Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-2005 Housing & Community Development CommissionAGENDA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 6:30 P.M. 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the September 15, 2005 Minutes 3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda 4. New Business • Presentation by Urban Planning of the Proposed Development Code • Update on FY06 Projects — CDBG/HOME projects that have not entered a formal agreement with the City of Iowa City • Public Meeting - Annual Review of the 2006-2010 Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS) • Discussion of Additional Program Income and Proposed Allocation of Said Funds • Shelter House Request for Additional Funding for the STAR Program 5. Old Business • Allocation Process Subcommittee Update • Scattered Site Housing Task Force — Presentation of final recommendations 6. Monitoring Reports • Extend the Dream Foundation — Property Acquisition (Hayek) • Shelter House - Emergency Assistance (Anthony) • Shelter House — Land Acquisition (Anthony) • Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship — (FY03) Homeownership (Marcus) 7. Adjournment � r 4 ®,.TO CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 14, 2005 To: Housing & Community Development Commission (HCDC) From: Tracy Hightshoe, Associate Planner Re: October Meeting Packet Below is a brief description of the October agenda items. New Business Presentation by Urban Planning of the Proposed Development Code Karen Howard, Planner, will present changes to the proposed development code as it relates to housing issues. Update on FY06 Projects — CDBG projects that have not entered a formal agreement with the City of Iowa City. As of September 30, 2005, Planned Parenthood and the Hillel Student Center have not entered agreements with the City. Staff or the applicant will discuss each project and the delay for entering an agreement. There are some HOME projects that have not entered agreements, however HOME regulations require the City to complete a project -specific environmental review before the City enters an agreement with the applicant. Public Meeting - Annual Review of the 2006-2010 Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS) Two community meetings have been scheduled for input and feedback on CITY STEPS. The first meeting was this past Wednesday at HACAP and the second one will be Monday, October 17 at Mercer Park from 7:00 to 8:00 PM. Staff will summarize the comments from both meetings and email or mail the information to you before October 20tn After the opportunity for citizens to comment, HCDC can recommend proposed amendments, if any, to forward to the City Council for consideration. Discussion of Additional Program Income & Proposed Allocation of Said Funds In the current fiscal year (2006), Iowa City allocated $116,000 from CDBG to public service projects. At the time of the allocation process (Jan — March 2005) this amount was our best estimate of what would be available for public services. Due to more than expected program income being received in the last half of FY05, our final public service cap ended up to be slightly over $130,000. As such, there would be $14,000 that could be allocated to public service activities. Staff is recommending that these `windfall' public service funds be allocated to existing FY06 public service projects in proportion to the previous HCDC allocation (please see enclosed spreadsheet). This distribution may be done administratively according to the CITY STEPS Plan, as such, the agencies could utilize the funds immediately. Other options include a different pro -ration of the $14,000 or carrying over the funds to the FY07 CDBG allocation cycle. Shelter House Request for Additional Funding for the STAR Program Shelter House has submitted a request for additional CDBG funds as match for the STAR program (see letter from Shelter House). A staff response is included in the packet. Old Business Allocation Process Update Please see the enclosed memo and draft applications in the packet. October 14, 2005 Page 2 Scattered Site Housing Task Force — Final Recommendations Matt Hayek will present the final recommendations by the task force. The recommendation provided to the City Council is enclosed in this packet. Monitoring Reports • Extend the Dream Foundation — Property Acquisition (Hayek) • Shelter House - Emergency Assistance (Anthony) • Shelter House — Land Acquisition (Anthony) • Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship — (FY03) Homeownership (Marcus) If you have any questions about these agenda items, or will be unable to attend, please contact me at 356-5230 or by email at tracy-hightshoe@iowa-city.org. MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 Members Present, Jerry Anthony, William Greazel, Matthew Hayek, Kelly Mellecker, Thomas Niblock, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw Members Absent: Lori Bears, Rita Marcus Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long Public Present: Charlie Eastham CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 6:30PM. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 30, 2005 Shaw said that on page 2, under the ICCSD Wood Resource Center discussion, he meant to say that "he heard" that ICCSD plans on getting geothermal in all buildings. Motion: Greazel moved to approve the minutes with the change. Anthony seconded the motion. Motion passed 7:0. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion: Greazel moved to nominate Anthony as the chairperson and Richman as vice chairperson. Shaw seconded the motion. Motion passed 7:0. PUBLIC COMMENTS OF ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA Hightshoe passed out a memo submitted by the City Manager to the Council regarding Hurricane Katrina relief efforts locally. Many of the evacuees arriving to the area have relatives and/or friends in the area who are assisting with their immediate needs. Hightshoe stated the evacuees are receiving local services and encouraging each family to register with FEMA for future services provided and financed through FEMA. Long said that currently there are around 60 Katrina evacuees from New Orleans in Iowa City. He said that the Greater Iowa City Fellowship has two units occupied by evacuee families. He noted that the community has been very responsive by providing help with furniture and other needed items. He said that the City chose to keep a lower profile and not advertise the people coming to town to maintain their privacy as they get back on their feet. Hayek asked if the City is expecting more people to come. Hightshoe said that many of the families here came due to some local connections and it will be hard to predict if more will come. Anthony asked what happens with the school age kids who had to evacuate. Long said that the children are immediately registered in school. Long added 32 students transferred to the University of Iowa. He noted that there were also patients transferred to the University Hospital. NEW BUSINESS Public hearing and approval of the FY05 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) Hightshoe proposed to go through some of the questions addressed by the members of the commission. The first question received was about the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) and their jurisdiction concerning public assistance complaints. (Section 1. c. Complaint Information) Hightshoe stated that the Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 2 ICRC does not investigate public assistance complaints as Iowa Code does not recognize discrimination complaints based on public assistance. Iowa City's Code does recognize this form of discrimination, thus the cases are investigated locally. Until investigations are complete, no information will be available. Staff will add language that clarifies what entity investigates this type of complaint. Hayek asked to clarify the definition of public assistance complaints and if it related to HUD sponsored programs. Staff will clarify and add language for this type of complaint. Anthony asked what are the expectations/targets in providing affordable housing as referenced in the paragraph, Section 1. e. Affordable Housing? Hightshoe stated that the 2001-2006 CITY STEPS (p. 92, Chart IV.2) sets out the target number of units completed or households assisted in five broad affordable housing categories during the 5-year period. Determining the success of the City's actions for the last five years is a judgment call. To make it less subjective, the commission requested that staff report on the number of completed units (not underway units) annually and include a cumulative total to determine if the City met or will meet it's 5-year targets. Staff will add language to the CAPER regarding the number of units. Section 3. B. Match Contributions made during FY05. Question was asked regarding the annual HOME match and why does the City have excess HOME match? Hightshoe stated that match is equal to 25% of annual HOME expenditures less administration. As such, the amount of match required will change from year to year. Hightshoe stated HUD calculates the HOME match liability amount for the City annually via IDIS (HUD's Integrated Disbursement and Information System). At this point Iowa City has'excess' match due to the one-time counting of property tax forgiveness on CDBG or HOME assisted housing properties (mostly GICHF and HACAP units). Anthony noted that there is only one public hearing and that is at the end of the comment period. The HCDC meeting is after the comment period. What is the reason for the timing of the public hearing? Hightshoe stated that the public hearing is set for the last day of the comment period so that any public comments may be given to HCDC and the public for their consideration prior to HCDC's action on the CAPER. Having the written questions and comments into the office before the public hearing allows staff to prepare the comments for distribution to all commission members and the public at the public hearing. The public is also able to make comments at the public hearing. Hightshoe said that on page 10 there was a question regarding geographic distribution of resources and if "heavy concentrations" of low-income households is defined somewhere. She said the definition is found in CITY STEPS. Hayek questioned who makes the call that no concentrations exist in Iowa City. Hightshoe noted that HUD requires the City to identify areas of "concentration" within the Consolidated Plan (CITY STEPS). Defining "concentration" is a local decision. In Iowa City concentrations are census tracts that contain low -to -moderate income households at least 10% greater than the general population. Hightshoe stated that based on the 2000 Census, there are tracts that meet this definition, but are located in the downtown area that contain numerous student rental units and not a concentration of low income families. Staff will add language that identifies the tract information. Hayek noted that Section 1. g. Other Actions states the City actively reviews the City's zoning and building codes to promote and eliminate barriers for affordable housing. It mentions that housing receiving public funds must use universal design features for accessibility for all (2002 Code addition). Hayek stated due to recent proposed code changes, some segments of the community, like the home-building sector, believe the proposed changes make affordable housing less affordable. He asked what is the City doing to encourage affordable housing in the proposed development code. Hightshoe stated that one of the four goals in rewriting the City's development code was to make housing more affordable. The proposed code reduces minimum lot frontage and size and allows increased density to make building more affordable. In some residential zones lot width is reduced to 30 or 40 feet instead of 60 ft. The current average lot width in Iowa City is approximately 85 ft. Hightshoe noted that whether a developer will take advantage of smaller lot size and increased density is a choice the developer makes. There have been concerns regarding some new aspects of the Code such as garage placement. Hightshoe noted that garage placement is important when lots become smaller and narrower to accommodate pedestrian safety and neighborhood livability. She noted that in several subdivisions there are private covenants and restrictions that may dictate a larger house or lot size, a required number Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 3 of garages, or various other design elements. Affordable housing providers have difficulty meeting some of these provisions that are required by the developer, not due to City code. Hightshoe encouraged HCDC members to attend the Council's workshop on September 26 at 6:30 PM to learn more about the code and its impact on housing. Greazel said that there use to be a trend in land development that the most expensive land had the least restrictions, but it seems lately the most expensive lots are those that impose the highest restrictions on development. He noted that people want the security of knowing exactly what will be built on the lots in their neighborhood. He stated it is hard for affordable housing providers to get into various subdivisions as they basically don't want the types of housing they can build (size or features). He added the private restrictions are enforced not by the City, but the neighbors/developers themselves. Hayek asked if the photo in Section 3. Production of New Units were subsidized housing units. Hightshoe responded that the first two of the four houses in the photo are duplex units that are a part of the Peninsula Project. The two houses were built by the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship, with HOME funds, for affordable rental housing. The narrative surrounds the photo. Hayek asked if the 1,213 Section 8 vouchers included the project based housing complexes (Section 3. Rental Assistance) in Iowa City? He requested that staff confirm and note if the ICHA has any jurisdiction or local control over the project based housing complexes in Iowa City. Hightshoe stated that the ICHA administers 1,213 Section 8 vouchers in Johnson and parts of Iowa and Washington counties. The ICHA has no jurisdiction over the project based subsidized housing units in Iowa City. Staff will clarify the projects and add language to the CAPER. Eastham noted that on IDIS Report COPR03, page 25, there is no outcome data for the owner -occupied housing rehabilitation program. He also noted that on page 27 the project name is not correct as the activity is an economic development project completed by the Lear Corporation; it has no relation to the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship. Hightshoe stated that both items will be corrected on the CAPER. Eastham requested that HOME (housing) program income be reported by the source that it originated from. Hightshoe stated staff will add language that breaks down HOME program income received by the housing rehabilitation program and program income received through all other sources. Hightshoe stated that there was an error in the number of resolutions under Appendix 3 Human Rights Commission. The CAPER stated there were 30 total complaints, but 59 resolutions. The total number of resolutions was 39. 9 complaints from the prior year were resolved in addition to the 30 complaints filed this year. The report will be revised. MOTION: Greazel moved to approve the CAPER with the noted revisions. Hayek seconded the motion. Motion passed 7:0. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 4 Selection of projects to monitor in FY06 FY06 CDBG/ HOME PROJECTS MONITOR Extend the Dream -property acquisition Hayek Economic Development Greazel Goodwill Industries- facility rehab Mellecker Emma Goldman -facility rehab Richman Old brick -rehab Anthony Free lunch -rehab Niblock DVIP- rehab Shaw Neighborhood centers -rehab Richman Hillel student center -accessibility Hayek Planned Parenthood -rehab Mellecker Free lunch/ free m ed ical-floo ringNiblock Compeer -operations Shaw IC free medical clinic- operations Niblock Shelter house -operations Anthon Extend the dream -operations Hayek Shelter house emergency assistance Anthony Aid to agencies Bears Habitat for human it-homeownersh ip Greazel JC Perm Supp. Housing Marcus GICHF- Rental Marcus GICHF-Homeownership Marcus HACAP-transitional housing Shaw Extend the dream- rental Ha ek ICHA-Tenant based rental Bears City of IC —down payment assistance Mellecker City of IC -housing rehab Mellecker CARRYOVER PROJECTS ICCSD-Wood family resource center Shaw UAY- rehab Bears Habitat for humanity -land acquisition Greazel GICHF/ICHA rental construction Marcus Emma Goldman -rehab Richman Shelter House -land acquisition Anthony Affordable housing -Whispering Garden Shaw Affordable home ownership- GICHF Marcus Timeline for the annual review of the Consolidated Plan Hightshoe stated it was time to review the Consolidated Plan as an annual review is a requirement under our Citizen Participation Plan. The Plan requires at least one public meeting annually to review the needs, strategies and priorities within CITY STEPS. After review HCDC can make a recommendation to Council, if necessary, to amend the plan if a new need is identified or the priority level must be modified to reflect current needs. She said last year staff held two meetings; one at the Broadway center and the other one at United Action for Youth. Members suggested the Iowa City Community School District (family resource site), public library, Iowa Workforce Development, Kirkwood Community College, or Old Capitol Mall to hold a meeting. HCDC agreed to schedule two meetings with a possibility of a third if attendance is high. HCDC decided that staff will come up with two sites and will email/mail commission members their time and location. Hightshoe encouraged members to come, but will need to know how many will attend each meeting. If 5 Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes September 15, 2005 Page 5 or more HCDC members are at one meeting than we will need a minute taker and must provide public notification as we would have a quorum. OLD BUSINESS Allocation process- subcommittee report Richman said that one of the most important duties of the commission is the allocation process, in which they allocate HOME and CDBG funds for housing, public facilities, and social services. He said that last year a few questions arose during the allocation process. He identified three problems that arose during the process; 1) there is a disconnect between the scoring system and the actual allocation of funds, 2) the applications tend to be very complicated, and 3) the process tends to have a short rather than a long term focus, that is the process is application driven instead of goal driven. He said that historically the commission relies on City STEPS to provide the goals for the community, but those goals are very broad. Richman noted that the subcommittee's objectives are to make the process easier, to include only the information needed to make a good decision in the applications, and establish a focused set of goals. Richman noted the subcommittee was working on revising the applications and simplifying where possible. He noted that they would like to have three applications: housing, public facilities, and public services. Economic development already has an application and could possibly be used for CDBG funding for those applications that get referred to this process. Richman said that they would like to eliminate the scoring system by converting the ranking sheet into a check list. He noted that rather than getting to a score, they would get to a simple yes or no answer to whether the project is eligible to go to the next round. He said that the subcommittee is reviewing establishing focused goals and priorities each year and presented to the public well in advance to the application deadline. Greazel said that before the next HCDC meeting the subcommittee will meet with housing providers who have historically participated in the application process and will seek input as to possible suggestions regarding the process. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Hayek made a motion to adjourn. Richman seconded the motion. Motion Passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM. Minutes submitted by Bogdana Rus. s:/pcd/mi n utes/hcdc/2 005/09-15-05. doe UNALLOCATED FY06 "WINDFALL" PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDS Original Amount % of Allocated Additional Project Name Request Received Public Service Allocation Compeer $1,300.00 $1,000.00 9.09% $300.00 Free Medical Clinic $10,000.00 $5,000.00 45.45% $5,000.00 Shelter House Coordinator $16,500.00 $3,000.00 27.27% $5,220.00 Extend the Dream Operational $4,851.00 $1,000.00 9.09% $1,740.00 Shelter House Emergency $5,000.00 $1,000.00 9.09% $1,740.00 Total $11,000.00 $14,000.00 New Total $1,300.00 $10,000.00 $8,220.00 $2,740.00 $2,740.00 $25,000.00 i 4' To: Steve Nasby, City of Iowa City Planning Department From: Crissy Canganelli, Shelter House Date: October 4, 2005 Re: Request for Funding assistance from CDBG Contingency/Emergency Funds I am writing to you at this time in order to inquire as to the availability of CDBG contingency/emergency funds for the purposes of meeting the cash match requirement for the STAR Program. The initial three year award of HUD SHP funds to Shelter House came with no cash match requirement. Cash match was required in the fourth grant year and for each subsequent year. The seventh year of the program began on September 1, 2005. The cash match obligation is to be no less than 20% of the supportive services budget. The obligation for Shelter House is $106,750 annually. This amount leverages $426,970 in federal funds to Johnson County for the purposes of supportive services for individuals experiencing homelessness in our community. For the current grant award Shelter House has received a commitment of $5,000 from Goodwill Industries of Southeast Iowa, $3,000 in CDBG funds, and $5,000 from City of Iowa City. Where as we are grateful for this support, there still remains $93,750 to be raised. Of this amount approximately $40,000 is considered unsecured by Shelter House. I have attached a copy of the FY06 budget for Shelter House. Shelter House anticipates approximately $40,000 in shortfall next year. The budget projections are realistic on both income and expense sides. The most optimistic projections in the entire budget are those from the local funding bodies. The fiscal year for Shelter House differs from that of the local funding bodies. As such, figures indicated in the FY06 Budget translate to $52,967, $26,779, and $23,637 from the United Way, City of Iowa City, and Johnson County respectively. If awarded these would represent very generous increases for Shelter House and would still result in a projected shortfall at the end of the fiscal year of $40,000. The shortfall is due to the cash match obligation for the STAR Program. In 1998 Shelter House staff consisted of 3.75FTE's. Today there are 14.5FTE's with only 1.5FTE's in administration. In 1998 the Shelter House staff and facility were fundamentally not accessible during daytime hours as there were no paid daytime direct service staff and therefore no method of consistently following through with clients. With the inclusion of HUD funds from the STAR Program not only is Shelter House able to offer comprehensive case management services, but so too are we able to staff the Shelter House facility during daytime hours —providing a first point of contact, fundamental access and support services to individuals in need —both residents and walk-ins. If we are not successful in meeting the cash match obligation, Johnson County will lose $448,000 (the supportive services and administrative budget combined) in federal funds for men, women, children, the disabled and elderly who are experiencing homelessness in r4 our community. The shelter will be forced to entirely close during the day and there will be no ability to provide counseling support services to shelter residents —that key component that facilitates clients' transition from homelessness to a more independent living situation will cease to exist. The shelter will only provide basic living services opening at 5:00 p.m. only to close at 8:00 a.m. the next morning. The primary point of contact and coordination for persons experiencing homelessness in Johnson County will be lost. Furthermore, all services of the case management program will be lost. The STAR Program is a fundamental component in the Johnson County Continuum of Care System —a continuum of services allowing individuals to move from emergency shelter to permanent housing placements. Loss of this program will cause a serious loss of supportive services for the homeless of Johnson County, will create crippling gaps in an existing Continuum of Care system which will compromise the overall strategies and objectives of the CITY STEPS Plan, and will ultimately place a significant burden on other providers and the community at -large. The organization has grown significantly over the past seven years and has kept pace with its growth. However, the budget is extremely tight, the shelter has no reserve fund to speak of and support is volatile. One example of this volatility is the significant decrease in available CDBG funds utilized for purposes of cash match. In the past, the City has awarded as much as $16,500 in CDBG funds for purposes of STAR cash match. This past year, the entire available amount for this activity was $11,000 ($3,000 of which was awarded to Shelter House for the purpose of STAR cash match). Please do not hesitate to contact me either by my office phone at 338 -5416 ext. 102 or through e-mail at ehpcmc(i�aol.com with any information or guidance that can offer in finding a resolution to this situation. I look forward to sharing more information regarding the benefits and resources that the STAR Program offers and any further details that would be helpful in clarifying the current financial situation. cc: Mayor Lehman Steve Long Linda Severson Jerry Anthony I Income Local Funding Johnson Comity $12,450 Iowa City $22,750 Coralville $2,500 United Way $49,250 Faith Groups $30,550 subtotal local funding $117, 500 Grants Misc. Grants $10,500 CDBG $5,000 FEMA $11,750 R. State App, $36,000 HUD $448,318 subtotal grants $311, 368 Contributions United Way DG $7,250 Individual Gifts $35,000 Corporate Gifts $7,500 Cormnunity Orgs. $7,500 Mail Soliciation $22,500 Spring Benefit Event $37,500 Concert(s) $750 Other Events $7,500 Night of Shelter $4,500 Phone-a-thon $37,500 Overflow DG $5,000 Security Deposit DG $2,750 subtotal contributions $175,250 Interest $0 Misc $0 Total Income: $804,318 Total Income: $804,318 Less Total Expenses: $845,857 Net:-$41,539 Shelter House Community Shelter and Transition Services Budget FYO6 Drafted September 2005 Expenses General Shelter STAR Program Salaries Direct Service Providers $111,511 $262,718 Adrnh»stration $45,699 $17,887 Vacation Benefit" $2,188 subtotal salaries $159,398 $280,605 FICA Direct Service Providers $8,698 $20,098 Administration $3,496 $1,368 Unemployment Direct Service Providers $267 $617 Administration $107 $42 Workers Compensation Direct Service Providers $3,331 $7,698 Administration $398 $156 Health Insurance Direct Service Providers $14,192 $31,659 Administration $5,022 $1,528 Retirement SH Contrib. @ 3% Direct Service Providers $2,543 $7,882 Administration $1,371 $537 subtotal benefits $39,425 $71,584 Total Salaries & Benefits General Shelter STAR Program Program Expenses Utilities $6,874 $4,063 Garbage Collection/Hauling $3,250 Water and Sewer $6,900 Telephone $3,090 $9,000 Equipment $1,500 Horse Vehicle $4,500 Horse Maintenance $3,500 $1,000 Printing/Pubheity $5,000 Event Expenditures $7,500 PR/Postage $1,500 Insurance $6,000 $1,500 Household Supplies $7,000 Food $3,500 Client Transportation Mind $1,250 Client Overflow Lodging $1,750 Client Emergencies $1,500 Rent $882 Audit $3,850 Bookkeeping $3,750 Miscellaneous $750 Staff Education $4,500 Staff Travel $3,000 Postage and Office $2,450 $2,250 Dues and Subscriptions $500 John E. Thomas Security/Utility Deposit Program $7,500 STAR Supportive Services (other than staff)* $185,236 subtotal program expenses $91,796 $203,049 Total Program Expenses Total Expenses STAR Supportive Services (other than staff)* Life Skills $14,000 Alcohol and Drag Treatment $12,000 Mental Health Treatment $9,236 Other Health Care $5,000 Education $7,500 Employment Assistance- $95,000 Child Care $7,500 Transportation $11,500 Clothing $3,500 Rental Security Deposit/Utility Assistance $20,000 subtotal STAR Supportive Services*: $185,236 $440,003 $111.009 $551,012 $294,845 $845,857 `Please see Budget Narrative for explanation "Employment Assistance includes internships October 14, 2005 ,001� City of Shelter House � �` Crissy Canganelli, Executive Director A P.O. Box 3146 Iowa City, IA 52244 RE: Request for Funding Assistance From CDBG Contingency\Emergency Funds Dear Crissy: In response to your letter of October 4, the City does have a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Contingency Fund. For your review and reference I have enclosed the Housing and Community Development's "Policy for Allocation of Uncommitted CDBG and HOME Funds" and "Contingency Fund Use Policy". In reviewing the policies it appears that Shelter House's request could fall under the Policy for Allocation of Uncommitted CDBG and HOME Funds as a `new proposal' since it is my understanding that the funds Shelter House is seeking is for calendar year 2006 (City FY07). Additionally, the project does not meet the CDBG definition of `urgent need' or the typical health and safety threshold used by the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) in the past to determine an `emergency'. We understand the need and impact of the STAR program within the community. The request by Shelter House for the STAR program operational expenses is considered by the CDBG regulations to be a `public service'. The statutory language for the CDBG program states that CDBG entitlement communities cannot expend more than 15% of an annual entitlement plus the prior year program income for `public service' projects. Essentially, this limitation acts as a cap on the amount of CDBG funds that can be spent for public services in any one fiscal year. In the current fiscal year (2006), Iowa City allocated $116,000 to public service projects. At the time of the allocation process (Jan — March 2005) this amount was our best estimate of what would be available for public services. Due to more than expected program income being received in the last half of FY05, our final public service cap ended up to be slightly over $130,000. As such, there would be $14,000 that could be allocated to public service activities. However, this amount is far short of the $40,000 Shelter House request. The HCDC Chair has asked that this matter be placed on the Commission's October agenda for discussion. Should HCDC want to consider Shelter House's request they will need to follow the procedures set out within the applicable policy that would likely include some type of allocation process. This open approach would be inclusive as other public service organizations may be also facing similar financial pressures in the current fiscal year and the upcoming budget years. If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at 356-5248 or via e-mail at Steven- Nasbygiowa-ci .org. Sincerel Steve Nasby Community & Economic Development Coordinator Cc: Ernest W. Lehman, Mayor Jerry Anthony, HCDC Chair Steve Atkins, City Manager 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 • (319) 356-5000 • FAX (319) 356-5009 9/00 POLICY FOR ALLOCATION OF UNCOMMITTED CDBG AND HOME FUNDS (Funds that become available to the program after initial allocation either through windfall income, project cancellation or additional funds provided by HUD.) The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) will determine if: 1. Existing projects that did not receive full funding will be considered. 2. Projects that had submitted applications but did not receive any CDBG or HOME funding will be considered. 3. New proposals will be considered. 4. Funds will go to the Contingency Fund. If existing and/or unfunded projects are the only projects that will be considered, the applicants will be notified of the availability of funds and asked to provide a written request for funds and how they will be utilized to fund their original request. If new projects are being considered, HCDC must publish notice of funding availability and proceed with a formal application process. If funds are allocated to the Contingency Fund, no formal process is necessary other than the City Council approval. In all cases the public must be given the opportunity for comment on the proposed use of funds, either at a HCDC meeting or a Council meeting. (See Contingency Fund Use Policy for use of these funds) CONTINGENCY FUND USE POLICY The Contingency Fund can be utilized for the following purposes: a. Cost overruns of existing CDBG and HOME projects. Cost overruns of greater than $20,000 or 25% of initial project budget must be approved for eligibility by HCDC. b. Funding for new projects that are considered an emergency or urgent need. Applications for new projects for the use of Contingency Funds must be provided to the HCDC at its regularly scheduled monthly meeting. HCDC will evaluate the application for compliance with emergency or urgent need, eligibility for CDBG and HOME funds and availability of Contingency Funds. Projects recommended to be funded under Contingency Funds must then be formally approved by the City Council after the public has had opportunity to comment. ppdcdbg\cdbgfund.doc As we discussed at our September meeting, an HCDC subcommittee has been working on potential changes to the annual application process for CDBG and HOME funds. The focus of the review process has been to: (a) Make the process clearer and, where possible, easier for applicants. (b) Give HCDC members the information they need to make the best decisions. (c) Establish an improved framework for making decisions. We are proposing changes to both the applications and to the review process. Proposed Application Changes Drafts of the suggested applications are attached. They reflect the following major changes: (a) Three different applications will be available: one each for housing, public facilities and public services. In the past, public facilities and public services have shared a single application which has often proved confusing, particularly for public service applicants. (b) Duplicative questions on the applications have been removed or combined. (c) Questions which (i) asked for information which was not deemed valuable in helping Commission members to make funding decisions or (ii) asked for information of a highly speculative nature have been removed unless required for compliance or regulatory purposes. (As an example, applicants will no longer be asked to estimate the value of skilled and non -skilled volunteer labor hours.) In a few areas where it seemed potentially helpful to the decision -making process, additional information has been requested from applicants. Proposed Process Changes The nature of HOME and CDBG funds means that applicants with significantly different types of projects are usually competing for the same funds. For example, owner -occupied and rental housing compete head -to -head for HOME allocations. And both types of housing projects also compete with public facilities and public service projects for CDBG funds. This situation means that the application evaluation process is, by necessity, highly subjective. In the past, the Commission has overlayed this process with a presumably objective, points -based scoring system. This system was originally designed by staff for the sole purpose of determining whether projects were qualified to receive funding; projects with a consensus score of less than 60 points were deemed non -qualified. Because of the disparate nature of the projects, the system has often been awkward and difficult to use for Commission members. More importantly, in recent years the scoring system has sometimes been viewed as a proxy for the review, discussion, negotiation and allocation which is at the center of the Commission's decision -making process for HOME and CDBG funds. Because of the subjective nature of the process, this has, on occasion, created justifiable confusion among applicants whose projects may have scored well relative to other projects but not received their full requested allocation. As a result, and as we discussed at our September meeting, we are proposing several changes to the review and allocation process: (a) The ranking criteria sheet which is included in the applicant guides would be revised. There would be a separate sheet for each funding category (housing, public facilities, and public services). The revised sheets would identify criteria that the Commission would consider in evaluating project qualifications but will not assign a fixed number of points to each line item. (b) As in previous years, the Commission would hold a Q&A/discussion session with applicants in mid -February. Applicants with single-family and multi -family housing projects would be allotted 10 minutes each for Q&A. Applicants with public facilities and public service projects would be allotted 5 minutes each. (c) Following the mid -February Q&A/discussion session with applicants, Commission members would utilize the evaluation criteria checklist and other information to determine whether projects meet the minimum requirements to proceed to the next stage of the funding process. Non -qualified projects (i.e., projects which are not deemed qualified by a majority of Commission members) would be discontinued from further funding consideration. Staff would provide additional tools, as necessary, to assist Commission members in this process. (d) In early March, Commission members would submit their initial allocation recommendations to staff, who would then compile an analysis of the recommendations as has been done in prior years. From there, the process would continue as before with two Commission meetings in mid -March. The schedule would thus be approximately as follows: Date Action mid -January Applications submitted mid -February HCDC meetin — &A/discussion with applicants late -February HCDC members send recommendations for qualified projects to staff; non -qualified projects discontinued from consideration early -March HCDC member send initial allocation recommendations to staff mid -March HCDC meeting —development of consensus funding scenario mid -March HCDC meeting —final recommendations for City Council Finally, as discussed in our September meeting, we propose that the Commission release a brief statement of goals and priorities each year at least six months prior to the application submission date. These priorities would be developed with public input and in conjunction, as appropriate, with other city planning documents. The statement of priorities would provide a clear, concise roadmap for communicating long-range community objectives to applicants and to the public. This process would begin with the FY2008 HOME/CDBG funding round. FY06 Non -Housing Application The application may not be longer than 13 pages. All materials must be typed — 10 point font or larger. Please have application form and supporting documentation copied single -sided. Submit one copy of the application package to the City of Iowa City. . Only one project proposal may be submitted on each application form. Please use separate application forms for each project proposal. The application packet may also be found at www.icgov.org/grants.htm CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshops will be held: Thursday, December 16, 2004, Lobby Conference Room, City Hall at 5:30 PM Wednesday, January 12, 2005, Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall at 9:00 AM Due January 20, 2005 by 12:00 noon - No Exceptions CITY OF IOWA CITY Planning and Community Development 410 East Washington Street (319) 356-5230 steve-long@iowa-city.org tracy-hightshoe@iowa-city.org steven-nasby@iowa-city.org City of Iowa City FY07 Funding Request for Public Service Projects (Operations) 1. Name and address of applicant/organization: Did you attend the Applicant Workshop? If yes, please circle the date attended. December—, 2005 January _, 2006 2. Name of program or specific expense for which funds are being requested: 3. Total Amount of CDBG Funds Requested: $ 4. Contact Person: Phone Number: Fax Number: Email Address: 5. Indicate your organization's corporate status and number of years in business in the Iowa City community: Status: Non-profit For -profit Years in business 5. Will all services or programs for which funds are being requested take place within the City of Iowa City? 6. Brief summary of the proposed project (please limit response to a paragraph). Section 1 - Need/Priority 7. The objective of the CITY STEPS Plan is to promote a continuum of care within the community that includes jobs and services for low -moderate income persons. Tell us (a) why this project is needed, (b) how it fills a gap in the City's continuum of care or partners with other services and (c) how it addresses the goals cited in the CITY STEPS Plan. Include information from studies\research or other supporting documentation, where available. FY06 Non -Housing Application 1 ppdcdbg/fy07 public service app with blanks Section 2 — Resources Please provide a budget breakdown for your specific program or expense. Do NOT provide your overall agency budget in response to this question. The budget breakdown should include ONLY those costs directly related to the program or expense. For example, if the project is the addition of one staff person, the budget should include only the estimated cost of and resources available for that position. Alternatively, if the project is the implementation of a specific service program, provide the total estimated costs of and resources available for the project, broken out by general categories such as salaries, materials, office expense, marketing, etc. (Please include the cost of an audit for any organization that expects to receive over $500,000 from all federal sources.) If other non-CDBG resources are used to fund the project/expense, please list the sources, [state if the funds are in -kind or cash,J and check if the funds are anticipated or already in -hand. FY06 Non -Housing Application 2 ppdcdbg/fy07 public service app with blanks Document Costs Whenever Possible PLEASE NOTE: The Housing and Community Development Commission may request a copy of your overall agency budget. Budget Breakdown Include o, ly those costs directly related to theproject.) Expense Revenue Expense Item or Category Total Item Cost CDBG Funds Other Funds Identify Source of Other Funds Status Anti- cipated Com- muted Please place an `?C' in box that applies: $ $ $ Total $ $ $ 9. For "Other Funds" indicated in response to Question 8, identify the groups or organizations that were asked to contribute to or fund this project and the status of those funds (include anticipated dates of donations or funding awards or decisions). If "Other Funds" includes fundraising events or efforts, describe the event (including the proposed date) or fundraising strategy. 10. If volunteers are used, please describe how these volunteers are utilized for the proposed activity. 11. Provide a copy of your overall agency budget for the current fiscal year. Section 3 — Schedule 12. All public service projects are required to expend their full award and complete the propsed project by the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2007). Can you meet this requirement? Yes No FY06 Non -Housing Application 3 ppdcdbgtfy07 public service app with blanks Section 4 — Impact\Benefit to the Community 13. Please indicate the population to be served by the proposed program according to the income categories shown in the Applicant Guide. If you are requesting money for a specific administrative expense (e.g., a staff member's salary), indicate the population served by your agency as a whole. (Please Note: If this application is funded, the information in this table will be used as income targeting for the CDBG Agreement). Number between 0 - 30% median income persons (a) Number between 31 — 50% median income persons (b) Number between 51 — 80% median income persons (c) Number between 80 — 100% median income persons (d) Number over 100% median income persons (e) Total persons (f) Percent LMI (a + b + c) _ t) Please describe the basis for the numbers provided above. 14. List goal(s) of this specific program. If you are requesting money for a specific administrative expense (e.g., a staff member's salary) rather than a program, list the overall goal(s) for your agency. As specifically as possible, please describe how you will measure the program's (or agency's) success in achieving those goals. Indicate quantitative outcome measurements where possible. FY06 Non -Housing Application 4 ppdcdbg/fy07 public service app with blanks 15. Where will the proposed programs be held or services be rendered? Section 5 — Capacity\History of the Applicant 16. In the last five years, has your agency received a CDBG award of which all or a portion has reverted to the City due to non -expenditure of funds? If so, please explain. 17. Is the applicant (including partners, co -applicants, etc.) currently in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations including any CDBG and/or HOME funded projects? Yes No . If "No" or the matter is currently in litigation please give the name of the case and explain the basis of the case. 18. Please provide evidence of your organization's capacity and experience to implement the proposed program or service within the established timetable and budget. If your agency received CDBG funds for the proposed program or expense in any of the last three fiscal years, please discuss your success in meeting your goals for the program and identify any areas of program implementation which you plan to change to help you meet established goals in the future. FY06 Non -Housing Application 5 ppdcdbg/fy07 public service app with blanks Due January 20, 2005 by 12:00 noon — No Exceptions Planning and Community Development 410 East Washington Street — (319) 356-5230 steve-long@iowa-city.org steven-nasby@iowa-city.org tracy-hightshoe@iowa-city.org FY06 Non -Housing Application 6 ppdcdbgtfy07 public service app with blanks EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS This evaluation sheet will be used as a guide to assist the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) in the FY07 allocation process. HCDC members will evaluate each project according to the questions\criteria shown below. I. Need\Priority 1. Has the applicant documented a need for this program? 2. Meets a CITY STEPS priority? High Medium Low II. Resources 1. Program leverages private financial resources? 0 to 25% Private Funds 26 to 50% Private Funds 76 % to 99 % Private Funds 2. Project budget is justified? [Costs are documented\reasonable] 3. The level of public subsidy is needed? [Private\other funds not available?] 4. Has applicant documented efforts to secure other funding? III. Feasibility 1. The funds will be expended within the required time period? IV. Impact\Benefit 1. Primarily targets low-income persons 0-30% _, 31-50% _, 51-80% _ 2. Project produces adequate benefits to the community related to cost? 3. Does the project help persons gain self-sufficiency? 4. Outcome data indicates program objectives can be met? V. Capacity\H!story (maximum 10 points) 1. Applicant has the capacity to undertake the proposed project? 2. If previously funded, has applicant completed prior project(s) and maintained regulatory compliance? 3. If new, applicant can maintain regulatory compliance? 4. Applicant attended the 2004 CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop. PROJECT NAME: 1 CITY DRAFT FY2007 CDBG/HOME — FUNDING REQUEST Public Facility, Planning, & Other Projects Prior to submitting your FY07 CDBG/HOME Application to the City of Iowa City make sure you have done the following: ❑ Completed Application. Should you have any questions while completing the application contact Community & Economic Development staff at 319.356.5230 or by email at stephen-long@iowa-city.org. ❑ Sign the application in blue ink. ❑ Submit the original application to the City of Iowa City, Community & Economic Development Department. The application may not be longer than 10 pages, must by typed (10 point font or larger), and must be single sided. ❑ Have your application and related materials delivered to: City of Iowa City Community & Economic Development 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ❑ Be sure to send your application by certified or registered mail; overnight deliver service i.e. Federal Express; or deliver in person and have the application date/time stamped by a Planning & Community Development representative. ❑ Applications are due to the City of Iowa City, Community & Economic Development Department on Friday, January 20 by noon. NO EXCEPTIONS! Please remember that only one project proposal may be submitted on each application form. Please use separate application forms for each project proposal. Failure to comply with the above stipulations might eliminate your application from possible funding. City of Iowa City FY2007 Funding Request Public Facility, Planning & Other Projects 1. Name of Project: 2. Total Amount of CDBG Funds Requested: $ 3. Name and address of applicant/organization: 4. Contact Person: Phone Number: Fax Number: Email Address: 5. Location of proposed project: 6. Did you attend the Applicant Workshop? If yes, please circle the date attended. December ___, 2005 January _, 2006 7. Brief summary of the proposed project (please limit response to a paragraph). Section 1— Need/Priority 8. Please specify the one most applicable priority need and priority need level, as shown in CITY STEPS 2006-2010, Section IV. Strategic Plan. Priority Need Priority Need Level (High, Medium or Low) 9. Tell us why this project is needed (include information from studies\research or other supporting documentation) and how it fills a gap in the City's continuum of care as outlined in CITY STEPS. Also, indicate how the project partners with existing services/facilities. FY07 Non -Housing Application ppdcdbgKy07 draft pf app Section 2 — Budget Information 10. Please provide a budget breakdown for your specific project. Complete the various categories appropriate for your project. Use categories such as property acquisition, architectural expenses, construction costs, material and administrative costs, etc. for construction/rehabilitation projects. The budget breakdown should only include those costs directly related to the project. If a construction project, provide the total estimated costs of the project, but do not include operational expenses or expenses not directly related to the construction project. Please include the cost of an audit for any organization that expects to receive over $500,000 from all federal sources. Also, budget for the other items under Budget Considerations in the FY07 Applicant Guide. If other funds are used to implement the project, please list the sources, state if the funds are in -kind or cash, and check if the funds are anticipated or committed. Document Costs Whenever Possible A construction estimate is strongly encouraged for all rehabilitation or new construction projects. PLEASE NOTE: The Housing and Community Development Commission may request a copy of your overall agency budget. Budget Breakdown Include only those costs di ctly related to theproject.) Expense Category (e.g. salaries, acquisition, rehab) If possible, please prioritize the budget CDBG Funds Other Funds List Source of Other Funds Type Status In - Kind Cash Antic. Comm. Please place an Win box that applies: $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Volunteer Contribution Total from Question #11 $ Total I $ $ FY07 Non -Housing Application 2 ppdcdbgtfy07 draft pf app Amount of private\agency\other funds Amount of CDBG funds Total Project Funding Number of persons assisted Total cost per person Total CDBG Cost Per Person $ (a) $ (b) $ (c) (a + b) (d) (see question 16) (e) (c - d) (f) (b - d) 11. If volunteers are used please describe how these volunteers are utilized for the proposed activity and estimate the amount of volunteer time and value dedicated to the identified tasks. Unskilled labor hours x $10 per hour = $ Skilled labor ( ) hours x $ per hour = $ Total $ 12. List other groups or organizations that were asked to contribute to or fund this project and the status of those funds (include anticipated dates of funding awards or decisions). 13. Does the proposed project pay property taxes? Yes No If yes, what is the estimated value of taxes generated from this Project? $ If property taxes are not paid, does the proposed project pay a Payment In Lieu of Taxes? Yes No If "yes", what is the percent of full taxes paid? % and amount paid Section 3 — Feasibility 14. Briefly outline the proposed timetable for the commitment and expenditure of the funding being requested (include other project factors such as rezoning, construction schedule, or application(s) for otherfunding). Please Note: If funded, thisschedulewii/be used for anyprojectagreement for the use of CDBG funding. Date: Description of Activity: FY07 Non -Housing Application 3 ppdcdbg/fy07 draft pf app July 1, 2006 Beginning of City Fiscal Year and Project Start Date Section 4 — Impact\Benefit to the Community 15. Please indicate the population to be served by the proposed project according to the income categories shown in the Applicant Guide. (Please Note: If this application is funded, the information in this table will be used as income targeting for the CDBG Agreement), Number between 0 - 30% median income persons (a) Number between 31 - 50% median income persons (b) Number between 51 - 80% median income persons (c) Number between 80 - 100% median income persons (d) Number over 100% median income persons (e) Total persons (l) Percent LMI (a+b+c)=t) 16. Describe the outcome data or key elements the project is working towards (e.g. employment opportunities and increase in household income). Also discuss how these outcome data will be met by this project. 17. On the attached map please indicate the location of the proposed public facility or the site where public services or job training will be offered. FY07 Non -Housing Application 4 ppdcdbg/fyO7 draft pf app Section 5 — Capacity\History of the Applicant 18. Please list amount of CDBG and/or HOME funds received within the last three City fiscal years and the status of the project(s) undertaken. (City fiscal year July 1 to June 30) Fiscal Year Funds Recv'd Budgeted Amount Amount Expended (as of 12/31/05) FY04 (July 2003 - June 2004) FY05 (July 2004 - June 2005) FY06 (July 2005 - June 2006) 19. Is the applicant (including partners, co -applicants, etc.) currently in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations including any CDBG and/or HOME funded projects? Yes No . If "No" or the matter is currently in litigation please give the name of the case and explain the basis of the case. 20. Please provide evidence of your organization's capacity and experience to undertake and complete the proposed project within the established timetable and budget. Due January 20, 2006 by 12:00 noon — No Exceptions Community & Economic Development 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230 FY07 Non -Housing Application 5 ppdcdbgtfy07 draft pf app MEMORANDUM TO: Iowa City City Council FROM: Matthew J. Hayek DATE: October 11, 2005 RE: Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Final Recommendations Dear Council Members: The Scattered Site Housing Taskforce has now completed the investigation for which it was formed in April 2004. I am pleased to report that the complexity of the issues examined was matched by the energy and dedication of all eight Taskforce members. Attached are the following: • Final Recommendations for City Council • Chart summarizing free -reduced lunch numbers at ICCSD schools (Table 1) • Fair Share Matrix (Table 2) • Map showing census block groups in Iowa City where opportunities exist for future assisted housing The above -referenced final recommendations and materials collectively were adopted by an almost -unanimous vote of the Taskforce. Seven members voted for their adoption, and one member (Jerry Anthony) voted against. I and others from the Taskforce look forward to discussing these materials with you at the October 17, 2005, Council work session. Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Final Recommendations for City Council 11 October 2005 INTRODUCTION The Scattered Site Housing Taskforce ("Taskforce") was created by the Iowa City City Council by unanimous vote on April 6, 2004. The Council's instructions to the Taskforce were to "study the existing distribution, location and types of assisted housing in Iowa City" and "recommend policies or actions, as appropriate, regarding the disbursement, location, and type of future assisted housing." The Taskforce consisted of eight individuals from the community who volunteered their time and talents to the inquiry: • Don Anciaux — Chair, Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission • Jerry Anthony — Vice Chair, Housing and Community Development Commission • Darlene Clausen — Representative, Iowa City Neighborhood Council • Matthew Hayek — Chair, Housing and Community Development Commission • Jan Leff — President, ICCSD Board of Directors • Jan Peterson — Executive, United Way of Johnson County • Sally Stutsman — County Supervisor, Johnson County Board of Supervisors • Joan VandenBerg — At-Risk/Youth and Family Coordinator, ICCSD Between April 2004 and October 2005, the Taskforce toured much of the community's assisted housing infrastructure, conducted 24 open session meetings, and held two public hearings. Numerous individuals and organizations were invited to present data and opinions. Of the 17 organizations that presented, 11 were providers of assisted housing. Others presenters included housing -related departments at the City, University of Iowa experts, residents, developers, and so on. The Taskforce reviewed over a thousand pages of written material submitted by these organizations and individuals. Following this exhaustive review, the Taskforce began a process of deliberating the issues at hand. This report (1) summarizes some of the trends identified by the Taskforce and (2) offers a number of policy recommendations for consideration by the Council. Pagel of 8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Final Recommendations for City Council 11 October 2005 TRENDS The Taskforce identified numerous trends that need community attention. The more salient trends include the following: (1) Demand for housing assistance is on the rise. In 2000, the waiting list delay for Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly known as Section 8) vouchers through the Iowa City Housing Authority was zero. An individual or family could apply for housing assistance and, if qualified, receive a voucher immediately. By 2005, the waiting list has grown to more than 2,650 names. An individual or family applying now for housing assistance faces an approximately two-year wait for a voucher. It should be noted that Iowa City is by no means unique in this regard; other metropolitan areas and even smaller communities within the state have witnessed this very trend in recent years. The influx of low -moderate income populations likely stems from housing policy shifts in major metropolitan areas as well as demographic and economic changes. Iowa City is a particularly attractive place to live due to job opportunities and a broad array of services such as health care, human and social services, education, and public safety. (2) Local housing costs are amongthe he highest in the state. Whether renters or owners, Johnson County households face among the highest housing costs in Iowa. In fact, Johnson County has the highest proportion of cost -burdened households statewide. While the cost of housing within Iowa City drives the countywide average, this dynamic is changing as Coralville now has a higher median price for single-family units. The Taskforce found that numerous members of the community whose incomes are modest are unable to pay market rates to rent or purchase housing. Land prices continue to rise. (3) Assisted housing tends to be concentrated. The Taskforce found that certain census block groups contain a disproportionately high number of assisted housing units, while other block groups contain few (and often no) assisted housing units. Census block groups are the smallest geographic measurement for which reliable statistical data are available. This fact makes it very difficult to gauge the concentration of assisted housing within, for example, a single square block or a portion of a single street. Without a doubt, large multi -unit assisted housing complexes result in an even higher concentration in the immediate vicinity. (4) Emergency and transitional housing is even more concentrated. Within the spectrum of assisted housing, emergency and transitional housing (i.e. housing for the homeless or nearly -homeless) is especially concentrated. One area in particular stands out in this regard. Block group 18-2 presently contains 41 percent of all transitional housing and 69 percent of all emergency housing. If the local homeless shelter is relocated pursuant to current plans, block group 18-2 could end up with 100 percent of all emergency housing. The Taskforce believes this situation merits special attention. (5) Poverty and mobility pose a challenge to our schools. The school district has witnessed marked changes in its student population. Poverty levels at certain schools, measured by Page 2 of 8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Final Recommendations for City Council 11 October2005 the percentage of students receiving a free or reduced price lunch, are on the rise. By way of example, 26 percent of Mark Twain Elementary students received a free or reduced price school lunch in 1995; by 2004, the figure was 61 percent. This contrasts sharply with other schools in the district, where rates were as low as 2 percent. The district wide average was 21 percent. A chart summarizing the 2004 free/reduced lunch numbers of all ICCSD elementary schools is attached as Table 1. Other data are likewise alarming. Rates of student mobility (the likelihood that a student will not start and finish an academic year at the same school) are on the rise. At Twain, the mobility rate exceeded 60 percent by 2003, while elsewhere in the district the mobility rates were as low as 8 percent (Lincoln Elementary). Teachers who addressed the Taskforce noted the difficulty of providing quality educational outcomes to high - poverty, highly -mobile student populations. The district targets higher -poverty schools with considerably more resources (up to ten times the amount targeted to lower -poverty schools) in the areas of guidance, reading, class -size reduction, ESL, special education, before -and -after school programs, family resource centers, and the like. Despite this, however, educators from the classroom to the central administration office shared what they described as a growing crisis for education within the community. Notwithstanding the commitment of additional resources, Twain and Grant Wood are the two ICCSD elementary schools at risk of being placed on the federal watch list. The Taskforce is concerned with what it regards to be increasingly disparate school environments within the same public school system. Due to confidentiality restrictions on school data, the Taskforce was unable to examine links between poverty and mobility on the one hand and assisted housing on the other. However, it believes the City, the school district, and other relevant organizations should research this issue further and explore appropriate responses. (6) Local service providers face increasing demand. The Taskforce heard from numerous agencies and non -profits that provide housing and/or services to low -moderate income populations. The message from these entities is that their workloads continue to increase and that many of them face barriers to meeting demands for housing, social and human services, and the like. As budgets for these services are reduced by the federal and state governments, additional burdens are placed on local government, the agencies themselves, and private donors. (7) The University of Iowa impacts local housing. The Taskforce found that rental units of all kinds (both assisted and unassisted) are found mostly within a third of Iowa City's residential census block groups, and mostly near the University of Iowa. This is due to zoning as well as market demands. The total current enrollment at the University of Iowa is 29,745. Only 20 percent of University of Iowa students live on campus. The remaining 80 percent live in private market rental units. Of the total enrollment, 15,765 (53 percent) live in private market rental units in Iowa City; 1,785 (6 percent) live in private market rental units in Coralville. As a result, individuals and families compete with college students for rental housing. The college students can often pay higher rental rates and/or find roommates to share rent expenses, placing low -moderate income individuals and families at a disadvantage. Page 3 of 8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Final Recommendations for City Council I 1 October 2005 (8) Federal funding for housing programs is decreasin>;. City staff and the presenters discussed the declining levels of support for housing, jobs and services for low -moderate income persons. Drops in CDBG, HOME and Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly known as Section 8) funding have diminished the federal resources available for local housing needs. RECOMMENDATIONS The Taskforce urges the Council to consider two sets of objectives: General policy objectives: (1) Iowa City should strengthen its commitment to assisted housing and increase opportunities for affordable housing generally. (2) Iowa City should adopt a scattered site policy to ensure a fair share distribution of assisted housing throughout the community. Specific policy objectives: (3) The City should launch a campaign to educate the community about the importance of affordable housing, the impact of allowing the status quo to continue, and the degree to which housing and development decisions must involve all segments of the community. (4) The City should enlist other municipalities, as well as the county and area school districts, for purposes of collective action to address affordable housing and services. The issues of housing and poverty cannot be solved by the City alone. (5) The City should make land available for emergency and/or transitional housing throughout the community. The City should neither encourage nor support additional transitional or emergency housing within census block group 18-2. At present, 41 percent of all transitional housing, and 69 percent of all emergency housing, is located within census block group 18-2. The new Shelter House facility will result in the location of 100 percent of all emergency housing within census block group 18-2. (This recommendation is not intended to impact plans for the new Shelter House facility. The Taskforce recognizes the difficulty to date associated with finding a location for the new shelter.) (6) The City should commit resources to encourage future assisted housing to be placed in underrepresented census block groups identified by the fair share matrix provided with these recommendations. This means committing additional funding (i.e. beyond current expenditures and beyond the CDBG/HOME funding stream from HUD) to providers of assisted housing to offset the increased cost of developing housing in such areas. Page 4 of 8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Final Recommendations for City Council I I October 2005 (7) If the City commits sufficient resources to scatter assisted housing without causing a reduction in current rates of supply, it should not support additional assisted housing in census block groups identified as significantly overrepresented. (8) The City should encourage affordable housing within the private market. This may involve changes in zoning and code regulations; permitting smaller lot sizes, row housing, and the like; and exploring creative approaches to housing and development policy. (9) The City should ensure that the needs of our assisted housing population are adequately met by the community's service providers. The City should avoid imbalances between the level of need and the ability to meet that need through human and social services. The City should collaborate with public and private partners on comprehensive services to those in poverty. Assistance in the areas of transportation, child care, counseling, education, and employment can help individuals and families become and remain self sufficient. (10) The City should encourage low- and medium -density rental housing (such as duplexes, town houses and the like) to be developed in currently -underrepresented areas of the community. At present, most rental housing is confined to only 10 of 31 census block groups. Such a policy would disperse rental housing away from the University of Iowa student areas and make it easier for families to compete with students for such housing. (11) The City should take additional steps to increase sustainable home ownership among its population earning less than 80 percent of area median income. (12) The City should develop a mandatory inclusionary zoning policy with incentives for new housing developments. An inclusionary zoning policy holds great promise for affordable housing at minimal cost to taxpayers. [Adopted 6-1; Hayek voted against; Anciaux abstained.] (13) The City should expect owners and managers of all rental housing to manage their facilities adequately. The Taskforce encourages vigorous enforcement of existing policies. Much public opposition to assisted housing results from deficient maintenance and management of unassisted tenant populations. As a mere 1,150 of the approximately 15,000 rental units in Iowa City are assisted, it is important to monitor all rental facilities. (14) In conjunction with its review of the Consolidated Plan (CITY STEPS), the City should provide for a yearly review of fair share data so that the matrix provided with these recommendations is updated as conditions within block groups change. The Taskforce recommends that City staff and HCDC coordinate this annual task. (15) The City should conduct a comprehensive review of any scattered site policies at five- year intervals. The City should consider a sunset provision to ensure that such policies are closely monitored. Page 5 of 8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Final Recommendations for City Council I I October 2005 [Recommendation nos. 141 and 13-15 were adopted 7-1; Anthony voted against them. Recommendation no. 12 was voted on separately (see above).] FAIR SHARE MATRIX As described above, the Taskforce concluded that concentrations of assisted housing are a growing problem for the community and should be addressed as a matter of policy. At the same time, the growing need for both affordable and assisted housing requires a continued commitment. How best to address concentration and housing demand is the challenge we face. After considerable analysis and deliberation, the Taskforce decided to establish a "fair share" matrix (Table 2) (see also the attached map showing census block groups within the community that lack assisted housing). For this, each of the 31 applicable census block groups was assigned two numbers. The first number is the present amount of housing units (both assisted and unassisted) within a given block group as a percentage of all housing units in the community. The second number is the present amount of assisted housing units within that block group as a.percentage of all assisted housing units in the community. This approach demonstrates how a given block group compares to other block groups in terms of its share of assisted housing. Additionally, the taskforce wanted the matrix to be easy to understand, employ readily available and reliable data, and permit efficient updating as new building occurs within the community. The fair share matrix demonstrates that the total current number of housing units within a given block group may be as low as four and as high as 2,945. Similarly, the fair share matrix demonstrates that the total current number of assisted housing units within a given block group may be as low as zero and as high as 392. The basic premise of the fair share matrix is this: for a block group to contain its 'fair share " of assisted housing relative to other block groups, its percentage of all assisted housing should approximate its percentage of all housing. The Taskforce believes this approach provides the most equitable means of improving the distribution of assisted housing. It should be noted that the fair share matrix does not — and cannot — answer all questions or account for all variables. For example, zoning constraints within certain block groups preclude medium- or higher -density apartments and condominiums, discouraging the even distribution of such housing. However, after considering various different approaches and data sources, the Taskforce concluded that the fair share matrix represents a fair, logical way to measure the assisted housing landscape. While the fair share matrix was selected as the primary means by which concentration or lack of affordable housing opportunities should be gauged, other data were considered and are worth mentioning. The Taskforce reviewed the following data and discussed their merits and faults at great length. Consensus was not reached regarding the use of these data, and as such they were not included as criteria in the fair share matrix. However, the Taskforce believes these and other factors should be considered in any scattered site policy. Page 6 of 8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Final Recommendations for City Council 11 October 2005 • Data regarding the Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly known as the Section 8 program) • Data regarding assisted housing by type (elderly viz. disabled viz. individuals/families) and by block group • Data regarding assisted rental housing as a percentage of all rental housing per/within each block group • ICCSD free/reduced lunch data • ICCSD mobility data • ICCSD test scores data • Poverty, median housing price data • Location of human/social services data • University of Iowa — Field Problems Project List of Presenters Habitat for Humanity Shelter House Domestic Violence Intervention Program City of Iowa City Housing Authority City of Iowa City Community and Economic Development Office City of Iowa City Urban Planning Office Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship Successful Living, Inc. Hawkeye Area Community Action Program Burns & Burns, L.C. Mid -Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County Iowa City Neighborhood Council Wells Fargo Bank (private lender representative) University of Iowa — Residential Services University of Iowa — Urban and Regional Planning Home Builders Association of Iowa City Iowa City Area Association of Realtors (invited but declined to present) Iowa City Community School District Page 7 of 8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Final Recommendations for City Council 11 October 2005 April 29, 2004 May 12, 2004 May 17, 2004 June 7, 2004 June 21, 2004 July 12, 2004 July 19, 2004 August 2, 2004 August 16, 2004 August 30, 2004 September 20, 2004 October 4, 2004 October 18, 2004 November 8, 2004 November 22, 2004 December 6, 2004 December 13, 2004 January 3, 2005 January 24, 2005 January 31, 2005 February 14, 2005 S.S.H.T. Meeting Dates Bus Tour Public Hearing at Twain Elementary School February 28, 2005 March 28, 2005 April 4, 2005 Public Hearing at the Senior Center April 25, 2005 May 26, 2005 (cancelled) October 3, 2005 Page 8 of 8 Table 1 Table 1: Percentage of K-6 grade students in F&R vrogErams by school School Year 1995 2004 Twain 26% 61% Hills 30% 54% Wood 19% 45% Mann 37% 44% Roosevelt 35% 41% Kirkwood 16% 32% Lucas 13% 29% Coralville Central 15% 27% Penn 18% 23% Longfellow 19% 21% Lemme 7% 18% Weber 20% 15% Hoover 7% 11% Horn 5% 8% Wickham n.a. 5% Lincoln 5% 4% Shimek 7% 2% City High 7% 15% West High 8% 14% Northwest junior high 14% 21% Southeast junior high 13% 22% CEC 44% n.a. Total for ICCSD 14% 21% Source: ICCSD data presented to the Taskforce TABLE 2 Fair Share Assisted Housing Units Based on Percentage of All Housing in Each CT1BG All Assisted Units (Owner and Renter) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9" Census Block 2000 Census 2000-2004 Bldg Total Number of Percent of All Housing Number of Percent of Assisted Over%Under Tract Group All Housing Units Permits (# of units) Housing Units Units in CT1BG Assisted Units Units in C11BG Fair Share 1 1 935 88 1023 3.56% 4 0.39% Under 1 2 1018 90 1108 3.85% 38 3.43% Under 4 1 2327 486 2813 9.79% 392 13.94% Over 5 1 4 0 4 0.01 % 0 0.00% Under 5 2 2652 293 2945 10.25% 21 0.71 % Under 6 1 1812 7 1819 6.33% 9 0.49% Under 11 1 833 8 841 2.93% 30 3.57% Over 11 2 929 18 947 3.29% 14 1.48% Under 12 1 398 2 400 1.39% 14 3.50% Over 12 2 499 5 504 1.75% 4 0.79% Under 13 1 681 59 740 2.57% 13 1.76% Under 13 2 523 3 526 1.83% 9 1.71 % Under 14 1 281 0 281 0.98% 6 2.14% Over 14 2 713 26 739 2.57% 90 12.18% Over 14 3 909 144 1053 3.66% 28 2.66% Under 15 1 709 2 711 2.47% 10 1.41 % Under 15 2 572 8 580 2.02% 16 2.76% Over 16 1 1602 73 1675 5.83% 15 0.90% Under 16 2 1372 3 1375 4.78% 81 5.89% Over 17 1 455 1 456 1.59% 21 4.61% Over 17 2 346 2 348 1.21 % 3 0.86% Under 17 3 545 11 556 1.93% 13 2.34% Over 18 1 1794 420 2214 7.70% 102 4.61% Under 18 2 1389 123 1512 5.26% 162 10.71% Over 21 1 14 0 14 0.05% 0 0.00% Under 21 2 612 139 751 2.61 % 104 13.85% Over 23 1 430 30 460 1.60% 1 0.22% Under 23 2 784 2 786 2.73% 0 0.00% Under 23 3 5 0 5 0.02% 0 0.00% Under 104 4 627 0 627 2.18% 0 0.00% Under 105 1 313 618 931 3.24% 76 8.16% Over Iowa City Totals 26083 2661 28744 100.00% 1276 4.44% Note: "Assisted" units include rental and owner -occupied housing units that received public funds. This does not include Housing Choice Voucher Program (a.k.a. Section 8) units. The 'Over\Under Fair Share in column 9 is determined by the data in columns 6 and 8. If the percentage in column 8 is greater than the percentage in column B then the census block group is 'Over its Fair Share and if the percentage in column 8 is less than the percentage in column 6 the census block group is 'Under' its Fair Share and is lacking assisted housing opportunities. 10 October 2005 Dear Council Members: The following are some supplemental thoughts concerning the recommendations of the Scattered Site Housing Taskforce. The recommendations before you were the product of deliberation and negotiation between eight citizens who lent their time and energy to the task, as well as certain agencies and individuals who advocated a number of policy outcomes. The recommendations reflect a compromise of opinion. 2. The specific method of scattering assisted housing chosen by the Taskforce is, from my perspective, less critical than the need per se to avoid such concentrations. In other words, the fair share matrix offered with the recommendations may or may not be the best approach. The City's own planners are well-equipped to advise Council in this regard. 3. If housing in Iowa City is to become more affordable for more people, the private market is essential. Even if additional public funds are dedicated to assisted housing programs, the net increase in assisted housing units throughout the community will pale in comparison to the amount of housing generated by the private market. In realistic terms, I would estimate the ratio of future assisted housing to future private market housing to be no greater than 1:20. This fact underscores the importance of working with the private market to encourage and incent affordable housing. Density of housing (lot sizes, row housing, etc.) is, in my opinion, a good place to start. 4. Greater promotion of home ownership among low -moderate income individuals and families is important. Home ownership carries financial and other benefits that most of us take for granted. It offers more options for consumers and can scatter housing more effectively. It merits as much support as this community can provide. 5. I do not support mandatory inclusionary housing for two reasons. First, I believe the City should experiment with voluntary, incentive -based inclusionary zoning before taking the more drastic step of requiring it. Second, I believe the specifics of any inclusionary zoning policy (regardless of type) should be crafted by City planners after careful study. Ideally, any such policy would cover most or all of Johnson County to avoid imbalances or unanticipated impacts to Iowa City. 6. Regional planning will become more important — and hopefully more viable — with time. Affordable housing, concentrations of poverty, and increasing demands on social services are issues that Iowa City's neighbors are starting to face. I believe area municipalities and school districts will be more likely to conclude that they, too, have a role to play in these issues. Collective, well - planned action promises to benefit all communities in Johnson County. Sincerely, Matthew J. Hayek Scattered Site Housing Taskforce OCT 1 Supplementary Note and Critique— Jerry Anthony, member Housing and Community Development Commission of the City of Iowa City The recommendations of the Scattered Site Housing Taskforce have several features and some shortcomings that if overlooked in any scattered site policy adopted by the City may lead to serious legal challenges. 1. Problems because of the lack of evidence The Iowa City Community School District's letter to the Council (dated November 11, 2003) implied that students living in assisted housing are the prime cause of low school test scores. As explained in paragraphs a), b) and c) below, there is no evidence to support this contention. a) The Taskforce asked Iowa City Community School District (ICSSD) to provide test scores of students based on where they lived (assisted housing versus non -assisted housing). Citing data confidentiality reasons, ICSSD did not disclose this information. Thus, no evidence to back ICCSD's claim was presented to the Taskforce. b) Students living in assisted housing are often assumed to be more likely enrolled in free and reduced price lunch programs than students living in non -assisted housing. Yet if ICCSD data on students enrolled in free and reduced price lunch (F&R) programs is examined one does not find clear support for this assumption. As the Table 1 (on the next page) shows, the percentage of F&R students in Wood and Twain (two schools that are often presumed to draw many students from assisted housing developments) are not dramatically different from those of Hills, Mann and Roosevelt (that are commonly presumed to have far fewer proportions of students living in assisted housing). c) Students enrolled in F&R programs are often assumed to have lower scores on standardized tests than other students. Yet data from ICCSD schools presented to the Taskforce do not support this assumption. In ICCSD elementary schools in 2003 there were 826 students in grades 3-6 who were below proficiency levels on standardized tests: of these, the majority (454) were not enrolled in F&R programs. Assisted housing comprises a mere 4% of the total rental housing stock in Iowa City. Since children living in non -assisted rental housing are likely to be as mobile as those living in assisted rental housing, ascribing all problems from mobility (if any) in the ICCSD to those children living in assisted rental housing is incorrect. In summary then, there is no evidence at all linking students scores with living in assisted housing, there is no indication that there is a greater percentage of students on F&R programs in areas that have more assisted housing units, and no definitive trend linking enrollment in F&R programs or high mobility with low test scores in ICCSD. Therefore, to blame students living in assisted housing for poor school test scores without any evidence to that effect is clearly wrong. And if poor test scores is used as an argument to support a scattered site housing policy, such a policy may be easily overturned upon legal challenge. Tabled: Percentage of K-6 grade students in F&R nroerams by school School Year 1995 2004 Twain 26% 61% Hills 30% 54% Wood 19% 45% Mann 37% 44% Roosevelt 35% 41% Kirkwood 16% 32% Lucas 13% 29% Coralville Central 15% 27% Penn 18% 23% Longfellow 19% 21 % Lemme 7% 18% Weber 20% 15% Hoover 7% 11% Horn 5% 8% Wickham n.a. 5% Lincoln 5% 4% Shimek 7% 2% City High 7% 15% West High 8% 14% Northwest junior high 14% 21% Southeast junior high 13% 22% CEC 44% n.a. Total for ICCSD 14% 21% Source: ICCSD data presented to the Taskforce 2. The danger of inappropriate policy intervention The issue as framed in the ICSSD's letter to the City Council (noted above) tends to pit the school district's interests against those of Iowa City families wanting to pay affordable rents and prices for housing. Based on overall test scores, the ICCSD is one of the best performing school districts in the nation and perhaps the best in the state. On the other hand, Johnson County has the absolute worst affordable housing situation in the state. Since new policy interventions should enhance community welfare, it is imperative that new policies not exacerbate current problems. Therefore, attempting to address the school district's concerns about low -test scores (a worthy goal) by exacerbating the affordable housing crisis, regardless of whether scattering could actually improve test scores, may not be a wise, legally -defensible strategy. If the City considers implementing a scattered site housing policy, hopefully this point will be kept at the forefront of all deliberations. Parenthetically, one wonders whether the ICCSD has explored other options for improving school test scores within the school system, such as busing some students from enrollment areas of school with low -test scores to schools with higher scores. 2 3. The Fair share matrix has significant shortcomings The Fair share matrix is based on the notion that every part of the city should have its fair share of the assisted housing units. While the concept is simple, it has a significant shortcoming: zoning disallows location of assisted or affordable housing in many parts of the city (for example, multi -unit apartments and high density single-family units can only be built in a select few areas of the city). Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for all parts of the city to have a fair share of the city's assisted housing. The matrix itself has three major shortcomings: a) One, it disallows construction of assisted housing for elders (who do not have any children in schools) in certain areas of the city. b) Two, it disallows construction of new assisted housing in areas that have developable land while encouraging construction in areas that do not. c) And finally, it uses a definition of concentration that is vastly different from the one the City has always used without providing any reason for the change in definition. Use of the matrix to implement a scattered site policy will likely lead to multiple legal challenges about its appropriateness. 4. Problems in process Deliberations of the Taskforce were seriously compromised by several lapses of due process that could invite legal challenges. For the sake of brevity, only one example is provided here: the Taskforce did not include any member who either built assisted housing or lived in it --- thus excluding an important group from the deliberations —while including two members of the organization that leveled charges against assisted housing. Guidelines for policy intervention. Given the plethora of legal challenges possible, should a scattered site policy be implemented and if so how? If the City chooses to implement a scattered site housing policy, committing additional funds (from new sources, rather than from CDBG/HOME and other existing sources) will help ensure that the current supply of affordable housing is not adversely affected by a desire to scatter. Implementing a scattered site policy after the new sources have been identified will further reduce legal challenges. That said the Fair Share matrix in its current form, may still expose the City to some legal challenge. The City should consider using the definition of concentration that it has always used in the past or prepare a less flawed Fair Share matrix. Ideally, the City should adopt a mandatory inclusionary zoning policy as recommended by the Taskforce. This would provide a steady supply of affordable housing units, in scattered locations and at no -cost to the City. Ultimately, as Taskforce members concluded, a mandatory inclusionary zoning policy is the only financially feasible and sustainable solution to offset the location of assisted housing units in only some areas of the city. 91