Development of New Hampshire's Consolidated Plan is the joint responsibility of the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority (NHHFA), the Office of State Planning (OSP), and the Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services (DMHDS) of the Department of Health and Human Services as delegated by Governor Merrill. The NHHFA serves as lead agency for the coordination of the plan and performance reporting. The current plan (covering the period 1996-2000) represents the culmination of assessment, policy debate, and public input as it has evolved since the development of the first Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy in 1992.
The 1996-2000 Plan shifts the administrative year from a July-June schedule to a January-December year. Several benefits are anticipated from this shift including the receipt of federal resources as early as possible in the federal fiscal year.
Federal Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and Community Development Block Grant programs are the largest sources of flexible grant resources supporting homeless, housing, and community development initiatives in New Hampshire. These resources are estimated at approximately $14 million for federal fiscal year 1996. Funds will be used to assist a variety of needs in both urban and rural areas of the state. While this Consolidated Plan provides for over-arching objectives for these federal resources, it is responses developed and coordinated at the local level that ultimately determine the specific use and targeting of funds.
A public participation plan for this strategy was adopted by the NHHFA, OSP and DMHDS early in the development process. The plan consists of several strategies aimed at maximizing public involvement and representation in new plan development. Public input contributing to the development of previous strategies also shaped the current strategy. There were three levels of outreach: solicitations to the general public through print media, solicitations to known interest groups/organizations through direct mail, and solicitations to representative bodies, public officials, and organizations through direct mail and telephone contact.
The NHHFA maintains an open mailing list of organizations, community leaders, public officials and citizens active in homeless, housing and community development issues. This list contains nearly 600 addresses and was updated in 1995 through coordination with OSP and DMHDS. All communities in the state received invitation to a public hearing held during the development stage and public hearings on the draft document as did housing developers, community groups, service providers, public representatives, advocacy groups, and organizations administering other resources used to address these needs. The invitations and print advertisements contained specific information about the intent of the plan, the development time frame, and names and addresses of contact persons. Several options for providing comment were provided including through telephone, in writing, or at public hearing.
In total, five public hearings were held, one during the development stage
and four geographically dispersed during the public comment period. Minority
organizations were offered interpreters, and persons with special needs were
offered accommodation. A thirty day public comment period was provided. The
development stage hearing was well attended, overall a variety of comments and
perspectives were obtained. Comments were received from the citizenry, special
needs advocates and service providers, local and state government, shelter
providers, non-profit housing developers, and lending institutions.
The State of New Hampshire, with a population of approximately 1.1 million, is characterized by its complementary urban and rural settings and a mix of economic activities ranging from high technology initiatives to more traditionally-based businesses. New Hampshire has a relatively small state government sector and extends much responsibility for decision making, public need response, and revenue generation to localities.
During the 1980's New Hampshire was among the fastest growing and most attractive states to live. Despite an economic recession which began in the late 1980's, the economy, overall, is presently sound with low unemployment, increasing incomes, job growth, increasing housing prices, and increasing real estate activity.
Approximately 98% of the population is white, non-hispanic. The largest
minority populations are Black, Asian or Pacific Islander and Hispanic each
comprising approximately 1% or less of the population. There are 411,125
households, 68% of which are home owners. The HUD Median Family Income is at
$44,900. The state is divided into ten counties ranging in population size from
34,828 to 336,073. Two southern counties are relatively urban in nature and
together comprise 52% of the total population of the state. Incomes and housing
costs are relatively higher in the more urbanized counties.
The shifting of the economy toward services and lower paying job opportunities is of concern to shelter and housing providers as lower pay scales may increase housing affordability problems for low income households. Shifts in public policy that increase the responsibility of localities in responding to the needs of low income households could have acute ramifications to housing affordability and opportunities for affordable housing development in New Hampshire given the dependence on local property taxes for revenue generation. The recessionary cycle has been reflected in the changing needs of communities for non-housing community development assistance. In the post-recession period, assistance for economic development is higher demand relative to other needs.
These economic and public policy shifts are likely to mandate changes in structure and coordination within the housing and community development response system.
Housing problems identified in New Hampshire include moderate and severe overpayment among renters, severe overpayment among owners, substandard conditions including lead based paint hazards, inability to achieve home ownership, need for services linked to housing opportunities for special needs populations, and homelessness.
These problems exist in both urban and rural areas of the state and in all counties. Responses to these problems require the use of programs and models appropriate to the economic and social environments in which they exist.
Rents and home prices have been increasing in the past few years rebounding to levels comparable to the late 1980's. Vacancy rates have decreased and interest rates are higher. Permits for multifamily development have remained low, while single family new constructions have been increasing.
Over the past five years the majority of affordable rental opportunities have been developed through rehabilitation of deteriorated properties or preservation of the existing affordable stock. Overall the development of affordable rental housing is slower than the previous decade.
Tens of thousands of renter households are overpaying for housing and thousands live in substandard conditions. Among very low income renters with severe overpayment problems (paying more than half of their income to rent) there are twice as many non-elderly as elderly, in total there are an estimated 18,000 very low income renter households with severe overpayment problems. Approximately 13,000 households are on waiting lists for rental assistance, many will wait three years to receive assistance. Approximately half of current affordable rental opportunities are provided to elderly households. Black and Hispanic very low income renters have higher propensities for housing problems.
Over the next five years over half of the increase in the number of renter households are expected be very low income households. The number of renters ages 62-75 will decline while the numbers age 75 and over will increase, warranting higher service needs.
Among all home owners, approximately 14,000 are very low income and have severe overpayment problems. Thousands live in substandard conditions. The aging of the population over the next five years is likely to have an effect on the types and frequencies of problems among home owners. The decline in the 25-34 age group is likely to dampen demand for home ownership and the increase in the over 75 age group is likely to effect service/housing options including both demand for in-place services and alternatives such as assisted living models.
Many households have special needs that are not being met. Services, linked to affordable housing opportunities are needed to assist them in maintaining or enhancing their independence. Special needs households include: the frail elderly, developmentally disabled, mentally ill, troubled youth, recovering substance abusers, terminally ill, and households at risk of homelessness.
Many renters are interested in home ownership but cannot realize that goal due to high purchase prices, low downpayment savings, and/or non-traditional sources of income. Home ownership rates among younger populations are lower than the previous decade and rates among minority populations are lower than rates for white households. Disabled populations are interested in and can benefit from home ownership opportunities. The potential demand for home ownership among new buyers is approximately 15,000 to 18,000 households between 1995 and 1997. The 25-34 age group is expected to decline, impacting demand for home ownership.
In the state there is a fairly level need for shelter assistance but an increasing need for transitional housing opportunities and prevention services. Emphasis is on transitional programs and prevention to effectively break the cycle of homelessness that defines the lives of many low income households. Furthermore prevention activities are most appropriate in rural areas where homelessness is more difficult to identify and shelters are limited.
Over 6,000 persons were sheltered in state fiscal year 1995. Among those seeking shelter, there is an increasing incidence of families with children. Approximately 5% are infected with HIV. Homeless and runaway youth are more frequently seeking assistance from shelters not designed or staffed to meet their specific needs. Shelters are increasingly having longer average lengths of stay and many have started providing services directly in an attempt to assist households with the transition to more permanent housing circumstances.
During state fiscal year 1995 over 23,000 persons received homeless prevention services. These included assistance with: budgeting, identification and application for financial assistance and other benefits, negotiating and mediating tenant-landlord disputes, utility payments, security deposits and other needs.
Beyond these needs, gaps and problems have been identified in the continuum of care system including: insufficient rental subsidies for families, dis-incentives of public programs, transportation, affordable child care, employment opportunities, employment training, and access to supportive services for special needs populations. Addressing these factors will contribute to the state's transitional housing and prevention goals.
Approximately 18,000 very low income renter households are in need of assistance. Approximately 13,000 households are on waiting lists for assisted rental opportunities. Needs are highest among non-elderly households.
Over 22,000 units of rental assistance and assisted units exist. Approximately half of these serve elderly households.
Opportunities for development of affordable housing are impacted by land use restrictions and development related processes. Land use restrictions exist at the community level that prohibit or create dis-incentives for the development of multifamily and affordable single family housing through redevelopment and new construction. Development fees and approval/permit award processes can also create dis-incentives for multifamily and affordable single family opportunities.
Dependence upon local revenue generation, especially property taxes creates environments keenly sensitive to the fiscal impacts of new residential development.
There were less than 100 cases of discrimination filed between 1991 and 1993. Most of these were in the three most urbanized counties. The most prevalent reported type of discrimination in the sale or rental of housing is familial status - over one-third of all cases were against families with children. Discrimination based on handicap (mental or physical) was the second most frequent complaint, race and color combined comprised 20% of the complaints.
An assessment of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data from 1990 indicates that there may be discrimination in the accessibility of mortgage financing among minorities. In several metropolitan areas there were significantly higher denial rates among black applicants when compared to white applicants.
It is estimated that lead paint is creating hazards in approximately 80,000 housing units. Thousands of young children are at risk of poisoning and an estimated 6,500 children have health threatening blood lead levels. Less than one-third of all preschool age children are tested for lead poisoning in the state.
In addition to health risks to children, the presence of lead base paint has other ramifications including availability of liability insurance for rental property owners and the potential for discrimination against families in the rental market.
Two legislative committees have worked to address these issues and the lack of a permanent funding source for paint hazard abatement in housing. Currently, only a temporary program response is in place.
Two categories of non-housing community development needs have been identified: assistance for economic development initiatives and assistance for other activities including public facilities and infrastructure. Although the unemployment rate has come down over the past few years, economic development activities can continue to respond to problems associated with the shifting of the economy and the loss of manufacturing jobs. Public facilities continue to be a mainstay demand from communities. Assisted activities such as water and sewer facility expansion and development and community centers are in relatively high need.
Past and present compartmentalization of funding sources has to some degree
encouraged proliferation of distinct service delivery systems. While there
remains a need to understand and respond to the specific needs of individuals,
their circumstances and communities, there is also a need to better coordinate
these activities toward their common objectives.
Responses to homeless and at-risk needs will increasingly emphasize transitional programs and prevention activities. Affordable housing activities will include development of decent and affordable rental opportunities, tenant rental assistance, improving the quality of existing housing, assistance to potential first time home buyers, preserving existing affordable housing, and improving the availability of services linked to affordable housing. Community development assistance will emphasize economic development and public facility needs of local communities.
The over-arching objective of the Strategic Plan is to efficiently respond to the many types of homeless, housing, and community development needs that exist. This entails matching available resources and their permitted uses to these needs, implementing programs that consider opportunities and conditions of the market and furthering coordination among various organizations, governments, and interests. Actions and responses are developed to respond in a balanced rather than exclusive manner to priority needs.
Priority groups to address include very low and low income renters, owners, the homeless and special needs populations. Generally, very low income households with circumstances of the most critical nature (with severe overpayment, homeless, or with special needs) have higher priority ranking.
Non-housing priorities include the following:
Although the poverty rate appears low in New Hampshire relative to other states, a significant number of households live in conditions of poverty due to relatively high housing costs. Several strategies, some of which overlap with responses listed under housing and community development priorities, have been developed to reduce the number of households living in poverty conditions.
These include:
It is anticipated that some form of federal assistance will be available to address homeless, affordable housing and community development needs over the plan period. For 1996 the following funds are anticipated:
Emergency Shelter Grant: $ 472,000 HOME Investment Partnership: $ 3,124,000 Community Development Block Grant: $10,397,000
Other public and private resources available or potentially available include those of HUD: Rental Certificates and Rental Voucher Programs, Supportive Housing Programs, Lead-Based Hazard Reduction Program, other competitive programs, and guarantees by FHA. Programs of the Rural Economic Community Development agency including rental and single family programs. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program of the IRS will also be used.
State sources and programs include tax exempt bonds, state homeless grant allocation, state affordable housing funds and various programs operated by the NHHFA.
Private sources include the New Hampshire Community Reinvestment Corporation (a loan consortium) and the Federal Home Loan Bank programs.
ESG resources shall target homeless and homeless prevention activities and shall be administered by the DMHDS. HOME Investment Partnership Resources shall target the development of transitional and permanent affordable rental housing and home owners in need of rehabilitation assistance. The NHHFA shall administer HOME resources. CDBG funds shall be used for non-housing community development activities and locally generated affordable housing initiatives. OSP shall administer the CDBG resources. Coordination among the three resource administrators will be especially high where locally proposals are generated for transitional and special needs housing, and mixed-use projects that require multiple funding resources.
Other objectives of the strategy such as improving the coordination of the housing and service delivery networks, anti-poverty efforts etc. shall require coordinated efforts among the three administrators and with other state agencies, local jurisdictions, and the development and service delivery sectors.
Monitoring of the objectives of this plan shall be coordinated among NHHFA,
OSP and DMHDS with NHHFA serving as the lead for performance report development.
Due to the competitive allocation systems used for ESG, HOME, and CDBG resources it is impossible to predict the precise characters, locations, and sizes of projects. However funds will be targeted as follows.
The DMHDS shall use ESG funds for homeless prevention activities, support of emergency shelter, delivery of essential services, support/development of transitional housing, delivery of supportive services. ESG resources will be distributed by the DMHDS in accordance with demonstrated need. Funding awards will be approved by the Emergency Shelter Grant Commission. Match will be provided by state allocated funds.
The NHHFA shall use approximately two-thirds of HOME funds to provide long-term, deferred mortgage financing for the development of affordable rental housing including permanent housing, transitional housing, and housing for special needs populations. Applications for assistance shall be accepted on a rolling basis. Priority shall be provided to projects that meet the housing needs of families. Funds shall be available for investment in any area of the state where a demonstrated need exists. In communities that receive a direct allocation of HOME funds NHHFA shall award state HOME funds only to project that cannot be addressed with local programs and resources. Match will be generated from eligible grants, below market interest rate loans from qualified sources, foregone fees and taxes, etc.
The OSP shall distribute 1996 CDBG resources according to the following set asides: $100,000 for Feasibility Grants, $307,940 for State Administration, $103,970 for State Technical Assistance to Municipalities and Non-profits, $500,000 to Emergency Grants, $4,692,545 to Economic Development Grants (up to 33% of this for capacity development grants for regional development corporations), and $4,693,545 for Housing and Public Facilities Grants. A state allocation for administrative costs serves as program match. CDBG funds will be awarded to municipalities on a competitive application basis. Municipalities which receive a direct entitlement of CDBG funds from HUD are not eligible.
The New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority shall administer HOME resources and coordinate plan performance reporting.
The Office of State Planning shall administer state CDBG resources and participate in the coordination of other plan objectives, monitoring and performance reporting.
The Division of Mental Health & Developmental Services shall administer ESG resources and participate in the coordination of other plan objectives, monitoring and performance reporting.
Homeless goals include the following.
Housing goals include the following.
Community development goals include the following.