2014-2015 consolidated annual performance and evaluation report

CAPER 1

OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)

Introduction The document that follows is the City of Raleigh, North Carolina’s DRAFT Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for the period July 1, 2016—June 30, 2017. The CAPER reports the City of Raleigh’s use of federal entitlement funds and the number and demographics of the persons served with those funds during the plan year. HUD requires that cities receiving federal housing and community development funds submit this report every year by September 28. This CAPER is the first year report of accomplishments within Raleigh’s Five Year Consolidated Plan, 2016-2020. The Citizen Participation Plan that is part of the Consolidated Plan requires the City to seek public comment on the CAPER before submitting it to HUD.

2016-2017 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)

The City of Raleigh Community Development Division Department of Housing and Neighborhoods

raleighnc.gov

CAPER 2


CR-05 - Goals and Outcomes

Progress the jurisdiction has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its action plan. 91.520(a) This could be an overview that includes major initiatives and highlights that were proposed and executed throughout the program year.

The City’s strategic plan contained in its 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan contained three priorities for the City’s use of federal and local housing

funds:

Increasing the supply of affordable housing in the City

Enhancing the homeless to housing continuum

Revitalizing neighborhoods

The geographic focus areas are East College Park (ECP) and South Park/Garner Road areas for the five years covered, with ECP occurring first in

sequence.

The FY 2016-2017 Action Plan was consistent with the priorities and geographic focus in that expenditures were consistent with the three

priorities and the 2016 Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA)—particularly East College Park-- consumed a significant amount of

staff time and financial resources as infrastructure work continued and development proposals for new infill housing were evaluated and

builders selected. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) resources were provided to a nonprofit partner to acquire units within the

Brown Birch Apartments community in South Park/Garner Road. The Affordable Housing Improvement Plan, Affordable Housing Location Policy,

and regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) were completed in the 2015-16 fiscal year and in FY 2016-2017 the language

contained within them were brought into the City’s updated comprehensive plan. City Council continued its financial commitment to increased

local funding for affordable housing with the tax increase approved to raise $5.7 million from local property taxes dedicated to increasing the

supply of affordable housing and preserving low-cost rental units that might be lost to conversion to market rates.

Comparison of the proposed versus actual outcomes for each outcome measure submitted with the consolidated plan and explain, if applicable, why progress was not made toward meeting goals and objectives. 91.520(g) Categories, priority levels, funding sources and amounts, outcomes/objectives, goal outcome indicators, units of measure, targets, actual outcomes/outputs, and percentage completed for each of the grantee’s program year goals.

CAPER 3


Goal Category Source / Amount

Indicator Unit of Measure

Expected – Strategic Plan

Actual – Strategic Plan

Percent Complete

Expected – Program Year

Actual – Program Year

Percent Complete

Enhance the

homeless to

housing

continuum

Homeless

CDBG: $ /

ESG: $ /

General

Fund: $

Tenant-based

rental assistance

/ Rapid

Rehousing

Households

Assisted 100 322

322.00% 30 130

433.33%

Enhance the

homeless to

housing

continuum

Homeless

CDBG: $ /

ESG: $ /

General

Fund: $

Homeless Person

Overnight Shelter

Persons

Assisted 9250 5007

54.13% 1850 2397

129.57%

Enhance the

homeless to

housing

continuum

Homeless

CDBG: $ /

ESG: $ /

General

Fund: $

Homelessness

Prevention

Persons

Assisted 150 57

38.00% 30 47

156.67%

Increase the

supply of

affordable

housing

Affordable

Housing

Homeless

Non-

Homeless

Special Needs

CDBG: $0 /

HOME: $ /

General

Fund: $ / City

of Raleigh

Affordable

Housing

Bond: $

Rental units

constructed

Household

Housing

Unit

400 138

34.50% 100 128

128.00%

CAPER 4


Increase the

supply of

affordable

housing

Affordable

Housing

Homeless

Non-

Homeless

Special Needs

CDBG: $0 /

HOME: $ /

General

Fund: $ / City

of Raleigh

Affordable

Housing

Bond: $

Rental units

rehabilitated

Household

Housing

Unit

100 16

16.00% 20 12

60.00%

Increase the

supply of

affordable

housing

Affordable

Housing

Homeless

Non-

Homeless

Special Needs

CDBG: $0 /

HOME: $ /

General

Fund: $ / City

of Raleigh

Affordable

Housing

Bond: $

Homeowner

Housing Added

Household

Housing

Unit

25 13

52.00% 10 5

50.00%

Increase the

supply of

affordable

housing

Affordable

Housing

Homeless

Non-

Homeless

Special Needs

CDBG: $0 /

HOME: $ /

General

Fund: $ / City

of Raleigh

Affordable

Housing

Bond: $

Homeowner

Housing

Rehabilitated

Household

Housing

Unit

100 16

16.00% 20 5

25.00%

CAPER 5


Increase the

supply of

affordable

housing

Affordable

Housing

Homeless

Non-

Homeless

Special Needs

CDBG: $0 /

HOME: $ /

General

Fund: $ / City

of Raleigh

Affordable

Housing

Bond: $

Direct Financial

Assistance to

Homebuyers

Households

Assisted 325 98

30.15% 66 32

48.48%

Increase the

supply of

affordable

housing

Affordable

Housing

Homeless

Non-

Homeless

Special Needs

CDBG: $0 /

HOME: $ /

General

Fund: $ / City

of Raleigh

Affordable

Housing

Bond: $

Buildings

Demolished Buildings 40 13

32.50%

Neighborhood

revitalization

Affordable

Housing

Non-Housing

Community

Development

CDBG: $ /

General

Fund: $

Public Facility or

Infrastructure

Activities other

than

Low/Moderate

Income Housing

Benefit

Persons

Assisted 525 685

130.48% 525 160

30.48%

Neighborhood

revitalization

Affordable

Housing

Non-Housing

Community

Development

CDBG: $ /

General

Fund: $

Public service

activities other

than

Low/Moderate

Income Housing

Benefit

Persons

Assisted 9950 5367

53.94% 150 2995

1,996.67%

CAPER 6


Neighborhood

revitalization

Affordable

Housing

Non-Housing

Community

Development

CDBG: $ /

General

Fund: $

Brownfield acres

remediated Acre 0 0

Neighborhood

revitalization

Affordable

Housing

Non-Housing

Community

Development

CDBG: $ /

General

Fund: $

Homeowner

Housing

Rehabilitated

Household

Housing

Unit

0 0 20 5

25.00%

Neighborhood

revitalization

Affordable

Housing

Non-Housing

Community

Development

CDBG: $ /

General

Fund: $

Buildings

Demolished Buildings 0 9 8 5

62.50%

Table 1 - Accomplishments – Program Year & Strategic Plan to Date

Assess how the jurisdiction’s use of funds, particularly CDBG, addresses the priorities and specific objectives identified in the plan,

giving special attention to the highest priority activities identified.

The City’s three priorities identified in its 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan, and summaries of the City’s use of funds to address them in FY 2016-

2017, were:

• Increase the supply of affordable housing:

The City Council adopted an Affordable Housing Improvement Plan October 20, 2015 which articulated seven “options” for increasing the pace

and volume of City-sponsored creation and preservation of affordable housing. In FY 2016-2017 the City committed $477,326 of HOME funds

toward this effort for 128 affordable rental units and another $6.1 million in local funds are committed to three other affordable apartment

developments to be completed in the future. The City spent a total of $625,000 in second mortgages to enable 32 low-income families purchase

CAPER 7


their first house in the City ($226,661 was the HOME portion made available for 13 of the units).

• Enhance the homeless to housing continuum:

The City moved forward in its partnership with Wake County, the Partnership to End and Prevent Homelessness, and Catholic Charities for the

Diocese of Raleigh to acquire a site for a facility to focus local efforts to more effectively serve the City and County’s homeless population. Local

funds are budgeted to help build the “Oak City Center” that will be the central location for coordinated entry system that is being developed.

In the past fiscal year, the City also continued its partnership with Wake County and the state of North Carolina (through the COC) in the

commitment of its ESG funds for local homelessness service agencies through a Combined Request for Proposals process.

• Neighborhood revitalization:

The City began implementation of its first Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) Plan which was adopted by City Council and

approved by HUD in FY 2015-2016. In FY 2016-2017 the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to attract builders of mixed income housing for

140 lots assembled by the City in a ten-block redevelopment area (East College Park) within the NRSA. A total of $1,778,962 in CDBG funds were

spent acquiring six properties (26 units) within Brown Birch Apartments. $70,260 was spent on CDBG relocation payments to existing tenants

with four households relocated in 2016-2017 and $26,023 in demolishing five (5) blighted structures. $365,149 in CDBG (2 units completed) and

$223,299 in HOME (16 units completed) was spent on housing rehabilitation. $176,865 in City bond funds were used to pay for 23 limited repairs

loans.

[Answer continued in attachment]

CAPER 8


CR-10 - Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted

Describe the families assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of families assisted).

91.520(a)

CDBG HOME ESG

White 619 62 99

Black or African American 2,239 162 333

Asian 2 0 3

American Indian or American Native 38 0 6

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 78 0 1

Total 2,976 224 442

Hispanic 123 16 9

Not Hispanic 2,853 208 433

Table 2 – Table of assistance to racial and ethnic populations by source of funds

Narrative

N/A

CAPER 9


CR-15 - Resources and Investments 91.520(a)

Identify the resources made available Source of Funds Source Resources Made

Available Amount Expended

During Program Year

CDBG CDBG 11,238,516 6,246,889

HOME HOME 4,061,772 1,850,356

HOPWA HOPWA

ESG ESG 959,380 250,870

General Fund General Fund 16,000,000 5,947,159

Other Other

Table 3 - Resources Made Available

Narrative

HOME Match Report Narrative:

None of the following were used as HOME match in FY 2016-2017:

• foregone taxes, fees or charges

• real property

• infrastructure

• site preparation, materials, or donated labor

• bond financing

Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments

Target Area Planned Percentage of Allocation

Actual Percentage of Allocation

Narrative Description

CITYWIDE 50 48

COLLEGE PARK 25 26

SOUTH PARK REDEVELOPMENT

AREA 25 26

Table 4 – Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments

Narrative

Most of Raleigh’s housing programs are “Citywide” in the sense that resources are made available

without geographic restriction: housing rehab and second mortgage loans, low-interest multi-family

apartment investments, public service grants, and funds for the homeless are not tied to any target

area. College Park had significant spending on infrastructure but the City over-estimated the proportion

of investment in that area.

CAPER 10


Leveraging

Explain how federal funds leveraged additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements were satisfied, as well as how any publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that were used to address the needs identified in the plan.

As the City invests in affordable housing within its borders using federal grant funds, it also taps

other City funds for:

• the installation of new utility lines in the East College Park Redevelopment Area,

• lending to private builders of affordable apartments,

• repairs to older owner-occupied houses,

• providing second mortgage loans to low- and moderate-income homebuyers, and

• providing rapid re-housing and homelessness prevention funds to the area’s homeless

families through Catholic Charities.

• City and County funds were used to acquire a site for a coordinated entry center that will

include daily assistance of multiple kinds for homeless individuals and families, referrals,

transportation, etc. and weekend food distribution.

City land plus a building has been made available for the last three years for the Oak City

Outreach Center, which provides a downtown space for weekend food distribution, referrals,

and advice to the City’s homeless population.

Most of the affordable apartment loans provided by the City are a portion of the entire

investment package to create new affordable apartments, with low-income housing tax credits

and private loans being the other major sources of funds.

Fiscal Year Summary – HOME Match

1. Excess match from prior Federal fiscal year 19,830

2. Match contributed during current Federal fiscal year 176,501

3. Total match available for current Federal fiscal year (Line 1 plus Line 2) 196,331

4. Match liability for current Federal fiscal year 187,534

5. Excess match carried over to next Federal fiscal year (Line 3 minus Line 4) 8,797

Table 5 – Fiscal Year Summary - HOME Match Report

CAPER 11


Match Contribution for the Federal Fiscal Year Project No. or

Other ID Date of

Contribution Cash

(non-Federal sources)

Foregone Taxes, Fees,

Charges

Appraised Land/Real Property

Required Infrastructure

Site Preparation, Construction

Materials, Donated labor

Bond Financing

Total Match

HUD voucher 5866156

11/9/2015 $6,755.89 $6,755.89

HUD Voucher 5866162

11/9/2015 $22,724.41 $22,724.41

HUD Voucher 5876419

12/10/2015 $20,268.17 $20,268.17

HUD Voucher 5890762

1/28/2016 $83,037.87 $83,037.87

HUD Voucher 5949914

8/1/2016 $43,714.97 $43,714.97

Table 6 – Match Contribution for the Federal Fiscal Year

HOME MBE/WBE report

Program Income – Enter the program amounts for the reporting period

Balance on hand at begin-ning of reporting period

$

Amount received during reporting period

$

Total amount expended during reporting period

$

Amount expended for TBRA

$

Balance on hand at end of reporting period

$

0 209,033 209,033 0 0

Table 7 – Program Income

CAPER 12


Minority Business Enterprises and Women Business Enterprises – Indicate the number and dollar value of contracts for HOME projects completed during the reporting period

Total Minority Business Enterprises White Non-Hispanic Alaskan

Native or American

Indian

Asian or Pacific

Islander

Black Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Contracts

Dollar

Amount 207,680 0 0 55,850 0 151,830

Number 14 0 0 12 0 2

Sub-Contracts

Number 16 0 0 12 3 1

Dollar

Amount 43,720 0 0 31,270 7,850 4,600

Total Women Business

Enterprises

Male

Contracts

Dollar

Amount 207,680 0 207,680

Number 3 0 3

Sub-Contracts

Number 16 1 15

Dollar

Amount 43,720 4,600 39,120

Table 8 - Minority Business and Women Business Enterprises

Minority Owners of Rental Property – Indicate the number of HOME assisted rental property owners and the total amount of HOME funds in these rental properties assisted

Total Minority Property Owners White Non-Hispanic Alaskan

Native or

American

Indian

Asian or

Pacific

Islander

Black Non-

Hispanic

Hispanic

Number 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dollar

Amount 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 – Minority Owners of Rental Property

CAPER 13


Relocation and Real Property Acquisition – Indicate the number of persons displaced, the cost of relocation payments, the number of parcels acquired, and the cost of acquisition

Parcels Acquired 0 0

Businesses Displaced 0 0

Nonprofit Organizations

Displaced 0 0

Households Temporarily

Relocated, not Displaced 0 0

Households Displaced

Total Minority Property Enterprises White Non-Hispanic Alaskan

Native or

American

Indian

Asian or

Pacific

Islander

Black Non-

Hispanic

Hispanic

Number 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 10 – Relocation and Real Property Acquisition

CAPER 14


CR-20 - Affordable Housing 91.520(b)

Evaluation of the jurisdiction's progress in providing affordable housing, including the number and types of families served, the number of extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle-income persons served.

One-Year Goal Actual

Number of Homeless households to be

provided affordable housing units 20 130

Number of Non-Homeless households to be


Number of Special-Needs households to be


Total 60 284

Table 11 – Number of Households

One-Year Goal Actual

Number of households supported through

Rental Assistance 50 151


The Production of New Units 80 133


Rehab of Existing Units 30 18


Acquisition of Existing Units 10 22

Total 170 324

Table 12 – Number of Households Supported

Discuss the difference between goals and outcomes and problems encountered in meeting these goals.

Rehab includes six single-family houses and twelve City-owned units rehabbed with HOME funds that

were completed in 2016-2017. A larger number was projected as the City revised it rehab standards to

encourage more participation but applicants did not appear in the first months that the new, more

attractive rehab loan terms were advertised. As the first borrowers’ houses are completed and “word-

of-mouth” testimonies are circulated, it is expected that the pace of rehabs will accelerate in future

years.

CAPER 15


Discuss how these outcomes will impact future annual action plans.

Future action plans will reflect the emphasis on preserving existing affordable housing units, both rental

and owner-occupied, as Raleigh’s rental housing stock has become increasingly lucrative as an

investment opportunity and house sale prices in many neighborhoods are becoming out-of-reach of

would-be owners of modest means.

Include the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income persons served by each activity where information on income by family size is required to determine the eligibility of the activity.

Number of Households Served CDBG Actual HOME Actual

Extremely Low-income 2,738 47

Low-income 132 96

Moderate-income 134 17

Total 3,004 160

Table 13 – Number of Households Served

Narrative Information

N/A

CAPER 16


CR-25 - Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220(d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c)

Evaluate the jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its specific objectives for reducing and ending

homelessness through:

Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their

individual needs

The City of Raleigh works closely with the Continuum of Care, the Raleigh/Wake Partnership to End and

Prevent Homelessness (the Partnership), Wake County Human Services, and nonprofit homeless service

providers including those the City does not fund. One of the seats on the Partnership Board is reserved

for a City representative. The Partnership works closely with the City, County, and service providers in

conducting the annual Point-in-Time (PIT) count and Housing Inventory Counts for the Annual Homeless

Assessment Report (AHAR) that is required by HUD. The PIT, a snapshot of those meeting HUD’s

definition of “homeless” on a single night within the last ten days of January each year. For 2017, the PIT

Sheltered and Unsheltered Count for January 28, 2017 is in eCart attachment.

The City awards ESG grants to service providers that complete individualized assessments to identify

need for shelter, prevention, or rapid re-housing. Most service providers and shelters are using the VI-

SPDAT tool to conduct uniform assessments in HMIS to identify severity of need. Most service providers

and four shelters in Raleigh started using the VI-SPDAT July 1, 2016. The City also uses local funds to

support the Oak City Outreach Center, a weekend food distribution site, managed by the Partnership

and Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Raleigh, where over 63 different groups, organizations, and

congregations distribute food to an average of 350 men, women, and children each weekend. The City,

the County, the Partnership, and Catholic Charities are also working together on the development of a

multi-service center (the Oak City Center) that will be a central component of a dispersed coordinated

entry/assessment system. Passage Home and Volunteers of America (VOA) are leading the charge on

ending veterans’ homelessness, providing a model for doing the same for unsheltered homeless women,

a growing population.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons

In addition to the City’s entitlement funds awarded to nonprofits, for FY 2016-2017, these organizations

received NOFA funding for services including emergency shelter, prevention, Shelter + Care, and rapid

re-housing totaling $2,969,601:

Renewal Projects:

Community Alternatives for Supportive Abodes (CASA)- McKinney

$195,262 for 1 year period; permanent housing rental subsidies for 60 eligible individuals or families at

scattered sites throughout City.

Community Alternatives for Supportive Abodes (CASA) – Families at Home.

CAPER 17


$76,246, renew funding for the Families at Home Project (also called Oak Hollow) which is comprised of

ten two-bedroom units providing permanent supportive housing to families with children who are

homeless. CASA partners with Women’s Center of Wake County to provide support services and ensure

appropriate services are available for the success of these families. Families are supported through job

placement, life-skills programs, parenting classes, and various group activities.

Community Alternatives for Supportive Abodes (CASA) – Salisbury Apartments.

$24,467 of CoC, renew the project providing ten one-bedroom units of permanent housing and

supportive team services for adults who are homeless and have a mental illness and /or substance

addiction This funding is for Operations Only. The S. Wilmington Street Center (SWSC) Men’s Shelter

provides 24/7 supportive services to each tenant. Once housed, the tenants also remain engaged at the

SWSC in various programs/classes.

Haven House Services – Rapid Re-Housing

$53,696 in Continuum of Care awards over a one year period renew assistance to eight pregnant and

parenting young adults ages 18 – 23 with Rapid Re-Housing services.

Passage Home – Ruth’s House II

$211,959 in CoC 1 yr period, renew Ruth’s House II program, assists Wake County families with

substance use disorder and/or chronic physical illness/disability to become permanently housed in 22

scattered site units in Wake County and case management services to ensure tenants maintain housing.

Subsidies determined by family income; can be reduced or increased depending on availability.

Passage Home – Essential Services

$220,558 in CoC for 1-yr period, renew Essential Services for 26 homeless families. Provides permanent

housing, fosters self-sufficiency for homeless families with children. Must have recent work history and

engage in support services. Services also for female ex-offenders exiting NC Correctional System without

a home plan. Various vocational and educational services provided to help them reach their goals of

reuniting with their child/children.

Wake County Human Services - Shelter+Care

$1,747,576 of CoC for 1-yr period, renew Shelter+Care project for formerly homeless adults with severe

mental illness and/or chronic substance abuse problems with TBRA and support services.

Wake County Human Services – Shelter+Care 2011

$44,773 of CoC for Shelter+Care for rental assistance and support services for adults.

NC Coalition to End Homelessness – HMIS

$76,682 of CoC for Wake County portion of NCHMIS. Grant covers activities like network management,

technical support, end user training, and statistical reporting.

PLM Families Together-RRH

CAPER 18


$112,856 to renew organization’s RRH services for 7 homeless families.

Wake County Human Services-RRH

$137,460 of CoC for RRH services for 12 men. Priority 1: single adult males defined as chronically

homeless by HUD; priority 2: single adult male veterans ineligible for VA services and benefits.

New Project:

Coordinated Entry

$68,066 reallocated funding to establish coordinated entry process

Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely

low-income individuals and families and those who are: likely to become homeless after

being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care

facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections

programs and institutions); and, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that

address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs

The City of Raleigh 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan identifies strengthening the homeless to housing

continuum and the need for permanent supportive housing for the homeless as top priorities. The City is

a participating organization in, and helps fund, the Raleigh/Wake Partnership to End and Prevent

Homelessness, the local Continuum of Care organization. City staff are actively involved with the CoC in

developing plans, establishing priorities, and working with service providers. City ESG funds supported

four programs this fiscal year with ESG: one that helped families and individuals maintain their housing

when at risk of becoming homeless due to the threat of eviction and two that rapidly rehoused

homeless families. ESG funds were also provided to the Wilmington Street Shelter for homeless men.

The homelessness prevention funds were provided to the Hope Center at Pullen, which works with

youth aging out of foster care. Women’s Center of Wake County works primarily rehousing homeless,

single women. Families Together rehouses homeless families. Local funds were also provided to Catholic

Charities for homelessness prevention and re-housing. Other large institutions in the area also

contribute. WakeMed Hospital has created a team of social workers / nurses to work with “high

utilizers” of emergency room services, many of whom are homeless, to connect them with mental

health services and assist them in finding housing and accessing mainstream resources. Alliance

Behavioral Health, the Local Management Entity-Managed Care Organization (LME-MCO), is actively

assisting in re-housing individuals with mental illness in Raleigh and the rest of its catchment area.

Several re-housing service providers cultivate relationships with landlords to encourage them to rent to

households / individuals difficult to house, such as people with felony records and those with troubled

landlord/eviction histories.

In addition, the City’s Community Enhancement Program, funded from the City CDBG entitlement, is an

annual program that issues a RFP for public services to benefit low to moderate income individuals and

families. Funds for this fiscal year awarded programs that: tutored K-12 students living in Raleigh

Housing Authority communities; funded a paid youth internship program; supported in-home

CAPER 19


counseling services for low-income families that counsel children 3-5 years of age with severe behavioral

problems and their parents; supported a job training and placement program for low-income

individuals, many of whom were or are homeless; funded an agency that assists families moving into

housing from homelessness; one that offers life skills training and tenant training; and supported

homebuyer training and counseling. All of these activities help low income individuals and families

either stay housed or rapidly become re-housed.

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families

with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to

permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that

individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals

and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were

recently homeless from becoming homeless again

Raleigh strengthens the homeless to housing continuum in several ways including Raleigh’s Mayor

having signed on to the Mayors Challenge to End Veteran Homelessness. The City partners with the

County and the CoC to issue a “Combined RFP” for projects that serve those who are homeless or at-

risk-of homelessness. These three funding sources apply similar criteria as part of the communitywide

effort to adopt a Housing First approach to rapid re-housing and emergency shelter operations.

Contracts for these subgrantees, whether using ESG or local dollars, require them to use the Homeless

Management information System (HMIS) so data can be tracked and shared. Subgrantees are also

required to actively ensure to the best of their ability that clients are connected to mainstream

resources. Passage Home and Volunteers of America have completed data sharing agreements with

several partners using HMIS and developed a by-name list of homeless veterans. This process has

established a model for a similar effort that began in the fall of 2016 targeting homeless single women, a

subpopulation whose increasing numbers has been particularly troubling.

In addition, a County commissioner chairs the “Directors Group,” composed of the District Attorney, a

local judge, County Sheriff, Raleigh Police Chief, WakeMed, and other appointed and elected officials to

better address the needs of severely mentally ill individuals who come in contact with the criminal

justice system, to develop a path for them away from incarceration toward mainstream services and

permanent supportive housing where available. Data analysis is underway, through the assistance of the

software company SaS, comparing three databases: HMIS, the County jail, and EMS. The goal is to see

how many individuals are in all three databases and how frequently. Preliminary analysis indicates that

approximately 805 individuals show up in all three databases, 26 of whom could be categorized as “high

utilizers.” This analysis will help governmental institutions, hospitals, police, and homeless service

providers identify individuals who are not receiving the services they need, resulting in both individual

suffering and excessive cost to the community.

The increasing adoption of the housing first approach with rapid re-housing, prevention, and emergency

shelter has helped reduce the length of time (LOT) homeless for persons in emergency shelters.

CAPER 20


According to the HMIS Performance Measurement Module (Sys PM), the median LOT homeless is 20

bed nights, while the average LOT homeless is 45 bed nights, two and quarter times the median. This

metric indicates that for a majority of those experiencing homelessness, their time homeless is brief and

for many, nonrecurring. However, the much higher average LOT homeless suggests that there are

individuals experiencing chronic homelessness whose LOT homeless raises the average. These

chronically homeless individuals are increasingly the focus of service providers. The model used in

reducing veteran homelessness began to be applied to single chronically homeless women in 2016-17, a

demographic that has been increasing.

CAPER 21


CR-30 - Public Housing 91.220(h); 91.320(j)

Actions taken to address the needs of public housing

The overall mission and operation of public housing is to provide safe, sanitary decent affordable

housing. This goal is just as important as our endeavors to create a positive living environment while

promoting personal responsible and self-sufficiency of residents.

RHA owns and operates 1,444 subsidized housing rentals with preferences for persons who live or work

in Wake County, those that have been working 35 hours per week for 2 consecutive years, the elderly

(62+), and disabled. Unlike most housing authorities, RHA keeps its waiting list open. The majority of

applications are for one and two bedroom units which cause this group to have the longest wait. Public

housing maintains a 99% occupancy rate.

Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program: RHA has 3,869 Housing Choice Vouchers and has a 99%

utilization rate. RHA's Section 8 voucher program is rated as a high performer by HUD. In recent years,

the funding for the Section 8 voucher program has changed from year to year and often retroactively.

There have also been fluctuations in the Fair Market Rents, which are set by HUD, that affect the ability

of participants to secure rental units under the program. The length of time a family is on the waiting list

is varies between three to seven years, depending on participant attrition rates.

There are currently over 7,500 applicants on the voucher waiting list with a wait of between 3 to 7 years

based on voucher turnover and funding levels. The local voucher preferences are for the elderly,

disabled and residents of Wake County. To qualify as a resident the applicant must live or work in Wake

County. RHA provides a preference to the homeless population through the Support Circle referrals. It is

impossible to predict when or if an applicant will be offered assistance. The Raleigh Housing Authority

recognizes the need and seeks ways to protect and develop affordable housing for the citizens of

Raleigh.

Actions taken to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in

management and participate in homeownership

The Raleigh Housing Authority (RHA) recognizes successful management of its local public housing

developments requires participation and cooperation from all RHA tenants. To this end, the existence

and recognition of viable, representative, and democratic resident councils were developed in most

public housing communities. These councils are critical for achieving participation and cooperation from

RHA tenants and its organizational goal to provide consistent, sound management practices and services

for the general welfare of all residents served. This organization knows the needs of their neighbors and

coordinates the delivery of community service programs primarily for public housing tenants. It is from

this organization the Resident Advisory Board is chosen. Recently, RHA staff met with our Resident

Advisory Board to discuss and develop the proposed Smoke-Free Housing and Building Policy. These

Advisory Board and the Resident Council meetings have proven to be the best avenue to communicate

CAPER 22


changes to the operations, procedures or regulations which directly affect the residents or the services

RHA provides.

Actions taken to provide assistance to troubled PHAs

The Raleigh Housing Authority continues to be rated as a high performer by HUD’s management

assessment system for public housing. RHA just completed its 30th consecutive year with no financial

audit findings. There is a waiting list for public housing and the wait is one to two years, depending on

family size and preferences. Raleigh Housing Authority understands the importance of providing

supportive services to families who seek to become self-sufficient.

CAPER 23


CR-35 - Other Actions 91.220(j)-(k); 91.320(i)-(j)

Actions taken to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as

barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning

ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the

return on residential investment. 91.220 (j); 91.320 (i)

In the 2016-2017 fiscal year the City of Raleigh was engaged in a major update to its comprehensive

plan, which includes a housing chapter which Community Development Division staff amended to

enable the City to significantly increase its efforts to better address the housing needs of its low-income

population. CD staff included new sections that better informed readers (and policy-makers) about the

federal housing programs

The current political climate in North Carolina makes it unlikely that any city can receive state legislative

approval of new local ordinances to require or incentivize private developers to provide affordable

housing. Raleigh is increasing its use of local funds and providing more programmatic opportunities to

increase the ability of developers to add to/preserve the supply of affordable housing units in the City.

Also the City’s Housing and Neighborhoods Department significantly increased its outreach to low-

income citizens (presentations at monthly neighborhood meetings, “meet the builders” events, job fairs)

to better enable them to take advantage of new infill housing sponsored by the City and the jobs

created by CDBG-funded infrastructure.

Actions taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)

As of June 2016 the City owned 195 affordable rental housing units. The average rent was $579 and

nearly 15% of the units were rented to households below 30% of area median income. 67% of tenant

households were below 50% AMI. 86% of occupants in City-owned rentals were minorities.

The City has been addressing homelessness in a concerted effort in partnership with Wake County, the

Continuum of Care (“the Partnership”), and Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Raleigh. A location was

acquired for a new “multi-service center,” to called the Oak City Center, for coordinated entry and

assessment; direct referrals to the most appropriate agency to best meet the needs of each client;

showers, laundry, internet access, and mail distribution for homeless persons; life skills classes and

other training opportunities; and weekend food distribution. The City and County each allocated general

tax dollars, which combined total approximately $7 Million, to help fund the acquisition of the property

and the upfit of the commercial structure on the site for this purpose. The site is adjacent to the South

Wilmington Street Center for homeless men.

City Council in June 2016 approved a tax increase to support affordable housing in the City, with $5.7

million available for such investments in FY 2016-2017 and each year into the future. The introduction of

this new funding source resulted in about $6 million in commitments for affordable units in the past two

years with new units to be counted in future CAPERs.

CAPER 24


Actions taken to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)

LBP remediation is an integral part of CD's rehab program. All rehabs of owner-occupied homes are

tested for lead-based paint and any LBP found is appropriately remediated.

Actions taken to reduce the number of poverty-level families. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)

The Raleigh Community Development Division began a series of “job fairs” in the NRSA to connect

residents of the low-income Census Tract with jobs being created by CDBG-supported infrastructure

work. Two local residents have been hired so far. Every year CD sponsors job training through the Wake

County Homebuilders Association for low-income youth. Twenty-six (26) youth were trained in 2016-

2017.

Actions taken to develop institutional structure. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)

The institutional structure for the delivery of CDBG programs and services to low and very-low income

families and individuals in Raleigh involves public, private and non-profit participation. The Raleigh

Public Utilities Department is providing over $1 million from its capital improvement budget towards a

CDBG-driven public works project in a low-income neighborhood in need of complete replacement of

aging utilities.

Nonprofit organizations play a key role-- with City, county, and state funding (CDBG and ESG) --in

providing emergency shelter, homelessness prevention services to the City’s homeless persons. A

partnership of City, County, the Continuum of Care, and Catholic Charities has acquired a permanent site

for coordinated entry and assessment and for providing shelter, food and services, and referral services

in a single location near downtown. All activities currently taking place at the Oak City Outreach Center

will move to the new site once upfit is complete. The anticipated date for completion is January 1, 2019.

As in previous years, the City last year provided funds (CDBG, HOME, local) for local nonprofit

developers and private for-profit firms to build affordable housing in the City. In FY 2016-2017 the City

finalized its development plan for the 140 lots it assembled, primarily with CDBG funds, and sponsored a

RFP to competitively hire builders who will provide mixed-income homeownership opportunities. In

addition, the City has established a pipeline of low-income residents to receive job training and

employment within this City-sponsored housing development within the NRSA.

Actions taken to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service

agencies. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)

CD requires that nonprofit organizations applying for financial assistance to provide affordable housing

for disabled persons have written commitments in place to assure the involvement of social service

agencies in the non-housing needs of their residents.

CAPER 25


Identify actions taken to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the

jurisdictions analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. 91.520(a)

The underlined text shows the City-related impediments identified in the regional AI completed in 2015,

followed by City actions to address them.

Lack of affordable housing in high opportunity areas: On September 3, 2015, the Raleigh City Council

adopted the Affordable Housing Location Policy which encourages development of City supported

affordable housing in high opportunity areas. The following year an affordable housing fund (>%5.7

million per year) was created in the City General Fund.

Limited housing choice restricts access to community assets for members of the protected classes: The

Wake Transit Plan will increase the percentage of the County’s jobs within ¾ mile of all day transit

service.

Transit system is fragmented and does not adequately connect Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty

(RCAPs) to higher opportunity areas: New transit plan addresses this and in November 2016 voters

aproved a transit tax to pay for massive new investments in transit throughout the City and County.

Members of the protected classes—particularly those living in RCAPs—are disproportionately denied

mortgages in the private sector: The City continues to support homebuyer education, sponsors the

building of affordable houses on City-owned sites, and provides low-interest second mortgages to make

many sales within reach of lower-income families who otherwise may not be able to buy a house in the

unsubsidized market.

RCAPs are clustered in the City of Raleigh, found primarily where lower income Black and Hispanic

residents live. All of these areas are located within very low and low opportunity areas: The City adopted

an Affordable Housing Location Policy in September 2105 to steer most of its affordable housing

investments only to areas outside of RCAPs.

A local fair housing resource with enforcement and resolution power is needed in Raleigh: Local

complaints received by the City are referred to the Fair Housing Project of Legal Aid of North Carolina

and the Fair Housing Justice Center, who have the resources and expertise to address fair housing

complaints.

The City needs a monitoring system in place to assure that its private vendor managing City-owned

rental properties attend fair housing training: The City has always required its management company to

attend fair housing training and adjustments were made to clarify this requirement in its monitoring

system.

CAPER 26


CR-40 - Monitoring 91.220 and 91.230

Describe the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance

of the plan and used to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs

involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning

requirements

Monitoring of CDBG and ESG projects has five major components:

1. Grant Applications: Request for funding applications are made on a standard form and are

evaluated by a team. Points are given for each criterion covering community need, program

effectiveness, financial record, and capacity of the organization. Recommendations for funding

are based on evaluation of the above criteria and presented to City Council for approval.

2. Pre-agreement meeting: the project manager meets with each grantee to go over grant

requirements, logistics for payments, record-keeping standards, future monitoring, and close-

out.

3. Agreements: The City of Raleigh enters into standard grant agreements with each grantee that

specify amount, source, and use of funds, match requirements, reporting standards, record-

keeping, results to be achieved, and other conditions specific to the project. A standard

attachment of all federal standards (Executive Orders, Civil Rights Act, etc.) with which the

agency must comply is included.

4. On-site monitoring: project manager, based on a risk assessment, will visit each funded agency

at least once in the 12 month term of the contract to assure compliance.

5. Progress reports: written statements of benefits produced with the grants provided are required

with each payment request as well as a summary at the end of the project.

HOME funds are provided annually in a competition that leverages low-income housing tax credits. Loan

agreements are executed with each borrower that includes federal requirements and on-site monitoring

consistent with the HOME regulations are conducted to review unit condition and programmatic

compliance.

The FY 2017-2018 Action Plan includes a HOME/CDBG/ESG Monitoring Plan, which is also included as an

Attachment to this CAPER.

Citizen Participation Plan 91.105(d); 91.115(d)

Describe the efforts to provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to

CAPER 27


comment on performance reports.

Ads were placed in The Carolinian and The News & Observer for the 15-day comment period beginning

August 25, 2017. The City web site was also used to inform residents of the availability of the draft

CAPER in digital format and paper copies were available by request.

CAPER 28


CR-45 - CDBG 91.520(c)

Specify the nature of, and reasons for, any changes in the jurisdiction’s program objectives

and indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its

experiences.

N/A

Does this Jurisdiction have any open Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI)

grants?

No

[BEDI grantees] Describe accomplishments and program outcomes during the last year.

CAPER 29


CR-50 - HOME 91.520(d)

Include the results of on-site inspections of affordable rental housing assisted under the

program to determine compliance with housing codes and other applicable regulations

Please list those projects that should have been inspected on-site this program year based upon

the schedule in §92.504(d). Indicate which of these were inspected and a summary of issues

that were detected during the inspection. For those that were not inspected, please indicate

the reason and how you will remedy the situation.

[See Attachment for inspection table]

Provide an assessment of the jurisdiction's affirmative marketing actions for HOME units.

92.351(b)

Every developer receiving HOME funds from the City is required to have and follow an Affirmative

Marketing Plan. All HOME borrowers are advised of the HOME requirements for affirmative marketing

and CD staff monitor each HOME-financed apartment community to assure compliance. Recent

monitoring of these communities has found compliance with HOME regulations.

Each loan agreement signed between the City and organizations receiving development loans contains

the following:

Affirmative Marketing: Borrower shall adopt affirmative marketing procedures and requirements for the

rental housing project pursuant to 24 CFR Section 92,351, as may be amended. Affirmative marketing

steps consist of actions to provide information and otherwise attract eligible persons in the housing

market area to the available housing without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, religion, familial

status or disability. The affirmative marketing requirements and procedures adopted must include:

1. Methods for informing the public, owners, and potential tenants about fair housing laws and the

City of Raleigh’s affirmative marketing policy.

2. Requirements and practices Borrower must adhere to in order to carry out the City’s affirmative

marketing procedures and requirements.

3. Procedures to be use by Borrower to inform and solicit applications from persons in the housing

market area who are likely to apply for the housing without special outreach.

4. Records that will be kept describing actions taken by the city of Raleigh and by Borrower to

affirmatively market units and records to assess the results of these actions; and

5. A description of how the City of Raleigh will annually asses the success of affirmative marketing

actions and what corrective actions will be taken where affirmative marketing requirements are

not met.

Refer to IDIS reports to describe the amount and use of program income for projects,

including the number of projects and owner and tenant characteristics

CAPER 30


There was a total of $1,021,051.71 in HOME Program Income expended in 2016-2017. Of this $650,000

was committed to an apartment development (still open – no data), $153,306.03 was provided to nine

homebuyers for downpayment assistance (all were moderate income, 6 were African American, 2 were

White, 1 Hispanic), and $217,031 was for seven rehabilitation loans, of which 3 were completed (all

were African American, 1 was 0-30% AMI, 1 was 31-50% AMI, and 1 was 61-80% AMI).

Describe other actions taken to foster and maintain affordable housing. 91.220(k) (STATES

ONLY: Including the coordination of LIHTC with the development of affordable housing).

91.320(j)

Local funds have been made available for nonprofit developers to purchase the mostly unsubsidized

existing apartment developments threatened with redevelopment in Raleigh’s more attractive locations.

Raleigh City Council in June 2015 approved a one cent tax increase for affordable housing, expected to

generate approximately $5.7 million the first year. This will be a major source of local dollars with which

the City can aggressively address its need for additional affordable units as well as preserve existing

units into the future.

[See attachment for Use of Program Income Table]

CR-60 - ESG 91.520(g) (ESG Recipients only)

ESG Supplement to the CAPER in e-snaps

For Paperwork Reduction Act

1. Recipient Information—All Recipients Complete Basic Grant Information

Recipient Name Raleigh

Organizational DUNS Number 044379568

EIN/TIN Number 566000236

Indentify the Field Office GREENSBORO

Identify CoC(s) in which the recipient or subrecipient(s) will provide ESG assistance

Raleigh/Wake County CoC

ESG Contact Name

Prefix First Name Middle Name Last Name

CAPER 31


Suffix Title

ESG Contact Address

Street Address 1 Street Address 2 City State ZIP Code Phone Number Extension Fax Number Email Address

ESG Secondary Contact

Prefix First Name Last Name Suffix Title Phone Number Extension Email Address

2. Reporting Period—All Recipients Complete

Program Year Start Date 07/01/2016

Program Year End Date 06/30/2017

3a. Subrecipient Form – Complete one form for each subrecipient

Subrecipient or Contractor Name: PLM Families Together

City: Raleigh

State: NC

Zip Code: 27620, 4395

DUNS Number: 945084887

Is subrecipient a victim services provider: N

Subrecipient Organization Type: Other Non-Profit Organization

ESG Subgrant or Contract Award Amount: 76035

CAPER 32


Subrecipient or Contractor Name: Wake County Human Services

City: Raleigh

State: NC

Zip Code: 27602, 0550



Subrecipient Organization Type: Unit of Government


Subrecipient or Contractor Name: The Women's Center of Wake County

City: Raleigh

State: NC

Zip Code: 27605, 1817





Subrecipient or Contractor Name: The Hope Center at Pullen

City: Raleigh

State: NC

Zip Code: 27605, 1663





Subrecipient or Contractor Name: Urban Ministries of Wake County

City: Raleigh

State: NC

Zip Code: 27603, 1118





CAPER 33


CR-65 - Persons Assisted

4. Persons Served

4a. Complete for Homelessness Prevention Activities

Number of Persons in Households

Total

Adults 4

Children 2

Don't Know/Refused/Other 0

Missing Information 0

Total 6

Table 16 – Household Information for Homeless Prevention Activities

4b. Complete for Rapid Re-Housing Activities


Total

Adults 177

Children 56



Total 233

Table 17 – Household Information for Rapid Re-Housing Activities

4c. Complete for Shelter


Total

Adults 2,336

Children 1



Total 2,338

Table 18 – Shelter Information

CAPER 34


CAPER 35


4d. Street Outreach


Total

Adults 0

Children 0



Total 0

Table 19 – Household Information for Street Outreach

4e. Totals for all Persons Served with ESG


Total

Adults 2,465

Children 65



Total 2,530

Table 20 – Household Information for Persons Served with ESG

5. Gender—Complete for All Activities

Total

Male 2,097

Female 428

Transgender 5



Total 2,530

Table 21 – Gender Information

CAPER 36


6. Age—Complete for All Activities

Total

Under 18 65

18-24 263

25 and over 2,202



Total 2,531

Table 22 – Age Information

7. Special Populations Served—Complete for All Activities

Number of Persons in Households Subpopulation Total Total Persons

Served – Prevention

Total Persons Served – RRH

Total Persons

Served in Emergency

Shelters

Veterans 0 0 0 237

Victims of Domestic

Violence 0 0 0 162

Elderly 0 0 0 182

HIV/AIDS 0 0 0 54

Chronically Homeless 0 0 0 220

Persons with Disabilities:

Severely Mentally

Ill 0 0 0 502

Chronic Substance

Abuse 0 0 0 178

Other Disability 0 0 0 489

Total

(Unduplicated if

possible) 0 0 0 2,024

Table 23 – Special Population Served

CAPER 37


CR-70 – ESG 91.520(g) - Assistance Provided and Outcomes

10. Shelter Utilization

Number of New Units - Rehabbed 0

Number of New Units - Conversion 0

Total Number of bed-nights available 19,710

Total Number of bed-nights provided 19,251

Capacity Utilization 97.67%

Table 24 – Shelter Capacity

11. Project Outcomes Data measured under the performance standards developed in

consultation with the CoC(s)

Performance Measures for CoC-funded Projects

HUD’s Annual Performance Report (APR) requires that CoC-funded projects report on performance as

follows:

Permanent Supportive Housing Projects will report on the following measures:

• Housing Stability: 85% of all participants will maintain permanent housing or exit to a permanent

destination during the operating year.

• Total Income: 37% of persons age 18 and older will maintain or increase their total income (from all

sources) as of the end of the operating year or program exit.

Transitional Housing Projects will report on the following measures:

• Housing Stability: 70% of participants will exit to permanent destination during the operating year.

• Total Income: 60% of persons age 18 or older will maintain or increase their total income (from all

sources) as of the end of the operating year or program exit.

Rapid ReHousing projects will report on the following measures:

• Housing Stability: 70% of all participants will maintain housing when rapidly rehoused for 12 months

after their program exit.

• Total Income: 70% of all participants maintained or increased their total income (from all sources) 12

months after their program exit.

Emergency Shelter projects will report on the following measures:

• Singles:

Housing Stability: 20% of single adults will exit to a permanent destination.

Total Income: 25% of those 18 and older will maintain or increase total income.

• Families:

Housing Stability: 40% of families will exit to a permanent destination.

Total Income: 25% of those 18 and older will maintain or increase total income.

CAPER 38


CR-75 – Expenditures

11. Expenditures

11a. ESG Expenditures for Homelessness Prevention

Dollar Amount of Expenditures in Program Year

2014 2015 2016

Expenditures for Rental Assistance 14,698 11,139 626,083

Expenditures for Housing Relocation and

Stabilization Services - Financial Assistance 1,539 80 0

Expenditures for Housing Relocation &

Stabilization Services - Services 15,165 6,960 66,137

Expenditures for Homeless Prevention under

Emergency Shelter Grants Program 0 0 0

Subtotal Homelessness Prevention 31,402 18,179 692,220

Table 25 – ESG Expenditures for Homelessness Prevention

11b. ESG Expenditures for Rapid Re-Housing


2014 2015 2016

Expenditures for Rental Assistance 27,185 89,930 109,015

Expenditures for Housing Relocation and

Stabilization Services - Financial Assistance 13,080 14,545 25,732

Expenditures for Housing Relocation &

Stabilization Services - Services 19,781 63,284 81,855

Expenditures for Homeless Assistance under

Emergency Shelter Grants Program 0 0 0

Subtotal Rapid Re-Housing 60,046 167,759 216,602

Table 26 – ESG Expenditures for Rapid Re-Housing

11c. ESG Expenditures for Emergency Shelter


2014 2015 2016

Essential Services 0 26,132 0

Operations 96,758 9,987 27,347

Renovation 0 0 0

CAPER 39


Major Rehab 0 0 0

Conversion 0 0 0

Subtotal 96,758 36,119 27,347

Table 27 – ESG Expenditures for Emergency Shelter

11d. Other Grant Expenditures


2014 2015 2016

Street Outreach 0 0 0

HMIS 0 0 0

Administration 0 0 0

Table 28 - Other Grant Expenditures

11e. Total ESG Grant Funds

Total ESG Funds Expended 2014 2015 2016

1,346,432 188,206 222,057 936,169

Table 29 - Total ESG Funds Expended

11f. Match Source

2014 2015 2016

Other Non-ESG HUD Funds 0 100,000 100,000

Other Federal Funds 0 0 0

State Government 0 0 0

Local Government 227,750 42,458 88,879

Private Funds 96,726 256,927 250,869

CAPER 40


Other 0 0 0

Fees 0 0 0

Program Income 0 0 0

Total Match Amount 324,476 399,385 439,748

Table 30 - Other Funds Expended on Eligible ESG Activities

11g. Total

Total Amount of Funds Expended on ESG

Activities

2014 2015 2016

2,510,041 512,682 621,442 1,375,917

Table 31 - Total Amount of Funds Expended on ESG Activities

CAPER 41


Attachments

CAPER 42


CAPER Attachments CR-05, CR-40, CR-50

CAPER Attachments

Contents CR-05 Goals and Outcomes 43

CR-40 Monitoring 45

CR-50 HOME ............................................................................................................................................................... 59

Use of HOME Program Income 60

CAPER 43


CR-05 Goals and Outcomes

Assess how the jurisdiction's use of funds, particularly CDBG, addresses the priorities and specific

objectives identified in the plan, giving special attention to the highest priority activities identified.

[Answer continued]

Last fiscal year the City of Raleigh continued its CDBG programs of neighborhood revitalization, housing

rehabilitation, infrastructure upgrades, public service grants, including a $100,000 grant for shelter

operations of the County’s emergency shelter for homeless men. HOME funds were made available for

housing rehabilitation loans and developer loans. The ESG program was distributed in a partnership

with Wake County and the Continuum of Care partnership in accordance with programmatic

requirements.

These investments addressed the priorities of providing affordable housing, revitalizing neighborhoods,

and helping homeless persons receive the housing assistance needed.

There were several completed affordable housing developments. In addition to five (5) infill single-

family houses built on lots acquired by the City with CDBG funds, thirty-two (32) second mortgages, six

(6) housing rehabilitation loans, and twenty-three (23) Limited Repair loans, the City also rehabilitated

twelve (12) City-owned rentals. There were the following rental investments of completed projects:

Rental Development Funding Source City Assistance Number of

Units Unit Type

Emerson Glen HOME $973,183 48 units Family

Wakefield Spring HOME $821,869 80 units Elderly

In addition to the above, another 240 affordable subsidized apartments were completed without City

assistance within Raleigh and $1,778,962 in CDBG was provided to enable Passage Home, Inc. to acquire

the remaining 26 units within Brown Birch Apartments. That rental community is now under single

ownership for future redevelopment activities. The neighborhood revitalization activities were

primarily funded with CDBG in FY 2016-2017. A total of $464,280 in CDBG public services was spent in

2016-2017.

Training was provided to 26 low-income youth in a construction trades apprenticeship program,

homebuyer training was provided to 242 persons, and 602 persons received assistance from the CDBG-

funded Community Enhancement Grant.

Following is a summary of the City’s CDBG public works projects:

CAPER 44


East College Park Infrastructure: This project is a two and a half year project. It involves the replacement

of the water and sewer main and the storm drain on eight city blocks. All work is being performed on a

live system. All existing homeowners are being tied into the new system as the project progresses. Infill

mixed income housing will be built in a Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) context on the

140 lots the City assembled with CDBG and city bond funds. To date (August/September 2017) Phase I is

95 % complete. The City spent $2,087,576.44 in CDBG on East College Park infrastructure in FY 2016-

2017. The total City investment has been $ 3,529,291.54 in ECP water, sewer, and storm drainage, with

the balance being from Public Utilities. Improved utilities were provided to the existing 160 persons in

the neighborhood.

The 300 block of Haywood Street: This project consisted of clearing and grubbing of approximately .33

acres, removal of 140 linear feet of masonry wall, installing 24 water and sewer services, grading

approximately 15,400 square feet of land, installation of approximately 200 linear feet of 8” storm drain

and associated storm drain inlets, replacement of approximately 150 linear feet of sidewalk, curb and

gutter.

Regarding the City’s efforts to address homelessness, $100,000 in City CDBG funds and $13,577.80 in

City ESG funds were provided to the South Wilmington Street Men’s Shelter for shelter operations,

benefiting 2,125 persons. The number of households assisted with Rapid Re-Housing and Prevention

(both with ESG and with City funds) were:

Rapid Re-Housing

Women’s Center of Wake County = 95

PLM Families Together = 26

Catholic Charities = 9

Total RRH = 130 households

Prevention

Hope Center at Pullen = 6

Catholic Charities = 17

Total Prevention = 23 households

CAPER 45


CR-40 Monitoring

Monitoring Objectives As a participating jurisdiction (PJ) under the federal HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program , the City of Raleigh is required to perform administrative and financial monitoring on all owners of HOME-assisted rental property and homebuyer housing as well as its community housing development organizations (CHDO) as required. The Housing and Neighborhoods Department’s Community Development Division (CD) is the agency of the City for administering HOME and carrying out HOME monitoring functions. The HOME monitoring goals are as follows:

Documenting compliance with program rules

Monitoring areas of common concern that are identified in the risk analysis

Follow-up on any prior years’ monitoring results

Analysis of progress reports and HOME and IDIS reports on program/project status

Ensuring timely expenditure of HOME funds Forms of Monitoring: Desk Review and Onsite Monitoring The Plan involves a two-pronged approach: ongoing desk review monitoring and on-site monitoring. Ongoing desk review monitoring will involve an examination of both routine and special reports from HOME program staff, housing owners, contractors and developers. Owners, developers and contractors expend HOME funds for projects pursuant to written agreements. These agreements will be reviewed and compared against progress reports from these entities to ensure they are within budget and complying with project deadlines. Monitoring will also review payment requests for the eligibility of all costs. Program-wide data, such as the number of units developed, number of families assisted, and the ongoing amount of HOME funds expended will be tracked. In addition to the ongoing monitoring of all activities, certain HOME Program areas or organizations will be selected for an in-depth, on-site review based on the activity or organization’s risk factors. This specifically pertains to those cases if an extended period of time has elapsed since the last visit. At a minimum, a desk review will be conducted for every activity (homeowner rehab, homebuyer assistance, and rental housing) funded with HOME and an on-site visit will be conducted for every HOME-funded project within its affordability period. Desk Review Monitoring Procedures

1. For the Homeowner Rehab Program, monitoring staff will perform a desk review of 20% of the completed projects using HUD’s HOME Checklists 4-B and 4-C.

2. For the Homebuyer Program, monitoring staff will perform a desk review of 10% of the files using HUD’s HOME Checklists 5-B and 5-C.

3. For the Rental Housing Program, monitoring staff will perform a desk review of 2 files using HUD’s HOME Checklists 6-A and 6-B.

CAPER 46


Onsite Monitoring Procedures

1. Prepare for the Site Visit by reviewing: a. Background on the HOME Program

i. HOME rent, income limits ii. Monitoring handbook iii. Other HUD Policy notices and regulations

b. Background on the Project i. HOME Written Agreement ii. CD’s Policies and Procedures iii. Funded Entity Procedures iv. HOME-related Reports and Correspondence, including draw-down requests v. Results of Desk Reviews vi. Staff experience with Funded Entity

2. Schedule the Onsite Visit. Send formal letter several weeks in advance to confirm: a. Confirmation of the date and time for the review b. Name of the CD staff performing the review c. Information needed for review during the visit (files and records) d. Staff needed for interviews or other assistance during the review e. Specific units that will be inspected

3. Convene an Entrance Conference 4. Conduct Staff Interviews 5. Select Files for Review 6. Review Files 7. Hold Exit Conference

Internal and External Communication When applicable, CD will coordinate and work with other relevant parties (e.g., NCHFA, Wake County). For instance, when HOME funds are invested in projects that are also funded with LIHTC’s, CD will coordinate with NCHFA to inquire about the State’s monitoring results and to share the City’s results. When Wake County funds are also invested, CD will work with County staff to coordinate onsite inspections and monitoring in order to minimize redundancy in monitoring efforts. Risk Analysis Risk Factors Property managers and developers with a large amount of HOME funded rental developments; undertaking multiple activities or using multiple HUD funding sources, especially with relatively large amounts of funds; with new management; with recent turnover among funded staff or with history of high turnover; with prior history of concerns and findings; with changes in leadership, goals or direction of agency; failing to meet schedules or failure to submit timely reports; with unresolved audit findings or no audit; failing to meet federal program or OMB compliance requirements; with low quality documentation; with unexplained decrease or increase in productivity; and failure to resolved findings or concerns from prior monitoring.

CAPER 47


Ranking (highest risk first) High DHIC - 7 HOME funded projects, all of which have over 25 units Medium CASA - 6 HOME funded projects, including one 64 unit multi-family development Evergreen Construction - 4 HOME funded projects, all of which have over 25 units Passage Home - 5 HOME funded projects Low EHM - 2 HOME funded projects, including one also funded with LIHTC Mills Construction - 1 HOME funded project NRP - 1 HOME funded project The Pendergraph Company, LLC - 1 HOME funded project Shades Properties II, LLC - 1 HOME funded project Wynnefield Properties, Inc. - 1 HOME funded project Rich Park - 1 HOME funded project Schedule CD will update its schedule annually to identify scope, frequency, and timing of monitoring reviews for the year. See Attachment A for 2017-18 monitoring schedule. Staffing When determining the staff monitoring assignments, CD will ensure: Staff technical expertise Project and program monitor understands the HOME Program regulations and the development or program assistance process. Financial and administrative monitor understands the HOME Program regulations, the uniform administrative requirements, and the applicable OMB circulars. Long-term monitor understands the HOME Program regulations and the property management process. Objectivity of the monitor To promote objectivity:

CD will separate the funding (project selection and underwriting) and monitoring functions in order to ensure that the monitor has no previous relationship to the funded entity under review.

Rotate monitoring assignments on a regular basis. 1. Issue Monitoring Letter a. Provides Program or project name and address

CAPER 48


b. Includes names of CD staff and funded entity staff who participated in the monitoring and provide a short description of the monitoring process

c. Explains what program or project elements the monitor examined d. Describes all conclusions about areas of good performance and/or noncompliance

i. Specify what correction action must be taken, if any ii. Cite regulatory or statutory basis for all findings iii. Describe consequences if correction actions are not corrected

Finding or Concern Possible Corrective Action(s)

Policies, procedures, or forms used in program

operations do not accurately state HOME

requirements, or do not sufficiently ensure

compliance.

Require the adoption or revision of policies, procedures, or

forms.

• Provide specific guidance on issue to be improved

• Provide sample language or offer to review

• Mandate use of CD-developed material(s)

Written agreement does not clearly state HOME

requirement(s).

Explain the deficiency(ies) and amend the written

agreement

Staff are unfamiliar with HOME requirements in

general; or, one or two specific areas of compliance

are not in compliance, but overall program is well-

administered.

Require staff to attend training and/or participate in

technical assistance (recommended when staff is new or

inexperienced)

• Tap HUD Field Office resources for technical assistance,

where possible

Recommend or require change in staff (recommended

when staff person has been in place and has been trained,

but continues to

have difficulty understanding or implementing the

requirements)

HOME funds spent on ineligible costs Repay/return HOME funds

Costs are unsubstantiated Withhold payments until there is evidence that costs are

justified and reasonable

HOME-assisted unit occupied by an over-income

household

For homebuyer housing, repay HOME funds

For rental housing, adjust over-income household’s rent and

designate another unit as HOME-assisted (in accordance

with procedures for fixed or floating units)

Tenant pays too much for rent (in HOME-assisted Calculate tenant’s overpayment and make tenant whole

CAPER 49


rental unit) In rental projects with significant rent issues, restart

affordability period with HUD’s approval

HOME-assisted unit does not meet applicable

property codes and standard

Unit must be brought up to applicable codes and standard

Funded entity fails to take corrective actions, as

directed

Repeated compliance problems and limited effort to

improve

Temporary suspension of the funding recipient

Do not renew the funding recipient for the next program

year

Terminate the funding recipient’s activity for the current

program year

Initiate legal action

Technical Assistance Needs When common concerns are identified in risk analyses or monitoring results, CD will provide applicable technical assistance during the monitoring year. Technical assistance may be in the form of workshops, meetings, or group training to address problems that are of common concern to more than one funded entity. When the need for technical assistance is identified, CD will communicate with its funded parties to ensure that timing and location are accessible. Follow-up Activities CD will ensure that any outstanding findings or concerns from the previous year have been resolved satisfactorily. Annually CD will produce a summary of the prior year’s monitoring activities, and identify any follow-up activities that are still required. This will be included in the next Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). 1. Analyze the Results of Review a. Hold a staff meeting to review identified issues and concerns b. Research any regulatory requirements where there might be a concern about compliance c. Identify what corrective actions were used if other organizations had similar problems or

concerns i. Findings are areas of statutory or regulatory noncompliance that must be addressed

immediately. ii. Concerns are issues that are not instances of statutory or regulatory noncompliance but may

result in noncompliance if they are not addressed. iii. Observations are comments about areas where the funded entity can improve program

performance. 2. Determine Appropriate Corrective Actions

CAPER 50


Attachment A – 2017-18 HOME Monitoring Schedule

Project Next Onsite Visit

CASA

Sunnybrook Apts 1 December-17

Sunnybrook Apts 2 December-17

Waterbrook December-17

DHIC

Brookridge December-17

Emerson Glen December-17

Lennox Chase December-17

Meadowcreek Commons December-17

Wakefield Manor December-17

Water Garden Park December-17

Water Garden Village December-17

EHM

Fox Haven December-17

Walnut Woods December-17

Evergreen Construction

Autumn Spring November-17

Perry Hill December-17

Village of New Hope December-17

Windsor Spring December-17

Mills/UPM

Shammah Winds December-17

NRP

Brighton Pointe December-17

Passage Home

Brown Birch December-17

Franklin Woods I & II (Mathew's House) December-17

The Pendergraph Co LLC

Elder's Peak December-17

Shades Properties II LLC

Holmes Street/Shades Point Townhomes December-17

Wynnefield Properties Inc

The Magnolias December-17

City-Owned Property

809 Bragg St December-17

909 Carlisle St December-17

CAPER 51


Ricky Circle December-17

Woodpecker Court December-17

CAPER 52


FY 2017-2018 Monitoring of CDBG, ESG, And Local Nonprofit Grant Recipients

Monitoring Objectives City of Raleigh will perform administrative and financial monitoring on its organizations receiving grants from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), or local General Fund resources, as required. The project manager (PM) will perform project monitoring for all entities that carry out specific projects. The monitoring goals are as follows: • Documenting compliance with program rules • Monitoring areas of common concern that are identified in the risk analysis • Follow-up on any prior years’ monitoring results • Analysis of progress reports and IDIS reports on program/project status • Ensuring timely expenditure of funds High-Risk Grantees Requiring On-Site Monitoring • New to the CDBG or ESG program • Turnover in key staff positions or a change in goals or direction • Previous compliance or performance problems • Carrying out high-risk activities (economic development) • Undertaking multiple CDBG or ESG activities for the first time Low-Risk Grantees for whom Desk Audits/Limited On-site Monitoring May Suffice • Strong past performance • Continuity in staffing • On-site Monitoring Limited to: -Operational area(s) where regulations have changed -New activities the subgrantee is undertaking -Past concerns or changes in operations Medium-Risk Grantees fall in between high- and low-risk, having high-risk elements but the PM

has confidence that the project will not be compromised in any significant way (e.g., new staff were hired but they are not new to the grant source of the tasks to which they are assigned)

Definition of Units of Service in Statement of Work 24 CFR 570.503(b)(1) requires that “The agreement (between the City and the subgrantee) shall include a description of the work to be performed, a schedule for completing the work, and a budget. These items shall be in sufficient detail to provide a sound basis for the recipient effectively to monitor performance under the agreement.” During monitoring the PM will verify that the work performed for which CDBG payments are being made are clearly delineated with regard to who performed each task, for how many hours, for the benefit of whom, with what staff and other eligible costs (CDBG and non-CDBG).

CAPER 53


I. Desk Review Monitoring Procedures CDBG, ESG, and Local Nonprofit grantees submit progress reports, which are written statements of benefits produced with the grants provided and are required with each payment request as well as a summary at the end of the project. The PM will review these with each payment request and compare, at the end of the grant period, with a summary report, taking note of any discrepancies – the existence of which will trigger an on-site monitoring visit, unless addressed within five business days. II. On-Site Review Monitoring Procedures On-site reviews involve monitoring of the subgrantee’s overall program administration as well as individual beneficiary or project files, depending upon the activity undertaken. The following steps provide grantees with the basic framework to follow when conducting onsite program monitoring reviews. Step 1: Prepare for the Monitoring Visit— Staff should be thoroughly familiar with the applicable program rules and the established monitoring protocol. In addition, staff should review the following types of in-house data prior to the visit: Application for funding, written grant agreement, payment requests/progress reports submitted to date. Step 2: Conduct the Monitoring Visit—There are four basic elements to conducting an on-site monitoring visit: notification, entrance conference or meeting, data collection and analysis, and exit conference or meeting. These steps are described briefly below. Notification: the monitoring process should begin by calling to explain the purpose of the visit and to agree upon date for the visit. A formal notification letter or e-mail should follow at least several weeks before the planned visit and should include: confirmation of the dates for the review, scope of the monitoring, Information needed for review during the visit, and staff needed for interviews or other assistance during the review. Entrance conference: Entrance conferences are held at the beginning of monitoring visits, usually with the executive director or other top official of the organization, to make sure the subgrantee has a clear understanding of the purpose, scope, and schedule for the monitoring. Documentation, data gathering, and analysis: PM will keep a clear record of information reviewed and conversations held with staff during the monitoring visit. The most efficient and effective way to review all of the necessary documentation and data is with a checklist. Checklists should be based on the CDBG or ESG Program requirements for each type of project. The information gathered will serve as the basis for conclusions to be included in the monitoring report and follow-up letter. Exit conference: At the end of the monitoring visit, the reviewers should meet again with key representatives of the organization to: present preliminary results of the monitoring, provide an opportunity for the subgrantee to correct any misconceptions or misunderstandings, secure additional information to clarify or support their position, and If applicable, provide an opportunity for them to report on steps the organization may already be taking to address areas of noncompliance or nonperformance. Step 3: Follow-Up—At the end of the process, the Project Manager will provide the subgrantee with written notification of the results of the monitoring review. This letter should both point out problem

CAPER 54


areas and recognize successes. The follow-up letter creates a permanent written record of what was found during the review. The letter should outline concerns and findings (see below), and set deadlines for a written response and corrective actions. Monitoring Results • As a result of monitoring, the Project Manager/monitor may reach one or more conclusions: -Performance was adequate or exemplary; -There were significant achievements; -There were concerns that need to be brought to the attention of the subgrantee; -Technical assistance was provided or is needed; and/or -There were findings that require corrective actions. Identified Deficiencies • Where a deficiency has been found, it will be categorized as a finding or a concern (see definitions below). • Provide guidance regarding any identified deficiencies. • Any conditions which may require serious corrective action need to be identified. Finding Defined • A finding is a deficiency in program performance based on material noncompliance with a statutory, regulatory, or program requirement for which sanctions or other corrective actions are authorized. Concern Defined • A concern is a deficiency in program performance not based on a statutory, regulatory, or other program requirement. • Concerns will be brought to the attention of the subgrantee and with recommended actions to address concerns and/or provide technical assistance. Monitoring Letter • Sent to subgrantee within 30 days after completion of monitoring. • Describes the results of the monitoring. • Provides detail sufficient to clearly describe the areas which were covered and the basis for the conclusions. • Provides a written record of the monitoring review. • Recognizes good work and improvement. • Points out areas where corrective action or improvement is required. • If there are findings, an opportunity for the program participant to demonstrate compliance. • The time frame for a grantee response to the monitoring letter. • Includes Project Manager’s recommendations or requirements for improvement. • An offer of any technical assistance found to be needed and/or description of technical assistance provided in the course of monitoring.

Deficiencies in Program Performance and Possible Corrective Actions

Finding or Concern Possible Corrective Action(s)

CAPER 55


Policies, procedures, or forms used in program

operations do not accurately state CDBG, ESG, or

local requirements, or do not sufficiently ensure

compliance.

Require the adoption or revision of policies,

procedures, or forms.

• Provide specific guidance on issue to be improved

• Provide sample language or offer to review

• Mandate use of CD-developed material(s)

Staff are unfamiliar with CDBG, ESG, or local grant

requirements in general; or, one or two specific areas

of compliance are not in compliance, but overall

program is well-administered.

Require staff to attend training and/or participate in

technical assistance (recommended when staff is new

or inexperienced)

• Tap HUD Field Office resources for technical

assistance, where possible

Recommend or require change in staff

(recommended when staff person has been in place

and has been trained, but continues to

have difficulty understanding or implementing the

requirements)

CDBG, ESG, or local funds spent on ineligible costs Repay/return funds spent on ineligible costs

Costs are unsubstantiated Withhold payments until there is evidence that costs

are justified and reasonable

Funded entity fails to take corrective actions, as

directed OR

Repeated compliance problems and limited effort to

improve

Temporary suspension of the funding recipient

Terminate the funding recipient’s activity for the

current program year

Initiate legal action

CD Project Manager Follow-up PM needs to follow up on monitoring results, according to monitoring letter time frames, review of periodic reports. Subsequent monitoring should examine the implementation of corrective measures and program improvements. Technical Assistance When common concerns are identified in risk analyses or monitoring results, CD will provide applicable technical assistance during the monitoring year. Technical assistance may be in the form of meetings or group training to address problems that are of common concern to more than one funded entity. When the need for technical assistance is identified, CD will communicate with its funded parties to ensure that timing and location are accessible. Follow-up Activities by CD Staff

CAPER 56


CD will ensure that any outstanding findings or concerns from the previous year have been resolved satisfactorily. Annually CD will produce a summary of the prior year’s monitoring activities, and identify any follow-up activities that are still required. This will be included in the next Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). 1. Analyze the Results of Review a. Hold a staff meeting (if needed) to review identified issues and concerns b. Research any regulatory requirements where there might be a concern about compliance c. Identify what corrective actions were used if other organizations had similar problems or concerns 2. Determine Appropriate Corrective Actions Risk Analysis Basic questions that applied to determining risk include:

Is this the first time the agency has been awarded a grant? Has there been management turnover? Have there been problems related to timely reporting? Has documentation demonstrating eligibility of persons served or grant funds expended been

questionable? Others issues are taken into account as well. However, there is an effort by staff to conduct on site monitoring at least once every two years

CAPER 57


Risk Analysis

Agency Funding Source Risk Level

Hope Center at Pullen ESG H

Hope Center at Pullen CDBG H

Women's Center ESG M

Green Chair CDBG M

Families Together ESG L

Families Together CDBG M

Inter-Faith Food Shuttle CDBG M

StepUp Ministry CDBG L

Communities in Schools CDBG L

Passage Home Local H

Catholic Charities Local M

DHIC CDBG L

DHIC Local L

Raleigh Wake Partnership to End and Prevent Homelessness

Local L

Risk Level: H (high risk); M (moderate risk); L (low risk)

CAPER 58


Monitoring Schedule for CDBG, ESG, and Local Grants CD will update its on-site monitoring schedule annually to identify scope, frequency, and timing of monitoring reviews for the year. [See Monitoring Schedule chart below]

CDBG, ESG, Local Grant Monitoring Schedule: FY 2017-18

Agency Next on-Site

Visit Funding source

Activity Funded

Hope Center at Pullen July, 2017 ESG Homelessness prevention

Hope Center at Pullen July, 2017 CDBG Host home program

Women's Center August, 2017 ESG Rapid Re-Housing

Green Chair Sept, 2017 CDBG basic home furnishings for families

formerly homeless

Families Together Oct, 2017 ESG Rapid Re-Housing

Families Together Oct, 2017 CDBG Life skills & tenant training

Inter-Faith Food Shuttle Nov, 2017 CDBG Job training: food service prep

StepUp Ministry Jan, 2018 CDBG job training / placement

Communities in Schools Feb, 2018 CDBG K-12 tutoring

Passage Home March, 2018 Local admin for Community Development

Corporation (CDC)

Catholic Charities April, 2018 Local Support Circles

DHIC May, 2018 CDBG housing counseling

DHIC May, 2018 Local admin for Community Development

Corporation (CDC)

Raleigh Wake Partnership to End and Prevent Homelessness

June, 2018 Local admin for Continuum of Care (CoC)

CAPER 59


CR-50 HOME Include the results of on-site inspections of affordable rental housing assisted under the program to

determine compliance with housing codes and other applicable regulations.

Please list those projects that should have been inspected on-site this program year based upon the

schedule in 92.504(d). Indicate which of these were inspected and a summary of issues that were

detected during the inspection. For those that were not inspected, please indicate the reason and how

you will remedy the situation.

Project Developer Funding

Source # Units

Monitoring

Date Results

CASA

Carlton Avenue CASA Bond 4 2/14/2017 compliant

Crest Commons CASA Bond 19 4/11/2017 complaint

George's Mews CASA Bond 26 2/14/2017 compliant

Hope Crest CASA HOME 10 2/14/2017 compliant

Oak Hollow CASA HOME 10 2/15/2017 compliant

Salisbury Apartments CASA HOME 10 2/15/2017 compliant

Sherman CASA HOME 11 4/11/2017 compliant

Sunnybrook Village CASA HOME 10 4/11/2017 compliant

DHIC

Carlton Place DHIC Bond 80 2/21/2017 compliant

Dacian Glen/Glenbrook

Crossings DHIC Bond 63 3/16/2017 compliant

Madison Glen DHIC Bond 50 1/19/2017 compliant

Wakefield Hills DHIC-CMC Bond 84 12/20/2016 compliant

Wakefield Manor DHIC-CMC Bond 96 12/20/2016 complaint

Evergreen

Construction

Autumn Spring Evergreen HOME 50 12/1/2016 compliant

Autumn Trace Evergreen Bond 32 12/1/2016 compliant

Passage Home

1002 Coleman Passage Home HOME 18 3/28/2017 compliant

Hollenden Place Passage Home

HOME

(CHDO) 22 3/28/2017 compliant

Job's Journey Passage Home Bond 10 3/28/2017 compliant

WIHN Permanent/Family

Promise WIHN Bond 12 4/13/2017 compliant

CAPER 60


Use of HOME Program Income

Race Of Total # -

How Many

Hispanic

Median Income Level

Project Address # Of

Units

Household

Size Black # White # Other 0-30%

31-50%

51-80%

rehab 4417 Rock

Quarry Road 1 1 1 0 1

rehab 3314 Bell

Drive 1 1 1 0 1

rehab

1909

Wimbish

Lane

1 1 1

1

Homebuyer

assistance

631 Oak Run

Drive 1 1 0

1

Homebuyer

assistance

5313 Oporto

Court 1 4 0

4

Homebuyer

assistance

3625 Tule

Spring St. 1 1 0

1

Homebuyer

assistance

4203

Grandover

Drive

1 2 0

2

Homebuyer

assistance

3986

Volkswalk

Place

1 1 0

1

Homebuyer

assistance

3013

Maidenhair

Drive

1 3 0

3

Homebuyer

assistance

2419

Shepherd

Valley St

1 2 2

2

CAPER 61


Homebuyer

assistance

8821

Common

Townes Dr

1 1 0

1

Homebuyer

assistance

5405

Trestlewood

Lane

1 1 0

1

CAPER 62


CAPER Public Comments

FY 2016-2017 CAPER Public Comment

No comments were received on the Draft FY 2016-2017 CAPER.

CAPER 63


Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area

Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA)- East College Park

The City of Raleigh’s 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) is a document created with staff and

community input outlining the City’s goals for a five-year period guiding its use of federal housing and

community development funds. The ConPlan calls for City housing and community development

investments to be directed into focus areas such as a Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA).

An NRSA is a primarily low-income area selected for specialized investment for greater impact, primarily

for residents who fall under income levels of 80% of Area Median Income. The NRSA approach allows for

flexible use of federal funds awarded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)

program and supports job creation and reduces restrictions on housing activities supported by federal

and local tax dollars. On November 3, 2015 the Raleigh City Council approved the NRSA Plan for the area

south and east of St. Augustine’s University, including College Park and the former Washington Terrace

Apartments. The City’s NRSA Plan was approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD).

In the NRSA the City is facilitating the

development of 98 single-family

homes and 51 townhome units in East

College Park which lies in the

southeastern portion of the NRSA (see

map). Infrastructure improvements

including water lines, sewer lines,

storm drains, and new streets and

sidewalks are almost complete. Home

construction is expected to begin in

the fall of 2017. Of the homes being

constructed, at least 60% will be

reserved for low- to moderate- income

buyers (80% or below of Area Median

Income). Raleigh’s Housing and

Neighborhoods Department is

maintaining an ECP section on the City web site for updating residents on home-buying opportunities in

East College Park. To address the home repair needs of existing NRSA homeowners, the City revised its

housing rehabilitation loan program, making up to $90,000 available to low-income homeowners with

0% interest, no payments, forgiven after five (5) years for seniors or disabled, fifteen (15) years for

others.

In addition to the City’s actions within the NRSA, DHIC, Inc. owns and is redeveloping the former

Washington Terrace Apartments site primarily for affordable housing in the northeast section of the

NRSA.

http://www.raleighnc.gov/community/content/HousingNeighborhoods/Articles/NRSAPlan.html

http://www.raleighnc.gov/community/content/HousingNeighborhoods/Articles/ECP.html

http://www.raleighnc.gov/community/content/HousingNeighborhoods/Articles/ECP.html

CAPER 64


CAPER 65


NRSA Investments in FY 2016—2017: CDBG & HOME Expenditures

Activity Type Expenditure

Acquisition (legal, appraisal costs) $1,975.00

Demolition $22,403.72

Maintenance & Disposition of lots $21,503.75

Public Works / Site Improvements $2,248,139.91

Homeowners Rehab $6,997.25

Relocation $17,720.66

Total CDBG & HOME spent in NRSA, FY16-17 $2,318,740.29

In addition to the above summary of City investments of CDBG and HOME in the NRSA, between the

dates of July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017, the contractor installing the new utility lines in ECP (TA Loving)

hired four (4) workers in the East College Park infrastructure project, in accordance with Section 3 of the

Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. Four infill houses were built by St. Augustine’s

Community Development Corporation in the southwestern part of the NRSA at Heck and Jones Streets.

CAPER 66


Section 3 Report

FY 2016-2017 Section 3

HOME Investment Partnership

There were two HOME-funded projects during this period: Wakefield Springs and Brighton Pointe II. The

General Contractor for Wakefield Springs is a Section 3 business. Six (6) additional sub-contracts were

awarded to Section 3 businesses, totaling $1,362,113. One of the subcontractors, Labor Source, was

used to hire temporary day labor during the course of one of the projects. The laborers hired were

Section 3 residents. Flyers and signs were also posted around the job sites as well as at the construction

trailers. The following agencies and publications were notified of job opportunities: Housing Authority,

JobLink, Carolina Peacemaker, Greater Diversity News, and DBE Good Faith. The City held 2 job fairs

during this calendar year and works with our M/WBE coordinator to seek out additional contractors who

may meet Section 3 business concern guidelines.

Community Development Block Grant

This past fiscal year $4.8 Million of CDBG was spent in infrastructure and rehabilitation of homes:

TA Loving Infrastructure Contract: $4,555,000 (work began in 2015)

Rehabilitation of Homes: $303,665

We held quarterly job fairs in the surrounding area where the work was being performed to provide

resident’s access to the contractors to learn about upcoming or immediate job openings. The

contractors also continually posted job openings at the worksite as well. For this past year, 4 job

openings were created and all 4 vacancies were filled with Section 3 hires.

2014-2015 consolidated annual performance and evaluation report

Documents