TNHA
Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu Housing Authority
Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu Housing Authority
Regional Housing Need on the North Slope of Alaska
Daryl Kooley, Executive Director
Public Testimony to Larry Echohawk, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior (June 29, 2010)
The Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu Housing Authority (TNHA) is pleased to have this opportunity to present our 2010 Regional Housing Needs and Priorities.
Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu Housing Authority (TNHA) was organized under Alaska statute in 1974 to meet the low-income housing needs of the Arctic Slope region, and is a Tribally Designated Housing Entity identified by six Tribes to administer their individual funding.
Cumulatively, TNHA has developed 578 total units of Indian housing. TNHA also manages an extensive fair market rental housing program encompassing 180 units of single and multifamily housing located in villages throughout the North Slope Borough.
Identified Regional and Local Need
Analysis of data from the 2000 U.S. Census, and variety of additional sources reveals dramatic need in the six communities, served by TNHA, the remote villages of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqusuk, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Pt. Lay, and Wainwright,
Nearly 80% of American Indian/Alaska Native families in the six communities reside in overcrowded conditions, a reflection of the "hidden homeless” population prevalent throughout the circumpolar region. The shortage often results in multiple generations, and families, residing in the same household and in overcrowded conditions.
Additional considerations include the fact that approximately 25% of American Indian/Alaska Native families in the six villages, or nearly one fourth of all families, have very low income, residing in relative poverty. The resulting need would require expenditure of nearly $90 million to address.
Regional and Local Construction Cost Factors
The 2008 construction costs survey, which is conducted annually by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, cites the following: "The cost of construction creates a significant barrier to residential housing development in many communities in rural Alaska. Shipping cost variables make home construction much more expensive in rural communities, particularly those rural communities that are off the road system. High transportation costs can make construction materials unaffordable to most and create a breakdown of the housing market.
Caveats to the AHFC study include the fact that the referenced "market basket of materials" which would cost approximately $7000 in Anchorage, would cost a staggering $20,000 in Barrow or 299% of the Anchorage cost. This figure assumes added perspective, when one considers that Barrow, as a hub community, is far less expensive than any of the six villages. At the very least, air transport (as the villages are not accessible by road) would add an additional freight cost of $6000 -$12,000 dollars to the "market basket" price, resulting in "landed" construction material cost approaching $32,000.
For 2010 TNHA Has Identified Four (4) Federal Priority Issues
TNHA Issue # 1: NAHASDA Funding Increase: Though we are sincerely appreciative of recent incremental improvement in allocation levels NAHASDA continues to be underfunded in terms of meeting demonstrated critical housing needs in Alaska. The study conducted by the Cold Climate Housing Research Center on behalf of AHFC, entitled “2005 Alaska Housing Assessment,” provides clear objective data on the critical affordable housing needs throughout our State.
TNHA Issue # 2 Rural Alaska Energy Crisis: Energy issues have become a major concern to the whole state, but are especially pressing and critical in our rural communities. TNHA is feeling the immediate financial impacts of the crisis. These impacts are seriously eroding our ability to carry out new development in our region. We support a federal subsidy for fuel surcharges on transportation. These surcharges have dramatically increased over the past several years. Of additional assistance would be a 50% federal match to the Renewable Energy Grant Program within the Alaska Energy Authority.
TNHA Issue # 3: Rural Water & Sewer Infrastructure: Developing housing in rural Alaska includes more than building homes. Because there is such a strong need for housing, along with governmental regulatory barriers, and restricted grant program eligibility, housing authorities are unable to sacrifice precious federal funds for community infrastructure projects.
Federal agencies have established programs that allow them to distribute funds for the development of infrastructure in Indian communities, but housing authorities often are not eligible entities.
For instance, under NAHASDA, HUD no longer earmarks a portion of housing funds to pay for infrastructure. Housing authorities must make the decision of whether to use their limited NAHASDA funds to build homes to relieve overcrowded conditions, or to make needed improvements to infrastructure for existing homes. The immediate need for housing usually wins out. This combined with the limitations on the ability of IHS to provide funds to serve HUD funded homes with sanitation facilities has created incredible strains on water and sewer infrastructure for Alaskan villages.
TNHA Issue # 4: TNHA Tax Status Clarification: There is current inconsistent treatment of Alaska housing authorities in regards to tax related issues and status. The current situation has a significant negative impact on TNHA’s ability to leverage funding through tax exempt borrowing.
The existing Alaska Regional Native Housing Authorities (Housing Authorities) were created under Alaska statutes. As a “public body corporate and politic,” the Housing Authorities are essentially treated as non-profits most of the time and for most purposes. However, this status can be called into question in certain situations or under certain circumstances. For instance, as a rule, Housing Authorities are considered tax exempt from both property and sales taxes by municipal governments. On the other hand, there is uncertainty among lending institutions in regards to our status and this directly and negatively impacts our potential borrowing and financing options.
As Housing Authorities are continually asked to do more with less and leverage our federal and state funds to the maximum extent possible, entering the bond market for attractive financing options would seem a natural fit. However, in the current environment, our ability to independently operate successfully in this market is open to question.