HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC 6.16.16.pdf
AGENDA
Housing and Community Development Commission
Thursday, June 16, 2016
7 P.M.
Helling Conference Room, City Hall
410 East Washington Street
1. Call meeting to order
2. Approval of the May 19, 2016 minutes
3. Public comment for topics not on the agenda
4. Discussion of crime free addendum by landlords
5. Discuss when a quorum of HCDC members exist at various community
meetings
6. Discussion of Walden Ridge rehab project
7. Consider recommendation of request to reduce units by CHARM Homes –
proposed FY16 Annual Action Plan Amendment #1
8. Overview of CDBG and HOME expenditures during FY2015
9. Consider a recommendation to City Council regarding affordable housing
strategies
10. Discuss and consider adoption of changes to the CDBG and HOME scoring
criteria
11. Discuss funding sources and process for capital improvement planning for
public facilities
12. Staff/Commission Comment
13. Adjournment
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MAY 19, 2016 – 6:30 PM DALE HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Christine Harms, Bob Lamkins, John McKinstry,
Harry Olmstead, Dorothy Persson, Emily Seiple
MEMBERS ABSENT: Syndy Conger, Matthew Peirce
STAFF PRESENT: Kris Ackerson, Tracy Hightshoe
OTHERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham
CALL TO ORDER:
Byler called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
APPROVAL OF APRIL 21, 2016 MINUTES:
Olmstead moved to approve the minutes of April 21, 2016 with minor edits.
Lamkins seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Eastham addressed the Commission and noted that in the agenda packet there is a crime free release addendum document that is apparently from Southgate Property Management and
wondered if that would be on the agenda for discussion this evening. Byler said it is not on the
agenda, there had been a question raised so Staff attached this documentation as informational. Since it is not on the agenda the Commission cannot have substantial discussion regarding the
document. Eastham noted for the Commission’s interest he read the addendum and assumes
Southgate is using this document, however that should be clarified, and also this addendum should be compared to the HUD Office of General Council Standard for Fair Housing Act to the
use of criminal records by providers of housing and real estate-related transactions. Eastham stated in his opinion this document is not in compliance with the HUD directive and standards. Eastham suggests the Commission take some steps to review this addendum, perhaps referring
it to the Human Rights Commission or to the Council for review especially if Southgate is using
this addendum for any properties that have received public assistance monies. Byler suggested Eastham contact Staff to discuss, but also suggested that the Commission put this topic on a
future agenda for discussion. STAFF/COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Ackerson noted that typically during the summer they do not hold Commission meetings every
month, so likely the next meeting will be in July. However, City Manager will be presenting to the
City Council a list of funding strategies and ways to move forward regarding affordable housing
Housing and Community Development Commission May 19, 2016
Page 2 of 4
and Staff is anticipating that to done in the beginning of June. Therefore if the Commission wishes to meet in June, please let him know. Olmstead noted that if they do meet in June
perhaps to change the time to after 7pm due to a social gathering for the Johnson County
Affordable Housing Coalition at The Mill that evening. Hightshoe encouraged Commission members to go the work session where the Council outlines affordable housing strategies and
possible financing sources.
Hightshoe also mentioned the “So you want to start a business” series started last Saturday and
they had 30 attendees, and 1/3 of those were persons of color. The next workshop already has
over 40 people signed up.
Byler said because there will be at least two agenda items, they should hold a June meeting. Persson agreed and noted the Human Rights Commission will also be having another one of their educational sessions which is very beneficial.
CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING POTENTIAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIES:
Byler noted some handouts that were provided by Seiple that are housing statements from
various housing organizations throughout the community that they will be submitting to City
Council. Byler said that when talking to City Staff the focus is mainly on sources of funding for land banking. He questioned if as a Commission do they want to make a statement to officially
submit to the Council in the minutes or to affirm any of the statements from other organizations.
Persson feels that the Commission should make a statement to Council to take a very serious
look at all these proposals.
Byler agreed noting that the document that the Affordable Homes Coalition put together is
extensive and well written so perhaps the Commission should endorse this proposal to Council.
McKinstry stated he is familiar with the Coalition and the Consultation of Religious Communities
and is comfortable supporting both those proposals. Persson noted that the League of Women Voters also puts together solid documents, and they
are all coming from reputable groups in the community.
Byler mentioned while he supports the CRC proposal, he doesn’t necessary support all four
bullet points in the document feeling some might be detriments to housing in general getting built.
Persson and McKinstry both stated that over the past twenty years the supply of affordable housing had decreased while the demand has increased.
Olmstead suggested they look at combining the Affordable Housing Coalition along with the CRC proposals in a recommendation because there are items in the CRC that do not appear in the
Coalition’s document.
Olmstead moved that the Commission accept the recommendations of the Iowa City Affordable
Housing action plan and the CRC’s action plan.
Housing and Community Development Commission May 19, 2016
Page 3 of 4
Persson amended the motion to add an encouragement for Council to consider these documents
very seriously.
Olmstead seconded the amendment.
Seiple noted that in the documents they reference covenants and feels that is something new and why have an ordinance if the covenants can override the ordinance. Ackerson said it is a
property rights issue to create an understanding amongst all the neighbors about what the
neighborhood wants to allow. Hightshoe said the reference to covenants is to state that subdivisions cannot restrict covenants so much to disallow affordable housing, but is unsure if
that can be achieved, can the City tell a developer what they can or cannot do with their property. She said they will ask the City Attorney for clarification on this.
Lamkins noted he is uncomfortable approving anything because they just received these documents at this meeting and have not had adequate time to review them. Hightshoe agreed and said perhaps it should be on the next agenda for discussion after review.
Olmstead withdrew his motion.
Persson withdrew her amendment.
Olmstead noted his concern about residential TIFs and feels that should also be discussed at the
next meeting. He also has concerns about the ADA requirements of 30%.
Ackerson said he would email out the PowerPoint presentation and notes that were prepared on
this topic so that can also be reviewed and then discussed at the next meeting.
DISCUSS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES:
Byler stated that he met with Ackerson and Hightshoe to discuss this topic. The question is if the Commission would like to encourage all the groups that apply for funding make longer term
capital plans. Byler’s idea was to find one engineer that the City could split the costs with the non-profits to create a five-year capital improvement plan. Having the same engineer do all the plans for the non-profit partners would help the Commission have all the information to make
informed funding decisions.
Lamkins asked what the benefit for the non-profit would be to spend the additional money since
their applications still need to be considered amongst all the others. Byler said that the Commission would likely give more credence to the applications where the five-year capital plan
was included so that would be the incentive for the non-profit. The benefit is for the engineer to
help clarify for the non-profit what their priorities and plans should be. What has happened is if the City doesn’t fund a particular application, the next year the same organization will reapply,
but for a completely different project whereas if they had a five-year plan the City could prioritize
funding’s and make sure monies are available for projects in future years. Additionally Byler noted that the cost estimates that the non-profits present in their applications are inaccurate and
having the engineering firm would help correct that issue as well. Olmstead is concerned that non-profits are unable to afford even half of the engineering firm
cost.
Housing and Community Development Commission May 19, 2016
Page 4 of 4
Persson acknowledged that having an engineer’s help is beneficial to the non-profit as well as
the Commission to make sure the project is complete and appropriate for the non-profit.
Byler also noted he believes having a five-year capital plan helps non-profits plan their
fundraising goals and in turn can help with receiving City funding if they can provide matching
funds.
Olmstead asked about using a City engineer so the non-profits don’t have to pay for the services.
Ackerson said that the City engineers charge their time to the particular capital improvement project they are working on. If they do not have a project to bill, it would be a cost the City would
have to absorb. Additionally having an engineering firm that regularly does capital improvement plans would lend a different level of expertise rather than using a city engineer.
Olmstead suggested another idea would be to tap into the university’s engineering school. Seiple suggested even finding an engineer who would volunteer their services.
Byler said a request for proposal would be sent to the local engineering firms and the
engineering school could be included in that. Because of the nature of the project, there may be
some firms that will offer their services at a discount. Byler will put together the request for proposal and send it out to see if this is even feasible.
ADJOURNMENT:
Olmstead moved to adjourn. Persson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried
7-0.
6/2/2016 Iowa City townhouse tenants may be displaced during renovations | The Gazette
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/iowacitytownhousetenantsmaybedisplacedduringrenovations20160602 1/3
Owners of Walden Ridge townhouses will keep rent low, pay relocation costs
Erin Jordan
The Gazette
More stories from Erin
Jun 2, 2016 at 1:02 pm | Print View
IOWA CITY — A second Iowa City affordable
housing complex is relocating tenants to do
renovations, but unlike the Rose Oaks Apartments,
the owners of Walden Ridge must keep rents low in
half the rehabbed townhouses and pay relocation
expenses for displaced tenants.
SouthGate Companies, based in Iowa City, sent
letters this week to tenants of Walden Ridge, a
complex of about 100 townhouses west of Mormon
Trek Boulevard, just behind Kum & Go, alerting
them to the renovations, already underway in nine
vacant units.
“We’re asking tenants if they are interested in moving into the renovated units in July or August,”
said SouthGate President Jerry Waddilove. The company will install new cabinets, countertops and
flooring as well as do interior painting in the 53 townhouses SouthGate owns. The rest of the units
Iowa City townhouse tenants may be displaced during renovations
SouthGate Companies is renovating 53 town houses at Walden Ridge, on Iowa City’s west side. Tenants may
be temporarily relocated, but the rehabbed units will be made available for comparable rent, owners said.
(Gazette photo).
6/2/2016 Iowa City townhouse tenants may be displaced during renovations | The Gazette
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/iowacitytownhousetenantsmaybedisplacedduringrenovations20160602 2/3
have other owners.
Iowa City is giving SouthGate a $600,000 loan in Community Development Block Grant funds for
the project, which means the company must limit rent in 26 renovated units. SouthGate also must
provide relocation assistance to tenants displaced by the project, said Tracy Hightshoe, Iowa City
neighborhood services coordinator.
“This is much better for the tenants than (for tenants at) Rose Oaks,” Hightshoe said.
Rose Oaks owners told hundreds of tenants in March their leases would not be renewed and they
would need to find alternate housing as soon as possible. Tenants were offered $500 for transition
costs. Owners said they would not be able to keep rents low after paying for the upgrades.
Some Rose Oaks tenants told city leaders and the media they couldn’t find other housing at
comparable rates. Iowa City’s 2.38 percent apartment vacancy rate for 2015, as calculated by Cook
Appraisal, was far lower than the 5 percent national rate. Vacancy rates outside the mile radius
around the University of Iowa are below 1 percent.
Walden Ridge residents who choose to stay will pay comparable rent in the renovated units,
Waddilove said. For example, a twobedroom townhouse will stay at $875 per month, which is
below the $1,064 average rent for an Iowa City twobedroom, according to Cook Appraisal.
New tenants who earn 80 percent or less of the area median income, which is $65,800 for a family
of four, will pay no more than $802 per month, minus the cost of utilities, for a twobedroom
apartment; $1,182, minus utilities, for a threebedroom; and $1,420, minus utilities, for a four
bedroom, Hightshoe said.
Some tenants may have to move temporarily, but SouthGate will pay those expenses, Hightshoe
said. “I don’t believe they will displace anyone permanently.”
Give us feedback
Have you found an error or omission in our reporting? Tell us here.
Do you have a story idea we should look into? Tell us here.
You Might Also Like
6/2/2016 Iowa City townhouse tenants may be displaced during renovations | The Gazette
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/iowacitytownhousetenantsmaybedisplacedduringrenovations20160602 3/3
More From the Gazette
Mall Westdale effort hits bumps (The Gazette)
New dates, same number of games for PTL
(The Gazette)
Decorah's 'super' season lands five in girls'
tennis state tournament (The Gazette)
Builders back call to start Bakken pipeline
construction by Tuesday (The Gazette)
Cedar Rapids man dies in Interstate 380
crash (The Gazette)
Iowa City West rolls in 3A regional semifinal
win (The Gazette)
From Around the Web
Recommended by
Housing 7 FY16 Mid-Year CDBG Funding Request
17. Explain why this project needs and is worthy of the requested public subsidy.
The Walden Ridge Townhomes are worth approximately $75,000 each so putting $20,000 into them is a
significant expense. Furthermore, the public will benefit from a safer neighborhood that will serve low and moderate income households. In addition, the public does not desire to have blighted neighborhoods which this area could become if not for this project.
18. If funding is granted for this project, what steps are in place to decrease the likelihood it will require further
subsidy in the future?
Reserves for maintenance items will be utilized in financing. In addition, the HOA has approved a 5-year
$500,000 exterior improvement plan. Completion of this will set up the exteriors for decades to come
and prudent management of the HOA will make sure future improvements will be planned for.
19. If partial funds are awarded, will the project/program continue? Yes No
If yes, at what level? Partial compared to the amount funded.
Reminder: Rental housing (including acquisition, rental rehab, and new construction) projects MUST complete and submit the pro forma (excel format) provided by the City with this application.
Rental housing applications submitted without the City’s pro forma will not be considered.
Section 4 – Impact/Benefit to the Community
20. An objective of the City of Iowa City Comprehensive Plan is to promote a diversity of housing types and mix of
all income levels. Please describe the target population this project is to serve and how the project will
promote diversity within the neighborhood.
The target population of this project is families, young professionals, student households, and work force.
This project is existing, so it already provides a diversity of housing compared to the attached two-family housing to its south and single family homes further west.
21. Identify the location of the proposed project.
Shady Glen Court, Sylvan Glen Court, Bittersweet Court, Clearwater Court
22. Also, please indicate the number of persons or households that will be served by the proposed project by income category. (Please Note: If this application is funded, the information in this table will be used as income targeting for the CDBG Agreement).
Number between 0 - 30% median income _______ households (a)
Number between 31 – 50% median income _______ households (b)
Number between 51 – 60% median income _______ households (c)
Number between 61 - 80% median income __27___ households (d)
Number over 80% median income __26___ households (e)
Total __53___ households (f)
Percent LMI __50___ (a+b+c+d) ÷ f
Housing and Community Development Commission October 22, 2015 Page 11 of 14
Seiple seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
DISCUSSION OF SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES’ CDBG APPLICATION FOR
THE REHABILITATION OF THE WALDEN RIDGE TOWNHOMES AND SUPPORT FOR AN IOWA WORKFORCE HOUSING TAX CREDIT APPLICATION:
Hightshoe explained that Southgate applied for and received CDBG funds in 2012 for the
rehabilitation of the Orchard Place condos at 1956-1960 Broadway Street in Iowa City. Today
the vacancy rate for the project is below one percent. At that time they received $900,000 in funding, $300,000 was a grant and $600,000 was a loan with repayment deferred for five years.
Now they would like to rehab Walden Ridge (which is 53 units) off Mormon Trek Boulevard. So
the proposal is to pay back the loan from the Orchard Place project, and have that money reallocated back to Southgate for the rehab of Walden Ridge. Southgate had asked for a grant,
and the City had the National Development Council review the proposal and complete a financial analysis that found there is an ability to repay the loan, so the recommendation would be that $600,000 applied to Walden Ridge and then after project completion Southgate would
pay back the loan at 3% interest.
Lamkins asked if they would get another five year deferment on repayment of the loan and Hightshoe said no, they would be on the original repayment schedule.
Byler asked if the reason for this repayment of the first loan only to have the monies reallocated back to Southgate in a second loan is just to keep the monies and properties separate.
Jerry Waddilove (Southgate Development) said the reason was because the lender they are
looking to refinance the Orchard Place properties with does not want a subordinate mortgage also on the property. Southgate needs funds to rehab Walden Ridge, as it is a location they are
trying to prevent becoming a location similar to what Broadway Condominiums used to be.
Persson asked if those condominiums once rehabbed will remain affordable housing units as they currently are. Waddilove said they would, more than 51% of the units are affordable
housing units. Hightshoe said staff usually recommends the same compliance period as HOME
regulations. For the amount of assistance per unit, HOME would require a 10 year compliance period. Persson asked if Southgate was willing to keep the units affordable after the 10-year
period and Waddilove said they were committed to doing so.
Byler asked if the property that was being paid off (the Orchard Place properties) were going to remain affordable housing units. Waddilove said that in terms of what the market will bear yes,
those units will remain as affordable housing units, and they could not increase rents and keep their occupancy rates. Byler asked if they were able to raise their rates above HUD requirements and get occupancy they would do so. Waddilove said yes, but that would take
years to reach that level of rents and maintain occupancies and right now they are still charging below the HUD maximums for two-bedroom units by a wide margin.
Byler congratulated Southgate on their rehab on Broadway Street which was an extreme
upgrade for that area. However, his concern is this should be two separate issues. Southgate should repay the funding they owe from the one project. Then Southgate should come in and ask for funding for the new project, obviously the funds are very limited for such projects as
Housing and Community Development Commission October 22, 2015 Page 12 of 14
demonstrated in applications reviewed earlier in the meeting. This situation feels like Southgate
is saying they will only repay the loan if the funds are given right back to them for another project. It is not to discount that the project is not a valuable project.
Lamkins and Persson feel that it is a good way to accomplish this project. Byler disagrees and
feels Southgate will do the project whether the City funds the $600,000 or not.
Waddilove noted this is just a loan, not a grant, they will pay the money back. Byler said
however that Southgate needs to pay this loan back in order to refinance the Orchard Place
condominiums so the money was coming back to the City and perhaps there are other projects that should also be prioritized for those funds. Waddilove understands that concern but the
ultimate goal is to reestablish a healthy low to moderate income neighborhood and they have
successfully accomplished that in Orchard Place and would like to do that again in Walden Place.
Persson agreed and noted how on the west side there were low and middle class communities that upper class built around and embraced the areas but deserve to see the properties kept up. Byler agreed it’s not a bad project, he just questions when a for-profit successful company asks
for such a large grant and then shifts it to a loan when a grant is denied. Lamkins noted that although a company is for-profit, they are willing to take risk of their own and do positive things for the community such as affordable housing, neighborhood stabilization, and access for other
populations that is a good thing. Hightshoe noted from Staff’s perspective they are always trying to create new partnerships in the community, not only non-profits but for-profit companies as
well. Southgate is providing for-profit housing at below HOME fair market rents and they are
paying taxes.
Seiple asked a question from the application, in which it states the goal is to attract a higher
quality tenant and asked if Waddilove could comment on that. Waddilove explained that what
they did with the Orchard Place Condominiums was they implemented a crime-free lease so they do credit and criminal background checks on all tenant applications. If a tenant commits a
crime while living in one of the units that is grounds for eviction. Those new lease stipulations have created a safe environment for all the tenants and community. With regards to Walden Place, they do have the same lease in effect for their 53 units, and their ultimate goal is to
acquire the rest of the units in Walden Place. Some of the other landlords in the complex are
problem landlords and will just rent to anyone. Lamkins asked how many units Southgate would have to buy to get control of the condo association. Waddilove said there are 100 units total and
even just one or two poor tenants can create a bad living environment for everyone. Byler noted that if Southgate controls the majority of the condo association they could encourage all units to use their leasing agreement making it a required association guidelines lease.
Signs moved to recommend a CDBG loan of $600,000 to Bilam Properties LLC (a SouthGate Companies entity) to rehabilitate 53 units at Walden Ridge with the following
financial terms: 15-year amortization, 15-year term, 3 percent full amortizing with a 15-year compliance period. Payments would begin once the rehabilitation is completed. Executing the agreement would be contingent on SouthGate paying off the $600,000 loan
for the Orchard Place (aka Broadway Condos) project.
(CDBG rules require that 51% of the units be rented to those under 80% of median income at no more than the CDBG fair market rent).
Housing and Community Development Commission October 22, 2015 Page 13 of 14
Lamkins seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
DISCUSSION OF SCORING CRITERIA AND APPLICATION FORM FOR CDBG AND HOME
GRANT APPLICATIONS:
Byler noted the Commission was able to have a productive discussion on this evening’s applications without any scoring criteria. He doesn’t feel the scoring forms need to be filled out.
Seiple noted she did use the scoring worksheets when reviewing tonight’s applications just so
she could get used to using them. She does agree she would not want the allocations to be based on scoring only without discussion.
Persson said she would like to see the Commission get a list of the CITY STEPS and then to have a discussion about homelessness, rapid rehousing, and what the Commission should be looking at in terms of affordability so they can better react to applications that state they serve
homeless needs. She feels it is important to have definitions of homelessness and rapid
rehousing set so that they can see if the applications fit into those definitions.
Berg noted that from an applicant’s perspective it would be nice to have evaluation criteria so
they know if their application meets the stated criteria.
Dennis noted that the Commission’s charge is to be the best stewards of the federal funds that come into the City by making recommendations to the Council and there are three things they
need to look at: Is there a need? Is the project reasonable and have a reasonable budget? Does the applicant have the capacity to fulfill the project? In her opinion the scoring sheet makes it
difficult to answer those three questions and make a reasonable judgment.
Signs noted that the application seems to have a lot of redundant questions on it as well. Perhaps that can be trimmed down.
Byler asked if anyone was interested in forming a smaller committee to meet to come up with a
recommendation. Persson volunteered to work on it and would like input from others and also applicants. Hightshoe said if changes are made to the applications, then it must be done soon
because Council needs to approve the applications in early December.
Byler asked that the Commission give the scoring and application some thought and then at the November 19 meeting the Commission can discuss and also hear public input.
ADJOURNMENT:
Persson moved to adjourn.
Lamkins seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and motion carried 5-0.
Exhibit A
CDBG and HOME Activities, FY2016
Category Activity Requested Allocated CDBG Allocated HOME Units/HH Assisted
THF CHDO Operations Funds 16,000$ ‐$ 16,000$ NA
CHARM Homes ‐ Property Acquisition 61,650$ ‐$ 61,650$ 8
MYEP Home Project 60,000$ 60,000$ ‐$ 3
Systems Unlimited 250,000$ ‐$ 184,000$ 3
THF Sabin Townhomes 300,000$ ‐$ 300,000$ 3
CIC Owner Occupied Rehab ‐ CDBG NA 235,000$ ‐$ 18
CIC Owner Occupied Rehab ‐ HOME NA ‐$ 90,000$ 4
Total Housing: 967,650$ 295,000$ 651,650$ 43
Facilities Assisted
DVIP Shelter Bathroom & Door Rehab 116,256$ 116,256$ ‐$ 1
Broadway Neighborhood Center Phase 2 94,140$ 94,140$ ‐$ 1
Streetscape Improvement, Tract 18.01 & 18.02 NA 75,000$ ‐$ 1
Total Public Facilities 210,396$ 285,396$ ‐$ 3
Aid to Agencies*:Persons Served
Crisis Center NA 40,000$ NA 800
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County NA 15,000$ NA 400
Domestic Violence Intervention Program NA 45,000$ NA 225
Total Public Services 100,000$ ‐$ 1,425
Iowa City Economic Development Fund*: Entities Assisted
Streetscape Improvements, City‐Univ URA NA 50,000$ NA 1
Total Economic Development 50,000$ ‐$ 1
HOME Program Administration* NA NA 42,130$ NA
CDBG Program Administration* NA 131,210$ NA NA
Total Administration 131,210$ 42,130$
* City Council set‐aside Total CDBG 861,606$
Total HOME 693,780$
Combined Total 1,555,386$
Housing
Econ.
Dev
Admin.
Public
Facilities
Public
Services
HOUSING POSITION
Of
The League of Women Voters of Johnson County
The League believes that within Johnson County, decent, affordable housing should be available for
individuals and families without discrimination. To achieve this, the League recommends that all
governments within the county, Including the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, work with local
for-profit and non-profit organizations to establish agencies, policies, and programs that build and
maintain an inventory of affordable housing.
To address the county needs for affordable housing, the League supports a cooperative, regional
approach to:
1. Maintain programs that provide sufficient funds for affordable housing.
2. Create policies that provide an adequate supply of affordable housing for both ownership
and rental.
3. Improve and increase housing inventory through new construction, conservation and
rehabilitation of affordable units.
4. Promote energy-efficient housing to reduce energy costs to homeowners or apartment
renters.
5. Provide housing for the homeless.
The ultimate aim of such efforts should be the successful inclusion of affordable housing into all
neighborhoods, existing or new, with a range of prices and a variety of housing types; i.e. apartments,
duplexes, triplexes, multi-family units. At the same time, outreach to citizens should include
information about housing availability and cost. Local municipalities should evaluate their housing
stock regularly to ensure that their agencies, policies, and programs are effective and attaining the
goal of maintaining and, when necessary, expanding affordable housing opportunities in their
communities.
(The LWVJC initial Housing Position was reached in 1992 after a two-year study, then revised in 2003.
This 2016 document is the first update since that time. See also the LWVUS Housing Position on which
the LWVJC drew at LWVUS.org Impact on Issues: Social Policy / “Equal Rights”; “Fair Housing”; and
“Housing Supply.”)
Recommendations -- Iowa City Affordable Housing Action Plan
Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition
May 2016
In process
• Pass an Inclusionary Housing ordinance for Riverfront Crossings.
• Continue support for developers’ accessing County, State and Federal funding for
affordable housing.
Short Term
• Require landlords to report rents as part of rental permit process, to make
available accurate information about local rental market, which is critical to good
policy making.
• Require developers who are renovating and/or demolishing rental units to
provide relocation assistance to low and moderate-income renters who are
being displaced. Adapt the City of Seattle Tenant Relocation Assistance
Ordinance (http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Publications/CAM/cam123.pdf) --
however, require property owners to cover tenants’ relocation expenses. In
addition, require relocation assistance from mobile home park owners for
mobile home residents who have to relocate because a park is being
redeveloped.
• Use City funds, including General Obligation Bonds, to land bank lots for
affordable rental housing development, so that the City can determine the
percentage and type of affordable housing units to be built on that property.
• Consider putting $235,000 in CDBG and $90,000 in HOME funds, currently
reserved for owner-occupied rehabilitation, into the competitive pool allocated
by the Housing and Community Development Commission.
• Eliminate the Affordable Housing Location Model to permit the development of
more city-assisted affordable rental units.
• Identify what entity or entities will collect, hold and administer affordable
housing fees collected by from developers. What are the guidelines and what is
the plan for determining how these funds will increase the supply of affordable
housing in Iowa City for very low and low-income residents?
Explore
• Throughout Iowa City, for all new construction and major renovation (greater
than a dollar amount to be determined) institute Inclusionary Housing.
• For properties that have repeated code violations, create a Rent Escrow Account
Program (REAP) to allow rent payments to be used to pay for improvements.
Such programs currently exist in California, Maryland, and Ohio.
• Create zoning regulations that make it easier to lower construction costs and
build a mix of multifamily and smaller homes, including cottage-style units.
Housing is not a Constitutional right in America. It is not guaranteed by anyone. But everyone needs a safe,
decent and affordable place in stay; a place to rest and to be secure.
Who needs housing?
Children do not thrive if they do not have safe, clean and stable housing.
Service workers cannot afford to live in the same community where they clean rooms, prepare food, repair
homes, assist teachers and health care professionals.
The local housing market is not working: 61% of Johnson County renters currently pay too much for housing
(predominantly those earning less than 50% of area median income). No one should pay more than 30% of their
income for housing, or else they have to shortchange their family on the purchase of food, medicine, utilities,
clothing, or transportation.
Vacancy rates for rental housing are at record lows with no relief in sight.
The private market, including non-profit organizations, cannot and will not provide affordable housing without
subsidies and assistance from charities or governmental agencies.
Therefore, the Consultation of Religious Communities (CRC) implores the City and County governments of
Johnson County to create and implement housing policies to achieve the following:
--No net loss of affordable housing. Whenever an affordable housing unit is lost, there is no guarantee in
place currently to replace it, making the housing problem worse.
No building with affordable housing shall be torn down without a 1:1 affordable replacement unit being
built somewhere in the community.
--No public subsidies shall flow to any housing development in the form of water, sewer, sidewalks, density
bonus, parking bonus, exception or variance without a set aside of 15% of new units created and
maintained as affordable.
--All annexation of land which is destined to be zoned residential shall include a pre-determined 15% set
aside for new, affordable units.
--State representatives are asked to seek repeal of the current mobile home park owner rules (Iowa Code
Section 562B, adopted in 1978) which enables mobile home owners to be evicted without substantial
cause, and evicted for lack of rental payment in three days’ time; and to return to the previous standard,
the Iowa Landlord Tenant law, which applies to all other renters.
Adequate and affordable housing is not a pipedream; it is a necessity for a community to be inclusive, fair,
equitable and moral. We can do better, and we must do better so that our children grow up knowing this is a
good place for them to raise their children someday. The problem has been documented, now is the time to act.
The Consultation of Religious Communities Spring, 2016
CDBG/HOME EVALUATION CRITERIA
HCDC Member: Points Ar
c
o
f
S
E
I
o
w
a
CS
C
C
C
h
i
l
d
c
a
r
e
DV
I
P
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
MY
E
P
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
Sh
e
l
t
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
Un
i
t
e
d
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
Y
o
u
t
h
CH
D
O
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
-
T
H
F
Dia
m
o
n
d
S
e
n
i
o
r
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
H
u
m
a
n
i
t
y
MY
E
P
Th
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
F
e
l
l
o
w
s
h
i
p
I.Need Priority (max. 20 points)
1 How well has the applicant documented the ability of the project to
meet need(s) identified in CITY STEPS?
0-20 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
II.Leveraging Resources/Budget (max. 25 points)
1 Does the project have realistic cost estimates, including bids?0-10 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Does the project leverage community partnerships and/or volunteer resources?0-5 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Does the project leverage private financial resources?Guide:
0-25% = 0-1 pt
26-50% = 2-4 pts51-75% = 5-7 pts
76-99% = 8-10 pts
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
III.Feasibility/Need for Subsidy (max. 25 points)
1 How well has the applicant demonstrated the requested level
of public subsidy is necessary (private/other funds not available)?
0-10 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Does the project schedule adequately demonstrate the project will be
completed within the required time period?
0-5 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Does the project provide a long-term solution to the need identified?0-10 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IV Impact/Benefit (max. 20 points)
1 What primary level of low-median income persons are targeted? Guide:
0-30%=10 pts31-50%=6 pts
51-60%=4 pts
61-80%=1pt
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Does the project have a reasonable per-person cost compared to
other projects of similar scope/cost?
0-5 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Does the project serve a reasonable number of people compared to
other projects of similar scope/cost?
0-5 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V Capacity/History (max. 10 points)
1 Does the organization have the capacity to complete the project,
proven either by prior project completion or current expert staffing?
0-10 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maximum Points: 100 TOTAL:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HousingPublic Facilities