HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-2016 Housing & Community Development CommissionI r 1
-4-=� p-
CITY OF IOWA CITY
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.
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.
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.
CRIME FREE LFASF ADDENDUM
Property Address
Landlord: South Gate Property Management, L.L.C.
Tenant's):
In consideration of the execution or renewal of a Residential Rental Agreement (the "Lease") for the property described
above (the "Dwelling Unit°), Landlord and Tenant agree as follows,
1. The following terms and conditions shall apply to Tenant; any member of Tenant's household; any guest of
Tenant or of any member of Tenant's household, any associate (whether invited or uninvited) of Tenant or of any member
or Tenant's household; and any person under the control of Tenant or any member of Tenant's household.
These persons are referred to in this Crime Free Lease Addendum as "Tenant and Tenants Affiliates".
'Drug -Related Criminal Aotivlty" means the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, use: or possession with intent to
manufacture, sett, distribute, or use of a controlled substance (as defined in Inwa Code Chapter 124 or the Controlled
Substance Act [21 U.S.C. 802]) or any imitation controlled substance (as defined in Iowa Code Chapter 124A).
(a) Tenant and Tenant's Affiliates shall not engage in any criminal activity, including Dmg-Related Criminal Activity, in or
near the Apartment Comm unity.
(b) Tenant and Tenant's Affiliates shall not be charged with Drug -Related Criminal Activity, assault threatening or
intimidating, or the unlawfuI discharge of firearms whether in or near the Apartment Community.
(c) Tenant and Tenant's Affiliates shall rot enrage in any act intended to facilitate criminal activity, including Drug -
Related Criminal Activity, in or near the Apartment Community.
(d) Tenant and Tenant's Affiliates will not permit the Duelling Unit to be used for or to facilitate criminal activity,
including Drug -Related Criminal Activity, regardless of the identity of the individual engaging in such activity.
(a) Tenant and Tenant's Affiliates shall noterl in the unlawful manufacturind selling. using storm❑ keeping or
owing or a controlled substance (as defined in Iowa Code Chapter 124) or an imitation controlled substance (as
defined in loom Code Chapter 124A) any illegal or prohibited weapon at any location, whether in or near the
Apartment Community or otherwise in the State of Iowa.
(f) Tenant and Tenant's Affiliates shall nut soil, use, stare, keep orgive any illegal or prohibited weapon at any location,
whether in or near the Apartment Community or otherwise in the State of Iowa-
(g) Tenant and Tenant's Affiliates shall notenaage in any illeoal or criminal activity 111c(udino. but not limiled to,
prostitution, criminal street gang activity, assault, threatening cr intimidatlra or the unlawful discharge of firearms in
or near the Apartment Community
(h) Tenant and Tenant's Affiliates shall not keep the Dwelling Unit as a disorderly house. Iowa City Code section 85-5,
regarding disorderly houses, provides- "No person shall permit or suffer to continue, without taking legal steps to
prevent the same, any quarreling, fight, disorderly oondurt, or other conduct or conci log that threatens Injury to
Initials: (Tenai (Landlord) Pagea of 11
Residential Rental Agreement 2.1.16
person or damage, or loud, raucous, disagreeable noises to the disturbance of the neighborhood, or to the
disturbance of the general public, upon a premises owned by the person or in the person's possession. For
purposes of this Section, 'to the disturbance of the general public' includes the disturbance of persons beyond the
subject premises andforto the disturbance of person upon public places, including peace officers.'
Ill Tenant and Tenant's Affiliates shall net cause an unreasonably high number of calls for police service, Including, but
not limited to, noise complaints, stray or other animal complaints, juvenile complaints orcther publiccomplaints_
0) Tenant and Tenants Affiliates shall not engage in any breach of the Lease that otherwise ieopardixes the health
safety or welfare of Landlord Landlord's property manager, any other tenant or any other person or Involving
imminent or actual serious Property damage.
VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THIS CRIME FREE LEASE ADDENDUM SHALL BE A MATERIAL AND
IRREPARABLE VIOLATION OF IKE LEA E AND GQOU CAUSE FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OF
TENANCY. A sinvle violation of any of the provisions of this Crime Free Lease Addendum shall he deemed
a serious violation and a material and irreparable non-compliance underthe Lease. It is understood that a
is note violation shall be good cause for termination of the Lease under Iowa Law. Lfn less otherwise provided
bylaw. proof of violation of the terms of this Crime Free Lease Addendum shall not require criminal
coavicticn, but shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence can be
determined by, but not limited to, a police report, police citations, informatlon received from the police
department or a police officer, or any observations made by the Owner or by the Manager.
3. In case of conflict between the provisions of this Crime Free Lease Addendum and any other provisions of
the Lease, the provisions of this Crime Free Lease Addendum shall control-
4- This Crime Free Lease Addendum is incorporated into the Lease executed or renewed this day between
Landlord and Tenant
Tenant
Date'
Tenant.
Dale:
Tenant
Tenant
Date.
Date
D ate
By SouthGate Property Management, L.L.C.
Initials: (Tenant(i (Landlord) Page 9 of 11
Residential Rental Agreement 2.1.16
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 31, 2016
To: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
From: SUSAN DULEK, ASS-T. CITYATTORNEY
Re: QUORUMS AND JOHNSON CO. AFFORDABLE HOMES COALITION
Persons who apply to serve on City Boards and Commissions are often active in other
community groups and organizations. It is my understanding that most of the members of
HCDC have attended meetings of the Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition ("Coalition").
The legal issue is not with a particular member attending a Coalition meeting, but with five or
more HCDC members (i.e., a quorum) attending the same Coalition meeting.
Under Chapter 21 of the Iowa Code (Iowa's Open Meetings Law), "meeting" is defined as
follows:
Meeting means a gathering in person or by electronic means, formal or informal, of a
majority of the members of a governmental body where there is deliberation or action
upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body's policy -making duties.
Meetings shall not include a gathering of members of a governmental body for purely
ministerial or social purposes when there is no discussion of policy or no intent to avoid
the purposes of this chapter.
One of duties of HCDC, as stated in its bylaws, is to °assess and review policies ... related to
the provision of housing ... for low and moderate income residents of Iowa City...." This duty is
a major concern of the Coalition. As a result, there is the potential of a quorum of HCDC
members deliberating at a Coalition meeting upon a matter that is within the scope of HCDC.
One can certainly argue about what it means to "deliberate," but Section 21.1 of the Iowa Code
provides that "[a]mbiguity in the construction or application of this chapter should be resolved in
favor of openness."
As a result, I advise that no more than four (4) HCDC members attend a Coalition meeting. On
the agenda for your June 16 meeting will be an item to discuss this issue.
I want to add two more words of caution. First, if you do attend a Coalition meeting, or the
meeting of any other group or communicate to any other person or group, please remember that
you are communicating on behalf of yourself individually, not on behalf of HCDC. HCDC
positions are the result of a motion that is passed at a meeting.
Second, I suggest reviewing the Memorandum from the City Attorney dated May 5, 2016 that
was provided to you previously on open meetings after the Supreme Court's Hutchison v. Shull
opinion.
If you have questions about this Memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact me at 356-
5030.
Copy to: Kris Ackerson and Tracy Hightshoe
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 5, 2016
To: City Council, City Boards and Commissions, City Manager, Department Heads
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorne�
Re: Open Meetings after Hutchison v. Shull
On March 18, 2016 in the case of Hutchison v. Shull (No. 14-1649), 2016 Iowa Sup.
LEXIS 35, the Iowa Supreme Court adopted a new standard for determining whether a
"meeting" occurs under Iowa's Open Meetings Law (Chapter 21 of the Iowa Code). As
you know, the Iowa Open Meetings law prohibits a majority of a public body from
deliberating about a matter within the scope of the body's policy -making duties unless that
deliberation occurs at a properly noticed public meeting. Prior to Hutchison it was
generally understood that for a "meeting" to occur there had to be a gathering (in person
or by electronic means) of a majority of the members of the public body. After Hutchison
a meeting of a public body can occur even if a majority of the board or Council are not
physically or electronically present. A meeting now occurs whenever a majority of
members of a governmental body meet, whether each member attends personally,
electronically or through an agent.
In Hutchison individual Warren County supervisors deliberated about a staff
reorganization through serial one on one meetings with the County Administrator acting as
the "conduit" who relayed messages between the supervisors. Because the Administrator
was found to be an "agent" of the supervisor(s) not present the Administrator was counted
in determining that a majority of the Board had met in violation of the open meetings law.
The Court stated:
In summary, the open meetings law does not prohibit discussions
between members of a governmental body and its staff to exchange
ideas and gather information in order for the body to act upon an issue
during an open meeting. However, the open meetings law does prohibit
the majority of a governmental body gathering in person through the use
of agents or proxies to deliberate any matter within the scope of its policy -
making duties outside the public view.
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS at 39-40.
The Court's application of agency principles to determine when a meeting occurs raises a
number of unresolved questions. There are many potential "agents", including staff,
family members, members of the public and council/board members themselves. One
person can be the "agent" for one council/board member or more than one council/board
member. Because of the Hutchison decision, actions of staff and members of the public
body may be subject to additional scrutiny by those opposed to a decision.
The following is my general guidance in light of Hutchison.
May 5, 2016
Page 2
1. Staff and council/board members may share information outside of a public meeting
2. Outside of a public meeting staff should not assist the council/board members in
reaching a consensus even if less than a majority of the council/board is present.
3. Outside of a public meeting a staff member should not relate his/her understanding of
the position of another council member even if less than a majority of the council/board is
present.
4. Members of the council/board should be mindful that they can be an "agent' of other
members and should avoid relaying the opinions of another member(s) not present when
discussing policy matters with less than a majority of members.
5. Whenever in doubt, discussion should occur at a public meeting. If an informational
discussion could be perceived as an improper "meeting" the matter should be placed on
an agenda for a public meeting for direction/action of the board/council.
6. Action should not be taken to implement a measure on which board/council approval
is required until after that decision is made at a public meeting.
These are generalizations and will not apply in every instance. For example, if the City
Manager meets with council members A and B and tells them what the position of council
member C is, only 3 members of the council would be involved in the discussion, with C
participating through his "agent', the City Manager. However, if during this conversation
the City Manager relays the position of council members C and D then 4 members (a
majority of the Council) have had a meeting with 2 participating through their "agent', the
City Manager. Because of potential challenges and the difficulty of proving what actually
occurred, however, it is best to reserve discussion of the positions of other council/board
members for public meetings.
A recent update from the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB) notes that many questions
and concerns have arisen about the impact of Hutchison. The IPIB plans to issue an
advisory opinion on the issues which I will pass on to you when I receive it. In addition, I
will continue to discuss the case with other city attorneys in Iowa and will provide
additional guidance as necessary.
Please contact me if you have questions
CC: Assistant City Attorneys
6/2/2016 lava City tcwnhcuse tenants maybe displaced during renovations I The Gazette
Iowa City townhouse tenants may be displaced during renovations
Owners of Walden Ridge townhouses will keep rent low, pay relocation costs
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).
Jun 2, 2016 at 1:02 pm I 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
Erin Jordan expenses for displaced tenants.
The Gazette SouthGate Companies, based in Iowa City, sent
letters this week to tenants of Walden Ridge, a
complex of about 100 townhouses west of Mormon
More stories from Erin 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
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/newsfima-city-tmn-house-tenants-may-be-displaced-during-renwatims-20160602 1/3
6/2/2016 lava City tcwnhcuse tenants maybe displaced during renovations I The Gazette
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 two -bedroom townhouse will stay at $875 per month, which is
below the $1,064 average rent for an Iowa City two -bedroom, 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 two -bedroom
apartment; $1,182, minus utilities, for a three -bedroom; 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
http:Owww.thegazette.com/subject/newsfima-city-tmn-house-tenants-may-be-displaced-during-renovations-20160602 2/3
6/2/2016 lava City tcwnhcuse tenants maybe displaced during renovations I The Gazette
More From the Gazette
From Around the Web
■ 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)
Recommended by ®Utbraln
http:Uwww.thegazette.com/subj ect/newsAcwa-city-town-house-tenants- may- be -di splaced-during-renovations-20160602 3/3
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? 0,Yes 0 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.
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
Number between 31 — 50% median income
Number between 51 — 60% median income
Number between 61 - 80% median income
Number over 80% median income
households (a)
households (b)
households (c)
_27 households (d)
_26 households (e)
Total _53 households (f)
Percent LMI _50 (a+b+c+d) + f
Housing 7 FY16 Mid -Year CDBG Funding Request
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
THE 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
Housing
Systems Unlimited
THE Sabin Townhomes
$ 250,000
$ 300,000
$ -
$ -
$ 184,000
$ 300,000
3
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
Public
Broadway Neighborhood Center Phase 2
$ 94,140
$ 94,140
$ -
1
Facilities
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
Public
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County
NA
$ 15,000
NA
400
Services
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
NA
$ 45,000
NA
225
Total Public Services
$ 100,000
$ -
1,425
Iowa City Economic Development Fund*:
Entities Assisted
Econ.
Streetscape Improvements, City-Univ URA
NA
$ 50,000
NA
1
Dev
Total Economic Development
$ 50,000
$ -
1
HOME Program Admi nistration*
NA
NA
$ 42,130
NA
Admin.
jCDBGProgram 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 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/caml23.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 night 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 pubic 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
CITY OF IOWA CITY
HCDC Member:
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?
II. Leveraging Resources/Budget(max. 25 points)
1 Does the project have realistic cost estimates, including bids?
2 Does the project leverage community partnerships and/or volunteer
resources?
3 Does the project leverage private financial resources?
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)?
2 Does the project schedule adequately demonstrate the project will be
completed within the required time period?
3 Does the project provide a long-term solution to the need identified?
IV Impact/Benefit(max. 20 points)
1 What primary level of low -median income persons are targeted?
2 Does the project have a reasonable per -person cost compared to
other projects of similar scope/cost?
3 Does the project serve a reasonable number of people compared to
other projects of similar scope/cost?
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?
C
N
V
LL_
E
D
Y0
~
n
D
3
N
Q
C
O
O
O
N
E
LL
O
1
w
7
L
U
N
r
LL
=
Q
O
o
C
p
°
U
U
a
w
d
o
E
w =
Points
a
o
d
r
o
a
=
d
F
0-20 Points
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0-10 Points
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0-5 Points
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Guide:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0-25% = 0-1 pt
26-50% = 24 pts
51-75% = 5-7 pts
76-99% = 8-10 pts
Subtotal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0-10 Points
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0-5 Points
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
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
Guide:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0-30%=10 pts
31-50%=6 pts
51-60%=4 pts
61-80%=1pt
0-5 Points
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
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
0-10 Points
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Maximum Points: 100 TOTAL: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Fordable Housing, Johnson County
,15
Definitions to Consider
.ffordable Housing: Housing is affordable for households with incomes at or below 80%' of the HUD
established Area Median Income if residents pay no more than 30% of their gross monthly income for either;
rent, insurance and utilities or mortgage, principal, interest, insurance and homeowner fees.
Housing Cost Burden: Residents are housing cost burden if they spend more than 30% of their gross monthly
income on housing costs.
Severe Housing Cost Burden: Residents are severely cost burdened if they spend more than 50% of the
gross monthly income on housing costs.
Work Force Housing: Work force housing is determined by household income, not by employment. Work
Force Housing is is affordable for households with incomes above 80% AMI and
not to exceed 120% of the HUD determined Area mMedim Iiucomc if residents pay no more than 30% of their
gross monthly income for either, rent insurance and utilities or mortgage principal interest insurance and
homeowner fees. based e ,,ouseheW
11'ork Force housing. Work force housing is determined by household income, not by employment. Work
Force Housing is affordable for households with incomes above 80% AMI and not to exceed 120% of the HUD
determined Area Median Income if residents pay no more than 30% of their gross monthly income for either,
rent, insurance and utilities or mortgage, principal, interest, insurance and homeowner fees.
Income Qualified Households: Householdslproperdes receiving public assistance for housing must have
household incomes based on household size that meet the formulas mandated by the funding source, Different
public funding sources have different income requirements for recipients.
Housing Choice Voucher: The housing choice voucher program is the federal government's major program for
assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in
the private market. Housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual. The participant is free
to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in
subsidized housing projects.
Housing choice vouchers are administered locally by public housing agencies (PHAs), pursuant to federal
regulations. The PHAs receive federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to administer the voucher program within their local jurisdiction.
A family that is issued a housing voucher is responsible for finding a suitable housing unit of the family's choice
where the owner agrees to rent under the program. This unit may include the family's present residence. Rental
units must meet minimum standards of health and safety, as determined by the PHA.
A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the PHA on behalf of the participating family. The family
then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the
program. Under certain circumstances, if authorized by the PHA, a family may use its voucher to purchase a
modest home_