Section 8 Mtg. Tonight
Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Government
Forum Name: City Council
Forum Description: Discuss individual members and council as a legislative body.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3144
Printed Date: Nov 23 2024 at 11:05am
Topic: Section 8 Mtg. Tonight
Posted By: VietVet
Subject: Section 8 Mtg. Tonight
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 7:21am
|
Mr. Adkins wants to discuss the Section 8 voucher qualifications tonight. In reading the article in the Journal, he offers two situations:
1. People are moving to Middletown for the sole purpose of obtaining a voucher. They are attracted only by the free handout because this city has encouraged this type of thinking. We all know this. 2. Mr. Adkins will suggest giving working families vouchers even if they don't live in Middletown. #1 is the perverbial "put out the welcome mat for any and all "voucher driven people" to come to Middletown, creating a tidal wave of attraction for those not dealt with in other towns and placing a strain on the services offered by the city, not to mention the much discussed image issues of city poverty. #2 is allowing people to come to Middletown in a "drive-thru" window situation, pick up their voucher in the "drive-thru" lane and leave town. And how does that work for the city? The city issues the voucher and then what, we turn them loose on some unsuspecting city? What does the city get for providing this "drive-by " voucher program? Is this a way of lessening the amount of "undeserving" people that are inundating the city now- issue vouchers to "more deserving" people who will immediately leave town? Is either one of these scenarios good for this town? Neither attacks the real problem of too many vouchers to begin with. What are we doing to REDUCE the number issues Mr. Adkins? As discussed to death, we need those voucher numbers to be less than Hamilton's at 732, not 1500+ as we have now, right? How will we get there and how long will it take? |
Replies:
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 7:57am
|
I am not an expert in Section 8 - don't want to be. But I would think that if we narrowed down offering vouchers to working families - could we possibly be setting ourselves up for discrimination suits? What about the handicapped or elderly? I would also think that since this is a federal program that there are guidelines you would have to follow, that a city would not be able to overwrite the guidelines. They need to focus on a plan to reduce, not redistribute. Offering to working families out of town is not a fix at all.
|
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 8:10am
|
Bobbie what is the difference in giving working families a preference over giving residence of Middletown a preference? HUD has stated that in order to discuss a reduction in vouchers Middletown needs to get rid of the Middletown Citizen preference.
Other PHA's operate in this manner. Parma where I take it most of these initiatives came from has about 700-800 vouchers with only 50-60 Section 8 Voucher holders living in the city. Folks this is about reducing the number of Section 8 Voucher holders living in Middletown.
Some of these initiatives are being put in place to encourage Voucher Holders to MOVE outside of Middletown. Such as paying a higher rent if you take your voucher and move out of Middletown.
Folks if this works it is a good thing. I just hope Council tonight doesn't make the wrong decision with this as they have in the past.
|
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 9:25am
| Okay - I read it wrong - I did not realized that it was to live outside of Midd. |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 9:33am
|
Seems to me, the intent of Mr.Adkins' report is to keep the # of vouchers in the local program, however shift the residency of the voucher-holders elsewhere. Pretty smart and cost-effective since this might keep the admin $$ here, while moving the bodies to another locale(avoiding the costs associated with these basically less productive/little to no income bodies).
Seems to be what Pacman keeps referencing from the Parma situation.
Anyone else read it this way?
|
Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 9:45am
| I think all the proposed changes--along with the creation of a CRA (Community Reinvestment Area) in the downtown area with more potentially coming--is a step in the right direction. |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 10:24am
|
Spiderjohn – “Pretty smart and cost-effective since this might keep the admin $$ here, while moving the bodies to another locale(avoiding the costs associated with these basically less productive/little to no income bodies).” Spiderjohn This is the part of the program that I really don’t understand since the areas around us do not seem to have or want Section 8 housing. When all these current 700 Section 8 houses do not pass the new inspections laws where are all these people going to move to? How many Section 8 units are now available in the surrounding areas? (Butler and Warren county) Hmmm....
The City Council may pass this tonight....however....I just don't believe that HUD will allow the City to take these actions without a fight. |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 11:00am
|
Vivian I really don't get you remarks on one hand you want to reduce Section 8 on the other you appear to want to keep it and all of its associated problems and issues.
Where are you getting this 700 number at, Middletown can have up to 1662 Section 8 homes?
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is not based on how many Section 8 Units are available in Butler and Warren Counties. A Section 8 HCV holder can rent any home as long as the Landlord agrees to rent to a Section 8 HCV Holder and the unit can pass the inspections and is OK'd by HUD Standards.
Personally I don't really care if the areas around us want any Section 8 Voucher Holders, time for them to step up to the plate. Hell many citizens in Middletown don't want an overabundance of Section 8 Vouchers either, but you seem to overlook that little matter.
|
Posted By: Observer
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 11:09am
|
As I understand the issue HUD can't put up a fight against what the City is doing because the City is operating under the HUD rules. In my opinion the big issue here isn't how many Sec. 8 vouchers the city administers but rather how many Sec. 8 vouchers are used within the city limits. I think the plan that Mr. Adkins has laid out is a plan that could work. |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 11:23am
| Observer you are correct. The only people who can undermine this program is the City itself and from past experience I am not holding my breathe yet. |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 6:13pm
|
Apparently, they ARE "set up to take questions" tonight!!! ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: TANGO
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 7:10pm
| Lets not forget that 2 of present council voted for the increase in vouchers. mayor and bill becker, Any thing done by persent council is better than past. |
Posted By: wasteful
Date Posted: Jul 20 2010 at 9:19pm
| Yeah Mike it seems when the topic is right and ...................................dialog is permitted. Otherwise you get the dead pan Zombie stare for 3 minutes. |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 21 2010 at 10:17am
|
A ? for Mr.A in regard to the inspection team being in-house.
Apparently the newly-hired crew(great research job Council!) is not getting much done.
Supposedly we can do this more efficiently in-house, though I read the chart as showing in-house to be more expensive.
If, as Mr.A claims we can do this better with NEW city employees, and less expensively:
Does his expense analysis also include health care coverage and retirement contributions?
Would you re-hire former employees back at their former pay rates(or higher?) and re-establish their benefit program at the old level? Would they carry over or get more accrued time benefits?
Would you hire NEW employees at a much lower starting pay rate, and place them at the beginning of the health care/retitement/accrued time program?
Why would Mr.Mulligan and Mr.Becker strongly oppose recommended changes last year, then change to supporting the new program? They gave no explanations,however they may change their thinking due to recent developments(a concept unfamiliar to many here, who get everything correct first time around).
|
Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Jul 21 2010 at 10:21am
| I find it hard to believe that doing anything in-house is more cost effective, as you said because of benefits, etc. The problem is monitoring the company you've hired and holding them accountable. Fire them if need be and bring in another firm! |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 21 2010 at 11:23am
|
Spiderjohn Here's some food for thought....
Last year 1 man was doing ALL the inspections of Section 8 Housing as a subcontractor and you can bet he wasn’t making a salary like this….and he used his own car and gas..hmmmmm I will be posting more on this subject later today |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 21 2010 at 8:27pm
|
forget it. |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Jul 21 2010 at 9:43pm
|
Just a few observations and questions.
TIG was hired to do one type of Inspection HQS HUD Inspections for $140,000.00 a year if I remember correctly.
How much more would it cost if you had them do Lead Based Paint Inspections, International Property Maintenance Code Inspections and HQS Inspections? That depends on if they are even certified to do the other inspections.
Last year wasn't Consoc tasked with doing the inspections, now whether they farmed them out or did it themselves doesn't really matter. I believe their fee was in line with what is paid to TIG.
TIG is paid about $35.00 for each scheduled inspection if the tenant is a no show. They have had about 225 so far this year, so figure on about 500 for the year. That is $17,500.00 that is wasted and can't be billed to the tenant per HUD. Wonder if the Inspections can be scheduled with the Landlord since they are benefiting from the rental and then if they are a no show they pay?
I seriously doubt that Mr. Adkins is going through all of this to just pull the wool over the citizens eyes. Since Parma is the basic model for what is transpiring here, they also had a company doing the Admin of their program, as a matter of fact it was one of the Companies that was interviewed here. Parma eventually ended up taking over their own program. If this program pans out and the number of vouchers holders living in the city drops to about 400 it may be more feasible to bring the program in house, as it may no longer be financially feasible for an outside company to administer the program..
I say give this program some time to pan out. I believe Adkins said about 18-24 months to see some results. All of these assumptions about a hiring spree coming to city hall is just that for now assumptions.
Don't miss the big picture here by creating conspiracies. The big picture is the reduction of Section 8 Voucher holders in the city and A reduction in the amount of Poverty in the city, this is a good thing for the city overall.
|
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 22 2010 at 5:58am
|
Let's hope that you are correct pacman
Just wondering about a side situation to Mr.Adkins' plan, and you just never know how things will play out involving federal programs.
Things like this usually don't change quickly.
Controlling costs is always tricky, and can involve a lot of smoke,mirrors and "figures".
As you say, a much smaller program would involve significantly less work(and workers).
|
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 22 2010 at 6:43am
|
Spiderjohn"Could this play out that way, with no real significant decrease in Section 8 homes within the city?' Spiderjohn Yes and I believe this will be the final outcome several years from now.
I do not believe HUD will let them reduce the vouchers. I hope to get a copy of the 11 page responce letter from HUD today. The City will fire TIG and bring all the inspection in-house this year then next year they will let CONSOC go and the entire program will be in-house. |
Posted By: Doug Adkins
Date Posted: Jul 22 2010 at 8:53am
|
Spiderjohn - I'm very disappointed in your postings. This is for real. This is really happening. We WILL get this program back under control. ------------- Doug Adkins Community Revitalization Director |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 22 2010 at 9:12am
|
Mr. Adkins |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 22 2010 at 9:43am
|
Understand your feelings, Mr.Adkins.
I appreciate the tremendous amount of work you have invested in this project, and agree with your direction completely. However, the citizens have been burned repeatedly by promises and programs from(and for)Admin. Granted--mostly b4 your time. Hopefully you understand my skepticism, agree or not.
I have no reason to doubt your effort and integrity, though things seldom go exactly as planned(especially when the Fed stands between local goals).
Welcome to our world of disappointment.
Council and Admin have disappointed the majority of citizens for years with their policies drafted and implemented behind closed doors and with little to no public input or information. Not to mention years of self-centered policy and conduct. Many city employees are fairly new and have never lived in this city or experienced the last 30 years of policy. Sometimes, you need to step back and understand the perception and experience of the long-term citizen and business community.
In your case, you have laid it on the table for everyone to see and understand in advance. Much credit to you and this new open policy. I have to credit our new Councilmembers + Ms.Scott Jones for helping to bring this policy along.
Best of luck implementing your new policy. If done as stated, followed by the desired results, I applaud your efforts and am greatly appreciative of your work for the community.
|
Posted By: Doug Adkins
Date Posted: Jul 22 2010 at 9:48am
|
Because in our opinion Consoc wasn't doing the inspections thoroughly allowing very poorly maintained units to pass inspection. We took inspections away to clean up the process and force landlords to be compliant with the property maintenance requirements. Almost 70% of the inspections have failed this year as we require the landlords to bring their properties back up to standards. We also initiated enhanced criminal screening to better catch problem criminals "before" they get onto the program. Those enhanced background checks started this month.
I'm probably going to get raked over the coals again but Pacman is right. At some point you all have to stop looking for and creating conspiracies and deal with the particular issue at hand. Council asked me to prepare a plan to get control of the program. The plan was presented and put on the website for public review. The individual points, good and bad, have been discussed openly by Council and by the public at large. Council approved by a 7-0 vote to accept all of the recommended changes and I am drafting the remainder of the Admin Plan to implement each of those changes.
If you disagree with any or all of the changes, I respect a difference of opinion. To suggest that this is some type of money grab after all of the work put into this by Staff and Council is flatly untrue and counterproductive. The citizens, including the contributors to this blog, have clamored for change in the Section 8 program. Now that we're doing it, half of you are creating conspiracies as to how we don't really mean it.
Don't let your message get lost in the rhetoric. ------------- Doug Adkins Community Revitalization Director |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jul 22 2010 at 10:29am
| Mr. Adkins: Fair enough. If this plays out as you say, I would think that you should be prepared to receive acknowledgement from us. If this plays out to be altered to reflect the "conspiracy" theory" as some have talked about, be prepared to have these comments thrown back at you with the anticipated venom attached. You must expect that type of response from us as we take no prisoners when we believe we have been given a line of crap by this city government. It is a logical, skeptical response, based on past history from city leaders and their message to the people. JMO |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 22 2010 at 11:19am
|
OK Mr.Adkins--I like your program, understand the HUGE effort involved, and will trust your sincerity and intent. So I regret any assumption of an ulterior motive/
It was only a tangent "what if" scenerio that I mentioned, and not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
I have had recent discussions with major Section 8 landlords, listening to their take on the situation.
I have defended and agreed with your new program, and look forward to seeing it implemented within your anticipated time frame.
So--why not hire the cream of the local Section 8 residents to do the housing inspections? They should be well-versed in the program, requirements and regulations. This would also transform them from users to gainfully employed within the city. They could communicate and bridge the gap between the program participants, the landlords and the city admin.
Action--no more rhetoric
|
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 23 2010 at 4:36am
|
Almost 70% of the inspections have failed this year as we require the landlords to bring their properties back up to standards.
Mr. Adkins |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Jul 23 2010 at 8:07am
|
Folks what is the bottom line here. No one has been more vocal on the Section 8 matter than me for the last 2-3 years. Now that a plan of action has been devised it seems that some of us want to tear apart the plan before it is even implemented. I am just trying to understand what the motivation is here.
HUD may never allow a reduction in vouchers, which personally I think is ludicrous and shortsighted on their part, but that is a possibility that we must deal with.
Parma seems to have come up with a program that they can live with and it appears that Middletown's is based on what they have done and accomplished for themselves. To have 700-800 Vouchers and only 50-60 voucher holders that actually live in the City of Parma is a huge success, if you ask me. A success that I hope Middletown can also duplicate with about a 75% reduction as Mr. Adkins stated.
Now we are squabbling over who does inspections. Who cares who does the inspections as long as they are done correctly and no one group doing them is outrageously higher money wise than the other groups.
The city wants:
Lead Based Paint
HQS
International Property Maintenance Code Inspections
done. Now who can do all of those inspections for the right price and do it right? If it is the City can do it then let the city do it. If it is a combination of the City doing the First inspection and TIG doing the followup inspections so be it.
Personally for me the bottom line is a reduction in the number of Section 8 Voucher Holders in the City of Middletown, which leads also to a reduction in the amount of Poverty in Middletown. If this is what it takes to make this happen than fine with me, lets move ahead. My only concerned in this matter is how long is it going to take to see some measurable results.
So my question is why all this hoopla about inspections?
|
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 23 2010 at 9:36am
|
pac--it might be you who is missing the point and direction here. We are in agreement on the end result, however as a private employer, I look for the most in-expensive long -term method with little to no future obligation.
No real hoopla about inspections.
They must be done effectively and cost effectively.
If we take these programs in-house, we must supply the labor.
Doesn't mean that we can't sub-contract a different team of inspectors.
Still--if these inspectors become city employees, and could possibly be tenured former city employees, it will impact our greatest municipal expense of all--the bennie/retirement system. So--what happens to these inspectors as their workload decreases when(if) the voucher total drops from 1662 to 445 in less than 2 years?
Layoffs? Terminations? Un-employment? Re-assignment?
Probably a ? for Mr.Adkins, if he is still talking to me.
|
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Jul 23 2010 at 10:41am
|
Spider I am well aware of the payroll and benefits consequences of hiring City Inspectors.
"Layoffs? Terminations? Un-employment? Re-assignment?"
All of the above are viable options if no longer needed for inspections.
"So--what happens to these inspectors as their workload decreases when(if) the voucher total drops from 1662 to 445 in less than 2 years?"
Spider who have you been talking to the tooth fairy, I doubt you will see a 75% reduction in 2 years.
 |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 23 2010 at 10:46am
|
Spiderjohn |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jul 24 2010 at 11:38am
|
Almost 70% of the inspections have failed this year as we require the landlords to bring their properties back up to standards.
Mr Adkins If the current 2010 failure rate of Section 8 Housing is 70% that are being performed by TIG what was the failure rate in 2008 & 2009 while CONSOC was performing the Section 8 inspections? If in fact the City had such little faith in CONSOC's ability then why on earth did the City sign a 3 year contract with them when they were the highest bidder? |
Posted By: Nelson Self
Date Posted: Jul 24 2010 at 1:26pm
|
Mr Adkins -
Are you now telling us that HUD - Cleveland Field Office has failed to cite the City of Middletown for having a high rate of HQS non-compliance since the first program administration contract was signed by the City and CONSOC in 1990? Perhaps it would be helpful to hear from Mike LaRiccia or Nancy Petrunak with the HUD - Cleveland Field Office?
|
Posted By: Nelson Self
Date Posted: Jul 24 2010 at 1:43pm
|
Until the transfer of Mr Adkins to the Community Revitalization Department in February 2009, other senior City staff perpetuated and/or ignored subsidized rental housing concerns. Mr. Adkins is to be commended for attempting to reform the past mistakes and indifference of others.
Relative to other HUD-funded multi-million dollar grants such as CDBG, HOME and NSP-1, some previously noted important unanswered questions remain.
|
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 24 2010 at 6:48pm
|
Mr.Self--I don't believe that Mr.Adkins had anything to do with re-appointing CONSOC or choosing the new inspection team. I believe that prior Commissions initially appointed CONSOC, and our last version of Council re-appointed them(spearheaded by Mr.Schiavone,Mr.Marconi,Mr.Becker and Mr.Armbruster(rip)). And did so against the wishes of Ms.G(Admin). Probably the same with the latest inspection team.
Hopefully you will attend the Monday open forum to air your repeated concerns in a manner that can be eventually answered to the fullest.
I doubt that you will ever recieve direct answers from city admin, so you might find a capable citizen to take this material forward.
jmo
Tears of Rage
Tears of Grief
Why must I always be the Thief?
|
Posted By: angelababy
Date Posted: Aug 15 2010 at 10:13pm
|
What are we doing to REDUCE the number issues Mr. Adkins? As discussed to death, we need those voucher numbers to be less than Hamilton's at 732, not 1500+ as we have now, right? I would also think that since this is a federal program that there are guidelines you would have to follow, that a city would not be able to overwrite the guidelines. mayor and bill becker, Any thing done by persent council is better than past. ------------- Welcome to my paintings website - http://www.wholesaleartmall.com - Wholesale Art Mall . |