The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has consolidated into one application four Community Planning and Development formula programs: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). This new process replaces current Community Planning and Development (CPD) planning and application requirements with a single submission, the HUD Consolidated Plan (HCP). The HCP will satisfy the statutory requirements for four CPD formula programs.

The overall goal of the HCP is to establish a collaborative process where respective jurisdictions establish a unified vision for community development. The City of Las Vegas and Urban County Consortium composed of Clark County and the Cities of North Las Vegas, Mesquite and Boulder City are the two local entitlement communities that compose the HCP Consortium. Clark County is the lead agency in the HCP.

The Consortium established policies and a citizen participation plan to encourage participation by all citizens, especially very low- and low-income persons. The plan provided for technical assistance, public hearings, accessible meeting places, and provisions for non-English speaking persons. A Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) was created comprised of representatives from local government and community-based interests. Along with representatives from other advisory boards, CDAC representatives from North Las Vegas, Boulder City, and Mesquite were included.

The City of Las Vegas has targeted three neighborhoods for development with its CDBG funds. They are West Las Vegas, East Las Vegas, and Meadows Village. Each has a Neighborhood Improvement Plan (NIP), which is a five year comprehensive planning and implementation tool outlining how CDBG funds will be used to assist in their revitalization. The neighborhood's NIP is tailored to the needs and concerns of that specific neighborhood as identified by residents, business persons, employees, as well as City staff.

Housing Market Overview

Although the total housing supply within the HCP Consortium Area increased sharply (61 percent) between 1980 and 1990, housing costs increased rapidly as well. Median single family home prices increased by an average of 38 percent over the period. Home prices in North Las Vegas increased only 22 percent, from $47,700 in 1980 to $58,100 in 1990, while home prices in Boulder City increased by over 70 percent, from $71,000 in 1980 to $120,800 in 1990. Meanwhile, the median contract rent rose an average of 85 percent, ranging from 53 percent in North Las Vegas to 103 percent in Boulder City. Contract rents in North Las Vegas increased from $230 in 1980 to $351 in 1990 and in Boulder City from $246 in 1980 to $500 in 1990. Single digit vacancy rates in the HCP Consortium Area indicate that home prices and rents will not decrease or stabilize in the near future. Although there has been a healthy increase in the housing supply, high prices and rents have prevented an increase in affordable housing units and consequently, a large segment of the HCP Consortium Area population is underserved.

Introduction

Since the mid-1980's, the housing market in the Consortium area has undergone major expansion. This has been primarily due to the large increase in the population, much of which was immigration. The continuing vitality of the local economy is a good indication that the population in the Consortium Area will continue its growth. Increases in the population will also continue to cause a strain on the housing market. As the available supply of units dwindles, housing costs can be expected to increase further. Map 1 shows points of interest in the area.

Increases in housing costs out paced increases in household incomes. As such, certain segments of the population, especially those with extremely low-incomes, had difficulty affording quality housing. Approximately 20 percent of all households in the Consortium Area were considered extremely low- or low-income. These income categories represent those households in the Consortium Area with incomes between zero and 50 percent of the HUD Adjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI). In 1990, 21 percent of all households in Las Vegas were extremely low income, as were 33 percent of households in North Las Vegas. Areas with the highest concentration (40 percent and greater) of households with incomes below the poverty level ($12,674 per year for a family of four as of 1989) were the West Las Vegas area in the City of Las Vegas and the area immediately adjacent to it in the City of North Las Vegas. Map 2 outlines the low and moderate income areas in the city.

Cost Burden of Housing

According to HUD, a household has a housing cost burden when gross housing costs, including utilities, exceed 30 percent of gross household income.

• The Consortium Area consisted of approximately 85,500 households in 1990, of which 61 percent were renters and 39 percent were owners.

• Within the Consortium Area, nearly 74,300 households with median incomes of less than 95 percent of the HAMFI in 1990 had a housing cost burden.

• Of the overcrowded households in the Consortium Area, 73 percent (12,700 households) were renter households and 27 percent (4,700) were owner households.

• In 1990, 37 percent (2,300 households) of the 6,161 large renter families that lived in overcrowded conditions in the Consortium Area were located in Clark County, while 42 percent (2,600) were located in Las Vegas, and only 20 percent (1,200) were located in North Las Vegas.

• In the Consortium Area, 58 percent of the overcrowded households involved large renter families while 42 percent involved non-elderly owners.

• Approximately 37 percent of households (27,600) in the Consortium Area having housing cost burden were located in Las Vegas. Of those, over 29 percent (8,100 households) had household incomes 30 percent or less than the HAMFI (extremely low-income).

• Over 18,800 elderly households in the Consortium Area experienced a housing cost burden in 1990, as did approximately 3,900 large renter families.

• Nearly 41 percent (1,600 households) of the 3,900 large renter families with a housing cost burden resided in Clark County, while 44 percent (1,700 households) resided in Las Vegas and 15 percent (600 households) were located in North Las Vegas.

Severe Cost Burden of Housing

According to HUD, a household that spends over 50 percent of its gross income on housing and utility costs has a severe cost burden of housing.

• In 1990, nearly 31,800 households in the Consortium Area with incomes below 95 percent of the HAMFI, experienced a severe housing cost burden. This represents nearly 43 percent of the approximately 74,300 households that experienced any housing cost burden.

• Approximately 85 percent (27,172 households) of those households that experienced a severe cost burden were low- or extremely low-income households.

• In Clark County, nearly 8,500 extremely low-income households had a severe housing cost burden in 1990. This represented approximately 51 percent of all extremely low-income households in the Consortium Area having a severe cost burden of housing.

• Of all the households in the Consortium Area with a severe housing cost burden, 86 percent (8,700 households), were elderly households, while only 14 percent (1,400 households) were large-family renter households.

Owner-occupied units of three or more bedrooms represented nearly 32 percent (92,700 units) of the total housing units in the Consortium Area in 1990. Approximately six percent of the total owner-occupied housing stock in the Consortium Area were zero and one-bedroom units, 24 percent were two-bedroom units, and 71 percent were units with three or more bedrooms. Cost burdens experience by renter households in low-income groups are due to an inability of finding housing which costs less than 30 percent of their income. There are shortages for both extremely low and low-income households in the range from zero to three or more bedroom units.

Overcrowded Housing

According to HUD, overcrowded housing conditions exist when there is more than one inhabitant per room.

• Nearly 17,400 total households in the Consortium Area had an overcrowding problem.

Substandard Housing Units

According to HUD's definition, a substandard housing condition exists when a dwelling unit does not meet Section 8 Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and requires substantial corrective rehabilitation of structural components and building systems (e.g. electrical, plumbing, heating/cooling). Rehabilitation is considered financially unfeasible when improvement costs exceed 60 percent or more of the property value after rehabilitation.

• There were 16,900 substandard rental housing units within the Consortium Area in 1990, of which approximately 13 percent (2,200 units) were vacant.
• On a percentage basis, North Las Vegas and Boulder City had almost twice as many occupied substandard rental housing units in 1990 than other cities in the Consortium Area. For example, of all the households in North Las Vegas, approximately 19 percent (1,500 units) were occupied substandard rental dwelling units, compared to only 10 percent (5,400 units) in Las Vegas.
• In 1990, North Las Vegas contained fewer vacant rental units meeting standard conditions and more vacant rental units that were of a substandard nature than the City of Las Vegas. Approximately two percent (100 units) of the rental units in North Las Vegas met standard conditions, while nine percent (4,900 units) of the rental units in Las Vegas met standard conditions. 6.5 percent of rental units in North Las Vegas were vacant and of a substandard nature, compared to only one percent (400 units) in Las Vegas.

With a projected demand of approximately 2,000 dwelling units per year for extremely low income renter households and approximately 1,500 dwelling units per year for low-income renter households, it would appear that there may be a reasonable balance between the amount of vacant standard renter units and the demand. However, it appears that the majority of these vacant units are not affordable to lower-income households.

Disproportionate needs of racial and ethnic groups

Approximately 26 percent of the population in the Consortium Area was composed of minorities (Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Other minorities), as reported by the 1990 Census. North Las Vegas had the largest percent share of minority residents. Black and Hispanic households represented 34 and 17 percent, respectively, of all North Las Vegas households, compared to nine and eight percent, respectively, of all households in the Consortium Area.

Hispanic and Asian-Islander populations increased by 136 percent and 157 percent between 1980 and 1990, respectively. Hispanics accounted for 12 percent of the total population of the Consortium Area in 1990, up from seven percent in 1980. The Black population remained constant at 10 percent of the total population of the Consortium Area.

Geographic areas with the highest concentration of Black and Hispanic households coincided with areas of high concentrations of households below the poverty level. Map 3 shows the areas of minority concentration.

• Generally, minority groups within the Consortium Area had a disproportionate share of extremely low-income households. For example, in Las Vegas, 39 percent of Black households were considered to be extremely low-income, compared to 34 percent in the Consortium Area. In North Las Vegas, extremely low-income households comprised 36 percent of the city's Hispanic households, compared to approximately 28 percent of the households in the Consortium Area.

• For the Consortium Area, Black and Hispanic households had the lowest proportion of their household populations in the middle income group in 1990 (36 percent and 40 percent, respectively, compared to White middle income households at 56 percent).

• Compared to surrounding urban areas, North Las Vegas had the lowest proportion of middle income minority households within its boundaries.

• With the exception of Native Americans, a higher proportion of minorities lived in extremely low-income housing than lived in low-income housing in 1990.

Cost of Housing

• Housing costs rose substantially between 1980 and 1990 throughout the Consortium Area.

• The median single-family home value increased nearly 38 percent in Las Vegas while the median contract rent rose nearly 85 percent.

• Increases in Boulder City were dramatically higher than other jurisdictions in the Consortium Area.

• In 1990, Laughlin had the highest average home price and monthly rent within the Consortium Area.

Public Housing Conditions and Vacancies

The Las Vegas Housing Authority (LVHA) has the oldest and most extensive inventory of public housing units. The housing authorities of Clark County, the City of Las Vegas, and the City of North Las Vegas work together on regional housing issues to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of housing authority services. Of 17 public housing complexes managed by LVHA, 11 are located in West Las Vegas. Except for those complexes undergoing modernization, the public housing stock managed by LVHA is in generally good condition. The housing stock managed by Clark county Housing Authority (CCHA) is in excellent condition. The oldest units have been restored through comprehensive modernization of roofs, appliances, mechanical systems, and energy efficiency improvements. The North Las Vegas Housing Authority's (NLVHA) two complexes and scattered sites are in good shape. All units are safe and in good structural repair.

Section 8 Program Assisted Housing

There are a total of 3,696 Section 8 certificates and vouchers (2,617 certificates and 1,079 vouchers) available in Clark County. Of these, 45% are administered by the CCHA, 34% by LVHA, and 21% by NLVHA. These certificates and vouchers are not designated for any particularly family type, and Section 8 tenants are allowed to locate anywhere within the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area.

A total of 413 Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation family units are available within the HCP Consortium Area. These units are privately-owned, but managed by the local housing authorities. Approximately 52 percent (217) are located in the City of Las Vegas, 39 percent (160) in unincorporated Clark County, and nine percent (36) within the City of North Las Vegas. Of the total 1,761 units of Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation and Loan Management Set-Aside in the HCP Consortium Area, 157 units are managed by the LVHA (Madison Terrace and Rayson Manor). Madison Terrace was condemned by the City of Las Vegas in 1994.

Other Federal Assisted Housing Inventory

Projects that receive Federal rent assistance and low interest mortgage financing under the Section 202 Supportive Elderly and Farmer's Home Administration (FMHA) Section 515 Rental Assistance Programs are identified in the table, Other Federal Assisted Housing, HCP Consortium Area; January 1995.

State and Local Assisted Housing

There are a total of 894 housing units and 544 mobile home space that are assisted by State and Local jurisdictions within the Consortium Area. The table, Non-Federally Aided Assisted Housing, HCP Consortium Area; August 1993, provides a listing of housing units and mobile home parks operated by the CCHA, NLVHA and LVHA which do not receive Federal rental assistance.

All the public housing authorities in the HCP Consortium Area all have regular programs for improving management and operation as well as the living environment for residents.

These include:

1. Management and operation improvements include initiatives on quality control, construction inspection, and OSHA training for employees.
2. The Resident Management Training continues to be a focus of efforts to improve quality of life for the residents of the complexes.
3. The living environment of public housing is being enhanced through Drug Elimination activities such as increased security, job training for residents, and prevention and treatment programs.
4. Staff training programs on technical subjects, statutory and regulatory changes,

Nature and Extent of Homelessness in Clark County

Clark County and the City of Las Vegas estimate that there are between 12,000 and 15,000 homeless individuals in Southern Nevada, which includes those in shelters, on the streets, in washes, residing in vehicles, and temporarily residing with friends or relatives until a more permanent shelter can be found. The State of Nevada 1990 Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan (CHAP) estimated that there were approximately 10,000 homeless persons in Clark County at that point in time, which also included homeless individuals in shelters, on the streets, and staying in motels and with friends and relatives. An accurate count of the homeless has not been obtained due the transient nature of the homeless in the area, and because many homeless individuals do not enter the shelter system.

Homelessness in the rural communities also defies obtaining an accurate count, particularly in Laughlin, Nevada, and Mesquite, Nevada, which are experiencing a boom town environment. Homeless services for the Laughlin area are provided across the Colorado River in Bullhead City, Arizona. Bullhead City social service organizations and volunteers registered 119 homeless individuals in the Special Census of 1990.

There are an estimated 94,611 occupied housing units potentially containing lead-based paint within the HCP Consortium Area. Fifty-five percent are owner-occupied and 45 percent rental. Of the units with the potential for containing lead-based paint, approximately 22 percent (11,268 units) of the owner units and approximately 56 percent (23,784 units) of the rental units are occupied by low- and extremely low-income households. It is estimated that the number of occupied housing units is 36,475 within the City of Las Vegas and 8,4060 within the City of North Las Vegas.

Rehabilitation programs, building and environmental code revisions and lead based paint testing kits will be undertaken to reduce lead based paint.

Rapidly rising prices and a predominance of low- to medium-density, single family units in the Consortium Area have made the production of affordable housing difficult. In addition to these challenges, public agency regulatory policies related to residential development in the Consortium Area are not flexible in their implementation. Nevertheless, the public policies outlined in the Consolidated Plan, which apply to all residential development, are generally not considered excessive. However, flexibility in the implementation of such policies would encourage further investment in affordable housing.

The greatest difficulty in meeting underserved needs in the community is the scarcity of available resources. Given this scarcity, the focus becomes how to best utilize existing resources to achieve the optimum results. The HCP Consortium is working to solve the problems of fragmented delivery of services and stop-gap crisis measures, resulting from rapid growth and changing funding amounts, in its Strategy and Action Plans.

The Anti-Poverty Strategy describes the programs and policies which will be utilized in FY 1995 to reduce the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, in coordination with affordable housing efforts. According to the 1990 Census, there were 72,182 persons below the poverty line in the HCP Consortium Area, or approximately 11 percent of all persons for whom poverty status was determined. Of all households, 28,921, or approximately 24 percent, were below the poverty level. In FY 1995 Clark County and the City of Las Vegas will encourage applications by non-profit organizations and public housing authorities for programs designed to promote self sufficiency among assisted housing and transitional housing residents.

The Strategy identifies the institutional structures through which the HCP Consortium jurisdictions will carry out the HCP affordable and supportive housing strategy, and describes the measures that will be undertaken to overcome gaps in the institutional structure to carry out the strategies for addressing priority needs among the following components Private industry, Non-Profit Organizations, Public Institutions, Gaps in Institutional Structure, Public Housing Authority Relationship to Jurisdictions, and Gaps in Public Housing Institutional Structure.

The implementation of the strategies and objectives presented in the Strategic Plan section of the HCP requires coordination between governmental agencies, as well as coordination between the public and private sector. In FY 1995 the City of Las Vegas and Clark County will continue to solicit public and private resource involvement in funding the M*A*S*H Crisis Intervention Center. The HCP Consortium Area's jurisdictions participate in several inter-local agreements, using funds from ESG, CDBG, and HOME programs to achieve the housing strategies in the HCP Consortium Area. The jurisdictions in the HCP Consortium Area will work together to encourage private involvement in the development of low-income housing projects, either as joint sponsors with non-profit organizations, or directly through limited partnership arrangements with the private sector.

Clark County and the municipalities which comprise it, is presently the fastest growing metropolitan area in the nation. The July 1994 estimate of the Consortium Area population is approximately 850,000, an increase of nearly 26 percent from 676,500 in 1990, or about five percent per year. The area encompassed within the Consortium Area is expected to continue its rapid rate of growth with the number of households increasing by approximately four percent annually into the next decade. At this projected rate, the population of Consortium Area will be over one million by 2000.

Projections for 1995 and 2000, show approximately 47,600 housing units are expected to be occupied by extremely low-income renter households in 1995 (HAMFI "extremely low" category includes households earning less than 30 percent of median family income). This is an increase of 9,143 extremely low-income renter units, which either need to be acquired or constructed. From 1995 through 2000, an average of approximately 2,000 extremely low-income units will be required each year.

Summary of Strategy

This summary discusses the general priorities developed for the Strategic Plan and the basis for their selection. The HCP Consortium's priorities were established based on the analysis of current housing needs, the characteristics of the overall housing market, the ability of low-income households to afford, locate and maintain housing, and the availability of resources to address the identified needs.

• High Priority:

Extremely low-income and low-income renter households Homeless families
Extremely low-income and low-income homeowners
Moderate-income and Substandard Housing Units first-time homebuyer families with children.
Homeless families

• Moderate Priority:

Moderate-income renter households Homeless individuals
Persons with special needs.
Homeless individuals

• Low Priority:

Moderate-income homeowners
Extremely low-income and low-income, first-time homebuyers with children
All other first-time homebuyers

Urban County HOME Consortium

Clark County and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Mesquite, and Boulder City have entered into a HOME Consortium Agreement to participate in housing assistance activities through the HOME Investment Partnership Program. The County, as the sponsoring agency, is responsible for reporting requirements and ensuring program funds are used in accordance with Federal program requirements. Under this agreement, the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas are assured a percentage of HOME Program funds, but may request additional funds from the County to carry out their housing programs.

Specific Objectives for Distribution of Funds

The objectives of the Strategic Plan were divided into four sections:

1. Rental Assistance and Assistance for Affordable Housing
2. Assistance for the Production of New Affordable Housing Units
3. Assistance for the Rehabilitation of Older Affordable Housing Units
4. Assistance for the Acquisition of Existing Affordable Housing Units

Homeless Strategy

Strategic actions that the HCP Consortium will develop over the next five years to address homeless problems include:

1. Avoiding Homelessness, Especially Among Low-Income Families
2. Outreach and Coordination of Service Delivery to Address Individual Needs
3. Emergency and Transitional Housing
4. Transition to Permanent Housing

The Urban County CDBG Consortium consists of unincorporated Clark County and the Cities of North W Vegas, Boulder City, and Mesquite. The City of Las Vegas, while a part of the HUD Consolidated Plan, is a separate entitlement recipient for CDBG funds, and their proposed projects are reported in the following section.

City of Las Vegas Action Plan

The City of Las Vegas proposed to use CDBG funds in the three target neighborhoods for public services, economic development, housing rehabilitation, and public facilities. Projects are not limited to, but include $200,000 for the East Las Vegas Early Childhood Center, $144,463 for the Las Vegas Business Center, $89,000 for housing rehabilitation in East Las Vegas, and $20,000 for youth recreation in Meadows Village. HOME funds will go to homebuyer assistance, rehabilitation, and program administration.

Goals for the City of Las Vegas CDBG Annual Action Plan

While a part of the HCP Consortium, the City of Las Vegas elected to remain a separate entitlement with regard to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. As a result, the City of Las Vegas CDBG funds section is reported separately in the annual Action Plan. The City has revamped its CDBG process and has targeted three neighborhoods for development they include East Las Vegas, West Las Vegas, and Meadows Village (See in Appendix D). Each NIP is a five year comprehensive planning and implementation tool, which outlines how CDBG funds will be used to assist in the revitalization of the neighborhoods.

East Las Vegas Annual Action Plan

Meadows Village Annual Action Plan

West Las Vegas Annual Action Plan

APPROVED CHDO OPERATING
Organization	Purpose	Recommendation
Nev. Homes for Youth	General Operating	$ 21,856
EOB	Rehab. Program	47,655
WDC	Rehab. Program	35,000
Total		$ 104,511

(No CDAC preferences should be assumed in the above table.)

APPROVED NON-CHDO PROJECTS
Organization	Project Address	CDAC
Golden Rule	Parson's Place	$ 310,000
LV Indian Ctr.	1909 Goodwill	141,500
Clark County H.A.	Tenant-Based Asst.	500,000
Key Foundation	3300 Osage	53,500
Key Foundation	3443 College	9,176
Total		$1,014,176

(Projects in the table above are ranked according to CDAC preferences.)

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES

The amount of funding received by the Clark County HOME Consortium may change, as may the mix of funding associated with any or all projects. Furthermore, the activities outlined in the table above are also subject to change and reconsideration.

Maps

MAP 2 depicts points of interest and low-moderate income areas.

MAP 3 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and minority concentration levels.

MAP 4 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and unemployment levels.

MAP 5 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and proposed HUD funded projects.