 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||
| O.E.C.D. - CONSOLIDATED PLAN |
|
LINDA AEBLI OFFICE HOURS: M – F, 8:00 to 4:30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
| O.E.C.D. - CONSOLIDATED PLAN |
|
LINDA AEBLI OFFICE HOURS: M – F, 8:00 to 4:30 |
|
I Coordinating and Managing the Process The City of Scranton (the “City”) participates in three community development programs through formula grants received from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). These three programs are: • Community Development Block Grants (“CDBG”) The statutes for these programs enumerate three basic goals against which the City’s performance will be evaluated by HUD. These goals are: 1. Decent Housing - which includes: • Assisting homeless persons obtain affordable
housing 2. A Suitable Living Environment - which includes: • Improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods 3. Expanded Economic Opportunities - which includes: • Creating and retaining jobs; The Consolidated Plan states how the City will pursue these goals through the types of activities that will be carried out under these and other programs over the five year period beginning January 1, 2005. It also satisfies the application requirements for the HUD formula grant programs in which the City participates. The Consolidated Plan is a collaborative process whereby the City establishes a unified vision for community development actions. The Office of Economic and Community Development (“OECD”), in preparing this plan, sought to build a cohesive and comprehensive framework to open new opportunities for collaboration and collective problem-solving. We established partnerships with other government agencies and with private groups in order to marshal government and private resources to achieve intended public purposes. The remainder of this section explains the specific actions and initiatives undertaken during the preparation of this Consolidated Plan. Antipoverty Strategy The Consolidated Plan identifies the types of housing and non-housing community development programs that the City plans to undertake over the next five years. Most of these programs aim to reduce the number of poverty level families in the City. In all cases, the City will coordinate its programs with similar programs offered by private sector businesses and local nonprofit agencies to leverage our resources and to maximize their impact. Geographic Distribution of Resources The Consolidated Plan includes information on the geographic
areas of the City, including areas of low-income families
and/or areas of racial/minority concentration, in the
form of maps that are located in the Maps Appendix on
pages B1 – B9. The City intends to allocate program
assistance to these areas, on a priority basis, as outlined
it the strategies contained in the Consolidated Plan. In meeting underserved needs, the City has encountered an obstacle related to communication. Recently, we have experienced an increase in the amount of Spanish-speaking persons applying to our homebuyer assistance program. We have begun to develop Spanish language versions of our program applications to remove this obstacle. We will monitor this issue closely in the near future; if communication problems persist, we will consider hiring or otherwise contracting with a bilingual person. Lead Agency The City of Scranton, Office of Economic and Community Development (“OECD”) is responsible for the development of the Consolidated Plan and the implementation and administration of the programs covered by this Plan. OECD consists of thirteen full-time employees whose primary responsibility is the administration of these programs. OECD regularly consults with the Mayor and staff persons from other City of Scranton departments in order to ensure that the community development programs are carried out in an efficient and effective manner. Advisory Committee OECD formed the Consolidated Plan Advisory Committee (the “Committee”) to benefit from the guidance offered by civic and community leaders who represent a wide range of constituencies. We met with the Committee twice to obtain their views and concerns as they relate to community development. We submitted a working copy of the Consolidated Plan to each of the eleven members of the Committee and solicited feedback from them. We incorporated their comments and suggestions into subsequent revisions of the Consolidated Plan The Committee was comprised of: Name Agency/Organization 1. Robert M. McTiernan Council of the City of Scranton Other Consultations Members of OECD’s staff met on several occasions with the Lackawanna County Housing Coalition (the “Coalition”) to obtain its input on matters related to housing services, social services, and health services. The Coalition is comprised of substantially all local agencies that provide housing and housing-related supportive services to those in need. The Coalition provided us with several strategic planning documents that it had independently prepared, but that it believed should impact the process of preparing the City’s Consolidated Plan. We incorporated the Coalition’s comments and suggestions into this Consolidated Plan. The Coalition consists of representatives from: • Allied Services We also met with the Coalition’s Continuum of Care Committee and its Sub-committee to End Chronic Homelessness to discuss homeless services. Both of these groups are comprised of substantially all providers of service to the homeless or those persons at risk of becoming homeless. We incorporated the concerns of these groups into the Consolidated Plan. We consulted with Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Health and the local community-based Childhood Lead-Poisoning Prevention Project (CLPPP) in order to obtain data related to lead-based paint hazards, including addresses of housing units in which children have been identified as lead poisoned. We discussed collaborative efforts that could be undertaken to reduce these hazards and incorporated relevant strategies and objectives in this Consolidated Plan. We discussed our non-housing community development strategic plan with representatives of Lackawanna County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Community and Economic Development. We distributed draft copies of this strategic plan to adjacent local governments and requested feedback. These groups expressed no concerns about our non-housing community development plans. We consulted with the local public housing agency, the Scranton Housing Authority (“SHA”), concerning public housing needs and its planned Capital Fund program activities. We determined that SHA’s Capital Fund Plan/annual statement is consistent with the City of Scranton’s assessment of low-income housing needs (as evidenced in this Consolidated Plan) and we offered our cooperation in providing related resident programs and services. We also discussed activities with regard to local drug elimination, neighborhood improvement programs, and resident programs and services, funded under the public housing program and those funded under the programs covered by this Consolidated Plan, to ensure that they are fully coordinated so as to better achieve comprehensive community development goals. Citizen Participation The Citizen Participation Plan The City of Scranton has developed a Citizen Participation Plan (the “CP Plan”), a Consolidated Planning Requirement, designed to provide its citizens, who are the beneficiaries of community development program activities and services, with a continuous opportunity to participate in: • Developing the housing and community development
needs assessment; The CP Plan identifies how OECD will seek public input, advertise its meetings and public hearings, and reach out to neighborhood residents and professionals involved in community development. It also describes how the annual Action Plan is developed, how the Consolidated Plan or Action Plan may be amended, and how OECD will address citizen complaints. The CP Plan is maintained by OECD. It is available for your review at: The Office of Economic and Community Development It is also available at the following locations: • Office of the Mayor, Municipal Building Summary of Public Input Surveys OECD designed a survey to help identify the level of
priority to be assigned to community development needs.
This survey was sent to eighty-two individuals who represent
neighborhood associations, nonprofit organizations,
economic development organizations, and businesses.
We received forty responses and used these responses
in developing our needs assessment and strategic plan. • March 15, 2004, 7:00 pm, at the West Side Neighborhood
Association building, Jackson and Bromley Streets (West
Scranton); These public meetings were advertised in The Scranton
Times and The Scranton Tribune on March 12 and 13, 2004.
Newspaper advertisements included the meeting locations
and times and the anticipated 2005 formula allocations
for Community Development Block Grants, Home Investment
Partnerships, and Summary of Public CommentApproximately thirty citizens offered input at the four public hearings on a variety of community and economic development needs. Their remarks are categorized and summarized below: II Housing Citizens demonstrated support for activities that provide funds to income-eligible families to encourage homeownership and rehabilitation of homes, especially in neighborhoods that exhibit signs of excessive decay. Speakers representing two nonprofit housing agencies indicated that it has become increasingly difficult for them to provide affordable housing because housing costs have increased at a faster rate than family incomes. Homelessness According to speakers representing agencies that provide services to homeless persons, the demand for those services (particularly in regard to shelter) was not met by the current supply; in fact, these agencies were forced to use scarce resources to provide more costly means of shelter for homeless persons (such as hotel/motel accommodations). These speakers expressed a need for additional emergency shelters. Economic Development Speakers applauded the City’s recent progress in revitalizing the central business district and encouraged continued efforts in that area. Other citizens indicated a need for similar initiative in neighborhood commercial areas, especially in South Scranton’s Cedar Avenue corridor. Public Facilities Citizens pointed out that the amount of available parking spaces is insufficient to support retail enterprises and the new hotel and conference center in the central business district. Speakers also mentioned that the playground equipment in some neighborhood parks needs to be replaced and/or repaired. Written Comments Offering Feedback on Draft Version of Plan We received one written comment offering feedback on the draft version of the Plan from Mr. Keith Tucker, Executive Director of Lackawanna Neighbors, an local nonprofit housing agency. Mr. Tucker, a key member of the Lackawanna Housing Coalition, suggested a specific change to a section in the Housing section that he felt misrepresented the study that it had alluded to. We understood the nature of his objection and we agreed to make the change that he had suggested. The final version of the Plan reflects this change. Public Meeting (To Obtain Feedback on Draft Version of Plan) The Council of the City of Scranton conducted a public hearing on September 30, 2004, in conjunction with its regularly scheduled meeting (which are televised on a local public access channel), to obtain citizen input on the draft version of the Consolidated Plan that had been made available to the public one week earlier. This hearing was advertised in The Scranton Times and The Scranton Tribune on September 23, 2004. Summary of Public Comment Four citizens offered input at this public hearing on a variety of community and economic development needs. Following is the stenographer’s account of their remarks and OECD’s response (where necessary): Andy Sbaraglia, Citizen of Scranton Fellow Scrantonians, I only want to speak on a few items out of this block grants. One of them I want to speak on is the Lackawanna College. We are giving them $500,000 for a piece of property that they. claim is blighted. Who declared that property blighted as an eyesore because they used - if you notice, they got this - after they give you SB symbol, and if you look at the symbols, it's SB says an activity that aides in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight on a spot basis. Now, somehow or some way that place was declared blighted? As far as I know, it was just vacant last year, isn't it? Okay. Let' go to the second one here. Redevelopment Authority was getting another half a million dollars. Okay. Now, their symbol is LMJ. Now, whenever look under LMJ and the symbols, LMJ, an activity that will create and/or retain permanent jobs for at least 51 percent of the jobs computed on a full-time equivalent basis involving the employment of low- and moderate-income persons. I assume they're saying that when they build this garage, the people that works in the mall or the store that's going to be in there, restaurant or whatever, will be the low and somebody that works in the garage will be the moderate, but this goes on for five years. How long are these people going to be considered low and moderate, for the next five years just on them symbols? Now, you may get away with the first year, but I don't see how you are going to get away with the second, third, fourth and fifth year. Okay. The other thing I want to talk on is OECD. Now, they're claiming they want their share out of this pot. As $821,261.27 to administer this project. Gentlemen, them three projects take one-third of the block grants, goes to these three projects. Another thing, let's get over to the HOME. As you know, this under HOME, they put aside $350,000 to build new homes, assist in providing low-and moderate-income homeowners to cover a portion of the down payment and mark off closing costs. Well, that's assuming for people buying homes or building them or whatever you want to call it. Under the. rehab program, they only got like, $150,000. Well, gentlemen, we just had a bad flood and a lot of homes are damaged. A lot of homes if they can't bring them up to par will be vacated. I would like to see you maybe get a hold of the administration and see if you can take that money from the new HOME program and transfer it into the rehab program and make these homes available to some of the people in the flood area; especially because they definitely, a lot of them are probably retired and are low- or moderate-income. I went through them, and like I say, them three spots really came out. The garage, well, you know, the garage, I spoke on that many, many times and I'm not going to go deep into it because it's only rehashing it, but maybe of all these things, you can look at that half a million dollars for Lackawanna College to find out if it's really blighted or if it can be salvaged, because it's a beautiful building and it's a big building., and see if you can help out under HOME, see if you can get somebody to transfer a little money down there and make it available to the people so they know it, not to a few individuals that may know it and get .in on it before the other people get their share. I thank you.. OECD Response: The National Objective for the activity to provide funds to Lackawanna College for the demolition of a portion of the former Scranton Lace Building was originally listed as “SBS,” which indicated that it would eliminate conditions of blight on a spot basis. While the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Historic Preservation Office, had approved Lackawanna College’s plans to demolish this building, OECD determined that it would be more appropriate to change the National Objective to be accomplished by this project to “LMJ,” which means that it will create jobs to be held by or made available to low- and moderate-income persons. We believe that requiring the College to create jobs through the future development that will occupy the land to be cleared in the proposed activity would produce a public benefit in addition to the elimination of conditions of blight. CDBG funds have been committed to support the Lackawanna Avenue garage project. These funds were committed to ensure that the project’s developer, the Scranton Redevelopment Authority, could secure its financing. These funds will only be spent if needed to support this project. Based upon our preliminary review of the business to be conducted by the commercial enterprises to be located on the ground floor of the garage, we have determined that the project will create a sufficient amount of jobs and will make a sufficient amount of these jobs available to low- and moderate-income persons to comply with the LMJ National Objective requirements. Job creation will be monitored each year and the aggregate amount of new jobs created will count towards meeting these requirements. We have traditionally made between $300,000 and $400,000 in deferred payment loans, on an annual basis, under our Homebuyer program. In order to ensure that this program has enough resources to meet the demand of eligible homebuyers, it is necessary that we allocate $350,000 in 2005. On the other hand, we have recently committed $300,000 of unspent funds from prior years’ HOME grants to a subgrantee, who will carry out a Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation program. It is anticipated that the entire $300,000 will be spent by the end of 2005; we will determine the appropriate amount of funds to be allocated to this program in 2006. Robert Neveroski, Citizen of Scranton and President of the Hill Neighborhood Association City Council, ladies and gentlemen , I've come down here to apply for the 2005 Community Development Grant. We have been in business in the Hill, we're a 501(c)(3) operating in the City of Scranton since 1977. If you looked in the paper, I mean, the Hill, with the help of the city residents, have done a lot of things for the city. We bought dogs, numerous dogs, we've had big clean-up projects, we rehabilitated the 300 and 400 block of Prescott Ave. We have never got a dime in CommD money because unfortunately the leaders of the Hill at the time were always out of sync with the administrations who ran the city. Now, this morning's paper, I think it was, South Side opened their Renaissance Center, which is great, but they got a $300,000 grant from the city to do that. Tripp Park did, Keyser Valley did. The Hill never got a dime, nothing. We did get money under the last year of Mayor Connors, but the present administration, totally untrue, decided that it wasn't so, but that money is, I talked to our attorney, that money is our money until Council votes it away in the future. So, I would ask you in the future don't do it. That money will be there forever. I've come down, we want to rehabilitate the second floor. We would like-to put a .knock the walls out, make a meeting room so we could hold meetings in the building, which we've always in the past went from church to church or synagogue to synagogue and held our meetings there. But I approached Bruno Gallagher, for the good of Bruno, I approached his sister Patty, she donated that building to the Hill, so we are operating out of there. I didn't come down to begrudge anybody, beat anybody up, but if you recall, Lackawanna Junior College, when they did the Mellow Center, which was the auditorium at Central, got $2 million to do that, which was my money. If I wanted to go and use the Mellow Center tomorrow, I don't think they're going to let me, you know, unless I pay. Now they’re in there for $500,000 to tear a tax-paying property down to put an athletic field. Well, shouldn't there be some kind of even flow of this money? Shouldn't everybody get a little piece of the pie instead of the pie going to all the people that it goes to every year? So, I'm here to ask City Council to put us in there and give the Hill Section, the .people we have 1,600 members in the Hill, and maybe close to 1,700. Yeah, we have a lot of people up there that pay tax to the city, and I think, you know, for all these years that I'm involved since 1980, started on the Hill as the law and order chairman, now I progressed to the president, but you know, I think all these years, we should be entitled to something, and I'm asking the members of City Council to give us a little consideration with this year's funding. Thank you. (Editor’s note: The following exchange took place between Mr. Neveroski and Councilpersons William Courtright and Janet Evans after Mr. Neveroski had finished making his comments) MR. COURTRIGHT: Bob, when you had said you'd gotten
$30,000 in the past and then they said you weren't qualified,
could you explain to me I think, I believe they said
you weren't qualified because you didn't have public
meetings there; is that it? OECD Response: In the 2001 Action Plan, $30,000 was allocated to the Hill Neighborhood Association to allow the organization to make improvements to the building that it was using as an office. At that time, it was presumed that this building was an eligible public facility and that it served an area comprised of primarily low- and moderate-income persons. We subsequently determined that this building was not an eligible public facility because it did not have sufficient space in which the organization could hold its regular meetings. We articulated this determination in a letter dated July 13, 2004. This letter cited the relevant section of the CDBG regulations (24 CFR 570.201(c)) which Mr. Neveroski claims does not exist (clearly, he is incorrect in making this assertion). If we were to assume that the building is an eligible public facility, we would be challenged to determine how making improvements to it would accomplish a National Objective since the “Hill Section,” the neighborhood served by the Hill Neighborhood Association, is not an area comprised of primarily low- and moderate-income persons. We have not initiated action to amend the 2001 Action Plan to delete this activity; however, we have not entered into a contract to commit these funds to the Hill Neighborhood Association because they have not presented an eligible project to us. Lee Morgan, Owner of property in the City of Scranton Good evening, Council. I would just like to start off by saying that I agree with what Mr. Neveroski said, that I think these funds should be released to them so that they can hold these public meetings, and I think it's very important for once that somebody puts a word in whosever ear they have to put it in to move these funds so that that building can be used for what they want to use it for. You can't hold a meeting someplace where it's not possible to do so. And when these renovations are completed, then these meetings can take place there and I think it's important that we move forward on that. I'd like to start by saying for the CDBG funds, that I would question some of these expenditures of money to certain entities. Johnson Technical Institute, $45,000 for automatic doorways at the main entrance. This is a tax-exempt organization that puts billboards all over. We can't even begin to assume where all their billboards are placed. They have a ton of money, okay, and I think they can afford to put their own doorway in, and I don't think it's being outrageous to say that. I think that's a misappropriation of these funds. The City of Scranton OECD for beautification projects for reconstruction of sidewalks and installation of period lighting, decorative planters, and trash receptacles, I think that should come out of the general budget of the city, okay? That' my opinion. Lackawanna College, a half a million dollars for the demolition of the former Scranton Lace building. You know something, I think that's theft, okay? We gave them the building basically that they're in. This gentleman got up and talked about the Mellow Auditorium, okay? They're building. a dormitory over there where the former JCC used to be, and now we're going to give them a half a million dollars to tear down a building and take it off the tax rolls, when in all reality, like I stated here a long time ago, that building should be converted into a small business incubator, because the amount of weight those floors can hold to rebuild an industrial tax base in this city and the amount of power that's in that building and its access to tractor-trailers, its dock space, all the other things that make it an absolute treasure to this city, to give them a half a million dollars to tear it down is theft. Well, I don't want to say we all know how most people feel about the parking garage okay? I mean, it's ridiculous. Now, it says here the City of Scranton OECD project delivery cost to provide funds for-project delivery costs associated with various economic development projects, $185,000. What projects are they? Because I don't know what they are. And maybe after-I'm done speaking, you can explain to the taxpayers on channel 61 exactly what that $185,000 is going to be used for. Repayment of Section 108 loans, maybe you can explain that. I think the taxpayers would like to know that. Now, Allied Services, they have billboards all over the place, too. They have people in their upper echelon making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, they're a multi-million dollar corporation, and we're going to give them $10,000 for an Allied supportive services rent and security subsidies program. Do you mean to tell me they need $10,000 out of this grant money to do that? I mean, it's ridiculous when you look at where this money is going. What I really think needs to happen to this money, I have a couple more here, but I'd like to say, what I really. think needs to be done with all this money I just mentioned, is we have to move this money into rehabbing neighborhoods, put that money into the city's neighborhood, all this money, all this right? Let's stop tearing blighted properties down before they reach the point of being blighted and being abandoned and let's reconstruct the neighborhoods. We've dumped all of our money into the downtown for decades, okay? It hasn't done anything. It's eroded the tax base. We have all of the KOEZ's going on. People talk about education, they talk about taxes, they talk about all this, well, everybody's getting a free ride and the average taxpayer is taking it on the chin. It's time to put that money where it belongs. You know, briefly, I question why all of this is taking place. I mean, isn't this Community Development funds? Shouldn't this development the community? I question your, you know, take a look at the things I said here and in your heart think about it and go down and talk to the Mayor. You know, there's a lot of things we can do here, but these things I mentioned, that's the wrong way. Thank you. OECD Response: Funds to pay project delivery costs cover necessary expenses that relate directly to our projects (advertising, preparation of bid packages, legal expenses, etc.). We use a “catch all” activity to capture these costs so that we can provide projects with the full grant amount. These funds meet the same eligibilty and National Objective requirements that the related projects meet. Funds for repayment of Section 108 loans allow the City to meet its contractual obligation to HUD. Under a loan agreement executed in 1991, whereby the City received funds to assist the development of the Steamtown Mall, the City obligated future CDBG receipts to help make the necessary repayments. Mike Dudek, Citizen of Scranton In the 30 seconds that I requested, I'm asking Council to please act on Mr. Neveroski's request in a positive manner, okay? They've had public meetings month after month after month in church after church after church because they don't have the space. Please help him out. What they do in the Hill is magnificent. Thank you. OECD will administer the formula grant programs covered by this Consolidated Plan with the assistance of two key administrative partners, as follows: The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Scranton Neighborhood Housing of Scranton Additionally, OECD will continue to make funds available to qualified Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), under the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, on an annual basis. The selected CHDOs will carry out eligible housing activities, such as the successful acquisition, rehabilitation, and resale (as affordable housing) program that has been administered by Lackawanna Neighbors in prior years. OECD will continue to be responsible for the allocation of funds to various applicants and activities. The allocation will continue to be based on selection criteria that includes, but is not limited to: • Eligibility (and compliance with a National
Objective for CDBG projects); OECD will provide technical assistance, on matters related to the programs covered by this Consolidated Plan, to subgrantees and applicants, as requested. Monitoring The City occasionally subgrants a portion of its community development funds to eligible organizations that carry out activities, on behalf of the City, that achieve the goals and objectives of the Consolidated Plan. In these instances, OECD must monitor the subgrantees’ performance to provide reasonable assurance that the subgrantee complies with the regulations of the federal program(s) from which funds are provided. OECD will require that any subgrantee sign a written agreement that contains provisions concerning: the statement of work (description of the specific activities to be undertaken with federal funds), records and reports to be maintained, program income (if applicable), and uniform administrative requirements. OECD will also perform a risk assessment of each subgrantee to help determine the nature and extent of monitoring procedures to be applied. For instance: if a particular subgrantee had administered federal programs without incident for many years, OECD might consider this entity to be “low-risk;” therefore, monitoring procedures to be applied to this subgrantee would be substantially less than those that would be applied to a subgrantee that had not previously administered federal programs. OECD expects to perform these common monitoring procedures: • Review of reports submitted by subgrantees OECD will document the specific monitoring procedures applied to subgrantees in the appropriate project file. Housing Market Analysis Age The City of Scranton’s (the “City’s”) population has declined sharply over the past seventy years, from a high mark of over 140,000 in the 1930’s to today’s low point of 76,415 (according to the 2000 census). Following is a breakdown of the City’s population by age: • Under 20 years of age 25.1% The median age in Scranton is 38.8 years; nationally, it is 35.3 years. The City’s senior population (20.2%) represents a much larger portion of the total than that which is reflected in the national average (12.4%). Race/Ethnicity Following is a breakdown of the City’s population by race (with national averages in parentheses): • White 71,480 93.5% (75.1%) Of these, 1,999, or 2.6%, belong to the Hispanic/Latino ethnic group; nationally, 12.5% of persons belong to this ethnic group. Family Income Following is a breakdown of the City’s population by family income, determined on an annual basis, using 1999 dollars. • Up to $14,999 13.5% 1,947 families, or 10.7% of all Scranton’s families and 10,827 individuals, or 15% of all Scrantonians, are living below the poverty level. These data compare unfavorably to the national averages: 9.2% of families and 12.4% of individuals. Housing Characteristics The median value of a home in the City is $78,200, which is 34.6% less than the national median value ($119,600). 81.7% of these homes were built prior to 1960. Since thirty years is considered to be a reasonable estimate of a home’s useful life, one can conclude that, due to the age of the housing stock, an overwhelming majority of the homes in Scranton are in need of extensive rehabilitation or have deteriorated to the point at which rehabilitation is not a cost-effective option. 54.5% of families residing in Scranton are homeowners, while nationally, 68% are homeowners. Lead-based Paint There are approximately 26,558 units in the City that contain lead-based paint hazards, according to the local community-based Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Project. We estimate that 20,929 of these units are occupied by low- and moderate-income families (actual data are not available). In order to reduce lead-based paint hazards, the City has established a lead-based paint hazard control program with funds received from HUD, passed-through the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Health. This program, which is operating in cooperation with the local community-based Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Project, aims to make twenty-five residential units lead-safe over the next three years. It is administered by Neighborhood Housing of Scranton (“NHS”), on behalf of the City. Since NHS also administers, the City’s homeowner housing rehabilitation efforts to reduce lead-based paint hazards are effectively integrated into that program as well. Prior to developing the scope of work for a particular rehabilitation project, NHS arranges for personnel from the City’s Department of Licensing, Inspections, and Permits inspect the subject property and report all code violations. If the inspectors’ report identifies a lead-based paint hazard, NHS orders a full risk assessment. Upon completion of the risk assessment, NHS ensures that the scope of work includes lead-based paint hazard reduction and procures a local certified lead contractor to perform the service. This component of the rehabilitation project is administered in the same manner as those projects that are part of the lead-based paint hazard control program. Additional Market Analysis The Housing Coalition of Lackawanna County contracted with Urban Research and Development Corporation (Bethlehem, PA), to conduct a Housing Assessment in Lackawanna County. In May 2004, A Housing Study of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania was published. Following is an excerpt from that plan’s “Executive Summary:” Based on the research, the best strategy is one of advancing home ownership using single-family unit designs, primarily detached units and townhouses. This strategy should seek to serve households across all income groups. In addition, there is a need: • For the re-conversion of multi-units back to
the original single-family configuration; Needs Families are grouped into these types of households for the purpose of reporting housing needs: • Elderly – A one or two person household
in which the head of the household or spouse is at least
62 years of age. Following is an examination of the housing needs of different categories of persons, grouped by household income and further grouped by type of household (see the Housing Needs Table in the Tables Appendix on page A-3 for further information): Extremely low-income families Those families whose annual incomes are less than 30% of the area median are considered to be extremely low-income. These families have the greatest amount of need for better, less expensive housing. According to the 2000 census data, almost 73% of the families in this category have “housing problems,” which include: • Housing cost burden greater than 30% of family
income; These problems are most severe in the large families whose incomes are less than 30% of the area median, whether these families are homeowners or renters. In fact, almost two-thirds of the families in this subcategory are severely cost-burdened, meaning that over 50% of their incomes are needed for housing costs. Elderly homeowners in this income classification also demonstrate significant need (87.3% are cost-burdened). Low-income families Those families whose annual incomes are between 30% and 50% of the area median are considered to be low-income. For the most part, the families in this group are less needy than those in the extremely low-income group; however, the small related families who are homeowners in this subcategory (86.4% have housing problems, as defined above) are actually more needy than those in the small related families who are homeowners in the previous subcategory (74.9% have housing problems). Almost 60% of all homeowners and renters in this subcategory are experiencing housing problems. Moderate-income families Those families whose annual incomes are between 50%
and 80% of the area median are considered to be moderate-income.
There are more families in this subcategory than the
other two. These families are less needy, in all cases,
than extremely low- and low-income families; in fact,
only 29.8% of these families are cost-burdened. Renters
with moderate-incomes appear to have few housing problems;
however, owners with moderate-incomes, except for the
elderly, seem to be experiencing a fairly high level
of cost burden (50.1%). Extremely low-income Black or African American households meeting the definition of “other” that rent, demonstrate a need (89.7% have housing problems) that is disproportionately larger than the needs of all extremely low-income households meeting the definition of “other” that rent (70.6% have housing problems). Also, extremely low-income Black or African family homeowners experience housing problems 100% of the time, which indicates a disproportionately larger need than all extremely low-income homeowners, who experience housing problems 79% of the time. Hispanic or Latino Elderly Hispanic or Latino homeowners, who are included
in the extremely-low income category, experience housing
problems 100% of the time. Extremely low-income Hispanic
or Latino homeowners meeting the definition of “other”
also experience housing problems 100% of the time. These
data indicate a disproportionately larger need than
the total extremely low-income homeowners, who experience
housing problems 76% of the time. Low-income Hispanic
or Latino renters, whose households meet the definition
of “other,” experience housing problems
at a disproportionately greater rate (100%) than the
total population of “other” low-income renters
(80%). Also, 50% of moderate-income Hispanic or Latino
renters, whose households meet the definition of “other,”
experience housing problems; this indicates an unfavorable
disproportion when compared to the total population
of moderate-income “other” renters, who
experience housing problems at rate of 16.2% The analysis of housing needs by income category and type of household indicates that extremely low-income and low-income families are struggling with heavy housing cost burdens to a much higher degree than moderate-income families. This fact becomes clearer upon further study of the problems faced by minority groups within these subcategories. The housing market analysis indicates that Scranton’s housing stock needs to be renewed. Older houses that cannot be rehabilitated should be demolished (especially if these homes are vacant); those older homes that can be “saved” should be improved. The City should also encourage new construction and should help to ensure that some of the newly constructed units are made available to extremely-low, low-, and moderate-income persons, as affordable housing. The fact that Scranton’s rate of homeownership
lags far behind the national rate is troublesome. The
City should encourage homeownership through its housing
programs and should develop partnerships with lending
institutions and nonprofit housing agencies to ensure
that prospective homeowners do not fall victim to predatory
lending and receive proper homeownership counseling. The most obvious obstacle to meeting underserved needs is a cultural/language barrier that exists between primarily English-speaking white persons, who comprise the overwhelming majority of the City’s population, and persons to whom English is a second language (this barrier is most obviously present in the growing Hispanic/Latino community). For this reason, it is important that all housing agencies place a priority onmaking their services easily accessible to these persons. In order to accomplish this goal, social service agencies should make informational materials and applications available in several languages, should make interpreter/translator services available, and should look favorably upon bilingual job applicants. Economic factors present an obstacle to meeting underserved
needs. Landlords and homeowners often allow their properties
to deteriorate over time, believing that the costs incurred
to undertake certain repairs or improvements will not
be realized through an increase in the value of the
home (and the resulting increase in the home’s
prospective sale price or market rents). Given the age
of Scranton’s housing stock, in the absence of
frequent and substantial home rehabilitation projects,
it will become increasingly difficult to provide an
adequate amount of decent, affordable housing units. The City will reevaluate its current housing programs, the homeowner assistance program and the homeowner rehabilitation program, to consider providing amounts of assistance to extremely low- and low-income families that are greater than those provided to moderate-income families. (Last year, the City reengineered both programs to allow for forgiveness or more rapid forgiveness of the deferred-payment loans provided to families that participate in these programs in response to an abundance of problems that families who had participated in these programs in prior years were facing when trying to sell their homes) We will encourage homeownership through a more generous homeownership assistance program and through homeownership outreach efforts undertaken in partnership with the Lackawanna Housing Coalition. Scranton will continue its aggressive enforcement
of code violations (including lead-based paint hazards)
and strict monitoring of landlords, especially absentee
landlords, in order to improve the condition of the
existing housing stock. Vacant properties and hazardous
structures will be condemned and demolished; the resulting
vacant land will be redeveloped, perhaps as part of
a scattered-site affordable housing project. Also, we
will provide assistance to income-eligible families
to carry out lead-based paint hazard control activities. We will strengthen our partnerships with nonprofit
housing agencies, especially through active participation
in the Lackawanna Housing Coalition’s activities.
We will attempt to develop, with these partners, a housing
program to ease renters’ cost burden. As part
of this initiative, cooperative efforts to remove the
language barrier will be undertaken. Following is the “funding strategy” set forth in A Housing Study of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania: Private developers and non-profit organizations are
seen as playing the largest role in developing future
housing opportunities. It is anticipated that the funding
scheme would primarily be a public-private mix, utilizing
a fairly balanced mix of private, federal, state, and
county/local funding sources. Private financing sources
will make up the largest component and county/local
funds will make up the smallest component of the funding
mix. 1. We will provide greater amounts of financial assistance to extremely low- and low-income families than moderate-income families, on a per family basis, through the City’s housing programs, in order to ease the cost burden on the neediest subcategories of the population. 2. We will encourage homeownership through various programs in an effort to bring Scranton’s homeownership rate into balance with the national rate. 3. We will eliminate slums and conditions of blight
through demolition of blighted, vacant, and hazardous
structures. 6. We will work with the Lackawanna Housing Coalition to accomplish the goals and objectives stated in A Housing Study of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. III Public Housing Using the traditional “Public Housing Program,” Public Housing Authorities (“PHAs”) developed, owned, and operated public housing units for low-income households. Methods used to provide these housing units included new construction and rehabilitation of existing units. Under the “turn key” method, the PHA invited private developers to submit proposals for construction of the development, with the PHA purchasing the units after completion. In the “conventional” construction method, the PHA acted as its own developer and was responsible for all aspects of housing development. Under the acquisition aspect of the Public Housing Program, the PHA acquired existing housing units, with or without rehabilitation from the private market. The local PHA is the Scranton Housing Authority (the
“SHA”). Legal Authority for the Public Housing
Program is provided in the U.S. Housing Act of 1937
(P.L. 74-412) and Title II of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-383). Currently, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) provides funding for the SHA’s operations and for capital improvements under formula grants. The Capital Fund Program (“CFP”) is an example of such a formula grant. Over the past five years, the SHA has received an average of $2.4 million on an annual basis. Public Housing Needs Scranton’s inventory of assisted rental housing includes 2,264 units assisted by the SHA. These units have been assisted through government programs which helped pay the cost of developing those units. In some cases, these units continue to receive assistance to cover ongoing rental costs. Of this total, there are 933 rental units which are subsidized through Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. These units receive ongoing rental assistance which covers all or a portion of the rental costs for those units, making them affordable for very low-income households. Currently, there are 60 households on the waiting list for public housing units and 490 households are on a waiting list for the Section 8 Program. The SHA provides public housing for 4,278 residents in 1,325 units. Some of the obsolete units are anticipated to be lost due to housing demolition. They would be replaced by newer more spacious dwellings. SHA is currently experiencing a high vacancy rate in its high rise buildings and is currently converting efficiency apartments into one-bedroom apartments. This should make vacant units more marketable. All of the public housing units will be assisted through HUD’s Capital Fund Program. SHA’s Capital Fund Program provides the financial resources to implement physical and management improvements throughout its developments. Attachments 11 and 12 from SHA’s current Agency Plan are included as Attachments A7-A16 of the Consolidated Plan in the Tables Appendix. Various supportive services are provided to SHA residents, including: transportation, health services, ice cream socials, holiday dinners, food distribution programs, entertainment (live music and bingo), and special events during the holiday periods. Plans for empowering public housing residents include the on-going effort in developing resident councils. As the SHA continues to modernize their developments, a minimum of 5 percent of units will be upgraded to accommodate Section 504 recipients. Since its inception, the SHA has been an integral component in providing housing for low to moderate income families and the elderly. The SHA was one of the first in the nation to take a strong and decisive action against drugs and created a strict eviction policy for drug traffickers. The SHA has displayed outstanding leadership in carrying out its mission of providing safe, decent and affordable housing for eligible individuals and families through creative and supportive services. The SHA will assist these individuals and families as they strive to achieve self-sufficiency and improve the quality of their lives. In the following table, an “elderly” development is one that requires residents to be at least 62 years of age, handicapped or disabled. Elderly apartments are usually one bedroom or efficiency units. “Family” projects usually require that residents be households of two or more persons, including at least one dependent child. Bedroom composition of family apartments is usually two, three, four, or five. Modernized developments provide handicap-accessible
units as a certain percentage of overall units. Although
many older developments, public and private, do not
include handicap-accessible units as part of their composition,
some may have units designed for persons with disabilities
or may be able to modify apartments to meet specific
needs. The SHA has been responsive in accommodating
persons with disabilities. The SHA, in conjunction with the residents of the 45 scattered-site units, has prepared a plan to give the residents of these public housing units an opportunity to become homeowners under Section 5(h) of the Housing Act of 1937. The proposed sale of the units is based on the interest, ability and potential ability of the residents to become self-sufficient homebuyers. The City will support this initiative and will consider developing a program to assist residents of public housing in their efforts to become homeowners. We will encourage public housing residents to become more involved in the management of public housing through the Agency Plan and assist public housing residents to become owners of their public housing unit. The SHA will continue its on-going efforts to organize resident councils. The City and the SHA in conjunction with local law
enforcement agencies will maintain and/or establish
anti-crime programs in public housing. Such programs
will include the removal of all persons not listed on
the dwelling lease agreement and the requirement of
housing identification for all authorized residents.
In doing so, we will promote a safe atmosphere and provide
greater incentive for residents to support lawful behavior. The City of Scranton (the “City”) coordinates its efforts to meet the needs of its homeless population with those local organizations that provide housing and supportive services to homeless persons and those at imminent risk of becoming homeless through its participation in the Lackawanna County Housing Coalition (the “Coalition”). The Coalition, which was formed in 1992, developed a Continuum of Care (“CoC”) for homeless individuals and families four years later; since that time, it has operated the Scranton/Lackawanna CoC Planning Committee that is comprised of fifty member agencies, organizations, governments, and individuals. The CoC Planning Committee works to assess the needs of homeless persons and to coordinate housing and supportive services to homeless persons on a systematic and strategic basis. This institutional structure helps to ensure that limited resources are used in an efficient and effective manner. Needs The general needs of the homeless population are identified by various service providers in the normal course of operation. These needs are shared with other service providers as part of continuing dialogue at the Housing Coalition/Continuum of Care Planning meetings. The Coalition forms subcommittees to address emerging issues, as a result of these discussions. For example: there are subcommittees established to address the need to: • Identify and attract additional funding sources
for homeless services; The Coalition also conducts annual surveys and monthly point-in-time surveys of homeless persons to identify specific needs. The results of these surveys help to shape the priorities that the Coalition assigns to each of its endeavors. The local service providers, through participation in the Coalition, have continued to increase their capacity to provide necessary services to homeless persons; however these agencies have experienced a substantial increase in demand for these services. Data collected by the Coalition indicates that the homeless population has grown. Compounding the problem, recent Economic data suggests that the gap between income/wages and housing costs is widening. An unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more OR has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. Data supplied by the service providers indicates that this homeless population represents racial and ethnic groups according to these ranges: White, non Hispanic 63-67% While the needs of those in one category may be similar to those in the other, studying the respective needs separately allows for a more accurate assessment. Needs of Unaccompanied Homeless Individuals Unaccompanied individuals become homeless for a variety of reasons; but, since they are not responsible for others (unlike homeless adults with children), it would seem that affordable permanent housing would be more easily accessed. In many cases, however, service providers have found that not to be the case. Often, homeless individuals and couples have become disillusioned with the “system,” believing that it has abandoned them. The feeling of hopelessness is often compounded by substance abuse or mental illness. In these instances, service providers are not able to effectively meet the needs of this subpopulation, which is likely to become chronically homeless. Of course, many homeless individuals and couples work closely with the service providers in pursuit of permanent affordable housing. Often, these individuals encounter difficulties in accessing this housing because of past criminal charges or poor credit history. Even those who had been successful in locating housing in the past are experiencing difficulty now because the supply of single-room occupancy apartment buildings has diminished in the wake of several condemnations (a deadly fire at such a shelter last year prompted City code officers to inspect these types of buildings; upon discovering a multitude of code violations, the inspectors condemned several apartment buildings). Catholic Social Services (“CSS”) experienced an increase in demand for its services that can be correlated to the reduction in the supply of single-room occupancy apartment buildings. CSS operates St. Anthony’s Haven (the “Haven”), an emergency shelter for homeless persons. The Haven provided 6,969 shelter nights and complementing social services for 555 homeless adults in program year 2004. In the previous year, the Haven had provided 6,844 shelter nights and complementing social services for 741 homeless adults. The data indicate that it was more difficult for CSS to place its clientele in permanent housing during the most recent year than it had been in the prior year; accordingly, CSS was not able to provide service to as many individuals. During our harsh winter season, the Haven was at full capacity and CSS was not able to fully accommodate its clientele; therefore, the Coalition was forced to use scarce resources to provide more costly forms of emergency shelter for several homeless persons, such as hotel/motel rooms. Unaccompanied homeless individuals and couples need better access to emergency shelters and single-room occupancy apartment buildings, in the short-term. In the long-term, however, the need for shelter would be better satisfied through the provision of affordable permanent housing and the supportive services that are necessary to prevent future episodes of homelessness, especially among the chronically homeless. Also, the service providers need to discover how to “reach out” to the disenfranchised portion of this subpopulation that has become increasingly difficult to serve. Needs of Homeless Families with Children Homeless families with children often cite these factors as contributing to their homelessness: • Inconsistent and unreliable receipt of child
support payments The agencies working with this subpopulation have experienced an increase in demand for their services. Women’s Resource Center (“WRC”), a 17-bed emergency shelter for battered women and children, provided 3,952 shelter nights in program year 2004, which represents an increase of 17.6% over the amount of shelter nights (3,361) provided in the previous year. Unfortunately, this increase in shelter nights was accompanied by a decrease in families served: WRC had served 17 fewer women in 2004 than in the prior year. Other agencies that provide services to homeless families with children, such as the Catherine McAuley Center, reported similar statistics. Apparently, homeless families with children had experienced difficulties in obtaining access to affordable permanent housing in a manner similar to the problems faced by homeless individuals and couples. These agencies report two outstanding barriers that affect their attempts to place clients in affordable permanent housing: • An incongruity between the income limits associated
with subsidized housing and the income that a family
would need to earn in order to afford “market
rents;” and Homeless families with children need better access to affordable permanent housing and assurances that they will not be discriminated against. Once that access has been provided, they need continuing supportive services to help them become self-sufficient and to prevent future instances of homelessness. Priority Needs The City and the CoC Planning Committee identified
our homeless and homeless prevention priorities using
data provided by the service providers. The needs of
each category of residents, as determined on a qualitative
and quantitative basis by these service providers, were
the basis for determining the relative priority of each
homeless need category. These priorities are indicated
in Table 1A, located in the Tables Appendix on page
A-1. Homeless Inventory Following is a summary of the existing facilities and services that assist homeless persons and families with children in the Scranton area: United Neighborhood Centers One-Stop Shop for Housing The “One-Stop Shop” (the “OSS”)
for housing is a clearinghouse for both information
and assistance regarding housing and housing related
services. The OSS offers guidance to people in need
of safe, decent affordable housing, valuable resources
on housing issues and housing related services, information
seminars and general advocacy services. The OSS can
also direct clients to resource persons who are familiar
with the legal and financial processes involved in securing
and maintaining affordable housing. The OSS also provides
coordination of services and follow-up when needed.
During FY 2003-2004 there were 743 clients who sought
services from the OSS. This was a 13% increase of the
2002-2003 year when 656 clients were served. During
FY 2003-2004 the program served 238 individuals and
families who sought services because they being evicted;
34 homeless couples; 199 homeless families and 132 homeless
singles. The Transitional Housing and Supportive Services Program
provide housing and supportive services for homeless
families. This program allows families to stay together
in safe, comfortable apartments while pursuing self-sufficiency
goals and permanent housing. Homeless families are identified
through the OSS program or referred by other local social
service agencies. Participants can stay in this program
for up to two years. Program services include case management,
budgeting, job training, childcare, transportation,
parenting, anger management, among others. During 2003-2004
there were 29 homeless families assisted through this
program representing a total of 103 homeless persons
in families. In September 2003, United Neighborhood Centers implemented a Foreclosure Prevention Program. After being trained at Neighborhood Reinvestment Institute, housing counselors were able to provide loss mitigation and default counseling to homeowners who were in foreclosure or otherwise delinquent with mortgage payments. Between September 2003 and July 30, 2004, 47 people contacted UNC for assistance through this program. Possible options for families facing this crisis include forbearance agreements, repayment plans, loan modifications, short sales, streamline refinance, partial claims and deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. The counseling process generally involves negotiations with the mortgage holders, budget developments, credit analysis and options counseling. Condemnation Program Through a grant from the City of Scranton, United Neighborhood Centers provides emergency short-term housing and subsidies to cover reasonable living expenses for residents who are in need of housing because their home or apartment was condemned. Families are also assisted in finding new housing if they cannot return to the condemned property. During FY 2003-2004 there were 77 condemnations as compared to the previous year when there were 48 for the fiscal year. The increase in condemnations has lead to a larger drain on housing and homeless resources within the community. Emergency Food Program United Neighborhood Centers distributes food to those in need. Food comes from community donations (especially the Feed-A-Friend program, Postal Workers Food Drive and the Boy Scouts Food Drive), the State Food Program which provides a nutritionally balanced food order to needy families with children, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program. During the first nine months of FY 2003-2004 UNC served 1,505 unduplicated households with emergency food baskets. During the same time period of FY 2002-2003 the agency served unduplicated 1,372 households so there was an increase of 9.7%. Women’s Resource Center The Women's Resource Center's safe-house provides emergency shelter to women and their children who are homeless due to domestic violence. Emergency shelter is provided for up to 45 days to ensure that these women and their children are able to live in a safe environment while they attempt to secure safe, affordable permanent housing. While at the shelter, residents have access to housing advocacy services, legal advocacy services, case management, transportation assistance, and counseling services. Residents are also assisted with pursuing civil legal remedies through the services of the Women’s Resource Center's legal clinic. During FY 2002/2003, the Women’s Resource Center provided shelter to 66 women and 58 of their children for a total of 3,361 nights. In the previous year, the Women’s Resource Center provided shelter to 83 women and 94 of their children for a total of 3,952 nights. Catherine McAuley Center Annex/Emergency Shelter This three-bedroom, thirty-day residence provides shelter for homeless women with or without children. Services available to residents include shelter, case management, links to community resources, transportation, housing counseling, vocational assistance, health service referrals, and food. During FY 2003/2004, the shelter served 74 women and children. Bridge Transition Housing Program This scattered-site, transitional residential program assists homeless women with or without children. Services include aid in finding an apartment, rental assistance for up to one year, furniture, household items and personal supplies, the physical move, intensive case management, weekly educational sessions, links to community services, assistance in finding employment and job training, art therapy, recreational opportunities. During FY 2003/2004, this Program served 39 women and children. Supportive Housing Program This scattered-site, transitional residential program serves women and children who are victims of domestic violence and homeless women and children. All services listed under the Bridge Program are also offered in this program. During FY 2003/2004, 83 women and children were served. This was an increase of 60% over the 52 persons that were served in the prior year. Single Room Occupancy – Frances Warde House This SRO assists very low-income women who come with a variety of problems. Some come from prison. They pay a small rent per week. During FY 2003/2004, 28 women were served. This was an increase of 87% over the 15 persons served in the prior year. Family Support Program This Program assists the near homeless with emergency services such as food, personal supplies, housing counseling, and referrals. During FY 2003/2004, 532 people were served. This represents an increase of 7% over the 499 persons that were served the year before. Christmas Adopt-A-Family Program Homeless and low-income persons, primarily women and children, are assisted with Christmas gifts, such as clothes, food, household items, and toys. This service allows these families to provide their children with |