Infighting derails Westminster City Council; new rules didn’t initially help

• September 6, 2024

The Westminster City Council again is in turmoil with infighting. City business again is suffering.

Last week’s Westminster City Council meeting started at 4 p.m. on Wednesday. It ended after 5 a.m. on Thursday. It was the council’s second 10-plus hour meeting this summer. A lot of what the council managed to accomplish dealt with motions it was supposed to hear two weeks prior, such as approving contracts for street improvements around town and a playground renovation at Tony Lam Park.

“With the infighting, we can’t concentrate on the business at hand to take care of what the city needs,” said Mayor Chi Charlie Nguyen.  “We’ve been pushing back items, and this affects residents in the city of Westminster.”

As an institution, the Westminster City Council is no stranger to drama and dysfunction. A previous iteration of the council censured then-mayor Tri Ta and also Nguyen when he was then vice-mayor. A censure is a formal and public condemnation of a councilmember’s behavior.

This summer, another round of volleys to censure councilmembers has bogged down city business and led to institutional reforms. Though they were to take effect immediately, the reforms didn’t seem to have much consequence at last week’s meeting.

The council voted 3-2 to amend the way members can bring agenda items to discussion and to limit how long any member can speak on an item without receiving majority approval to continue.

Before, any two councilmembers could ask the city manager to schedule the discussion of an item. Moving forward, a majority of the council will have to agree to add any agenda item requested by a councilmember other than the mayor. In Westminster, councilmembers are elected by voters in one of four districts, while the mayor is elected citywide.

Councilmember Amy Phan West called the change a convenient way for the majority, who she calls a “gang of three communist dictators,” to silence ideas they disagree with.

“For the mayor to exempt himself, that’s unacceptable,” she said in an interview. In a statement she made on her social media accounts, Phan West said the rule “mirrors the tactics of authoritarian regimes that stifle dissent and disregard the will of the people.”

Nguyen pointed out that the new rule returns Westminster to the way previous councils conducted business, and he defended the mayoral exemption.

“The mayor is responsible for the whole city, not only for one district,” he said. “And the main thing is if we have an emergency item that comes up, the mayor needs to be able to put that up for discussion if the urgency demands it cannot wait until a vote at the next meeting.”

“I’m not abusing the system,” he said. “I’m doing what needs to be done in order to get the city moving forward.”

A second rule intended to limit the length of discussions on existing agenda items to two rounds of five-minute comments unless additional time is approved by a majority vote purportedly took effect immediately.

But after that vote, Phan West and Councilmember NamQuan Nguyen steamrolled the limits, despite repeated warnings from the mayor, proceeding to talk for the vast majority of more than four hours of discussion about agenda items for which other councilmembers did not support extended dialogue.

In an interview, Phan West refused to commit to abiding to the new city rule. “We have freedom of speech,” she said. “I will continue to defend freedom of speech.”

The rule states that if a councilmember does not adhere to the policy or willfully disrupts a meeting, they will be warned to stop three times and if they continue they may be removed from the meeting.

“When a councilmember continues speaking over another member, I have to give a warning,” Charlie Nguyen said. “I don’t want to silence anyone. I don’t want to mute anyone. But I need to get the meeting in order. It is my responsibility to do that. At the same time, I don’t want to remove anyone from the meeting. The goal is to get everyone together and talk about trying to resolve the problem together for the benefit of the community.”

When it comes to discussions about conduct and protocols, the council is divided three against two, with newcomers Phan West and NamQuan Nguyen typically pitted against council veterans Charlie Nguyen, Carlos Manzo and Kimberly Ho, who terms out this fall.

Phan West, elected in 2022 fresh off a primary loss to represent U.S. House District 47, was censured in August by her colleagues for allegations she violated the city’s ethics policy in several ways, including using brash language on the dais, filing a false police report against Manzo and trespassing across a construction site on her dirt bike — among a potpourri of other claims.

West says the allegations are politically motivated. “Maybe they don’t like how I speak so bluntly,” she said.

“I’m not a career politician,” she added, although she has twice run for Congress and said she might run again for public office when her council term ends in 2026. “I will speak from my heart, and I will never be polished or politically correct, you could say.”

Last week, she and NamQuan Nguyen motioned and seconded censure of Charlie Nguyen and Ho, spending about two hours unfurling their allegations against their colleagues. Both of those motions failed when in front of the full council. Phan and NamQuan Nguyen spent awhile arguing for the city to ask voters to appoint rather than elect its mayor — the deadline to add any such measure to the ballot this November has passed and Westminster voters denied that very measure in a 2022 election.

During the discussion, Phan West made derogatory comments about the mayor. She later acknowledged she could have handled that conversation more respectfully.

“I was frustrated because I felt silenced over and over and targeted by a new rule by a group in power that doesn’t care about each individual district’s voice,” she said.

She said the mayor has struggled to keep meetings in order, arguing his warnings to her about crosstalk at the dais are unfair while she says he’s allowing his supporters to heckle her from the audience.

Charlie Nguyen said the new resolution is fair for everyone.

“If we run meetings according to Robert’s Rules of Order and we respect each other, then we don’t need to have additional policy put in place,” he said. Robert’s Rules of Order is the foremost guide for parliamentary procedure for public governing bodies across the United States, including city councils and committees.

The last council meeting also ran long because Phan West and NamQuan Nguyen skipped a two-hour closed session during which city officials were supposed to discuss pending legal issues behind closed doors. It was at least the third time this summer that both have missed a closed session, a pattern that has at times caused public business to get pushed back until later in the evening.

Then, throughout the meeting, the two councilmembers intermittently left the dais together without announcement, interrupting their colleagues while speaking and causing the council to lack quorum on issues when another member needed a recusal or when an exasperated Charlie Nguyen sometimes joined them.

When the two councilmembers walked out of the room at one point, Manzo called their behavior childlike and said it was “the most unprofessional behavior I’ve ever seen in my life.” He later, in an interview, said he regretted his comments as he strives to improve the professionalism at the dais.

Phan West said she comes from the private sector. “I’ve never seen,” she said, “a toxic working environment like this in my whole life.”

The Westminster City Council’s first full meeting with the new rules in place is scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 11.

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Greg Wallis: We need democracy to work for all the people, not just a chosen few in Sacramento

• September 6, 2024

Democracy depends on everyone having their chance to speak. This is especially true in the state legislature when we are debating important public policy issues. Over the past two years, I have been proud to represent the residents of the 47th District. I have always worked in a bipartisan manner to deliver real solutions for California’s working families.

Unfortunately, bipartisanship and the democratic process were absent over the weekend at the California State Capitol.

Instead, what transpired was undemocratic.

Instead of being a place for open debate and democratic discussion, it became a showcase of single-party control. Using rule changes to bypass the traditional democratic process, dissenting voices were shut down and ignored, and the time for Assemblymembers to debate bills was cut from five minutes to just 30 seconds.

These were not trivial matters. The most important bills of the two-year legislative session—bills that demand thorough public debate—were relegated to the bottom of the file, last in line for consideration, and faced the most scrutiny.

We even witnessed the presiding officer of the Assembly refuse to recognize a sitting member of the Assembly when he passionately objected to the rule changes and the degradation of the “People’s House” into a tool of illiberal democracy.

Several members—on both sides of the aisle—attempted to speak on a bill that was supposed to be up for debate but were not even recognized by the Chair, despite our rights and responsibilities as elected Assemblymembers to speak on behalf of our constituents. This silencing is disrespectful to the nearly 500,000 people we each represent.

Related Articles

What happened Saturday night was entirely undemocratic and indefensible. Silencing members, cutting off debate, and refusing to hear opposing bills is the opposite of democracy. It is an attempt to circumvent the very institutions that uphold our democratic process to rush through an agenda full of half-baked efforts that cannot stand up to thorough public scrutiny. It was a one-sided, rushed, undemocratic calamity.

This is not how we best serve the people of California, where every voice matters and the democratic process is vital to our state’s success.

Californians deserve better than the Legislature’s version of democracy—a false system that appears balanced on the outside but undermines the principles our nation was founded upon. It is genuine balance that will bring us back to a process that serves all Californians—a process that fosters stability, thoughtfulness, and the creation of well-vetted legislation that withstands scrutiny from both sides of the aisle.

What we need are real solutions to the crises we face—housing, insurance, electricity, homelessness, climate change—and real leadership to protect our democratic process. We need to work together, reach consensus, support each other, and collaborate across the aisle. We need democracy to work for all the people, not just a chosen few.

Greg Wallis represents California’s 47th Assembly District.

​ Orange County Register 

The California Legislature is broken and no one with power seems willing to fix it

• September 6, 2024

The California Legislature is broken and there doesn’t seem to be anyone with any power willing to fix it.

After years of being strung along by California Democratic leadership, reparations activists came away from last week’s end of the legislative session empty handed.

It’s not so much that the meat of the reparations package — two bills that would have created a new government agency and a funding mechanism — died; it’s that they died without a vote

The bills, like so many others, should have gotten at least a vote.

To be clear, I didn’t support the reparations bills. They would create a new bureaucracy, cost money the state doesn’t have and, more than anything, I think the debate should happen at the federal level.

But I am entirely sympathetic to the activists who want it, the reasons they want it, and the betrayal they must be feeling now after being strung along for years by the very people who would ultimately not even call it up for a final vote.

It’s actually a common theme. For example, California Democrats by and large say they support single-payer healthcare, and yet it not only routinely dies, but usually without a final vote.

The appeal of killing bills without a vote is that it allows members to continue pretending they support something their base likes without having to actually say how they really feel.

The Assembly can blame the Senate. The Senate can blame the governor. The governor can blame the Legislature. Usually someone blames “special interests.” And for a second you might actually forget that these are the people and institutions with the power and the supermajority to get whatever they want.

Sen. Steven Bradford, the Democratic author of the bills, told KQED that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office requested amendments to gut one of the bills and replace it with a $6 million plan to have the California State University system “study” the issue.

Studying issues and forming task forces are another way politicians kill things without taking any real responsibility. Ironically, the reparations bills were the result of a prior task force Newsom created to study the issue. See how this works?

Newsom is said to be a big supporter of reparations. When he announced the forming of the task force in 2021, he made it known that California was “leading the nation;” that this discussion was “long overdue and deserves our utmost attention” — so much attention that it warrants not one, but two studies.

Did Newsom even read the task force’s 1,100 page report after it was released last year? No, he said, he “devoured” it. You know, just devouring a weighty tome on reparations policy like it’s “Harry Potter.”

But what was once devoured was eventually digested and so the bills died a lonely death.

Related Articles

Highlighting the point last week was Corona Republican Assemblyman Bill Essayli, who tried repeatedly to call the bills up for a vote only to be ignored by the Democratic supermajority.

Essayli, who explained his rationale on X, said he did not support the bills but sympathized with the activists and thought the debate was worth having. After all, the Assembly floor is a place for debate.

But weren’t Essayli’s antics just a stunt?

Maybe, but it was also just a stunt when Vin Diesel jumped a Corvette off of the Foresthill Bridge in “xXx” and people love that movie.

My point is that stunts can serve a purpose. For Essayli, who has spent the past year ruffling feathers in the Legislature, the purpose was to highlight that hypocrisy that fuels the Statehouse.

I repeat: The Legislature is broken and it’s not getting fixed soon.

Matt Fleming is an opinion columnist for the Southern California News Group and CEO of Sower Strategies, a digital marketing and public affairs firm. 

​ Orange County Register 

These 5 bills that got the ax in the state legislature this year

• September 6, 2024

About 2,120 bills were introduced by California legislators this year — but over 900 didn’t quite make it to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk before the legislative session ended last weekend.

Those bills included ones that dealt with social media guardrails and wildfire insurance to AI and sentence reductions for convicted felons.

Here’s a closer look at five that didn’t make it across the finish line this year.

Fining social media companies for harming young users

Social media companies would have had to pay civil penalties for causing harm to young users if AB 3172 was signed into law.

Related: Check out 7 intriguing bills that made it to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk

Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, initially proposed imposing penalties of up to $1 million on social media companies if proven in court that they knowingly offered products or design features that “resulted in harm or injury to minors,” according to the bill analysis, but that fine was eventually lowered to a maximum of $250,000.

Lowenthal proposed AB 3172 to hold social media platforms accountable for harm caused to youth, specifically in light of growing concerns about the impact of social media on children’s mental health and addiction. He pulled the legislation with less than two days left to go in the legislative session, as reported by Politico, after it had been amended to a weaker version.

Lowenthal said he intends to reintroduce the bill next year.

“While this is a setback, this effort is not going away. Instead of bending to special interests, (California) must work for kids (and) families especially when the federal government remains unable to act,” he said.

The bill saw bipartisan support in the Assembly and Senate.

The Chamber of Progress, a trade group that represents tech companies and is funded by over a dozen of them, including Amazon, Apple, Meta and Google, opposed the legislation, saying the “responsibility of ordinary care and skill to a child” is excessively vague.

“Faced with the risk of a deluge of litigation seeking high payments based on unclear standards, websites will be forced to strip any content or features that could be possibly considered inappropriate (or risk severe penalties), which is precisely the sort of ‘chilling’ that the Supreme Court’s vagueness doctrine is intended to prevent,” they said.

One-time rebates for household electric bills

Legislation that aimed to help relieve Californians of their steep electric bills died in the legislature after Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, D-Irvine, pulled it from a committee.

Petrie-Norris said members in both the Assembly and Senate “preferred to continue the conversation,” which is why she chose to pull the bill in favor of pursuing additional options for short-term rate relief and improve affordability.

California has one of the country’s highest monthly fixed-rate utility fees.

Households would have received a one-time rebate payment between $30 to $70. The money for those payments, approximately $500 million, would have come via cuts to several utility programs meant to help low-income residents and schools in areas served by Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Decreasing wildfire insurance costs

Legislation that aimed to provide incentives to property owners who invest in wildfire prevention measures died after the Senate failed to take it to a vote by the end of this year’s legislative session.

Authored by Assemblymember Damon Connolly, D-San Rafael, AB 2416 called on insurance companies to offer more discounts to homeowners and business owners who take steps to harden their homes against wildfires, including using noncombustible construction materials, according to the bill analysis.

It would have required the state insurance department to periodically review and update a list of non-combustible materials, additional wildfire mitigation programs and measures to harden homes.

“Incentivizing home and business owners to invest in home hardening measures will help our communities reach higher levels of fire safety, which will reduce catastrophic losses of life and property,” said Connolly.

In the Assembly, lawmakers split along party lines on the bill.

Preventing AI from making biased hiring decisions

While one artificial intelligence safety bill that requires advanced AI developers to enact safety guardrails headed to the governor’s desk, another that sought to prevent cutting-edge technology from making biased hiring decisions failed to move forward.

Introduced by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-San Ramon, AB 2930 aimed to establish regulations for companies that develop and use AI tools in their hiring process so that they don’t discriminate against people based on various classifications including perceived race, ethnicity, sex, religion, age, national origin, limited English proficiency and disability, according to the bill analysis.

The legislation, when first introduced, sought to regulate the usage of AI in a variety of fields, including the workplace, school admissions, housing, health care, adoption and legal services, to prevent the technology from negatively impacting the availability of and access to those services. However, it was ultimately amended to only include regulation of AI when it comes to hiring, termination and other decisions made in the workplace.

Bauer-Kahan said the legislation protects individuals from algorithmic discrimination by requiring developers and users to assess AI tools that make consequential decisions.

“These tools can exacerbate the harms they are intended to address and ultimately hurt the people they are supposed to help. As the use of decision-making via algorithm becomes more prevalent in our daily lives, it is crucial that we take the necessary steps to ensure that they are used ethically and responsibly,” she said.

In the Assembly, Republican and Democratic lawmakers split along party lines. The full Senate did not vote on the legislation.

Reducing sentences for felons

Should some convicted felons be able to appeal for reduced sentences? That was the idea of Sen. Dave Cortese, D-Campbell, who introduced SB 94, aimed at allowing felons — excluding those convicted of first-degree murder of a police officer, killing three or more people or registerable sex offense — to appeal for a shorter sentence if they had committed a crime before June 5, 1990, and had already served at least 25 years.

The legislation was not considered for a vote by the Assembly and thus died.

Cortese said he is “incredibly disappointed that SB 94 was not granted the opportunity to be heard and the amendments considered for vote by the full legislature.”

In the bill analysis, the senator said that “the majority of people serving a life without parole sentence are classified as low risk,” and that “many of these individuals have shown decades of exemplary behavior, participated in extensive positive programming and have devoted themselves to becoming positive members of society.”

However, Republican lawmakers called the legislation “pro-criminal.”

“The fact that Democrats are debating whether or not to keep violent murderers behind bars shows how out-of-touch they really are,” said Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, R-Yuba City. “SB 94 is an insult to the victims of these killers, their families and the millions of Californians who are sick of criminals running rampant on our streets.”

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Orange County homebuyers typically put $300,000 down, 3rd largest in US

• September 6, 2024

“How expensive?” tracks measurements of California’s totally unaffordable housing market.

The pain: Orange County homebuyers used the third-largest down payment in the nation in June.

The source: My trusty spreadsheet reviewed a Redfin analysis of how much money borrowers put into home purchases in 40 major housing markets in June – including four in Southern California.

The pinch

The median Orange County down payment was $300,000 – trailing only San Jose’s $451,500 and San Francisco’s $441,500. OC’s typical down payment was up 20% in a year.

Plus, the typical Orange County mortgage was 25% of the purchase price, the third-highest among the 40 metros. Note that huge down payments are often the result of a buyer using cash profits from a previous home sale.

Now ponder that massive amount of cash, then think about the paychecks required for a financed purchase.

A theoretical buyer of an Orange County starter home must have a household income of $251,300 to qualify to buy a $740,000 residence, according to a Redfin analysis of May to July data.

Pressure points

Look at elsewhere in Southern California …

Los Angeles: $188,000 median down payment (No. 7 among the 40 metros) – up 10% in a year. Median down equaled 20% of price (No. 5). And the starter-home income requirement was $184,500 for $615,000 residence.

San Diego: $183,500 down (No. 8) – up 24% in a year, 20% of price (No. 5). Starter-home income? $198,000 for $652,750 residence.

Inland Empire: $48,012 down (No. 25) – up 1% in a year, 10% of price (No. 29). Starter-home income? $122,900 for $408,000 residence.

Bottom line

Rising mortgage rates and stubbornly high sale prices forced the few who could afford to buy to scramble to make a deal pencil out.

So the big down payments are another big hurdle that kills many Southern California house hunters’ dreams.

Consider home shopping nationally. The median US down payment was $67,500 – and that was up 15% in a year. The typical US borrower put down 19% of the purchase price. And to buy a starter home, income of $79,250 is needed.

Quotable

“Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have promised to make homeownership more affordable, but only Harris has signaled that housing is a top priority,” said Redfin’s chief economist Daryl Fairweather. “Her plan to build 3 million new homes could make starter homes more affordable for the average American family. One pathway Harris has suggested for accomplishing that goal is through incentives to local governments and subsidies for builders of affordable housing. That could help battle the severe starter-home shortage, particularly in expensive coastal markets. Harris has also promised $25,000 in down-payment assistance for first-time buyers, which could boost homeownership in midwestern markets where people may be able to afford mortgage payments, but not necessarily down payments.”

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at [email protected]

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

End of another unproductive Capitol year

• September 6, 2024

California legislators completed the legislative session on August 31, sending hundreds of bills to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration by the end of September. Even though Democrats hold supermajorities in both houses, this session was marked by a variety of contentious issues and high-profile intraparty battles.

One of the strangest debates took place after the session officially concluded. The governor has called on the Legislature to hold a special session to address the state’s sky-high gasoline and oil prices. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Salinas, has announced he will move forward with it, but Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, continues to refuse.

In his rebuke, McGuire explained in a statement that lawmakers have “been working on this [package] for months. … The Senate always had the votes and was ready to get these important measures across the finish line.” Reports suggest McGuire has softened his stance, but his rebuke was pitch perfect.

Newsom spent significant time campaigning for the Democratic national ticket. If this were so important, he should have made it a priority during session. His hectoring about “gouging” is about political posturing. Gas prices are high, but Newsom has no interest in striking at the root of them — our highest-in-the-nation gas taxes and state regulatory policy.

This year’s biggest in-session fracas involved clod-footed efforts by Democrats to deal retail theft. Eager to stop a coming and popular ballot initiative that undermines a decade-old criminal-justice initiative (Proposition 47), Democrats passed a package of crime-fighting bills that ultimately were signed by the governor — but only after a series of missteps designed to derail a tough-on-crime measure on the November ballot (Proposition 36).

The Legislature passed a bill designed to deal with Artificial Intelligence — something that deserves more critical attention. Assembly Bill 1047 would require AI developers to “put appropriate safeguards and policies into place to prevent critical harms.” It also creates a new state agency. We doubt lawmakers have the wherewithal to oversee the development of such a complex technology — and fear their efforts will discourage AI development. Its definitions of “critical harms” are far too vague.

The Legislature at least shelved some dubious reparations proposals, including ones that could set the stage for direct payments. They are wrongheaded bills that promote divisiveness and are financially irresponsible. But some modest measures — such as a bill calling on the state to investigate racially motivated instances of eminent domain — are praiseworthy.

Lawmakers couldn’t avoid controversies that made California a national laughingstock, as they approved bills that provide illegal immigrants with access to $150,000 in down-payment assistance and one to give such immigrants access to unemployment benefits. We don’t think the state should provide housing payments to anyone — and California has yet to figure out how to pay for expanded job-loss benefits.

Lawmakers passed yet another plastic-bag ban. This time they banned the use of the heavier bags that they forced shoppers to use after they banned the previous form of thin plastic bags. Studies have shown that plastic waste has increased since the Legislature’s previous effort, so we suspect the latest one will do little more than annoy shoppers.

That’s a short roundup of a largely unproductive legislative session. Here’s hoping that the governor might get more engaged and get out that veto pen.

​ Orange County Register 

FHA has loan option for low-FICO homebuyers

• September 6, 2024

How low can a FICO score go for a homebuyer to mortgage qualify?

Federal Housing Administration mortgages, in some cases, allow a FICO score as low as 500. This is a homeownership inroad for those who thought they could not qualify.

The same is not true when it comes to conventional financing from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which both require a 620 or higher FICO score. Many subprime lenders offering exotic mortgages, or so-called nonqualified mortgages, only go down to a 620 score. Few subprime lenders will allow scores lower than 620.

Also see: Interest rates have dropped, but homeowners are not moving

Most borrowers and real estate professionals don’t think about Federal Housing Administration loans when it comes to rough credit. Indeed, FHA is a great solution for credit-challenged borrowers.

Largely, you can get in with just 3.5% down. If the lowest middle FICO score of all borrowers is 580 or higher, then the minimum required down payment is 3.5%. If it’s 500-579 then a minimum of 10% down is required.

Buyers can use gift funds as a down payment, too. And they can use non-occupant co-signers to help qualify.

Related: Homebuyer contract bill heads to governor’s desk

FHA interest rates range from 5.125% for borrowers with good credit scores or 7% for credit-challenged borrowers.

Qualifying income is generous. The total house payment plus monthly recurring bills or debt-to-income ratio can be as high as 56.99%. Subprime or non-QM financing will not allow a buyer to exceed 50% DTI. Conventional financing from the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac requires the DTI to be under 50%.

Los Angeles County and Orange County are high-cost areas, so the maximum loan amount for a single home or condo is $1,149,825, a two-unit property it’s $1,472,250, three units is $1,779,525 and four units is $2,211,600.

The Inland Empire does not have so-called FHA high-balance or jumbo loans. The maximum loan amount for a single home is $644,000. For two units it’s $824,450, three units is $996,550 and four units is $1,238,500.

San Diego County is somewhere in the middle. The maximum loan amount for a single home is $1,006,250. Two units is $1,288,200, three units is $1,557,150 and four units is $1,935,150.

You may need to come in with more than the minimum down payment for three- or four-unit properties. Qualifying is a bit more complicated, too. The FHA self-sufficiency test considers whether the rental income will cover the mortgage after expenses or a vacancy factor. Call your mortgage broker for more granular details.

And if there’s a non-occupant co-signer, buyers must put 25% down when it comes to multiple units.

FHA requires owner-occupancy on its mortgage. In the case of multiple units, one of the units needs to be owner-occupied. A buyer can rent out the other units.

One downside to FHA financing is the mortgage insurance premium. Conventional financing requires private mortgage insurance if the borrower is putting less than 20% down. FHA mandates mortgage insurance even with down payments of 20% or more. And it’s not cheap.

There is an upfront mortgage insurance premium or MIP of 1.75% of the loan amount. For example, if your base loan amount is $100,000 then your total loan amount would be $101,750 when the MIP is added. Plus, you have a monthly mortgage insurance premium or MMI on a 30-year fixed of 0.55% when the loan is less than 10% down and the loan amount is under $726,200. A 10% or more down payment brings the monthly mortgage insurance down to 0.5%.

When the loan amount is $726,200 or more, and you are putting less than 10% down the MMI is 0.75%. If you are putting 10% or more down on a loan amount of $726,200 or more, then your MMI is 0.7%. For example, on an $800,000 loan the 0.75% would add $500 to the monthly payment.

FHA mortgage insurance is more of a pass/fail chart, no matter the borrower’s FICO score. In conventional loans, the mortgage insurance is matrix driven. The better the credit score, the cheaper the mortgage insurance.

Freddie Mac rate news

The 30-year fixed rate averaged 6.35%, unchanged from last week. The 15-year fixed rate averaged 5.47%, 4 basis points lower than last week.

The Mortgage Bankers Association reported a 1.6% mortgage application increase compared to one week ago.

Bottom line: Assuming a borrower gets the average 30-year fixed rate on a conforming $766,550 loan, last year’s payment was $392 more than this week’s payment of $4,770.

What I see: Locally, well-qualified borrowers can get the following fixed-rate mortgages with one point: A 30-year FHA at 5.125%, a 15-year conventional at 4.875%, a 30-year conventional at 5.5%, a 15-year conventional high balance at 5.25% ($766,551 to $1,149,825 in LA and OC and $766,551 to $1,006,250 in San Diego), a 30-year-high balance conventional at 5.875% and a jumbo 30-year fixed at 6.25%.

Note: The 30-year FHA conforming loan is limited to loans of $644,000 in the Inland Empire and $766,550 in LA, San Diego, and Orange counties.

Eye-catcher loan program of the week: A 30-year FHA fixed rate at 5.625% with zero points cost.

Jeff Lazerson, president of Mortgage Grader, can be reached at 949-322-8640 or [email protected].

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

HOA Homefront: Is a consent calendar OK or does it help boards hide their business?

• September 6, 2024

Q: In an attempt to make meetings brief, the board has taken to voting the “consent calendar” as one agenda item, without any prior members’ knowledge, discussion or even speaking the items on it.

This month these include: approving minutes; acknowledging the directors reviewed the financials; treasurer’s report; manager’s report; and architectural/landscaping report. These matters are then adopted by the board at the meeting without discussion or disclosure of the contents.

The reports are then attached as separate PDFs to the meeting minutes. Shouldn’t these reports be seen by the members before the board votes on them? How can this square with the open meeting rules or intent? — R.S., Solana Beach.

A: If used properly, the consent calendar is a helpful tool to make board meetings more efficient without being less transparent.

Civil Code Section 4020(d) requires an agenda be posted along with the notice of meeting, and Civil Code Section 4930(a) prohibits, with narrow exceptions, boards from discussing matters outside the agenda. So, even with consent calendar, the items to be decided must be disclosed in advance. The items you listed appear to be more pro forma votes acknowledging receipt and approving those items.

Consent calendars group together routine or other noncontroversial items which do not require specific discussion. If used properly, it’s a rare HOA that would not benefit from their use. It’s not only that multiple motions are rolled into one, but also it helps because some directors feel that they must comment about every item, even if non-controversial. Consent calendars help avoid unnecessary comments regarding matters that don’t need commentary.

When setting the agenda, items which are not expected to require discussion (such as receipt of reports, payment of routine bills, and other such items) can be placed together in a group called the “consent calendar.”

At the beginning of the meeting, after quorum is confirmed and the meeting called to order, the chair of the meeting then asks for approval of the agenda. That is the moment that any director (not people in the audience) can request an item be removed from the consent calendar and placed in the discussion portion of the agenda. The requesting director need not state a reason but simply just make the request.  Then, the item taken out of the consent calendar will be deliberated in the rest of the meeting with other business items.

Once the agenda is set, the chair simply calls for a vote on the consent calendar group of items. There is no debate and no questions – items requiring questions or discussion by any director should already have been removed from the consent calendar. A quick vote follows, and the board has thus handled multiple items at once. This not only eliminates undue consumption of time but also preserves value time and energy of the board for the matters which merit questions and discussion.

The content of the consent calendar items will already have been disclosed in the agenda, and the decision will be recorded in the minutes. The only thing missing is the discussion.

Boards and their managers should use consent calendars in order to allow more focus upon the subjects which merit discussion.

Kelly G. Richardson CCAL is a Fellow of the College of Community Association Lawyers and Partner of Richardson Ober LLP, a California law firm known for community association advice. Send column questions to [email protected].

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register