HUD FINAL Consolidated Plan 2013

Municipality of Anchorage Daniel A. Sullivan, Mayor

HUD FINAL Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan 2013 – 2017

November 14, 2013

Housing and Community Development 2013‐2017 Consolidated Plan Daniel A. Sullivan Mayor Department of Health and Human Services Janet S. Vietmeier, Director Public Health Initiatives and Partnerships Division Britteny J. Matero, Manager Community Safety and Development Program Carrie D. Longoria Program Manager James H. Boehm Senior Neighborhood Planner Gina Riggs‐Kaiser Grants Manager Lawrence M. Stokes Housing Programs Specialist Pat Monday Senior Office Associate Emily Davies Anchorage Domestic Violence and Prevention Project Data Analyst For questions or comments about this Plan please contact: Carrie D. Longoria Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Initiatives and Partnerships Division Community Safety and Development P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519‐6650 Phone: (907) 343‐4876 Email: [email protected]

All drafts of the Consolidated Plan, 2013 – 2017, will be found at this website or a link will be provided at www.muni.org/Departments/health/services/neighborhoods.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan i

Table of Contents

I. ES‐05 Executive Summary...... 1

A. Introduction 1

B. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process 2 Scheduled Meeting 3

C. HAND Commission Members 3

D. HAND Commission’s Oversight Sub‐committee on Homelessness (HCOSH) 4

E. HCOSH Members 4

F. Public Participation in the Consolidated Plan 5

G. Data Sources 6

H. Definition of Race Categories Used in the 2010 Census 6

I. Methodology 7

J. Outline of Needs Assessment Section 8

K. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan 8

L. Evaluation of past performance 12

M. Summary of public comments 12 Summary of public comments on the CP that were received during the June 5, 2013 Public Hearing. 12 Summary of public comments on the AP that were received during the June 5, 2013 Public Hearing.12 Summary of public comments on the CP and AP that were received by e‐mail 13

N. Public Comments 13 Public Hearing ‐ June 05, 2013 13 Public Comments received by e‐mail 22

O. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them. 23

P. Summary 23

II. PR‐05 Lead & Responsible Agencies...... 25

A. 1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan 25

B. Narrative 25

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan iii

C. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information 25

III. PR‐10 Consultation...... 27

A. Introduction 27

B. Summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies: 27

C. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness.27

D. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS. 28 Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Overview 30 Background 31 Written Standards: 31

E. Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and consultations: 35

F. Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting: 57

G. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan – excerpts of each of Plan or summary of the efforts are included but does not represent the full Plan or efforts 57

H. Cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan 58

IV. PR‐15 Citizen Participation ...... 61

A. 1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation61 Summary of citizen participation process and how it impacted goal‐setting: 61

V. NA 05 Overview and Findings for Funding 2013‐2017...... 77

A. Housing problems by Area Median Income (AMI) 77

B. Households with one or more housing problems: Lacks kitchen or bathroom, Overcrowding, Cost Burden 78

C. Cost Burden by Household Type (Small Related, Large Related, Elderly, Other) and AMI (See NA 10 Table 7) 78

iv HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

D. Percentage of households that are overcrowded, defined by HUD, as households with more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐ rooms. 79

E. Other Identifying Needs 79

F. Disproportionately Affected Racial Groups 79

G. Homelessness 81

H. Special Need Populations 82 Elderly and Extra Elderly 82 Persons with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities 82 Persons and Families Living with HIV/AIDS 83 Domestic Violence 83 Sexual Assault 83

VI. NA 10 Housing Needs Assessment ...... 85

A. Introduction 85

B. Summary of Demographics 86

C. U.S. Census by Tract 86

D. Number of Households 90

E. Housing Needs Summary Tables for Several Types of Housing Problems 91

F. Most common housing problems 96 HUD definitions for at‐risk and imminent risk of homeless 96 Economic and Social Factors Related to Homelessness 97 Cost Burden 98 Anchorage Children in Poverty 99 At‐Risk Families with Children and Youth in Anchorage School District 100 Programs in Anchorage serving at‐risk or low‐income households 104 Anchorage’s most common housing problems. 109 Description of populations and/or household types that are more affected than others by Anchorage’s most common housing problems. 109

G. Describe the characteristics and needs of Low‐income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low‐income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered per 91.205(c) / 91.305(c). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re‐housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance. 110

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan v

I. Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and in increased risk of homelessness. 111

J. Discussion 111

VII. NA 15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems...... 113

A. Introduction 113

B. Discussion NA 15 – 0%‐30% 113

C. Discussion NA 15 – 30.1%‐50% 114

D. Discussion NA 15 – 50.1%‐80% 114

E. Discussion NA 15 – 80.1%‐100% 115

F. NA 15 Overview of Significant Findings for Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems 115 Key points for 0‐30% 115 Key points for 30.1%‐50% 115 Key points for 50.1%‐80% 115 Key points for 80.1%‐100% 115

VIII. NA 20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems ...... 117

A. Introduction 117

B. Discussion NA 20 Table 1 117

C. Discussion NA 20 – 30.1%‐ 50% 118

D. Discussion NA 20 Table 3 118

E. Discussion NA 20 Table 4 119

F. Discussion NA 20 – 95.1% and greater 119

G. NA 20 Overview of Significant Findings for Severe Housing Problems 120 Key points for 0‐30%. 120 Key points for 30.1%‐50% 120 Key points for 50.1%‐80% 120 Key points for 80.1%‐95% 120 Key points for 95%+ 120

vi HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

IX. NA 25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens ...... 121

A. Introduction 121

B. Discussion NA 25 Table 2 ‐ Housing Cost Burden by Ethnicity/Race 122

C. NA 25 Overview of Significant Findings for Housing Cost Burden by Ethnicity/Race 122

X. NA 30 Overview of Significant Findings for Disproportionately Greater Need by Ethnicity/Race ...... 123

A. Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole 123

B. Needs not identified above 123

C. Racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community 123

XI. NA 35 Public Housing...... 129

A. Introduction 129

B. Section 504 Needs Assessment 129

C. Number and type of families on the waiting lists for public housing and Section 8 tenant‐ based rental assistance 130

D. Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders131

E. Needs above compared to the housing needs of the population at large 131

F. Discussion 131

XII. NA 40 Homeless Needs Assessment...... 134

A. Introduction 134

B. HUD Definitions for NA 40 Table 1 136 Homeless Management Information System 136 Homeless 136 Chronically Homeless Individuals and Families 136 Unaccompanied Youth 136 Persons with a Disability 137 Permanent Housing 137 Transitional Housing 137

C. Estimate of the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans. 138

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan vii

Homeless Population in Anchorage’s Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing: By Race or Ethnicity 139 Discussion NA 40 – Race/Ethnic Groups in Emergency Shelters or Transitional Housing 139 Discussion NA 40 – Homeless Population in Anchorage’s Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing: By Race or Ethnicity, Ethnic Individuals 140

D. Nature and extent of homelessness by racial and ethnic group 141

E. Nature and extent of unsheltered and sheltered homelessness, including rural homelessness 141

F. Discussion: 141

G. NA 40 Additional Homeless Needs Assessment for Subpopulations 141 Newly Released Prisoners and Homelessness 141

H. Discussion 143 Housing Newly Released Prisoners 143

XIII. NA 45 Non‐Homeless Special Needs Assessment...... 145

A. Introduction 145

B. Characteristics of special needs populations in your community Elderly and Frail/Extra Elderly 145 Persons with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities 148 Persons with HIV/AIDS and their families 150 Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking 152

C. Housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how these needs were determined 159

D. Size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area 159

E. Discussion 160

XIV. NA 50 Non‐Housing Community Development Needs ...... 161

A. MOA’s need for Public Facilities and How These Needs Were Determined 161

B. MOA’s need for Public Improvements and How These Needs Were Determined 161

C. MOA’s need for Public Services and How These Needs Were Determined 162

D. Overview of How Housing and Community Development Needs Were Determined 163

XV. MA 05 Market Analysis Overview...... 165

viii HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XVI. MA 10 Number of Housing Units ...... 167

A. Anchorage Median Rent and Vacancy Rates 169

B. Military Housing: Joint Base Elmendorf‐Richardson 172

C. Additional Military Households: Air Force Plan for Eielson Air Force Base 173

D. Anchorage Buildable Land Use 174

E. Description of number and targeting of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs 175

F. Units Expected to be lost from Inventory, including Section 8 vouchers 176

G. Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population? 176

H. Need for Specific Types of Housing 176

I. Discussion 176

XVII. MA 15 Cost of Housing...... 177

A. Introduction: Housing and Rental Market Overview 177 Fair Market Rates 178 The HOME Program 179 Rental Affordability 181 Rental Affordability Match 181 Rental Affordability Mismatch 182 Owner Affordability 185 Owner Affordability Match 186 Owner Affordability Mismatch 187

B. Availability of Sufficient Housing for households at all income levels 189

C. Expected Change of Housing Affordability 189

D. Rent Comparison 190

E. Discussion 191

XVIII. MA 20 Condition of Housing ...... 193

A. Introduction 193

B. Definitions 193

C. Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation 194

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan ix

D. Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low or Moderate Income Families with LBP Hazards 194

E. Discussion 195

XIX. MA 25 Public and Assisted Housing ...... 197

A. Introduction 197

B. Supply of Public Housing 198

C. Restoration and Revitalization Needs 200

D. Strategy of Improving the Living Environment of low‐ and moderate Income Families 200

E. Discussion 201

XX. MA 30 Homeless Facilities ...... 203

A. Introduction 203

B. Mainstream Services 203

C. Services and Facilities 204

XXI. MA 35 Special Needs Facilities and Services ...... 209

A. Introduction 209

B. Facilities and Services for the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. 209

C. Anchorage provides services for persons returning from mental and physical health institutions to receive appropriate supportive housing. 209

XXII. MA 40 Barriers to Affordable Housing ...... 211

A. Mayor’s Homeless Leadership Team 211

B. Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet’s Work Group on Affordable Housing 213

C. Mayor’s Work Group on Substance Abuse Treatment & Services 214 High priority‐‐no cost recommendations for the MOA regarding substance abuse treatment and services in Anchorage: 214

x HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

High priority‐‐low cost recommendations for the Municipality regarding substance abuse treatment and services in Anchorage: 215

XXIII. MA 45 Non‐Housing Community Development Assets...... 217

A. Introduction 217

B. Anchorage’s Major Employment Sectors 217 Transportation 217 Federal, State and Municipal Impact on the Economy 219 Natural Resource Development 222 Health Care Services 223 Tourism and Leisure 224 Construction 226

C. Description of the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community 227

D. How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in the jurisdiction? 232

G. Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)? 236

H. If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? 237

I. Discussion 237

XXIV. MA 50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion ...... 239

A. Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? 239

B. Are there areas in the Jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low‐income families are concentrated? Provide a definition for “concentration”. 243

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan xi

C. What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods? 252

D. Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods? 252

E. Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas? 253

XXV. Strategic Plan ...... 255

XXVI. SP 05 Strategic Plan Overview ...... 257

A. Affordable Housing 257 Owners 257 Renters 257 By Ethnicity or Race 257

B. Homeless 257

C. Non‐Homeless Special Needs 257

D. Non‐Housing Community Development 258

E. Commercial/Industrial 258

F. Overview 258

XXVII. SP 10 Geographic Priorities...... 259

A. Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction 259

XXVIII. SP 25 Priority Needs ...... 261

A. Priority Needs 261

B. Goal: Providing Affordable Housing 268 1. Housing Problems 268 2. Other Identifying Needs 269 3. Disproportionately Greater Need by Ethnicity and AMI 270 4. Disproportionately Greater Need for Severe Housing Problems 270 5. Disproportionately Greater Need for Housing Cost Burden 271

C. Goal: Ending Homelessness 271 1. Homeless Needs Assessment 271 2. Non‐Homeless Special Needs Assessment 272

D. Goal: Non‐Housing Community Development 273 1. Non‐Housing Community Development Needs 273

xii HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

E. Need for Sufficient Housing 274

XXIX. SP 30 Influence of Market Conditions ...... 277

XXX. SP 35 Anticipated Resources...... 279

A. Introduction 279

B. How federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied 281 Affordable Housing Program 281 Housing Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program 281 Tenant‐Based Rental Assistance Program 281 Rental Development Program 281

C. Publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan 284

D. Discussion 285

XXXI. SP 40 Institutional Delivery Structure ...... 287

A. Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan including private industry, non‐profit organizations, and public institutions. 287

B. Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System 291

C. Describe the extent to which services targeted to homeless person and persons with HIV and mainstream services, such as health, mental health and employment services are made available to and used by homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families and unaccompanied youth) and persons with HIV within the jurisdiction: 292 1. Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing 293 2. Veteran’s Services 293 3. Single Assessment System: 2‐1‐1 Alaska 293 4. Coordination with Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) 293 5. Project Homeless Connect 294 6. Anchorage Domestic Violence Prevention Project (ADVPP) 294

D. Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above 294

E. Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs 295

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan xiii

XXXII. SP 45 Goals Summary ...... 297

A. Estimate the number of extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2) 302 1. Rental Development Program 302 2. Minor Repair Program 302 3. Mobile Home Rehabilitation Program 302 4. Investing in Affordable Homeownership‐Housing 303 5. Investing in Manufactured Housing 303 6. Investing in Affordable Rental‐Housing for Extremely Low‐Income Persons 303

XXXIII. SP 50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement ...... 305

A. Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units 305

B. Activities to Increase Resident Involvements 305

C. Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902? 305

D. Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation 305

XXXIV. SP 55 Barriers to affordable housing...... 307

A. Barriers to Affordable Housing 307

B. Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing 307 1. Mayor’s Homeless Leadership Team 308 2. Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet’s Work Group on Affordable Housing 310 3. Mayor’s Work Group on Substance Abuse Treatment & Services 311 4. Anchorage Housing Market Analysis 312

XXXV. SP 60 Homelessness Strategy ...... 313

A. Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs 313

B. Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons 313

xiv HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XXXVI. SP 65 Lead based paint Hazards...... 317

A. Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards 317

B. How actions are listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards? 317

C. How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures? 318

XXXVII. SP 70 Anti‐Poverty Strategy...... 319

A. Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty‐Level Families 319

B. How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan 319 1. Alaska Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) 319 2. Identify those living below the Poverty Line through the Alaska Homeless Management Information System (AKHMIS) 319 3. AKHMIS and Identifying Extent of Homelessness For Anchorage’s Point In Time Count and Housing Inventory Chart (note – PIT and HIC not yet finalized for 2013) 320 4. Identify those Living Below the Poverty Line through Project Homeless Connect 320 5. AHMIS and Anchorage’s Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) 320 6. Working to Address all Aspects of Poverty, Homelessness, and Affordable Housing Opportunities 321

XXXVIII. SP 80 Monitoring ...... 323

B. Federal Regulations 325

C. HUD Regional Offices 325

XXXIX. Municipality of Anchorage Citizen Participation Plan...... 327

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan xv

A. 1. Purpose 327

B. 2. Opportunities 327

C. 3. Public Hearings and Meetings 327 Public Hearing #1—Proposed Needs, Strategies, and Projects 327 Public Hearing #2—Annual Action Plan 328 Public Hearing #3— Annual Action Plan 328 Public Hearing #4—CAPER: Performance 328

D. 4. Public Comment Period 328

E. 5. Consultation Activities 329

F. 6. Distribution of Draft Documents 329

G. 7. Notification of Public Participation Opportunities 329 Amendments to the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans 329 Public Participation and Approval Process for Substantial Amendments 330

H. 8. Obtaining Citizen Comments 331 Outreach to Persons with Disabilities and Non‐English Speaking People 331 Public Information and Access to Records 331 Technical Assistance 332 Complaints 332

xvi HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Appendices

Appendix A...... 335 Appendix B ...... 337 Appendix C ...... 339 Appendix D...... 341 Appendix E ...... 343 Appendix F ...... 346 Appendix G...... 348 Appendix H...... 350

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan xvii

List of Tables

ES‐05 Table 1 Prior HAND Members...... 4 ES‐05Table 2 Current HAND Members ...... 4 ES‐05 Table 3 Prior HCOSH Members ...... 4 ES‐05 Table 4 Current Members ...... 4 ES‐05 Table 5 Example Only for NA 15 – Disproportionately Greater Needs: Housing Problems 0‐30% of Area Median Income...... 8 ES‐05 Table 6 Housing Objectives and Strategies ...... 9 ES‐05 Table 7 Homeless Objectives and Strategies...... 10 ES‐05‐Table 8 Community Development Objectives and Strategies ...... 11 ES‐05‐Table 9 ‐ Non‐Homeless Special Needs Objectives and Strategies...... 11 PR‐05 Table.1. Responsible Agencies...... 25 PR‐ 10 Table 1. Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and consultations36 PR‐10 Table 2. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan...... 57 PR‐15 Table 1. Citizen Participation Outreach ...... 62 NA‐05 Table 1. Community Needs Survey Results Top seven Public Facility needs in Anchorage ...... 84 NA‐05 Table 2. Top five Public Service Priorities...... 84 NA‐05 Table 3. Top five Priorities for Homeless: Subpopulations ...... 84 NA‐05 Table 4. Top five Public Service Priorities for Non‐Homeless Special Needs ...... 84 NA‐05 Table 5. Top three Public Improvement needs in Anchorage...... 84 NA‐10 Map 1. Anchorage Vicinity Map...... 85 NA 10 Table 1 Housing Needs Assessment Demographics ...... 86 NA 10 Table 2 U.S. Census 2010 Demographic Information for Anchorage...... 86 NA 10 Table 3 Municipality of Anchorage Population ...... 86 NA 10 Table 4 Municipality of Anchorage, 2010 U.S. Census by Tracts...... 87 NA‐10 Map 2. Anchorage Census Tracts...... 89 NA 10 Table 5 Total Households ...... 90 NA 10 Table 5a Total Households by Percentage ...... 90 NA 10 Table 6 Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs)...... 91 NA 10 Table 6a Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) by Percentage ...... 92 NA 10 Table 7 Housing Problems (Households with one or more Housing problems: Lacks kitchen or bathroom, Overcrowding, cost burden)...... 93 NA 10 Table 7a Housing Problems (Households with one or more Housing problems: Lacks kitchen or bathroom, Overcrowding, cost burden by Percentage ...... 93 NA 10 Table 8 Cost Burden > 30% Area Median Income ...... 93

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan xix

NA 10 Table 8a Cost Burden > 30% Area Median Income by Percentage...... 94 NA 10 Table 9 Cost Burden > 50% ...... 94 NA 10 Table 9a Cost Burden > 50% by Percentage ...... 95 NA 10 Table 10 Crowding Information ...... 95 NA 10 Table 10a Crowding Information by Percentage ...... 96 NA 10 Table 11 Households with Children ...... 96 NA 10 Table 11 HUD Household Income Definitions...... 98 NA 10 Table 12 Anchorage Household Income* in the Past 12 Months (In 2010 Inflation‐Adjusted Dollars).....99 NA 10 Table 13 Anchorage figures for Children in Poverty ...... 99 NA 10 Table 14 Poverty Thresholds for 2010 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years100 NA 10 Table 15 ASD Children Meeting the DOE Definition of Homeless ...... 101 NA 10 Table 16 Living Conditions for ASD Families ...... 102 NA 10 Table 17 Percentage of Children/Youth Staying in a Residence per Year...... 102 NA 10 Table 18 Episodes of Homelessness 2004/2005 ‐ 2008/2009 ...... 102 NA 10 Table 19 Episodes of Homelessness 2005/2006 ‐ 2009/2010 ...... 103 NA 10 Table 20 Episodes of Homelessness 2007‐2011 ...... 103 NA 10 Table 21 HPRP Households served 2010‐2012 ...... 104 NA 10 Table 22 Gender of PHC Households ...... 105 NA 10 Table 23 Age Groups of PHC Households by Percentage 2010‐2012 ...... 105 NA 10 Table 24 PHC Household Type ...... 106 NA 10 Table 25 PHC Household Member Information...... 106 NA 10 Table 26 Where the participant slept last night (prior to PHC day event)...... 107 NA 10 Table 27 Participant Income ...... 108 NA Table 28 Participant History of Homelessness and General Information...... 108 NA 10 Table 29 Participant identifying conditions affecting their ability to retain housing...... 109 NA 15 Table 1 0%‐30% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 34% for Owner and = or > 74% for Renter...... 113 NA 15 Table 2 30.1%‐50% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 35% for Owner and = or > 62% for Renter...... 114 NA 15 Table 3 50.1%‐80% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 34% for Owner and = or > 36%for Renter...... 114 NA 15 Table 4 NA 15 – 80.1%‐100% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 24% for Owner and = or > than 12% for Renter ...... 115 NA 20 Table 1 0%‐30% Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 39% for Owner and = or > 66% for Renter...... 117 NA 20 Table 2 30.1%‐50% Area Median Income Disproportionate; = or > 26% for Owner and = or > 30% for Renter...... 118

xx HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 20 Table 3 50.1%‐80% Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 19% for Owner and = or > 12% for Renter ...... 118 NA 20 Table 4 80.1%‐95% Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 13% for Owner and = or > 11% for Renter ...... 119 NA 20 Table 5 95.1% or greater Area Median Income and Above Disproportionate: = or > 12% for Owner and N/A for Renter ...... 119 NA 25 Table 1 Housing Cost Burden ...... 121 NA 25 Table 2 Housing Cost Burden by Ethnicity/Race Disproportionate: 29% for Moderate Cost Burden and 24% for Severe Cost Burden ...... 122 NA 35 Table 1 Totals in Use...... 132 NA 35 Table 2 Characteristics of Residents by Program Type ...... 132 NA 35 Table 3 Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type...... 133 NA 35 Table 4 Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type...... 133 NA 35 Table 5 Data Related to First Two Questions ...... 133 NA 40 Table 1 Homeless Needs Assessment ...... 135 NA 40 Table 2 Number of Individuals in Emergency Shelters in Anchorage...... 138 NA 40 Table 3 Veterans...... 139 NA 40 Table 4 Race/Ethnic Groups in Emergency Shelters or Transitional Housing ...... 139 NA 40 Table 5 Homeless Population in Anchorage’s Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing: By Race or Ethnicity, Ethnic Individuals...... 140 NA 40 Table 6 Homeless Population in Anchorage’s Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing: By Race or Ethnicity or Ethnic Families...... 140 NA 45 Table 1 Elderly 0%‐30% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 34% for Owners and = or > 74% for Renters ...... 146 NA 45 Table 2 30.1‐50% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 35% Owners and = or > 62% for Renters...... 146 NA 45 Table 3 Elderly 50.1%‐80% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 34% for Owner and = or> 36% for Renter...... 146 NA 45 Table 4 Elderly 80.1%‐95% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 40% for Owner and = or > than 17% for Renter...... 147 NA 45 Table 5 (Elderly) – 95.1% and Greater of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 22% for Owner and = or > 11% for Renter...... 147 NA 45 Table 6 Disabled – 0%‐30% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 34% for Owners and = or > 74% for Renters ...... 149 NA 45 Table 7 Disabled 30.1%‐50% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 35% for Owner and = or > 62% for Renter...... 149 NA 45 Table 8 Disabled 50.1%‐80% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 34% for Owner and = or > 36% for Renter...... 149 NA 45 Table 9 Disabled 80.1% and above the Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 24% for Owner and = or > 12% for Renter...... 150

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan xxi

NA 45 Table 10 AK‐FY12 Allocations...... 151 NA 45 Table 11 Estimated Numbers of Persons Living with an AIDS Diagnosis, All Ages, by Race/Ethnicity, 2009...... 151 NA 45 Table 11 Number and Rate of APD Domestic Violence Reports and MPO Cases, 1999‐2012...... 154 NA 45 Table 13 Number and Rate of Domestic Violence Reports...... 155 NA 45 Table 14 Increase in Domestic Violence Cases ...... 155 NA 45 Table 15 Percentage Change ADVPP/MPO...... 156 NA 45 Table 16 ADVPP Victims by Race and Gender, APD Reports, 2009‐2010 ...... 156 NA 45 Table 17 ADVPP Client Assistance between September 2011 and August 2012...... 157 NA 45 Table 18 Comparison of Sexual Assaults to Forcible Rapes ...... 157 NA 50 Table 1 Top seven Public Facility needs in Anchorage...... 161 NA 50 Table 2 Top three Public Improvement needs in Anchorage...... 162 NA 50 Table 3 Top Five Public Service Needs ...... 163 NA 50 Table 4 Homeless Subpopulation Priority Needs...... 163 NA 50 Table 5 Public Service Priorities ...... 163 NA 50 Table 6 Priority Needs Ranking levels ...... 163 NA 50 Table 7 Community Survey Presentations and Survey Distribution ...... 164 MA Table 1 Rental Housing Needed by Affordability ...... 165 MA Table 2 Owner Housing Needed by Affordability...... 165 MA 10 Table 1 Total Housing Units ...... 167 MA 10 Table 2 Anchorage Housing Units Occupied ...... 167 MA 10 Table 3 Vacant Housing Units ...... 168 MA 10 Table 4 Renter occupied householder by age...... 168 MA 10 Table 5 Owner occupied householder by age...... 168 MA 10 Table 6 Unit Size by Tenure...... 169 MA 10 Table 7 Housing Units by Structure...... 169 MA 10 Table 8 Rental Vacancy Rate by Lowest Ranking ...... 170 MA 10 Table 9 Homeowner Vacancy Rates by Lowest Ranking...... 170 MA 10 Table 10 Anchorage 2011‐2012 Apartment Rental Costs and Vacancy Rates...... 171 MA 10 Table 11 Anchorage 2011‐2012 Single Family Residence Rental Costs and Vacancy Rates ...... 171 MA 10 Table 12 JBER Wait List by Grade, # of Bedrooms Needed, and Earliest Wait List Dates ...... 173 MA 10 Table 13 Number of Bedrooms Needed by Total and Percentage ...... 173 MA 10 Table 14 Projected Residential Land Sufficiency, Anchorage Bowl, 2010‐2030 ...... 175 MA 10 Table14a Projected Residential Land Sufficiency, Chugiak‐Eagle River, 2010‐2030...... 175 MA 15 Table 1 Median Home Value and Median Contract Rent Cost ...... 177 MA 15 Table 2 Median Household Income Change from 2000...... 177

xxii HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

MA 15 Table 3 Selected Monthly Owner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income...... 178 MA 15 Table 4 Gross Percentage of Household Income...... 178 MA 15 Table 5 Rent Paid...... 178 MA 15 Table 6 Cost of Housing by Monthly Rent ...... 179 MA 15 Table 7 2012 Median Rent compared to HUD FY2012 Fair Market ...... 179 MA15 Table 8 2012 HUD Income Limits ...... 180 MA 15 Table 9 2012 Median Rent compared to HIGH HOME Rent...... 180 MA 15 Table 10 2012 Median Rent compared to low HOME Rent ...... 181 MA 15 Table 11 Renter Affordability (RHUD) ...... 182 MA 15 Table 12 Renter Affordability and Mismatch for Renters with a Higher AMI ...... 183 MA 15 Table 13 Total of Renter Units Occupied by households below Rental AMI...... 184 MA 15 Table 14 Rental Units by Affordability and Number of Bedrooms ...... 185 MA 15 Table 15 Owner Affordability (VHUD) ...... 186 MA 15 Table 17 Total of Owner Units Occupied by households below Owner AMI ...... 188 MA 15 Table 18 Owner Housing Units Needed by Affordability...... 189 MA 15 Table 19 Renter Market Housing Need by Affordability (info also in Table 14)...... 189 MA 15 Table 20 Owner Market Housing Need by Affordability (info also in Table 18)...... 189 MA 15 Table 21 ‐ Mobile Homes in Anchorage ...... 190 MA 15 Table 22 ‐ Top 10 Highest Percentage of Mobile Homes by Census Tract ...... 190 MA 20 Table 1 Condition of Units...... 193 MA 20 Table 2 Year Unit Built...... 193 MA 20 Table 3 Risk of Lead‐Based Paint Hazard...... 193 MA 20 Table 4 Vacant Units (Pending information from HUD) ...... 194 MA 25 Table 1 Totals Number of Units by Program Type...... 198 MA 25 Table 2 Public Housing Residents by Program Type...... 199 MA 25 Table 3 Race of Residents by Program Type...... 199 MA 25 Table 4 Ethnicity of Residents ...... 200 MA 25 Table 5 Public Housing Condition...... 200 MA 30 Table 1 ‐ Facilities Targeted to Homeless Persons ...... 203 MA 30 Table 2 Household With and Without Public‐Assistance Income ...... 204 MA 30 Table 3 Facilities with Supportive Services...... 205 MA 45 Table 1 World’s Airports Handling Largest Cargo Metric Tonnes...... 218 MA 45 Table 2 Per‐capita federal funds, 2010 Rank for States ...... 220 MA 45 Table 3 Anchorage and Alaska federal expenditures ...... 220 MA 45 Table 4 Top 10 Private and Public Sector Employers in Alaska, 2010 ...... 221

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan xxiii

MA 45 Table 5 Anchorage’s Largest Private Sectors in 2010 by Average Number Monthly Employment ...... 225 MA 45 Table 6 2010 Total New Hires in Anchorage by Occupation and Percentage...... 226 MA 45 Table 7 Total New Housing Units, Anchorage, 2005‐2011...... 227 MA 45 Table 8 Total New Single Family & Duplex Units, 2005‐2011 ...... 227 MA 45 Table 9 Business Activity, 2011 to 2012...... 228 MA 45 Table 10 Labor Force...... 229 MA 45 Table 11 Anchorage Annual Unemployment Rate, 2000‐2012...... 229 MA 45 Table 12 Total New 2010 Hires in Anchorage by Occupation and Percentage...... 230 MA 45 Table 13 2010 Anchorage Workers by Industry...... 231 MA 45 Table 14 Labor Pool Travel Time...... 231 MA 45 Table 15 Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older)...... 232 MA 45 Table 16 Educational Attainment by Age...... 232 MA 45 Table 17 Educational Attainment – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months...... 232 MA 45 Table 18 Wages for Occupational Categories ...... 233 MA 50 Table 1– Anchorage Median Household Income Below 80% AMI by Census Tract, 2010...... 239 MA 50 Table 2 Census Tracts above 80% Median Income and below Median Income $83,600 ...... 240 MA‐50 Map 1 Extremely Low Income Households with Substandard Living Conditions...... 241 MA 50 Table 3– Percentage of American Indian/AK Native Households by Census Tracts At Least 20% Greater than Citywide Percentage ...... 245 MA 50 Table 4– Percentage of African American Households by Census Tract At Least 20% Greater than Citywide Percentage...... 246 MA 50 Table 5– Percentage of Asian Households by Census Tract At Least 20% Greater than Citywide Percentage ...... 247 MA 50 Table 6– Percentage of Native‐Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Households by Census Tract At Least 20% Greater than Citywide Percentage...... 248 MA 50 Table 7– Percentage of 2 or more Race Households by Census Tract At Least 20% Greater than Citywide Percentage...... 250 MA 50 Table 8 Census Tracts ‐Top 20 Census Tracts by Owner and Renter Percentage ...... 251 MA 50 Table 9 Census Tracts –Median Household Incomes in Ascending Order ...... 252 SP 10 Map 1 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Qualified Census Tract...... 260 SP 25 Table 1– Priority Needs...... 261 SP 25 Table 2 Housing Problems ...... 268 SP 25 Table 3 Cost Burden > 30% AMI...... 269 SP 25 Table 4 Cost Burden >50% AMI...... 269 SP 25 Table 5 Overcrowding...... 269 SP 25 Table 6 Households Having One or More Housing Problems ...... 270 SP 25 Table 7 Sever Housing Problems...... 270

xxiv HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

SP 25 Table 8 Moderate and Severe Cost Burden ...... 271 SP 25 Table 9 Homeless Services and Funding Sources ...... 271 SP 25 Table 10 Elderly Housing Problems...... 273 SP 25 Table 11 Persons with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities ...... 273 SP 25 Table 12 Top seven Public Facility needs in Anchorage ...... 273 SP 25 Table 13 Top five Public Service Priorities...... 274 SP 25 Table 14 Top five Priorities for Homeless: Subpopulations...... 274 SP 25 Table 15 Top five Public Service Priorities for Non‐Homeless Special Needs ...... 274 SP 25 Table 16 Top three Public Improvement needs in Anchorage...... 274 SP 25 Table 17 Renter Market Housing Need by Affordability ...... 274 SP 25 Table 18 Owner Market Housing Need by Affordability ...... 275 SP 30 Table 1 Influence of Market Conditions...... 277 Table SP‐35.1. HUD Funding Allocation ...... 279 SP‐35 Table 2 Anticipated Resources...... 280 SP 35 Table 3 Total all Funding Sources...... 282 SP 35 Table 4 Allocation of FFY 2013 HOME Funds ‐ July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 ...... 283 SP 35 Table 5 Allocation of AHFC FY2012 HOME Funds...... 284 SP 40 Table 1 Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services ...... 287 SP 40 Table 1 Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services ...... 292 SP 45 Table 1 Goals Summary Information...... 298

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan xxv

I. ES‐05 Executive Summary

A. Introduction

The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) is a participating jurisdiction that is eligible to receive U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) monies for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). The MOA is required to submit a Consolidated Plan that covers a five‐year period that outlines the intended distribution of these dollars. To meet this requirement, the MOA is submitting this Consolidated Plan, 2013‐ 2017. This Plan introduces data‐based and market‐driven strategies that address the needs of the community over the next five years. The format of this Plan is different from prior years. In 2012, HUD provided the MOA with a template for the Consolidated Plan that included three distinct sections: Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, and Strategic Plan. The Needs Assessment required the MOA to draw from data related to housing problems such as overcrowding, lacking kitchen or bathroom, substandard, or cost burdened. This section also reviews the scope of homelessness and community service needs. The Market Analysis reviews current economic conditions, housing stock, labor pool and future viable economic opportunities. The Strategic Plan uses the first two steps to build effective data‐driven goals and objectives. This Consolidated Plan features local data and builds on recommendations offered through public meetings held with the Housing And Neighborhood Development Commission and its Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness. This report provides a clear vision of the jurisdiction’s needs related to (affordable housing, community development, and homelessness). Analysis points to the lack of affordable housing for both owners and renters, the importance of safe and viable neighborhoods for all geographical areas, and the increasing need for housing and supportive services to respond to the homeless. The overall goal of the programs covered by this Consolidated Plan (CP) is to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities principally for low‐ and moderate‐income persons. The primary means towards this end is to extend and strengthen partnerships among all levels of government and private sectors, including for‐profit and non‐profit organizations, in the production and operation of affordable housing. This CP presents the MOA plan to pursue these goals through continued community planning and development strategies. The 2013 AP describes how the MOA intends to invest its CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds for the 2013 program year: January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. It also outlines actions the MOA plus state and community organizations will pursue to implement strategies in the Municipality of Anchorage Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan for 2013‐2017 CP. In order to be eligible to receive CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds, the Municipality must submit a Consolidated Plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) every five years, and is required to update that plan annually. The Consolidated Plan is an assessment and analysis of local social and economic conditions and issues related to housing, homelessness, community development, and development. Utilizing a comprehensive outreach and citizen participation process, the Consolidated Plan describes priority needs facing the community and develops strategies to address those needs. The related 2013 Action Plan is

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 1

the first of five required annual‐updates to the 2013‐2017 Consolidated Plan, and incorporates the Municipality’s plan to expend CDBG, HOME and ESG monies. B. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process The 2013‐2017 Housing and Community Development Consolidated Planning process developed and followed a Citizen Participation Plan as outlined and recommended by HUD. A revised Citizen Participation Plan is included in the 2013 Action Plan and specific information included in Appendices. The key annual activities designed to encourage citizen participation are to hold at least four public hearings during the program year, offer public comment periods for the draft versions of each annual plan, consult with various groups to review the needs, strategies, actions, projects, and performance, distribute review copies of the draft plans to agencies, residents, the Federation of Community Councils, and the HAND Commission, and provide the public with notice of citizen participation programs. A discussion with the opportunity for public comment to gather ideas for the 2013 Action Plan was held at the regularly scheduled HAND Commission meeting on November 2, 2011. Comments on the draft 2013 Action Plan were accepted from May 28, 2013 to 10:00 AM on June 28, 2013. A public hearing was held at the June 5, 2013 meeting of the HAND Commission held between 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM in the Assembly Conference Room, 632 W. 6th Avenue, 1st Floor, Room 155. A second public hearing was held at the June 12 HAND Oversight Sub-committee on Homelessness (HCOSH) meeting, from 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM at the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), at 825 L Street, Room 406. Copies of the draft plan were available at the Municipal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Public Health Initiatives and Partnerships Division, Community Safety and Development (CSD), at 825 L Street, Room 506, and through the CSD web site at: http://www.muni.org/Departments/health/services/neighborhoods/PlansAndReports/Pages/ActionPlans.aspx Other locations where these publications could be found were at the Loussac Library, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Cook Inlet Housing Authority, and NeighborWorks Anchorage. The MOA’s CSD worked in collaboration with the HAND Commission and HCOSH to draft and take public input and comment on the new Plan. A summary of public comments are included below and were considered in drafting and making revisions to the document. A final public hearing on the 2013‐2017 CP was held before the Anchorage Municipal Assembly on July 23, 2013 and a final public hearing on the 2013 AP was held before the Anchorage Municipal Assembly on August 6, 2013. The purpose of the HAND Commission is to advise the Mayor and the Assembly on issues related to short‐ and long‐term housing community development needs and strategies to affect lower‐income neighborhoods. HAND Commission responsibilities include:  Reviewing and making recommendations on proposed allocation of all federal, state, and municipal revenues targeted for housing and community development programs managed by the Municipality;  Identifying and addressing issues in Anchorage related to long‐ and short‐term housing issues;  Advising the mayor and assembly on policies, practices, and legislation that impacts housing and community development issues;  Prioritizing, in an Annual Action Plan, strategies to assist revitalization of lower‐income and at‐ risk neighborhoods;  Providing advice to the Planning and Zoning Commission about relevant housing and community development issues and their connection with land use controls;

2 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

 Participating in the development and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and Consolidated Plan;  Presenting recommendations to the mayor and assembly on the infrastructure, facilities, transportation and public services needs of lower‐income and at‐risk neighborhoods; and,  Facilitating public participation in housing and neighborhood revitalization policies, plans, strategies and programs. Scheduled Meeting The HAND Commission meets on the first Wednesday of the month from 4:00 p.m. ‐ 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Conference Room 155, on the 1st Floor of City Hall. When special needs/issues arise, the Commission or staff may request an additional meeting or form a sub‐committee to respond to emergent issues. All meetings are open to the public. C. HAND Commission Members The HAND Commission has nine members. The members consist of representatives from the following areas: persons with disabilities, real estate industry, banking industry, non‐profit housing, homebuilders, residential shelters and low‐income neighborhoods. The Commission is led by a chairperson and co‐chair. Commissioner's three year terms are appointed on a rotating basis, so that a third of the seats come up for appointment or reappointment yearly.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 3

ES‐05 Table 1 Prior HAND Members Name Appointment Term Expiration Debbie Newgent November 17, 2009 January 14, 2012 Gabriel Layman November 17, 2009 October 14, 2012 Norman Elliott November 17, 2009 October 14, 2012 Jeremiah Stephen December 15, 2009 October 14, 2012 ES‐05Table 2 Current HAND Members Name Appointment Term Expiration Tamas Deak, Chair December 17, 2008 October 14, 2014 Andre Spinelli, Vice Chair October 14, 2008 October 14, 2014 Margaret Evans August 24, 1999 October 14, 2013 Karen Kassik‐Michelsohn October 14, 2010 October 14, 2013 Dewayne Harris October 14, 2011 October 14, 2014 Nikole Nelson December 18, 2012 October 14, 2015 Amanda Price December 18, 2012 October 14, 2015 Dean Williams December 18, 2012 October 14, 2015 Claire Waddoup December 18, 2012 October 14, 2015 D. HAND Commission’s Oversight Sub‐committee on Homelessness (HCOSH) The HCOSH consists of two HAND Commission members and two members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Assembly for a total of four members. The members of the HCOSH shall:  Include members representative of the homeless, non‐profit agencies, public safety, businesses, the school district, government officials, the faith community, neighborhoods, or charitable organizations;  Provide oversight to the development and implementation of the Ten‐Year Plan on Homelessness;  Provide guidance on issues related to homelessness in Anchorage to the HAND Commission;  Advise the Commission, the Mayor, and the Assembly on issues related to homelessness;  Report annually to the Commission, the Mayor, and the Assembly on the progress of the Ten‐ Year Plan on Homelessness. The report shall be presented on or before June 1 of each year and shall include recommendations for (a) specific action to implement the plan and (b) an appropriation to carry out the plan in the following budget year. E. HCOSH Members ES‐05 Table 3 Prior HCOSH Members Name Appointment Term Expiration Resigned Catherine Stone February 28, 2012 February 28, 2015 September 14, 2012 Trevor Storrs February 28, 2012 February 28, 2015 August 9, 2012 ES‐05 Table 4 Current Members Name Appointment Term Expiration John Pendrey February 28, 2012 February 28, 2015 Elaine Hollier* December 18, 2012 October 14, 2015 Dewayne Harris February 28, 2012 October 14, 2014 Amanda Price December 18, 2012 October 14, 2015 Nikole Nelson** December 18, 2012 October 14, 2015

4 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

* Elaine Hollier, on behalf of Catherine Stone, with Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, began attending HCOSH meetings in October 2012 and was appointed by the Municipal Assembly December 2012. ** Nikole Nelson will attend meetings based on emergent issues and need for additional HAND Commissioner Support. More information on the HAND Commission and the HCOSH can be found on the Municipal website: http://www.muni.org/Departments/health/services/neighborhoods/Pages/HAND.aspx. F. Public Participation in the Consolidated Plan CSD staff coordinated with HAND and HCOSH members to provide opportunities for Anchorage citizens to participate in the development of the 2013‐2017 Consolidated Plan. There was targeted outreach to the following populations:  Low‐ and moderate‐ income persons;  Residents of slum and blighted areas, predominantly low‐ and moderate‐income neighborhoods, and neighborhoods and areas where CDBG funds are proposed to be used;  Minorities;  Non‐English speaking persons;  Persons with disabilities;  Public housing residents and other low‐income residents of targeted revitalization areas in which public housing developments are located; and,  Local and regional institutions, businesses, developers, nonprofit organizations, philanthropic organizations, and community‐based and faith‐based organizations. CSD staff, the HAND Commission, and the HCOSH provided draft sections of the new Plan and set out a schedule for public hearings. Email invites were made to ensure participation and input at a minimum by the:  Members of the Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet on Homelessness;  Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness;  Alaska Council on Homelessness;  Alaska Coalition on Housing and Homelessness;  Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Child Abuse Caucus;  Domestic Violence Fatality Review Advisory Team;  Health and Human Services Commission;  Americans with Disabilities Act Advisory Commission;  Military and Veterans Affairs Commission;  Anchorage Women’s Commission;  Anchorage Community Diversity Advisory Commission;  Public Safety Advisory Commission;  Catholic Social Services’ Beyond Shelter Steering Committee;  Faith‐based Groups; and,  Anchorage’s Community Councils.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 5

G. Data Sources There are three primary data sources in the Needs Assessment Section: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; Alaska Homeless Management Information Systems (AKHMIS), and the 2010 U.S. Census. Local data was also used for the Needs Assessment Section and sources include:  Abused Women’s Aid in Crisis, Inc.  Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association, Anchorage, Alaska  Alaska Housing Finance Corporation  Anchorage Housing Market Analysis  Anchorage Police Department  Anchorage School District, Child In Transition/Homeless Project  Catholic Social Services  Municipal Prosecutor’s Office  Municipal Department of Health and Human Services, Community Safety and Development Program, Anchorage Domestic Violence Prevention Project  Municipal Department of Health and Human Services, Alaska Homeless Management Information System  Standing Together Against Rape, Inc (STAR)  State of Alaska, Department of Corrections, Alaska Prisoner Reentry Task Force, publication March 2011  State of Alaska, Alaska Commission on Aging  State of Alaska, Alaska State Plan for Senior Services, FY2012‐FY2015  State of Alaska, Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy Alaskans, 2010, Volume 1, 25‐4  State of Alaska, Department of Workforce and Labor Development  Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report  Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Domiciliary, Anchorage, Alaska The data tables using HUD’s 2006‐2008 CHAS data indicates the use of this data and the specific CHAS table from the data bank. See Appendix A for CHAS Definitions. The AKHMIS data source indicates the year representing the data, the report, and the type of query implemented. AKHMIS is the primary data source for NA 40, Homeless Needs Assessment Table. The 2010 Census used the following definitions of race. H. Definition of Race Categories Used in the 2010 Census White refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as White or reported entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian. Black or African American refers to a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as Black, African American, or Negro or reported entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.

6 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

American Indian or Alaska Native refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. This category includes people who indicated their race(s) as American Indian or Alaska Native or reported their enrolled or principal tribe, such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yup’ik, or Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups. Asian refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as Asian or reported entries such as Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Other Asian or provided other detailed Asian responses. Hispanic or Latino refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as Pacific Islander or reported entries such as Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, and Other Pacific Islander or provided other detailed Pacific Islander responses. Some Other Race includes all other responses not included in the White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander race categories described above. Census respondents reporting entries such as multiracial, mixed, interracial, or a Hispanic or Latino group (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or Spanish) in response to the race question are included in this category. I. Methodology There are some CHAS tables which contain a “0” in columns, and both CSD staff and HCOSH members noted the lack of data affected the analysis. Therefore, tables with “0” display a “margin of error” that may distort the data findings. Statistically, the margin of error is a way to measure the sampling error in the results of a statistical survey. Margins of error occur when a population is incompletely sampled. Zeros indicate a sampling error that should be taken into consideration when reviewing the results of the table. In areas where there is a “0”, CSD staff and the HAND Commission and HCOSH conducted additional research. HUD provided the formula to determine disproportionate based on the given data. Disproportionately greater means when a group is represented at any of the levels (Area Median Income, Housing Problems, Severe Housing Problems) by 10% greater than the whole (or All) population under analysis. The disproportionate rate can be found at the top of each table in the Anchorage’s tables, or the disproportionate rate is described in the narrative. To determine disproportionate percentages, HUD offers the following example for computation.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 7

ES‐05 Table 5 Example Only for NA 15 – Disproportionately Greater Needs: Housing Problems 0‐30% of Area Median Income Has One or More Has No/Negative Income, Has None of the Four Racial/Ethnic Group of Four Housing but None of the Four Housing Problems Problems Housing Problems Jurisdiction as a whole 120,295 26,380 13,540 White 37,405 7,590 4,265 Black/African American 59,560 14,235 6,840 Asian 5,115 920 1,155 Native American, Alaska 240 75 25 Native Pacific Islander 20 55 0 Hispanic 16,255 3,085 1,130 Jurisdiction as a whole 120,295/(120,295+26,380+13,540)= 75.08% White 37,405/(37,405+7,590+4,265)= 75.93% J. Outline of Needs Assessment Section The Plan is laid out according to HUD’s new template for the Plan Needs Assessment (NA) sections. NA‐05 Overview NA‐10 Housing Needs Assessment NA‐15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems NA‐20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems NA‐25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burden NA‐30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion NA‐35 Public Housing NA‐40 Homeless Needs Assessment NA‐45 Non‐Homeless Special Needs Assessment NA‐50 Non‐Housing Community Development Needs K. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan HUD requires grantees to incorporate a standardized performance measurement system. The system is designed to enable HUD to aggregate results of its programs and report to Congress and the public on a more outcome‐oriented system (March 7, 2006 Notice in Federal Register). Each activity in the 2013 Action Plan will correspond to one of the following three objectives.  Suitable Living Environment  Decent Affordable Housing  Creating Economic Opportunities In addition, each activity must also choose an outcome category that best reflects what the participating jurisdiction is seeking to achieve. The three outcome categories consist of the following.  Availability/Accessibility  Affordability  Sustainability: Promoting Livable or Viable Communities

8 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

The “AP‐35 Projects” section of the 2013 Action Plan, details respective objectives and outcomes for each of the activities proposed. The following tables provide objectives, strategies, and proposed projects in 2013. It also lays out the performance measures to gauge program status and effectiveness.

ES‐05 Table 6 Housing Objectives and Strategies Outcomes: Objectives 1. ‐ Availability/Accessibility DH ‐ Decent Housing 2013 Activities Strategies Goals 2. ‐ Affordability SL ‐ Suitable Living Environment Funding 3. ‐ Sustainability EO ‐ Economic Opportunity CHDO Rental Development 1. Expand affordable rental DH Fund new construction or $1,400,995 10 Units housing opportunities for low rehabilitation of rental and extremely‐low income housing. households, with emphasis on special needs and homeless.

Minor Repair Program 2. Preserve affordable DH Provide housing $415,000 18 Units homeownership housing rehabilitation, emergency opportunities. repair and accessibility funding and reduce household energy costs. Affordable Housing 2. Expand homeownership DH Provide down payment $15,000 8 Units Program opportunities, particularly for assistance to low‐income low‐ to moderate‐ income households households

Mobile Home Repair 2. Preserve affordable DH Provide housing $215,000 8 Units Program homeownership housing rehabilitation, emergency opportunities. repair and accessibility funding and reduce household energy costs.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 9

ES‐05 Table 7 Homeless Objectives and Strategies Outcomes: Objectives 1. ‐ Availability/Accessibility DH ‐ Decent Housing 2013 Activities Strategies Goals 2. ‐ Affordability SL ‐ Suitable Living Environment Funding 3. ‐ Sustainability EO ‐ Economic Opportunity ESG13 Anchorage ‐ Homeless 1. Engage in homeless SL Essential services $26,232 50 Prevention prevention activities and Households essential services activities. ESG13 Anchorage ‐ Rapid Re‐ 1. Engage in homelessness SL Homelessness $63,084 175 People housing Catholic Social prevention activities; housing prevention, housing Services relocation and stabilization relocation and services. stabilization services ESG13 Anchorage ‐ 1. Support existing shelter SL Sustain the number of $26,232 5 Orgs Maintenance and Operations services and the expansion of emergency housing transitional housing services services.

10 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

ES‐05‐Table 8 Community Development Objectives and Strategies Outcomes: Objectives 1. ‐ Availability/Accessibility DH ‐ Decent Housing 2013 Activities Strategies Goals 2. ‐ Affordability SL ‐ Suitable Living Environment Funding 3. ‐ Sustainability EO ‐ Economic Opportunity Municipal Safety Center 1. Promote livable SL Public facilities to meet $76,250 1 Facility Rehabilitation neighborhoods and neighborhood needs. community redevelopment. Child Development Center, 1. Promote livable SL Public facilities to meet $175,000 1 Facility Rural Cap neighborhoods and neighborhood needs. community redevelopment. Community Public Services, 1. Promote livable SL Public facilities to meet $265,859 4‐5 Projects RFP/Application neighborhoods and neighborhood needs. community redevelopment. ES‐05‐Table 9 ‐ Non‐Homeless Special Needs Objectives and Strategies Outcomes: Objectives 1. ‐ Availability/Accessibility DH ‐ Decent Housing 2013 Activities Strategies Goals 2. ‐ Affordability SL ‐ Suitable Living Environment Funding 3. ‐ Sustainability EO ‐ Economic Opportunity NA

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 11

L. Evaluation of past performance

An evaluation of past performance assisted the MOA to choose its goals and projects for this Consolidated Plan, 2013‐2017. For more than a decade the MOA has conducted a community survey to identify community priorities. The community survey was the basis in setting priorities for distributing CDBG, HOME, and ESG monies. The MOA determined that more data, community meetings, and input would help “round” out a picture of community need to set priorities. Consequently, the MOA took the following additional steps: 1) The MOA analyzed several data sets from HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data, as well as state and local data from local providers; 2) Over an eleven‐month period several meetings were held by the HAND Commission and the Commission’s Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness to take in comment and recommendations regarding data findings and significance; 3) An Assembly work session, with interested community members in the audience, was held to help identify specific projects that met goals in the Plan. From this community context, the Plan’s goals, strategies, and measures of evaluation were developed.

The following projects are identified as meeting community need and are outlined in the Plan: CHDO Rental Development; Minor Repair Program, Affordable Housing Program, Mobile Home Repair Program, Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing services, and Maintenance and Operations monies for shelters.

M. Summary of public comments Summary of public comments on the CP that were received during the June 5, 2013 Public Hearing.

Gabe Layman and Tyler Robinson with Cook Inlet Housing Authority (CIHA) commented on several areas of the Draft CP. Mr. Robinson requested that the MOA designate specific geographic areas in the municipality for additional revitalization efforts. He then requested that the Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet recommendations be put into the CP and consider them. He thought that the same thing goes for the Anchorage Housing Market Analysis. He spoke about the need for very low income housing below 30%. He wants the MOA to consider long term operating costs for rental housing.

Summary of public comments on the AP that were received during the June 5, 2013 Public Hearing. Brian Shelton‐Kelley Director of Community Development, NeighborWorks Anchorage commented on the 2013 Action Plan. He spoke about the Minor Repair Program (MRP) and that they appreciate the continued support. He is intrigued by the Mobile Home Repair Program (MHRP) and made a couple of comments on that program. NeighborWorks is interested in the Rental Housing Development funds. He made comments on that program and that it needs long term operational, rental subsidies. Barbara Worley, Supervisor of the Minor Repair Grant, NeighborWorks, Anchorage made general comments in favor of the MRP and the MHRP, but that they would like to see the structure of the MHRP and what the program looks like before they can really say that they support it. Mr. Shelton‐Kelley said "I think we would say that we do support efforts to address the housing quality conditions targeted to that style of housing." Kenny Petersen, Interested citizen and newly a member of the Anchorage Coalition on Homelessness Board had lots of questions about the Plans and gave some general comments. He concluded with "Then I will attend the HCOSH meeting which is where that’s probably more fined tuned." Tyler Robinson gave recommendation on the MHRP. He thinks the money would be better spent providing somebody a down payment for a new manufactured home. He thinks that the MOA should change the

12 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Rental Development Project description to include "in the event that a CHDO is not identified or a project is not identified, you contemplate making that rental development money available to the broader community for maybe broader rental development". Gabe Layman wanted to reflect back on a couple of comments that were made by Mr. Petersen. He spoke about what exactly is the whole purpose of the CP & AP, seeking other funding sources, and benchmarking data analysis. Summary of public comments on the CP and AP that were received by e‐mail Susan H. Bomalaski, Ph.D., LPC, Executive Director, Catholic Social Services made comments in support of the draft plans and CSD staff. N. Public Comments Public Hearing ‐ June 05, 2013

Assembly Conference Room, 1st Floor, Room 155 at City Hall 632 West 6th Avenue

Presentation on Consolidated Plan 2013 ‐ 2017

Ms Longoria gave a PowerPoint presentation on the 2013 – 2017 Consolidated Plan, explaining the Needs Assessment and the Market Analysis which can be found on the following web site. http://www.muni.org/Departments/health/services/neighborhoods/Documents/2013‐ 2017ConPlanPresentation.pdf Open for Public Hearing on the Consolidated Plan, 2013 – 2017. Chairman Deak reminded the speakers of the five minute and three minute rule. Gabe Layman and Tyler Robinson with Cook Inlet Housing Authority (CIHA), Mr. Layman ‐ Thank you all very much for the opportunity to be here today to comment on the Consolidated Plan. As a means of introduction, I am General Counsel and Government Liaison for Cook Inlet Housing Authority. Tyler is our Development Finance Manager; Tyler also has a Planning background and was employed by the Municipality. He has a very good background in the Consolidated Plan and will share our perspective in a little more detail later. CIHA is the regional housing authority for South Central Alaska. It is also the tribally designated housing entity for Cook Inlet Region, Inc. CIHA administers programs that are funded by a variety of sources, not just Native funding sources but tax credits, a whole smorgasbord and administers them on behalf of not just Alaska Natives, but people of all races and ethnicities throughout the Mat‐Su, Anchorage, and the Kenai Peninsula. We very much appreciate the investment that staff has made in putting together the Draft Consolidated Plan; it’s certainly no easy process. We do have some initial comments after our preliminary review, by providing some, I guess, framing for that we are also going to follow up with some more detailed written comments later on. So with that I will be happy to turn this over to Tyler, who is going to review our specific comments on the Consolidated Plan. Tyler Robinson, Cook Inlet Housing Authority – Mr. Chair and members of the HAND Commission, and staff; I think I will start with the point that was most important to us and I have several. We will get to them if we can, if not we will follow up in writing. But the first one really, is there’s a couple opportunities in the Consolidated Plan to designate specific geographic areas in the municipality for additional revitalization efforts. The plan does not do so, it makes a statement that no area is sort of worse off than others and we just sort of make the point that I don’t believe that the data shows that.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 13

I think there are parts of town that whether due to the census data or whether due to the land that’s there, the zoning that’s there, the opportunity for housing or public services; there are places that I think are in need and would benefit from being targeted or called out in the plan. I’ll give you some specific examples also of how this potentially helps projects in Anchorage happen. When you apply for funding through Alaska Housing Finance Corporation they give you bonus points if you propose projects that are both in a qualified census tract, which again is a HUD designated area as having a significant amount of poverty. But also is an area that’s identified in a municipally adopted plan, and so if those areas are not identified on the plan even though you’re proposing a project in a high need area you’re not getting credit for that, and the issue there is, we compete for projects. We and other developers compete for projects around the state and I think it would simply behoove the municipality to take a close look at some of those geographic areas and list them in this document as areas that would benefit from specific revitalization efforts. We have the qualified census tracts that call out Fairview, Mountain View and parts of Mid‐town. There’s other agencies; the New Market Tax Credit area looks at other areas; Russian Jack, Muldoon and Spenard. I had a meeting just the other day with someone from the EPA for Brownfield funding and they said well if you’re looking at a project in this area, is it identified on a municipally adopted plan as a sort of target area. I have to look through other plans and in some other plans it is, but again I would say that it really helps us align and leverage additional resources if we capture those areas up front. Again, I would also say that in addition to just funding opportunities these areas are also the ones we know generally are well served by transit, and they also have some of the oldest housing stock in town and multi‐families. So you’re addressing all the things that you’re already calling out in the Consolidated Plan but calling attention to specific geographic areas and we can provide those areas for you in writing as well as these maps. In addition to that I would just add on I appreciate seeing the Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet recommendations being carried forward here. I would simply say that I think you captured the kind of immediate four points that the Cabinet suggested as a five year document. I think it would be well served taking a look at the entire list of recommendations, I think there were seven or ten; I have a copy of the report here. Might as well put them in here and consider them and I think the same thing goes for the Anchorage Housing Market Analysis. You point out quite right that the market analysis basically identifies a shortage of housing and in twenty years a shortage of units of something like seven thousand units in the municipality or in the Anchorage Bowl, a surplus in Eagle River, but especially when you’re looking at multi‐family and more affordable housing, that shortage is alarming. But the other thing that study points out is that there’s a feasibility gap between multi‐family projects of what you could actually build to help address that as it exists currently. So you can’t be a developer without a significant amount of subsidy and build anything that’s going to address the shortage. That’s a problem I think. You know, the plan that I was encouraged to hear staff say that other efforts are helping to go through those lists of recommendations, but I would again maybe suggest that there’s an avenue to make sure you sort of capture some of the more salient recommendations as it relates to HUD, HOME and CDBG funding and sort of support those here. We have a real good track record in this city of putting things in plans and then just letting them go and not following up and making sure that we’re working on implementing them. Those are the big ones. I guess final point is, we get the need for very low income housing below 30% and that’s very clearly stated in the report and frankly it’s not a surprise that individuals that earn less than 30% of the median income pay more than 30% of their income on housing. That said as an operator of rental housing, you have to understand that roughly the first five hundred dollars or so per month simply goes to keeping the lights on in a rental unit. Basically if you are recommending or committing to funding those types of projects, you also have to consider long term operating costs and I know that’s difficult to do with HOME and CDBG, but without that commitment you can’t make those projects feasible. So I think you need to look at the balance of who you’re trying to serve. Understanding that the very low income takes a whole lot of subsidy both on the capital side and operating per individual or per household. And that at times by sort of also serving people that are also struggling but maybe in that 50% – 80% range that, whose incomes can actually support a decent amount of operating as long as the unit

14 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

is developed in the first place. You have to keep that in mind as our federal funds decline, those problems that depend on a lot of on‐going operating costs are going to struggle the most and I think we have to consider that up front. So I think with that I’ll piggy back what Gabe said, we have other comments and certainly will have other comments over the next couple of weeks, and we’ll be happy to provide those in writing. Thank You. Chairman Deak – Let’s open it up for questions, this is a great opportunity to maybe ask for other ones so everybody can hear what other ideas there are so any questions for Tyler. Commissioner Waddoup ‐ Is there is a down side to designating those areas you were talking about for revitalization? Mr. Robinson ‐ I guess I will answer that in a couple of different ways. Number one, no one is suggesting that by identifying these areas you’re only going to designate your efforts over the next five years to those areas. What it may do is actually help somebody to go after additional funds that are not part of the Municipalities annual Action Plan. Because without them being called out in this document, you don’t get past sort of the initial screening for a state, federal or frankly even a private foundation. That’s show me where the community need is for this project in this particular area. I think what you may be getting at. Is there a down side to sort of clustering affordable housing in all ready areas that may be already poor? I don’t know if that’s part of where you’re going. What I would say to that is, what we’ve found in Mountain View and other places, is by building quality affordable housing. We’re actually raising the incomes of those neighborhoods. And then third I would say this is something that’s always very sensitive in the business community in particular. You call an area a revitalization area; are you creating a stigma with that area? We hear that a lot. I think there’s a way to do it in a way that’s positive. We’ve talked about reframing the Municipality’s deteriorating area designation to call it a redevelopment area designation so you try to take some of the positive; you know the negative stigma away and bring only the positive, which is infra‐structure development, new development that’s going to get rid of blighted properties. Those are the types of things that overall can have a positive affect on the areas that you’re not even going to be working on directly with these types of funds. Mr. Layman – If I may piggy back onto that. I see this as a simple issue of bringing the most possible resources into the community; I see no practical affect of flipping around and say excluding certain communities from this list. It’s simply a matter of by including certain communities in this list, then, you may be opening other doors that aren’t funded through these traditional mechanisms but through low income housing tax credits or other things that are available on a state wide basis. Chairman Deak – To speculate, this issue is based in economics and socioeconomics and maybe that’s one way to look at it because those are just numbers and no one should feel stigmatized if you show numbers. That’s one way to perhaps to do it without designating an area to be less advantageous to locate at than others. Mr. Robinson – I use to sit where staff is sitting over there and produce these documents and I’d get call from real estate agents that would say, “Hey what does this mean that you’ve designated this area.” The reality is that they have access to the same information that we all do. We can all look at the census data and say, guess what. It’s really ultimately no secret that certain parts of town are more affluent than others. I think here we’re trying to sort of put a positive spin that really if we are going to continue to grow and redevelop as a community, as we talk about that lack of vacant land elsewhere; we need to focus on those areas. Those projects don’t pencil by themselves so we need to do everything we possibly can to sort of figure out how to turn them around. Mr. Layman – And more critically Mr. Chair, there are some very new progressive efforts to educate the community at large about what neighborhood revitalization is; the role of affordable housing in the community. I think within the next one to two years you’re going to see some very coordinated community efforts in that regard. I think people are going to begin to realize that if you are in a community that everyone knows has economic challenges, challenges with housing stock, it’s a good thing to know that the

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 15

community has been designated for additional investment and that’s exactly what this does; is it lets people know this is a community that the municipality has identified for additional investment. Chairman Deak thanked Mr. Layman and Mr. Robinson for the presentation and noted that there wasn’t anyone else on the list and then closed the Public Hearing for the Consolidated Plan. Presentation on 2013 Action Plan Mr. Boehm gave a power point presentation on the 2013 Action Plan and its various programs which can be found at the following web site: http://www.muni.org/Departments/health/services/neighborhoods/Docume nts/2013ActionPlanPresentation.pdf Chairman Deak opened for Public Hearing on the 2013 Action Plan. Brian Shelton‐Kelley Director of Community Development, NeighborWorks Anchorage – Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. Pardon my boots and my hands; we’ve been painting the town this week, so we’re in work mode. Just a few comments on the proposed 2013 Action Plan; first, we as a long time operator of the Minor Repair Program we appreciate the continued support of that program which assists approximately twenty homeowners per year with retaining and preserving their homes. In fact just today we were out painting the house of a recipient of those services; we were able to replace their roof. Without that kind of program this home owner probably would not have been able to stay in their home. So the continued support of the Home Repair Program we feel is critical, especially when we’re seeing a focus on substandard housing and needing to work on those issues. We’re also intrigued by the Mobile Home Repair Program; perhaps a couple of comments on that program. We work with mobile homes in the course of our repair and rehab programs and we’ve encountered substantial issues in working with the mobile or manufactured homes. Often it’s next to impossible to fully know the scope of work until you start getting into the building. Getting into the structure, costs can increase drastically. There’s a lot of liability for the provider or the contractor working on those homes, and at times we’re putting more in repair or rehabilitation into the unit than the unit is worth. So as the community ends the Municipality creates this program that we just ask to keep some of those issues in mind and figure out how we can really as a community address some of these challenges and issues we have with some of our aging mobile and manufactured homes in the community. At times I think we’ll find that repair is not enough and putting a new roof on or just doing minor repair to some of these units may not go far enough. There might need to be a more systematic or structural approach addressing these issues that we have there. At the same time, mobile homes, manufactured homes are some of the most affordable housing in Anchorage so we do have to figure out a way to retain and preserve those units. So we’re intrigued by this program, we’re looking forward to learning more about it. If it looks like something that’s doable we would, you know be a likely or potential applicant or any kind of RFP or process. We are also obviously interested in the Rental Housing Development funds that are being programmed in this Action Plan, and this kind of echoes the earlier comments made on the Consolidated Plan. Though when we’re talking about developing housing for special needs populations or very low income populations, development subsidy isn’t in of itself is not sufficient; we really have to talk about the long term operational, rental subsidies. We can subsidize the capital development side as much as we want but we still have to keep the lights on, we still have to pay the insurance, we still have to pay for maintenance and upkeep and when we’re targeting or talking about populations with very limited means and only looking at 30% of their income towards rent that becomes a very, very hard equation to break. So without long term operational rental subsidies I think it’s going to be very challenging for this community to produce any kind of housing that’s feasible and sustainable in the long run. And that wraps it up. Chairman Deak thanked Mr. Shelton‐Kelley and asked opened up for questions.

16 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Commissioner Spinelli – When you mentioned putting more money into a mobile home than what it’s actually worth, do you know what a mobile home is worth? Mr. Shelton‐Kelley – Why would you want to comment on that? I’m actually the supervisor that administers the Minor Repair Grant. Chairman Deak – Name please. I’m Barbara Worley, Supervisor of the Minor Repair Grant, NeighborWorks, Anchorage – When we are currently doing the Minor Repair grants on mobile homes, we’re limited to roofs, and furnaces, and hot water heaters at this current time. In the past when we were doing minor repair on mobile homes we were looking at doing bathrooms, flooring, windows, a variety, you know, whatever’s wrong with the mobile home. When you walk into those mobile homes in many, many cases you find that the floors are so rotten that you’re afraid to walk on the floor for fear that you’re going to fall through; and the roof is leaking and the bathroom, the fixtures in the bathroom are barely working and so you have more than a $15,000.00 repair and a mobile home that’s barely inhabitable certainly can’t be worth much more than $15,000.00. So if you’re putting twenty or thirty thousand dollars of repair into something; and no we don’t know what the actual value of, average value, but when you walk into these mobile homes where folks have applied you can figure that, uh. Commissioner Spinelli – O.K., next question, when you say that mobile homes are some of the most affordable housing; do we know how much a mobile home rents for? Ms Worley – Some of the homeowners that apply for the Minor Repair Program, they already own the mobile home and they are just paying the lot rent and so their lot rent is typically up to, upwards of five hundred – six hundred dollars a month. Some of them own them free and clear, others are maybe making a five hundred dollar, or four hundred dollar a month mortgage payment or a excuse me, an escrow payment on that mobile home so they still, and it’s a housing choice where we find that folks in the mobile home, they own their home and they have a little yard space, they are not stacked in an apartment style living and so they feel like they have this sense of ownership and that sense of freedom. Chairman Deak – This is a Public Comment on the Action Plan itself, but you were very kind not to target any specific numbers or areas for approval or disapproval or anything in between. So, does NeighborWorks then support the Mobile Home Repair Program in general or does NeighborWorks support it because it may be a recipient of funds which then allows you to do work with them. Ms Worley – I think we would like to see the structure of the program and what the program looks like before we can really say that we support it. Mr. Shelton‐Kelley – I think we would say that we do support efforts to address the housing quality conditions targeted to that style of housing. Chairman Deak – Thank you, and any comments on the actual targets for allocations. The response was a no. Thank you, any other questions? We have Kenny Petersen. Kenny Petersen, Interested citizen and newly a member of the Anchorage Coalition on Homelessness Board – I had a question about the Action Plan that kind of stems from some comments that I made last month which was, my understanding the Action Plan, it’s amazing all this work, thirty days ago I don’t think we had any of this and all of a sudden it just came together, which is fantastic for this and the Consolidated Plan. If I understand what the Action Plan is supposed to be is that it’s the plan of how we’re going to address two different elements, one is housing the other is services for homeless and if so; I was under the impression that the Ten Year Plan then would be incorporated in this, I was wondering if this is the document where the Ten Year Plan and all that is involved in if you know. Ms Longoria – No, these two plans are very specific and follow HUD guidelines. The Ten Year Plan is going to be our community plan and it will incorporate what we have for the Con and Action Plans and the Continuum of Care.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 17

Mr. Petersen – So the Action Plan is not yet, so there’s another plan that comes after this called the Community Plan. Ms Longoria – Our staff will work on the Ten Year Plan after these [Con and Action] Plans are accepted by the Assembly. Mr. Petersen – The other question that I had is that I didn’t see, one of the highest things we saw on the list was the Chronic Homeless and this has a lot of the items but this looks particularly, if this is the city plan, it seems like it’s just addressing only HUD money. I was at a meeting two, a week or two ago a semi annual Alaska Council on Homelessness, the governments coalition, and after the afternoon meeting I said what can we do as a community member and they said, well we have some extra money so if you can come up with some ideas how to spend the two million extra dollars we have; that’s what you can do and so, they were almost just asking for recommendations on where to put the rest of the money they have. So I thought that we would not just focus only on the ESG money and the HOME and CDBG money but there’s apparently some money, I don’t know where it was from, I don’t know if it was a SNUG or whatever acronym they use over there but they said there was some more money that’s available. So that was the question on that as well. Chairman Deak – It’s one of those that generally everyone listens when they says extra money. Anyway, so Carrie is probably going to talk to you about this as we are certainly not aware of any other monies which are programmed for the Action Plan itself. It is about HUD what they have for us to allocate and that’s what the plan is about. Mr. Boehm – The Action Plan includes all the funding from the Municipality. We send out requests to all different agencies that we’re aware of. And the Action Plan actually includes other agencies that are willing to submit information on what their plans and funding sources are for 2013 and they are included in the Action Plan. Mr. Petersen – So then I guess that addition of two million that the Coalition I mean, not the Coalition, the Council of Alaska said that they had as extra funding, so we might be able to see about tapping into that somehow as part of the Action Plan. Then if it’s community money that’s available for it. That was what the head of the HFC that’s the Chair of it asked what we could do as a community, he says we’ll figure out how to spend this money, so it might hit towards some of the goals that we might be involved with. It’s not just HFC, he just happens to be the Chair and he’s from HFC, so it’s the Governors Alaska Council on Homelessness, so you can look at the minutes of that meeting to find out. Chairman Deak – So that’s why I think what they’re going to do is request that you follow up, O.K., any other comment. Mr. Petersen – The other question is with this as an Action Plan again, it’s just HUD money, I was wondering where city money comes into this; if we match with that, if it comes out of the taxes for it, why we’re only dependent on federal money that’s just going to keep going lower and lower and how would a business or how would a community council, how would a native group, how would a faith based group, how would additional community monies be involved outside of the traditional kind of things? So I’m just interested, is this a plan and obviously it’s in the public and obviously this meeting is here but has anyone gone to business groups and to those kind of things? It’s not a traditional source but if it’s a good vision and I don’t know if the vision is in here but say I’m wondering if the visions is in there, if it’s good that it can be presented to those groups and if there’s an outreach effort and to say “hey you guys look, we can solve” for example. I’m interested in Chronic Street Corner Homeless and those in the shelters, and those that have sort of graduated for a time to Housing First, and if there’s a message around that says hey you guys if you want to solve this one here’s a good vision, why don’t you bring some money to it because we need such a thing. And so I think that the Action Plan is just a spending plan of federal money which is a diminutive thing so this book should get smaller and smaller over time. But if the vision is good enough that I think that we can solicit additional money and maybe I’m just naïve about that but at least it’s worth a try to put a good vision out there if this is the vision I hope that we present it and one, how will we measure it? What will success look as

18 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

a result of this, what are the three or four things that based on the Needs Assessment, the Handicap Services being the highest one, Chronic Homeless; two hundred ten people voted for it. What is the one measurement in each of those areas that we’re going to make a difference? Are we going to count every 30, 90 days how many people on the street corners, are we going to count how many people actually get out of the shelter program are we going to count how many people in Housing First that get self reliant? And so I’m interested in and actual number that we’re going to measure as a result of the Action Plan so that we can actually see 90 days from now, did we make a difference? Chairman Deak – How do we address this one, this is bigger issue on the whole vision and it all comes together. Yes we have been for years we have been somewhat limited in our scope sometimes to the frustration sometimes they were just accepting it as the nature of the business but certainly it is something we need to have discussions on. Carrie, what are your thoughts? Ms Longoria – Two thoughts, we do have a lot of information in there like Alaska Housing Finance Corporation about what they’re contributing for projects in 2013, which is what you’re asking for, a larger understanding of dollars going into these projects. Number two, I think it would be great for every three months for each one of the projects that are funded to come back to the HAND Commission and give a report. How many people are served and how is it going. Which is what you’re asking, what’s our measureable outcome, what’s happening with the dollars and at that time we can also identify if that particular project which often does have other partnership dollars coming in, we can identify who those other partners are and how much money is coming in. Mr. Petersen – To consolidate this down to a few sentences. Here’s our five measurable things these are the, put them by categories and say, these ones are going to do this, because to say that we’re going to fix so many roofs in trailers that’s good but how many will we do and is that uh but I didn’t see trailer fixing as the number one item on here. Chairman Deak – No, it’s not, it’s one of the many. Mr. Petersen – I was just thinking, that if this is the driving force, the Needs Assessment, then I’m interested in the number one Public Service Homeless Subpopulation “Chronic Homeless Individuals with Families.” What are we going to do about that group in the next 90 days and then the second one “Families with Children,” what are we going to do about that group in 90 days. And does this money actually target those items? Ms Longoria – I just want to add something that Brian and Barbara already said, is that generally those individuals in the mobile homes are the low, really, really low, low, low income, they’re right there, and those are the ones we can bring back information. Those are the owners and renters that we were looking at as in the greatest need. They are not called mobile homeowners; they’re just called owners or renters. Ms Worley – Carrie, in addition to that, many of those folks, if they didn’t have that mobile home to live in, they would be homeless. Ms Longoria – Right, I know that and that’s my point that we’re not using the term like mobile home owner but we know that the category need is the low income. Mr. Petersen – I’m a mobile home owner, I put someone in one just so I could get him off the streets. Same idea. Chair Deak – Kenny, it appears that there are several issues here which would be very helpful to provide us the feedback for this process and I would request that you may actually have to have a meeting with staff. Mr. Petersen – I go to all of them. Chairman Deak – They are going to have written comments which are targeting certain areas of their interests while the more broad thinkers, they are looking at five year plan. I think the issue is they would like you to pursue that so that information can be captured in here and then when it goes to the Assembly. Mr. Petersen – Which one particularly caught your attention that I could focus on?

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 19

Chairman Deak – The whole issue of metrics, to me, but that would be one way, how do you measure actual success. That would be one big one, but there are others certainly, but that would be the number one, I would think. Mr. Petersen – Metrics in some of the particular things they said was the highest priorities? Chairman Deak – Right, correct. Any other comments you have. Mr. Petersen – That was the main one because if the rest of it was kind of reserved for the Community Plan, which is, is this the plan to reduce homelessness of chronics; how will we measure it, when, who, if this is the plan to move forward. This is obviously a funding plan and so this could be for this additional document but how’s the Ten Year Plan included in the collaborative effort, who’s going to lead that, who’s going to make assignments, who’s going to check that the assignments are measured, how does this coordinate with HCOSH, how does it coordinate with the Mayor’s Task Force and the Coalition? And then, how could additional folks come in to be involved, native groups, faith groups, community councils, how can they engage in it and then in my particular case just my own little segment, how do, can we count the people on the street corners and will that reduce or can we count the people in the shelters will they get out or can we count the homeless and will they get out? I’m just interested in that particular metric personally; but you also have the families and so on and it goes beyond that Chairman Deak – If I may then I request that you follow up with these comments with I guess Carrie would be the first one. Mr. Petersen ‐ Then I will attend the HCOSH meeting which is where that’s probably more fined tuned. Chairman Deak – Any questions Commissioner Spinelli – My only comment would be, if you are trying to count people on the corner, you might just keep counting forever unless you actually count the people you put into a house. I don’t know if you can, I just think that there might be a number of things that apply. Mr. Petersen – We have the HMIS and so you can do it by name and so and forth, they are willing to, so there are some metrics by names through HMIS and so on. But that is true, they could keep coming over and over, but they’ve often found that there’s usually about two hundred that are repeat and maybe start with that. I don’t know how it is, but you’re right you would have to do it by name and keep the list growing. Chairman Deak – O.K., thank you, anyone else, this is a public hearing you’re welcome to contribute. Tyler Robinson, Cook Inlet Housing Authority – Thank you. A comment on two of the proposed projects, one is I want to add to the discussion about mobile homes. Several years back just for context, we did look at a lot of different solutions and partnership with NeighborWorks and others about how to sort of both recognize that mobile homes are an important part of our housing stock. But how to preserve those long term; and you know it was at a time when a number of the parks had sold and homes had been relocated. At some degree CDBG funds, and it’s becoming harder and harder to find parks that will accept a lot of these older homes. Some make straight out that declaration that any home that’s pre 1976, HUD code is not acceptable as a new move in. There’s also a code that was written by HUD in 1992 that was an energy efficiency code that was put on and it was sort of a number that we use to at least contemplate when we as a municipality did weatherization on mobile homes. So I think as you go down this road, I certainly understand where Assembly members come from when they say you know boy it’ll cost me $260,000. a unit to build a rental development or if I can slap fifteen grand on a home even if it’ll only cost fifteen grand it’ll only cost me fifteen grand to keep somebody in a home. That said, if you go down this road, you really have to understand that you’re still; putting money into something that you’re likely putting more money than value exists on that home. You need to consider policies that recognize whether the park owner is actually a secure park owner. Some parks you can know just by looking at the ownership and looking at the for sale sign out front that it’s likely not going to remain a park for very much longer. So I think the fact that the Minor Repair Program, there have been limits to what

20 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

can be done to mobile homes. I strongly think that should be considered and perhaps this money would be better spent providing somebody a down payment for a new manufactured home in a more secure location. So food for thought, I understand it’s a difficult issue. I shared with staff a paper that I produced; a 25 page report on mobile home parks with some policy issues a couple of years back, and it tried to capture a lot of these things that we sort of wrestled with. So I recommend as you contemplate, that maybe if you’re up for it take a little read and it will save you some time of researching those issues. The second item I want to talk about is rental development. I read that specifically it’s reserved for Community Housing and Development Organization (CHDO) for support housing for chronically homeless or high priority populations. I certainly see the need for that and I recognize that there’s a CHDO set aside for HOME dollars and I not here to try to sort of take money away from good projects. What I would simply suggest is that you consider maybe a two tier approach to this activity and say that in the event that a CHDO is not identified or a project is not identified, you contemplate making that rental development money available to the broader community for maybe broader rental development. Again we discussed in previous comments just the whole shortage of housing units regardless of the population. So you can still target where your greatest need is but maybe leave yourself an out so that you don’t have to come back and amend the Action Plan. But if it turns out that you don’t have a project moving forward, you have a way to keep that money rolling I think, as you’re expected to do. So, those are my two comments on those activities. Chairman Deak – Thanks you, any questions on those. Gabe Layman, also with Cook Inlet Housing Authority – I actually just wanted to reflect back on a couple of comments that were made by Kenny, is it. There are a couple of things that Kenny pointed out that I think merit a little bit of additional discussion. The first was, what exactly is the whole purpose of the Consolidated Plan and of the Action Plan and is it just limited to HUD funds, and what are we trying to do here and I think it’s important to recognize that these efforts typically begin in municipalities and jurisdiction as a tool to access HUD funding. You want the HUD funding; you got to do the plan, right? The question is, whether as a community we can do something more with this, and I think we have to acknowledge that staff is constrained in what they can do because they have to follow certain HUD prescribed methodology within the plan tends to make the plan convoluted in terms of the data that’s gathered and the data that’s assessed but there’s also perhaps some real opportunity here for the Municipality to look at the Consolidated Plan and kind of vision what can this be. Can we turn this into a true planning document that draws additional data sources that’s highly quantitative in its evaluation and it’s something more than just checking our HUD boxes to get funds. I think staff has done a good job of expanding towards that ultimate goal, but there’s probably also still work to do there. Second, Kenny hit on this idea of, what are the other sources out there, we’re focused on HUD funding, and staff is absolutely correct that for example, Cook Inlet Housing Authority and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, other sources of funds are identified. But something that’s more important here which is, that in a declining Federal funding environment if housing and community development is really a priority for the Municipality; it needs to put on its thinking cap and try to figure out how to leverage additional funds. Cook Inlet Housing Authority, for example is facing a declining federal funding environment, it’s been our core source of funding for a long time. When we acknowledge that that was the impending reality, we immediately got to work trying to figure out how to diversify our funding. We branched off and looked at additional foundation relationships, we branched off and looked at additional debt financing sources that we could make feasible, we began to look at social enterprise, business oriented solutions to socially motivated mission based friendships. So the point being here is that if the Municipality wants to look beyond Federal funding it’s going to have to get very innovative whether directly or in partnership with other entities. And finally there’s this issue of benchmarking data analysis, however you want to put that together. One thing I would say in that regard is, it’s sometimes silly to box ourselves in and simply count units built with money available when it comes down to, how much money did you spend on one unit. Cook Inlet Housing Authority, for example we gather that data, we can count that data, but what we wanted to know for example in terms of our investment in Mountain View was, what are the impacts on the whole

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 21

community, right? So we’ve actually commissioned consultants to come in and take a look at the overall impact on things like transiency, and school performance, and household income. So I would simply suggest that if the HAND Commission and Municipality begins to look at really evaluating data, be smart about it, don’t’ simply count dollars spent on units actually developed. Let’s look at how investments impact what’s important to us and what we see in our communities. And whether we’re actually achieving those outcomes in education and health, etcetera through specific investments in housing and community development. So with that I would be happy to take any questions or go back to my seat and be quiet. Commissioner Spinelli – So when I count how many units and what they cost, I’m well aware of the other impacts that housing provides in society, but I still need to know how many units and what they cost. Is there, I don’t understand why you say don’t say that. Mr. Layman – And don’t get me wrong. Commissioner Spinelli – I didn’t know if you’re just saying that there’s other things to consider and maybe it’s just obvious to me or. Mr. Layman – And don’t get me wrong Commissioner Spinelli, I’m not suggesting that we focus on the number of units that we can actually produce with “X” dollars. What I’ suggesting is there’s a variety of tactics, strategies that you can employ to try to meet our community objectives, whether it’s supportive housing versus independent housing, whether you’re focusing on a population that’s making 30% or less of median income or those making 50 to 80%. The issue is being able to measure what the outputs of those different investments are and whether they move the dial more or less based on what type of investment you’re making. That’s certainly important but it’s a question of which investment gives you the best bang for your buck, based on what your vision of your community is in the long term. Chairman Deak – Anyone else? Mr. Layman – Thank you very much. Chairman Deak – Last call for, looks like Kenny, go ahead Kenny. Mr. Petersen – I think I have 15 seconds left. Today is John Court’s birthday, or would have been John Court’s birthday. John Court was one of the first residents of Karluk Manor. I got a phone call from his mother today just to acknowledge about his birthday, he was one of the first ones who moved in and shortly died thereafter with dignity in the home. So that’s one of the funding treams I think that came from this group and his mom wanted to thank us for having put him in a home for the last part of his life kind of thing, and he would have celebrated his birthday today and I got a call from his mom from wherever she is in Missouri or something to thank us for that. Chairman Deak – Last call for the Public Hearing on the Action Plan, anyone else is interested, seeing none I am going to close the Public Hearing. Thank you everyone for attending and speaking and please continue with your follow ups through staff, so they actually, these ideas actually land in some fashion in these documents and I think the more exciting part of this is that they land in a document that is truly looking at a broader scale at all these issues. So thank you again. Public Comments received by e‐mail Comments received from Susan H. Bomalaski, Ph.D., LPC, Executive Director, Catholic Social Services Catholic Social Services (CSS) supports the draft 2013 – 2017 Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan and the draft 2013 Annual Action Plan. The plans are data driven and accurately reflect community needs. The data for the needs assessment and market analysis were collected through many community meetings and extensive efforts at gathering input from stakeholders and the results are incorporated into the strategic plan. I would also like to acknowledge the many hours of work put into these documents by the Municipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Public Health Initiatives and Partnerships Division, CSD staff. They have made every effort to gather information and to give all interested parties an

22 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

opportunity to participate in the process of development the plans. My hat is off to them for their hard work and dedication. O. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them.

Although the MOA did not designate specific geographic areas in the Consolidated Plan as requested, there is recognition given and census tracts are identified which presents: ethnic groups by percentage; extremely low income (ELI) households; ELI with substandard living conditions; ELI with Severe Cost Burdened; low income housing tax credit and low income housing tax credit qualified Census Tracts. With limited resources and staff, the MOA is accepting projects across the jurisdiction based on the strategic priorities identified in the Plan. The MOA did not change the Mobile Home Repair Program (MHRP) from a rehabilitation program to one providing down payment for a new manufactured home as requested. The MHRP meets the priorities identified through the needs assessment and is also at the request of the Anchorage Assembly work session May 4, 2012.

The MOA did not accept the request to change the Rental Development Project description so that a non‐ CHDO could be contracted. It is in the MOA’s best interest to require a CHDO for this project to meet HUD requirements and create a mechanism to attract “match dollars”. There was a request to establish “benchmarking” that would measure the success of individual projects and impact on the community. The request outlined a community impact analysis such as transiency, school performance and household income. However, the MOA determined the lack of resources (staff and funding) limits the opportunity to provide an impact analysis of this scope. The MOA will consider this recommendation when more resources are available. P. Summary

The MOA receives HUD monies for CDBG, HOME, and ESG. In collaboration with the community, the MOA determined the most pressing needs in the community and developed effective, data‐based and market‐ driven strategies to address the high priority needs. The MOA is required to submit a 5‐year Consolidated Plan to HUD to be eligible to receive these funds. The CP includes an Action Plan (2013) and Consolidated Action Performance Evaluation Review for each year of funding. This Consolidated Plan, 2013‐2017 and its related 2013 Action Plan initiates this 5‐year process.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 23

II. PR‐05 Lead & Responsible Agencies

A. 1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. PR‐05 Table.1. Responsible Agencies Agency Role Name Department/Agency Lead Agency Municipality Of Anchorage Department of Health & Human Services/Community Safety and Development B. Narrative Community Safety and Development, Public Health Initiatives and Partnerships Division, Department of Health and Human Services, Municipality Of Anchorage is responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan. C. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information Mailing Address: Community Safety and Development Public Health Initiatives and Partnerships Division Department of Health and Human Services P.O. Box 196650, Anchorage, AK 99519‐6650 Physical Address: 825 L Street, Suite 506 Community Safety and Development Public Health Initiatives and Partnerships Division Department of Health and Human Services Phone: Carrie Longoria at 907‐343‐4876 James Boehm at 907‐343‐4285 Electronic Addresses: Fax number: 907‐249‐7858 E‐mail: [email protected]

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 25

III. PR‐10 Consultation

A. Introduction Part 91, Subpart B—Citizen Participation and Consultation, Section 91.100 of the Code of Federal Regulations instructs the MOA of the need to consult with other public and private agencies that provide assisted housing, health services, and social services during the preparation of the Consolidated Plan and Action Plans. PR‐10 furnishes a summary of MOA activities to enhance coordination between these entities, describe the coordination with the Anchorage and the State of Alaska, and bring to light the entities and agencies that participated in the process or with whom the Municipality consulted. It goes on to impart how the agencies/groups/organizations were consulted, the anticipated outcomes, or the areas for improved coordination. Then it identifies agencies not consulted, providing an explanation on the lack for consultation.

CSD consulted with many public and private agencies that provide assisted housing services, health care, and social and fair housing services (including those focusing on services to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and homeless persons) during the preparation of the consolidated plan. The planning process involved consultation and collaboration by three different methods: 1) Staff requested information and/or consultation from organizations, groups, and agencies via e‐mail. . 2) CSD held public meetings and gave presentations, followed by discussion on the Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, CAPER, CBDG, HOME, ESG, and the Community Survey; 3) in May 2012 the Anchorage Assembly held a work session on proposed 2013 Action Plans projects and requested a new project (Minor Repair Program for Mobile Homes) be added for the funding year; and 4) To gain a broad input from the community, CSD created a “Housing and Community Development Needs Survey” that was sent electronically to the CSD e‐ mail list and various community organizations, groups, and agencies. There were also twenty presentations to different groups and organizations on the survey, and the survey’s in the Consolidated Plan. CSD received 340 survey responses that were used in the development of the needs assessment and strategies of the Consolidated Plan. CSD published a display ad in the Anchorage Daily News for the Draft 2013‐2017 Consolidated Plan and 2013 Action Plan to obtain guidance, data, and comments. CSD also sent notice by e‐ mail that the review drafts were available on the web, on CD, and hard copy. E‐mails were sent to the CSD e‐ mail list, including all the agencies/groups in the above list. The housing market analysis was also posted on the web for review and the Community Development Department gave presentations to the community.

B. Summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies: CSD consulted with public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies by e‐mail, phone, in person, and by the web. CSD is part the Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Initiatives and Partnerships Division of the Municipality. CSD held several public meetings in collaboration with the HAND Commission and its Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness (HCOSH). C. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness. As designated in FY2011, the MOA CSD was assigned to take on the responsibilities held by the Collaborative Applicant for the FY2012 Continuum of Care (CoC) application. CSD was responsible for drafting the

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 27

application in collaboration with the HAND Commission, HCOSH and the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness. The CSD established a FY2012 CoC Review Panel led by the HAND Commission’s Chair, Tamas Deak, to begin a standardize process for review and scoring. This allowed the CoC Review Panel to rank projects for the application process. All CoC meetings were held in the public and were recorded. Meeting minutes, documents, applications, and related information while the CSD held responsibility can be found at: http://www.muni.org/Departments/health/services/neighborhoods/PlansAndReports/Pages/ContinuumofCa re.aspx. The CSD worked closely with the community to bring on two new CoC applicants and applied for planning monies to create a governance structure. In April 2013, DHHS management determined it was important to transfer all CoC responsibilities to the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness, which recently gained status as a 501 (c) (3). The transfer of responsibilities includes grant writing, community coordination, and assignment of duties within the Coalition. The Coalition is actively working to secure monies for administrative support and grant application. In July, final HUD funding resulted in a FY2012 award of $2,996,026 monies compared to the FY2011 award for $2,900,123 for the Anchorage CoC. The CSD was the CoC Collaborative Applicant for both years.

Some of the duties of a Continuum of Care include:

 CoC Administration o In consultation with the collaborative applicant and the HMIS Lead, develop, follow, and update annually, a governance charter, which will include all procedures and policies needed to comply with the CoC regulation and HMIS requirements and a code of conduct and recusal process.  Performance Monitoring o Consult with recipients and subrecipients to establish performance targets appropriate for population and program type, monitor recipient and subrecipient performance, evaluate outcomes, and take action against poor performers. o Evaluate outcomes of projects funded under the Emergency Solutions Grants program and the Continuum of Care program, and report to HUD.  Coordinated Assessment o In consultation with recipients of ESG funds within the geographic area, establish and operate either a centralized or coordinated assessment system that provides an initial, comprehensive assessment of the needs of individuals and families for housing and services, including a policy on how its system will address the needs of Domestic Violence survivors seeking shelter or services from non‐victim service providers. o In consultation with ESG recipients, establish and consistently follow written standards for providing CoC assistance, including policies and procedures

The 2013‐2017 Consolidated Plan is incorporating HUD’s National Objectives to reduce homelessness. These Objectives are listed below. In addition, this Plan is incorporating Opening Doors, a federal strategic plan to assist veterans and families with children, and children and youth. Objective 1. Create new permanent housing beds for chronically homeless persons. Ending chronic homelessness is a HUD priority. CoCs achieve this goal by creating new permanent housing beds specifically designated for this population. CoCs must identify the number of beds designated for chronically homeless individuals and families. The current number is taken from the January Housing Inventory Chart (HIC). Objective 2. Increase the percentage of participants remaining in CoC funded permanent housing projects for at least six months to 80% or more. Increasing self‐sufficiency and stability of permanent housing program participants is an outcome assessed by HUD. Each CoC‐funded Permanent Housing Project is expected to report the percentage of participants

28 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

remaining in permanent housing for more than six months on its Annual Performance Report (APR). This information is aggregated for the CoC Application. The percentage derived from CoC‐funded agencies. Objective 3. Increase the percentage of participants in CoC‐funded transitional housing that move into permanent housing to 65% or greater. The transitional housing (TH) objective is to help homeless individuals and families obtain permanent housing and self‐sufficiency. Each CoC‐funded TH project is expected to report the percentage of participants moving to permanent housing in its APR, which is aggregated in the CoC Application. The percentage derived from CoC‐funded TH agencies. Objective 4. Increase the percentage in all CoC funded projects that are employed at program exit to 20% or greater. Employment is a critical step for homeless persons to achieve greater self‐sufficiency, and represent an important outcome that is reflected both in participants' lives and the health of the community. Each CoC‐ funded project (excluding HMIS dedicated only projects) is expected to report the percentage of participants employed at exit on its APR and which is aggregated for the CoC Application. The percentage derived from CoC‐funded agencies. Objective 5. Increase the percentage of participants in all CoC‐funded projects that obtained mainstream benefits at program exit to 20% or greater. Access to mainstream resources is a critical step for homeless persons to achieve greater self sufficiency, which represents an important outcome that is reflected both in participants' lives and the health of the community. Each CoC‐funded project (excluding HMIS dedicated only projects) is expected to report the percentage of participants who received mainstream resources by exit on its APR. This information is aggregated for the CoC Application. The percentage derived from CoC‐funded agencies. Objective 6. Decrease the number of homeless individuals and families. Ending homelessness among households with children, particularly for those households living on the streets or other places not meant for human habitation, is an important HUD priority. CoCs can accomplish this goal by creating new beds and/or providing additional supportive services for this population. This information is provided by the Anchorage Point in Time (PIT) count and represented in the CoC Application. For example, a total of 126 households with children were identified in the January 2012 PIT count. Opening Doors Two years have passed since the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) launched Opening Doors the nation’s first‐ever comprehensive strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. Recently, USICH released an amendment to Opening Doors focused on preventing and ending youth homelessness and improving educational outcomes for children and youth experiencing homelessness Ending homelessness in America requires commitment and determination at all levels of government and relies on effective public‐private partnerships. As the third year of Opening Doors implementation begins, the lessons learned will shape actions moving forward are outlined below: Collaborations must include mainstream and community programs. There has been significant progress engaging Public Housing Agencies, Medicaid directors, and TANF programs, as well as other targeted programs such as child welfare and criminal justice, in local efforts across the country. Resources must be targeted effectively. Communities need to reserve homelessness prevention assistance to households that are most imminently at risk of becoming homeless. The most expensive and intensive interventions, like transitional housing and permanent supportive housing, should be reserved for people who require those interventions to end their homelessness. Providers and funders must be willing to make significant changes. The $1.5 billion investment in HUD’s Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing Program (HPRP) spurred communities to adopt new

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 29

tools. The HUD‐VA Supportive Housing program (HUD‐VASH) has compelled VA Medical Centers and Public Housing Agencies to re‐examine their processes to target and more rapidly house Veterans experiencing chronic homelessness. HEARTH Act implementation gives communities new tools but also creates high expectations for how HUD’s homelessness resources are managed.

D. Results occur when new investments are strategically deployed. The three best examples of this are HPRP, HUD‐VASH, and VA’s Supportive Services for Veteran Families program (SSVF). Communities that used HPRP for rapid re‐housing, saw decreases in homelessness. When the VA implemented SSVF, they turned to HUD for lessons learned from HPRP so that, from the start, SSVF dollars could be used most effectively.Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS. In accordance with the HEARTH Act, HUD during 2012 HUD had issued regulations for the Emergency Solutions Grants program. The change was to focus from addressing the needs of homeless people in emergency or transitional shelters to assisting people to quickly regain stability in permanent housing after experiencing a housing crisis or homelessness. Additionally, this changed the corresponding amendments to the Consolidated Plan regulations and codified into law the Continuum of Care planning process to assist homeless persons by providing coordination in responding to their needs. The MOA is the recipient of ESG funds and began consultation with all CoC members in March 2012, which included the HAND Commission, its Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness, the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness and private interested citizens. The HAND Commission held public hearings to determine the best distribution of ESG funds that would have optimal impact. It was determined the MOA would work with CSS to fund the Beyond Shelter Program, which is based on the Rapid Re‐Housing Model. Also, the ESG monies would assist CSS to serve homeless populations previously funded with CoC monies. The FY2012 CoC application outlines the plan and distribution of ESG funds. Homeless Prevention services will be delivered through Emergency Outreach Services, co‐located with the Aging and Disability Resource Center, within the Department of Health and Human Services. It will be the responsibility of the sub‐grantees in collaboration with the CoC to continually evaluate program results, successes, problems and needs in order to change, refine, and update standards and policies for future funding. ESG funds can be used for five program components: street outreach, emergency shelter, homelessness prevention, rapid re‐housing assistance and HMIS, as well as administrative activities. The CoC FY2012 grant application also shows the AKHMIS will continue to be administered by the MOA and related policies and procedures are already in operation. Funding development for AKHMIS is being handled by DHHS and AHFC management. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Overview The ESG program is authorized by the McKinney‐Vento Homeless Assistance Act funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This federally funded program is administered through HUD by a formula allocation to ESG entitlement localities. The Anchorage Department of Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is responsible for administering the local ESG allocation for the Municipality of Anchorage. The local allocation minus 7.5 percent for local/local government administrative costs will be allocated to sub‐grantees (non‐profits and units of local governments) in ESG non‐entitlement localities. These are localities that do not receive a direct ESG allocation from HUD.

30 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

DHHS will oversee the monitoring and implementation of the ESG funds. Monitoring will begin six months after either execution of a grant agreement with sub‐grantee or six months after DHHS begins the distribution of ESG monies. Monitoring will include: compliance with new ESG definitions; fiscal integrity and accounting of funds (i.e., general ledger details) as required through HUD OMB circulars; and, entry of data into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). Background Written Standards: Standard policies and procedures for evaluating individuals’ and families’ eligibility for assistance under ESG. Emergency Solution funds in Anchorage will target the following. Emergency Solution funds will target the following.  Homelessness Prevention Provide financial assistance and services to help individuals and families at‐risk of homelessness to maintain permanent housing and who have an annual income below 30 percent of median family income for the area as determined by HUD Type of assistance: rent and utility assistance/subsidy, rent/utility deposits, and case management.  Rapid Re‐Housing Provide financial assistance and services to individuals and families who are homeless and help them move as quickly as possible into permanent housing and achieve stability in that housing. Type of assistance: rent and utility assistance/subsidy; rent/utility deposits, and case management.  Emergency Shelter Funds to be allocated for maintenance and operations of emergency shelters (as defined in §576.102) that house families and individuals who meet the criteria of homeless. All ESG‐assisted households must meet the revised HUD definition for at risk for homeless and/or homeless. The following are the criteria for Eligibility under the ESG program. Homelessness Prevention ESG funds may be used to provide housing relocation and stabilization services and short‐and/or medium‐ term rental assistance necessary to prevent an individual or family from becoming homeless as defined by HUD. The following requirements apply to eligible beneficiaries for Homeless Prevention: 1. Individuals/families must be residents of the Municipality of Anchorage 2. Individuals/families must have an income at or below 30% of the area median income (AMI) as determined by HUD. 3. Individuals/families eligible for assistance must be lacking sufficient resources or support networks, e.g. family, friends, faith‐based or other social networks, immediately available to prevent them from moving into an emergency shelter or primary nighttime residence that is not designed for or ordinarily used as regular sleeping accommodation for human beings 4. Priority will be given to individuals and families who are currently in housing but are at risk of becoming homeless and need temporary rent or utility assistance to prevent them from becoming homeless or who need assistance to move to another unit; and fall into at least one of the secondary risk criteria: a. Household has moved 2 or more times due to economic reasons over a 60 day period immediately preceding application for assistance

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 31

b. Individual or family is living in the home of another because of economic hardship c. Have an eviction notice to vacate current housing within 21 days of application for assistance. d. Individual or family is living in a hotel or motel not paid for by government or charitable organization e. Household lives in an overcrowded housing unit as defined by the US Census Bureau f. Individual is exiting a publicly funded institution or system of care g. Otherwise lives in housing that is associated with instability and an increased risk of homelessness as identified in the consolidated plan and includes: extremely low‐income renters who are single parents, minorities, single elderly and disabled. Rapid Re‐housing Assistance ESG funds may be used to provide housing relocation and stabilization services and short‐and/or medium‐ term rental assistance as necessary to help a homeless family move as quickly as possible into permanent housing and achieve stability in that housing. The following requirements apply to beneficiaries for Rapid Re‐ housing Assistance. 1. Individuals/families receiving rapid re‐housing assistance must be literally homeless as defined by ESG criteria in 24 CFR §576.2 2. Individuals/families must be living in the Municipality of Anchorage or residing in a shelter within the municipality. AK 2‐1‐1 and social service/homeless providers will be provided information regarding availability of ESG funds to provide information for potential applicants through the provider network. Applicants will contact ESG providers directly. Determination of eligibility for ESG assistance will begin with a standardized screening tool and assessment conducted by the ESG sub‐grantees. The assessment, conducted by a case manager will determine current living situation; income based on area median income, and ability to obtain and maintain subsequent housing options without assistance. The assessment will determine eligibility, type and length of assistance to be provided. The case manager and client(s) will develop a self‐sufficiency plan that will be mutually signed and adhered to during course of services. When determining the annual income of an individual or family, the recipient or sub recipient must use the standard for calculating annual income under 24 CFR §5.609. Grantees must document and date the determination of income eligibility. This documentation will be included in the program participant record. Re‐evaluation of individuals and families receiving ESG assistance will be conducted not less than every 3 months to assure eligibility and will be documented in client’s file. Documentation of participants’ homelessness situation is an important aspect of ESG program compliance. ESG grantees and sub‐grantees are required to maintain adequate documentation of homelessness or at‐risk status to determine the eligibility of each person served by ESG. Documentation will be obtained from the participant or a third party at the time of entry into the program. Sufficient records must be established and maintained to enable the grantee and HUD to determine whether ESG requirements are being met as outlined in §576.500. All applicants for assistance will affirm the information provided and authorize the sharing of information between agencies to assure coordination of services. Policies and procedures for coordination among emergency shelter providers, essential service providers, homelessness prevention and rapid re‐housing assistance providers, other homeless assistance providers, and mainstream service and housing providers.

32 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

It is expected that ESG sub‐grantees will actively coordinate with service providers including AK 2‐1‐1 and the Aging and Disability Resource Center to assure that individuals and families experiencing homelessness have the most up to date information and access to mainstream resources available to meet their needs and assist with housing stabilization. To the extent possible, ESG grantee and sub‐grantees will seek Memorandums of Understanding with key referral sources to assure seamless referral process for ESG clients. For those clients identified as disabled or elderly, a referral will be made to the Aging and Disability Resource Center for options counseling regarding long‐term care support services available in the community to assist with stabilization of those services for the eligible clients. ESG sub‐grantees are required to report program participant‐level data and update client information into AK‐HMIS. ESG grantees and sub‐grantees will participate in HMIS trainings and adhere to HMIS data entry expectations. All grantees and sub‐grantees will take appropriate measures to provide for program participant confidentiality. Grantees and sub‐grantees will develop and implement procedures to guarantee the confidentially of records concerning program participants. Note that domestic violence programs are exempt from the HMIS requirement, however, they are required to provide aggregate data for reporting purposes. Policies and procedures for determining and prioritizing which eligible families and individuals will receive homelessness prevention assistance and which eligible families and individuals will receive rapid re‐housing assistance. Households are expected to independently maintain and sustain housing, either subsidized or unsubsidized, at the end of rental assistance; therefore it is crucial that households are appropriately assessed. Each program that provides ESG rapid re‐housing and homelessness prevention services will determine the prioritization of eligible individuals and families based on assessment by a case manager. The determination will be guided by the use of the Homeless Assessment Matrix‐AK version, assessing barriers to housing and the ability to sustain housing after ESG assistance ends. More formal use of the Homeless Assessment Matrix—AK version is under discussion At such time it is determined that the matrix will be used for prioritizing applicants across the continuum, ESG providers will incorporate into their prioritization procedure. Rapid re‐housing funds will target families that are homeless and assist them to move as quickly as possible into permanent housing and achieve stability. Due diligence will be employed to identify appropriate families who demonstrate the ability to maintain and sustain housing, either subsidized or unsubsidized, at the end of the rental assistance through ESG. Case management will be provided during the term of participation with the goal of case management to ensure that the households enrolled in ESG will identify the reasons for homelessness and address these barriers for long term success. Homelessness Prevention funds will target individuals and families that are imminently at risk or at‐risk of homelessness with an income below 30% of Area Median Income (AMI). Due diligence will be employed to identify individuals who “but for ESG assistance” will become homeless and who demonstrate the ability to maintain and sustain housing, either subsidized or unsubsidized after receiving assistance for rental and/or utility arrearages. At the time of initial screening and assessment, case manager will fully assess other possible resources including formal and informal that are available to applicant. Case manager will “coach” applicant in applying for and accessing available resources and provide the necessary amount of service coordination to assure success in maintaining housing. Beyond targeting and using a standardized assessment tool, households will be served on a first‐come, first‐ served basis. Standards for determining the share of rent and utilities costs that each program participant must pay, if any, while receiving homelessness prevention or rapid re‐housing assistance.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 33

The ESG‐funded sub‐grantees will set individual polices for cost sharing based on program design and the population being served. It is expected that program participants will assist with paying rent and utilities while receiving rapid re‐ housing assistance. Specific amount of cost‐sharing will be set in consultation with client and case manager and based on family situation and agency policies. Expectations will be clearly stated in self‐sufficiency plan and reviewed with case manager. To the extent possible, ESG providers will work to leverage other funding sources in assisting program participants in order to serve the greatest number of at risk or homeless individuals/families. Standards for determining how long a particular program participant will be provided with rental assistance and whether and how the amount of that assistance will be adjusted over time. Subject to the general conditions under §576.103 and §576.104 the recipient or subrecipent may provide a program participant with up to 24 months of rental assistance during any 3 year period. As ESG funding for rental assistance is very limited and based on prior experience with HPRP, the ESG allocation for rental assistance will be limited to 6 months or less. The ESG provider and applicant for services will come to an agreement on the length of assistance needed and jointly develop a long‐term self‐sufficiency plan to quickly move clients to housing stability and sustainment. Adherence to the plan will help to determine on‐going assistance and requests for assistance in the future. It is expected that during the course of rental assistance, the client contribution will increase incrementally and the agency contribution will decrease in anticipation of termination of services at the end of the agreed upon time. Case managers will work closely with households to identify housing that is sustainable based on family income and size. Rental assistance will end if and when other subsidy begins (i.e. Section 8 voucher, public housing, etc.). Updates and input from the CoC will help to determine if limits on rental assistance should be increased or decreased based on community need, outcomes, and available budget within the HUD guidelines. At such time that standards for client contribution are set by the continuum, the ESG funded agencies will incorporate these into overall procedures and policies. Standards for determining the type, amount, and duration of housing stabilization and/or relocation services to provide a program participant, including the limits, if any, on the homelessness prevention or rapid re‐housing assistance that each program participant may receive, such as the maximum amount of assistance, maximum number of months the program participants receives assistance; or the maximum number of times the program participants may receive assistance. Based on previous experience with HPRP, limited ESG funding, and the current RRH program implemented in the community, the standard will be limited to no more than 6 months of tenant‐based rental assistance, plus security deposit and utility deposit if needed. Homelessness Prevention services, delivered through Emergency Outreach Services, Department of Health and Human Services are designed to prevent an individual or family from becoming homeless and are to be a one time assistance for rental and utility arrearages and financial assistance costs as described in §576.105. Average amount of assistance per household will average less than $1,000 with exceptions granted based on extenuating circumstances. To avoid duplication of ESG services, ESG sub‐grantees will be entering data into a shared HMIS system. ESG grantee/sub‐grantee will meet on a regularly scheduled basis to review program policies and procedures and staff potential homeless clients requiring additional assistance above and beyond above stated limits and HUD guidelines. Updates and input from the CoC will help to determine if duration of housing stabilization and/or relocation services provided to each program participant should be increased or decreased based on project indicators and available budget. At such time that standards for client contribution are set for the continuum, the ESG funded agencies will incorporate into overall procedures and policies.

34 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

E. Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and consultations: The table below lists the agencies, groups, and organizations who participated in developing the Consolidated Plan, and its goals and strategies.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 35

PR‐ 10 Table 1. Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and consultations Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type 1. Municipality Of Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD consulted with all Departments/Divisions/Sections Anchorage Services‐Elderly Lead‐based Paint Strategy through e‐mails and phone calls. CSD also obtained Persons Homelessness Strategy information from the Muni web sites. Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to with Disabilities homeless improve coordination with all city departments and to Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action with HIV/AIDS children Plan. Services‐Victims of Homelessness Needs – Veterans Domestic Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Violence youth Services‐homeless Non‐Homeless Special Needs Health Agency Economic Development Other government ‐ Market Analysis Local Anti‐poverty Strategy 2. Alaska Legal Services Housing Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Alaska Legal Services (ALS) was consulted by e‐mail. ALS Services‐Children children has received CDBG Public Service funding in the past so Services‐homeless Housing Need Assessment that they could provide direct assistance to homeless and near homeless families with children regarding issues that are critical to preventing homelessness. Such legal assistance is aimed at immediately increasing an at‐risk family’s safety and stability by keeping or securing housing, obtaining orders of protection and assisting with income maintenance issues such as securing child support and public benefits. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 3. Anchorage Community Housing Economic Development Anchorage Community Land Trust (ACLT) was consulted by Land Trust (ACLT) Services‐Education Market Analysis e‐mail. Their mission is to partner with Anchorage Services‐ neighborhoods to develop healthy and prosperous Employment communities promoting investment opportunities and

36 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type sustainable revitalization. ACLT is best described as a hybrid that works as both a land trust and community development organization and since inception, their real estate and community development activities have been solely focused in Mountain View where they leverage private and public resources to acquire and redevelop commercial properties that are strategic to neighborhood revitalization and facilitate grass‐roots efforts that residents identify as important to improving their quality of life. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 4. Anchorage Housing Housing Housing Need Assessment Anchorage Housing Initiatives (AHI) was consulted by e‐ Initiatives Services‐Persons Non‐Homeless Special Needs mail. AHI has received HOME funding in the past for the with Disabilities Market Analysis development of housing for persons with disabilities. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 5. Alaska Housing Finance Housing Housing Need Assessment Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) was consulted Corporation (AHFC) PHA Public Housing Needs by e‐mail and phone. AHFC is the public housing authority Homelessness Strategy for the Municipality of Anchorage, as well as the State of Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically Alaska. They are involved in many housing actives and homeless housing projects in Anchorage. They are also involved with Homeless Needs ‐ Families with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of children homeless persons and persons at risk of homelessness. Homelessness Needs – Veterans The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied improve coordination and to include their input in the youth Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. AHFC is the Public Market Analysis Housing agency in the Municipality. AHFC provided information for the CP.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 37

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type 6. Anchorage Literacy Housing Housing Need Assessment Anchorage Literacy Project was contacted by e‐mail. They Project Services‐Elderly Homelessness Strategy have received CDBG Public Service funding in the past. Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with improve coordination and to include their input in the with Disabilities children Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Services‐homeless Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐Education youth Services‐ Non‐Homeless Special Needs Employment Economic Development Market Analysis Anti‐poverty Strategy 7. Anchorage Senior Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted the Anchorage Senior Center by e‐mail and Center Services‐Elderly Non‐Homeless Special Needs phone. CSD Staff conducted two presentations on the Persons Economic Development Consolidated Plan at the Senior Center. Several seniors Services‐Persons Market Analysis completed the priority needs survey during the with Disabilities Anti‐poverty Strategy presentations. Services‐Education The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Services‐ improve coordination and to include their input in the Employment Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 8. Abused Women's Aid in Housing Market Analysis CSD contacted AWAIC by e‐mail and phone. CSD Staff Crisis (AWAIC) Services‐Victims of conducted two presentations on the Consolidated Plan at Domestic Violence AWAIC. Several people completed the priority needs Services‐homeless survey during the presentations. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. This organization is also a member of the CoC. 9. Access Alaska Inc. Services‐Persons Market Analysis CSD contacted Access Alaska by e‐mail and phone. CSD with Disabilities Staff conducted a presentation on the Consolidated Plan at the Access Alaska. Several people completed the priority

38 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type needs survey. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 10. Alaska (AK) Cares Services‐Children Market Analysis CSD contacted Alaska Cares by e‐mail and phone. CSD Services‐Victims of Staff conducted a presentation on the Consolidated Plan at Domestic Alaska Cares. Several people completed the priority needs Violence survey. Services‐Health The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Provides sexual and improve coordination and to include their input in the physical abuse Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. evaluations for children 11. Akeela Inc. Services‐Persons Market Analysis CSD contacted Akeeka Inc. by e‐mail. with Disabilities The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Services‐Health improve coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 12. Alaska Center for the Services‐Persons Non‐Homeless Special Needs CSD contacted Alaska Center for the Blind and Visually Blind and Visually with Disabilities Economic Development Impaired by e‐mail. Impaired Services‐Education Market Analysis The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Services‐ improve coordination and to include their input in the Employment Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 13. Alaska Children's Housing Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied CSD contacted Alaska Children's Services by e‐mail. Services Services‐Children youth The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Services‐Persons Market Analysis improve coordination and to include their input in the with Disabilities Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Education Services‐ Employment

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 39

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type 14. Alaska Chadux Services‐Education Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Alaska Chadux Corporation by e‐mail. Corporation Oil spill response Market Analysis The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 15. Alaska Community Housing Market Analysis CSD contacted Alaska Community Development by e‐mail. Development Services‐Education The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 16. Alaska Aids Assistance Services‐Persons Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted 4A's by e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes of Association (4A's) with HIV/AIDS Homelessness Strategy the consultation were to improve coordination and to Non‐Homeless Special Needs include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Market Analysis Plan. 17. Alaska Health Fair, Inc. Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Alaska Health Fair, Inc. by e‐mail. The Services‐Elderly Market Analysis anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Persons coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Services‐Health Plan and Action Plan. Health Agency 18. Alaska Mental Health Services‐Persons Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Alaska Mental Health Trust by e‐mail. The Trust with Disabilities Homelessness Strategy anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Health Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Services‐Education Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan and Action Plan. Health Agency children Homelessness Needs – Veterans Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied youth Non‐Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis 19. Anchorage Community Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Anchorage Community Mental Health Mental Health Services, Services‐Elderly Homelessness Strategy Services, Inc. by e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes of the Inc. Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless consultation were to improve coordination and to include Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with

40 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type with Disabilities children their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Health Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Services‐Education Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Health Agency youth Non‐Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis 20. Anchorage Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center by Neighborhood Health Services‐Elderly Market Analysis e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were Center Persons to improve coordination and to include their input in the Services‐Persons Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. with Disabilities Services‐Persons with HIV/AIDS Services‐Health Health Agency 21. Anchorage School Services‐Children Public Housing Needs CSD contacted the Anchorage School Board by e‐mail. The Board Services‐Victims of Homeless Needs ‐ Families with anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Domestic children coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Violence Market Analysis Plan and Action Plan. Services‐homeless Services‐Health Services‐Education 22. Anchorage School Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted the Anchorage School District by e‐mail. District Services‐Children Homeless Needs ‐ Families with The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Services‐Victims of children improve coordination and to include their input in the Domestic Economic Development Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Violence Market Analysis Services‐homeless Services‐Health Services‐Education 23. ARC of Anchorage Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted ARC of Anchorage by e‐mail. The Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 41

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type Services‐Persons Housing Need Assessment Plan and Action Plan. with Disabilities Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans with HIV/AIDS Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐homeless youth Services‐Health Non‐Homeless Special Needs Services‐Education Market Analysis 24. Brother Francis Shelter Services‐Elderly Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Brother Francis Shelter by e‐mail. The Persons Homelessness Strategy anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated with Disabilities Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons children with HIV/AIDS Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Services‐homeless Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied youth Market Analysis 25. Campfire USA Alaska Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted the Campfire USA Alaska Council by e‐mail. Council Services‐Persons Market Analysis The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to with Disabilities improve coordination and to include their input in the Services‐Health Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Education 26. Catholic Social Services Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted CSS by e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes of (CSS) Services‐Children Homelessness Strategy the consultation were to improve coordination and to Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan. Services‐Persons children with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Services‐homeless Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐Education youth Non‐Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis 27. Center for Drug Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted the Center for Drug Problems by e‐mail. Problems Services‐Elderly Homelessness Strategy The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to

42 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless improve coordination and to include their input in the Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐Victims of youth Domestic Market Analysis Violence Services‐homeless Services‐Education 28. Child in Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted the Child in Transition/Homeless Project by Transition/Homeless Services‐homeless Homelessness Strategy e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were Project Services‐Education Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless to improve coordination and to include their input in the Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. children Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied youth Non‐Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis 29. Covenant House ‐ Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted CHA by e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes Alaska (CHA) Services‐Children Homelessness Strategy of the consultation were to improve coordination and to Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Plan. Services‐Persons youth with HIV/AIDS Market Analysis Services‐Victims of Domestic Violence Services‐homeless Services‐Education 30. Food Bank of Alaska Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted the Food Bank of Alaska by e‐mail. The Services‐Elderly Homelessness Strategy anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan and Action Plan. with Disabilities children

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 43

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans with HIV/AIDS Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐Victims of youth Domestic Non‐Homeless Special Needs Violence Market Analysis Services‐homeless Services‐Education 31. Habitat for Humanity Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Habitat for Humanity by e‐mail. The Services‐Children Homelessness Strategy anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Persons homeless Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with with Disabilities children Services‐homeless Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Service‐Fair Housing Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied youth Market Analysis 32. Home Accessibilities Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Home Accessibilities by e‐mail. The Services‐Children Non‐Homeless Special Needs anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Elderly Market Analysis coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Persons Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons with Disabilities Services‐Education 33. Hope Community Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Hope Community Resources by e‐mail. The Resources Services‐Children Homelessness Strategy anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Persons homeless Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with with Disabilities children Services‐homeless Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Services‐Education Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied youth

44 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type Non‐Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis 34. KPB Architects Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted KPB Architects by e‐mail. The anticipated Services‐Children Market Analysis outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Elderly coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Persons Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons with Disabilities Services‐homeless 35. Muldoon Safe Harbor Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Muldoon Safe Harbor Inn by e‐mail. The Inn Services‐Children Homelessness Strategy anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons children with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied with HIV/AIDS youth Services‐Victims of Market Analysis Domestic Violence Services‐homeless 36. NeighborWorks Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted NeighborWorks by e‐mail. The anticipated Anchorage Services‐Children Public Housing Needs outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Elderly Homelessness Strategy coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with NeighborWorks provided comments on the AP. with Disabilities children Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans with HIV/AIDS Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐Victims of youth Domestic Non‐Homeless Special Needs Violence Services‐homeless Services‐Education

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 45

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type 37. New Life Development Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted New Life Development by e‐mail and by Services‐Children Homelessness Strategy phone. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless to improve coordination and to include their input in the Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons children with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied with HIV/AIDS youth Services‐homeless Market Analysis Services‐Health Services‐Education 38. Partners for Progress Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Partners for Progress Inn by e‐mail. The Services‐Elderly Homelessness Strategy anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan and Action Plan. with Disabilities children Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs – Veterans with HIV/AIDS Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐homeless youth Services‐Education Non‐Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis 39. Providence Hospital Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Providence Hospital Alaska Cares by e‐mail. Alaska Cares Services‐Children Market Analysis The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Services‐Victims of improve coordination and to include their input in the Domestic Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Violence Services‐Health Services‐Education Health Agency 40. Rural Alaska Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted RurAL CAP by e‐mail. The anticipated Community Action Services‐Children Homelessness Strategy outcomes of the consultation were to improve Program (RurAL CAP) Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan and Action Plan. CSD did a presentation at RuRAL

46 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type Services‐Persons children CAP. with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied with HIV/AIDS youth Services‐Victims of Non‐Homeless Special Needs Domestic Market Analysis Violence Services‐homeless Services‐Education 41. Salvation Army, Alaska Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Salvation Army, Alaska by e‐mail and by Services‐Children Homelessness Strategy phone. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless to improve coordination and to include their input in the Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons children with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied with HIV/AIDS youth Services‐Victims of Non‐Homeless Special Needs Domestic Market Analysis Violence Services‐homeless Services‐Education 42. Shiloh Community Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Shiloh Community Housing, Inc. by e‐mail. Housing, Inc. Services‐Children Homeless Needs ‐ Families with The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Services‐Persons children improve coordination and to include their input in the with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Services‐homeless youth Services‐Education Non‐Homeless Special Needs Services‐ Market Analysis Employment 43. Southcentral Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Southcentral Foundation by e‐mail. The Foundation Services‐Children Homeless Needs ‐ Families with anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Elderly children coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 47

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type Persons Market Analysis Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons with Disabilities Services‐homeless Services‐Health Services‐Education Services‐ Employment 44. Special Olympics Services‐Children Market Analysis CSD contacted Special Olympics Alaska by e‐mail. The Alaska Services‐Persons anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve with Disabilities coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Services‐Education Plan and Action Plan. 44. Standing Together Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted STAR by e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes Against Rape (STAR) Services‐Children Homelessness Strategy of the consultation were to improve coordination and to Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan. Services‐Persons children with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied with HIV/AID youth Services‐Victims of Non‐Homeless Special Needs Domestic Economic Development Violence Market Analysis Services‐homeless Services‐Health Services‐Education 45. The Alaska Veterans Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted The Alaska Veterans Foundation by e‐mail. Foundation Services‐Elderly Homelessness Strategy The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless improve coordination and to include their input in the Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. with Disabilities children Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs – Veterans

48 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type with HIV/AIDS Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐homeless youth Services‐Education Market Analysis 46. United Way of Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted the United Way by e‐mail. The anticipated Anchorage Services‐Children Homelessness Strategy outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons children with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐homeless youth Services‐Health Non‐Homeless Special Needs Services‐Education Market Analysis 48. Veterans Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted the VA by e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes Administration (VA) Services‐Elderly Homelessness Strategy of the consultation were to improve coordination and to Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan. with Disabilities children Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans with HIV/AIDS Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐homeless youth Services‐Education Non‐Homeless Special Needs Other government ‐ Market Analysis Federal 49. Volunteers of Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted the Volunteers of American Alaska by e‐ American Alaska Services‐Elderly Homelessness Strategy mail. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with to improve coordination and to include their input in the Services‐Persons children Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Services‐homeless Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied youth Market Analysis 50. Anchorage Senior Services‐Elderly Homelessness Strategy CSD contacted the Anchorage Senior Activities Center Activities Center Persons Non‐Homeless Special Needs Endowment Fund by e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes of

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 49

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type Endowment Fund Services‐Persons Market Analysis the consultation were to improve coordination and to with Disabilities include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Services‐Health Plan. Services‐Education 51. Bean's Cafe Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Bean's Cafe by e‐mail. The anticipated Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless outcomes of the consultation were to improve Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Services‐Persons children Plan and Action Plan. with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied with HIV/AIDS youth Services‐Victims of Market Analysis Domestic Violence Services‐homeless 52. Center for Human Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted the V Center for Human Development/UAA Development/UAA Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Families with by e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation Persons children were to improve coordination and to include their input in Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐Education youth Non‐Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis 53. Cook Inlet Housing Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Cook Inlet Housing Authority by e‐mail and Authority Services‐Children Public Housing Needs by phone. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Families with were to improve coordination and to include their input in Persons children the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. They provided Services‐homeless Non‐Homeless Special Needs information for the CP. Service‐Fair Housing Market Analysis 54. American Red Cross Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted the American Red Cross by e‐mail. The Services‐Children Homelessness Strategy anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons children

50 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Veterans Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied with HIV/AIDS youth Services‐homeless Market Analysis Services‐Health 55. Community Council Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted the Community Council Center by e‐mail. Center Services‐Children Non‐Homeless Special Needs The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Services‐Elderly Market Analysis improve coordination and to include their input in the Persons Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons with Disabilities Services‐Education 56. Alaska Native Justice Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Alaska Native Justice Center Inc. by e‐mail. Center Inc. Services‐Children Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Families with improve coordination and to include their input in the Persons children Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs – Veterans with Disabilities Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐Persons youth with HIV/AIDS Non‐Homeless Special Needs Services‐Victims of Market Analysis Domestic Violence Services‐homeless Services‐Education 57. Kids' Corp. Inc. Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Kids' Corp. by e‐mail. The anticipated Services‐Education Non‐Homeless Special Needs outcomes of the consultation were to improve Market Analysis coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 58. Cultural and Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Cultural and Recreational Services by e‐ Recreational Services Services‐Elderly Market Analysis mail. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were Persons to improve coordination and to include their input in the

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 51

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type Services‐Education Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 59. Alaska Primary Care Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Alaska Primary Care Association by e‐mail. Association Services‐Children Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Families with improve coordination and to include their input in the Persons children Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied with Disabilities youth Services‐Persons Non‐Homeless Special Needs with HIV/AIDS Market Analysis Services‐Health 60. Alaska Regional Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Alaska Regional Hospital by e‐mail. The Hospital Services‐Elderly Non‐Homeless Special Needs anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Persons Market Analysis coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Services‐Persons Plan and Action Plan. with Disabilities Services‐Persons with HIV/AIDS Services‐Victims of Domestic Violence Services‐Health 61. HUD Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted HUD by e‐mail and by phone. The Other government ‐ Homelessness Strategy anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Federal Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan and Action Plan. children Homelessness Needs – Veterans Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied youth Non‐Homeless Special Needs Economic Development Market Analysis General Assistance

52 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type 62. American Lung Services‐Health Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted American Lung Association by e‐mail. The Association Market Analysis anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 63. Anchorage Citizens Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Anchorage Citizens Coalition by e‐mail. The Coalition Planning Economic Development anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve organization Market Analysis coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 64. Anchorage Equal Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Anchorage Equal Rights Commission by e‐ Rights Commission Services‐ Economic Development mail. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were Employment Market Analysis to improve coordination and to include their input in the Service‐Fair Housing Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Other government ‐ Local 65. Anchorage Rescue Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Anchorage Rescue Mission by e‐mail. The Mission Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve with Disabilities Homeless Needs ‐ Families with coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Services‐homeless children Plan and Action Plan. Homelessness Needs – Veterans Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied youth Homelessness Strategy Market Analysis 66. Anchorage Water & Services‐Health Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted AWWU by e‐mail. The anticipated Wastewater Utility Other government ‐ Non‐Homeless Special Needs outcomes of the consultation were to improve (AWWU) Local Economic Development coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Market Analysis Plan and Action Plan. 67. Anchorage's Promise Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Anchorage's Promise by e‐mail. The Homelessness Strategy anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan and Action Plan. children

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 53

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type Homelessness Needs – Veterans Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied youth Market Analysis 68. CDI‐Alaska, Inc. Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted CDI‐Alaska by e‐mail. The anticipated Business Leaders Economic Development outcomes of the consultation were to improve Market Analysis coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 69. Christian Health Services‐Health Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Christian Health Associates by e‐mail. The Associates Services‐Education Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Non‐Homeless Special Needs coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Market Analysis Plan and Action Plan. 70. Older Persons Action Services‐Elderly Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted OPAG by e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes Group (OPAG) Persons Market Analysis of the consultation were to improve coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 71. Spinell Homes Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Spinell Homes by e‐mail. The anticipated Economic Development outcomes of the consultation were to improve Market Analysis coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 72. United Methodist Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted United Methodist Women by e‐mail. The Women Services‐Elderly Market Analysis anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Persons coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Services‐Persons Plan and Action Plan. with Disabilities Services‐Victims of Domestic Violence Services‐homeless 73. Anchorage Museum of Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Anchorage Museum of History and Art by e‐ History and Art Services‐Children Market Analysis mail. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were

54 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type Services‐Elderly to improve coordination and to include their input in the Persons Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Education 74. Archdiocese Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Archdiocese by e‐mail. The anticipated @ 225 Cordova Street Services‐Children Homelessness Strategy outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Persons homeless Plan and Action Plan. Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with with Disabilities children Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs – Veterans with HIV/AIDS Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐Victims of youth Domestic Market Analysis Violence Services‐homeless 75. Carey Homes Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Carey Homes by e‐mail. The anticipated Services‐Children Homeless Needs ‐ Families with outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Elderly children coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Persons Market Analysis Plan and Action Plan. 76. Civilian Personnel Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Civilian Personnel Advisory Center by e‐ Advisory Center Services‐homeless Homelessness Needs – Veterans mail. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were Services‐Education Economic Development to improve coordination and to include their input in the Services‐ Market Analysis Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Employment 77. Community Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted CDI by e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes of Development, Inc. (CDI) Services‐Children Public Housing Needs the consultation were to improve coordination and to Services‐Elderly Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Plan. Services‐Persons children with Disabilities Homelessness Needs – Veterans Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied with HIV/AIDS youth

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 55

Agency Agency What section of the Plan was How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and Group Group addressed by Consultation? what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or Organization Organization areas for improved coordination? Type Services‐Victims of Non‐Homeless Special Needs Domestic Market Analysis Violence Services‐homeless Service‐Fair Housing 78. HDR Alaska, Inc. Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted HDR Alaska by e‐mail. The anticipated Planning Market Analysis outcomes of the consultation were to improve organization coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. 79. Mclaughlin Youth Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted Mclaughlin Youth Center by e‐mail. The Center Services‐Health Market Analysis anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Education coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Other government ‐ Plan and Action Plan. State 80./ State of Alaska, DHSS Services‐Children Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted State of Alaska, Health & Social Services by Services‐Elderly Homelessness Strategy e‐mail. The anticipated outcomes of the consultation were Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Chronically homeless to improve coordination and to include their input in the Services‐Persons Homeless Needs ‐ Families with Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. with Disabilities children Services‐Persons Homelessness Needs – Veterans with HIV/AIDS Homelessness Needs ‐ Unaccompanied Services‐homeless youth Services‐Health Non‐Homeless Special Needs Services‐Education Market Analysis Other government ‐ State 81. University of Alaska Housing Housing Need Assessment CSD contacted University of Alaska by e‐mail. The Anchorage (UAA) (Meg) Services‐Health Market Analysis anticipated outcomes of the consultation were to improve Services‐Education coordination and to include their input in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan.

56 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

F. Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting: CSD made every effort to include as many community members and agencies as possible to involve them in the Consolidated Plan process. There was no decision to exclude any group. There was no decision to exclude any individual, agency, department, or group. G. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan – excerpts of each of Plan or summary of the efforts are included but does not represent the full Plan or efforts PR‐10 Table 2. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Anchorage Continuum of Care Grant MOA in 2011, 2012, There is an overlap for data driven goals, Goals and Objectives Jan‐March 2013 need to reduce number of homeless households with children, emphasis to Anchorage Coalition to provide number of beds needed for End Homelessness chronically homeless, importance to April 2013 to date evaluate discharge of persons from mental health, prisoner, hospital systems and foster care to avoid homelessness. Anchorage 10 Year Plan to End MOA Common goals: Establish a centralized or Homelessness (will be updated Housing And coordinated assessment system, beginning September 2013) Neighborhood maintain the AK Homeless Management Development Information System to track and identify Commission and the gaps in homeless services, support Commission’s Project Homeless Connect, measure Oversight outcomes goals for the CoC grant Subcommittee on application, present findings annual to Homelessness the Assembly and Mayor End Homelessness. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation AHFC Common goals to develop affordable (AHFC) 2012 Action Plan housing, target specific populations (victims of domestic violence, elderly, persons with disabilities), coordinate with community on use of vouchers. AHFC 2013 Action Plan AHFC See above. Anchorage Housing Market Analysis MOA Relationship to Strategic Plan that recognize lack of buildable land need to increase efficient land use, increase residential densities, expansion into large land holdings (Chugiak/Eagle River). State of Alaska, Prisoner Reentry State of Alaska, Common goal to provide affordable Task Force, Five Year Prisoner Department of housing for persons leaving correctional Reentry Strategic Plan, 2011‐2016 Corrections system

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 57

Mayor’s Homeless Leadership Team MOA Common goals to develop affordable housing, assist chronic public inebriates, support of the Cold Weather Plan, maintain/increase detox beds, support of “housing first” projects Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet (Work MOA Common goals: Establish single Group on Affordable Housing & department to act as liaison with Substance Abuse Treatment and homebuilders, coordination of Services) comprehensive housing development, review need for code changes, research use of Tax Increment Financing, consider revision of municipal regulatory requirements, target site for large housing to develop short‐ and long‐ term sober housing units, reinstitute Pathways to Recovery Program at the Anchorage Safety Center. Alaska VA Healthcare System VA Common goal: Commitment to ending Veteran homelessness by the end of 2015. Aligned with understanding that, “One who has served our country should ever go without a safe, stable place to call home.” H. Cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan The State of Alaska was contacted by e‐mail and phone. There was great emphasis placed in coordinating with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, the State Department of Corrections, and the State Department of Health and Social Services’ Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. Several presentations were made to Municipal Commissions such as the American Disability Act Commission, the Senior Commission, Health and Human Services Commission, and the Anchorage Women’s Commission. Also, local coalitions, including the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness, the Anchorage Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Child Abuse and Neglect Coalition were participants in the development of the Plan. The Municipal Neighborhood and Housing Development Commission and the Commission’s Oversight on Homelessness held several meetings and took testimony on the development of the Plan. Emails and in‐person contact was made with several Municipal departments, including: Anchorage Police Department, Employee Relations Department, Department of Health & Human Services, Information Technology Department, Legal Department, Office of Management and Budget, Public Works, Purchasing Department, Risk Management, and the Chief Fiscal Office. Several Municipal Departments are consulted in the preparation of Environmental Assessments including: The Community Development Department, Department of Health & Human Services, Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility (AWWU), Solid Waste Services, the Police Department, the Fire Department, Anchorage Parks and Recreation Department, Risk Management and the Legal Department. All Departments were consulted for the 2013 Action Plan and the 2013 ‐2017 Consolidated Plan. The Assembly reviews and approves the plans before submitting them to HUD. Some of the Departments do not have programs/projects/activities that target the low‐ and moderate‐ income (includes abused children, battered spouses, elderly persons, adults meeting federal definition of “severely disabled”, homeless

58 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

persons, illiterate adults, persons living with AIDS, and migrant farm workers) or help with the elimination of slum and blight, but several of them do. CSD contacted all departments by e‐mail, phone, and/or in person to coordinate gathering needed information for this Consolidated Plan.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 59

IV. PR‐15 Citizen Participation

A. 1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summary of citizen participation process and how it impacted goal‐setting: The Consolidated Plan is a product of research, consultation, and citizen participation. The Municipality provided participation opportunities in accordance with the current Consolidated Plan’s Citizen Participation Plan, as approved by the Anchorage Assembly and HUD. The preparation of the 2013 Action Plan began with consultation with public agencies. CSD sought first to identify potential needs, services gaps and key issues on which to focus the community outreach process. CSD conducted public presentations on the Consolidated Plan, Action Plan and Community Needs Survey. The Municipality encouraged community participation in the development of the 2013 Action Plan and the 2013 – 2017 Consolidated Plan. CSD is responsible for coordinating the citizen participation process. Community meetings were advertized in the Anchorage Daily News, a paper of general circulation and posted on the CSD website. Notices were sent out to a large e‐mail list. Presentations were made for the HAND Commission and for the Anchorage Assembly. The results of the Community Needs Survey are included in the Consolidated Plan and were used to establish the needs of the community. The Municipality Of Anchorage Citizen Participation Plan is included at the back this plan.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 61

PR‐15 Table 1. Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 1. Public  Minorities 11/2/2011 ‐ HAND No public comments No comments were received http://www.muni.org/ Meeting  Non‐English Commission Meeting ‐ received from the public. from the public. Departments/health/ Speaking ‐ Room 155, City Hall services/neighborhoods/ Specify other The hearing discussed the Documents/HANDMinutes1 language: amount of assistance the 10211.pdf Spanish Municipality expects to  Persons with receive in 2013, the range disabilities of activities to be  Non‐ consideration to benefit targeted/bro low‐ and moderate‐income ad persons, the priority needs community of the Consolidated Plan,  Residents of the five‐year strategies in Public and the Consolidated Plan Assisted designed to address those Housing needs, and a discussion of programs and activities necessary in the upcoming program year to carry out those strategies.

62 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 2.  Minorities A public notice was posted Ms. Worley gave public The MOA must fund new http://www.muni.org/ Newspaper  Non‐English in the Anchorage Daily comments for programs to address the Departments/health/ Ad Speaking ‐ News on October 21, 2011 NeighborWorks Anchorage. highest priority needs in the services/neighborhoods/ Specify other for public meeting on She said they were Consolidated Plan. Documents/DisplayAd1021 language: November 2, 2011 on the concerned about the CDBG 2011.pdf Spanish 2013‐2017 Consolidated and HOME appropriation  Persons with Plan and the 2013 Action cuts. She recommended that disabilities Plan. the MOA not fund new  Non‐ programs, but fund existing targeted/ programs, with a track broad record. She also community recommended the MOA cut  Residents of the TBRA program. Ms. Public and Worley spoke about the Assisted AnCHOR Program. Housing 3. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 1/4/2012 at the University Spanish Area Community Council  Persons with meeting. disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 63

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 4. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 1/5/2012 at the Downtown Spanish Community Council meeting.  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing 5. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and Commissioner Layman and N/A http://www.muni.org/ Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Newgent indicated they love Departments/health/ Speaking ‐ invited to the public where CSD is at. They services/neighborhoods/ Specify other presentation held on (HAND Commission) are Documents/HANDMinute0 language: 1/11/2012 at the HAND receiving more information 1112012.pdf Spanish Commission meeting. than they have in the past  Persons with and the rules and regulations disabilities are more transparent than in  Non‐ the past. targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

64 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 6. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 1/25/2012 at the Senior Spanish Citizens Advisory  Persons with Commission meeting. disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing 7. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 1/26/2012 at the Anchorage Spanish Coalition on Homelessness  Persons with General Membership disabilities meeting.  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 65

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 8. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/2/2012 at the Covenant Spanish House Staff meeting.  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing 10. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/2/2012 at the Bean’s Café Spanish Town Hall meeting.  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

66 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 11. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/7/2012 at Loussac Sogn Spanish Apartments.  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing 12. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/8/2012 at the Anchorage Spanish Women's Commission  Persons with meeting. disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 67

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 13. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/9/2012 at the AWAIC Spanish Shelter.  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing 14. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/9/2012 at the Fairview Spanish Community Council meeting.  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

68 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 15. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/13/2012 at the RurAL CAP Spanish All Staff meeting.  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing 16. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/16/2012 at STAR Alaska. Spanish  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 69

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 17. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/16/2012 at The Adelaide Spanish Apartments.  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing 18. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/16/2012 at STAR Alaska. Spanish  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

70 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 19. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/16/2012 at The Adelaide Spanish Apartments.  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing 20. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/21/2012 at a special Spanish Community Stakeholder  Persons with Meeting held at the BP disabilities Energy Center.  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 71

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 21. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/22/2012 at the Anchorage Spanish Senior Center Social Hour.  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/24/2012 at ACCESS Alaska. Spanish  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

72 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 23. Public  Minorities A variety of nonprofits and N/A N/A Meeting  Non‐English interested parties were Speaking ‐ invited to the public Specify other presentation held on language: 2/27/2012 at the Muldoon Spanish Park Strip Committee.  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing 24. Public  Minorities 2013 Action Plan PowerPoint Request to include the N/A Meeting  Non‐English Presentation for the MOA Mobile Home Repair Speaking ‐ Assembly May 4, 2012 Work Program in the 2013 Action Specify other Session. Plan. language: Spanish  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 73

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 25.  Minorities A public notice was posted in N/A N/A http://www.muni.org/ Newspaper  Non‐English the Anchorage Daily News Departments/health/ Ad Speaking ‐ on May 28, 2013 for public services/neighborhoods/ Specify other hearing on June 5, 2013 and Documents/ language: June 12, 2013 on the 2013‐ 2013ConsolidatedPlanADN Spanish 2017 Consolidated Plan and PublicNotice.pdf  Persons with the 2013 Action Plan. disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing 26. Public  Minorities A public Hearing on the 2013 Request by Older Persons Summary of comments not Hearing  Non‐English – 2017 CP and the 2013 AP Action Group to consider accepted and reason are Speaking ‐ was held at the June 5, 2013 funding new office site; included in the Executive Specify other HAND Commission meeting. however, the request was Summary. language: made outside the public Spanish hearing. Summary of  Persons with comments received are disabilities included in the Executive  Non‐ Summary. targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

74 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Mode of Target of Summary of Summary of comments Summary of comments not URL (If applicable) Outreach Outreach response/attendance received accepted and reasons 27. Public  Minorities A public Hearing on the No comments were received. N/A Hearing  Non‐English 2013 – 2017 CP and the Speaking ‐ 2013 AP was held at the Specify other June 12, 2013 HCOSH language: meeting. Spanish  Persons with disabilities  Non‐ targeted/ broad community  Residents of Public and Assisted Housing

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 75

V. NA 05 Overview and Findings for Funding 2013‐2017

This section introduces community’s needs for the next 5‐year period, including estimate and types of families in need of assistance for extremely low‐income, low‐income, moderate income, and middle‐income families. This review includes renters and owners and specifications for different categories of persons. The analysis used to determine the priority needs is a 2012 survey of Anchorage citizens, including Community Councils, Municipal Commissions, agencies serving the homeless, victims of interpersonal violence, and persons with disabilities. Local data is also used to identify target populations. A. Housing problems by Area Median Income (AMI) Substandard housing include households by income level without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower, and kitchen facilities that lack a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or a refrigerators. The following live in Substandard Housing conditions:  47% of Renters with a 0‐30% AMI  43% of Owners with a >50 – 80% AMI Severely Overcrowded households have complete kitchens and bathrooms, but house more than 1.5 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms. The following live in Severely Overcrowded conditions:  47% of Renters with a >30% – 50% AMI  37% of Owners with a >30‐50% AMI  39% of Owners with a >30‐50% AMI Overcrowded households have complete kitchens and bathrooms, but house more than 1 to 1.5 persons per room excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms.  44% of Renters in the >50‐80% AMI  39% of Owners in the >50‐80% AMI  37% of Owners in the >80‐100% AMI Housing cost burden is a fraction of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance and utilities. Housing cost burden greater than 50% of household income do not have problems identified with substandard housing, severely overcrowding, and overcrowding.  70% of Renters with a 0‐30% AMI  38% of Owners with a 0‐30% AMI Housing cost burden of greater than 30% is similar to 50% of household income issues, and similarly does not have the other housing problem.  40% of Renters in the >30‐50% AMI  42% of Renters in the >50‐80% AMI  46% of Owners in the >50‐80% AMI  40% of Owners at >80‐100%AMI

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 77

B. Households with one or more housing problems: Lacks kitchen or bathroom, Overcrowding, Cost Burden  58% of Renters with a 0‐30% AMI  26% of Renters with a >30‐50% AMI  33% of Owners in the 0‐30% AMI  26% of Owners in the >30‐50% AMI  26% of Owners in the >50‐80% AMI C. Cost Burden by Household Type (Small Related, Large Related, Elderly, Other) and AMI (See NA 10 Table 7) Percentage of households with housing cost burdens more than 30% of their income in comparison to the area median income of the household. Disproportionately represented households of housing cost burden greater than 30% of household income Renters  64% of Elderly Renters with a 0‐30% AMI  41% of Large Related Family Renters with 0‐30% AMI  38% of Small Related Family Renters in the >30‐50% AMI  37% of Other Renters in the >30‐50% AMI  27% of Small Related Family Renters in the >50‐80% AMI  32% of Large Related Family Renters in the >50‐80% AMI Owners  37% of Elderly Owners in the 0‐30% AMI  32% of Other Owners in the 0‐30% AMI  26% of Large Related Owners in the >30‐50%  35% of Elderly Owners in the >30‐50 AMI  61% of Small Related Owners in the >50‐80% AMI  59% of Large Related Owners in the >50‐80% AMI Disproportionately represented households at a Cost Burden greater than 50% of household income Renters  85% of Elderly Renters with a 0‐30% AMI  74% Large Related Renters with a 0‐30% AMI  74% Other Renters with a 0‐30% AMI  31% of Small Related Renters with a >30‐50% AMI  7% of Large Related Renters with a >50‐80% AMI

78 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Owners  57% of Elderly Owners in the 0‐30% AMI  47% of Other Owners in the 0‐30% AMI  37% of Small Related Owners in the >30‐50% AMI  41% of Large Related Owners in the >50‐80% AMI  33% of Small Related Owners in the >50‐80% AMI  30% of Other Owners in the >50‐80% AMI D. Percentage of households that are overcrowded, defined by HUD, as households with more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms. Renters  39% of Other, non‐family households in the 0‐30% AMI  30% of Single family households in the 0‐30% AMI  30% of Single family households in the >30‐50 AMI  83% of Multiple, unrelated family households in the >50‐80% AMI Owners  16% of Single family Owner households in the 0‐30% AMI  28% of Single family Owner households in the >30‐50% AMI  88% of Multiple, unrelated family households in the >50‐80% AMI E. Other Identifying Needs  A total of 7,986 Anchorage children live in poverty; with the largest percentage under five years of age. The greatest percentage (41%) of male children in poverty is under the age of 5 years and between 6 to 11 years of age (28%). Female children in poverty show a similarity, with the greatest percentage (34%) of female children in poverty under 5 years of age and between 6 to 11 years of age (26%).  According to the Anchorage School District Child in Transition/Homeless (CIT/H) Project from 2007/2008 (2,829 children) to 2011/2012 (4,277 children) school year there was an increase of 49% of children meeting the definition of homeless.  On average over the past five school years, the majority of ASD children identified in the CIT/H Project live doubled‐up (42%) or in a shelter (26%). F. Disproportionately Affected Racial Groups A disproportionately greater need exists when the members of racial or ethnic group at an income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10% or more) than the income level as a whole of the population. A household is identified as having a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities;

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 79

3. Household is overcrowded which means there is more than 1.5 persons per room and excludes bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms; and, 4. Household is cost burdened. The following households have been identified as having a disproportionate need with a housing problem. Households with 0‐30% AMI and disproportionate representation with one or more of four housing problems  Black Renter households account for 84% of all households Households with 30.1‐50% AMI and disproportionate representation with one or more of four housing problems  White Owners account for 44%  Black Owners account for 47%  American Indian/AK Native account for 37%  Other Renters account for 70%  Pacific Islanders account for 95% Households with 50.1%‐80% AMI and disproportionate representation with one or more of four housing problems  Black Renters account for 42%  American Indian/AK Native Owners account for 35%  Other Renters account for 71% Households with 80% ‐ 100% AMI and disproportionate representation with one or more of four housing problems  Other Owners account for 69% A disproportionately greater need exists when members of a racial or ethnic group at an income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10% points or more) than the income level as a whole for severe housing problems. HUD defines severe housing problems as: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room not including bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms; and, 4. Households with housing cost burdens that exceed 50% of the monthly income. The following households have been identified as having a disproportionate need with a housing problem. Households with 0‐30% AMI  Black Renter households account for 77%  American Indian/AK Native households account for 67%  Pacific Islander households account for 89% Households with 30.1% ‐ 50% AMI  Black Owner households account for 28%  Black Renter households account for 37%

80 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

 Pacific Islander Renter households account for 49%  Other Renter households account for 32% Households with 50.1% ‐ 80% AMI  Asian Owner households account for 19% Disproportionately greater need is identified by HUD as income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has a greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole. A disproportionately greater need exists when the members of racial or ethnic group reflect a greater rate of 10% or more compared to households as a whole for those experiencing Housing Cost Burdens. HUD defines Housing Cost Burdens as Housing Cost to Income Ratio in the following manner:  No Cost Burden ‐ Housing Cost to Income Ratio is less than 30%;  Cost Burdened ‐ Housing Cost to Income Ratio is from 30.1% to 50%; and,  Severe Cost Burdened ‐ Housing Cost to Income Ratio is greater than 50.1%. With this understanding of the definition, the following racial or ethnic groups have a disproportionate greater need in the area of housing cost burdens:  Black households account for 31% for Severe Cost Burdened  Pacific Islanders households account for 33% for Cost Burdened G. Homelessness The scope of Anchorage’s homeless is captured primarily through the Alaska Homeless Management Information System (AKHMIS), the Alaska Veteran’s Affairs Office, Anchorage, and the State of Alaska, Department of Corrections. The following information is highlighted to identify Anchorage’s homelessness:  The majority of homeless individuals are adults (80%), followed by families (18%) and unaccompanied youth (2%).  A total of 199 veterans were identified as homeless, of which 31 were unsheltered.  An average 373 individuals are in Emergency Shelters, and on average a total of 320 beds are available. Anchorage does not have adequate emergency shelter beds.  In 2011, a total of 6,700 persons, including men, women and children were in an emergency shelter or transitional housing. Of this total, 5,719 unduplicated persons were identified. (AKHMIS 2011 data).  In 2011, a total of 911 persons were identified with a disability and were either in Emergency Shelter or Transitional Housing.  A total of 937 are estimated to becoming homeless each year.  Of the subpopulations (Chronically Homeless Individuals, Chronically Homeless Families, Veterans, Unaccompanied Youth) an estimated 46% (255) are comprised of chronically homeless individuals.  While comprising 39% of the overall population of Anchorage’s homeless population, American Indian/AK Natives individuals account for 42% of individuals staying in the city’s emergency shelters.  American Indian/Alaskan Native families in emergency shelters account for 27% of the population, followed by Native American/Pacific Islander (20%), and then Black or African American (15%) and Multiple Races (15%).

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 81

 According to information collected by the State of Alaska, Department of Corrections, 40% of incarcerated inmates or probationers reported being homeless prior to their incarceration. H. Special Need Populations This section of the Plan describes the housing needs of persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing. The Consolidated Plan is using HUD’s definitions for elderly and frail elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Note for purposes of this Plan for the elderly:  Elderly is 62 years of age and greater;  Frail elderly (defined as an elderly person who requires assistance with three or more activities of daily living, such as bathing, walking, and performing light housework); and,  Extra elderly is 75 years and older, and represents a population with different needs than those who are 62‐74 years of age. HUD identifies and collects information in CHAS data on housing problems. A household is identified as having a housing problem if they have any one or more of the following four problems:  Lack complete kitchen facilities;  Lack complete plumbing facilities;  Household is overcrowded; and,  Household is cost burdened. The following information identifies populations within Anchorage that are disproportionately represented with housing problems. Elderly and Extra Elderly  For the 0%‐30% of the Area Median Income both the Elderly Owners at 38% and Extra Elderly Owners at 36% are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which are greater than 24% for all Owner households.  For the 30.1%‐50% of the Area Median Income both the Elderly Owners at 47% and Extra Elderly Owners at 35% are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which are greater than 25% for all Owner households.  For the 50.1%‐80% of the Area Median Income, the Elderly Owners at 29% and Extra Elderly Owners at 25% are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which are greater than 24% for all Owner households.  For the 80.1%‐95% of the Area Median Income, the Elderly Owners at 32% and Non‐Elderly Owners at 31% are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, greater than 30% for all Owner households. Persons with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities  For the 0%‐30% of the Area Median Income the Disabled is disproportionately represented with Housing Problems in comparison to All Renter households.  For the 50.1% ‐ 80% of the Area Median Income the Disabled is disproportionately represented with Housing Problems in comparison to All Renter households.  For the 80% and above of the Area Median Income the Disabled Owner is disproportionately represented with Housing Problems in comparison to All Renter households.

82 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

 Disabled Renters are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems in comparison to All Renter households. The following information represents populations with specific needs for their group. Persons and Families Living with HIV/AIDS Aside from medical conditions and special needs for persons and families living with HIV/AIDS, the 4A’s agency provided the following information in 2012:  16 families were homeless when they came to the Four A’s, Anchorage’s local provider to serve this population.  2 families were identified by Four A’s as currently on the verge of homelessness.  1 family is currently homeless was assisted by Four A’s. Domestic Violence The Anchorage Domestic Violence Prevention Project provided the following information in 2012/2013:  A total of 471 household clients were assisted by the Anchorage Domestic Violence Prevention Project (ADVPP), which provides emergency financial assistance.  A total of 51 households were relocated for safety under ADVPP.  The areas of ADVPP emergency financial need for domestic violence households were travel/transportation (57%) and housing (27%), food and clothing (5%), and health and safety (4%). Travel comprises the greatest percentage due to the need for “relocation” for safety reasons. Sexual Assault According to data provided by Standing Together Against Rape, Inc. (STAR) in 2012 many victims are in need of safe and secure housing.  The majority of sexual assaults take place in or near the victim’s home, or in the homes of relatives or neighbors – thus, for many survivors of sexual violence, home is not safe.  Of those, 71 of the sexual violence perpetrators were individuals located in the home of the victim.  Sexual assault, specifically at the hands of a family member, jeopardizes housing.  Non offending parent must make a choice between keeping their children safe or fleeing their home.  If the offending parent is arrested, the non offending parent is faced with struggles to pay rent.  Shelter and housing needs of sexual violence survivors are often overlooked ‐ in fact, survivors are seldom asked about their housing concerns.  STAR provides emergency shelter, and works with AWAIC but struggles with the cost of providing emergency shelter to male clients (28 males in the month of August sought services).

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 83

NA‐05 Table 1. Community Needs Survey Results Top seven Public Facility needs in Anchorage Rank Public Facility High Priority 1 Homeless Facilities 223 2 Abused/Neglected Children Facilities 218 3 Mental Health Facilities 158 4 Child Care Centers 151 5 Youth Centers 150 6 Senior Centers 122 7 Handicapped Centers 121 NA‐05 Table 2. Top five Public Service Priorities Rank Public Service Priorities High Priority 1 Handicapped Services 214 2 Youth Services 168 3 Transportation Services 168 4 Senior Services 154 5 Child Care Services 148 NA‐05 Table 3. Top five Priorities for Homeless: Subpopulations Rank Homeless ‐ Subpopulations High Priority 1 Chronically Homeless Individuals and Families 210 2 Families with children 207 3 Victims of Domestic Violence or Similar Life Threatening Condition 206 4 Unaccompanied youth 165 5 Persons with Chronic Substance Abuse 160 NA‐05 Table 4. Top five Public Service Priorities for Non‐Homeless Special Needs Rank Public Service Priorities for Non‐Homeless Special Needs High Priority 1 Victims of Domestic Violence or Similar Life Threatening Condition 202 2 Persons at Risk of Homelessness 173 3 Frail Elderly 170 4 Severe Mental Illness 169 5 Families with Children 164 NA‐05 Table 5. Top three Public Improvement needs in Anchorage Rank Public Improvements High Priority 1 Sidewalks 151 2 Street Improvements 114 3 Flood Drainage Improvements 94

84 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

VI. NA 10 Housing Needs Assessment

A. Introduction According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) has a total land area of 1,704.68 square miles and includes the Anchorage Bowl, Chugiak and Eagle River, and Girdwood (Turnagain Arm). The MOA is considered a county under the U.S. Census, and is identified as a unified home rule municipality, which means city government and borough governments are merged. Since the 2000 Census, the MOA had an increase of 31,543 persons or an increase of 12.1% for a total population in 2010 of 291,826. This section of the Plan provides summary of Anchorage’s estimated housing needs projected over the next five years. This section includes demographic information, number of households, and median income. Additional information presented is census tract information. An analysis is presented before each table, as well as citations or sources of information. This section also reviews housing needs of populations that are at‐risk or at‐imminent risk of homelessness. Department of Labor and Workforce Development, U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94‐171) Summary File, Table PL1, and 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94‐171) NA‐10 Map 1. Anchorage Vicinity Map

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 85

B. Summary of Demographics Table 1 presents Anchorage’s population, number of households, and median income, as well as the percentage change from 2000 to 2010. NA 10 Table 1 Housing Needs Assessment Demographics Demographics Based Year: 2000 Most Recent Year: 2010 % Change Population 260,283 291,826 12%+ Households 100,368 113,032 12%+ Median Income $73,004 $75,485 3%+ Source: 2010 U.S. Census/American FactFinder/People QuickFacts @: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. Table 2 shows the majority of the Anchorage population at 66% is White, followed by persons reporting two or more races at 8.1% and Asian at 8.1%, and American Indian and Alaska Native at 7.9%. NA 10 Table 2 U.S. Census 2010 Demographic Information for Anchorage Race Percentage White 66.0% Black 5.6% American Indian and Alaska Native 7.9% Asian 8.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 2.0% Persons reporting two or more races 8.1% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin 7.6% White persons not Hispanic 62.6%

This Consolidated Plan will cover Anchorage’s population needs 2013 through 2017 for decent housing, suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities. According to the U.S. Census and state economists estimates, Anchorage will have an average growth rate of 3,019 per year beginning in 2013 through 2017. The table below shows this growth rate per year, and estimated population for Anchorage for each year. NA 10 Table 3 Municipality of Anchorage Population Year Population 2013 302,009 2014 304,555 2015 307,606 2016 310,658 2017 313,709 Source: Estimates based on 2010 U S Census and AK Dept of Labor and Workforce Development, Alaska Population Projections, 2010‐2034, Section 3, February, 2011 C. U.S. Census by Tract The U.S. Census recognizes census tracts as permanent statistical subdivisions of a county. Census tract boundaries are delineated so that statistical comparisons can be made from census year to census year. The spatial size of census tracts varies on the density of the geographical area. Anchorage has a total of 55 census tracts. See 2010 U S Census Tract information outlined and related populations.

86 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 10 Table 4 Municipality of Anchorage, 2010 U.S. Census by Tracts Total Total Anchorage Census Tract Anchorage Census Tract Population Population 1.01 5,736 17.31 5,823 1.02 5,259 17.32 6,179 2.01 4,110 18.01 4,907 2.02 5,947 18.02 5,537 2.03 10,549 19 4,194 2.04 3,381 20 3,748 3 8,000 21 3,787 4 5,937 22.01 5,053 5 1,988 22.02 2,960 6 7,747 23.01 7,088 7.01 5,949 23.02 4,791 7.02 5,107 23.03 9,273 7.03 5,706 24 3,299 8.01 7,323 25.01 4,993 8.02 4,407 25.02 5,236 9.01 4,906 26.01 4,784 9.02 3,141 26.02 5,805 10 4,131 26.03 6,341 11 940 27.02 9,670 12 3,718 27.11 6,589 13 3,059 27.12 9,068 14 5,224 28.11 6,313 15 5,104 28.12 7,166 16.01 4,092 28.13 4,579 16.02 4,224 28.21 5,050 17.01 6,843 28.22 4,020 17.02 5,258 28.23 5,217 17.31 5,823 29 2,570 17.32 6,179

Individual census tracts in the MOA with the largest populations include Tract 2.03, Eagle River at 10,549; Tract 27.02 Old Seward/Ocean View at 9,670; Tract 23.03, Sand Lake at 9,273; and Tract 27.17, Bay Shore/Klatt at 9,068. Tract 11, representing Downtown had the lowest population at 940. Chugiak and Eagle River became annexed to the Municipality of Anchorage, when the City of Anchorage and the Greater Anchorage Area Borough were unified in 1975. The area north of Fort Richardson to the

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 87

municipal boundary includes Eagle River, Chugiak, Birchwood, Peters Creek, Thunderbird Falls, and Eklutna. The 2010 Census reflects a population of 23,987 in Eagle River and an additional 10,995 in Chugiak, Birchwood, Peters Creek, Thunderbird Falls, and Eklutna. Girdwood adds another 2,570 to Anchorage’s population. Girdwood is located on Turnagain Arm in the Municipality of Anchorage, 35 miles southeast of downtown Anchorage. The area is accessed by the Seward Highway. Girdwood is bordered on three sides by the Chugach State Park and Chugach National Forest.1

1 Alaska Community Database Community Information Summaries Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Division of Community & Regional Affairs

88 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA‐10 Map 2. Anchorage Census Tracts

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 89

D. Number of Households Table 5 represents levels of housing by income range, family type and type of housing problems. This data is provided by HUD’s 2010 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). A Small Family Household is defined as a family with two to four members. A Large Family Household is a family with five or more members. Households are represented according to HUD’s Adjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI). NA 10 Table 5 Total Households ** Total >30‐ >80‐ 0‐30% >50‐80% >100% Households By Type of Households 50% 100% HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI Type of HAMFI HAMFI* Households Total Households 9,675 10,380 17,815 11,675** 0 49,545 Small Family Households 3,325 4,205 7,890 36,505 0 51,925 Large Family Households 745 900 1,915 6,335 0 9,895 Household contains at least one person 62‐74 years of age 1,280 1,240 1,945 1,200 6,435 5,665 Household contains at least one person age 75 or older 1,050 975 960 700 2,010 3,685 Households with one or more children 6 years old or younger 2,380 2,645 4,485 11,515 0 21,025 Source: 2010 CHAS data, pre‐populated by HUD * The highest income category for these family types is >80% HAMFI **Special Note: The Municipality is waiting for clarification regarding information in the column for >80%‐ 100%‐‐it is not possible that the Small Family Households for >80‐100% HAMFI is 36,505 which is greater than Total Households of 11,675. The numbers in this column do not add up; therefore, the Municipality may use other data sources. Table 5a uses data from Table 4 to represent the different type households by percentage of Total Households in the housing inventory by area median income. This table reflects a significant percentage for “Households contains at least one person age 75 or older” at 18% and 17% in comparison with Total Households with other types of households in the 0‐30% HAMFI and >30‐50% HAMFI respectively. NA 10 Table 5a Total Households by Percentage >30‐ >50‐ >80‐ Total 0‐30% >100% Type of Households 50% 80% 100% Percent HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI age Total Households 20% 21% 36% 24% 0% 100% Small Family Households 6% 8% 15% 70% 0% 100% Large Family Households 8% 9% 19% 64% 0% 100% Household contains at least one person 11% 10% 16% 10% 53% 100% 62‐74 years of age Household contains at least one person age 18% 17% 17% 12% 35% 100% 75 or older Households with one or more children 11% 13% 21% 55% 0% 100% 6 years old or younger Source: 2010 CHAS data * The highest income category for these family types is >80% ‐100% HAMFI

90 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

E. Housing Needs Summary Tables for Several Types of Housing Problems Housing cost burden is a fraction of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance and utilities. Households with housing cost burden greater than 50% of household income are identified in this table, and do not have problems identified with substandard housing, severely overcrowding, and overcrowding. Housing cost burden of greater than 30% is similar to 50% of household income issues, and similarly does not have the other housing problem. Households with zero negative income (and none of the other housing problems) are also identified in this table. Table 6 displays the overall number of households with housing problems by tenure and HUD Adjusted Area Median Income (AMI). The table is pre‐populated with 2010 CHAS data developed by HUD. Substandard Housing include households by income level without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower, and kitchen facilities that lack a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or a refrigerators. Severely Overcrowded households have complete kitchens and bathrooms, but house more than 1.5 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms. Overcrowded households have complete kitchens and bathrooms, but house more than 1 to 1.5 persons per room excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms. Needs Assessment Section\Section C NA 10 Housing Assessment Tables 2‐7.xls NA 10 Table 6 Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Renter Owner >80‐ >80‐ 0‐ >30‐ >50‐ 0‐ >30‐ >50‐ 100 100 30% 50% 80% Total 30% 50% 80% Total % % AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Substandard Housing ‐ Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen 260 120 135 40 555 60 40 95 25 220 facilities Severely Overcrowded ‐ With >1.51 people per room (and complete 110 290 95 125 620 15 75 80 35 205 kitchen and plumbing) Overcrowded ‐ With 1.01‐1.5 people per room (and none of the above 470 290 715 140 1,615 85 115 320 310 830 problems) Housing Cost Burden greater than 50% of income (and none of the 4,420 1,640 210 50 6,320 1,995 1,460 1,350 385 5,190 above problems) Housing Cost Burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the 870 3,220 3,410 645 8,145 200 715 2,850 2,480 6,245 above problems) Zero/negative Income (and none of 175 0 0 0 175 120 0 0 0 120 the above problems) Source: 2010 CHAS Table 5a shows 47% (260/555) of Renters with a 0‐30% AMI live in substandard housing in the city. And, 70% (4,420/6,320) of renters in the same AMI (0‐30%) have a Housing Cost Burden greater than 50% of income. Also, 47% (290/620) of Renters with a >30 – 50% AMI live in Severely Overcrowded conditions in comparison with the other AMI in the same row which includes 18%, 15% and 20% respectively. Renters in the >30‐50% AMI are represented at 40% (3,220/8,145), a little less than Renters in the >50‐80% AMI which shows 42% (3,410/8,145) for Housing Cost Burden greater than 30% of income in comparison with the other AMI. Renters in the >50‐80% AMI show a much greater percentage of 44% (715/1,615) for Overcrowded conditions in comparison with the other AMI. Table 6a also shows 38% (1,995/5,190) of Owners with a 0‐30% AMI have a Housing Cost Burden greater than 50% of income. Owners with a >30‐50% are represented at 37% (75/205) for Severely Overcrowded. Owners

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 91

with a >50 – 80% AMI are represented higher than other AMI for the following: at 43% (95/220) for Substandard Housing, at 39% (80/205) for Severely Overcrowded, at 39% (320/830) for Overcrowded, and 46% (2,480/6,245) for Housing Cost Burden greater than 30% of income. Owners in the >80‐100% AMI represent 37% (310/830) for Overcrowded housing Problems. Owners at >80‐100%AMI represent 40% (2,480/6,245) for Housing Cost Burden greater than 30%. NA 10 Table 6a Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) by Percentage Renter Owner 0‐ >30‐ >50‐ >80‐ 0‐ >30‐ >50‐ >80‐ 30% 50% 80% 100% Total 30% 50% 80% 100% Total AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Substandard Housing ‐ Lacking complete 47% 22% 24% 7% 100% 27% 18% 43% 11% 100% plumbing or kitchen facilities Severely Overcrowded ‐ With >1.51 people per 18% 47% 15% 20% 100% 7% 37% 39% 17% 100% room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) Overcrowded ‐ With 1.01‐1.5 people per 29% 18% 44% 9% 100% 10% 14% 39% 37% 100% room (and none of the above problems) Housing Cost Burden greater than 50% of 70% 26% 3% 1% 100% 38% 28% 26% 7% 100% income (and none of the above problems) Housing Cost Burden greater than 30% of 11% 40% 42% 8% 100% 3% 11% 46% 40% 100% income (and none of the above problems) Zero/negative Income (and none of the above 100% 0 0 0 100% 100% 0 0 0 100% problems) Table 7 displays the number of households with no housing problems, one or more housing problems, and negative income by tenure and HUD adjusted Area Median Income (AMI). The table is populated by HUD’s 2010 CHAS data. Based on HUD’s definition, having one or more of four housing problems means the households have at least one of the following: cost burden, overcrowding, lack of a complete kitchen, or plumbing facilities.

92 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 10 Table 7 Housing Problems (Households with one or more Housing problems: Lacks kitchen or bathroom, Overcrowding, cost burden) Renter Owner 0‐ >30‐ >50‐ >80‐ 0‐ >30‐ >50‐ >80‐

30% 50% 80% 100% Total 30% 50% 80% 100% Total AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Having 1 or more of four 5,260 2,335 1,155 350 9,100 2,155 1,690 1,840 760 6,445 housing problems Having none of four 1,545 4,550 9,040 4,330 19,465 420 1,805 5,780 6,235 14,240 housing problems Household has negative income, but none of the 175 0 0 0 175 120 0 0 0 120 other housing problems Source: 2010 CHAS Table 7a for Housing Problems shows Renters with a 0‐30% AMI have a much greater percentage of 58% (5,260/9,100) for having 1 or more of four housing problems. A little over a quarter Renters at 26% (2,335/9,100) with a >30‐50% AMI also have a high representation for housing problems. Owners in the 0‐30% AMI have the greatest percentage of 33% (2,155/6,445) as having 1 or more of four housing problems. Owners at the >30‐50% AMI with 26% (1,690/6,445) and at the >50‐80% AMI with 29% (1,840/6,445) also have high percentages for housing problems. NA 10 Table 7a Housing Problems (Households with one or more Housing problems: Lacks kitchen or bathroom, Overcrowding, cost burden by Percentage Renter Owner >30‐ >50‐ >80‐ >30‐ >50‐ >80‐ 0‐30% 0‐30% 50% 80% 100% Total 50% 80% 100% Total AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Having 1 or more of four housing 58% 26% 13% 4% 100% 33% 26% 29% 12% 100% problems Having none of four 8% 23% 46% 22% 100% 3% 13% 41% 44% 100% housing problems Household has negative income, but 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0 0 0 100% none of the other housing problems Table 8 displays the number of households with Housing Cost Burdens more than 30% by household type and income based on Area Median Income (AMI). NA 10 Table 8 Cost Burden > 30% Area Median Income Renter Owner >50‐ >30‐ >50‐ 0‐30% >30‐50% 0‐30% 80% Total 50% 80% Total AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Small Related 2,170 2,295 1,625 6,090 635 810 2,225 3,670 Large Related 550 370 435 1,355 150 250 565 965 Elderly 1,150 445 205 1,800 850 805 635 2,290 Other 2,195 2,175 1,470 5,840 690 425 1,040 2,155 Total need by 6,065 5,285 3,735 15,085 2,325 2,290 4,465 9,080 income Source: 2010 CHAS Data

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 93

Table 8a for Cost Burden greater than 30% of AMI shows Elderly Renters with a 0‐30% AMI are disproportionately represented at 64% (1,150/1,800) far exceeds the Total need by income at 40% (6,065/15,085). In the 0‐30% AMI Large Related Renters at 41% (550/1,335) are slighter higher than the 40% of Total need by income. Small Related Renters in the >30‐50% AMI at 38% (2,295/6,090) and Other Renters in the same AMI at 37% (2,175/5,840) are both greater than the Total need by income at 35% (5,285/15,085). Small Related Renters in the >50‐80% AMI are represented at 27% (1,625/6,090) and Large Related Renters in the same AMI at 32% (435/1,355) are disproportionately greater than the Total need by income of 25% (3,735/15,085). Elderly Owners with a 0‐30% AMI are disproportionately represented at 37% (850/2,290) and Other Owners at 32% (690/2,155) compared to Total Need by Income of 26% (2,325/9,080). Large Related Owners with a >30‐50% AMI represented at 26% (250/965) and Elderly Owners at 35% (805/2,290) are disproportionately greater than the Total need by income of 25% (2,290/9,080). Small Related Owners at the >50‐80% AMI represent 61% (2,225/3,670) and Large Related Owners at the >50‐80% AMI represent at 59% (565/965) are disproportionately represented in comparison to the Total need by income of 49% (4,465/9,080). NA 10 Table 8a Cost Burden > 30% Area Median Income by Percentage Renter Owner 0‐30% >30‐50% >50‐80% 0‐30% >30‐50% >50‐80% AMI AMI AMI Total AMI AMI AMI Total Small Related 36% 38% 27% 100% 17% 22% 61% 100% Large Related 41% 27% 32% 100% 16% 26% 59% 100% Elderly 64% 25% 11% 100% 37% 35% 28% 100% Other 38% 37% 25% 100% 32% 20% 48% 100% Total need by 40% 35% 25% 100% 26% 25% 49% 100% income

Table 9 displays the number of households with housing cost burdens more than 50% by household type and income based on Area Median Income (AMI). NA 10 Table 9 Cost Burden > 50% Renter Owner 0‐30% >30‐50% >50‐80% Total 0‐30% >30‐50% >50‐80% Total AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Small Related 1,860 855 40 2,755 570 690 620 1,880 Large Related 455 115 45 615 130 125 180 435 Elderly 810 125 20 955 765 375 195 1,335 Other 1,930 565 105 2,600 630 315 400 1,345 Total need by 5,055 1,660 210 6,925 2,095 1,505 1,395 4,995 income Source: 2010 CHAS Data Table 9a shows Elderly Renters far exceed at 85% (810/955) in the 0‐30% AMI and is greater than the Total need by income of 73% (5,055/6,925). Also in the 0‐30% AMI column Large Related Renter households at 74% (455/615) and Other Renter households at 74% (1,930/2,600) have percentages greater than the Total need by income of 73%. Small Related Renters in the >30‐50% AMI at 31% (855/2,755) is greater than the Total need by income of 24% (1,660/6,925). Large Related Renters in the >50‐80% at 7% (45/615) are greater than the Total need by income of 3% (210/6,925). Table 9a shows that Elderly Owners far exceed at 57% (765/1,335) in the 0‐30% AMI the Total need by income of 42% (2,095/4,995). In the same column, Other Owner households at 47% (630/1,345) exceed Total need by income of 42%. Small Related Owners in the >30‐50% AMI at 37% (690/1,880) exceed the Total need

94 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

by income of 30% (1,505/4,995). In the >50‐80% AMI column for Owners, Small Related at 33% (620/1,880), Large Related at 41% (180/435) and Other households at 30% (400/1,345) exceed the Total need by income of 28% (1,395/4,995). NA 10 Table 9a Cost Burden > 50% by Percentage Renter Owner 0‐30% >30‐50% >50‐80% Total 0‐30% >30‐50% >50‐80% Total AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Small Related 68% 31% 0.01% 100% 30% 37% 33% 100% Large Related 74% 19% 7% 100% 30% 29% 41% 100% Elderly 85% 13% 2% 100% 57% 28% 15% 100% Other 74% 22% 4% 100% 47% 23% 30% 100% Total need by 73% 24% 3% 100% 42% 30% 28% 100% income Table 10 shows the number of households that are overcrowded, defined by HUD as households with more than one person per room excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls or half‐rooms. The data is presented by household type, tenancy, and household income based on Area Median Income (AMI). NA 10 Table 10 Crowding Information Renter Owner 0‐ >30‐ >50‐ >80‐ 0‐ >30‐ >50‐ >80‐

30% 50% 80% 100% Total 30% 50% 80% 100% Total AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Single family households 545 550 750 0 1,845 100 175 355 0 630 Multiple, unrelated family households 0 10 55 0 65 0 10 70 0 80 Other, non‐family households 35 20 35 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 Total need by 580 580 840 0 2,000 100 185 425 0 710 income Source: ACS – Per HUD IDIS Table 10a shows Single family household Renters in the 0‐30% AMI at 30% (545/1,845) and Other, non‐family households at 39% (35/90) exceed the Total need by income of 29% (580/2,000). Single family households in the >30‐50% AMI at 30% (550/1,845) exceed the Total need by income of 29% (580/2,000). Multiple, unrelated family households in the >50‐80% AMI at 85% (55/65) far surpasses the Total need by income of 42% (840/2,000). Single family household Owners in the 0‐30% AMI at 16% (100/630) exceed the Total need by income of 14% (100/710). Single family household Owners in the 30‐50% AMI at 28% (175/630) exceeds the Total need by income of 26% (185/710). Also Multiple, unrelated family household Owners at >50‐80% AMI at 88% (70/80) is greater than the Total need by income at 60% (425/710).

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 95

NA 10 Table 10a Crowding Information by Percentage Renter Owner 0‐ >30‐ >50‐ >80‐ 0‐ >30‐ >50‐ >80‐ 30% 50% 80% 100% 30% 50% 80% 100% AMI AMI AMI AMI Total AMI AMI AMI AMI Total Single family 30% 30% 41% 0% 100% 16% 28% 56% 0% 100% households Multiple, unrelated 0% 15% 85% 0% 100% 0% 13% 88% 0% 100% family households Other, non‐family 39% 22% 39% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% households Total need by 29% 29% 42% 0% 100% 14% 26% 60% 0% 100% income NA 10 Table 11 Households with Children Renter Owner 0‐30% >30%‐ >51%‐ 0‐30% >30%‐ >51%‐ Total Total AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Households with

Children Present

Alternate Data HUD table; however, no information is available. The most common housing problem is the lack of housing, especially affordable housing. Second most common housing problem is the lack of funds for general maintenance. F. Most common housing problems HUD definitions for at‐risk and imminent risk of homeless This section introduces HUD’s definitions and guidelines that recognize at‐risk individuals and families with children, with especially low‐incomes. The outline below will help to identify and then describe at‐risk individuals and families in Anchorage. HUD’s At‐Risk of Homelessness definition has three categories applicable to:2 1. Individuals/families who Have annual incomes below 30% AMI; AND Do not have sufficient resources or support networks immediately available to prevent literal homelessness; AND Meet at least one of the following 7 conditions:  Moved two or more times due to economic reasons in 60 days prior to application for assistance  Living in home of another due to economic hardship  Losing housing within 21 days after application date  Live in hotel/motel not paid for by charitable organizations or Fed/state/local government programs

2 Determining Homeless and At‐Risk Status, Income, and Disability, Presentation by HUD, Community Planning and Development, December 20, 2011 and ESG Interim Rule: 576.500(c)

96 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

 Lives in severely overcrowded unit as defined by the US Census Bureau  Exiting publicly funded institution or system of care  Lives in housing associated with instability and increased risk of homelessness, per recipient Con Plan 2. Unaccompanied children/youth who qualify under other federal statutes Does not include children/youth who qualify under the homeless definition Does not include parents or guardians Regulations include the list of applicable other federal statutes 3. Families with Children and Youth Children/youth who qualify under the Education for Children and Youth program (§ 725(2) McKinney‐Vento Act) and the parents or guardians of that child/youth if living with him/her. HUD recognizes imminent risk of homelessness as an individual or family who will within 14 days their primary nighttime residence provided that no subsequent residence has been identified and the individual or family lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing. Economic and Social Factors Related to Homelessness

In addition of HUD’s outline of at‐risk individuals and families with children, well known research in the field of homelessness serves as a guide to identify other populations in Anchorage who do not fit HUD’s “at‐risk” definition, but do fall under related factors for homelessness. First and foremost, it is well understood that housing is the largest expense for the majority of low‐income households; 70 percent of whom rent.3 In 2009 across the U.S. there were 10 million extremely low‐income renter households, and only 3.6 million units were affordable and available to them.4 Homelessness is essentially caused by the inability of households to pay for housing.5 There are also risk factors associated with becoming homeless, including households with issues related to: extremely low‐ and very low‐ median income, lack of employment or employability, history of incarceration, head of household or household members with a disability, substance abuse, interpersonal violence (domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, child abuse and neglect), barriers to mainstream services, and the lack of affordable housing. 6 Among family households experiencing homelessness, the majority are headed by a single adult. As with single‐person households, single‐parent households are at increased risk of homelessness as their incomes are restricted and they may lack social support.7 Financial factors that emerge

3 Evidence Matters, A Spotlight on Rental Market Research, HUD PD&R, Spring 2011, found at http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/em/spring11/highlight2.html 4 Evidence Matters, A Spotlight on Rental Market Research, HUD PD&R, Spring 2011 5 National Alliance to End Homelessness, found at http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/the‐state‐of‐homelessness‐2013 6 National Alliance to End Homelessness, found at http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/families http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/domestic_violence http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/re_entry http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/mental_physical_health 7 National Alliance to End Homelessness, State of Homelessness in America, http://b.3cdn.net/naeh/ed46f16a6987df6b14_lym6b2829.pdf

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 97

as a barrier to homelessness include waiting for government benefit, a bad credit history, and landlords accepting housing vouchers such as Section 8 (federal rental subsidy). Nationally, children represent 24 percent of the population, but they comprise 34 percent of all people in poverty.8 Among all children under 18 years of age, 45 percent live in low‐income families and approximately one in every five (22 percent) live in poor families. Being a child in a low‐income or poor family does not happen by chance. There are a range of factors associated with children’s experiences of economic insecurity, including race/ethnicity and parents’ education and employment.9 Each year in the U.S one in forty‐five children experience homelessness. While homeless, they experience high rates of acute and chronic health problems. The constant barrage of stressful and traumatic experience also has profound effects on their development and ability to learn.10 Evidence suggests that domestic violence is among the leading causes of housing instability (including homelessness) nationally for women and children. A recent study shows that housing policies and practices may inadvertently make it more difficult for women to secure stable housing after having left an abusive partner.11 Cost Burden To assist our community in identifying levels of low‐income households, HUD has set guidelines for Community Development Block Grant and HOME Program monies to assist households with specified or eligible income levels. HUD definitions of income for household Area Median Incomes (AMI) for the following: NA 10 Table 11 HUD Household Income Definitions HUD Definition HUD AMI Extremely Low 0% ‐ 30% Very Low 30% ‐ 50% HOME Low* 50% ‐ 60% Moderate 60% ‐ 80% * HOME Low is the cap to receive assistance in the HOME program for rental housing or for Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA). Each year, HUD provides each participating jurisdiction with a Household Income Limit table to ensure households who are most in need of CDBG or HOME monies meet eligibility requirements based on number of persons in the household. NA 10 Table 12 outlines the FY2012 Income Limits for households comprised of 1 to 8 persons. This information is used by the Municipality to match funding with projects that apply this information to their beneficiaries. This table also illustrates the Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low income limits as described above.

8 National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, Basic Facts About Low‐Income Children, Children Aged 12 through 17 Years, 2011, Sophia Addy, Will Engelhardt, and Curtis Skinner, January 2013 found at: http://nccp.org/publications/pub_1075.html 9 National Center for Children in Poverty, ibid 10 The National Center on Family Homelessness, Children, found at http://www.familyhomelessness.org/children.php?p=ts 11 Aggression and Violent Behavior, Domestic violence, housing instability, and homelessness: A review of housing policies and program practices for meeting the needs of survivors, Charlene K. Baker, Kris A. Billhardt, Joseph Warren, Chiquita Rollines, Nancy E. Glass, Volume 15, Issue 6, November – December 2010, Pages 430‐430, found at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13591789

98 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 10 Table 12 Anchorage Household Income* in the Past 12 Months (In 2010 Inflation‐Adjusted Dollars) FY 2012 FY 2012 Median Income 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Income Income Limit Person Person Person Person Person Person Person Person Limit Area Category Very Low (50%) $29,850 $34,100 $38,350 $42,600 $46,050 $49,450 $52,850 $56,250 Income Limits Extremely Anchorage $85,200 Low (30%) $17,900 $20,450 $23,000 $25,550 $27,600 $29,650 $31,700 $33,750 Income Limits Low (80%) Income $45,500 $52,000 $58,500 $65,000 $70,200 $75,400 $80,600 $85,800 Limits Source: HUD found at http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il2012/2012summary.odn. Anchorage Children in Poverty Table 14 shows the greatest percentage (41%) of male children in poverty is under the age of 5 years and between 6 to 11 years of age (28%). Female children in poverty show a similarity, with the greatest percentage (34%) of female children in poverty under 5 years of age and between 6 to 11 years of age (26%). According to the U.S. Census, a total of 7,986 Anchorage children live in poverty; with the largest percentage under five years of age.12 NA 10 Table 13 Anchorage figures for Children in Poverty

Total Population for Anchorage Population Whom Poverty Status is Determined 281,124 Male Female Under 5 years 1,749 41% 1,234 34% 5 years 176 4% 305 8% 6 to 11 years 1,224 28% 966 26% 12 to 14 years 498 12% 565 15% 15 years 251 6% 159 4% 16 and 17 years 416 10% 443 12% Total 4,314 100% 3,672 100% U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2007‐2011 5‐Year Data for Anchorage Municipality Poverty thresholds are the dollar amounts used to determine poverty status. The same thresholds are used throughout the United States (do not vary geographically). This information is updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI‐U). Although the thresholds in some sense reflect family needs, they are intended for use as a statistical yardstick, not as a complete description of what people and families need in order to live. Each person or family is assigned one out of 48 possible poverty thresholds. Thresholds vary according to:  Size of the family

12 U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2007‐2011

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 99

 Ages of the members NA 10 Table 14 Poverty Thresholds for 2010 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years

Related children under 18 years Weighted Size of Family average Unit Eight thresholds None One Two Three Four Five Six Seven or more One person (unrelated individual) 11,139 Under 65 years 11,344 11,344 65 years and over 10,458 10,458

Two people 14,218 Householder under 65 years 14,676 14,602 15,030 Householder 65 years and over 13,194 13,180 14,973

Three people 17,374 17,057 17,552 17,568 Four people 22,314 22,491 22,859 22,113 22,190 Five people 26,439 27,123 27,518 26,675 26,023 25,625 Six people 29,897 31,197 31,320 30,675 30,056 29,137 28,591 Seven people 34,009 35,896 36,120 35,347 34,809 33,805 32,635 31,351 Eight people 37,934 40,146 40,501 39,772 39,133 38,227 37,076 35,879 35,575 Nine people or more 45,220 48,293 48,527 47,882 47,340 46,451 45,227 44,120 43,845 42,156 Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh10.xls At‐Risk Families with Children and Youth in Anchorage School District The Anchorage School District (ASD), Child In Transition/Homeless (CIT/H) Project is an integral part of the District's Title I Program which provides services to homeless children and youth. The CIT/H goal is to promote school stability and success for homeless students. The McKinney‐Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act, which was reauthorized as part of No Child Left Behind in 2002, guides decisions in determining eligibility and services provided. Homeless children and youth defined by CIT/H Project Many families experience unemployment, job changes, health crisis, or other circumstances that can cause the loss of a permanent home. Students in homeless situations lack fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence. Examples of homeless living situations include:  Living in an emergency shelter, transitional residence or a domestic violence shelter  Staying in a motel or hotel for economic reasons  Living with a friend, relative or someone else because they lost their home or can't afford a home  Emergency foster care or awaiting foster care placement  Living in cars, at campgrounds, or other public places

100 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

 Staying in substandard housing  Living in a runaway or homeless youth shelter CIT/H in the Anchorage community In the 2010‐11 school year, more than 3,800 homeless children and youth were identified by CIT/H in the Anchorage community. Of these, more than 2,400 were enrolled as students in the Anchorage School District. The CIT/H staff collaborates with ASD teachers, principals, nurses and counselors, as well as community agencies to serve homeless students and their families. In addition to the children and youth temporarily residing in shelters, the CIT/H Project also works with children and youth who stay in other transitional living situations such as tents, campgrounds, motels, cars or with friends. CIT/H staff works with parents to assist them with their roles as first educator, helper and advocate in their child's continuing educational experience. Child in Transition Data 2008/09‐2011/12: Families, Students and Children Served ASD is required to identify all children within the Anchorage School District that meet the Department of Education’s (DOE) definition of homeless. Families with children that meet this definition may be living in any of the following situations:  Emergency shelter  Transitional housing  Awaiting foster care placement  Car/camping  Motels*  Doubled‐up/couch surfing*  Unaccompanied youth  Families living in motels or doubled‐up may qualify if they have lost their housing and can no longer afford housing of their own. NA 10 Table 15 ASD Children Meeting the DOE Definition of Homeless School Year Families ASD Students Children and Youth 2007/2008 856 1,752 2,829 2008/2009 1,130 2,010 3,435 2009/2010 1,264 2,331 3,765 2010/2011 1,371 2,431 3,829 2011/2012 1,493 2,645 4,227 % Change from 2008 to 2012 +74% +51% +49% Initial Nighttime Residence At intake ASD is required to document where the family is currently staying and the type of living situation that is: shelter, transitional housing, and doubled‐up/couch surfing or other (includes awaiting foster care, car/camping). Child in Transition receives daily lists from Anchorage shelters serving families and children.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 101

NA 10 Table 16 Living Conditions for ASD Families Shelter Motel Doubled‐ Transitional Other Car / Up Housing Camping 2007/08 932 274 885 196 487 28 2008/09 1041 232 1202 152 420 44 2009/10 603 253 1390 163 444 50 2010/11 849 268 1662 190 584 107 2011/12 781 360 1862 150 634 67 Number of Nighttime Residences Because CIT provides transportation assistance to school, we usually know where our students are staying and track that information for the school year. The chart below shows the percentage of our children and youth that stayed in 1‐2 residences in the year, 3‐4, 5‐6, and 7+ for the past five years. NA 10 Table 17 Percentage of Children/Youth Staying in a Residence per Year 1‐2 3‐4 5‐6 7+ >2 2007/08 77.7% 15.9% 5.0% 1.8% 22.3% 2008/09 78.1% 15.8% 4.3% 3.0% 21.9% 2009/10 78.2% 14.9% 7.4% 3.2% 21.8% 2010/11 79.5% 14.5% 6.2% 2.3% 20.5% 2011/12 79.3% 13.3% 3.1% 4.3% 20.7% The following NA Tables are from ASD Children In Transition/Homeless Data. NA 10 Table 18 Episodes of Homelessness 2004/2005 ‐ 2008/2009

102 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 10 Table 19 Episodes of Homelessness 2005/2006 ‐ 2009/2010

Episodes of Homelessness 2005/06‐2009/10 6000

5006 5000 1 Year‐‐76.6% 2 Years‐16.5% 3 Years‐‐4.7% 4 Years‐‐1.9% 3834 4000 5 Years‐‐0.2%

3000 Only At Least

2000

1172

1000 827

345 236 109 97 12 12 0 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years

NA 10 Table 20 Episodes of Homelessness 2007‐2011

Episodes of Homelessness 2007‐2011 6000

5247

5000 1 Year in CIT: 82.3% 4319 2 Years in CIT: 14.2% 4000 3 Years in CIT: 3.0% 4 Years in CIT: 0.6% 5 Years in CIT: 0.04%

3000 Series2

2000

928 1000 742

155 186 29 31 2 2 0 12345

Number of Years CIT

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 103

Programs in Anchorage serving at‐risk or low‐income households Emergency Solutions Grants The Municipal DHHS provides direct emergency financial assistance to other households who are literally homeless or will imminently lose their residence. This financial assistance is provided through HUD Emergency Solutions Grant dollars. Under HUD Emergency Solutions Grant there are four categories of homelessness:13 1. Literally homeless individuals/families 2. Individuals/families who will imminently (within 14 days) lose their primary nighttime residence with no subsequent residence, resources or support networks 3. Unaccompanied youth or families with children/youth who meet the homeless definition under another federal statute and 3 additional criteria 4. Individuals/families fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence with no subsequent residence, resources or support networks Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing Project (HPRP) In June 2009, the DHHS was awarded ARRA HUD monies for the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing Project (HPRP) monies totaling $776,469. For up to three years, monies will fund: United Way, Alaska 2‐1‐1 staff to support the Information Line; one full‐time community case manager at Catholic Social Services (CSS); one full‐time community case manager at Covenant House Alaska, and one educator at Salvation Army McKinnell Shelter. And, for one year, monies will support one full‐time case manager at the DHHS Safety Links Program. The goal of the HPRP is to provide financial assistance for the prevention of homelessness and/or to rapidly re‐house households who are able to sustain themselves after receiving HPRP funding and who meet other eligibility criteria. The HPRP Plan is for case managers to expend $255,000 of the federal dollars on rent and utility arrearages, security deposits and monthly rent and housing services. The HPRP Policy Team included: DHHS Director; United Way Executive Director, Alaska 2‐1‐1; CSS Executive Director; and Covenant House Alaska, Director. In 2011, the HPRP Policy Team changed the model based on the Emergency Services Program that assisted with “immediate financial support” for rental/utility arrearages or rental/utility deposits to short‐ and long‐ term case management services. Further, as part of a system change initiated in 2010, United Way 2‐1‐1 Helpline was coordinating referrals for case management services. The table shows the average amount needed for households in 2011 was $2,569 and in 2012, $1,582. NA 10 Table 21 HPRP Households served 2010‐2012 2010 2011 2012 Total Total Households (HH) Served 209 91 35 335 Total Expenditures $210,000 $233,811 $55,361 $499,172 Average Per HH $1,005 $2,569 $1,582 In June 2010, the HPRP Policy Team approved a contract with University of Alaska student and DHHS intern, Aubrey Lee, to work with Safety Links Program staff to conduct a follow‐up survey to determine their housing status after HPRP “emergency financial assistance” was provided. Ms. Lee applied a survey tool she introduced to the project during her internship with DHHS Safety Links Program. This report revealed that between November 3, 2009 and March 31, 2010, a total of $210,000 HPRP funds were distributed to 209 households. Of the 209 households assisted, 63% were at Imminent Risk* of becoming homeless in the near

13 Determining Homeless and At‐Risk Status, Income, and Disability, Presentation by HUD, Community Planning and Development, December 20, 2011 Homeless Definition Final Rule, Consolidated Plan Regulations: 24 CFR Parts 91, SHP 582.301(b) and SPC 583.301(b).

104 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

future, 27% were At Risk*, and 10% were Literally Homeless*14. Of the 96 households that responded to the survey, 67% were Stably Housed* six months after assistance. This is an average of $1,005 per household. Through December 2010, an approximate balance of $45,000 was remaining to be spent in 2011. After the HPRP monies expired in 2012, the Municipality worked with Catholic Social Services, to continue the Rapid Re‐housing model using ESG funds. Project Homeless Connect Additional information regarding poor or low‐income families can be gleaned from Project Homeless Connect (PHC), a single day event that provides essential services and referrals to those in need. This section reviews three years of data (2010 – 2012) collected for PHC and collapsed through the Alaska Homeless Management Information System staff into annual reports of the participants.15 For purposes of this report, rounded percentages to whole numbers were made with the exception of percentages below 1%. For this report as well, categories which were not included “Null (No Response)” or “No” responses when a “Yes” response was available. To help identify trends, percentages were used for all tables. Some information was not collected until 2011; therefore, there are missing data points in some of the 2010 columns. Following the three year assessment, the percentage of Female and Males participants has remained consistent. The majority of PHC attendees were male (63%) in comparison to female (36%). NA 10 Table 22 Gender of PHC Households Total Count 2010 2011 2012 Female 282 37% 308 36% 266 36% Male 480 62% 535 63% 463 63% Transgender 2 .3% 1 .1% 1 0% No Response 5 1% 3 .4% 0 0% Total 769 100% 847 100% 730 100% PHC Age Groups Table NA 10 Table 23 shows the two age groups with the greatest percentage of representation and consistency over three years at PHC are 41‐50 and 51‐61. NA 10 Table 23 Age Groups of PHC Households by Percentage 2010‐2012 Household Type 2010r 2011 2012 Less than 18 .3% 4% 0% 18 ‐ 21 4% 6% 2% 22 ‐ 30 12% 14% 14% 31 ‐ 40 17% 17% 18% 41 ‐ 50 38% 29% 29% 51 ‐ 61 21% 26% 30% 62 and over 6% 7% 6% No Response 2% 1% 0% Total Count 769 847 730

14 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development definitions under the Homeless Prevention and Rapid ReHousing guidelines and award instructions 15 See Alaska Homeless Management Information website and reports at: http://www.muni.org/Departments/health/community/Pages/link.aspx

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 105

PHC Household Types NA 10 Table 24 shows for Adult Households (no children) types, there was a significant percentage drop in 2011. The percentage for Households w/ Children under the age of 18 has been fairly consistent with an average of 13% over three years. In 2011, there were 149 more adults in households than in 2012 (1,129‐ 980). However, the average number of Adults in Households is 1.3 over a two year review. NA 10 Table 24 PHC Household Type Household Type 2010 2011 2012 Adult Household (no children) 82% 67% 88% Household w/ Children under the age of 18 15% 13% 12% Household with 2+ Adults 18% Unaccompanied Minor (Under 18) .3% .1% 0% Total Households 755 831 707 # of Adults in Households 1,129 980 Average # of Adults in Households 1.36 1.38 PHC Household Member Information Beginning in 2011, NA 10 Table 25 reflects total percentage of Adults and Children with Disabilities. This table also identifies the average number of children per household. Research suggests that stable housing is important for healthy child development.16 However, children living in low‐income families are twice as likely as other children to have moved in the past year and three times as likely to live in families that rent a home. According to date collected from PHC for three years, the average number of children under the age of 18 in PHC participant homes per year is 222 (666/3 years). NA 10 Table 25 PHC Household Member Information Household Member Information 2010 2011 2012 # of Adults in Household 1,129 980 % of Adults with Disability 9% 14% # of Children Under 18 in 200 262 204 Households % of Children with Disability 3% 2% # of Attendees plus Household 1,391 1,184 Members Average Children per Household 1.9 2.3 2.4 PHC Information on Location Where Last Slept Further, information regarding last location where the family or individual slept shows patterns of housing instability. Table 26 shows the highest percent of participants were already in an emergency shelter throughout each of the three years under review. Most likely these households represent single adult males and/or females. Many households were in the category for Renting Apartment/House or under Stayed With Friends or Family. It is most likely households in these categories are families with children.

16 National Center for Children in Poverty, referencing Aratani, Y. (2009). Homeless children and youth. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, found at http://nccp.org/publications/pub_1075.html#9

106 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 10 Table 26 Where the participant slept last night (prior to PHC day event) Location where last slept 2010 2011 2012 Domestic Violence Shelter (i.e. AWAIC) 1.1% 2% Emergency Shelter (i.e. Brother Francis / Rescue 28% 33% 35% Mission) Foster Care / Group Home .1% .2% 0% Hospital (including Emergency Room) 1% .5% 0% Hotel / Motel (Due to Displacement) 10% 8% Jail, Prison or Juvenile Facility 6% .9% 0% Own House 3% 2% 1% Permanent Housing for Formerly Homeless .4% .1% 2% Place Not Meant for Habitation (i.e. Tent / Car) 8% 9% 4% Psychiatric Hospital or Facility (i.e. API) .3% 0% Rent Apartment / House 9% 10% 14% Rental by Client, with VASH housing subsidy .1% Rental by Client, with other (non‐VASH) housing subsidy .3% With Family 10% 11% 9% Stayed With Friends 19% 18% 14% Safe Haven .1% Subsidized Housing (i.e. Public Housing) 1% .6% 1% Substance Abuse Treatment Center 0% .1% 1% Transitional Housing for Homeless 4% 5% 8% Other 1% Does Not Know or Remember 0% 5% 0% Refused 0% .1% 0% No Response 3% 0% Homeless ‐ Based on HUD Criteria 45% 44% 48% Homeless ‐ Additional Alaska Criteria 35% 39% 31% Homeless ‐ Based on HUD + Alaska Criteria 80% 83% 79% Mainstream Services at PHC Although research presents mixed findings whether accessing safety net benefits is a sign of risk or protection for homelessness, it does indicate that a household with low‐income is eligible for benefits and may need additional resources to provide for essential needs. HUD completed a study that examined how seven communities sought to improve homeless people’s access to mainstream services, as a follow up examination to shift Supportive Housing Program funds toward housing activities. 17 The study found three groups of barriers.  Structural barriers are obstacles that prevent an eligible person from getting available benefits, such as where programs are located, how they are organized, or what they require of applicants. In each site, structural barriers represented both a significant frustration and a primary target of mechanisms for increased access. Homeless individuals and families face unique structural obstacles because, by definition or circumstance, they do not have the ready means of communication, transportation, regular address, and documentation that most mainstream programs require.

17 Strategies for Improving Homeless People’s Access to Mainstream Benefits and Services, prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, March 2010, found at http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/StrategiesAccessBenefitsServices.pdf

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 107

 Capacity barriers result from the inadequacy of available resources; funding may be finite or capped. While harder to reduce than structural barriers, most study communities managed to acquire new resources (usually state funds) to expand capacity for at least one mainstream benefit or service.  Eligibility barriers are program rules that establish the criteria for who may receive the benefit as well as time limits on receipt. Many eligibility restrictions are embedded in federal policy and cannot easily be influenced at the local level. Although Anchorage does not have a similar study to compare to HUD’s study, a review of PHC information shows the highest percentage identifying a primary source of cash include: Social Security (SSI, SSDI, SSA), Adult Public Assistance, and Native Dividends. Data was not available for 2010; however, the two year coverage displays consistent percentages for each mainstream service. Although it is important to point out: (1) the impressive drop in “Other Sources” in 2011 from 21% to 12% in 2012; and, (2) the increase of “No Income” in 2011 at 5% to 12% in 2012. NA 10 Table 27 Participant Income Primary Sources of Cash in Last 30 Days (Some attendees provided more than one primary source.) Mainstream Services 2011 2012 Adult Public Assistance 16% 14% ATAP / TANF 6% 3% Child Support .8% 1% Family / Friend Gifts 7% 6% Native Dividends 13% 13% Panhandling 4% 3% Pension 1% Social Security (SSI / SSDI / SSA) 23% 26% Unemployment 10% 9% Wages 9% 12% Other Sources 21% 12% No Income 5% 12% PHC Participant History of Homelessness, Employability and Health Insurance Table 28 shows consistency at “4+ times for “homeless over the three year span”. However, the “1 to 3 times” percentage rose from 54% to 67%. It will be important to compare this trend to information collected for 2013 PHC. NA Table 28 Participant History of Homelessness and General Information Participant History of Homelessness, Employment, Health Care, Veteran Status, and Receipt of Eviction Notice Participant Response 2010 2011 2012 Times Homeless in Last 3 Years 0 times 1% 9% 1 to 3 times 54% 67% 4+ times 24% 21% 23% Total Homeless (Homeless 75% 91% in Last 3 Years) Employed Yes 8% 9% Has Health Care (e.g. Indian Yes 72% 74% Health Care, Denali Kid Care, etc.) U.S. Military Veteran Yes 13% 15% 16% Received Eviction Notice this 6% Yes 5% 6% Month (if Housed)

108 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Additional information from the PHC also identified characteristics of homelessness, such as chronic substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness, and physical disability. PHC Participant Conditions Affecting Homeless or At‐Risk for Homelessness NA 10 Table 29 Participant identifying conditions affecting their ability to retain housing Conditions Affecting Ability to Retain Housing Participant Response 2010 2011 2012 Chronic Substance Abuse Yes 27% 20% 22% Yes (Women) 29% 9% 9% Domestic Violence Yes (Men) 4% 4% 4% Yes (Total % of Participants) 13% 13% 4% HIV / AIDS Yes 8% 1% 0.5% Mental Illness Yes 21% 15% 14% Physical Disability Yes 30% 22% 20% Continuum of Care Funded Agencies Assistance for Participants to Mainstream Services According to information collected for the Anchorage CoC FY2012 Application, for participants who were engaged in CoC‐funded projects 70% were receiving mainstream benefits at program exit.18 The Anchorage CoC far surpassed HUD’s national goal of 20% for CoCs across the country. A significant number of CoC‐funded agency beneficiaries rely on Medicaid and Medicare Health Insurance, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, and, Section 8, Public Housing, Rental Assistance. To continue meeting and surpassing the national goal the CoC‐funded agencies will: support case manager trainings by ACMHS for SSI/SSDI Outreach, Access, & Recovery otherwise known as SOAR, funded by the AK Mental Health Trust Authority; ensure all mainstream benefits are available at Project Homeless Connect (ACH); support RurAL CAP’s hosting quarterly training sessions to complete mainstream assessment during intakes; support AWAIC’s partnerships with AHFC to implement voucher programs for the Empowering Choice Housing Program (95 vouchers); ACH will work to ensure mainstream benefit organizations are members of the CoC; and, ACH will email SOAR training announcements. Anchorage’s most common housing problems. A review of the tables in this section show the most common housing problems in Anchorage are: Substandard Housing ‐ Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities Severely Overcrowded ‐ With >1.51 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) Housing cost burden greater than 50% of income (and none of the above problems) Housing cost burden greater 30% of income (and none of the above problems) Description of populations and/or household types that are more affected than others by Anchorage’s most common housing problems.  Households that contain at least one person age 75 or older far exceed by percentage 18% and 17% in the 0‐30% HAMFI and >30‐50% HAMFI other types of households.

18 CoC‐funded agencies included in the 70% are: Covenant House Alaska, Rights of Passage; Abused Women’s Aid In Crisis, Inc, Moving Forward Program; RurAL CAP, Homeward Bound; Anchorage Housing Initiatives (AHI), Coming Home I; Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), Anchorage Community Mental Health Services (ACHMS) Supportive Permanent Housing; ACMHS, Transitional SRO Housing Project; AHFC, RurAL CAP, Sponsor Based Rental Assistance; AHFC, Four As SRA; AHFC, AHI Coming Home II; Four As 6‐Plex Project.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 109

 Renters with a 0‐30% AMI are overrepresented at 46.8% for Substandard Housing and are also over represented in the 30‐50% AMI at 47% for Severely Overcrowded.  Renters with a 0‐30% AMI have a disproportionate percentage of 58% for having 1 or more of four housing problems; and, Owners with a 0‐30% AMI also have the greatest percentage of 33% as having 1 or more of four household problems.  Elderly Renters with a 0‐30% AMI are disproportionately represented for Cost Burden at 64% compared to total need by income of 40%; and, Elderly Owners with a 0‐30% AMI are disproportionately represented at 37% compared to total need by income of 26%.  Other Owners are disproportionately represented at 32% for Cost Burden in comparison to Total need by income of 26%.  Elderly Renters with 0‐30% AMI are disproportionately represented at 85% in comparison to Total need by income of 73%.  Large Related families Renters with 0‐30% AMI are disproportionately represented at 74% (455/615) in comparison to Total need by income at 73%.  Other families Renters with 0‐30% AMI are disproportionately represented at 74% (1,930/2,600) in comparison to Total need by income at 73%.  Elderly Owners with a 0‐30% AMI are disproportionately represented at 57% in comparison to Total need by income of 42%.  Other families Owners with 0‐30% AMI are disproportionately represented at 47% in comparison to Total need by income of 42%.  Other, non‐family Renters with a 0‐30% AMI are overrepresented in Crowding Information at 39% in comparison to Total need by income of 29%.  Single‐family Renters with a 0‐30% AMI and >30%‐50% AMI are disproportionately represented at 30% respectively in comparison with the Total need by income of 29%.  Single family Owners with a 0‐30% AMI are disproportionately represented at 16% in comparison to the Total need by income of 14%.  Single Family Owners with a >30%‐50%AMI are disproportionately represented at 28% in comparison to the Total need by income of 26%. G. Describe the characteristics and needs of Low‐income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low‐ income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered per 91.205(c) / 91.305(c). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re‐ housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance. According to data collected for 2012 Project Homeless Connect, approximately 113 households participated and had children in the household that was under the age of 18. The total number of children in the family was 204. The reasons given for at imminent risk of homelessness included: chronic substance abuse; domestic violence, mental illness, and physical disability. Only 9% of project attendees were employed. Also, a total 4,314 males and 3,672 females under the age of 18 are identified in “poverty status” in Anchorage.

110 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Catholic Social Services’ (CSS) Rapid Rehousing (RRH) Program, Anchorage, Alaska, assists families living in shelters or in places not meant for human habitation move as quickly as possible into permanent housing and achieve stability in that housing. The Rapid Rehousing Program offers case management and financial support for families to attain stability and avoid homelessness. CSS RRH Program is a component of the Homeless Family Services. During FY 2012, 884 individuals were served through Homeless Family Services, and 90% of families placed into permanent housing remained housed after 6 months.

H. If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at‐risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at‐risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates. The jurisdiction does not have an estimate of the at‐risk population; however, it does collect data for Project Homeless Connect, which assists the homeless and at‐risk populations. I. Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and in increased risk of homelessness. As outlined in this section, there are renters and owners who have housing problems that include: substandard housing; severely overcrowded and housing cost burden greater than 50% and 30%. Large related and small related families are identified with these housing problems. Research shows that “affordable housing” is the most significant barrier to economic stability. If a person is living in substandard or overcrowded housing, or is paying more than 30% or 50% of their household income, they are at imminent risk for homelessness. Other risk factors include extremely low‐income, lack of employment or employability, history of incarceration, household members with a disability, substance abuse and interpersonal violence. Almost all of these items are described by participants of Anchorage’s Project Homeless Connect. J. Discussion

Anchorage has significant numbers of families who are at‐risk populations, including small and large related families, single parents, and un‐related families in households. There are also a significant number of these families who are likely living in substandard housing, overcrowded conditions, and are cost burdened.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 111

VII. NA 15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems

A. Introduction This part of the plan provides an assessment for each disproportionately greater need identified for racial or ethnic groups of persons. A disproportionately greater need exists when members of a racial or ethnic group within a specified income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10% or more) than the income level as a whole of the population. As an example, a specified income level could be equal (=) or less (<) than 30% of the Area Median Income. A household is identified as having a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. Household is overcrowded which means there is more than 1.5 persons per room and excludes bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms; and, 4. Household is cost burdened. HUD identifies and collects information in CHAS data on “housing problems” and includes data housing units that that include any one of these housing problems. NA 15 Table 1 0%‐30% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 34% for Owner and = or > 74% for Renter Household has Has one or more of Has none of the no/negative Percentage with Population four housing four housing income, but none of Housing Problems problems problems the other housing problems Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 2,600 6,775 220 345 170 540 24% 64% White 1,695 3,555 130 155 170 415 28% 58% Black 235 1,255 0 0 0 0 16% 84% American Indian/AK Native 215 715 35 110 0 35 19% 64% Hispanic 195 470 0 0 0 70 27% 64% Other 140 380 0 0 0 10 26% 72% Asian 115 315 0 55 0 0 24% 65% Pacific Islander 0 85 0 25 0 15 0% 68% Source: CHAS Data, 2006 – 2008, Table 1 B. Discussion NA 15 – 0%‐30% For the 0%‐30% of the Area Median Income, All households Owner account for 24% and Renters account for 64% of households with one or more of four housing problems. A disproportionate percentage is 34% for Owners and 74% for Renters.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 113

NA 15 Table 2 30.1%‐50% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 35% for Owner and = or > 62% for Renter Household has Has one or more Has none of the no/negative Percentage with Population of four housing four housing income, but none of Housing Problems problems problems the other housing problems Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 2,695 5,535 925 1,005 0 585 25% 52% White 1,485 365 705 530 0 305 44% 11% Black 355 235 20 55 0 90 47% 31% American Indian/ AK Native 355 460 40 110 0 0 37% 48% Hispanic 265 570 35 125 0 10 26% 57% Other 215 545 15 0 0 0 28% 70% Asian 25 200 85 65 0 170 5% 37% Pacific Islander 0 3,165 30 120 0 10 0% 95% Source: CHAS Data, 2006 – 2008, Table 1 C. Discussion NA 15 – 30.1%‐50% For the 30.1% – 50% of the Area Median Income, All household Owners account for 25% and Renters account for 52% of households with one or more of four housing problems. A disproportionate percentage is 35% for Owners and 62% for Renters. NA 15 Table 3 50.1%‐80% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 34% for Owner and = or > 36%for Renter Household has Has one or more no/negative Has none of the four Percentage with Population of four housing income, but none of housing problems Housing Problems problems the other housing problems

Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 4,340 4,630 3,205 4,930 0 750 24% 26% White 3,020 2,765 2,430 3,165 0 510 25% 23% Black 505 760 100 280 0 160 28% 42% American Indian/AK Native 420 355 195 225 0 20 35% 29% Hispanic 215 285 190 555 0 0 17% 23% Other 90 270 0 20 0 0 24% 71% Asian 90 145 145 290 0 55 12% 20% Pacific Islander 0 50 150 390 0 0 0% 8% Source: CHAS Data, 2006 – 2008, Table 1 D. Discussion NA 15 – 50.1%‐80% For the 50.1% – 80% of the Area Median Income, All household Owners account for 24% and Renters account for 26% of households with one or more of four housing problems. A disproportionate percentage is 34% for Owners and 36% for Renters.

114 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 15 Table 4 NA 15 – 80.1%‐100% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 24% for Owner and = or > than 12% for Renter Household has Has one or more Has none of the four no/negative income, Percentage with Population of four housing housing problems but none of the other Housing Problems problems housing problems

Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 9,100 1,405 39,220 12,740 0 745 14% 2% White 6,600 760 33,575 9,400 0 530 13% 1% Black 705 290 995 985 0 40 23% 10% American Indian/AK Native 540 160 1,545 395 0 10 20% 6% Hispanic 460 75 940 590 0 10 22% 4% Other 395 60 0 120 0 0 69% 10% Asian 290 45 1,445 725 0 35 11% 2% Pacific Islander 115 15 725 520 0 30 8% 1% Source: CHAS Data, 2006 – 2008, Table 1 E. Discussion NA 15 – 80.1%‐100% For the 80.1% – 100% of the Area Median Income, All households Owners account for 14% and Renters account for 2% of households with one or more of four housing problems. A disproportionate percentage is 24% for Owners and 12% for Renters. F. NA 15 Overview of Significant Findings for Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems Key points for 0‐30% The population with disproportionate needs for the 0% ‐ 30% Area Median Income with one or more of four housing problems are Black household Renters at 84%. Key points for 30.1%‐50% The populations with disproportionate needs for the 30.1% ‐ 50% Area Median Income with one or more of four housing problems are: White Owners at 44%; Black Owners at 47%; and, American Indian/AK Native at 37%. Also, a disproportionate percentage is shown for: Other Renters at 70% and Pacific Islander Renters at 95%. Key points for 50.1%‐80% The populations with disproportionate needs for the 50.1% ‐ 80% Area Median Income with one or more of four housing problems are American Indian/AK Native Owners at 35%. Also, a disproportionate percentage is shown for: Black Renters at 42% and Other Renters at 71%. Key points for 80.1%‐100% The populations with disproportionate needs for the 80.1% ‐ 100% Area Median Income with one or more of four housing problems are Other Owners at 69%.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 115

VIII. NA 20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems

A. Introduction Under HUD guidelines a disproportionately greater need exists when members of a racial or ethnic group at an income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10% points or more) than the income level as a whole for severe housing problems. HUD defines severe housing problems as: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room not including bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms; and, 4. Households with housing cost burdens that exceed 50% of the monthly income. NA 20 Table 1 0%‐30% Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 39% for Owner and = or > 66% for Renter Household has Does not have no/negative Percentage with Has Severe Housing Population Severe Housing income, but none Severe Housing Problem Problem of the other Problems housing problems Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 2,365 6,000 455 1,125 170 540 29% 56% White 1,570 3,220 255 490 170 415 35% 53% Black 235 1,150 0 105 0 0 19% 77% Asian 95 210 55 215 0 35 18% 34% American Indian/AK Native 145 715 130 0 0 70 16% 67% Pacific Islander 0 85 0 0 0 10 0% 89% Hispanic 180 345 15 180 0 0 33% 48% Other 140 280 0 130 0 15 33% 50% Source: CHAS Data, 2006 – 2008, Table 2 B. Discussion NA 20 Table 1 For the 0%‐30% of the Area Median Income, All household Owners account for 29% and Renter households account for 56% of households with Severe Housing Problems. A disproportionate percentage is 29% for Owners and 66% for Renters.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 117

NA 20 Table 2 30.1%‐50% Area Median Income Disproportionate; = or > 26% for Owner and = or > 30% for Renter Household has Does not have no/negative Percentage with Has Severe Housing Population Severe Housing income, but none of Severe Housing Problem Problem the other housing Problems problems

Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 1,760 2,170 1,865 4,360 0 595 16% 20% White 885 1,055 1,305 2,640 0 305 14% 17% Black 245 325 35 190 0 90 28% 37% Asian 180 70 220 275 0 0 24% 9% American Indian/AK Native 135 55 115 425 0 20 18% 7% Pacific Islander 0 105 15 95 0 0 0% 49% Hispanic 290 330 145 310 0 170 23% 27% Other 25 230 30 430 0 10 3% 32% Source: CHAS Data, 2006 – 2008, Table 2 C. Discussion NA 20 – 30.1%‐ 50% For the 30.1%‐50% of the Area Median Income, All household Owners account for 16% and Renter households account for 20% of households with Severe Housing Problems. A disproportionate percentage is 26% for Owners and 30% for Renters. NA 20 Table 3 50.1%‐80% Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 19% for Owner and = or > 12% for Renter Household has Does not have no/negative Percentage with Has Severe Severe Housing income, but none Severe Housing Population Housing Problem Problem of the other Problems housing problems

Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 1,625 375 5,920 9,170 0 765 9% 2% White 1,205 245 4,240 5,670 0 530 10% 2% Black 40 45 150 995 0 160 3% 3% Asian 215 10 405 500 0 20 19% 1% American Indian/AK Native 15 0 265 705 0 0 2% 0% Pacific Islander 0 0 0 70 0 0 0% 0% Hispanic 60 0 590 645 0 55 4% 0% Other 85 75 275 585 0 0 8% 7% Source: CHAS Data, 2006 – 2008, Table 2 D. Discussion NA 20 Table 3 For the 50.1%‐80% of the Area Median Income, All household Owners account for 9% and Renter households account for 2% of households with Severe Housing Problems. A disproportionate percentage is 19% for Owners and 12% for Renters.

118 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 20 Table 4 80.1%‐95% Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 13% for Owner and = or > 11% for Renter Household has Does not have no/negative Percentage with Has Severe Housing Severe Housing income, but none of Severe Housing Population Problem Problem the other housing Problems problems Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 225 70 4,875 2,985 0 310 3% 1% White 155 40 3,580 2,160 0 185 3% 1% Black 0 0 200 225 0 0 0% 0% Asian 15 20 370 160 0 0 3% 4% American Indian/AK Native 35 10 315 90 0 80 7% 2% Pacific Islander 0 0 25 0 0 0 0% 0% Hispanic 0 0 320 225 0 15 0% 0% Other 10 0 70 125 0 30 4% 0% Source: CHAS Data, 2006 – 2008, Table 2 E. Discussion NA 20 Table 4 For the 80.1%‐95% of the Area Median Income, All household Owners account for 3% and Renter households account for 1% of households with Severe Housing Problems. A disproportionate percentage is 13% for Owners and 11% for Renters. NA 20 Table 5 95.1% or greater Area Median Income and Above Disproportionate: = or > 12% for Owner and N/A for Renter Household has Does not have no/negative Percentage with Has Severe Housing Population Severe Housing income, but none of Severe Housing Problem Problem the other housing Problems problems Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 855 80 42,365 10,990 0 455 2% 0% White 555 30 35,885 7,915 0 365 1% 0% Black 90 0 1,190 925 0 40 4% 0% Asian 60 0 1,725 250 0 10 3% 0% American Indian/AK Native 30 0 985 535 0 20 2% 0% Pacific Islander 15 0 75 175 0 0 6% 0% Hispanic 70 0 1,465 790 0 20 3% 0% Other 35 50 1,045 405 0 0 2% 3% Source: CHAS Data, 2006 – 2008, Table 2 F. Discussion NA 20 – 95.1% and greater For the households at 95.1% and greater of the Area Median Income, All household Owners account for 2% and Renter households account for 0% of households with Severe Housing Problems. A disproportionate percentage is 12% for Owners.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 119

G. NA 20 Overview of Significant Findings for Severe Housing Problems Key points for 0‐30%. The populations with disproportionate Severe Housing Problems for the 0%‐30% Area Median Income are Renters that are: Black at 77%; American Indian/AK Native at 67%; and, Pacific Islanders at 89%. Key points for 30.1%‐50% The populations with the disproportionate representation for the 30.1% ‐ 50% Area Median Income with severe housing problems as Owners are Black households at 28%. For Renters, the populations disproportionately represented are: Black at 37%; Pacific Islander at 49%; and, Other at 32%. Key points for 50.1%‐80% Population with a disproportionate representation for 50.1%‐80% Area Median Income, for Severe Housing Problems, is Asian Owner households at 19%. Key points for 80.1%‐95% There is no population with a disproportionate representation for 80.1%‐95% Area Median Income, with Severe Housing Problems. Key points for 95%+ There is no population with a disproportionate representation for the 95% and greater Area Median Income with Severe Housing Problems.

120 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

IX. NA 25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens

A. Introduction This section provides insight if there any income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole. Also, this section reviews whether the racial/ethnic group has other needs which are not identified in the disproportionate assessment. A disproportionately greater need exists when the members of racial or ethnic group reflect a greater rate of 10% or more compared to households as a whole for those experiencing Housing Cost Burdens. HUD defines Housing Cost Burdens as Housing Cost to Income Ratio. Therefore, the table below shows:  No Cost Burden ‐ Housing Cost to Income Ratio is less than 30%;  Cost Burdened ‐ Housing Cost to Income Ratio is from 30.1% to 50%; and,  Severe Cost Burdened ‐ Housing Cost to Income Ratio is greater than 50.1%. NA 25 Table 1 Housing Cost Burden 30.1% ‐ 50% No/Negative <=30% >50.1% Moderate Cost Income Anchorage No Cost Burden Severe Cost Burden Population Burden (not computed) Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 44,930 20,865 11,080 8,585 6,315 7,875 170 2,670 White 66% 37,385 13,910 8,095 5,285 4,160 4,270 170 1,800 Black 6% 1,250 1,550 365 1,010 570 1,395 0 285 Asian 8% 2,130 1,045 755 480 455 185 0 65 American Indian/ AK Native 8% 1,330 1,385 560 390 280 760 0 190 Pacific Islander 2% 55 270 75 145 0 115 0 10 Hispanic 8% 1,805 1,525 750 660 585 635 0 265 Other 8% 975 1,180 480 615 265 515 0 55 Source: CHAS Data, 2006 ‐ 2008, Table 9

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 121

This table breaks down the figures from the table above to show the percentage of each race/ethnic group for the different levels of Cost Burden. NA 25 Table 2 Housing Cost Burden by Ethnicity/Race Disproportionate: 29% for Moderate Cost Burden and 24% for Severe Cost Burden <=30% 30.1 ‐ 50% >50.1 Anchorage Groups Moderate Cost Population No Cost Severe Cost Burden Burden Burden

All 100% 64% 19% 14% White 66% 68% 18% 11% Black 6% 44% 21% 31% Asian 8% 62% 24% 13% American Indian/AK Native 8% 55% 19% 21% Pacific Islander 2% 49% 33% 17% Hispanic 8% 53% 23% 20% Other 8% 53% 27% 19% Source: CHAS Data, 2006 ‐ 2008, Table 9 B. Discussion NA 25 Table 2 ‐ Housing Cost Burden by Ethnicity/Race At 31% of Black households, there is a Severe Cost Burden, which is greater than 10% for All households. There is also a disproportionate percentage of Pacific Islanders at 33% at the 30.1 ‐ 50% for Moderate Cost Burden. C. NA 25 Overview of Significant Findings for Housing Cost Burden by Ethnicity/Race There are two groups disproportionately affected by Severe (31%) and Moderate Cost Burden (33%); for, Black and Pacific Islanders respectively.

122 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

X. NA 30 Overview of Significant Findings for Disproportionately Greater Need by Ethnicity/Race

A. Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole  For the 0%‐30% of the Area Median Income, All households Owner account for 24% and Renters account for 64% of households with one or more of four housing problems. A disproportionate percentage is 34% for Owners and 74% for Renters.  The population with disproportionate needs for the 0% ‐ 30% Area Median Income with one or more of four housing problems are Black household Renters at 84%.  The populations with disproportionate Severe Housing Problems for the 0%‐30% Area Median Income are Renters that are: Black at 77%; American Indian/AK Native at 67%; and, Pacific Islanders at 89%.  At 31% of Black households, there is a Severe Cost Burden, which is greater than 14% for All households.  There is a disproportionate percentage of Pacific Islanders at 33% at the 30.1 – 50% for Moderate Cost Burden. B. Needs not identified above All known needs have been identified. C. Racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community This section presents the percentage of racial or ethnic groups by Anchorage Census Tracts. Notably, there are Census Tracts that shows significant percentages of racial or ethnic groups located in the community. Census Tract 6 has a high percentage of American Indian/AK Native households (17%), African American households (14%), Asian households (6%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander households (9%), and 2 or more race individuals in households (11%). Tract 6 also includes White households at 27%. Census Tract 7.03 includes Asian households (16%), American Indian/AK Native (13%), and 2 or more race individuals in households (11%). Tract 7.03 also includes White households at 46%. Census Tract 8.01 includes Asian households (15%), 2 or more race individuals in households (11%), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (7%). Tract 8.01 has White households at 40%. Census Tract 9.01 includes African American households (13%), 2 or more race individuals in a household (12%), and Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islanders (5%). Tract 9.01 has White households at 35%. In Census Tract 9.02, there is a large majority of American Indian/AK Native Households (21%), African American Households (15%), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders (18%). Tract 9.02 has White households at 46%. Census Tract 19 includes high percentages of Asian (17%), American Indian/AK Native (13%), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (4%), as well as White households at 44%. Census Tract 20 includes Asian households (15%), American Indian/AK Native households (14%), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (4%). Tract 20 includes White households at 47%.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 123

See Appendix F for a full breakout by Census Tract and Population by Race. NA 30 Table 1 Percentage of American Indian/AK Native Households Greater than 20% of Area‐wide Percentage by Census Tract and Community Council Percentage of American Indian/AK Native Households by Census Tract At Least 20% Higher than Anchorage Census Tract Community Council Citywide Percentage of 7.9% 20% Higher = or > 9%) 21% 9.01 Fairview/Airport Heights 17% 6 Mt. View 16% 11 Downtown 14% 20 Spenard 13% 18.02 University Area/Campbell Park 13% 7.03 Northeast (Muldoon) 13% 19 Midtown 12% 14 North Star 12% 8.02 Russian Jack 11% 16.02 University Area 11% 8.01 Russian Jack Park 11% 21 Spenard 10% 24 Spenard 10% 7.01 Northeast (Muldoon) 10% 28.11 Abbott Loop 10% 17.31 Northeast (Muldoon) NA 30 Table 2 Percentage of African American Households Greater than 20% of Area‐wide Percentage by Census Tract and Community Council Percentage of African American Households by Census Tract At Least 20% Higher than Citywide Anchorage Census Tract Community Council Percentage of 5.6% 20% = or > 7% 15% 9.02 Fairview 14% 6 Mt. View 13% 7.02 Northeast (Muldoon) 13% 7.01 Northeast (Muldoon) 13% 9.01 Fairview/Airport Heights 12% 3 JBER 11% 8.02 Russian Jack Park 10% 8.01 Russian Jack Park 10% 7.03 Northeast (Muldoon) 10% 17.31 Northeast (Muldoon) 10% 4 JBER 9% 17.01 University Area/Scenic Foothills 9% 17.32 Scenic Foothills 7% 10 Fairview 7% 11 Downtown 7% 19 Midtown 7% 5 Government Hill 7% 17.02 Northeast (Muldoon)

124 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 30 Table 3 Percentage of Asian Households Greater than 20% of Area‐wide Percentage by Census Tract and Community Council Percentage of Asian Households by Census Tract At Anchorage Census Least 20% Higher than Citywide Community Council Tract Percentage 8.10% 20% = or > 10% 18% 6 Mt. View 17% 22.01 Turnagain 17% 19 Midtown 16% 7.03 Northeast (Muldoon) 16% 5 Government Hill 15% 8.01 Russian Jack Park 15% 20 Spenard 14% 27.12 Bayshore/Klatt 13% 26.01 Abbott Loop 13% 18.02 University Area/Campbell Park 13% 28.11 Abbott Loop 12% 26.02 Abbott Loop 12% 8.02 Russian Jack 11% 9.01 Fairview/Airport Heights 11% 23.03 Sand Lake 10% 23.01 Sand Lake 10% 9.02 Fairview

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 125

NA 30 Table 4 Percentage of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Households Greater than 20% of Area‐wide Percentage by Census Tract and Community Council Percentage of Native‐ Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Households by Census Tract At Anchorage Census Tract Community Council/Area Least 20% Higher than Citywide Percentage of 2% 20% = or > 2.4% 9% 6 Mt. View 7% 9.02 Fairview 7% 8.01 Russian Jack Park 5% 9.01 Fairview/Airport Heights 5% 8.02 Russian Jack Park 4% 21 Spenard 4$ 7.02 Northeast (Muldoon) 4% 16.01 Airport Heights 4% 19 Midtown 4% 20 Spenard 3% 24 Spenard 3% 5 Government Hill 3% 10 Fairview 3% 17.31 Northeast (Muldoon) 3% 23.02 Sand Lake 3% 14 North Star 3% 23.03 Sand Lake 3% 7.03 Northeast (Muldoon) 3% 25.02 Taku/Campbell 2% 17.01 University Area/Scenic Foothills 2% 16.02 University Area 2% 7.01 Northeast (Muldoon) 2% 15 Rogers Park/Tudor Area 2% 25.01 Taku Campbell 2% 17.32 Scenic Foothills 2% 22.02 Turnagain 2% 26.01 Abbott Loop 2% 17.02 Northeast (Muldoon) 2% 26.02 Abbott Loop 2% 26.03 Abbott Loop

126 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 30 Table 5 Percentage of 2 or more Race Households Greater than 20% of Area‐wide Percentage by Census Tract and Community Council Percentage of 2 or more Race Households by Census Tract At Least Anchorage Census Tract 20% Higher than Citywide Percentage Community Council/Area of 8.10% 20% = or > 10% 9.01 12% Fairview/Airport Heights 26.01 12% Abbott Loop 8.01 11% Russian Jack Park 6 11% Mt. View 18.02 11% University Area/ Campbell Park 17.31 11% Northeast 7.01 11% Northeast (Muldoon) 7.03 11% Northeast (Muldoon) 7.02 11% Northeast (Muldoon) 20 10% Spenard 17.32 10% Scenic Foothills 14 10% North Star 19 10% Midtown 9.02 10% Fairview 23.03 10% Sand Lake In relation to high percentages of race or ethnic groups in specific census tracts, the table below shows a high number of vacant for rent housing units in Tract 7.03 (93), Tract 6 (76), Tract 20 (59) and Tract 9.01 (53). NA 30 Table 6 Number of Vacant for Rent Housing Units by Census Tract Anchorage Census Number of Vacant for Rent Housing Units Tract 10 104 7.03 93 6 76 27.12 61 20 59 14 56 9.01 53 3 53 23.03 52 18.02 50 In relation to high percentages of race or ethnic groups in specific census tracts, the table below shows the number of vacant for sale housing units by Census Tract. Tract 7.01 (25) is identified with 11% percent of 2 or more race individuals in households.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 127

NA 30 Table 7 Number of Vacant for Rent Housing Units by Census Tract Anchorage Census Number of Vacant for Sale Housing Units Tract 26.01 38 27.12 36 27.02 35 23.03 34 28.11 33 17.31 26 7.01 25 2.03 25 23.01 25

128 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XI. NA 35 Public Housing

A. Introduction This plan includes a summary of the needs of Anchorage public housing residents. This information was gathered in consultation with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), the public housing agency for the Municipality of Anchorage. AHFC is a self‐supporting corporation with a mission to provide Alaskans with access to safe, quality, affordable housing. They provide a variety of affordable housing programs and tools, including the operation of public housing, housing choice vouchers, and project‐based assistance. They also finance housing developments through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, tax‐exempt multifamily loans, and the distribution of Federal and State housing grants. In addition, a variety of home loan programs for low‐ and moderate‐income residents are offered by the Corporation. AHFC promotes self‐sufficiency and well‐being for people in Anchorage by providing:  After‐school programs for children and youth in public housing developments;  The Gateway Learning Center – a program that offers family self‐sufficiency and educational resources as well as youth educational activities;  The Family Self‐Sufficiency Program;  Heavy chore services to frail elderly or disabled families;  Meals on Wheels program at elderly and disabled buildings;  Educational scholarships;  Summer camp scholarships for children in the Housing Choice Voucher program and residing in Public Housing units;  Set‐aside vouchers for families under the following programs: Qualified Medical Waiver (20 vouchers), Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (195 vouchers), Nonelderly Disabled (45 vouchers), Empowering Choice Housing Program (families displaced due to domestic violence, 214 vouchers);  A program targeted to youth aging out of foster care through a partnership with the State of Alaska Office of Children’s Services (50 coupons statewide);  A program targeting probationers/parolees through a partnership with the State of Alaska Department of Corrections (50 coupons statewide); and,  A fair share allocation (96 vouchers reserved statewide) for people with disabilities. B. Section 504 Needs Assessment In order to continue to serve those with special needs in our communities, AHFC has created set aside programs. For the elderly and disabled population, AHFC has 240 low‐income units. Additionally, AHFC has set aside 96 vouchers statewide, exclusively for persons with disabilities. Anchorage also has a set aside of 20 vouchers for individuals referred from Anchorage Community Mental Health Services. AHFC also conducts an annual ADA‐504 needs assessment to create priorities for modifications and planned unit improvements, such as enlarging door openings, adding grab bars in bathrooms and hallways, installing automatic doors, and removing carpet to facilitate wheelchair movement. For new construction, AHFC complies with ADA‐504 on all new construction and renovation projects and ensures that at least five percent of the units, or one unit (whichever is greater), will accommodate a person with mobility impairments. Lastly, AHFC offers a well‐defined Reasonable Accommodation process that covers families from the application process through unit modification requests. Additionally, AHFC offers language interpretation services to those families with limited English proficiency. AHFC operates 506 Public Housing Program units

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 129

of which 120 elderly/disabled populations are provided low income housing. There are 137 Section 8 new Multifamily Housing Program units of which 120 serve units serve the elderly/disabled exclusively. There are 70 Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program single‐room occupancy units serving individuals. There are 43 vouchers reserved for individuals with disabilities. The Arc of Anchorage, Hope Community Resources, and Focus are a few of the organizations that provide housing and services to the disabled population. C. Number and type of families on the waiting lists for public housing and Section 8 tenant‐based rental assistance The number and type of families on the waiting lists for public housing and Section 8 tenant‐based rental assistance are included in the attached tables above. AHFC provides housing‐related research, planning, and program development services for Alaskan communities. In Anchorage, AHFC operates:  506 Public Housing Program units, of which 120 serve elderly/disabled populations exclusively  137 Section 8 New Multifamily Housing Program units, of which 120 serve elderly/disabled populations exclusively  48 affordable housing units which accept individuals with vouchers  70 Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program single‐room occupancy units serving individuals who qualify as homeless under the McKinney‐Vento Act  2,344 Housing Choice Vouchers  64 project‐based voucher units  43 vouchers reserved for individuals with disabilities  95 vouchers reserved for individuals displaced due to domestic violence  20 vouchers reserved for referrals from Anchorage Community Mental Health Services  155 vouchers reserved for referrals from the Alaska VA Healthcare System (VASH vouchers) AHFC also provides monthly rental subsidy equivalent to 35 project‐based vouchers for persons at the Karluk Manor, a Housing First development targeting chronically homeless individuals with substance abuse and alcohol addictions. As of April 2013 in Anchorage there were over 1,500 on the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list and over 3,000 on the waiting list for various AHFC‐owned rental assistance units. The Anchorage Housing Choice Voucher waiting list has gone to a lottery system, approximately every 2‐3 years the voucher waiting list will open to applicants for a month. Those applicants will then be worked off the waiting list for the next 2‐3 years, until the waiting list is nearly exhausted, at which point another lottery is held. AHFC has conducted two such lotteries in the past three years, and the process has streamlined and provided a more efficient and effective way for applicants to manage their housing needs. Prior to the lottery, the list was never closed, there was a preference system in which people would apply and based on preference points would move to the top of the list. Those without high preference points had been waiting on the list for more than eight years. With this new process, this no longer occurs. In the past year AHFC has created three new transitional tenant‐based rental assistance programs: the Empowering Choice Housing Program for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault; the Youth Aging Out of Foster Care program for youth are between 18‐24 that transitioning to independent living, and the Parolee/Probationer Re‐Entry program for those transitioning out of the state prison system.

130 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

D. Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders The lack of affordable housing in the Anchorage area is evidenced by the very low vacancy rates. Many times this is most acutely felt by low income residents. In particular, the waiting list in Anchorage indicates that one and two bedroom waiting lists are in the highest demand, and units that provide accessible features for the disabled are also very much needed.  Information regarding AHFC FY2012 activities can be found in its FY2012 Moving to Work Report at: http://www.ahfc.us/files/9913/5754/7544/mtw_annual_report_fy12_102612‐1.pdf  Information regarding AHFC FY2013 Moving to Work Annual Plan is at: http://www.ahfc.us/files/5113/6736/1808/mtw_2013.pdf.  Information regarding AHFC FY2014 Moving to Work Annual Plan is at: http://www.ahfc.us/files/9713/6736/1483/mtw_2014.pdf. E. Needs above compared to the housing needs of the population at large The needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders are the same as those of the population at large except the population at large may not have any assistance in obtaining and maintaining affordable housing. There is a very low vacancy rate in Anchorage and housing is a problem for many low‐ and moderate‐income residents. In 2010 McDowell Group, prepared an Anchorage Housing Market Analysis. The study’s key finding is that there is not enough buildable land to accommodate future housing demands under historical development patterns, development options and current land use policies. Anchorage will need to increase efficient land use, increase residential densities, increase the supply of buildable land by expansion into further large land holdings, facilitate redevelopment and ensure affordable housing. F. Discussion There is a lack of affordable housing in Anchorage and AHFC is a key player in providing as much housing and housing assistance with the limited funding that is available. As of 2010 there were 5,800 acres of buildable residential land in the Anchorage Bowl, including 5,200 acres of vacant undeveloped land and 600 partially vacant land that has space to be further subdivided or developed. Within the next 20 years it is expected the demand for approximately 18,200 new dwellings in Anchorage will be needed, which will force Anchorage to expand its geographic boundaries. Financial feasibility is a concern also for the four housing prototypes:  Small lot single family detached units  Infill townhouses  Mid‐rise residential development  Mid‐rise mixed‐use development Local costs for compact and other forms of housing are high. Anchorage Construction costs are 37% higher than the nation’s average.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 131

NA 35 Table 1 Totals in Use Program Type Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Family Mod‐ Public Project Tenant Supportive Unification Disabled Certificate Rehab Housing Total ‐based ‐based Housing Program * # of units voucher s in use 0 70 496 2,301 39 2,262 96 0 0 * Includes Non‐Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One‐Year, Mainstream Five‐year, and Nursing Home Transition Source: AHFC NA 35 Table 2 Characteristics of Residents by Program Type Program Type Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Family Mod‐ Public Project Tenant Supportive Unification Disabled Certificate Rehab Housing Total ‐based ‐based Housing Program * Average Annual Income 0 9,261 18,147 16,779 20,617 16,713 11,093 0 0 Average length of stay 0 3.3 6 6.25 N/A 6.25 1.5 0 0 Average Household size 0 1 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 # Homeless at admission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Elderly Program Participants (>62) 0 6 119 347 8 339 0 0 0 # of Disabled Families 0 26 146 804 12 792 35 0 0 # of Families requesting accessibility features 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of HIV/AIDS program participants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of DV victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Includes Non‐Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One‐Year, Mainstream Five‐year, and Nursing Home Transition Source: AHFC

132 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 35 Table 3 Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Program Type Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Family Mod‐ Public Project Tenant Supportive Unification Race Certificate Rehab Housing Total ‐based ‐based Housing Program Disabled* White 0 49 243 1,026 11 1,015 53 0 0 Black /African American 0 8 89 617 3 614 39 0 0 Asian 0 2 58 174 16 158 1 0 0 American Indian /Alaska Native 0 10 80 318 1 317 12 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 25 118 5 113 0 0 0 Other 0 1 5 45 0 45 1 0 0 * Includes Non‐Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One‐Year, Mainstream Five‐year, and Nursing Home Transition Source: AHFC NA 35 Table 4 Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Program Type Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Family Mod‐ Public Project Tenant ‐ Supportive Unification Race Certificate Rehab Housing Total ‐based based Housing Program Disabled* Hispanic 0 6 44 138 2 136 4 0 0 Not Hispanic 0 64 451 2,163 37 2,126 92 0 0 * Includes Non‐Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One‐Year, Mainstream Five‐year, and Nursing Home Transition Source: AHFC NA 35 Table 5 Data Related to First Two Questions Type of Accessibility Type of Household Total Hearing Mobility Sight Disabled Elderly Homeless Public Housing (2 lists) 2,037 7 84 30 498 350 117 Housing Choice 1,913 18 47 22 421 99 209 Vouchers Source: AHFC

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 133

XII. NA 40 Homeless Needs Assessment

A. Introduction The Needs Assessment Section of the Consolidated Plan describes the nature and extent of unsheltered and sheltered homelessness within the jurisdiction. The Plan uses data from the Alaska Homeless Management Information System (AKHMIS) and data from the Point‐In‐Time (PIT) and Housing Inventory Chart as a base for this section. This section includes HUD’s definitions for homeless, chronically homeless, and unaccompanied youth. This section also highlights ethnic groups in emergency shelters and transitional housing. This section of the Plan describes the nature and extent of unsheltered and sheltered homelessness within the jurisdiction. This section introduces data on subpopulations of the homeless in Anchorage, such as the chronically homeless; Veterans; unaccompanied youth; persons with HIV/AIDS; and, persons with a disability. Definitions for these subpopulations are provided for the reader. NA 40 Table 1 presents information related to:  The number of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night (Point in Time);  The number of persons who experience homelessness each year;  The number of persons who exit homelessness each year; and,  The number of days that persons experience homelessness.

134 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 40 Table 1 Homeless Needs Assessment Estimate the # experiencing homelessness Estimate Estimate the # Estimate the # each year. the # exiting of days becoming homelessness persons Estimate the # of persons From Annual homeless each year. experience experiencing homelessness on Homeless each year. homelessness. a given night. Assessment From 2011 Population Report From AHAR Annual From 2011 From January 26, 2011 Point in (AHAR) for Living Performance AHAR (ES) and Time Emergency Situation Reports for Annual Shelter (ES) & Prior to Anchorage Performance Transitional Program Continuum of Report (TH) Housing (TH): Entry Care Excludes Permanent Housing 2011 2011 Un‐ Sheltered Total 2011 2011 2011 AHAR APR sheltered ES TH Persons in Households 405 24 429 1,257 131 236 35 195 with Adult(s) and Child(ren) Persons in Households 12 0 12 120 9 20 14* 221* with Only Children Persons in Households 665 117 782 5,323 797 78 33 152 with Only Adults Total 1,082 141 1,223 6,700 937 334 Chronically Homeless 94 18 112 766 255 36 64 115 Individuals Chronically Homeless 15 2 17 144 21 28 32 143 Families Veterans 168 31 199 607 106 25 127 Unaccompanied 6 0 6 113 17 20 14 221 Child/ Youth Persons with 21 2 23 4 18 HIV Persons with 911 134 Disability Source: 2011 Point in Time, Alaska Homeless Management Information System data for 2011 as provided by Sandy Olibrice at [email protected]; Dewayne Harris, HAND Commission; John Pendrey, Anchorage Veterans Administration; HCOSH; and, Covenant House Alaska, Alaska FY 11 At A Glance, www.covenanthouseak.org

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 135

B. HUD Definitions for NA 40 Table 1 Homeless Management Information System The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was directed by Congress to work with jurisdictions to gather homeless data by 2004. The following reports and materials provide communities with valuable direction and technical assistance resources on strategies to collect information on homeless persons. Congress noted that jurisdictions should be collecting an array of data on homelessness in a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), including unduplicated counts, use of services and the effectiveness of the local homeless assistance system. In turn, local jurisdictions collect the data and submit reports to HUD for Congressional review. The Alaska HMIS (AKHMIS) provides for data collection, training, and assists in meeting reporting requirements to HUD such as the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR). Other reports such as Point‐ in‐Time, Housing Inventory Chart, and Project Homeless Connect in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Mat‐Su Valley are also generated by the system. To date 57 homeless provider programs participate in AKHMIS. Homeless On December 5, 2011, HUD published the final rule on the definition of homelessness under the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition Housing (HEARTH) Act, Federal Register/Vol.76. No. 233. This rule integrates the regulation for the definition of “homeless” and the corresponding recordkeeping requirements, and is applicable to the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, the Shelter Plus Care Program, and the Supportive Housing Program.  Individuals and families who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence and includes a subset for an individual who resided in an emergency shelter or a place not meant for human habitation and who is exiting an institution where he or she temporarily resided;  Individual and families who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence;  Unaccompanied youth (under 25) and families with children and youth who are defined as homeless under other federal statutes who do not otherwise qualify as homeless under this definition; and,  Individuals and families who are fleeing, or are attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking or other dangerous or life‐threatening conditions that related to violence. Chronically Homeless Individuals and Families Person(s) who lives or resides in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter; or, has been living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter continuously for at least 1 year or on at least 4 separate occasions in the last 3 years; and is an adult head of household (or a minor head of household if no adult is present in the household) with a diagnosable substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability (as defined in section 102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15002)), post traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from a brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability, including the co‐occurrence of 2 or more of those conditions. Unaccompanied Youth Person under 25 years of age, or families with children and youth, who do not otherwise qualify as homeless under this definition, but who do meet all of the following criteria:  Are defined as homeless under Section 387 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5732a), Section 637 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9832), Section 41403 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14043e‐2), Section 330(h) of the Public Health Service Act

136 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

(42 U.S.C. 254b(h)), Section 3 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012), Section 17(b) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(b)), or Section 725 of the McKinney‐ Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a);  Have not had a lease, ownership interest, or occupancy agreement in permanent housing at any time during the 60 days immediately preceding the date of application for homeless assistance;  Have experienced persistent instability as measured by two or more moves during the 60‐day period immediately preceding the date of applying for homeless assistance; and,  Can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time because of chronic disabilities, chronic physical health or mental health conditions, substance addiction, histories of domestic violence or childhood abuse (including neglect), the presence of a child or youth with a disability, or two or more barriers to employment, which include the lack of a high school degree or General Education Development (GED), illiteracy, low English proficiency, a history of incarceration or detention for criminal activity, and a history of unstable employment. Persons with a Disability The definition of a person with a disability is: any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or, is regarded as having impairment. In general, a physical or mental impairment includes hearing, mobility and visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex, and mental retardation that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Major life activities include walking, talking, hearing, seeing, breathing, learning, performing manual tasks, and caring for oneself. Permanent Housing Community‐based housing with a designated length of stays, and includes both permanent supportive housing and permanent housing without supportive services. Transitional Housing Housing that facilitates the movement of individuals and families experiencing homelessness to permanent housing within 24 months.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 137

C. Estimate of the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans. Based on the NA 40 Table 1 and data gathered from AKHMIS the following facts are present significant findings.  The majority of homeless Individuals are adults (80%), followed by families (18%) and unaccompanied youth (2%).  A total of 199 veterans were identified as homeless, of which 31 were unsheltered.  Although not reflected in the table, an average 373 individuals are in Emergency Shelters, and on average a total of 320 beds are available. The table below shows bed shortages on three of the four dates used to account for bed availability. (AKHMIS 2011 data)  In 2011, a total of 6,700 persons, including men, women and children were in an emergency shelter or transitional housing. Of this total, 5,719 unduplicated persons were identified. (AKHMIS 2011 data)  A total of 607 veterans were identified in Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing; the majority of veterans (530) were individuals in Emergency Shelters. See table below for a break out of the 607 in Emergency Shelter or Transitional Housing. (AHAR 2011)  In 2011, a total of 911 persons were identified with a disability and were either in Emergency Shelter or Transitional Housing.  A total of 937 are estimated to becoming homeless each year.  Of the subpopulations (Chronically Homeless Individuals, Chronically Homeless Families, Veterans, Unaccompanied Youth) an estimated 46% (255) are comprised of chronically homeless individuals.  A total of 334 are exiting homelessness each year.  A total of 36 chronically homeless individuals are exiting homelessness each year.  Persons in Households with Adults and Children are estimated to have 35 days experiencing homelessness, followed by Persons in Households with Only Adults at 33.  Persons in Households with Only Children, experience more days of homelessness at 221 compared to Persons in Households with Only Adults at 152 and Persons in Households with Adults and Children at 195.  The subpopulation for Chronically Homeless Individuals experience more days of homelessness at 64 indentified in Emergency Shelter compared to the other subpopulations.  Unaccompanied Child/Youth experience more days of homelessness at 221 identified in Transitional Housing than the other subpopulations of homelessness. NA 40 Table 2 Number of Individuals in Emergency Shelters in Anchorage Emergency Shelter Date Individuals Shortage Beds 1/25/2011 363 320 ‐43 4/25/2011 316 320 4 8/25/2011 344 320 ‐24 12/25/2011 470 320 ‐150 Average number of persons in Emergency Shelters 373 per night in 2011

138 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 40 Table 3 Veterans Individual % of Veteran % of Veterans Total Veterans Veterans Veterans Family Emergency 530 16% 14 4% 544 Shelter Transitional 61 15% 2 1% 63 Housing Total 591 16 607 Homeless Population in Anchorage’s Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing: By Race or Ethnicity This section of NA 40 presents data related to race/ethnic groups in Anchorage’s Emergency Shelters or Transitional Housing. NA 40 Table 4 Race/Ethnic Groups in Emergency Shelters or Transitional Housing % of Anchorag Emergenc Transitional Emergency Transitional Race or Ethnic Total for Homeless e y Services Housing Services Housing Group ES & TH Populatio Populatio Individual Individual Families Families n n White Non‐ Hispanic 1233 154 128 75 1,590 30% 62% White Hispanic/Latino 69 6 19 15 109 2% 8% Black or African American 394 46 113 33 586 11% 6% Asian 46 3 13 2 64 1% 8% American Indian/AK Native 1616 103 197 154 2070 39% 8% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 70 5 148 56 279 5% 2% Multiple Races 429 67 113 44 653 12% 8% Total Population: 5,351 Source: AKHMIS, DHHS, Human Services Division, Community Safety and Development Program and 2010 US Census Discussion NA 40 – Race/Ethnic Groups in Emergency Shelters or Transitional Housing Table 4 above shows overall, American Indian/Alaska Native represent a disproportionate percentage of Anchorage’s Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing totaling 39% of the homeless population, while comprising only 8% of the city’s population. Multiple races were represented by 12% of the homeless population, in comparison to the city’s population of 8%. Black or African American also had a high percentage totaling 11%, while comprising only 6% of the city’s population.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 139

NA 40 Table 5 Homeless Population in Anchorage’s Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing: By Race or Ethnicity, Ethnic Individuals Emergency Percentage Transitional Percentage of Services of ES Anchorage Race or Ethnic Anchorage Race or Ethnic Housing for TH Homeless for Homeless Population Group Population Group Individuals Population Individual Population

White Non‐ White Non‐ 1,233 32% 154 40% Hispanic 62% Hispanic 62% White White 69 2% 6 2% Hispanic/Latino 8% Hispanic/Latino 8% Black or Black or African 394 10% African 46 12% American 6% American 6% Asian 46 1% 8% Asian 3 1% 8% American American Indian/AK 1,616 42% Indian/AK 103 27% Native 8% Native 8% Native Native Hawaiian/Pac 70 2% Hawaiian/Pac 5 1% Islander 2% Islander 2% Multiple Races 429 11% 8% Multiple Races 67 17% 8% Total 3,857 100% Total 384 100% Source: AKHMIS, DHHS, Human Services Division, Community Safety and Development Program and 2010 US Census Discussion NA 40 – Homeless Population in Anchorage’s Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing: By Race or Ethnicity, Ethnic Individuals Table 5 shows that while comprising 39% of the overall population of Anchorage’s homeless population (see Table 4), American Indian and Alaska Natives account for 42% of individuals staying in the city’s emergency services. Transitional housing ethnic populations are dramatically different, accounting for 27% of American Indian/Alaska Native; 17% Multiple Races, and 12% of Black or African American individuals. NA 40 Table 6 Homeless Population in Anchorage’s Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing: By Race or Ethnicity or Ethnic Families Emergency Percentage Transitional Percentage of Race or Ethnic Services of ES Anchorage Race or Ethnic Anchorage Housing for TH Homeless Group for Homeless Population Group Population Families Population Families Population White Non‐ White Non‐ 128 18% 75 20% Hispanic 62% Hispanic 62% White White 19 3% 15 4% Hispanic/Latino 8% Hispanic/Latino 8% Black or Black or African 113 15% African 33 9% American 6% American 6% Asian 13 2% 8% Asian 2 1% 8% American American Indian/AK 197 27% Indian/AK 154 41% Native 8% Native 8% Native Native Hawaiian/Pac 148 20% Hawaiian/Pac 56 15% Islander 2% Islander 2% Multiple Races 113 15% 8% Multiple Races 44 12% 8% Total 731 100% Total 379 100% Source: AKHMIS, DHHS, Human Services Division, Community Safety and Development Program and 2010 US Census

140 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

D. Nature and extent of homelessness by racial and ethnic group Ethnic families represent a far different picture of homelessness in emergency services in comparison to individuals. American Indian/Alaskan Native populations account for 27% of the population, followed by Native American/Pacific Islander (20%), and then Black or African American (15%) and Multiple Races (15%). In transitional housing services, American Indian/AK Native families account disproportionately for 41% of the population, followed by Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (15%) and Multiple Races at 12%. E. Nature and extent of unsheltered and sheltered homelessness, including rural homelessness According to the Anchorage 2011 Point in Time (PIT) count, there were 1,082 persons that were either in an emergency shelter or transitional housing (sheltered) and 11 homeless persons were unsheltered. The 2012 PIT identifies 1,097 homeless persons sheltered and 50 unsheltered. In 2013, the PIT shows 1,060 sheltered and 52 unsheltered. Rural area is defined as rural county in § 579.3. County is defined as a state‐recognized county, as well as county equivalents, such as boroughs in Alaska. A county may be defined as rural if it meets one of the following categories: 1. Is NOT in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA), as defined by OMB 2. Is in an MSA where at least 75% of the population is in a non‐urban area, as defined by U.S. Census; 3. Is in a State with a population density of less than 30 persons per square mile, and of which at least 1.25% of the total acreage of such State is Federal land. Anchorage does not meet the eligibility criteria for rural. Anchorage is not aware of the nature and extent of unsheltered and sheltered homelessness in rural areas in Alaska. F. Discussion: Overall, American Indian/Alaska Native represent a disproportionate percentage of Anchorage’s Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing totaling 39% of the homeless population, while comprising only 8% of the city’s population. Multiple races were represented by 12% of the homeless population, in comparison to the city’s population of 8%. Black or African American also had a high percentage totaling 11%, while comprising only 6% of the city’s population. G. NA 40 Additional Homeless Needs Assessment for Subpopulations Newly Released Prisoners and Homelessness The State of Alaska, Department of Corrections (DOC), released Alaska’s Five‐Year Prisoner Reentry Strategic Plan, 2011‐2016, (5‐Year Plan), which sets forth a plan for new and more effective strategies to reduce recidivism and make our communities safer. The following are excerpts of the DOC Plan.19 This 5‐Year Plan is the culmination of the work undertaken by the Alaska Prisoner Reentry Task Force, created by the Criminal Justice Work Group in February 2010 and endorsed by Governor Sean Parnell. The Plan sets forth a seamless set of best practices aimed at reducing the number of adult offenders who return to custody, whether for a new crime or for a violation of probation or parole. The Plan was prompted in large measure by unsettling criminal justice data: 95 percent of prisoners are eventually released from prison in Alaska; more than 289 convicted felons were released into Alaska’s

19 See the DOC website for more information of the Plan at: http://www.correct.state.ak.us/TskForce/documents/Five‐ Year%20Prisoner%20Reentry%20Plan.pdf

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 141

communities each month in 2009 and subsequently, two out of three prisoners returned to custody within three years of their release. Alaska’s recidivism rate is far too high, both in terms of the human and financial costs. Chapter Seven – Housing Newly Released Prisoners  Anchorage Field Probation Office observed that in 2008, field probation officers found approximately 25 percent of the felons released to Anchorage Adult Probation had no resources of any kind, including housing. The vast majority of these people were housed in the homeless shelters or in the homeless camps that have proliferated in the Anchorage area over the last several years.  An ADOC 2010 Housing Survey reflected 30 percent of Alaska’s prisoners and probation/parolees responded to the 2010 Housing Survey of incarcerated inmates and probationers. Of those who responded, 1270 individuals or almost 40 percent reported being homeless at least once prior to their incarceration. 20  In January 2009, the Anchorage Police Department reported there were 2,962 homeless individuals living in the Anchorage area, an increase of 35 percent from 2008. 21  When individuals are released from prison or jail, the ability to access safe and secure housing within the community is crucial to their successful reentry. Studies have shown that the first month after release is a vulnerable period “during which the risk of becoming homeless and/or returning to criminal justice involvement is high.”22  In most communities to which individuals return after incarceration, accessible and affordable housing is in exceedingly short supply. The additional challenges unique to people with criminal histories make it even more difficult for them to obtain stable housing.  Although many people leaving prison or jail would like to live with family or friends, those households may be unable or unwilling to receive them.23  According to the 2007 Alaska Judicial Council recidivism study, one of the greatest contributing factors to recidivism was indigence, a condition impacting an individual’s ability to find housing.  Throughout Alaska there is an insufficient supply of accessible and affordable housing stock. In Anchorage the high cost of housing is well documented.  In 2009, fifty‐two percent of Anchorage residents spent more than thirty percent of their net income on housing, up eight percent from the previous year.24 A quarter of these individuals paid 75 percent of their income on housing.  In 2009, the median gross rental was over $1,000 per month, an 18 percent increase in the median gross rent over the last several years. 25 Such rental prices are completely out of reach for minimum wage earners. A minimum wage earner would have to work 99 hours of work each to pay the rent for a two bedroom housing unit in Anchorage. Or he would have to earn $17.71 an hour in order to afford to stay within the federal guidelines of 30 percent

20 The ADOC 2010 Housing Survey, complied by Tim Leyden. 21 Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. White Paper, September 25, 2009. 22 Council of State Governments, Report of the Re‐Entry Policy Council (New York: Council of State Governments, 2005), 272. 23 Council of State Governments, Report of the Re‐Entry Policy Council, 258. 24 2009 United Way Anchorage Community Assessment 25 2009 United Way Anchorage Community Assessment

142 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

of income spent on housing.26 A minimum wage earning job is a luxury for the majority of newly released prisoners.  Illustrative of the number of people arrested for misdemeanor offenses, seventy‐eight percent of the ADOC total bookings are for misdemeanor offenses.27 On any single day, on average, 13.7 percent of the inmate population is incarcerated for a misdemeanor. Other states, recognizing the deleterious impact an arrest and short‐ term incarceration may have to the individual’s employment and housing, have started to look for other means of sanctioning non‐violent criminal conduct in lieu of incarceration. H. Discussion Housing Newly Released Prisoners The Housing workgroup recommends ten approaches to turn the curve in making stable housing more accessible to people with criminal convictions.

1. Rehabilitate individual rental histories through programs like Bridge Home, Cook Inlet Housing Authority and Partners for Progress Homeless Assistance Reentry Program (HARP). Private landlords may be more willing to rent to people with criminal histories if there were individuals acting as advocates for the tenant who could provide landlord assurances and fund the initial month or two of rent while the reentrant finds employment. These programs have been successful in increasing a former prisoner’s prospects with non‐corporate landlords. 2. Eliminate the presumption of guilt that people with criminal histories are bad risks for tenancy. An attitude of neutrality would be a better approach to increase access to housing for many former prisoners. 3. Provide case management to individuals identified as needing this increased assistance. 4. Build relationships between Parole/Probation officers, service providers and landlords to reduce private sector fears over renting to the target population. Increase the use of halfway houses and other forms of transitional housing as reentry measures for individuals who need to transition into the community. 5. Increase dollars available for short‐term rental assistance and explore development of damage re‐ imbursement funds for landlords. 6. The ADOC should consider offering the “ready to rent” program with a certificate of completion inside the institution as part of its reentry plan for soon‐to‐be released prisoners. 7. The ADOC should offer a financial literacy program as part of transition planning. 8. A resource manual identifying regional housing resources, including information on Alaska 211, should be provided to all prisoners exiting from custody as part of standard release materials. 9. Faith and community based mentors should be educated on the need to work with the renter and landlord to be willing to take landlord calls when problems arise. 10. Increase the use of the Alaska 211 system as centralize information/referral source. The DOC intends to implement an Offender Reentry Program that will provide convicted felons with an Individual Reentry Plan addressing, among other things, the prisoner’s plans for housing. Through participation in the state’s Prisoner Re‐Entry Task Force, AHFC teamed with the DOC in developing a Tenant‐ Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program for newly released prisoners. By year end (2012) the program is expected to serve 70 persons. The program is a partnership between the AHFC departments of Planning and Public Housing and the DOC. The TBRA program has been so successful that planning efforts are underway to expand to other populations.

26 2009 United Way Anchorage Community Assessment 27 ISER Study

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 143

XIII. NA 45 Non‐Homeless Special Needs Assessment

A. Introduction This section of the Plan describes the housing needs of persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing. This includes:  Elderly (defined as 62+)  Frail elderly (defined as an elderly person who requires assistance with three or more activities of daily living, such as bathing, walking, and performing light housework)  Persons with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities  Persons with HIV/AIDS and their families  Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking B. Characteristics of special needs populations in your community Elderly and Frail/Extra Elderly The older population is an important and growing segment of the Unites States population.28 The U.S. Census shows the population of 65 years and over increased at a faster rate (15.1%) than the total U.S. population (9.7%) between 2000 and 2010. The population of 85 years and over increased nationwide, with Alaska having the largest percent change between 2000 and 2010, which grew 78.% by increasing from 2,634 in 2000 to 4,711 in 2010.29 According to the U.S. Census in 2010 persons 65 years and over accounted for 7.2% (21,011) of the Anchorage population; an increase of 53% from 2000 which accounted for 4.7% of the population.30 To increase an understanding of the older populations housing needs in Anchorage, this Consolidated Plan uses HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, 2006 – 2008.31 Under CHAS, elderly is defined by HUD as age 62 and up. Individuals age 75 and up are recognized as a population with different needs than those 62‐74, so CHAS data separates these groups, while those 75 and up are referred to as “extra elderly or frail elderly.” HUD identifies and collects information in CHAS data on housing problems. A household is identified as having a housing problem if they have any one or more of the following four problems:  Lack complete kitchen facilities;  Lack complete plumbing facilities;  Household is overcrowded; and,  Household is cost burdened. To understand if the Elderly and Extra Elderly are disproportionately represented as having housing problems, HUD’s methodology and computation are used by Area Median Income. A disproportionate percentage is

28 The term “older” refers to the population 65 years and over. U.S. Census, The Older Population: 2010, 2010 Census Briefs, Issued November 2011 29 U.S. Census, The Older Population: 2010, 2010 Census Briefs, Issued November 2011 30 Anchorage Municipality, Alaska, State and County QuickFacts, Last Revised January 31, 2012 16:47:28 EST and 2000 US Census, Anchorage Municipality, Alaska 31 Source: CHAS Data, 2006‐2008 ACS 3 Year Average, Table 5, Anchorage Housing Problems, Income, Elderly and Extra‐Elderly

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 145

determined with it is greater rate (10%) than All Households line. The tables below will break out the Area Median Income for the Elderly and Extra Elderly. NA 45 Table 1 Elderly 0%‐30% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 34% for Owners and = or > 74% for Renters Housing Problems Yes No N/A Percentage with for Elderly and Housing Problems Housing Problems Housing Problems Housing Problems Extra Elderly Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 2,600 6,775 220 345 170 540 24% 64% Elderly 490 645 50 100 0 20 38% 49% Extra Elderly 440 585 100 15 45 35 36% 48% Non‐Elderly 1,670 5,545 70 235 120 485 21% 68% Source: CHAS Data, 2006‐2008, Table 5 Discussion NA 45 Elderly ‐ 0%‐30% For the 0%‐30% of the Area Median Income both the Elderly (38%) and Extra Elderly (36%) Owners are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which are greater than 24% for all Owner households. NA 45 Table 2 30.1‐50% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 35% Owners and = or > 62% for Renters Housing Problems 30.1% ‐50% No N/A Percentage with for Elderly and Yes Housing Problems Housing Problems Housing Problems Extra Elderly Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 2,695 5,535 925 1,005 0 585 25% 52% Elderly 615 345 265 70 0 25 47% 26% Extra Elderly 310 175 225 155 0 10 35% 20% Non‐Elderly 1,775 5,015 435 780 0 550 21% 59% Source: CHAS Data, 2006‐2008, Table 5 Discussion NA 45 Elderly ‐ 30.1‐50% For the 30.1%‐50% of the Area Median Income both the Elderly (47%) and Extra Elderly (35%) Owners are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which are greater than 25% for all Owner households. NA 45 Table 3 Elderly 50.1%‐80% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 34% for Owner and = or> 36% for Renter Housing Problems for Yes No N/A Percentage with Elderly and Extra Housing Problems Housing Problems Housing Problems Housing Problems Elderly Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 4,340 4,630 3,205 4,930 0 750 24% 26% Elderly 515 195 795 235 0 65 29% 11% Extra Elderly 165 95 325 80 0 0 25% 14% Non‐Elderly 3,660 4,335 2,085 4,615 0 680 24% 28% Source: CHAS Data, 2006‐2008, Table 5

146 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Discussion NA 45 Elderly 50.1%‐80% For the 50.1%‐80% of the Area Median Income, the Elderly Owner at 29% and Extra Elderly Owner at 25% are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which are greater than 24% for all Owner households. NA 45 Table 4 Elderly 80.1%‐95% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 40% for Owner and = or > than 17% for Renter Housing Problems for Yes No N/A Percentage with Elderly and Extra Housing Problems Housing Problems Housing Problems Housing Problems Elderly Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 2,575 585 2,525 2,470 0 310 30% 7% Elderly 280 40 505 60 0 0 32% 5% Extra Elderly 105 0 400 45 0 0 19% 0% Non‐Elderly 2,190 550 1,625 2,365 0 310 31% 8% Source: CHAS Data, 2006‐2008, Table 5 Discussion NA 45 (Elderly) ‐ 80.1%‐95% For the 80.1%‐95% of the Area Median Income, the Elderly at 32% and Non‐Elderly at 31% are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, greater than 30% for all Owner households. NA 45 Table 5 (Elderly) – 95.1% and Greater of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 22% for Owner and = or > 11% for Renter Housing Problems for Yes Housing No Housing N/A Housing Percentage with Elderly and Extra Problems Problems Problems Housing Problems Elderly Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 6,525 820 36,695 10,270 0 435 12% 1% Elderly 770 50 5,030 410 0 70 12% 1% Extra Elderly 110 0 1,625 155 0 10 6% 0% Non‐Elderly 5,645 770 30,040 9,705 0 355 12% 2% Source: CHAS Data, 2006‐2008, Table 5 Discussion NA 45 (Elderly) ‐ 95.1% and greater of Area Median Income For the 95.1% and greater Area Median Income, neither the Elderly and Extra Elderly Owners or Renters are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems. However at 2% Non‐Elderly Renters are disproportionately represented, in comparison with 1% for All Renter households. NA 45 Overview of Significant Findings for Elderly and Extra Elderly Elderly and Extra Elderly households have been identified as having a housing problem if they have any one or more of the following four problems:  Lack complete kitchen facilities;  Lack complete plumbing facilities;  Household is overcrowded; and,  Household is cost burdened. The vast majority of Elderly and Extra Elderly Owner households are significantly overrepresented in all of the AMI categories. Based on information collected in the Tables NA 45 Elderly and Extra Elderly, the following highlights are reviewed for Housing Problems:

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 147

 For the 0%‐30% of the Area Median Income both the Elderly Owners at 38% and Extra Elderly Owners at 36% are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which are greater than 24% for all Owner households.  For the 30.1%‐50% of the Area Median Income both the Elderly Owners at 47% and Extra Elderly Owners at 35% are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which are greater than 25% for all Owner households.  For the 50.1%‐80% of the Area Median Income, the Elderly Owners at 29% and Extra Elderly Owners at 25% are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which are greater than 24% for all Owner households.  For the 80.1%‐95% of the Area Median Income, the Elderly Owners at 32% and Non‐Elderly Owners at 31% are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, greater than 30% for all Owner households. Persons with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities Federal laws define a person with a disability as "Any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such impairment."32 In general, a physical or mental impairment includes hearing, mobility and visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex, and mental retardation that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Major life activities include walking, talking, hearing, seeing, breathing, learning, performing manual tasks, and caring for oneself. An excerpt from Healthy Alaskans, 2010 states: “The Current Populations Report estimated that nearly 20 percent of the United States population lives with disabilities. Using that basis for estimation, about 124,400 Alaskans experience some degree of disability, of whom 25 percent experience significant limitations in their daily activities. Less than 15 percent of people who experience disabilities were born with them. Furthermore, disabilities occur with greater frequency as we age. It is a minority that we all may join if we live long enough. People with disabilities report significantly lower levels of social participation (such as volunteering, shopping, going to the movies, attending sporting events) compared with people without disabilities. Alaskans with disabilities have identified a number of reasons for this discrepancy, including:  needs for physical accessibility, accessible transportation and assistive technologies;  a general lack of public awareness about the abilities, needs, rights and responsibilities of people who experience disabilities; and,  limited incomes, which further prevent their full participation in community life. More and more Alaskans with severe disabilities are living in their own homes or with their families. Alaska is the first state in the country to have eliminated public and private institutions for people with developmental disabilities. However, there are still a number of individuals with disabilities who must live in nursing homes to get the services and supports they need.” The following tables provide information on the housing status for persons with disabilities.

32U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Disability Rights in Housing”, website @ ,http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/inhousing

148 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 45 Table 6 Disabled – 0%‐30% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 34% for Owners and = or > 74% for Renters Housing Yes Housing No Housing N/A Housing Percentage with Problems for Problems Problems Problems Housing Problems Disabled Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 2,600 6,775 220 345 170 540 24% 64% Disabled 465 1,270 120 115 0 170 28% 59% Not Disabled 2,135 5,510 105 235 170 375 33% 65% Source: CHAS Data 2006‐2008, Table 6 Discussion NA 45 Table 6 0%‐30% For the 0%‐30% of the Area Median Income both the Disabled at 28% and Not Disabled at 33% are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which are greater than 24% for all Owner households. Not‐disabled Renters are disproportionately represented at 65% in comparison to 64% for all Renter households. NA 45 Table 7 Disabled 30.1%‐50% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 35% for Owner and = or > 62% for Renter Housing No Housing N/A Housing Percentage with Problems for Yes Housing Problems Problems Problems Housing Problems Disabled Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 2,695 5,535 925 1,005 0 585 25% 52% Disabled 310 655 175 235 0 0 23% 48% Not Disabled 2,390 4,880 755 770 0 585 25% 52% Source: CHAS Data 2006‐2008, Table 6 Discussion NA 45 Table 7 Disabled 30.1%‐50% For the 30.1% ‐ 50% f the Area Median Income the Disabled at 23% and Not Disabled at 25% are not disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which are less than or equal to 25% for all Owner households. NA 45 Table 8 Disabled 50.1%‐80% of Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 34% for Owner and = or > 36% for Renter Housing No Housing N/A Housing Percentage with Problems for Yes Housing Problems Problems Problems Housing Problems Disabled Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 4,340 4,630 3,205 4,930 0 750 24% 26% Disabled 400 355 445 315 0 0 26% 23% Not Disabled 3,945 4,275 2,765 4,615 0 750 24% 26% Source: CHAS Data 2006‐2008, Table 6 Discussion NA 45 Table 8 Disabled 50.1% ‐ 80% For the 50.1% ‐ 80% of the Area Median Income the Disabled at 26% is disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which is greater than 24% for all Owner households.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 149

NA 45 Table 9 Disabled 80.1% and above the Area Median Income Disproportionate: = or > 24% for Owner and = or > 12% for Renter Housing No Housing N/A Housing Percentage with Problems for Yes Housing Problems Problems Problems Housing Problems Disabled Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter All 9,100 1,405 39,225 12,740 0 745 14% 2% Disabled 800 115 2,370 500 0 20 21% 3% Not Disabled 8,300 1,295 36,850 12,240 0 725 14% 2% Source: CHAS Data 2006‐2008, Table 6 Discussion NA 45 Table 9 Disabled 80% and above AMI For the 80% and above of the Area Median Income the Disabled Owner at 21% is disproportionately represented with Housing Problems, which is greater than 14% for all Owner households. And, Disabled Renters at 3% are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems in comparison to 2% for All Renter households. NA 45 Overview of Significant Findings for Persons with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities  For the 0%‐30% of the Area Median Income the Disabled is disproportionately represented with Housing Problems in comparison to All Renter households.  For the 50.1% ‐ 80% of the Area Median Income the Disabled is disproportionately represented with Housing Problems in comparison to All Renter households.  For the 80% and above of the Area Median Income the Disabled Owner is disproportionately represented with Housing Problems in comparison to All Renter households.  Disabled Renters are disproportionately represented with Housing Problems in comparison to All Renter households. Persons with HIV/AIDS and their families HUD's provides the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program in collaboration with states and area CPD offices.33 HOPWA funds are awarded as grants from one of three programs:  HOPWA Competitive Program ‐ HUD generally rates HOPWA projects under a selection criteria and awards the highest rated that funding levels allow. States, cities, and local governments and nonprofit organizations may apply for HOPWA Competitive funding.  The HOPWA Formula Program uses a statutory method to allocate HOPWA funds to eligible States and cities on behalf of their metropolitan areas. HOPWA formula grants are part of the consolidated planning process.  The HOPWA National Technical Assistance Funding awards are provided to strengthen the management, operation, and capacity of HOPWA grantees, project sponsors, and potential applicants of HOPWA funding. HOPWA funds may be used for a wide range of housing, social services, program planning, and development costs. These include, but are not limited to, the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of housing units; costs for facility operations; rental assistance; and short‐term payments to prevent homelessness.

33 HUD Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program, found at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/aidshousing/programs

150 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

HOPWA funds also may be used for health care and mental health services, chemical dependency treatment, nutritional services, case management, assistance with daily living, and other supportive services. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been enacted. These spreadsheets provide the full‐year allocations approved for these programs in Anchorage. This represents allocations for Office of Community Planning and Development’s (CPD) formula programs: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG); HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA); and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG). The amounts also reflect approved grant reductions and include any reallocated funds for the CDBG and HOME programs. NA 45 Table 10 AK‐FY12 Allocations Key State Name CDBG HOME ESG HOPWA Alaska Non‐ 029999 AK entitlement $2,131,122 $3,000,000 $228,007 $0 020078 AK Anchorage $1,712,284 $628,693 $147,888 $0 Source: HUD website http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/budget/budget12/index.cfm. Data Table and Local Services The table below shows the total number of persons living with an AIDS Diagnosis in Alaska in comparison with U.S. figures. NA 45 Table 11 Estimated Numbers of Persons Living with an AIDS Diagnosis, All Ages, by Race/Ethnicity, 2009 AK AK US US

# % # %

White 158 47.1% 160,4021 32.9%1

Black/African American 41 12.3% 206,4881 42.3%1

Hispanic/Latino 37 11.0% 106,3961,2 21.8%1,2

Asian 6 1.8% 5,1121,3 1.0%1,3

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 3 0.9% 4811 0.1%1

American Indian/Alaskan Native 85 25.4% 1,6591 0.3%1

Multiple Races 5 1.5% 7,3351 1.5%1

Unknown Race 0 0.0% 951 0.0%1

Total 335 100.0% Footnotes: 1. U.S. total includes persons from the Pacific Islands not shown in table. Because column totals for estimated numbers were calculated independently of the values for the subpopulations, the values in each column may not sum to the column total. 2. Hispanics/Latinos can be of any race. 3. Includes Asian/Pacific Islander legacy cases. Source: Data Collected by the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation by sources that include: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention‐Surveillance and Epidemiology, Special Data Request, December 2011. Notes: Estimated numbers resulted from statistical adjustment that accounted for reporting delays, but not for incomplete reporting.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 151

NA 45 Overview of Significant Findings for Persons and Families Living with HIV/AIDS Currently, the Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association (Four A’s) is serving 265 active clients. Of those clients, 38 have families with a total of 72 children. The following is a further breakdown of the clients with families.  16 families were homeless when they came to the Four A’s  2 families are currently on the verge of homelessness  1 family is currently homeless  5 families are living in AK Native villages  5 families came to Anchorage from other Alaska towns  3 families came to Anchorage from the lower 48 or another country  Client referrals came from hospitals, physicians, the blood bank, jails, and treatment facilities  Ethnicity: Caucasian = 17, AK Native = 11, African American = 4, Hispanic = 5, Asian = 1

Client intakes on the 265 active clients identify the greatest needs of the HIV/AIDS population served by the Four A’s as housing assistance, substance abuse treatment, mental health counseling, medication assistance, and many clients are dealing with jail/correctional issues. Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking According to a press release on October 27, 2010, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan announced new, stronger affordable housing regulations that protect victims of domestic abuse as the nation concludes National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.34 To read the final regulatory requirements under the Violence against Women Act (VAWA), visit HUD's website. "This rule recognizes the need to protect victims of domestic abuse from being evicted just because they were victimized. No one should be afraid of losing their home if they report abuse” said Donovan. “The Obama Administration has strengthened the existing interim regulation to further protect victims and ensures that current or former victims of domestic violence will not be turned down from HUD programs." “The 2009 U.S. Conference of Mayors annual report on Hunger and Homelessness identified domestic violence as the third leading cause of homelessness among families," said HUD Assistant Secretary Sandra Henriquez. "This regulation protects victims housing so they are not forced to choose between staying with their abuser and becoming homeless.” VAWA, which was enacted in 2005, provided legal protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. These protections apply to families receiving rental assistance under HUD's public housing program, Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, and multi‐family project‐based Section 8 program. HUD published the VAWA Interim Rule in November 2008 and allowed for public comments until January 2009. The rule announced today addresses many concerns advocates raised with the 2008 interim rule by clarifying and aligning HUD's statutory language with VAWA; providing more detailed guidance to housing authorities and Section 8 property owners on how to implement VAWA and making a commitment to provide further guidance in the future. For example, guidance in the new rule requires that housing authorities or management agents exhaust protective measures before eviction. Evictions can only take place after the housing or subsidy providers have taken actions that will reduce or eliminate the threat to the victim, including, transferring the abuse victim to a different home; barring the abuser from the property; contacting law enforcement to increase police presence or develop other plans to keep the property safe; or seeking other legal remedies to prevent the abuser from acting on a threat.

34 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2010/HUDNo.10‐248

152 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

The new rule also broadens the definitions of "actual and imminent threat," to help housing or subsidy providers understand that to use "imminent threat" of harm to other residents as a reason for eviction of the victim, the evidence must be real and objective ‐ not hypothetical, presumed or speculative. Reported Cases of Domestic Violence in Anchorage In stride with HUD’s focus and concern for victims of domestic violence and related issues that cause homelessness, the Anchorage Domestic Violence and Prevention Project (ADVPP) responds to the high number of domestic violence cases reported each year and to the significant number of women and children violently harmed each day. The ADVPP has two goals ‐ to increase offender accountability and improve victim safety. Objectives to accomplish these goals include: 1. Centralize and coordinate law enforcement and prosecution for violent crimes including domestic violence, dating violence and stalking; 2. Maintain a database that provides updated bail conditions and judgments for domestic violence offenders; 3. Increase offender accountability with police monitoring and follow‐up; and, 4. Increase victim safety by providing emergency financial assistance. ADVPP is a multi‐agency partnership between the Municipal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Anchorage Police Department (APD) and Municipal Prosecutor’s Office, (MPO), and Abused Women’s Aid in Crisis, Inc. (AWAIC). AWAIC is the state’s largest domestic violence shelter. All components of the multi‐agency system are critical to successful prevention and intervention of domestic violence. MPO clerks attend bail hearings and render bail conditions electronically available to all law enforcement personnel through the project’s database. APD detectives monitor compliance by defendants to these bail conditions, and AWAIC dispenses emergency financial aid to victims of domestic violence. Emergency financial assistance provides funds to victims for rental/utility security deposits and security systems. DHHS administers the project and provides evidence‐based findings for project evaluation. ADVPP success has caught the attention of the State Court System, which is working with DHHS to replicate the project statewide. In August 2010 the Police Executive Research Forum recognized ADVPP as a policing “best practice.” Current federal funding will expire in 2013. Without state assistance, proven essential public safety services that hold domestic violence offenders accountable and enhance victim safety will be lost. In 2012, a total of 5,727 domestic violence cases were reported to the APD for an average of 477 per month. The table below shows a significant increase (46.4%) from 2008 to 2009 and a smaller increase (7.7%) from 2010 to 2011. Under the columns for the ADVPP, there is a significant reduction of 25.4% in domestic violence cases from 2009 to 2010.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 153

NA 45 Table 11 Number and Rate of APD Domestic Violence Reports and MPO Cases, 1999‐2012 Anchorage, Alaska Number and Rate of APD Domestic Violence Reports and MPO Cases 1999‐2012 Number of % Change Rate: Reports per % Rate % Change Reports to from Prior 100,000 Change from ADVPP/MPO from Prior Year APD Year Population Prior Year Cases Year 1999 4,097 1,592 2000 3,981 ‐2.8% 1,535 ‐3.6% 2001 3,925 ‐1.4% 1,482 ‐3.5% 2002 4,091 4.2% 1,527 3.0% 2003 3,906 ‐4.5% 1,431 ‐6.3% 2004 3,582 ‐8.3% 1,290 ‐9.9% 2005 3,710 3.6% 1,335 3.5% 2006 3,816 2.9% 1,349 1.0% 2007 3,955 3.6% 1,393 3.3% 1,788 2008 3,659 ‐7.5% 1,310 ‐6.0% 1,978 10.6% 2009 5,355 46.4% 1,843 40.7% 2,723 37.7% 2010 5,402 0.8% 1,842 0.0% 2,031 ‐25.4% 2011 5,819 7.7% 2,008 9.0% 2,287 12.6% 2012 5,729 ‐1.5% 1,930 ‐3.9% 2,145 ‐6.2% Source: Data compiled by the DHHS in coordination with the Anchorage Police Department. ADVPP Client Assistance The table below shows the number of domestic violence clients (households) served and the number that have been relocated. Relocation may be within the state or outside the state of Alaska. ADVPP client assistance is provided by AWAIC, which shows a total of 471 households for an average of 34 assists per month. Fifty‐one victims (51) (and their families, if appropriate) were relocated to escape dangerous situations. Of these, 38 relocated out of the state, 11 relocated within or to Anchorage, and two (2) were assisted to move from Anchorage to another town in Alaska. Note that Rental assistance/housing is first or last month deposits or rent for apartments or houses for victims to stay in “relatively” long‐term. Emergency housing is hotel rooms for victims who can’t go home safely, or who are made temporarily homeless by DV. It’s a quick solution to help the victim attain immediate safety and housing. NA 45 Table 12 ADVPP Client Assistance from January 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013 Total Percent Number Households/Clients served 471 Number Relocated 51 Emergency Assistance Travel/Transportation (Includes Relocation) $59,500 51.3% Rental Assistance/Housing $27,762 24.0% Other (food, diapers, medical etc.) $20,097 17.3% Legal $3,468 3.0% Emergency Housing $2,357 2.0% Safety $1,437 1.2% Utilities $1,254 1.1% Source: ADVPP Project Coordinator, DHHS, 343‐6321 April 2013

154 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

NA 45 Table 13 Number and Rate of Domestic Violence Reports Anchorage, Alaska Number and Rate of Domestic Violence Reports 1999‐2012

Number % Change Rate: Reports per % Change of from Prior 100,000 from Prior ADVPP/DO % Change from Year Reports Year Population Year L Cases Prior Year 1999 4,097 1,592 2000 3,981 ‐2.8% 1,535 ‐3.6% 2001 3,925 ‐1.4% 1,482 ‐3.5% 2002 4,091 4.2% 1,527 3.0% 2003 3,906 ‐4.5% 1,431 ‐6.3% 2004 3,582 ‐8.3% 1,290 ‐9.9% 2005 3,710 3.6% 1,335 3.5% 2006 3,816 2.9% 1,349 1.0% 2007 3,955 3.6% 1,393 3.3% 1,788 2008 3,659 ‐7.5% 1,310 ‐6.0% 1,978 10.6% 2009 5,355 46.4% 1,843 40.7% 2,723 37.7% 2010 5,402 0.8% 1,842 0.0% 2,031 ‐25.4% 2011 5,819 7.7% 2,008 9.0% 2,287 12.6% 2012 5,729 ‐1.5% 1,930 ‐3.9% 2,145 ‐6.2% Source: ADVPP Project Coordinator, DHHS, 343‐6321 April 2013 NA 45 Table 14 Increase in Domestic Violence Cases

Number of % Change from Prior Rate: Reports per % Change from Year Reports Year 100,000 Population Prior Year

1999 4,097 ‐ 1,592 ‐ 2000 3,981 ‐2.8% 1,535 ‐3.6% 2001 3,925 ‐1.4% 1,482 ‐3.5% 2002 4,091 4.2% 1,527 3.0% 2003 3,906 ‐4.5% 1,431 ‐6.3% 2004 3,582 ‐8.3% 1,290 ‐9.9% 2005 3,710 3.6% 1,335 3.5% 2006 3,816 2.9% 1,349 1.0% 2007 3,955 3.6% 1,393 3.3% 2008 3,659 ‐7.5% 1,310 ‐6.0% 2009 5,355 46.4% 1,843 40.7% 2010 5,471 2.2% 1,874 1.7% Source: Data compiled by the DHHS ADVPP Coordinator in coordination with the Anchorage Police Department, March/April 2013

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 155

The DHHS and APD work closely with the Municipal Prosecutor’s Office (MPO) and Abused Women’s In Crisis, Inc. (AWAIC) to focus efforts to reduce domestic violence through the Anchorage Domestic Violence Prevention Project (ADVPP). The ADVPP increases offender accountability and enhances victim safety and advocacy. The ADVPP is based on the public health model. The table below shows the number of cases processed through ADVPP in collaboration with the MPO. The table demonstrates a reduction of 25.3% of cases from 2009 to 2010. This reduction may indicate the project’s APD compliance officers as well as a streamlined system of service through the MPO may be reducing the overall number of cases sent for prosecution. NA 45 Table 15 Percentage Change ADVPP/MPO Year ADVPP/MPO Cases % Change from Prior Year 2007 1,788 2008 1,978 10.6% 2009 2,723 37.7% 2010 2,033 ‐25.3% 2011 2,287 12.5% Source: Data compiled by the DHHS in coordination with the Municipal Prosecutor’s Office Table 16 shows victims by race and gender by case as reported from 2009 through 2010. NA 45 Table 16 ADVPP Victims by Race and Gender, APD Reports, 2009‐2010

Source: Data compiled by the DHHS in coordination with the APD

156 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Anchorage Domestic Violence Prevention Project Client Assistance The table below shows the number of domestic violence clients (households) served and the number that have been relocated. Relocation may be within the state or outside the state. NA 45 Table 17 ADVPP Client Assistance between September 2011 and August 2012 Total Percent Number Clients served 488 Number Relocated 41 Assistance Travel/Transportation $25,384 57.49% Housing $12,088 27.38% Utilities $435 0.99% Health and Safety $1,970 4.46% Other (Food, Clothing, Etc.) $2,212 5.01% Legal Fees $2,068 4.68% Total $44,157 100.00% Source: Data compiled by the DHHS in coordination with AWAIC, March 2013 Sexual Assaults Compared to Forcible Rapes in Anchorage, Alaska, 1995 ‐ 2010 Alaska State law defines sexual assault as unwanted sexual contact or penetration without consent. Both males and females can be victims, and penetration can occur with an object or weapon. Forcible rape, as defined by the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is penile‐vaginal penetration of a female with the use of force. Attempts to commit rape by force or the threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded. The table below compares cases of sexual assaults to forcible rape as reported by the Anchorage Police Department each year. NA 45 Table 18 Comparison of Sexual Assaults to Forcible Rapes Year Anchorage Population Sexual Assaults Forcible Rape (#) Rate* (#) Rate* 1995 252,729 350 138.5 242 95.8 1996 253,234 312 123.2 198 78.2 1997 254,752 259 101.7 174 68.3 1998 257,260 252 98 184 71.5 1999 259,391 239 92.1 161 62.5 2000 260,283 260 99.9 195 74.9 2001 264,784 286 108.0 210 79.3 2002 267,669 339 126.6 254 94.9 2003 272,775 364 133.4 244 89.5 2004 277,491 325 117.1 263 94.8 2005 277,883 297 106.9 224 80.6 2006 282,722 306 108.2 248 87.7 2007 282,375 325 115.1 257 91.0 2008 284,994 321 112.6 263 92.3 2009 290,588 359 122.5 282 94.7 2010 291,826 370 126.8 264 90.5 2011 295,570 Not Available Not Available

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 157

Source: The DHHS ADVPP Project Coordinator collapsed information from Crime in the United States, Uniform Crime Reports, 1976‐2010, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Call (907) 343‐6321 for comments or information. * Rate of Rape = per 100,000 people. According to data provided by Standing Together Against Rape, Inc. (STAR), many victims are in need of alternative housing.  The majority of sexual assaults take place in or near the victim’s home, or in the homes of relatives or neighbors – thus, for many survivors of sexual violence, home is not safe  STAR provided direct advocacy services to 141 individuals in August, 2012  Of those, 71 of the sexual violence perpetrators were individuals located in the home of the victim  STAR provided direct service advocacy services to 7 homeless individuals who were victims of sexual assault  Sexual assault, specifically at the hands of a family member, jeopardizes housing  Non offending parent must make a choice between keeping their children safe or fleeing their home  If the offending parent is arrested, the non offending parent is faced with struggles to pay rent  Sexual violence survivors may have to flee their homes in order to get away from the perpetrator  Shelter and housing needs of sexual violence survivors are often overlooked ‐ in fact, survivors are seldom asked about their housing concerns  It is not uncommon for teens or young adults to lose housing after disclosing their abuse  STAR provides emergency shelter, and works with AWAIC but struggles with the cost of providing emergency shelter to male clients (28 males in the month of August sought services)

NA 45 Overview of Significant Findings for Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking While victims of domestic violence have fallen under HUD guidelines as a targeted population, only recently have victims of dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking been recognized with equal importance in the homeless population. The local shelter, AWAIC, Inc. has been involved for over fourteen years with homeless community provider agencies, first as a recipient of CoC funds for the Moving Forward Program (formerly under the MOA LINK Project) and then as a leader for the Alaska Coalition on Housing and Homelessness. STAR is now an active participant on the HAND Commission and its Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness. The importance of both agencies participation is to highlight the need for housing for persons harmed by these interpersonal violence crimes. All of these crimes result in a person’s inability to return to a safe home; whether the perpetrator is living in the home, or has the ability to enter the home through force and cause harm. Stalking can require a victim to leave a home, job, or family to seek safety at an undisclosed location. As the data findings above indicate:  Anchorage has one of the highest rates of rape in the nation;  Every months, an average of 477 domestic violence calls are made to the Anchorage Police Department;  One of the most important tools for a person in danger to have is access to a “emergency financial” assistance as provided under the Anchorage Domestic Violence and Prevention Project.  It is important to bring STAR, Inc. to the table to develop homeless strategies for persons harmed through sexual assault, dating violence or stalking.  Future strategies should include “emergency” or “transitional” housing for persons harmed through sexual assault, dating violence or stalking.

158 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

 It is important for the Municipality to continue its support of the Anchorage Domestic Violence Prevention Project, in collaboration with AWAIC and STAR. C. Housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how these needs were determined Elderly and Frail/Extra Elderly According to data findings from CHAS, affordable housing is a priority needs for Elderly and Frail Elderly owners in the 0‐30% Area Median Income (AMI), the 30.1% to 50% AMI; the 50.1%‐80% AMI, and the 80.1%‐ 95% AMI. There is lack of sufficient data to gain a greater understanding of housing needs for Elderly and Frail Elderly renters by AMI. Also, adding to this target population is a priority, using the CSD Community Survey the public ranked: Senior Centers as 6th in priority needs for Public Facilities; Frail Elderly as 3rd for Non‐homeless Special Needs; and, Senior Services as 4th for Public Service Priorities. Persons with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities According to data findings from CHAS, affordable housing is a priority need for the Disabled owners in the 0%‐30% of the Area Median Income (AMI); 50.1%‐80% AMI; and 80.1% and above AMI. Also, Disabled renters in the 80.1% and above AMI are in need. Adding to this target population as a priority, using the CSD Community Survey the public ranked: Handicapped Centers as the 7th priority need for Public Facilities and Handicapped Services as 1st for Public Service Priorities. Victims of Domestic Violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking According to APD data in Anchorage there were 321 sexual assaults in 2008, 359 in 2009, and 370 in 2010. According to the Uniform Crime Report over a three year span (2008‐2010) Anchorage’s estimated average rate of rape is 92.5 per 100,000 persons. In 2012, there was an average of 477 domestic violence calls made to the APD. Adding to these target populations as a priority, using the CSD Community Survey the public ranked: Abused/ Neglected Children Facilities as 2nd for Public Facilities; Victims of Domestic Violence or Similar Life Threatening Condition as 1st for Public Service Priorities for Non‐Homeless Special Needs; and, Victims of Domestic Violence or Similar Life Threatening Conditions as 3rd for Homeless Subpopulations Priority Needs, D. Size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area The HIV/AIDS epidemic is one of the most destructive health crises of modern times. The number of people infected and the effects on their families, communities, and countries are still staggering. The pandemic continues to spread worldwide despite prevention efforts and successes in a few countries. Comprehensive approaches to improve reproductive and sexual health will require continued commitment and investment. Households experience the immediate impact of HIV/AIDS, because families are the main caregivers for the sick and suffer AIDS‐related financial hardships. During the long period of illness caused by AIDS, the loss of income and cost of caring for a dying family member can impoverish households. When a parent dies, the household may dissolve and the children are sent to live with relatives or left to fend for them selves. Care services for individuals livings with HIV/AIDS are funded through the HIV/STD Program are overseen by the following organizations: 1. The Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association; and, 2. The Interior AIDS Association

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 159

Services provided by or funded through these organizations include case management, education, counseling, advocacy, and funding for other outpatient medical, laboratory, dental, mental health and supportive services, as well as prescribed HIV‐related medications. Currently persons with HIV/AIDS and their families are not identified as a priority. In 2012, the Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association (Four A’s) were serving 265 active clients. Of these clients, 38 families have families with a total of 72 children. This population was not ranked as a high or medium need in the CSD Community Survey. E. Discussion Primary objectives of the MOA are to:  Maintain housing stability for vulnerable households  Prevent homelessness and loss of permanent housing  Promote expansion of affordable housing units for special needs populations  Make housing more affordable for special needs populations  Link housing with essential supportive services for special needs populations. Achievement of these goals requires the sustained and collaborative efforts of many individuals, groups and public and private organizations. In Anchorage there is a housing and buildable land shortage. It is very costly to build in Anchorage. Lumber prices have escalated and the permitting process is challenging. Many housing programs by the local and state entities link resources and find common goals to support our special needs populations with affordable housing.

160 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XIV. NA 50 Non‐Housing Community Development Needs

A. MOA’s need for Public Facilities and How These Needs Were Determined The needs were determined from research, public input, and the Community Needs Survey. A summary of the top results are in table below. Examples of public facilities include senior, handicapped, youth, or neighborhood centers, shelters for the homeless, and child care centers. Infrastructure improvements include street, sidewalk, water, sewer, flood, and drainage improvements. Public facilities also include facilities for persons with special needs such as: domestic violence shelters; nursing homes; or, group homes for the disabled. Also considered may include:  Energy efficiency improvements;  Handicapped accessibility improvements (including improvements to buildings used for general conduct of government); and,  Architectural design features and other treatments aimed at improving aesthetic quality (e.g., sculptures, fountains). In general, public facilities and public improvements are interpreted to include all facilities and improvements that are publicly owned, or that are owned by a nonprofit and open to the general public. Anchorage’s survey respondents identified the following high priorities for public facilities. NA 50 Table 1 Top seven Public Facility needs in Anchorage Rank Public Facility High Priority 1 Homeless Facilities 223 2 Abused/Neglected Children Facilities 218 3 Mental Health Facilities 158 4 Child Care Centers 151 5 Youth Centers 150 6 Senior Centers 122 7 Handicapped Centers 121 B. MOA’s need for Public Improvements and How These Needs Were Determined The needs were determined from research, public input, and the Community Needs Survey. A summary of the top results are in table below. HUD defines public improvements as: the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or installation of public facilities and improvements. Eligible types of facilities and improvements include:  Infrastructure improvements (construction or installation) including, but not limited to streets, curbs, and water and sewer lines; and,  Neighborhood facilities including, but not limited to public schools, libraries, recreational facilities, parks, playgrounds.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 161

NA 50 Table 2 Top three Public Improvement needs in Anchorage Rank Public Improvements High Priority 1 Sidewalks 151 2 Street Improvements 114 3 Flood Drainage Improvements 94 C. MOA’s need for Public Services and How These Needs Were Determined The needs were determined from research, public input, and the Community Needs Survey. A summary of the top results are in table below. Specifically, to use CDBG funds, the public services provision applies in the following manner:  If a service is new, it may be funded.  If a service exists, determine whether it was provided by or on behalf of the unit of local government with local or state funding.  If it was not provided by or on behalf of the local government with funding from the local government, it may be funded.  If it was provided by or on behalf of the local government with funding from the local government, grantees must determine whether the proposed service will be a quantifiable increase in the level of service. HUD considers the following as public service activities:  Employment services (e.g., job training);  Crime prevention and public safety;  Child care;  Health services;  Substance abuse services (e.g., counseling and treatment);  Fair housing counseling;  Education programs;  Energy conservation;  Services for senior citizens;  Services for homeless persons;  Welfare services (excluding income payments);  Down payment assistance; and,  Recreational services.

162 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

The following tables identify the community’s identification for needs related to: Public Service Priorities for Non‐Homeless; Homeless Subpopulations Priority Needs; and Public Service Priorities. NA 50 Table 3 Top Five Public Service Needs Rank Public Service Priorities for Non‐Homeless Special Needs High Priority 1 Victims of Domestic Violence or Similar Life Threatening Condition 202 2 Persons at Risk of Homelessness 173 3 Frail Elderly 170 4 Severe Mental Illness 169 5 Families with Children 164 NA 50 Table 4 Homeless Subpopulation Priority Needs Rank Homeless ‐ Subpopulations High Priority 1 Chronically Homeless Individuals and Families 210 2 Families with children 207 3 Victims of Domestic Violence or Similar Life Threatening Condition 206 4 Unaccompanied youth 165 5 Persons with Chronic Substance Abuse 160 NA 50 Table 5 Public Service Priorities Rank Public Service Priorities High Priority 1 Handicapped Services 214 2 Youth Services 168 3 Transportation Services 168 4 Senior Services 154 5 Child Care Services 148 D. Overview of How Housing and Community Development Needs Were Determined The Municipality administered a Housing and Community Development Needs Survey in twenty meetings. The survey outlined areas of need that included Sections for: Public Facility; Infrastructure; Public Services; and Commercial/Industrial Land Acquisition/Disposition and Infrastructure Development and Construction/Rehabilitation and Economic Development. Community members ranked the need of services for each Section using H, M, L, N or U for priority level. Each of the rankings (H, M, L, N, and U) could be used more than once for each line item in tables related to the above sections. See NA 50 Table 6 shows a total of 340 surveys were completed at twenty community‐ based meetings. See NA 50 Table 7 below for each group, date, time and location of these meetings. NA 50 Table 6 Priority Needs Ranking levels Priority Level High More of these programs are needed Medium Services should remain at the same level Low Less programs are needed None There is no need for these programs Unsure Undecided or does not have knowledge of existing service level

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 163

NA 50 Table 7 Community Survey Presentations and Survey Distribution 2013 Action Plan Presentations and 2013‐2017 Consolidated Plan Date Time Location Assembly Conference Room, 1st Floor, Room 155, City Hall, 632 W. 1 HAND Commission Meeting 11/2/2011 4:00 PM 6th Avenue College Gate Elementary School, 2 University Area Community Council 1/4/2012 7:00 PM 3101 Sunflower Street 3 Downtown Community Council 1/5/2012 5:30 PM Museum , 7th Avenue Assembly Conference Room, 1st Floor, Room 155, City Hall, 632 W. 4 HAND Commission Meeting 1/11/2012 4:00 PM 6th Avenue 5 Senior Citizens Advisory Commission 1/25/2012 10:00 AM Anchorage Senior Center Anchorage Coalition on Alaska Mental Health Trust Homelessness General Membership Authority, 3745 Community Park 6 Meeting 1/26/2012 1:30 PM Loop 7 Covenant House Staff Meeting 2/2/2012 8:00 AM Covenant House ‐ 6th Avenue 8 Bean’s Café Town Hall Meeting 2/2/2012 2:30 PM Bean’s Café Loussac Sogn Apartments, 429 D 9 Loussac Sogn 2/7/2012 6:00 PM Street DHHS, 825 L Street, 4th floor 10 Anchorage Women's Commission 2/8/2012 12:30 PM conference room 11 AWAIC Shelter 2/9/2012 1:30 PM 100 W. 13th Avenue Fairview Community Recreation 12 Fairview Community Council 2/9/2012 6:30 PM Center RurAL CAP central office in 13 RurAL CAP All Staff Meeting 2/13/2012 10:00 AM Fairview 14 STAR Alaska 2/16/2012 8:00 AM 1057 W. Fireweed Lane, Suite 230 15 The Adelaide 2/16/2012 6:00 PM Adelaide Apartments, 201 E. 9th BP Energy Center, 900 East 16 Community Stakeholder Meeting 2/21/2012 6:00 PM Benson Blvd. 17 Anchorage Senior Center Social Hour 2/22/2012 12:30 PM Anchorage Senior Center 18 ACCESS Alaska 2/24/2012 11:00 AM 121 W. Fireweed Lane, Suite 105 19 Muldoon Park Strip Committee 2/27/2012 7:00 PM Safe Harbor ‐ Muldoon Road 3925 Tudor Centre Drive, SART 20 Alaska CARES 3/6/2012 10:00 AM Center

164 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XV. MA 05 Market Analysis Overview

The importance in completing a Housing Market Analysis is to identify barriers to affordable housing, and to determine what, if any, available housing stock is available to fill a gap. Also, the Municipality is tasked with identifying the economic viability of the jurisdiction and creating strategies that fit both the dynamics of the housing industry and its labor pool. The generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to expend no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. Households that spend more are considered cost burdened, and may as a consequence have less money for food, clothing, and medical care. According to HUD, there is an estimated 13 million renter and homeowner households that now pay more than 50 percent of their annual income on housing.35 This market analysis describes the housing market, vacancy rates, fair market rates and median rent costs, and identifies the specific needs of Anchorage households who are currently cost burdened. First and foremost is a description of Anchorage’s housing needs. The tables below show by renter and owner household area median income (AMI), those that are currently spending more than their affordability of 30 percent. The largest need is for the lowest income renters with an AMI less than 30%, and most in need of all bedrooms from 0 (efficiency) to 3 and greater, with an overall need totaling 5,875. The largest need is for homeowners with an AMI less than 30% who need all bedrooms from 0 to 3 and greater, with an overall need totaling 1,290. MA Table 1 Rental Housing Needed by Affordability Renter Housing Needed by Affordability Rental Units by # of Bedrooms Total Renter AMI 0‐1 2 3+ Rent <30% AMI or less 2,495 2,145 1,235 5,875 Rent <=30.1 to 50% 940 1,820 870 3,630 <=51.1 to 80% 15 190 630 835 Total 3,435 3,965 2,105 10,340 MA Table 2 Owner Housing Needed by Affordability Owner Housing Needed by Affordability Owner Units by # of Bedrooms Total Owner AMI 0‐1 2 3+ <30% AMI or less 65 645 580 1,290 % 30.1‐50% 75 240 445 760 % 50.1‐80% 30 180 520 730 % 80.1‐95% 20 50 145 215 Total 190 1,115 1,690 2,995 An assessment of Joint Base Elmendorf‐Richardson (JBER) shows 424 military households on the JBER wait list as of May 7, 2013. The demand for JBER housing is for: 2 bedrooms (43%); 3 bedrooms (25%), 5 bedrooms (18%) and 4 bedrooms (14%).

35 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Who Needs Affordable Housing, February 16, 2012 found at http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 165

In a more abbreviated, but updated, assessment of American Community Survey (Census) data collected from 2006 to 2010 an estimated:  17,205 owner households are paying more than 30% of their household income on rent and account for 34% of owners; and,  16,865 renter households are paying more than 30% of their household income on rent, which accounts for an estimated 45% of all renters. An overall assessment of the housing market shows in 2010, there was an estimated 112,166 housing units in Anchorage; of which 95% was owner occupied and 38% was renter occupied. The owner occupied had 2.75 persons per household; while the renter occupied had 2.50 persons per household. Anchorage has a relatively young group of renters between 15 to 24 years of age that represent 17% of renter occupants, followed by 29% for renters 25 to 34 years of age. Anchorage homeowners have the greatest percentage at 29% for 45 to 54 years of age, followed at 21% for 55 to 59 years of age. Owner housing units have a greater percentage of 3 bedrooms at 78% in comparison to Renter housing units at 31%. Renter households have a higher percentage at 44% for 2 bedrooms. This reflects the owner occupied household of 2.75 in comparison to the 2.51 Renter Occupied household. The Anchorage area continues to see low vacancy rates ranging from 4.9% for an efficiency, to 1.7% for a 1 bedroom, 2.4% for a 2 bedroom, and 4.8 for a 3 bedroom. Anchorage’s largest economic sectors are: transportation (air and water); federal, state and municipal government; natural resource development (petroleum, mining); health care; tourism/leisure; and, construction. Market Analysis Outline This section of the Draft Consolidated Plan is called the Market Analysis and is laid out in the following sections: MA 05 Overview MA 10 Number of Housing Units MA 15 Cost of Housing MA 20 Condition of Housing MA 25 Public and Assisted Housing MA 30 Homeless Facilities MA 35 Special Needs Facilities and Services MA 40 Barriers to Affordable Housing MA 45 Non‐Housing Community Development Assets MA 50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion

166 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XVI. MA 10 Number of Housing Units

Anchorage has 112,166 total housing units, with 104,315 occupied. Of the occupied units, 62% is owner occupied and 38% is renter occupied. The owner occupied average per household is 2.75, slighter greater than the 2.51 for rental occupied units. Of the 112,166 total units, 7% are vacant units. MA 10 Table 1 Total Housing Units Percent Occupied and Per Anchorage Housing Units Total Household Total Housing Units 112,166 Occupied 104,315 95% Owner‐Occupied 64,368 62% Population in Owner‐Occupied (# of individuals) 177,300 2.75 Per Household Renter‐Occupied 39,947 38% Population in Renter‐Occupied (# of individuals) 100,383 2.51 Per Household Vacant 7,851 7% Source: American Community Survey, 2006‐2010 5‐Year Data for Anchorage Municipality A modest 12% increase in the number of total housing units from 2000 to 2012, while there has been a 50% increase in the number of occupied housing units. There has also been a 42% increase in vacant units. In 2010, there were a total of 465 new housing units. MA 10 Table 2 Anchorage Housing Units Occupied 2000 2010 Percent Anchorage Housing Units Occupied Census Census Difference Change Total Housing Units 100,368 112,166 11,798 12% Occupied 94,822 104,315 47,362 50% Owner‐Occupied 56,953 64,368 7,415 13% Population in Owner‐Occupied (# of individuals) 160,038 177,300 17,262 11% Renter‐Occupied 37,869 39,947 2,078 5% Population in Renter‐Occupied (# of individuals) 93,158 100,383 7,225 8% Vacant 5,546 7,851 2,305 42% Source: 2000 US Census, 2010 US Census Of the 7% of the Municipality’s vacant units identified in the 2010 Census, the majority at 33% is identified as other vacant, 22% is for rent, and 21% is for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Definitions by the US Census, describes a housing unit is classified as “other vacant” when it does not fit into any other year‐round vacant category. Most often cited reason a housing unit is labeled “other vacant” is that no one lives in the unit and the owner: 36  Is making repairs or renovations.  Does not want to rent or sell.  Is using the unit for storage.  Is elderly and living in a nursing home or with family members.

36 US Census, Other Vacant Housing Units: 2000, 2005, and 2010, by Melissa Kresin, February 2013 found at http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/h121‐13‐01.pdf

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 167

 The unit is being held for settlement of an estate.  The unit is being foreclosed. MA 10 Table 3 Vacant Housing Units Vacant Housing Units 7,851 Percentage For Rent 1,747 22% Rented, not occupied 443 6% For sale only 803 10% Sold, not occupied 478 6% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 1,680 21% For migrant workers 144 2% Other Vacant 2,556 33% Source: American Community Survey, 2006‐2010 5‐Year Data for Anchorage Municipality A relatively young group of renters between 15 to 24 years of age represent 17% of renter occupants. The table also shows the largest percentage at 29% of renters is 25 to 34 years of age, followed at 20% for renters 35 to 44 years of age. MA 10 Table 4 Renter occupied householder by age Percent of Renter Renter occupied Total Occupied Total renter occupied units 39,947 Householder 15 to 24 years 6,728 17% Householder 25 to 34 years 11,515 29% Householder 35 to 44 years 8,074 20% Householder 45 to 54 years 7,036 18% Householder 55 to 59 years 2,465 6% Householder 60 to 64 years 1,531 4% Householder 65 to 74 years 1,481 4% Householder 75 to 84 years 875 2% Householder 85 years and over 242 1% Source: American Community Survey, 2006‐2010, 5‐Year Data for Anchorage Municipality The largest percentage at 29% of owner householders is 45 to 54 years, followed by 35 to 44 years at 21%, and 55 to 59 years of age at 13%. In comparison to the renter occupied information in Table 4, only 2% of the occupants are between 15 to 24 years of age, and only 12% of householders between 25 to 34 years of age are householders. MA 10 Table 5 Owner occupied householder by age Percent of Owner Owner occupied Total Occupied Total Owner occupied units 64,368 Householder 15 to 24 years 998 2% Householder 25 to 34 years 7,986 12% Householder 35 to 44 years 13,325 21% Householder 45 to 54 years 18,654 29% Householder 55 to 59 years 8,160 13% Householder 60 to 64 years 5,955 9% Householder 65 to 74 years 6,255 10% Householder 75 to 84 years 2574 4% Householder 85 years and over 461 1% Source: American Community Survey, 2006‐2010, 5‐Year Data for Anchorage Municipality

168 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Table 6 Unit Size by Tenure shows Owner housing units have a greater percentage of 3 bedrooms at 78% in comparison to Renter housing units at 31%. Renter households have a higher percentage at 44% for 2 bedrooms. This reflects the owner occupied household of 2.75 in comparison to the 2.51 Renter Occupied household. MA 10 Table 6 Unit Size by Tenure Owners Renters Number % Number % No bedroom 186 0% 1,307 3% 1 bedroom 1,755 3% 8,813 22% 2 bedrooms 11,645 18% 17,859 44% 3 bedrooms 49,570 78% 12,467 31% Total 63,156 99% 40,446 100% Source 2005‐2009 ACS, populated by HUD Table 7 illustrates a greater percentage of single family unit account for 47% (1‐unit detached structure) and the 1 unit attached structure at 13%, followed closely by 11% for 3 or 4 units in a housing structure. A 1‐unit attached unit is a structure that has one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating it from adjoining structures.37 For 2 units (duplexes) or more these are units in structures containing 2 or more housing units, further categorized as units in structures with 2, 3 or 4, 5 to 9, 10 to 19, 20 to 49, and 50 or more apartments. MA 10 Table 7 Housing Units by Structure Property Type Number % Total Housing Units in Anchorage 112,166 1‐unit detached structure 52,378 47% 1‐unit, attached structure 15,073 13% 2 units 6,138 5% 3 or 4 units 11,842 11% 5 to 9 units 8,516 8% 10‐19 units 4,620 4 20 to 49 5,815 5% 50 or more 2,632 2% Mobile Home 5,139 5% Boat, RV, van, etc 13 0.01% Source: 2005‐2009 ACS Data A. Anchorage Median Rent and Vacancy Rates Alaska Rates Before reviewing Anchorage’s median rent and vacancy rates, information on the State of Alaska should be introduced. Homes can be vacant for many reasons and are defined by the U. S Census Bureau as both unoccupied rental inventory as well as homes that are unoccupied and “for sale.” National vacancy rates in 2012 were 8.7% for rental housing and 2.0% for homeowner housing. In 2012, Alaska ranked second for the lowest rental vacancy rate in the country. Also, in 2012 Alaska ranked third for the lowest homeowner vacancy rates.

37 U.S Census Definitions found at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/SubjectDefinitions/2010_ACSSubjectDefi nitions.pdf

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 169

MA 10 Table 8 Rental Vacancy Rate by Lowest Ranking Rank State 2012 1 Vermont 4.2 2 Alaska 4.7 3 Oregon 4.9 4 California 5.2 5 Maine. 5.3 Source: U.S. Census found at http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/ann12ind.html MA 10 Table 9 Homeowner Vacancy Rates by Lowest Ranking Rank State 2012 1 South Dakota. 1.0 2 Nebraska 1.3 3 Alaska. 1.4 4 North Dakota 1.4 5 Wyoming 1.4 Source: U.S. Census found at http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/ann12ind.html Anchorage Rates Each March the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) surveys Alaska’s landlords for residential rental information. Using survey information the DLWED prepares the annual Alaska Housing Market for the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Information from the Rental Market Survey is used in the Consolidated Plan to analyze apartment rental and single family rental costs and vacancy rates for Anchorage. The median adjusted rent is used in this Plan’s analysis for comparisons between 2011 and 2012. The median adjusted rent is the middle value of the rent paid and includes estimated value for utilities (light, heat, water). Table 8 shows the number of bedrooms and vacancy rate for 2011 and 2012 for apartment rental costs. From 2011 to 2012, there was a slight reduction in the median rent by 4%, while the vacancy rate fell at 2% for 0 bedroom rentals, commonly known as efficiencies. There was a slight increase for the median rent for 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms at 4%, 3%, and 4% respectively. However, there was a 26% increase of vacancy rate for 2 bedrooms and a 23% increase of vacancy rate for 3 bedrooms. Similar to 2011 vacancy rates, the 2012 vacancy rates are well below Alaska’s ten year average of 6.7%38. Low vacancy rates mean high rental prices. Anchorage’s vacancy rates falls short of the national vacancy rates for the nation at 8.8 for Quarter 1 and 8.6 for Quarter 2 of 2012.39

38 Alaska Economic Trends, Alaska Rental Survey, Costs around the state for various types of homes, by Rob Kreiger and Caroline Schultz, Economists, August 2011, State of Alaska Labor and Workforce Development, found at http://labor.alaska.gov/research/trends/aug11art2.pdf

39 U.S. Census Bureau News, U.S. Department of commerce, July 27, 2012 found at: https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/qtr212/q212press.pdf

170 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Anchorage Housing Image found at: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Anchorage+hosuing+images&qpvt=Anchor age+hosuing+images&FORM=IGRE MA 10 Table 10 Anchorage 2011‐2012 Apartment Rental Costs and Vacancy Rates 2011 2012 Percentage Change

Median Vacancy Median Vacancy Median Vacancy Number of Rate % Bedrooms Rent Rate (%) Rent Rate (%) Rent % Change 0 $ 845 5 $ 812 4.9 4% 2% 1 $ 985 1.7 $ 1,020 1.7 4% 0% 2 $ 1,202 1.9 $ 1,240 2.4 3% 26% 3 $ 1,344 3.9 $ 1,395 4.8 4% 23% Source: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Alaska Annual Rental Market Survey40 Single family residence rental costs and vacancy rates can be compared from 2011 to 2012. The median rent increased by 3% for a 1 bedroom, increased by 6% for a 2 bedroom, increased by 2% for a 3 bedroom, and increased by 4% for a 4 bedroom. Meaning there was an additional rent amount of $31 for a 1 bedroom, $77 for a 2 bedroom, $43 for a 3 bedroom, and $90 for a 4 bedroom. The vacancy rate for a 1 bedrooms decreased slightly at 2%, but fell far greater for 2 bedrooms by 53% (3.6 to 1.7) , and 31% for 3 bedrooms (3.5 to 2), but increased by 23% (3.9 to 4.8) for 4 bedrooms. MA 10 Table 11 Anchorage 2011‐2012 Single Family Residence Rental Costs and Vacancy Rates 2011 2012 Percentage Change Number of Median Vacancy Median Vacancy Median Vacancy Bedrooms Rent Rate (%) Rent Rate (%) Rent % Rate % Change 1 $897 5 $928 4.9 3% ‐2% 2 $1,381 3.6 $1,458 1.7 6% 53% 3 $1,781 3.5 $1,824 2.4 2% 31% 4 $2,127 3.9 $2,217 4.8 4% 23% Source: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Alaska Annual Rental Market Survey41

40 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation information can be found at: http://www.ahfc.us/files/5813/5723/9360/2012_rental_survey.pdf

41 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, ibid

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 171

B. Military Housing: Joint Base Elmendorf‐Richardson Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson Army Post were merged in 2010. This action was taken as a result of recommendations made by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). The combined base and post is now named Joint Base Elmendorf‐Richardson or JBER. Most of the JBER civilian base employees will now be Air Force employees. According to Fort Richardson’s website in 2011, there are 5,418 soldiers, as well as over 8,300 family members housed at the base as of June 2008. The Fort also employs about 1,200 Army and Department of Defense civilian employees. Fort Richardson's military payroll for fiscal year 2003 was $85 million. The civilian payroll was $49 million. Including other expenditures of $111 million, Fort Richardson put more than $245 million into the local economy. JBER has over 2,000 family housing units on base. The housing on JBER is limited to those who are assigned to the base. For off‐base housing options, the JBER housing office can identify properties which may offer discounted rental rates for military personnel. Rental units near JBER are offered in duplexes, townhomes, and single‐family homes as well as apartment units. Military personnel use their Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) allotments to buy or rent a residence in the surrounding community. BAH rates are assigned by rank and can be used to purchase or rent a residence off‐base. Enlisted personnel are broken down into respective "E" grades from E‐1 to E‐9.42 Officers are represented with “O” and rank of officer is represented thereafter by number, such as 01, 02, and 03. Elmendorf AFB, AK Housing found at: The rent allotment http://elmendorfhousing.com/template.php?name=housing equals the current JBER area BAH with‐ dependent rate entitlement by rank for the period of time residing on base.43 The rank and number of dependents determine the type of home that military households qualify for to live in JBER. Wait lists include Enlisted (E) and Officer (O) military members waiting for housing. Table 10 shows the wait list as of May 7, 2013 by grade, number of bedrooms needed, and the earliest wait list date.44 Military personnel can lease off base until an eligible unit on JBER becomes available. The wait list will include military personnel who have an expected arrival date in the future. Table 10 shows 424 military households on the JBER wait list. Table 11 shows the majority of demand for JBER housing is for 2 bedrooms at 43% followed by 3 bedrooms at 25%, 5 bedrooms at 18% and 4 bedrooms at 14%.

42 Military Pay Scales can be found at: http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

43 Information from JBER website for housing found at: http://www.auroramilitaryhousing.com/faqs#general

44 JBER Wait list found at: http://www.auroramilitaryhousing.com/arriving‐residents

172 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

MA 10 Table 12 JBER Wait List by Grade, # of Bedrooms Needed, and Earliest Wait List Dates Earliest Wait List Date Shown for Grade # of Bedrooms Needed Each Grade Category Listing Total Wait List E07‐E08 2 5/14/2012 134 E01‐E06 3 8/12/2012 51 E06‐E06 4 6/29/2012 21 E01‐E06 5 8/4/2011 55

E07‐E08 3 11/2/2011 31 E07‐E08 4 7/11/2011 6 E09 3 12/1/2010 7 E09 4 7/30/2013 1 E07‐E09 5 6/1/2012 14

O01‐O03 2 2/8/2012 48 O01‐O03 3 10/29/2012 10 O01‐O03 4 1/19/2012 8 O01‐O03 5 10/11/2011 7 O04‐O05 3 2/5/2013 7 O04‐O05 4 1/11/2013 12 O04‐O05 5 11/6/2012 2 O06 4 3/6/2011 10 Total Households on Wait List 424 Source: Information collapsed from JBER Wait List as of May 7, 2013 MA 10 Table 13 Number of Bedrooms Needed by Total and Percentage # of Bedrooms Needed Total Wait List Percentage of Need 2 182 43% 3 106 25% 4 58 14% 5 78 18% Source: Information collapsed from JBER Wait List as of May 7, 2013 C. Additional Military Households: Air Force Plan for Eielson Air Force Base In February 2012, the Air Force announced its plan is to move the F‐16 Aggressor squadron at Eielson Air Force Base, in Fairbanks, to JBER in Fiscal Year 2013.45 The move was intended to achieve savings for the military. About half of Eielson’s 3,100 military and civilian jobs would be transferred to Anchorage under the Air Force plan, which called for Eielson’s 21 F‐16s to be moved out by the summer of 2013. The plan is part of a proposed budget‐cutting realignment at 60 U.S. military installations. However in June 2012, the Air Force decided to wait to carry out the proposed plan until after Congress completes action on the FY 2013 defense authorization and appropriations bills, so the move will likely be postponed until Oct. 1, 2013. The Air Force is reviewing a housing study to ensure adequate housing is available in the Anchorage community.46

45 USAF Force Structure Changes: Sustaining Readiness and Modernizing the Total Force, February 2012, announcement found at http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD‐120203‐027.pdf 46 Association of Defense Communities found at http://www.defensecommunities.org/headlines/schwartz‐ confirms‐air‐force‐will‐suspend‐eielson‐afb‐realignment/#

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 173

The study released August 2012, completed by Science Applications International Inc. and commissioned by the Air Force, shows the Anchorage housing market may not be adequate to accommodate military personnel and family members transferred from Eielson. The 48 page report looked at the Anchorage housing market for 2012 to 2014. The report outlined the lack of housing capacity in Anchorage. The report focused primarily on rental housing unit availability, noting approximately 35 percent of JBER personnel own their own homes and those who do not are likely above rank of those moving to the area. The study referenced Anchorage’s vacancy rate of about 2.6 percent, down from 5 to 6 percent from prior years, as a fact that “significantly limits the number of units available to absorb additional military households.” “The relatively small number of available rental units reflects the tight rental market,” the study says. D. Anchorage Buildable Land Use The Anchorage Housing Market Analysis conducted for the Municipality studied housing needs and land capacity from 2010‐2030 and made the following recommendations:  As of 2010, there were 5,800 acres of buildable residential land in the Anchorage Bowl, including F‐16 Fighting Falcon Aggressors fly over Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, March 1, 5,200 acres of vacant 2011. The Aggressors returned from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam after (undeveloped) land and 600 acres participating in a two week long exercise conducted by the U.S. and Japan. (U.S. of partially vacant land that has Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Christopher Boitz), and found at: http://www.eielson.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=2382 space to be further subdivided or developed. • Since 1998 the inventory shows a 30 to 40 percent decline in the amount of buildable residential land in the Anchorage Bowl. • Without increasing the current level of housing density and increasing the rate of redevelopment, the Anchorage Bowl will lack land for about 7,185 of the projected new housing units, or about half of expected demand.47 • Chugiak‐Eagle River has enough land to meet its own projected demand for all housing types. The surplus land capacity in Chugiak‐Eagle River could accommodate some of the Bowl’s single‐family detached housing demand; however, it is not the ideal location to address the Bowl’s need for dense urban multifamily development and cannot accommodate all of the projected demand. Table 12 shows projected housing demand for the Anchorage bowl to be a total of 7,185 homes. The Analysis breaks out the need for structure type, land capacity, and projected number needed for the Anchorage bowl. Similar to the Anchorage bowl analysis, Table 12a show projected demand and capacity for the Chugiak‐Eagle River.

47 The actual number used in Anchorage Housing Market Analysis, McDowell Group, Inc. and ECONorthwest, Executive Summary, is 8,900 instead of 7,185; however, CSD staff consulted with Karen Iverson, Planning Department, on May 6, 2013 to represent the math correction of 7,185.

174 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

MA 10 Table 14 Projected Residential Land Sufficiency, Anchorage Bowl, 2010‐2030 Land Projected Housing Sufficiency Structure Type Capacity Demand (capacity minus demand) Large Lot Single Family 2,030 362 1,668 Single Family 3,614 6,003 ‐2,389 Two Family/Duplex 1,272 3,455 ‐2,183 Townhouse 768 1,455 ‐687 Multi‐Family/Other 3,315 6,909 ‐3,594 Total 10,999 18,184 ‐7,185 Source: Anchorage Housing Market Analysis McDowell Group, Inc. and ECONorthwest, Page 2 MA 10 Table14a Projected Residential Land Sufficiency, Chugiak‐Eagle River, 2010‐2030 Land Projected Housing Sufficiency Structure Type Capacity Demand (capacity minus demand) Large Lot Single Family 1,700 665 1,035 Single Family 2,587 1,663 924 Two Family/Duplex 914 499 415 Townhouse 707 132 575 Multi‐Family/Other 629 365 264 Total 6,537 3,324 3,213 Source: Anchorage Housing Market Analysis McDowell Group, Inc. and ECONorthwest, Page 3 E. Description of number and targeting of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs Overall, Anchorage has a total of 112,166 household units with the majority (60%) owner occupied, with an average of 2.75 persons per household. At 40% of renter occupied household units, there are 2.51 persons per household. Owner occupied household units have a high percentage (78%) of 3 bedrooms, while the renter occupied households have a higher percentage at 44% for 2 bedrooms. Approximately 7% (7,851) of the city’s housing units are vacant. Of the total vacant units, 22% are for rent and 21% for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. A total of 33% account for other vacant. Anchorage’s housing units do not meet the needs of the population. Anchorage 2012 apartment rental vacancy rates for 0, 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms are respectively at 4.9%, 1.7%, 2.4%, and 4.8%; well below Alaska’s rental vacancy rate for first Quarter 2013 at 6%. In addition, JBER as of May 7, 2013 has a wait listed for 424 military households. The need for JBER housing by decreasing percentage is: 43% for a 2 bedroom, 25% for a 3 bedroom, 18% for a 5 bedroom and 14% for 4 bedrooms. A safe assumption is these military households are currently occupying rental units with the needed number of bedrooms on the wait list. Under the Consolidated Plan, two of the federally funded entitlement programs can be used to develop or maintain housing units to offset Anchorage’s low vacancy rates: CDBG and HOME. To account for the expected loss of housing funds primarily from the HOME program, more CDBG funds can be targeted towards housing and housing rehabilitation under the CDBG program. The CDBG program has four primary categories of activity: 1) capital improvements (public facilities/infrastructure); 2) housing; 3) public services; and 4) planning and administration. If over the Plan’s five‐year period funding remains at the 2012 grant amounts, housing rehabilitation unit production and funding can be targeted to the following is: Minor Repair Program Projected annual allocation of CDBG funds is $400,000. Program goals are 19 rehabilitated units per year; Habitat for Humanity Home Ownership Projected annual allocation of HOME funds is $23,000 for down payment assistance. Program goals are 8 units per year; and,

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 175

Rental Development Projected allocation of CDBG and HOME funds for 2013 is $1.3 mil. F. Units Expected to be lost from Inventory, including Section 8 vouchers Anchorage expects to see a loss of public housing vouchers. As a result of federal budget cuts mandated under the sequestration requirements, AHFC has put a statewide hold on the issuance of all Housing Choice vouchers for an indefinite period of time. The net effect of the funding cut results in about 222 fewer vouchers. As of May 2013, and at AHFC typical issuance rate, it is estimated the moratorium will extend for at least six months, and possibly longer. Some specially targeted vouchers funded through sources including HUD (Youth Aging out of Foster Care, Prisoner Re‐entry, Victims of Domestic Violence, VASH Vet Vouchers (for chronically homeless veterans) are still being issued, but they are limited in number and tied to specific populations based upon referrals from other agencies. G. Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population? The available housing units do not meet the needs of Anchorage’s population. Without increasing the current level of housing density and increasing the rate of land development, the Anchorage Bowl will lack land for about 7,185 of the projected new housing units, or about half of expected demand between 2010 ‐ 2030. Specifically, in the Anchorage Bowl the projected short fall will be 2,389 for single family, 2,183 for two family/duplexes, 687 for townhouses, and 3,594 for multi‐family/others. H. Need for Specific Types of Housing Breaking out need for renters and owners show: an estimated 5,875 housings units are needed for Renters with an AMI less than 30%, with units featuring 0 (efficiency) to 3 and greater; and, an estimated 1,290 housing units are needed for Owners with an AMI less than 30% who need all bedrooms from 0 to 3 and greater. Affordable housing for the elderly and frail elderly owners with AMI from 0% ‐ 80% are needed. (See Needs Assessment Section) Affordable housing is also needed for Disabled Owners with an 0%‐30% AMI. (See Needs Assessment Section) Emergency and/or transitional housing is also needed for victims of sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. (See Needs Assessment Section) As of May 7, 2013, JBER needed 424 military units to meet the needs of military families. Specifically, military households needed are: 182 for two bedrooms, 106 for 3 bedrooms, 58 for four bedrooms, and 78 for 5 bedroom housing units. Establish affordable housing to use the VA’s vouchers. (See Needs Assessment Section) I. Discussion The Municipality anticipates continued efforts through the HAND Commission and its Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness (HCOSH) to develop projects that best meets the demand for affordable housing in Anchorage. With decreasing federal and state funding to the jurisdiction, there will be a greater need to develop partnerships and create new venues to increase affordable housing. There are several target populations that are vulnerable; however, with renewed public interest and drive—demonstrated throughout 2012 and early 2013 at HAND and HCOSH Commission meetings—there are great opportunities to explore new ideas.

176 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XVII. MA 15 Cost of Housing

A. Introduction: Housing and Rental Market Overview Before exploring housing and a homeless needs assessment, it is important to take a quick review of the cost of living in Anchorage and recognize that housing is by far the largest expense when measured by the Consumer Price Index. The Anchorage CPI is the only measure of CPI for Alaska.48 The CPI measures consumption patterns of spending and can be used in comparison with other cities across the Nation. The 2010 CPI for Anchorage shows 41.3% was spent on housing, followed by 17.4% for transportation, and 14.5 % for food and beverage.49 According to Alaska economists, the high cost of housing in Anchorage became the highest in the state in 2010, with an annual average sale price for a Single‐Family Home at $328,000. Wage earnings in Anchorage to purchase a home must account for 1.44 of the average wage earnings of workers in the area. The wage earnings reflect an average single‐family home with a 30‐year mortgage and 15% down payment. Rental market conditions in Anchorage are tight for both apartment rentals and single family resident rentals. Low levels of new rental supply during the past 2 years, previous employment growth, and the 30‐percent increase in the number of military employees and family members in the area since 2005 have contributed to the tighter rental market conditions. In 2010, Anchorage also accounted for the highest rents in the state, reflecting $1,127 for a two‐bedroom apartment. Table 1 shows a 59% increase in the median home value from 2000 to the period covering 2005‐2009. The percent change increase for the median contract rent is 25%, less than half of the median home value. This means while the median home value has increased by almost 60%, the median contract rent has increased at less than half of the percentage or value. So while home prices have gone up (in value), rent has not increased at the same high percent. MA 15 Table 1 Median Home Value and Median Contract Rent Cost 2000 Census 2005‐2009 ACS (Most % Change (Base Year) Recent Year) Median Home Value 160,700 255,900 59% Median Contract Rent 736 921 25% Sources: 2005‐2009 ACS Data, 2000 Census (Base Year), & 2005‐2009 ACS (Most Recent Year) Table 2 shows that while the median home value has increased by almost 60%, the median household income has not kept up at the same pace, amounting to only a 31% increase from 2000 to 2010. MA 15 Table 2 Median Household Income Change from 2000 Anchorage Median Household 2000 Census 2010 Census % Change Income (Base Year) Median Household Income 55,546 73,004 31%+ Source: 2000 U.S. Census, 2010 U.S. Census Table 3 shows an estimated 17,205 owner households are paying more than 30% of their household income on rent and account for 34% of owners.

48 The Cost of Living in Alaska, How it’s measured and how we compare, Alaska Economic Trends, Neal Fried and Alyssa Shanks, Economists, May 2011 49Ibid.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 177

MA 15 Table 3 Selected Monthly Owner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income Selected Monthly Owner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income Estimate Percentage *Housing units with a mortgage 50,179 Less than 20.0 percent 17,324 35% 20.0 to 24.9 percent 8,861 18% 25.0 to 29.9 percent 6,789 14% 30.0 to 34.9 percent 5,046 10% 35.0 percent or more 12,159 24% Total 50,179 100% Total excluding units where SMOCAR cannot be computed Source: Selected Housing Characteristics, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey, found at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk Table 4 shows an estimated 16,865 renter households are paying more than 30% of their household income on rent, which accounts for an estimated 45% of all renters. MA 15 Table 4 Gross Percentage of Household Income Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income Estimate Percentage * Occupied units paying rent 37,387 Less than 15.0 percent 4,566 12% 15.0 to 19.9 percent 5,790 15% 20.0 to 24.9 percent 5,662 15% 25.0 to 29.9 percent 4,504 12% 30.0 to 34.9 percent 4,019 11% 35.0 percent or more 12,846 34% Total 37,387 100% Total excluding units where SMOCAR cannot be computed. Source: Selected Housing Characteristics, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey, found at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk Table 5 shows the highest percentage at almost 52% of rent paid is $500 to $999 followed by $1,000 to $1,499 at 27%. The category, $1,000‐$1,499, holds the second highest percentage at 27%. MA 15 Table 5 Rent Paid Rent Paid Number % Less than $500 2,567 6.84% $500‐999 19,424 51.79% $1,000‐1,499 10,209 27.22% $1,500‐1,999 4,019 10.72% $2,000 or more 1,287 3.43% Total 37,506 100.00% Source: 2006‐2010, American Community Survey, 5‐Year Data for Anchorage Municipality Fair Market Rates50 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually estimates Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for 530 metropolitan areas and 2,045 nonmetropolitan county FMR areas. By law the final FMRs for use in any fiscal year must be published and available for use at the start of that fiscal year, beginning October 1 of each calendar year. Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are primarily used to determine:  payment standard amounts for the Housing Choice Voucher program,

50 HUD’s Overview of Fair Market Rates found at http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr.html

178 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

 initial renewal rents for some expiring project‐based Section 8 contracts,  initial rents for housing assistance payment (HAP) contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy program (Mod Rehab), and,  rent ceiling guide in the HOME rental assistance program. FMRs are gross rent estimates. They include the shelter rent plus the cost of all tenant‐paid utilities, except telephones, cable or satellite television service, and internet service. HUD sets FMRs to assure that a sufficient supply of rental housing is available to program participants. To accomplish this objective, FMRs must be both high enough to permit a selection of units and neighborhoods and low enough to serve as many low‐income families as possible. HUD is required to ensure that FMRs exclude non‐market rental housing in their computation. Therefore, HUD excludes all units falling below a specified rent level determined from public housing rents in HUD’s program databases as likely to be either assisted housing or otherwise at a below‐market rent, and units less than two years old. Table 6 shows HUD’s FY2012 Fair Market Rate for Efficiency, 1 Bedroom, 2 Bedroom, 3 Bedroom, and 4 Bedroom rental units. Also included in this table are HUD’s High and Low HOME rents for (Year?). MA 15 Table 6 Cost of Housing by Monthly Rent Efficiency Monthly Rent ($) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom (no bedroom) Fair Market Rate (FMR) 706 803 1,007 1,450 1,766 High HOME Rent 725 826 1,036 1,386 1,526 Low HOME Rent 725 787 945 1,092 1,218 Source: HUD Fair Market Rate and HOME Rents populated in HUD’s IDIS Table 7 compares the differences between Anchorage’s 2012 Median Rent and HUD’s FY2012 FMR which shows significant differences for Efficiency, 1, and 2 bedrooms. For Efficiency, HUD’s FMR is $106 less than the median rent, and $217 for a 1 bedroom, and $233 for a 2 bedroom. For 3 bedrooms, HUD’s FMR is $55 more than the median rent. Local data is not available to compare the 4 bedroom FMR. The comparisons mean that HUD’s lower FMR for 0, 1, and 2 bedrooms can provide a lower costing rental unit for someone who is eligible under the HOME Program. The exception is the 3 bedroom FMR which is $55 higher than the median rent. MA 15 Table 7 2012 Median Rent compared to HUD FY2012 Fair Market

2012 Median Rent compared Number of 2012 Median HUD FY2012 to FY2012 Fair Market Bedrooms Rent FMR 0 812 706 ‐106 1 1,020 803 ‐217 2 1,240 1,007 ‐233 3 1,395 1,450 55 Sources: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Alaska Annual Rental Market Survey51, and HUD FY2012 Fair Market Rate The HOME Program HUD provides monies through the HOME Investment Partnership to implement local housing strategies designed to increase homeownership and affordable housing opportunities for low and very low‐income Americans. The Municipality receives HOME monies to implement this strategy of increasing homeownership and affordable housing opportunities.

51 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation information can be found at: http://www.ahfc.us/files/5813/5723/9360/2012_rental_survey.pdf

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 179

Eligible uses of funds include tenant‐based rental assistance; housing rehabilitation; assistance to homebuyers; and new construction of housing. HOME funding may also be used for site acquisition, site improvements, demolition, relocation, and other necessary and reasonable activities related to the development of non‐luxury housing. All housing developed with HOME funds must serve low‐ and very low‐income families. For rental housing, at least 90 percent of the families benefited must have incomes at or below 60 percent of the area median income; the remaining 10 percent of the families benefited must have incomes at or below 80 percent of area median income. Homeownership assistance must be to families with incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median income. Each year, HUD publishes the applicable HOME income limits by area, adjusted for family size. HOME‐assisted rental units must have rents that do not exceed the applicable HOME rent limits. Each year, HUD publishes the applicable HOME rent limits by area, adjusted for bedroom size. For projects with five or more HOME‐assisted rental units, 20 percent of the units must be rented to very low‐income families. See Appendix B for breakout of household size and eligibility. MA15 Table 8 2012 HUD Income Limits 2012 HUD Income Limits For Anchorage, Alaska Annual Income FY 2012 Median Family Income as Determined by HUD 85,200 Extremely Low Very Low Median Household Income Income HOME Low Low/Moderate Income Size 30% 50% Income 60% Income 80% (est.) 1 17,900 29,850 35,820 45,500 56,875 2 20,450 34,100 40,920 52,000 65,000 3 23,000 38,350 46,020 58,500 73,125 4 25,550 42,600 51,120 65,000 85,200 5 27,600 46,050 55,260 70,200 87,750 6 29,650 49,450 59,340 75,400 94,250 7 31,700 52,850 63,420 80,600 100,750 8 33,750 56,250 67,500 85,800 107,250 Table 9 shows the greatest percentage difference between Anchorage’s 2012 Median Rent in comparison to HUD’s High HOME Rent. For 1 Bedroom there is a $194 less difference and for a 2 Bedroom, a $204 less difference. This means a renter eligible under HOME would spend far less under the High HOME rent rates and save, depending on the number of bedrooms, up to $87, $194, $204, and $59. This savings could then be used for other high need items such as transportation (gas), food and medical care. MA 15 Table 9 2012 Median Rent compared to HIGH HOME Rent. 2012 Median Rent Dollars Number of 2012 Median Rent High HOME Rent compared to Bedrooms High HOME RENT Dollars 0 812 725 ‐87 1 1,020 826 ‐194 2 1,240 1,036 ‐204 3 1,395 1,336 ‐59 Table 10 shows the greatest percentage difference for 3 Bedrooms at less than $303 difference, followed by $295 for 2 Bedrooms. The comparison between the 2012 median rent and the low HOME rent provides even more savings for an eligible renter under the HOME Program. Saving $87, $233, $295, and up to $303 for housing, depending on the number of bedrooms in the rental unit.

180 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

MA 15 Table 10 2012 Median Rent compared to low HOME Rent 2012 Median Rent Dollars Number of 2012 Median Rent Low HOME Rent compared to Bedrooms Low HOME RENT Dollars 0 812 725 ‐87 1 1,020 787 ‐233 2 1,240 945 ‐295 3 1,395 1,092 ‐303 Rental Affordability52 Using HUD’s guidelines, a rental housing is considered to be an affordable housing unit if it is occupied by a extremely low‐income, low‐income, or moderate‐income family or individuals and bears a rent that is the lesser of (1) the Existing Section 8 Fair Market Rent for comparable units in the area or, (2) 30% of the adjusted area median income of a family whose income equals 65% of the median income for the area. With the exception that HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 65% of the AMI because of prevailing levels of constructions costs or fair market rents or unusually high or low family incomes.

Rental units set at 0‐30% in Table 4 are units with a current gross rent (rent and utilities) that are affordable to households with incomes at or below 30% of HUD AMI. For these rental units, affordable is defined as gross rent less than or equal to 30% of a household’s gross income. 53 Rental units set at 30‐50% are units with a current gross rent that is affordable to households with incomes greater than 30% and less than or equal to 50% of HUD AMI Family Income. Rental units set at 50‐80% are units with a current gross rent that is affordable to households with incomes greater than 50% and less than or equal to 80% of HUD Area Median Family Income. HUD provides the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data base for jurisdictions to evaluate renter and homeownership household affordability. The CHAS data is used in this section to assess renter and homeownership affordability in the municipality and refers to HUD’s “affordability mismatch”. See Appendix C for more information regarding definitions and application of this term. Rental Affordability Match Table 11 shows available number of rental occupied units by Area Median Income (AMI), followed by the percentages of households occupying the units by their AMI. This table includes a yellow highlight for the percentages of occupants who fit or match the rent by their AMI. For example, Rent <=30%, occupants match with <30% AMI or less for 0‐1 bedrooms (51%), 2 bedrooms (33%), and 3+ bedrooms (29%).

52 Guidelines for Preparing Consolidated Plan and Performance and Evaluation Report Submissions for Local Jurisdictions, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Table 2a 53 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, found at http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/data_doc_chas.html

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 181

MA 15 Table 11 Renter Affordability (RHUD) Housing Units by Affordability (RHUD) Renters Units by # of Bedrooms in Percentage Total 0‐1 2 3+ 1. Rent <=30% # occupied units 810 1,620 1,885 4,315 % occupants <30% AMI or less 51% 33% 29% 30.1‐50% 27% 30% 17% 50.1‐80% 9% 24% 29% 80.1‐95% 9% 2% 11% 95.1% AMI and above 4% 11% 15%

2. Rent <=30.1 to 50% # occupied units 4,180 7,780 1,225 9,295 % occupants <30% AMI or less 37% 21% 13% 30.1‐50% 29% 21% 24% 50.1‐80% 22% 31% 31% 80.1‐95% 7% 8% 12% 95.1% AMI and above 6% 19% 20%

3. Rent <=51.1 to 80% # occupied units 5,255 3,890 5,830 20,890 % occupants <30% AMI or less 17% 21% 15% 30.1‐50% 18% 21% 13% 50.1‐80% 27% 31% 33% 80.1‐95% 10% 8% 8% 95.1% AMI and above 28% 19% 31%

4. Rent >80% # occupied units 395 1,175 3,465 5,035 % occupants <30% AMI or less 11% 2% 6% 30.1‐50% 0% 10% 2% 50.1‐80% 4% 16% 18% 80.1‐95% 20% 12% 9% 95.1% AMI and above 65% 60% 64% Source: CHAS Data, 2006 to 2008, Table 14B Standard Affordability (RHUD 30, 50, 80, and 80+) by # of Bedrooms, ACS 3‐Year Average Rental Affordability Mismatch Table 12 shows the match highlighted in yellow and those with an AMI that falls below the rent highlighted in rose. Households with a higher AMI account for 49% for 0‐1, 67% for 2, and 71% for 3 bedrooms.  In the <=30% category, there is a mismatch for renters with a higher AMI for 0‐1 (49%), 2 bedrooms (67%), and 3+ bedrooms (71%). Almost three quarters of the 3+ bedrooms are occupied by renters with a higher AMI than those that match the rental unit affordability at <=30%.  In the <+30.1 to 50% category, there is a mismatch for renters with a higher AMI for 0‐1 bedrooms (34%), 2 bedrooms (58%), and 3+ bedrooms (63%). The 63% of the mismatch represents the higher AMI households occupying rental units at the <=30.1 to 50%.  In the <=51.1 to 80% category, there is a mismatch with renters with a higher AMI for 0‐1 bedrooms (38%), 2 bedrooms (8%), and 3+ bedrooms (39%).

182 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

 In the >80% the mismatch is 0‐1 bedrooms (65%), 2 bedrooms (60%), and 3+ bedrooms (64%). All bedroom units available for these rental units are occupied at an average of 63% by households with a higher AMI. MA 15 Table 12 Renter Affordability and Mismatch for Renters with a Higher AMI Housing Units by Affordability (RHUD) Renters Units by # of Bedrooms by Total Percentage and Mismatch 0‐1 2 3+ 1. Rent <=30% # occupied units 810 1,620 1,885 4,315 % occupants <30% AMI or less 51% 33% 29% Mismatch % for Renters with Higher 49% 67% 71% AMI

2. Rent <=30.1 to 50% # occupied units 4,180 7,780 1,225 9,295 % occupants <30% AMI or less 37% 21% 13% 30.1‐50% 29% 21% 24% Mismatch % for Renters with Higher 34% 58% 63% AMI

3. Rent <=51.1 to 80% # occupied units 5,255 3,890 5,830 20,890 % occupants <30% AMI or less 17% 21% 15% 30.1‐50% 18% 21% 13% 50.1‐80% 27% 31% 33% Mismatch % for Renters with Higher 38% 8% 39% AMI 19% 4. Rent >80% # occupied units 395 1,175 3,465 5,035 % occupants <30% AMI or less 11% 2% 6% 30.1‐50% 0% 10% 2% 50.1‐80% 4% 16% 18% 80.1‐95% 20% 12% 9% Mismatch % for Renters with Higher 65% 60% 64% AMI Source: CHAS Data, 2006 to 2008, Table 14B Standard Affordability (RHUD 30, 50, 80, and 80+) by # of Bedrooms, ACS 3‐Year Average Table 13 shows the total number of households exceeding their affordability highlighted in rose for rent in the:  <=30.1 to 50% category totals 2,500  <51.1 to 80% category totals 6,525  >80% category totals 1,315

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 183

MA 15 Table 13 Total of Renter Units Occupied by households below Rental AMI Housing Units by Affordability (RHUD) Renters Units by # of Bedrooms Total 0‐1 2 3+ 1. Rent <=30% # occupied units 810 1,620 1,885 4,315 % occupants <30% AMI or less 415 540 545 1,500 30.1‐50% 220 485 320 1,025 50.1‐80% 70 385 540 995 80.1‐95% 70 35 205 310 95.1% AMI and above 35 175 275 485

2. Rent <=30.1 to 50% # occupied units 4,180 3,890 1,225 9,295 % occupants <30% AMI or less 1,535 805 160 2,500 30.1‐50% 1,200 835 295 2,330 50.1‐80% 920 1190 375 2,485 80.1‐95% 285 330 145 760 95.1% AMI and above 240 730 250 1,220 Total occupants below AMI 1,535 805 160 2,500

3. Rent <=51.1 to 80% # occupied units 5,255 9,805 5,830 20,890 % occupants <30% AMI or less 915 1,320 860 3,095 30.1‐50% 940 1,705 785 3,430 50.1‐80% 1,425 2630 1910 5,965 80.1‐95% 510 805 440 1,755 95.1% AMI and above 1465 3345 1,835 6,645 Total occupants below AMI 1,855 3,025 1,645 6,525

4. Rent >80% # occupied units 395 1,175 3,465 5,035 % occupants <30% AMI or less 45 20 215 280 30.1‐50% 0 115 85 200 50.1‐80% 15 190 630 835 80.1‐95% 80 145 315 540 95.1% AMI and above 255 705 2,220 3,180 Total occupants below AMI 60 325 930 1,315 Source: CHAS Data, 2006 to 2008, Table 14B Standard Affordability (RHUD 30, 50, 80, and 80+) by # of Bedrooms, ACS 3‐Year Average Table 14 collapses all renters in each of their affordable AMI. For example all % occupants <30% AMI or less are added in each column to illustrate the total number of renters in the AMI in need of a home by number of bedrooms. Therefore, <30% AMI adds 1,535, 915, and 45 to total 2,495 in the column for 0‐1 bedrooms. In the same renter AMI for <30% AMI or less for 2 bedrooms the figures 805, 1,320 and 20 are added to total 2,145; and in the same AMI for 3+ bedrooms add 160, 860, and 215 to total 1,235. The table is further completed for remaining renters by AMI.

184 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

MA 15 Table 14 Rental Units by Affordability and Number of Bedrooms Renter Housing Needed by Affordability Rental Units by # of Bedrooms Total Renter AMI 0‐1 2 3+ Rent <30% AMI or less 2,495 2,145 1,235 5,875 Rent <=30.1 to 50% 940 1,820 870 3630 <=51.1 to 80% 15 190 630 835 Total 3,435 3,965 2,105 10,340 Owner Affordability54

Housing that is for purchase (with or without rehabilitation) qualifies as affordable housing if it (1) is purchased by a extremely low‐income, low‐income, or moderate‐income first‐time homebuyer who will make the housing his or her principal residence; and (2) has a sale price that does not exceed the mortgage limit for the type of single family housing for the area under HUD’s single family insuring authority under the National Housing Act. Also, homeownership affordability is for housing that is to be rehabilitated, but is already owned by a family when assistance is provided, qualifies as affordable housing if the housing (1) is occupied by a extremely low‐ income, low‐income, or moderate‐income Anchorage Housing image found at: family which uses the house as its principal http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=anchorage+housin residence, and (2) has a value, after g+pictures&qpvt=anchorage+housing+pictures&FORM=IQF rehabilitation that does not exceed the RML mortgage limit for the type of single family housing for the area, as described in the above paragraph. Owner VHUD50 is defined for homes with values affordable to households with incomes at or below 50% of HUD Area Median Family Income. Affordable is defined as annual owner costs less than or equal to 30% of annual gross income. Annual owner costs are estimated assuming the cost of purchasing a home at the time of the Census based on the reported value of the home. Assuming a 7.9% interest rate and national averages for annual utility costs, taxes, and hazard and mortgage insurances, multiplying incomes times 2.9 represents the value of a home a person could afford to purchase. For example, a household with an annual gross income of $30,000 is estimated to be able to afford an $87,000 home without having total costs exceed 30% of their annual household income.55 Owner VHUD80 is defined for are homes with a current value that are affordable to households with incomes greater than 50% and less than 80% of HUD Area Median Family Income. Owner VHUD100 are units with a current value that is affordable to households with incomes greater than 80% and less than 100% of the HUD Area Median Family Income. Owner VHUD100 are affordable to households with incomes greater than 80% and less than 100% of HUD Area Median Family Income. Owner>VHUD100 are affordable to households with 95.1% AMI and above.

54 Guidelines for Preparing Consolidated Plan and Performance and Evaluation Report Submissions for Local Jurisdictions, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Table 2a 55 Definitions taken from State of the Cities Data System, CHAS Data, Affordability Mismatch Output for All Households found at http://socds.huduser.org/chas/index.html

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 185

Owner Affordability Match Following HUD’s guidelines for owner affordability, shows available number of Owner occupied units by Area Median Income (AMI), followed by the percentages of households occupying the units by their AMI. Table 15 includes a yellow highlight for the percentages of Owner occupants who fit or match the rent by their AMI. For example, Owner VHD50, households with 30.1‐50% AMI represent 27% of occupancy which matches affordability for homes with 0‐1 bedrooms, at 14% match for 2 bedrooms, and match at 23% for 3+ bedrooms. Also, for Owner VHUD80, households with 50.1‐80% match for 0‐1 bedrooms (11%), 2 bedrooms (22%), and 3+ bedrooms (19%). There are lower percentages for VHUD100 for 0‐1 bedrooms (0%), 2 bedrooms (11%), and 3+ bedrooms (8%). Percentages increase dramatically for the >VHUD100 for 0‐1 bedrooms (38%), 2 bedrooms (52%), and 3+ bedrooms (79%). MA 15 Table 15 Owner Affordability (VHUD) Owner Housing Units by Affordability Owner Units by # of Bedrooms Total 0‐1 2 3+ 1. Owner VHUD50 # occupied units 245 1,410 1,515 3,170 % occupants <30% AMI or less 14% 30% 11% % 30.1‐50% 27% 14% 23% % 50.1‐80% 6% 31% 28% % 80.1‐95% 43% 8% 13% % 95.1% AMI and above 10% 17% 25%

2. Owner VHUD80 # occupied units 95 950 1,745 2,790 % occupants <30% AMI or less 0% 8% 8% % 30.1‐50% 32% 9% 5% % 50.1‐80% 11% 22% 19% % 80.1‐95% 16% 19% 13% % 95.1% AMI and above 42% 41% 54%

3. Owner VHUD100 # occupied units 45 615 1,495 2,155 % occupants <30% AMI or less 33% 18% 7% % 30.1‐50% 0% 13% 10% % 50.1‐80% 67% 15% 11% % 80.1‐95% 0% 11% 8% % 95.1% AMI and above 0% 44% 64%

4. Owner >VHUD100 # occupied units 130 500 4,210 4,840 % occupants <30% AMI or less 12% 6% 4% % 30.1‐50% 35% 14% 5% % 50.1‐80% 0% 18% 8% % 80.1‐95% 15% 10% 3% % 95.1% AMI and above 38% 52% 79% Source: CHAS Data, 2006 to 2008, Table 14B Standard Affordability (VHUD50, 80, 100, Greater than VHD100%) and # of Bedrooms, ACS 3‐Year Average

186 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Owner Affordability Mismatch Table 14 shows the match highlighted in yellow and those with an AMI that fall below the Owner Affordability highlighted in rose. There is a mismatch in households in the:  VHUD50 category shows the mismatch for occupants with a higher AMI for 0‐1 bedrooms (59%), 2 bedrooms (56%), and 3+ bedrooms (66%).  VHUD80 category shows the mismatch for occupants with a higher AMI is 0‐1 bedrooms (58%), 2 bedrooms (60%), and 3+ bedrooms (67%).  VHUD100 category shows the mismatch is negligible for households with a higher AMI for 0‐1 bedrooms (0%); however, for the 2 bedrooms (44%), and the 3+ bedrooms (64) these percentages reflect a similar percentage for VHUD50 and VHUD80.  >VHUD100 category does not show a mismatch for occupants with a higher AMI, but does reflect a match occupancy for 0‐1 bedrooms (38%), 2 bedrooms (52%), and 3+ bedrooms (79%). This shows the higher AMI owners have the highest percentage of 3+ bedrooms (79%); a little over half of all 2 bedrooms (52%), and almost 40% of the 0‐1 bedrooms. MA 15 Table 16 Owner Affordability and Mismatch for Owners with a Higher AMI Owner Housing Units by Affordability Owner Units by # of Bedrooms Total 0‐1 2 3+ 1. Owner VHUD50 # occupied units 245 1,410 1,515 3,170 % occupants <30% AMI or less 14% 30% 11% % 30.1‐50% 27% 14% 23% Mismatch for % for Higher AMI 59% 56% 66%

2. Owner VHUD80 # occupied units 95 950 1,745 2,790 % occupants <30% AMI or less 0% 8% 8% % 30.1‐50% 32% 9% 5% % 50.1‐80% 11% 22% 19% Mismatch for % for Higher AMI 58% 60% 67%

3. Owner VHUD100 # occupied units 45 615 1,495 2,155 % occupants <30% AMI or less 33% 18% 7% % 30.1‐50% 0% 13% 10% % 50.1‐80% 67% 15% 11% % 80.1‐95% 0% 11% 8% Mismatch for % for Higher AMI 0% 44% 64%

4. Owner >VHUD100 # occupied units 130 500 4,210 4,840 % occupants <30% AMI or less 12% 6% 4% % 30.1‐50% 35% 14% 5% % 50.1‐80% 0% 18% 8% % 80.1‐95% 15% 10% 3% % 95.1% AMI and above 38% 52% 79%

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 187

Table 17 shows the total of owner households that are occupying housing units that exceed their AMI represented by:  VHUD50 category totals 630  VHUD80 category totals 430  VHUD100 category totals 745  >VHUD100 category totals 1,190 MA 15 Table 17 Total of Owner Units Occupied by households below Owner AMI Owner Housing Units by Affordability Owner Units by # of Bedrooms Total 0‐1 2 3+ 1. Owner VHUD50 # occupied units 245 1,410 1,515 3,170 % occupants <30% AMI or less 35 425 170 630 % 30.1‐50% 65 195 345 605 % 50.1‐80% 15 435 425 875 % 80.1‐95% 105 115 200 420 % 95.1% AMI and above 25 240 375 640 Total occupants below AMI 35 425 170 630

2. Owner VHUD80 # occupied units 95 950 1,745 2,790 % occupants <30% AMI or less 0 80 145 225 % 30.1‐50% 30 90 85 205 % 50.1‐80% 10 210 335 555 % 80.1‐95% 15 185 230 430 % 95.1% AMI and above 40 385 950 1,375 Total occupants below AMI 30 170 230 430

3. Owner VHUD100 # occupied units 45 615 1,495 2,155 % occupants <30% AMI or less 15 110 110 235 % 30.1‐50% 0 80 145 225 % 50.1‐80% 30 90 165 285 % 80.1‐95% 0 65 115 180 % 95.1% AMI and above 0 270 960 1,230 Total occupants below AMI 45 280 420 745

4. Owner >VHUD100 # occupied units 130 500 4,210 4,840 % occupants <30% AMI or less 15 30 155 200 % 30.1‐50% 45 70 215 330 % 50.1‐80% 0 90 355 445 % 80.1‐95% 20 50 145 215 % 95.1% AMI and above 50 260 3,340 3,650 Total occupants below AMI 80 240 870 1,190

188 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Table 18 collapses all owners in each of their affordable AMI. For example all % occupants <30% AMI or less are added in each column to illustrate the total number of owners in the AMI in need of a home by number of bedrooms. Therefore, <30% AMI adds 35, 15, 15 to total 65 in the column for 0‐1 bedrooms. In the same owner AMI for <30% AMI or less for 2 bedrooms the figures 425, 80, 110, and 30 are added to total 645; and in the same AMI for 3+ bedrooms add 170, 145, 110 and 155 to total 580. The table is further completed for remaining owners by AMI. MA 15 Table 18 Owner Housing Units Needed by Affordability Owner Housing Units Needed by Owner Units by # of Bedrooms Total Affordability Owner AMI 0‐1 2 3+ <30% AMI or less 65 645 580 1,290 % 30.1‐50% 75 240 445 760 % 50.1‐80% 30 180 520 730 % 80.1‐95% 20 50 145 215 Total 190 1,115 1,690 2,995 B. Availability of Sufficient Housing for households at all income levels There is insufficient housing for renter and owner households. Anchorage needs are reflected in the table below by renter AMI and number of bedrooms. See information in tables MA 15 Table 19 & 20. MA 15 Table 19 Renter Market Housing Need by Affordability (info also in Table 14) Renter Market Housing Needed by Rental Units by # of Bedrooms Total Affordability Renter I 0‐1 2 3+ Rent <30% AMI or less 2,495 2,145 1,235 5,875 Rent <=30.1 to 50% 940 1,820 870 3,630 <=51.1 to 80% 15 190 630 835 Total for Each Bedroom Unit 3,435 3,965 2,105 10,340 MA 15 Table 20 Owner Market Housing Need by Affordability (info also in Table 18) Owner Housing Units Needed by Owner Units by # of Bedrooms Total Affordability Owner AMI 0‐1 2 3+ <30% AMI or less 65 645 580 1,290 % 30.1‐50% 75 240 445 760 % 50.1‐80% 30 180 520 730 % 80.1‐95% 20 50 145 215 Total 190 1,115 1,690 2,995 C. Expected Change of Housing Affordability How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or rents? Housing affordability is very often measured as a percentage of monthly income. In fact, that’s the measure used in programs like the HOME to bring payments down to an affordable level a percentage of monthly income. Across the country, from 2009 to 2011, the number of people paying less than 30 percent of their income on housing fell from 60.2 percent of the population to 58.6 percent. That number surprisingly fell for

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 189

both owners and renters at a time when buying is considered so affordable.56 As presented in Table 19, the number of renter units by number of bedrooms needed is 10,340; and, as reflected in Table 20 owners need 2.995 affordable homes. Many Anchorage homeowners hold stake to mobile homes, which has been in steady decline since 2000. At the height of popularity 1980 to 1990, there were between 7,398 and 6,754 mobiles homes. According to the 2012 U.S. Census mobile homes comprise only 5% of the housing stock. During a May 2012 Assembly work session with the DHHS Director, many members pointed to the importance of mobile homes as a safety net for those with little income for housing. Consequently, FY2013 monies were designated for a Minor Repair Program for mobile homes. See Appendix D to review mobiles homes by census tract. MA 15 Table 21 ‐ Mobile Homes in Anchorage Year Total Homes Percentage Change 1970 2,204 1980 7,398 236% 1990 6,754 9% 2000 5,824 14% 2010 5,139 12% The greatest percentage of mobile homes can be found in Fairview at 33.2%, Bayshore/Klatt by 21.3% ; Spenard at 19.7%; University Area at 16.2%; and Northeast (Muldoon) at 16.1% . See MA 15 Table 22 for remaining top five. MA 15 Table 22 ‐ Top 10 Highest Percentage of Mobile Homes by Census Tract

Census Mobile Total Housing Community Council Percent Tract Homes Stock

Fairview 9.01 33.2% 614 1,850 Bayshore/Klatt 27.12 21.3% 727 3,411 Spenard 20 19.7% 303 1,540 University Area 18.02 16.2% 363 2,237 Northeast (Muldoon) 7.01 16.1% 335 2,076 Abbott Loop 28.11 13.1% 362 2,762 Russian Jack Park 17.31 12.7% 276 2,181 Russian Jack Park 8.02 12.0% 235 1,955 Abbott Loop 26.01 11.0% 181 1,651 Northeast (Muldoon) 7.03 10.2% 235 2,312 D. Rent Comparison How do HOME rents/Fair Market Rent Compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing? In general, HOME rents and HUD’s Fair Market rents are substantially less than Anchorage’s median rents. What this means is that projects that are rent restricted, such as those with HOME or tax credits, have a built‐ in demand. There is never a problem renting the units. In addition, median rents are generally more than 30 percent of the monthly income for low‐income renters, creating an affordability issue in Anchorage.

56 US Census, Census Data Underlines Challenges of Housing Affordability, October 23, 2012 found at: http://americanactionforum.org/topic/census‐data‐underlines‐challenge‐housing‐affordability

190 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Therefore, a strategy in producing or preserving affordable housing in Anchorage would be to focus on rental development. There is a need to either build new or acquire and rehabilitate rentals in conjunction with non‐ profits (and CHDOs). In addition, the Municipality may promote through policy and incentives the development of rentals at market rates. Both strategies will create and preserve affordable housing by directly increasing the supply and through the increase of the rental‐housing stock, lessening the demand pressure on rents allowing the rents on the affordable stock to stabilize or even decrease. Building new homeowner units at any market level will also lessen the pressure. Even increasing the stock of high‐end housing will have a ripple affect on rental prices as people move up vacating lesser rent or mortgage units. As vacancy rates go up, rents will tend to decrease. E. Discussion Between 2007 and 2012, Anchorage housing costs increased by 13.2 percent while the nation’s rose 6.3 percent. In 2010, the nation’s housing costs fell while Anchorage’s increased by nearly 1 percent. These numbers reflect the difference between the tough national housing market of the past five years and Anchorage’s relatively healthy market. In future years, this is likely to change as the U.S. housing market continues to recover.57 Further discussion will be held with HAND Commissioners and its HCOSH Committee to continue efforts that ensure affordable housing for renters, owners, mobile home owners, and the homeless. With low rental vacancy rates, just securing a rental unit is already a challenge. Increasing rental rates and the lack of affordable single family housing is compelling many households to live in the Matanuska Valley‐Susitna area.

57 Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development Alaska Economic Trends, The Cost of Living in Alaska, Neal Fried, July 2013, Found at: http://labor.alaska.gov/trends/jul13.pdf#art1

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 191

XVIII. MA 20 Condition of Housing

A. Introduction Only 1,243 housing units for owner occupancy has been constructed since 2007 and an additional 1,258 of duplex and multi‐family units. The demand has increased more than the number of newly constructed units. B. Definitions Describe the jurisdiction’s definition for “substandard condition” and “substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation. The Municipality's definition for "substandard condition” is: a structure, building, or property that is in a condition that endangers the safety or welfare of the public or the occupants. Code violation complaints can be filed online at: http://www.muni.org/Departments/OCPD/development/BSD/Pages/CodeEnforcement.aspx. Most code violations are not required to be corrected unless other work is conducted or is it is an immediate threat to life or safety of the public or the occupants. A “substandard condition would be considered suitable for rehabilitation unless the cost of rehab exceeds the cost of replacement.” MA 20 Table 1 Condition of Units Condition of Units Owner‐Occupied Renter‐Occupied Number % Number % With one selected Condition 18,291 29% 16,535 41% With two selected Conditions 611 1% 1,396 3% With three selected Conditions 71 0% 104 0% With four selected Conditions 31 0% 0 0% No selected Conditions 44,152 70% 22,411 55% Total 63,156 100% 40,446 99% Data Source: 2005‐2009 ACS Data MA 20 Table 2 Year Unit Built Year Unit Built Owner‐Occupied Renter‐Occupied Number % Number % 2000 or later 7,159 11% 4,378 11% 1980‐1999 26,404 42% 13,836 34% 1950‐1979 28,658 45% 21,023 52% Before 1950 935 1% 1,209 3% Total 63,156 99% 40,446 100% Data Source: 2005‐2009 ACS Data MA 20 Table 3 Risk of Lead‐Based Paint Hazard Risk of Lead‐Based Paint Hazard Owner‐Occupied Renter‐Occupied Number % Number % Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 29,593 47% 22,232 55% Housing Units build before 1980 with children present 9,185 15% 4,290 Data Source: 2005‐2009 ACS Data

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 193

MA 20 Table 4 Vacant Units (Pending information from HUD) Suitable for Not Suitable for Total Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Vacant Units 2,358 0 2,358 Abandoned Vacant Units 0 0 0 REO Properties 1,777 0 1,777 Abandoned REO Properties 0 0 0 C. Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation As the owner and rental housing ages there is a growing need to rehabilitate these units. Overall, the housing stock is newer than that in many older cities in other parts of the nation. But, with each passing decade, the issues of aging rental and ownership housing that has not received periodic maintenance and upgrades will become more apparent particularly in the segments serving low‐and very‐low income families. The largest group in housing for both owners and renters is housing between the ages of 35 and 63 years. The life‐ expectancy of most housing systems such as roofs, furnaces, flooring, and hot water/plumbing, are significantly less than 35 years. It is important, to the maximum extent possible, to provide programs that offer owner and rental housing rehabilitation assistance. Empirically, the Municipality has evidence of it offering owner‐ and rental‐rehabilitation programs and disabled‐access programs since the 1980’s. Without exception, demand has far outpaced available funds. In 2012, the Municipality’s Subrecipient administering the Minor Repair Program received over 100 applications to the 20 available slots funding allowed. Additionally, the Housing Needs analysis shows that families making less than 30% AMI comprise 46% of the housing that is substandard. The most unable to address their housing needs are the most effected, clearly making housing rehabilitation a priority for the duration of this plan. D. Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low or Moderate Income Families with LBP Hazards Based on housing age/occupant income data provided by HUD's Community Planning and Development demographic data, 51,825 (50.02 percent) of the occupied housing units were built before 1979. Of these, 29,593 (47 percent) are owner‐occupied and 22,232 (55 percent) are rental units. As a point of reference, the Municipality’s records for the Minor Repair Program show a very low percentage of instances where LBP needed to be remediated in a project. During the time‐span from 2003 through 2012, the Minor Repair Program assisted 319 homeowners. Out of those, 136 were constructed prior to 1978 and required testing for LBP. Of those 136 units tested, 12 were positive and required remediation, which constitutes 9%. Granted, these calculations are not scientifically derived. No complex‐statistical analysis was performed; thus, no mathematically generated confidence factor was obtained. However, one could comfortably give a deviation 20% of the 9%, resulting in a plus or minus of 1.8% (9% ± 1.8% = 7.2%, 10.8%) Therefore, in the total population of houses constructed prior to 1978 (51,825), the number of homes with LBP may range from 3,731 to 5,597. On March 7, 2008, the State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health, Section of Epidemiology published Bulletin No. 7. The title of Bulletin No. 7 was Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance, Non‐Occupational Exposures in Adults and Children – Alaska, 1995–2006. Alaska regulations require laboratories and health care providers to report all blood lead level (BLL) results ≥ 10 micrograms per deciliter (µ/dL) to the Section of Epidemiology. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) considers BLLs ≥ 10 µ/dL to be a health concern for children aged >6 (subsequent CDC announcements have renamed the “level of concern” to “reference value” and lowered the value to ≥5 µ/dL). The State received BLL reports on 1,141 children during the 10‐year period that were aged >6. Of them, 17 (1.5%) had elevated BLL that were ≥ 10 µ/dL. Sources of exposure included 6 (35%) foreign/adoptee from abroad, 2 (12%) playing with air gun pellets, 2 (12%) pica (eating non‐nutritive substances), and 7 (41%) unknown. The bulletin did not specify

194 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

from where the children came. Also included in the bulletin were similar reports for children aged 6‐17, and adults aged 18+. Significant sources included indoor firing ranges, accounting for 70 persons, which constituted 81% of the reported “levels of concern”. The second highest source for all age groups was children born abroad or adopted (10%). People casting lead as a hobby constituted the 3rd highest source, amounting to 3.4%. Contamination through LBP didn’t make the list. Lastly, among children >6 years tested from 1997‐2001 (according to the CDC), the proportion who had elevated BLLs was lower in Alaska than in the United States (1.5% vs. 5.1% respectively). Lead‐based paint in Anchorage’s housing continues to be a rare occurrence. Nevertheless, all CDBG‐ and HOME‐funded programs dealing with rehabilitation of older homes include funds to address lead‐based paint according to Part 35 regulations. CSD will continue to collaborate with State and local agencies, nonprofit groups, and the private sector to reduce housing‐related lead‐based paint hazards, especially for low‐income families and children. To implement this strategy, CSD has developed lead‐based paint Policies and Procedures in compliance with 24 CFR 35 (Lead‐Based Paint Poisoning Prevention in Certain Residential Structures) which are incorporated into all its programs. These include acquisition, rehabilitation, and rental‐assistance programs funded by CDBG and HOME. Where program‐specific policies impose funding caps per client or per unit, these caps may be waived when costs required address lead‐based paint testing, evaluations, assessments and mitigation cause the project to exceed program limits. E. Discussion High housing costs reduce economic opportunities, access to jobs and services, and the ability of lower‐ income households, including the elderly and persons with disabilities to live in the communities and neighborhoods of their choice. The affordability gap results in a concentration of lower‐income households in older neighborhoods that have higher levels of substandard housing and overcrowding.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 195

XIX. MA 25 Public and Assisted Housing

A. Introduction The information for this section of the Consolidated Plan was provided by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). Applicable Federal Law and HUD regulations require that each Housing Authority develop and adopt a Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan and update it on an annual basis. The PHA Plan provides details about Housing Authority programs, services, and general operations. In addition, the Plan focuses on implementation strategies designed to address residents' needs and issues, as well as outlining ways to improve operational efficiencies for the upcoming fiscal year. This planning mechanism requires that the Housing Authority examine its existing operational needs and design short and long‐term strategies to address those needs. A copy of the draft PHA plan is available on the web at: http://www.ahfc.us/files/9713/6736/1483/mtw_2014.pdf. AHFC provides housing‐related research, planning, and program development services for Alaskan communities.  2,344 Housing Choice Vouchers;  64 project‐based voucher units;  43 vouchers reserved for individuals with disabilities;  95 vouchers reserved for individuals displaced due to domestic violence;  20 vouchers reserved for referrals from Anchorage Community Mental Health Services; and,  155 vouchers reserved for referrals from the Alaska VA Healthcare System (VASH vouchers). AHFC also provides monthly rental subsidy equivalent to 35 project‐based vouchers for persons at the Karluk Manor, a Housing First development targeting chronically homeless individuals with substance abuse and alcohol addictions. As of April 2013 in Anchorage there were over 1,500 on the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list, and over 3,000 on the waiting list for various AHFC‐owned rental assistance units. The Anchorage Housing Choice Voucher waiting list has gone to a lottery system, approximately every 2‐3 years the voucher waiting list will open to applicants for a month. Those applicants will then be worked off the waiting list for the next 2‐3 years, until the waiting list is nearly exhausted, at which point another lottery is held. AHFC has conducted two such lotteries in the past three years, and the process has streamlined and provided a more efficient and effective way for applicants to manage their housing needs. Prior to the lottery, the list was never closed, there was a preference system in which people would apply and based on preference points would move to the top of the list. Those without high preference points had been waiting on the list for more than eight years. With this new process, this no longer occurs. In the past year AHFC created three new transitional tenant‐based rental assistance programs: the Empowering Choice Housing Program for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault; the Youth Aging Out of Foster Care program for youth aged 18‐24 that transitioning to independent living, and the Parolee/Probationer Re‐Entry program for those transitioning out of the state prison system. In order to continue to serve those with special needs in our communities, AHFC has created set aside programs. For the elderly and disabled population, AHFC has 240 low‐income units. Additionally, AHFC has set aside 96 vouchers statewide, exclusively for persons with disabilities. Anchorage also has a set aside of 20 vouchers for individuals referred from Anchorage Community Mental Health Services. AHFC also conducts an annual ADA‐504 needs assessment to create priorities for modifications and planned unit improvements, such as enlarging door openings, adding grab bars in bathrooms and hallways, installing automatic doors, and removing carpet to facilitate wheelchair movement. For new construction, AHFC

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 197

complies with ADA‐504 on all new construction and renovation projects and ensures that at least five percent of the units, or one unit (whichever is greater), will accommodate a person with mobility impairments. Lastly, AHFC offers a well‐defined Reasonable Accommodation process that covers families from the application process through unit modification requests. Additionally, AHFC offers language interpretation services to those families with limited English proficiency. B. Supply of Public Housing In Anchorage, AHFC operates:  506 Public Housing Program units, of which 120 serve elderly/disabled populations exclusively  137 Section 8 New Multifamily Housing Program units, of which 120 serve elderly/disabled populations exclusively  48 affordable housing units which accept individuals with vouchers  70 Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program single‐room occupancy units serving individuals who qualify as homeless under the McKinney‐Vento Act

MA 25 Table 1 Totals Number of Units by Program Type Program Type Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Family Mod‐ Public Project‐ Tenant‐ Supportive Unification Disabled Certificate Rehab Housing Total based based Housing Program * # of units vouchers available 70 496 2,301 2,262 96 0 0 * Disabled includes Non‐Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One‐Year, Mainstream Five‐Year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: AHFC The lack of affordable housing in the Anchorage area is evidenced by the very low vacancy rates. Many times this is most acutely felt by low income residents. In particular, the waiting list in Anchorage indicates that one and two bedroom waiting lists are in the highest demand, and units that provide accessible features for the disabled are also very much needed.  Information regarding AHFC’s FY2012 activities can be found in its FY2012 Moving to Work Report at: http://www.ahfc.us/files/9913/5754/7544/mtw_annual_report_fy12_102612‐1.pdf.  Information regarding AHFC’s FY2013 Moving to Work Annual Plan is at: http://www.ahfc.us/files/5113/6736/1808/mtw_2013.pdf.  Information regarding AHFC’s FY2014 Moving to Work Annual Plan is at: http://www.ahfc.us/files/9713/6736/1483/mtw_2014.pdf.

198 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

MA 25 Table 2 Public Housing Residents by Program Type Characteristics of Public Housing Special Purpose Vouchers VA Family Residents by Mod‐ Public Project Tenant Supportive Unification Program Type Certificate Rehab Housing Total Based Based Housing Program Disabled Average Annual Income 0 9,261 18,147 16,779 20,617 16,713 11,093 0 0 Average Length of Stay (years) 0 3.3 6 6.25 n/a 6.25 1.5 0 0 Average Household size 0 1 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 Homeless at admission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Elderly Program Participants (>62) 0 6 119 347 8 339 0 0 0 # of Disabled Families 0 26 146 804 12 792 35 0 0 # of Families requesting accessibility features 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of HIV/AIDS program participants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Domestic Violence victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Includes Non‐Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One‐Year, Mainstream Five‐year, and Nursing Home Transition MA 25 Table 3 Race of Residents by Program Type Special Purpose Voucher VA Family Mod Public Project Tenant Supportive Unification Certificate Rehab Housing Total Based ‐Based Housing Program Disabled Race White 0 49 243 1,026 11 1015 53 0 0 Black/African American 0 8 89 617 3 614 39 0 0 Asian 0 2 58 174 16 158 1 0 0 American Indian/AK Native 0 10 80 318 1 317 12 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 25 118 5 113 0 0 0 Other 0 1 5 45 0 45 1 0 0

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 199

MA 25 Table 4 Ethnicity of Residents Special Purpose Voucher VA Family Mod Public Project Tenant Supportive Unification Race Certificate Rehab Housing Total ‐Based ‐Based Housing Program Disabled Hispanic 0 6 44 138 2 136 4 0 0 Non‐ Hispanic 0 64 451 2163 37 2126 92 0 0 MA 25 Table 5 Public Housing Condition Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score Anchorage Central 97 Anchorage South 96 Anchorage East 91 Westhaven 76 Westvale Manor 62 C. Restoration and Revitalization Needs AHFC is facing the same issues experienced by all other affordable housing providers across the country. Industry‐ wide, both operating and capital funding has been incrementally decreased over the last decade as older properties continues to age. AHFC is taking a two pronged approach to addressing the issue. The long‐ term capital needs of the public housing portfolio are being prioritized first to potential health and safety needs such as upgrading fire suppression and alarm monitoring systems, followed by building envelope and infrastructure needs. Second, AHFC is moving forward with the development of new affordable housing for both families and the senior population in high needs areas utilizing the Alaska Corporation for Affordable Housing (ACAH). D. Strategy of Improving the Living Environment of low‐ and moderate Income Families In 2011, the Alaska Legislature amended AHFC statutes to allow it to create a subsidiary, Alaska Corporation for Affordable Housing (ACAH), for the purpose of developing affordable housing throughout Alaska. ACAH is organized as a 501(c)(3) tax‐exempt organization under the IRS Code. As a subsidiary of AHFC, ACAH has the same seven member board as AHFC, with three officers; President, Vice President and Secretary/Treasurer. The Corporation was formed to develop, manage and operate affordable housing and provide supportive and related services to support the mission of AHFC. AHFC statutes do not provide AHFC with the power to undertake certain types of housing or to participate in some financing and ownership structures. The ACAH mission will be to undertake the types of affordable housing and services that are not open to AHFC directly, but which support AHFC mission in providing affordable housing and services to individuals and groups in need.58 ACAH has purchased land in the Mountain View neighborhood of Anchorage and is in the development stage of a new low‐to moderate‐income apartment community consisting of both family and elderly units. Although still in the planning stages, the size of the development is envisioned to be approximately sixty to seventy units in several bedroom sizes. As part of this undertaking, ACAH is also including the re‐ development of sixteen family units in the San Roberto area to replace aging buildings in dire need of replacement.

58 Information can be found at: http://www.ahfc.us/about‐us/alaska‐corporation‐affordable‐housing‐acah/

200 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

E. Discussion AHFC will continue to provide affordable housing to extremely low‐, very low‐ and low‐income families, seniors and disabled individuals through the public housing program. It will also continue to provide a full service approach to property management and maintenance. General up‐keep and maintenance of property is important for curb appeal and resident satisfaction. Property management and maintenance staff conduct regular site inspections using standard checklists at least annually. Inspections results are used to create plans for capital improvements. On 24 CFR Parts 901,902 and 907: “HUD has a proposed rule that would make two sets of amendments to improve evaluation and oversight of public housing agencies (PHAs). First proposed rule would amend HUD’s Consolidating the regulations governing assessment of a PHA’s program in one part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); revising certain PHAS regulations based on the Department’s experience with PHAS since it was established as the new system for evaluating a PHA in 1998; and updating certain PHAS procedures to reflect recent changes in public housing operations from conversion by PHAs to asset management, including updating and revising the PHAS scoring. PHAS is designed to improve the delivery of services in public housing and to enhance trust in the public housing system among PHAs, public housing residents, and the general public, by providing a management tool for effectively and fairly measuring the performance of a PHA in essential housing operations of its projects, based on standards that are uniform and verifiable. The changes proposed by this rule are intended to enhance the efficiency and utility of PHAS. Second, the proposed rule would establish, in a separate part of the CFR, the regulations that would specify the actions or inactions by which a PHA would be determined to be in substantial default, the procedures for a PHA to respond to such a determination or finding, and the sanctions available to HUD to address and remedy substantial default by a PHA. To date, such regulations have been included in the PHAS regulations, but the actions or inactions that constitute substantial default are not limited to failure to comply with PHAS regulations. Accordingly, the proposed regulations applicable to substantial default are more appropriately codified in a separate CFR part. This proposed rule is also publishing the scoring processes for each of the PHAS scoring categories.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 201

XX. MA 30 Homeless Facilities

A. Introduction The priorities for ending homelessness are based on the recognition that homelessness results from more than just a lack of affordable housing. MA 30 Table 1 ‐ Facilities Targeted to Homeless Persons Information from the Transitional Permanent Supportive Alaska Homeless Emergency Shelter Beds Housing Beds Housing Beds Management Year Round Voucher / Information System Beds Seasonal / (AKHMIS) for 2012 (Current & Overflow Current & Current & Under New) Beds New New Development Households with Adult(s) 154 211 173 and Child(ren) Households with Only 390 150 241 414 Adults Chronically Homeless n/a n/a n/a 84 Households Veterans 50 44 17 Unaccompanied n/a n/a Child(ren) B. Mainstream Services The Municipality is a partner with the Anchorage Continuum of Care, a collaborative effort with the Housing And Neighborhood Development Commission and Commission’s Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness, and the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness. The CoC strives to link household with mainstream services such as Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, Food Stamps, State Children’s Health Program, Workforce Investment Act, and Veterans Health Care Services. In Anchorage, efforts to link households to mainstream services are implemented and tracked through CoC‐ funded agencies. CoC funded agencies receive HUD monies through a competitive process that requires community collaboration and performance evaluation of national objectives. One of the national objectives is to link CoC‐funded agency clients to mainstream services. The current percentage of participants in all Anchorage Continuum of Care (CoC)‐funded projects that receive mainstream benefits when they leave their program is 70%.59 This percentage far surpasses the national objectives’ goal of 20%. A significant number of CoC‐funded agency’s beneficiaries rely on Medicaid and Medicare Health Insurance, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, and, Section 8, and, Public Housing, Rental Assistance. To continue meeting and surpassing the national goal of 20%, the CoC‐funded agencies will: support case manager trainings by the Anchorage Community Mental Health Services for SSI/SSDI Outreach and Access, & Recovery otherwise known as SOAR, which is funded by the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. CoC‐funded agencies will also ensure all mainstream benefits are available at Project Homeless Connect (ACH). Additional effort by local agencies includes RurAL CAP’s quarterly training to complete mainstream assessment during intakes, as well as Abused Women’s Aid in Crisis, Inc. partnerships

59 Anchorage FY2012 Continuum of Care Application, found at http://www.muni.org/Departments/health/services/neighborhoods/PlansAndReports/Documents/FinalCoCF Y2012Application.pdf

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 203

with Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to implement voucher programs for the Empowering Choice Housing Program (95 vouchers). Aside from CoC efforts, also on the map of known mainstream services, a total of 6,328 households were identified as receiving public assistance income in the past twelve months, accounting for 6% of households in the Anchorage community. MA 30 Table 2 Household With and Without Public‐Assistance Income

Public Assistance Income in the Past 12 Months for Householder Estimate Percentage Universe: Households 104,315 100% With public assistance income 6,328 6% No public assistance income 97,987 94% C. Services and Facilities List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth. The following emergency shelters (ES), transitional housing (TH), and permanent housing (PH) with supportive services serve to meet homeless needs for chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth:

204 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

MA 30 Table 3 Facilities with Supportive Services Type of Program Name of Organization Services AWAIC Shelter – 24 Hour shelter for abused women and children, crisis intervention, case management, children’s programs, youth center, transitional housing, Willa’s Way, ES Abused Women's Aid in Crisis legal advocacy and emergency financial assistance. Anchorage Rescue Mission – Beds for single men & women 18 or older, hot meals, clothing and New Life ES Anchorage Rescue Mission Recovery program for men 18 and older. Cold Weather Plan – Provide temporary shelter during ES Beyond Shelter Committee inclement weather conditions. Brother Francis Shelter – Beds for single men and women ES Catholic Social Services 18 or older. Hot evening meal served. Clare House – 24 Hour shelter for women with children and expectant mothers over 18, receive referrals for child care, substance abuse/mental health, affordable permanent housing, employment and continuing ES Catholic Social Services educational opportunities. Crisis Center + Overnights for homeless and runaway kids dealing with mental illness, substance abuse and affordable housing, help to finish school, vocational skills, ES Covenant House find jobs and to reunify with families. Anchorage Safety Center – Take persons incapacitated by alcohol in public places into protective custody and transport them to the Safety Center, assessed and taken to a hospital for medical clearance or further care if ES Municipality of Anchorage/DHHS needed. McKinnell House – Temporary emergency shelter and case management for homeless families, educational ES Salvation Army support, meals and life skills development. Domiciliary Care – Provides a 50 bed Homeless Domiciliary an Outreach Center, Transitional Housing, a Veterans Industries warehouse and the HUD‐VASH ES U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Program. Harmony House – Provides transitional housing and support for women without dependent children who are victims of domestic violence and who have a source of TH Abused Women's Aid in Crisis income. Willa's Way – Provides case management involving housing, mental health counseling and group counseling; addresses a range of topics for victims of domestic violence. A safe home program serving Alaska Native and American Indian women and their children who are TH Abused Women's Aid in Crisis homeless due to domestic violence. Safe Harbor Inn – Provide transitional housing for homeless families and individuals, especially those with TH Anchor Arms disabilities. Transitional SRO ‐ Provides housing and supportive services to individuals who are in transition from the TH Anchorage Community Mental Health Services streets and shelters into permanent housing.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 205

Type of Program Name of Organization Services New Life – Offers a 24 month residential Discipleship TH Anchorage Rescue Mission Program for men struggling to get their life back on track. Clare House Transitional ‐ A 24 hour shelter for women with children and expectant mothers over 18. Residents receive meals and referrals for child care, substance abuse/mental health, affordable permanent housing, employment and continuing educational opportunities. Case management services are an integral part of the program to help women transition from homelessness to TH Catholic Social Services independent living. Passage House – Provides young mothers and their children with a place to live for up to 18 months while they gain the necessary skills and resources to become TH Covenant House Alaska productive, successful and independent adults. Rights of Passage – A transitional living program for homeless youth ages 18 to 21. Provides long term residential opportunities to 14 young people focusing on independent living skill for those who have had difficult experiences such as substance abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence and neglect. Program stay is up TH Covenant House Alaska to 18 months with an additional 6 months of aftercare. Transitions – Houses up to six homeless men for up to four months, helps them prepare financially to acquire their own place and provide a stable and sober TH Lutheran Social Services environment. Mary Magdalene House – A Christian non‐profit faith‐ based organization providing care and support to women committed to escaping a life of sexual exploitation. Transitional housing accommodates seven women up to TH Mary Magdalene Homes 18 months or longer. NLD Transitional Living – Provides help to men/women making the transition from incarceration back into the community. Provides housing in a structured family setting, will assist in finding a mentor, community support TH New Life Development (NLD) and employment. Homeward Bound – Provides 25 beds for transitional living for public inebriates and provides or facilitates all Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL necessary supports to endure a successful transition from TH CAP) homelessness to permanent independent living. Eagle Crest – An affordable supportive housing designed to provide housing and appropriate support services to persons who are homeless or who are closer to homelessness. Helps them to be more self sufficient to move towards independent living. Services vary from substance abuse treatment to psychological assistance, TH Salvation Army job training, domestic violence assistance, etc.

206 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Type of Program Name of Organization Services L.I.F.E. Program – A program designed to help young adults 18 to 24 transition smoothly into adulthood by helping them understand the concepts of personal finance, etiquette, career development, health and social skills; consisting of four parts, housing, training, job TH Shiloh Community Housing, Inc. placement and independent living skills. Salvation Army Adult Rehab – Entails attendance in chapel services, work therapy, chemical dependency education, anger management/domestic violence therapy, life skills and spiritual monitoring, home group service, relationships and recovery and work therapy recovery. After the standard six month program a veteran may opt for a longer stay using an individualized treatment TH U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs program. VA Transitional – Provides housing for 24 homeless, veterans, male or female, willing to work or participate in a rehabilitative program. Estimated stay is six months and TH U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs can be extended. VASH Section 8 – The HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program combines Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance for homeless veterans with case management and clinical services provided by the PSH Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Department of Veterans Affairs. 6‐plex project – Houses those with HIV infection, offers supportive services whose household income is less than PSH Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association 80% of median income. Shelter + Care –Provides housing and/or supportive services to those with HIV/AIDS infection whose household income is less than 80% of median income, HIV prevention and education, street outreach, free HIV testing, safer sex kit distribution and educational PSH Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association presentations. ACMHS SPC – Provides rental assistance to persons who are homeless and experience a severe mental illness and may experience co‐existing substance use disorders. Provides rental assistance to tenants in 40 apartment PSH Anchorage Community Mental Health Services units. Permanent Housing – Provides rental assistance for apartments in scattered sites throughout Anchorage and PSH Anchorage Community Mental Health Services comprehensive, intensive mental health services. Coming Home I – The mission of Anchorage Housing initiatives is to provide access to decent, affordable, community‐integrated housing in South‐central Alaska for low‐to moderate‐income persons who experience PSH Anchorage Housing Initiatives disabilities.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 207

Type of Program Name of Organization Services Coming Home II – A Shelter Plus Care grant that provides rental assistance matched by the value of supportive services from the community to individuals and families who are homeless and who experience eligible disabling conditions such as severe mental illness, co‐occurring disorders, physical disabilities, HIV‐AIDS and other PSH Anchorage Housing Initiatives disabling conditions. Charlie Elder House – Helps homeless, troubled teenage boys to live independently, achieve academic success, maintain positive relationships and contribute to the community. Provides therapeutic environment, case PSH Catholic Social Services management and counseling. SSVF – Provides both supportive services to assist homeless veteran families while transitioning from homelessness to permanent independent living as well as conducting outreach to the community about the SSVF PSH Catholic Social Services program. Adelaide SRO – Provides 71 single room occupancy subsidized housing for single men or women; each room PSH NeighborWorks has a section 8 certificate. Affordable Hsg‐North Lane – Provides rental properties for special needs tenants emphasizing personal responsibility and aiding in supportive services from third‐ party providers when needed. Tenants are involved in improving and maintaining the property creating a sense PSH Rural Alaska Community Action Program of community. Affordable Hsg‐Peterkin & Davis – Provides rental properties for special needs tenants emphasizing personal responsibility and aiding in supportive services from third‐ party providers when needed. Tenants are involved in improving and maintaining the property creating a sense PSH Rural Alaska Community Action Program of community. Shelter Plus Care – Provides rental assistance to persons who are homeless and experience a severe mental illness, behavioral health services are also provided and referrals are made to other providers in the community. Clients must meet Federal definition of homelessness and inability to maintain residential stability with standard support services for sustained periods of time. The program can service up to 28 individuals and families at PSH Rural Alaska Community Action Program any one time. Karluk Manor – A 48 unit on site staff Housing First project in downtown Anchorage for chronically homeless alcoholics. Offers a secured housing as a first step to Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL developing skills for improved self‐sufficiency and PSH CAP) community reintegration.

208 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XXI. MA 35 Special Needs Facilities and Services

A. Introduction Licensed community care facilities offer housing and specialized services for children and adults that have special needs. Many of these facilities provide housing and services to persons with disabilities. The Municipality through public and private partnerships continues to strive to provide services and safe, decent and affordable housing for individuals in need. B. Facilities and Services for the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. Anchorage has a variety of services and programs for special needs populations such as the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities, and persons with alcohol and other drug addiction, and persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. Appendix E is a listing of available facilities and services in the Anchorage community. The Municipality also offers a specialized program that is unique to serve seniors and persons with disabilities, titled the Aging and Disability Resource Center this program is housed in the DHHS. The ADRC works closely with state services and the Anchorage Senior Center. The ADRC Program Coordinator is also on the Anchorage Continuum of Care (CoC) Board of Directors. C. Anchorage provides services for persons returning from mental and physical health institutions to receive appropriate supportive housing. Under the Anchorage CoC, the system of services for discharge is met primarily through the Anchorage Community Mental Health Services (ACMHS), the state’s largest community mental health center which provides housing and services. The Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) P&P delineates patient discharge to prevent homelessness. There is a discharge protocol between API and ACMHS through a Memorandum of Affiliation agreement. ACMH is the primary facilitator for community re‐entry for persons with mental illness. ACMHS identifies housing resources/search, rental subsidy, assisted living homes & community placements. The Anchorage CoC also benefits from The Alaska Homeless Coalition CoC which worked with The Alaska Council on the Homeless to develop a special section (F‐2) in Alaska's 10‐Year plan, which address API discharge. There are no state or municipally funded health care facilities to coordinate discharge policies. All health care in Anchorage is privatized, with the exception of the Alaska Native Medical Center, which provides services to eligible Alaska Native and American Indians who live in Alaska. Anchorage CoC members work closely with all health care facilities, including emergency service facilities and long‐term health care. By statute (AS 47.24.010‐900) whenever health care workers have “reasonable cause to believe a vulnerable adult suffers from abandonment, exploitation, abuse, neglect, or self‐neglect shall, not later than 24 hours after first having cause for the belief”, must report the belief to the department’s central information and referral service of vulnerable adults (AK Adult Protective Services). Protective services will facilitate placement in assisted living homes. The larger hospitals in Anchorage, Providence Medical Center and Alaska Regional, have care counselors who identify potentially homeless persons and coordinates with local agencies to discharge to local shelters and services. Local non‐McKinney‐Vento programs/shelters include: the Anchorage Transfer Station for public inebriates; Brother Francis Shelter for single males and females; AWAIC for victims of domestic violence, Clare House for non‐domestic violence women and their children; McKinnell Shelter for families and single fathers; and, Cook Inlet Tribal Council’s services for chronically homeless persons.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 209

D. Specific activities the Municipality plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one‐year goals. 91.220(2) The consolidated plan must provide a concise summary of the priority housing and supportive service needs of persons who are not homeless but who may or may not require supportive housing (i.e., elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addiction, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and public housing residents). If the jurisdiction intends to use HOME funds for tenant‐based assistance to assist one or more of these subpopulations, it must specify local market conditions that led to the choice of this option. One year goals of the Municipality include services provided by the Minor Repair Program and the Mobile Home Repair Program. The Minor Repair Program provides assistance for increased accessibility, emergency efficiency or repairs to items presenting a threat to health or safety in an owner‐occupied home. Handicapped ramps, hand rails, and related amenities are provided to assist those with disabilities. Also, the Mobile Home Repair Program, although not yet established, will provide similar support for disabled persons.

210 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XXII. MA 40 Barriers to Affordable Housing

The Municipality has worked with the community leaders and providers to identify barriers to affordable housing. This section describe the jurisdiction's strategy to remove or ameliorate negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing, as identified in accordance with 91.210(e). A. Mayor’s Homeless Leadership Team60 The Mayor’s Homeless Leadership Team (HLT) was established as part of Mayor Sullivan’s Strategic Action Plan to deal with chronic public inebriates and related issues of Homelessness in Anchorage. The HLT is comprised of numerous social service and government agencies and is reflective of the Municipality’s collaborative approach to dealing with this serious social and public safety issue. The HLT’s focus is on that small number of citizens who are homeless and have chronic substance abuse and/or mental health issues. The purpose of the HLT is to provide the Mayor with short and long term strategies for effectively managing the challenges this population creates and to assist with identifying and leveraging community resources for implementing those strategies. During the course of HLT discussions, the group developed several recommendations, which includes strategies for affordable housing. Mayor’s HLT Recommendations, May 2010 The Mayor’s HLT formulated the following strategies and recommendations on how the community should deal with homeless chronic public inebriates and related issues of homelessness.  Mayoral and Municipal support for the development of Karluk Manor by RurAL CAP as the initial Housing First Project in Anchorage. As RurAL Cap’s Karluk Manor project gained momentum, the HLT realized that implementation of Anchorage’s first “Housing First” project, initially perceived as long‐term, could occur within the year, offering the community a short‐term, effective strategy to help achieve the Mayor’s desired outcomes. The HLT recommends that “Housing First” projects be clustered and not scattered‐site. Within the Municipality Of Anchorage, there is currently no means to deliver the level of services and support needed by the chronic homeless to improve their well being and lessen community impacts in scattered‐site facilities. One‐on‐One environments or small scattered‐sites would require an estimated 300 service personnel. “Housing First” projects should be connected to services, due to the severity of alcohol abuse by potential residents of “Housing First” projects and the likelihood that they will have serious medical and psychiatric illnesses. Potential residents are also very likely to have major deficits in cognitive functioning, social functioning and independent living skills. Therefore, a variety of community resources and services are required to support a project of this magnitude.  Mayoral Support for Assessing, Developing and Evaluating Future “Housing First” Projects The HLT recommends Mayoral support for the acquisition, development and operation of future “Housing First” projects in Anchorage as soon as possible. The “Housing First” model provides housing to chronic homeless inebriates with on‐site supportive services and case management. This model has been shown to keep individuals off the streets, out of emergency shelters, emergency rooms and the Transfer Station/sleep off center, and to be cost effective (published reports and research can be found at the end of this report).

60 Mayor’s Homeless Leadership Team found at http://www.muni.org/Departments/health/Pages/HomelessLeadershipTeam.aspx

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 211

 Develop and implement strategies for public education and outreach around the approved recommendations. The HLT was instrumental in creating a community informational resource on Health and Human Services webpage dealing with chronic public inebriation and related issues of homelessness, including existing and historic plans and reports. This resource can be found under the Mayor’s Strategic Action Plan.  Remove Regulatory Barriers: Clarify residential and facility land use types in Title 21 and Title 16 Title 21 (housing projects) and Title 16 (facility projects) often present regulatory barriers to development of much‐needed projects in Anchorage. This strategy would convene a collaborative group of funders and service providers to define 2‐3 hypothetical but realistic housing projects that serve people with disabilities (i.e., 10‐plex supportive housing project with certain on‐site services located in an R‐3 district) and hold a mock “pre‐construction” meeting with the Planning Department to examine zoning implications for each scenario. This exercise will better define current land use barriers, if any, to developing new supportive housing projects for people with disabilities, including both permanent and transitional housing. Identifying these regulatory barrier issues will aid housing providers, the Municipality of Anchorage, the Municipal Assembly, and/or the Planning and Zoning Commission in reducing or mitigating barriers. The HLT recommends Mayoral support for this strategy, including Municipal Planning Department staff participation.  Implement the Municipal Cold Weather Plan (MCW) and Amend Municipal Code Title 16 to enable the MCW Plan. The HLT recommends implementation of a cold weather plan for the Municipality of Anchorage, which would allow churches, designated by the Director of Health & Human Services or their designee, to act as temporary cold weather shelters for families and individuals who are not under the influence of intoxicants, Title 21 notwithstanding.  Camp closures should not take place unless housing options are in place. Anchorage is consistently at or above its emergency housing capacity and camp closures will not be an end to the cycle of illegal camping and chronic public inebriation if individuals do not have a place to go when an illegal camp is closed. Housing of all types (Affordable, Housing First, Low‐Barrier, etc.) must be available before closing down an illegal camp if the city wants lasting solutions in getting individuals out of illegal camps that are on public land permanently. This strategy will also ensure better results for the Homeless Action & Response Team (H.A.R.T.) when they undertake outreach to illegal campers.  Develop a Collaborative Homeless Action & Response Team (H.A.R.T.) to do outreach to illegal campers when a campsite is posted for closure. The H.A.R.T. will assist all persons in illegal camps posted for closure, not just those persons who are chronically homeless due to substance addiction and/or mental health issues. Possible services offered include: Housing/Shelter; Housing Vouchers; Public Assistance; Social Security Benefits; Veteran’s Benefits; Medical; Mental Health; Jobs; Case Management; Substance Use/Abuse Treatment.  A commitment to work with stakeholders to increase detox beds and services for chronic homeless alcoholics.

212 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Currently, Anchorage has two detox facilities, Ernie Turner Center and the Salvation Army’s Clitheroe Center. Facilities are at capacity, and service providers are overwhelmed with both bed and service wait lists of up to three months. CITC’s Ernie Turner Center has no room for growth, while the Salvation Army’s Clitheroe Center has room for 4‐6 additional detox beds if funding is made available, at $125,000 per year per bed. Increasing detox beds and services would help meet the needs of individuals who are requesting assistance to get clean and sober when they request treatment and services, instead of putting them

on a wait list and keeping them on the streets until space is available.  Support for increasing the number of case managers who work with chronic homeless alcoholics. Strive for a ratio of 1:10 case managers to clients. The HLT recommends a collabor ative effort to look at advocacy o pportunities and create a workin g model which would increase ca se managers within the MOA to a ratio of 1:10 case manager Image found at to client. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.catholicanchor.org Most case managers in Anchorage currently have case loads of up to 50 clients at a time. This places an inordinate burden on case managers and reduces the level of care and attention that they are able to dedicate o individual clients. Reduced case loads would allow for more robust services for homeless chronic alcoholics, resulting in a more successful intervention.  Continued Mayoral support for the Anchorage Coalition on Homelessness and implementation of the 10 Year Plan. The HLT recommends continued support for the Anchorage Coalition on Homelessness and implementation of Anchorage’s 10 year plan. The HLT acknowledges there is a serious lack of affordable housing in Anchorage that must be addressed as part of a larger solution for housing for our homeless population. The absence of affordable housing is a barrier for individuals and families who are ready to exit homeless shelters and programs. There is currently a lack of inventory and the affordability gap is increasing. B. Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet’s Work Group on Affordable Housing The Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet was convened by the Mayor, to assess needs of housing development and treatment and related services in Anchorage. As a result of the two pronged approached, the Kitchen Cabinet formed two work groups; one to focus on affordable housing; and, the other to focus on substance abuse treatment services. The two groups are staffed by the Municipal Department of Health and Human Services. In May 2012, the Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet’s Work Group on Affordable Housing (WGAH) submitted recommendations for policy and regulatory changes that the Municipality of Anchorage could implement that would help spur housing development in Anchorage. The WGAH recommendations are: 1. Assign a single department head to act as a liaison with home builders when needed through the permitting process.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 213

2. Create or authorize an entity or partnership, such as the Anchorage Community Development Authority, to specifically plan for, spur, and coordinate comprehensive housing development. That entity should be tasked with implementing the Anchorage 2020, Anchorage Downtown Comprehensive plan, and various Anchorage neighborhood plans to catalyze housing and economic development. 3. Continue to research the viability of using Tax Increment Financing in Anchorage. 4. Consider changes to MOA regulatory requirements that will help increase the likelihood of housing development. a. Examine and extend the number of years required for code changes beyond three years. b. Adopt an ordinance that accepts the premise of SB104 ‐ A deferral of municipal property taxes on the increase in value of real property attributable to subdivision of that property. c. Examine MOA code to allow for an alternative engineered design that may not meet MASS requirements on private on‐site roads and driveways. d. Adopt lower parking policy requirements proposed in Title 21. According to the WGAH memorandum to the Mayor, the recommendations should be considered helpful as immediate next steps to benefit all types of public, private, and non‐profit housing development. The WGAH recognizes these recommendations standing alone will not catalyze sufficient development to meet the community’s need for housing. The recommendations should be viewed as first in a series of changes and initiatives which place housing in Anchorage as a very high priority both for the MOA and for the larger community. A large challenge remains: to identify and implement creative strategies that actually spurs housing development to ensure safe, affordable homes for all Anchorage residents.61 C. Mayor’s Work Group on Substance Abuse Treatment & Services In February 2013, the Mayor’s Work Group on Substance Abuse Treatment & Services made recommendations to enhance services to homeless individuals with substance abuse disorders. The group’s goal was to look for low cost opportunities, policy changes and opportunities to enhance services and access to treatment for homeless individuals in Anchorage experiencing substance use disorders. The following are the top recommendations put forth by the Work Group on Substance Abuse Treatment and Services. High priority‐‐no cost recommendations for the MOA regarding substance abuse treatment and services in Anchorage: 1. Support existing and future expansion of research based supportive housing programs and service models, such as Karluk Manor, which are associated with longer stays in housing and reduction of alcohol use. Such programs pair housing with intensive case management services to dramatically reduce the use of emergency services. 2. Develop an overarching advocacy effort to build community support for sober housing development as a long term strategy. a. Target a specific area of town, identify large housing or mixed use development or redevelopment and leverage MOA investments and expertise in partnership with the private sector to develop long term and short term sober housing units (a recommendation forwarded by the Housing Workgroup).

61 Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet’s Work Group on Affordable Housing recommendations to Mayor Daniel Sullivan, May 10, 2012

214 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

3. Weigh in on the FY12 alcohol tax funding for alcohol related projects by collaborating with the Recover Alaska Initiative, a public/private collaborative working to reduce the negative effects of alcohol and drug abuse in Alaska. The Mayor may recommend projects that could have positive impact in Anchorage. High priority‐‐low cost recommendations for the Municipality regarding substance abuse treatment and services in Anchorage: 1. Reinstitute the Pathways to Recovery Program (or similar model) located at the Anchorage Safety Center. The Pathways program focuses on outreach, engagement, detoxification, and long term treatment with the goal of housing and employment. This program has demonstrated success in reducing the number of transfer station admissions by focusing on housing and linking to detox and treatment. Programming needs to include ongoing engagement and coordination of services for individuals prior to discharge from the Safety Center such as linking directly to day engagement options to avoid discharging directly to the streets of Anchorage. 2. Re‐invigorate use of the Alaska Center for Treatment Needs Assessment as commissioned by DHSS to analyze and inform current and future need for adult residential treatment beds in Anchorage. a. Assign a single project coordinator within DHHS for service providers, community members and other interested stakeholders regarding addiction services and supports in Anchorage. This coordinator should participate in the Anchorage Regional Behavioral Health Providers stakeholder process to effectively advocate on behalf of the needs of providers in Anchorage, to help reduce barriers and inefficiencies (both regulatory and governmental) that interfere with access to and provision of treatment services in Anchorage. b. Establish a municipal/provider task force to work with treatment providers, outreach/engagement programs and housing programs to maximize access, expand treatment capacity and increase housing stability. c. Review the workgroup summary for recommendations and issues identified by the committee that are within the purview and responsibility of DHSS. We recommend the MOA engage with DHSS to advocate for department action on a state level to address the issues outlined in the summary. 3. Re‐engage and move forward plans for the Alaska Recovery Center in collaboration with the State of Alaska and the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 215

XXIII. MA 45 Non‐Housing Community Development Assets

A. Introduction This section analyzes the jurisdiction’s economic viability through employment, revenue streams, retail and service strength, vitality of the labor pool, and market factors affecting the economy. In summary, Anchorage’s economy is fairly strong; however, construction has slowed and there are less federal monies coming into the economy. B. Anchorage’s Major Employment Sectors Anchorage’s largest economic sectors are: transportation (air and water); federal, state and municipal government; natural resource development (petroleum, mining); health care; tourism/leisure; and, construction. Transportation Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport serves Anchorage and all major U.S. airlines. The airport is recognized as a major air cargo hub and is among the world's largest cargo airports. Located in Anchorage, the airport is strategically located on the shortest route between many points in North American and Asia, and due to the lower range capabilities of most cargo aircraft, it has become an important cargo transit facility.62 Both FedEx and UPS are major operators in Anchorage, and operate cargo service to many Asian destinations. Over 30 cargo airlines from around the world operate to Anchorage. In 2010, the airport became the 5th world’s top cargo airports. Image found at: Table 1 for cargo metric https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy‐ab&q=ted+stevens+international+airport+images tonnes show where Anchorage was rate in the first half of 2012. According to data compiled by Airports Council International and presented by AviationBusinessMe: 1. Memphis was the world’s busiest cargo airport in the first half of 2012, handling 1 980 812 tonnes. The hub airport of FedEx Express recorded year on year growth of 3.2%, one of only a few airports in the top ten to register an increase. 2. Memphis and Hong Kong have historically placed at the top of the list and at halfway through 2012, Hong Kong lies in second place. The airport handled 1 942 000 tonnes of cargo in the first half, which represents no change over last year’s figure.

62 Centre for Aviation (CAPA), http://www.centreforaviation.com/profiles/airports/anchorage‐ international‐airport‐anc

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 217

3. Shanghai Pudong is third and handled 1 429 846 tonnes of cargo in the first half. The figure represented a 6.6% year on year decline. 4. Fourth at this time is Incheon Seoul, which handled 1 205 030 tonnes of cargo in the first half. This represented a year on year fall of 5.3%. 5 Anchorage’s location makes it a natural stop‐off point for cargo heading from the Far East to the Western half of the United States. It handled 1 175 612 tonnes in the first half, a year on year decline of 5.6%. MA 45 Table 1 World’s Airports Handling Largest Cargo Metric Tonnes 2012 (first half of year) Airport Cargo Metric Tonnes 1 Memphis 1 980 812 2 Hong Kong 1 942 000 3 Shanghai Pudong 1 429 846 4 Incheon 1 205 030 5 Anchorage 1 175 612 Source AviationBusinessMe.com63 Information on the Port of Anchorage (POA) comes from their website.64 The POA receives 95 percent of all goods destined for Alaska. Ships from Totem Ocean Trailer Express and Horizon Lines arrive twice

weekly from the Port of Tacoma in Washington. Along with handling these activities, the port is a storage facility for jet fuel from Alaskan refineries, which is utilized at Joint Base Elmendorf‐Richardson (JBER). The POA is a deep‐water port located in Anchorage, Alaska with 4 bulk carrier berths and two petroleum berths. The Port of Anchorage is an enterprise department under the Municipality of Anchorage. As an enterprise, the Port is distinguished from other types of municipal departments, largely because it creates enough revenue to support its operations along with paying annual fees to the municipality. The POA sits in a strategic location for global commerce, fuel and cargo distribution, and military response. It is the only intermodal deep‐water port in Alaska. The Port is operational year round, and located only a few miles away from one of the busiest cargo airports in the United States.

63Aviation Businessme.com at http://aviationbusinessme.com/gallery/2012/sep/30/260280/#3‐third‐in‐the‐list‐is‐shanghai‐pudong‐ which‐handled‐1‐429‐846‐tonnes‐of‐cargo‐in 64 Port of Anchorage website found at http://www.portofalaska.com/

218 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

The Port of Anchorage is essential to Alaska's Armed Forces providing deployment and staging areas, essential fuel supplies, and consumer and business goods. Between 2005 and 2010, the port supported over 20 military deployments including Stryker Brigade deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. During that same time period over 18,000 pieces of military equipment passed through the Port's facilities. In 2006, the Port of Anchorage was designated as a Department of Defence Nationally Strategic Seaport. Only 19 ports in the United States have this designation. The Port is connected to JBER by a secure roadway created as part of the Port's ongoing Intermodal Expansion Project. This allows the military to deploy directly from JBER to the Port avoiding traffic delays on public roadways. The Port is also directly connected to four of Alaska's five major military installations by rail. These intermodal connections can support deployments from both JBER and Fort Wainwright via rail lines that transport all military cargo directly onto the secure Port property. The Port provides year‐ round accessibility to the military for deployment as needed. According the 2013 Economic Forecast by the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation (AEDC), the transportation sector gained about 200 jobs last year in 2012; however, , the year‐to‐year growth rate slowed in the latter half of 2012. AEDC expects this sector to add another 100 jobs in 2013. This sector accounts for about 11,600 jobs, with two‐thirds of those jobs connected with passenger or freight air transportation services (including the FedEx and UPS facilities).65 Federal, State and Municipal Impact on the Economy According to the State Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the federal government has been Alaska’s largest employer since the days before statehood, generating approximately a third of all jobs in the state. Which points to the fact that Alaska has a lot to lose as proposed federal budget cuts proposed over the next 10 years could top $1.5 trillion — the largest spending cuts since the end of World War II.

65 2013 Economic Forecast, Anchorage Economic Development Corporation

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 219

MA 45 Table 2 Per‐capita federal funds, 2010 Rank for States Rank State 1 Alaska $17,762 13 Louisiana $11,738 2 Virginia $17,008 14 South Dakota $11,676 3 Maryland $16,673 15 West Virginia $11,609 4 Connecticut $15,662 16 Pennsylvania $11,489 5 Hawaii $15,331 17 Rhode Island $11,172 6 New Mexico $13,578 18 Maine $11,024 7 Kentucky $13,198 19 Wyoming $11,019 8 North Dakota $12,930 20 Montana $10,873 9 Massachusetts $12,593 21 Tennessee $10,852 10 Vermont $11,834 22 Mississippi $10,588 11 Alabama $11,820 23 Washington $10,475 12 Missouri $11,746 U.S. Average $10,460 Source: Table provided by Alaska Labor Workforce Development, data collected from Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Consolidated Federal Funds Report Neal Fried, state economist, outlines in Alaska Trends, the most dramatic rise in federal expenditures in Alaska has been in salaries and wages — the largest spending category — which doubled over the past decade. In 2010, Alaska ranked second for per capita federal wages and salaries at $5,710 — five times the national average. Average salaries also increased, and the typical civilian federal worker earned $68,484 in 2010 — considerably more than the $47,724 earned by the average Alaska worker.66 Much of the growth in wages and salaries is attributable to the military’s expansion, and the U.S. Census Bureau also assembled a large temporary workforce to conduct the decennial census. MA 45 Table 3 Anchorage and Alaska federal expenditures Federal Retiremen Other Salaries government t and direct and Population expenditure disability payments Grants Procurement wages Total

Alaska 710,231 12,615,329 1,590,715 1,040,048 3,465,207 2,464,278 4,055,081 Anchorage 291,826 4,812,379 700,804 245,278 1,472,426 1,262,683 1,131,189 Anchorage % 41.10% 38.10% 44.10% 23.60% 42.50% 51.20% 27.90% Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s Consolidated Federal Funds Report for 2010 Table 4 shows when the public sector is included in the state’s largest employers, the highest ranked average monthly employment for 2010 was the military, followed by state, federal and educational institutions.

66 Alaska Trends, found at http://labor.alaska.gov/trends/feb12.pdf

220 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

MA 45 Table 4 Top 10 Private and Public Sector Employers in Alaska, 2010 Top 10 Private and Public Sector Employers in Alaska, 2010 Average Monthly Employment 1 Uniformed military 22,796 2 State of Alaska 18,337 3 Federal civilians 17,535 4 University of Alaska 7,579 5 Anchorage School District 7,157 6 Providence Health and Services 4,000+ 7 Wal‐Mart/Sam’s Club 3,000 to 3,249 8 Carrs/Safeway 2,750 to 2,999 9 Municipality of Anchorage 2,846 10 Fred Meyer 2,500 to 2,749 Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section, Alaska Economic Trends, July 2010 found at http://laborstats.alaska.gov/trends/jul10art1.pdf In prior years, the United States military had two large installations, Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson, which originally stemmed from the branching off of the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army after World War II. In a cost cutting effort initiated by the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure proceedings, the two bases were unified. JBER was created and also incorporated Kulis Air National Guard Base. Kulis was a 127 acre base adjacent to the Ted Stevens International Airport, and became unified with JBER in February 2011. The land reverted to the ownership of the State of Alaska. The top 10 private and public sectors show the uniformed military as having the largest number of monthly employed at 22,796. The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Develop identify local, state, and federal government as important employers in Alaska. Local governments provide some of the most direct public services, often including K‐12 education, health care, tribal governance, public safety, Source: 2012 Alaska Military Images: Alaska National utilities, and recreation. Local governments’ ability to Guard | Photos | ADN.www.adn.com meet community needs depends on revenue from taxes or other locally generated income, as well as funding from the state and federal government. Anchorage’s public sector is forecasted to lose some ground in 2013, with the largest declines at the federal level. Federal government employment fell by 400 in 2012, and many agencies are considering additional ways to trim their budgets. A much‐larger‐than‐normal contingent of federal employees was also expected to retire in December2012, and it’s uncertain how many will be replaced. At the state government level, including the University of Alaska, employment in Anchorage will likely remain steady, as the state’s revenue picture remains relatively healthy.67 Employment in local government is forecasted to drift downward in 2013. The Municipality of Anchorage’s workforce is already downsizing, and the 2013 budget will support slightly fewer positions. Local government’s largest employer, the Anchorage School District, is likely to move in a similar direction. AEDC forecasts a tightening of the government job market in 2012 that is expected to continue in 2013. The

67 Alaska Economic Trends, Employment Forecast for 2013, by Caroline Schultz, Neal Fried, Alyssa Shanks, and Mali Abrahamson, January 2013, found at http://laborstats.alaska.gov/trends/jan13art1.pdf

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 221

sector lost 400 jobs in 2012, and projects an additional loss of 300 in the coming year. In summary, there will be 30,200 government jobs in Anchorage at the end of 2013, down from 31,300 in 2010, a spike driven primarily by temporary census‐related positions. Government work supplies nearly 1‐in‐5 of the total jobs in the Anchorage economy.68 AEDC’s 2013 forecast states a proposed cut of 215 positions in the Anchorage School District’s 2013‐14 budget comprises a majority of the decline in the government sector. Natural Resource Development The natural resource sector, mainly petroleum, is Anchorage's most visible industry, with many high rises bearing the logos of large multinationals such as BP, and ConocoPhillips. While field operations are centered on the Alaska North Slope and south of Anchorage around Cook Inlet, the majority of offices and administration are found in Anchorage. The headquarters building of ConocoPhillips Alaska, a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips, is located in downtown Anchorage. ConocoPhillips has the tallest building in Alaska. The BP Energy Resource Center is often used by nonprofit and public service organizations in the Anchorage community. Many companies who provide oilfield support services are likewise headquartered outside of Anchorage but maintain a substantial presence in the city, most notably Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and CH2M HILL. The Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) was constructed between 1974 and 1977 to bring North Slope oil to market. TAPS is operated by Alyeska which is owned by the major North Slope oil companies. The major owner of the company is BP with 46.93% of the shares, ConocoPhillips (28.29%), and Exxon Mobil (20.34%), and Koch Alaska Pipeline Company (3.08%), and Unocal (1.36%). Alyeska is a company headquartered in Anchorage, with 800 employees. According to findings released by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Alaska’s economy depends heavily on revenues related to petroleum development, which totaled $4.57 billion in fiscal year 2007. 69 The petroleum industry is Alaska’s largest industry, annually spending $2.1 billion, including $422 million on payroll and $1.7 billion on goods and services. Overall, this spending generates 33,600 jobs, $1.4 billion in payroll, and value added to the Alaska economy of $1.8 billion for total output of $3.1 billion. The findings include that oil and gas accounts for 12 percent of private sector jobs and 20 percent of private sector payroll. The oil and gas industry has the highest monthly wage in Alaska, averaging $7,754, which is 2.8 times higher than the statewide average of $2,798. The DNR findings note that in Anchorage, it is estimated that about 2,400 workers are employed by the oil and gas industry. Estimated total payroll is over $239 million with an additional $845 million in goods and services in the Anchorage economy. Indirect impact of the oil and gas industry is estimated to be 11,600 jobs. Some facts featured by the Resource Development Council are listed below:70  The oil industry continues to be the largest source of unrestricted revenue to the state, accounting for approximately 93 percent, or $8.86 billion, of all unrestricted state revenue in FY 2012. The State’s unrestricted general fund revenues from the oil and gas industry in FY 2013 is expected to reach $6.9 billion and $6.4 billion in FY 2014. (Alaska Department of Revenue)

68 Alaska Journal of Commerce, Elwood Brehmer, February Issue, found at http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska‐Journal‐of‐Commerce/February‐Issue‐2‐2013/AEDC‐forecasts‐ continued‐growth‐for‐Anchorage‐economy‐in‐2013/#ixzz2TIzumOsp

69 Department of Natural Resources, Chapter Eleven: Summary and Director’s Final Finding, 2009, http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Leasing/Documents%5CBIF%5CCook_Inlet%5CCookInlet_BIF2009_11_Summary. pdf 70 Resource Development Council, website found at http://www.akrdc.org/issues/oilgas/overview.html

222 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

 A third of Alaska jobs – about 127,000 – are oil‐related, dependent in some way on oil production or spending of state oil revenue. Close to 20 percent more jobs – 60,000 – can be traced to the spinoff benefits of oil wealth. Altogether, half of Alaska’s jobs – 187,000 – can be traced to oil development. These spinoffs have helped other parts of the economy prosper and add more jobs than they otherwise could have (University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research). Health Care Services Alaska’s elderly population is expected to grow by at least 50 percent from 2008 to 2018.71 State economists identified 17 of Alaska’s 20 fastest growing occupations as health care related. These occupations will likely serve the elderly and include: home health aides, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and personal and home care aides. Other health care occupations among the 10 fastest growing are respiratory therapists, licensed practical and vocational nurses, medical assistants, surgical technologists, registered nurses, and physician assistants. Health care is one of the largest and most dynamic industries in Alaska, accounting for eight percent of total employment and around 16 percent of the value produced by the state’s economy. Between 2000 and 2009, health care employment increased 46 percent, about five times as fast as the state’s population and three times as fast as all other sectors of the economy.72 While job growth is good news for the economy it also places heavy strains on an industry already burdened by unacceptably high vacancy rates in key occupations. State rates for primary care professions, as determined by the 2009 Health Workforce Vacancy Study conducted by the Alaska Center for Rural Health, range from 12.9 percent for community health aides and practitioners to 37.4 percent for pediatric nurse practitioners. Though registered nurses had a comparatively moderate vacancy rate at 10.1 percent, this relatively large profession was calculated to have over 320 vacant positions. The above vacancy rates are statewide averages; rates in rural Alaska are even more dramatic. These vacancy figures coupled with anticipated high increases in demand for workers indicate a significant skills gap in the health care workforce at the present time, a gap that without increased attention can only worsen. The Anchorage Economic Development Corporation points to health care services which began expansion in 2009, adding 500 in 2012. The 2013 Economic Forecast points to the addition of 2,500 health care jobs that have been added in Anchorage, to account for approximately 17,700 local jobs. AEDC expects this sector to add 400 jobs in 2013. Hospital employment accounts for one third of all health care jobs in Anchorage, and continues to grow slowly. AEDC reports over the past three years, hospital employment is up 5 percent, while out‐patient health care employment is up 21 percent (now totaling about 9,000 jobs), and nursing and residential care is up 55 percent (now with 2,700 jobs).

71 Alaska’s 10‐Year Occupational Forecast, 2008 to 2018, by Kelsey Kost and Todd Mosher, Alaska Economic Trends, September 2010 72 Health Workforce Development Plan, found at http://labor.alaska.gov/awib/forms/Healthcare_Workforce_Plan.pdfAlaska

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 223

Tourism and Leisure The leisure and hospitality industry in Anchorage which includes accommodation, food services, arts, entertainment, and recreation grew by 2.4 percent last year, or 400 jobs from 2011 to 2012.73 Neal Fried, state economists with the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce projects this trend to continue in 2013. State economists speculate that food service, which represents two‐thirds of industry employment, will also continue to grow. Restaurants benefit from the visitor industry as well as w hat appears to be an insatiable local demand or new eateries. During the past decade, employment in this industry has grown by more than 1,000. The list of new restaurants that opened in Anchorage continues to grow, with Olive Garden opening its first Alaska restaurant at the beginning of 2012 and a second at the end of the year. Table 5 is consistent with expected employment forecasts and economic sectors, showing the largest private employers are related to transportation, health care, retail, natural resources (oil, mining), and tourism and leisure. Providence Hospital, Anchorage, Alaska

73 Alaska Economic Trends, Anchorage poised for fourth straight year of growth, Neal Fried, January 2013

224 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

MA 45 Table 5 Anchorage’s Largest Private Sectors in 2010 by Average Number Monthly Employment Anchorage’s Largest Private Sector in 2010 Employers with 4,000+ to 1,000 Average Monthly Employment Average Monthly Rank1 Firm Name Type of Business Employment in 20102 1 Providence Health & Services 4,000+ Hospital/medical center 2 Wal‐Mart/Sam’s Club 3,000 to 3,249 Grocery/general merchandise 3 Carrs/Safeway 2,750 to 2,999 Grocery 4 Fred Meyer 2,500 to 2,749 Grocery/general merchandise 5 ASRC Energy Services " Oil field services 6 BP Exploration Alaska 2,000 to 2,249 Oil and gas extraction 7 CH2M HILL 1,750 to 1,999 Oil and gas extraction 8 NANA Management Services " Catering/lodging/security 9 Alaska Native Tribal Health 1,500 to 1,749 Hospital/medical center Consortium (ANTHC)3 10 Alaska Airlines " Air carrier 11 GCI Communications 1,250 to 1,499 Communications 12 Southcentral Foundation4 1,250 to 1,499 Hospital/medical Center 13 FedEx 1,000 to 1,249 Air freight/courier service 14 ConocoPhillips Alaska 1,000 to 1,249 Oil and gas extraction 15 AK USA Federal Credit Union 1,000 to 1,249 Financial services 16 UPS (United Parcel Service) 1,000 to 1,249 Air freight/courier service Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section, Alaska Economic Trends, July 2010 found at http://laborstats.alaska.gov/trends/jul10art1.pdf 1 When two or more employers had the same number of employees, they were ranked by unrounded employment. 2 These are ranges that a company’s or organization’s specific employment number falls into: the ranking is based on the specific employment number. 3 This count excludes approximately 293 of ANTHC’s federal employees. 4 This count excludes approximately 130 of Southcentral Foundation’s federal employees.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 225

Table 6 shows Anchorage’s largest percentage of new hires in 2010 was for retail sales workers (13%), followed by food and beverage serving workers (11%). This information is consistent with an expected upward trend toward tourism and leisure. MA 45 Table 6 2010 Total New Hires in Anchorage by Occupation and Percentage 2010 Anchorage New Hires By Occupation and Percentage 52,314 100% Retail Sales Workers 7,032 13% Food and Beverage Serving Workers 5,748 11% Construction Trades Workers 4,311 8% Cooks and Food Preparation Workers 3,463 7% Other Office and Administrative Support Workers 3,428 7% Information and Record Clerks 2,985 6% Other Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers 2,957 6% Material Moving Workers 2,740 5% Other Personal Care and Service Workers 2,709 5% Building Cleaning and Pest Control Workers 2,695 5% Motor Vehicle Operators 1,689 3% Entertainers and Performers, Sports and Related Workers 1,565 3% Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 1,509 3% Financial Clerks 1,343 3% Other Healthcare Support Occupations 1,288 2% Other Sales and Related Workers 1,204 2% Material Recording, Scheduling, Dispatching, and Distributing Workers 1,175 2% Grounds Maintenance Workers 1,156 2% Nursing, Psychiatric, and Home Health Aides 1,125 2% Other Protective Service Workers 1,097 2% Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers 1,095 2% Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, New Hire Data, Excel Spreadsheet, found at http://labor.alaska.gov/research/newhire/newhire.htm Construction Anchorage construction employment fell each year between 2007 and 2011; but, in 2012 it changed course and grew moderately. Building values in Anchorage also increased somewhat for the first time in four years, based on data through October.74 Residential building is expected to pick up in 2013 after a number of lackluster years, spurred by low interest rates, greater consumer confidence, and the smallest housing inventory since 2005. Commercial activity, on the other hand, is expected to stay about the same. Government will remain an important source of construction projects, with a bright outlook at the state and local levels. Large state capital budgets have been a significant asset for a number of years, and November brought an additional plus with the voter approval of a $453.5million statewide bond package. The biggest downside in the near term is the rapidly shrinking Army Corps of Engineers construction budget. The Corps was a major source of work for a decade, underwriting annual construction budgets that topped $550 million statewide. That amount fell to $269 million in 2012, and 2013 is forecasted at just 20 percent of that amount.

74 Ibid, Alaska Economic Trends, January 2013

226 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Table 7 shows the significant drop in new housing units built in Anchorage from 2005 through 2011. The greatest drop was from 2009 to 2010, with a 174% decrease. MA 45 Table 7 Total New Housing Units, Anchorage, 2005‐2011 Year Total Percentage Change 2005 673 2006 701 4% 2007 382 84% 2008 217 76% 2009 269 24% 2010 98 174% 2011 186 90% MA 45 Table 8 Total New Single Family & Duplex Units, 2005‐2011 Year Total Percentage Change 2005 1049 2006 669 36% 2007 479 28% 2008 311 54% 2009 296 5% 2010 370 20% 2011 275 26% C. Description of the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community Table 9 below shows a percentage changes by business activity. Area that shows an increase is in oil and gas (15%) and local education (11%) and Professional & Business Services (6%). Both Educational & Health Services and Health Care each grew by 4%. Businesses areas of loss reflect Information (‐3%) and Financial Activities (‐4%). State economists are forecasting a growing demand for health care.75 These economists point to an expected additional 38,749 jobs between 2010 and 2020, an overall increase of 12%. Health care and social assistance, related to Alaska’s aging population, is projected to grow by 31%‐‐the highest of any industry. The second highest growth will be in mining, minus oil and gas, at 19%.

75 Alaska Economic Trends, October 2012, Industry and Occupational Forecasts, 2010 to 2020, Health Care to Lead Industry Growth, by Paul Martz, Economist, October 2012, Volume 32, Number 10

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 227

MA 45 Table 9 Business Activity, 2011 to 2012 Municipality of 2012 Annual 2011 Annual Number of Percentage Average Average Workers Change Anchorage Number of Workers Annual Average 2011 to 2012 Change 2011 to 2012 Total Nonfarm Wage & Salary 157,200 153,800 3,400 2% Goods‐Producing 14,100 13,200 900 6% Mining and Logging 3,400 3,000 400 12% Mining 3,000 ‐3,000 0% Oil & Gas 3,300 2,800 500 15% Construction 8,400 8,100 300 4% Manufacturing 2,300 2,100 200 9% Service‐Providing 143,000 140,700 2,300 2% Trade, Transportation, Utilities 33,000 33,100 ‐100 0% Wholesale Trade 4,600 4,600 0 0% Retail Trade 17,100 17,100 0 0% Trans/Warehouse/Utilities 11,300 11,300 0 0% Air Transportation 3,000 2,900 100 3% Information 3,900 4,000 ‐100 -3% Financial Activities 8,200 8,500 ‐300 -4% Professional & Business Services 20,000 18,900 1,100 6% Educational & Health Services 24,600 23,700 900 4% Health Care 18,000 17,200 800 4% Leisure & Hospitality 16,900 16,600 300 2% Accommodation 3,200 3,200 0 0% Food Services & Drinking Places 11,400 11,000 400 4% Other Services 5,800 5,800 0 0% Government 30,700 30,200 500 2% Federal Government 9,100 9,500 ‐400 -4% State Government 10,700 10,700 0 0% State Education 2,600 2,500 100 4% Local Government 10,800 10,000 800 7% Local Education 8,000 7,100 900 11% Data Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development found at http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/ces/ces.cfm?at=04&a=000020&adj=0

228 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Table 10 shows that 93% (140,992) of the total population in the civilian labor force (16+ years) is employed. This table also shows a very high unemployment rate for ages 16‐24. However, the unemployment rate at 7.28 is high. Consequently, Table 11 provides more up to date information showing Anchorage’s average unemployment rate was 5.4 in 2012. MA 45 Table 10 Labor Force Labor Force Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 152,056 Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 140,992 Unemployment Rate 7.28 Unemployment Rate for Ages 16‐24 25.58 Unemployment Rate for Ages 25‐65 4.36 Data Source: 2005‐2009 ACS Data, HUD populated MA 45 Table 11 Anchorage Annual Unemployment Rate, 2000‐2012 Annual Unemployment Rates for Municipality of Anchorage 1998 to 2012 Year Annual 2012 5.4 2011 6.1 2010 6.8 2009 6.5 2008 5.2 2007 4.9 2006 5.2 2005 5.5 2004 5.9 2003 6.2 2002 5.7 2001 4.8 2000 4.9 Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development found at: http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/labforce/labdata.cfm?s=5&a=0

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 229

Table 12 shows the categories with the greatest percentage of new hires was for retail sales workers (13%) and food and beverage serving workers (11), followed by construction trade (8%), and cooks (7%) and other administrative support workers (7%). MA 45 Table 12 Total New 2010 Hires in Anchorage by Occupation and Percentage Anchorage 2010 New Hires By Occupation 52,314 100%

Retail Sales Workers 7,032 13% Food and Beverage Serving Workers 5,748 11% Construction Trades Workers 4,311 8% Cooks and Food Preparation Workers 3,463 7% Other Office and Administrative Support Workers 3,428 7% Information and Record Clerks 2,985 6% Other Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers 2,957 6% Material Moving Workers 2,740 5% Other Personal Care and Service Workers 2,709 5% Building Cleaning and Pest Control Workers 2,695 5% Motor Vehicle Operators 1,689 3% Entertainers and Performers, Sports and Related Workers 1,565 3% Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 1,509 3% Financial Clerks 1,343 3% Other Healthcare Support Occupations 1,288 2% Other Sales and Related Workers 1,204 2% Material Recording, Scheduling, Dispatching, and Distributing Workers 1,175 2% Grounds Maintenance Workers 1,156 2% Nursing, Psychiatric, and Home Health Aides 1,125 2% Other Protective Service Workers 1,097 2% Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers 1,095 2% Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, New Hire Data, Excel Spreadsheet, found at http://labor.alaska.gov/research/newhire/newhire.htm

230 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Table 13 shows the greatest percent of workers are in Trade, Transportation and Utilities category (22.3%), Educational and Health Services (14.5%), and Professional and Business Services (11.5%), and Leisure and Hospitality (11.3%). Females are employed in the Educational and Health Services by the greatest number (14,247), while males have a greater number of employed in the Trade, Transportation and Utilities category. The largest number for workers age 50+ is with the Trade, Transportation and Utilities (7,001), followed by Educational and Health Services (5,330), and followed by local government (4,690). MA 45 Table 13 2010 Anchorage Workers by Industry Number Percent Age 45 Age 50 of of total and and workers employed Female Male over over Natural Resources and Mining 5,257 4.1 1,144 4,112 2,498 1,820 Construction 7,036 5.5 1,036 5,999 2,482 1,652 Manufacturing 2,061 1.6 593 1,468 825 554 Trade, Transportation and Utilities 28,723 22.3 11,324 17,390 10,030 7,001 Information 3,548 2.8 1,558 1,989 1,415 977 Financial Activities 7,745 6 4,888 2,856 2,838 1,941 Professional and Business Services 14,819 11.5 6,740 8,072 5,737 4,058 Educational and Health Services 18,693 14.5 14,247 4,440 7,457 5,330 Leisure and Hospitality 14,544 11.3 7,314 7,223 3,243 2,207 State Government 9,140 7.1 4,995 4,141 5,072 3,803 Local Government 11,699 9.1 7,357 4,340 6,369 4,690 Other 5,185 4 3,048 2,136 1,926 1,382 Unknown 405 0.3 183 222 98 65 Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Alaska Local and Regional Information found at: H:\Anchorage Motherload AK Dept of Labor.mht Table 14 shows that similar to other cities across the nation, at 84% the majority of the labor pool takes less than thirty minutes to arrive at work.76 According to a recent Census report in 2009 it took an average 25 minutes for workers across the U.S. to travel to work. Average travel time to work was highest in Maryland (31.8 minutes), followed by New York (31.3 minutes). Both North and South Dakota had the shortest travel time with 16.1 minutes and 16.8 respectively. MA 45 Table 14 Labor Pool Travel Time Travel Time Number Percentage < 30 Minutes 115,924 84% 30‐59 Minutes 18,265 13% 60 or More Minutes 3,165 2% Total 137,354 100% Data Source: 2005‐2009 ACS Data Table 15 shows the greatest number of persons employed are those with Some college or Associate’s degree (41,083) and Bachelor’s degree or higher (41,668); while those with less than a high school education have a comparatively smaller number (5,963) in the labor force. Overall, education is aligned with employment. For example, for those with Some college or Associate’s degree, there is a higher number employed (41,083) rather than not employed (2,742), especially when compared to those with a High school graduate (25,013) that are employed and those who are not employed (2,298).

76 Census Bureau Releases 2010 American Community Survey Single Year Estimates, September 22, 2011 found at: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/cb11‐ 158.html

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 231

MA 45 Table 15 Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older) In Labor Force Civilian Not in Labor Educational Attainment Employed Unemployed Force Less than high school graduate 5,963 733 3,586 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 25,013 2,298 8,245 Some college or Associate's degree 41,083 2,742 9,743 Bachelor's degree or higher 41,668 954 6,876 Data Source: 2005‐2009 ACS Data Table 16 shows the 45‐65 age group has the largest number of bachelor’s and graduate degrees; while the 18‐24 years of age group has the least amount of college education. However, there is a large population (14,217) in the 25‐34 years of age that have some college, but no degree. The largest percentage (34%) in the labor pool is aged 45‐65, which also has the largest number of college degree (some college thru graduate or professional degree) totaling 49,866. MA 45 Table 16 Educational Attainment by Age Age Total

18–24 yrs 25–34 yrs 35–44 yrs 45–65 yrs 65+ yrs for All Less than 9th grade 434 803 789 1,470 2,024 5,520 9th to 12th grade, no 4,622 2,378 2,247 2,660 1,648 13,555 diploma High school graduate, GED, 12,187 10,958 9,224 15,857 5,174 53,400 or alternative Some college, no degree 13,575 14,217 10,503 19,047 4,242 61,584 Associate's degree 980 3,030 3,771 6,153 885 14,819 Bachelor's degree 2,014 10,058 9,326 14,195 2,580 38,173 Graduate or professional 140 2,753 4,268 10,471 2,293 19,925 degree Total 33,952 44,197 40,128 69,853 18,846 206,976 Percent 16% 21% 19% 34% 9% 100% Data Source: 2005‐2009 ACS Data, HUD populated with exceptions of percentages Table 17 is consistent with the expectations shown in Table 13, where the largest percentage in the labor pool aged 45‐65 years of age are making the highest median earnings, compared to those with no high school or the equivalency of high school. MA 45 Table 17 Educational Attainment – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Less than high school graduate 23,226 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 32,296 Some college or Associate's degree 39,546 Bachelor's degree 50,430 Graduate or professional degree 66,575 Data Source: 2005‐2009 ACS Data, HUD populated D. How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in the jurisdiction? The greatest number of persons employed in Anchorage have a bachelor’s degree or higher, the largest percentage of workers by industry are in Trade, Transportation and Utilities category, followed by Educational and Health Services, and Professional and Business Services, and Leisure and Hospitality. Occupations paying the highest average annual wages are in the following order by highest: Management; Architecture and Engineering; Legal; Healthcare Practitioners and Technical; Computer and Mathematical.

232 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

The group with the largest number of bachelor’s and graduate degrees is from 45‐65 years of age. The largest percentage in the labor pool is aged 45‐65, which most likely has the highest paid occupations. Thus the well educated, older and experienced labor pool matches the high end of the economic spectrums of business services in the municipality. In addition, a review of 2010 hires shows the largest percentage for retail sales workers (13%), followed by food and beverage serving workers (11%). Both of these occupations would likely be occupied by Anchorage’s younger labor pool between 18‐24 years of age. (See MA 45 Table 12). This would also indicate the younger labor pool is making less earnings in comparison to the higher skilled or higher educated and older wager earners. The Wages for Occupational Categories table is consistent with earlier findings that show a bachelor’s or graduate degree will garner a higher average annual wage. However, the new 2010 new hires and economic forecast for Anchorage envisions the likelihood the young labor pool will be employed in the retail, sales, and leisure and personal care services. MA 45 Table 18 Wages for Occupational Categories Occupational Category *Average Annual Wages 1 Architecture and Engineering $84,900 2 Arts/Design/Entertainment/Sports/Media $42,600 3 Building/Grounds Cleaning & Maintenance $29,500 4 Business and Financial Operations $64,000 5 Community and Social Services $45,600 6 Computer and Mathematical $66,700 7 Construction and Extraction $57,900 8 Education, Training, and Library $49,800 9 Food Preparation and Serving Related $24,000 10 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $76,100 11 Healthcare Support $35,000 12 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair $53,600 13 Legal $80,000 14 Life, Physical, and Social Science $62,600 15 Management $85,700 16 Office and Administrative Support $38,000 17 Personal Care and Service $28,300 18 Production $35,200 19 Protective Service $49,700 20 Sales and Related $30,500 21 Transportation and Material Moving $44,600 Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Alaska’s 10‐Year Occupational Forecast, 2008 to 2018, by Kelsey Kost and Todd Mosher, Economists, Alaska Economic Trends, September 2010 found at: http://laborstats.alaska.gov/trends/sep10art1.pdf *1 Wages are based on May 2009 OES occupation wage estimates for Alaska weighted by base year (2008) employment.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 233

E. Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create. Oil and Gas Revenue Major changes that may have an economic impact could be recently passed legislation regarding oil revenue. In a March 21, 2013 article, the Anchorage Daily News (ADN) featured news regarding a narrow vote in the Alaska Senate, 11 – 9, where the legislature approved a massive tax cut for the oil industry in the hope that it would lead to more oil production in Alaska [1]. According to the ADN, some believe that Senate Bill 21 will cost the state treasury billions of dollars over the next decade, but supporters say it will eventually lead to greater oil production. Opponents say it's nothing more than a giveaway to the industry, which told the Legislature it would reduce its efforts here if it didn't get tax breaks even as it told stock analysts the opposite. The bill throws out the five‐year‐old tax system known as ACES, for Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share, which became law under then Governor Sarah Palin. It is unclear what impact in the Consolidated Plan’s five year period (2013‐2017), this recent legislation will have on Anchorage’s business and economy.

F. Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan; Anchorage School District The Anchorage School District (ASD) offers a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) curriculum.[2] The STEM curriculum encompasses the desired learning that students will need to prepare them for their lives in a future that perhaps they don’t quite understand themselves. In the ASD, efforts are combining these areas into one realm does not mean that the instruction will immediately change. The ASD has been doing very well at educating students and there is no reason to change that. ASD can improve, however, and are making steps to prepare the students a bit better for the rapidly changing technological world they will enter in the labor force. A primary objective of the STEM curriculum is to integrate the teaching of the four composite areas so that the students better understand the connections among the areas. Most students already understand this concept, but all students must understand it. Highlighted below are some ASD Programs related to STEM. ASD Robotics competitions Beginning in 1999, the ASD has been involved in robotics competitions to involve students in STEM activities. The number of schools involved in this exciting team sport has increased dramatically. ASD anticipates that more schools will try some level of the competitions, and that more students will participate. The FIRST competitions, in particular, are friendly while also being competitive. The goal is not to trash another team’s robot, but instead to work with it to achieve a goal. Bartlett High School's robotics team competed in the World Robotics Festival in April 2011. Dimond High School Engineering Academy

[1] Anchorage Daily News, read more here: http://www.adn.com/2013/03/21/2833728/alaska‐senate‐oks‐ overhaul‐of.html#storylink=cpy

[2] Anchorage School District found at http://www.asdk12.org/depts/stem/

234 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

The DHS Engineering Academy is designed to prepare students for a two‐year or a four‐year engineering degree program. Five engineering courses follow the Project Lead the Way (PLTW) curriculum that may qualify for articulated agreements with universities in Alaska and across the U.S. Engineering Academy courses are project‐based. Students are connected with engineering professors at UAA and with engineers in businesses that serve on the Engineering Academy Advisory Council. Students may enter the Engineering Academy as freshmen and continue the four‐year sequence or they may take individual courses when space is available. Service High, Biomedical Career Academy (BCA) The Biomedical Career Academy at Service aims to prepare students for a successful career in the health care industry. Classes within the BCA focus heavily on rigorous academics within a traditional curriculum, integrating health care and medically based activities within the classroom and community. Students have the option of preparing themselves for a position directly after high school within a health care setting and/or to focus on preparation for a traditional college degree. All students are required to be members of Health Occupation Students of America, a nationally recognized student health care organization, and will also be obtaining current first‐aid/CPR certification. Seniors, upon the successful completion of prerequisites, will take a capstone class which focuses on individual research and hands‐on learning. The BCA students will be interacting with business partners in the community thus will be held to high standards of professional conduct and communication. Alaska Workforce Investment Board Under the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the Alaska Workforce Investment Board (AWIB) is “building connections that put Alaskans into good jobs.”[3] The board provides policy oversight of state and federally funded job training and vocational education programs. Board members, a majority of whom are business and industry leaders, look at employment trends and emerging occupations to ensure training is customized and Alaskans are prepared for high demand, good wage jobs. Because of their oversight, public and private educators and training providers connect with employers to ensure the right people are being trained for the right jobs. The Alaska Career and Technical Education (CTE) Plan, is a joint effort of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD), Department of Education & Early Development (EED), and the University of Alaska (UA) system. The Plan was finalized in August 2010. The legislature appropriated $625,000 to the AWIB for implementation of the state CTE Plan in FY2012 and again in FY2013. Some of the FY2013 grant awardees are listed below. The importance of these awards in relationship to the Anchorage Consolidated Plan, 2013‐2017, is the development of a young labor pool, with specialized skills in computers, construction, law enforcement, and health care is critical to support the Anchorage economy. Many victims of violence throughout the state come to Anchorage for health care, mental health services, and/or relocate for safety reasons. Any developed skilled through any of these types of awarded programs will support the economic structure of the Municipality. AVTEC – Alaska’s Institute of Technology  Upgrade Structural Welding program  Purchase Submerged‐Arc Welding (SAW) system and train instructor in its use  Update welding curriculum to include SAW training and certifications Copper River School District

[3] Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Alaska Workforce Investment Board found at http://labor.alaska.gov/awib/

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 235

 Expand implementation of Personal Learning and Career Planning from grades 6 – 12; emphasis on parent involvement and training for all middle and high school staff  Implement IC3 Program (Internet and Computing Core Certification), an industry‐validated, standards‐based training and certification program for computing and Internet knowledge and skills  Provide IC3 testing and certification for high school, postsecondary, and adults in partnership with Job Center and Prince William Sound Community College Hiland Mountain Correctional Center  Implement new construction‐related CTE programs for incarcerated women to prepare them for re‐entry into the workforce in high‐skill, high‐wage, high‐demand jobs  Develop programs in Electrical, Forklift Training, and First Aid/CPR  Participants may earn industry certifications and college credit Lower Yukon School District  Develop and implement the Community Public Safety and Service Training Program in all 10 village school sites  Provide students with foundational knowledge/skills to pursue further coursework in law enforcement, firefighting, healthcare, and social services pathways  Partner with public agencies (Alaska State Troopers, Kuskokwim Campus, Tundra Women’s Coalition, Civil Air Patrol, Rural Fire Protection, Departments of Natural Resources and Fish and Game, and Alaska Highway Safety Office) to provide onsite training at each school University of Alaska Anchorage Center for Rural Health  Expand Health Sciences Program of Study in Galena and Tok  Implement Health Sciences Program of Study in Nenana and Delta‐Greely School Districts  Align the secondary programs to post‐secondary programs and credit G. Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)? The Municipality Of Anchorage participates in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Recently, the Municipality partnered with the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) to develop the “Anchorage Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy”, July 12, 2010.[4] The updated report covers 2009‐2013, and serves as a progress report on economic development within the Municipality. In the Strategy report, the overarching goals of the Municipality is to foster economic growth, develop infrastructure, focus on education and workforce development, cultivate the visitor industry, and maintain a high quality of life for residents.

[4] Anchorage Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2010 Update found at: http://aedcweb.com/aedcnew/research/category/12‐anchorage‐ceds

236 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

H. If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? Objective E of the Strategy, titled Support Development of Public Facilities Which Serve Residents and Visitors, is to “Support construction of a new Municipal Department of Health and Human Services building, which will adequately serve the needs of clients (see page 20‐21). Goal II, for Infrastructure, identifies the importance of providing shelters in accordance with the American Disabilities Act, which is also a priority in a FY2012 CDBG funded project. Under Goal V, Quality of Life, there are several action steps that are consistent with this new Consolidated Plan and include:  Expand affordable rental housing opportunities for low and extremely low‐income households, with an emphasis on special needs and the homeless. Provide an effective mix of program and services that address the housing and housing‐related needs of residents  Preserve affordable rental and home ownership opportunities  Expand home ownership opportunities, particularly for low to moderate income households  Develop incentives for creating and developing affordable housing  Encourage the demolition and redevelopment of substandard housing  Encourage the maintenance and upkeep of existing housing in order to extend its useful life and neighborhood stability  Expand the availability of housing for seniors Objective B: Reduce Homelessness has several identified action steps also consistent with the Consolidated Plan and includes:  Expand the supply of rental housing for special needs populations, with an emphasis on the homeless  Engage in homeless prevention activities including an effective mix of programs and services including case management to assist people in obtaining and retaining permanent housing  Assist in the development of a coordinated intake and discharge system  Support existing shelter services and the expansion of transitional housing services I. Discussion According to the Training Program Performance Report (February 2013), there were a number of successes to present from 2012 in workforce development:77  Programs have attained high marks for placement, retention and employer satisfaction. In addition there has been substantial wage growth for trainees.  There has been a continuing growth of partnerships across providers, between business/industry and education, and between agencies and projects resulting in reduced duplication, leveraging of funding streams and easier access for the trainees.

77 Alaska Training Program Performance 2012, Employment and wages of Training Program Participants Exiting in FY2011, prepared for the Alaska Workforce Investment Board by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section, Brynn Keith, Director, Administrative Services, Dan Robinson, Research Chief, Katherine Regester, Research Analyst, February 2013

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 237

 The programs have been on‐target for priority industries and the current economy with a developing capability for serving growth industries and major projects.  There has been good support for Regional Training Centers with many programs reaching into rural areas.  Pilot programs have resulted in templates for more effective and efficient training programs for both entry into the workforce and upgrading of skills to meet new standards or career opportunities.

238 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XXIV. MA 50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion

A. Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? There are areas in the Municipality that are more affected by multiple housing problems and are identified by census tracts. This section identifies these areas by census tracts. Table 1 and Table 2 provide a listing of Census Tracts where the Area Median Household Income is below 80% of the Anchorage Median Household Income. About a third of the population is below 80% of the Median Income level. As evidenced in other sections of this Plan, extremely low‐income and low‐income households often exceed 30 to 50% of their income on housing. MA 50 Table 1– Anchorage Median Household Income Below 80% AMI by Census Tract, 2010 Census Tracts below 80% Area Median Income $66,880 Population In Median Household Community Council/Area Census Tract Total Population Total Households Households Income Mountain View 6 7,747 7,250 2,297 $35,788 Midtown/Tudor 19 4,194 3,881 1,647 $39,390 Fairview/Airport Heights 9.01 4,906 4,153 1,802 $39,481 North Star 14 5,224 5,101 2,378 $39,521 Government Hill 5 1,988 1,975 956 $41,330 Fairview 10 4,131 3,712 1,900 $42,022 Northeast (Muldoon) 7.03 5,706 5,445 2,051 $44,567 Spenard 20 3,748 3,748 1,275 $45,605 Fairview 9.02 3,141 3,141 1,402 $47,154 Russian Jack Park 8.02 4,407 4,351 1,860 $48,190 Downtown 11 940 635 428 $49,826 Spenard 21 3,787 3,773 1,686 $50,217 Russian Jack Park 8.01 7,323 7,206 2,380 $50,952 Elmendorf/JBER 3 8,000 6,059 1,707 $51,582 University Area 18.02 5,537 5,184 2,125 $54,777 Turnagain 22.02 2,960 2,936 1,296 $56,681 Elmendorf/JBER 4 5,937 5,199 1,246 $58,651 Northeast (Muldoon) 7.01 5,949 5,934 1,969 $63,276 Russian Jack Park 17.31 5,823 5,784 2,064 $63,404

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 239

MA 50 Table 2 Census Tracts above 80% Median Income and below Median Income $83,600 Population In Median Household Community Council Census Tract Total Population Total Households Households Income Girdwood 29 2,570 2,566 925 $67,983 Abbott Loop 28.11 6,313 6,304 2,574 $68,824 Campbell Park 18.01 4,907 4,900 1,900 $68,860 Bay Shore/Klatt 27.12 9,068 8,966 3,069 $69,508 Abbott Loop 26.01 4,784 4,750 1,473 $69,608 Sand Lake 23.03 9,273 9,199 3,158 $69,657 Airport Heights 16.01 4,092 3,924 1,480 $72,021 Northeast (Muldoon) 7.02 5,107 5,062 1,853 $72,883 Spenard 24 3,299 3,161 1,187 $72,946 University Area, Scenic Foothills 17.01 6,843 6,817 2,658 $73,276 University Area 16.02 4,224 3,705 1,368 $73,971 Eagle River 2.01 4,110 4,110 1,532 $75,164 Eagle River 2.02 5,947 5,932 2,113 $76,837 Sand Lake 23.02 4,791 4,753 1,784 $78,358 Taku/Campbell 25.02 5,236 5,228 2,213 $78,480 Russian Jack Park 17.02 5,258 5,225 1,888 $78,662 South Addition 12 3,718 3,531 1,918 $81,167 Birchwood 1.02 5,259 5,243 1,654 $81,273 Taku/Campbell 25.01 4,993 4,971 1,925 $82,750

240 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Map 1 shows the percentage of Extremely Low Income Households with Substandard Living Conditions, which means households without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower; and kitchen facilities that lack a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or a refrigerator. MA‐50 Map 1 Extremely Low Income Households with Substandard Living Conditions

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 241

Map 2 shows sites for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program, created by Congress to generate equity capital for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. HUD notes tax credits alone are not always sufficient to allow developers to reduce the debt burden to a point where project costs can be paid solely through affordable rents allowed by LIHTC regulations. Often, developers must seek additional subsidies to make a low‐ income housing project feasible. MA 50 Map 2 Low Income Housing Tax Credit

242 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

B. Are there areas in the Jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low‐income families are concentrated? Provide a definition for “concentration”. Applying HUD’s definition of minority is a racial or ethnic group, members of which have been subjected to prejudice or cultural bias by virtue of belonging to the group, without regard to individual qualities. Such groups include, but are not limited to:78 (1) African Americans. Persons who have origins in any of the African racial groups of Africa. (2) Hispanic Americans. All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, Caribbean and other Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin. (3) Native Americans. Persons having origins in any of the original peoples of North America or the Hawaiian Islands, in particular, American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts and Native Hawaiians. (4) Asian‐Pacific Americans. Persons having origins in Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Trust Territories of the Pacific, Northern Marianas, Laos, Cambodia, Taiwan and India.

Alaska Native Heritage Center Image

78 Definition found at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/notices/fheo/97‐2fheo.txt

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 243

Historically, HUD uses three different definitions or methods to assess for areas of “minority concentration”. These include: • Definition 1: Any neighborhood where the percentage of all minorities is more than 50 percent; • Definition 2: Any neighborhood where the percentage of all minorities is at least 20 percent above the overall percentage for the citywide minority population percentage; or, • Definition 3: Any area where the percentage of a particular minority is at least 20 percent higher than the citywide percentage. For this Consolidated Plan, the MOA will apply Definition 3. Census tracts with a 20% greater representation than the citywide percentage for each minority/ethnic representation are outlined in the tables below. Aside from minority concentrations by census tract, the MOA also reviewed unemployment and poverty by census track. The tables below show some economic factors that include poverty, unemployment and housing vacancy for each of the census tracts. The highest ranked census tracks for poverty, unemployment, and vacancy from 1 to 5 are listed with related census tracts. Community councils are identified for each census tract to provide a reference to location. The yellow highlighted community council areas demonstrate that one of the economic conditions is presenting (unemployment, poverty, housing vacancy); while the rose highlight indicates two of the economic factors. Information provided on the Unemployment Rate and Percentage of People Whose Income is in the Past 12 months is below the poverty level was provided in detail courtesy of the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation.79 See Appendix F for Race by Census Tract and Population and Appendix G for Unemployment Rate Estimate and Percentage of People Whose Income is Below Poverty Level.

Social Security website

79 Courtesy information proved by Information provided by James Starzec, Research Director, Anchorage Economic Development Center, and can be reached at: www.aedcweb.com; also see 2012 Anchorage Indicators found at: http://www.muni.org/Departments/OCPD/Planning/Publications/Anchorage%20Economic%20Indicators/13‐2012Indicators‐Housing%20in%20Anchorage.pdf.

244 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

MA 50 Table 3– Percentage of American Indian/AK Native Households by Census Tracts At Least 20% Greater than Citywide Percentage Ranking by Percentage Percentage of American Indian/AK Ranking by of People Whose Anchorage Native Households by Census Tract At Unemployment Rate, Ranking of Vacant Income in the Past 12 Census Least 20% Greater than Citywide Community Council Estimate; Population Housing Months is Below the Tract Percentage of 7.9% 16 years and Over by Poverty Level—All By Census Tract Census Tract 20% Higher = or > 9%) People by Census Tract 9.01 21% Fairview/Airport Heights 11 2 9 6 17% Mt. View 6 1 7 11 16% Downtown 1 6 2 20 14% Spenard 24 5 8 18.02 13% University 8 21 12 Area/Campbell Park 7.03 13% Northeast (Muldoon) 2 13 5 19 13% Midtown 29 3 23 14 12% North Star 12 14 14 8.02 12% Russian Jack 3 8 31 16.02 11% University Area 10 26 21 8.01 11% Russian Jack Park 7 4 33 21 11% Spenard 15 19 6 24 10% Spenard 14 29 25 7.01 10% Northeast (Muldoon) 17 16 32 28.11 10% Abbott Loop 18 20 17 17.31 10% Northeast (Muldoon) 5 11 27

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 245

MA 50 Table 4– Percentage of African American Households by Census Tract At Least 20% Greater than Citywide Percentage Ranking by Percentage of African Unemployment Rate, Ranking by Percentage of American Households by Estimate Ranking by Anchorage People Whose Income in Ranking of Vacant Census Tract At Least 20% Unemployment Rate, Census Community Council the Past 12 Months is Housing Greater than Citywide Estimate; Population 16 Tract Below the Poverty Level— Percentage of 5.6% years and Over by Census By Census Tract All People by Census Tract 20% = or > 7% Tract; Population 16 years and Over by Census Tract 9.02 15% Fairview 4 15 24 6 14% Mt. View 6 1 7 7.02 13% Northeast (Muldoon) 42 7 29 7.01 13% Northeast (Muldoon) 17 16 32 9.01 13% Fairview/Airport Heights 11 2 9 3 12% JBER 36 35 22 8.02 11% Russian Jack Park 3 8 31 8.01 10% Russian Jack Park 7 4 33 7.03 10% Northeast (Muldoon) 2 13 5 17.31 10% Northeast (Muldoon) 5 11 27 4 10% JBER 9 23 55 17.01 9% University Area/Scenic 28 10 40 Foothills 17.32 9% Scenic Foothills 39 33 49 10 7% Fairview 16 9 4 11 7% Downtown 1 6 2 19 7% Midtown 29 3 23 5 7% Government Hill 47 28 18 17.02 7% Northeast (Muldoon) 20 30 51

246 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

MA 50 Table 5– Percentage of Asian Households by Census Tract At Least 20% Greater than Citywide Percentage Ranking by Percentage of Asian Unemployment Rate, Ranking by Percentage of Households by Census Estimate Ranking by Anchorage People Whose Income in Ranking of Vacant Tract At Least 20% Unemployment Rate, Census Community Council the Past 12 Months is Housing Greater than Citywide Estimate; Population 16 Tract Below the Poverty Level— Percentage 8.10% years and Over by Census By Census Tract All People by Census Tract 20% = or > 10% Tract; Population 16 years and Over by Census Tract 6 18% Mt. View 6 1 7 22.01 17% Turnagain 32 44 28 19 17% Midtown 29 3 23 7.03 16% Northeast (Muldoon) 2 13 5 5 16% Government Hill 47 28 18 8.01 15% Russian Jack Park 7 4 33 20 15% Spenard 24 5 8 27.12 14% Bayshore/Klatt 25 24 19 26.01 13% Abbott Loop 30 34 13 University Area/Campbell 8 21 12 18.02 13% Park 28.11 13% Abbott Loop 18 20 17 26.02 12% Abbott Loop 23 39 43 8.02 12% Russian Jack 3 8 31 9.01 11% Fairview/Airport Heights 11 2 9 23.03 11% Sand Lake 34 12 34 23.01 10% Sand Lake 41 50 48 9.02 10% Fairview 4 15 24

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 247

MA 50 Table 6– Percentage of Native‐Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Households by Census Tract At Least 20% Greater than Citywide Percentage Percentage of Native‐ Ranking by Unemployment Rate, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Ranking by Percentage of Estimate Ranking by Anchorage Households by Census People Whose Income in Ranking of Vacant Unemployment Rate, Census Tract At Least 20% Community Council/Area the Past 12 Months is Housing Estimate; Population 16 Tract Greater than Citywide Below the Poverty Level— years and Over by Census By Census Tract Percentage of 2% All People by Census Tract Tract; Population 16 years 20% = or > 2.4% and Over by Census Tract 6 9% Mt. View 6 1 7 9.02 7% Fairview 4 15 24 8.01 7% Russian Jack Park 7 4 33 9.01 5% Fairview/Airport Heights 11 2 9 8.02 5% Russian Jack Park 3 8 31 21 4% Spenard 15 19 6 7.02 4$ Northeast (Muldoon) 42 7 29 16.01 4% Airport Heights 44 32 36 19 4% Midtown 29 3 23 20 4% Spenard 24 5 8 24 3% Spenard 14 29 25 5 3% Government Hill 47 28 18 10 3% Fairview 16 9 4 17.31 3% Northeast (Muldoon) 5 11 27 23.02 3% Sand Lake 13 27 35 14 3% North Star 12 14 14 23.03 3% Sand Lake 34 12 34 7.03 3% Northeast (Muldoon) 2 13 5 25.02 3% Taku/Campbell 51 17 15 University Area/Scenic 28 10 40 17.01 2% Foothills 16.02 2% University Area 10 26 21 7.01 2% Northeast (Muldoon) 17 16 32 15 2% Rogers Park/Tudor Area 35 41 42 25.01 2% Taku Campbell 22 25 30 17.32 2% Scenic Foothills 39 33 49

248 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

22.02 2% Turnagain 21 18 10 26.01 2% Abbott Loop 30 34 13 17.02 2% Northeast (Muldoon) 20 30 51 26.02 2% Abbott Loop 23 39 43 26.03 2% Abbott Loop 27 36 52

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 249

MA 50 Table 7– Percentage of 2 or more Race Households by Census Tract At Least 20% Greater than Citywide Percentage Ranking by Percentage of 2 or more Unemployment Rate, Ranking by Percentage of Race Households by Estimate Ranking by Anchorage People Whose Income in Ranking of Vacant Census Tract At Least 20% Unemployment Rate, Census Community Council/Area the Past 12 Months is Housing Higher than Citywide Estimate; Population 16 Tract Below the Poverty Level— Percentage of 8.10% years and Over by Census By Census Tract All People by Census Tract 20% = or > 10% Tract; Population 16 years and Over by Census Tract 9.01 12% Fairview/Airport Heights 11 2 9 26.01 12% Abbott Loop 30 34 13 8.01 11% Russian Jack Park 7 4 33 6 11% Mt. View 6 1 7 18.02 11% University Area/ Campbell 8 21 12 Park 17.31 11% Northeast 5 11 27 7.01 11% Northeast (Muldoon) 17 16 32 7.03 11% Northeast (Muldoon) 2 13 5 7.02 11% Northeast (Muldoon) 42 7 29 20 10% Spenard 24 5 8 17.32 10% Scenic Foothills 39 33 49 14 10% North Star 12 14 14 19 10% Midtown 29 3 23 9.02 10% Fairview 4 15 24 23.03 10% Sand Lake 34 12 34

250 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

This table shows the top 20 Census Tracts by Owner and Renter Percentage. It is evident there are a significant percentage of renters occupying Census Tracts: 6; 7.03; 8.01; 9.01; 9.02; and 19. Therefore, the minorities and ethnic groups identified above live in the highlighted Census Tracts below with a large percentage of renters. MA 50 Table 8 Census Tracts ‐Top 20 Census Tracts by Owner and Renter Percentage Owner Percentage Renter Percentage In by % Census Tract Occupied Census Tract Occupied 1 28.21 93% 4 99% 2 28.13 91% 3 94% 3 28.22 89% 5 80% 4 28.23 88% 10 77% 5 28.12 86% 6 73% 6 2.04 85% 14 71% 7 13 83% 19 70% 8 2.03 83% 11 69% 9 26.02 83% 20 67% 10 27.11 82% 18.01 65% 11 26.03 82% 9.01 65% 12 23.01 81% 9.02 62% 13 1.01 80% 22.02 57% 14 27.02 78% 21 55% 15 17.32 76% 8.01 54% 16 17.02 73% 18.02 51% 17 2.02 72% 7.02 50% 18 22.01 70% 7.03 49% 19 17.01 70% 8.02 48% 20 17.31 69% 25.02 48%

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 251

C. What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods? The median household incomes in the census tracts identified above for racial and/or ethnic minorities also reside in areas representing the lowest median household incomes. MA 50 Table 9 Census Tracts –Median Household Incomes in Ascending Order Census Tract Median Household Income 6 $35,788 19 $39,390 9.01 $39,481 14 $39,521 5 $41,330 10 $42,022 7.03 $44,567 20 $45,605 9.02 $47,154 8.02 $48,190 11 $49,826 21 $50,217 8.01 $50,952 3 $51,582 18.02 $54,777 22.02 $56,681 4 $58,651 7.01 $63,276 D. Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods? The Mountain View Neighborhood Plan provides information regarding community assets and investments.80 The Plan identifies the following community investments/assets for housing: NeighborWorks (100 units repair/innovated); Cook Inlet Housing (146 new units & mixed use building); and, Habitat for Humanity (54 new units). The Mountain View Plan also identifies private business investments which include: Credit Union 1; Glenn Square Mall; New retail (ground floor of CIHA building); locally owned Mt. View Drive businesses; and, the new medical professionals building (formerly Community Health Center). Entities looking for land acquisition for redevelopment in the area include: Anchorage Community Development Authority; Municipality of Anchorage; Anchorage Community Land Trust; and Cook Inlet Housing Authority. Under the MOA, serious efforts at community planning began as a grassroots effort in 1993. The HAND Commission was vital towards carrying out a planning process to revitalize efforts that resulted in: 200+ units of new single housing development (owner and renter); rehabs, repairs, grants/loans to improve over 100 units of existing housing stock; Glenn Square Mall (780 jobs), a new Clark Middle School; and, rehabilitation of non‐profit buildings such as Success by Six, Special Olympics and the Alaska Museum of Natural History. The Anchorage Downtown Comprehensive Plan, adopted December 11, 2007 through Assembly Ordinance 2007‐ 113 identifies assets as: compact, walkable multi‐use district that is ideal for public transit, schools, and affordable housing; diverse cultural, historic and entertainment amenities and venues including the Performing Arts Center and Art Museum; compact retail district that includes a multi‐block, four story shopping mall and over 50 retail shops; popular gourmet restaurants serving an eclectic range of traditional and ethnic cuisine; excellent lodging

80 Mountain View Neighborhood Plan—Community Investments found at: http://anclandtrust.freshartanddesign.com/wp‐content/uploads/2011/12/mt_view_report_2‐14‐09.pdf

252 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

options; mix of shops and galleries featuring Alaska Native and local art; and civic and government facilities including the Dena’ina Civic and Convention Center.81 The current draft of the West Anchorage District Plan focuses on a comprehensive approach to the Spenard Road as a commercial corridor.82 The Spenard area is highlighted as Anchorage’s first redevelopment commercial corridor, where commercial densities and a mix of land uses are encouraged. The majority of the Spenard Corridor is zoned commercial B‐3, which includes a mix of land uses. Many of the businesses on the corridor are small, owner‐occupied, auto‐oriented, and/or specialty shops. More than 20+ businesses were related to automobile sales and services. Key businesses serve to anchor the area especially around Northern Lights and Spenard, where the area is emerging as one of Anchorage’s major retail and entertainment destinations. E. Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas? The local, state and federal government, work in tandem with organizations that provide the above services. The cost of living is high in Alaska due to the distance that products, equipment and technology must travel. Alaska uses the same postal, freight and shipment expense as the lower 48 states but pricing differs due to the demand and high needs. Under the Mountain View Plan, entities looking for land acquisition for redevelopment in the area include: Anchorage Community Development Authority; Municipality of Anchorage; Anchorage Community Land Trust; and Cook Inlet Housing Authority. Future key goals identified by the MOA range from attracting retail businesses that serve the neighborhood to building a new visual arts center to further market the district. The Anchorage Downtown Comprehensive Plan points to economic ability to increase housing densities, services and amenities and employment opportunities for mixed‐use develop to encourage walking and public transit usage. This Plan’s strategies describe the importance of “image and branding program” to evolve the character and quality of downtown’s social, cultural and natural environments. This strategy will help to characterize the urban core and establish a distinct downtown identity. Another strategy calls for a “signage and wayfinding program” to orient and direct pedestrians and drivers. This program will make travelling to desirable downtown destinations easy and enjoyable. Another strategy is to focus on a “safety and security program” so visitors and residents feel safe in the area. An “activity and event programming” strategy will build on existing events, such as First Fridays and the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. The West Anchorage District Plan recommends a re‐commitment of the MOA as a partner in Spenard’s transformation into one of Anchorage’s most unique and vibrant retail and neighborhood districts. The Anchorage 2020‐Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan identifies the northern portion of Spenard as a Town Center and the rest of the road as a Transit Supportive Development Corridor. Spenard area representatives are working with the MOA and Assembly to determine the best approach to rebuild Spenard Road. The concept is to make sidewalks safer, add crosswalks and landscaping, and slow traffic by converting the road from four lanes to three lanes; one in each direction with a turn lane in the middle. The project extends from Hillcrest Drive to Benson Boulevard, through the middle of the areas vibrant commercial area. Some business owners in the area are adamantly opposed after the protracted time needed to rebuild Arctic Boulevard.

81 See the Anchorage Downtown Comprehensive Plan at : http://www.muni.org/Departments/OCPD/Planning/Publications/Pages/CBD_CompPlan_Final07.aspx 82 Information on the Spenard Corridor Technical Report can be found at: http://www.muni.org/Departments/OCPD/Planning/Publications/West%20Anchorage%20District%20Plan/WADP ‐SpenrdCorridorTechReprt5‐10‐11.pdf

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 253

XXV. Strategic Plan

The Municipality Of Anchorage reviewed all viable options to assist the target populations identified in the Needs Assessment Section of this 2013‐2017Consolidated Plan. The Municipality spent considerable effort and time working with the community to identify the highest priority needs for extremely low‐ low, moderate‐ income; and, homeless and at‐risk individuals and families. Aside from a community survey that identified priorities for public services, public facilities and public improvements, much effort was placed using HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. CHAS data provided the Municipality with great insight into the types of households living in severe or cost burdened conditions, as well as a detailed breakdown of the households Area Median Income (AMI). Specifically, groups which have been identified as High Priority need households include Renters and Owners that are: Elderly, Large Related Families, Small Related Families, and Other, non‐family households, and Single Family households. In addition, several households have been identified as “cost burdened”, meaning these households are spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Another analysis points to the low vacancy rates for rental units, as low as 1.7 for a 1 bedroom with median rent rising from 2011 to 2012. Also, the median home value rose at a percentage (51%) far greater than the median household income (31%) between 2000 and 2010. There are 17% of renters between the ages of 15 to 24 years of age. Most likely these young renters are in occupations paying the lowest wages in the area. The Municipality’s Goals and Strategic Plan is outlined below. Goal: Establish Affordable Housing Strategy A: Strengthen community efforts to develop affordable housing. Action Work A: With the Housing And Neighborhood Development Commission and it’s Homeless Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness to work with other Municipal Commissioned bodies to develop a Housing Affordability Action Plan (HAAP) The Commissioned bodies will include the Senior Commission, American’s with Disabilities Act Commission, and Military and Veteran’s Affairs Commission. Strategy B: Reinforce efforts already underway. Action B: Coordinate goals with the Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet so that all parties are kept abreast of mutual goals and objectives. This information will be included in the HAAP. Strategy C: Develop community interest and support. Action C: Invite the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness and the Alaska Coalition on Housing and Homelessness to HAND and HCOSH to share opinions and ideas and incorporate into the HAAP. Strategy D: Develop an understanding on why some ethnic or race groups are disproportionately represented with housing problems. Action D: Work with local groups serving populations that are identified in the Plan as disproportionately represented. Strategy E: Increase understanding on the needs of the Elderly Owner and Renter. Action E: Work with the Municipality’s Aging and Disability Resource Center and the Senior Commission to highlight needs in the HAAP. Strategy F: Use the findings of the HAAP to establish municipal efforts that will provide affordable housing to targeted groups. Action F: The DHHS Management Team will work the Administration to create and/or repurpose capital projects that will provide affordable housing.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 255

Goal: Engage in community development Strategy A: Establish HAND and HCOSH efforts participation in Municipality’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Action A: Coordinate with the Municipal Planning Department and Anchorage Economic Development Corporation to identify how HAND and HCOSH can contribute to future Economic Development Strategy reports. Strategy B: Strengthen HAND Commission and HCOSH members’ understanding of Anchorage economics. Acton B: Invite the State Department of Labor and Workforce Development Research to make presentations on publications and reports related to Anchorage’s economy. Strategy C: Strengthen HAND Commission and HCOSH members’ understanding of workforce development efforts. Action C: Invite Alaska Workforce Investment Board or staff to provide information regarding grant awards and projects related to developing Anchorage’s labor pool. Goal: Reduce Homelessness Strategy A: Coordinate with the community to develop Anchorage’s Ten Year Plan which will work toward reducing homelessness. Action A: Invite the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness and the Alaska Coalition on Housing and Homelessness to HAND and HCOSH to share opinions and ideas and incorporate that will be incorporated into the Ten Year Plan and HAAP. Strategy B: Understand local baseline data on homelessness to help in the effort to reduce homelessness. Action B: Invite the Department’s Alaska Homeless Management Information System staff to provide quarterly updates on the status of homelessness to HAND and HCOSH meetings. Strategy C: Enhance communication in the community to reduce homelessness. Action C: Invite the Anchorage Continuum of Care to HAND Commission and HCOSH members’ meetings on a quarterly basis to coordinate efforts.

256 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XXVI. SP 05 Strategic Plan Overview

A. Affordable Housing Owners The Municipality identified several “owner” housing problems by AMI. High priorities address substandard housing, severely overcrowded housing, living with housing costs greater than 30% or 50% of income, and housing with one or more housing problems. The Municipality will work with the HAND Commission, HCOSH members, and Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet to explore assisting owners living with any of the described housing problems. In addition, the HAND/HCOSH will work towards identifying potential housing projects using CDBG and/or HOME dollars to create affordable housing for owners. (See SP 25 Priority Needs) Renters The Municipality identified several “renter” housing problems by AMI. High priorities address substandard housing, severely overcrowded housing, living with housing costs greater than 30% or 50% of income, and housing with one or more housing problems. The Municipality will work with the HAND Commission, HCOSH members, and Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet to explore assisting renters living with any of the described housing problems. In addition, the HAND/HCOSH will work towards identifying potential housing projects using CDBG and/or HOME dollars to create affordable housing for renters. (See SP 25 Priority Needs) By Ethnicity or Race The Municipality identified both Owners and Renters by ethnicity or races that are disproportionately experiencing housing problems. The Municipality will work with the HAND Commission, the HCOSH members’ and local community groups serving the target populations identified in the SP 25. Priority Needs section to gain an understanding of why some groups experience housing problems more than others. The Municipality will also work to identify any household members who can share their experience. This information will be included in the Housing Affordability Action Plan and the Ten‐Year Plan. These Plans will be a vehicle to alert the community of this issue. B. Homeless The Municipality coordinated efforts with HCOSH members to develop this Consolidated Plan’s Needs Assessment Section for homeless populations; consequently this group has very extensive knowledge and understanding on the scope of homelessness. In addition, HCOSH members represent a diverse set of agencies, including the Anchorage Veteran’s Office, Standing Together Against Rape, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, and, the Catholic Archdiocese. Alaska Legal Services is also available to step in as needed at HCOSH meetings. The Municipality will work with the HCOSH to review Point In Time data annually and provide comment on data findings to the Alaska Homeless Management Information System. The HAND and HCOSH will also provide comment on drafts of the Anchorage Continuum of Care, by coordinating efforts with the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness. The HCOSH will also receive information from the Emergency Solutions Grant Administrator to assist in offering strategies for funding distribution, which will be identified in the Ten Year Plan. The HCOSH will oversee updating Ten Year Plan which will provide strategies and action steps needed to reduce homelessness in Anchorage. C. Non‐Homeless Special Needs Under the Public Service priorities, Victims of Domestic Violence or Similar Life Threatening Condition ranked higher than Persons at Risk of Homelessness with a twenty‐nine spread (202 vs 173); with Frail Elderly at a close 170 and persons with Severe Mental Illness at 169. Public Service priorities identified handicapped services as the clearly highest priority (214), some distance away from Youth Services (168). The Municipality will recognize these areas with the same degree of importance as the needs of the homeless. The

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 257

Municipality will work with the HAND Commission and HCOSH to implement strategies that serve special needs populations identified in SP25 Priority Needs. D. Non‐Housing Community Development In recognition of the Community Survey that was filled out by 340 community members, the Municipality will give high deference to all areas that were identified as “high”. (See NA 50 Non‐Housing Community Development Needs.) In particular, the community believed that homeless facilities and abused/neglected children facilities ranked the highest—with a five number spread (223 vs 218) therefore “homeless” should not necessarily be ranked higher than abused/neglected children facilities. For Homeless Subpopulations, Chronically Homeless Individuals and Families ranked highest at 210, followed very closely Families with Children. The Municipality will work with the HAND Commission and HCOSH to implement strategies identified in SP25 Priority Needs, non‐housing community development. E. Commercial/Industrial At this time, the Municipality is not implementing a strategy for this area of service, as Public Improvements was ranked very low in the community survey. For example, Sidewalks received 151 votes for high priority, followed by 114 for street improvements and 94 for Flood Drainage Improvements. However, the Municipality may determine that a new community survey and needs assessment is needed to keep pace with any emergent needs in the community and will take action as needed for a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan. F. Overview Overall, the city will adopt a strategy whenever possible and appropriate that incorporates some of the elements of all non‐homeless and homeless priorities. As an example, persons with disabilities (handicapped) as defined by HUD could include the homeless and elderly population, as well as victims of interpersonal violence experiencing anxiety disorders or post traumatic stress syndrome. Homelessness by itself is not necessarily justified as the only priority for non‐housing community need, where there is such as broad demand for other needed services.

258 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XXVII. SP 10 Geographic Priorities

A. Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction The Municipality does not have specific geographic priorities for the Consolidated Plan, 2013‐2017. However, for future reference and potential action, the Municipality highlights the jurisdictions Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit Qualified Census Tracts. Other potential geographical areas that can be designated as priorities can be found in MA 50 Needs and Market Analysis, which identifies areas or neighborhoods that are more affected by multiple housing problems. In developing this revised list of LIHTC Qualified Census Tracts, HUD used 1990 Census data and the MSA/PMSA definitions established by the Office of Management and Budget that applied as of June 30, 1996. Beginning with the 1990 census, tract‐level data are available for the entire country. Generally, in metropolitan areas these geographic divisions are called census tracts while in most non‐metropolitan areas the equivalent nomenclature is Block Numbering Area ("BNA"). BNAs are treated as census tracts for the purposes of this Notice. The LIHTC Qualified Census Tracts were determined as follows:  A census tract must have 50% of its households with incomes below 60% of the AMGI to be eligible. HUD has defined 60% of AMGI income as 120% of HUD's Very Low Income Limits that are based on 50% of area median family income, adjusted for high cost and low income areas. The 1994 income estimates were then deflated to 1989 dollars, so they would match the 1990 Census income data.  For each census tract, the percentage of households below the 60% income standard was determined by (a) calculating the average household size of the census tract, (b) applying the income standard after adjusting it to match the average household size, and (c) calculating the number of households with incomes below the income standard.  Qualified Census Tracts are those in which 50% or more of the households are income eligible and the population of all census tracts that satisfy this criterion does not exceed 20% of the total population of the respective area.  In areas where more than 20% of the population qualifies, census tracts are ordered from the highest percentage of eligible households to the lowest. Starting with the highest percentage, census tracts are included until the 20% limit is exceeded. If a census tract is excluded because it raises the percentage above 20%, then subsequent census tracts are considered to determine if a census tract with a smaller population could be included without exceeding the 20% limit. According to 2012 IRS Section 42(d)(5)(C) QUALIFIED CENSUS TRACTS (2000 Census Data; OMB Metropolitan Area Definitions, November 20, 2008) the following tracts have been identified: 6, 10 and 11.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 259

SP 10 Map 1 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Qualified Census Tract

260 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XXVIII. SP 25 Priority Needs

A. Priority Needs The following table lists the current priority needs, priority level, population served, and goals addressed. SP 25 Table 1– Priority Needs 1 Priority Need Homeless ‐ Special Needs ‐ Subpopulations Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Large Families Families with Children Elderly Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally Ill Chronic Substance Abuse veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Victims of Domestic Violence Unaccompanied Youth Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Anchorage Areas Affected Associated CHDO Rental Housing Development Goals Homeless Facilities Homeless Prevention Emergency Housing Services Description Homeless Special Needs ‐ Subpopulations includes housing and/or services. Public Facility ‐ Homeless Facilities was rated the number one priority in Anchorage from the Community Needs Survey conducted for the 2013 ‐ 2017 Consolidated Plan. Basis for In the Community Survey, all activities for the Homeless Special Needs ‐ Relative Subpopulations were rated as a high priority except for "Persons with HIV/AIDS". The Priority following Homeless activities were rated in the top ten high priorities category: #1: Public Facility ‐ Homeless Facilities #2: Public Facility ‐ Abused/Neglected Children Facilities #4: Homeless ‐ Chronically Homeless Individuals and Families #5: Homeless ‐ Families with Children #6 Homeless ‐ Victims of Domestic Violence or Similar Life Threatening Condition

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 261

2 Priority Need Non‐Homeless Special Needs ‐ Subpopulations Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Public Housing Residents Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Anchorage Areas Affected Associated CHDO Rental Housing Development Goals Description Non‐Homeless persons with special needs. Basis for All categories rated as a high priority except "Veterans and their families" and "Persons Relative with HIV/AIDS". Those that were rated in the top ten include: Priority #7 Victims of Domestic Violence or Similar Life Threatening Condition #9 Persons at Risk of Homelessness #10 Frail Elderly 3 Priority Need Affordable Housing ‐ Renters Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Large Families Families with Children Elderly Public Housing Residents Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence

262 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Geographic Anchorage Areas Affected Associated CHDO Rental Housing Development Goals Rapid Re‐housing Description Includes affordable rental housing for small related households, large related households, elderly, and all other. Basis for All were rated as a high priority except for small related households, large related Relative households, and all other over 50% of the median income. Two were included in the Priority twelve priorities. #8 Affordable Rental Housing for Small Related 0 ‐ 30% Median Income #12 Affordable Rental Housing for Elderly 0 ‐ 30% Median Income 4 Priority Need Affordable Housing ‐ Owners Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Large Families Families with Children Elderly Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Anchorage Areas Affected Associated Homeowner Rehabilitation Goals Mobile Home Rehabilitation Affordable Homeownership Description Programs, projects, or funding to provide or maintain Affordable Housing for owners. Basis for The highest rated in the Affordable Housing category was for the elderly at 0‐ 30% of Relative the median income. It was only rated #42 on the high priority list. The next three high Priority priorities for Affordable Housing ‐ Owners are: #48 Small Related at 0‐ 30% of the median income #61 Large Related at 0‐ 30% of the median income #66 All other at 0‐ 30% of the median income 5 Priority Need Affordable Housing ‐ Non‐Homeless Special Needs Name Priority Level High

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 263

Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Anchorage Areas Affected Associated CHDO Rental Housing Development Goals Description Activities that serve the Affordable Housing ‐ Non‐Homeless Special Needs. Basis for All categories of Affordable Housing ‐ Non‐Homeless Special Needs were rated a high Relative priority except those for HIV/AIDS. Some of the high priority ratings are: Priority #15 Victims of Domestic Violence #23 Frail Elderly #31 Elderly #40 Severe Mental Illness #46 Physical Disability 6 Priority Need General Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Middle Geographic Anchorage Areas Affected Associated CHDO Rental Housing Development Goals Affordable Homeownership Homeless Facilities Child Care Center Homeless Prevention Description Acquisition of Real Property, Disposition, Clearance and Demolition, Clearance or Contaminated Sites, and Code Enforcement. Basis for All sections of this group were rated as a medium priority in the community survey. Relative None were rated as a high priority! Of this section, Clearance and Demolition received Priority the highest rating at #77 on the list.

264 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

7 Priority Need Public Facilities Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally Ill Chronic Substance Abuse veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Victims of Domestic Violence Unaccompanied Youth Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Anchorage Areas Affected Associated Child Care Center Goals Description Public Facilities in order of highest priority are: Homeless Facilities, Abused/Neglected Children Facilities, Mental Health Facilities, Child Care Centers, Youth Centers, Health Facilities, Senior Centers, Handicapped Centers, Fire Stations\Equipment, Parks and\or Recreation Facilities, Neighborhood Facilities, Asbestos Removal, Tree Planting, Parking Facilities, Non‐Residential Historic Preservation, and Other Public Facility Needs. Basis for The following list shows the eight Public Facilities that were rated high priority in the Relative Community Survey and where they placed on the total list: Homeless Facilities #1, Priority Abused/Neglected Children Facilities #2, Mental Health Facilities #20, Child Care Centers #27, Youth Centers #28, Health Facilities #43, Senior Centers #47, Handicapped Centers #49. The rest were rated as a medium priority. 8 Priority Need Infrastructure Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 265

Geographic Anchorage Areas Affected Associated CHDO Rental Housing Development Goals Affordable Homeownership Homeless Facilities Homeless Prevention Description Infrastructure includes Sidewalks, Street Improvements, Flood Drainage Improvements, Water/Sewer Improvements, Solid Waste Disposal Improvements, and other. Basis for Sidewalks and Street Improvements were both rated as high priorities. Sidewalks were Relative rated #26 and Street Improvements #55 on the Community Survey. Priority 9 Priority Need Public Services Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally Ill Chronic Substance Abuse veterans Victims of Domestic Violence Unaccompanied Youth Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Anchorage Areas Affected Associated CHDO Rental Housing Development Goals Public Services Rapid Re‐housing Description Public Service includes: Senior Services, Handicapped Services, Legal Services, Youth Services, Child Care Services, Transportation Services, Substance Abuse Services, Employment/Training Services, Health Services, Lead Hazard Screening, Crime Awareness, Fair Housing Activities, Tenant Landlord Counseling, and other services.

266 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Basis for The five top public services in the Community Survey and their rating on the list were: Relative Handicapped Services #3, Youth Services #13, Transportation Services #14, Senior Priority Services # 22, and Child Care Services #29. All were rated high priority except: Fair Housing Activities, Tenant Landlord Counseling, Crime Awareness, and Substance Lead Hazard Screening. These were rated medium priority. 10 Priority Need Commercial/Industrial Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Geographic Anchorage Areas Affected Associated CHDO Rental Housing Development Goals Affordable Homeownership Homeless Facilities Homeless Prevention Description Commercial/Industrial includes: Land Acquisition/Disposition, Infrastructure Development, Building Acq/Const/Rehab, and other Commercial/Industrial. Basis for All were rated a medium priority in the Community Survey. Relative Priority 11 Priority Need Economic Development Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Geographic Anchorage Areas Affected Associated Affordable Homeownership Goals Description Assistance to For‐Profit, Technical Assistance, and Micro‐enterprise Assistance. Basis for Assistance to For‐Profit, Technical Assistance, and Micro‐enterprise Assistance. Relative Priority 12 Priority Need Micro‐enterprise Assistance was rated as a high priority on the Community Survey, #88 Name on the list. Assistance to For‐Profit #98 and Technical Assistance#95 were both rate as a medium priority. Priority Level High

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 267

Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Geographic Anchorage Areas Affected Associated Rapid Re‐housing Goals Description Transit Oriented Development and Urban Agriculture. Basis for Transit Oriented Development #65 was rated a high priority on the Community Survey Relative and Urban Agriculture #96 a medium priority. Priority

B. Goal: Providing Affordable Housing 1. Housing Problems SP 25 Table 2 Housing Problems Housing Problems by AMI and % Renters by AMI and Owners by AMI and Priority disproportionately represented Percentage Percentage Substandard Housing include households by 0‐30% AMI (47%) >50‐ 80% AMI (43%) High income level without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower, and kitchen facilities that lack a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or a refrigerators. Severely Overcrowded households have >30% – 50% AMI (47%) >30‐50% AMI (37%) High complete kitchens and bathrooms, but >50%‐80% AMI (39%) house more than 1.5 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms. Overcrowded households have complete >50‐80% AMI (44%) >50‐80% AMI (39%) High kitchens and bathrooms, but house more >80‐100% AMI (37%) than 1 to 1.5 persons per room excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐ rooms. Housing cost burden greater than 50% of 0‐30% AMI (70%) 0‐30% AMI (38%) High household income do not have problems identified with substandard housing, severely overcrowding, and overcrowding. Housing cost burden of greater than 30% is >30‐50% AMI (40%) >50‐80% AMI (46%) High similar to 50% of household income issues, >50‐80% AMI (42%) >80‐100%AMI (40%) and similarly does not have the other housing problem. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance and utilities. Households with one or more housing 0‐30% AMI (58%) 0‐30% AMI (33%) High problems: Lacks kitchen or bathroom, >30‐50% AMI (26%) >30‐50% AMI (26%) Overcrowding, Cost Burden >50‐80% AMI (26%)

268 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

SP 25 Table 3 Cost Burden > 30% AMI Cost Burden >30% AMI by Household Type Renters by AMI and Owners by AMI and Priority and % disproportionately represented Percentage Percentage Elderly 0‐30% AMI (64%) 0‐30% AMI (37%) High >30‐50 AMI (35% Large Related Family 0‐30% AMI (41%) >30‐50% (26%) High >50‐80% AMI (32%) >50‐80% AMI (59%) Small Related Family >30‐50% AMI (38%) >50‐80% AMI (61%) High >50‐80% AMI (27%) Other >30‐50% AMI (37%) 0‐30% AMI (32%) High SP 25 Table 4 Cost Burden >50% AMI Cost Burden greater than 50% of household Renters by AMI and Owners by AMI and Priority income by AMI and % disproportionately Percentage Percentage represented Elderly 0‐30% AMI (85%) 0‐30% AMI (57%) High Large Related Family 0‐30% AMI (74%) >50‐80% AMI (41%) High >50‐80% AMI (7%) Small Related Family >30‐50% AMI (31%) >30‐50% AMI (37%) High >50‐80% AMI (33%) Other 0‐30% AMI (74%) 0‐30% AMI (47%) High >50‐80% AMI (30%) SP 25 Table 5 Overcrowding Households that are overcrowded Renters by AMI and Owners by AMI and Priority defined by HUD, as households with Percentage Percentage more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms. Other, non‐family households 0‐30% AMI (39%) High Single family households 0‐30% AMI (30%) 0‐30% AMI (16%) High >30‐50 AMI (30%) >30‐50% AMI (28%) Multiple, unrelated family households >50‐80% AMI (83%) >50‐80% AMI (88%) High 2. Other Identifying Needs A total of 7,986 Anchorage children live in poverty; with the largest percentage under five years of age. The greatest percentage (41%) of male children in poverty is under the age of 5 years and between 6 to 11 years of age (28%). Female children in poverty show a similarity, with the greatest percentage (34%) of female children in poverty under 5 years of age and between 6 to 11 years of age (26%). According to the Anchorage School District Child in Transition/Homeless (CIT/H) Project from 2007/2008 (2,829 children) to 2011/2012 (4,277 children) school year there was an increase of 49% of children meeting the definition of homeless. On average over the past five school years, the majority of ASD children identified in the CIT/H Project live doubled‐up (42%) or in a shelter (26%).

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 269

3. Disproportionately Greater Need by Ethnicity and AMI A disproportionately greater need exists when the members of racial or ethnic group at an income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10% or more) than the income level as a whole of the population. A household is identified as having a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. Household is overcrowded which means there is more than 1.5 persons per room and excludes bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms; and, 4. Household is cost burdened. SP 25 Table 6 Households Having One or More Housing Problems Households identified as having one or Renters by AMI and Owners by AMI and Priority more of four housing problems Percentage Percentage White 30.1‐50% AMI (44%) High Black 0‐30% AMI (84%) High 50.1%‐80% AMI (42%) 30.1‐50% AMI (47%) American Indian/AK Native 50.1%‐80% AMI (35%) 30.1‐50% AMI (37%) High Hispanic High Other 30.1‐50% AMI (70%) High 50.1%‐80% AMI (71%) 80% ‐ 100% AMI (69%) Asian High Pacific Islander 30.1‐50% AMI (95%) High 4. Disproportionately Greater Need for Severe Housing Problems A disproportionately greater need exists when members of a racial or ethnic group at an income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10% points or more) than the income level as a whole for severe housing problems. HUD defines severe housing problems as: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room not including bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half‐rooms; and, 4. Households with housing cost burdens that exceed 50% of the monthly income. SP 25 Table 7 Sever Housing Problems Households identified as having Severe Renters by AMI and Owners by AMI and Priority Housing Problems Percentage Percentage White Black 0‐30% AMI (77%) High 30.1% ‐ 50% AMI (37%) 30.1% ‐ 50% AMI (28%) American Indian/AK Native 0‐30% AMI (67%) High Hispanic Other 30.1% ‐ 50% AMI (32%) High Asian 50.1% ‐ 80% AMI (19%) High Pacific Islander 0‐30% AMI (89%) High 30.1% ‐ 50% AMI (49%)

270 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

5. Disproportionately Greater Need for Housing Cost Burden Disproportionately greater need is identified by HUD as income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has a greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole. A disproportionately greater need exists when the members of racial or ethnic group reflect a greater rate of 10% or more compared to households as a whole for those experiencing Housing Cost Burdens. HUD defines Housing Cost Burdens as Housing Cost to Income Ratio in the following manner:  No Cost Burden ‐ Housing Cost to Income Ratio is less than 30%;  Cost Burdened ‐ Housing Cost to Income Ratio is from 30.1% to 50%; and,  Severe Cost Burdened ‐ Housing Cost to Income Ratio is greater than 50.1%. SP 25 Table 8 Moderate and Severe Cost Burden Households identified as having moderate Moderate Cost Severe Cost Burden Priority cost or severe cost burden Burden White Black 31% High American Indian/AK Native Hispanic Other Asian Pacific Islander 33% High C. Goal: Ending Homelessness 1. Homeless Needs Assessment SP 25 Table 9 Homeless Services and Funding Sources Establish or Maintain Homeless Services Current or Proposed Funding Priority Outreach (all sub‐populations, including elderly, disabled Community Development Block High persons, victims of domestic violence or other threatening Grant (CDBG) or Emergency situations) Solutions Grant (ESG) Emergency shelter and Transitional Housing CDBG or ESG High Rapid Re‐Housing ESG High Prevention ESG High Chronically Homeless Individuals CDBG High Chronically Homeless Families CDBG, HOME, ESG High Veterans CDBG, HOME, ESG High Victims of Domestic Violence or Similar Life Threatening CDBG, HOME, ESG High Condition The following information is highlighted to identify Anchorage’s homelessness and complements the tables found in section NA 50 Non‐Housing Community Development Needs.  In 2011, a total of 1,082 homeless persons were in emergency shelters in 2011.  In 2011, a total of 141 homeless persons were not sheltered and were living in camps/tents, cars, or abandoned shelters.  A total of 6,700 are estimated to experience homelessness each year in Anchorage.  The majority of homeless individuals are adults (80%), followed by families (18%) and unaccompanied youth (2%).  A total of 199 veterans were identified as homeless, of which 31 were unsheltered.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 271

 Although not reflected in the table, an average 373 individuals are in Emergency Shelters, and on average a total of 320 beds are available. The table below shows bed shortages on three of the four dates used to account for bed availability. (AKHMIS 2011 data)  In 2011, a total of 6,700 persons, including men, women and children were in an emergency shelter or transitional housing. Of this total, 5,719 unduplicated persons were identified. (AKHMIS 2011 data)  A total of 607 veterans were identified in Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing; the majority of veterans (530) were individuals in Emergency Shelters. See table below for a break out of the 607 in Emergency Shelter or Transitional Housing. (AHAR 2011)  In 2011, a total of 911 persons were identified with a disability and were either in Emergency Shelter or Transitional Housing.  A total of 937 are estimated to becoming homeless each year.  Of the subpopulations (Chronically Homeless Individuals, Chronically Homeless Families, Veterans, Unaccompanied Youth) an estimated 46% (255) are comprised of chronically homeless individuals.  A total of 334 are exiting homelessness each year.  A total of 36 chronically homeless individuals are exiting homelessness each year.  Persons in Households with Adults and Children are estimated to have 35 days experiencing homelessness, followed by Persons in Households with Only Adults at 33.  Persons in Households with Only Children, experience more days of homelessness at 221 compared to Persons in Households with Only Adults at 152 and Persons in Households with Adults and Children at 195.  The subpopulation for Chronically Homeless Individuals experience more days of homelessness at 64 indentified in Emergency Shelter compared to the other subpopulations.  Unaccompanied Child/Youth experience more days of homelessness at 221 identified in Transitional Housing than the other subpopulations of homelessness.  While comprising 39% of the overall population of Anchorage’s homeless population, American Indian/AK Natives individuals account for 42% of individuals staying in the city’s emergency shelters.  American Indian/Alaskan Native families in emergency shelters account for 27% of the population, followed by Native American/Pacific Islander (20%), and then Black or African American (15%) and Multiple Races (15%).  American Indian/AK Native families account disproportionately for 41% of the Transitional Housing population, followed by Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (15%) and Multiple Races at 12%.  According to information collected by the State of Alaska, Department of Corrections, 40% of incarcerated inmates or probationers reported being homeless prior to their incarceration. 2. Non‐Homeless Special Needs Assessment This section of the Plan describes the housing needs of persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing. The Consolidated Plan is using HUD’s definitions for elderly and frail elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.

272 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Note for purposes of this Plan definitions for the elderly:  Elderly is 62 years of age and greater  Frail elderly (defined as an elderly person who requires assistance with three or more activities of daily living, such as bathing, walking, and performing light housework)  Extra elderly is 75 years and older, and represents a population with different needs than those who are 62‐74 years of age A household is identified as having a housing problem if they have any one or more of the following four problems:  Lack complete kitchen facilities;  Lack complete plumbing facilities;  Household is overcrowded; and,  Household is cost burdened. SP 25 Table 10 Elderly Housing Problems Elderly Households identified with a Yes, Housing Problem‐ Yes, Housing Problem Priority housing problems by AMI and Renter by AMI and Owner by AMI and disproportionate percentage Percentage Percentage Elderly 0‐30% AMI (38%) High >30‐50 AMI (47%) 50.1%‐80% AMI (29%) 80.1%‐95% AMI (32%) Extra Elderly 0‐30% AMI (36%) High >30‐50 AMI (35%) 50.1%‐80% AMI (25%) SP 25 Table 11 Persons with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities Housing Problems for the Disabled Yes, Housing Problem‐ Yes, Housing Problem Priority Renter by AMI and Owner by AMI and Percentage Percentage Disabled 0‐30% AMI (28%) High 80.1% and above (3%) 50.1%‐80% AMI (26%) 80.1% and above (21%) D. Goal: Non‐Housing Community Development 1. Non‐Housing Community Development Needs SP 25 Table 12 Top seven Public Facility needs in Anchorage Rank Public Facility # of Votes for Ranking Priority 1 Homeless Facilities 223 High 2 Abused/Neglected Children Facilities 218 High 3 Mental Health Facilities 158 High 4 Child Care Centers 151 High 5 Youth Centers 150 High 6 Senior Centers 122 High 7 Handicapped Centers 121 High

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 273

SP 25 Table 13 Top five Public Service Priorities Rank Public Service Priorities # of Votes for Ranking Priority 1 Handicapped Services 214 High 2 Youth Services 168 High 3 Transportation Services 168 High 4 Senior Services 154 High 5 Child Care Services 148 High SP 25 Table 14 Top five Priorities for Homeless: Subpopulations Rank Homeless ‐ Subpopulations # of Votes for Ranking Priority 1 Chronically Homeless Individuals and Families 210 High 2 Families with children 207 High Victims of Domestic Violence or Similar Life Threatening High 3 Condition 206 4 Unaccompanied youth 165 High 5 Persons with Chronic Substance Abuse 160 High SP 25 Table 15 Top five Public Service Priorities for Non‐Homeless Special Needs Rank Public Service Priorities for Non‐Homeless Special Needs # of Votes for Ranking Priority Victims of Domestic Violence or Similar Life Threatening High 1 Condition 202 2 Persons at Risk of Homelessness 173 High 3 Frail Elderly 170 High 4 Severe Mental Illness 169 High 5 Families with Children 164 High SP 25 Table 16 Top three Public Improvement needs in Anchorage Rank Public Improvements # of Votes for Ranking Priority 1 Sidewalks 151 Low 2 Street Improvements 114 Low 3 Flood Drainage Improvements 94 Low E. Need for Sufficient Housing There is insufficient housing for renter and owner households. Anchorage needs are reflected in the table below by renter AMI and number of bedrooms: SP 25 Table 17 Renter Market Housing Need by Affordability Renter Market Housing Needed by Rental Units by # of Bedrooms Total Priority Affordability Renter I 0‐1 2 3+ Rent <30% AMI or less 2,495 2,145 1,235 5,875 High Rent <=30.1 to 50% 940 1,820 870 3,630 High <=51.1 to 80% 15 190 630 835 High Total for Each Bedroom Unit 3,435 39,65 2,105 1,0340

274 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

SP 25 Table 18 Owner Market Housing Need by Affordability Owner Housing Units Needed by Owner Units by # of Bedrooms Total Affordability Owner AMI 0‐1 2 3+ <30% AMI or less 65 645 580 1,290 High % 30.1‐50% 75 240 445 760 High % 50.1‐80% 30 180 520 730 High % 80.1‐95% 20 50 145 215 Low Total 190 1115 1690 2,995

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 275

XXIX. SP 30 Influence of Market Conditions

SP 30 Table 1 Influence of Market Conditions Affordable Housing Type Market Characteristics that will influence the use of funds available for housing type Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Based on data collected for this Consolidated Plan, TBRA is needed to offset the income for low‐income Elderly, Extra Elderly, Large Related and Small Related Families, and Other family households. In addition, chronically homeless individuals and families would benefit. This effort is augmented by the fact that the labor pool, which is comprised of a very young population working in business sector for, leisure, hospitality, tourism, sales, and retail need subsidized housing to maintain a residence TBRA for Non‐Homeless Special Needs Based on data collected for this Consolidated Plan, TBRA is needed to offset the income for low‐income Elderly, Extra Elderly, Large Related and Small Related Families, and Other family households. In addition, chronically homeless individuals and families would benefit. This effort is augmented by the fact that the labor pool, which is comprised of a very young population working in business sector for, leisure, hospitality, tourism, sales, and retail need subsidized housing to maintain a residence. New Unit Production New unit production is needed to assist those living in severe housing conditions, such as lacking a complete kitchen facility and complete plumbing, particularly with aging home conditions. Cost of suitable building land and viability of business sectors such as natural resource development (oil and mining), construction costs, and transportation (air and water) for shipping will impact this effort. Rehabilitation Cost of suitable building land and viability of business sectors such as natural resource development that includes oil and mining. Also, restrictions that have been placed on wood‐products in both extraction and production that have significantly impacted construction costs. Transportation (air and water) costs are also rising for shipping. Acquisition, including preservation Cost of suitable building land and viability of business sectors such as natural resource development (oil and mining), construction costs, and other funding agencies ability to partner (where their portfolio is vastly reduced in the housing industry). Inflation in housing market has outpaced low‐ and moderate‐ incomes. The median purchase price has risen 51% while incomes have only increased by 31% over the last 10 years.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 277

XXX. SP 35 Anticipated Resources

A. Introduction The Anticipated Resources that the MOA will have at its disposal over the course of the Strategic Plan is approximately $8,861,965 for CDBG, $2,959,555 for HOME, and $624,580 for ESG. Public and private agencies rely heavily on HUD funding and programs that address the broad spectrum of needs. Reduced funding for these HUD programs in 2012 adversely impacted local agencies and services that rely on these monies to assist individuals and families, and affected their ability to leverage resources for state or private funding. In 2013, the Municipality will receive increased funding of $60,109 for CDBG. The HOME Program funding was reduced $36,782 from 2012 and the ESG reduced $22,972. The Municipality received 33.6% less than projected in HUD HOME funds for FY 2012. The table reflects HUD’s reduced funding. CDBG funds may leverage additional resources from private, state, and local funds. The Minor Repair Program may become a loan to leverage private funds as program income. The Mobile Home Repair Program will leverage some state funding through the Weatherization Program. The Rental Development Program is funded with CDBG and HOME funds and may leverage other private, state, local, and federal funds. Table SP‐35.1. HUD Funding Allocation PPPrrrooogggrrraaammm YYYeeeaaarrr CCCDDDBBBGGG HHHOOOMMMEEE EEESSSGGG 2013 $1,772,393 $591,911 $124,916 2012 $1,712,284 $628,693 $147,888 2011 $1,707,768 $946,309 $82,511 2010 $1,888,650 $1,081,372 $85,000 2009 $1,969,558 $1,015,092 $90,000 The Municipality received 33.6% less than projected in HUD HOME funds for FY 2012. The table reflects HUD’s reduced funding. CDBG funds may leverage additional resources from private, state, and local funds. The Minor Repair Program may become a loan to leverage private funds as program income. The Mobile Home Repair Program will leverage some state funding through the Weatherization Program. The Rental Development Program is funded with CDBG and HOME funds and may leverage other private, state, local, and federal funds.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 279

SP‐35 Table 2 Anticipated Resources Program Source Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount of Annual Program Prior Year Total: $ Available Reminder of Funds Allocation: $ Income: $ Resources: $ Con Plan $ CDBG Public‐ Acquisition $445,806 156,406 $602,212 $7,089,572 Federal Admin and Planning $354,478 $340,807 $695,285 Economic Development $24,247 $24,247 Housing $630,000 $494,688 $1,124,688 Public Improvements $76,250 $125,000 $201,250 Public Services $265,859 $75,019 $340,878 Total: $1,772,393 $1,216,167 $2,988,560 HOME Public‐ Acquisition $0 $0 $0 $2,367,644 Federal Admin and Planning $59,191 5,221 104,573 $168,985 Homebuyer assistance $15,000 $134,811 $149,811 Homeowner rehab Multifamily rental new construction $517,720 54,724 $557,745 $1,130,189 Multifamily rental rehab $285,843 $285,843 New construction for ownership TBRA $8,570 $8,570 Total: $591,911 59,945 $1,091,542 $1,743,398 ESG Public‐ Conversion and rehab for $499,664 Federal transitional housing Admin and Planning $9,368 $5,543 $14,911 Financial Assistance Overnight shelter $26,232 $50,434 $76,666 Rapid re‐housing (rental assistance) $63,084 $93,127 $156,211 Rental Assistance $26,232 $30,000 $56,232 Services Transitional housing Total: $124,916 $179,104 $304,020 $499,664

280 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

B. How federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied The following is an overview of Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are expected to be available to address identified needs beginning in 2013, it is anticipated that a similar pattern of leveraging will be used for the following four years (2014‐2017). A variety of funding resources are expected to be available to address affordable housing needs during 2013 See SP 30 Table.3 Total all Funding Sources. CSD in 2013 will continue its efforts to better coordinate housing resources with other community funders. CSD works to meet with funders such as the United Way of Anchorage, Rasmuson Foundation, and the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority regarding housing opportunities and programming. Of particular relevance in the 2013 Action Plan are the leveraged resources associated with the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). HOME regulations require a 25% match to HOME funds drawn down from the treasury on eligible projects (not including administrative or operating expense assistance funds). Going into program year 2013, the Municipality will carry‐forward over $3.9 million of Unrestricted Match. Furthermore, the Municipality carries on its books over $7.1 million in restricted match‐credit from affordable housing bonds proceeds. However, housing bond proceeds may only be used for up to 25% of the annual match obligation. During 2013, additional match is expected to come from a variety of sources. Affordable Housing Program The Affordable Housing Program administered by Habitat for Humanity Anchorage will provide HOME match in the form of volunteer labor and materials for the construction of new HOME‐assisted housing for low‐ income households. In its contract with the Municipality, Habitat has forecasted to complete eight units in 2013. With an average match of over $28,000 per project, Habitat expects to recognize approximately $224,000 in Habitat match over the next year. Housing Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program The Housing Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program (HARP) have moved into a new phase. The program will go into FY 2013 with approximately $1,000 of HOME funds, but will have expended over $400,000 of CHDO Proceeds. HOME match is recognized dollar‐for‐dollar as the Proceeds of CHDO Proceeds are inserted into projects. HOME funds are set aside and used only for down payment/closing‐cost assistance, keeping the match obligations of the program low while still continuing to enjoy the regulatory benefits of producing HOME‐assisted units in regards to match recognition. The program was set to expire at the end of 2012. However, with a current balance of over $31K left in CHDO Proceeds and the Proceeds of CHDO Proceeds, NeighborWorks Anchorage’s will complete one last unit in 2013. The contract will be extended through December 31, 2013. Tenant‐Based Rental Assistance Program The Tenant‐Based Rental Assistance Program is being administered by Catholic Social Services and utilizes Mental Health Trust Authority funds channeled through Alaska Housing Finance Corporation’s SNHG Program. This is a rent assistance program for the homeless and hard to house. There are many barriers for the chronically homeless in permanent housing. This is a housing first pilot program. Rental Development Program In 2013, the Action Plan is offering approximately $1.5 million in CDBG and HOME funds for a To‐Be‐ Determined Rental Development Program project(s). Historically, these types of projects have brought in significant amounts of HOME‐eligible match. In 2011, the Lumen Park project produced over $1.7 million. Because of the timing of the HOME program in 2012, Karluk Manor will record over $2.5 million in the 2013 CAPER. While the proposed rental development project may not come to completion in 2013, the

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 281

Municipality expects a considerable sum of match when it does. Past sources of match have come from the Rasmusson Foundation and AHFC’s Special Needs Housing Grant program. Additional sources of match may be realized over the course of the year. All sources will be reported in the 2013 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). SP 35 Table 3 Total all Funding Sources Housing Funding Sources 2013 Amount State (see Tables below) CIHA ‐ Coronado Park Senior Village (Includes all funding sources) $16,555,688 CIHA ‐ Mountain View Homeownership (Includes all funding sources) $2,999,012 Federal and Other Competitive Grants Matching Funds Homeless Assistance Program Federal Department of Energy: DoE Weatherization (for the State of Alaska, the Governor will announce the area allocations soon) $30,000,000 U. S. Housing and Urban Development: Community Development Block Grant ‐R ARRA (Net encumbrances) $0 Community Development Block Grant (current year funds) $1,626,670 Community Development Block Grant (prior year funds includes uncommitted admin) $1,365,555 HOME Investment Partnership Program (prior year funds includes uncommitted admin) $1,091,019 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (current year funds) $$657,203 Emergency Shelter Grant $140,494 Cook Inlet Housing Authority IHBG 2011 Allocation (This is for the entire state.) Private Not For Profit TBD $125,604

282 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

SP 35 Table 4 Allocation of FFY 2013 HOME Funds ‐ July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 Activity HUD AHFC Match Total Rental Housing Development (RHD) Program Program Funds 700,000 110,000 810,000 CHDO Program Funds* 450,000 0 450,000 Subtotal 1,150,000 110,000 1,260,000 Homeownership Development Program (HDP) Program Funds 0 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 0 Owner‐Occupied Rehabilitation Program (ORP) Program Funds 350,000 50,000 400,000 Sub‐recipient Expense 25,000 50,000 75,000 Subtotal 375,000 100,000 475,000 Home Opportunity Program (HOP) Program Funds 750,000 120,000 870,000 Sub‐recipient Expense 70,000 90,000 160,000 Subtotal 820,000 210,000 1,030,000 Tenant‐Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program Funds 300,000 300,000 600,000 Sub‐recipient Expense 30,000 30,000 60,000 Subtotal 330,000 330,000 660,000 Rental and Homeownership Pre‐Development 0 0 0 Program CHDO Operating Expense Assistance (OEA) Subtotal 150,000 0 150,000 Subtotal 2,825,000 750,000 3,575,000 AHFC HOME Program Administration 175,000 0 175,000 Subtotal 175,000 0 175,000 Total HOME 3,000,000 750,000 3,750,000 Reprogrammed prior funding and program 610,927 0 610,927 income/ repaid funds** *CHDO Program Funds are set aside for Community Housing Development Organizations to own, develop or sponsor HOME assisted units through the RHD program, subject to the limitations of 24 CFR 92.300.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 283

SP 35 Table 5 Allocation of AHFC FY2012 HOME Funds FY2012 Allocation of AHFC HOME Funds HUD AHFC Match Total Rental Housing Development (RHD) Program 700,000 400,000 1,100,000 Program Funds 450,000 0 450,000 CHDO Program Funds* Subtotal 1,150,000 400,000 1,550,000 Homeownership Development 400,000 50,000 450,000 Program (HDP) Program Funds Subtotal 400,000 50,000 450,000 Owner‐Occupied Rehabilitation Program (ORP) 0 00 Program Funds Sub‐recipient Expense 0 00 Subtotal 0 00 Home Opportunity Program (HOP) Program Funds 1,000,000 200,000 1,200,000 Sub‐recipient Expense 125,000 100,000 225,000 Subtotal 1,125,000 300,000 1,425,000 Tenant‐Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program 0 00 Funds Sub‐recipient Expense 0 00 Subtotal 0 00 CHDO Operating Expense Assistance (OEA) Subtotal 150,000 0 150,000 Rental and Homeownership Housing Pre Development Program Subtotal 0 00 AHFC HOME Program Administration 175,000 0 175,000 Subtotal 175,000 0 175,000 Total HOME 3,000,000 750,000 3,750,000 Reprogrammed prior funding and program income/ repaid funds** 1,468,721 1,468,721 *CHDO Program Funds are set aside for Community Housing Development Organizations to own, develop or sponsor HOME assisted units through the RHD program, subject to the limitations of 24 CFR 92.300 **HOME Program Income and repaid funds receipted in the first two quarters of SFY2012. Source: http://www.ahfc.us/files/9513/5972/3997/hcd_aap_13.pdf C. Publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The Municipality plans to submit an application for the acquisition surplus government property, approximately 131 acres located at 6721 Raspberry Road. The Municipality proposes to use the property for one or more of the following:  Campus for substance abuse treatment and support services (employment services, co‐ occurring disorder counseling and support, etc.), including on‐site transitional housing;  Transitional housing, supportive housing, shelter plus care housing, and/or permanent housing, and/or,  Work to Recovery Center.

284 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

D. Discussion The Municipality will work with all housing agencies (AHFC and CIHA), as well as provider agencies to develop strategies where monies can be coordinated to support mutually identified goals and outcomes. There are many organizations and non‐profits that conduct projects, activities, and services in Anchorage that leverage other funds to assist low‐ and moderate‐income persons and households. These include Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Cook Inlet Housing Authority, RuRAL CAP, Anchorage NeighborWorks, Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, Alaska Veterans Foundation, and many other.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 285

XXXI. SP 40 Institutional Delivery Structure

A. Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan including private industry, non‐profit organizations, and public institutions. SP 40 Table 1 Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services Responsible Entity Responsible Role Geographic Area Entity Type Served Municipality Of Anchorage Government Economic Development Jurisdiction Homelessness Non‐homeless special needs Ownership Planning Rental Neighborhood improvements Public facilities Public services Abused Women's Aid in Non‐profit Homelessness Jurisdiction Crisis organizations Non‐homeless special needs Alaska Housing Finance PHA Homelessness State Agency Non‐homeless special needs Ownership Planning Public Housing Rental public services ALASKA LEGAL SERVICES Non‐profit Homelessness Jurisdiction organizations Non‐homeless special needs Planning Spinelli Homes Developer Ownership Jurisdiction Planning Rental ANCHORAGE Non‐profit Homelessness Jurisdiction COMMUNITY LAND TRUST organizations Non‐homeless special needs Planning public services ANCHORAGE HOUSING Non‐profit Economic Development Jurisdiction INITIATIVES organizations Non‐homeless special needs Ownership Planning Rental neighborhood improvements public facilities public services

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 287

ANCHORAGE SENIOR Public Non‐homeless special needs Jurisdiction CENTER institution Planning public facilities public services ANCHORAGE LITERACY Non‐profit Non‐homeless special needs Jurisdiction PROJECT organizations Planning public services Access Alaska Inc. Non‐profit Non‐homeless special needs Jurisdiction organizations Planning public facilities public services AK Cares Private Industry Non‐homeless special needs State Planning public facilities public services Akeela Inc. Non‐profit Non‐homeless special needs State organizations Planning public services Alaska Center for the Blind Non‐profit Non‐homeless special needs State and Visually Impaired organizations Planning public services Alaska Children's Services Non‐profit Non‐homeless special needs State organizations Planning public services Alaska Chadux Private Industry Economic Development State Corporation Planning Alaska Mental Health Public Homelessness State Trust institution Non‐homeless special needs Ownership Planning Rental public services Anchorage Community Non‐profit Homelessness State Mental Health Services, organizations Non‐homeless special needs Inc. Ownership Planning Rental public services Alaska AIDS Assistance Non‐profit Homelessness State Association organizations Non‐homeless special needs Planning Rental public services Anchorage Neighborhood Non‐profit Homelessness Jurisdiction Health Center organizations Planning

288 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Anchorage School Board Public Non‐homeless special needs Jurisdiction institution Planning public facilities public services Anchorage School District Public Homelessness Jurisdiction institution Non‐homeless special needs Planning public facilities public services Brother Francis Shelter Non‐profit Homelessness Jurisdiction organizations Planning Catholic Social Services Non‐profit Homelessness Region organizations Planning Rental Covenant House ‐ Alaska Non‐profit Homelessness State (CHA) organizations Planning Child in Public Homelessness Jurisdiction Transition/Homeless institution Non‐homeless special needs Project Planning public facilities public services Food Bank of Alaska Non‐profit Homelessness State organizations Planning HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Non‐profit Ownership Jurisdiction organizations Planning Home Accessibilities Private Industry Ownership Jurisdiction Planning KPB Architects Private Industry Homelessness Jurisdiction Ownership Planning Rental Muldoon Safe Harbor Inn Non‐profit Homelessness Jurisdiction organizations Planning NEIGHBORWORKS Non‐profit Homelessness Jurisdiction ANCHORAGE organizations Ownership Planning Rental New Life Development Non‐profit Homelessness Jurisdiction organizations Planning Partners for Progress Non‐profit Homelessness State organizations Ownership Planning Rental

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 289

RurAL CAP CHDO Homelessness State Ownership Planning Rental Salvation Army, Alaska Non‐profit Homelessness State organizations Planning Shiloh Community CHDO Homelessness Jurisdiction Housing, Inc. Ownership Planning Rental Southcentral Foundation Other Economic Development State Homelessness Non‐homeless special needs Ownership Planning Rental public services Standing Together Against Non‐profit Homelessness State Rape organizations Planning Veterans Administration Government Homelessness Nation Ownership Planning Rental Volunteers of American Non‐profit Homelessness State Alaska organizations Planning Bean's Cafe Non‐profit Homelessness Jurisdiction organizations Planning Center for Human Public Homelessness State Development/UAA institution Planning Cook Inlet Housing PHA Homelessness State Authority Ownership Planning Rental American Red Cross Non‐profit Homelessness State organizations Planning Alaska Native Justice Non‐profit Economic Development State Center Inc. organizations Homelessness Planning Anchorage Rescue Mission Non‐profit Homelessness Jurisdiction organizations Planning

290 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

HUD Government Economic Development State Homelessness Non‐homeless special needs Ownership Planning Rental neighborhood improvements public facilities public services Older Persons Action Non‐profit Economic Development State Group organizations Homelessness Non‐homeless special needs Ownership Planning Rental neighborhood improvements public facilities public services CDI‐ALASKA, INC. Non‐profit Economic Development State organizations Homelessness Planning public services

B. Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System The Anchorage community has a long history in coordinating resources and services to provide the most integrated system possible with resources available. Example of strong community coordination include: Homeless Prevention Project, which included partners from United Way, Covenant House, Salvation Army McKinnell, Catholic Social Services, and the Municipality; Continuum of Care, which presented a broad representation of the community through it’s FY2012 Project Review Panel; Project Homeless Connect, which includes provider agencies and community volunteers, Cold Weather Plan, which is led by the faith‐based community and provides emergency shelter for families, and the HARP project which links homeless persons in camps to appropriate services. Although the HARP Project is not currently active, the model is in place to pull together police, case managers, and volunteers to continue outreach efforts.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 291

SP 40 Table 1 Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services Homelessness Prevention Available in the Targeted to Targeted to People Services Community Homeless with HIV Homelessness Prevention Services Counseling/Advocacy X X X Legal Assistance X X Mortgage Assistance X X Rental Assistance X X Utilities Assistance X X Street Outreach Services Law Enforcement X X Mobile Clinics X X Other Street Outreach Services X X Supportive Services Alcohol & Drug Abuse X X Child Care Education X X Employment and Employment X Training Healthcare HIV/AIDS X X X Life Skills X X Mental Health Counseling X X Transportation X X Other Domestic Violence Prevention X X C. Describe the extent to which services targeted to homeless person and persons with HIV and mainstream services, such as health, mental health and employment services are made available to and used by homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families and unaccompanied youth) and persons with HIV within the jurisdiction: Provider agencies in Anchorage work in tandem to ensure that those in need will not fall through gaps in the service system. The use of the Alaska 2‐1‐1 line has allowed available services to be updated quickly through an electronic database of information. Key services in Anchorage, such as CSS Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re‐housing are updated regularly to inform the public of available financial assistance. Conversely, 2‐1‐ 1 caller line staff informs the general public when there are no monies available. As an example, the MOA contracts with CSS’ Rapid Re‐Housing Project using ESG monies, which in turn coordinates with Alaska 2‐1‐1. This allows 2‐1‐1‐ callers to be referred appropriately to CSS, which in turn uses ESG funds for those who are at imminent‐risk for homelessness. Veterans calling into 2‐1‐1 are also referred appropriately to local veteran services, including the domiciliary. The 4A’s agency, which assists persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, also participate in ‐2‐1‐1. The CoC confirmed that services delivered by CSS and the Municipality fit the requirements of the revised ESG guidelines. CSS and the Municipality are active members of the CoC and will continue to consult with the CoC and subcommittees to assure coordination of homeless prevention and rapid re‐housing activities to best utilize and leverage ESG funding in addressing the population served by

292 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

HPRP. Likewise, the VA Coordinator will work with Alaska 2‐1‐1 and maintain membership on the HAND Commission's HCOSH membership to provide an integrated system of care for veterans. Below is an outline of services coordinated through Alaska 2‐1‐1. 1. Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing The Municipality and Catholic Social Services (CSS) will work together to address the populations served by HPRP. ESG funds will be used to support CSS Rapid Re‐housing and MOA Emergency Services. CSS fills a gap in the community as the only agency providing a high level of case management with funds for direct assistance for placing homeless households that are not part of a specific demographic category (e.g. domestic violence, women only households, age based) in permanent housing. The Municipality has a long history of providing assistance for households at risk of homelessness. The CoC confirmed that services delivered by CSS and the Municipality fit the requirements of the revised ESG guidelines. CSS and the Municipality are active members of the CoC and will continue to consult with the CoC and subcommittees to assure coordination of homeless prevention and rapid re‐housing activities to best utilize and leverage ESG funding in addressing the population served by HPRP. 2. Veteran’s Services The Alaska VA has embraced the U.S. Secretary of Veteran Affairs priority to end homelessness among Veterans in 5 years (year 3 completed). The Alaska VA Homeless Programs developed a comprehensive 5‐ year plan that includes increasing community partnerships and outreach with non‐profit, State, and local government programs addressing homelessness and working with the CoC to carry out goals of the plan to address homelessness among veterans. The VA Coordinator in Anchorage is also a member of the Municipality’s Housing And Neighborhood Development Commission and the Commission’s Homeless Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness, and is instrumental in including information into this Plan on behalf of veterans. In line with the CoC’s goals regarding outreach and securing permanent housing, the VA Health Care for Homeless Veterans program has increased staffing to include 3 full‐time case managers to work directly with Veterans in Anchorage. The Alaska VA assisted more than 80 formally homeless Veterans to gain employment and 132 formally homeless Veterans to gain housing during 2012. These efforts focusing on housing and employment will continue through community coordination in 2014. During 2012, Alaska VA has increase the number of VASH vouchers from 120 to 195 with 110 of these focused toward Anchorage’s homeless populations and no less than 72 vouchers for those Veterans meeting the HEARTH Act definition of chronically homeless. In line with the CoC goal regarding prisoner re‐entry/discharge planning, Alaska VA has a fulltime hybrid position, half‐ Health Care for Re‐Entry Veterans and half‐Veteran Justice Outreach LCSW position with primary responsibility of discharge planning for Veterans connected to the corrections system to prevent discharge to homeless. 3. Single Assessment System: 2‐1‐1 Alaska Homeless provider agencies work with 2‐1‐1 to coordinate information & referral to homeless/near‐homeless persons seeking housing assistance, food, shelter, emergency health care, and ESG and mainstream services. To supplement this centralized system, starting in 2008, many service provider agencies agreed to use the Arizona Self‐Sufficiency Matrix to assess 2‐1‐1 referrals. Copies of this Matrix are shared amongst agencies serving the same household, such as cases where the family is transitioning from a shelter to HPRP and/or RRP services. In addition, there are over 41 agencies/services in Anchorage and twenty‐six agencies/services from Balance of State entering data from the Matrix into the Alaska HMIS. This information and data system allows agencies to share files and enhance services for the household, regardless of location in Alaska. 4. Coordination with Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) The ESG jurisdiction utilizes the HAND and the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness (ACH) as the primary mechanisms to determine how funds are allocated. The HAND Commission and its Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness (HCOSH) are a publicly appointed commission and subcommittee that advise the Mayor and Assembly on issues related to housing, community development and homelessness. Recently

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 293

ACH became a 501 (c) 3 and includes representation by public, private and non‐profit partners and operates as the primary forum for homeless issues. Both groups work together to identify gaps in services and to prevent service‐duplication. ESG, through the HAND Commission, holds public hearings and posts Public Notices of public hearings the ACH List serve. The ESG program manager for the Municipality will serve on the board of the ACH as one of two Municipal representatives, further ensuring coordination of ESG funds. 5. Project Homeless Connect The coordinated community has developed seven outreach efforts to assist homeless service providers: (1) the ACH and Municipality secure bus tokens, bus services, food, beverages, and other items to support Project Homeless Connect (PHC), a one‐stop event. Since 2007, there have been 10 PHC events and to ensure maximum participation outreach workers visit camp sites and local soup kitchens. All services are provided at PHCs, including health care, mental health, financial assistance, employment assistance, dental assistance, and providing hygiene products. Additional efforts include: (2) the Veteran’s Affairs Office provides bus services, food, other items as needed for the Annual Stand Down Event; (3) RurAL CAP, ACMHS, Covenant House AK, Alaska Youth Advocates coordinate together for a street outreach effort through teams, (4) ACMHS provides a Drop In Center that offers laundry, showers, and a food bank; (5) the Municipality and CSS coordinate with AK 2‐1‐1 to ensure families are referred for HPRP services; (6) the Anchorage School District coordinates with all providers and shelters to assist homeless families and children in transition; (7) encourage use of the Vulnerability Index from 100,000 Homes Campaign, and, (8) the Municipality has outreach efforts to persons with disabilities and persons with Limited English Proficiency by coordinating with local agencies that serve these populations. 6. Anchorage Domestic Violence Prevention Project (ADVPP) The ADVPP project is a partnership between the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), SAFE City Program and the Municipal Department of Law, Criminal Division, the Anchorage Police Department (APD) and the Abused Women’s Aid In Crisis, Inc. (AWAIC), who worked together to establish two domestic violence compliance officers, increased support to the prosecutors’ office by adding 2‐3 clerks (including a victim assistance clerk), improved communication systems between police and prosecution through a database, and strengthened victim services by providing emergency financial assistance. ADVPPII is intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system as it relates to domestic violence in holding offenders accountable while positively impacting the safety and welfare of victims. D. Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above There are key areas which warrant community discussion and agency resolution. The continued growth of chronically homeless populations and additional information regarding victims of violence (sexual assault and domestic violence) are policy issues which need extensive examination and discussion. While the numbers of persons served at the Brother Francis Shelter, it is unclear why the numbers are growing—is this due to in‐ state or out‐of state migration, personal and situation circumstances, an economy that does not have high wages for certain occupations such as retail, sales and leisure.

294 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

E. Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs With the addition of victims of sexual assault, dating and stalking violence, it will be critical to include this element of the homeless population in all future discussions regarding the homeless. The municipality’s Housing And Neighborhood Development Commission and its Homeless Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness are taking on the task of completing the city’s Ten‐Year Plan on homeless. The HAND Commission and HCOSH will invite the community to participate in developing new strategies to address the increasing subpopulations of homeless.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 295

XXXII. SP 45 Goals Summary

This section presents a summary of goals, category of service, expected outcomes, and funding estimated for 2013 projects. Goals include: CHDO rental housing development, homeowner rehabilitation, mobile home rehabilitation, affordable homeownership, homeless facilities, child care centers, public services, homeless prevention, emergency shelter, and emergency housing services. The section goes on to estimate the number of extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing, and what will be the Municipality’s investment in manufactured housing and affordable rental‐ housing for extremely low‐income persons.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 297

SP 45 Table 1 Goals Summary Information Goal Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding CHDO Rental Affordable Housing Citywide Affordable Housing ‐ Renter $1,400,995 Housing Start Year End Year Outcome Objective Development ‐ TBD 2013 2014 Availability/Accessibility Provide Decent Affordable Housing Narrative This project shall include the selection of a CHDO to provide supportive housing for chronically homeless or other high‐priority populations. Funding for the project shall be comprised of CDBG, HOME, and HOME CHDO. Other sources of funds may come from prior years, program income, or HOME recaptures. It is estimated that $1,400,995 of the Municipality's HUD entitlement funding may go toward this project. The inclusion of HOME funds dictates that the project complies with the Affordability requirements of Section 92.252, Including the recording of deed restrictions. However, since the exact parameters of the project is at this time unknown, the nature of the affordability and recapture provisions shall be determined through negotiations with the CHDO during the contracting phase. Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity UoM Rental units constructed/rehabilitated 10 Household Housing Unit Public service activities for Low/Moderate Income 10 Households Assisted Housing Benefit

Goal Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Homeowner Affordable Housing Citywide Affordable Housing ‐ Owners $415,000 Rehabilitation Start Year End Year Outcome Objective 2013 2014 Affordability Provide Decent Affordable Housing Narrative The Minor Repair Program provides assistance for increased accessibility, energy efficiency or repairs to items presenting a threat to health or safety in an owner‐occupied home. For the standard component of the MRP, assistance is available to low‐ and moderate‐income residents throughout the Municipality. All homes considered for assistance must be occupied by owners with annual incomes at or below 80% of the area median income, as determined by HUD, adjusted for family size. Maximum project cost per eligible client is $15,000, excluding housing services costs. Exceptions may be made for homes with additional costs due to lead‐based paint, or to cover unforeseen cost overruns or when additional costs are due to improvements needed to accommodate a resident’s disability or for other exceptional circumstances. Thirty percent of the grant award to the Subrecipient will be used for Housing Services Costs. Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity UoM Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated 18 Household Housing Unit

298 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Goal Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Mobile Home Affordable Housing Citywide Affordable Housing ‐ Owners $215,000 Rehabilitation Start Year End Year Outcome Objective 2013 2014 Affordability Provide Decent Affordable Housing Narrative Through the public process, it was determined that mobile homes are a substantial component of the affordable housing in Anchorage. Additionally, research revealed that the mobile‐home stock is significantly aging with the condition of many units deteriorating. Therefore, the Municipality shall develop a program that focuses on the repairs of mobile homes. Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity Unit of Measures Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated 8 Household Housing Unit

Goal Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Affordable Affordable Housing Citywide Affordable Housing ‐ Owners $15,000 Homeownership Start Year End Year Outcome Objective 2013 2014 Affordability Provide Decent Affordable Housing Narrative This goal is attained through the Affordable Housing Program undertaken in conjunction with Habitat for Humanity Anchorage. The program consists of providing Habitat with CDBG funds to purchase properties. When the housing units are complete, a HOME downpayment‐assistance loan is furnished to the homebuyers. Using the HOME funds qualifies the projects as “HOME‐ assisted”, allowing the Municipality to count the volunteer labor and other donations as match under its obligations to the HOME Program. Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity Unit of Measures Homeowner Housing Added 8 Household Housing Unit

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 299

Goal Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Homeless Facilities Homeless Citywide Homeless Special Needs ‐ $76,250 Subpopulations Start Year End Year Outcome Objective 2012 2014 Availability/Accessibility Create Suitable Living Environment Narrative The Community Service Patrol is a van equipped with a gurney, and driven by an Emergency Medical Technical (EMT) I, which takes individuals incapacitated by alcohol and substance abuse in public places into protective custody. The inebriated person is transported to the Anchorage Safety Center which is co‐located by the Anchorage Cook Inlet Jail complex. Clients are evaluated using basic assessments and an EMT I, conducts follow‐up evaluation every half hour when a person falls asleep Individuals requiring medical assistance or additional care are taken to hospitals. This basic shelter for public inebriates requires repair and rehabilitation. The Safety Center is open and staffed 24 hours a day/7 days a week to accept individuals in need. The project was funded $75,000 in 2012. Before construction could begin in 2012, it was decided to increase the scope and allocate an additional $76,250 from 2013 funds. The total allocation will amount to $151,250. Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity Unit of Measures Homeless Person Overnight Shelter 3,415 Persons Assisted

Goal Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Child Care Center Other – Child Care Citywide Public Facility $175,000 Start Year End Year Outcome Objective 2012 2014 Availability/Accessibility Create Suitable Living Environment Narrative In 2012, the Municipality assisted RurAL CAP in the purchase of the Child Development Center located at 545 East 5th Avenue. It was determined that parking for the facility was inadequate. The lot adjacent to the building was available. Therefore, it was decided to assist RurAL CAP in its purchase. The purchase price is $175,000. Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity Unit of Measures Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities for Low/Moderate 48 Households Assisted Income Housing Benefit

300 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Goal Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Public Services ‐ TBD Homeless Citywide Public Services $265,859 Start Year End Year Outcome Objective 2013 2014 Availability/Accessibility Create Suitable Living Environment Narrative CDBG Public Services – RFP for 5 public service projects. Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity Unit of Measures Other ‐ Public service activities for low/moderate income 5 Projects benefit

Goal Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Homeless Homeless Citywide Homeless – Special Needs ‐ $124,916 Prevention Subpopulations Start Year End Year Outcome Objective 2013 2015 Availability/Accessibility Create Suitable Living Environment Narrative ESG ‐ Engage in homeless prevention activities and essential services activities. Goal Outcome Indicator Quantity Unit of Measures Homeless Prevention 175 Persons Assisted

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 301

A. Estimate the number of extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2) More people than you might realize need affordable housing. “The economic expansion of the 1990s obscured certain trends and statistics that point to an increased, not decreased, need for affordable housing. The generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. An estimated 12 million renter and homeowner households now pay more then 50 percent of their annual incomes for housing, and a family with one full‐time worker earning the minimum wage cannot afford the local fair‐market rent for a two‐bedroom apartment anywhere in the United States. The lack of affordable housing is a significant hardship for low‐income households preventing them from meeting their other basic needs, such as nutrition and healthcare, or saving for their future and that of their families.” Source: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/index.cfm The Municipality proposes four (4) affordable‐housing programs meeting the definition of Section 91.215 (b)(2) Affordable housing. The programs consist of the Rental Development Program, Minor Repair Program, Mobile Home Rehabilitation Program, and the Affordable Housing Program. 1. Rental Development Program The Rental Development Program is targeted at the chronically homeless or other populations receiving a high‐prioritization in the Consolidated Plan’s Needs Assessment. Other groups could include housing for elderly, frail elderly, or the disabled. The Municipality has set aside approximately $1.4 million in HOME, CDBG, and CDBG Public Service funds. If the funds are not leveraged, staff has calculated that the available HUD funds could conservatively generate about 10 rental units. Targets groups such as the chronically homeless and disabled tend to be included in the extremely low‐income category. Senior household may be more spread across the income levels. Therefore, a fair estimate could be 5‐10 extremely low‐income, 1‐5 low income, and 1‐5 moderate‐income families for the Rental Development Program. 2. Minor Repair Program The Municipality intends to infuse $400,000 into the ongoing Minor Repair Program. This amount of funds is calculated to assist about 19 households. Historically, the demographics appear randomly split among the income groups. Therefore, a reasonable estimate would consist of 3‐10 extremely low‐income, 3‐10 low‐ income, and 3‐10 moderate‐income families. 3. Mobile Home Rehabilitation Program According to the Preservation of Redevelopment: Options, Conditions and Risks Facing Mobile Home Parks in Anchorage, Alaska, And The Case for Affordable Housing by Tyler Robinson, July 24, 2009; there were approximately 4,700 mobile homes at the time, comprising 5% of Anchorage’s housing stock. Much of the mobile‐home stock is over pre‐1976 (the year HUD imposed quality standards to the manufacturer of mobile homes). A reasonable estimate of the number of mobile home built prior to 1976 would be about 71 %, given that Mr. Robinson’s paper reveals that 30 of the 42 trailer parks in Anchorage are comprised of the older trailers. With the trailer parks containing about 4,200 of the total 4,700 units (the rest residing on private lots zoned R‐5), about 3,000 mobile homes could be substandard. Many units built after 1976 could also be substandard. Trailers have a life expectancy of 20‐25 years. Therefore, units built prior to 1988 may also have needs for rehabilitation. The proposed Mobile Home Rehabilitation Program is slated this year to assist approximately 8 units. The demand for the program is extreme.

302 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

4. Investing in Affordable Homeownership‐Housing In 2013, CSD will continue to fund affordable homeownership programs such as the Affordable Housing Program. The Affordable Housing Program is funded to assist 8 households in 2013. In addition to funding homeownership, CSD will continue to invest in preserving the affordable housing stock by funding the Minor Repair Program, thus helping to lessen the burden of low‐income homeowners by reducing maintenance and utility costs. CSD estimates that the Minor Repair program funding for 2013 will assist 19 households. DHHS will work closely with AHFC to ensure access to housing for special‐needs populations. 5. Investing in Manufactured Housing The number of affordable manufactured housing units in Anchorage has been diminishing over the past several years. With vacant land becoming scarce within the Anchorage bowl, there are increased market pressures on owners of manufactured housing parks to convert their lots into other uses. In addition, many of the existing homes and parks are in poor condition. In some cases, upgrading the parks to current standards has proved prohibitively expensive, leaving owners facing disincentives to re‐investment. These combined circumstances have resulted in several parks closing. Some of the evicted tenants with older homes face the reality that their homes cannot be moved due to their poor condition or age. Over the past several years CSD has worked on several community efforts with the HAND Commission and other community groups to begin manufactured‐housing projects. There have been several meetings held with manufactured‐housing park owners to assess federal policies and programs regarding manufactured housing. There have been discussions with CIHA on development of a manufactured‐housing replacement‐ loan program. CSD has funded the new Mobile Home Repair program for 2013. CSD anticipates the 2013 funding will assist 8 or more housing units. 6. Investing in Affordable Rental‐Housing for Extremely Low‐ Income Persons CSD in 2013 will continue to prioritize funding for investment in rental housing development for extremely low‐income persons with HOME funding. The Municipality is providing CDBG and HOME funding for one or two rental‐development projects in 2013. The Rental Development may include acquisition, new construction, or rehabilitation. The number of housing units is unknown at this time, but could be up to 80 units or more. This objective also assists CSD in meeting HUD’s CHDO set‐aside requirement and matching fund requirement ensuring CSD’s compliance with the HOME regulations. This funding priority assists in addressing the following community needs and priorities that have been identified by various Anchorage groups and organizations, the Continuum of Care Workgroup, the Alaska Coalition on Housing and Homelessness, the AHFC Ten Year Plan to End Long Term Homelessness in Alaska, Mayor Sullivan’s Homeless Leadership Team, the HAND Commission, and in the Consolidated Plan and its Annual Action Plans.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 303

XXXIII. SP 50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement

A. Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units AHFC conducts an annual ADA‐504 needs assessment to create priorities for modifications and planned unit improvements, such as enlarging door openings, adding grab bars in bathrooms and hallways, installing automatic doors, and removing carpet to facilitate wheelchair movement. For new construction, AHFC complies with ADA‐504 on all new construction and renovation projects and ensures that at least five percent of the units, or one unit (whichever is greater), will accommodate a person with mobility impairments. AHFC offers a well‐defined Reasonable Accommodation process that covers families from the application process through unit modification requests. Additionally, AHFC offers language interpretation services to those families with limited English proficiency. B. Activities to Increase Resident Involvements AHFC encourages resident involvement and input on routine basis. The Resident Advisory board meets infrequently to discuss program or plan changes affecting both Public Housing residents and Housing Choice Voucher holders. The Public Housing Division frequently holds public hearings for resident and public input on a variety of policies and programs. Examples of recent community meetings include public outreach for comment on their Moving to Work plan and the Rent Reform Initiative in a number of localities, a survey to residents in our elderly facilities regarding smoking policies, and informational meetings to discuss new apartment developments, how residents are affected, and their rights as the process moves forward. Several of AHFC Public Housing and Multi‐Family communities have active Resident Councils across the state, and AHFC produces a newsletter that is available to residents several times per year. C. Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902? No D. Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation N/A

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 305

XXXIV. SP 55 Barriers to affordable housing

A. Barriers to Affordable Housing The barriers to affordable housing in Anchorage are complex. The economy is stable, especially in comparison to the lower‐48 which has experienced serious housing crashes and foreclosures. However, in Anchorage there are increasing numbers of homeless individuals and families. An examination of the jurisdiction’s economy shows business factors which are strong and steady; however, there has been flat growth in leisure and hospitality (such as tourism), similarly with construction, both of which have been viable economic bases. The economic downfall in the lower‐48 has contributed to the downfall in tourism. New hires in 2010 were primarily for retail and food and beverage; however, these positions tend to offer lowering paying wages. Construction was identified in third place for new hires in 2010; however, construction has been slow in comparison to earlier years. There has been a 59% increase in the median home value from 2009 to 2010, but the percent change for median household income is only 31% for almost the same period. The vacancy rate in Anchorage for 2012 is low for all rental units, showing: 0 bedrooms at 4.9, 1 bedroom at 1.7, 2 bedrooms at 2.4 and 3 bedrooms at 4.8. At the same time vacancy rates are dropping, median rent is rising on an average of 4%. There is a relatively young group of renters, aged 15 to 24% that account for 17% of renter occupied households; and those aged 25 to 34 years account for 29%. There are approximately 17,205 owner households who are paying more than 30% of their household income on housing; and 16,865 of renters who are paying 30% more than their household income on rent. While the civilian population is experiencing the lack of affordable housing, our local military community is equally in need of housing. As of May 7, 2013 there were 424 households on the wait list. Of those on the wait list, the type of housing needed was: 43% for 2 bedrooms, 25% for 3 bedrooms, 18% for 5 bedrooms, and 14% for 4 bedrooms. At this time, these households are living off JBER in our local community until military housing is available. The lack of available housing is driving up the median rent, the median income has not kept pace with housing values, our young population are likely in lower‐paying occupations that cannot afford the higher median rents required. Although there are some builders looking at the prospects for building new housing, there are also barriers to this effort, such as suitable buildable land and the type of housing needed to accommodate Anchorage’s population. For example, the elderly and extra elderly, and the disabled populations were identified in the Needs Assessment Section of this Draft Consolidated Plan as being disproportionately represented for several types of housing problems. The Municipality plans to establish planning discussions with other funding agencies to determine the rising numbers of homeless individuals seen in emergency shelters, as well as discuss options for housing to accommodate Anchorage’s youngest and older populations; both of whom are likely to be low‐income. B. Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing The Municipality has worked with the community leaders and providers to identify barriers to affordable housing. This section describe the jurisdiction's strategy to remove or ameliorate negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing, as identified in accordance with 91.210(e).

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 307

1. Mayor’s Homeless Leadership Team83 The Mayor’s Homeless Leadership Team (HLT) was established as part of Mayor Sullivan’s Strategic Action Plan to deal with chronic public inebriates and related issues of Homelessness in Anchorage. The HLT is comprised of numerous social service and government agencies and is reflective of the Municipality’s collaborative approach to dealing with this serious social and public safety issue. The HLT’s focus is on that small number of citizens who are homeless and have chronic substance abuse and/or mental health issues. The purpose of the HLT is to provide the Mayor with short and long term strategies for effectively managing the challenges this population creates and to assist with identifying and leveraging community resources for implementing those strategies. During the course of HLT discussions, the group developed several recommendations, which includes strategies for affordable housing. In May 2010, the Mayor’s HLT formulated the following strategies and recommendations on how the community should deal with homeless chronic public inebriates and related issues of homelessness. 1. Mayoral and Municipal support for the development of Karluk Manor by RurAL CAP as the initial Housing First Project in Anchorage. As RurAL Cap’s Karluk Manor project gained momentum, the HLT realized that implementation of Anchorage’s first “Housing First” project, initially perceived as long‐term, could occur within the year, offering the community a short‐term, effective strategy to help achieve the Mayor’s desired outcomes. The HLT recommends that “Housing First” projects be clustered and not scattered site. Within the Municipality Of Anchorage, there is currently no means to deliver the level of services and support needed by the chronic homeless to improve their well being and lessen community impacts in scattered site facilities. One-on-One environments or small scattered sites would require an estimated 300 service personnel. “Housing First” projects should be connected to services, due to the severity of alcohol abuse by potential residents of “Housing First” projects and the likelihood that they will have serious medical and psychiatric illnesses. Potential residents are also very likely to have major deficits in cognitive functioning, social functioning and independent living skills. Therefore, a variety of community resources and services are required to support a project of this magnitude. 2. Mayoral Support for Assessing, Developing and Evaluating Future “Housing First” Projects The HLT recommends Mayoral support for the acquisition, development and operation of future “Housing First” projects in Anchorage as soon as possible. The “Housing First” model provides housing to chronic homeless inebriates with on‐site supportive services and case management. This model has been shown to keep individuals off the streets, out of emergency shelters, emergency rooms and the Transfer Station/sleep off center, and to be cost effective (published reports and research can be found at the end of this report). 3. Develop and implement strategies for public education and outreach around the approved recommendations. The HLT was instrumental in creating a community informational resource on Health and Human Services webpage dealing with chronic public inebriation and related issues of homelessness, including existing and historic plans and reports. This resource can be found under the Mayor’s Strategic Action Plan. 4. Remove Regulatory Barriers: Clarify residential and facility land use types in Title 21 and Title 16

83 Mayor’s Homeless Leadership Team found at http://www.muni.org/Departments/health/Pages/HomelessLeadershipTeam.aspx

308 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Title 21 (housing projects) and Title 16 (facility projects) often present regulatory barriers to development of much‐needed projects in Anchorage. This strategy would convene a collaborative group of funders and service providers to define 2‐3 hypothetical but realistic housing projects that serve people with disabilities (i.e., 10‐plex supportive housing project with certain on‐site services located in an R‐3 district) and hold a mock “pre‐construction” meeting with the Planning Department to examine zoning implications for each scenario. This exercise will better define current land use barriers, if any, to developing new supportive housing projects for people with disabilities, including both permanent and transitional housing. Identifying these regulatory barrier issues will aid housing providers, the Municipality of Anchorage, the Municipal Assembly, and/or the Planning and Zoning Commission in reducing or mitigating barriers. The HLT recommends Mayoral support for this strategy, including Municipal Planning Department staff participation. 5. Implement the Municipal Cold Weather Plan (MCW) and Amend Municipal Code Title 16 to enable the MCW Plan. The HLT recommends implementation of a cold weather plan for the Municipality of Anchorage, which would allow churches, designated by the Director of Health & Human Services or their designee, to act as temporary cold weather shelters for families and individuals who are not under the influence of intoxicants, Title 21 notwithstanding. 6. Camp closures should not take place unless housing options are in place Anchorage is consistently at or above its emergency housing capacity and camp closures will not be an end to the cycle of illegal camping and chronic public inebriation if individuals do not have a place to go when an illegal camp is closed. Housing of all types (Affordable, Housing First, Low‐Barrier, etc.) must be available before closing down an illegal camp if the city wants lasting solutions in getting individuals out of illegal camps that are on public land permanently This strategy will also ensure better results for the Homeless Action & Response Team (H.A.R.T.) when they undertake outreach to illegal campers. The H.A.R.T. 7. Develop a Collaborative Homeless Action & Response Team (H.A.R.T.) to do outreach to illegal campers when a campsite is posted for closure The H.A.R.T. will assist all persons in illegal camps posted for closure, not just those persons who are chronically homeless due to substance addiction and/or mental health issues. Possible services offered include: Housing/Shelter; Housing Vouchers; Public Assistance; Social Security Benefits; Veteran’s Benefits; Medical; Mental Health; Jobs; Case Management; Substance Use/Abuse Treatment. 8. A commitment to work with stakeholders to increase detox beds and services for chronic homeless alcoholics. Currently, Anchorage has two detox facilities, Ernie Turner Center and the Salvation Army’s Clitheroe Center. Facilities are at capacity, and service providers are overwhelmed with both bed and service wait lists of up to three months. CITC’s Ernie Turner Center has no room for growth, while the Salvation Army’s Clitheroe Center has room for 4‐6 additional detox beds if funding is made available, at $125,000 per year per bed. Increasing detox beds and services would help meet the needs of individuals who are requesting assistance to get clean and sober when they request treatment and services, instead of putting them on a wait list and keeping them on the streets until space is available. 9. Support for increasing the number of case managers who work with chronic homeless alcoholics. Strive for a ratio of 1:10 case managers to clients.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 309

The HLT recommends a collaborative effort to look at advocacy opportunities and create a working model which would increase case managers within the MOA to a ratio of 1:10 case manager to client. Most case managers in Anchorage currently have case loads of up to 50 clients at a time. This places an inordinate burden on case managers and reduces the level of care and attention that they are able to dedicate o individual clients. Reduced case loads would allow for more robust services for homeless chronic alcoholics, resulting in a more successful intervention. 10. Continued Mayoral support for the Anchorage Coalition on Homelessness and implementation of the 10 Year Plan. The HLT recommends continued support for the Anchorage Coalition on Homelessness and implementation of Anchorage’s 10 year plan. The HLT acknowledges there is a serious lack of affordable housing in Anchorage that must be addressed as part of a larger solution for housing for our homeless population. The absence of affordable housing is a barrier for individuals and families who are ready to exit homeless shelters and programs. There is currently a lack of inventory and the affordability gap is increasing. 2. Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet’s Work Group on Affordable Housing The Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet was convened by the Mayor, to assess needs of housing development and treatment and related services in Anchorage. As a result of the two pronged approached, the Kitchen Cabinet formed two work groups; one to focus on affordable housing; and, the other to focus on substance abuse treatment services. The two groups are staffed by the Municipal Department of Health and Human Services. In May 2012, the Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet’s Work Group on Affordable Housing (WGAH) submitted recommendations for policy and regulatory changes that the Municipality of Anchorage could implement that would help spur housing development in Anchorage. The WGAH recommendations are: 1. Assign a single department head to act as a liaison with home builders when needed through the permitting process. 2. Create or authorize an entity or partnership, such as the Anchorage Community Development Authority, to specifically plan for, spur, and coordinate comprehensive housing development. That entity should be tasked with implementing the Anchorage 2020, Anchorage Downtown Comprehensive plan, and various Anchorage neighborhood plans to catalyze housing and economic development. 3. Continue to research the viability of using Tax Increment Financing in Anchorage. 4. Consider changes to MOA regulatory requirements that will help increase the likelihood of housing development. a. Examine and extend the number of years required for code changes beyond three years. b. Adopt an ordinance that accepts the premise of SB104 ‐ A deferral of municipal property taxes on the increase in value of real property attributable to subdivision of that property. c. Examine MOA code to allow for an alternative engineered design that may not meet MASS requirements on private on‐site roads and driveways. d. Adopt lower parking policy requirements proposed in Title 21. According to the WGAH memorandum to the Mayor, the recommendations should be considered helpful as immediate next steps to benefit all types of public, private, and non‐profit housing development. The WGAH recognizes these recommendations standing alone will not catalyze sufficient development to meet the community’s need for housing. The recommendations should be viewed as first in a series of changes and

310 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

initiatives which place housing in Anchorage as a very high priority both for the MOA and for the larger community. A large challenge remains: to identify and implement creative strategies that actually spurs housing development to ensure safe, affordable homes for all Anchorage residents.84 3. Mayor’s Work Group on Substance Abuse Treatment & Services In February 2013, the Mayor’s Work Group on Substance Abuse Treatment & Services made recommendations to enhance services to homeless individuals with substance abuse disorders. The group’s goal was to look for low cost opportunities, policy changes and opportunities to enhance services and access to treatment for homeless individuals in Anchorage experiencing substance use disorders. The following are the top recommendations put forth by the Work Group on Substance Abuse Treatment and Services. High priority‐‐no cost recommendations for the MOA regarding substance abuse treatment and services in Anchorage: 1. Support existing and future expansion of research based supportive housing programs and service models, such as Karluk Manor, which are associated with longer stays in housing and reduction of alcohol use. Such programs pair housing with intensive case management services to dramatically reduce the use of emergency services. 2. Develop an overarching advocacy effort to build community support for sober housing development as a long term strategy. a. Target a specific area of town, identify large housing or mixed use development or redevelopment and leverage MOA investments and expertise in partnership with the private sector to develop long term and short term sober housing units (a recommendation forwarded by the Housing Workgroup). 3. Weigh in on the FY12 alcohol tax funding for alcohol related projects by collaborating with the Recover Alaska Initiative, a public/private collaborative working to reduce the negative effects of alcohol and drug abuse in Alaska. The Mayor may recommend projects that could have positive impact in Anchorage. High priority‐‐low cost recommendations for the Municipality regarding substance abuse treatment and services in Anchorage: 1. Reinstitute the Pathways to Recovery Program (or similar model) located at the Anchorage Safety Center. The Pathways program focuses on outreach, engagement, detoxification, and long term treatment with the goal of housing and employment. This program has demonstrated success in reducing the number of transfer station admissions by focusing on housing and linking to detox and treatment. Programming needs to include ongoing engagement and coordination of services for individuals prior to discharge from the Safety Center such as linking directly to day engagement options to avoid discharging directly to the streets of Anchorage. 2. Re‐invigorate use of the Alaska Center for Treatment Needs Assessment as commissioned by DHSS to analyze and inform current and future need for adult residential treatment beds in Anchorage. a. Assign a single project coordinator within DHHS for service providers, community members and other interested stakeholders regarding addiction services and supports in Anchorage. This coordinator should participate in the Anchorage Regional Behavioral Health Providers stakeholder process to effectively advocate on behalf of the needs of providers in Anchorage, to

84 Mayor’s Kitchen Cabinet’s Work Group on Affordable Housing recommendations to Mayor Daniel Sullivan, May 10, 2012

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 311

help reduce barriers and inefficiencies (both regulatory and governmental) that interfere with access to and provision of treatment services in Anchorage. b. Establish a municipal/provider task force to work with treatment providers, outreach/engagement programs and housing programs to maximize access, expand treatment capacity and increase housing stability. c. Review the workgroup summary for recommendations and issues identified by the committee that are within the purview and responsibility of DHSS. We recommend the MOA engage with DHSS to advocate for department action on a state level to address the issues outlined in the summary. 3. Re‐engage and move forward plans for the Alaska Recovery Center in collaboration with the State of Alaska and the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. 4. Anchorage Housing Market Analysis This Housing Market Analysis was funded by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant, a program of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and overseen by the Municipal Department of Planning, May 2012. The recommendation below will also be considered as a strategy under the Consolidated Plan.  Set maximum lot sizes and require minimum residential densities in certain zoning districts. This recommendation is noted by the Analysis: Provisionally adopted T21 includes maximum lot sizes for single family in R‐2M and a proposed amendment will also include R3. Limits single family use in R‐3 and R‐4 and includes a minimum density in R‐4A for mixed‐use projects.

312 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XXXV. SP 60 Homelessness Strategy

A. Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Project Homeless Connect is an annual one‐stop shop which links essential services for the homeless and at‐ risk or imminently at‐risk individuals and households. The PHC collects data from project participants and uses the information to invite new vendors or services to future events. In addition, the PHC information is collated and used in determining Anchorage’s Point In Time count as well as the Housing Inventory Chart. The effort to collect data during this one‐day event is the cornerstone for establishing data used in the Anchorage Continuum of Care (CoC), and will be used in the city’s upcoming Ten Year Plan. The Needs Assessment Section of this Consolidated Plan presents helpful information in understanding the reasons why households are homeless or at‐risk and whether or not they are accessing mainstream services. B. Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons Over the past year and a half, the Municipality’s HAND Commission and its Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness (HCOSH) have spent months assessing the needs of homeless persons, in particular emergency shelter and affordable housing. According to data from AKHMIS as well as discussions between the DHHS Director and Catholic Social Services Executive Director, there is a deep understanding for the need of additional emergency shelter beds. Data collected in 2012 during scheduled “time” counts, shows there is a lack of emergency shelter beds ranging from 108 to 29. Most importantly, the months that showed the greatest need was January and December; both months are the coldest in Anchorage. Data collected in 2011 showed the same need. This Consolidated Plan outlines the use of HUD monies toward homeless services facilities, as evidenced in Section NA 50 Non‐Housing Community Development Needs and is given a high priority in SP 25 Priority Needs. Transitional housing is currently under review by the Ten Year Plan, which will present findings and recommendations later this year (2013). The Ten Year Plan is overseen by the HCOSH. SP60 Table 1 Number of Homeless Individuals vs Available Emergency Shelter Beds Number of Emergency Date Difference Homeless Individuals Shelter Beds* 1/25/2012 428 320 ‐108

4/25/2012 359 280 ‐79

8/25/2012 309 280 ‐29

12/25/2012 317 280 ‐96

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 313

C. 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. Under the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), the Municipal DHHS provides direct emergency financial assistance to households who are literally homeless or will imminently lose their residence. This financial assistance is provided through HUD ESG dollars. Under HUD Emergency Solutions Grant there are four categories of homelessness:85 1. Literally homeless individuals/families 2. Individuals/families who will imminently (within 14 days) lose their primary nighttime residence with no subsequent residence, resources or support networks 3. Unaccompanied youth or families with children/youth who meet the homeless definition under another federal statute and 3 additional criteria 4. Individuals/families fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence with no subsequent residence, resources or support networks The Continuum of Care is working towards a plan to create new permanent housing beds for the chronically homeless populations including: RurAL CAP’s Housing First Project designating 5 additional beds; and, the Municipality working with Veterans Health Officer to add 35 VA vouchers to 2013 HIC, as well as include 10 additional VASH vouchers. This will total 87 beds in twelve months during 2013. Also, the Municipality will work with Cook Inlet Housing Authority and AHFC to assess building additional housing for chronically homeless using CDBG monies; and, Anchorage Community Mental Health Services will advocate for development of Housing First programs for the mentally ill. The Municipality in coordination with the Alaska Homeless Management Information System (AKHMIS) submitted its 2013 AHAR Supplemental Report on Homeless Veterans. This report helps the community to gauge number of Veteran individuals and homeless in the community.

85 Determining Homeless and At‐Risk Status, Income, and Disability, Presentation by HUD, Community Planning and Development, December 20, 2011 Homeless Definition Final Rule, Consolidated Plan Regulations: 24 CFR Parts 91, SHP 582.301(b) and SPC 583.301(b).

314 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

D. Help low‐income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low‐income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving assistance from public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education or youth needs. The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children’s Services (OCS) is mandated by AS 47.18.300‐390 to implement a foster care transition program for youth. The municipality does not have jurisdiction over the State. However, the Anchorage CoC, of which the municipality is a Board member, has supported the Alaska Homeless Coalition/CoC’s work with The Alaska Council on the Homeless to develop a special section (F‐2) in Alaska's 10‐Year plan that addresses youth aging out of foster care. The Plan includes strategies such as pursuing Family Unification Program vouchers when available and advocating for prioritization of youth leaving foster care for admission to residential vocational‐tech centers. This past year, AHFC redirected HOME funds to launch a new TBRA program targeting youth aging out of foster care. When fully implemented, the program is expected to assist approximately 20 young adults in the CoC aged between 18 and 20 yrs.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 315

XXXVI. SP 65 Lead based paint Hazards

A. Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards The following describes actions that will take place in 2013 to evaluate and reduce the number of housing units containing lead‐based paint hazards in order to increase the inventory of lead‐safe housing available to extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income families. HUD regulations require that the Consolidated Plan examine lead‐based paint hazards and develop a strategy for reducing them. The Annual Action Plan describes the Municipality’s proposed actions for the coming program year to evaluate and reduce lead‐based paint hazards. Based on housing age/occupant income data provided by HUD's Community Planning and Development demographic data, 51,825 (50.02 percent) of the occupied housing units were built before 1979. Of these, 29,593 (47 percent) are owner‐occupied and 22,232 (55 percent) are rental units. As a point of reference, the Municipality’s records for the Minor Repair Program show a very low percentage of instances where LBP needed to be remediated in a project. During the time‐span from 2003 through 2012, the Minor Repair Program assisted 319 homeowners. Out of those, 136 were constructed prior to 1978 and required testing for LBP. Of those 136 units tested, 12 were positive and required remediation, which constitutes 9%. Granted, these calculations are not scientifically derived. No complex‐statistical analysis was performed; thus, no mathematically generated confidence factor was obtained. However, one could comfortably give a deviation 20% of the 9%, resulting in a plus or minus of 1.8% (9% ± 1.8% = 7.2%, 10.8%). Therefore, in the total population of houses constructed prior to 1978 (51,825), the number of homes with LBP may range from 3,731 to 5,597. Lead‐based paint in Anchorage’s housing continues to be a rare occurrence. Nevertheless, all CDBG‐ and HOME‐funded programs dealing with rehabilitation of older homes include funds to address lead‐based paint according to Part 35 regulations. B. How actions are listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards? On March 7, 2008, the State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health, Section of Epidemiology published Bulletin No. 7. The title of Bulletin No. 7 was Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance, Non‐Occupational Exposures in Adults and Children – Alaska, 1995–2006. Alaska regulations require laboratories and health care providers to report all blood lead level (BLL) results ≥ 10 micrograms per deciliter (µ/dL) to the Section of Epidemiology. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) considers BLLs ≥ 10 µ/dL to be a health concern for children aged >6 (subsequent CDC announcements have renamed the “level of concern” to “reference value” and lowered the value to ≥5 µ/dL). The State received BLL reports on 1,141 children during the 10‐year period that were aged >6. Of them, 17 (1.5%) had elevated BLL that were ≥ 10 µ/dL. Sources of exposure included 6 (35%) foreign/adoptee from abroad, 2 (12%) playing with air gun pellets, 2 (12%) pica (eating non‐nutritive substances), and 7 (41%) unknown. The bulletin did not specify from where the children came. Also included in the bulletin were similar reports for children aged 6‐17, and adults aged 18+. Significant sources included indoor firing ranges, accounting for 70 persons, which constituted 81% of the reported “levels of concern”. The second highest source for all age groups was children born abroad or adopted (10%). People casting lead as a hobby constituted the 3rd highest source, amounting to 3.4%. Contamination through LBP didn’t make the list. Lastly, among children >6 years tested from 1997‐2001 (according to the CDC), the proportion who had elevated BLLs was lower in Alaska than in the United States (1.5% vs. 5.1% respectively).

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 317

C. How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures? CSD will continue to collaborate with State and local agencies, nonprofit groups, and the private sector to reduce housing‐related lead‐based paint hazards, especially for low‐income families and children. To implement this strategy, CSD has developed lead‐based paint Policies and Procedures in compliance with 24 CFR 35 (Lead‐Based Paint Poisoning Prevention in Certain Residential Structures) which are incorporated into all its programs. These include acquisition, rehabilitation, and rental‐assistance programs funded by CDBG and HOME. Where program‐specific policies impose funding caps per client or per unit, these caps may be waived when costs required address lead‐based paint testing, evaluations, assessments and mitigation cause the project to exceed program limits.

318 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

XXXVII. SP 70 Anti‐Poverty Strategy

A. Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty‐Level Families There are many programs within the Municipality coordinating efforts towards reducing the number of poverty level families. The listed programs below are identified in the HAND and HCOSH’s work on the Consolidated Plan, and will also be included in the jurisdiction’s Ten Year Plan. The HAND and HCOSH are working with the community to identify the number of families living in poverty, raise awareness of this issue by documenting numbers in the Consolidated Plan, 2013‐2017, and subsequent Annual Action Plans. Also, this issue will be addressed in the jurisdiction’s Ten Year Plan on Homelessness. The HAND and HCOSH have identified the following projects in coordinating this effort: The Child in Transition/Homeless Project, Project Homeless Connect, AKHMIS, and Anchorage’s Continuum of Care. Some of these projects are outlined in greater detail in B‐C below. B. How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan 1. Alaska Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) AKHMIS provides the Anchorage community an opportunity to examine how and who provides homeless services, the number of persons who are homeless and non‐homeless, demographic information, and how local figures compare with other cities across the country. Most importantly, the AKHMIS information provides a landscape of persons living below the poverty line (in shelters, transitional housing, or seeking emergency financial assistance for housing). These figures can be compared to U.S. Census Tract numbers that are also available to consumers. By understanding the scope of homelessness and number of households living below the poverty line, policy makers, supportive agencies, and local, and state agencies can develop strategies to address the issue. Below is an outline of how the Anchorage community is evaluating the issue with the assistance of AKHMIS, Project Homeless Connect, and, the Housing And Neighborhood Development Commission’s Oversight Subcommittee on Homelessness. 2. Identify those living below the Poverty Line through the Alaska Homeless Management Information System (AKHMIS) Funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Continuum of Care Grant and Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), the AKHMIS Project hosts a web‐based computerized case management data system for local and Balance of State emergency homeless shelters, transitional housing providers and permanent supportive housing providers. In tandem with HUD requirements, HMIS implementation presents communities with an opportunity to re‐examine how homeless services are provided in their community, and to make informed decisions, and develop appropriate action steps. The AKHMIS computerized data collection is designed to capture client level information over time on the characteristics and service needs of men, women and children experiencing homelessness. AKHMIS adopted the use of Bowman System's ServicePoint (SP) as its platform for a coordinated community‐wide HMIS. SP is a secure web‐based application, which can be accessed through encrypted Internet connections from program offices. SP is the most widely used HMIS application in the country. The DHHS staff manages the AKHMIS project and provides oversight, training and technical assistance. Aggregated, anonymous data from AKHMIS is used to generate reports for federal, state and local funders. The effective implementation of AKHMIS benefits homeless and near homeless persons, homeless service providers, agency heads, public policy makers and the community as a whole.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 319

In 2012, a total of 23 agencies with 53 projects in Anchorage, and 19 agencies with 37 projects in Balance of State are entering data into the AKHMIS. The majority of the clients served by these agencies were homeless, but a substantial number of them were near homeless people who received assistance to prevent them from becoming homeless (Emergency Services Grant, Homeless Prevention Funds for example). 3. AKHMIS and Identifying Extent of Homelessness For Anchorage’s Point In Time Count and Housing Inventory Chart (note – PIT and HIC not yet finalized for 2013) AKHMIS is used for Anchorage’s Point In Time (PIT) Count and the Housing Inventory Chart (HIC), both necessary in order to identify the number of homeless in need for Continuum of Care grant applications. AKHMIS is for de‐duplicating numbers for the PIT in comparison with annual Project Homeless Connect (PHC) events. For example, there were a total of 1,062 persons in the 2011 count compared to 1,062 in the 2012 count, resulting in a decrease of 4.6% (51) sheltered persons. De‐duplication methods showed the drop was primarily related to a drop of persons in households with only one adult and one child: 405 persons in 2011 versus 405. Other factors relating to the reduction were agencies providing services for this target group accounted for larger families seeking services for longer periods of time rather than assistance for a shorter period of time. This is substantiated by the offset of an increased number of unsheltered persons in households with one adult and one child that more than doubled. Figures show an increase from 24 in 2011 to 24 in 2012 for a total increase of 13 persons. Further, households without children accounted for 10 more in 2012 than 2011. AKHMIS is also critical in determining HIC. For example, data collected for the 2012 HIC shows that thirty‐one beds were added to the Emergency Shelter bed inventory. This addition was due primarily to including the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Domiciliary in the emergency shelter inventory. 4. Identify those Living Below the Poverty Line through Project Homeless Connect The AKHMIS team organized data entry volunteers from the community and entered data for Project Homeless Connect (PHC), held January 29, 2013 at the Egan Center. A total of 730 individuals were identified as participants, of whom 61% were male, 71% were 41 years of age or older; and 85% was single adults. Of the total participants, 81% were recognized as fitting the HUD or AK Criteria definition of homelessness. To see detailed reports for both 2011 PHC events, view the DHHS website @ http://www.muni.org/Departments/health/services/Documents/AKHMIS/PHCReport2011.1.pdf (note: do not have 2013 posted yet – work is being done on website). 5. AHMIS and Anchorage’s Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) The AKHMIS is responsible for generating data to HUD for Anchorage’s Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR). HUD has placed increased emphasis on HMIS to learn more about people who are receiving homeless assistance. AHAR participation is used in the scoring of the Continuum of Care funding application each year. The greater the number of accepted tables completed in the CoC under AKHMIS, the higher the CoC score for the homeless management information system section. The Anchorage AHAR reporting period is October 1, 2011 – September 30, 2012 and pulls data from participating emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing Programs in the city. The AHAR also includes veterans in shelters and housing. The AHAR includes demographic data (required data elements), such as gender, race, age, the last zip code used, and disability. The AHAR also measures bed utilization and length of stay, or the amount of time clients stay in a program. All of the data is reported on an aggregate level, no program level or client level data is given to HUD.

320 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

6. Working to Address all Aspects of Poverty, Homelessness, and Affordable Housing Opportunities In 2010/2011, during the winter season two churches provided 78 bed‐nights under the Emergency Cold Weather Shelter System. In the 2011/2012 winter season a total of 198 shelter bed‐nights were provided to 44 persons, including children and adults. In 2012/2013 as of February 13, 2013 a total of 455 shelter bed‐ nights have been provided for 76 persons, including children and adults. The 2012/2013 numbers for bed‐ nights has already more than doubled compared to last season. However, the total persons assisted did not double, indicating that families, for a number of reasons, have required longer lengths of stay for bed‐nights in the Emergency Cold Weather Shelter System. Participating churches include: Anchorage City Church, Central Lutheran Church, ChangePoint, Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church, and new participants in 2012‐2013, Muldoon Community Assembly and Cornerstone Church. (The 2012‐2013 shelter bed‐nights data also include numbers from Salvation Army/McKinnell House and Catholic Social Services/Clare House.) The success of the Emergency Cold Weather Shelter System is due to the collaborative efforts of the six churches listed above and their volunteers, along with the Beyond Shelter Steering Committee partner agencies which include: Anchorage School District – Child in Transition, AK 2‐1‐1, AWAIC, Catholic Social Services ‐ Homeless Family Services and Clare House, Christian Health Associates, Crosspoint Community Church, Drawbridge Consulting, NeighborWorks Anchorage, New Life Development Inc., Safe Harbor Inn, The Municipality of Anchorage, The Salvation Army ‐ McKinnell House, and United Way of Anchorage. Applications to become an emergency shelter are available online on the Department of Health and Human Services website www.muni.org/health along with information on the Cold Weather Plan policies.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 321

XXXVIII. SP 80 Monitoring

A. Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long‐term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements Monitoring is an integral management technique and a Government Accountability Office (GAO) standard. It is an ongoing process that assesses the quality of a program participant’s performance over a period of time. Monitoring provides information about program participants that is critical for making informed judgments about program effectiveness and management efficiency. It also helps in identifying instances of fraud, waste and abuse. It is the principal means by which the Department:  Ensures that programs and technical areas are carried out efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations;  Assists program participants in improving their performance, developing or increasing stability and augmenting their management and technical skills; and,  Stays abreast of the efficacy of CPD‐administered programs and technical areas within the communities these programs serve. These regulations are designed to be consistent with the Departmental Management Control Program Handbook 1840.1 and the HUD Monitoring Desk Guide: Policies and Procedures for Program Oversight. Handbook 1840.1 can be found at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/handbooks/cfoh/18401/index.cfm. The Desk Guide is located at: http://hudatwork.hud.gov/mgmtbudget/deskguide.pdf. These regulations apply to monitoring the following programs and technical areas: 1. Programs 1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement, Small Cities and Insular Areas Programs; 2. State‐Administered Community Development Block Grant Program; 3. Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, Economic Development Initiative (EDI), and Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI); 4. Disaster Recovery Assistance; 5. HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME); 6. Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG); 7. Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA); 8. Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program for Homeless Individuals (SECTION 8 SRO); 9. Shelter Plus Care (S+C); 10. Supportive Housing Program (SHP); 11. Empowerment Zones – Round II (EZs); 12. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); 13. Rural Housing and Economic Development (RHED);

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 323

14. Community Development Technical Assistance (CDTA) Cooperative Agreements; 15. Youthbuild; 16. Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re‐housing Program (HPRP); 17. Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 (NSP‐1); 18. Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 (NSP‐2); and, 19. Community Development Block Grant Recovery Program (CDBG‐R). 2. Technical Areas 1. Citizen Participation; 2. Consolidated Plan; 3. Environment; 4. Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO); 5. Labor; 6. Lead Hazards; 7. Acquisition and Relocation; 8. Flood Insurance Protection; 9. Alternative Monitoring Formats; and, 10. Close‐Outs (reserved). 3. CSD Approach to Monitoring Staff view monitoring, not as a once a year or periodic exercise, but as an ongoing process involving continuous communication and evaluation. Such a process involves frequent telephone/email contacts, written communications, analysis of reports and audits, and periodic meetings. It is the responsibility of staff to keep fully informed concerning participant compliance with program requirements and the extent to which technical assistance is needed. The overriding goal of monitoring is to determine compliance, prevent/identify deficiencies and design corrective actions to improve or reinforce program participant performance. As part of this process, staff should be alert for fraud, waste and mismanagement or situations with potential for such abuse. Where possible, any identified deficiencies in need of corrective action should be handled through discussion, negotiation, or technical assistance in a manner that maximizes local discretion. Monitoring also provides opportunities to identify program participant accomplishments as well as successful management/implementation/evaluation techniques that might be replicated by other CPD program participants. CSD monitors CDBG and HOME Grantees and Subrecipients using the following methods:  Quarterly Reports  On‐site Inspections  Desk reviews  Davis Bacon compliance reviews  CHDO certifications/recertifications  Review of Audited Financial Statements, Federal, State and Single Audits

324 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

B. Federal Regulations Federal regulations for monitoring HUD‐funded programs are found in 24 CFR 84.51 for nonprofits and 24 CFR 85.40 for State and local agencies. These regulations require grantees to monitor subgrant‐supported activities (program sponsors). Under section 84.51 it states that grant recipients are responsible for managing and monitoring each project, program and sub‐award, including compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A‐133, “Audits of States, Local Governments and Non‐Profit Organizations.” Regulations at 24CFR 85.40 contain similar language that require grantees to manage the day‐to‐day operations of grant and sub‐grant‐supported activities to ensure compliance with federal requirements and that performance goals are achieved. Section 85.40 mandates that grantees submit annual performance reports to HUD. 24CFR 583.330 codifies federal regulations related to SHP and cites 24 CFRP art 85, it prohibits conflict of interests by grantees and sub‐grantees. There regulations reference OMB Circulars A‐87 and A‐122, which require that costs incurred by sub‐grantees using federal program funds be reasonable and adequately documented. C. HUD Regional Offices CPD regional and field offices play an important and active role in educating, instructing, and providing guidance to grantees on their federally required monitoring responsibilities. As grantees monitored their project sponsors and generally complied with the federal monitoring regulations, it also identified some areas of grantee monitoring that can be improved. HUD fulfills its monitoring role through various means. It was indicated that most of the CPD field offices participate in annual live video startup conferences for new and existing grantees. These conferences are sponsored by CPD field offices, and the training is provided by CPD field staff and HUD contractors. The curriculum covers topics that are germane to monitoring, such as project sponsor management, annual progress reports, eligibility checklists, and financial management. Federal regulations such as 24 CFR Parts 84 and 85 are distributed to the grantees, or the grantees are given Internet links to the material. Other conference topics include compliance with OMB Circular A‐133, conflict‐of‐interest issues, and the need for written agreements between the grantee and the project sponsor.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 325

XXXIX. Municipality of Anchorage Citizen Participation Plan

CSD must develop and follow a Citizen Participation Plan to receive Federal funds for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) programs. The Citizen Participation Plan covers the 5‐year Consolidated Plan, each subsequent Annual Action Plan, each year’s Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, and any Amendments to the Plans. A. 1. Purpose This Citizen Participation Plan sets forth the policies and procedures for citizen participation in Anchorage’s Consolidated Planning Process. CSD is designated with responsibility for the citizen participation process. This Citizen Participation Plan encourages citizens to participate in the Consolidated Planning process from the beginning. It outlines the procedures for community approval of the Consolidated Plan, for addressing concerns and complaints, and for making amendments to the plan after approval. B. 2. Opportunities CSD urges citizens to voice their concerns and share their ideas concerning CDBG, HOME, and ESG program funds. It welcomes comments and suggestions regarding the Citizen Participation Plan, the Consolidated Plan (including Annual Action Plans), and the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). To encourage citizen participation, CSD will undertake the following activities each year: 1. Hold at least four public hearings at different times during the program year. 2. Offer public comment periods for the draft versions of the Anchorage Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan, each Annual Action Plan, and each CAPER. 3. Consult with various groups to review needs, strategies, actions, projects, and performance, including the HAND Commission, and other groups as appropriate. 4. Distribute review copies of the draft Anchorage Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan, each Annual Action Plan, and each CAPER to the HAND Commission, to the Federation of Community Councils, Public Housing Agencies, housing providers, social service agencies, Municipal residents, and other groups as appropriate and upon request. 5. Provide the public with notice of citizen participation opportunities through email distribution list kept for this purpose, and announcement of public hearing dates through newspaper publication a minimum of one week before date of public hearing. Related information may be posted on the CSD web site. C. 3. Public Hearings and Meetings CSD will hold at least two public hearings per year to obtain public comments on needs, strategies, actions, projects, and performance. If a need exists and resources permit, CSD will include other public meetings in addition to the hearings. CSD will hold public hearings and provide opportunities for public comment at the meetings of the HAND. To encourage the participation of public housing residents, CSD will try to hold one public meeting in a public housing community or in a place convenient to one or more public housing community. Public Hearing #1—Proposed Needs, Strategies, and Projects CSD will hold the first public hearing of each year to obtain citizens’ views and to respond to proposals and questions. CSD will hold the first public hearing before the 30 day public comment period begins for the Consolidated Plan and each Annual Action Plan. The public hearing will contain a discussion of the following items:

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 327

 The amount of assistance the Municipality expects to receive in the coming program year for the CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs, including program income.  The range of activities that the Municipality may undertake, including the estimated amount that will benefit low‐ and moderate‐income persons.  The priority needs in the Consolidated Plan.  The 5‐year strategies in the Consolidated Plan designed to address those needs.  A discussion of the programs and activities necessary in the upcoming program year to carry out those strategies. Public Hearing #2—Annual Action Plan CSD will hold the second public hearing of each year to obtain citizens’ views and comments on the draft Annual Action Plan. This public hearing will be held during the 30 day public comment period. Public Hearing #3— Annual Action Plan The third public hearing of each year will be conducted at the Municipal Assembly during the official approval of the Annual Action Plan; this meeting occurs after the 30 day comment period on the draft has ended. Public Hearing #4—CAPER: Performance CSD will hold the fourth public hearing no later than one week before the CAPER is due to HUD. CSD will hold hearings covered by this Citizen Participation Plan at times and locations convenient to potential and actual beneficiaries, and with accommodation for persons with disabilities. The Municipal Assembly may hold additional public hearings to approve Plans and Plan amendments, appropriate grants, and allocate and award grant funds. D. 4. Public Comment Period To provide Anchorage’s residents with maximum feasible input into the Citizen Participation Plan, Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans and CAPER, CSD provides the following public comment periods:  Citizens may comment on the draft Citizen Participation Plan and its substantial amendment(s) for 30 days from the publication date.  Citizens may comment on the draft Consolidated Plan, each draft Annual Action Plan, and any draft substantial amendment(s) to these documents for 30 days from the publication date.  Citizens may comment on the draft Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for 15 days from the publication date. To make comments on these documents, citizens may:  Write to “Citizen Comments”, Community Safety and Development, P.O. Box 196650, Anchorage, Alaska, 99519–6650.  Send an email to CSD (or call 343‐4881).  Attend the public meetings and hearings described above. The participation of all citizens is encouraged and reasonable accommodation will be made for those individuals with disabilities who need auxiliary aids, services, or special modifications. CSD will include a summary of citizen comments regarding each document and a summary of any comments not accepted (and the reasons why particular comments were not accepted). Public comments are considered to be any oral or written testimony provided at any public hearings, or any written testimony provided during the citizen comment period.

328 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

E. 5. Consultation Activities The HAND Commission serves in an advisory role in the development and approval of the Consolidated Plan, Action Plans, CAPERs and Substantial Amendments. CSD will also consult with other groups as appropriate, including but not limited to the Cook Inlet Housing Authority, the Anchorage Coalition on Homelessness, Affordable Housing Partnership, Federation of Community Councils, Community Councils, and social service agencies. Additionally, it will consult with the Alaska Housing Finance Authority regarding public housing needs, comprehensive grant program activities, neighborhood improvement programs, and resident programs and services. These groups may provide comments on the draft Consolidated Plan and draft Annual Action Plans, including needs and proposed strategies, actions, projects, and substantial amendments. F. 6. Distribution of Draft Documents CSD will make copies of the draft Citizen Participation Plan, the Consolidated Plan, each Annual Action Plan, and each CAPER available at the following locations:  Neighborhoods  Public Library  The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation  Cook Inlet Housing Authority  Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services CSD will make the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, and CAPERs available in both print and electronic versions as requested. It will also make these documents available in a format accessible to persons with disabilities upon request. G. 7. Notification of Public Participation Opportunities CSD will provide citizens with reasonable opportunities for comment on the Citizen Participation Plan, the Consolidated Plan, each Annual Action Plan, and each CAPER. CSD will place a public notice concerning the availability of these documents in one or more newspapers of general circulation. Notice may also be sent out by e‐mail. Citizens may send a request to CSD to be added to the email distribution list. CSD may also provide notice in a variety of additional ways, including:  Display advertisement in general circulation newspapers.  Electronic notification via facsimile.  Direct mailing.  Posting of notices on bulletin boards, public counters, and flyers in public agencies and community facilities.  Posting on CSD’s Web site. Amendments to the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans Consolidated Plan regulations (§91.505) indicate that the Anchorage Housing and Community Development Plan (including both the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans) may be changed in two ways after it is adopted by the Municipality and approved by HUD. The process used depends upon whether the change will be an amendment, which is non‐substantive, or a substantial amendment. The Municipality must amend its approved Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan before it may make any of the following changes:

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 329

 A change in the allocation priorities or a change in the method of distributing funds.  The addition of a new activity, using CDBG, HOME or ESG funds (including program income), not previously described in the Annual Action Plan.  A change in the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an activity previously approved in an Annual Action Plan. CSD will make the amendment public and will notify HUD about the amendment. CSD will ensure that all amendments are contained in the CAPER submitted to HUD after the end of the program year. CSD reserves the right to make non‐substantive changes to the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan without opening a public comment period. Non‐Substantial Amendments A non‐substantial amendment includes any changes to the plans not considered a substantial amendment. Substantial Amendments Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan regulations consider certain amendments to be substantial amendments that require a public comment period and additional citizen participation. CSD defines a substantial amendment as:  Changes in the use of CDBG funds from one HUD, CDBG‐eligible activity to another (§91.05(c)(1)). Budget increases or decreases, by themselves, do not constitute a substantial amendment.  Any new project not previously included in the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan.  A change in project location if the project moves outside of previously identified geographical boundaries or results in a different service area.  The target population benefiting from an activity or project changes from the previously identified target population.  An increase or reduction in the amount budgeted for a project or activity by more than 50 percent of the original budget or by more than $100,000, whichever is greater. Public Participation and Approval Process for Substantial Amendments If CSD should need to make a substantial amendment to its approved Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan, it will follow the public participation and approval process below, which is substantially similar to that for Annual Action Plans. Notification of Substantial Amendment CSD will notify the community of any proposed substantial amendment that is available for comment. Notification will be provided, at a minimum, by placing a public notice in one or more newspaper of general circulation and by distributing the notice to interested parties through CSD’s’ e‐mail distribution list. (Interested parties may be added to the e‐mail distribution list by sending an e‐mail request to CSD. Public Comment Period The public will be invited to comment on the proposed substantial amendment for a minimum of 30 days. During the public comment period, CSD will hold at least one public hearing to allow the public to make comments in person. Comments will also be accepted in writing during the public comment period. Consultations Depending on the nature of the amendment, the public participation process may also include consultation with other organizations. CSD will provide the substantial amendment to all members of the Housing And Neighborhood Development Commission for input, and will attempt to hold the public hearing concurrently with a Housing And Neighborhood Development Commission meeting. Comments Considered

330 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

CSD will consider any comments received in writing or at the public hearing. It will make any appropriate changes to the amendment in response to the comments and consultation(s) and attach a summary of these comments along with a summary of Neighborhood’s response to them, to the substantial amendment. Final Approval The substantial amendment will be submitted to the Municipal Assembly for approval. H. 8. Obtaining Citizen Comments CSD will summarize oral comments from public hearings and any written comments it receives concerning the Consolidated Plan, each Annual Action Plan, or each CAPER. CSD will consider all comments received during the public comment period, make any appropriate changes to the subject document in response to the comments, and attach a summary of the comments, along with a summary of the CSD’s response to them, to the document. Members of the public may obtain copies of the full version of written or public hearing comments by contacting CSD at 343‐4881. Outreach to Persons with Disabilities and Non‐English Speaking People To provide full access to programs under the Consolidated Plan for non‐English speaking persons, CSD may undertake the following actions:  Communicate with organizations serving various ethnic groups to insure adequate involvement with this community.  Disseminate program materials and public hearing notices to nonprofit organizations serving the Municipality's culturally diverse population.  Publish notices of public hearings, information availability, and citizen meetings for the proposed Consolidated Plan (and any substantial amendments) in non‐English publications available within the Anchorage community.  Provide interpreters (if available) at public hearings when CSD expects a significant number of non‐ English speaking residents to attend, or upon request. To provide full access to programs under the Consolidated Plan for persons with disabilities, CSD will undertake one or more of the following actions:  Select only sites for public hearings that are accessible for persons with physical disabilities.  Provide a verbal summary or recorded summary of the Consolidated Plan to persons with visual impairments.  Provide sign‐language interpreters or written translation at public hearings when CSD expects a significant number of people with hearing loss or deaf people to attend, or upon request.  Conduct outreach to community organizations that represent persons with disabilities as part of the Consolidated Plan process. Non‐English speaking residents, persons with a hearing impairment, sight‐impaired and blind individuals, and other persons with physical disabilities and special needs may call, write, fax, appear in person, or send an E‐ mail to CSD: in person; PO Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519‐6650 (mail); (907) 343–4881 (tel); (907) 343‐ 6831 (fax); e‐mail; or (907) 343‐4468 (TTY/TDD). Public Information and Access to Records Citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties may review information and records relating to the Consolidated Plan. The Municipality will provide public access to information about the HUD programs under its Consolidated Plan, including the following documents that CSD maintains on file:

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 331

 Federal Laws: Summary of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977; Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended: the National Affordable Housing Act (as amended).  Federal Regulations: CDBG, HOME and ESG Program regulations; related issuances and provisions (i.e. Uniform Relocation Assistance).  Consolidated Plans, Annual Action Plans, and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports.  Information about the Municipality’s CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs.  Anchorage’s Citizen Participation Plan for 2008–2012.  CSD’s HUD information: grant agreements; audit records; evaluation reports; approval letters; related correspondence.  CSD’s public meeting records: public meetings, informal meetings with civic and neighborhood groups, and related notifications pertaining to programs under the Consolidated Plan. Individuals may access many of these documents at no cost by the Internet at the Municipality of Anchorage’s website (http://www.muni.org/Departments/health/services/neighborhoods/Pages/Default.aspx), at CSD’s office, Municipal libraries, or by contacting CSD staff. Many federal documents may be accessed at www.hudclips.org. To locate records and arrange space for viewing, CSD requests written notice a minimum of 2 days before review. Review of records that are at least 2 years old will require a 5‐day notice. Requests for multiple copies of the same documents may be subject to a per‐page copying charge that will not exceed the copying charge to the Municipality. Technical Assistance Upon request, CSD may provide technical assistance to neighborhood groups, nonprofit organizations, and other organizations representative of low‐ and moderate‐income people who wish to develop proposals for funding assistance under any programs covered by the Consolidated Plan. CSD will determine the level and type of technical assistance on a case‐by‐case basis. Additionally, CSD staff will work with organizations funded under the Annual Action Plan to ensure that funds are being spent for their intended purpose and within the rules and regulations of the Federal government. Complaints Municipal procurement codes govern the submission of complaints regarding the competitive award of funding. Residents should file such complaints with the Municipal Purchasing Department according to procedures described in procurement documents. Citizens should submit all other complaints to CSD, which will provide a substantive written response to every written citizen complaint related to the Citizen Participation Plan, the Consolidated Plan, each Annual Action Plan, Substantial Amendments to these Plans, and the CAPER within 15 working days. To lodge a formal complaint, write to “Complaints,” care of: Community Safety and Development (CSD) P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519–6650 Such substantive complaints must address the following issues (specified in HUD regulations):  The Municipality’s description of needs and objectives in its Consolidated Plan is plainly inconsistent with available facts and data.

332 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

 The Municipality’s proposed activities are plainly inappropriate to meeting the needs and objectives identified by the Municipality.  The Municipality’s application does not comply with HUD requirements regulating programs under the Consolidated Plan or other applicable laws.  The Municipality’s application proposes activities that are otherwise ineligible as specified in applicable HUD regulations. CSD will attach a summary of citizen comments and complaints and a summary of any comments not accepted (and the reasons why CSD did not accept them) to the final Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, CAPER, or Substantial Amendment. Municipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Initiatives and Partnerships Division Community Safety and Development (CSD) 825 L Street, Room 506 Anchorage, AK 99501 Mail: P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519‐6650 Phone: 907‐343‐4881 FAX: 907‐ 249‐7858 E‐mail: [email protected]

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 333

Appendix A

CHAS Definitions A full data dictionary is provided (see here: Data Documentation), but is targeted to advanced users of the CHAS data working with the raw data files. This section defines some terms that may be unfamiliar to newer users of the CHAS or Census data: HAMFI – This acronym stands for HUD Area Median Family Income. This is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, in order to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. HAMFI will not necessarily be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that are made (For full documentation of these adjustments, consult the HUD Income Limit Briefing Materials). If you see the terms "area median income" (AMI) or "median family income" (MFI) used in the CHAS, assume it refers to HAMFI. Household – Applied the Census designation of households, which is all people living in a housing unit. Members of a household can be related (see family) or unrelated. Household Income – The CHAS tabulations use adjusted household income, which includes the income of all members of the household at the time of the survey. Family – Applied the Census designation of family, which is related individuals living in the same household. The Census Bureau also tracks subfamilies. Housing Problems – There are four housing problems in the CHAS data: 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost burdened. A household is said to have a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems. Overcrowding – More than 1 person per room. Severe overcrowding – More than 1.5 persons per room. Cost burden – monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceed 30% of monthly income. Severe cost burden – monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceed 50% of monthly income. Elderly – HUD defines elderly as age 62 and up. Individuals age 75 and up are generally recognized as a population with different needs than those 62‐74, so the CHAS data separates these groups. "Elderly" refers to individuals 62‐74, while those 75 and up may be referred to as "extra elderly" or "frail elderly". Disabled – The Census asks a series of questions related to physical and mental handicaps. For the CHAS data, HUD defines disabled as having a "mobility or self‐care limitation"—for example, being unable to run errands outside the house without assistance. Disability questions on the ACS were modified between 2007 and 2008, so HUD is unable to provide tabulations of disability data spanning that break.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 335

Appendix B

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Household Size by Income for HOME Eligibility Monthly Income Household Extremely Low Very Low HOME Low Low/Moderate Median Size Income 30% Income 50% Income 60% Income 80% Income (est.) 1 1,492 2,488 2,985 3,792 4,740 2 1,704 2,842 3,410 4,333 5,417 3 1,917 3,196 3,835 4,875 6,094 4 2,129 3,550 4,260 5,417 7,100 5 2,300 3,838 4,605 5,850 7,313 6 2,471 4,121 4,945 6,283 7,854 7 2,642 4,404 5,285 6,717 8,396 8 2,813 4,688 5,625 7,150 8,938 Affordable Purchase Prices (Without Condo Fee) Interest 5.12% Monthly 0.42667% (Rates Assumes AHFC TEP) Rate 95% of the Median Term 360 2012 Income Limits Purchase‐Price $274,229.00 (Months) Limit 1 Person Household Percent Max Monthly Tax and Principal Add HARP Add AnCHOR of Payment, Purchase Price Income Insurance and Interest ($14,999) ($30,000) Median PITI (35%) 30% 1,492 522.08 180.00 342.08 $62,862.24 $77,861.24 $92,862.24 50% 2,488 870.63 200.00 670.63 $123,236.02 $138,235.02 $153,236.02 60% 2,985 1,044.75 240.00 804.75 $147,883.23 $162,882.23 $177,883.23 80% 3,792 1,327.08 280.00 1,047.08 $192,415.11 $207,414.11 $222,415.11 2 Person Household Percent Max Monthly Tax and Principal Add HARP Add AnCHOR of Payment, Purchase Price Income Insurance and Interest ($14,999) ($30,000) Median PITI (35%) 30% 1,704 596.46 180.00 416.46 $76,529.61 $91,528.61 $106,529.61 50% 2,842 994.58 240.00 754.58 $138,664.45 $153,663.45 $168,664.45 60% 3,410 1,193.50 270.00 923.50 $169,705.07 $184,704.07 $199,705.07 80% 4,333 1,516.67 290.00 1,226.67 $225,415.87 $240,414.87 $255,415.87 3 Person Household Percent Max Monthly Tax and Principal Add HARP Add AnCHOR of Payment, Purchase Price Income Insurance and Interest ($14,999) ($30,000) Median PITI (35%) 30% 1,917 670.83 190.00 480.83 $88,359.35 $103,358.35 $118,359.35 50% 3,196 1,118.54 250.00 868.54 $159,605.77 $174,604.77 $189,605.77 60% 3,835 1,342.25 280.00 1,062.25 $195,202.18 $210,201.18 $225,202.18 80% 4,875 1,706.25 300.00 1,406.25 $258,416.63 $273,415.63 $288,416.63 4 Person Household Percent Max Monthly Tax and Principal Add HARP Add AnCHOR of Payment, Purchase Price Income Insurance and Interest ($14,999) ($30,000) Median PITI (35%) 30% 2,129 745.21 185.00 560.21 $102,945.53 $117,944.53 $132,945.53 50% 3,550 1,242.50 275.00 967.50 $177,790.64 $192,789.64 $207,790.64 60% 4,260 1,491.00 295.00 1,196.00 $219,780.48 $234,779.48 $249,780.48 80% 5,417 1,895.83 310.00 1,585.83 $291,417.39 $306,416.39 $321,417.39

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 337

5 Person Household Percent Max Monthly Tax and Principal Add HARP Add AnCHOR of Payment, Purchase Price Income Insurance and Interest ($14,999) ($30,000) Median PITI (35%) 30% 2,300 805.00 190.00 615.00 $113,014.21 $128,013.21 $143,014.21 50% 3,838 1,343.13 280.00 1,063.13 $195,362.97 $210,361.97 $225,362.97 60% 4,605 1,611.75 295.00 1,316.75 $241,969.85 $256,968.85 $271,969.85 80% 5,850 2,047.50 320.00 1,727.50 $317,450.48 $332,449.48 $347,450.48 6 Person Household Percent Max Monthly Tax and Principal Add HARP Add AnCHOR of Payment, Purchase Price Income Insurance and Interest ($14,999) ($30,000) Median PITI (35%) 30% 2,471 864.79 195.00 669.79 $123,082.89 $138,081.89 $153,082.89 50% 4,121 1,442.29 290.00 1,152.29 $211,748.50 $226,747.50 $241,748.50 60% 4,945 1,730.75 305.00 1,425.75 $262,000.01 $276,999.01 $292,000.01 80% 6,283 2,199.17 325.00 1,874.17 $344,402.38 $359,401.38 $374,402.38 7 Person Household Percent Max Monthly Tax and Principal Add HARP Add AnCHOR of Payment, Purchase Price Income Insurance and Interest ($14,999) ($30,000) Median PITI (35%) 30% 2,642 924.58 200.00 724.58 $133,151.56 $148,150.56 $163,151.56 50% 4,404 1,541.46 295.00 1,246.46 $229,052.85 $244,051.85 $259,052.85 60% 5,285 1,849.75 315.00 1,534.75 $282,030.17 $297,029.17 $312,030.17 80% 6,717 2,350.83 330.00 2,020.83 $371,354.27 $386,353.27 $401,354.27 8 Person Household Percent Max Monthly Tax and Principal Add HARP Add AnCHOR of Payment, Purchase Price Income Insurance and Interest ($14,999) ($30,000) Median PITI (35%) 30% 2,813 984.38 210.00 774.38 $142,301.43 $157,300.43 $172,301.43 50% 4,688 1,640.63 300.00 1,340.63 $246,357.19 $261,356.19 $276,357.19 60% 5,625 1,968.75 320.00 1,648.75 $302,979.15 $317,978.15 $332,979.15 80% 7,150 2,502.50 335.00 2,167.50 $398,306.17 $413,305.17 $428,306.17

338 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Appendix C

State Of the City Data System (CHAS) Data: Affordability Mismatch Output for All Households, 2000 Census Rent 0‐30% ‐ These are units with a current gross rent (rent and utilities) that are affordable to households with incomes at or below 30% of HUD Area Median Family Income. Affordable is defined as gross rent less than or equal to 30% of a household's gross income. Rent 30‐50% ‐ These are units with a current gross rent that are affordable to households with incomes greater than 30% and less than or equal to 50% of HUD Area Median Family Income. Rent 50‐80% ‐ These are units with a current gross rent that are affordable to households with incomes greater than 50% and less than or equal to 80% of HUD Area Median Family Income. Rent > 80% ‐ These are units with a current gross rent that are affordable to households with incomes above 80% of HUD Area Median Family Income. Value 0‐50% ‐ These are homes with values affordable to households with incomes at or below 50% of HUD Area Median Family Income. Affordable is defined as annual owner costs less than or equal to 30% of annual gross income. Annual owner costs are estimated assuming the cost of purchasing a home at the time of the Census based on the reported value of the home. Assuming a 7.9% interest rate and national averages for annual utility costs, taxes, and hazard and mortgage insurance, multiplying income times 2.9 represents the value of a home a person could afford to purchase. For example, a household with an annual gross income of $30,000 is estimated to be able to afford an $87,000 home without having total costs exceed 30% of their annual household income. Value 50‐80% ‐ These are units with a current value that are affordable to households with incomes greater than 50% and less than or equal to 80% of HUD Area Median Family Income. Value > 80% ‐ These are units with a current value that are affordable to households with incomes above 80% of HUD Area Median Family Income.

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 339

Appendix D

Percent of Housing Stock That Are Mobile Homes by Census Tract

Census Number of Mobile Percent of Mobile Homes Total Housing Stock Tract Homes

9.01 33.2% 614 1,850 27.12 21.3% 727 3,411 20 19.7% 303 1,540 18.02 16.2% 363 2,237 7.01 16.1% 335 2,076 28.11 13.1% 362 2,762 17.31 12.7% 276 2,181 8.02 12.0% 235 1,955 26.01 11.0% 181 1,651 7.03 10.2% 235 2,312 1.01 8.5% 167 1,957 1.02 7.6% 147 1,923 17.01 5.5% 158 2,878 8.01 4.7% 122 2,593 26.02 4.1% 78 1,906 29 4.1% 62 1,525 13 3.7% 49 1,323 12 3.5% 75 2,143 19 3.5% 62 1,772 21 3.5% 67 1,918 28.21 3.0% 52 1,720 22.02 3.0% 43 1,429 23.02 2.7% 51 1,919 7.02 2.4% 48 1,972 28.22 2.2% 33 1,503 27.02 1.9% 71 3,680 10 1.4% 31 2,144 14 1.2% 34 2,724 28.12 1.2% 29 2,488 2.04 1.1% 13 1,168

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 341

Census Number of Mobile Percent of Mobile Homes Total Housing Stock Tract Homes

23.01 1.0% 26 2,477 6 0.9% 24 2,547 4 0.7% 10 1,360 17.02 0.7% 14 1,946 28.23 0.7% 13 1,945 2.01 0.5% 7 1,543 2.03 0.4% 14 3,541 18.01 0.4% 8 2,085 2.02 0.0% 0 2,182 3 0.0% 0 1,834 5 0.0% 0 979 9.02 0.0% 0 1,496 11 0.0% 0 511 15 0.0% 0 2,180 16.01 0.0% 0 1,551 16.02 0.0% 0 1,541 17.32 0.0% 0 2,199 22.01 0.0% 0 1,988 23.03 0.0% 0 3,358 24 0.0% 0 1,349 25.01 0.0% 0 1,988 25.02 0.0% 0 2,417 26.03 0.0% 0 2,221 27.11 0.0% 0 2,507 28.13 0.0% 0 1,761 Total 5% 5,139 112,166 Source: 2012 Anchorage Indicators, Housing in Anchorage, found at: http://www.muni.org/Departments/OCPD/Planning/Publications/Anchorage%20Economic%20Indicators/13‐ 2012Indicators‐Housing%20in%20Anchorage.pd

342 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Appendix E

Special Needs Services for Anchorage Population Anchorage Senior Assisted Services Description of Services Senior Care of Alaska Midnight Sun Home Care provides in‐home and personal care services for both clients and family. Specialty is elders but assist with post surgical needs, workers comp injuries, hospice end of life care. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Chugach View/Chugach Manor apartments‐ income limits Family Investment Center Seniors 62+; www.ahfc.us Individuals with disabilities 18+

Chester Park Member owned non‐profit cooperative; approximately 142 www.chesterparkcoop.com units; pets on approval Seniors 55+ Chugiak Senior Center Housing 43 independent apartments; includes utilities and basic cable Seniors 60+ Chugiak Senior Housing 20 apartments; Income limits Denali View Seniors 62+ Connolly Square 20 1‐bedroom apartments; Income limits (NeighborWorks) Seniors 62+ Commodore Park Plaza 24 1‐bedroom apartments. Rent includes all utilities except telephone and cable. Rent subsides available for those who qualify; pets on approval. Seniors 62+ Cook Inlet Housing Authority Kenaitze Pointe – 53 units Tyonek Terrace – 40 units Salamatoff Heights, Chicaloon landing and Knik Corners – 215 units; Income limits Seniors 55+ Seniors 55+,seniors 62+ or disabled George Sullivan Manor 19 1‐bedroom apartments. Rent includes all utilities except telephone and cable. Rent subsidies available for those who qualify; pets on approval. Seniors 62+ Independence Park Manor 1 19 1‐bedroom apartments. Rent includes all utilities except telephone and cable. Rent subsidies available for those who qualify; pets on approval. Seniors 62+ Independence Park Manor II 19 1‐bedroom apartments. Rent includes all utilities except telephone and cable. Rent subsidies available for those who qualify; pets on approval. Jewel Lake Plaza 19 1‐bedroom apartments. Rent includes all utilities except telephone and cable. Rent subsidies available for those who qualify; pets on approval. Seniors 62+ Lumen Park 19‐1‐2 bedroom apartments. Rent subsides available for those who qualify; pets on approval. Seniors 55+ Muldoon Manor 19 1‐bedroom apartments. Rent includes all utilities except telephone and cable. Rent subsidies available for those who qualify; pets on approval. Seniors 62+

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 343

Russian Jack Manor 19 1‐bedroom apartments. Rent includes all utilities except telephone and cable. Rent subsidies available for those who qualify; pets on approval. Seniors 62+ Southside Seniors 48 1‐bedroom units. Income limits; pets on approval. Seniors 55+ Youth Residential Facilities Description of Services Anchorage Alaska Children Services Assist students between ages of 6 – 18 with emotional and behavioral problems Alaska Baptist Family Services Offers mental health services at two residential cottages a pre‐ adolescent cottage for 9‐13 years old and the adolescent cottage for 14‐18 years of age. Denali Family Services Serves children who require intensive behavioral health care services, their families and also individuals. Maintains an active foster care program. Operates a therapeutic pre‐school. For under 21 years of age male/female. The Pathway “Pathways” Home (SCF) A 30 bed long term residential program for adolescent males between the ages of 13 and 18. Rehabilitative facilities for Alaska Native and American Indian males who meet the criteria for severe emotional disturbance Anchorage Quasi‐institutional Description of Services Homes, May 2013 Alaska Center for the Blind Serves 300 people annually, youth through seniors. Offers a low vision clinic, vision rehabilitation, employment placement and public benefits counseling Anchor House Assisted living home for adults who experience severe mental illness. Facility has 31 apartments with a staff of 31 service providers Cordova Center Provides temporary housing, monitoring and transitional services for 192 minimum‐security adult males from the Alaska Department of Corrections. Homeward Bound A one year program that breaks multi‐generational cycles of homelessness, welfare dependence and domestic violence. Must have children under the age of 18 and earn less that 50% of area median income. Glenwood Center Correctional community residential center (CCRC) 90 residents at facility 12/06 for male and female, works with rehabilitation and job search, male and female. Midtown Center Correctional facility halfway house for females 18 years of age and older. Provides temporary housing. Parkview Center Temporary housing, monitoring and transitional services for 112 minimum security adult males. Provides substance abuse counseling, life skills counseling, employment assistance Providence Crisis Recovery Center Provides crisis intervention and stabilization, psychiatric nursing and medication management, 24 hour support, individual and group counseling, information and referral resources, education and coping skills training to return safely into the community for individuals 12 years and older. HIV/AIDS Description of Services Alaskan Aids Assistance Association Provides supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and (Four A’s) their families and in the elimination of the transmission of HIV infection and its stigma and HIV prevention around the state.

344 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

Provides free HIV testing and Anchorage syringe exchange. Veterans Administration HIV counseling, medical care, substance abuse treatment, housing assistance and some medications for qualified veterans Alaska Native Tribal Health Comprehensive case clinical care and treatment for eligible HIV‐ Consortium positive Alaska Native and American Indian clients. Substance Abuse Description of Services Salvation Army Clitheroe Center A comprehensive substance abuse and dual diagnosis treatment program. Provides professional and affordable treatment services to adults who are addicted to alcohol and other drugs. Provides residential services for men and women including dual diagnosis treatment for individuals with mental health issues. Akeela Treatment Services Substance Abuse services: 50 residents, including two 24‐hour staff and 48 clients. Dena A Coy Residential Treatment Program accommodating up to 18 residents that serves pregnant, parenting and non‐parenting women who are experiencing problems related to alcohol and other drugs and experiencing emotional and psychological issues. Ernie Turner Center Mental health and substance abuse services for residential short‐ term and long term treatment for seniors, older adults, women and men for substance abuse, detoxification and halfway house. Genesis House Mental health and substance abuse services. Provides short term and residential long term treatment, outpatient, partial hospitalization/day treatment for persons with co‐occurring mental and substance abuse disorders, women, men, DUI/DWI offenders. Salvation Army Adult Rehab Program A transitional living facility with a 12 step based program providing a six month treatment plan for drug addiction and/or alcoholism as well as co‐occurring psychological disorders. Services are provided for adult males 18 through 65 years of age. Stepping Stones Residential drug and alcohol treatment program offering services for pregnant women and women with children. Average length of stay is one year with a minimum commitment of six months. Capacity is 30 women per year; 15 beds – 2 beds per woman for children. Source: Compiled by the CSD staff for the Consolidated Plan, 2013‐2017

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 345

Appendix F

Census Tract by Community Council and Percentage of Population by Race or Ethnic Group Native Identified American Hawaiian/ by 2 or Census African Indian/Alaska Pacific more Community Council Tract White American Asian Native Islander Other races Eklutna/Chugiak 1.01 86% 1% 1% 5% 0% 1% 6% Birchwood 1.02 83% 1% 2% 5% 0% 1% 7% Eagle River 2.01 80% 3% 3% 5% 1% 1% 8% Eagle River 2.02 84% 2% 3% 4% 0% 1% 6% Eagle River 2.03 86% 3% 3% 2% 0% 1% 5% Eagle River S. Fork 2.04 85% 2% 2% 6% 0% 1% 4% Elmendorf/JBER 3 74% 12% 2% 2% 1% 3% 6% Elmendorf/JBER 4 79% 10% 2% 1% 0% 2% 7% Government Hill 5 52% 7% 16% 8% 3% 6% 8% Mountain View 6 27% 14% 18% 17% 9% 5% 11% Northeast (Muldoon) 7.01 52% 13% 8% 10% 2% 3% 11% Northeast (Muldoon) 7.02 52% 13% 9% 9% 4% 3% 11% Northeast (Muldoon) 7.03 46% 10% 16% 13% 3% 2% 11% Russian Jack Park 8.01 40% 11% 15% 11% 7% 4% 11% Russian Jack Park 8.02 47% 11% 12% 12% 5% 4% 9% Fairview/Airport Heights 9.01 35% 13% 11% 21% 5% 4% 12% Fairview 9.02 46% 15% 10% 8% 7% 4% 10% Fairview 10 57% 7% 6% 16% 3% 2% 8% Downtown 11 66% 7% 4% 16% 1% 1% 5% South Addition 12 88% 1% 3% 3% 1% 1% 4% Turnagain 13 87% 1% 3% 3% 1% 1% 4% North Star 14 56% 6% 9% 12% 3% 4% 10% Rogers Park/Tudor Area 15 74% 5% 6% 6% 2% 1% 6% Airport Heights 16.01 60% 6% 8% 9% 4% 3% 9% University Area 16.02 64% 6% 6% 11% 2% 2% 9%

346 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

University Area, Scenic Foothills 17.01 65% 9% 6% 7% 2% 2% 9% Russian Jack Park 17.02 68% 7% 5% 9% 2% 1% 9% Russian Jack Park 17.31 58% 10% 7% 10% 3% 2% 11% Scenic Foothills 17.32 65% 9% 6% 6% 2% 2% 10% Campbell Park 18.01 64% 5% 9% 9% 1% 3% 8% University Area 18.02 51% 5% 13% 13% 1% 5% 11% Midtown/Tudor Area 19 44% 7% 17% 13% 4% 5% 10% Spenard 20 47% 4% 15% 14% 4% 6% 10% Spenard 21 63% 3% 9% 11% 4% 2% 9% Turnagain 22.01 61% 3% 17% 7% 1% 2% 8% Turnagain 22.02 65% 4% 8% 9% 2% 2% 9% Sand Lake 23.01 73% 2% 10% 5% 1% 1% 7% Sand Lake 23.02 66% 3% 8% 9% 3% 2% 9% Sand Lake 23.03 62% 4% 11% 9% 3% 2% 10% Spenard 24 65% 3% 8% 10% 3% 2% 8% Taku/Campbell 25.01 65% 4% 8% 9% 2% 4% 9% Taku/Campbell 25.02 64% 6% 9% 7% 3% 2% 9% Abbott Loop 26.01 55% 6% 13% 9% 2% 3% 12% Abbott Loop 26.02 63% 4% 12% 8% 2% 3% 9% Abbott Loop 26.03 65% 4% 9% 9% 2% 2% 9% Old Seward/Ocean View 27.02 76% 2% 5% 6% 1% 1% 8% Bay Shore/Klatt 27.11 75% 3% 9% 5% 1% 1% 6% Bay Shore/Klatt 27.12 58% 4% 14% 9% 1% 4% 9% Abbott Loop 28.11 59% 4% 13% 10% 1% 4% 9% Huffman/O'Malley, Mid‐Hillside, Abbott 28.12 84% 2% 5% 4% 0% 1% 5% Rabbit Creek/Bear Valley 28.13 91% 1% 2% 3% 0% 1% 3% Huffman/O'Malley 28.21 84% 2% 4% 4% 0% 1% 5% Rabbit Creek 28.22 89% 1% 2% 4% 0% 1% 4% Rabbit Creek 28.23 87% 2% 4% 3% 0% 1% 4% Girdwood 29 91% 0% 3% 2% 0% 1% 3%

Source: 2010 U.S. Census

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 347

Appendix G

Census Tract with Unemployment Rate Estimate and Percentage of People with Income Below Poverty Level

2010 US Census

Unemployment rate; Percentage of People whose Number of Estimate; Population 16 years Income in the Past 12 months is Census Tracks Census Tract and over below the poverty level ‐ All people 1 1.01 7.7 1.8 2 1.02 8.1 2.5 3 2.01 2.2 4 4 2.02 7 3.1 5 2.03 3.2 1 6 2.04 6.5 0.9 7 3 5.8 4.9 8 4 12.7 7.8 9 5 3 6.7 10 6 14 24.3 11 7.01 9.6 10.4 12 7.02 4.5 16.6 13 7.03 15.8 13.3 14 8.01 13.9 18.9 15 8.02 14.9 16 16 9.01 11.1 23.5 17 9.02 14.5 10.7 18 10 9.7 15.3 19 11 17.8 17.1 20 12 1.3 0.8 21 13 3.1 3.9 22 14 10.9 11.1 23 15 6.1 3.3 24 16.01 4.4 5.4 25 16.02 12.2 7 26 17.01 7.3 14.7

348 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

27 17.02 8.1 6.2 28 17.31 14.5 14.6 29 17.32 5.4 5.4 30 18.01 5.8 7.9 31 18.02 13.6 8 32 19 7.3 22.9 33 20 8 17.5 34 21 9.8 9.1 35 22.01 6.9 3 36 22.02 8.1 9.2 37 23.01 4.6 1.6 38 23.02 10.8 7 39 23.03 6.4 14.4 40 24 10.2 6.5 41 25.01 8.1 7.1 42 25.02 2.5 9.4 43 26.01 7.3 5.4 44 26.02 8.1 3.7 45 26.03 7.4 4.6 46 27.02 4.5 3 47 27.11 4.7 3.1 48 27.12 7.8 7.3 49 28.11 8.9 8.6 50 28.12 2.6 2.4 51 28.13 2.6 1.6 52 28.21 2.3 2 53 28.22 3 0.6 54 28.23 5.6 3.6 55 29 2.3 6.2

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 349

Appendix H

Community Councils and Census Tract Community Council Census Tract Community Council Census Tract Eklutna/Chugiak 1.01 Scenic Foothills 17.32 Birchwood 1.02 Campbell Park 18.01 Eagle River 2.01 University Area 18.02 Eagle River 2.02 Midtown/Tudor Area 19 Eagle River 2.03 Spenard 20 Eagle River S. Fork 2.04 Spenard 21 Elmendorf/JBER 3 Turnagain 22.01 Elmendorf/JBER 4 Turnagain 22.02 Government Hill 5 Sand Lake 23.01 Mountain View 6 Sand Lake 23.02 Northeast (Muldoon) 7.01 Sand Lake 23.03 Northeast (Muldoon) 7.02 Spenard 24 Northeast (Muldoon) 7.03 Taku/Campbell 25.01 Russian Jack Park 8.01 Taku/Campbell 25.02 Russian Jack Park 8.02 Abbott Loop 26.01 Fairview/Airport Heights 9.01 Abbott Loop 26.02 Fairview 9.02 Abbott Loop 26.03 Fairview 10 Old Seward/Ocean View 27.02 Downtown 11 Bay Shore/Klatt 27.11 South Addition 12 Bay Shore/Klatt 27.12 Turnagain 13 Abbott Loop 28.11 Huffman/O'Malley, Mid Hillside, North Star 14 Abbott 28.12 Rogers Park/Tudor Area 15 Rabbit Creek/Bear Valley 28.13 Airport Heights 16.01 Huffman/O'Malley 28.21 University Area 16.02 Rabbit Creek 28.22 Univ Area, Scenic Foothills 17.01 Rabbit Creek 28.23 Russian Jack Park 17.02 Girdwood 29 Russian Jack Park 17.31

350 HUD Final Draft Consolidated Plan Municipality Of Anchorage

For questions or comments about the Consolidated Plan, 2013‐2017, please contact:

Carrie D. Longoria, MPA Community Safety and Development (CSD) Program Manager Municipal Department of Health and Human Services 825 “L” Street, Suite 508 Anchorage, AK 99519‐6650 Phone: (907) 343‐4876 Fax: (907) 249‐7858 [email protected]

James H. Boehm Senior Neighborhood Planner Municipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Initiatives and Partnerships Division Community Safety and Development (CSD) 825 L Street, Room 506 Anchorage, AK 99501 Mail: P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519‐6650 Phone: (907) 343‐4285 Cell: 907‐317‐7119 FAX: 907‐ 249‐7858 E‐mail: [email protected]

Municipality of Anchorage HUD Final Consolidated Plan 351