Housing authority debates means-test tiers, approves keeping current waiting-list rules

At a recent meeting of the Common Housing Authority, members discussed adopting an income-based means test for new tenants and possible tiers tied to area median income (AMI), while unanimously voting to keep the authority’s current waiting-list rules in place.

Board members and staff debated several models for screening new applicants, including a tiered system using 60%, 80% and 100% of AMI and a sliding-scale rent model. Manager Matt presented data from the Portland HMFA and said the authority could target different unit types at different AMI tiers.

The issue matters because the authority’s rental revenue, reserves for future repairs and the supply of lower-cost units are all influenced by how the authority defines eligibility and sets rents. Several board members said they wanted to avoid reducing protections for current residents while making the program fiscally sustainable.

Discussion and proposals

Manager Matt reviewed options drawn from HUD guidelines and the Portland HMFA and recommended the board consider two or three income tiers for new tenants rather than applying retroactive changes to existing residents. He summarized typical program thresholds and noted the authority’s current rents are significantly below AMI-based market levels: "at 60% for a 1-bedroom, you'd be looking at $1,461; at 80%, $1,948; and at 100%, $2,325," he said, presenting those HMFA figures as context for setting new rents as units turn over.

Board members debated the target population. Connie Bingham said the board should decide who the housing is for before finalizing a means test. Norm (board member) favored a middle-ground pilot (80% AMI) to avoid excluding too many applicants. Sally Pierce emphasized protecting residents who rely on Social Security and urged tailoring assistance for very low-income tenants. Several members suggested starting with income-only screening rather than adding an asset test: "the asset test bothers me" one member said, citing differences between pension structures and retirement accounts.

Practical implementation ideas included: collecting three years of tax returns for income verification; using pay stubs or benefit statements where tax returns do not provide a full picture; testing new applicants when a vacancy occurs (not re-testing long-term existing tenants); and piloting the approach on a small number of units before wider rollout. Christina (housing administrator) confirmed the authority’s current operating practice of contacting applicants in order on the waiting list and said the existing subsidy-assignment process for the three subsidized one-bedroom rates would remain in place.

Decision and next steps

After discussion the board voted on a separate, procedural motion to keep the existing waiting-list structure (preferred residents first, then other tiers) rather than reworking who is considered a preferred applicant; the motion passed unanimously. The board directed staff to draft a more specific proposal and outreach plan for a future meeting — including tenant notification that any new rules would not affect current tenants — and scheduled a follow-up meeting for Oct. 20 at 4 p.m.

Board concerns and safeguards

Members repeatedly emphasized that any new means test should not be applied retroactively to current residents. Several board members urged simplicity to avoid placing an undue administrative burden on staff. The suggestion to require three years of tax returns for income verification was supported as a way to reduce manipulation while keeping the process administratively feasible. Legal review was recommended before final adoption to limit discretionary exceptions that could create vulnerability to legal challenge.

Community context and fiscal notes

Board members noted the authority carries a capital plan and reserve program for future needs such as heating systems and other capital replacements. Several members said aligning some units with higher AMI tiers could allow the authority to increase reserves over time to cover large future capital expenses.

Closing and outreach

Staff was asked to draft a “straw man” policy that includes proposed AMI tiers, verification documents, a pilot plan, outreach wording for the waiting list and existing tenants, and an estimate of the expected fiscal impact. The board will review the draft and any required legal advice at the next meeting.