non-housing community development needs
eligible for assistance by CDBG eligibility category specified in the Community
Development Needs Table (formerly Table 2B), public facilities, public
improvements, public services and economic development.
2. Identify specific long-term and short-term community development objectives
(including economic development activities that create jobs), developed in
accordance with the statutory goals described in section 24 CFR 91.1 and the
primary objective of the CDBG program to provide decent housing and a suitable
living environment and expand economic opportunities, principally for low- and
moderate-income persons.
*Note: Each specific objective developed to address a priority need, must be identified by number
and contain proposed accomplishments, the time period (i.e., one, two, three, or more years), and
annual program year numeric goals the jurisdiction hopes to achieve in quantitative terms, or in other
measurable terms as identified and defined by the jurisdiction.
Program Year 1 Action Plan Community Development response:
Strategy 2 in the Strategic Plan relates to community development organizations.
The City intends to address Strategy 2 during this program year, as mentioned
below.
The City’s priority Community Development needs are listed in the Community
Development Needs table at the end of the Four-Year Consolidated Plan.
The priority community development needs for the City of Avondale’s Four-Year
Consolidated Plan for FY2006-FY2009 were developed based on the findings from
both quantitative research (Community and Housing Needs) and qualitative research
(public forum).
16
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
This fiscal year, the City will use $200,000 of the total CDBG funds for street
improvements.
Commercial Infill Incentives Plan. To facilitate commercial development in
areas of the City that are vacant or otherwise underutilized, the City will
continue to offer a Commercial Infill Incentives Plan that offers reduced fees,
priority plan review and sales tax rebates.
Capital Improvement Program. The City of Avondale’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) for FY2007-FY2011 specifies improvements to
and expansion of infrastructure in the City’s low- to moderate-income areas.
The Street Construction Fund lists repairs to sidewalks, streetlights and street
overlays Citywide for a 5-year total of $200,000. Specific streets located in
some of the City’s lowest income areas include: Central Avenue, Western
Avenue, sections of Van Buren and streets in Las Ligas. The Street CIP lists
CDBG funds as potentially providing $250,000 for street improvements per
year over the next 5 years. Specifically for FY2006-2007, the City will spend
$10.9 million on street improvements.
Future police infrastructure that meet the needs of the community as
highlighted through the consolidated planning process include a family
domestic crime center ($350,000) and a training facility/classroom for officers
($1 million). During FY2006-2007, the City will spend approximately $2.3
million on police infrastructure.
During FY2006-2007, the City intends to allocate $1 million towards fire
infrastructure improvements.
The Parkland CIP lists a new $3 million community recreation center to be
built in 2010. As evidenced in the telephone survey results in Section III. –
Citizen Input, Avondale residents strongly believe there is a need for more
community and recreation centers. During FY2006-2007, the City plans to
spend $3.9 million on parks and recreation infrastructure.
Additionally, Section III. revealed, through key persons interviews and the
public forum, the need to revitalize Western Avenue and create a unique
sense of community. The Library Development CIP lists a $3.7 million design
and remodel of Western Avenue, occurring in 2006-2007.
Throughout the consolidated planning process, the need for improved streets,
sidewalks, street lighting and sewer improvements continuously came to the
forefront. As seen in the Sewer Development CIP, the City plans to implement
Citywide sewer improvements and improvements to the sewer line on Central
Avenue (a low- to moderate-income area). Specifically for FY2006-2007, the
City plans to spend $18.8 million on sewer improvements.
17
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
Improvements to the water delivery infrastructure are also planned in areas
of great need such as South Avondale, Cashion and Rio Vista. South Avondale
water improvements will total $950,000 over the 5-year period, the well at
Cashion will total $150,000, and the replacement of the Rio Vista waterline
will cost $1.75 million. Total expenditures for FY2006-2007 will total $11.2
million.
Antipoverty Strategy
1. Describe the actions that will take place during the next year to reduce the
number of poverty level families.
Program Year 1 Action Plan Antipoverty Strategy response:
Strategy 3 listed in the Strategic Plan specifically relates to programs that will help to
reduce poverty and assist those at-risk of homelessness.
population.
In addition, Avondale believes that the best way out of poverty is to provide the
opportunity for asset development. The City will work with families to educate them
about financial planning and help them take advantage of the resources that may be
available through the Freedom to Invest in Tomorrow Program (FIT). The program
provides free income tax assistance, financial workshops and the Individual
Development Account Program (IDA). Financial literacy programs offer a variety of
financial topics including budgeting, saving, credit reports, credit scores, loans and
mortgages and Wills and Trusts, etc.
18
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
many of these individuals never thought possible. The City will continue this program
in 2006.
NON-HOMELESS SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
Non-homeless Special Needs (91.220 (c) and (e))
*Please also refer to the Non-homeless Special Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook.
1. Describe the priorities and specific objectives the jurisdiction hopes to achieve for
the period covered by the Action Plan.
for the period covered by this Action Plan.
Program Year 1 Action Plan Specific Objectives response:
The City’s specific strategy to address special needs populations per the Four-Year
Strategic Plan is as follows:
populations.
Provide social services for low-income persons.
This program year, the City of Avondale would like to develop a project that will
retrofit sidewalks and bus stops so that they are ADA compliant. The City will also
look to make it a goal to ensure that all future developments are ADA complaint
before construction.
19
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
high blood pressure. The City will continue this program and expand its breadth by
adding a lead-based paint mitigation component.
The City’s Social Services Division provides a variety of community services
for residents, which will also be available during the 2006 program year.
Seventy-five congregate meals a day are provided at the community center,
in addition to the 75 meals that are home delivered. The City spends
approximately $247,000 per year on congregate meals, and $23,800 on
home delivered meals. The Social Services Division will also fund a variety of
senior services. The City also provides senior programming, allowing seniors
to go on trips.
The Contributions Assistance Program (CAP) is funded with General Fund monies and
is a competitive grant for health and human service organizations. The City intends
to continue this program, as funding allows. Agencies funded the previous year
receive priority consideration. Grants cannot be used for ongoing administrative
costs. Funding is based on the following criteria:
The agency is a health and human services organization;
The agency is requesting funding for a specific project;
The agency must be able to generate other revenue sources; and
There must be a gain to the community from this assistance.
Organizations that were funded in 2005 include: All Faith Community
Services, American Cancer Society, Boys and Girls Club, Central Arizona
Shelter Services, FSL Programs, Habitat for Humanity, KEYS, Neighborhood
Housing Services, New Life Center, Planned Parenthood, PPEP, Southwest
Community Network, Southwest Lending Closet, Southwest Valley Literacy
and Westside Food Bank. Funding for these organizations totaled $60,000.
All HUD related funding will be used to implement the programs outlined in the
Consolidated Plan. Combinations of funding resources will be used so that projects
have a larger impact.
This fiscal year, the City will use $40,000 of the $473,579 of CDBG monies for public
service needs, including activities that focus on the special needs populations.
20
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS
*Please also refer to the HOPWA Table in the Needs.xls workbook.
1. Provide a Brief description of the organization, the area of service, the name of
the program contacts, and a broad overview of the range/ type of housing
activities to be done during the next year.
2. Report on the actions taken during the year that addressed the special needs of
persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, and assistance for
persons who are homeless.
3. Evaluate the progress in meeting its specific objective of providing affordable
housing, including a comparison of actual outputs and outcomes to proposed
goals and progress made on the other planned actions indicated in the strategic
and action plans. The evaluation can address any related program adjustments
or future plans.
4. Report on the accomplishments under the annual HOPWA output goals for the
number of households assisted during the year in: (1) short-term rent, mortgage
and utility payments to avoid homelessness; (2) rental assistance programs; and
(3) in housing facilities, such as community residences and SRO dwellings, where
funds are used to develop and/or operate these facilities. Include any
assessment of client outcomes for achieving housing stability, reduced risks of
homelessness and improved access to care.
5. Report on the use of committed leveraging from other public and private
resources that helped to address needs identified in the plan.
6. Provide an analysis of the extent to which HOPWA funds were distributed among
different categories of housing needs consistent with the geographic distribution
plans identified in its approved Consolidated Plan.
7. Describe any barriers (including non-regulatory) encountered, actions in response
to barriers, and recommendations for program improvement.
8. Please describe the expected trends facing the community in meeting the needs
of persons living with HIV/AIDS and provide additional information regarding the
administration of services to people with HIV/AIDS.
9. Please note any evaluations, studies or other assessments that will be conducted
on the local HOPWA program during the next year.
Program Year 1 Action Plan HOPWA response:
21
Version 1.3
City of Avondale
Specific HOPWA Objectives
Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are
reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the
period covered by the Action Plan.
Program Year 1 Specific HOPWA Objectives response:
Other Narrative
Include any Action Plan information that was not covered by a narrative in any other
section.
22
Version 1.3