Metro's Supportive Housing Services Oversight Committee meets again on Monday Sept 26th. Not listed in the agenda but on the final page of the meeting package is a one page staff memo, RLRA Program Structure.
That memo says that "The matter of RLRA's program design and whether that policy or design be changed is something the Tri-County Planning Body could consider" .
The memo then says that if the Committee has concerns they should "consider voting" on a formal recommendation to the TCPB. I note that the TCPB meetings to date have only been organizational and "onboarding" to date, with the next meeting in mid October.
My response to the Metro staff memo is on page 41-43 in the meeting packet and includes my recommendations--that I first made in May this year: Either 1. Adopt a 120% of payment standard (not FMR) max for RLRA, or 2. Adopt a county wide payment standard at 100% of FMR. BOTH would still mean RLRA max rents would be higher than max voucher rents.
In my transmittal I added the recommendation for a vote if necessary to make a referral to the TCPB.
My most recent blog post HERE has links to all of my prior posts related to RLRA problems.
That includes an Excel file that allows the user to see the difference in subsidy and housing choice for 1 bedroom voucher tenants vs RLRA tenants in ANY of the 12 payment standard areas in the three counties. The default entry uses income at the SSI level, but income can also be input by the user.
I have pasted below graphics from earlier posts that show LIHTC rent and RLRA rent differences, and differences between boosted RLRA rents occurring October 31st as a result of a boost in HUD FMR's.
Finally in my email transmittal I also noted that county quarterly reports had NO uniform RLRA reporting including
- NO breakout of RLRA by project based or tenant based
- NO breakout of RLRA by A/B categories.
- NO breakout of RLRA by demographics.
- NO breakout of RLRA average costs by bedroom size