What is the NSP Program


What is the NSP Program, and how is it to be used? Here is what I found from the MPLP web site,

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program

by Jim Schaafsma, MPLP Housing Law Attorney

As previously reported, Section 2301 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA), enacted on July 30, 2008, appropriated nearly $4 billion to state and local governments for the purchase and redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed upon residential properties (“covered properties”), creating the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). The act essentially says that NSP funds shall be treated as CDBG funds (HUD regards NSP funds as a special allocation of FY 2008 CDBG funding). It further prescribes that this money be allocated according to a “greatest need” criteria reflecting the number and percentage of home foreclosures, subprime mortgage loans, and homes in default or delinquency in each state or local government. As a result, HUD awarded Michigan and 22 of its local governments more than $263 million. (3rd highest among the states, trailing California and Florida; see Exhibit 1 for the distribution of the $263M; for MSHDA’s proposed action plan including its proposed distribution of the nearly $98.7M allocated to it, see Exhibit 2)

Eligible Uses There are 5 “eligible uses” for these funds, which must be used within 18 months of receipt:

  • establishing “financing mechanisms” for the purchase and redevelopment of covered properties (such as soft second mortgage and shared-equity loans);
  • purchasing (at a discount) and rehabilitating (to code compliance) of covered properties “in order to sell (at or below cost), rent, or redevelop” them;
  • Monitor and engage in legislative and administrative education and advocacy efforts on issues related to elder abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation.
  • establishing land banks for foreclosed upon homes;
  • demolishing blighted structures;
  • redeveloping demolished or vacant properties.1

Income Targeting All funds must be used for households with incomes at or below 120% of the area median income (AMI); at least 25% of funds must be used to provide housing for households with income at or below 50% of AMI. To the “maximum extent practicable” and for the “longest feasible term” properties that are sold, rented or redeveloped under the NSP shall remain “affordable” to the low-moderate income households noted above.

HUD Guidance

Action Plan The act also lets HUD in its administration of NSP to “specify alternative requirements” to any CDBG provision, consistent with Section 2301. In issuing its notice implementing the program, HUD did specify such requirements, including that a state or local government allocated NSP funds submit an application for its allocation (“action plan”) by December 1, and that that application be for its total allocation. The action plan2 must be open to public comment for at least 15 days and be posted prominently on the grantee’s web site. The notice also defines several terms relevant to the program (e.g. “abandoned”; “blighted structure”; “foreclosed” – defined to include tax foreclosure)

Cooperation between local governments The Notice also encourages local governments to consider applying for less than their full allocation, in which case the balance will pass to their state agency. It also encourages cooperation between local governments in several forms: joint requests from contiguous local governments; allowing existing CDBG cooperation agreements between city and county governments to cover NSP funding; and allowing a local government to forge a “subrecipient agreement” with another jurisdiction or a non-profit to administer the NSP grant. The guidance allows 10% of NSP funds to go to general administration and planning.

1 for 1 waived, relocation assistance not The guidance waivers the One for One dwelling unit replacement requirement in the CDBG statute (the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, at 42 U.S.C. 5304(d)), saying the requirement would be onerous for many local governments where there is a surplus of covered properties, as well as for HUD, and would “delay NSP program operations.” But, it does not waive the generous relocation assistance provisions of 5304(d) or the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act.

Certification HUD requires that NSP grantees submit 14 certifications related to their NSP program, including that it will affirmatively further fair housing; that it is consistent with its HUD approved consolidated plan; that NSP funds will be used within 18 months; and that those funds will be used only “with respect” to households with income not above 120% of AMI.

HUD Website The HUD guidance (Federal Register Notice) and much more information (see, e.g. detailed local foreclosure information under “NSP Grantee Data Resources Data” at the “Program Management Resources” link) about the NSP are available on HUD’s website: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/neighborhoodspg/

Advocacy tips

As noted above, NSP grantees must submit their action plans to HUD by December 1. These plans must be available to the public and online, and open to comment. The time for making comments on a proposed plan is now. In thinking about making comments to your local government, here are some areas to consider:

  • are resources adequately targeted to legal services eligible clients (households in the lowest income category – 30% and below the area median income). The legislation only requires that 25% of a grantee’s NSP allocation be used to provide housing for households with income at 50% of AMI and below. Grantees should be urged to set higher minimum requirements for these funds benefiting households in the 50% and 30% of AMI categories;
  • would the rents for housing produced with NSP funds be truly affordable to households in the 30% and 50% of AMI categories (a related question is whether the periods of affordability, defined in years, are adequate);
  • are the proposed uses of NSP funds consistent with the legislation and the greatest and most pressing needs of the community;
  • does the plan recognize the benefit of preserving existing occupancy in foreclosed properties by tenants or owners (the name of the program suggests that it should;
  • does the plan contain a preference for capable non-profit developers and entities.

Exhibit 1

MI MICHIGAN STATE PROGRAM $98,653,915
MI DETROIT $47,137,690
MI WAYNE COUNTY $25,909,153
MI OAKLAND COUNTY $17,383,776
MI MACOMB COUNTY $9,765,375
MI GENESSE COUNTY $7,506,343
MI GRAND RAPIDS $6,187,686
MI LANSING $5,992,160
MI WARREN $5,829,447
MI FLINT $4,224,621
MI KENT COUNTY $3,912,796
MI PONTIAC $3,542,002
MI SOUTHFIELD $3,241,457
MI REDFORD $3,041,364
MI WASHTENAW COUNTY $3,024,719
MI TAYLOR $2,495,056
MI STERLING HEIGHTS $2,454,961
MI DEARBORN $2,436,246
MI LINCOLN PARK $2,417,688
MI CANTON TWP $2,182,988
MI CLINTON TWP $2,147,608
MI WESTLAND $2,061,722
MI WATERFORD TOWNSHIP $2,014,489

Exhibit 2

MSHDA’s Draft NSP Action PlanMSHDA is the state agency administering Michigan’s nearly $99M NSP “state program”. Observing that Michigan’s “generally affordable housing market” has meant that the neighborhood impacts of foreclosure are far more deeply felt in low and moderate income neighborhoods, MSHDA’s plan “prioritize[s] funding for high poverty communities with high projected foreclosure rates and high vacancy rates relative to other communities.”

Distribution and Uses of NSP funds MSHDA proposes to distribute money as follows:

  • $21.75 M to Non-NSP CDBG Entitlement Cities (17 cities whose NSP allocation under the HUD formula was less than $2M and so instead of getting their allocations directly, their funds were placed in the “balance of state” allocation awarded to the state). These cities must apply (consistent with NSP requirements and MSHDA’s plan) to MSHDA for NSP funds up to their HUD determined amount (to be released in increments as the localities meet program conditions)
    Ann Arbor $85,000 Battle Creek $1,950,000
    Bay City $550,000 Benton Harbor $200,000
    Dearborn Hts $1,800,000 Farmington Hills $1,300,000
    Jackson $1,700,000 Kalamazoo $1,700,000
    Livonia $1,450,000 Muskegon $1,450,000
    Muskegon Hts $400,000 Port Huron $1,250,000
    Roseville $1,450,000 Royal Oak $1,000,000
    Saginaw $1,600,000 St. Clair Shores $1,750,000
    Wyoming $1,350,000
  • $10 M to projects that are innovative (in the area of affordable housing development and/or neighborhood stabilization) and or address urgent need (where it is documented that there is “an inadequate provision in both the HUD and MSHDA deployment of resources”)
  • $7.7 M for administrative costs (10% of the NSP grant is the HUD maximum)
  • $59.2 M – “Balance of the State of Michigan” which includes CDBG entitlement cities with HUD determined NSP amount under $500,000 and non-CDBG entitled area, as follows:
    Upper Pennisula $1.8M Northern Lower Peninsula $2.7M
    Mid-Central $1.7M West-Central $5.65M
    Capital Area $2.96M Bay-Saginaw-Genesee $4.7M
    Thumb $1.47M Southwest $2.52M
    South $3.22 Oakland $3.66M
    Macomb $2.32M Wayne (excl. Detroit) $5.44M
    Detroit $21M

    Of this $59.2M, $10M is awarded to the Michigan Land Bank Fast Track Authority for its “portfolio of NSP eligible properties that require demolition, site clearance and maintenance…as well as properties suited for rehabilitation and resale.”

MSHDA proposes the following (6) eligible uses/activities for NSP funds (it also identifies eligible applicants, methods of application – direct or RFP, eligible “end uses” and the number of NSP Units and dollars):

  • Financing mechanisms – interest reduction on MSHDA direct lending mortgages for multifamily housing – 100 units; $1M (20% for households 50% & below AMI)
  • Acquisition, rehabilitation, redevelopment of covered properties – 150 rental and 150 homeownership units; $18M (10-20% for 50% AMI)
  • Displacement prevention for foreclosed properties – 135 rental/homeownership units; $7.7M (10-20% for 50% AMI)
  • Land Banks – acquisition and disposition or maintenance – 225 units; $4M (10% for 50% AMI)
  • Demolition of blighted structures – site clearance for future redevelopment – 2,000 units; $20M
  • Redevelopment of demolished/vacant properties – 440 units and 3 public facilities; $38M (61% for 50% AMI)

The draft plan provides “specific activity information” for each of these eligible uses, including an “activity description”, requirements, and performance measures.

Definitions

“Blighted structure” – public nuisance under local code or ordinance; attractive nuisance because of condition or use; dangerous fire hazard; utilities/mechanicals disconnected/ineffective for a year or more.

“Affordable rents” – the HOME program definition (at 24 CFR 92.,252 – the lesser of the FMR or 30% of 65% of AMI, plus a utility allowance)

“Continued affordability” – the HOME program standard (minimum affordability period of 5-20 years depending on amount of funds expended per unit)

“Rehabilitation standards” – compliance with “local codes and standards”

Legal Services for the City Of Dearborn Heights..


These are the bills for Legal Services only, I will put up the Professional consults in a separate post

SECREST, WARDLE, LYNCH… – Legal Services August 2008 – Inv. dated 01/20/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Services) $5,984.00.  Corp. Counsel

GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON – Legal Services November 2008 – Inv. dated 12/09/08 from A/C 592-536-817-000 (Prof/Consult) $2,016.00.  Water Dept.

GARY MIOTKE – Legal Services January 2009 – Inv. dated 02/03/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Services) $8,404.75.  Corp. Counsel

SECREST, WARDLE, LYNCH …- Legal Services December 2008 – Inv. dated 02/03/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Services) $6,431.75.  Corp. Counsel

CUMMINGS, MC CLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO – Legal Services December 2008 – Inv. 163806, 163807, 163808 and 163805 dated 01/22/09 from A/C 101-200-817-000 (Contract Serv.) $5,058.87.  General Govt.

EVANS, PLETKOVIC & RHODES – Attorney for Workers Comp. – Ck. Req. dated 01/16/09 from A/C 101-200-724-000 (Work. Comp.) $1,879.00.  General Govt.

CUMMINGS, MC CLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO – Legal Services January 2009 – Inv. 164735 and 164736 dated 02/17/09 from A/C 101-200-817-000 (Prof. Services) $6,881.40.  General Govt.
GARY MIOTKE – Legal Services February – Inv. dated 03/03/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Serv.) $4,702.00.  Corp. Counsel

SECREST, WARDLE – Legal Services January 2009 – Inv. dated 02/20/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Serv.) $8,702.00.  Corp. Counsel

GARY MIOTKE – Legal Services March 2009 – Inv. dated 04/07/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Services) $10,747.94.  Corporation Counsel
GIAMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON – Water & Sewer Legal Issues – Inv. 27 dated 04/10/09 from A/C 592-536-817-000 (Prof/Consult) $3,492.00.  Water Dept.

GARY MIOTKE – Legal Services April 2009 – Inv. dated 05/05/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Services) $9,308.00.  See Budget Amendment.  Corporation Counsel

SECREST, WARDLE, LYNCH…-Legal Services March 2009 – Inv. dated 05/05/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Services) $8,132.00.  See Budget Amendment.  Corporation Counsel

GIAMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON – Legal Services April 2009 Water Dept. – Inv. dated 05/13/09 from A/C 592-536-817-000 (Prof/Consult) $2,892.00.  Water Dept.
GARY MIOTKE – Legal Services May 2009 – Inv. dated 06/06/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Services) $9,825.17.  Corporation Counsel

24.    SECREST, WARDLE, LYNCH ….- Legal Services April/May 2009 – Inv. dated 06/16/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Services) $11,537.50.  Corporation Counsel

CUMMINGS, MC CLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO – Legal Services May 2009 – Inv. 167990, 167989 and 167991 dated 06/11/09 and Inv. 168275 and Inv. 168276 dated 06/19/09 from AC 101-xxx-202-000 (Accounts Payable) $3,604.50 and A/C 592-xxx-202-000 (Accounts Payable) $1,104.00.  Gen. Govt.

GARY MIOTKE – Legal Services June 2009 – Inv. dated 07/08/09 from A/C 101-xxx-202-000 (Accounts Payable) $11,110.74.  Corporation Counsel

GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON – Water & Sewer Legal Issues – Inv. 29 dated 06/08/09 from A/C 592-xxx-202-000 (Accounts Payable) $7,200.00.  Water Dept.

GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON – Water Legal Services June 2009 – Inv. 30 dated 07/09/09 from A/C 592-xxx-202-000 (Accounts Payable) $8,107.80.  Water Dept.

5.    CUMMINGS, MC CLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO – Labor Attorney June 2009 – Inv. 168892 dated 07/13/09 from A/C 101-xxx-202-000 (Accounts Payable) $2,067.60.  General Govt.

GARY MIOTKE – Legal Services July 2009 – Inv. dated 08/04/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Services) $9,419.25.  Corp. Counsel

SECREST, WARDLE, LYNCH… – Legal Services June 2009 – Inv. dated 08/04/09 from A/C 101-xxx-202-000 (Accounts Payable) $$4,145.00.  Corporation Counsel

GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON – Water Legal Services July 2009 & Permit Fee – Inv. 88397-000B, Inv. 88937-001B and Inv. 90422.000 dated 08/11/09 from A/C 592-536-817-000 (Prof/Consult) $3,942.00.  Water Dept.

GARY MIOTKE – Legal Services August 2009 – Inv. dated 09/02/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Services) $5,856.00.  Corporation Counsel

SECREST, WARDLE, LYNCH… Legal Services July 2009 – Inv. dated 09/02/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Counsel Services) $6,021.00.  Corporation Counsel

ALLEN BROTHERS – Legal Fees NSP Grant – Inv. 33517 dated 09/29/09 from A/C 274-673-930-091 (NSP) $3,381.75.  Misc. Grants

CUMMINGS, MC CLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO – Legal Services August 2009 – Inv. 171291 and 171292 dated 09/25/09 and 171185, 171186, 171187 dated 09/16/09 from A/C 101-200-817-000 (Prof/Consult) $2,592.00 and A/C 592-536-817-000 (Prof/Consult) $2,138.10.  General Govt.

EVANS, PLETKOVIC & RHOADES – Attorney Work Comp Case – Ck. Req. dated 09/23/09 from A/C 101-200-724-000 (Work Comp) $2,660.00.  General Govt.

CUMMINGS, MC CLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO – Legal Services – Hannak, Loose, Brown & Palmer – Inv. 165451 dated 11/11/09; 171810 and 171809 dated 10/14/09 and 171981 dated 10/17/09 from A/C 101-200-817-000 (Prof/Consult) $5,292.65 and A/C 592-536-817-000 (Prof/Consult) $2,956.50.  General Govt.

EVANS, PLETKOVIC & RHOADES – Legal Fees for Workers Comp Case – Ck. req. dated 10/27/09 from A/C 101-200-724-000 (Work. Comp) $5,637.25.  General Govt.

GARY MIOTKE – Legal Fees October 2009 – Inv. dated 11/03/09 from A/C 101-210-826-000 (Corp. Counsel) $10,585.08.  Corporation Counsel

GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON – Legal Services Sept. 2009 & MDEQ Permit – Inv. dated 10/15/09 from A/C 592-536-817-000 (Prof/Consult) $2,236.82.  Water Dept.

Total: 198,667.77

New Job Posting In Dearborn Heights..


The Mayor is asking for a new Executive Secretary, it’s  more like asking for a Super Executive Secretary, and that’s his right as he so often points out to us. Read the Summary, and the Main Task below, and lets talk.

Source: City of Dearborn Heights web site.

City of Dearborn Heights
Job Description for:
Mayor’s Office – Executive Secretary

Summary: Position requires the highest degree of confidentiality and ability to handle multiple tasks at the same time. The position reports directly to the Mayor and the Mayor’s Assistant. An employee in this position must
demonstrate integrity, honesty, loyalty, compassion and empathy towards the residents, and assertiveness. This position also requires the employee to be an ombudsman, hostess, and confidant.

Main Tasks:
1. Prepare invoices, reports, memos, letters, other documents, using word processing, spreadsheet,database, or presentation software.
2. Answer phone calls and direct calls to appropriate parties or take messages.
3. Conduct research, compile data, and prepare papers for consideration and presentation by Mayor.
4. Greet visitors and determine whether they should be given access to specific individuals.
5. Read and analyze incoming memos, submissions, and reports to determine their significance and plan their distribution.
6. Perform general office duties, such as ordering supplies, maintaining records management database systems, and performing basic bookkeeping work.
7. File and retrieve documents, records, and reports (such as the daily police and fire/rescue runs).
8. Open, sort, and distribute incoming correspondence, including faxes and email.
9. Prepare the schedule for the Mayor and maintain the Mayor’s contact list
10.Track department head vacation schedules and maintain the Mayor’s personnel roster
11.Track various City commissions/boards and prepare appropriate appointment/reappointment letters
as necessary
12.Collect documents for City Council agendas for review by Mayor
13.Other administrative tasks as assigned by the Mayor or Mayoral Assistant

Ok now that you have had a chance to look at it, I have a few itty bitty questions, if you would allow me.

The job is for an Executive Secretary  for the Mayor, then why is this new person going to have to report to the assistant mayor?  (The position reports directly to the Mayor and the Mayor’s Assistant.)

Next some of the duties listed here I would think are the duties of the Mayor’s Assistant to start with like # 3. Conduct research, compile data, and prepare papers for consideration and presentation by Mayor. (I would think this is one of the things we are paying the Mayor’s Assistant for.)

I would all so think this would be a job for the Mayor’s Assistant, (1. Prepare invoices, reports, memos, letters, other documents, using word processing, spreadsheet,database, or presentation software.)

The best one of all is #13 Other administrative tasks as assigned by the Mayor or Mayoral Assistant. So know our Mayoral Assistant gets an exec secretary, nice.With this one she can ask them to do anything she wants them to do.

Could someone please, please, please, tell me what our assistant mayor’s job is? What are her qualifications to hold that job, and why would she have any say over an exec secretary hired for the Mayor? What it should say is

Mayor’s Office, and Mayor’s Assistant – Executive Secretary

This is not right, once again he want’s to pull a fast one on us, hire someone for you Mr. Mayor, but you have an assistant, that should be doing some of these tasks, if she is not, why not.

Take a look at the Skills asked for:

Skills:

·Clerical — Knowledge of administrative and clerical procedures and systems such as word processing,managing files and records, stenography designing forms, and other office procedures and terminology.

·English Language — Knowledge of the structure and content of the English language including the meaning and spelling of words, rules of composition, and grammar.

·Customer and Personal Service — Knowledge of principles and processes for providing customer and personal services. This includes customer needs assessment, meeting quality standards for services, and evaluation of customer satisfaction.

·Computers and Electronics — Knowledge of electronic equipment, computer hardware and software, including applications and programs.

·Active Listening — Giving full attention to what other people are saying, taking time to understand the points being made, asking questions as appropriate, and not interrupting at inappropriate times.

·Reading Comprehension — Understanding written sentences and paragraphs in work related documents.

·Time Management — Managing one’s own time and the time of others.

·Speaking — Talking to others to convey information effectively.

·Writing — Communicating effectively in writing as appropriate for the needs of the audience.

·Critical Thinking — Using logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of alternative solutions, conclusions or approaches to problems.

·Active Learning — Understanding the implications of new information for both current and future problem-solving and decision-making.

·Coordination — Adjusting actions in relation to others’ actions.

·Monitoring — Monitoring/Assessing performance of yourself, other individuals, or organizations to make improvements or take corrective action.

·Service Orientation — Actively looking for ways to help people.

·Communicating with Supervisors, Peers, or Subordinates — Providing information to supervisors, coworkers, and subordinates by telephone, in written form, e-mail, or in person.

·Interacting With Computers — Using computers and computer systems (including hardware and software) to enter data or process information.

·Performing Administrative Activities — Performing day-to-day administrative tasks such as maintaining information files and processing paperwork.

·Getting Information — Observing, receiving, and otherwise obtaining information from all relevant sources.

·Establishing and Maintaining Interpersonal Relationships — Developing constructive and cooperative working relationships with others, and maintaining them over time.

·Communicating with Persons Outside Organization — Communicating with people outside the organization, representing the organization to residents/public, vendors, and other external sources. This information can be exchanged in person, in writing, or by telephone or e-mail.

·Organizing, Planning, and Prioritizing Work — Developing specific goals and plans to prioritize,organize, and accomplish your work.

·Documenting/Recording Information — Entering, transcribing, recording, storing, or maintaining information in written or electronic/magnetic form.

·Identifying Objects, Actions, and Events — Identifying information by categorizing, estimating,recognizing differences or similarities, and detecting changes in circumstances or events.

·Performing for or Working Directly with the Public — Performing for people or dealing directly with the public. City employees are required to serve citizens in a tactful, courteous manner at all times.

The skills list is extensive, how much of it was written by the Assistant to the Mayor, we will never know. It’s good to ask for so much in hopes of getting those things, but while you look, and read this list ask yourself if our Mayor Assistant should not have all of these skills to? Really look, and read it they are all skills the Mayor’s Assistant should possess?, Again I ask what does our Mayor’s Assistant do, (she runs the NSP program, and from all indications, I can see they spend more money administrating the program then on anything else.) That’s a post for another day,

Qualifications:
Minimum 3-5 years in an executive secretary/administrative position (municipal experience preferred)
or 60 hours of college credit in business related courses.
Must type 50 WPM
Possess a high degree of professionalism and the ability to maintain composure and confidentially.
Must pass typing test, written civil service exam followed by an oral interview.
Must pass drug screening, background check, and post-offer physical exam.
Employee will be subject to a 12-month probationary period.

They must pass written civil service exam, the top 3 names will be submitted to him, but here’s the question, can he not dismiss the top 3 for any given reason, after the oral interview that I am sure the Mayor, and the Assistant Mayor will be giving. Then he can go to the next three, and so on down the list until he gets to the name that he’s really looking for.

I wish the Mayor, and his Assistant, all the best in their quest to hire their Super Executive Secretary Let me know what you think, Oh before I forget, is this person going to get cell phone allowances later on, and maybe even a car if they need it?