Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC 4.21.16.pdf AGENDA Housing and Community Development Commission Thursday, April 21, 2016 6:30 P.M. Helling Conference Room, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 1. Call meeting to order 2. Approval of the March 10, 2016 minutes 3. Public comment for topics not on the agenda 4. Staff/Commission Comment 5. Consider a recommendation to City Council regarding approval of the Iowa City Housing Authority FY16 Annual Report/Annual Plan 6. Monitoring Reports • Mark Patton, Habitat for Humanity, Construction 7. Discussion of FY16 projects that have not complied with the ‘Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy’ • Domestic Violence Intervention Program, Rehab • Brian Loring, Broadway Neighborhood Center, Rehab • Bruce Teague, Charm Homes LLC, Acquisition 8. Review and consider recommendation to City Council on approval of FY17 Annual Action Plan (online at www.icgov.org/actionplan) • Consider reallocation of FY17 proposed The Housing Fellowship Project 9. Review allocation process for CDBG, HOME, and Aid to Agencies funding and consider creating sub-committee 10. Adjournment Housing and Community Development Commission March 10, 2016 Page 1 of 6 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 10, 2016 – 6:30 PM SENIOR CENTER, ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Bob Lamkins, Jim Jacobson, Harry Olmstead, Matthew Peirce, Dorothy Persson, Emily Seiple MEMBERS ABSENT: Syndy Conger, Michelle Bacon Curry STAFF PRESENT: Kris Ackerson, Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: Lindsey Lee, Maryann Dennis, Mark Sertterh, Thomas McInerney, Justin Matiyabo, Binua Matiyabo, Albert Persson RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Jacobson moved to recommend the following FY17 CDBG and HOME budget allocations to City Council: Housing Requested Amount Allocation Recommendation CHDO operations – THF $ 16,000 $ 16,000 Diamond Senior Apartments $237,636 $ -- Habitat for Humanity $ 80,000 $ -- MYEP $ 65,000 $ 50,000 The Housing Fellowship $300,000 $134,000 Shelter House Permanent Supportive Housing $290,000 $250,000 Subtotal $988,636 $450,000 Public Facilities Arc of SE Iowa $160,000 $ -- CSCC Childcare $145,000 $ -- DVIP Shelter $ 45,917 $ -- MYEP Facility $ 60,000 $ -- Shelter House Winter Shelter $160,000 $ -- United Action for Youth $ 50,000 $ -- Subtotal $620,917 $ -- A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CALL TO ORDER: Byler called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. Housing and Community Development Commission March 10, 2016 Page 2 of 6 APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 18, 2016 MINUTES: Peirce moved to approve the minutes of February 18, 2016 with minor edits. Persson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. STAFF/COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: Ackerson noted that National Community Development Week is coming up (last week of March) so Staff is preparing some letters for recipients to send to Washington to highlight the impact the funds made on them or their organization. Hightshoe also stated that the City will be sponsoring a drive for supplies for Shelter House during this week. Olmstead shared that on April 1 the Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition will host a seminar 10:30 a.m. to noon at the public library on the University and affordable housing. Olmstead also noted he had filed a complaint with the Justice Department regarding the restaurant in Coralville, 30 Hop, and received notice today legal litigation or negotiations would begin soon. This is all in reference to the restaurant’s inaccessible second floor. Byler made mention of a couple development projects that are upcoming. There is a 300-acre parcel in Coralville that is being developed and a 12-acre parcel in Iowa City being developed and there is always pressure from neighbors to lower the density of these developments. Byler feels that people who are in favor of housing affordability need to band together and realize in our area the demand is greater than the supply which tends to then drive rent and purchase prices higher. To the extend where a development fits within a zoning code or comprehensive plan it might be worth it for some to go to these meetings and actually support the more dense development because the more units that are built, the prices will decrease as well. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR FY17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDING: Persson began noting that she was very impressed with how the applications were presented and the projects proposed and there will need to be tough choices, and the choices will need to be made with relation to the priorities that have been set by City Council and also at the National level. Her proposal is to go with the recommendation of City Staff. Byler noted some on the Commission did allocate large amounts of funds to applications that City Staff did not include in their funding, so some of those items could be discussed. He also thought perhaps they could begin by narrowing the field somewhat and look at the applications that got no, or very little, support from Commissioners or City Staff in this funding round. Those applications, in the Public Facilities area, would be Arc of SE Iowa, CSCC Childcare, and United Action for Youth. Next they reviewed the applications that receive just one or two Commissioners’ support. DVIP is the first one. Peirce explained his support to DVIP was due to their two large projects of new windows and a parking lot improvement. From an energy efficiency perspective he would like to allocate them enough money to replace the windows, but feels the parking lot project could wait. Byler noted the parking lot part of the project was around $20,000, so Peirce noted he would lower his recommended allocation to DVIP by $20,000. Housing and Community Development Commission March 10, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Seiple felt it was important to fund a public facilities project, it sends the message that the Commission cares. She also noted it is hard to allocate so much money to the Housing Fellowship not knowing if they will use the funds for another year. Seiple also noted the replacement of windows for DVIP would save them money in the long run in energy costs. She also agreed with Peirce that she would change her allocation to just support the window replacement and not the parking lot improvements. Persson agreed that the DVIP was a worthy project, however the Commission has consistently funded DVIP and is concerned about whether DVIP is attempting to raise money to pay for some of these improvements. With regards to the parking lot situation, that seems like a project that they could raise money for, people are more willing to contribute to some of these organizations like DVIP more than others. Olmstead noted an overall concern that there are 12 applicants and if we follow the Staff recommendations they would only be funding four. Byler noted that Persson’s point about fundraising was a valid point. He feels that the public facilities and Aid to Agencies applications could be evaluated better if the Commission could look out more than one year. It would be nice to be able to award money to applicants in a future year, noting that applicants would also have to raise matching funds to leverage the money. Matching funds and community involvement are part of the scoring criteria. Byler stated because there were only two supporters of the DVIP application, and other applicants with only two supporters out of the nine (including Staff recommendations) that majority would deny allocating funds to those applications. Byler did question the MYEP application, and asked if any representative was in attendance to answer questions. Lindsey Lee came forward to answer questions. Byler noted that the MYEP projects have support of five of the nine Commissioners and Staff but the support is split between the Housing and Public Facilities projects. He asked Lee if they had to choose, either the security upgrades or to do a house this year, which is the higher priority. Lee responded that the housing would be a higher priority Persson questioned that priority noting she toured the other site and saw mold and water damage and would feel that would be a higher priority to fix before building another house. Lee responded that they feel they can fix those items little by little but coming up with the $60,000 to buy a house would be a bigger challenge. Persson asked them to prioritize that before sending in the application to the City in the future. Byler recommends $50,000 towards the MYEP housing project since that is the MYEP preference. Next, the Habitat for Humanity project also only had support of two Commissioners. Olmstead noted he supported their application because they have requested over the years and it seems like they have not gotten the support from the City as needed. Hightshoe noted that Habitat for Humanity did get funding and was able to purchase two lots on Prairie Du Chien. The next application discussed was the Diamond Senior Apartments. There were only three Commissioners that supported this project. However those three allocated a significant amount in support. The project was approved for their tax credits. Ackerson noted that when Diamond Senior Apartments applied for their tax credits they had to submit a development budget and that they will have to stick to that budget. There are rules when they are putting the project together and it will only get funded if it is financially feasible. The fact that the tax credits were approved means the project is funded and it will move forward, with or without the money that was requested in this application. Hightshoe noted that if the Commission decides to allocate money to Diamond Senior Apartments that would allow them to take a developer fee earlier. Lamkins noted he was happy the Diamond Senior Apartments project was going forward, and that is why he recommended allocation, however since it is going forward regardless, he would like to move his allocation to Shelter House. Jacobson liked this project because it was a tremendous infusion of affordable housing and it is needed in that area. As Lamkins did, Jacobson is fine with moving his allocation to another application and his general feeling is to support larger projects to get more bang for the buck. He moved $68,000 to the Shelter House and will think about where the rest of his $180,000 allocation should go. Housing and Community Development Commission March 10, 2016 Page 4 of 6 Ackerson clarified the difference between the Shelter House Transitional Housing application and the Shelter House Winter Shelter Public Facilities application. The CDBG rules do not allow temporary uses of facilities, so the Winter Shelter is technically not a CDBG eligible project but the transitional housing project is. Persson asked what if it was a year-round shelter and not just a winter shelter. Ackerson said there are ways to accomplish funding for that, they could prorate the HOME funds for that. Hightshoe noted that any funds allocated to Shelter House would go under the application for Transitional Housing since that is allowable, and then that would free up other parts of the Shelter House’s budget to fund the Winter Shelter. Byler noted there was overwhelming support for Shelter House, so to perhaps allocate $250,000. The CHDO operations has support as well for the $16,000 allocation, Byler admitted he didn’t allocate funds due to it being operation costs and not project related. Seiple asked whether The Housing Fellowship would rather have the operations allocation or more funds allocated to the housing project. Maryann Dennis said the $16,000 operations allocation is for staffing and one of the HUD priorities is funding a community housing organization. The Housing Fellowship has never thought of having low income housing representation on the policy making body as just someone sitting in a chair. It is taken very seriously and The Housing Fellowship was a certified community housing organization before the City of Iowa City began receiving HOME funds. The operations, the compliance, the fiscal management of a community housing organization are not easy. Dennis also noted that the Johnson County Board of Supervisors passed their budget and the County is taking a general obligation bond in the amount of $600,000 to be used anywhere in Johnson County for affordable housing efforts. The details have not been worked out but the money is intended to be transferred from the County to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County which will then accept applications and allocate funds. That source of financing was not in Dennis’ application, but there is a possibility they could access some of those funds. Therefore she would like to have the $16,000 CHDO operating allocation and $150,000 on the tax credit housing project. Byler said then the allocation would be $16,000 to CHDO operations and leave $134,000 to the housing project. Doing so would fairly represent a majority opinion. Lamkins asked how many beds or rooms the Shelter House project was. Hightshoe said it was 15 efficiencies. He then asked how many homes The Housing Fellowship was developing, Hightshoe said 28. Byler noted the Shelter House was levering so many different sources. Lamkins said he was good the allocations but might try to put the Shelter House and The Housing Fellowship’s allocations closer to the same amounts. Persson said the Shelter House works with people not only with housing but intense social services. Hightshoe noted for the Commission that if either The Housing Fellowship or Shelter House do not get the tax credits they are applying for (and we won’t know until next March or so) then the Commission can take those funds and reallocate to another applicant. Persson said that she would want to look at allocating the MYEP facilities project as well as the CSCC Childcare facility because of location and to support a population they need to be supporting. Byler agreed with Lamkins and perhaps shift $25,000 from Shelter House up to The Housing Fellowship. His reasoning is because they are allocating more than half the money to one organization as it is allocated now, and that The Housing Fellowship project will create more units than Shelter House. He recognized it is a different style of housing. Persson said she also looks at the social cost of leaving people in a certain type of situation. Seiple agrees that both projects are serving populations that we need to be caring about in this community and really wants Shelter House to feel the support of the City. Ackerson noted that the tax credit projects bring in a lot of outside money and investment into the community. Housing and Community Development Commission March 10, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Peirce agreed with Seiple that allocating the $250,000 to Shelter House sends a strong message of support. Olmstead spoke regarding of the CSCC Childcare application in that the Commission did ask the applicant for a breakdown of two or three projects and what they ended up receiving was all three projects listed by what the activity would be, so he is still confused what their project really will cost. Secondly, he has a concern about giving money to a religious body, particularly to making upgrades to the church. The ramp and the ADA bathroom would be used by the daycare, but also the church. Hightshoe noted that other non-profit daycares have been funded and are operated by non-religious based organizations, even if they are located in a religious building. Jacobson moved to recommend the following FY17 CDBG and HOME budget allocations to City Council: Housing Requested Amount Allocation Recommendation CHDO operations – THF $ 16,000 $ 16,000 Diamond Senior Apartments $237,636 $ -- Habitat for Humanity $ 80,000 $ -- MYEP $ 65,000 $ 50,000 The Housing Fellowship $300,000 $134,000 Shelter House Perm Supp Housing $290,000 $250,000 Subtotal $988,636 $450,000 Public Facilities Arc of SE Iowa $160,000 $ -- CSCC Childcare $145,000 $ -- DVIP Shelter $ 45,917 $ -- MYEP Facility $ 60,000 $ -- Shelter House Winter Shelter $160,000 $ -- United Action for Youth $ 50,000 $ -- Subtotal $620,917 $ -- Lamkins seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: Olmstead moved to adjourn. Peirce seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record Name Term Exp. 4/16/15 6/18/15 9/17/15 10/22/15 11/19/15 1/21/16 2/18/16 3/10/16 Bacon Curry, Michelle 9/1/2016 O/E X X O/E O/E X O O Byler, Peter 9/1/2017 X X X X X X X X Conger, Syndy 9/1/2018 --- --- O/E O/E X X X O/E Jacobson, Jim 9/1/2017 X O/E X O/E X X X X Lamkins, Bob 9/1/2016 X O/E X X X X X X Olmstead, Harry 9/1/2018 --- --- --- --- --- X X X Peirce, Matthew 9/1/2018 --- --- --- --- --- X X X Persson, Dottie 9/1/2016 X X X X X X O/E X Seiple, Emily 9/1/2018 --- --- X X X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant Dear Community Members, Southgate Companies is joining communities across the country in celebration of National Community Development Week, March 28 to April 2, to commemorate how much federal grant money can achieve, dollar by dollar, at a local level. We would like to share with you our positive experience in receiving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and the impact it has had on our company and your community. In 2012, Southgate received CDBG funding for the rehabilitation of our Orchard Place Apartments at 1956-1960 Broadway Street in Iowa City. From start to finish, the grant allowed us to address projects such as revamping the apartment’s exterior, improving security measures, installing private fencing, and completely updating the apartment’s interior. We believe the public-private partnership between Southgate Companies and the City of Iowa City was a complete success. As of March 2016, we are at 100% occupancy at this property, with all 108 units being occupied. Additionally, City staff has shared with us a study done by the Iowa City Police Department that shows how the number of service calls in this area has dramatically been reduced between 2010 and 2015. We are extremely proud of this, and could not have done it without the help of the Community Development Block Grant. Our next project will begin soon as we have just received approval to renovate our Walden Ridge Townhomes on the West side of Iowa City. Unfortunately, some of the police service calls have concentrated in this area as well as Pheasant Ridge to the north. Southgate’s plan is to renovate 53 units at Walden Ridge, in confidence that we will have repeated success in both reducing crime rates and increasing occupancy as we did at the Orchard Place Apartments. We truly hope sponsors will consider increased allocation to the CDBG and HOME programs so that Southgate, and other companies like us, will continue to have the opportunity to increase the amount of affordable housing, provide safer neighborhoods, and make Iowa City an even better place to live. Sincerely, Erin Copeland Executive Assistant, Southgate Companies March 24, 2016 Senator Joni Ernst 111 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510 Dear Senator Ernst: As the representative of a Community Development Block Grant recipient, I would like to express my support and appreciation of the program and ask for continued funding from the State of Iowa. I am the President/CEO of the Arc of Southeast Iowa. We serve more than 400 individuals in 13 counties each year who are intellectually disabled, developmentally delayed, or experience various levels of physical disabilities. Approximately 80% are children. As a fee for service nonprofit agency, we have three funding sources. First, we receive Medicaid reimbursement for the hourly services we provide in the homes, employment locations, or communities in which our clients live. Second, we have one annual fundraising drive that brings in monies and volunteers from individual community donors. Third, we solicit money from several generous grantors. The largest being CDBG. CDBG funding is the ONLY grant source we have found that allows facility improvements. Most grants need to be applied to a specific program, service, or group of individuals with the same mission. This is wonderful and I fully support being transparent and a good steward of taxpayer and/or grantor funding. The difficulty with those grants is that many needed services cannot come to fruition without initial funding being put into the facility to meet regulations that may not have existed at the time the building was built or purchased but are now required to allow service to children onsite; or the needs of the clientele have changed and agencies attempting to meet these changing services need to invest funding into the physical structure. Due to a multitude of changes from increased minimum wage in our area, to the transition to MCOs, shrinking reimbursement rates which in some cases no longer even cover the cost of the service, and increased oversight costs and regulations, we struggle more than any time in the past to meet the needs of those we serve. We have started a waiting list for the first time in our 58 year history as we are unable to meet the demand. One of the possible solutions to meeting demand, in our situation, is to offer more services onsite, therefore reducing staff and transportation needed (and also reducing costs to the taxpayers/grantors). Over the past several years, and with the generous support of the City of Iowa City’s CDBG grant program, we have been able to make the following improvements allowing us to use our large facility more effectively and more efficiently. Several years ago, we were granted funds to install a sprinkler system (a requirement to serve children on site). Another year we were able to install a kitchen and accessible shower, allowing us to begin our dream of fully utilizing our facility by serving children on site. These improvements allowed us to open an onsite afterschool program for junior high age children with disabilities (the only program for kids that age in our community). We were also able to move one of our two summer day camp programs onsite (again reducing the cost of staffing and transportation.) Two years ago we were granted funding to erect the first fully wheelchair accessible playground (the pArc) in eastern Iowa. What this play structure has done for integration between the neighborhood kids and our kids is beyond words. When kids play next to each other, they don’t notice (beyond a few quick inquisitive comments) wheelchairs, leg braces, kids with unsteady gaits, kids with different facial features . . . they are simply kids. Prejudice and bigotry isn’t a natural state, it’s a learned behavior and this setting just makes everyone smile. This addition also allowed us to serve more children in the afterschool program. Once our camps became self-sufficient in cash flow, we began on our final piece of this nearly ten year journey to divide our 3000 square foot lower level into several classrooms to better serve all ages of individuals with special needs. That recent grant is still pending and due to reduced funding, I am unsure at this point if it will be allowed or not. If it is not granted, our waiting list will remain. There are so many wonderful, worthwhile agencies and I’m glad I don’t have to make the decision as it would be quite difficult to label any one of those projects as not worthwhile or in the best interest of the community. If this funding or any of the others we so generously received were not granted our clients would suffer. Our ONE and only mission is to serve everyone who needs service. This can only be accomplished with funding. None of us choose this profession to make money, we simply want to keep the doors open so we can continue to provide the services our more vulnerable neighbors, children, friends, and families NEED. Please think very carefully before implementing any reduction to this grant. It is the ONLY option for a number of service providers and will greatly affect the population that most needs us to give. I understand that the need is great in our state and I also know (with my business background and many years of experience) that costs can most definitely be cut without putting vulnerable populations out on the curb. Thank you for the service you have given the state and thank you for taking the time to read this. Sincerely, Karen DeGroot President/CEO The Arc of Southeast Iowa karendegroot@arcsei.org www.thearcjc.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 21 MARCH 2016 Contact: Roger Goedken, 319-358-6800 x.103 Contact: Pat Meyer, 319-358-6800, x. 202 Successful Living Celebrates National Community Development Week Transitional housing program initiated with Community Development Block Grant IOWA CITY, IA – Successful Living is joining communities across the country in celebration of National Community Development Week, March 28 to April 2, to commemorate how much federal grant money can achieve, dollar by dollar, at a local level. Successful Living has three solid reminders of how the agency has benefitted from receiving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds: three residential homes for adults with a serious mental illness. The CDBG and HOME Improvement Partnerships Program, funded by the federal government, and managed by the City of Iowa City, assisted Successful Living in the purchase, renovation and ongoing improvements of its supportive community living houses over the past 20 years. “Successful Living’s clients have benefited from the CDBG and HOME funds through building improvements, not to mention the purchases,” says Roger Goedken, Executive Director, Successful Living. “Just in the past four years, we have supported almost 210 individuals as they recover from their illness. “As a nonprofit agency with very few financial options, CDBG was instrumental in allowing this organization to make badly needed improvements so the people we serve—very low-income adults with a chronic mental illness—live a higher quality of life.” During the most recent partnership with the City of Iowa City, Successful Living received about $52,000 which immediately addressed projects such as leveling a hallway and kitchen floor, reconstructing several bathrooms, improving safety, upgrading to a higher efficiency furnace and a new HVAC system., “In 2012, we were able to improve every corner of one of our houses due to CDBG funds,” says Pat Meyer, Facilities Coordinator, Successful Living. “We replaced windows, flooring, roofing, gutters, and re-did a kitchen. This has meant over 200 residents have lived in more comfortable homes, were able to function better, and make steps towards independence more quickly.” - more – - 2 - “A reduction in CDBG funds would have a direct and negative impact on many nonprofits,” says Goedken, “as often these are the only source for building improvements or purchases. “Agencies that count on this funding (CDBG or HOME) often have no other financial resource,” says Goedken. “Without CDBG funding, Successful Living would see its houses continually fall into disrepair and eventually disuse, ending an important element of supportive community living for an already disadvantaged segment of the population.” Successful Living is a nonprofit agency that supports mental health recovery. It helps individuals 18 and older with chronic mental illnesses find their path to living as fully and independently in the community as they choose. To learn more about Successful Living, visit www.icsuccess.org or call 319-358-6800. - # - 4/7/2016 Federal Housing Officials Warn Against Blanket Bans of Ex­Offenders http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/nyregion/federal­housing­officials­warn­against­blanket­bans­of­ex­offenders.html 1/4 Federal Housing Officials Warn Against Blanket Bans of Ex­Offenders Photo Credit Private landlords who have blanket bans on renting to people with criminal records are in violation of the Fair Housing Act and can be sued and face penalties for discrimination, the federal Department of Julián Castro, the secretary of housing and urban development, is revising how his agency interprets the Fair Housing Act as it applies to people with criminal records. Drew Angerer for The New York Times 4/7/2016 Federal Housing Officials Warn Against Blanket Bans of Ex­Offenders http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/nyregion/federal­housing­officials­warn­against­blanket­bans­of­ex­offenders.html 2/4 Housing and Urban Development said. Julián Castro, the HUD secretary, is expected on Monday to announce guidance that details his agency’s interpretation of how the fair housing law applies to policies that exclude people with criminal records, a group that is not explicitly protected by the act but falls under it in certain circumstances. Federal officials said landlords must distinguish between arrests and convictions and cannot use an arrest to ban applicants. In the case of applicants with convictions, property owners must prove that the exclusion is justified and consider factors like the nature and severity of the crime in assessing prospective tenants before excluding someone. Mr. Castro said housing bans against former offenders were common. “Right now, many housing providers use the fact of a conviction, any conviction, regardless of what it was for or how long ago it happened, to indefinitely bar folks from housing opportunities,” Mr. Castro said in a statement. “Many people who are coming back to neighborhoods are only looking for a fair chance to be productive members, but blanket policies like this unfairly deny them that chance.” The new federal housing guidance applies a legal standard that was upheld by the United States Supreme Court last year that allows plaintiffs to challenge housing practices that have a discriminatory effect without having to show discriminatory intent. The ruling allows plaintiffs to show instead that the practices both have a “disparate impact” on racial groups and are not justified. Blacks and Latinos are arrested, convicted and imprisoned in disproportionate numbers, and civil rights groups say they face equally disparate discrimination in finding housing. Federal housing officials said the guidance was meant to emphasize to landlords that blanket bans are illegal, as well as to inform housing applicants of their rights. Housing officials said they can investigate violations and bring discrimination charges against landlords that could result in civil penalties for them, and damages for a person denied housing. Lawyers who represent former prisoners said they expected HUD’s stance to lead landlords to revise their screening policies to avoid litigation. The guidance, which is similar to an instruction federal officials already have for public and subsidized housing, could also lead to more and stronger lawsuits against those who continue to deny housing based on criminal history. “The agency in charge of interpreting the Fair Housing Act agrees with us, and that will have a lot of weight,” said John P. Relman, a lawyer and specialist in housing discrimination cases who is representing the social services group Fortune Society in a federal lawsuit against a rental complex in New York City over screening policies. Concern over restrictions that hinder former prisoners’ efforts to find jobs and homes has taken on urgency in recent years, as pressure has built to ease the high rates of incarceration that followed decades of tough sentencing for drug offenses, which took a harsh toll on minority communities. 4/7/2016 Federal Housing Officials Warn Against Blanket Bans of Ex­Offenders http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/nyregion/federal­housing­officials­warn­against­blanket­bans­of­ex­offenders.html 3/4 Research shows that obtaining housing reduces recidivism. But groups like Fortune Society said they have encountered landlords who ban tenants with criminal histories without individual reviews or any regard to evidence of rehabilitation or whether the person poses a threat to safety. Some landlord groups said owners had the right to exercise their own judgment given the liability they face from other tenants if the person commits another crime. Some have partial bans and screen only for certain crimes, such as sex offenses or arson, or allow those who were convicted of misdemeanors but not felonies. (Landlords can continue to exclude those convicted of manufacturing or distributing drugs, the only crimes that are exempted under the Fair Housing Act.) In their response to the Fortune Society lawsuit, Sandcastle Towers Housing Development Fund, the owner of a rental complex in Far Rockaway, Queens, with more than 900 units, and other co­defendants argued that the use of criminal records “serves valid business and security functions of protecting tenants and the property from former convicted criminals.” (The lawsuit, filed in 2014, is pending in United States District Court for the Eastern District in Brooklyn.) “A person who has already demonstrated a disregard for the law, upon penalty of imprisonment, is at greater risk for repeating that conduct, is a greater security risk and is a greater risk of defaulting in making rental payments or in complying with leases,” the defendants said, adding that “convicted criminals lose some of their rights and privileges as a result of their convictions.” But federal housing officials said that landlords would have to take a more individualized approach to avoid violating the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing based on race, national origin and other protected characteristics. Even those with a partial ban must prove that their policy does not discriminate, by showing that it “accurately distinguishes” between criminal conduct that poses a risk to safety and conduct that does not. “Policies that exclude persons based on criminal history must be tailored to serve the housing provider’s substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest and take into consideration such factors as the type of the crime and the length of the time since conviction,” the guidance reads. Some landlord groups said they already advised case­by­case reviews of potential renters. “We always urge owners not to use a blanket policy and to look at the tenant’s ability to pay rent and be a good tenant,” said Debra Carlton, a spokeswoman with the California Apartment Association, which represents 50,000 rental property owners. Officials with the Real Estate Board of New York said they would issue their own guidance to members on HUD’s interpretation. 4/7/2016 Federal Housing Officials Warn Against Blanket Bans of Ex­Offenders http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/nyregion/federal­housing­officials­warn­against­blanket­bans­of­ex­offenders.html 4/4 “It would require everyone to revise whatever policies they have,” said Neil Garfinkel, a lawyer who advises brokers for the trade association. “I always advise a holistic approach and to look at the applicant as a whole.” A version of this article appears in print on April 4, 2016, on page A14 of the New York edition with the headline: Federal Housing Officials Warn Against Blanket Bans of Ex­Offenders. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe 3/15/2016 Transportation and housing needs are intertwined | The Gazette http://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/guest­columnists/transportation­and­housing­needs­are­intertwined­20160313 1/3 Sarah Hunnicutt, guest columnist Mar 13, 2016 at 6:00 am | Print View As a Housing Coordinator for The Domestic Violence Intervention Program, the first question I ask a client is, “Do you have transportation?” If the answer “yes”, there are options available to them that people without transportation do not have. Unfortunately, for most of our clients, the answer is “No”. The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County’s Passenger Transportation Development Plan for 2015­2019 reported that “ … the most common issue facing human services programs is the lack of public transit service options to meet their [client’s] needs …. their clients spend too much time on bus routes”. Without reliable personal transportation, people are severely limited in regards to work and Transportation and housing needs are intertwined Alex Kuberski of Iowa City (right) mounts his bike onto an Iowa City Transit bus at the station on East Washington Street in Iowa City, Iowa on Wednesday, June 18, 2014. (Justin Wan/The Gazette­KCRG TV9) ¬   3/15/2016 Transportation and housing needs are intertwined | The Gazette http://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/guest­columnists/transportation­and­housing­needs­are­intertwined­20160313 2/3 housing. As many bus routes are only available at certain times and in certain areas, finding transportation to jobs — especially during 3rd and 4th shifts, or on weekends­becomes a challenge for those who don’t have a car. Also, just getting from Iowa City to Coralville by bus is a huge issue. A person has to pay an extra $1 for a one­way transfer ticket, then take a bus to downtown Iowa City, transfer to another bus to get to Coralville (and yet another transfer if going on to North Liberty) (MPOJC). This can take two hours or more. A monthly bus pass for one person at $32 a month is $384 a year. Add on $2 a day for a round trip transfer pass, and this jumps to $1,104 per year. This is a massive expense for many whose only way to work or anything else is public transit. In the United States, “Only one quarter­25%­ of low skill to mid skill jobs, (and 1/3 of high skilled jobs) are available to metropolitan commuters within 90 minutes via transit” (Tomer, Kneebone, Puentes, & Berube, 2011). This means there aren’t too many jobs to be had if public transit is one’s only option. Many victims of domestic violence have lost jobs or have been unable to accept a job offer simply because of a lack of reliable public transportation. This can be especially devastating to someone trying their best to rebuild their lives after escaping a violent home. Many who ride the bus do so in all kinds of weather, from hot and humid or rain in the summer, to snowing, sleet and frigid temps in the winter months. Many bus stops in Johnson County are lacking benches and shelters to protect riders from the elements. This is a problem for everyone, but especially for our clients who have young children. Currently, Iowa City morning bus service begins at 6:30 a.m. and ends at 11 p.m., and Coralville starts at 6 a.m. and ends at 11:45 p.m. One helpful change could be extending the bus route hours by one hour, both at the beginning and end of their routes. Another helpful option would be to make transferring to and from Iowa City to Coralville and North Liberty free. This would lift a huge financial burden on people who may already be struggling to make ends meet. My hope is that Johnson County would consider what it looks like to face barriers that our clients see every day: lack of affordable housing, lack of well­paying jobs, and as discussed here, lack of reliable public transportation. Perhaps then, Iowa City will commit to investing in better opportunities for those who rely on the public transportation system. • Sarah Hunnicutt is housing coordinator for the Domestic Violence Intervention Program. Comments: sarahhun@dvipiowa.org Housing and Community Development Commission Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy Adopted by City Council March 2, 2004 in Resolution 04-68 From time to time there may be Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and/or HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) projects that do not meet the anticipated schedule for implementation as presented to the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC). These circumstances may be due to unforeseen events (e.g. unfunded applications for other financing). HCDC recognizes the need to utilize CDBG, HOME and other funding as effectively and efficiently as possible to meet the needs of low-moderate income household for housing, jobs and services within Iowa City. To assist HCDC in evaluating a project’s status and ability to proceed the following policy is hereby adopted to begin with Fiscal Year ’04 projects beginning July 1, 2003: 1. All CDBG and HOME projects will have entered into a formal agreement with the City of Iowa City for the utilization of federal funds by September 30 each year. Should a recipient fail to meet this threshold, the project will be reviewed by HCDC to evaluate if extenuating circumstances exist. If extenuating circumstances exist and it is anticipated the project will proceed, a new timeline will be established for the completion of the project. If circumstances do not warrant an extension of time, HCDC may recommend the recapture and re-use of the funds to the City Council. 2. All CDBG projects (except applicants for LIHTCs) will have expended a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the assistance provided for the proposed project by March 15 each year. This provides the recipient with approximately 255 days following the start of the fiscal year to reach this threshold for CDBG projects. All HOME projects will expend their funds on a timely basis per the applicable HOME regulation. Should a recipient fail to meet these thresholds, all unexpended CDBG/HOME funding will be recaptured by the City of Iowa City and recommendations be made by the HCDC for re-use of the funds or HCDC may allow the recipient to retain the funds for the previously approved project. 3. If housing projects are applying for other funds through various state or federal agencies, the recipient must apply for those funds in the first available application period offered. Should a recipient fail to meet this application threshold, all CDBG/HOME funding will be recaptured by the City of Iowa City and recommendations be made by the HCDC for re-use of the funds. 4. Should a recipient be unsuccessful in obtaining the funds listed in the application in the application round immediately following the allocation of local CDBG\HOME funds, and the project will not be able to proceed without the aforementioned funds, all CDBG/HOME funds will be recaptured by the City of Iowa City and recommendations be made by the HCDC for re-use of the funds or HCDC may allow the recipient to retain the funds for the previously approved project. If the project is unsuccessful in obtaining the required funds listed in the application after two consecutive funding rounds following the allocation of local CDBG/HOME funds, the City of Iowa City will recapture all CDBG/HOME funds. Annual Action Plan 2016 33 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Projects AP-38 Projects Summary Project Summary Information Table 9 – Project Summary 1 Project Name CDBG and HOME Adminstration Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Planning and administration Needs Addressed Planning & Administration Funding CDBG: $131,704 HOME: $48,437 Description Program administration as per HUD regulations Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Not applicable Location Description Planned Activities Program administration as per HUD regulations 2 Project Name Iowa City Owner-Occupied Rehab Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Improve the quality of owner housing Annual Action Plan 2016 34 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Needs Addressed Preserve Existing Affordable Housing Units Funding CDBG: $235,000 HOME: $90,000 Description Housing rehabilitation for owner-occupied housing units Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 22 low income households Location Description Planned Activities Housing rehabilitation for owner-occupied housing units 3 Project Name MYEP Acquisition Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Increase the supply of affordable rental housing Needs Addressed Funding CDBG: $50,000 Description Acquisition of residential property for SRO units Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Three SRO units for residents with disabilities Location Description Planned Activities Acquisition of residential property for SRO units 4 Project Name THF Townhouse Rental Construction Annual Action Plan 2016 35 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Increase the supply of affordable rental housing Improve access to affordable renter housing Needs Addressed Expanding Affordable Rental/Owner Housing Funding CDBG: $54,063 HOME: $79,937 Description Construction of rental townhouses Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Twenty-eight income eligible households as part of LIHTC application. Location Description Planned Activities Construction of twenty-eight rental townhouses 5 Project Name Shelter House Supportive Housing Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Improve access to affordable owner housing Increase the supply of affordable rental housing Needs Addressed Expanding Affordable Rental/Owner Housing Funding HOME: $250,000 Description Property acquisition and construction of fifteen SRO units for income qualified tenants. Target Date 6/30/2017 Annual Action Plan 2016 36 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Planned Activities Property acquisition and construction of fifteen SRO units for income qualified tenants. 6 Project Name Economic Development Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Strengthen economic development Needs Addressed Economic Development Funding CDBG: $50,000 Description Funding to facilitate the creation and expansion of businesses and create new employment opportunities for low-income people Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Two businesses that will employ LMI persons. Location Description Planned Activities Funding to facilitate the creation and expansion of businesses and create new employment opportunities for low-income people 7 Project Name Neighborhood Improvement Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Improve/maintain public infrastructure/amenities Needs Addressed Public Facility Improvements Annual Action Plan 2016 37 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Funding CDBG: $75,000 Description Improvements to the built environment that enhance the quality-of-life for residents earning less than AMI. Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 500 families earning below the AMI. Location Description Planned Activities 8 Project Name Aid to Agencies Shelter House Target Area Goals Supported Provide public services Needs Addressed Public Services Funding CDBG: $50,000 Description Operational funding for programming that address barriers to employment for persons who are homeless. Persons are assisted with housing and vocational issues, mental health, substance abuse, transportation and related needs. Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 650 homeless individuals Location Description 429 Southgate Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Planned Activities Annual Action Plan 2016 38 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 9 Project Name Aid to Agencies NCJC Target Area Goals Supported Provide public services Needs Addressed Public Services Funding CDBG: $43,700 Description Operating costs associated with programming that provides licensed childcare for primarily low- moderate income infants, toddlers and pre-schoolers at their Broadway and Pheasant Ridge Centers in Iowa City. Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 120 low to moderate income children Location Description 2105 Broadway St, Iowa City 2651 Roberts Road, Iowa City Planned Activities Operating costs associated with programming that provides licensed childcare for primarily low- moderate income infants, toddlers and pre-schoolers at their Broadway and Pheasant Ridge Centers in Iowa City. 10 Project Name Aid to Agencies DVIP Target Area Goals Supported Provide public services Needs Addressed Public Services Funding CDBG: $6,300 Annual Action Plan 2016 39 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Description Provide short-term shelter to women and children fleeing intimate partner domestic violence as well as provide counseling support to adult and youth victims of domestic violence during their stay. Target Date Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 300 clients yearly who are victims of domestic violence during the compliance period Location Description Planned Activities