Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-2006 Housing & Community Development CommissionAGENDA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 6:30 P.M. 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the August 15, 2006 Minutes 3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda 4. Nomination and Election of Officers 5. New Business • Public Hearing & Approval of the FY06 Consolidated Annual Performance & Evaluation Report (CAPER) • Selection of Projects to Monitor in FY07 • Timeline for the Annual Review of the Consolidated Plan 6. Old Business • Discussion of Design Standards for Federally Assisted Housing Projects • Discussion of CDBG and HOME Investment Policies • Discussion of CDBG & HOME Council Earmarks 7. Adjournment r ` .® CITY OF iOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: September 17, 2006 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Community Development Staff Re: HCDC Meeting on September 21, 2006 This month we welcome Steve Crane to the commission. The following is a short description of the September agenda items. If you have any questions about the agenda or if you are unable to attend the meeting, please contact Tracy Hightshoe at 356-5244 or by email at tracy-hightshoe@iowa- city.org. Nomination & Election of Officers Every September, the commission nominates and elects a Chair and Vice Chair. The commission will nominate and vote for these two positions at this meeting. New Business • PublicHearing & Approval of the FY06 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) The CAPER is a HUD required document that the City must submit to HUD within 90 days of the end of the plan year. The report describes the federally funded activities undertaken by the City and its partners, and the accomplishments for the federal fiscal year 2005. A draft of the CAPER is included in your packet for your review and comment. At this meeting, we will be asking HCDC to approve the document for submission to HUD. • Selection of Projects to Monitor. Each year commission members choose 3-4 projects to monitor during the year. A list of projects is included in the packet. Please review and indicate at the meeting which ones you would like to monitor for FY07. • Timeline for the Annual Review of the Consolidated Plan (CITY BPS) We are in the process of reviewing our CITY STEPS Plan. Details will be forthcoming regarding the number and locations of public meetings to solicit input regarding the Consolidated Plan. The community meetings wilt take place before the October HCDC meeting. Last year meetings were conducted HACAP and Mercer. HACAP focused on transitional housing and supportive services for families and the meeting at Mercer focused on employment/work force issues. Following the community input meetings, HCDC will hold a public hearing at their October 19 meeting. If HCDC decides to recommend any formal budget amendment(s), the proposed amendment(s) will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. We will keep you posted on the dates and times of the meetings. Old Business • Discussion of Design Standards for Federally Assisted Housing Projects. Enclosed are draft guidelines for assisted single family and duplex homes. Staff emailed these guidelines to local low income housing developers of single family/duplex homes and is in the process of obtaining their feedback. The purpose of the guidelines is to foster a positive public perception of affordable housing by promoting homes that complement surrounding single family housing styles, promote designs that may lessen neighborhood resistance to new housing projects and ensures a quality design for the low income 'households that Will We in the unit. Based on commission input and approval, the guidelines would be submitted to Council for consideration for FY08 housing projects. • Discussion of CDBG & HOME investment Policies & Council Earmarks. Linda Severson, JCCOG Human Services Coordinator, will be present to discuss the Aid -to -Agencies earmark and the funding process for those agencies who receive funding. The commission will also continue to discuss investment policies for CDBG/HOME funded projects. MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2006, 6:30 P.M. FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER, GRANT WOOD SCHOOL Members Present: Jerry Anthony, Marcy DeFrance, Holly Hart, Matthew Hayek, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw Members Absent: William Greazel, Thomas Niblock Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long Call to Order Anthony called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Minutes MOTION: Hayek moved to accept the minutes as written. Shaw seconded, and the motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Public Discussion Long thanked the commission members for attending the Community Development Celebration event New Business Discussion of CDBG and HOME Investment Policies and Council Earmarks Long distributed the original policy resolutions for the commission members' reference. He said the commission typically looks at the policies annually, and also talks to the agencies to see how well the policies are working. Currently there are four earmarked amounts. 1) To cover administrative costs; this amount is designated by HUD, 2) Aid to Agencies; this started in 1994 and combined with city funds provides an allocation to approximately 14-16 human service agencies annually 3) economic development funds, and 4) housing rehabilitation. These were all explained in the memo to the commission members sent with the meeting packet. Richman asked what the commission should be discussing in regards to the earmarks. Long said some council members are questioning whether having the commission allocate $14K for public services is a good use of the commission's time. The city has approximately 14 agencies the council funds through a review and recommendation process. One issue with the council's process is that it is difficult for new projects to get funding. On the other hand, though new projects are more likely to be funded through the HCDC process, it takes a lot of time for the commission to allocate a small amount of money. Long said he sees three options for the $14K. 1) The commission requests more funding for this category, 2) the council takes over allocating the $14K along with the other $105K, or 3) leave things as they are. He said the discussion is intended to find out the commission's view. The amount of money that will be left over from those allocations in the future is unknown at this point, but it will probably be approximately the same next year. Hayek asked whether the amounts of money the council allocates are static. Long said usually a cost of living increase is given every year, and the amount also depends on how long the agency has been on the list. They are currently shifting into a performance -based system. Richman asked how the council allocates the money. Long said there is no formal application, it is not competitive or political. The council members who take care of the process review the agencies and make a recommendation to the council on the amounts. Hayek asked whether this system was set up to ensure stability for certain agencies, to consistently receive an annual income. Long said the original purpose is unknown, as no documentation is available. Hightshoe said that the funding is fairly stable, since the $105K taken off the top remains the same even though total CDBG funding has been decreasing. Long said there is a perception that there is double-dipping, because some agencies have several different programs that could also receive funding through the commission's application process. He noted that the HCDC process is much more public. Shaw asked if the list of agencies receiving money Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes August 15, 2006 Page 2 from the council allocation is formally noted somewhere and available for review. Hightshoe said yes, there is a list. Long said the commission could recommend that the council make its process more public. Richman said the HCDC system is transparent and accountable. Long said at least one council member would like more openness, and perhaps even an open hearing. Richman asked if it would be beneficial for the agencies to have two application processes to deal with. Hayek said he does not have a problem with having the council recapture the $14K. It does not make sense to have the HCDC take over such a small amount. It would make more, sense to give up the allocation of that part of the money completely, or to get more money. $14K is not a good use of the commission's time. Shaw noted that if the funding trend continues, soon the public services money that the commission allocates would be gone. Hayek said it is good to have guidance and oversight of allocating the money. Anthony agreed that the amount of money is not worth the amount of time it takes to allocate it. Hayek said if the council continues to allocate the funds, opening more money to new agencies and projects would be good. Richman said whether the amount of money will increase is unknown, and he is unsure about whether sending all the money and allocation into an unknown system is a good idea. Shaw said it would be easier to make an informed decision about this if the reason for the current system was known. Richman agreed it is difficult to evaluate an unknown process and unknown list of agencies. It does not make sense to put additional funds into an unknown system. Shaw said the reasons for the current arrangement might be very good, but since they are unknown, it is impossible to make that judgment. Richman said the options currently are to give the $14K back to council, ask the council to give the commission more money for the public service category, or to continue with the status quo. He added that he would prefer not to give up the money, but cannot decide between the two other options. Anthony asked if a decision could be deferred for now. Long said he would be talking to the council soon regarding this topic. He said he has the impression that two council members believe it would be more efficient for the council to handle all public service money. Richman said with the current level of funding, that is correct, but things might change in five years as well. Hightshoe said the amount could be determined by percentages instead of a set amount. Hayek said that would defeat the purpose of the fund, if it were intended to provide a steady income stream to the agencies. He asked if all agencies on the list are assured of funding. Long said no, the allocations are becoming more performance based. Also, the list has been pruned in the past. Richman said he would like to know more about the council process before deciding. Hayek asked staff to let council know that HCDC shares their concerns about the current system efficiency, and are interested to hear their thoughts on the purpose and process. Shaw said he would rather not have the funds go into an unknown process. Long confirmed that the commission members prefer a transparent and competitive process. Hayek noted that the other council members might not even want additional responsibility of the fund allocation. Hightshoe said the agencies on the list would be nervous about a competitive process. Long noted that agencies on the bottom of the list would be happy about it. Richman said he does not have a big problem with the status quo. However, a change might be beneficial to the agencies that receive the money. Hart agreed she would like to know more about the process and intent behind it before making a recommendation. Richman summarized that the commission would like to know what agencies are currently on the list, how new agencies get put on the list, and how decisions about distributing money are made. Hayek clarified that he would like to know whether the percentages of funding for each agency change, and whether the process is at all competitive. Also, what conventional wisdom drives the decision -making. Anthony asked also for clarification on what happens if the council takes over allocation of the remaining funds. Shaw asked whether the commission could ask the council to wait on making a decision until more information is available. Long said the commission can request that. Hayek suggested asking the council to make their process more open. Richman reiterated that the commission needs more information on the current process before making a recommendation to council. Economic Development Long summarized the memo by saying though economic development funds are calculated at nine percent of the total annual allocation, the money is actually only taken from CDBG allocation because HOME funds cannot be used for this purpose. There is currently approximately $244K in the loan fund, Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes August 15, 2006 Page 3 and the CDBG allocation is shrinking. The commission could keep the current level of funding at nine percent, but clarify that the percentage should be calculated from the CDBG allocation only. That would reduce the amount of money going into the fund annually. Anthony asked how long money can stay in the loan fund. Long said there is no time limit. Hightshoe said the fund has not been marketed to potential applicants very much. She said the plan is to change the focus and work with other lending institutions more and do gap funding, in order to find better -qualified applicants. Richman said since not all the economic development money has been spent and this pot of funding exists, it makes sense to decrease the annual allocation. MOTION: Richman moved to recommend clarification of the City Council Resolution 01-367 to state that nine percent allocation of funding for economic development be calculated using only the CDBG funds. Hart seconded. Hayek asked where housing contingency funds come from. Long said combined HOME and CDBG money. He added that an asterisk with a note would be added to indicate the clarification. Hightshoe asked if this would be intended for the upcoming allocation year, or the next. Long said 2007. Hayek asked for clarification that approximately $140K is set aside for economic development every year. Long said yes. Hightshoe said some was diverted one year to the Family Resource Center. Hayek asked why there is money still in the loan fund. Long said that the regulations governing the funds can be a deterrent, but marketing the program will help increase awareness and interest in it. Hightshoe said the hope is to do more business expansions and gap funding, ultimately to decrease the risk the City takes when awarding funding to a business and provide permanent, stable jobs to low -to -moderate income persons. Anthony asked what the application process is to receive funds. Hightshoe said applications go to the Economic Development Commission. Long said it is not very competitive because there are relatively few applications. He added that since the nine percent is currently based on both CDBG and HOME funds, it turns out that approximately 15 percent of CDBG funds go into economic development. Richman said it seems as though the program is not being utilized well, so it would make sense to put money where it can be allocated. Anthony said he is also concerned that there is no limit on how long money can remain in the fund. Richman said guesses can be made on the original intent of the policy, but the question is what the best decision would be for the current situation. Long said the original intent was to set up a pool of money that prospective businesses could tap into. It would be a revolving loan fund, so applications could be taken at any time. Shaw asked how applicants would be affected by this clarification. Long said ultimately less money would go into the fund, so less money would be available over time. Hightshoe said the applications that have been funded in the past have typically been about $25K to $30K. Richman said that based on the current information, decreasing the amount going into the loan fund would have no significant effect. At this time, though, there is enough money to fund the current demand. He added if there is a need for more funds at a later date, further adjustments could be made then. Hayek asked whether word about the fund has been communicated. Long said yes, ICAD knows. Hightshoe said a campaign has not gone out to lenders, however. Hayek said he is concerned whether the demand will remain the same if advertising increases. Hightshoe said it would reduce the amount flowing into the fund. Shaw suggested making changes if demand has not changed after two years of increased marketing. Hayek said it would make sense to market it more, and then if there is no increase in activity, reduce the amount going in. Richman said that the availability of economic development funds is only part of a decision to start a small business. He said marketing the program might not increase the number of applicants. VOTE: Richman's motion carried on a vote of 5-1, Hayek dissenting CDBG and HOME Program Investment Policies Long said that the current policy designates a zero percent loan for non-profit organizations (NPO) providing rental services. This is good for programs with an income from rent, which can be used to pay back the loans. However, HACAP cannot pay back loans since they house homeless families who generally do not have incomes. Staff is recommending the policy to be tweaked to allow for Conditional Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes August 15, 2006 Page 4 Occupancy Loans (COL). As long as the organization is providing the services specified in the loan agreement, the funding would be considered a grant. Anthony asked for confirmation that the NPO would have to pay back the loans if they stop operations or move. Long said yes. He noted that tweaking the policy in this way could decrease the amount of money being recycled back through the system through loan repayment revenue. Hayek asked who would get COLs. Long said public facilities. He added that some agencies with income streams could pay back their loans with interest, but the system does not have the flexibilities to address that side either. The intent is to try to sustain programs and also support the NPOs. Hayek asked if any other groups besides HACAP would qualify for this. Hightshoe said possibly DVIP. Richman asked whether HUD defines the term "transitional housing." Long said yes, the maximum stay in this type of housing is 24 months, during which time residents meet with counselors to work on stabilizing their situation and generating income. DeFrance asked what happens if an agency cannot pay back a loan. Long said foreclosure is an option, though it is likely the loan would be forgiven. DeFrance asked why one organization would receive special terms. Long said it would be good to be able to evaluate each organization's ability to repay the loan individually. Right now the policy does not have that flexibility. Hayek asked whether Emergency Housing would also fall in this category. Long said yes, that type of housing usually receives declining balance loans or COLs. Shaw asked whether the commission could recommend reevaluation of the policy, to allow discretion on what type of loan to apply. Anthony asked whether this flexibility existed in policies before. Long said yes. Richman said it sounds likes the commission should reevaluate the policies as a whole, rather than piecemeal. He said the other effect of this sort of policy revision is that the commission would have to decide what kind of loan each project would get at the time of allocation decisions, which would take time. Long said applicants can always ask for an amendment from council after the loan is given, though that is not widely known. Shaw agreed that it would make more sense to look at the policies overall. There are overarching issues that come along with discretionary power. Anthony agreed with having the commission revisit the issue later in a larger context. Hightshoe asked whether the commission members would like staff to do a preliminary evaluation and make a suggestion to the commission, or if the commission would like to discuss it. Hayek said he would prefer to have staff provide a starting point. Shaw said he would also like to know what the impact would be on staff if a revised policy were adopted. Discussion of Design Standards for Federally Assisted Housing Projects Hightshoe noted this was discussed briefly at a previous meeting. There are currently no set standards for staff to use when evaluating housing proposals. The agreements state that the city must approve the design before the developer can obtain a building permit, but yet provides no base standards to evaluate the designs submitted. The code currently has basic design standards for multi -family housing, but not for single family/duplex homes. These guidelines are intended to ensure that the house fits into the neighborhood. She suggested having staff work with the Planning and Zoning Commission to create a proposal for HCDC to evaluate. Shaw left at this point. Long said the intent is not for staff to police designs, but there have been some complaints about funded housing that does not blend into the neighborhood. Having standards would give staff some leverage when raising concerns with the developers. Hart asked whether the problems have been with the house design or the neighbors. Hightshoe said both. Long said some houses have obviously not fit in. Hayek said having staff present a proposal for review is fine. He stated though standards might increase the price, housing should blend with the neighborhood where it is placed. Hightshoe said if a subsidized housing in a neighborhood does not "fit" in, it can create resistance in other neighborhoods as well. The purpose of basic design standards would hopefully be to reduce neighborhood resistance to affordable housing as well as not stigmatize the house as "assisted." Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes August 15, 2006 Page 5 Shaw returned at this point. Anthony recommended having staff explore the idea and come back to the commission with a proposal. He confirmed these would be part of the contract with the developer receiving the funds. Hightshoe said yes. She added staff would like to have this in place for the fiscal year 2008 projects. Old Business Amendment to HCDC Bylaws, Specifically Article 4 Section B, Article 6, and Application Form Anthony noted this is the mandatory second discussion on whether to change the bylaws. Hightshoe reviewed the discussion of the option to remove reference to HUD, leave preferences as currently stated, but remove reference to the Local Homeless Coordinating Board representative. Hayek asked about potential conflicts of interest with commission members who have received rental assistance. Richman suggested recusing those people from the relevant parts of the allocation discussion. Anthony noted that rental assistance discussion also has impact on the overall decisions, so recusing from parts of the meetings would not be effective. Hayek noted it would be very unlikely to have someone involved in the commission with that particular conflict of interest. Hart asked if there was a reason to remove the category questions. Hightshoe said they are not required as well some may feel they are too personal or should be considered private. MOTION: Hayek moved to amend the bylaws to remove the reference to HUD, remove the Local Homeless Coordinating Board representative, leave all other preferences as stated, and remove the demographics questionnaire section of the application, except for low income. DeFrance seconded, and the motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Monitoring Reoorts Johnson County Permanent Supportive Housing LP — Affordable Rental (FY06) Hightshoe reported they did receive a tax credit and plan to begin building soon. There are some access issues because of the highway, but financing is arranged. Housing Fellowship — Affordable Homeownership (FY03 and FY06) Hightshoe reported the money has been spent for FY03, purchasing two duplexes. They also purchased and renovated a house on Stanford Avenue. Housing Fellowship — Affordable Rental (FY05 and FY06) Hightshoe reported that they are currently looking for lots for FY06. Adjournment MOTION: Hayek moved to adjourn. Shaw seconded and the motion carried on a vote of 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15. s/pcd/minutes/HCDC/2006/08-15-06 HCDC.doc HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) consists of nine Iowa City residents appointed by the City Council. They represent, as nearly as possible, a cross-section of the Iowa City population in background, ideas, geographic location, age and socioeconomic status. Committee members serve for three years. The purpose of HCDC is to advise the Council on community needs in general and on the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership program (HOME) funds from a citizen viewpoint. To accomplish this HCDC provides systematic communication between citizens and policymakers with regard to community development projects. The Commission's work has been primarily directed at developing, coordinating, and reviewing the City's activities carried out in conjunction with the City's Consolidated Plan (CITY STEPS). In addition, the Commission reviews the Community Development Division and Iowa City Housing Authority policies and periodically makes recommendations to the Council regarding these policies. ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2006 ♦ In FY06 the City of Iowa City and its subrecipients expended $1,183,491 in CDBG funds and $855,111 in HOME funds to assist low -moderate income persons. To ensure that community needs are met, HCDC members monitored projects throughout the year. HCDC members also organized the annual Iowa City Community Development Celebration that featured an awards ceremony honoring outstanding CDBG and HOME recipients and volunteer contributions. The 2006 Celebration was held at Grant Wood Elementary. The FY06 project accomplishments are as follows: ♦ Economic Development Fund — Loparex Inc. (underway) ♦ Micro -Enterprise Property Acquisition — Extend the Dream Foundation (17 persons) ♦ Operational Support — Aid to Human Service Agencies (5,835 people) ♦ Emergency Assistance — Shelter House (10 households) ♦ Facility Rehabilitation — Goodwill Industries, Inc. (94 people) ♦ Facility Accessibility — Emma Goldman Clinic (5,230) ♦ Facility Rehabilitation/Historic Preservation — Old Brick ♦ Safety Improvements — Wesley Foundation for the Free Lunch Program (525 people) ♦ Facility Rehabilitation — Wesley Foundation for the Free Lunch Program (525 people) ♦ Facility Rehabilitation — Domestic Violence Intervention Program (1,713 persons) ♦ Facility Rehabilitation —Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County (1,778 persons) ♦ Accessibility Improvements — Hillel Student Center (underway) ♦ Facility Rehabilitation — Planned Parenthood (underway) ♦ Facility Rehabilitation — FY05 United Action for Youth (underway) ♦ New Construction — FY05 Wood Family Resource Center (completed) ♦ Housing Rehabilitation — City of Iowa City (38 households) ♦ Affordable Home Ownership — Habitat for Humanity purchased two lots ♦ Affordable Home Ownership — The Housing Fellowship purchased one lot ♦ Transitional Housing — Hawkeye Area Community Action Program purchased three units ♦ Affordable Rental Units — Extend the Dream Foundation purchased three units ♦ Tenant Based Rent Assistance — Iowa City Housing Authority (29 elderly/disabled households) ♦ Affordable Rental Units — River City Housing Collective (Applicant Withdrew) ♦ Administration — CDBG & HOME PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 A total of $1,488,062 was allocated to 16 projects, plus program administration for FY07. The following is a list of the FY07 projects: ♦ Economic Development Fund — City of Iowa City ♦ Facility Rehabilitation — Arc of Johnson County ♦ Facility Rehabilitation — Community Mental Health Center ♦ Facility Rehabilitation — Domestic Violence Intervention Program ♦ New Construction — Four Oaks ♦ Playground Improvements — Grant Wood Elementary ♦ Facility Rehabilitation — MECCA ♦ Case Management — Iowa City Free Medical Clinic ♦ Outreach Coordinator — Shelter House ♦ Operational Funding — Compeer ♦ Operational Funding — Extend the Dream Foundation ♦ Operational Funding — Visiting Nurse Association ♦ Aid to Human Service Agencies — MECCA, UAY, ESI ♦ Affordable Homeownership —Habitat for Humanity ♦ Tenant Based Rent Assistance — Iowa City Housing Authority ♦ Housing Rehabilitation - City of Iowa City ♦ Program Administration & Planning The monitoring of all ongoing projects as well as FY07 projects will continue. The commission will continue to assess Iowa City's community development needs for housing, jobs, and services for low and moderate income residents, and to promote public and private efforts to meet such needs. COMMISSION MEMBERS Jerry Anthony, Chair Brian Richman, Vice Chair Steve Crane Marcy DeFrance Holly Jane Hart Matt Hayek Kelly Mellecker Tom Niblock Michael Shaw List of FY07 Projects for Monitoring FY07 CDBG/HOME PROJECTS FUNDED AMOUNT MONITOR MONTH Case Management - Iowa City Free Medical Clinic $4,900 October Outreach Coordinator - Shelter House $4,900 October Tenant Based Rent Assistance - Iowa City Housing Authority $200,000 November Playground Improvements - Grant Wood Elementary $56,437 November Facility Rehabilitation - Community Mental Health Center $18,280 December Facility Rehabilitation - The Arc of Johnson County $2,852 December Facility Rehabilitation - MECCA $22,000 December Facility Rehabilitation - Domestic Violence Intervention Progran $6 400 January Operational Expenses - Visiting Nurse Association $2,500 January Operational Expenses - Compeer $1000 January Operational Ex enses - Extend the Dream Foundation $1000 April Elder Services Inc. UAY MECCA - Aid ToAgencies* $105,000 Aril Affordable Homeownership - Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity $220,000 May Housing Rehabilitation - City of Iowa Ci * $279 021 May Economic Development Fund - City of Iowa City* $141,000 June New Construction - Four Oaks $200, 000 June CARRYOVER PROJECTS Land Ac uistion - Shelter House FY04 $230,000 October Planned Parenthood - Facility Rehab. FY06 $10,000 October Hillel Student Center - Accessibility FY06 $10,000 November Affordable Home Ownership- GICHF 03 $102,000 November UAY - Facility Rehab. FY05 $30,000 November Affordable Rental - Whispering Garden FY04 $144,303 January GICHF/ICHA Rental Construction FY05 $190,000 January HACAP - Transitional Housing FY06 $300,000 April GICHF - Rental FY06 $175,000 May GICHF - Homeownership FY06 $181,200 June JC Perm. Supp. Housing L.P. - Rental FY06 275 000 June Affordable Housing Design Guidelines September 2006 Community Development City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 31 9.356.5230 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PURPOSE APPLICATION & REVIEW 2 PROVISION A: PROVISION B: PROVISION C: PROVISION D: 3 4 BUILDING LOCATION BUILDING MASS, SCA PEDESTRIAN ACCESS INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY PROVISION E: BUILDING PROVISION F: WINDOWS 5 PROVISION Gi EXTERIOR BUIL PROVISION H: GARAGES 6 ROOF & PORCH TERIALS N (; VEHICULAR ACCESS PROVISION NJ: .ITILITY P"IACBMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES (For New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation of Single -Family and Duplexes/Attached Single Family Housing Units) PURPOSE: The City of Iowa City's Affordable Housing Design�Guideljrtes provide a standard framework for developers utilizing Community Development,Bfapk Grant'W.HOME Investment Partnership funding for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable single-family and duplex/attached single family homes. The purose of the Guidelines is to foster;e`positive public perception of affordable housing by promoting the rehabllit6t on and/or design of single- family and attached single family homes in a manner that ddinplements surrounding single- family housing styles, encourages a stre6t4cape which promptneighborhood interaction, and ensures a quality design for the low income hot ehpl that will livejh the housing unit. APPLICATION AND REVIEW: Prior to obtaining :building permit, a site plan, building floor plans, and building elevati6 forall single,and two family uses funded by the City of Iowa City, shall be submitted to the Departlrnent of Planning and Community Development (PCD). PCD shall review plans and shall onsuititional staff representatives from Housing and Inspection ;services to ensue conformance with the Design Guidelines. These guidelines are in addition to the requirements in the zoning code. If the provisions of these guidelines are inconsistent with one another or if they conflict with provisions found in other adopted ordinances, resolutions, or regulations of the City, the provision that is more specific to the situation will control. When regulations are equally specific or when it is unclear which provision to apply, the more restrictive provision will control. Affordable Housing Design Guidelines 1 PROVISION A: BUILDING LOCATION All principal and accessory structures within a City of Iowa City funded development site shall be located on the lot in a manner consistent with the majority of single-family residential structures in the vicinity. PROVISION B: BUILDING MASS, SCALE AND ROOF The mass, roof pitch and the orientation of the roof ridge for the principal structure shall bet-tompatible with SI'm1h ra residential structures in the vicinity. This reqult6h t� does not di elloWroof line alterations if necessary for structures subjedt4blirehabilitation so long as the alteration is reasonably consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. False gables and/or dormers may be permitted to ensure the consistency of roof style. PROVISION C: PEDESTM ACCESS A minimtrt, three (3j`ft"wide paved pedestrian path shall be provided fr6mthe primary pedestrian entrance of a single-family horrre-#o the driveWay and/or sidewalk. Minimum three (3) foot - wide paved pedestrian paths shall be provided from the primary pedestrian entrances of each unit in a duplex/attached single family development to a driveway and/or sidewalk. If the uplex/attached single family units have a shared entrance or both open into the same porch, one path shall be provided. PROVISION D: INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY To the extent possible, multiple financially assisted homes constructed adjacent to, or in close proximity to each other should exhibit distinguishing characteristics - regardless of whether they utilize the same floor plan. Acceptable alternatives may include varying roof pitches and Affordable Housing Design Guideines 2 Figure 5: orientation, window arrangement, porch arrangement, varying materials, etc. so long as such alternatives do not conflict with the other design elements addressed within this document. °,°A�j I°i•� � i4� t�i �1{ i•� la � ��. 1.�� .70 1"Aw ]KA NII IJIIt011; niuuuui While a consistent size and scale is exhib floor plan, slight variations in the roof, ext! and door give every unit a distinctive idea PROVISION E: BUILDING ENTRANCE homes utilizing the same materials, details, windows, II be provided' -with in order to promote it and lot unless the .riah entrance is not Main-0 trances to a building; including main entrances to ground Joel indiv(dubl dwelling units must be clearly demarcated by one of tlie_ following means: covered porch or canopy, transom and sidelight winows, pilasters and pediment, or other significant architectUt4lw�reatment that emphasizes main entrances. Simple t4i,roundithe":'!,doorwav does not meet this standard. 1. Si16W.#-Family. ThO!'p imary pedestrian entrance to a new single-family residential horrw� or home to be rehabilitated shall face the street. Duplex and Attached Single Family Dwellings. The primary pedestrian entrance must follow the applicable zoning code. 3 FIGURE 1 0 7 A A. Yes. Both units within this duplex have their own entrance„bu(all other building elements simulate a single family home, including size and scale. B. No. The doors of these duplex units face the side yard irta#ead of thatreet. The side of the building is oriented toward the street. PROVISION f WINDrS On facades which face the street or other public spaces, window pnings shall be similar in rhythm, size and proportion to that of the majority of single-family homes in the vicinity. Window proportions shall be compatible with the architectural style of the house. At least 15% of any street facing fagade must be windows or pedestrian entryway doors. Windows in garage doors to not count towards meeting this standard, but windows in a garage wall do count towards meeting this standard. 4 PROVISION G: PROVISIO EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS Exterior surface materials, excluding the roof, shall be compatible with that of other buildings on the block except synthetic siding may be used if complementary to the majority of single-family homes surrounding the lot. All windows, doors, and roof eaves, be demarcated with1 inches wide. The Ci building has an exte imptbci yr inapprc Gi. Window the d in"" hiding roof eaves on porches, must and d+or- trim shall be not less than 3 this requirement in cases where the tapco' or masonry such that trim is Bs(gn of the building. For vildm where the exterior wall material used on the side of a building is a l than what is used on the street -facing wall, 6'6street figg wall material must wrap around the corners to the sides of the building! at least three feet. & OTHER OUTBUILDINGS A,garage is not a required building element. When utilized, �ftached or detached garages shall be located on the parcel in a manner consistent with the majority of single family homes in the vicinity, except that it is preferable to remove the garage from the front building facade where possible. 2. Attached garages located on front building facades shall he recessed a minimum of three (3) feet behind the front building facade (including the porch) and, shall not occupy more than fifty (50) percent of the length of the street facing facade. 3. Detached garages shall be of a similar height as garages on adjacent lots, shall have a roof pitch similar to that of adjacent garages and shall be of a scale that is subordinate to the 5 principal residential structure. PROVISION I: VEHICULAR ACCESS Vehicular access to the assisted property shall be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. PROVISION J: UTILITY PLACEMENT Electric and gas meters serving new cc street facing building fagade. Everyeff electric and gas meters to a non, -street dwelling unit to be substantiall., rehabil shall not be placed on a shall be made to relocate ;ing building gpde of a 2 EC Center for Community Change Housing Trust Fund Pr Portland Advocates Win Tax Increment Set -Aside for Housing ortiand's Affordable Housing Now! coalition was victorious in getting the City Council to pass unanimously a resolution establishing a tax increment financ- ing set aside for the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing. The fluids must be used for housing that is affordable to house- holds with incomes no higher than 80% of the area median income. The Coalition has continued to work with the Portland City Coun- cil to commit City general hinds to meet the housing needs of the lowest income Portlanders, winning $5.4 million from the City's FY 2006-07 budget. The urban renewal resolution instructs the City's redevelopment agency, the Portland Development Commission, to work in partnership with the Bureau of Housing and Community Development, the Office of Management and Finance, the Housing and Community Development Commission, Affordable Housing Now! and other interested stakeholders to develop and present to Council by September 1, 2006 either an implementation plan to create such a set aside fund or other options to ensure guaranteed funding for affordable housing. Creating an urban renewal set aside for affordable housing has been a central target of Affordable Housing NOIAV! since the coalition's inception four years ago. Affordable Housing NOIAr1 supporters turned out in large numbers for the hearing, with representatives from the Community Development Nem,ork, City Club of Portland, Stand for Children, the Coalition for a Livable COntill /wd on ptw Indianapolis City/County Council Finds Revenue for Marion County Housing Trust Fund ............................... 3 Iowa Commits Funds to Sustain the State Housing Trust Fund ............' ....................................._ 5 New lersey's Special Needs Housing Trust Fund Completes Its First year ............................._......_. Montgomery County, Maryland Issues Annual Report on Housing Initiative Fund ....................................... Lowcountry Housing Trust in Charleston, South Carolina Brings Innovation to the Region ....................... 10 s 0 0 0 0 The Jigsaw Puzzle. PO RTLAN D o,,, ,,,,ge i Future, and tenant leaders from the Community Alliance of "Tenants. Members of Affordable I lousing NOW! are extremely pleased with provisions of the resolution Specifying that allocation guidelines meet the housing needs of people in each income category: extremely, low income, very low income, and low income. The resolution also requires the Portland Development Commission to work with the Bureau of Housing and Community Development and the City Auditor to both report on tax increment financing spending and revenues for rental and ownership housing at each income range for the past ten years, as well as the budgeted and projected tax increment financing spending for housing in each income group over the next five years against projected revenues for that period. At the same time, the Portland City Council passed a second resolution malting a commitment to address the decline in children in the Portland public school system. Increasing families in inner neighborhoods will not only help Portland public schools and their levels of funding, but will reduce the pressure on outlying districts increasingly confronted with overcrowding. A Portland State University study of households who moved in inid- year from the Portland public school district found that 76% of respondents identified their former housing as a factor in their decision to move. Moreover, some 1,620 students in the public school district are attending school as their families experience homelessness at some point during the school year. finally, the Council notes that about 41 %, of all new housing units constructed in Portland over period received some a four-year kind of assistance from the City, underscoring the importance of the City increasing its resources committed to affordable housing. Setting aside a portion of tax increment financing revenues will, of course, help in reaching these goals. Ilomeownership costs in Portland have soared, increasing- ly 92% between 1995 and 2005, While median incomes increased by only 59%. Some 43% of the City's population is rent -burdened, paying more than 30% of their income for housing costs. One in five Portland households spends more than half of their income for housing. The Resolution states that the Portland Development Commission will prioritize revenues from all Urban Renewal Districts for affordable housing in accordance with adopted City housing- priorities including "Home Again: A 10- Year Plan to End Homelessness in Portland and Multnomah County," No Net Loss of affordable housing in the Central City, the Affordable Housing Preservation Ordinance, and the minority homeownership campaign. Affordable Housing NOW is a coalition of more than 40 organizations, including civic organizations, nonprofit housing developers and member -driven community groups whose goals are to secure new resources for affordable housing for the Portland Metro area by building a movement C071 inue'd 011 12 Indianapolis City/Count Council Finds Revenue for Marion County Housing Trust Fund he Indianapolis City - County Council approved an ordinance that provides the first permanent and regular funding source for the Indianapolis/ Marion County Housing Trust Fund. The new source is revenue associated with the electronic filing of property sales disclosure forms. This funding source is expected to generate as much as $300,000 every year for the trust fluid. The Indianapolis/Marion County Housing Trust Fund was created in 2000 by an act of the state legislature. The Housing Trust provides financial assistance to low income families and individuals to either rent or purchase a home; makes grants, loans, and loan guarantees for the development, rehabilitation, or financing of housing for low income families and individuals; and provides technical assistance to nonprofit developers who specialize in affordable housing. At least half of the funds allocated for housing must be for units to be occupied by those whose incomes are at or below 50% of the county's median income. Funds may also be used to cover expenses of administering the housing trust fund. The state legislature authorized the establishment of a housing trust fund advisory committee. The committee consists of eleven members and includes appointments from the Mayor's Office, the Metropolitan Development Commission, the Coalition for Homeless Intervention and Prevention of Greater Indianapolis, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Indianapolis Coalition for Neighborhood Development, and the Indianapolis Neighborhood Housing Partnership. The committee makes recommendations to the Metropolitan Development Commission regarding uses of the housing tract fund and sources of capital for the fund. A subcommittee of the Advisory Committee has spent the last year researching potential funding options for the Fund. In 2004, Mayor Bart Peterson directed the first $500,000 of a promised $2 million to the trust fund. Revenues carve from the transfer of the former Market Square Arena site to corporate development interests for development of condominium and retail development. In the summer of 2005, the Fund awarded $300,000 in grants to three local organizations. Each organization received $100,000 and a matching $250,000 grant from the Central Indiana Community Foundation. These three projects Continued oil P'Ne 4 3 INDIANAPOLIS ,agt will assist more than 100 families w110 are cithcr expericrcing housing crises cn, homelessness. The Central 111dial11 C 0111111MIM' l'oulldatloll', 1�ailldv Success Lnitiativc is a siz— yc;lr Coilllnitllicilt to engage the community in developing the next generation of prodtictive citir.ens by improving the lives of families. "L,hc I lousing'lrust Fund has received donations from other private corporations. In May 2006, a coalition of community partners launched "A Home «'ithin Reach," a public awareness drive calling for permanent and reliable revenue sources for the Uousing TI-ust Fund that will total five trillion dollars per year. TbC 1 lousing Trust Fund currently has $1.4 milliim in funds available, but housing advocates .Ind elected officials alike have recognised the need for an ongoing dedicated source of public funding. Nlayor Bart Peterson praised the City -County Council for approving the ordinance and called the new funding mechanism "a good start." But he made it clear that he would work with community development leaders and homelessness advocates to continue to look for new ways to generate more revenue for the Percent increase required in hourly wage to afford a 2-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent Percent increase required since 1998 40 % _ 35% 30% 25 _._. 20 15 % _ 10% 0% — —---------- -- ----- 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 fund. He also praised the "A I Ionle Within Reacll" public awareness drive for raising awareness about the importance of funding affordable bousillg IllitlatlVCS. Conrad: Dun Shepley, Coalition for Homeless Idenkention and Prevention of Grealer Indianapolis, 960 East Washington Street, Suite 200D, Indianapolis, IN 46202 (317-630-0853) www. AHomeWithideadtorg. MARION COUNTY A` HOME WITHIN REACH Year FMR (2-BR apt) Hourly wage needed % increase 1998 $535 $10.29 0% 1999 $545 $10.48 2% 2000 $559 $10.75 4% 2001 $578 $11.12 8% 2002 $588 $11.31 10% 2003 $592 $11.38 11% 2004 $655 $12.60 22% 2005 $673 $12.94 26% 2006 $687 $13.21 28% 2007 $701 $13.48 31% 2008 $715 $13.75 34% 2009 $729 $14.02 36% 2010 $743 $14.29 39% Since 1998, the hourly wage needed to afford a 2-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent (FMR) has increased by 26 percent (as of 2005). If FMR continues to increase at the same rate, that percentage will jump to 39 percent by 2010, making the hourly wage needed to afford a 2-bedroom apartment at FMR $14.29. The table above shows the estimated increases in FMR and the corresponding increases in hourly wage needed to afford the FMR. For more information about the Housing Trust Fund, please visit www.AHomeWithinReach.org or call 317.630.0853 519/06 www.AHomeWithinReach.org M Iowa Commits Additional Funds the State Housing Trust Fund he Iowa I lousing 'Il-L1St Fund Network succeeded in securing funds to sustain operation of, the state's l lousing "bust Fund for FY2007. Approximately $2.3 million will be available through the trust fund. "1Te Appropriation bill also coutalns intent language to Continue funding with $1.5 million in FY2008 increasing to $5 million in FY2010. The Io,,va Legislature created the State Housing Trust Fund in 2002 to help ensure decent, safe, affordable housing for Iowans through two important programs. The Local Housing Trust Fund Program receives 60 percent of the trust fund allocation to provide grants for communities, counties and organizations that wish to create a local housing trust fund. The remaining 40 percent goes to the Project -Based Program that aids the development and rehabilitation of single-family and multi -family housing. The Iowa Finance Authority administers both programs and provides technical assistance to housing -related organizations. The Network was formed by affordable housing advocates in October 2001. The Network is composed of representatives from local housing trust funds, nonprofit housing developers and providers, governmental entities and business interests that support affordable housing activities throughout the state. The Network is working to secure permanent sources of revenue for the State Housing Trust Fund and develop revenue streams for local housing trust funds. Tile 2005 legislative. session 1lcgau with 1 [cltlsc File 80 which passed tlna111111011Sly In the Ilouse of Representatives in April 2005. 1 [F 880 would have dedicated revenues front the states real estate transfer tax to the housing trust hind. In 2006, the bill was replaced with SF 2387 which allowed for a transfer of funds in the Housing Lnprovenlent Fund to the State Housing Trust Fund. The Housing Improvement Fund has been underutilized as a hornebuyer assistance program. The bill also allowed for appropriated fields to the Iowa Finance Authority for designated fiscal years into the future. The legislature ultimately refused to forward fund the program, but left the intent language in the Appropriations bill. The Network is asking the Iowa Housing Finance Agency to fully fiind the total of requests received for both the Local Housing Trust Fund and the Project -Based Programs. All funds going to the Local Housing Trust Fund Program must be matched by local dollars. All projects must serve low income households with at least 30% of the hinds serving extremely low-income households. The local trust fund must have a local governing board recognized by the city, county, council of governments or regional officials as the board responsible for coordinating local housing programs. As part of the approval to Sustain HOUSING TRUST FUND OF JOHNSON COUNTY Housing 7;-t(.ct I'urxl of'Yobnson Count), 1'rrsident.4771)1 Correia -u*17 the Ali %amity at the Iowa Valley Habitat %ar Flumanit), home assisted with IiTI7C fonds. process, the local housing trust fluid must have a Housing Assistance Plan approved by the Iowa Finance Authority. The Iowa State Housing Trust Fund has generated interest in local housing trust fund development throughout the state. The program has fined local housing trust funds in Dallas County, Polk County, Scott County, Johnson County, Dubuque, Floyd County, Oskaloosa and the Iowa Northland Regional Iousing Council. In addition, other local housing trust funds have now been certified. In FY2004 and 2005, nearly $3.5 million was committed through the programs to address critical housing needs throughout the state. The Iowa Housing Trust Fund Network is building into a formidable force and will continue in its effort, working in collaboration with the Iowa Housing and Homeless Coalition, to secure ongoing hTnding for the state's Housing Trust Fund. Contact: Sheila Lumley, Iowa Housing Trust Fund Network, c/o Polk County Housing Trust Fund, 409 SW 8th Street. Des Moines , IA 50309 (515-282-3233). E New Jerseits 's Completes Special Needs Housing Trust Fund first Year ew Jersey's $200 million Special Needs Housing Trust Fund is already demonstrating its ability to meet a goal of helping create 10,000 new affordable housing opportunities for people with mental illness and other special needs across New Jersey over the next ten years. This landmark legislation was signed into law by acting Governor Richard Codey in August of 2005. The Special Needs Housing ".Trust Fund is administered by the New Jersey Housing Mortgage and Finance Agency and is supported by bonds issued by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority through its existing unused bond capacity. The bonds will be supported with the commitment of proceeds from motor vehicle surcharges, including unsafe driving surcharges. The Authority has issued the first $50 million bond for the Special Needs Housing Trust Fund. The fins are to be used to develop permanent supportive housing, community residences and other supportive housing arrangements for people with special needs, including mental illness and physical or developmental disabilities. It is intended to ensure that individuals with special needs have access to meaningful housing alternatives to avoid institutionalization and homelessness. The Trust Fund represents a limited resource with a large mandate. To ensure that the "l:rust Fund proceeds are expended in the most efficient manner that most positively impacts the intended beneficiaries, the New Jersey Housing Mortgage and Finance Agency has established a list of policy priorities for the 'I rust Fund. These include: Providing permanent supportive housing and residential opportunities for persons with mental illness. • Leveraging Trust Fund capital financing. The Fund will give priority to those applications that require no more than 50% of the total development cost to come from the Trust Fund. • Addressing the needs of very low-income people with special needs. It is the intent of the fund to use 75% of its proceeds for those earning no more than 30% of the area median income. • Meeting locally determined priorities described in the Continuum of Care Plan. • Meeting State of New jersey determined priorities for underserved populations in the State Consolidated Plan. • Maximizing long-term affordability for at least thirty years. • Minimizing temporary or permanent displacement. • Demonstrating good and appropriate project location, siting and design. • Containing development costs. Since August 2005 when the "Trust Fund was created, 31 projects have been awarded more than $31 million in funds for construction and/or permanent financing from the Special Needs Housing Trust Fund. This funding has leveraged an additional $28,329,623 from other State, Federal and local sources. All of the projects funded with the Trust Fund have an identified source of rental assistance. The rental assistance may collie from the state's Department of Community Affairs Project Based Rental Assistance Program, the Department of Human Services Rental Assistance Program, HUD Shelter Plus or the 811 Program, or even local public housing authorities. In addition, each development has some source of funding for supportive services. The total number of units/beds that will be created with the committed funding to date is 350. They will provide permanent supportive housing to homeless families, chronically homeless individuals, homeless, homeless women with children who need substance abuse treatment services, mental Health consumers, persons with developmental disabilities and physical disabilities and homeless youth and youth aging out of foster care. There are 8,000 chronically homeless people in New Jersey, the vast majority of whom suffer from mental illness. The wait for housing in the state system can be up to five 31 years, forcing nearly half of these individuals to live with aging parents or other family members. This housing shortage destroys quality of life, puts unnecessary costs on citizens and makes recovery that much harder. The New Jersey Housing Mortgage and Finance Agency is beginning to consider revisions to fine tune both technical and financial aspects of the guidelines, based on lessons learned during the successful first year of operations. Among the changes being considered is the incorporation of a design check list as part of the application process. Working with the New Jersey Institute of "Technology, Center for Architecture and Building Science THE NEW JERSEY PRESERVATION BALANCED HOUSING PROGRAMwas created in 1985 and is administered by the Department of Community Affairs. In July of 2006, the Department an- nounced awards of $28.9 million in funding to support the creation of 739 affordable rental units in nine New Jersey communities throughout the state. Funds are awarded four times each year. The Neighborhood Preservation Balanced Housing program creates housing opportunities in viable neighborhoods for households of low and moderate income. Assistance is provided to municipalities certified by the Council on Afford- able Housing. The most recent awards include funding from $11.8 mil- lion in federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits and $17.1 million in Balance Housing/Home Express funds. DCA's Neighborhood Preservation Balanced Housing Program is funded through a portion of the New Jersey realty transfer tax receipts. The Home Express Program, created jointly between DCA and the Housing Mortgage Finance Agency allows HMFA to administer Balanced Housing funds on behalf of DCA for rental projects that are eligible for federal low-income housing tax credits. Research, these may include features that better define user needs, green and sustainability standards, and quality design. Contact: Pamela S. McCrory, Supportive Housing and Special Needs, New Jersey Housing Mortgage and Finance Agency, P.O. Box 18550, Trenton, NJ 08650-2085 (609.278-7456). HOMES FOR NEW JERSEY Resident-~ r-n11y for Konies fol- ,Vett er:,ey. NEW JERSEYS RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM was created in 2004 to provide housing vouchers for families and individuals in need of housing assistance. Seventy-five percent of the vouchers go to households earning no more than 30% of the area median income. The vouchers are allocated according to a formula: ® 30% go to seniors aged 65 and older and on the DCA Section 8 housing choice voucher program waiting list. ® 31 % go to households currently on the DCA Sec- tion 8 waiting list. • ] 7% go to homeless families with children. ® 17% go to project based assistance. • 5% is retained for administrative costs. Currently, the program has received $25 million. It is admin- istered by the Department of Community Affairs. Montgomery Count y,Marviand Issues Annual Report for Housing Initiative he 1 lousing lnitiative hued in iN'lontgomcry County, Alaryland is a 1<cy source of affordable housing financing for the county and its I:eicn-t for 2005 describes why. Thrce years agog, a dedicated source of public funding was made available to the Housing Initiative Fund by committing 2.5 percent of the County's property tax revenues to the Raid. Since its inception in 1988, the Housing Initiative Fund has been administered by the County's Department of Housing and Community Affairs. In fiscal year 2005, almost $17 million in funding was available. Housing Initiative Fund dollars are available throughout the year and can be used for predevelopment, bridge, acquisition, and permanent financing. Funding can be in . the form of low -interest or no - interest loans, forgivable grants, or operating subsidies. Individual requests for funding are reviewed throughout the year by a Housing Loan Review Committee that makes recommendations to the Department of Housing and Community Affairs. The Housing Initiative Fund recognizes the importance of the role it plays in the housing market in Montgomery County. Between 1999 and 2004, average rents rose from $871 to $1,154 (an increase of 32%) and the median price of a single-family home or townhouse rose from $199,900 to $392,000. Fund MONTGOMERY COUNTY The 415 units in Barrington Apartments haze been brought up to code and affordability preserved for Silver Spring residents. While homeowners can cash in on home appreciation, the rising cost of homeownership is pricing many people out of the market and rising rents have the same impact. The Housing Initiative Fund's 2005 report focuses on four program areas: housing options for seniors; acquisition and renovation of at -risk housing; comprehensive options for special needs populations; and building neighborhoods. Housing Options for Seniors. More than half of the Housing Initiative Fund funding was used to support the preservation of existing senior housing and the creation of new housing opportunities for seniors. A low interest $1.6 million loan helped provide 32 new apartments as part of the Grace House Assisted Living Community in Norbeck,. HIF funding leveraged Bank of America funds and allowed Homes for America to purchase a 212- unit building, complete major renovations and allow senior residents to stay in their homes, with a comprehensive resident services program. More than 200 senior apartments have been constructed in Colesville. Acquisition and Renovation of At -Risk Housing. Extensive renovations were supported for Barrington Apartments and Blair Park Apartments, including acquisition, so that residents were prevented from being displaced, some federal subsidies were retained, and additional services provided. Comprehensive Options for Special Needs Populations. Montgomery County's Department of Housing and Community Affairs, Department of Health and Human Services, and nonprofit service providers have joined together to create and fund a continuum of needed services. The Partnership for Permanent Housing enabled housing choice vouchers to be awarded to the nonprofit Montgomery Count}' Coalition for the I lonlcicss. I"anlilics can Ilse the voucher," to Illovc out of motels or emergency shelters and into pernunlcnt housing. 1 Illy is an integral part of this program. A former motel wos acyliired and renovated to provide an innovative, pernlanellt suplx01*tive housing development in Gaithersburg. Seneca l leights provides seventeen units of transitional housing for formerly homeless families and 40 units of permanent supportive housing. HUD awarded the project its first national HOME Doorhnocker Award. Building Neighborhoods to Call Home. In 2005, the Housing Initiative Fund supported the targeted neighborhood, community revitalization, resident services, and educational activities of three nonprofits: Montgomery Housing Partnership, CASA de Maryland, and the Community Preservation and Development Corporation. The Montgomery Housing MONTGOMERY COUNTY Theflexibility of the Housing Lritiativc Fand allows it to fund the ,Ilontgonier_I, Housing Pmrtncisbip, a 710111)7-ojit baitsing developer; to srthpor r bonrcnorlc clubs, pi-e-school Inog-arns, srmnnea' camps, health f,7irs, teen talks, and cowpuicr classes in six separate developments. Partnership used HIF funding to support homework clubs, pre-school programs, summer camps, health fairs, teen talks, and computer classes at sit separate developments. CASA de Maryland provided bilingual financial literacy classes; workshops on homeownership and pedestrian safety; and targeted Grace Hoarse will provide 32 new apartments in an assisted living comnutnity in Norbeck. services to residents of six apartment buildings. The Conununity Preservation and Development Corporation helps children and adults use technology to improve and empower their lives, as well as other community activities. Contact: Elizabeth Davison, Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs,100 Maryland Avenue, 4 floor, Rockville, MD 20850 (240-777-3600). 9 Lowcountry Housing Trust Brings to the Charleston, South Carolina he Lowcountry Mousing. "Trust in Charleston, South Carolina continues to advance its goal of addressing affordable housing in the greater Sri -County area of Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester Counties. NAniile the Trust does not yet have a dedicated source of public funding, it is creating a role for itself in the region, exploring new and more permanent options of funding, and demonstrating the impact the housing trust can have in addressing affordable housing needs. The Trust has been particularly creative in reducing barriers to affordable housing production through incentives and reduced fees. The LoNvcountry Housing Trust is a nonprofit corporation that provides capital to assist nonprofit organizations, government entities, and private developers in constructing or rehabilitating affordable housing. The Trust, which grew out of the widely recognized Mayor's Council on Homelessness and Affordable Housing, was created to foster a regional approach to the need for housing. The "Trust serves the three counties and is working to secure local funding from each, beginning with Charleston County. The City of Charleston provided initial seed money to get the Trust operative. The Trust receives and leverages funding from several sources. At the 2005 Kick Off Event, $1 million dollars from the South Carolina State Housing Finance Authority, was announced by participating cities and founding fonder Wachovia. More than twenty- contributions have been made to the fund. And Charleston County, the City of Charleston, the Charleston Trident Home Builders Association, the Charleston Water Systems, the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce, and League of AVomen Voters of the Charleston Area, the City of North Charleston, the Town of Hollywood have expressed their support for a dedicated source of funding for the Trust. These fluids are made available to eligible projects through zero and low -interest loans awarded through a Competitive application process. The funds can be used for predevelopment costs, site acquisition, construction funding, and gap financing for Innovation Region affordable housing serving citizens with incomes }primarily below 80% of the area median income. In the Spring 2006 Funding Round, the "Trust announced $400,000 available for subsidizing affordable housing in Charleston County. Funds were committed by the City of Charleston, the City of North Charleston and Charleston County. Applications were accepted for the construction, rehabilitation or conversion of non-residential to residential for -sale or rental housing. The Trust has also announced the availability of $100,000 to subsidize affordable housing in Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester Counties. This predevelopment revolving loan pilot program will be used for 10 v-interest loans to cover eligible predevelopment expenses. The Lowcountry Housing Trust has collaborated with Charleston Water in creating the Charleston yA�rter Affordable Housing Incentive Program. The program encourages developers to build housing that more Lowcountry residents can afford through regulatory and financial incentives. The program lowers barriers to affordable housing production by deferring and reducing the payment of water and wastewater impact fees. Each residential unit certified by Lowcountry Housing Trust as affordable to low or very -low income households are eligible for Annozrrzc07101t of the Charleston Housing Ti ust, 7707LI called thr Lo2rcotndq, Housing "Thtyt. 10 and will receive a $500 reduction for the engineering services portion of the water impact fee; another $500 reduction for the engineering services portion of the wastewater impact fee; and dclaycd payment of the water and/or wastewater impact fees. During- 2005, the Lowcountry Housing Trust made ten awards. These developments will: • Lower the purchase price for three homes to be constructed in Charleston and sold to very low income households; • Subsidize fifteen apartments affordable to very -low income households in Dorchester County; • Provide funding for infrastructure improvements and construction of four detached homes for sale to low and very low income households in Mt. Pleasant-, • Subsidize the rehabilitation of two abandoned structures to create three apartments affordable to low income households in Charleston; • Subsidize the construction of 72 apartments for very low income households in Charleston; • Lower the purchase price of two homes for low income families in North Charleston; • .provide funding for infrastructure improvements to build thirteen homes for sale to households with incomes below 40% of the median and 67 homes for sale to households with incomes below 80% of the Inedlall in North Charleston; Provide funding to construct six houses for sale to lmv and very - low 111conlC households in a 23-unit development in Mount Pleasant; Provide funding for infrastructure improvements to build five Sea Island Iabitat homes for sale to low and very low income families on Johns Island; and Subsidize the rehabilitation of three vacant houses for sale to veiy low income households in Berkeley and Charleston Counties. The Trust, working with the Affordable Housing Coalition of South Carolina, recognizes that state enabling legislation will probably be necessary to secure a sufficient public funding source at the local UNITED METHODIST RELIEF (ENTER Constrit tiozz on a irezu borne provided by the Uizited Aletb- odist Relief Center on .scattered sites. level. Spartanburg, Columbia, Aiken and Myrtle Beach have also expressed interest in regional housing trust funds, based on the work and success of the Lowcountry Housing Trust. Contact: Tommie Hoy, Lowcountry Housing Trust, P.O. Box 21163, Charleston, SC 29413 (843-973-7285). www. lowcountryhousingtrust.org. HUMANITIES FOUNDATION tio77 will provide 72 wzit.vfor families on Daniel Island. con till urd �ro7n Inagr 2 large enough to make funding for affordable housing for people with low incomes a political priority in the Metro area. Affordable Housing NONA71 recommended the 30% set aside of tax_increment financing for affordable housing based on research on the practices in California. The coalition spent the last year meeting with members of City Council to discuss the need for tax increinent financing guidelines and dedicating finding to affordable housing. In addition to the progress in establishing an urban renewal set aside for housing, Affordable Housing NOVA" has continued to win additional general fund allocations from the City of Portland, which committed $5.4 million in new housing funds in its 2006-07 budget. Affordable Housing NO1,V! has also been v,orking with the Portland City Council to commit $?0 million to CENTER for COMMUNITY CHANGE Housing Trust Fund Project 1113 Cougar Court Frazier Park, CA 93225 Return Service Requested ® PRINTED ON RECYLED PAPER the Portland Housing Investment Fund over a three to four year pe1-10d. In the last three budget cycles since beginning the I Iousing Investment Fund campaign, Affordable I-Iousing NOW! has worked with the City Council to secure ncarl�, $ l9 million for housing for hardworking families earning low wages, seniors and people with disabilities. Affordable Housing NOAV1 will pursue securing tine remaining $11 million in 2007. As an advocacy, tool for both the urban renewal set aside and the Housing Investment Fund, Affordable Housing NOWT had individual jigsaw puzzles comprised of thirty pieces made for each inember of Cite Council. The jigsaw puzzle featured a photo collage of pictures provided by Affordable Housing NOAA�'! member organizations that depict people who have either benefited from affordable housing or currently are ..........«AUTO"3-DIGIT 522 R7182-697 2-39 STEVE LONG HTFJC CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 E WASH INGTON ST IOWA CITY IA 52240-1825 in need of a safe, stable place to call home. Starting on February 14, 2006, weekly delegations of Affordable Housing NONA" supporters clehVCI-ecl pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to the unennbers of City Council along with glossy photos of the people featured in the puzzle. F,ICh delegation shared a story about the importance of housing to their organization and the people depicted III the puzzles. These stories both described the success of folks who were given housing opportunities and the hardship involved for those who are still waiting. After fifteen weeks of delegation visits, the entire campaign held a Housing Rally at City Hall at the end of May, when the final pieces of the puzzle were delivered. Contact: 14chnel Anderson, Community Development Network of Portland, 2627 N.E. Martin futher King Jr. Blvd., Room 202, Portland, OR 97212 (503-335-9884) wwwAnportland. org/ohn.