Housing Commission Report

Transcription

1 Housing Commission Report To: From: Subject: Housing Commission Meeting: April 20, 2017 Agenda Item: 5B Chair and Housing Commission Barbara Collins, Housing Manager Preserving Our Diversity (POD) Subsidy Pilot Program Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Housing Commission consider initial findings regarding the potential design of the Preserving Our Diversity (POD) pilot rent-subsidy program and provide recommendations regarding next steps in development of the program. Background Providing rent assistance to long-term tenants of rent-controlled housing is one of the two affordable housing strategies the Housing Commission recommended to Council in a December 2015 report (see Attachment A): Strategy 1: Assist lower income Santa Monica residents to remain in their rentcontrolled homes by developing a fund to provide rent assistance, and to determine the scope of the need by initiating a pilot program. Strategy 2: Protect and expand the supply of deed-restricted affordable housing by assertively pursuing County, State, and Federal funding while also developing a new and stable local funding source. 1 On May 10, 2016, Council directed staff to explore expanding affordable housing policies to include a local rent-subsidy program to assist low-income residents who currently live in rent-controlled apartments and are severely rent-burdened (see Attachment B). Council allocated $300,000 of the FY budget toward such a pilot, with $100,000 allocated to administration and $200,000 rent assistance, on June 14, 2016 (see Attachment C). 1 In November 2016 Santa Monica residents passed Measure GSH, a ½ cent retail tax increase for affordable housing and public schools. It is estimated that Measure GSH will raise $16 million per year, with half of the money to be earmarked for affordable housing. 1

2 The goals of the Preserving Our Diversity (POD) program are to: 1) Help a limited number of low-income residents avoid residential displacement by reducing household rent burden and increasing utilization of services and programs available for low-income households; 2) Enable the City to assist some of its lowest-income residents to live with greater dignity by helping them meet their basic living expenses, such as food, medical care, and transportation; 3) Provide an opportunity for the City to gauge the feasibility of the program as an affordable housing preservation strategy; and 4) Identify key issues for program expansion. Following Council s direction, staff researched potential pilot program models, informed by the parameters of the following federally recognized standard definitions: Affordable rent: Household pays 30 percent of gross income toward rent -burdened: Household pays more than 30 percent of income toward rent Severely rent-burdened: Household pays more than 50 percent of income toward rent Low-income: Household earns less than 80 percent of the area median income. Very low-income: Household earns less than 50 percent of the area median income. Very low-income households are typically eligible for HUD Section 8 rent assistance. Extremely low-income: Household earns less than 30 percent of the area median income. Extremely low-income households are typically eligible for HUD Section 8 rent assistance. At its June 16, 2016 meeting, staff presented draft guidelines for the proposed POD Program (see Attachment D) to the Housing Commission. The Commissioners provided feedback during a wide-ranging discussion, and decided not to take action on the specifics of the draft Guidelines. Initially Proposed Pilot Design On November 22, 2016, staff recommended a pilot design to Council and requested approval of the Threshold Eligibility Criteria, Priority Criteria, and Program Guidelines (see 2

3 Attachment E). Staff recommended that the pilot prioritize severely rent-burdened and extremely low-income households, given that the households would most likely be at the greatest risk for displacement without assistance. Staff also recommended that the pilot program provide a subsidy that established rent burden at 40 percent of household income. Staff projected that a total of 21 low-income residents living in rent-controlled apartments would be able to participate in the pilot program, based on the proposed project design and a budget of $200,000 for rent assistance. Council discussed the proposed pilot and directed staff to gather more information before approving the pilot methodology. Specifically, Council requested that staff consider the following, in consultation with the Housing Commission: Residual income available after rent as the subsidy metric Expert opinion regarding basic living costs Prioritize long-term residents of rent-controlled housing How the pilot can reach the most people How to direct additional services and resources to pilot participants, including how to connect participants to existing programs and services that are available to low-income households, as well as connecting working-age participants with job resources and education Consideration of a local nonprofit administering the program, particularly given a desire to connect participants with programs and services Discussion er Needs Study From June 24, 2016 to July 18, 2016 staff distributed a er Needs Survey to approximately 27,500 current tenant households living in rent-controlled apartments. The survey also functioned as a pre-application for the POD rent-assistance pilot program (See Attachment F). A total of 814 surveys were returned by the deadline. Analysis of the surveys was narrowed to 433 households living in rent-controlled apartments not subject to government affordability covenants. (See Attachment G for charts illustrating the demographic characteristics of the households). Financial data provided by the 433 3

4 households indicates that the need for rent assistance far exceeds the capacity of the proposed pilot s $200,000 direct rent assistance budget. The survey confirmed that a subset of Santa Monica s long-term residents of rentcontrolled housing, are extremely low-income, rent-burdened, seniors (average age 68), mostly living alone (average household size of 1.2 people), with very little after-rent income to pay for basic needs (average $200 per month). Pursuant to Council s direction and given the personal information contained in the er-needs Survey, staff requested in-person interviews with the 103 surveyed households whose self-reported income qualified them as extremely low-income (earning less than $18,250 for a one-person household). A retired former housing authority administrator with extensive experience in interviewing applicants for housing assistance and assessing eligibility for such programs was engaged to conduct interviews. To facilitate data collection, the interviewer met the households in their homes. A total of 46 households who responded to the survey participated in the interviews and comprise the subset of households that staff analyzed. Households who declined to be interviewed were not required to state their reasons. However, information received from some of the declining households, as well as staff s experience with other rent-assistance programs, points to a variety of reasons that households would choose not to move further in the process. Reasons include household assets (such as retirement savings) that would make a household ineligible, anxiety about the social stigma associated with receiving government assistance, and concern about the intensive review of personal financial information necessary to qualify for government support. Survey participants voluntarily disclosed information and provided documentation of their income, assets, resources, and expenses to support their reported survey responses during the interview. It is important to remember that the survey households were not offered the certainty of any subsidy during the interview process which could have impacted their responses and disclosures. 4

5 For this cohort of 46 households, the average age of the head of household is 68 years and average length of time residing in the apartment is 27.7 years. The following table identifies household types and sizes. Seniors are defined as age 62 and older. HH Size Senior Not Senior Total Total All 46 of the cohort households provided information indicating that they are both rentburdened and low-income. A total of 29 households are both severely rent-burdened and extremely low-income. Income Level Not Burdened Burdened Severely Burdened Total Extremely Low Very Low Low Total Of the 46 households, 15 applied for Section 8 in January 2017, 25 receive Control Fee Waivers, and 20 access at least one source of food assistance (food stamps, food banks, or meals from family members outside the household). Based on the information received from the survey and obtained during the interview process, the majority of the 46 households would be eligible for these and other resources and services. Reasons for Exploring the Basic Needs Methodology Council directed staff to consider if potential POD participating households would have sufficient residual income to pay for basic needs. The Basic Needs Subsidy Method aims to equalize the remaining amount of income each household retains after paying rent so a household can adequately afford basic non-housing expenses such as food, medical, transportation, child care, and other essential expenses. In contrast, the federallyrecognized rent-burden standard calculates how much rent subsidy a household will 5

6 receive based on the formula that a household should pay 30 percent of its income toward housing costs (rent or mortgage, utilities). Calculating rent-burden (e.g. Traditional Subsidy Method ) does not necessarily address whether there is sufficient remaining household income to pay for basic needs. Using an extreme example to identify where the federal standards fall short, a household earning $10,000 per month would be considered rent-burdened if the household spent $4,000 per month on housing costs. This household would have $6,000 per month for its remaining basic expenses and would not likely struggle to pay for basic needs. On the other hand, a second household making $900 per month would not be considered rent-burdened if its housing costs were $270 per month. However, the second household would not likely be able to cover its food, medical, transportation, and other basic expenses with the remaining $630 per month. Basic Needs Budget A standard for basic needs budgets is necessary in order to conduct the analysis requested by Council. The Housing Commission Chair facilitated a meeting with the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research team that created the Elder Economic Security Standard Index for California ( Elder Index ) and its Basic Needs Budget. Staff researched other indices of basic costs of living and found the Elder Index Basic Needs Budget to be best-suited to consider residual income for the POD pilot program because it is specifically tailored for seniors (the majority of anticipated pilot participants), it includes data sets specifically for seniors in Los Angeles County, and it delineates specific basic needs categories of expenses including rent and non-rent expenditures. For context, based on household size, the chart below compares the Los Angeles County Elder Index Basic Needs Budget to Federal Poverty Guidelines and low-incomes of varying levels. The chart below illustrates that extremely low-income households live very close to the poverty line and that Los Angeles County seniors need more income to meet their basic needs. 6

7 Annual Income Comparison of Program Income Levels $65,000 $60,000 $55,000 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5, Federal Poverty Guidelines Very Low Income (50% AMI) Household Size Extremely Low Income (30% AMI) UCLA Elder Index The Elder Index s Basic Needs Budget provides a standard by which the City can consider both income and expenses to model a potential local rent subsidy program. For expenses, the UCLA researchers explained that estimated basic needs expenses in the County and City of Los Angeles were identical other than rent. Using the most recent data for Los Angeles County (2013), the UCLA Elder Index calculates household Basic Needs Budgets as follows: HOUSING EXPENSES Total Housing Expenses (2013 Los Angeles County Fair Market + Utilities Assumptions) 1 person HH 2 person HH 3 person HH 4 person HH $1,171 $1,171 $1,478 $1,478 BASIC NON-HOUSING EXPENSES 1 person HH 2 person HH 3 person HH 4 person HH Food $264 $490 $797 $888 Healthcare $166 $332 $332 $332 Transportation $233 $326 $459 $592 Misc. (Phone, Cable, Clothing, Etc.) $216 $313 $447 $582 Total Basic Non-Housing Expenses $879 $1,461 $2,035 $2,394 Total Monthly Basic Needs Budget $2,050 $2,632 $3,513 $3,872 Total Annual Basic Needs Budget $24,600 $31,584 $42,156 $46,464 7

8 Potential Adjustments to the Basic Needs Budget Utilizing the Elder Index Basic Needs Budget to design a potential City rent subsidy program provides an opportunity to consider some of the Elder Index assumptions. Expenses could be adjusted in ways that increase or decrease a potential City rent subsidy, though the calculations could be complicated as described in the Elder Index Methodology Report (Attachment H). For example, there are food assistance programs available for low-income people and low-income seniors, such as food stamps, mealson-wheels, and senior meal programs. The program design could assume that participants avail themselves of such programs, through determining exactly who qualifies for which program and if there are sufficient resources within each program would add to the complexity of the program design. Similarly, there are medical discounts, free medical services, and reduced-price drug programs that are available to certain low-income populations. Proposed federal cuts to many mainstream low-income programs that are available at the time of this report could be in jeopardy, which could impact Basic Needs method calculations. An important consideration is the transportation budget. The UCLA researchers explained that they adjusted the transportation budget to reflect concerns regarding the essentiality of personal automobile transportation. Without necessitating a debate regarding such essentiality, the policy choice before the City is whether rent subsidies should provide that every participant have adequate funds for private automobile ownership. If so, it could be argued that the program is subsidizing driving. If not, the transportation budget could be adjusted to reflect, for example, the cost of senior bus passes, with consideration for existing subsidies. The Elder Index assumes a monthly transportation budget of $233 for a one-person senior household. By comparison, a 30-day senior pass for the Big Blue Bus is $24, and Metro provides an additional subsidy of $6 for low-income seniors, resulting in a final cost of $18 per month. Using such an approach would reduce the basic transportation budget for a single person by $215 per month. Such a decision would not necessitate that participants give up their vehicles in order to participate in the program. Rather, it would design the program in such a way that would not subsidize the cost of automobile ownership. 8

9 Applying the Basic Needs Subsidy Method to the Interviewed Cohort The Basic Needs Subsidy Method was applied to the cohort of 46 households to find out how much funding would be necessary to meet basic needs without adjusting any of the expense categories other than rent and utilities. For utility expenses, staff replaced the Elder Index assumptions with average utility allowances from the Section 8 dataset of approximately 1,200 households. For income, data typically included wages, social security, family support, pensions, and imputed income from assets. To impute asset income staff applied the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program formula of.06 percent to calculate annual income from assets. Applying the Section 8 assets formula results in only a nominal amount of additional monthly income. One option to consider, for both income calculations and program participation thresholds, is that assets be accounted for differently. Alternative methods could include assuming that 10 percent of an asset is annual income (the current standard for the City s Affordable Housing Production Program), setting an asset cap for pilot participation, or by creating another assets-to-income formula aligned with POD goals. The households interviewed indicate that their non-rent expenses are significantly below the Basic Needs Budget. For example, 1-person households indicated that their expenses averaged 74 percent of the Basic Needs Budget as follows: 1-Person HHs EI Basic Needs Budget Interview Cohort Average Difference % of Budget $1,101 $880 ($221) 80% Utilities $70 $30 ($40) 42% Food $264 $225 ($39) 85% Healthcare $166 $60 ($106) 36% Transportation $233 $95 ($138) 41% Misc $216 $238 $22 110% Total $2,050 $1,526 ($524) 74% To make ends meet, households report receiving non-regular income, such as occasional dog walking, house-sitting, in-kind gifts of food and goods, bartering, extremely frugal living, and accruing credit card debt. Others modify their diet by eating every other day or 9

10 by restricting their diet to a specific type of food that is very inexpensive. Some interview participants appeared to have difficulty either calculating their monthly income verses expenses, perhaps due to the reality that they do not balance or possibly due to a disability. A challenge with the Basic Needs Subsidy Method is that for some households the subsidy needed exceeds the household s rent. In ensure that basic needs are met, the program would need to pay 100 percent of the lawful rent and also provide additional nonrent funds directly to these households. Such an approach could negatively impact the household s government entitlements as non-rent subsidy payments could be considered income for food stamps, social security, or similar programs. Addressing this challenge may require subsidizing non-rent expenses in creative ways, such as purchasing bus passes for the participating households, or developing a special-needs trust for each household. Providing non-rent household support could complicate the pilot phase of the program and possibly result in delayed implementation and additional cost in administration. Assuming that the pilot program could not provide subsidies above the lawful rent (Maximum Annual approved by the Control Board plus surcharges and fees unless waived), staff s analysis shows that in order to bring household residual income to Basic Needs Budget levels: 30 households would receive a subsidy that brings household income to the Basic Needs Budget; 10 households would receive a rent subsidy for 100 percent of the lawful rent, yet income would remain below the Basic Needs Budget standards; and 6 households would not qualify, due to earning sufficient income to pay the lawful rent and satisfy the Basic Needs Budget. To offer the Basic Needs Subsidy Method to the 40 households who would qualify, the annual rent subsidy budget would be $320,575. On a household basis, monthly rent 10

11 subsidies would average $668. The table below delineates the annual program cost and number of qualified households: Annual Program Costs for Subsidy Subsidy = Basic Needs Budget Subsidy is Less Than Basic Needs Budget Not Qualified - Income Covers Basic Needs Budget HH size 1 $253, $42, $15, $9, Total $320, For the ten households where providing a City rent subsidy alone would not bring the household income to the Basic Needs Budget, an additional estimated non-rent subsidy would be needed as follows: Subsidy is Less Than Basic Needs Budget Average Monthly Non- Subsidy Per HH Average Annual Non- Subsidy Per HH Annual Program Costs for Non- Subsidy HH size 1 6 $423 $5,078 $30, $602 $7,219 $21, n/a n/a n/a 4 1 $1,164 $13,968 $13,968 Total 10 $66,096 The UCLA Elder Index is designed specifically for senior households, and may not accurately capture the needs of the non-senior households in the cohort. Alternative indices are available and could be used for the non-senior households, though it would add further complexity to the administration of the program. Applying the Traditional -Subsidy Method to the Interviewed Cohort The Traditional -Subsidy Method initially proposed by staff for the pilot program is modelled after HUD Section 8, in which rent assistance eliminates or reduces household 11

12 rent burden. for Section 8 program participants is initially calculated at percent of monthly adjusted income and averages approximately $1,000 per household per month. Under the criterion, all 46 households would be eligible to receive a subsidy that reduces their rent burden to 30 percent of household income. The total annual cost to eliminate their rent burden would be $319,705 as shown in the table below: HH Size Monthly Subsidy to Address Burden Annual Program Costs for Subsidy # HHs 1 $22,170 $266, $2,909 $34, $1,080 $12, $483 $5,792 1 Total $26,642 $319, Comparison of Subsidy Methods The challenge in comparing the two subsidy methods is that each one focuses on a different goal, either providing a subsidy to eliminate rent burden or providing a subsidy to meet basic living needs. Recognizing this dilemma, staff analyzed how many households were served by each method, how each method met basic needs, and comparative program costs. How many households would be served by each subsidy method? The Basic Needs Subsidy Method could assist 40 out of 46 households with rent subsidies, although 10 of these households would not reach the full Basic Needs Budget unless alternatives were developed to fund their needs in excess of rent. Alternatively, the Traditional Subsidy Method could eliminate rent burden for 46 households. How much does each subsidy method meet basic needs? The Basic Needs Subsidy Method could assist 30 households so that rent subsidies and income ( HH Income ) equal to the Basic Needs Budget, with 10 households below the budget and six households that do not qualify. The Traditional Subsidy Method results in 14 households with rent subsidies and income totaling more than the Basic 12

13 Needs Budget (arguably over-subsidizing the household s needs) and 32 households living below it (arguably not addressing the household s basic needs). The table below provides the average amounts by which monthly income would be above or below the basic needs budget for the cohort households: HH Monthly Income Under Basic Needs Budget # HH HH Income Equals Basic Needs Budget Average Amount Under # HH #HH HH Monthly Income Over Basic Needs Budget Average Amount Over Current 40 -$ $308 Basic Needs Subsidy Method 10 -$ $308 Traditional Subsidy Method 32 -$ $378 What are the comparative program costs? The table below shows that with roughly the same total program costs for rent subsidy alone, the Basic Needs Subsidy Method would serve less households (40 out of 46 households) and cost more on a per household basis ($668 per month versus $579 per month). Additionally, if non-rent subsidies are provided to participants based on the Basic Needs Subsidy Method, the total program costs would increase by an estimated $66,000. Total Qualified Pilot Participants Average Monthly Subsidy Per HH Estimated Annual Program Cost Subsidy Only Estimated Annual Program Cost Non- Subsidy (10 households) Basic Needs Subsidy Method 40 $668 $320,575 $66,096 Traditional Subsidy Method 46 $579 $319,705 n/a Prioritizing Long-Term Residents Council s direction included a desire that the program prioritize long-term residents. Among the interviewed cohort, the households have lived in their apartments for an average of 27.7 years. Under the criteria originally proposed by staff, participants would 13

14 need to have lived in their apartments for at least 10 years. Two of the interviewed cohort would be ineligible for the program, and one would potentially be ineligible as the participant was unable to identify the length of their tenancy. An alternative criterion could be that tenants would need to have lived in their apartments since vacancy decontrol went into full effect in Under such criteria, two additional households who have lived in their apartments for 15 years would be ineligible. Connection to Services and Program Administration Council also directed staff to consider how to connect program participants with existing programs and services for which they are eligible, and whether a local non-profit could administer the program, particular given the desire for connection with services. In interviewing the cohort of 46, staff found that many are not currently availing themselves of programs and services that could reduce their living expenses. The City could contract with a local non-profit to provide case management to assist the program participants or the City could hire a limited-term or contract staff member to provide the service connections. Under either scenario, the costs could easily consume the entire administrative budget of $100,000 allocated by Council. With respect to incomequalification and administration of the program, the costs are expected to be affected by which method the City chooses for program design. Staff recommends that exploring program expansion and ways to direct additional resources to households occur during the pilot operational phase. Staff is not aware of any organization this is using the Basic Needs Subsidy Method as a basis for rent subsidies. Pilot Program and Social Science Though not included in its specific direction, Council discussed whether the pilot could inform the City and other jurisdictions on how to design a broader rent-assistance program in a manner that is most effective at helping retain existing low-income residents. The UCLA researchers also discussed the concept, noting that the outcome to be statistically significant and replicable, the sample size would need to be much larger than what is contemplated for the program and there would need to be a control group that does not receive assistance. While staff is excited by the opportunity to create a program 14

15 that would meet social science standards for expansion and replicability, staff is also concerned that these Santa Monica residents have real unmet needs. Determining that half of the participants would not receive assistance in order to test for the efficacy of the program may not comport with the program s goal of supporting each participant s ability to live in dignity by addressing their basic living needs. In addition, creating a sufficient sample size would not only involve a significant increase in the pilot budget, it would also result in delays as the pilot would likely have to start from the beginning in order to increase the number of respondents to the Basic Needs Survey. Revised Program Design Proposal If the Housing Commission is prepared to recommend a preferred programimplementation method, staff seeks input regarding the following: 1) Guiding Principles; 2) Subsidy Method; 3) Threshold Eligibility Criteria; and 4) Priority Criteria. Guiding Principles Staff recommends the following Guiding Principles for the proposed Preserving Our Diversity (POD) pilot program: 1. POD will aim to mitigate the economic displacement of long-term residents who are severely rent-burdened, extremely low-income, and living in rent-controlled apartments; 2. POD will be a pilot program that limits the number of participants and terms of rent assistance; 3. As a pilot, POD will explore the viability of a locally funded rent-subsidy program as an affordable housing preservation strategy for rent-controlled apartments that are not deed-restricted as affordable; and 4. POD will complement the City s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and the Housing Trust Fund programs, though it is not intended to replace either program. Threshold Eligibility Criteria While the cohort of 46 households has completed a er-needs Survey and detailed interview, a more detailed eligibility process will need to be completed to ensure final 15

16 eligibility for the program. Staff recommends using the following Threshold Eligibility Criteria to determine eligibility for the pilot (household must meet all criteria below): Submitted a complete er Needs Survey by July 18, 2016 at 5 p.m. PST Participated in Housing Division household follow-up interviews Living in a Santa Monica rent-control apartment for at least 10 years, excluding deed-restricted affordable housing of any kind; Not currently participating in, or previously terminated from, any Santa Monica Housing Authority rent subsidy programs; No household members convicted of violent crime which occurred within the last 5 years, or who are registered sex offenders. Priority Criteria Staff recommends the following amended Priority Criteria to select households to participate in the pilot (household must meet all criteria below): Extremely low-income Severely rent-burdened Alternatives There are several alternatives to launching the proposed POD pilot program. One alternative is to not conduct the pilot. A second alternative is to turn the pilot completely around and make the primary goal helping extremely low-income households successfully satisfy their basic needs, with rent assistance as one component. Under the alternative, the City or a local non-profit could hire a case manager or case managers to work with the 46 interviewed households to link them with available federal, state and local resources, programs, and discounts. If rent assistance was necessary, the case manager(s) could also identify the need and the POD funds could be available to support those needs. The approach would likely be more staff (whether City or non-profit) intensive than the program as currently envisioned, though it could lead to equally successful outcomes. 16

17 Next Steps If the Housing Commission is prepared to make a recommendation to Council, the program would move forward to Council for approval. POD is envisioned as a 12-month pilot and staff would prepare an evaluation report at the end of the period, including the total number of households assisted and an evaluation of the pilot s impact on housing retention and basic needs survey. Staff would provide written materials to participants at the outset to make clear the temporary nature of the rent assistance, including the stipulation that funding is authorized for only twelve months, though discontinuing rent assistance to pilot participants could be extremely disruptive to those households. Concurrently, staff will determine if any households applied for Section 8 will be admitted to that program instead. Prepared By: Lisa Varon, Senior Development Analyst Ben Andrews, Technical Staff Assistant Attachment A December 2015 Housing Commission Report to Council Attachment B May 10, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes, Item 13A Attachment C June 14, 2016 FY Budget Attachment D June 16, 2016 Housing Commission Staff Report, Proposed POD Guidelines Attachment E er Needs Survey Attachment F er Needs Survey Demographic Charts Attachment G November 22, 2016 Council Staff Report, Proposed Subsidy Program: Preserving Our Diversity Exhibit 1 Basic Needs Method Subsidy Calculations 17

18 Exhibit 1 Basic Needs Method Subsidy Calculations A B C D E F G H I J K L Years in Unit Monthly Income after (E G) Non Basic Needs Budget Basic Needs Budget Deficit for HH (H I) Potential City Subsidy Up to 100% of Non Subsidy to Meet Basic Needs ID Head Age Total HH Members Total Monthly Income Assets Value Monthly $17 More than $100,000 $1,117 $1,100 $1,419 $2,519 $1,117 $1, $1,168 Less than $1,000 $759 $409 $2,332 $1,923 $759 $1, $1 $10,000 to $49,999 $947 $945 $879 $1,824 $947 $ $14 More than $100,000 $734 $720 $879 $1,599 $734 $ $506 More than $100,000 $1,171 $665 $879 $1,544 $1,171 $ $2,422 $1,000 to $9,999 $1,723 $699 $1,973 $1,274 $1, $1,806 Less than $1,000 $1,456 $350 $1,419 $1,069 $1, $991 $1,000 to $9,999 $1,065 $74 $879 $953 $ $896 Less than $1,000 $968 $72 $879 $951 $ $893 $1,000 to $9,999 $910 $17 $879 $896 $ ? $583 Less than $1,000 $590 $7 $879 $886 $590 $ $903 More than $100,000 $902 $1 $879 $878 $ $1,129 $1,000 to $9,999 $537 $592 $1,419 $827 $537 $ $929 Less than $1,000 $873 $56 $879 $823 $ $946 Less than $1,000 $876 $69 $879 $810 $ $759 Less than $1,000 $666 $93 $879 $786 $666 $ $1,201 $1,000 to $9,999 $1,105 $96 $879 $783 $ $1,122 $1,000 to $9,999 $1,015 $107 $879 $772 $ $952 Less than $1,000 $841 $112 $879 $767 $ $1,759 $1,000 to $9,999 $1,616 $143 $879 $736 $ $896 Less than $1,000 $749 $147 $879 $732 $ $1,305 $1,000 to $9,999 $595 $710 $1,419 $709 $595 $ $916 Less than $1,000 $725 $191 $879 $688 $ $955 $1,000 to $9,999 $736 $218 $879 $661 $ $906 Less than $1,000 $654 $252 $879 $627 $ $1,235 Less than $1,000 $942 $293 $879 $586 $ $1,000 Less than $1,000 $696 $304 $879 $575 $ $871 $1,000 to $9,999 $566 $305 $879 $574 $566 $ $1,101 Less than $1,000 $781 $320 $879 $559 $ $1,053 Less than $1,000 $727 $326 $879 $553 $ $1,020 Less than $1,000 $692 $328 $879 $551 $ $1,350 Less than $1,000 $1,017 $333 $879 $546 $546

19 Exhibit 1 Basic Needs Method Subsidy Calculations A B C D E F G H I J K L Monthly Income after Non Basic Needs Budget Basic Needs Budget Deficit for HH Potential City Subsidy Up to 100% of ID Head Age Total HH Members Years in Unit Total Monthly Income Assets Value Monthly (E G) (H I) $1,710 Less than $1,000 $1,337 $373 $879 $506 $ $1,962 $1,000 to $9,999 $1,512 $450 $879 $429 $ $1,174 $10,000 to $49,999 $640 $534 $879 $345 $ $1,192 $1,000 to $9,999 $630 $562 $879 $317 $ $2,023 Less than $1,000 $805 $1,218 $1,419 $200 $ $1,818 More than $100,000 $1,129 $689 $879 $190 $ $1,592 $1,000 to $9,999 $882 $710 $879 $169 $ $1,657 $50,000 to $99,999 $867 $790 $879 $89 $ $1,676 Less than $1,000 $780 $896 $879 $17 None Needed $1,625 Less than $1,000 $623 $1,002 $879 $123 None Needed $1,873 $50,000 to $99,999 $783 $1,090 $879 $211 None Needed $2,192 $1,000 to $9,999 $906 $1,286 $879 $407 None Needed $2,208 $10,000 to $49,999 $804 $1,404 $879 $525 None Needed $2,295 $1,000 to $9,999 $853 $1,442 $879 $563 None Needed Non Subsidy to Meet Basic Needs