FINAL Nov. 16_ 2007 by yaofenjin

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 180

									           MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE
                     ALASKA
                 FIVE-YEAR
    HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
             CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                       2008-2012




                       FINAL
                     Nov. 16, 2007




Mark Begich, Mayor            Prepared by:
                              Department of Neighborhoods
                              Office of Economic & Community
                              Development
                              557 W. Fireweed, Suite D
                              Anchorage, Alaska 99503
                              (907 )343-4881
                              (907) 343-6831 (fax)
Municipality Of Anchorage



Mark P. Begich, Mayor




Anchorage Housing and Neighborhood
Development (HAND) Commission
Timothy Sullivan, Chair
Melissa Charmley
Margaret Evans
                                             Special Thanks to:
Melinda Freeman
                                             Susan Fison, Fison and Associates
Glenn Gellert
                                             Jim Gurke, Alaska Housing Finance
Jim Gurke
                                                Corporation
Scott Kim
Darrel Hess
Rod McCoy
Mike Mense
Debbi Newgent
Jim Nordlund
Wanda Smith


Department of Neighborhoods
                                                                                   On the Cover
Tyler Robinson, Director                      Monthly Employment by Service Industry
James Boehm, Senior Neighborhood Planner                                   Anchorage 2001-2007
Lawrence M. Stokes, Housing Programs
  Specialist
Corrine O’Neil, Associate Planner                                                                                       Leis ure & Hospitality
                                                                                                                        Construction


Marjorie Chord, Family Services Counselor                                                                               Professional & Bus iness Svcs
                                                                                                                        Financial Ac tivities
                                                                                                                        T rade/T ransportation/Utilities

Carlos Lertora, Junior Accountant                                                                                       Government
                                                                                                                        Educational & Health Servic es
                                                                                                                        Information

Celise Willeford, Accounting Clerk                                                                                      Manufacturing
                                                                                                                        Natural Res ources & Mining
                                                                                                                           Other Services

Laura Davis, Associate Planner 2008-2012
  Consolidated Plan
Andrew Gall, VISTA Volunteer                    Source: State of Alaska Department of Labor and Workf orce Dev elopment, 2007. *Nonf arm
                                                Industries




                                                                                                                                               ii
                            Municipality of Anchorage
                           Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               iii
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               iv
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
CONTENTS
  I. GENERAL                                                                      1
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Managing the Process
       1. Lead Agency
       2. Plan Development
       3. Consultations
    C. Citizen Participation
       1. Summary of Process
       2. Process for Public Review and Comment
       3. Efforts to broaden public participation- outreach to minorities, non-
           English speaking and disabled
       4. Summary of Comments
    D. Guide to Affordability and Supportive Housing Terms

 II. MARKET ANALYSIS                                                              11
    A. Community
       1. Geographic Areas
       2. Population and Households
       3. Areas of Racial/Minority Concentrations
       4. Areas of Low-income Concentrations
       5. Non-Housing Community Development Needs
    B. Public and Assisted Housing
       1. HUD Income Limits, Housing Programs, and FMRs
       2. Public Housing Agencies
       3. Private Housing Agencies
       4. Number and Target of Units
    C. Housing Market
       1. Housing Supply
       2. Housing Demand
       3. Housing Conditions
       4. Housing Cost
       5. Changes in Housing Affordability
       6. Indicators of Need (A Summary)
       7. Revitalization Strategy Areas
    D. Homeless
       1. Nature & Extent of Homeless
       2. Racial/Ethnic Breakdown of Homeless
       3. Continuum of Care (Facilities and Services)
       4. Populations At-Risk for Homelessness
       5. Indicators of Need (A Summary)
    E. Non-Homeless Special Populations
       1. Elderly
       2. Frail Elderly
       3. Persons with Disabilities



                                                                                       v
                            Municipality of Anchorage
                           Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
         4. Persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families
         5. Persons with Alcohol or Other Drug Addictions
      F. Barriers to Affordable Housing
         1. Local Barriers to Affordable Housing
         2. State Barriers to Affordable Housing
         3. Other State Barriers
         4. Federal Barriers

  III. PRIORITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT                                           85
      A. Priority Housing Needs
         Required HUD Table 2A
      B. Homeless Needs
         Required HUD Table 1A
      C. Special Needs Subpopulations
         Required HUD Table 1B
      D. Non-Housing Community Development Needs
         Required HUD Table 2B
      E. Transition HUD Table 2C

  IV. STRATEGIC PLAN                                                      99

      A. Affordable Housing Strategy
         1. Obstacles to Meeting Underserved Needs
         2. Specific Strategies and Uses of Funds

      B. Homeless Strategy
         1. Reduce Homelessness
         2. Prevent Homelessness

      C. Community Development Strategy
         1. Obstacles to Meeting Under-Served Needs
         2. Community Development Strategy

      D. Other Actions
         1. Lead-Based Paint
         2. Public Housing
         3. Antipoverty Strategy
         4. Institutional Structure
         5. Strategies to Address Barriers to Affordable Housing
         6. Monitoring

   APPENDICES                                                             117

Appendix 1: Reference Page
Appendix 2: Public Notices
Appendix 3: Survey Tool: “Housing and Community Development Needs Survey” and
            those that received the survey directly




                                                                                vi
                             Municipality of Anchorage
                            Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Appendix 4: Survey Tool: “Facility and Service Needs Survey for Anchorage’s
            Homeless Populations” and those that received the survey directly
Appendix 5: Citizen Participation Plan
Appendix 6: Ten Year Plan on Homelessness
Appendix 7: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Appendix 8: Eagle River Trailer Park Residents Face Eviction”, Anchorage Daily News
            article, July 22, 2007
Appendix 9: “Homeless Get a Day of Attention”, Anchorage Daily News article from
            July 28, 2007




                                                                                      vii
                             Municipality of Anchorage
                            Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
MAPS, TABLES, FIGURES
Map 1: The Municipality of Anchorage Vicinity Map
Map 2: Anchorage Bowl Community Councils
Map 3: Racial/Ethnic Minority as a Percent of Population by Block Group Anchorage
  Bowl, 2000
Map 4: Racial/Ethnic Minority as a Percent of Population by Block Group- Eagle River,
  2000
Map 6: Median Household Income by Block Group- Anchorage Bowl, 2000
Map 7: Median Household Income by Block Group- Eagle River, 2000
Map 8: Median Household Income by Block Group- Turnagain Arm, 2000
Map 9: Vacant and Available Housing as a % of Housing Stock by Block Group,
  Anchorage Bowl 2000
Map 10: Vacant and Available Housing as a % of Housing Stock by Block Group, Eagle
  River Vicinity 2000
Map 11: Vacant and Available Housing as a % of Housing Stock by Block Group,
  Turnagain Arm 2000
Map 12: Locating Block Groups with the Greatest Number of Units Lacking Complete
  Plumbing, Anchorage Bowl- 2000
Map 13: Census Tract 10/Census Tract 11, BG2
Map 14: Census Tract 20
Map 15: Southwest Revitalization Area


Table 1: Local Plans and Resources Used in Creating the Consolidated Plan
Table 2: Anchorage’s Income and Housing Affordability Ranges – 2000 & 2007
Table 3: Median Family Income by Household Size, Anchorage 2007
Table 4: Percent Median Family Income by Race/Ethnicity, Anchorage 2000
Table 5: Top 11 Languages Spoken in Anchorage, 2007
Table 6: Census Block Groups with an Alaska Native Population that is 20 Percentage
   Points Higher than its 7% Citywide Population
Table 7: Census Block Groups with an Asian/Pacific Islander Population that is 20
   Percentage Points Higher than its 6% Citywide Population
Table 8: Census Tracts with Concentration of Low-Income Households- Anchorage
   2000
Table 9: Census Block Groups with Median Household Incomes Less than 50%
   Anchorage’s Median Household Income, 2000
Table 10: Community Development Most Needed by Type
Table 11: State Capital Projects for Anchorage 2007
Table 12: Anchorage Fair Market Rent & Housing Choice Voucher Payment Standard
Table 13: Anchorage Low-Income, Elderly, and/or Disabled Housing Units, 2007
Table 14: Housing Units by Structure Type, Anchorage 2005
Table 15: Units in Anchorage Bowl Geographic Areas by Housing Type, 2004
Table 16: Housing Surplus/Deficit by Income & Affordability
Table 17: Census Tract/Block Groups with 10+ Units Lacking Complete Plumbing
   Facilities, Anchorage 2000
Table 18: Apartment Rental Rates, Anchorage 200 – 2006
Table 19: Single-Family Home Rental Rages, Anchorage 2000 – 2006
Table 20: Percent of Occupants in Units at the Same Affordability Rates as their Incom
   Level, Renters, and Owners, Anchorage 2000
Table 21: Indicators for Census Tract 10/Census Tract 11, Block Group 2



                                                                                         viii
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Table 22: Indicators for Census Tract 20
Table 23: Emergency Shelters for Homeless, 2007
Table 24: Transitional Housing for Homeless, 2007
Table 25: Permanent Supportive Housing for Homeless, 2007
Table 26: Household types of Low- and Extremely Low-Income Groups
Table 27: Required HUD Table 2A Priority Housing Needs/Investment Plan Table
Table 28: Required HUD Table 1A Homeless and Special Needs Populations
   Continuum of Care: Housing Gap Analysis Chart
Table 29: HUD Required Table 1B Special Needs (Non-Homeless) Populations
Table 30: HUD Required Table 2B community Development Needs
Table 31: Transition Table 2C Summary of Specific Housing/Community Development
   Objectives (Table 2A/2B Continuation Sheet)
Table 32: HUD Required Table 3A Summary of Specific Annual Objectives
Table 33: Housing Objectives, Strategies, And Goals, 2008 – 2012
Table 34: Homelessness Objectives, Strategies, And Goals, 2008 – 2012
Table 35: Community Development Objectives, Strategies, And Goals, 2008 – 2012


Figure 1: Household Type and Size, Anchorage 2000
Figure 2: Percent Minority Population, Anchorage 1990, 2000, and 2005
Figure 3: Spanish, Korean, and Tagalog That Speaks English “Not Well” or “Not At All”
   by Age – Anchorage 2007
Figure 4: Public Facility Needs by Type
Figure 5: Supportive Service Needs by Type
Figure 6: Infrastructure Needs by Type
Figure 7: Economic Development Needs by Type
Figure 8: Percent of Homeowners, All Housing Units and Mobile Home Units
Figure 9: New Housing Units by Type
Figure 10: Affordable Housing at Different Levels of Affordability
Figure 11: Percent of Units by Number of Bedrooms
Figure 12: New Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms
Figure 13: Vacant “For Sale” by Affordability & Unit Size
Figure 14: Vacant “For Rent” by Affordability & Unit Size
Figure 15: Rental Vacancy Rates 2000 & 2006
Figure 16: Year Structure Built
Figure 17: Percent of Units Affordable to 80% MFI or Less Built Before 1970
Figure 18: Age of Mobile Homes
Figure 19: Number of Housing Units by Level of Crowding
Figure 20: Annual Change in Housing Prices
Figure 21: Value of Owner-Occupied Units
Figure 22: Mortgage Interest Rates 2000-2006
Figure 23: Annual Change in Housing Prices
Figure 24: Average Home Sales Price, Mat-Su Homes as a Percentage to Anchorage
   Homes
Figure 25: Number of Average Wage Earners to Buy Average House 2000 – 2006
Figure 26: Average Retail Gas Price, Anchorage 2000 – 2007
Figure 27: Percent Change in Median Monthly Rents 2000 – 2007
Figure 28: Renter households Paying 30% or More Income Towards Housing
Figure 29: Housing Cost Burden for Anchorage Homeowners and Renters
Figure 30: Housing Cost Burden for Households Earning 30% MFI or Less by
   Household Type



                                                                                        ix
                              Municipality of Anchorage
                             Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Figure 31:   Racial Makeup of Anchorage and Anchorage Homeless
Figure 32:   Racial Makeup of Homeless: Anchorage, Rest of State, US Cities
Figure 33:   Issues of concern for Anchorage Homeless, 2006
Figure 34:   Anchorage Homeless Shelter Type
Figure 35:   Number of Available Beds for Anchorage’s Homeless
Figure 36:   Racial Makeup of Households Earning 30% or Less MFI
Figure 37:   Housing cost Burden for Elderly Owners and Renters
Figure 38:   Anchorage’s Population 65 Years and Older
Figure 39:   Disability by Type
Figure 40:   Disability Type by Age
Figure 41:   The Characteristics of Aids
Figure 42:   Percent of Population with Substance Abuse or Dependence, 2006
Figure 43:   Percent of Population Need, But Not Receiving, Treatment, 2006
Figure 44:   Number of Vehicles Owned by Rental Households
Figure 45:   minimum Parking Requirements for Multifamily, 2007




                                                                              x
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
I. GENERAL
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that all
jurisdictions which receive annual entitlement funds prepare a five-year Housing and
Community Development Consolidated Plan (Consolidated Plan). This Plan indicates how
HUD funds will be used to meet the national objective of decent housing, a suitable living
environment and expanded economic opportunities for low-income households and
neighborhoods. Associated with this Five-Year Consolidated Plan are the annual Housing
and Community Development Action Plans (Action Plans) and Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs), provided separately.
The three major sections to this document are the Market Analysis, a Priority Needs
Assessment, and the Strategic Plan. The Market Analysis supplies data and identifies the
housing and community development needs in Anchorage.                   The Priority Needs
Assessment places data into the required HUD tables and prioritizes which groups, with
relation to tenure, income level, household types, and special needs the Municipality will
focus its limited HUD funding on over the next five years. The Strategic Plan works to
meet the priority needs and identifies activities in accordance with the national objectives.
The proposed strategies, in no order of priority, are summarized as follows:

1. Decent Affordable Housing
       •   Expand affordable rental housing opportunities for low and extremely low-
           income households, with an emphasis on special needs and the homeless.
       •   Preserve affordable rental and homeownership housing opportunities.
       •   Expand homeownership opportunities, particularly for low- to moderate- income
           households.
       •   Encourage redevelopment projects that emphasize mixed-income housing
           development.

2. Reduce Homelessness
       •   Expand the supply of rental housing for special needs populations, with
           an emphasis on the homeless, as outlined in the affordable housing
           strategy section.
       •   Educate the public about the issue of homelessness.
       •   Engage in homeless prevention activities.
       •   Support case management services in order to assist people in
           obtaining or retaining permanent housing.
       •   Assist in the development of a coordinated intake and discharge system
           in Anchorage.
       •   Support existing shelter services and the expansion of transitional
           housing services.




                                                                                            1
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
3. Community Development
       •   Promote livable neighborhoods and community redevelopment.
       •   Enhance job training and economic opportunities for low- and
           moderate-income persons.

4. Other
In addition to the objectives listed above, the Consolidated Plan also has objectives
pertaining to Lead-Based Paint, Public Housing, Anti-poverty, institutional structure,
strategies to address barriers to affordable housing, and outlines a plan to monitor its
programs, grantees, and subrecipients.

B. MANAGING THE PROCESS

1. Lead Agency
The Department of Neighborhoods prepares and coordinates the components of the Five-
Year Consolidated Plan and associated Annual Action Plans and Evaluation Reports
(CAPERs). The Department of Neighborhoods is a department of the Office of Economic
and Community Development in the Municipality of Anchorage. The Department of
Neighborhoods also staffs the Anchorage Housing and Neighborhood Development
(HAND) Commission. The HAND Commission focuses on issues related to long- and
short-term housing and community development needs, and strategies to affect
revitalization of lower-income and at-risk neighborhoods.

2. Plan Development
The Five-Year Consolidated Plan is prepared by staff in the Office of Economic and
Community Development’s Department of Neighborhoods. The department currently
follows the approved Five-Year Consolidated Plan for 2003-2007. In the development of
the goals and strategies for the 2008-2012 Consolidated Plan, staff drew from the
previous Consolidated Plan as well as recent research and planning efforts within the
community, as listed in Table 1.




                                                                                      2
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
    Table 1: Local Plans and Resources Used in Creating the Consolidated Plan
 PLANS & RESEARCH DOCUMENTS                       SPONSOR                     PUB.


 Anchorage Indicators: Neighborhood Sourcebook    MOA/Fison & Assoc.          2007

 “Anchorage at 90: Changing Fast, with More To    UA Institute of Social &
                                                                              2005
 Come”                                            Economic Research (ISER)

 Ten-Year Plan on Homelessness                    MOA Homeless Task Force     2006

 Consolidated Housing & Community Development     Alaska Housing Finance
                                                                              2006
 Plan for the State of Alaska 2006-2010           Corp.
                                                  Alaska Housing Finance
 Alaska Housing Market Indicators                                             Annual
                                                  Corp.
                                                  AHFC/Cold Climate Housing
 Alaska Housing Assessment                                                    2005
                                                  Research Ctr.
                                                  Alaska Housing Finance
 PHA Agency Plan                                                              Annual
                                                  Corp.
                                                  Alaska Dept of Labor and
 Alaska Economic Trends                                                       Monthly
                                                  Workforce Dev.
 Anchorage 2020/Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive
                                                  MOA Planning                2000
 Plan
                                                                              May
 Homeless Offender Survey                         AK Dept of Corrections
                                                                              2007
 Anchorage Bowl Land Use Plan Map Technical                                   2007
                                                  MOA Planning
 Report                                                                       (draft)

 Anchorage Community Assessment Project           United Way                  2006


 Anchorage Downtown Comprehensive Plan            MOA Planning                2007


 Anchorage Midtown District Plan                  MOA Planning                2007


 Anchorage Title 21 Land Use Code Rewrite         MOA Planning                2007

                                                  Anchorage Neighborhood
 Mountain View Community Profile                                              2003
                                                  Housing Services


3. Consultations
Public and private entities provided assistance in creating the Consolidated Plan. These
entities include organizations, groups and agencies that provide housing and supportive
services to low-income and special needs populations, including elderly persons, persons
with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS, and persons who are homeless. The planning
process involved consultation and collaboration by three different methods.


                                                                                           3
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
•   Review Drafts. Staff sent, by e-mail, review drafts to obtain guidance and data.
    The public and assisted housing sections and the housing market analysis were
    sent to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; Cook Inlet Housing Authority;
    Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services; Anchorage Housing Initiatives;
    Anchorage Planning Department; the State of Alaska, Special Needs Housing;
    and Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association. An early draft of this document was
    also given to the Municipal HAND Commission, Office of Economic and
    Community Development, Community Development Authority/Anchorage
    Parking, and Planning Department.
    The homeless and special needs sections were sent to Alaska Housing Finance
    Corporation, Homeward Bound, Anchorage Literacy Project, Akeela
    Development Corporation, St. Mary’s Episcopal Church, Covenant House
    Alaska, Salvation Army/McKinnell Shelter, Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association,
    MOA Department of Health and Human Services, Community Health Service,
    Anchorage Housing Initiatives, and a Masters in Social Work consultant.
•   Surveys. To gain a broad input from the community, staff created a “Housing
    and Community Development Needs Survey” that was sent electronically to
    Anchorage Community Council Members (through the Federation of Community
    Councils) and 46 local and state agencies, groups, and organizations, as listed in
    Appendix 3. The department received 255 survey responses that were used in
    the development of the needs assessment and strategies of the Consolidated
    Plan.
    Staff also created a “Facilities and Service Needs Survey for Anchorage’s
    Homeless Populations” for 121 members of the Anchorage Coalition on
    Homelessness, representing 62 local, state, and federal agencies. The survey
    was sent electronically to each of the members and distributed by hard copy at a
    meeting of members. Survey responses were used in the development of the
    needs assessment of Anchorage’s homeless and the strategic plan.
•   Consultation. Staff requested information and/or consultation from several local
    organizations, groups, and agencies including Alaska Housing Finance
    Corporation; Federation of Community Councils; HAND Commission; Anchorage
    Coalition on Homelessness; Affordable Housing Partnership; Alaska Division of
    Senior Services; Atlastahouse Transitional Housing; Office of Management and
    Budget; Disability Law Center; Adult Protective Services and Advocacy; Alaska
    Mental Health Trust Authority; Anchorage Department of Health and Human
    Services; and Division of Senior and Disability Services. In addition, the
    Consolidated Plan is approved by the Anchorage Assembly.




                                                                                         4
                             Municipality of Anchorage
                            Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
C. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

1. Summary of Process
The Consolidated Plan is a product of research, consultation, and citizen participation.
The Department of Neighborhoods provided participation opportunities in accordance with
the current Consolidated Plan’s Citizen Participation Plan, as approved by the Anchorage
Assembly and HUD in 2003. The proposed Citizen Participation Plan to cover the
program years 2008 -2012 is included in Appendix 5.
The first of the three public hearings were held at City Hall, at a meeting of the HAND
Commission on July 11, 2007, before the commencement of the Plan’s 30-day comment
period. The hearing discussed the amount of assistance the Municipality expects to
receive in 2008, the range of activities under consideration to benefit low- and moderate-
income persons, the priority needs of the Consolidated Plan, the five-year strategies in the
Consolidated Plan designed to address those needs, and a discussion of programs and
activities necessary in the upcoming program year to carry out those strategies.
The second public hearing was held at City Hall, at a meeting of the HAND Commission
on September 12th, during the 30-day comment period. The third public hearing was held
on November 13 in the Anchorage Assembly chambers prior to Assembly approval of the
plans, after the close of the 30 day comment period on the draft documents.

2. Process for Public Review and Comment
Staff placed a public notice in the Anchorage Daily News announcing each of the public
hearings and the availability of the draft plans. Notice of public hearings and review
periods were also noticed through the Department of Neighborhood’s e-mail distribution
list.
The drafts of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan and the 2008 Action Plan were available on
August 23 for a 30-day comment period. Copies were available at the Department of
Neighborhoods, the Office of Economic and Community Development, Public Libraries,
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Cook Inlet Housing Authority, and Anchorage
Neighborhood Housing Services. The drafts were also available electronically and in
other formats, upon request.
Written public comments were accepted by the Department of Neighborhoods through
September 21, 2007. Staff treated the receipt of comments as follows:
   •   Revised the Five-Year Consolidated and 2008 Action Plan with given comments;
   •   Provided a summary of all written comments that were received;
   •   Discussed how comments were included; and,
   •   Provided explanations to comments that were not included in the final document.

3. Efforts to Broaden Public Participation- Outreach to Minorities, Persons with
   Limited English Proficiency and Persons with Disabilities
The three public hearings were widely announced and publicized. Public notices were
posted in the City’s most widely read newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News. Notices
were also e-mailed to a wide range of nonprofit organizations providing housing, homeless




                                                                                            5
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
assistance, and public services in Anchorage to low-income populations, including those
who are minorities and persons with Limited English Proficiency and disabilities.
Surveys were designed as electronic tools to ensure a broad range of feedback and target
those who may not traditionally attend public meetings or hearings.

4. Public Comments

Public comments and the Department of Neighborhoods responses to these comments
are included in Appendix 5 of this document.




                                                                                      6
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
   D. GUIDE TO AFFORDABILITY AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING TERMS
   This section serves as a resource guide by defining income terminology and methodology
   for calculating income and affordability. It also describes the method HUD uses to
   calculate and determines affordability. Finally, this section defines special needs housing.

   1. Income and Affordability Ranges
   Income ranges used in the Consolidated Plan are based on percentages of Anchorage’s
   median family income (MFI). Moderate incomes are those that are more than 50% MFI
   but no more than 80% MFI. Low incomes are those that are more than 30% MFI but no
   more than 50% MFI. Very low and extremely low incomes are those that are 30% or less
   MFI. Housing that is affordable to these income ranges has monthly gross costs (rent and
   utilities) or annual owner cost (principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and utilities) that does
   not exceed 30% of a household’s gross income.

       Table 2: Anchorage’s Income and Housing Affordability Ranges – 2000 & 2007
                                                                            …or affordable
                      …equates to an          …meaning an affordable        monthly gross rents
    Incomes at…       annual income of…       home would be…                would be…
                        2000       2007         2000         2007             2000        2007
                      $17,790      $22,440    $51,591 or     $65,076        $444 or       $561
    <= 30% MFI        or less      or less    less           or less        less          or less
                      $17,791-     $22,401-   $51,592-       $65,077-       $445 -        $562 -
    >30%-50% MFI      $29,650      $37,400    $85,985        $108,460       $741          $935
                      $29,651-    $37,401- $85,986 -       $108,461 - $742 -    $936 -
    >50%-80% MFI      $47,440     $59,840    $137,576      $173,536   $1,186    $1,496
    Source: Median Family Income comes from HUD published income limits. The Median Family
    Income for Anchorage was $59,300 in 2000 and $74,800 in 2007.
   Table 3 shows what the HUD’s median family income is according to the household size,
   in 2000 and 2007.

            Table 3: Median Family Income by Household Size, Anchorage 2007
Income
           Household Size
 Level
           1 person   2 person    3 person    4 person     5 person     6 person     7 person   8 person
2000        $41,500     $47,438     $53,375    $59,313      $64,063      $68,813      $73,500       $78,250
2007        $52,125     $59,625    $67,063    $74,500   $80,438     $86,438   $92,375     $98,313
Source: Median Family Income comes from HUD published income limits. The Median Family Income for
Anchorage was $59,300 in 2000 and $74,800 in 2007.

   2. Calculating Owner Affordability
   HUD calculates affordability, using 2000 Census data. HUD estimates the cost of
   purchasing a home based on the value households place on their own home in 2000 (not
   by appraisal or sales information). HUD then uses the interest rates prevailing in 2000
   (7.9%). The national averages for annual utility costs, taxes, and hazard and mortgage
   insurance are then calculated. HUD determines a unit’s affordability in relation to the
   unit’s occupant and to the general population.


                                                                                                       7
                                     Municipality of Anchorage
                                    Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
It is important to keep in mind that the affordability of the owner stock was established in
2000. Since this time, there have been significant shifts in the Anchorage housing market.
The median home value has appreciated faster than income levels, making
homeownership less affordable (see Housing Market Analysis). Interest rates, while
climbing over the past few years, were mostly lower than 7.9% during this time. Despite
the age of much of the data used in this report, it is useful in giving a general sense
affordability levels.

3. Supportive Housing

What is Emergency Housing? Any facility with overnight sleeping accommodations, the
primary purpose of which is to provide temporary shelter for the homeless in general or for
specific populations of homeless persons. The length of stay can range from one night up
to as much as three months.

What is Special Needs Housing? HUD definition of special needs populations includes
the frail and non-frail elderly, persons with physical, mental, or behavioral disabilities,
persons with HIV/AIDS, and persons with alcohol or drug issues. Special needs housing
provides housing options for these populations. The housing may or may not provide
additional supportive services, and can be permanent or transitional. In Anchorage
housing that serves other populations that may be underserved or need additional
services can also be considered special needs housing, but may not meet HUD’s
definition.

What is Permanent Supportive Housing? Permanent supportive housing is long-term
community-based housing with supportive services. This type of housing works well for
special needs populations and for individuals who face complex challenges. Supportive
housing is often developed for individuals and families who are homeless, who have very
low incomes, or who have serious and persistent issues that may include substance use,
mental illness, and HIV/AIDS. The intent of this type of housing is to enable individuals
and families to live as independently as possible in a permanent setting. The supportive
services may be provided by the organization managing the housing or provided by other
public or private service agencies. There is no definite length of stay.

What is Transitional Housing? HUD defines transitional housing as a project that is
designed to provide housing and appropriate support services to homeless persons to
facilitate movement to independent living within 24 months. For purposes of the HOME
program, there is not a HUD-approved time period for moving to independent living.

Anchorage’s Title 21 Rewrite defines transitional housing as the following:
A facility providing temporary housing with services to assist homeless persons and
families to prepare for and obtain permanent housing within twenty-four months. The
facility provides 24-hour a day, seven days a week programmatic assistance, or services,
for self-sufficiency skills to its tenants, and may provide services such as, but not limited
to, on-site assistance in learning independent living skills (shopping, cooking, financial
budgeting, preparing for job interviews, preparing resumes, and similar skills), and referral
to off-site education and employment resources (GED completion, job training, computer
training, employment services, and the like) to assist the tenants in becoming financially
self-sustaining (October 2007).




                                                                                            8
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
What is Housing First? “Housing First” is a best practice model that is being utilized
around the nation to address the issue of homelessness. It utilizes permanent supportive
housing (as defined above). It is an alternative to the current system of emergency
shelter/transitional housing, which tends to prolong the length of time that individuals are
without housing. The model is premised on the idea that individuals can begin to regain
the self-confidence and control that has been lost in their lives when they become housed.
Housing is supportive and has intensive case management. The model emphasizes that it
is only after people have housing that they can work on the range of issues that impact
their lives. As a result of being permanently housed they can begin to access medical,
mental health, substance abuse treatment, vocational training, and life skill resources.
However, the participation in services is not a condition of housing. The general focus is
on “good tenancy” not being a “good participant” in services.




                                                                                               9
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK




                                        10
          Municipality of Anchorage
         Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
II. MARKET ANALYSIS
The Market Analysis provides an examination of Anchorage’s population, households, and
housing. The information is divided into the following six sections:
       •   Community
       •   Public and Assisted Housing
       •   Housing Market
       •   Homeless
       •   Non-Homeless Special Needs Populations
       •   Barriers to Affordable Housing
Information is based on the U.S. Census, mainly the 2000 Census, from tables provided
by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). Other information is referenced and comes from local studies from
the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) and other reliable sources. This data will
be used to support the Priority Needs Assessment (Section III) and the Strategic Plan
(Section IV).




                                                                                         11
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
A. COMMUNITY

1. Geographic Area and Community Councils
Geographic Area. The Municipality of Anchorage has a total land area of 1,958 square
miles, of which 10% is inhabited. These inhabited areas encompass three distinct
geographies in the Municipality: Anchorage Bowl (62%), Chugiak/Eagle River Area (32%),
and Turnagain Arm (6%). The remaining areas, mostly undevelopable, are the Chugach
National Forest, Chugach State Park, Fort Richardson, and Elmendorf Air Force Base.

                 Map 1: The Municipality of Anchorage Vicinity Map




     Source: MOA Anchorage Indicators 2007

Community Councils. There are 38 Community Councils within the Municipality. These
are voluntary, self-governing neighborhood groups that provide a forum for public opinion
and advocacy about neighborhood issues. Members include neighborhood residents,
property owners, and representatives of businesses nonprofit organizations operating
within council boundaries. The umbrella organization of Anchorage’s Community Councils
is the nonprofit Federation of Community Councils, operated by a grant from the
Municipality of Anchorage.




                                                                                       12
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                    Map 2: Anchorage Bowl Community Councils




   Source: Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Indicators 2007.

2. Population and Households

In 2000, the Municipality of Anchorage had 260,283 residents in 95,080 households. Of
these households, 64,833 were family households and 30,247 were non-family
households. The majority of families (83%) were small families with two to four members
(mostly non-elderly small, related families). Of non-family households, three of every four
were one-person households.


                                                                                              13
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                    Figure 1: Household Type and Size, Anchorage 2000
                                          Anchorage 2000
                                                                            two
                                                      four+three            23%
                three                                  1% 3%
                 25%


                                                    two
                                                    36%




             four
             22%
                                           six   seven+
                               five        4%      2%                 one
                               10%                                    73%

                          Family                                   Non-Family
             Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000

3. Areas of Racial/Minority Concentration
There is no Community Council or Census Tract within Anchorage in which a minority
group comprises a majority of the resident population. As such, areas of racial/ethnic
minority concentrations are analyzed in three alternate ways. First are those Community
Councils in which all racial/ethnic minorities make up a majority of the total population.
Second are Census Block Groups that have a minority group that makes up 20
percentage points more than citywide representation. For example, Census Tract 17.31,
Block Group 3 in the Northeast Community Council has an Alaska Native population of
29%, which is 22 percentage points more than the 7% Alaska Native population citywide.
Third, a map of the Municipality shows minority groups as a percentage of the Block
Group populations (maps 3, 4, & 5).




                                                                                        14
                                       Municipality of Anchorage
                                      Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
      Figure 2: Percent Minority Population, Anchorage 1990, 2000, and 2005



                 white                    white                       white
                 79%                      70%                         67%




         Minority Populations      Minority Populations        Minority Populations
                 21%                       30%                         33%

              1990                       2000                        2005
    Source: US Census Bureau, Census 1990, 2000 & American Communities Survey 2005.
    Table 4: Percent Median Family Income by Race/Ethnicity, Anchorage 2000
                Race/Ethnic Group              Percentage of MFI
                Anchorage                      100%
                White, non Hispanic            109%
                Black or African American      75%
                Asian                          74%
                Pacific Islander               71%
                American Indian/Alaska Native 69%
                Hispanic                       66%
                Source: US Bureau of the Census, Census 2000
In 2000, racial and ethnic minority groups made up 30% of the general population, or
78,364 people. No one minority group makes up a majority of a Community Council or
Census Tract, however, the total minority population does make up a majority of the
Mountain View (64%) and Fairview (54%) Community Councils. Furthermore, Anchorage
as a whole is becoming more diverse (Figure 2).
There are 52 languages spoken in Anchorage. The majority of the population speaks
English at home, but 13 percent speak another language, primarily Spanish, Tagalog (one
of the major languages of the Republic of the Philippines), and Korean (see Table 5). Of
those who speak a language other than English at home, there are 5,147 (16%) who
speak English “not well” or “not at all” (MLA 2007). This group is made up primarily of
Spanish (33%), Korean (22%), Tagalog (8%), and Laotian (7%), Thai (3%), and Russian
(3%) speakers. Also to note, one in three of the following groups speak English “not well”
or “not at all”: Hmong, Laotian, Miao-Mien, Korean, and Thai.




                                                                                             15
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                Table 5: Top 11 Languages Spoken in Anchorage, 2007
       Top Languages          Population      % of Population      Population that Speaks
                                                                    English “not well” or
                                                                         “not at all”
      English                   207,820                86.78%                -          -
      Spanish                      9,580                4.00%            1,705       18%
      Tagalog                      3,574                1.49%              389       11%
      Korean                       3,455                1.44%            1,155       33%
      German                       1,820                0.76%              110        6%
      Yupik                        1,560                0.65%               95        6%
      French                       1,160                0.48%               90        8%
      Russian                      1,060                0.44%              130       12%
      Japanese                       975                0.40%              55         6%
      Samoan                         900                0.37%              115       13%
      Other                        7,548                3.19%            1,303       17%
      Source: MLA Map Data Center 2007.
  Figure 3: Spanish, Korean, and Tagalog Populations that Speaks English “Not
                  Well” or “Not At All" by Age- Anchorage 2007


                                Anchorage 2007

                        5-17 years       18-64 years   65+ years


              18%                            31%                     28%
                         5%                              1%
                              8%




              77%                          61%                     71%

           Spanish                    Korean                    Tagalog

    Source: MLA Map Data Center, 2007.

Only, two minority groups, Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific Islander, which make up 7%
and 6% of the citywide population respectively, are concentrated at more than 20
percentage points higher in certain Census Block Groups, identified in Tables 6 and 7.


                                                                                            16
                                    Municipality of Anchorage
                                   Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Following these tables are maps of the Municipality showing racial/ethnic minorities as a
percentage of the Census Block Group population.
     Table 6: Census Block Groups with an Alaska Native Population that is 20
             Percentage Points Higher than its 7% Citywide Population
                                                                            Alaska
                                                                             Native        % of
Census    Block                                            Mobile Home
                       In What Community Council?                          Population     Block
 Tract    Group                                              Park?
                                                                                          Group
6           1     Mountain View/Fairview/Downtown        No                     99        32%
10          4     Fairview/South Addition                No                    189         32%
17.31       3     Northeast                              Glencaren Court       374        29%
10          2     Fairview                               No                    342        28%
Source: US Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.
 Table 7: Census Block Groups with an Asian/Pacific Islander Population that is 20
            Percentage Points Higher than its 6% Citywide Population
                                                                           Asian/Pacifi
                                                                            c Islander     % of
Census    Block                                            Mobile Home
                       In What Community Council?                          Population     Block
 Tract    Group                                              Park?
                                                                                          Group
27.12       2     Taku/Campbell                         Dimond Estates         176        32%
9.02        1     Fairview (south of 15th Ave)          No                     245        31%
27.12       4     Bayshore/Klatt                        No                     283        28%
6           8     Mountain View                         No                     213        27%
26.02       1     Abbott Loop                           Manoog’s Isle          289        26%
Source: US Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.




                                                                                           17
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
 Map 3: Racial/Ethnic Minority as a Percent of Population by Block Group
                         Anchorage Bowl, 2000




Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Prepared by Terry Lamberson, MOA IT Dept.




                                                                                     18
                            Municipality of Anchorage
                           Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
 Map 4: Racial/Ethnic Minority as a Percent of Population by Block Group
                            Eagle River, 2000




Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Prepared by Terry Lamberson, MOA IT Dept.




                                                                                     19
                            Municipality of Anchorage
                           Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
  Map 5: Racial/Ethnic Minority as a Percent of Population by Block Group
                           Turnagain Arm, 2000




Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Prepared by Terry Lamberson, MOA IT Dept.




                                                                                     20
                             Municipality of Anchorage
                            Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
4. Areas of Low-Income Concentrations
HUD defines an area of low-income concentration as one in which at least 51% of the
population has an income that is less than 80% of the median family income. Table 8
provides a listing of Census Tracts where 51% or more of the households have earnings
that are 80% or less HUD’s Median Family Income. Table 9 outlines the Census Block
Groups with Median Household Incomes that are less than 50% of the citywide median
household income in 2000. Maps of the Census Block Groups by median household
income with a boundary outline of the Community Councils are also provided (Maps 6, 7
and 8).
      Table 8: Census Tracts with Concentration of Low-Income Households
                                 Anchorage 2000
                                                 Median
                     Census      Community        Family    % HUD
                      Tract        Council       Income       MFI
                                   Russian
                          8.02                     $46,750      79%
                                     Jack
                                  Campbell
                         18.01                     $46,023      78%
                                     Park
                            21     Spenard         $45,185      76%
                            20     Spenard         $44,889      76%
                                   Russian
                          8.01                     $42,337      71%
                                     Jack
                                 Government
                             5                     $41,161      69%
                                      Hill
                                  Campbell
                         18.02                     $40,750      69%
                                     Park
                          9.02     Fairview        $40,089      66%
                            19     Midtown         $39,375      66%
                                    Airport
                                   Heights/
                          9.01                     $39,348      62%
                                  Mountain
                                     View
                            11 Downtown            $36,765      59%
                                  Mountain
                             6                     $36,563      54%
                                     View
                            10     Fairview        $34,896      46%
                        Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.




                                                                                        21
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
 Table 9: Census Block Groups with Median Household Incomes Less than 50%
                Anchorage’s Median Household Income, 2000
                                                                     Median            %
               Block            In What Community
Census Tract                                                        Household      Anchorage
               Group                 Council?
                                                                     Income           MHI
   18.01         2                In Campbell Park                       $27,476     49%
    8.01         6                 In Russian Jack                       $27,409     49%
    10           3                    In Fairview                        $27,019     49%
    29           1                In Turnagain Arm                       $26,786     48%
    9.01         1              In Airport Heights/MV                    $26,538     48%
    8.02         5                 In Russian Jack                       $26,382     47%
    7.03         1                   In Northeast                        $26,354     47%
    20           1                    In Spenard                         $26,250     47%

    10           2                    In Fairview                        $25,909     47%
    11           2                   In Downtown                         $25,577     46%
     6           3                In Mountain View                       $25,046     45%

     5           2               In Government Hill                      $24,688     44%
    19           4                    In Midtown                         $24,583     44%
     6           8                In Mountain View                       $22,788     41%

    14           1               In Midtown/Spenard                      $21,750     39%
    9.02         2                    In Fairview                        $18,396     33%
                       Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.




                                                                                               22
                             Municipality of Anchorage
                            Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
 Map 6: Median Household Income by Block Group- Anchorage Bowl, 2000




Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Prepared by Terry Lamberson, MOA IT Dept.




                                                                                     23
                            Municipality of Anchorage
                           Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
   Map 7: Median Household Income by Block Group- Eagle River, 2000




Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Prepared by Terry Lamberson, MOA IT Dept.




                                                                                     24
                            Municipality of Anchorage
                           Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
      Map 8: Median Household Income by Block Group-Turnagain Arm, 2000




Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Prepared by Terry Lamberson, MOA IT Dept.

5. Non-Housing Community Development Needs
This section identifies the Municipality of Anchorage’s non-housing community
development needs. Public facilities, infrastructure, public services and economic
developments projects are examples of non-housing community development needs that
are eligible for federal CDBG funding assistance. The results of the needs analysis come
primarily from the “Housing and Community Development Needs (HCDN) Survey” that the
Department of Neighborhoods circulated to Anchorage Community Council members and
46 local and state organizations, groups, and agencies. The survey had 255 responses.
The survey tool can be viewed in Appendix 3.
                Table 10: Community Development Most Needed by Type
Community                   Most Needed                      % Felt Type was
Development Type                                             “Highly Needed”
Public Facility             Youth center                             61%
Supportive Services         Substance abuse recovery                 65%
Infrastructure              Sidewalks                                67%
Economic Development        Commercial rehabilitation                37%
1. Public Facilities
Survey respondents felt that the greatest need for public facilities in Anchorage (beyond
what is currently available) is for youth centers, homeless facilities, and childcare facilities.


                                                                                                    25
                                  Municipality of Anchorage
                                 Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                    Figure 3: Public Facility Needs by Type
         % Survey Respondents Who Felt Type of Facility is Highly Needed*

                          Youth Center                                                       61%

                             Homeless                                                    56%

                             Child Care                                               53%

                                 Health                                      41%

                   Parks & Recreation                                        41%

                    Community Center                                     37%

                                Parking                                  37%

            Disability-Accommodation                                   34%

            Disability-Resource Center                             30%

                         Senior Center                         25%

                                          0%   10%      20%     30%     40%     50%      60%     70%
             Source: Department of Neighborhoods Housing and Community Dev elopment Needs Surv ey , 2007.
             *Percent is of those who responded, “no need”, “low need”, “medium need”, or “high need.“

The public community centers that serve youth in predominantly low-income
neighborhoods are the Fairview Community Center, Spenard Community Center, and the
Mountain View Community Center (operated by the Boys and Girls Clubs of Anchorage).

6. Supportive Services
Survey respondents felt that the greatest need for supportive services (beyond what is
currently available) is for substance abuse recovery and prevention. However, other
services    are     also    needed    including  transportation,   healthcare,  crime
awareness/prevention, childcare, and employment training.




                                                                                                            26
                                      Municipality of Anchorage
                                     Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                        Figure 5: Supportive Service Needs by Type
           % Survey Respondents Who Felt Type of Service is Highly Needed*

                Substance Abuse Recovery                                                      65%


               Substance Abuse Prevention                                                   60%


                              Transportation                                          54%


                                  Healthcare                                          54%


               Crime Aw areness/Prevention                                          51%


                                   Childcare                                    46%


                       Employment Training                                    43%

                                               0%          20%          40%           60%           80%
                Source: Department of Neighborhoods Housing and Community Dev elopment Needs Surv ey , 2007.
                *Percent is of those who responded, “no need”, “low need”, “medium need”, or “high need.“


7. Infrastructure
Survey respondents felt that the greatest need for infrastructure (beyond what is currently
available) is for sidewalks.
                             Figure 6: Infrastructure Needs by Type
          % Survey Respondents Who Felt Type of Infrastructure is Highly Needed*


                                         Sidew alks                                               67%



                             Street Improvements                                      48%



                       Flood Drain Improvements                            31%



             Solid Waste Disposal Improvements                          27%



                     Water/Sew er Improvements                      20%


                                                    0%           20%         40%          60%           80%
              Source: Department of Neighborhoods Housing and Community Dev elopment Needs Surv ey , 2007.
              *Percent is of those who responded, “no need”, “low need”, “medium need”, or “high need.“


8. Economic Development
Survey respondents felt that the greatest need for economic development (beyond what is
currently available) is for commercial rehabilitation and micro-enterprise development.




                                                                                                               27
                                         Municipality of Anchorage
                                        Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                  Figure 7: Economic Development Needs by Type
       % Survey Respondents Who Felt Type of ED is Highly Needed*

                   Commercial Rehabilitation                                            37%


                             Micro-Enterprises                                        37%


         Technical Assistance for Businesses                                       33%


                      Industrial Rehabilitation                                   32%


                                   Businesses                            23%


                       Industrial Infrastructure                       22%


                    Commercial Infrastructure                        20%

                                                   0%             20%                 40%
          Source: Department of Neighborhoods Housing and Community Dev elopment Needs Surv ey , 2007.
          *Percent is of those who responded, “no need”, “low need”, “medium need”, or “high need.“



Low-income neighborhoods that also have neighborhood business centers are
Mountain View, Fairview, Government Hill, and Midtown/Spenard.




                                                                                                         28
                                     Municipality of Anchorage
                                    Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                                 Table 11: State Capital Projects for Anchorage 2007
           Municipality of Anchorage Funded and Planned Capital Improvement Projects
                                                        Funded                   Planned                  Total        Distribution
 Economic Development                             $      46,599,432       $      52,827,000          $    99,426,432          7.7%
 Basic Infrastructure                             $      38,290,799       $      93,074,160          $   131,364,959         10.1%
 Health and Safety                                $     548,451,910       $      89,737,532          $   638,189,442         49.2%
 Expanded or Improved Services                    $     357,295,132       $      72,134,473          $   429,429,605         33.1%

                                        Total     $    990,637,273        $     307,773,165          $ 1,298,410,438         100.0%
Data Source: DCCED RAPIDS Capital
Projects Database


Details
                                                        Funded                   Planned                  Total        Distribution
Economic Development Infrastructure
 Economic and Business Development                $       1,483,230       $              -           $     1,483,230           1.5%
 Local Roads for Economic Development             $      45,116,202       $      52,827,000          $    97,943,202          98.5%
         Economic Development Subtotal            $      46,599,432       $      52,827,000          $    99,426,432         100.0%
Basic Infrastructure
 Harbors and Docks                                $      13,800,000       $       6,000,000          $    19,800,000          15.1%
 State Roads                                      $      24,490,799       $      87,074,160          $   111,564,959          84.9%
             Basic Infrastructure Subtotal        $      38,290,799       $      93,074,160          $   131,364,959         100.0%
Health and Safety Infrastructure
 Airport Improvements                             $     487,682,729       $      89,737,532          $   577,420,261         90.5%
 Water and Sewer Projects                         $      34,928,450       $              -           $    34,928,450          5.5%
 Health Facilities                                $      22,721,334       $              -           $    22,721,334          3.6%
 Public Safety Projects                           $       3,119,397       $              -           $     3,119,397          0.5%
                Health and Safety Subtotal        $     548,451,910       $      89,737,532          $   638,189,442          9.5%
Expanded or Improved Services
 Local Roads -- General                           $      74,178,051       $      68,758,991          $   142,937,042         33.3%
 Facilities/Buildings                             $     146,172,200       $       3,375,482          $   149,547,682         34.8%
 Housing Construction and Repair                  $     116,646,222       $              -           $   116,646,222         27.2%
 Equipment Purchases                              $         220,215       $              -           $      220,215           0.1%
 Schools                                          $      14,111,484       $              -           $    14,111,484          3.3%
 Other                                            $       5,966,960       $              -           $     5,966,960          1.4%
        Expanded and Improved Services
                                   Subtotal       $     357,295,132       $     72,134,473           $ 429,429,605           100.0%
                      All Projects Subtotal       $     990,637,273       $     182,811,692          $ 1,298,410,438
              Source: State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development




                                                                                                                        29
                                                       Municipality of Anchorage
                                                      Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
B. PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) sets the income limits
and Fair Market Rents for the HOME, public housing, housing choice voucher, project-
based vouchers, project-based multi-family housing, and Section 202/811 programs. This
section identifies the public housing agencies (PHAs) within the Municipality that are
participating in an approved PHA Plan. It also identifies other agencies in Anchorage that
provide affordable housing and supportive services to low-income individuals and families
as well as persons with special needs. An inventory of the number and target number of
units currently assisted by local, state, or federally funded programs, and an assessment
of whether any such units are expected to be lost is outline in this section.

1. HUD Income Limits, Housing Programs, and FMRs

Income limits. Income limits are the maximum amounts that families may earn in order to
qualify for admission into low- and moderate-income housing developments or for rental
assistance. The limits are established by law and are based on family size and geographic
location.     For current income limits and related programs, please see
http://www.ahfc.state.ak.us/Department_Files/Income_Limits/income-limits-main-
page.htm.

Public Housing. The Public Housing Act was originally established in 1937 to provide
decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons
with disabilities. Eligible tenants pay 30 percent of their adjusted monthly income to rent
a unit, with earned income disregard to newly employed families for up to 24 months.
Public housing varies by size and type, from scattered single family houses to
apartment buildings for elderly families. Nationally, there are approximately 1.3 million
households living in public housing units, managed by some 3,300 housing agencies.

Housing Choice Vouchers. The Housing Choice Voucher Program, also referred to
as Section 8, is the federal government's rent supplement program to assist very low-
income families, the elderly, and the disabled in affording decent, safe, and sanitary
housing in the private market. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the
family or individual, participants are able to locate their own housing, including single-
family homes, townhouses and apartments that meet the quality requirements of the
program.

Project-based Vouchers. Project-based vouchers, also referred to as Multi-family
Section 8 New, are a component of a public housing agency’s housing choice voucher
program. A PHA can attach up to 20 percent of its voucher assistance to privately
owned housing units, if the owner agrees to either rehabilitate or construct units. The
owner can also agree to set-aside a portion of the units in an existing development.
Under the project-based voucher program, a PHA enters into an assistance contract
with the owner usually for a five to ten year term. The PHA refers families from its
waiting list to the project owner to fill vacancies.

Project-based Multifamily Housing. These are typically privately owned, multifamily
developments with rents subsidized through a Housing Assistance Payment contract
between the owner and HUD. Eligibility requirements are similar to public housing with
tenants generally paying 30% of adjusted income for rent with the balance subsidized
through HUD. The subsidy is tied directly to the unit. The application process usually


                                                                                              30
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
occurs on-site at the development. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation owns two
developments in Anchorage, subsidized through this program: the 120 unit Chugach
View, designed to serve elderly or disabled persons; and the 17 unit family development
known as Ptarmigan Park. There are also privately owned developments throughout
Anchorage with rental assistance provided through HUD. A complete listing is found at
the end of this section.

Section 202/811. The Section 202 program provides federal capital advances and
project rental assistance to private nonprofit corporations in order to develop new
housing or substantially rehabilitate housing to serve low-income elderly people.
Projects funded by HUD Section 202 provide health, continuing education, and
recreational services to occupants, including homemaking, meal and nutritional
services, counseling, referral services, and transportation, which help residents
maintain an independent living arrangement.
The Section 811 program provides supportive housing for persons with disabilities through
federal funding to nonprofit developers for building and operating housing for low-income
households with disabilities. The Section 811 program is often referred to by the disability
community as the “one stop shop” program because it provides both capital funding and a
project rental assistance contract for nonprofits to develop new permanent supportive
housing for persons with disabilities.

Fair Market Rents. Fair Market Rents (FMRs) is HUD's estimate of the actual market rent
for a non-luxury apartment in the conventional marketplace. FMRs determine the eligibility
of rental housing units for the Housing Choice Voucher and other rental assistance
programs. A public housing authority will use the FMR to help establish a “payment
standard” for the Housing Choice Voucher program. Depending upon the community,
average rents and housing stock conditions, the payment standard is usually between
90% and 110% of FMR. Participants cannot rent units whose rents exceed the payment
standard, unless they are willing and able to pay the difference between the standard and
the owner’s rent.

    Table 12: Anchorage Fair Market Rent & Housing Choice Voucher Payment
                                   Standard
                       0BR     1BR     2 BR    3 BR     4 BR   5 BR    6 BR

FMR*                     $660 $751       $942     $1,356 $1,652 $1,899 $2,147
HCV Payment**            $660 $788       $989     $1,356 $1,652 $1,899 $2,147
Source: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. *Effective 10/1/06. **Effective 11/7/06.

2. Public Housing Agencies
The two public housing agencies whose jurisdictions include the Municipality of Anchorage
are the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) and the Cook Inlet Housing Authority
(CIHA). AHFC is the HUD designated housing authority for the State of Alaska and CIHA
is the Tribally Designated Housing Authority for the Cook Inlet Native Region.

Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
(AHFC) is the public housing agency for the Municipality of Anchorage. It is a self-
supporting corporation with a mission to provide Alaskans with access to safe, quality,
affordable housing. The provide a variety of affordable housing program and tools,


                                                                                            31
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
including the operation of public housing, housing choice vouchers, and project-based
assistance. They also finance of housing developments through the Low Income Housing
Tax Credits program, tax-exempt multi-family loans, and the distribution of Federal and
State housing grants. In addition, a variety of home loan programs for low- and moderate-
income residents offered by the Corporation. AHFC promotes self-sufficiency and well-
being for people in Anchorage by providing:

   •   After-school programs       for   children   and   youth   in   public   housing
       developments;
   •   The Gateway Learning Center, a educational center located in a public
       housing development;
   •   The Family Self-Sufficiency Program;
   •   Heavy chore services to frail elderly or disabled families;
   •   Educational scholarships;
   •   Set-aside vouchers for referrals from Anchorage Community Mental Health
       Services (20 vouchers) and Veterans Administration (25 vouchers); and
   •   A fair share allocation for people with disabilities and for people and
       families with Medicaid Choice Waiver.
AHFC also provides housing-related research, planning and program development
services for Alaskan communities.
Currently, AHFC operates, in Anchorage, 569 public housing units, 185 project-based
housing units, and 2,382 Housing Choice Vouchers. AHFC also maintains an open and
active waitlist. As of July 2007, there were 1,852 on the waitlist for the Housing Choice
Voucher, 1,028 on the waitlist for Conventional Low Rent (Public Housing), 1,063 on the
waitlist for Section 8 New (Ptarmigan Park and Chugach Manor), and 15 for the Adelaide
Single Room Occupancy Complex. AHFC may place a family applicant on the HCV,
Public Housing, and Section 8 New waitlists to increase the opportunity for placement.
The waitlist prioritizes applicants by the submittal date and time and gives preference to
those experiencing displacement due to natural disaster, domestic violence,
homelessness, a rent burden of 50 percent or more of income, families with a terminally ill
member, working families, elderly or disabled families, and veterans.
For the elderly and disabled population, AHFC has 120 public low-income public housing
units and 120 project-based units. Additionally, AHFC has set aside 100 vouchers
statewide, exclusively for persons with disabilities, more than half of those assigned to
Anchorage. AHFC also created an Assistance Provider Interest-Rate Reduction Program
to promote an increase in the housing stock to serve the disabled.
The interest rate reduction program works to increase the availability of housing for people
with disabilities. The rate reduction encourages the development of smaller group and
assisted living homes. As part of the program, the interest rate decreases with the
development size: a 3.5% reduction for homes with two to three occupants; 2.5%
reduction—the interest floor— for a home with four to five occupants.
AHFC also conducts an annual ADA-504 needs assessment to create priorities for
modifications and planned unit improvements, such as enlarging door openings, adding
grab bars in bathrooms and hallways, installing automatic doors, and removing carpet to
facilitate wheelchair movement. For new construction, AHFC complies with ADA-504 on


                                                                                          32
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
all new construction and renovation projects and ensures that at least five percent of the
units, or one unit (whichever is greater), will accommodate a person with mobility
impairments.
Cook Inlet Housing Authority. Cook Inlet Housing Authority (CIHA) is the tribally
designated housing agency for the Cook Inlet Region, as prescribed and funded by the
Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA). In Anchorage, CIHA
works to meet the critical housing needs of Alaska Natives, American Indians, as well as
low-income households. It also acts to revitalize neighborhoods and promote the
celebration of cultural diversity.
For low- to moderate-income families, CIHA offers homeownership opportunities by
building affordable housing, financing low interest loans, providing family rent-to-own,
leveraging home loans, and offering homeownership education. It also provides
emergency repairs, accessibility improvements, and weatherization upgrades for income-
eligible, elder, and disabled homeowners in the Anchorage area.             To prevent
homelessness and serve the homeless, CIHA provides tenant-based rental assistance,
emergency rental assistance and funding to emergency shelters and transitional housing.
CIHA also provides and supports neighborhood revitalization efforts primarily in the
Northeast and Mountain View Community Councils.
Currently, CIHA owns and operates 308 affordable rental units in Anchorage for elderly
and disabled persons and families. These apartment units are located in several buildings
on one campus in East Anchorage known as Centennial Village. Each of these properties
contains one bedroom units and a limited number of two bedroom units, with some units
designed and equipped for persons with disabilities. All utilities, except electricity and
phone service, are provided by CIHA. Units are available to the general public without
regard to race, color, national origin, sex, religion or handicap, and with the philosophy of
promoting “independence through housing.”
CIHA also operates, for low-income households, 165 rent-to-own units and 62 multi-family
rental units, mostly in Mountain View and along Muldoon Road. It has recently broken
ground at the Creekside Town Center in the Muldoon neighborhood with a plan to develop
between 86 and 94 rent-to-own units and 90 units for immediate homeownership.

3. Private Housing Agencies

The following organizations provide affordable housing opportunities for Anchorage
residents. Three of them (ANHS, AHI, and Shiloh) are Community Housing Development
Organizations (CHDOs). The Municipality of Anchorage is required to reserve a minimum
of 15% of its HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds annually for CHDOs.

Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (ANHS). ANHS is a nonprofit
agency that provides financial fitness and pre- and post- purchase homeownership
counseling, home purchase and rehab loans and grants, and specialized services
aimed at seniors and people who experience disabilities. ANHS also provides 1,025
affordable rental housing in multifamily properties. The majority of units are targeted
toward families under either 60% or 80% of Anchorage’s Median Family Income.
In 2005, ANHS merged the housing programs of Anchorage Mutual Housing Authority
into their own. ANHS now provides 1,100 units for independent living. Of these, 70
(7%) are Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units with HUD income-based rents targeted
to homeless individuals and 31 units of Section 8 Project-based rents. ANHS also has
contracts with other mental health agencies to provide housing for their clients.

                                                                                                33
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
ANHS operates the Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Loan Program, which is
available for ADA certified persons to purchase a home. The total loan is up to $80,000
and has a rate of 3% to 4%, depending on income, with the possibility of combining with
a second mortgage. Funding is provided through AHFC on a funding availability basis.

Anchorage Housing Initiatives, Inc (AHI). Anchorage Housing Initiatives, Inc. is a
nonprofit agency that owns and operates 75 units in two apartment complexes, a duplex,
tri-plex and four-plex. AHI is currently developing a demonstration project as a Community
Housing Development Organization (CHDO) project, to construct two single-family homes
in Anchorage to be sold to persons who experience disabilities. Also, in 2006, HUD
awarded a Section 811 grant of $1,857,500 to Anchorage Housing Initiatives to build a an
independent living project for the physically and developmentally disabled, and for
chronically mentally ill individuals. An additional five-year rental subsidy of $301,500 is
also a part of the overall grant. Residents will pay 30 percent of their adjusted income for
rent and the federal government will pay the rest from this subsidy. AHI plans to construct
9 one bed room units and one 2 bedroom unit.

Shiloh Community Development, Inc. Shiloh Community Development, Inc. (Shiloh) is
a nonprofit, faith-based organization that is Anchorage’s newest CHDO. Shiloh completed
its first project, a 4-plex rental development purchase, in 2007. Shiloh is currently
exploring CHDO projects that will target youth.

Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity Anchorage is a nonprofit, ecumenical
Christian housing ministry that works both to eliminate substandard housing in Anchorage,
Alaska and to make adequate housing a matter of conscience and action. Habitat
welcomes partners from any faith or no faith who are willing to pick up a hammer to help
improve the lives of families needing decent shelter.
Habitat builds homes in partnership with qualifying, low-income families who have been
selected based on their need for housing, their ability to repay a no-profit, no-interest
mortgage, and their willingness to partner with Habitat. Because of Habitat’s no-profit, no-
interest loans and because the homes are principally built with volunteer labor, mortgage
payments are affordable for low-income families. Their mortgage payments in turn provide
money to build more Habitat homes. Habitat offers homes to qualified purchasers without
regard to race, sex, color, age, disability, religion, family status, or national origin.
Since 1993, countless individual Habitat volunteers and volunteers from corporations,
businesses, community service organizations and places of worship have worked
alongside Partner Families to build forty-eight homes and rehab three additional Habitat
homes. The second townhouse completed in the twelve townhouse complex at 32nd
Avenue and Spenard Road will be Habitat’s 50th home. When construction is finished on
this complex in Fall 2007, Habitat will have built sixty homes in fifteen years and provided
simple, decent, affordable housing for 302 people, including 195 children.

The Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association (Four A's). The Alaskan AIDS Assistance
Association (Four A's) is Alaska’s AIDS service organization. The agency provides
housing and supportive services to households with incomes less than 80% of the median
family income and that have an individual or individuals living with HIV infection. Housing
Support Services Staff work with clients to develop individualized housing program plans
that focus on getting individuals into permanent housing. Actions include accessing
mainstream resources, giving community-housing resources referrals and working with
clients to give them the life skills and tools needed to hold a lease.


                                                                                          34
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
The 4A’s housing portfolio in Anchorage includes transitional and permanent supportive
housing at property sites that include a six-plex, a four-bedroom house, a two-bedroom
condominium, and a duplex. Outside of housing, Four A’s, through grants, is able to offer
financial assistance to qualifying clients for short-term rent/mortgage and utility assistance,
long-term rent/mortgage assistance, transitional housing, prescription assistance and
dental assistance.

Other agencies. Other agencies that provide, fund, or support affordable housing to low-
income, elderly, and/or disabled individuals and families are RurAL CAP, Catholic Social
Services, AWAIC, Covenant House, The Salvation Army Alaska, the Association for
Retarded Citizens of Anchorage (ARCA), Alaska Specialized Education and Training
Services (ASETS), Hope Cottages, Alaska Community Mental Health Services (ACMHS),
Akeela, Inc. and ACCESS Alaska.

4. Number and Target of Units
                Table 13: Anchorage Low-Income, Elderly, and/or Disabled Housing Units, 2007


                    Property Name                  Units    Main Finance or Subsidy    Supportive Services, &
                                                           for Low-Income & Special    Section 8 Contract Exp.
                                                                      Needs              Date (if applicable)
                                                           ANHS Section 8 Moderate
Low Inc. Ind.




                    Adelaide Building (ANHS)         70
                                                           Rehabilitation
                    Loussac Sogn (ANHS)              50    ANHS                       limited supportive services
                                                    120
                    Subtotal Low Income Ind.
                                                           Six Federal (HUD)
                    Alpine Terrace (AHFC)            48                               12/31/2006
                                                           Subsidized
                    Central Terrace                  99    AHFC Public Housing
                    Chester Creek Estates           100    Federal (HUD) Subsidized   7/31/2007
                    Chester Park Estates            180    Federal (HUD) Subsidized   8/31/2007
                    Fairmont Housing                 80    AHFC Public Housing
Low-Income Family




                    Jewel Lake Villa One             53    Insured-Subsidized         5/15/2007
                    Jewel Lake Villa Two             72    Insured-Subsidized         5/15/2007
                    KBL Apartments                   76    Federal (HUD) Subsidized
                    Loussac Manor                    62    AHFC Public Housing
                    McKay Villa Apartments           12    Federal (HUD) Subsidized
                    New Willows                     150    AHFC Public Housing
                    Park View Manor                  50    AHFC Public Housing
                    Ptarmigan Park Apartments        17    AHFC Project Based MF      1/23/2020
                                                           ANHS, Federal (HUD)
                    Stephen's Park Apartments       160    Subsidized, 31 are S8      9/30/2008
                                                           Project-based rents
                    Subtotal Low-Income Family     1,159



                           Property Name           Units   Main Finance or Subsidy     Supportive Services, &
                                                           for low-income & special    Section 8 Contract Exp.
                                                                     needs               Date (if applicable)




                                                                                                           35
                                                Municipality of Anchorage
                                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                                                                           Federal (HUD)               Section 202/811
                                           AASC Housing I, Inc.      11
                                                                                                       12/4/2007
                                           Alaska Aids
                                                                                                       transportation, daytime
                                           Assistance                16    HOPWA
                                                                                                       care, counseling
                                           Association
                                           Anchorage Pioneer                                           enhanced assisted living
                                                                    228    State of Alaska
                                           Home                                                        and nursing care
                                           Andrew Apartments         9     Federal (HUD)               12/31/2014
                                           ASETS Supportive
                                                                     8     State of Alaska
                                           Housing
                                           Chugach Manor            120    AHFC Public Housing         Elderly independent living
                                                                           AHFC Project-Based Multi-   11/30/2017 Elderly
Supportive Housing: Elderly/Disabilities




                                           Chugach View             120
                                                                           Family                      independent living
                                           Chugiak Senior                                              independent living
                                                                     63    Local/federal
                                           Center                                                      apartments
                                                                                                       Section 202/2811;
                                           Commodore Park            25    Federal (HUD)
                                                                                                       12/31/2007
                                                                                                       low-income senior/disabled
                                           Salamatof Heights        120    CIHA
                                                                                                       <50%/<60% MFI
                                                                                                       low-income seniors <80%
                                           Chickaloon Landing        75    CIHA
                                                                                                       MFI
                                                                                                       low-income seniors <80%
                                           Knik Corners              20    CIHA
                                                                                                       MFI
                                                                                                       low-income senior/disabled
                                           Kenaitze Point            53    CIHA
                                                                                                       <50%/<60% MFI
                                                                                                       low-income senior/disabled
                                           Tyonic Terrace            40    CIHA
                                                                                                       <50%/<60% MFI
                                           Hope Community                  Federal (HUD)               Section 202/811
                                                                     5
                                           Homes I, Inc.                                               12/5/2007
                                           Jewel Lake Plaza          20    Federal (HUD)               Section 202/811; 2/28/2008
                                           Marlow Manor-
                                                                     52    Local                       assisted living
                                           Downtown
                                           Marlow Manor-East         48    Local                       assisted living
                                           Mary Conrad Center        90    Local                       nursing & rehabilitation care
                                                                           Federal (HUD)               Section 202/811, elderly
                                           Muldoon Manor             20
                                                                                                       11/30/2007
                                           New Neighbors, Arc              Federal (HUD)               Section 202/811, disabled
                                                                     10
                                           of Anchorage                                                10/25/2007




                                                                                                                          36
                                                                Municipality of Anchorage
                                                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                                                                                   Main Finance or Subsidy    Supportive Services, &
                                           Property Name                   Units   for Low-Income & Special   Section 8 Contract Exp.
                                                                                   Needs                      Date (if applicable)
                                           Providence Extended Care         224    Local nonprofit            nursing & rehabilitation care
Supportive Housing: Elderly/Disabilities



                                           Providence Horizon House-                                          Alzheimer’s assisted living
                                                                             20    Local nonprofit
                                           Ed’s Place                                                         cottages

                                                                                                              supportive services,
                                           Providence Horizon House          67    Local nonprofit            personal care assistance,
                                                                                                              meals.

                                           Russian Jack Manor                20    Federal (HUD)              Section 202/811; 11/8/2007

                                           87 small homes (2-16 units)      414    Local                      assisted living


                                           Subtotal Elderly/Disabled       1,898



                                           TOTAL UNITS                     3,177




                                                                                                                                   37
                                                                        Municipality of Anchorage
                                                                       Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
C. HOUSING MARKET
This section describes the significant characteristics of Anchorage’s housing market,
including the supply, demand, conditions, costs, and changes in affordability. Each piece
brings in information regarding the affordable housing stock, including manufactured
housing (referred to in this section as mobile homes, with data provided by Fison and
Associates from the U.S. Census). The final two parts of this section tie together the data
and provide a summary of housing needs for low-income households and discusses
possible targeted revitalization areas.

1. Housing Supply
According to the US Census, there were 100,368 housing units in the Municipality of
Anchorage in 2000. About half (46%) of the housing units were single-family, detached;
11% were single family, attached (such as a zero-lot lines); 6% were duplexes; 10% were
tri- or four-plexes; 26% were multi-family (5+ units); and 6% were mobile homes. Ninety-
four percent of all housing units were occupied and 60% were occupied by the
homeowner.
            Table 14: Housing Units by Structure Type, Anchorage 2005
                UNITS IN STRUCTURE                 # OF UNITS         % OF TOTAL
                1-unit                                   57,416           57%
                2 units                                   6,178            6%
                3 or 4 units                             10,365           10%
                5 to 9 units                              7,962            8%
                10 to 19 units                            4,241            4%
                20 or more units                          8,295            8%
                Mobile home                               5,824            6%
                Boat, RV, van, etc.                          87           0.1%
                Total Units                             100,368          100%
                Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Communities Survey 2005.

Mobile homes made up six percent of Anchorage’s housing stock in 2000, with three of
every four units occupied by a homeowner—a much higher ownership rate than for all
types of housing units. Mobile homes have been a traditional housing option in
Anchorage and represent a significant portion of the affordable housing inventory. In
1980, there were approximately 7,250 mobile homes, but by 2000, the number of mobile
home units decreased to 5,824. Over the past decade, more than 1,500 mobile homes
have been lost in the Municipality to the redevelopment of mobile home parks as land
prices have escalated. This pressure to redevelop parks will continue to intensify. Please
refer to Appendix 5 for a 2007 news article on families about to experience this
displacement.




                                                                                         38
                                   Municipality of Anchorage
                                  Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
    Figure 8: Percent of Homeowners, All Housing Units and Mobile Home Units
                                Occupied Units - Anchorage 2000

                                             Owners
                                              60%
                                                                            Owners
                                                                             76%


                                                                Renters
                                                                 24%
            Renters
             40%
                       All Housing:                                 Mobile Homes:
                       94,822 Units                                  5,411 Units
            Source: Prepared by Fison & Associates from U.S. Census data.



Housing Units by Geography. The Anchorage Bowl contains 90% of the housing units
in the Municipality of Anchorage, with one in three houses in the Northeastern section of
the Anchorage Bowl.

    Table 15: Units in Anchorage Bowl Geographic Areas by Housing Type, 2004
Housing Type                 NW      NE       Central   SW     SE      Number of
                                                                       Housing
                                                                       Units
Single Family, Detached       5,340 10,620       6,920   8,731   4,899    36,510
Single Family Detached,          26      194        89     431   3,154      3,894
Large Lot
Single Family, Attached       3,838   5,494      3,492   2,494     112    15,430
Mobile Home in Park             634   2,351      1,405       0       0      4,390
Multifamily/Other            12,592 12,020       5,795   3,304     184    33,895
All Housing Types            22,430 30,679     17,701 14,960     8,349    94,119
Source: Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department 2007

Owner & Rental Supply. Although single-family homes are the most common type of
housing structure in the Municipality, duplex and multi-family units comprise an increasing
portion of new housing, a trend that started in 1998. The percentage of duplex and multi-
family housing units rose from 22% of all new builds in the 1990s to 45% of all new builds
since 2000. One trend that has influenced the increase in multifamily construction in
Anchorage was the UCIOA (Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, known in
Anchorage as “site condo”) trend that started in 1998.




                                                                                            39
                                      Municipality of Anchorage
                                     Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                            Figure 9: New Housing Units by Type
                    Anchorage in 7-Year Periods, 1993-2006

                               Single Family        Duplex      Multi-Family

                      76%                                       45%




                                                                                               27%



                        6%             19%                        27%

                     1993-1999                                         2000-2006

        Taken f rom 2007 Anchorage Indicators, Neighborhood Sourcebook: Housing and Construction
        Indicators.


Along with the growth in multi-family housing, there is also a growth in the rate of housing
units added to the market per year. Forty-four percent of the state’s new housing units are
built in Anchorage and 33% are built in the Mat-Su Borough (Rogers et al 2005). From
2000 to 2007, there were 12,464 units added to the market at an average rate of 1,781
units per year. This is 70% higher than the average annual growth rate of housing units
during the seven years prior to 2000.
The increase in housing units is fairly exclusive to the owner-occupied housing market.
For rental housing, the number of units remains relatively unchanged, with 42,360 units in
1990, 40,025 units in 2000, and 41,830 units in 2005. Any new rental units may have
been off-set by the loss of a similar number of units through demolition of dilapidated
multi-family rental structures or the conversion of rental units into “for sale” condominiums
or homes. Over the past decade, Anchorage has also lost more than 1,500 mobile homes
to the redevelopment of mobile home parks.

Affordable Housing Stock. In 2000, 67% of the housing stock or 62,386 units, was
affordable to people with low- to moderate-incomes (80% or less MFI). The majority of
affordable housing could be found in the rental market, where there were 34,074 renter-
occupied units that had rents less than $1,200 (92% of all renter-occupied units). In the
owner-occupied market, about half, or 28,000 units, could be found valued less than
$140,000. Mobile home/manufactured housing units also provided a source of affordable
housing.




                                                                                                     40
                                     Municipality of Anchorage
                                    Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
         Figure 10: Affordable Housing at Different Levels of Affordability
           Renter- and Owner- Occupied Units, Anchorage 2000

                                               Renter-Occupied Units

                                                                                                              Afford. to
                                                                                                  49%       51%-80%MFI
      Not Af f ordable                              Af f ordable
           8%                                           92%                                                   Afford. to
                                                                                                  36%       31%-50%MFI
                                                                                                            Afford. to
                                                                                                  14%       <31%MFI

                                               Owner-Occupied Units
                                                                                                             Af f ord. to
                                                                                                  71%        51%-80%
      Not Af f ordable                               Af f ordable
                                                                                                                  MF
          49%                                            51%
                                                                                                             Af f ord. to
                                                                                                  29%        31%-50%
                                                                                                                MFI

   Source: HUD SOCD CHAS Data Run from Census 2000. Affordable rental housing is defined as gross rent (rent and
   utilities) that is less than or equal to 30% of a household’s gross income. Affordable owner housing is defined as annual
   owner costs less than or equal to 30% of annual gross income. . Housing N/A for owner units affordable to persons
   making 30% or less MFI. MFI=HUD 2000 Median Family Income of $59,300.




In 2000, the gap in the housing market was at both the high and the low end income
affordability levels (Table 16). Overall, the shortage of housing at the higher end meant
that there was a higher potential for affordability mismatch, in which households that can
afford a higher priced home purchase a moderately priced home, leaving those at income
levels below 80% squeezed for housing. Since 2000, the Anchorage housing stock at the
higher end has grown, while fewer units, due to increased costs and as a response to
market demands, have been added at affordable levels for those making below 80% MFI.
While higher income groups have been able to move into more expensive housing, the
overall rise in housing, as well as the fact that fewer and fewer units are built at affordable
levels means that moderate and low-income households are seeing the surplus of houses
at their affordability range dwindle.




                                                                                                                               41
                                                  Municipality of Anchorage
                                                 Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                Table 16: Housing Surplus/Deficit by Income & Affordability
               % MFI           # Households        # Housing Units               Housing
             (Income/             by Income            (Occupied &     Surplus/Deficit by
       Affordability Range)                              Vacant) by             Income &
                                                       Affordability         Affordability
       30% or less                     1,783                    N/A                -1,783
       >30% to </=50%                  2,821                  8,421                 5,600
owners




       >50% to </=80%                  6,791                 20,459                13,668
       80% or more                    44,581                 27,857               -16,724
       Unknown                         2,252                  1,980                  -272
       Subtotal                       58,228                 58,717                   489
       30% or less                     5,923                  4,940                  -983
       >30% to </=50%                  7,102                 13,537                 6,435
renters




       >50% to </=80%                  8,495                 17,525                 9,030
       80% or more                    15,332                  3,262               -12,070
       Subtotal                       36,852                 39,264                 2,412
Vacant, Not Available                                         2,387                 2,387
                      TOTAL           95,080                100,368                 5,288
Source: Census 2000; HUD SOCD CHAS Data Tables: “Affordability Mismatch Output for All Households” and “Housing Problems
Output for All Households.”

          Size/Number of Bedrooms. The average size of a housing unit in Anchorage is around
          1,700 square feet. Seventy percent of owner-occupied units have three or four bedrooms
          while 73% of renter-occupied units have less than three bedrooms.
                          Figure 11: Percent of Units by Number of Bedrooms
                               Owner- and Renter-Occupied, Anchorage 2000
                                                      Owner-Occupied     Renter-Occupied
                         60%

                         50%                                            46%
                                                                  40%
                         40%

                         30%                          26%
                                                                                    24%
                                                            19%               20%
                         20%

                         10%             7%                                               6%   5%
                                                 4%
                                 1%                                                                 1%
                          0%
                                  Ef f iciency     One        Two         Three       Four       Fiv e+
                                                 bedroom    bedrooms    bedrooms    bedrooms   bedrooms

                          Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.

          The units that were added after 2000 in the homeowner market worked toward filling a gap
          of two-bedroom and five- or more- bedroom units. Almost half of the new units are two-
          bedroom, 32% are three-bedroom, 6% are four-bedroom, and 17% are five or more
          bedrooms, reflecting the trend to build at the high end of the market. During this time
          there was also a loss from the market of 816 efficiency units, most likely through
          demolition projects.




                                                                                                                     42
                                                  Municipality of Anchorage
                                                 Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
               Figure 12: New Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms
                Stock in 1999 & Stock Added 2000-2005, Anchorage
                          Total Housing Stock in 2000        New Housing Stock, Since 2000
               50%
                                                      44%

               40%
                                                             36%
                                                                   32%
               30%


               20%                                                        17%              17%
                                                16%
                                    13%
               10%
                                                                                6%
                       3%                                                             4%
                                          1%
               0%
                       Efficiency   1 bedroom   2 bedrooms   3 bedrooms   4 bedrooms 5+ bedrooms

               Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000 & American Communinities Survey, 2005.


2. Housing Demand
Low vacancy rates (less than 6%) suggest a high demand for units. Between 1994 and
2005, the vacancy rate in the Municipality of Anchorage stayed close to 5%, dropping from
12.2% in 1990 and rising to 6.9% in 2005. In 2000, the vacancy rate was at 5.5%, with
3.1% of units vacant and available for occupancy and the remaining vacancies rented or
sold, but not occupied (0.5%); used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (1.3%);
or used for migrant workers, caretakers, janitors, or for personal reasons of the owner
(0.8%). Of units that were vacant and available, 2,136 units (2.1%) were “for rent” and
1,005 units (1%) were “for sale.” Also to note, mobile homes had a 7.1% vacancy rate in
2000.
In the following analysis of housing demand, vacancy rates are examined in relation to
tenure and affordability. This will assist in assessing whether there is a need for inventory
or rehabilitation of affordable housing. For example, low vacancy rates for affordable
housing coupled with an increase in the number of households needing affordable housing
would suggest that affordable units need to be added to the inventory.
Owner Stock. In 2000, vacancy rates suggested an exceptionally high demand in the
owner market at all levels of affordability. However, the demand was greatest for units
affordable to people making 50%-80% MFI. In this affordability range, there were no
vacancies for efficiency to one-bedroom units, 2% vacancies for two-bedroom units, and a
1% vacancy for three- or more-bedroom units. There were no owner-occupied units in
Anchorage affordable to people making 30% or less MFI.




                                                                                                   43
                                      Municipality of Anchorage
                                     Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
               Figure 13: Vacant “For Sale” by Affordability & Unit Size
                                            Anchorage-2000
                                                                       5.3%

         0-1 bedroom 0.0%
                                                     3.2%

                                                                                 Af f ordable to Households
                                                          3.7%                   >30%-50% MFI
                                                                                 Af f ordable to Households
           2 bedroom                      1.9%
                                                                                 >50%-80% MFI
                                                     3.2%                        Af f ordable to Households
                                                                                 >80% MFI

                                                         3.7%

          3+ bedroom              1.0%

                                   1.1%

                     0.0%                               4.0%
          Source: HUD SOCD CHAS Data Run, 2000. Af f ordable is def ined as gross rent (rent and utilities)
          less than or equal to 30% of a household's gross income. MFI=HUD Median Family Income.
          Housing N/A f or units af f oradable to households 0-30% MFI.

Rental Stock. The demand in the rental market was not as great as it was on the
homeowner market in 2000. There was, however, an exceptional demand for rental units
affordable to people making 30% or less MFI. In this affordability range, there was a 0.6%
vacancy rate for efficiency to one-bedroom units, a 2.5% vacancy rate for two-bedroom
units, and a 1.6% vacancy rate for three-bedroom units. There was also a notable
demand for units affordable for people making 50%-80% MFI.
Higher vacancy rates (around 10%), especially among affordable units, suggest an
adequate supply of housing, as seen in three-bedroom rental units affordable to 30% to
50% MFI. Yet the higher vacancy rate is likely somewhat deceiving. Older apartment
buildings may be more affordable because of the poor condition of the units. Furthermore,
low-income households are often mobile and transient, leading to higher vacancy rates. It
is likely that the housing stock that is affordable at these levels would benefit from
upgrades or replacement.




                                                                                                              44
                                        Municipality of Anchorage
                                       Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
              Figure 14: Vacant “For Rent” by Affordability & Unit Size
                                                        Anchorage-2000
                                    0.6%
                                                               7.1%
            0-1 bedroom*
                                                  3.7%
                                                 3.7%
                                                                                                    Af f ordable to Households
                                                                                                    <= 30% MFI
                                            2.5%
                                                                                                    Af f ordable to Households
                                                                       9.0%                         >30%-50% MFI
              2 bedroom*
                                                   4.0%                                             Af f ordable to Households
                                                                                                    >50%-80% MFI
                                                                         9.5%
                                                                                                    Af f ordable to Households
                                                                                                    >80% MFI
                                        1.6%
                                                                             10.3%
             3+ bedroom*
                                                      4.9%
                                           2.2%

                            0.0%             4.0%             8.0%            12.0%
             Source: HUD SOCD CHAS Data Run, 2000. *Apartment and single-family rentals. Affordable is defined as gross
             rent (rent and utilities) less than or equal to 30% of a household's gross income. MFI=HUD Median Family Income.


Nationwide, the hot housing market has pushed up home prices and also put downward
pressure on rents. Growing numbers of people are buying real estate as an investment,
with the intention of flipping it or moving into it later, increasing the supply of rental
property. At the same time, low interest rates have pushed many potential renters into
becoming homeowners, thus lowering demand and prices for rentals. In Anchorage, there
has been an overall increase in rental vacancy rates since 2000. Vacancy rates have
increased 2.7% for efficiency and one-bedroom units, 2.8% for two-bedroom units, and
0.9% for three or more bedroom units.
                          Figure 15: Rental Vacancy Rates 2000 & 2006
                                Anchorage 0-1BR, 2BR, & 3+BR Units

                                                                 2000              2006
            12.0%




             8.0%                                                                7.1%
                                             6.9%

                                                                                                                      5.5%
                             4.2%                                 4.3%                                4.6%
             4.0%




             0.0%
                               0-1 bedroom*                          2 bedroom*                         3+ bedroom*
             Source: AHFC Rental Market Surv ey *Apartment and single-f amily rentals. Census 2000 showed v acanc
             rates of 5% f or 0-1 bedroom, 6% f or 2 bedroom and 4.5% f or 3+ bedroom.




                                                                                                                                 45
                                               Municipality of Anchorage
                                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
As compared to other Boroughs in Alaska in 2005, Anchorage had amongst the lowest
rental vacancy rates in the state, with the exception of the Kodiak Island Borough and the
Juneau Borough (Fison 2007).
Vacancy rates varied across the city in 2000. Since the majority of available units were
rentals, the neighborhoods that had the highest percentage of rental housing also had
more vacancies. Those neighborhoods include Mountain View, Downtown, Northeast,
Midtown, and Spenard




                                                                                        46
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Map 9: Vacant and Available Housing as a % of Housing Stock by Block Group,
                           Anchorage Bowl 2000




Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Prepared by Terry Lamberson, MOA IT Dept


                                                                                    47
                             Municipality of Anchorage
                            Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Map 10: Vacant and Available Housing as a % of Housing Stock by Block Group, Eagle
                                River Vicinity 2000




      Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Prepared by Terry Lamberson, MOA IT Dept



                                                                                          48
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Map 11: Vacant and Available Housing as a % of Housing Stock by Block Group,
                            Turnagain Arm 2000




    Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Prepared by Terry Lamberson, MOA IT Dept
Abandoned buildings. As part of the Consolidated Plan, HUD asks each participating
jurisdiction to estimate the number of abandoned buildings suitable for rehabilitation. The
Municipality of Anchorage does not have easily accessible data on abandoned buildings.
However, buildings like the old school district headquarters are worth exploring as a
possible conversion project.

3. Housing Condition
A 2006 Municipal assessment of residential buildings characterized almost half of the
structures as being in excellent, very good, or in good condition; half as being in average
condition; 2% as being in poor condition; and 0.1% as being in very poor condition or
uninhabitable.
Age. The median age of housing in Anchorage is 30 years old and was built in 1977. The
neighborhoods with the oldest housing stock are Government Hill, Elmendorf Air Force
Base (1953), Airport Heights and the Fort Richardson Military Reservation (1959). The
second oldest neighborhoods are Downtown (1962), South Addition (1963), Turnagain
(1964), and Spenard (between 1966 and 1968).

The age of housing by housing type (i.e. owner vs. renter) is indicative of the changing
nature of the Anchorage community. In Anchorage’s early years, especially during the
post WW-II and pipeline eras, saw seasonal and temporary workers place a high demand


                                                                                              49
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
on the rental market. The spike in both owner and renter-occupied housing shows the
growth experienced during the pipeline boom. Since 1979, housing built for owner-
occupancy has outpaced rental housing.
                                      Figure 16: Year Structure Built
            Owner- and Renter- Occupied Units, Anchorage 2000
                                                  owner-occupied              renter-occupied
            40.0%
                                                                                          35.8%
                                                                                  33.9%

                                                                                                  30.1%
            30.0%
                                                                                                          26.0%




            20.0%
                                                                          15.5%                                   14.9%
                                                                  12.7%

                                                           9.6%                                                           8.9%
            10.0%
                                                    6.7%

                                             3.2%
                            1.1%      1.4%
                     0.3%
             0.0%
                    1939 or earlier   1940-1949     1950-1959     1960-1969       1970-1979       1980-1989       1990-2000

            Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.

There is a positive relationship between the age of renter-occupied units and affordability.
The more affordable the unit is, the more likely it is to be built before 1970. Half of the
rental units that were affordable to a person earning 30% or less MFI were built before
1970, two times more likely than a unit that was affordable to a person making 50%-80%
MFI. On the other hand, homeowner-units have no relationship between age and
affordability. One in four owner units that were affordable to people earning less than 80%
MFI was built before 1970. With each passing year many of these older apartments, built
quickly during the boom years, are in need of significant rehabilitation.




                                                                                                                                 50
                                              Municipality of Anchorage
                                             Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
    Figure 17: Percent of Units Affordable to 80% MFI or Less Built Before 1970
                  Anchorage Owner- and Renter-Occupied Units- 2000
              60%
                                                   Renter      Owner
                         51%
              50%

              40%                                  37%

              30%                                                                        26%
                                                              25%
                                                                              20%
              20%

              10%

               0%
                     Affordable to Households   Affordable to Households   Affordable to Households
                            <= 30% MFI                >30%-50% MFI               >50%-80% MFI

              Source: SOCDS CHAS Data: Affordability Mismatch Output for All Households, 2000.

Mobile homes in Anchorage are in general and aging and deteriorating housing stock.
Large numbers of mobile homes were brought to Alaska during periods of
population/economic booms, such as the construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline
System. As a result, 80% of the mobile homes in Anchorage are at least 25 years old.
Some of the mobile home parks are well managed, well maintained and attractive.
However, other parks have deteriorating substandard infrastructure and contain very old
substandard homes.
The Municipality uses funding to weatherize and rehabilitate mobile homes, but the cost of
repairs can easily exceed the value of the unit. For many of these pre-1976 HUD code
units, replacement of the unit is wiser than major rehabilitation. Yet without the control of
land on which the homes sit, mobile/manufactured homeowners will have difficulty
achieving long-term security. They will also face challenges securing financing for their
home and will likely not benefit from asset appreciation. The Municipality of Anchorage
will continue to explore land trusts, manufactured housing cooperatives or condominiums,
and the replacement of mobile home parks with mixed-income multi-family housing as
affordable housing mechanisms.




                                                                                                      51
                                      Municipality of Anchorage
                                     Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                                Figure 18: Age of Mobile Homes
                                          Anchorage - 2000
            1995-2000          169
               1990-94         95
               1980-56                      786
               1970-79                                                                  3,079
               1960-69                            1,039
           Before 1960              273

                           0        500     1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
                            1995-2000 1990-94       1980-56   1970-79       1960-69 Before 1960
                 Owners        140      66            597      2,345          814       152
                 Renters        29      29            189        734          225       121
           Source: Prepared by Fison & Associates from U.S. Census data.



Plumbing Facilities. The 2000 Census found that 95.5% of the occupied housing units in
Anchorage had compete plumbing facilities—hot and cold piped water and/or a flush toilet
and/or a bathtub or shower. Only 472 of the 95,000 occupied housing units were without
complete plumbing. The highest concentration of housing units without complete
plumbing was in Turnagain Arm. Many of these are seasonally occupied recreational
cabins. Nearly all residential areas in the Anchorage Bowl, with the exception of the
Hillside and a few other areas served by private water systems, received water and sewer
services through the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility.
The highest concentrations of units without complete plumbing facilities were in Census
Tract 29 in the Turnagain Arm (4%-19% of all units), Census Tract 11, Block Group 2 in
the Downtown Community Council (13% of all units), Census tract 22.02, Block Groups 1
and 2, within the Spenard Community Council (5.3% and 2.9% of all units respectively).
For all units lacking complete plumbing facilities, 56% were occupied by renters and 20%
had households with incomes below the 1999 poverty level (poverty is defined by a
family’s total income being less than the family’s threshold, a number that is calculated by
the U.S. Census Bureau).
 Table 17: Census Tract/Block Groups with 10+ Units Lacking Complete Plumbing
                           Facilities, Anchorage 2000
                                                                             Housing Units
  Census         Block
                                    In What Part of Anchorage              Lacking Complete       % of All
   Tract         Group
                                                                           Plumbing Facilities     Units
    29              2                 In Turnagain Arm                             82              18.76%
    11              2                    In Downtown                               31              10.47%
    29              4                 In Turnagain Arm                             27                5.05%
   1.01             3                     In Chugiak                               25                2.71%
   28.23            1             In South Anchorage Bowl                          25                4.96%
   9.01             3          In Fairview Community Council                       23                4.81%
   22.02            1          In Spenard Community Council                        21                5.04%
    29              1                 In Turnagain Arm                             21              29.17%
    29              3                 In Turnagain Arm                             19                3.89%



                                                                                                         52
                                       Municipality of Anchorage
                                      Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                                                                                                 Housing Units
  Census        Block
                                         In What Part of Anchorage                             Lacking Complete      % of All
   Tract        Group
                                                                                               Plumbing Facilities    Units
   28.12          1                   In South Anchorage Bowl                                           15              1.64%
   1.01           1                        In Chugiak Area                                              13              8.02%
   1.01           2                        In Chugiak Area                                              12              2.00%
   2.01           1                      In Eagle River Area                                            12              2.08%
   17.01          2                 In Northeast Anchorage Bowl                                         11              1.39%
   7.03           1                 In Northeast Anchorage Bowl                                         10              1.93%
    20            4               In Spenard Community Council                                          10              2.63%
   23.03          6                In Southwest Anchorage Bowl                                          10              2.08%
 Map 12: Locating Block Groups with the Greatest Number of Units Lacking
                Complete Plumbing, Anchorage Bowl- 2000
   Census Tract 11, Block Group 2                                             Census Tract 22.02, Block Groups 1
      (Downtown Anchorage)                                                     (in Spenard Community Council)




Overcrowding. Crowding is defined as units with more than one occupant per room (all
rooms in the unit). In Anchorage, crowding is more likely to occur in renter-occupied units
than in owner-occupied units. In 2000, 65% of the 5,592 housing units that had more than
one occupant per room were renter-households. Renters were also five times more likely
than owners to have more than two occupants per room.
             Figure 19: Number of Housing Units by Level of Crowding
                 #Occupants per Room, Owners and Renters- Anchorage- 2000

                                               Owner-occupied           Renter-occupied
                       39,307

                                19,311
                                           15,653 14,959




                                                                      2,006
                                                           1,301
                                                                                       1,086

                                                                                530                     527



                                                                                                  142


                         0.50 or less       0.51 to 1.00       1.01 to 1.50     1.51 to 2.00        2.01+

                      Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000.




                                                                                                                                53
                                            Municipality of Anchorage
                                           Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Statewide Data. A recent statewide assessment, including urban areas, on crowding and
other housing conditions notes the following (Rogers et al 2005):
   •   7.5% of houses are stated to need repair beyond what the occupant could perform;
   •   5% of overcrowded units (300 square feet per resident or less) are stated to be
       “falling apart and in need of replacement”;
   •   68% of households making less than $10,000 (of which 16% are in urban Alaska)
       state that they have drafty homes;
   •   45,000 households are potential candidates for weatherization services;
   •   There were less very small homes in 2005 than there were in 1990; and
   •   Crowding in Anchorage is less so than statewide.

Lead-Based Paint Hazards. Because of lead’s toxicity, paint containing more than
0.06% lead was banned for residential use in 1978 by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (Code of Federal Regulations CFR 1303). Lead-based paint hazards are
defined as any condition that causes exposure to lead from lead-contaminated dust, soil,
or paint that is deteriorated or present in accessible surfaces, frictional surfaces, or impact
surfaces that would result in adverse human health effects. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has established lead hazard standards under 40 CFR Part 745. The
most common sources of lead poisoning are lead-based paint hazards from dust,
deteriorated paint, and soil.
In 2000, there were 10,413 renter households and 7,199 owner households earning less
than 80% MFI and living in housing built before 1970. However, data from Anchorage
rehabilitation programs suggest that less than 10% of Anchorage’s housing stock has
paint containing lead. One reason for the low rate of lead paint in Anchorage is that lead
was primarily used in premium paints. Because of the high cost of shipping and the
availability of paint through military surplus, higher-priced paints were often not brought
into the State.

4. Housing Costs
Average Listing Price. Currently, Anchorage is ranked 76th for all Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (MSAs) in the country for highest one-year housing price increase (Office of Federal
Housing Enterprise Oversight 2007). On April 9, 2007 the average selling price for an
Anchorage home was $320,787, up 8.1% from 2006 and 71% from 2000. The average
price of a new house in 2006 in Anchorage was $425,000 and the average price of an
existing house was $302,000. Anchorage now has the second highest average sales
price for a single-family home in the State, following Juneau (AHFC 2006).
In early 2007, housing prices began to level and housing growth slowed. If housing prices
begin to fall in the near future, some families who became homeowners in recent years
may be vulnerable to foreclosure. Those most at risk are those with variable rate loans or
those who may have purchased homes that are worth less than what they originally paid.




                                                                                             54
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                             Figure 20: Annual Change in Housing Prices
                             Anchorage, Pacific Region, USA; 2000-2006
                30%


                20%


                10%


                  0%


               -10%
                                                                                                                                                   Anchorage
               -20%                                                                                                                                Pacific
                                                                                                                                                   USA
               -30%
                           2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q 2Q 4Q
                          1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q
                            90    91    92    93    94    95    96    97    98    99    00    01    02    03    04    05    06



               Source: Of f ice of Federal Housing Enterprise Ov ersight, 2007.

Median Value. The median value of a home is another way to look at the cost of housing
and is less sensitive to extreme home prices. It is a better general indicator of the middle
of the housing market. To find the median, values are distributed into two equal parts:
one-half of the homes falling below the median valued property (house and lot, mobile
home and lot, or condominium unit) and one-half above the median valued property. For
2005, the median value of owner-occupied units in Anchorage was $230,600, up 43%
from 2000.
                                   Figure 21: Value of Owner-Occupied Units
                                                          Anchorage 2000 and 2005
                50%
                                                                                                 2000            2005

                40%                                                                                                 37%
                                                                     33%                 34%

                30%

                                                                                                   21%                              20%
                20%                                                                                          18%



                10%                                 8%                            7%
                                             6%                                                                               5%                       5%
                                                              3%
                                 1%                                                                                                          1%                    0%         1%
                  0%
                                       00
                                         0               99                 99
                                                                              9
                                                                                                 99
                                                                                                   9               99             99              99                     0+
                                    0,                 ,9               ,                    ,                   ,9             ,9              ,9                     00
                                 $5                  99               49                  99                   99             99              99                    0,
                                                   -$               $1                  $1                   $2             $4              $9                    00
                            an                  0K                K-                  K-                   K-             K-             K-                     1,
                          th                  $5                00                  50                   00             00             00                   $
                     ss                                       $1                  $1                   $2             $3             $5
                   Le
                 Source: US Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 and American Community Survey
                 2005.

Mortgage Interest Rates. In Anchorage, three in five households own their own homes.
Because most homeowners pay a mortgage, interest rates are an important indicator of
housing affordability. Even small changes in mortgage interest rates can have a large
impact on the affordability of owning a home and the purchasing power of a household
(Federal Reserve Bank of New York 2007).




                                                                                                                                                                                   55
                                                               Municipality of Anchorage
                                                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
On June 6, 2007, the average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage offered in Anchorage was
6.34%, equal to the interest rate in the spring of 2006. Since 2000, the interest rates have
fallen from 7.7% to a low of 5.5% in 2003, and have since been gradually increasing.
                         Figure 22: Mortgage Interest Rates 2000-2006
                    Average Rates on a 30-year Fixed Loan in Alaska
                  8.00%

                  7.00%

                  6.00%

                  5.00%

                  4.00%

                  3.00%

                  2.00%

                  1.00%

                  0.00%
                              Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
                               2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006
                30 Yr Fixed   7.70% 7.48% 6.27% 6.45% 6.64% 6.18% 5.50% 5.62% 5.66% 5.81% 5.77% 5.90% 6.36%

                Source: AHFC Alaska Housing Market Indicators, 2001-2006.

Rental Rates. According to the AHFC survey, median rents in 2006 were $630 for
efficiency units, $759 for one-bedroom units, $968 for two-bedroom units, and $1,095 for
three-bedroom units. The rental rates for a single-family home were $967 for a two-
bedroom, $1,403 for a three-bedroom, and $1,620 for a four-bedroom. Median rents in
2006, are significantly higher than they were in 2000, in some cases up to 61% higher
(Tables 17 and 18).
               Table 18: Apartment Rental Rates, Anchorage 2000-2006
                                                                                      2000-
               2000      2001      2002       2003     2004       2005      2006       2006
 0 BRM             -     $535      $545       $570     $645       $600      $625       17%
 1 BRM         $475      $625      $650       $675     $695       $710      $745       57%
 2 BRM         $575      $785      $800       $820     $855       $875      $925       61%
 3 BRM         $720      $945      $950      $1100    $1200      $1107     $1090       51%
 4 BRM         $875     $1200    $1225       $1563    $1600      $1402     $1400       60%
Source: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation’s Annual Rental Market Survey 2000, 2001, 2002,
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.




                                                                                                               56
                                           Municipality of Anchorage
                                          Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                 Table 19: Single-Family Home Rental Rates, Anchorage 2000-2006
                                                                                           2000-
                    2000      2001      2002       2003      2004      2005      2006       2006
     1 BRM          $545      $625      $575       $563      $550      $563      $675       24%
     2 BRM          $790      $838      $800       $800      $900      $913      $888       12%
     3 BRM         $1100     $1200     $1200      $1250    $1250      $1250     $1300       18%
     4 BRM         $1400     $1500     $1600      $1600    $1650      $1650     $1500        7%
     5 BRM         $1500          -         -     $1775    $1675      $1700          -         -
    Source: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation’s Annual Rental Market Survey 2000, 2001, 2002,
    2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.
    Mobile home occupants, though mostly homeowners, pay an average of $340 per month
    for space rent in mobile home parks. In many cases the mobile home unit is paid off and
    the monthly space rent is the only housing cost, outside of heat, utilities, and upkeep. A
    mobile home that is owned outright is often priced at little more than half of a one-bedroom
    rental unit.
    Affordability Mismatch. In general, housing units tended to have occupants with
    incomes that did not match the affordability of the unit. This was especially true for units
    with two or more bedrooms that were affordable to people with 30% MFI or less. Of units
    with three or more bedrooms that are affordable to extremely low-income, 84% were not
    occupied by persons earning an extremely low-income.
    Homeowners tended to have a greater affordability mismatch than renters. For units
    affordable to people earning 31%-50% MFI, 80% were occupied by people outside of that
    income range.      Affordability mismatch is an important indicator because it does not
    assume that all households will pay 30% of their income on housing; some are able to pay
    less, while others are forced to pay more.
      Table 20: % of Occupants in Units at the Same Affordability Rate as Their Income
                       Level, Renters, and Owners, Anchorage 2000

                                         Renter Units by # of Bedrooms             Owner Units by # of Bedrooms


                                       0-1           2           3+        Total   0-1       2       3+     Total


% occupants earning <=30%
MFI in units affordable to             47%          27%         16%        27%     N/A      N/A      N/A    N/A
households <=30% MFI.


% occupants earning <=50%
MFI in units affordable to
                                       51%          42%         36%        45%     30%      19%     20%     21%
households >30% to <=50%
MFI

% occupants earning <=80%
MFI in units affordable to
                                       65%          47%         49%        53%     45%      30%     20%     23%
households making >50% to
<=80% MFI
Source: SOCDS CHAS Data, 2000: Affordability Mismatch Output for All Households.

    Property Taxes. Property taxes are based on real and personal property and are levied
    on a full-assessed value at mill rates that range from 9 to 18 mills. The City gives


                                                                                                             57
                                              Municipality of Anchorage
                                             Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
exemptions (up to $150,000 of property value) for property owned and occupied as the
primary residence and permanent place of abode by a Senior resident 65 years of age or
older, a Disabled Veteran, or a resident at least 60 years old who is the widow or widower
of a person who qualified as a Senior or Disabled Veteran. Also, owner occupied
residential property may be partially exempt (10% of assessed value, up to $20,000
maximum). At the time of publication, the Municipality of Anchorage is exploring
consumption taxes as a way to diversity tax revenues while providing property owners a
reduction in tax rates.

5. Change in Housing Affordability
Housing Costs and Income. Housing is becoming less affordable in Anchorage, and
renters at all income levels and homebuyers at lower income levels are especially
vulnerable to be priced out of a house. It now takes an average of 1.8 wage earners to
afford the average single-family home in Anchorage, up from 1.5 in 2000. Simply put,
housing prices are increasing much faster than income levels. Between 2000 and 2005,
home sales prices, values, and rents increased at an annual rate of 11.4%, 7.2%, 4.2%
respectively. On the other hand, the median income increased only 1.7% annually
between 2000 and 2005.
                      Figure 23: Change in Price of Housing to Income
                                            Anchorage 2000-2005

                                                        2000: $186,301
                            Average home sales price
                                                        2005: $291,013                          57%


                                                        2000: $160,700
             Median value of owner-occupied. housing
                                                        2005: $230,600
                                                                                         43%


                                                        2000: $59,300
                          HUD Median Family Income
                                                        2005: $78,700             33%


                                                        2000: $696
                                 Median monthly rent*
                                                        2005: $871          25%


                                                                         2000: $55,546
                            Median Household Income             10%      2005: $61,217


                                                 0%              20%              40%            60%
              Source:US Census Bureau, Anchorage Multiple Listing Serv ice, and HUD Income Limits.
              *Single-Family and Apartment Rentals

Affordable Housing Alternatives. In Anchorage, manufactured housing/mobile homes
enable some low-income families to purchase their own homes, in a market in which they
would generally find it very difficult to become homeowners. In fact, there is a higher
percentage of homeownership in mobile homes than other housing types.
Another, more affordable option to purchasing a home in the Municipality has been to buy
a home in the adjacent Mat-Su Borough. Although home prices in the Mat-Su Borough
have increased 46% between 2000 and 2005, the Mat-Su Borough still provides housing
that is 30% lower in price than what is available in Anchorage. Almost half of those who
left Anchorage between 1995 and 2000 to go to another Alaska location went to the Mat-
Su Borough. Most of these were “young, white families with children” (ISER 2005).




                                                                                                       58
                                            Municipality of Anchorage
                                           Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
      Figure 24: Average Home Sales Price, Mat-Su Homes as a Percentage to
                              Anchorage Homes
                                                                         2000-2006
                  100%%

                                    23%           23%           23%                                       28%                         28%
                                                                              31%           29%                         29%                          30%
                   80%%


                   60%%


                   40%%             77%           77%           77%
                                                                              69%           71%           72%           71%           72%            70%

                   20%%


                     0%%
                                    1998          1999          2000          2001          2002          2003          2004          2005           2006
                  Source: Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Indicatators 2007.

The affordability of living in the Mat-Su is decreasing. In 2000, the average household that
worked in Anchorage, but lived in the Mat-Su Borough could afford to purchase a single-
family house on a little more than one average wage earner’s income. By 2006, it took an
average of 1.5 wage-earners to afford the average single-family home. This decrease in
housing affordability is paired with an increase in gas prices (see Figure 23) affecting
commuting costs and a sales tax, not seen in Anchorage, in the three Borough cities of
Palmer (3%), Wasilla (2.5%), and Houston (3%).
  Figure 25: Number of Average Wage Earners to Buy Average House 2000-2006
                    Anchorage and Mat-Su Home w/ Anchorage Pay
                   2.5


                      2


                   1.5


                      1

                                    Anchorage
                   0.5
                                    Mat-Su Home w ith
                                    Anchorage Pay
                      0
                             1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q
                                  00          01          02          03          04          05          06
                 Anchorage   1.45 1.57 1.52 1.48 1.47 1.55 1.57 1.55 1.56 1.56 1.53 1.52 1.43 1.48 1.62 1.53 1.42 1.52 1.55 1.49 1.49 1.5    1.65 1.53 1.65 1.68 1.82 1.82

          Mat-Su Home with   1.21 1.12 1.16 1.18 1.12 1.12 1.21 1.24 1.22 1.26 1.16 1.14   1.1 1.22 1.26 1.19 1.14 1.27 1.22 1.18 1.22 1.2   1.32 1.28 1.41   1.4 1.44 1.44
             Anchorage Pay

             Source: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Af f ordability Index is the number of wage earners f or the
             av erage single-f amily home.




                                                                                                                                                                              59
                                                        Municipality of Anchorage
                                                       Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
               Figure 26: Average Retail Gas Price, Anchorage 2000-2007




Source: AnchorageGas.com

Renting is also becoming less affordable for households. In 2000, the Census showed
that 92% of rental housing was affordable to households with incomes at 80% or less MFI,
or monthly rents below $1,200. However, by 2006, rents rose an average of 32%, 49% for
apartments and 15% for single-family homes. The highest price increase was for 2-
bedroom apartments at 61% and 4-bedroom apartments at 60%.
             Figure 27: Percent Change in Median Monthly Rents 2000-2006
                             Single-Family and Apartment, Anchorage
                                                   Single-Family        Apartment
              70%
                                                            61%                          60%
              60%                            57%
                                                                          51%
                                                                                                        49%
              50%

              40%

              30%
                                       24%

              20%              17%                                  18%
                                                                                                 15%
                                                      12%
              10%                                                                  7%


                0%
                         Efficiency    1 bedroom     2 bedroom      3 bedroom      4 bedroom         All
               Source: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation’s Annual Rental Market Surv ey 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,
               2004, 2005, 2006.

Housing Cost Burden. Housing cost burden is the burden of paying more than 30% of a
household’s income toward housing expenses. For the extremely low-income, most all
households have a cost burden; in fact most of these households are paying more than
50% of their income toward housing.




                                                                                                                   60
                                           Municipality of Anchorage
                                          Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
               Figure 28: Renter Households Paying 30% or More Income Toward Housing
                                                              By Units in Structure- Anchorage 2000
                                         20 Units or More                                                                                                     43%

                                                             2-4 Units                                                                            37%

                                                              All Units                                                                        36%

                                                           5-19 Units                                                                        36%

                                                      Single-Family                                                                  32%

                                                      Mobile Homes                                                                30%

                                                                              0%             10%          20%              30%                    40%             50%
                                         Source: Prepared by Fi son & Associates from U.S. Census data.

                  Figure 29: Housing Cost Burden for Anchorage Homeowners and Renters
     Cost Burden for Homeowners                                                                           Housing Cost Burden for Renters
       At Different Income Ranges, Anchorage - 2000                                                              At Different Income Levels, Anchorage - 2000
100%                                                                                                      100%
                                                                          Cost Burden > 50%                                                                                     Cost Burden > 50%
                                                                                                                           83%
                 82%                                                      Cost Burden > 30%                                                                                     Cost Burden > 30%
 80%                                                                                                       80%
                                                                                                                                                   70%
                                       67%

 60%                                                                                                       60%
                                                                 54%


 40%                                                                                                       40%

                                                                                                                                                                       25%
 20%                                                                                                       20%
                                                                                     12%
                                                                                                                                                                                           4%
  0%                                                                                                        0%
               <= 30% MFI          >30%-50% MFI               >50%-80% MFI         >80% MFI                              <= 30% MFI             >30% -50% MFI       >50% -80% MFI       >80% MFI
         (extremely low income)   (very low income)            (low income)    (moderate+ income)                  (extremely low income)     (very low income)      (low income)   (moderate+ income)

Source: HUD SOCD CHAS Data Table: Housing Problems Output f or All Households, 2000.                      Source: HUD SOCD CHAS Data Table: Housing Problems Output f or All Households, 2000.


              Figure 30: Housing Cost Burden for Households Earning 30% MFI or Less by
                                          Household Type
                                                           Owners and Renters by Household Type, Anchorage - 2000
                                                                                               Cost Burden > 30%          Cost Burden > 50%

                                                       Small Related                                                                                 90%
                                         Homeowners




                                                       Large Related                                                                            85%

                                                             Elderly                                                                   75%

                                                               Other                                                                  75%




                                                       Small Related                                                                              87%
                                           Renters




                                                       Large Related                                                               72%

                                                              Elderly                                                                       78%

                                                               Other                                                                           84%

                                                                        0%            20%           40%           60%                 80%                100%           120%
                                   Source: HUD SOCD CHAS Data Table: Housing Problems Output f or All Households, 2000. Elderly
                                   households are 1 & 2 bedroom households.




                                                                                                                                                                                                         61
                                                                                Municipality of Anchorage
                                                                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
What you need to make to pay 30% of your income towards rent. There are 168
hours in a week. According to data gathered by the Alaska Coalition on Housing and
Homelessness, to live in Anchorage and work 40 hours per week, you must earn
$17.62/hour. If you earn minimum wage you will need to work 74 hours per week.

6. Indicators of Need
General Housing
   a. The Anchorage housing market is fairly responsive to demand. New owner
      housing built since 2000 was targeted to those with moderate incomes and
      greater. While this trend may mean that some housing will become available to
      households making 31%-80% MFI, higher priced units also increase the overall
      price of housing in Anchorage, putting many homes that were affordable to lower
      income households in 2000 out of reach by 2005.
   b. Mobile homes represent a significant portion of Anchorage’s affordable housing
      stock.    However, the risk of displacement and potential homelessness of
      households due to land redevelopment, the substandard living conditions of
      households in very old dilapidated mobile homes, and high crime rates in
      deteriorated parks are all issues that must be addressed.
   c. There are 472 units that lack complete plumbing facilities, mostly in the Turnagain
      Arm; downtown, north of 9th Avenue between Cordova and E Street; Fairview
      Community Council, and several areas of the Spenard Community Council.
   d. Although the risk of exposure to lead-based paint is low in Anchorage, low-income
      populations, especially renters are more likely to live in older homes, and need to
      be educated on the hazards of lead-based paint.
   e. In general, housing units tend to have occupants with incomes that do not match
      the affordability of the unit.
Renters
   a. There is a need for 4,538 rental units for people making 30% MFI or less.
   b.   Rental units that are affordable to extremely low-incomes (30% MFI or less) are
        more likely to be built before 1970 than units at higher affordability ranges.
   c.   There are 24,691 rental units in Anchorage that were built before 1980.
   d. Replacement or upgrades to existing substandard housing stock for rental units
      affordable to people with incomes 31%-50% MFI (or gross rents between $562-
      $935), especially three-bedroom units, is needed.
   e. Monthly rents for apartment rentals have increased up to 61%, depending on the
      number of rooms, since 2000.
   f.   Three-quarters of rental units that are affordable to people earning 30% MFI are
        occupied by higher income households.
   g. There are 4,105 renters with incomes at 30% or less MFI that are paying over 50%
      of their income toward housing costs; 1,600 of these are small related families.
   h. Three of every four small related renting families with incomes at 30% or less MFI
      are paying over 50% of their income toward housing costs.




                                                                                       62
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
   i.   Almost half of renters with incomes 30%-80% MFI have housing problems that are
        either overcrowding and/or lack of complete plumbing/kitchen facilities and/or a
        cost burden of more than 30% of their income going toward housing.
Owners
   a. There is a gap of 1,783 between owner households making 30% or less MFI and
      owner units affordable to people making 30% MFI or less.
   b. As of 2006, it takes almost two average wage earners to afford the average single-
      family home in Anchorage.
   c. An affordable homeownership option has been to purchase a home in the adjacent
      Mat-Su Borough. In 2000, an average single-income wage earner could afford the
      average priced single-family home. By 2006, it took almost 1½ wage earners to
      afford a single-family home, while commuting costs have increased substantially.
   d. There are 1,159 homeowners with incomes at 31%-50% MFI that are paying more
      than 50% of their income toward housing costs.
   e. There is a greater affordability mismatch for homeowners than for renters. This
      mismatch was greatest for two-bedroom and larger units affordable to people
      earning 31%-50% MFI and three-bedroom and larger units affordable to people
      earning 51%-80% MFI.
   f.   There are 31,302 owner units in Anchorage that were built before 1980.

7. Revitalization Designation Areas
Revitalization efforts in Mountain View have attracted more than $150 million in private
and public dollars to finance housing, office space, retail, and public facilities. During the
2008-2012 period, the Municipality of Anchorage will continue to fund programs available
both citywide and to targeted community councils and neighborhoods. Community
councils most likely to receive targeted assistance are those highlighted in Map 6. These
primarily include the following community councils: Abbott Loop, Campbell Park,
Taku/Campbell, Midtown, Spenard, North Star, Fairview, Government Hill, Mountain View,
Airport Heights, Russian Jack, and Northeast. In addition to these areas, the following
analysis looks at several opportunities for the establishment of revitalization areas:
Census Tract 10/Census Tract 11, Block Group 2. Census Tract 10, combined with
Census Tract 11, Block Group 2 would be well served to be designated as a HUD
revitalization area. This designation would provide improvements in housing conditions
and economic development to an area that has low-incomes (Census Tract 10 has the
lowest Median Family Income in Anchorage), poor housing conditions, and a relatively
high concentration of minorities and people with disabilities. Revitalization efforts would
serve the three Community Councils of Fairview, Downtown and South Addition. Table 21
provides and ties together indicator data from the Market Analysis to support a
revitalization designation.




                                                                                                 63
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
          Table 21: Indicators for Census Tract 10/Census Tract 11, Block Group 2
Indicators                                         Census Tract         Census           Census         Census       Census
                                                    10, BG 1            Tract 10,        Tract 10,      Tract 10,    Tract 11,
                                                                          BG 2             BG 3           BG 4         BG 2
Median Household Income (% MHI                        $28,839            $25,909         $27,019        $30,673      $25,577
Citywide)                                              (52%)              (47%)           (49%)          (55%)        (46%)
Median Family Income (% HUD MFI,                      $39,886            $33,750         $20,139        $29,018      $34,271
2000)                                                  (67%)              (57%)           (34%)          (49%)        (58%)
% Rental Households                                      96%               77%             76%              87%        71%
Housing Units Lacking               Complete
Plumbing Facilities                                       0               6 (1%)             0              4 (1%)   31 (10%)
Percent Non-White Population                             35%               56%             43%              50%        49%
20 Percentage Points More Than                                            Alaska                        Alaska
Citywide Minority                                          -              Native            -           Native            -
                                                                                        Hawaiian/       Native
Racial Group with Lowest Median
                                                       Black              Black            PI          American       Black
Family Income
                                                      $23,036            $14,306         $11,250       $18,889       $33,750
Disabilities as Percent of Population*                   25%               28%             40%              22%        33%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. *Sensory, physical, mental, self-care disabilities (7% Citywide)

                             Map 13: Census Tract 10/Census Tract 11, BG2

                                                                                 Employment
                                                                                 Center

                                                 CT11
                                                 -BG2
                                                               BG2
                                                                                    Neighborhood
                                                                                    Commercial
                                                    BG
                                                                                    District
                                                    4
                                                           BG3

                                                         BG1




                                                                                                                     64
                                           Municipality of Anchorage
                                          Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Census Tract 20. Census Tract 20 would be well served to be designated as a HUD
revitalization area. This designation would support the efforts of the Anchorage Midtown
District Plan (http://www.midtownplan.com/Welcome.html) in revitalizing the “Southwest
Revitalization Area,” a neighborhood within Census Tract 20. The Census Tract, including
the Southwest Revitalization Area, is residential surrounded by commercial districts and
employment centers and has households with lower than median incomes, aged
manufactured home parks, and a relatively high concentration of minorities and people
with disabilities. Revitalization efforts would serve the Spenard Community Council, and
because of shared boundary lines, would also serve the Midtown and Taku/Campbell
Community Councils. Table 22 provides and ties together indicator data from the Market
Analysis to support a revitalization designation.
                          Table 22: Indicators for Census Tract 20
Indicators                                 Census        Census       Census      Census       Total
                                           Tract 20,     Tract 20,    Tract 20,   Tract 20,   Census
                                             BG 1          BG 2         BG 3        BG 4      Tract 20
                                           $26,250       $36,515      $45,224     $37,438     $36,991
Median Household Income (% MHI
                                            (47%)         (66%)        (81%)       (67%)       (67%)
Citywide)
Median Family Income (% HUD MFI,            $35,000      $45,208      $48,529     $50,313     44,889
2000)                                        (59%)        (76%)        (82%)       (85%)      (76%)
% Rental Households                           77%          73%          67%         63%        70%

Housing   Units     Lacking   Complete         0             0         4 (1%)     10 (3%)        14
Plumbing Facilities                                                                           (0.01%)
Non-White as a Percent of Population       60%           43%           54%          31%
Disabilities as Percent of Population*     14%           35%           20%          30%          23%
                                          Alaska       Alaska         Alaska      Alaska        Alaska
Racial Group with Lowest Median Family
                                          Native       Native         Native       Native       Native
Income
                                         $18,750      $26,806        $15,729      $8,750       $19,750
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. *Sensory, physical, mental, self-care disabilities (7%
Citywide)




                                                                                                65
                                  Municipality of Anchorage
                                 Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                      Map 14: Census Tract 20


                                                             Employment
                                                             Center

Neighborhood
Commercial
District
                                       BG1
                                                          Neighborhood
                                                          Commercial
                                         BG2              District


                                  BG
                                  4      BG3
 Employment
 Center




          Map 15: Southwest Revitalization Area




                                         Southwest
                                         Revitalization
                                         Area




 Source: Taken from Midtown District Plan, HDR 2007



                                                                          66
                     Municipality of Anchorage
                    Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
D. HOMELESS
This section first provides a summary of the nature and extent of homelessness in the
Municipality of Anchorage. Included is number of persons and homeless families with
children, both sheltered and unsheltered, and homeless subpopulations. Second, this
section gives the racial/ethnic breakdown of the homeless population. Third, this section
addresses the Continuum of Care for the homeless population, detailing available facilities
and services. Fourth, this section includes a summary of the characteristics and needs of
low-income individuals and children (especially extremely low-income), who are currently
housed, but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming homeless.

1. Nature and Extent of Homelessness
Definition of Homelessness. The definition of homelessness is inconsistent among
local, state, and federal programs. There have been some attempts in recent years to
streamline the definition at the national level and for all federal programs to adopt the
McKinney-Vento Act definition of Homelessness. In 2005 Mayor Begich introduced a
resolution regarding streamlining the definition of homelessness to the United States
Conference of Mayors that was passed. In general, the definition of homelessness varies
in Anchorage based on the funding source of the program and the individual program
requirements.
The data for this report utilizes the HUD definition of homelessness, a more restrictive
definition. HUD defines homeless as, “A person sleeping in a place not meant for human
habitation (e.g. living on the streets, for example) or living in a homeless emergency
shelter.”
HUD defines chronically homeless as “either (1) an unaccompanied homeless individual
with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more, OR (2)
an unaccompanied individual with a disabling condition who has had at least four episodes
of homelessness in the past three years.”
The McKinney-Vento Act contained in the Department of Education’s subtitle also includes
children and youth who are sharing housing of others due to loss of housing, economic
hardship, or similar reason, and those children and youth in motels. The HUD definition
does not count people “doubled-up” in housing.
In 2007, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation adopted an expanded definition of
homelessness that is compatible with McKinney-Vento definition for its public housing and
housing choice voucher programs.
Extent of Homelessness.          In July 2006, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
administered a Statewide Homeless Providers Point-In-Time Homelessness Survey
utilizing the HUD definition of homelessness. Twenty-nine of the thirty-six agencies in
Anchorage responded to the survey. After duplicates were removed, the homeless count
stood at 1,215 people, or 64% of the homeless statewide. Of those in Anchorage, almost
30% were in homeless families with children. Within homeless families, 32% were 18
years or younger. Unaccompanied youth were counted at 4% of all homeless individuals
not in families.
The gender of those who were homeless as recorded by the Anchorage Point-In-Time
Survey is similar to other US cities. The percentage of single males and females to the
total homeless population was around 45% and 15% respectively (National Coalition on
Homelessness 2006). In Anchorage, single homeless adults were more likely to be male
(70%) while adults in homeless families with children are more likely to be female (52%).



                                                                                            67
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
2. Racial/Ethnic Breakdown of the Homeless
The racial composition of homeless in Anchorage, as recorded by the Point-In-Time
Survey does not reflect the general population of Anchorage. Alaska Natives made up
almost 40% of the homeless population but only 10% of Anchorage’s general population
and blacks made up 15% of Anchorage’s homeless population but only 6% of
Anchorage’s general population. Homeless families were 37% Alaska Native, 27% White,
20% Black, 5% Asian, and 11% “other.”
        Figure 31: Racial Makeup of Anchorage and Anchorage’s Homeless
          Anchorage, Homeless Individuals, Homeless Families-2006
                             7%                            9%                                                   Other
                                                                                         11%
                             6%                            2%                                                   Asian
                                                                                         5%                     Black
                                                          14%
                                                                                                                White
                                                                                         20%
                                                                                                                Alaska Nativ e


                                                          37%
                            77%                                                          27%




                                                          39%                            37%


                            10%

                       Anchorage                        Homeless                 Homeless Persons
                    General Population                 Individuals            in Families with Children


          Sources: Homeless population: AHFC Point-In-Time Homelessness Survey, July 2006. Anchorage population: Anchorage Indicators,
          Neighbhorhood Sourcebook, 2007. Note: Anchorage categories have the following differences from from homeless categories:
          “Alaska Native” includes “Native American,“ “Asian” includes “Pacific Islander.”


Compared with other Alaska communities, the racial composition of Anchorage’s
homeless at the time of the Point-In-Time Survey included a higher percentage of Alaska
people who were Alaska Native and Black and a lower percentage of people who were
White. The minority population of homeless in Anchorage differs from the minority
population of homeless in the average US city. In Anchorage, 34% of homeless are
Alaska Native or American Indian whereas in the average US city, there is a diminutive
population of homeless who are Alaska Native or American Indian. Also, in Anchorage,
15% of homeless is black whereas in the average U.S. city, 49% of the homeless
population is black.




                                                                                                                                         68
                                                Municipality of Anchorage
                                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
    Figure 32: Racial Makeup of Homeless: Anchorage, Rest of State, US Cities
                                 Anchorage, Rest of State, US Cities*
                                                                                                                           Other
                          12%                                                                    16%
                                                              17%                                                          Black
                                                                                                                           White
                          15%                                     2%
                                                                                                                           Alaska Nativ e



                                                                                                 49%
                          34%                                 51%




                          38%                                                                    35%
                                                              30%


                                                                                                 0%
                       Anchorage                         Rest of State                       US Cities
                       Homeless                           Homeless                           Homeless

              Source: Alaska data from AHFC Point-In-Time Homelessness Survey, July 2006; *US data from US Conference of
              Mayors 2004 survey of 27 cities.


A significant percentage of homeless people are struggling with issues of concern such as
a disability, mental illness, dual diagnosis, HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, chronic
homelessness, and/or domestic violence. According to the Anchorage Point-In-Time
Survey, one in three had a disability, one in six had a mental illness, one in six faced
issues of domestic violence, one in five was chronically homeless, one in three had
substance abuse issues, and one in five was dually diagnosed (the coexistence of two
conditions, for example: depression and substance abuse).
These issues of concern were much more prevalent among individuals not living in
families. The Point-In-Time Homelessness Survey showed that homeless individuals not
in families with children were five times more likely to have substance abuse issues, three
times more likely to have a disability or mental illness, and six times more likely to have a
dual diagnosis than homeless individuals in families.
            Figure 33: Issues of Concern for Anchorage Homeless, 2006
                                        Homeless Individuals & Families- Summer 2006

                                                                                                                        40%
                       Any Disability
                                                                        14%

                                             1%                                                             Individuals not in Families
                            HIV/AIDS
                                          0%
                                                                                                            Individuals in Families
                                                                                     21%
                       Mental Illness
                                                        6%

                                                                             16%
                  Domestic Violence
                                                                       13%

                                                                              17%
                              Veteran
                                                  3%

                                                                                                      30%
                  Chronic Homeless*

                                                                                                                              43%
                    Substance Abuse
                                                             8%

                                                                                           24%
                      Dual Diagnosis
                                                   4%


                                        0%               10%                   20%               30%               40%                    50%
                 Source: Anchorage data comes fromthe AHFC Homeless Providers Survey, July 2006. *For individuals only.




                                                                                                                                                69
                                                   Municipality of Anchorage
                                                  Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
3. Continuum of Care (Facilities and Services)
Facilities and Services. The National Alliance on Homelessness estimates that half of
the homeless in Anchorage are unsheltered (January 2007). According to AHFC’s Point-
In-Time Homeless Count, 32% were unsheltered. Of those who were sheltered, 57%
were in emergency shelters and 43% were in transitional housing. Individuals not in
families were more likely to be in an emergency shelter while individuals in families with
children were more likely to be either unsheltered or in a transitional home.
                          Figure 34: Anchorage Homeless Shelter Type
                              Single Person and Family - July 2006

                          Single Person                                           Family
          Emergency Shelter
                                                          Emergency Shelter
                43%
                                                                29%

                                                                                                    Unsheltered
                                                                                                       40%
                                                Unsheltered
                                                   31%


          Transitional Housing                             Transitional Housing
                   26%                                              31%




           Source: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Statew ide Homeless Survey,
           Summer 2006.

In 2006, the Anchorage Continuum of Care counted 1,089 emergency and transitional
housing beds available to the homeless, of which 595 (55%) were emergency shelter
beds. Of the available emergency and transitional beds for homeless individuals in
Anchorage, 765 (70%) were for homeless adults not in families; 69 (6%) were for
homeless youth not in families; and 255 (23%) were for homeless families. There were
also 494 permanent supportive housing beds available to homeless individuals and
families with special needs such as a disability, HIV/AIDS, or mental illness.
          Figure 35: Number of Available Beds for Anchorage’s Homeless
                                 Emergency, Overflow, & Transitional- 2006
                   800
                                  723                                             Transitional
                                                                                  Overflow/Vouchers
                   600                                                            Emergency



                   400


                                                                                           241
                   200
                                                    110

                                                                        15
                      0
                           adult individual   youth individual*      children*           families
                    Source: Anchorage CoC Consolidated Application, 2006.




                                                                                                                  70
                                          Municipality of Anchorage
                                         Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
The following three tables provide a detail of Anchorage’s emergency shelters, transitional
housing, and permanent supportive housing, including the number of available beds, the
level of supportive services, and the time limit for stays.
                             Table 23: Emergency Shelters for Homeless, 2007
                   Shelter Name                          Beds          Supportive Services              Stay
                                                                                                        Limit
                   Anchorage Rescue Mission              100          dinner/breakfast, showers,
                                                                    clothing, bus tokens, spiritual
Individual Adult




                                                                              counseling
                   Bean’s Café                            NA        Breakfast/lunch, day shelter,        Day
                                                                    day labor, referrals, advocacy     shelter
                   Brother Francis (Catholic SS)         240               Dinner, showers,            30 days
                                                                        washer/dryer, medical,
                                                                     clothing, case management
                   Municipal Transfer Station           30-52      referral services: detoxification   12 hours
                                                                       and transitional housing
                   Abused Women’s Aid In Crisis           52          food, clothing, counseling,      3 Weeks
                                                                        advocacy, community
                                                                               education
Women




                   Clare House (Catholic SS)              45           Food, clothing, showers,        30 days
                                                                          washer/dryer, case
                                                                   management, pre-school/after
                                                                         school programs, job
                                                                         readiness, parenting
                   Willa’s Way: AWAIC                      6       Alaska Native/American Indian
                   McKinnell Shelter                     45 (6      Food, clothing, washer/dryer,      No limit
Parents/
Fathers




                   (Salvation Army)                    families)     showers, case management



                   Anchorage Center For Families          15                                           72 hour
Children




                   Cares for Kids Crisis Nursery          15       Assessment, activities, meals,
                   (Salvation Army) Children 0-11                          recreation


                   Covenant House Crisis Center           40          Food, clothing, family
                                                                   mediation, counseling, health
                                                                    care, case management
                   TOTAL                                 495




                                                                                                            71
                                            Municipality of Anchorage
                                           Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                           Table 24: Transitional Housing for Homeless, 2007
                  Client Focus             Transitional Housing       Beds      Supportive          Stay Limit
                                                                                 Services
                  men                      Abbott Loop Social          12      food, clothing,      24 months
                                           Services                             employment
                                                                             counseling, referral
                                                                                  services
Adults/Families




                  Women                    Harmony House               10                            2 years
                                           (AWAIC)
                  Adult individuals        Eagle Crest (Salvation      76       assessment,           none
                                           Army)                                  referrals
                  Individuals/Families     Safe Harbor Inn            121
                                           (Anchor Arms)
                  Men                      Transitions (Lutheran       6     clothing, food case    6 months
                                           SS of Alaska)                        management,
                                                                                   follow-up
                  Chronic public           Homeward Bound/             25    case management,       24 months
                  inebriate                Community Bound                     employment &
Substance




                                           (RurAL CAP)                       housing assistance
  Abuse




                                                                              and training, daily
                                                                               living supports
                  Adult Individuals with   Adult Rehab (Salvation      35      counseling, job      6 months
                  alcohol/drug addition    Army)                                    training
                  HIV/AIDS                 Alaska Aids Assistance      16    case management,
                                           Association (4-A’s)                 transportation,
                                                                                daytime care,
                                                                                  counseling
Disabilities




                  Adults with              The ARC of Anchorage        10
                  disabilities
                  Adults with severe       Anchorage Community         11      comprehensive        24 months
                  mental illness with      Mental Health Services               mental health
                  substance abuse                                                 services
                  Adult with serious       Crossover House            NA      outreach, referral
                  mental illnesses         (ACMHS)                              engagement,
                                                                             transition services,
                  Male                     Charlie Elder House         5
                                           (Catholic SS)
                  Female                   McAuley Manor               5
                                           (Catholic SS)
                  Pregnant/parenting       Passage House               10       Food, life skills   18 months
                  teens 7-20               (Covenant House)                   training, education
Youth




                                                                               and employment
                                                                              assistance, follow-
                                                                                        up
                  Youth 18-20              Rights of Passage (CH)      14       Food, life skills   18 months
                                                                              training, education
                                                                               and employment,
                                                                                    follow-up
                  Veterans                 US Dept of Veteran          50          outreach,
Veterans




                                           Affairs (VA) Domiciliary          employment training
                                           Care
                  Veterans                 VA Transitional             24
                                           Housing
                  TOTAL                                               430



                                                                                                       72
                                            Municipality of Anchorage
                                           Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                       Table 25: Permanent Supportive Housing for Homeless, 2007
                       Special Need             Permanent Housing           Beds       Supportive Services
                         HIV/AIDS               6-plex project (4-A’s)       18    tailored supportive services
                         HIV/AIDS               Shelter + Care (4-A’s)        8
                         Homeless               Adelaide (ANHS)               5    Limited supportive services
Disabilities




                    Severe Mental Illness       Shelter + Care (ACMHS)       28
                    Severe Mental Illness       SHP Perm Hsg (ACMHS)         94
                           SMI/SA               Coming Home I (ANC           15
                                                Housing Initiative)
                        All Disabilities        Coming Home II –S+C          14
                                                (ANC Hsg Initiatives)
                           TOTAL                                            182

4. Populations At-Risk for Homelessness
There are 17,629 extremely low- and low-income households in the Municipality, defined
here as those making 50% or less of Anchorage’s median family income (MFI). Small,
non-elderly families with two to four related members make up 76% of extremely low- to
low-income households.
Table 26: Household Types of Low- and Extremely Low-Income Groups Anchorage
                                    2000
                                   Small          Large Related         Elderly           All Other
                                Related (2-4)         (5+)         (1 & 2 members)       Households
Low-Income
                                      42%              13%                 14%               31%
(31-50% MFI)
Extremely
Low-Income                            34%              8%                  16%               43%
(30% or less MFI)
Source: SOCDS CHAS Data, 2000.

A recent study of Anchorage (ISER 2005), describes the characteristics of Anchorage’s
lowest-income population as “concentrated among minorities, single women with children,
those with less education, and single residents over 65.” The following are the specific
characteristics of these groups in Anchorage, as taken from the ISER study, unless
otherwise noted:
Single parents:
               •   30% of children live in households with just one parent and about 14% are being
                   raised by the mother alone;
               •   Half of children being raised by single mothers are in the bottom 20% income
                   range of households;
               •   24% single-mother families had incomes below the poverty level in the past 12
                   months (US Bureau of the Census 2005);
               •   MFI for single mothers in 2000 was $26,325, or 41% of Anchorage’s MFI of
                   $63,628 (US Bureau of the Census 2000);
               •   Half of Alaska Native and Black children live with a single parent; and
               •   Single mothers tend to have lower-paying jobs and no health insurance.
Minority populations:



                                                                                                          73
                                             Municipality of Anchorage
                                            Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
   •   The bottom 20% of the income range of households has 29% of the Black, 27% of
       the Alaska Native, 19% of the Asian, 21% of the Pacific Islander, and 12% of White
       households;
   •   44% of renter households and 26% of owner households with extremely low-
       income (30% or less MFI) in 2000 were minority households (HUD 2000);
   •   Poverty among minority children in general is two to three times higher than among
       White children;
   •   Poverty among Asian and Pacific Island children, likely newer immigrants,
       increased from 9.2% to 21.3% between 1990 and 2000;
   •   Higher poverty among the city’s minority children is partly because more live in
       single-parent households, which tend to be poorer;
   •   Minority households are headed by younger people who tend to have lower
       incomes; and
   •   Minorities make up about 24% of the general population, but 46% of school
       enrollment (MOA 2007).
         Figure 36: Racial Makeup of Households Earning 30% or Less MFI
                          Renters and Owners, Anchorage 2000
                             Renters
                                                              white
               white                                          74%
               56%                               Pacific Islander
                                                       1%
                                                  black
                                                   9%



                                                 other                                   black
                                                 11%                                      5%
                                         Asian                                    Asian other
                   Native American                                  Native American4% 6%
                         13%             10%
                                                                          11%

            Source: US Houing and Urban Dev elopment SOCD CHAS data outputs.

Those with less education:
   •   The median earnings for full-time workers with less than a high school education
       was $21,300 in 2000;
   •   The median of earnings for full-time workers with a high school education only was
       $32,000 in 2000;
   •   According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, NAAL, in 2006, 14% of the
       adults in Anchorage read at the Below Basic Level, another 29% read at Basic
       levels. These adults can not possibly function effectively in society. The basic
       level readers have only the most concrete skills, e.g. signing a form or adding a
       deposit slip. The Basic level reader can perform simple activities such as reading
       a TV guide to find a show or completing a job application. These do not equate
       with the Census high school completion data because they may or may not have


                                                                                                 74
                                     Municipality of Anchorage
                                    Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                  graduated from high school. Because low literacy skills often are linked to low pay,
                  poverty and homelessness (provided by Anchorage Literacy Project).
Single residents over 65:
       •          Single residents over 65 made 30% of the income made by married residents over
                  65;
       •          The median income of individual over 65 in 2000 was $21,600, or 38% of
                  Anchorage’s median income;
       •          24% of residents over 65, of whom are mostly single, are in the bottom 20% of the
                  income range of households;
       •          15% of renter and 19% of owner-households with extremely low-incomes (30% or
                  less MFI) were elderly 1 and 2 member households (HUD 2000); and
       •          9% of renter and 26% of owner-households with low-incomes (31%-50% of MFI)
                  were elderly 1 and 2 member households (HUD 2000).
             Figure 37: Housing Cost Burden for Elderly Owners and Renters
        Cost Burden for Elderly Owners        Cost Burden for Elderly Renters
       At Different Income Ranges, Anchorage - 2000                                                   At Different Income Ranges, Anchorage - 2000
100%                                                                                           100%
                                                                    Cost Burden > 50%                                                                             Cost Burden > 50%
                   82%                                              Cost Burden > 30%                                                                             Cost Burden > 30%
 80%                                                                                            80%              78%
                                         67%
                                                                                                                                       64%
 60%                                                                           54%              60%


 40%                                                                                            40%
                                                           27%                                                                                           27%

 20%                                                                                            20%
                                                                                                                                                                               8%

  0%                                                                                             0%
                 <= 30% MFI          >30%-50% MFI       >50%-80% MFI         >80% MFI                          <= 30% MFI          >30%-50% MFI       >50%-80% MFI          >80% MFI
           (extremely low income)   (very low income)    (low income)    (moderate+ income)              (extremely low income)   (very low income)    (low income)     (moderate+ income)
Source: HUD SOCD CHAS Data Table: Housing Problems Output f or All Households, 2000. Elderly   Source: HUD SOCD CHAS Data Table: Housing Problems Output f or All Households, 2000. Elderly
households are 1 & 2 bedroom households.                                                       households are 1 & 2 bedroom households.



Another group who has lower than median income and is possibly at risk for
homelessness is populations new to Anchorage. The city’s distance to areas outside of
Alaska and the lack of road infrastructure within Alaska can create a cost barrier to travel,
leaving people geographically isolated from family and other personal support networks.
Between 1995 and 2000, 47,000 people arrived in Anchorage at a time when the economy
was experiencing falling wages and rising housing prices. Of those moving in, according
to the Institute of Social and Economic Research in Anchorage at 90: Changing Fast, With
More to Come (June 2005), the majority came from other states, 25% came from other
parts of Alaska, and 10% came from other countries. Of those from other parts of Alaska,
a quarter came from remote rural areas. Regardless of where people moved from, their
median household income was lower than that of all Anchorage residents. This is
especially true for households coming in from other countries and other parts of Alaska,
having median household incomes of 68% and 76% respectively to Anchorage’s median
household income of $57,000.


Youth
Teens and adults without an adult support system to guide them into independence are at
a serious disadvantage in the Anchorage community. These young people rarely are


                                                                                                                                                                                              75
                                                                         Municipality of Anchorage
                                                                        Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
employed at above a minimum wage level, have only a minimal education and have not
developed coping skills for times of crisis. The result is periods of homelessness,
including stays with other struggling youth, homeless shelters, and on the streets. Young
adults need not only affordable housing opportunities, but support to lean homemaking,
budgeting, and other independent living skills.
In 2005-2006 year end report the Anchorage School District identified 1,094 secondary
school children as homeless. In fiscal year 2007 Covenant House Alaska provided
services to 3,165 youth, an increase of 15% from the previous year.

5. Indicators of Needs (A Summary)
Homeless
   a. A survey of US cities shows that a lack of affordable housing leads the list of
      causes of homelessness followed, in order, by “low-paying jobs, mental illness and
      the lack of needed services, substance abuse and the lack of needed services,
      domestic violence, unemployment, poverty, and prisoner re-entry” (Sodexho Inc
      2005).
   b. Anchorage moreover has the unique factor that it is geographic location can leave
      individuals and families geographically isolated from their family and personal
      support networks.
Homeless Individuals
   a. In July 2006, there were 841 individuals that were counted as homeless and 723
      emergency, transitional, or permanent supportive housing beds, a gap of 120
      beds.
   b. For the Point-In-Time Surveys in 2000, there was an average of 142 individuals
      counted at the Brother Francis Shelter. For the Point-In-Time Surveys in 2005,
      there was an average of 210 individuals counted at the Brother Francis Shelter, an
      increase of 47%.
   c. Homeless individuals in Anchorage are much more likely than homeless families to
      experience issues of concern including a disability, mental illness, domestic
      violence, chronic homelessness, substance abuse, and dual diagnoses.
   d. Almost half of homeless individuals have a disability and/or are struggling with
      substance abuse.
Homeless Families with Children
   a. About 30% of homeless in Anchorage are in families with children. This is the
      fastest growing homeless subpopulation.
   b. In July 2006, there were 342 people in families with children that were counted as
      homeless and 241 emergency, transitional, or permanent supportive housing beds,
      a gap of 101 beds.
   c. There is a lack of permanent affordable housing for families exiting the homeless
      system of care. The focus of available housing should be on affordability and
      access as opposed to service levels.




                                                                                       76
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
E. NON-HOMELESS SPECIAL POPULATIONS
This section estimates, to the extent practicable, the number of persons who are not
homeless but may require housing or supportive services, including elderly, frail elderly,
persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with HIV/AIDS and
their families, and persons with alcohol or other drug addiction. This section also
describes the supportive housing and service needs for each population and compares it
to what is currently available in Anchorage.

1. Elderly
A recent study (ISER 2005) shows that the population of residents 65 years and older is
growing in Anchorage at a rate that is five times faster than the national rate. If this trend
continues, older residents would account for 11% of the Anchorage population by 2020,
up from its current 6%. In 2005, there were 16,970 people in Anchorage who were 65
years and older, up from 14,242 (19%) in 2000.
                 Figure 38: Anchorage’s Population 65 Years and Older
                                               Anchorage 2000 & 2005

               90+                                    344                                      568


             85-90                            719                                                     1,050


             80-84                  1,479                                                                     2,049


             75-79          2,805                                                                                3,140


             70-74       3,913                                                                                        4,251


             65-69 4,982                                                                                                 5,912


                  10,000                    1,000                      100                     1,000                    10,000
                                                2000 Population               2005 Population
             Source: Muncipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Indicators: Neighborhood Sourcebook, 2007.


The priority issues for Anchorage’s senior population are: 1) health and long-term care, 2)
financial security, 3) community resources, and 4) social well-being (Alaska Community
Forum 2005). Methods of addressing these issues may include development in areas
such as affordable housing, in-home care, education of senior needs to the general public,
care providers, and senior service workers. A combination of public and private housing
with subsidized housing in private buildings and better accessibility in public buildings are
considered a priority. Other basic housing and service needs are adaptable housing,
adaptive equipment, delivery of meals, housekeeping, personal care, and service
information and referral are also needed.

2. Frail Elderly
Taking into account that the frail elderly make up 5% of the national population over 65,
Anchorage has approximately 850 frail elderly residents. Frailty occurs when an elderly
individual is chronically impaired and needs the help of another person for one or more
activities, including bathing, dressing, grooming, eating, transferring, and toileting
(Modnick & White 2007). According to the United States Government Accountability


                                                                                                                                 77
                                               Municipality of Anchorage
                                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Office (2005), “more than one-third of the elderly tenants of government-subsidized
housing require assistance with some type of activity of daily living, such as making a
meal or getting in and out of bed.”
Frail elderly is a small percentage of the population, but is one that consumes the most
healthcare resources, including inpatient medical hospitalization, home health services,
long-term care in nursing homes and assisted living, and rehabilitation. Eighty percent of
the care provided to the frail elderly is done by family members (Simkin 2002). Housing
needs for the frail elderly can range from supportive housing (basic) to assisted living
(moderate) to the Program of All Inclusive Care for the Elderly (intensive). Supportive
service needs would include housekeeping and laundry, emergency response, social
activities, a coordination of supported services, and managed care.

3. Persons with disabilities
For Anchorage’s non-institutionalized population that was five years or older in 2000, there
were 17,250 residents, or 7% of the Municipality, who had a disability that was sensory,
physical, mental, or more than one disability including self-care. Of this population, there
were 3,558 individuals with a sensory disability; 4,904 with a physical disability, 4,132 with
a mental disability, and 4,656 with more than one disability including a self-care disability.
The mental disabilities graph shown in Figure 31 is interesting to note, as the majority in
the age group of 5 to 20 had mental disabilities, of which most were boys.
                                      Figure 39: Disability by Type
                 Anchorage Non-Institutionalized 5 Years and Older




                                               Other disability *                  4,656     2+ w Self Care
                                                     7%
                                                                                   4,132     Mental
                                                 7%
          No disability                                                                      Phy sical
             85%                                                                   4,904

                                                                                   3,558     Sensory




          Source: US Census Bureau, 2000. *Includes the f ollowing disabilities: single self -care, employ ment,
          and 2+ w no self -care disability .




                                                                                                                   78
                                         Municipality of Anchorage
                                        Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                             Figure 40: Disability Type by Age
                                   Anchorage 2000
                     3,772             9,701             3,777
        100%



         80%



         60%                                                            2+ w Self -Care
                                                                        Mental
                                                                        Phy sical
         40%                                                            Sensory




         20%



          0%
                  Ages 5-20         Ages 21-64         Ages 65+
        Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000.

A person’s disability is generally related to his or her inability to perform in a way that
socially expected, such as working for pay. According to Cornell University (2007),
   “The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rests upon the Nagi [1969] framework
   and recognizes that improvements in the environment (access to public
   transportation, workplace accommodations, etc.) can reduce disability and thus
   improve the inclusion of all people.”
As such, supportive housing provides an excellent opportunity for independent living. The
supportive housing and service needs for people with disabilities include adaptable
housing; home repair, adaptation, or renovation; adaptive equipment; meals;
transportation assistance; and case management.
The State of Alaska (2006) estimates that Anchorage currently has 65% of the people
statewide on its developmental disabilities waitlist. Of the types of service requests on the
waitlist related to housing, 1.2% was for family habilitation, 4.9% was for group homes,
9.6% was for shared care, and 9.1% was for shared living.

4. Persons with HIV/AIDS and Their Families
In 2006, the Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association (Four A's) provided direct services to
321 people living in Alaska with HIV/AIDS and their families. The current statistics (2006)
show that of individuals receiving services from the Four A’s, 73% are 20-49 years old;
74% are male, 52% are non-Hispanic white, 24% are Alaska Native/American Indian, 12%
are black, 10% are Hispanic, and 2% are Asian.




                                                                                              79
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                                    Figure 41: The Characteristics of AIDS

                                                             Alaska- 2007


                                                             40-49                                             Male
        White NH                         Asian/PI             43%                                              74%
          52%                              2%
                                            black                                           30-39
                                            12%                                              21%
                                                                                                                                    Trans
                                            Hispanic                                                                                 1%
                                              10%                                      20-29
                       AK Native/AI                              50+                0-19 9%                                    Female
                          24%                                    25%                 2%                                         25%




      Source: Alaska AIDS Assistance Association, http://www.alaskanaids.org/

Although housing options have generally improved to meet the diverse needs of HIV
infected individuals and their families, supportive and affordable housing remains a
primary need for many of Four A's clients.

5. Persons with Alcohol or Other Drug Addictions
SAMHSA, an agency in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, estimates
that, in the past year, 7% of the urban population of Alaska (Anchorage, Fairbanks North
Star, Matanuska-Susitna, Southeast Fairbanks) had an alcohol dependence or abuse
issue and an additional 2% had an illicit drug dependence or abuse issue, with similar
percentages of the population needing but not receiving treatment. This would mean that,
in 2006, over 14,000 people in Anchorage needed treatment for alcohol and drug abuse,
but did not receive it.

   Figure 42: Percent of Population with Substance Abuse or Dependence, 2006
                          Alcohol or Illicit Drugs for Population 26 or Older
                   10.0%
                                                             Urban Alaska             Alaska         US

                    8.0%
                                     7.0%           7.0%
                                                                   6.2%
                    6.0%



                    4.0%


                                                                                         1.9%           1.8%           1.8%
                    2.0%



                    0.0%
                                                    Alcohol                                          Any Illicit Drug
                   Source: SAMSA, May 23, 2007, with percentages based on 2002, 2003, and 2004 National Survey on Drug Use &
                   Health (NSDUH). Note: Urban Alaska includes Anchorage, Fairbanks North Star, Matanuska-Susitna, Southeast
                   Fairbanks




                                                                                                                                            80
                                                   Municipality of Anchorage
                                                  Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
   Figure 43: Percent of Population Needing, But Not Receiving, Treatment, 2006
                              For Population 26 or Older, Urban Alaska, Alaska, US


                                                       Urban Alaska             Alaska         US
             8.0%

             7.0%              6.5%           6.3%
             6.0%                                           5.8%

             5.0%

             4.0%

             3.0%
                                                                                   2.2%           2.1%
             2.0%                                                                                                1.5%
             1.0%

             0.0%
                                        Alcohol Use                                        Illicit Drug Use
             Source: SAMSA, May 23, 2007, with percentages based on 2002, 2003, and 2004 National Survey on Drug Use &
             Health (NSDUH). Note: Urban Alaska includes Anchorage, Fairbanks North Star, Matanuska-Susitna, Southeast
             Fairbanks



Moving Forward the Comprehensive Integrated Mental Health Plan (2006-2011) indicates
that gaps in services exist in Anchorage for mental health beneficiaries (special needs
populations) in the areas of residential services, direct and rehabilitation services,
children’s services, medical services-specialized, legal services, transportation services-
specialized, corrections services, outreach and screening, and community prevention,
education, and public awareness.

Anchorage has adequate emergency/assessment/outpatient services, inpatient services,
pharmacy services, and dental services.




                                                                                                                         81
                                              Municipality of Anchorage
                                             Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
This section outlines the main public policy barriers to affordable housing at the local, state
and federal levels. In July of 2007, the Municipality of Anchorage responded to HUD’s
National Call to Action for Affordable Housing Through Regulatory Reform. At the time of
publication efforts to identify and address barriers to affordable housing had just begun.

1. Local Barriers to Affordable Housing
Cost of Parking. Residential parking requirements in the municipal zoning ordinance
(Section 21.07.090)  specify the number of required parking spaces for new residential
development. Minimum parking requirements impact housing affordability as each surface
parking space in Anchorage requires the use of an estimated 350 square feet of land and
costs about $8,000 to build. This does not include the cost of maintenance. For a
multifamily structure, the typical cost per parking space in parking structure at or above
ground level is $30,000 or more.
The current minimum parking requirement for multifamily structures is more than is the
parking demand for the typical rental household in Anchorage. The average number of
vehicles a rental household owns is 1.34 (1.07 for city center and 1.46 for outside city
center). If a multifamily structure has 95% occupancy and each household owns 1.40
vehicles, then the rental housing development would generate an average resident
parking demand of 1.26 vehicles per rental dwelling unit, not including guest/visitor
parking.
Senior housing developments are required to have nearly the same amount of parking as
other multi-family projects. However, most residents in these developments do not have
vehicles and most of the units are occupied by only one person. Visits to senior housing
projects and discussions with operators have confirmed that parking in these
developments is far in excess of need.
             Figure 44: Number of Vehicles Owned by Rental Households
                                             Anchorage 2000
                                 0 or 1 vehicles
                                      63%




                                                                               3+ vehicles
                                                                                   7%




                                                        2 vehicles
                                                           30%
                  Source: MOA Planning Department data, based on US Census 2000.

Current code in the Draft of the Title 21 Land Use Code Rewrite states that, for multifamily
structures, the minimum parking requirement is 1.87 parking spaces for each one-
bedroom unit, 2.188 for each two bedroom unit (greater than 800 square feet), and 3.125
for each three-bedroom unit (greater than 900 square feet). Other similar cities to
Anchorage have much lower parking minimum requirements (see Figure 36). Spokane,


                                                                                             82
                                      Municipality of Anchorage
                                     Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Washington requires a minimum of one parking space per two- to three-bedroom unit.
Cheyenne, Wyoming requires a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per two- and three-
bedroom units.
          Figure 45: Minimum Parking Requirements for Multifamily, 2007
                                 Anchorage and Other Comparable Cities
             3.5
                                                   3.125
              3

             2.5                    2.188
              2        1.875                                                                                                                                 1.89
                                                                                                                                         1.64
                                                                                                1.5                     1.5
             1.5
                                                                           1
              1

             0.5
                         1 BR       2 BR*          3 BR**              2-3 BR                 2-3 BR                  2-3 BR              2BR                3BR
              0
                             e              e              e                   A                      Y                    T                  B                     B
                          ag              ag             ag                W                      W                       M                ,A                   A
                        or              or          or                  e,                     e,                      s,                on                  n,
                      ch           ch             ch                  an                     nn                      ng               nt                  to
                    An           An             An               ok                        ye             B   illi                   o                  on
                                                                                                                                 m                  m
                                                               Sp                        he                                    Ed                 Ed
                                                                                     C
                   Draft Title 21 Minimum Required                                 Minimum Required Parking Spaces- Other
                            Parking Spaces                                             Cities Comparable to Anchorage


             Source: MOA Planning Department 2007. *Greater than 800sf . **Greater than 900sf



Diminishing Supply of Residential Land. As was documented in the Anchorage 2020
Comprehensive Plan, Anchorage has a shrinking residential land supply. Most of the
large undeveloped tracts are on the Anchorage Hillside or in Eagle River. Due to steep
terrain, need for extensive utility and road improvements, and low density zoning, it is
likely that most new housing in these areas will be high-end residential developments.
Although a major multi-family senior housing project was recently proposed for the
Anchorage Hillside, these units are also expected to be high-end, above market rate.
Another factor which has further eroded at the diminishing supply of land for affordable
housing has been that large tracks of residential land which could have been developed
as multi-family housing have been rezoned to the business classification or used for public
purposes such as schools or other government facilities. Some of this land has been
vacant tracts, but many parcels were formerly large mobile home parks. Since only a
small percentage of the homes can be moved to other parks, residents displaced from
these mobile homes have put additional pressure on the already inadequate supply of
affordable housing.
In some cases the mobile home parks have been redeveloped as housing, but the cost of
the new units is not affordable for the displaced residents. In most cases where parks are
redeveloped into residential uses with no change in zoning, developers do not
compensate former mobile home park residents. In some cases, as part of the approval
process for rezoning mobile home parks for commercial uses, the City required the
developers to pay as much as $2,500 dislocation compensation per mobile home although
this typically was not adequate to cover their costs.
High Property Taxes. In most American cities, the state and local tax burden is a
combination of income, sales and property taxes. However, in Anchorage, most local
revenues are derived from property taxes and the share of the cost of government paid by



                                                                                                                                                                        83
                                                    Municipality of Anchorage
                                                   Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
residential property has been growing. As a result, taxes are a significant element in the
housing cost burden directly to owners and indirectly to renters.
No Requirement for Affordable Housing Set-Asides. In many communities around the
country developers of major housing projects are required to set aside land or a certain
number of housing units for affordable housing. This is not required in Anchorage even for
projects which are displacing existing affordable housing.
Accessory Dwelling Units. Accessory dwelling units, especially small units associated
with single-family development, can provide a significant way to add affordable housing in
a wide variety of residential developments. These are typically very small efficiency or
one-bedroom units that can be located within the home, attached to the home or above
the garage. These units not only add additional rental units, but can benefit the
homeowner by housing a child-care provider or domestic worker. Additionally an
accessory unit can allow an elderly homeowner to remain in their family home and have a
nurse or caregiver live in the accessory unit. In other cases, the extra income allows the
homeowner to live in the housing unit more affordably and adds a unit of affordable
housing for the tenant. Although an attempt was made several years ago to allow
accessory dwelling units in single-family areas, there was strong neighborhood opposition
to this proposal and it was defeated. There have only been 41 ADU permit applications
since 2005.
Impermanent Foundations. Anchorage only permits mobile homes on impermanent
foundations in mobile home parks. As a result, many of the mobile homes (an important
segment of the affordable housing stock in Anchorage) are dilapidated and in disrepair;
furthermore, financing limits apply for manufactured homes not placed on permanent
foundations.

2. State Barriers to Affordable Housing
Until July 12, 2007 and the passage of House Bill 162, Alaska was the last state in the
union not to license and regulate residential mortgage lending. As a result, the Alaska
Division of Banking and Securities lacked the regulatory authority to protect Alaska
consumers from fraud, questionable lending, or mortgage brokering practices. The state
received more than 20 complaints and over 50 phone calls weekly of questionable lending
practices (Lynn 2007).
Home-loan fraud, such as cash-back deals and house flipping, affects the affordability of
housing. The scam falsely inflates the value of the targeted home. The sales price is then
used to determine the fair market value for similar homes in the neighborhood. In some
cases, cash-back deals involved multiple homes in an Anchorage development.

3. Other State Barriers
There is decreasing state assistance for local government and education. (However, in
2007 the State of Alaska provided municipal revenue assistance which offered property
tax relief to Anchorage property owners).

4. Federal Barriers
CDBG and HOME funds, which have remained the same or decreased over the years,
have less purchasing power because of the significant increase in housing prices.




                                                                                        84
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
III. PRIORITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section identifies community needs across the following areas:
   •   Housing
   •   Homeless
   •   Special Needs
   •   Non-housing Community Development
Anchorage’s priorities for assistance over the next five years are summarized in Tables 26
though 30, which are the required HUD Tables. In setting these priorities, it is assumed
that Anchorage’s annual HUD entitlement will remain at or near the FY2007 level of
approximately $2 million in CDBG, $1 million in HOME, and $85,000 in ESG.
The needs identified in the following tables flow from data and analysis in the previous
sections. Priorities can be assigned to different groups as either “high priority,” “medium
priority,” or “low priority. Columns and fields left blank represent optional information to
HUD. In addition, goals are included in the strategic plan..
   High Priority: Activities to address this need will be funded by the Municipality of
   Anchorage with federal or local funds, either alone or in conjunction with the
   investment of other public or private funds.
   Medium Priority: If funds are available, activities to address this need may be funded
   by the Municipality of Anchorage with federal or local funds, either alone or in
   conjunction with the investment of other public or private funds. Also, the Municipality
   will take other actions to locate other sources of funds to assist groups assigned to a
   medium priority.
   Low Priority: The Municipality of Anchorage is not likely to fund significant activities to
   address this need. The Municipality will consider certifications of consistency for other
   entities’ application for Federal assistance.




                                                                                                 85
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
A. PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS

1. Unmet Housing Need
The unmet housing need in this Consolidated Plan is the sum of two indicators. The first
indicator is the number of households with housing problems, including 30% or more of
their income going toward housing and/or overcrowding and/or living in a unit without
complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. The second indicator is the gap between the
number of units available to households at different income levels. The indicator data
comes directly from 2000 HUD CHAS tables: Affordability Mismatch and Housing Problem
Output for All Households in Anchorage.

2. Basis for Assigning Priority
Priorities given in Table 2A are based on the unmet housing needs, the municipal
programs that are historically successful and the other programs provided by public and
private housing agencies working in Anchorage.




                                                                                      86
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Table 27: Required HUD Table 2A Priority Housing Needs/Investment Plan Table

PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS                     Priority           Unmet Need
(households)
                                      0-30%             Y               3,560
             Small Related           31-50%             Y               2,415
                                     51-80%             Y               1,160
                                      0-30%             Y                 742
             Large Related           31-50%             Y                 737
                                     51-80%             Y                 519
Renter                                0-30%             Y               1,513
             Elderly                 31-50%                               466
                                     51-80%                               110
                                      0-30%             Y               3,805
             All Other               31-50%             Y               1,898
                                     51-80%             Y               1,153
                                      0-30%                             1,270
             Small Related           31-50%                             1,101
                                     51-80%             Y               2,660
                                      0-30%                               390
             Large Related           31-50%             Y                 488
Owner                                51-80%             Y               1,023
                                      0-30%                               598
             Elderly                 31-50%                               588
                                     51-80%                               657
                                      0-30%                             1,014
             All Other               31-50%                               644
                                     51-80%             Y               1,415
             Elderly                  0-80%             Y   Actual unmet need
             Frail Elderly           0-80%              Y   is not available
             Severe Mental            0-80%             Y   through the census
Non-                                                        or other research
             Physical Disability     0-80%              Y
                                                            that has been
Homeless     Developmental           0-80%              Y   conducted and has
Special      Alcohol/Drug Abuse      0-80%              Y   been included in
Needs        HIV/AIDS                0-80%              Y   numbers above.
             Victims of Domestic     0-80%              Y




                                                                                 87
                          Municipality of Anchorage
                         Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
   Table 27: Required HUD Table 2A Priority Housing Needs/Investment Plan Goals

Priority Need                      5-Yr.      Yr. 1      Yr. 2      Yr. 3      Yr. 4       Yr. 5
                                   Goal       Goal       Goal       Goal       Goal        Goal
                                 Plan/Act   Plan/Act   Plan/Act   Plan/Act   Plan/Act   Plan/Act


Renters
 0 - 30 of MFI                      150          30         30         30         30           30
 31 - 50% of MFI                    200          40         40         40         40           40
 51 - 80% of MFI                     40           0         10         10         10           10

Owners
 0 - 30 of MFI                       30           6          6          6          6            6
 31 - 50 of MFI                      40           8          8          8          8            8
 51 - 80% of MFI                    250          50         50         50         50           50
Homeless*
 Individuals                           60        12         12         12         12           12
 Families                              40         8          8          8          8            8

Non-Homeless
Special Needs
 Elderly                         100        20         20         20         20         20
 Frail Elderly                   20         4          4          4          4          4
 Severe Mental Illness           20         4          4          4          4          4
 Physical Disability             20         4          4          4          4          4
 Developmental Disability        15         3          3          3          3          3
 Alcohol/Drug Abuse              60         12         12         12         12         12
 HIV/AIDS                        40         8          8          8          8          8
 Victims of Domestic Violence    50         10         10         10         10         10
                                 810
Total
                                 810
Total Section 215
                                 490
 212 Renter
                                 320
 215 Owner
   * Homeless individuals and families assisted with transitional and permanent housing




                                                                                                   88
                                   Municipality of Anchorage
                                  Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
       Table 27: Required HUD Table 2A Priority Housing Needs Activities

Priority Need                                5-Yr.         Yr. 1      Yr. 2      Yr. 3      Yr. 4       Yr. 5
                                             Goal          Goal       Goal       Goal       Goal        Goal
                                          Plan/Act       Plan/Act   Plan/Act   Plan/Act   Plan/Act   Plan/Act
CDBG
Acquisition of existing rental units                 0          0          0          0          0              0
Production of new rental units                       0          0          0          0          0              0
Rehabilitation of existing rental units              0          0          0          0          0              0
Rental assistance                                    0          0          0          0          0              0
Acquisition of existing owner units              0             0          0          0          0            0
Production of new owner units                   25             4          4          5          6            6
Rehabilitation of existing owner units         300            60         60         60         60           60
Homeownership assistance                        74            14         15         15         15           15

HOME
Acquisition of existing rental units            50            10         10         10         10           10
Production of new rental units                  40             0         20          0         20            0
Rehabilitation of existing rental units        100            20         20         20         20           20
Rental assistance                               20             0         10         10          0            0
Acquisition of existing owner units             10             2          2          2          2            2
Production of new owner units                   50             0         25          0         10           15
Rehabilitation of existing owner units           0             0          0          0          0            0
Homeownership assistance                       121            21         25         25         25           25

HOPWA (See State Plan)
Rental assistance
Short term rent/mortgage utility
payments
Facility based housing development
Facility based housing operations
Supportive services

Other
ESG - term rent/mortgage utility               500          100         100        100        100          100
payments
                                               500          100         100        100        100          100
ESG - Supportive services




                                                                                                           89
                                           Municipality of Anchorage
                                          Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
B. HOMELESS NEEDS
       Table 28: Required HUD Table 1A Homeless and Special Needs Populations
                       Continuum of Care: Housing Gap Analysis Chart
                                                              Current             Under           Unmet Need/
                                                             Inventory         Development           Gap
                                                         Individuals
               Emergency Shelter                                 366                 0                  0
               Transitional Housing                              263                 20                274
Beds
               Permanent Supportive Housing                      277                 10                322
               Total                                             906                 30                596
                                         Persons in Families with Children
               Emergency Shelter                                 134                 0                  0
               Transitional Housing                              223                 0                 223
Beds
               Permanent Supportive Housing                       53                 0                 151
               Total                                             410                 0                 374


    Continuum of Care: Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart
Part 1: Homeless Population                         Sheltered                   Unsheltered            Total
                                              Emergency Transitional
Number of Families with Children
(Family Households):                               39              46                    8              93
1. Number of Persons in Families with
Children                                           110             143                25                278
2. Number of Single Individuals and
Persons in Households without children             438             151               107                696
(Add Lines Numbered 1 & 2 Total
Persons)                                         548               294             132                 974
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations               Sheltered                       Unsheltered          Total

a. Chronically Homeless                                    187                        37                224
b. Seriously Mentally Ill                                  153
c. Chronic Substance Abuse                                 311
d. Veterans                                                118
e. Persons with HIV/AIDS                                     2
f. Victims of Domestic Violence                            201
g. Unaccompanied Youth (Under 18)                           22
Source: Exhibit 1, Continuum of Care Application, 2007. Note: Homeless section was written with data from AHFC’s 2006
Homeless Survey.

A gap exists in the number of transitional housing and permanent supportive housing beds
for both individuals and families. According to the homeless table, nearly 30% of the
homeless individuals were individuals in families.




                                                                                                                  90
                                         Municipality of Anchorage
                                        Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
  C. SPECIAL NEEDS SUBPOPULATIONS

  1. Unmet Need.
  The unmet need in HUD Required Table 1B is the difference between two indicators. The
  first indicator is the number of people in each subpopulation in Anchorage, as provided by
  the US Census, HUD, local agencies, and national research. The second indicator is the
  number of units and programs available to serve the population. The unmet need by
  subpopulation is imperfect because of the substantial overlap between the populations.
  An elderly person may also have a physical disability or a person with HIV/AIDS may also
  have a dual diagnosis of a severe mental illness and alcohol/drug addiction. In any case,
  the dollars to address the unmet need are estimates derived from research of the program
  and/or housing costs for each subpopulation.

  2. Basis for Assigning Priority.
  Priorities given in Table 1B are based on the unmet needs, the municipal programs that
  are historically successful and the other programs provided by public and private housing
  agencies working in Anchorage.
       Table 29: HUD Required Table 1B Special Needs (Non-Homeless) Populations
                                Priority Need               Dollars to
        SPECIAL NEEDS                Level       Unmet       Address      Multi-                                                    Annual
       SUBPOPULATIONS           High, Medium,     Need     Unmet Need     Year                                                      Goals
                                     Low,                                 Goals
                                No Such Need
Elderly                               M            3,806     $27,403,200    2000                                                       400
Frail Elderly                         M              531      $3,823,200     200                                                        40
Severe Mental Illness                  H           4,134    $285,246,000    2000                                                       400
Developmentally Disabled              M            4,041    $603,860,100    1000                                                       250
Physically Disabled                    H           8,397     $60,458,400     100                                                        20
Persons w/ Alcohol/Other Drug          H           5,500    $154,756,250    4000                                                       800
Addictions
Persons w/HIV/AIDS                    M              274     $10,138,000     250                                                        50
Victims of Domestic Violence 1)       M            3,906      $5,198,000    1000                                                       250
Other                                                  0               0
                                                       0               0
TOTAL                                             27,240 $1,150,883,150
  1) Most of the cost of caring for victims of domestic violence is direct medical and mental health care services. This includes
  hospital emergency room care, but victims also tend to suffer from mental diseases and disorders, female reproductive
  system diseases, injuries, substance use and infectious diseases.




                                                                                                                                91
                                               Municipality of Anchorage
                                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
   D. NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS

   1. Basis for Assigning Priority.
   Priorities given in Table 2B: Community Development Needs are as follows:
       High: HCDN Survey response >/= 60% AND it does not duplicate other
       programs provided by other agencies working in Anchorage.
       Medium: HCDN Survey response >/= 60% OR research recognizes
       significant need.
       Low: HCDN Survey response <60% AND/OR it duplicates other programs
       provided by other agencies working in Anchorage AND/OR research does
       not recognize significant need.
       No Such Need
         Table 30: HUD Required Table 2B Priority Community Development Needs
                                            Priority   Unmet      Dollars to       5 Yr     Annual      Percent
Priority Need                                Need      Priority   Address          Goal       Goal       Goal
                                             Level      Need        Need         Plan/Act   Plan/Act   Completed
Acquisition of Real Property                   L                   $5,000,000
Disposition                                    L
Clearance and Demolition                       H                    $5,000,000
Clearance of Contaminated Sites                H                   $10,000,000
Code Enforcement                               M                    $1,000,000
Public Facility (General)
 Senior Centers                                M                    $2,150,000
 Handicapped Centers                           M                    $6,877,000
 Homeless Facilities                           M                   $58,710,000
 Youth Centers                                 M                   $32,750,000
 Neighborhood Facilities                       M                   $15,000,000
 Child Care Centers*                           H                    $1,500,300
 Health Facilities**                           H                   $11,234,000
 Mental Health Facilities                      H                    $8,000,000
 Parks and/or Recreation Facilities            M                   $57,492,000
 Parking Facilities                            L                    $5,000,000
 Tree Planting                                 L
 Fire Stations/Equipment                       L
 Abused/Neglected Children Facilities          M                    $3,000,000
 Asbestos Removal                              L                     $500,000
  Non-Residential Historic Preservation        L
  Other Public Facility Needs                  L
Infrastructure (General)
  Water/Sewer Improvements                     L                    $5,000,000
 Street Improvements                           M                  $111,133,510
 Sidewalks                                     H                   $22,600,000
 Solid Waste Disposal Improvements             L
 Flood Drainage Improvements                   M                   $24,657,120
 Other Infrastructure                          L
Public Services (General)




                                                                                                       92
                                           Municipality of Anchorage
                                          Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
 Senior Services                                    M                         $30,348,000
 Handicapped Services                               M                          $3,000,000
 Legal Services                                     H                            $500,000
 Youth Services                                     M                          $3,000,000
 Child Care Services                                M                            2,520,000
 Transportation Services                            M                          $1,000,000
 Substance Abuse Services***                        H                       $154,756,250
 Employment/Training Services                       M                            $267,000
 Health Services                                    M                       $285,246,000
 Lead Hazard Screening                              H                           $500,000
 Crime Awareness                                    M                           $750,000
 Fair Housing Activities                            H                            $250,000
 Tenant Landlord Counseling                         M                            $150,000
 Other Services                                     L
Economic Development (General)
 C/I Land Acquisition/Disposition                   L
 C/I Infrastructure Development                     L                          $10,000,000
 C/I Building Acq/Const/Rehab                       M                         $15,000,000
 Other C/I                                          L
 ED Assistance to For-Profit                        L
 ED Technical Assistance                            M                          $7,000,000
 Micro-enterprise Assistance                        L                          $2,000,000
Other (Planning)                                    H                          $2,500,000

  * For every $1 invested in quality child care a community can save $7.16 in increased earnings and reductions in later costs
  in special education, crime prevention, and welfare.
  ** Substance Abuse Recovery Facilities & Mental Health Facilities
  *** The negative economic impacts of alcohol and other drug abuse amount to about $614 million a year in Alaska,
  according to a 2001 study completed by the McDowell Group for the Governor's Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug
  Abuse (ABADA).




                                                                                                                                 93
                                              Municipality of Anchorage
                                             Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
       E. TRANSITION TABLES 2C AND 3A: SPECIFIC HOUSING/COMMUNITY
          DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND SUMMARY TABLES
               Table 31: Transition Table 2C Summary of Specific Housing/Community
                      Development Objectives (Table 2A/2B Continuation Sheet)
Obj.   Specific Objectives           Sources of Funds     Performance     Expected   Actual   Outcome/
#                                                          Indicators      Number    Number   Objective*
       Rental Housing
HS1.   Expand affordable rental      HOME                units built or     20                  DH-1
       housing opportunities for     CDBG                underway                               DH-2
       low and extremely low-        HUD Programs                                               DH-3
       income households, with       Tax Credits         vouchers           20
       emphasis on special needs     State/Regional
       and homeless.                 Housing Programs
HS2.   Preserve affordable rental    HOME                units                415               DH-1
       and homeownership             CDBG                                                       DH-2
       housing opportunities.        HUD Programs                                               DH-3
                                     Tax Credits
                                     State/Regional
                                     Housing Programs
       Owner Housing
HS3.   Expand homeownership          HOME                units                110               DH-1
       opportunities, particularly   ADDI                                                       DH-2
       for low- and moderate-        CDBG                                                       DH-3
       income households.            Mortgage Credit
                                     Certificates
                                     Bank Funds
                                     State/Regional
                                     Housing Programs
HS4.   Encourage redevelopment       HOME                Projects                4              DH-1
       projects that emphasize       ADDI                                                       DH-2
       mixed-income housing          CDBG                                                       SL-1
       developments.                 LIHTC                                                      SL-2
                                     Banks                                                      SL-3
                                     Brownfield Grants
       Homeless
HL1.   Expand the supply of rental   HOME                                                       DH-1
       housing for special needs     CDBG                                                       DH-2
       populations, with an          HUD Programs                                               DH-3
       emphasis on the homeless.     Tax Credits
                                     State/Regional
                                     Housing Programs
HL2.   Educate the Public about      HUD                 Positions               5              SL-1
       the Issue of Homelessness.    MOA                                                        SL-2
                                     AHFC                Presentations           3              SL-3
                                     Alaska Housing
                                       Trust
                                     Private
                                       Foundations
                                     Native
                                     Corporations
HL3.   Engage in Homeless            HUD Emergency       Families             200               DH-1
       Prevention Activities.          Shelter Grant                                            DH-2


                                                                                                94
                                          Municipality of Anchorage
                                         Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                                     Utility Customers                         DH-3
                                                                               SL-1
                                                                               SL-2
                                                                               SL-3

HL4.   Support case management       HUD                 Project          1    SL-1
       services in order to assist   MOA                                       SL-2
       people in obtaining or        AHFC                Position         1    SL-3
       retaining permanent           Alaska Housing
       housing.                        Trust             CoC              5
                                     Private             applications
                                       Foundations
                                     Native
                                       Corporations
                                     United Way
HL5.   Assist in the development     HUD                 Implement 211         SL-1
       of a coordinated intake and   MOA                                       SL-2
       discharge system in           AHFC                                      SL-3
       Anchorage.                    Alaska Housing
                                       Trust
                                     Private
                                       Foundations
                                     Native
                                       Corporations
                                     United Way
HL6.   Support existing shelter      HUD                 Beds            30    SL-1
       services and the expansion    MOA                                       SL-2
       of transitional housing       AHFC                People          500   SL-3
       services.                     Alaska Housing
                                       Trust
                                     Private
                                       Foundations
                                     Native
                                       Corporations
                                     United Way
       Community Development
CD1.   Promote livable               HOME                RSA              1    SL-1
       neighborhoods and             CDBG                Cars            500   SL-2
       community redevelopment.      HUD Programs        Buildings       30    SL-3
                                     Tax Credits         RFP              1
                                     Tax incentives      Facilities       3
                                                         Developments     2
CD2.   Enhance job training and      HOME                Businesses       5    SL-1
       economic opportunities for    CDBG                Jobs            20    SL-2
       low- and moderate- income     HUD Programs        People          100   SL-3
       persons.                      Tax Credits                               EO-1
                                     State/Regional                            EO-2
                                     Housing Programs                          EO-3

       Infrastructure




                                                                                95
                                          Municipality of Anchorage
                                         Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
       Public Facilities




       Public Services




       Economic Development




       Neighborhood
       Revitalization/Other




*Outcome/Objective Codes
                              Availability/Accessibility      Affordability    Sustainability
Decent Housing                           DH-1                     DH-2             DH-3
Suitable Living Environment              SL-1                     SL-2             SL-3
Economic Opportunity                     EO-1                     EO-2             EO-3

       Note: Activities dealing with Infrastructure, Public Facilities, Public Services,
       Economic Development, and Neighborhood Revitalization are contained within
       Housing, Homeless, and Community Development objectives of the Strategic Plan
       (next section).




                                                                                        96
                                      Municipality of Anchorage
                                     Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                       Table 32: Table 3A Summary of Specific Annual Objectives
                                     Sources of Funds     Performance     Expected    Actual   Outcome/
Obj.   Specific Objectives                                 Indicators     Number     Number    Objective*
#
       Rental Housing
       Objectives
HS1.   Expand affordable rental      HOME                units built or        4                 DH-1
       housing opportunities for     CDBG                underway                                DH-2
       low and extremely low-        HUD Programs                                                DH-3
       income households, with       Tax Credits         vouchers              4
       emphasis on special needs     State/Regional
       and homeless.                 Housing Programs
HS2.   Preserve affordable rental    HOME                units                103                DH-1
       and homeownership             CDBG                                                        DH-2
       housing opportunities.        HUD Programs                                                DH-3
                                     Tax Credits
                                     State/Regional
                                     Housing Programs
       Owner Housing
       Objectives
HS3.   Expand homeownership          HOME                units                22                 DH-1
       opportunities, particularly   ADDI                                                        DH-2
       for low- and moderate-        CDBG                                                        DH-3
       income households.            Mortgage Credit
                                     Certificates
                                     Bank Funds
                                     State/Regional
                                     Housing Programs
HS4.   Encourage redevelopment       HOME                Projects              1                 DH-1
       projects that emphasize       ADDI                                                        DH-2
       mixed-income housing          CDBG                                                        SL-1
       developments.                 LIHTC                                                       SL-2
                                     Banks                                                       SL-3
                                     Brownfield Grants
       Homeless Objectives
HL1.   Expand the supply of rental   HOME                                                        DH-1
       housing for special needs     CDBG                                                        DH-2
       populations, with an          HUD Programs                                                DH-3
       emphasis on the homeless.     Tax Credits
                                     State/Regional
                                     Housing Programs
HL2.   Educate the Public about      HUD                 Positions             1                 SL-1
       the Issue of Homelessness.    MOA                                                         SL-2
                                     AHFC                presentations         1                 SL-3
                                     Alaska Housing
                                       Trust
                                     Private
                                       Foundations
                                     Native
                                     Corporations
HL3.   Engage in Homeless            HUD Emergency       Families             40                 DH-1
       Prevention Activities.          Shelter Grant                                             DH-2
                                     Utility Customers                                           DH-3


                                                                                                 97
                                          Municipality of Anchorage
                                         Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                                                                                SL-1
                                                                                SL-2
                                                                                SL-3

HL4.   Support case management       HUD                 Project          1     SL-1
       services in order to assist   Municipality of                            SL-2
       people in obtaining or          Anchorage         Position         1     SL-3
       retaining permanent           AHFC
       housing.                      Alaska Housing      CoC              1
                                       Trust             applications
                                     Private
                                       Foundations
                                     Native
                                       Corporations
                                     United Way
HL5.   Assist in the development     HUD                 Implement 211          SL-1
       of a coordinated intake and   Municipality of                            SL-2
       discharge system in             Anchorage                                SL-3
       Anchorage.                    AHFC
                                     Alaska Housing
                                       Trust
                                     Private
                                       Foundations
                                     Native
                                       Corporations
                                     United Way
HL6.   Support existing shelter      HUD                 Beds             6     SL-1
       services and the expansion    Municipality of                            SL-2
       of transitional housing         Anchorage         People          100    SL-3
       services.                     AHFC
                                     Alaska Housing
                                       Trust
                                     Private
                                       Foundations
                                     Native
                                       Corporations
                                     United Way
       Special Needs Objectives




       Community Development
       Objectives
CD1.   Promote livable               HOME                RSA              1     SL-1
       neighborhoods and             CDBG                Cars            100    SL-2
       community redevelopment.      HUD Programs        Buildings        6     SL-3
                                     Tax Credits         RFP              1
                                     Tax incentives      Facilities       1
                                                         Developments     .5
CD2.   Enhance job training and      HOME                Businesses       1     SL-1
       economic opportunities for    CDBG                Jobs             4     SL-2
       low- and moderate- income     HUD Programs        People           20    SL-3
       persons.                      Tax Credits                                EO-1


                                                                               98
                                          Municipality of Anchorage
                                         Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                                      State/Regional                                         EO-2
                                      Housing Programs                                       EO-3

       Infrastructure Objectives




       Public Facilities
       Objectives




       Public Services
       Objectives




       Economic Development
       Objectives




       Other Objectives


*Outcome/Objective Codes
                                   Availability/Accessibility      Affordability   Sustainability
Decent Housing                                DH-1                     DH-2            DH-3
Suitable Living Environment                   SL-1                     SL-2            SL-3
Economic Opportunity                          EO-1                     EO-2            EO-3




                                                                                             99
                                           Municipality of Anchorage
                                          Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               100
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
IV. STRATEGIC PLAN
The Strategic Plan identifies the direction of the Municipality of Anchorage in providing
decent affordable housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic
opportunities for low-income households and neighborhoods. Based on priorities and
needs identified in earlier sections, the Strategic Plan guides the allocation of HUD funding
and the action steps of the five annual Action Plans. The Strategic Plan describes the
priorities/objectives of four categories: housing, homeless, community development, and
other. All objectives and activities of the Consolidated Plan should meet one of the
following three federal goals: decent affordable housing opportunities, a suitable living
environment, and expanded economic opportunity.
Obstacles to Meeting Underserved Needs
The obstacles to meeting the underserved needs have been identified through needs
assessment, consultations, community development survey, and previous Consolidated
Plan. They are as follows:
   •   More single-parent and children in poverty.
   •   Populations with chronic substance abuse, mental illness, dually diagnosed and
       challenges of providing housing and services for this population.
   •   Diverse cross-cultural and language barriers.
   •   Imbalanced growth in low wage sectors.
   •   Zoning restrictions.
   •   Closures of mobile home parks and displacement of low-income households.
   •   Reduction in public housing vouchers and public housing.
   •   Rising land and construction costs.
   •   Negative perceptions of certain neighborhoods discourage investment.
   •   Not In My Back Yard, “NIMBY” attitudes, especially related to homeless and
       special needs populations.
   •   Insufficient services.
   •   Lack of services attached to housing.
   •   Reduction in Federal/State funds.
   •   Federal regulations that limit flexibility to address needs.
   •   Insufficient operational capacity for CHDOs and other nonprofits to sustain housing
       initiatives.

A. AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY
The housing needs assessment and the market analysis demonstrate a significant need
for affordable housing in Anchorage. This section describes how the Municipality plans to
meet the housing needs of Anchorage’s low- and moderate-income residents, including
those populations with special needs. The housing tables suggest how the Municipality
will attempt to maximize federal funds by leveraging them with other public and private
funds.


                                                                                            101
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
The Municipality of Anchorage’s affordable housing objectives are:
       •   Expand affordable rental housing opportunities, with emphasis on low- and
           very-low income households, special needs, and homeless.
       •   Preserve affordable rental and homeownership housing opportunities.
       •   Expand homeownership opportunities, particularly for low- to moderate- income
           households.
       •   Encourage redevelopment projects that emphasize mixed-income housing
           development.

Specific Strategies and Uses of Funds




                                                                                      102
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               Table 33: Housing Objectives, Strategies, and Goals, 2008-2012
Participants                 Funding Sources       Target population         Municipal Programs            5-Year Goals
Objective 1: Expand affordable rental housing opportunities for low and extremely low-income households, with emphasis on
special needs and homeless.
                                                                             1A: Fund new construction of 15 units built or
Municipality of Anchorage                                                        rental housing            underway
Public Housing Agencies                                                      1B: Help organizations
                             HOME
Private Housing Agencies                                                         acquire and rehab
                             CDBG                                                                          5 units built or underway
Lenders                                                                          housing as affordable
                             HUD Programs          Extremely Low & Low-
Investors                                                                        rental housing
                             Tax Credits           income Renters
Foundations                                                                  1C: Help lower-income
                             State/Regional
HUD                                                                              families afford rental    20 vouchers
                               Housing Programs
Anchorage Housing Finance                                                        housing
Corporation                                                                  1D: Link housing with
                                                                                 supportive services
Objective 2: Preserve affordable rental and homeownership housing opportunities.
                                                                             2A: Provide housing
                                                                                 rehabilitation, emergency
                                                                                                           15 units built or
                                                                                 repair and accessibility
                                                                                                           underway
                                                                                 funding, and reduce
Municipality of Anchorage                                                        household energy costs
                             HOME                                            2B: Assist families in
Public Housing Agencies                                                                                    100 units
                             CDBG                                                rehabbing their homes
Private Housing Agencies
                             HUD Programs          Low- and moderate-        2C: Help residents of mobile
Existing Property Owners
                             Tax Credits           income households             home parks through park
HUD
                             State/Regional                                      preservation, housing     300 units
State of Alaska
                               Housing Programs                                  rehab/replacement, and
Weatherization
                                                                                 displacement assistance
                                                                             2D: Section 8 Housing
                                                                                                             Maintain current level.
                                                                                 Choice Vouchers




                                                                                                                                       103
                                                      Municipality of Anchorage
                                                     Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Participants              Funding Sources        Target population         Municipal Programs          5-Year Goals
Objective 3: Expand homeownership opportunities, particularly for low- and moderate-income households.
                                                                         3A: Provide downpayment
                                                                             assistance to low-income   70 units
                                                                             households
                            HOME                 Moderate and Above-
Municipality of Anchorage                        Moderate Income
                            ADDI
Lenders                                          Families
                            CDBG                                         3B: Land purchases to help
Foundations                                                                                             10 units
                            Mortgage Credit      Some Low and                make housing affordable
Land Trusts
                            Certificates         Extremely Low-income
Realtors
                            Bank Funds           Households
Public Housing Agencies
                            State/Regional
Private Housing Agencies                         First Time Homebuyers
                            Housing Programs
                                                                         3C: Housing production
                                                                         through new construction and   30 units
                                                                         rehab

Objective 4: Encourage redevelopment projects that emphasize mixed-income housing developments.
Municipality of Anchorage  HOME                                        4A Require affordable
Developers                 ADDI                                                                         2 Developments
                                                 Low-, Moderate-, and       housing set-asides
Nonprofits                 CDBG                  Above-Moderate
Community Councils         LIHTC                 Income Families       4B: Brownfield
EPA                        Banks                                                                        2 Projects
                                                                            redevelopment
Alaska DEC                 Brownfield Grants




                                                                                                                         104
                                                   Municipality of Anchorage
                                                  Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Objective 1: Expand the supply of affordable rental housing opportunities for low-
and extremely-low income households, with emphasis on special needs and
homeless.
Priority Analysis. The Municipality continues to experience a long-term shortage of
decent affordable rental housing. There is a particularly inadequate supply of rental
housing for people with low- and extremely-low incomes, causing severe housing
burden, crowded housing, and inadequate housing amenities. An unexpected bill, rent
or utility increases, or medical emergency could put these families over the brink into
homelessness.
The Municipality will implement programs for new construction and acquisition and
substantial rehabilitation of rental housing with most rental housing targeted to
households at 60% MFI or less. The Municipality will continue to advocate for the
provision of housing vouchers and explore possible project-based assistance to ensure
that expanded rental housing projects “pencil.” Finally, the Municipality will work to link
supportive services with housing, with a special emphasis on housing homeless and
special needs populations.
Because of the need to link deep rental subsidies to these developments, the
Municipality would provide HOME financing to supplement funds available through
programs like HUD’s Section 202 and 811, which provide both development and rental
subsidies for projects serving seniors and disabled persons with supportive services.
The Municipality will also use Emergency Shelter Grant funds to defray maintenance
and operating costs of emergency and transitional shelters for homeless persons,
including rent, repair, security, fuel and equipment costs, insurances, utilities, and/or
furnishings.
Objective 2: Preserve affordable rental and homeownership housing opportunities
Priority Analysis. Much of Anchorage’s housing stock, particularly in low and moderate
income areas, is aging and in need of rehabilitation. Housing deterioration creates
unsafe and unhealthy living conditions and contributes to neighborhood decline.
Improving the quality of the existing housing stock is a high priority for the Municipality.
Low-income homeowners lack the funds to maintain their homes; deferred maintenance
negatively impacts the long-term life of the home and the neighborhood. Furthermore,
energy and weatherization upgrades can help keep down rising heating costs.
The rental stock available to extremely-low income households is available primarily
through housing choice voucher, public housing, section 8 new and multi-family housing
voucher. The Municipality will support public housing authorities’ efforts to increase and
preserve the supply of vouchers in Anchorage. Preservation of affordable rental
housing, in a climate of increasing land and construction costs, is often more cost
effective than new construction; in most cases, without substantial subsidy during
construction and operating phases (i.e. project based rental assistance), new
construction of affordable rental units is cost prohibitive. Preservation of these units is a
high priority.
Many assisted and market-rate rental projects have substantial needs for rehabilitation,
modernization, and operational assistance. Efforts will be made to ensure that
affordable rental housing does not equate to substandard housing.
More than 4,000 affordable housing units exist in Anchorage’s mobile home parks.
Owners of manufactured housing units, as renters of park spaces, are faced with park


                                 Municipality of Anchorage                                 105
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
closures annually. Every mobile home park that closes represents another permanent
loss to Anchorage’s stock of affordable housing. In addition, many of the mobile homes
in Anchorage parks are more than 30 years old; a majority pre-date the 1976 HUD code.
Many of these units, while affordable, are substandard. And yet new manufactured
housing, and models of manufactured housing communities, can provide an alternative
to stick-built homes and can lead to asset building. The Municipality will work to
preserve mobile home parks while also working to improve the infrastructure and
condition of the units within them; in some instances, rehabilitation of manufactured
housing can mean replacement of units.
Objective 3: Expand homeownership opportunities, particularly for low to
moderate income households
Priority Analysis. The widening gap between the price of housing and income levels
make homeownership difficult to achieve for low and moderate income households.
Both the savings required for a down payment and the income required to support a
mortgage are obstacles to homeownership for potential homebuyers. The Municipality
will pursue programs and leverage that provide downpayment assistance to low-income
families.
The Municipality will also pursue new construction and acquisition and rehabilitation for
homeownership, by partnering with CHDOs or other nonprofit or private housing
developers. Rehabilitation and ownership conversion of older rental units can contribute
to neighborhood stabilization and offer homeownership possibilities at affordable market
prices.
When funding new construction, the Municipality will emphasize housing that is mixed-
use, mixed-income, and multi-family designs that are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Objective 4: Encourage redevelopment projects that emphasize mixed-income
housing development.
Priority Analysis. As developable, vacant land in the Anchorage dwindles, it is
imperative for the community to focus on redevelopment projects. The majority of the
older neighborhoods have significant stock of aging housing and commercial structures.
When rehabilitation proves to be cost effective, redevelopment is an opportunity to spur
reinvestment.
Redeveloping on an existing “Brownfield” site is more costly than developing on raw
land. However, through redevelopment Anchorage can return under-utilized land to the
tax rolls while also providing housing for its residents; in the long run, such an
investment is wiser than watching the continued growth of the housing market in the
Mat-Su borough outpace its own.
The Municipality will work to create incentives for affordable housing set asides as part
of larger housing developments. Such initiatives would guarantee some supply of
affordable housing while also deconcentrating poverty.




                               Municipality of Anchorage                               106
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
B. HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY
In 2004 as part of a national call to action, the Municipality of Anchorage began the
development of a Ten-Year Plan on Homelessness that was passed into Municipal
Ordinance on January 11, 2005. The Ten-Year Plan on Homelessness was created by
the Mayor’s Task Force on Homelessness with community input and feedback. The
vision of the Plan is that, “In ten years the homeless of Anchorage, will be connected to
a secure, safe, and affordable housing within three months of being identified by any
provider of homeless services.” The Plan has a total of 116 action steps. It is the goal
of the Department of Neighborhoods to assist in the implementation or fund some of the
actions steps outlined in the plan. The primary objectives of the Department of
Neighborhoods, in general alignment with the Plan are follows:
   •   Expand the supply of rental housing for special needs populations, with
       an emphasis on the homeless, as outlined in the affordable housing
       strategy section.
   •   Educate the public about the issue of homelessness.
   •   Engage in homeless prevention activities.
   •   Support case management services in order to assist people in obtaining
       or retaining permanent housing.
   •   Assist in the development of a coordinated intake and discharge system
       in Anchorage.
   •   Support existing shelter services and the expansion of transitional
       housing services.




                               Municipality of Anchorage                               107
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                             Table 34: Homelessness: Objectives, Strategies, and Goals, 2008-2012
Participants                Funding Sources         Target population        Activities                   5-Year Goals
Objective 1: Expand the supply of rental housing for special needs populations, with an emphasis on the homeless.
See Table 32
Objective 2: Educate the Public about the Issue of Homelessness

Municipality of Anchorage                                                    2A: Assist in the staffing of
                                                                                                             Continue funding for
HUD                                                                              the Anchorage Coalition
                               HUD                                                                             position for 5 years
Homeless Service & Shelter                                                       on Homelessness
                               Municipality of
Providers                                             General Community
                                 Anchorage                                   2B: Continue in the
State of Alaska
                               AHFC                   Community                  development of a            Participate in at least 2
Anchorage Coalition on
                               Alaska Housing Trust    Stakeholders              speakers                      presentations
Homelessness
                               Private Foundations                               bureau/communication          annually
Alaska Housing and                                    Policy Makers
                               Native Corporations                               campaign
Homelessness Coalition
Alaska Housing Trust                                                         2C: Provide community           Provide a
United Way                                                                       updates on the Ten-Year       presentation/AIM to
                                                                                 Plan                          assembly annually
Objective 3: Engage in Homeless Prevention Activities
Municipality of Anchorage
HUD
                                                                             3A: Eviction Prevention
Social Service Agencies                            Near Homeless
                            HUD Emergency                                        Funding
Municipal Utilities                                  Population                                              Provide services for 200
                              Shelter Grant
Faith-Based Groups                                                                                           families annually
                            Utility Customers      Persons Transitioning     3B: Essential services
Housing Trust
                                                     out of Homelessness
Alaska Housing Trust
United Way




                                                       Municipality of Anchorage                                                         108
                                                      Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Participants                  Funding Sources       Target population         Activities                     5-Year Goals
Objective 4: Support case management services in order to assist people in obtaining or retaining permanent housing.
Municipality of Anchorage                                                    4A: Case management             Fund at least one
HUD                                                                               services for people in     permanent supportive
                              HUD
Homeless Service & Shelter                                                        housing                    housing project annually
                              MOA                   Long-term Homeless
Providers                                                                                                    Fund at least one case
                              AHFC                                           4B: Case management
State of Alaska                                     Homeless Families                                        management position a
                              Alaska Housing Trust                                services for people trying
Anchorage Coalition on                                                                                       year with CDBG Public
                              Private Foundations   Homeless                      to get into housing
Homelessness                                                                                                 Service dollars
                              Native Corporations
Alaska Housing and
                              United Way                                     4C: Continuum of Care/Shelter 5 successful CoC
Homelessness Coalition
                                                                                  Plus Care                  applications
Alaska Housing Trust
Objective 5: Assist in the development of a coordinated intake and discharge system in Anchorage.
Municipality of Anchorage                                                    5A: Expand resources on
                                                                                                             Implement 211
HUD                           HUD                                                 housing and services
Homeless Service & Shelter MOA
Providers                                           Long-term Homeless
                              AHFC                                                                           Require all grantees of
State of Alaska               Alaska Housing Trust Homeless Families         5B: Coordinate all aspects of
                                                                                                             DoN funding that have
Anchorage Coalition on        Private Foundations                                 intake and discharge
                                                    Homeless                                                 projects relating to
Homelessness                  Native Corporations                                 among all levels of
                                                                                                             homelessness to enter
Alaska Housing and                                                                organizations.
                              United Way                                                                     information into HMIS.
Homelessness Coalition
United Way
Objective 6: Support existing shelter services and the expansion of transitional housing services.
Municipality of Anchorage                                                    6A: Increase the number of
HUD                          HUD                                                  transitional housing       30 new beds
Homeless Service & Shelter MOA                                                    beds.
Providers                                            Long-term Homeless
                             AHFC
State of Alaska              Alaska Housing Trust    Homeless Families
Anchorage Coalition on       Private Foundations                             6B: Sustain the number of
                                                     Homeless                                                Retain services for 500
Homelessness                 Native Corporations                                  emergency housing
                                                                                                                   people
Alaska Housing and                                                                services
Homelessness Coalition       United Way
United Way




                                                      Municipality of Anchorage                                                         109
                                                     Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Objectives 1: Expand the supply of rental housing for special needs populations,
with an emphasis on the homeless.
See Section A above.
Objective 2: Educate the Public on the Issue of Homelessness
Priority Analysis: The market analysis indicates the fastest growing percentage of the
homeless population is families. Families in Anchorage are often not the most visible
contingent of the homeless population. It is important to educate the public on this trend.
In addition, there is also a very high public cost to homeless. It is important that the
public is educated on these costs and reduction methods, including directing funds at
housing and prevention activities in order to reduce existing costs to both the public and
private sectors. Public education and engagement are needed in order to find other
subsidies to utilize with HUD funding in order to prevent and reduce homelessness in the
community.
The Municipality will provide an Assembly Informational Memorandum and request a
working session on the Ten-Year Plan annually. Currently, the Department of
Neighborhoods is receiving funding to staff the Anchorage Coalition on Homelessness
and to assist in the implementation of the Ten Year Plan. The Department of
Neighborhoods will continue to look for funding opportunities to provide staff support for
the Ten-Year Plan for the next five years.      The staffer will continue to community
education and speaking opportunities on the issue of homelessness.
Objective 3: Engage in Homeless Prevention Activities
Priority Analysis. As demonstrated in the market analysis, extremely low-income
populations, especially renters, are at risk of homelessness. This is especially true for
single parent, minority, single elderly households, persons new to Anchorage and those
leaving a correctional institution.
The Municipality will use ESG funds to assist persons and families who are homeless or
near-homeless as defined by HUD. Assistance includes defraying rent and/or utility
arrearages for individual and families that have received rental eviction or utility shut-off
notices; financial assistance to secure permanent housing, utility services; transportation
assistance to services. The Ten Year Plan also calls for an eviction assistance fund to
be developed in the community. The Municipality will support nonprofit organizations
that provide a wide range of programs and support to those most at-risk for
homelessness, including but not limited to literacy training, legal counseling, job training,
language learning, financial literacy, food programs, and child care.
Objective 4: Support case management services in order to assist people
in obtaining or retaining permanent housing.
Priority Analysis: As indicated in the market of analysis persons who are
homeless also are disproportionately disabled, have mental health issues, a
maybe victims of domestic violence. People who are homeless often need
intensive case management services in order to obtain and retain housing,
employment, and self-sufficiency.
The Department of Neighborhoods will continue to provide funding opportunities
for permanent supportive housing projects that include case management. The
Department of Neighborhoods will also continue to provide a homelessness
project preference in the public service grants and try to fund case management
positions that assist in reducing homelessness.
                                                                                           110
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Objective 5: Assist in the development of a coordinated intake and
discharge system in Anchorage.
Priority Analysis: It is important that there is a coordinated social service referral
system in Anchorage in order to link people to resources that can prevent or
reduce homelessness.          In addition, it is essential that Homelessness
Management Information System continues to develop in order to provide
coordinated resources and accurate statistical information on the service delivery
needs of the community.
The Department of Neighborhoods will continue to support the HMIS system by
mandating that all projects involving the homeless that receive CDBG and HOME
funding enter data into HMIS. The MOA Emergency Center will be contracting
with the United Way to host 211 system.
Objective 6:    Support existing shelter services and the expansion of
transitional housing services.
Priority Analysis: It is vital that community be able to retain the number of
emergency beds and increase the number of transitional beds. The Continuum
of Care indicates that the number of emergency beds in the community is
adequate; however, there is a need for 497 transitional beds in the community.
Through the use of ESG funds the Department of Neighborhoods will continue to
fund emergency shelters. In addition, the Department of Neighborhoods will also
look for opportunities to fund transitional housing beds with CDBG.




                                                                                         111
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
C. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
The Municipality’s priorities for Community Development (including economic
development, public services and public facilities) are identified in HUD Required Table
2B. Based on the Housing and Community Development Needs Survey and research of
needs and funding, the community development strategies are as follows:
           •   Promote livable neighborhoods and community redevelopment.
           •   Enhance job training and economic opportunities for low- to
               moderate-income persons.
Objective  1:     Promote      livable   neighborhoods       and    community
redevelopment.
Priority Analysis: Several neighborhoods and community council areas exhibit
higher concentrations of poverty than Anchorage as a whole. Not surprisingly,
these neighborhoods often have a higher share of older residential and
commercial buildings.
In order to reverse the patterns of disinvestment, the Municipality will use
neighborhood planning, targeted slum and blight funding, commercial and
housing redevelopment, and investment in areawide services, commerce, and
infrastructure.
Objective 2: Enhance job training and economic opportunities for low- and
moderate-income persons.
Priority Analysis: According to the market analysis, one must earn more than
$17/hour to afford an apartment while working 40 hours per week. Furthermore,
many of Anchorage’s low-income neighborhoods have older commercial
corridors in which small businesses struggle to compete in today’s retail
environment.
Job training opportunities for low-income persons and assistance to commercial
enterprises to promote job growth, neighborhood revitalization, and provide
services to neighborhoods are goals to be carried out by activities in this
Consolidated Plan.




                                                                                      112
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                     Table 35: Community Development Objectives, Strategies, and Goals, 2008-2012
Participants                 Funding Sources      Target population        Municipal Programs               5-Year Goals
Objective 1: Promote livable neighborhoods and community redevelopment.
                                                                           1A: Neighborhood planning
                                                                                                            1 RSA
                                                                                and revitalization area
                                                                           1B: Eliminate slum and blight
                                                                                – dilapidated structures    500 cars
                                                                                and abandoned junk and      20 buildings
Municipality of Anchorage
                             HOME                                               vehicles
Foundations
                             CDBG                                          1C: Support linkages
HUD                                               Low- and moderate-
                             HUD Programs                                       between transit, housing,
Private developers                                income neighborhoods                                      1 RFP
                             Tax Credits                                        retail, job centers, and
Community councils
                             Tax incentives                                     neighborhood services
Nonprofit developers
                                                                           1D: Public facilities to meet
                                                                                                            3 Facilities
                                                                                neighborhood needs
                                                                           1E: Redevelop Brownfield
                                                                                sites and improve           2 Developments
                                                                                infrastructure
Objective 2: Enhance job training and economic opportunities for low- and moderate- income persons.
                                                                           2A: Provide assistance to
                             HOME                                               commercial enterprises      5 businesses
Municipality of Anchorage                                                       and neighborhood            20 jobs
                             CDBG
Business owners                                                                 services
                             HUD Programs         Low- and moderate-
Nonprofit organizations
                             Tax Credits          income households
HUD                                                                        2B: Job readiness programs
                             State/Regional
                                                                                and employment              100 people
                               Housing Programs
                                                                                opportunities




                                                                                                                             113
                                                     Municipality of Anchorage
                                                    Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
D. OTHER ACTIONS

1. Lead-Based Paint
According to the 2000 Census, there are 100,368 housing units within the
Municipality. Data identifying the prevalence of lead-based paint (LBP) in Anchorage
is not available. However, the State of Alaska estimates that 15-20% of homes
statewide contain LBP in excess of 1.0 milligrams per centimeter squared, the action
level determined by the EPA to pose a hazard to children under six and expectant
women. The Municipality concurs with the State’s estimate and believes the
percentage may be applied to homes within the Municipality. Furthermore, empirical
evidence derived from the Municipality’s experience in conducting the Minor Repair
Program, the AnCHOR Program, and the Weatherization Program supports the
estimate. Therefore, the Municipality calculates that there are approximately 15,055
to 20,074 homes containing LBP in excess of the action level.
Anchorage is fully implementing 24 CFR 35 in all of its affordable-housing programs.
Application of the rule entails two elements. For acquisition projects requiring only
visual assessments, the Municipality may conduct the LBP functions in-house or
through its contractors. When a visual assessment indicates the potential for LBP
hazards, certified contractors are used. For all other projects, the Municipality
contracts with EPA certified firms (either directly or through subrecipients), possessing
EPA certified supervisors, work-safe workers, LBP inspectors, and risk assessors;
and bring into play their professional expertise.
For all LBP reduction activities, a certified LBP abatement supervisor must be used to
line-out the jobs. HUD regulations [24 CFR 335.1330 (a)(4)] require the use of a
supervisor or certified trained workers. The HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and
Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing in page 11-10 recommends the use
of supervisors. In addition, OSHA employs a concept called “Competent Person” for
all jobs. A Competent Person is responsible for safety and compliance with all local,
state, and federal ordinances, laws, and regulations. For this reason coupled with
HUD’s regulations and guidelines, the Municipality has required in it Municipality of
Anchorage Department of Neighborhoods Lead-Based Paint Policy and Lead-Based
Paint Procedures the use of EPA certified LBP abatement supervisors on all LBP
reduction activities.

2. Public Housing
The Municipality of Anchorage will work with and support the efforts of Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation and Cook Inlet Housing Authority to provide housing for low-income
and special needs populations.
There are two primary areas of concerns in regards with public housing. First, Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation has proposed disposing of up to 42 units of public housing
in Anchorage. The Municipality will work with AHFC to preserve these units as public
housing; one option would involve the purchase and rehabilitation of the units by a local
nonprofit or CHDO.
Secondly, the Municipality will continue to work with AHFC to explore the possibility of
project-basing some of its housing vouchers in order to provide new rental development
in the community.

3. Antipoverty Strategy


                                                                                            114
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Many of Anchorage’s poorest residents must overcome such barriers as:
           •   Lack of access to affordable, reliable and convenient childcare
           •   Lack of experience and skills
           •   Lack of English proficiency
           •   Illiteracy
           •   Relying on infrequent public transportation to get to and from work
           •   Lack of job training
           •   Finding appropriate supportive services
Anchorage’s Anti-Poverty Strategy is to work with local, state, and national agencies to
increase referrals with the goal of helping families overcome barriers to access
employment, childcare, public transportation and public services.
The Municipality is committed to pursuing grant opportunities and working with
community organizations to expand outreach efforts among immigrant and non-
English speaking populations.

4. Institutional Structure
Private industry, nonprofit organizations and public agencies play a role in the
implementation of Anchorage’s housing and community development plan. During 2007
the community reorganized the many agencies and individuals working on issues related
to homelessness into the Anchorage Coalition on Homelessness. The coalition and its
oversight board have the primary responsibility of carrying out the action steps of the
Ten Year Plan on Homelessness.
The community will continue to utilize a Continuum of Care approach to homeless and
special needs housing and services in the community. In addition, the Municipality will
provide assistance to new, local CHDOs in order to build the capacity of housing
development. Finally, the Municipality plans to take over the coordinating role of the
Affordable Housing Partnership from the local HUD office in late 2007.

5. Strategies to Address Barriers to Affordable Housing
In 2007, the Municipality joined the HUD secretary’s Call to Action for Affordable
Housing Through Regulatory Reform. The current rewrite of the Municipality’s zoning
code is due out for public comment in the fall of 2007. Efforts to address regulatory
barriers will include:
   •   Review Title 21 drafts for regulatory barriers.
   •   Maintain the existing stock of affordable housing.
   •   Stem the loss of residential land especially from rezoning to commercial uses
   •   Make options for accessory dwelling units available for a wider range of
       residential zones and with fewer restrictions.
   •   Encourage small-lot and townhouse style in-fill development.
   •   In areas zoned for duplex, allow for two single-family homes to be built on the
       property.



                                                                                           115
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
   •   Reduce the parking requirements for multi-family housing and reduce it
       substantially for senior housing developments
   •   Continue to improve the development process by streamlining the permitting
       process.
   •   Require new housing units to be energy efficient, have adequate drainage and
       meet public safety standards. This will help to ensure that residents and/or local
       government don’t have to pay for correcting deficiencies in the future.
   •   Consider affordable housing set-asides on new developments.
   •   Require developers who are rezoning residential land to commercial to contribute
       to a fund to support purchase of land for affordable housing projects.

6. Monitoring
The Department of Neighborhoods conducts monitoring on all grants throughout their
performance period. All projects undertaken are governed by a written agreement that
outlines and requires reporting on Federal, State and local requirements. Grant
monitoring is conducted by several Department of Neighborhood employees in order to
utilize staff expertise in various regulations. On-site monitoring with the exception of
compliance with prevailing wages (“Davis-Bacon”), property standards, and
environmental review standards is performed by the Department of Neighborhoods staff
on all grants is conducted through the following five methods:
   •   Pre-disbursement/initial document reporting;
   •   Desk monitoring of financial and status reports through out the
       development and grant performance period;
   •   A desk review of all homebuyer loans after loan closure;
   •   Once a year on-site or desk review of financial and program
       administration; and
   •   Post project completion reviews for HOME Investment Partnerships
       Program rental projects that are in their “affordability period.”
Pre-disbursement/initial documentation is submitted by all grantees before any
payments are approved.         Initial documentation often includes reports regarding
affirmative marketing efforts, budget revisions, procurement standards, debarment
check, licensure, Section 3 and Minority and Women Owned Business Initial Reporting,
and insurance. Grantees are required to submit their pre-disbursement/initial paperwork
before the first quarterly report is due, therefore, encouraging grantees to turn in timely
payment requests.
Grantees are required to submit project status and financial reports either quarterly or
monthly. Department of Neighborhoods staff reviews these reports for accuracy and
completeness. Grantees are often encouraged to submit there funds disbursement
requests with their regular reports for payment. The following are examples of other
reports and certifications that grantees frequently submit to the Department of
Neighborhoods:
   •   Description of Section 3 and Women’s and Minority Business Enterprises
       (WBE/MBE) compliance



                                                                                              116
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
   •   Description of Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing compliance activities
   •   Copy of recorded federal, state and local building inspection reports (i.e.
       BEES and HQS)
   •   Copy of proposed rental charges and low-income unit lease agreement
   •   Copy of executed deed restriction on the title to the land benefited by the
       project funding
   •   CHDO 5-year strategic business plan
   •   Project status narrative and budget reports
Once a year or more the Department of Neighborhoods will conduct a programmatic and
financial on-site or desk review on all grants with an open performance period for all
grants over $25,000. The Department of Neighborhoods uses checklists that they have
developed for monitoring purposes. The timing of monitoring is dependent on a risk
analysis. Grantees who submit untimely or incomplete quarterly reports are more likely
to receive an on-site review. Grantees who are timely and whose reporting is accurate
are more likely to receive a desk review. The grantees receive a formal written
monitoring review report and are required to respond and correct any findings.
All rental development projects funded under the HOME Investment Partnerships
program monitoring are based on the regulatory requirements outlined in 24 CFR Part
92. In general projects are monitored to ensure that the rents are below the maximum
limits, tenants meet the occupancy income restrictions, the units meet Health and
Quality Safety Standards, and that the units are being affirmatively marketing. All
projects are monitored based on the number of units in the project. The Department of
Neighborhoods monitors based on the following schedule:

                         Units                Monitoring Schedule
                         1-4                  Every 3 Years
                         5-25                 Every 2 Years
                         26 or more           Every Year

The Department of Neighborhoods works on a continual basis with grantees to provide
technical assistance and assist correcting any issues of noncompliance. However, in
the event that that grantee can not meet the correct reporting standards, termination of
the grant may result.




                                                                                           117
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               118
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
    APPENDICES




                               119
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               120
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
APPENDIX 1: References

1. Housing

Acorn 2005. The High Cost of Credit: Disparities in High-priced Refinance Loans to
   Minority Homeowners in 125 American Cities. Baltimore, MD. www.acorn.org
AHFC, 2001. State of Alaska Project Summary: Governor’s 2003 Capital Budget. State
  of Alaska.
AHFC, 2007. FY2008 Draft Agency Plan. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. State
  of Alaska.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2007. Interest Rate: An Introduction [online]
   Available from http://www.ny.frb.org/education/mortgages.html.
Fison, Susan, 2007.       Anchorage Indicators, Neighborhood Sourcebook [online].
    Municipality of Anchorage.
Fried Neil, 2003, January. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough: Its Growth is in a League
    All Its Own. Alaska Economic Trends 23(1). Alaska Department of Labor and
    Workforce Development. Juneau, Alaska.
Lynn, Bob, Rep. 2007. Mortgage Lending: Signed Into Law! Chapter 50 SLA 07 [online].
   Juneau, Alaska. http://www.housemajority.org
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), 2007, March 1. U.S. House
    Price Appreciation Rate Steadies [online]. Available from: http://www.ofheo.gov/
MLA Map Data Center. 2007.        Ability to Speak English (all languages) [online]
  http://www.mla.org/map_data
Rogers, Brian and Cady Lister, 2005. 2005 Alaska Housing Assessment: Part I.
   Information Insights, Inc. Fairbanks and Anchorage, Alaska.
Thomas, Neil, 2007, Aril 16. Anchorage Home Price Increase Continues. Anchorage
   Real Estate [online]. Available from: http://reals8.blogspot.com

2. Homeless

AHFC, 2006. Statewide Homeless Survey: Summer 2006.             Anchorage, Alaska.
  http://www.ahfc.ak.us.
National Coalition for the Homeless.         2006,    June.   Who   is   Homeless?,
   http://www.nationalhomeless.org
Municipality of Anchorage. Mayor’s Task Force on Homelessness. Ten-Year Plan on
  Homelessness. Community Development Division, 2005.
Sodexho, Inc, 2005. Hunger and Homeless Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and
   Homelessness in America’s Cities, a 24-City Survey. The United States Conference
   of                                 Mayors,                                 2005.
   http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/hungersurvey/2005/HH2005FINAL.pdf




                                                                                       121
                             Municipality of Anchorage
                            Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
3. General

Municipality of Anchorage. Community Development Division. Housing and Community
  Development Consolidated Plan for 2003-2007 2003.
Sullivan, Brian, 2005. Jackson Releases Major Report on Affordable housing in
    America- Regulatory Barriers Found to Close Door on Working Families: News
    Report Asks “Why Not in Our Community?” US Department of Housing and Urban
    Development.    No. 05-018. http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr05-
   018.cfm

4. Special Needs

Employment and Disability Institute. 2007. Disability Statistics: Online Resource for U.S.
  Disability        Statistics,       Cornell           University,      Ithaca,      NY.
  http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/disabilitystatistics/sources.cfm?n=3
Karabelnikoff, Don 2007. AtlastaHouse -- "At last, a house!" -- for those with special
   needs [online]. www.atlastahouse.org,
Modnick, Teresa and Monika White, Ph.D., 2007, February 13. What is Elder Care?
  Helpcare.org. http://www.helpguide.org/elder_care.htm
Millbank Memorial Fund. 2006. Public Housing and Supportive Services for the Frail
    Elderly: A Guide for Housing Authorities and Their Collaborators. Millbank Memorial
    Fund, New York, NY. http://www.millbank.org
Simkin, Barry, D.O. 2002, July/August. Even Frail Elderly Patients Can Benefit From
   Exercise. Geriatric Times [online]. 3(4). http://www.geriatrictimes.com/g020831.html




                                                                                             122
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Appendix 2: Public Notices and Public Comments




                                                         123
                           Municipality of Anchorage
                          Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Public Comments

Public Hearing #1, Housing and Neighborhood Development Commission, July 11,
2007

HAND Commission Comments

Commissioner Hess
The Median Family Income by Race/Ethnic Group Section only has charts for American
Indians and Asian/Pacific Islander by block group. Why are these the only two races
represented?

Department of Neighborhood’s Response
These are the only two racial groups that are concentrated by Census Blocks group in
Anchorage. HUD determines that a population is concentrated if a block group contains
a population that is 20% points higher than the general population.

Commissioner Mense
Does this Plan discuss Anchorage’s shortage of land impact on affordable housing?
Does it look at the impact of building a bridge between Anchorage and Mat-Su Valley?

Department of Neighborhood’s Response
The Plan does not directly discuss the shortage of land and the impact of building
bridge. The Plan has focuses on the community as it is right now. However, it does
discuss the need for in-fill development and preservation of existing housing stock.

Commissioner Hess
This is document has a wealth of information.

Commissioner Newgent
The document largely takes information from the 2000 Census. There have many
demographic changes in Anchorage since 2000, particularly in the housing market. How
does this plan address the use of older data?

Department of Neighborhood’s and Commissioner Sullivan’s Response
Commissioner Sullivan: If there is new data and we see the needs shift in Anchorage
we can always amend the Consolidated Plan.
Department of Neighborhoods: We have tried use data from sources other than the
Census, such as Alaska Housing Finance Corporation housing information. We have
analyzed this data and documented that since 2000 it has become increasingly more
expensive to buy or rent housing in Anchorage.

Food Bank of Alaska
Shaun Powers: The Food Bank of Alaska has over 80 partner agencies. It estimated in
Alaska that 10% of adults and 15% of children have food insecurity. The Food Bank is
increasing partnerships with low-income and affordable housing agencies. Food stamps
in Alaska are under underutilized. It is estimated that only 57% of eligible households
apply for food stapes. Alaska receives $3 million in food stamps every year.




                                                                                          124
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Department of Neighborhood’s Response
The Department of Neighborhoods continues in their support of the Food Bank. In the
past we have financed the Food Bank’s facility costs. The Food Bank of Alaska will be
providing groceries at Project Homeless Connect. We would like to thank them for
providing this service. The Department of Neighborhoods staff contacted the Food Bank
on July 30, 2007 to obtain data and ask which ways the City can assist in their efforts.
Please see Chapter IV. Strategic Plan, Section C. Non-Housing Community
Development.
Commissioner Sullivan: Please ensure that some of the statistics provided by Shaun
Powers are included in the Consolidated Plan.

Diane Disanto Representing the Mayor’s Office, Municipality of Anchorage
In the Plan it is important to remember special populations such as public inebriates.
There is a working group looking at the possibility of a wet house in Anchorage and
other alternative housing methods. They are also reviewing the costs of inebriates on
city services.

Department of Neighborhood’s Response
Public Inebriates are not included as a special population. However, the vast majority of
public inebriates are homeless. The homeless are special population in the Plan.
Commissioner Hess: It is important to look at the costs associated with homelessness.

Department of Transportation, Municipality of Anchorage
Alton Staff: Transportation to and from work is a needed service for low-income people.

Department of Neighborhood’s Response
Transportation is a key component to assisting low-income people with self-sufficiency.

Brenda Moore representing the Mental Health Board and Christian Health
It is important that we provide supportive services to persons with mental health issues
and disabilities. Title 21 has prevented providers from being able to build group homes
that have more than 8 people living together. There has never been a SNHG project in
Anchorage because of this issue.

Department of Neighborhood’s Response
The DoN has committed to addressing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing. In our
efforts to do this we will be reviewing Title 21. Please see Chapter IV. Strategic Plan,
Section A. Affordable Housing Strategies, Part 1. Obstacles to Meeting Housing Needs:
Supportive Housing. Also see Table 30, Objective 6, Program 6D.

Public Hearing #2, Housing and Neighborhood Development Commission,
September 12, 2006

Fairview Community Council
Public testimony provided by Sharon Chamard on behalf of the Fairview Community
Council. Ms. Chamard requested that the Fairview Neighborhood be considered as a
potential Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area. She noted that Mountain View as
an NRS area has been able to leverage substantial redevelopment funding. The DoN
has funded projects in Mountain View such as the library, Sadlers Building, and
purchase and development of housing units in this community. Ms. Chamard provided



                                                                                            125
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
demographics information on Fairview in comparison to Mountain View that clearly
showed that Fairview has many qualified low-income areas.

Ms. Chamard also asked for consideration of Alexander’s Body Shop as a future CDBG
Slum and Blight Project. She provided a letter of support from Representative Johnny
Ellis and Les Gara.

Department of Neighborhood’s Response
The Consolidated Plan on page 63 highlights census tracts 10 and 11 as areas that
would be well served to receive focused community development efforts. These census
tracts include the Fairview Neighborhood. In addition, in the past few years, CDBG and
HOME funds have been used for a number of activities in Fairview, including the
following programs: Minor Repair and Weatherization, Fairview Park upgrades,
AnCHOR downpayment assistance program, demolition and junk car removal, and the
HARP program. The DoN is also conducting a Historic Survey of the housing stock in
Fairview. The Consolidated Plan does not identify any specific neighborhood as a
revitalization zone, but if the DoN considers the development of another Neighborhood
Revitalization Strategy we will consider Fairview as a target neighborhood.

The Department of Neighborhoods would not be able approve Alexander’s Body Shop
as Slum and Blight Project without extensive environmental review. As a result,
providing clearance to this project under CDBG may be cost prohibitive because the
property contains some significant environmental hazards that would need to be
remediated.

Commissioner Evans: When the Commission choose to focus its efforts on Mountain
View, at that time it said it would revisit the issue of choosing other neighborhoods as
revitalization areas in the future. Perhaps it is now time for the HAND Commission to
revisit this issue.

Written Public Comments

Fairview Community Council, August 26, 2007
Darrel Hess, the Fairview Community Council Chair, and member of the Housing and
Neighborhood Development Commission reviewed the Plan and was concerned that the
Plan did not directly address or target any specific neighborhood for revitalization.

Mr. Hess expressed concerned that West Fairview was not focused on in the Plan as
dedicated revitalization zone. He noted that when Mountain View was identified as a
revitalization area that it assisted in leveraging many resources into this community. He
mentioned that Municipality’s focus and resources on just Mountain View were at a
detriment to Fairview and other neighborhoods in the community.

Department of Neighborhood’s Response, September 5, 2007
The Consolidated Plan on page 63 highlights census tracts 10 and 11 as areas that
would be well served to receive focused community development efforts. These census
tracts include the Fairview Neighborhood. In addition, in the past few years, CDBG and
HOME funds have been used for a number of activities in Fairview, including the
following programs: Minor Repair and Weatherization, Fairview Park upgrades,
AnCHOR downpayment assistance program, demolition and junk car removes, and the
HARP program. The DoN is also conducting a Historic Survey of the housing stock in

                                                                                            126
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Fairview. The Consolidated Plan does not identify any specific neighborhood as a
revitalization zone, but if the DoN considers the development of another Neighborhood
Revitalization Strategy we will consider Fairview target neighborhood.

Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services, September 7, 2007
As the affordable housing stock in Anchorage ages there is an increased need to
preserve and increase affordable housing options. Many of the properties that are
available today were financed through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program and
tax exempt bond financing in the 80s and 90s. There are several barriers to many of
theses properties to rehabilitating or refinancing these properties under these programs.
ANHS suggests that, “The Department of Neighborhoods consider adding “refinancing”
as an activity under the jurisdiction of the Department. This would add another financing
tool as we attempt to preserve and increase the number of affordable housing options
within our community.”

Department of Neighborhood’s Response
The DoN will be reviewing and revising our rehabilitation/refinancing policy for multi-
family in order to provide option to improve and sustain again affordable housing
complexes in the community.

Anchorage Housing Initiatives, September 12, 2007
AHI is constructing a HUD Section 811 project with one building which will include 9 one
bedroom units and one 2 bedroom unit. It is not determined at this time whether or not
there will be a resident manager onsite.

There is reference to Lutheran Social Services in regards to AASC Housing I, Inc.
project. LSS has no involvement in this project.

Department of Neighborhood’s Response
The DoN will correct the information on HUD Section 811 project on Page 34 and
remove the reference to Lutheran Social Services involvement in AASC Housing I, Inc.
on Page 36.

Covenant House Alaska, September 20, 2007
Covenant House indicates that they would like more emphasis to placed on supporting
youth homeless shelters in Anchorage. Youth homeless in Alaska is on the rise. In
fiscal year 2007 Covenant House served 3,165 youth. In addition, special emphasis
should be placed on developing affordable housing for young people between the ages
of 18-22. There are also very few transitional housing options for people between these
ages. Covenant House operates 14 transitional housing beds. Deirdre Cronin,
Executive Director of Covenant House, states “Efforts should be made to develop
housing that is more suitable for young adults striving to become stable that includes
case management targeted to that specific population, in order that their transition to
independence is successful.” A list of corrections to the Plan was also provided.

Department of Neighborhood’s Response
The “Housing and Community Development Needs” survey used in the development of
the Consolidated Plan indicated that there was a need for youth services and facilities.
These services were identified as a medium need in the community. In addition, the
Plan places a significant emphasis on homelessness and the need for affordable
housing in the community. Although the plan does not specifically address the youth as


                                                                                            127
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
a subset population that also needs these services, any funding and programming that
fell within these areas would potentially be available to youth.

Anchorage Community Mental Health Services Inc., September 21, 2007Request to
replace Southcentral Counseling Center with Anchorage Community Mental Health
Services on Page 72. Request to delete a row on Table 25 regarding Shelter + Care.
The total slots available for this program are 29.

Department of Neighborhood’s Response
DoN will make all corrections as requested.




                                                                                       128
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Appendix 3: Survey Tool: “Housing and Community Development Needs”

Groups in which Survey was Directly Sent:
Abused Women’s Aid in Crisis
Akeela, Inc.
Alaska Aids Assistance Association
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Planning
Alaska Mental Health Trust through Nancy Burke
Alaska Peace Officers Association
Anchorage Affordable Housing Partnership through Colleen Bickford
Anchorage Assembly through FCC
Anchorage Citizens Coalition through Cheryl Richardson
Anchorage Community Council Members (through FCC)
Anchorage Community Mental Health Service through Shannon Wilks
Anchorage Downtown Partnership
Anchorage Housing Initiatives through Pat Went
Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services
Anchorage School District, MOA- Janet Levin Homeless Education Specialist
Anchorage Rescue Mission
Anchorage Senior Center
Arc of Anchorage through Gwen Lee
Bean’s Café through Brian Anderson
Chugiak Senior Center
Community Council Members through the FCC
Cook Inlet Regional Housing Authority
Covenant House through Allison Kear
Department of Health and Human Services, MOA through Beverly Wooley
DHHS, SOA- Bruce Geraghty, Program Coordinator For Special Needs Housing
Department of Neighborhoods, MOA
Disability Law Center through Dave Fleurant
Ed O’Neil (homeless advocate) through FCC
Federation of Community Councils (FCC)
The Foraker Group
Habitat for Humanity- Anchorage
HAND Commission
Love Inc.
Lutheran Social Services of Alaska through Garry Forrester
Mabel T. Caverly Senior Center
Margaret Evans on the HAND Commission (by phone)
MOA: Mark Lessard, Sandy Olibrice, Carrie Longoria
Office of Economic and Community Development, MOA
Parks and Recreation, MOA- Jeff Dillon
Planning Department, MOA through Tom Nelson
The Salvation Army, through Sherry McWhorter
Sand Lake Community Council through Gail Heineman, SLCC volunteer
United Way of Anchorage




                                                                            129
                            Municipality of Anchorage
                           Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               130
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               131
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               132
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               133
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Appendix 4: Survey Tool: Facility and Service Needs Survey for Anchorage’s
Homeless Populations.”

Groups in which Survey was Directly Sent:
Access Alaska                                             Cook Inlet Tribal Council
Private practice                                          Covenant House
Access Alaska                                             CSS Bro. Francis Shelter
ACMHS - Crossover House                                   CSS Clare House
AK Dept. of Corrections                                   Dept. of Neighborhoods
AK Info                                                   Disability Law Center of AK
AK Youth and Family Network                               Friday Night Street Ministry
Akeela                                                    Homeward Bound
Alaska AIDS Association                                   HUD
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation                        McKinnell House
Anch. Coalition on Homelessness                           MOA - DHHS
Anch. Housing Initiatives                                 MOA - Human Services
Anchorage Baptist Temple                                  MOA SAFE City
Anchorage CHARR                                           MOA / Mayor's Office
Anchorage Community Mental Health Services                MOA DHHS
Anchorage Housing Initiatives                             MOA-SAFE City
Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center                      Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services                   Office Of Neighborhoods.
Anchorage Police Department                               Office of Public Advocacy
Anchorage Rescue Mission                                  Peer Properties Inc.
Anchorage School District                                 RurAL CAP/Homeward Bound
AWAIC                                                     SACC
Bean’s Cafe                                               Safe Harbor Inn
Brown Jug, Inc.cell:240-1818                              Salvation Army
Bryn Mawr                                                 SouthCentral Foundation
Catholic Social Services                                  St. Mary’s Episcopal Church
Clare House / CSS                                         UAA
Consumer WEB                                              UAF
Cook Inlet Housing Author.                                United Way
Cook Inlet Housing Author.                                Veteran's Administration
                                                          Wordsmith




                                                                                     135
                            Municipality of Anchorage
                           Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               136
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               137
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
                               138
 Municipality of Anchorage
Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Appendix 5: Municipality of Anchorage Citizen Participation Plan
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN FOR THE CONSOLIDATED PLANNING PROCESS

The Department of Neighborhoods must develop and follow a Citizen Participation Plan
to receive Federal funds for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). HOME
Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) programs. The
Citizen Participation Plan covers the 5-year Consolidated Plan, each subsequent Annual
Action Plan, each year’s Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, and
any Amendments to the Plans.


PURPOSE

This Citizen Participation Plan sets forth the policies and procedures for citizen
participation in Anchorage’s Consolidated Planning Process. The Department of
Neighborhoods is designated with responsibility for the citizen participation process.
This Citizen Participation Plan encourages citizens to participate in the Consolidated
Planning process from the beginning. It outlines the procedures for community approval
of the Consolidated Plan, for addressing concerns and complaints, and for making
amendments to the plan after approval.


OPPORTUNITIES
The Department of Neighborhoods urges citizens to voice their concerns and share their
ideas concerning CDBG, HOME, and ESG program funds. It welcomes comments and
suggestions regarding the Citizen Participation Plan, the Consolidated Plan (including
Annual Action Plans), and the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report
(CAPER).

To encourage citizen participation, The Department of Neighborhoods will undertake the
following activities each year:

1. Hold at least four public hearings at different times during the program year.
2. Offer public comment periods for the draft versions of the Anchorage Housing
   and Community Development Consolidated Plan, each Annual Action Plan,
   and each CAPER.
3. Consult with various groups to review needs, strategies, actions, projects, and
   performance, including the HAND Commission, and other groups as
   appropriate.
4. Distribute review copies of the draft Anchorage Housing and Community
   Development Consolidated Plan, each Annual Action Plan, and each CAPER
   to the HAND Commission, to the Federation of Community Councils, Public
   Housing Agencies, housing providers, social service agencies, Municipal
   residents, and other groups as appropriate and upon request.
5. Provide the public with notice of citizen participation opportunities through
   email distribution list kept for this purpose, and announcement of public

                                                                                         139
                              Municipality of Anchorage
                             Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
    hearing dates through newspaper publication a minimum of one week before
    date of public hearing. Keep web site up to date with current information.

1. Public Hearings and Meetings

The Department of Neighborhoods will hold at least two public hearings per year to
obtain public comments on needs, strategies, actions, projects, and performance. If a
need exists and resources permit, The Department of Neighborhoods will include other
public meetings in addition to the hearings. The Department of Neighborhoods will hold
public hearings and provide opportunities for public comment at the meetings of the
Housing and Neighborhood Development Commission (HAND). To encourage the
participation of public housing residents, the Department of Neighborhoods will try to
hold one public meeting in a public housing community or in a place convenient to one
or more public housing community.
Public Hearing #1—Proposed Needs, Strategies, and Projects

The Department of Neighborhoods will hold the first public hearing of each year to obtain
citizens’ views and to respond to proposals and questions. The Department of
Neighborhoods will hold the first public hearing before the 30 day public comment period
begins for the Consolidated Plan and each Annual Action Plan. The public hearing will
contain a discussion of the following items:
•   The amount of assistance the Municipality expects to receive in the coming program
    year for the CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs, including program income.
•   The range of activities that the Municipality may undertake, including the estimated
    amount that will benefit low- and moderate-income persons.
•   The priority needs in the Consolidated Plan.
•   The 5-year strategies in the Consolidated Plan designed to address those needs.
•   A discussion of the programs and activities necessary in the upcoming program year
    to carry out those strategies.

Public Hearing #2—Annual Action Plan

The Department of Neighborhoods will hold the second public hearing of each year to
obtain citizens’ views and comments on the draft Annual Action Plan. This public
hearing will be held during the 30 day public comment period.

Public Hearing #3— Annual Action Plan

The third public hearing of each year will be conducted at the Municipal Assembly during
the official approval of the Annual Action Plan; this meeting occurs after the 30 day
comment period on the draft has ended.

Public Hearing #4—CAPER: Performance

The Department of Neighborhoods will hold the fourth public hearing no later than one
week before the CAPER is due to HUD.




                                                                                            140
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
The Department of Neighborhoods will hold hearings covered by this Citizen
Participation Plan at times and locations convenient to potential and actual beneficiaries,
and with accommodation for persons with disabilities. The Municipal Assembly may
hold additional public hearings to approve Plans and Plan amendments, appropriate
grants, and allocate and award grant funds.

2. Public Comment Period

To provide Anchorage’s residents with maximum feasible input into the Citizen
Participation Plan, Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans and CAPER, The
Department of Neighborhoods provides the following public comment periods:
•   Citizens may comment on the draft Citizen Participation Plan and its substantial
    amendment(s) for 30 days from the publication date.
•   Citizens may comment on the draft Consolidated Plan, each draft Annual Action
    Plan, and any draft substantial amendment(s) to these documents for 30 days from
    the publication date.
•   Citizens may comment on the draft Consolidated Annual Performance and
    Evaluation Report for 15 days from the publication date.
To make comments on these documents, citizens may:
•   Write to “Citizen Comments”, Department of Neighborhoods, P.O. Box 196650,
    Anchorage, Alaska, 99519–6650.
•   Send an email to The Department of Neighborhoods at RobinsonTP@muni.org (or call
    343-4848).
•   Attend the public meetings and hearings described above. The participation of all
    citizens is encouraged and reasonable accommodation will be made for those
    individuals with disabilities who need auxiliary aids, services, or special
    modifications.
The Department of Neighborhoods will include a summary of citizen comments
regarding each document and a summary of any comments not accepted (and the
reasons why particular comments were not accepted). Public comments are considered
to be any oral or written testimony provided at any public hearings, or any written
testimony provided during the citizen comment period.

3. Consultation Activities
The Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) Commission serves in an
advisory role in the development and approval of the Consolidated Plan, Action Plans,
CAPERs and Substantial Amendments. The Department of Neighborhoods will also
consult with other groups as appropriate, including but not limited to the Anchorage
Coalition on Homelessness, Affordable Housing Partnership, Federation of Community
Councils, Community Councils, and social service agencies. Additionally, it will consult
with the Alaska Housing Finance Authority and the Cook Inlet Housing Authority
regarding public housing needs, comprehensive grant program activities, neighborhood
improvement programs, and resident programs and services.




                                                                                              141
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
These groups may provide comments on the draft Consolidated Plan and draft Annual
Action Plans, including needs and proposed strategies, actions, projects, and substantial
amendments.

4. Distribution of Draft Documents

The Department of Neighborhoods will make copies of the draft Citizen Participation
Plan, the Consolidated Plan, each Annual Action Plan, and each CAPER available at the
following locations:
•   The Department of Neighborhoods
•   The Office of Economic and Community Development
•   Public Libraries
•   The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
•   Cook Inlet Housing Authority
•   Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services

The Department of Neighborhoods will make the Consolidated Plan, Annual
Action Plans, and CAPERs available in both print and electronic versions as
requested. It will also make these documents available in a format accessible to
persons with disabilities upon request.

5. Notification of Public Participation Opportunities

The Department of Neighborhoods will provide citizens with reasonable opportunities for
comment on the Citizen Participation Plan, the Consolidated Plan, each Annual Action
Plan, and each CAPER. The Department of Neighborhoods will place a public notice
concerning the availability of these documents in one or more newspapers of general
circulation. Notice will also be sent out by e-mail. Send a request to be added to the
email distribution list to the director of the Department of Neighborhoods, with contact e-
mail found at www.muni.org/cdbg.

The Department may also provide notice in a variety of additional ways, including:

•   Display advertisement in general circulation newspapers.
•   Electronic notification via facsimile.
•   Direct mailing.
•   Posting of notices on bulletin boards, public counters, and flyers in public agencies
    and community facilities.
•   Posting on The Department of Neighborhoods Web site.




                                                                                              142
                                  Municipality of Anchorage
                                 Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Amendments to the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans
    Consolidated Plan regulations (§91.505) indicate that the Anchorage Housing and
    Community Development Plan (including both the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action
    Plans) may be changed in two ways after it is adopted by the Municipality and approved
    by HUD. The process used depends upon whether the change will be an amendment,
    which is non-substantive, or a substantial amendment.

    The Municipality must amend its approved Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan
    before it may make any of the following changes:

    •   A change in the allocation priorities or a change in the method of distributing funds.
    •   The addition of a new activity, using CDBG, HOME or ESG funds (including program
        income), not previously described in the Annual Action Plan.
    •   A change in the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an activity previously
        approved in an Annual Action Plan.
    The Department of Neighborhoods will make the amendment public and will notify HUD
    about the amendment. The Department of Neighborhoods will ensure that all
    amendments are contained in the CAPER submitted to HUD after the end of the
    program year. The Department of Neighborhoods reserves the right to make non-
    substantive changes to the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan without opening a
    public comment period.

    Non-Substantial Amendments
    A non-substantial amendment includes any changes to the plans not considered a
    substantial amendment.
    Substantial Amendments
    Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan regulations consider certain amendments to
    be substantial amendments that require a public comment period and additional citizen
    participation. The Department of Neighborhoods defines a substantial amendment as:
    •   Changes in the use of CDBG funds from one HUD, CDBG-eligible activity to another
        (§91.05(c)(1)). Budget increases or decreases, by themselves, do not constitute a
        substantial amendment.
    •   Any new project not previously included in the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action
        Plan.
    •   A change in project location if the project moves outside of previously identified
        geographical boundaries or results in a different service area.
    •   The target population benefiting from an activity or project changes from the
        previously identified target population.
    •   An increase or reduction in the amount budgeted for a project or activity by more
        than 50 percent of the original budget or by more than $100,000, whichever is
        greater.




                                                                                                 143
                                    Municipality of Anchorage
                                   Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Public Participation and Approval Process for Substantial Amendments
If The Department of Neighborhoods should need to make a substantial amendment to
its approved Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan, it will follow the public
participation and approval process below, which is substantially similar to that for Annual
Action Plans:

   •   Notification of Substantial Amendment. The Department of Neighborhoods
       will notify the community of any proposed substantial amendment that is
       available for comment. Notification will be provided, at a minimum, by placing a
       public notice in one or more newspaper of general circulation and by distributing
       the notice to interested parties through The Department of Neighborhoods’ e-mail
       distribution list. (Interested parties may be added to the e-mail distribution list by
       sending an e-mail request to the director of the Department of Neighborhoods
       (contact information found at www.muni.org/cdbg).

   •   Public Comment Period. The public will be invited to comment on the proposed
       substantial amendment for a minimum of 30 days. During the public comment
       period, The Department of Neighborhoods will hold at least one public hearing to
       allow the public to make comments in person. Comments will also be accepted
       in writing during the public comment period.

   •   Consultations. Depending on the nature of the amendment, the public
       participation process may also include consultation with other organizations. The
       Department of Neighborhoods will provide the substantial amendment to all
       members of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Commission for input,
       and will attempt to hold the public hearing concurrently with a Housing and
       Neighborhood Development Commission meeting.

   •   Comments Considered. The Department of Neighborhoods will consider any
       comments received in writing or at the public hearing. It will make any
       appropriate changes to the amendment in response to the comments and
       consultation(s) and attach a summary of these comments along with a summary
       of Division’s response to them, to the substantial amendment.

   •   Final Approval. The substantial amendment will be submitted to the Municipal
       Assembly for approval.

6. Obtaining Citizen Comments

The Department of Neighborhoods will summarize oral comments from public hearings
and any written comments it receives concerning the Consolidated Plan, each Annual
Action Plan, or each CAPER. The Department of Neighborhoods will consider all
comments received during the public comment period, make any appropriate changes to
the subject document in response to the comments, and attach a summary of the
comments, along with a summary of the Department’s response to them, to the
document. Members of the public may obtain copies of the full version of written or
public hearing comments by contacting The Department of Neighborhoods at 343-4881.




                                                                                                144
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Outreach to Persons with Disabilities and Non-English Speaking People
     To provide full access to programs under the Consolidated Plan for non-English
     speaking persons, the Department of Neighborhoods may undertake the following
     actions:
     • Communicate with organizations serving various ethnic groups to insure adequate
         involvement with this community.
     •   Disseminate program materials and public hearing notices to nonprofit organizations
         serving the Municipality's culturally diverse population.
     •   Publish notices of public hearings, information availability, and citizen meetings for
         the proposed Consolidated Plan (and any substantial amendments) in non-English
         publications available within the Anchorage community.
     •   Provide interpreters (if available) at public hearings when The Department of
         Neighborhoods expects a significant number of non-English speaking residents to
         attend, or upon request.

     To provide full access to programs under the Consolidated Plan for persons with
     disabilities, The Department of Neighborhoods will undertake one or more of the
     following actions:
     •   Select only sites for public hearings that are accessible for persons with physical
         disabilities.
     •   Provide a verbal summary or recorded summary of the Consolidated Plan to persons
         with visual impairments.
     •   Provide sign-language interpreters or written translation at public hearings when The
         Department of Neighborhoods expects a significant number of people with hearing
         loss or deaf people to attend, or upon request.
     •   Conduct outreach to community organizations that represent persons with disabilities
         as part of the Consolidated Plan process.
     Non-English speaking residents, persons with a hearing impairment, sight-impaired and
     blind individuals, and other persons with physical disabilities and special needs may call,
     write, fax, appear in person, or send an E-mail to the Department of Neighborhoods: 557
     E Fireweed Lane Suite D (in person); PO Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650
     (mail); (907) 343–4881 (tel); (907) 343-6831 (fax); e-mail the director of the Department
     of Neighborhoods (contact information found at www.muni.org/cdbg); or (907) 343-4468
     (TTY/TDD).


Public Information and Access to Records
     Citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties may review information and
     records relating to the Consolidated Plan. The Municipality will provide public access to
     information about the HUD programs under its Consolidated Plan, including the following
     documents that The Department of Neighborhoods maintains on file:
         Federal Laws: Summary of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977;
         Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended: the
         National Affordable Housing Act (as amended).



                                                                                                   145
                                      Municipality of Anchorage
                                     Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
        Federal Regulations: CDBG, HOME and ESG Program regulations; related
        issuances and provisions (i.e. Uniform Relocation Assistance).
        Consolidated Plans, Annual Action Plans, and Consolidated Annual Performance
        and Evaluation Reports.
        Information about the Municipality’s CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs.
        Anchorage’s Citizen Participation Plan for 2008–2012..
        Department of Neighborhoods’ HUD information: grant agreements; audit records;
        evaluation reports; approval letters; related correspondence.
        Department of Neighborhoods’ public meeting records: public meetings, informal
        meetings with civic and neighborhood groups, and related notifications pertaining to
        programs under the Consolidated Plan.

    Individuals may access many of these documents at no cost by the Internet at the
    Municipality of Anchorage’s website (www.muni.org/cdbg), at The Department of
    Neighborhoods office in City Hall, Municipal libraries, or by contacting THE
    DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS staff. Many federal documents may be
    accessed at www.hudclips.org.
    To locate records and arrange space for viewing, The Department of Neighborhoods
    requests written notice a minimum of 2 days before review. Review of records that are
    at least 2 years old will require a 5-day notice. Requests for multiple copies of the same
    documents may be subject to a per-page copying charge that will not exceed the
    copying charge to the Municipality.


Technical Assistance
    Upon request, The Department of Neighborhoods may provide technical assistance to
    neighborhood groups, nonprofit organizations, and other organizations representative of
    low- and moderate-income people who wish to develop proposals for funding assistance
    under any programs covered by the Consolidated Plan. THE DEPARTMENT OF
    NEIGHBORHOODS will determine the level and type of technical assistance on a case-
    by-case basis.
    Additionally, THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS staff will work with
    organizations funded under the Annual Action Plan to ensure that funds are being spent
    for their intended purpose and within the rules and regulations of the Federal
    government.

Complaints
    Municipal procurement codes govern the submission of complaints regarding the
    competitive award of funding. Residents should file such complaints with the Municipal
    Purchasing Department according to procedures described in procurement documents.
    Citizens should submit all other complaints to The Department of Neighborhoods, which
    will provide a substantive written response to every written citizen complaint related to
    the Citizen Participation Plan, the Consolidated Plan, each Annual Action Plan,
    Substantial Amendments to these Plans, and the CAPER within 15 working days. To
    lodge a formal complaint, write to “Complaints,” care of:



                                                                                                 146
                                    Municipality of Anchorage
                                   Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Department of Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519–6650

If desired, residents may submit substantive complaints regarding Consolidated Plan
activities that do not involve competitive funding awards directly to:
•   Executive Director, Office of Economic and Community Development, 632 W 6th
    Ave., Suite 830, Anchorage, AK 99501.
•   Director, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of
    Neighborhoods of Housing and Urban Development, 3000 C Street, Suite 401,
    Anchorage, AK 99503.
Such substantive complaints must address the following issues (specified in HUD
regulations):
•   The Municipality’s description of needs and objectives in its Consolidated Plan is
    plainly inconsistent with available facts and data.
•   The Municipality’s proposed activities are plainly inappropriate to meeting the needs
    and objectives identified by the Municipality.
•   The Municipality’s application does not comply with HUD requirements regulating
    programs under the Consolidated Plan or other applicable laws.
•   The Municipality’s application proposes activities that are otherwise ineligible as
    specified in applicable HUD regulations.
The Department of Neighborhoods will attach a summary of citizen comments and
complaints and a summary of any comments not accepted (and the reasons why The
Department of Neighborhoods did not accept them) to the final Consolidated Plan,
Annual Action Plan, CAPER, or Substantial Amendment.




                                                                                            147
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Appendix 6 – Ten Year Plan on Homelessness
The Ten-Year Plan on Homelessness is available at the Department of Neighborhoods office at
557 East Fireweed Lane, Suite D during regular business hours.




                                                                                              149
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Appendix 7: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing




Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice




                                        2005




                      Draft for Subcommittee Review
                                July 25, 2005




                       Municipality of Anchorage
                   Community Development Division
              P.O. Box 196650, Anchorage, AK 99519-6650




                                                             151
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
I.     Executive Summary
The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) is a recipient of the federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Home Investment Partnerships Program
(HOME) through the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
As a federal HUD funds recipient, MOA is required to work to affirmatively further fair
housing and to conduct an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). The
Community Development Division (CDD) has been charged with completing the AI as
part of its Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan.

In conducting this AI, the HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide was used as a guideline and
to provide direction for the project. In this document, CDD (1) examines the issue of fair
housing in Anchorage and identifies problems in the community, (2) reviews internal fair
housing policies, and (3) identifies methods to increase the distribution of fair housing
information and education.

The CDD’s first AI document was drafted in 1996. This draft was compiled in 2005 by
the CDD in partnership with the Municipality of Anchorage, Equal Rights Commission.

The Equal Rights Commission enforces the Municipality’s anti-discrimination law, Title
5. In addition to the Municipality of Anchorage’s anti-discrimination law, the State of
Alaska, and United States all have laws prohibiting housing discrimination. The laws
have some similarities and differences on the type, or basis, of housing discrimination
that is prohibited. The Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in rental,
financing, and in other housing-related transactions based on race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, familial status and disability.

In this draft the following impediments were identified: (1) lack of education about Fair
Housing laws; (2) specific concerns about lack of education about Fair Housing for
persons with limited English proficiency (LEP); (3) although low-income or economic
disadvantage are not protected classes under the federal Fair Housing Act or state or local
law, the lack of affordable housing for persons with low-income; (3) Based on the
number of complaints filed with enforcement agencies, and key informant interviews, a
shortage of accessible housing; (4) concerns about increase of predatory lending in
Anchorage and Alaska, and lack of loan branch offices in minority communities in
Anchorage; and (5) concerns about proposed amendments to Municipal Code Title 21,
specifically regarding regulating assisting living homes and developing neighborhood
plans.

II.    Municipality of Anchorage Demographic Information

       A.      Overview

According to the 2000 United States Census, only about 32 percent of Anchorage’s
residents were born in Alaska and Anchorage is home to approximately 42 percent of the


                                                                                         152
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
State’s population. Anchorage is the 66th largest city in the nation, with a population of
270,951. . The State of Alaska, Department of Commerce found that the Anchorage
population has increased by about 1.5 percent every year since 1999.

       B.      Employment and Income

The Municipality of Anchorage’s economic base is 17 percent of the State’s entire
economy. The majority of employment opportunities in Anchorage are in the following
sectors: the federal government, oil, tourism, mining, commercial fishing, manufacturing
(seafood processing and wood products) and agriculture. The City’s private sector is the
largest and fastest growing portion of the economy.

The 2000 U.S. Census indicates that 68 percent of the Anchorage population consists of
families.    The average household size is 2.67 persons per household. The median
family income in Anchorage is approximately $55,546. Overall income rose 25 percent
from 1995 to 2003. However, in 1999, 7.3 percent of households in Anchorage still
lived below the poverty line.

       C.      Housing Profile

The 2000 U.S. Census indicated that 60 percent of residents in Anchorage are
homeowners and the median value of a home is $160,700. The homeownership rate,
meaning.... in Anchorage is 56.7 percent. Housing stock, or the number of housing
units, has increased in Anchorage. There were 100,368 housing units in Anchorage in
2000, an increase of seven percent from the 1990 U.S. Census.

According to the CDD’s Housing and Development Consolidated Plan for 2003-2007
approximately 13,714 (36.3) percent of renter households and approximately 10,309
(23.3 percent) of the owner households in the Municipality, experience a “cost burden” or
pay more than 30 percent their income towards housing and utilities. Additional detailed
information regarding housing issues in Anchorage can be found in the CDD’s Housing
and Community Development Consolidated Plan for 2003-2007.

       D.      Diversity

Anchorage is a multi-cultural community and minorities groups are the fastest growing
segment of the population. Approximately 28 percent of the Anchorage population is
non-white, a higher proportion than the national average for metropolitan areas. In 2000,
about 13.6 percent of the Anchorage population over the age of five spoke a language
other than English at home. (U.S. Census.)

American Indian and Alaskan Natives are the largest non-white ethnic groups in
Anchorage. This population is expected to significantly increase in the near future
because of the shift in the Alaska Native population from rural to urban areas. In 2000,
Alaska Natives comprised 7.3 percent of the Anchorage population and in 2002, Alaska


                                                                                        153
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Native population in Anchorage has increased to 7.8 percent of the community (U.S.
Census.)

African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians each compose approximately 6 percent of the
Anchorage population. Recently, there has been a large number of Hmong refugees
relocated to Anchorage. Other Asian populations in the Anchorage community have also
increased.

In Anchorage, the greatest concentration of minority populations is found in census tracts
6 and 9.01. In these tracts, 50-70 percent of the population is non-white. The
neighborhoods in these tracts include Government Hill, the Central Business District,
Mountain View, Fairview, and Airport Heights.

While these neighborhoods have concentrated minority populations, minorities reside in
lesser concentrations throughout Anchorage. This suggests that Anchorage’s population
may be segregated more on the basis of economic status than on race or ethnicity.
Appendix A provides a map of the racial composition of the Municipality of Anchorage
based on the 2000 U.S. Census.

       E.      Persons with Disabilities

Nationally, 4.2 percent of the overall population has a physical disability. The Alaska
Governor’s Council on Disabilities and Special Education, the designated State planning
body for developmental disabilities, estimates the number of Alaskans who experience
developmental disabilities at 11,086 or 1.8 percent of the overall population. Assuming
that the number of persons in Anchorage with developmental disabilities is roughly
equivalent to its share of the State’s total population, or 42 percent, there may be 4,656
residents who have a developmental disability in Anchorage.

III.   Fair Housing

As part of the AI, it is important to detail a common understanding of the meaning of
“fair housing.” Federal, state and municipal laws prohibit housing discrimination. The
laws have some similarities and differences as detailed below.

       A.      Protected Classes

The federal Fair Housing Act was initially passed in 1968 and prohibited housing
discrimination “based” on race, color, national origin, and religion. In 1974, amendments
were passed that added sex as a basis, and includes a prohibition against sexual
harassment. In 1988, amendments were added to prohibit discrimination based on
handicap. Handicap in the Fair Housing Act has the same definition as handicap does
under the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that is, it prohibits discrimination against a
person that has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life
activity. Federal law also prohibits discrimination based on familial status, which


                                                                                          154
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
protects pregnant women and children under 18 who are living with a person responsible
for their care, such as a parent, foster parent, or guardian.

The Anchorage Municipal Code, A.M.C. 5.20.020, similar to the federal Fair Housing
Act, was passed on November 9, 1976, and prohibits discrimination based on race, color,
sex (which includes pregnancy and parenthood), religion, and physical or mental
disability. In addition, the Municipal Code prohibits discrimination in housing based on
age and marital status. Another provision of the Anchorage Municipal Code, A.M.C.
5.25.025, also prohibits discrimination based familial status.

Alaska State law, A.S. 18.80.240, also prohibits discrimination in housing “based” the
following protected classes: race, religion, color, national origin, sex, marital status,
changes in marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, and physical or mental disability.

       B.      Prohibited Discrimination

Under the federal Fair Housing Act, persons with properties covered under the act, are
prohibited from engaging in the following activities based on a person’s protected status:

       •       Refusing to sell, lease or rent;
       •       Discriminating in a term, condition or privilege relating to use, sale, lease
               or rental;
       •       Listing a property in a discriminatory manner;
       •       Discriminatory advertising, by the advertiser as well as the person placing
               the ad;
       •       Blockbusting;
       •       Expelling a person from occupancy;
       •       Inquiring into or recording the race, religion, color, sex, national origin,
               physical or mental disability, or familial status of tenants or prospective
               tenants (or age or marital status under state and local law); (Mortgage
               lenders are required to do so under federal law.)
       •       Representing that a property is unavailable when it is available; or
       •       To “otherwise make [a unit] unavailable,” which includes
               o       Steering;
               o       Exclusionary zoning;
               o       Redlining; or
               o       Discriminatory appraisals.

       C.      Special Protections for Persons with Disabilities

The fair housing laws require special protections for persons with disabilities, most
importantly, “a reasonable modification to residences at the expense of the person with a
disability to allow full enjoyment of the property.” In seeking a reasonable modification,

       •       The tenant must obtain prior permission for the modification;


                                                                                          155
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
       •      The landlord may require approval of plans to assure good workmanship;
              and
       •      The renter must agree to restore the premises when the renter leaves the
              unit.

In addition, reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices or services are
required under the fair housing laws. For example, a landlord may be required to provide
a reasonable modification to a “no pet policy” for persons with disabilities who have
service or companion animals.

       D.      Enforcement Agencies

The fair housing laws are enforced by three administrative agencies in Anchorage. First,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) enforces the federal
Fair Housing Law. Persons who are seeking information about HUD’s enforcement
should contact HUD in Seattle at 1-800-877-0246 or (206) 220-5170.

The Anchorage Equal Rights Commission investigates any alleged violations of Title 5 of
the Municipal Code and can be contacted at (907)343-4342. The Alaska State
Commission for Human Rights (ASCHR) enforces the Alaska State Law prohibiting
housing discrimination and may be contacted at (907) 274-4692.

IV.    Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

       A.     Participants

CDD contracted with the Municipality of Anchorage, Equal Rights Commission to work
together to draft this AI. A Steering Committee was created to provide input, oversee the
process, review data, drafts, and conclusions. The Steering Committee includes members
from the Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) Commission, Equal Rights
Commission, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Advisory Commission.
Appendix A provides a list of Steering Committee members.

       B.      Methodology

The U.S. Housing and Urban Development Fair Housing Planning Guide was used to
provide direction for developing this report and the research process. A variety of
primary and secondary sources were accessed to compile information for this document
throughout 2005 by CDD staff.

Primary source information was collected through interviews with key informants in the
community. Key informant interviews were conducted with subrecipients of CDD’s grant
programs, CDD and local nonprofit employees, lenders, the Municipality of Anchorage
Planning Department, and realtors. Respondents to the interviews were asked a series of
questions based on the recommended questions from the HUD Fair Housing Planning


                                                                                       156
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Guide and other questions devised from community issues that are specific to Anchorage.
Appendix B provides a listing of all key informants interviewed.

A key secondary resource that was utilized was a Fair Housing Survey conducted by the
Dittman Research Corporation in August of 2003 for the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC). This study interviewed five sectors of the community including
residential construction contactors, rental property managers, nonprofit and agency
providers, renters and realtors/lenders. Although the survey was conducted at the State
level, the findings were broken down regionally, including the Southcentral region, which
includes the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the Kenai Peninsula. Because the majority
of the State population lives in the Anchorage area, the study was heavily weighted
towards the Anchorage area.

Additional secondary resources were reviewed such as CDD program information
information, reports from the Federal Financial Institution Examination Council and a
survey conducted on voucher shopping conducted by Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation.

       C.     Methodological Limitations

HUD’s guidance for examining fair housing choice highlights institutional barriers to
housing. Likewise, this report focuses on the policies and procedures of various
agencies and organizations. In accordance with this approach, informant interviews were
conducted with people that often work with groups who have historically experienced
discrimination and not individuals who may actually have experienced discrimination
themselves. No blind testing was done to complete this AI.

Similarly, one of the key secondary sources of information, the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation Fair Housing Survey, interviewed community members in regards to fair
housing issues. Ths survey interviewed renters, lenders, landlords, service providers, and
realtors. No demographic information collected from the respondents. Therefore, it is
difficult to determine the populations sampled and if the study might have excluded
certain groups, such as people that are not proficient in English. Furthermore, many of
the questions in study were tailored towards the issue of affordable housing. As a result,
many of the respondent’s answers relate more to affordable and not to fair housing issues.

       D.      Impediments

              1.      Shortage of Affordable Housing

Although low-income or economic disadvantage are not protected classes under the
federal Fair Housing Act or state or local law, the lack of affordable housing may have a
disparate impact on Anchorage’s minorities, who statistically generally tend to have
lower incomes. Census tracts 6.0 and 9.01, have the highest percentage of minorities and
also contain the most affordable housing.


                                                                                        157
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Fair Housing Survey indicated that affordable
housing was one of renters’ and realtors’/lenders’ primary concerns in regards to housing
options and availability. In Southcentral Alaska, 37 percent of renter respondents stated
that their primary concern or observation about barriers to obtaining fair housing was that
it was too expensive. An Anchorage renter commented that housing has “[T]oo high [of]
a price range in a certain area I wanted to live…”      In addition, in the Municipality of
Anchorage’s Ten-Year Plan on Homelessness, affordable housing was specifically
identified and the plan detailed the need for more affordable one- and four- bedroom
units.

Another issue that relates to affordable housing and zoning in Anchorage concerns
manufactured housing or mobile home parks. In Anchorage, many manufactured
housing parks (mobile home parks) are older and have poor infrastructure. As a result,
the owners of manufactured home parks are closing the parks and having the land
rezoned as commercial lots, which results in an increase in the value of the land. Due to
the closures of manufactured housing parks, one of the most affordable single-family
housing options in Anchorage may cease to exist. In the context of considering rezone
requests, there is no current Municipal zoning law, code or policy that would require a
“no net loss” of usable land appropriately zoned for affordable housing.

               2.     Shortage of Accessible Housing

The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Fair Housing Survey found that 30 percent of
renters had difficulty obtaining housing because of their disability and the majority of
these respondents stated that it was because of accessibility constraints. Forty percent of
the builders surveyed in that survey in Southcentral Alaska stated that they incorporate
universal design and accessibility features into the homes or rental units that they build.

Although no statistics are available for the exact number of private sector units in
Anchorage, of approximately 700 public housing units in Anchorage, only 61 or 8.7%
have been configured to meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards (according to the
Public Housing Division of Alaska Housing Finance Corporatino). And, of the 61 units,
only 7 of have sight and sound accessible features for persons with visual or hearing
impairments.

According to the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Agency Plan, in 2005 there were
1,442 families on the waiting list for public housing assistance in Anchorage and 332 or
23 percent of these families had one or more members with disabilities.        Similarly,
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation reports that of the 2,555 families on the Section 8
tenant-based assistance program waiting list, 409 or 16 percent of these households had
one or more members with disabilities.

               3.     Zoning




                                                                                         158
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Anchorage is in the process of revising Title 21, the portion of the Municipal Code
regulating the City’s zoning. Changes have been proposed to Title 21 that provide
greater housing options to people that need assisted living. These changes also define
transitional housing, including where such housing may be located. At the time of
publication of this draft, these proposed changes had not yet been published for Assembly
consideration.

Additionally, a proposed amendment to Municipal Code Title 21 by adding Section
21.05.055 that creates a procedure for creating and adopting a neighborhood or district
plan. Neighborhoods that choose to adopt these plans in the future may have more
resident control and more opportunities for growth and development. The passage of this
ordinance is an exciting prospect for Anchorage because it will increase the opportunities
for community-capacity building.

In turn, if neighborhoods choose to adopt housing standards, such as increased set-backs,
this could increase the cost of housing in some neighborhoods. It is important that the
CDD work with neighborhoods so that neighborhood plans do not violate fair housing
laws.

              4.      Lending

National studies on fair housing indicate that non-whites are often discriminated against
in early stages of the home lending process. Housing programs are often not advertised
in minority communities, and minorities do not receive as much coaching by lending
agents or as many follow-up calls.

Community Reinvestment Act reports indicate that minorities in Anchorage, particularly
Hispanics and Alaska Natives, apply for conventional home loans at a lower rate than
their proportional representation in the population. Alaska Natives although they
represent approximately 7 percent of the population compose only 1-2 percent of the
conventional home loans applicants from mortgage lenders. It also appears, based on
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 2003 that minorities in Anchorage are more often
denied conventional home loans because of their income to debt ratio, rather than their
employment history, credit history and collateral. However, Asians are more likely to be
denied for insufficient cash flow than other groups, but also have a higher rate of
application than other minorities.

Many financial institutions in Anchorage have a commitment to serving minorities.
These financial institutions have all received either a satisfactory or outstanding CRA
rating on their last review. Many financial institutions are currently in the process of
being reviewed again in 2005. The following are the CRA ratings for the traditional
lending institutions in Anchorage:

              Bank                   Date of Review          Rating



                                                                                        159
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
               First National           2001                     Outstanding
               Bank
               Alaska First Bank        2003                     Satisfactory
               & Trust
               First Interstate         1999                     Satisfactory
               Bank of Alaska
               Key Bank of              1997                     Outstanding
               Alaska
               Wells Fargo/             1999                     Outstanding
               National Bank of
               Alaska
               Northrim Bank            2002                     Satisfactory
               Security Pacific         1991                     Satisfactory
               Bank of Alaska

Although many prime lenders received favorable CRA reports regarding fair lending,
very few of the prime lenders have easily accessible branches in neighborhoods that have
the highest concentration of minorities in Anchorage, such as in Mountain View or
Fairview. The majority of bank branches are located in Midtown. Appendix C provides
a mapping of bank branch locations in Anchorage.

According to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, nationally, subprime lending has
increased tenfold from 104,000 lenders in 1993 to 1 million in 1999. Key informants
indicate that this trend is also occurring in Anchorage. Subprime lending caters to credit-
impaired borrowers, including those who may have blemishes on their credit record, an
insufficient credit history, or nontraditional credit sources. Subprime lenders assist
clients in accessing loans that they could not obtain in the prime credit market (Fishbein
and Bunce, 274). However, studies such as the HUD report conducted by the Woodstock
Institute show that subprime lending disproportionately serves low-income and minority
clients. Furthermore, the growth of the subprime industry in Anchorage may be
indicative that the traditionally lending market may not be adequately serving all
populations.

Predatory lending occurs primarily in subprime mortgage markets and can be undertaken
by creditors, brokers, or even home improvement contractors. It involves engaging in
deception or fraud, manipulating the borrower through aggressive sales tactics, or taking
unfair advantage of a borrower’s lack of understanding about loan terms. Key informants
in Anchorage particularly indicated that excessive fees and “packing” is an issue in this
community.




                                                                                         160
                                   Municipality of Anchorage
                                  Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Since 2000, a group of interested agency and organization representatives throughout
Alaska created the Predatory Lending Task Force, The Task Force mission is to work “in
identifying ways to raise public awareness on predatory lending in Alaska and ways to
help individuals and families-primarily those who are low-income and minorities protect
themselves from predatory lenders.” Members of the Task Force include the State
Attorney General, the FBI, Consumer Credit Counseling, AARP, Alaska Mortgage
Bankers, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Cook Inlet Housing Authority, Better
Business Bureau, Fairbanks Neighborhood Housing, Anchorage Neighborhood Housing
Services, HUD, the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, and others. In July 2005, the
Task Force was notified that it will become a participating site for the national Freddie
Mac “Don’t Borrow Trouble” anti-predatory lending campaign.

              5.      Fair Housing Education

The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Fair Housing Survey indicates that residential
construction contactors, rental property managers, nonprofit and agency providers,
renters and realtors/lenders have low levels of knowledge regarding fair housing issues.
In response to the question, “Where would you advise someone to contact to file a fair
housing compliant?” in Southcentral, Alaska, 17 percent of respondents stated they
would contact the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, 21 percent stated they would
contact HUD. Furthermore, in the survey “race” was the only commonly recognized
protected class.

Key informants, particularly subrecipients of HOME and CDBG funding also indicated
that there needs to be a greater emphasis on educating landlords on fair housing laws.
Currently, there is no organization in Anchorage or Alaska that has been specifically
dedicated to the issue of fair housing advocacy. In Anchorage, educational and
enforcement resources are scattered amongst different entities in the community. For
example, the Disability Law Center of Alaska provides legal advocacy to people with
physical or mental disabilities. However, it does not engage in an educational campaign
regarding fair housing. In addition, Alaska Legal Services Corporation , through its pro
bono program provide the free Landlord Tenant Clinics and provides other services, but
only to persons who meet certain qualifications. Similarly, Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation has incorporated a fair housing education into its Housing Voucher Choice
shopping education program, and sponsors training from time to time. However, AHFC
does not engage in consistently offered, community-wide fair housing education.

              6.      Limited English Proficiency

In December of 2003, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a
guidance document to comply with an Executive Order that requires all federal agencies
to improve access to federally assisted programs for people who, as a result of their
national origin, have limited English proficiency.

Many of the CDD subrecipients have informal policies of how to assist people with LEP
in using their services. For example, Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services has

                                                                                       161
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
translated some of its educational brochures into Spanish and has a volunteer translator.
Currently, AHFC is in the process of approving their Limted English Proficiency plan
through HUD.

In April of 2005, the CDD assumed management of the Municipality of Anchorage’s
Weatherization Program. As a result, the CDD will have more direct contact with clients
who have limited English proficiency. The CDD will be working on a policy to serve
people these clients more effectively in the near future.

               7.     Complaint and Enforcement Process

The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Fair Housing Survey concluded that very few
respondents knew where to report fair housing issues. One of the reasons may be that
very few complaints are successful. Another may be that for potential complainants, the
time it takes to file and resolve a complaint may not be compatible with his or her more
immediate need of securing housing.

The fair housing laws are enforced by three administrative agencies in Anchorage. First,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) enforces the federal
Fair Housing Law. Persons who are seeking information about HUD’s enforcement
should contact HUD in Seattle at 1-800-877-0246 or (206) 220-5170. The Anchorage
Equal Rights Commission investigates any alleged violations of Title 5 of the Municipal
Code and can be contacted at (907)343-4342. The Alaska State Commission for Human
Rights (ASCHR) enforces the Alaska State Law prohibiting housing discrimination and
can be contacted at (907) 274-4692.

                                 Housing             Housing                Total
                                Complaints          Complaints
                                  2003                2004
         HUD                        3                   4                     7
         ASCHR                     10                   2                    12
         AERC                       0                   7                     7
         Total                     13                  13                    26

Of the seven cases filed with HUD, four, or 57 percent, were based on disability; 42
percent were based on race; one, or 14 percent, was based on sex; and one, or 14
percent, was based on national origin. Of the seven cases, five, or 71 percent, were
closed for no cause; one, or 14 percent, were closed for failure to cooperate. In one
disability discrimination case, HUD found cause and the charging party made an
election to proceed with the case in court.


               8.     Other Forms of Discrimination




                                                                                        162
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Although sexual orientation is not a protected class, there have been concerns voiced in
the community that this population experiences discrimination in Anchorage regarding
housing.

              9.     Service and Companion Animals

The Fair Housing Act requires landlords to “…make reasonable accommodations in
rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodation may be necessary to
afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling” 42
U.S.C. 3604 (f) (3) (B). Service Animals that that assist persons with disabilities are
considered to be auxiliary aides and must be exempt from pet policies and from
refundable pet deposits.




                                                                                      163
                               Municipality of Anchorage
                              Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Appendix 8: Anchorage Daily News Article from July 22, 2007
Eagle River Trailer Park Residents Face Eviction
Lazy Mountain's inhabitants say they can't afford to leave
By JULIA O'MALLEY
jomalley@adn.com
Published: July 22, 2007
Last Modified: July 22, 2007 at 01:38 AM
Wayne Scott and Steven Lopez have a serious problem more Anchorage residents face
all the time: They can't find decent housing for a decent price.
Both men live with their families in the Lazy Mountain Trailer Court, the last real trailer
court in Eagle River, which is being sold to a developer who wants the land.
More than 40 families got eviction notices around Christmas and since then have been
trying to move their trailers or sell them and find new places to live. But used, old trailers
don't sell well, and finding a place in Anchorage on a working-class salary gets tougher
every year.
Scott, a mechanic, is looking at buying a house, but what's available nearby tops
$250,000. Buying means quadrupling his monthly housing payment. How will he afford
it?
"Me and my wife both working double jobs," he said.
His neighbor Steven Lopez, a cook and single father of five, can't afford to buy. He's
been paying around $850 a month in rent and utilities for his three-bedroom trailer.
Finding an apartment that big at that price is nearly impossible, he said.
"We don't know what we're doing," he said. "Toward the end of the month, we're going to
go rent a camping space."
Some of the fastest growing segments of the city's economy -- retail, hospitality, health
care -- have some of the lowest paid workers, feeding the demand for low-cost housing.
But the rising costs of land, construction and rents are shrinking the supply, according to
housing data collected by the Municipality's Department of Neighborhoods.
All of that puts pressure on the city's poor -- most often minority or single-parent families
-- and means they, like the people at Lazy Mountain, must choose between spending
most of their wages on rent or living in substandard conditions. More and more people at
the very lowest end wind up in housing limbo like Lopez, camping, staying on friends'
couches, living in RVs or sleeping at shelters.
NEEDED NICHE IN A TOUGH MARKET
Trailers may have a bad reputation, but in the Anchorage housing climate, they're a
valuable option for lower income families, said Tyler Robinson, director of the city
neighborhoods department. They offer space, privacy, a yard and a chance to own, all at
lower than market rent. No other housing choice can do that, he said.
Over the years, the creeping land shortage here has developers chewing through trailer
courts, building more profitable office and condo complexes. Gone are the Scenic View,
Plaza 36 Mobile Home Park, the Alaskan Village Mobile Home Park and the Brookside



                                                                                            165
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Manor. There are just over 4,000 mobile homes in Anchorage now, about half the
number of trailers in 1985.
The city's looking at how to slow the death of trailer parks, Robinson said. Most people
who own trailers don't own the land beneath them, and that's something the city would
like to change. Other communities have experimented with cooperatives where every
trailer owner also owns a piece of the park. Some states have laws that mandate trailer
park residents get a right of first refusal to buy their land, he said.
"Once they own the property, the value of their trailers increases. It's not a depreciating
home," he said.
But doing something like this starts with older parks being upgraded or replaced to meet
codes. New manufactured homes are available and affordable to start a co-op park, said
Mayor Mark Begich. The issue is finding land and a nonprofit willing to manage it.
Debbie Ossiander, who represents Eagle River on the Assembly, is sorry to see Lazy
Mountain go and wants to preserve mobile home parks elsewhere. Eagle River used to
be a pocket of affordability, but now it's seeing significant development pressure, she
said. Just a drive down the Old Glenn Highway shows how it's changing, with new
stores, a Starbucks and rows and rows of pastel condos.
Melissa Freyholtz, another resident of Lazy Mountain, recently sold her trailer at a loss.
"We don't know where we're going or what we're doing," she said. "I think we had it
pretty good here."
THE BIG PICTURE
The extinction of mobile homes is just part of the affordable housing problem in
Anchorage. Apartment rents increased 42 percent between 2000 and 2005. The
average sale price of a home jumped 57 percent from about $186,000 to $291,000,
according to a forthcoming city report.
Meanwhile, wages haven't kept pace. In that same time period, median household
income grew only 10 percent, from about $55,000 to $61,000, the report says. Housing
costs squeeze everyone from moderate-income people -- those making $40,000 to
$70,000 -- who can't afford a mortgage to those on the low end struggling to pay rent.
The structure of the Anchorage economy shifted in the 1990s, with fewer high-paying
jobs in the oil industry and more low-paying jobs in retail, hotels, and entry-level health
care, according to Neal Fried, a state economist. If you make the minimum wage, $7.15
an hour, and work a 40-hour week, you make about $15,000 a year, not including a
Permanent Fund check. You'd have to work 99 hours a week to afford the average rent,
according to the city.
The lowest income group, those families making less than $37,000 a year, is among the
city's fastest growing segment, said Kris Duncan, a planner with Alaska Housing Finance
Corp. Last year the city had 17,000 families considered "extremely low-income," she
said.
"What we are seeing is the percentage in those categories is continuing to grow," she
said. "Certainly it should make people wake up and look at where we're going."
By government definition, "affordable" means monthly housing payments make up about
a third of monthly income. But in Anchorage, three out of four of the poorest families --
for example a four-person household making $22,400 a year -- are paying at least half
their income in rent.


                                                                                             166
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
The problem is growing nationwide. A recent report from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development found that 6 million poor households used most of their monthly
income on housing or lived in substandard conditions in 2005. That's an increase of 16
percent since 2003.
The waitlist for government housing assistance in Anchorage is 1,800 families long.
"You can languish on the waiting list for years," Duncan said.
And more people are ending up in shelters. The number of new homeless people at
Brother Francis Shelter increased 5 percent each year for the last three years, said
Dewayne Harris, program director.
"It's taking folks much longer to save up enough money for a simple deposit," he said.
What happens when more people are making less and paying more rent? They can't pay
for other things, like food and health care, which means taxpayers pick up the tab. One
in ten school children in 1986 received free or reduced lunch. Today it's one in three.
The caseload at Anchorage's food stamp office is up 37 percent since 2002.
"Everyone pays for it," Begich said.
WHAT'S AFFORDABLE?
Connie Yoshimura, the developer looking to buy the Lazy Mountain property, plans to
build multifamily housing, according to her lawyer, Suzanne Cherot.
"Downtown Eagle River provides a unique opportunity to create a sustainable residential
development within walking distance of shops and theaters at an affordable price,"
Cherot said.
The places in Eagle River will be cheaper than downtown Anchorage, but what's
affordable is relative. The real question is, "Affordable to whom?" Duncan said.
"It may not be high-end, it may not be median (price) and above, but does it fit the
income brackets that need housing in your community?" Duncan asked.
Most of the city's new housing isn't affordable to a lot of people. The average price of
new housing units was $425,000 in 2006, which is considered affordable to those
making about $146,000 a year. The average price for an existing house was $302,000,
affordable to those making $104,000, according to the municipality.
To meet the needs of the working poor, the city would have to add 4,500 rental units and
1,700 owner units at the lowest end, according to the Department of Neighborhoods. But
rising construction costs mean that low-income housing without government help doesn't
pencil out.
Cherot couldn't give specifics on the price of Yoshimura's planned housing, but
Ossiander said she expects the new homes in Eagle River to sell for more than
$100,000.
"It's called affordable, but it sure seems pricey to me," she said.
Cook Inlet Housing, a nonprofit that builds affordable housing, currently has a few
apartments available that would compare to what's in a trailer court. There are nonprofits
building more low-income housing in Mountain View, Spenard and Muldoon, Begich
said. Everyone agrees it's a start but not enough to meet the demand.
It takes a multilayered effort to tackle the housing issue, Duncan said. The city could try
to lower other costs for the poor like transportation and child care. Some communities


                                                                                         167
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
are passing living wage ordinances that make employers pay workers enough to afford
housing. Other places require developers who raze old low-cost housing to replace it
with at least some new low-cost housing. But the majority on the Assembly is not likely
to support those kinds of measures, Begich said.
For now, at Lazy Mountain, families are struggling to plan their futures among the "for
sale" signs and abandoned trailers. Residents filed a lawsuit to help stall their eviction,
but Bruce Miller, a retiree and president of the Lazy Mountain homeowner's association,
says most aren't holding out hope of stopping the sale.
"It's not often homeowners win against development," he said. "I'm a realist."
Miller is leaving his trailer to his son and going to the Lower 48, where he and his wife
will travel and live in their RV.
"You cannot find any reasonably priced housing," he said. "There's just nothing here."
Find Julia O'Malley online at adn.com/contact/jomalley or call 257-4591.




                                                                                         168
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
Appendix 9: Anchorage Daily News Article, “Homeless get a day of attention”
SOCIAL SERVICES: Event's purpose was provide people on-the-spot care, assistance.

By PETER PORCO
pporco@adn.com
Published: July 28, 2007
They came for the Band-Aids and the blood tests, the legal advice and the apartment
listings, the child care and the pet care, the showers and the haircuts.
Nearly 300 men, women and children -- all without a home of their own, or facing
eviction -- visited Central Middle School of Science in Anchorage on Friday to take
advantage of a raft of vital medical, social and other services made available for the first
time under the same roof.
The one-stop personal-needs event is an idea Anchorage stole from San Francisco and
will now hold twice a year, according to organizers. The purpose was to treat street
people on the spot, hooking them up with those who can serve some of their most
immediate needs, said Tyler Robinson, head of the city's Department of Neighborhoods.
Project Homeless Connect Anchorage also restores, even if just for a few hours, an
essential pride in people who normally seem to have very little of it, Robinson said.
"There's a whole other level, a human dignity level, to get them to feel good about
themselves, and feel good about being around other people," he said.
Those who came lined up quietly, many of them arriving by free People Mover buses
before the doors opened. In one classroom, they sat patiently at intake tables while
volunteers asked them personal information, including the pertinent question: Where did
you sleep last night?
They walked the school's halls, some of them, like bewildered students trying to locate a
classroom listed on the sheet of paper in their hands.
Many wore clothes that were darkened by grime. Some walked with crutches. Others
pushed babies in strollers. On occasion there was the odor of tobacco or booze. Like
those seen at Bean's Cafe or Brother Francis Shelter, they seldom smiled.
A young mother asked volunteers to find a bottle for her 3-month-old baby so she could
feed her infant formula.
A man in his 20s who carried a backpack objected to the rule that anyone who brought a
pack had to check it. Even though the room keeper snapped an instant photograph of
him and attached the photo to the pack, the man still worried that someone would steal
it. He declined to talk to a reporter.
Bradley Kimball, a 55-year-old residential and commercial painter, said he lost "a lot of
my funding" six years ago when he developed oral cancer.
Kimball has no teeth and the floor of his mouth has been replaced by skin grafts. He sat
on a chair outside the school and rolled a cigarette. His boots and clothes were well
worn but clean. His large blue eyes were clear and deeply canopied in a weathered face.
The federal program Medicaid paid much of his bills, Kimball said, but he lost his truck
and equipment, had to sell a guitar and amplifier, and has been out of work since.



                                                                                            169
                                 Municipality of Anchorage
                                Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012
He said he now has a bum knee and shoulder and needs new surgery. He collects no
Social Security disability or food stamps because the federal government, he said, is
fighting him -- "something about an overpayment" and about a DUI conviction in Boston
23 years ago.
The last time Kimball had a place of his own to live was a year and a half ago. Since
then, it's been "good friends here and there" who've let him stay. His goal Friday, he
said, was to "get some housing so I can get my operations and heal up, so I can get
back to work."
The homeless in Anchorage numbered 1,680 during last January's survey, according to
Kris Duncan, a planner with the Alaska Housing Finance Corp. and a state homeless
coordinator.
Particularly in summer, the city's homeless are spread far and wide. To tell them of
Project Homeless Connect, organizers enlisted social service agencies. Volunteers also
combed city woods to find homeless people, giving them cards listing the services
available Friday, including a free lunch.
Altogether, said Duncan, 298 people showed up. Most were men -- 188. Half were
Alaska Native, a little more than a third were white, 9 percent were blacks, and the rest
were Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders and others.
Housing and employment services were the most utilized, Duncan said. There also were
mental-health and youth services, TB testing, veterans services and wheelchair repair.
Haircuts were very popular. After they took the mandatory shower, 85 people --
overwhelmingly men -- had their hair cut in one of the classrooms by three students from
Trendsetters, the Midtown salon.
"Everybody looks great when they leave," said Ledjha Carson, a Trendsetters instructor
who was the room captain. "This guy's getting a fade," she said of a young man. The
lower half of his head was trimmed to the scalp. "It's a very trendy look right now."
At the medical station, Connie Markis, a registered nurse with the Anchorage
Neighborhood Health Center, and three others tended to a variety of problems -- a case
of bronchitis, a baby with an infection, open wounds.
"You should be changing that every day," Markis said to a Native man who had open
sores on his elbow and his heel. She suggested he get an antibiotic prescription from the
Alaska Native Hospital.
Anchorage and other cities just lost most of a federal grant that, since the early 1990s,
had funded medical personnel who would treat homeless people in the shelters, Markis
said.
A two-thirds cut in the grant took effect July 1 and means that a physician's assistant
who would usually make trips to Brother Francis now will have to treat indigent people at
the Neighborhood Health Center. Traveling to the center could prove a problem for those
who have few transportation options, Markis said.
Project Homeless Connect has been tried in 106 cities in three countries and the island
of Puerto Rico, according to the event's local sponsors and supporters -- the Anchorage
Coalition on Housing, United Way of Anchorage, the Municipality of Anchorage, FedEx
Kinko, Conoco Phillips and ClearWire. Contact Peter Porco at pporco@adn.com or call
257-4350.


                                                                                            170
                                Municipality of Anchorage
                               Consolidated Plan, 2008-2012

								
To top