Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC 9.15.16.pdf AGENDA Housing and Community Development Commission Thursday, September 15, 2016 – 6:30 P.M. Helling Conference Room, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 1. Call meeting to order 2. Nominate and elect officers (chair/vice chair) 3. Approval of the August 18, 2016 minutes 4. Public comment for topics not on the agenda 5. Public meeting & approval of the FY16 Consolidated Annual Performance & Evaluation Report (CAPER) – online at www.icgov.org/actionplan 6. Tentative schedule of project monitoring visits in FY17 7. Updates and amendments to the Iowa City Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) Administrative Plan 8. Update on energy efficiency grant program with AmeriCorps and MidAmerican 9. Update from City Attorney regarding crime free addendum 10. Discuss how Housing and Community Development Commission wants to receive correspondence 11. Update on public input being sought regarding CITY STEPS 12. Staff/Commission Comment 13. Adjournment MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 2016 – 6:30 PM DALE HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Syndy Conger, Christine Harms, Harry Olmstead, Dorothy Persson, Emily Seiple, Paula Vaughan MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Lamkins, John McKinstry STAFF PRESENT: Kris Ackerson, Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: Tracey Achenbach, Maryann Dennis, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval to allow Charm Homes to reduce the number of units from eight to four and use some of the money for rehab to make accessibility improvements. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommended the following recommendations as modified from the Affordable Housing Action Plan presented to City Council on June 21, 2016: Priority Recommendations: 4. Provide staff funding direction heading into the FY18 budget process • HCDC recommends $1,000,000 annually through a regular line item in the budget funded with property taxes or other revenue streams 5. Develop an annual process for distributing dollars from the City’s newly created Affordable Housing Fund • HCDC recommends 50% to the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund, with a focus on multi-family projects • 25% held in reserve for land banking • Maximum of 5% for emergent situations determined by the City Council (if funds not used by end of the fiscal year, the funds reserved for land banking) • 20% directed through HCDC for LIHTC support or supplemental aid through the CDBG / HOME housing application processes 12. Create a committee of staff, developers and other interested stakeholders to determine the viability and potential parameters of a tax abatement program that would support affordable housing • Create an education program to promote the benefits of subsidized housing projects to landlords/developers 13. Exempt the Riverfront Crossings, Downtown and University Impact Areas from the Affordable Housing Location model and consider modifications to reduce size of restricted areas and/or account for neighborhood densities Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 3 of 15 • Consider adoption of a new neighborhood based (not address based) Affordable Housing Location Model to allow and encourage city-assisted development in more locations throughout the City, including redevelopment of existing affordable housing Remaining Recommended Actions: 1. Continue to fund existing local programs including GRIP and UniverCity as well as review the set-aside for housing rehabilitation as set in the Consolidated Plan. 2. Adopt an Inclusionary Zoning code amendment for the Riverfront Crossings District (Done) 3. Adopt code amendments that enable the FUSE Housing First use in the community (Done) 6. Hold the $1,900,000 million in housing authority funds for an opportunity to leverage significant private investment and/or to develop/acquire low income replacement housing 7. Consider an annexation policy that provides for affordable housing contributions 8. Consider use of TIF on a case by case basis to support residential development and/or annexation through the provision of public infrastructure and capture the required LMI set-aside for use throughout the community (Ex: McCollister and Foster Road) 9. Pursue regulatory changes to City Code: • Waive parking requirements for affordable and non-affordable units in RFC and downtown • Review possible changes to the multi-family design standards for all units in an effort to reduce cost and expedite approvals • Eliminate minimum size requirements for PUDs • Increase allowable bedrooms from 3 to 4 outside the University Impact Area (keep occupancy at 3 unrelated) • Permit more building types by right as opposed to requiring a PUD process (density, multiplex units, cottage clusters, etc.) 10. Pursue a form-based code for the Alexander Elementary neighborhood and the downtown core 11. Strategically seek LIHTC projects through an RFP process overseen by the HCDC (ties to use of the Affordable Housing Fund) 14. Tenant Displacement • Council notification of major site plans when 12 or more households will be displaced and there is no accompanying rezoning Such applications would require a transition plan to better inform residents and the general public (requires a comprehensive plan amendment) • Mailings to current residents could be required upon application and a good neighbor meeting would be encouraged • Develop a displacement policy, including defining displacement (not to include non-renewal of lease) and “emergent situation” Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 4 of 15 15. Rent abatement for emergency orders when vacation of property is not necessary (use simpler language for ease of understanding) • Increase education about housing code violations and how to report Additional Recommendations: 16. Increase Neighborhood Services involvement in the early stages of residential development • Suggest having a Neighborhood Services representative located in the City Manager’s office 17. Consider opportunities to collect rent data beyond the rental permitting process CALL TO ORDER: Byler called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. APPROVAL OF JUNE 16, 2016 MINUTES: Ackerson noted that the City Attorney’s office reviewed the minutes and asked that staff clarify the draft minutes that state the Housing Authority reviews Housing Choice Voucher leases. ICHA does not review all leases. The landlord signs a HAP that reads as follows: (2)The lease is in a standard form that is used in the locality by the owner and that is generally used for other unassisted tenants in the premises. (3) The lease is consistent with State and local Law. The draft minutes also state that the City Attorney reviews leases “periodically.” In the past, the City Attorney’s office would review a lease if requested by ICHA staff but that was perhaps one lease per year. After the Iowa Supreme Court issued a major opinion this spring, legal staff began reviewing leases as they come in. The minutes also state that the “City has encouraged landlords to institute a Crime Free Lease Addendum to protect other tenants from life safety or health safety concerns.” It is not done citywide, but done on a limited basis to address neighborhood/tenant concerns. Persson moved to approve the minutes of June 16, 2016 with minor edits. Harms seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO REDUCE UNITS FOR CHARM HOMES CDBG PROJECT– PROPOSED FY16 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT #4: Ackerson stated this was a project discussed at the last meeting, CHARM Homes, LLC said that they were unable to find wheelchair accessible units so they would like to reduce the project from eight to four single room occupancy units and use some of the funds for rehab to make accessibility improvements. Conger moved to approve FY16 Annual Action Plan Amendment #4 to allow Charm Homes to Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 5 of 15 reduce the number of units from eight to four and use some of the money for rehab to make accessibility improvements. Seiple seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0. DISCUSS AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIES FOR THE CITY: Byler noted this was brought up at the last meeting but was deferred until City staff had an opportunity to make their presentation at the work session. The presentation was included in the Commission’s packet. Byler suggests beginning discussion by reviewing the summary of recommended actions in the presentation. Persson questioned the statement regarding expanding workforce housing and does that assume that throughout this presentation that affordable and workforce housing are the same thing. Hightshoe stated they are not the same, affordable by definition is below 80% income level and workforce housing goes up to 110%. Persson feels that needs to be clarified. Hightshoe noted that Council is asking the Commission not only to review the 15 recommendations and decide which ones they recommend, but also to prioritize their recommendations because staff will not be able to proceed on all immediately. 1. Continue to fund existing local programs including GRIP and UniverCity. Byler asked if GRIP is funded out of CDBG funds. Hightshoe said it was a separate budget item. GRIP is for homeowners under 110% and the funds must be repaid to the City. Byler noted that some on the Commission have expressed an interest in reviewing the policy of setting aside $300,000 each year for owner-occupied rehab. So perhaps as a footnote that the Council review the amount of CDBG that is set aside. Hightshoe noted that each year the Commission reviews the priorities of CITY STEPS and makes recommendations to Council. So that recommendation can be made at that time. Seiple asked if UniverCity takes a similar amount of staff time, knowing that was an issue with the Homeowner Rehabilitation program. Hightshoe noted all programs take staff time. Sometimes UniverCity is easier to implement because staff does not have to coordinate work with homeowner schedules. UniverCity homes are vacant until the work is completed and ready to be sold. 2. Adopt an Inclusionary Zoning code amendment for the Riverfront Crossings District. Persson asked where that was in the process, thinking that was done. Byler said that was approved by Council so it is done. Vaughan asked about long-term strategy because there were other phrases used in this document talking about urban renewal districts – are there any plans for inclusionary zoning elsehwere. Hightshoe said they are using the Riverfront Crossings District to see how it will work. Riverfront Crossings will have more density than anywhere else in town so right now it’s only envisioned for Riverfront Crossings. 3. Adopt code amendments that enable the FUSE Housing First use in the community. Byler believes this is also already complete. Hightshoe confirmed it is complete. 4. Provide staff funding direction heading into the FY 18 budget process • Staff recommends aiming for $500,000 to $1,000,000 depending on budget conditions • Recommended revenue sources include district-wide TIF in the urban core and property tax Byler asked how to divide up the money on an annual basis, and if the money is not spent does it accumulate, or is it reset. Hightshoe stated she believes once the money is provided it stays in the fund until it is spent on affordable housing. Byler then feels that $1,000,000 a year, which is around 1% or a Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 6 of 15 little less of the City’s budget, is probably an appropriate number to recommend. He also suggests striking the part of the sentence that states, “depending on budget conditions.” Byler also suggests this is added to the budget as a line item rather than from an engineered source such as a TIF. Persson agreed noting that whenever there is a line item it shows strong intent. Seiple stated that the 20% of the higher amount ($1,000,000) is $200,000 which is actually less than either of the LIHTC project requests this year. Byler asked if everyone was in favor of recommending the $1,000,000 and striking “depending on budget conditions” and recommending that it is a regular line funded through property taxes. The commissioners were in agreement. 5. Develop an annual process for distributing dollars from the City’s newly created Affordable Housing Fund • Staff recommends 50% to the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund • 30% held in reserve for land banking or emergent situations determined by the City Council • 20% directed to HCDC for LIHTC support or supplemental aid through the CDBG / HOME application processes Olmstead asked whether the Rose Oaks $250 payments were coming out of this fund as well. Byler confirmed it is the first fund expenditure. Persson noted that policies and procedures should be developed for distribution of these funds so people know what to expect. Byler agreed, noting there are several details within this recommendation that people could have a variety of opinions about. For the 50% that is allocated to the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund, would their board decide on the allocations or would there be stipulations such as must be spent in Iowa City. Tracey Achenbach (Johnson County Housing Trust Fund) stated a few of the board have met with City staff to discuss this, and the Trust Fund will do whatever the City wants them to do with the money. She can administer the funds however as directed. Hightshoe added that staff has discussed but no decisions have been made. There have been discussions on only in Iowa City, income levels to target, etc., but Council wants to hear community input on parameters. Achenbach said the Trust Fund also discussed that it might be helpful if the Trust Fund can either present to the HCDC and/or the Council what their standard policies and procedures are to see how money from the Trust Fund is normally spent. Persson thinks people would be more comfortable moving forward with this project if there were policies and procedures in place. With the situation with Rose Oaks, nothing was in place so how should the City learn from that. Achenbach noted their accountability is the same as the City’s. Persson asked about the 30% held in reserve. Will there be policies and procedures in place for those funds as well, or will it just be reactive. Hightshoe said she was unsure about emergent situations but land banking is a strategy that staff has previously recommended. Land banking would hopefully be used to obtain tax credit projects. Emergent situations needs to be defined, but it is hard because one never knows what may arise. Rose Oaks was a very unique situation that the City has not seen before (no rezoning needed, no financial assistance requested and the large number of households impacted). Persson feels that the 30% that is allocated for emergent situations does need parameters. Byler agrees with Persson and also feels the 30% should be specified how much is for land banking and how much is for emergent situations. He also feels that if the City wants to create a displacement policy or fund that should be a separate thing. Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 7 of 15 Harms supports breaking apart the 30% to specify how much should be allocated where, noting that land banking is very important. Byler asked why the percentages were broken down this way. He would have allocated 33% for each and then for the land banking/emergent 33% allocated 30% for land banking and 3% for emergencies. Hightshoe noted the percentages were just a point to start discussions. Byler suggests first to allocate the three line items as 33% funding for each. He would also recommend the 33% that goes to the Trust Fund to not have any strings attached. Persson disagrees with reducing the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund allocation because she feels it has been underfunded for years and feels its effectiveness has been impaired as a result. Conger noted that some of the recommendations are experimental, and are not sure if or how they will work. However the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund is a known entity that works. So feels that should receive a higher percentage. Byler asked what percentage of the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund projects are single family rehabs or down payment assistance. Achenbach said it was about 30%. They don’t have a lot of owner-occupied activity because State funds never go for anything above 80% medium income. They have awarded almost $4,000,000 in projects in the last 12 years and about a third of that was owner-occupied the rest is rental. Byler noted that it appears the Commissioners prefer to leave the allocation of 50% to the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund. He suggests not having geographic strings on that allocation, but focus the money on dense multi-family projects. With regards to the second bullet, the 30%, it could be split 25% for land banking and maximum 5% for emergent situations. Persson agrees but wants to add that Council must set a policy on how the money is distributed. Byler said they will recommend 5% with a note that a displacement/emergent situation policy must be created. Vaughan noted that the 5% is bothersome because it is being taken away from the land banking, leaving only 25% for land banking. Byler said they could add if the 5% is not used at the end of the fiscal year for emergent situations it could be rolled back into the land banking. Seiple noted that she is interested in discussing other situations that may not be emergent but some regulations might help. Such as when a lease ends and the tenant is not renewed and looking for ways to stabilize those situations. Byler said that is addressed in item 14. 14. Tenant Displacement • Council approval of major site plans when 12 or more households will be displaced and there is no accompanying rezoning • Such applications would require a transition plan to better inform residents and the general public (requires a comprehensive plan amendment) • Mailings to current residents could be required upon application and a good neighbor meeting would be encouraged Byler asked if it was legal for the Council to have approval of major site plans. Staff approves site plans based on legality. Ackerson stated this was more of a notification so the City and residents have more Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 8 of 15 advanced notice. Byler asked if then it should be stated as Council notification, not approval. Maryann Dennis (The Housing Fellowship) stated there is a big difference between displacement and non- renewal of lease. The non-renewal of a lease is a contract ending, not a displacement. Byler said this policy was being created for a lease not being renewed because of development. Persson noted that this recommendation discussed a group of a certain size or larger being displaced, not just one individual situation. Seiple stated that displacement needs to be defined in the recommendation so there is not confusion between displacement and lease non-renewal. Byler stated that he does not agree with Council having to approve site plans. Hightshoe stated it was meant so that more notice had to be given to tenants. Byler asked then to change the language to Council is notified of major site plans. Seiple asked if there was a fire and all the tenants were displaced. Byler said that could fit into the definition of emergent situation. Byler stated the Commission’s recommendation for #14 would be to change “approval” to “notification” and to define displacement not to include the end of lease non-renewal. 6. Hold the $1,900,000 million in housing authority funds for an opportunity to leverage significant private investment and/or to develop/acquire low income replacement housing. Hightshoe noted that staff is taking notes and will email a summary of the discussion to the Commission for accuracy before sending onto Council. Byler stated one possible change would be to add “actively search out private investments” to leverage the $1.9 million because of the nature of these acquisitions. Hightshoe confirmed that some of these acquisitions have to be publically owned housing but there is opportunity to do some mixed-unit developments. For example in the Chauncey project, five of the units will be public housing units. Persson asked how long those units would be public housing units. Hightshoe said not always forever, they can be sold, but not anytime soon. Seiple noted that the recommendations don’t specify if they are focusing on families or certain income brackets so perhaps that needs to be addressed. Hightshoe said most of the units are family, some are specified for elderly or disabled (over 50% of the vouchers are for elderly or disabled), and the rest are families. 7. Consider an annexation policy that provides for affordable housing contributions. Achenbach asked what it meant by contributions, does it mean money into the affordable housing fund or does it mean in lieu of affordable housing. Hightshoe stated it could mean both. Persson asked if the statement was too broad. Byler felt that was okay in this situation. Byler feels that City staff can develop policies to oversee the details. Hightshoe noted a concern that if the City makes the requirements too strict development may go to other municipals. Byler feels the reason inclusionary zoning works in Riverfront Crossings is because that land is so valuable. He also noted that what makes for affordable housing is increased availability of housing, so he would not want to put restrictions on annexation that would deter developers from wanting to build in the City. 8. Consider use of TIF on a case by case basis to support residential development and/or annexation Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 9 of 15 through the provision of public infrastructure and capture the required LMI set-aside for use throughout the community (Ex: McCollister and Foster Road). Byler stated he is not a fan of residential TIFs because of opportunities like tax rebates which he feels are much more effective. Harms said while many don’t like TIFs they are used widely in college towns like Iowa City with very expensive city centers. This could be used as an experiment and should be left in for that reason. Seiple noted that residential TIFs are not typically used. Dennis noted that residential TIFS are used to increase residential development, especially in towns that hadn’t had any new houses built in years. Byler suggested leaving the recommendation in - but all agreed it’s not a high priority. 9. Pursue regulatory changes to City Code: • Waive parking requirements for affordable units in RFC and downtown • Review possible changes to the multi-family design standards for all units in an effort to reduce cost and expedite approvals • Eliminate minimum size requirements for PUDs (Planned Use Development) • Increase allowable bedrooms from 3 to 4 outside the University Impact Area (keep occupancy at 3 unrelated persons) • Permit more building types by right as opposed to requiring a PUD process (density, multiplex units, cottage clusters, etc.) Byler is in favor of all these ideas and Harms agreed. Seiple noted that perhaps the parking requirements could be waived beyond just the affordable units. Hightshoe said there has been a pushback from neighborhoods near downtown because of a concern that increased residents in downtown without adequate parking would push the parking into their neighborhoods. 10. Pursue a form-based code for the Alexander Elementary neighborhood and the downtown core Byler said this is something the Council is very attuned with at this time. Seiple questioned what the link was of affordable housing and form-based, if it was just that density was cheaper. Byler confirmed it was, and also in the downtown core it’s about historical preservation as well. Hightshoe added that the goal is a variety of units. 11. Strategically seek LIHTC projects through an RFP process overseen by the HCDC (ties to use of the Affordable Housing Fund) Byler again said this recommendation is straightforward. Hightshoe said there are projects where the developer will tap into every source available. Seiple asked if the City was planning to change some of the vouchers into project based. Hightshoe said it depends on the qualified application plan, if there are a lot of points given to project based vouchers then they would be willing to consider them. 12. Create a committee of staff, developers and other interested stakeholders to determine the viability and potential parameters of a tax abatement program that would support affordable housing Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 10 of 15 Byler believes this recommendation should be a very high priority. It could be a way for the City to leverage funds to create opportunities. Byler also wanted to add he feels Neighborhood Development staff should also be in the City Manager’s office so they can be involved in developments and assisting developers with opportunities. Persson agreed and said that is a noticeable way to say affordable housing is on par with Economic Development (which is already in that office). The Commission agreed to add a recommendation stating in early stage residential development projects Neighborhood Services staff should be involved in discussions with City Manager. 13. Exempt the Riverfront Crossings, Downtown and University Impact Areas from the Affordable Housing Location model and consider modifications to reduce size of restricted areas and/or account for neighborhood densities Hightshoe noted that the City is already following up on this recommendation. Ackerson will update the model in October based on the seven factors that go into the model. This year it will be different because there will be the school information from Alexander School. Additionally they are exempting Riverfront Crossings because it is inclusionary zoning already. Hightshoe stated it is important to not have all City subsidized housing located in limited areas of the City. There was discussion on how the affordable housing location model is structured and if there could be a better way to construct a model. If the goal is just to make sure all the affordable housing is not concentrated into one area, perhaps there is a better way to structure the model. Hightshoe said the current model was created to address the school district concerns of having concentrated poverty and placing assisted housing (for low income families) scattered throughout the district. Byler suggested a new system that follows the elementary school district lines and apply criteria for affordable housing to each of those neighborhoods. Byler suggested changing recommendation #13 to “exempt the Riverfront Crossings, Downtown and University Impact Areas from the Affordable Housing Location model and fundamentally change the model to neighborhoods instead of individual properties.” The other Commissioners agreed. 15. Rent abatement for emergency orders when vacation of property is not necessary Hightshoe noted the only cautionary point for staff is not all people understand this and will often just not pay rent because of poor conditions which is not acceptable and they can be evicted. Byler suggested adding to this a recommendation to reflect a focus on education in a bilingual platform with regards to tenants’ rights on physical condition of rentals. Dennis noted that the Affordable Housing Coalition is also working on more education on tenants’ rights as well. Byler stated those are the 15 recommendations for action and asked if there were any other items the Commission would like to add. Conger questioned the miscellaneous other topic of collecting rent data on city permits. She feels it should be public information and a resource for the public. Hightshoe said collecting that data may be problematic; landlords can say they are renting units for a certain price but not enough staff to look at every lease to confirm. Staff is also hesitant about not renewing a rental permit as the owner failed to indicate what rent. Ackerson stated he spoke with someone about possibility writing a program that could analyze data from downloads of rental ads on Craigslist and that could be used to assist with data collection. Byler suggested adding a recommendation, #16, to encourage exploring options for collecting better rent data. Commissioners agreed to include this recommendation. Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 11 of 15 Byler also asked if the Commission would be able to see the suggestions that will come through the email that was set up for suggestions on these recommendations. Staff will look into options for that, but noted all comments will be in the Council packet for public to view. Byler noted that while education for tenants is a great idea, he also feels that landlords and developers need education on Housing Choice Vouchers and how lucrative they can be. Perhaps it can be a bullet point under recommendation #12. Hightshoe then asked the Commission to prioritize the recommendations, giving perhaps a top three. Person made a motion to recommend the following recommendations as modified from the Affordable Housing Action Plan presented to City Council on June 21, 2016: Priority Recommendations 4. Provide staff funding direction heading into the FY18 budget process • HCDC recommends $1,000,000 annually through a regular line item in the budget funded with property taxes or other revenue streams 5. Develop an annual process for distributing dollars from the City’s newly created Affordable Housing Fund • HCDC recommends 50% to the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund, with a focus on multi-family projects • 25% held in reserve for land banking • Maximum of 5% for emergent situations determined by the City Council (if funds not used by end of the fiscal year, the funds reserved for land banking) • 20% directed through HCDC for LIHTC support or supplemental aid through the CDBG / HOME housing application processes 12. Create a committee of staff, developers and other interested stakeholders to determine the viability and potential parameters of a tax abatement program that would support affordable housing • Create an education program to promote the benefits of subsidized housing projects to landlords/developers 13. Exempt the Riverfront Crossings, Downtown and University Impact Areas from the Affordable Housing Location model and consider modifications to reduce size of restricted areas and/or account for neighborhood densities • Consider adoption of a new neighborhood based (not address based) Affordable Housing Location Model to allow and encourage city-assisted development in more locations throughout the City, including redevelopment of existing affordable housing Remaining Recommended Actions: 1. Continue to fund existing local programs including GRIP and UniverCity as well as review the set-aside for housing rehabilitation as set in the Consolidated Plan. Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 12 of 15 2. Adopt an Inclusionary Zoning code amendment for the Riverfront Crossings District (Done) 3. Adopt code amendments that enable the FUSE Housing First use in the community (Done) 6. Hold the $1,900,000 million in housing authority funds for an opportunity to leverage significant private investment and/or to develop/acquire low income replacement housing 7. Consider an annexation policy that provides for affordable housing contributions 8. Consider use of TIF on a case by case basis to support residential development and/or annexation through the provision of public infrastructure and capture the required LMI set-aside for use throughout the community (Ex: McCollister and Foster Road) 9. Pursue regulatory changes to City Code: • Waive parking requirements for affordable and non-affordable units in RFC and downtown • Review possible changes to the multi-family design standards for all units in an effort to reduce cost and expedite approvals • Eliminate minimum size requirements for PUDs • Increase allowable bedrooms from 3 to 4 outside the University Impact Area (keep occupancy at 3 unrelated) • Permit more building types by right as opposed to requiring a PUD process (density, multiplex units, cottage clusters, etc.) 10. Pursue a form-based code for the Alexander Elementary neighborhood and the downtown core 11. Strategically seek LIHTC projects through an RFP process overseen by the HCDC (ties to use of the Affordable Housing Fund) 14. Tenant Displacement • Council notification of major site plans when 12 or more households will be displaced and there is no accompanying rezoning Such applications would require a transition plan to better inform residents and the general public (requires a comprehensive plan amendment) • Mailings to current residents could be required upon application and a good neighbor meeting would be encouraged • Develop a displacement policy, including defining displacement (not to include non-renewal of lease) and “emergent situation” 15. Rent abatement for emergency orders when vacation of property is not necessary (use simpler language for ease of understanding) • Increase education about housing code violations and how to report Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 13 of 15 Additional Recommendations: 16. Increase Neighborhood Services involvement in the early stages of residential development • Suggest having a Neighborhood Services representative located in the City Manager’s office 17. Consider opportunities to collect rent data beyond the rental permitting process Harms seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF CHANGES TO THE CDBG AND HOME SCORING CRITERIA: Byler noted this was discussed at the last meeting and the Commission agreed to put a heavier weight on matching funds. The Commission has received some feedback from partners regarding the updated scoring criteria. One noted that if the minimum award will continue to be $50,000 then it only allows for large projects. Byler stated he supports funding big projects. The other two feedback statements were in regards to the smaller organizations struggling more to get matching funds. Persson stated in her experience she has seen that it is very difficult for certain organizations to raise money for certain projects. So if the Commission is to exempt some from having to have matching funds, all must be exempt. Byler agreed but felt it was important for partners to know the importance of fundraising. In a letter to the Commission from Brian Loring, Executive Director of Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County, he states funding from CBDG is often a kick off to success full fundraising. Byler said that is what they would put on their application, that doesn’t preclude receiving funding from CBDG. If a partner has a $100,000 project and receives $50,000 in CBDG, then fundraise for the other $50,000 that is acceptable. Hightshoe noted that makes sense however HUD states that they should be the “funder of last resort,” being the funder that makes the project happen, not kick it off. Conger stated that with the dwindling funds it is important to also put the money where the most impact can be made, not just used as leverage. Byler noted that the scoring criteria are not binding; it is a vehicle to assist with allocation discussions. Hightshoe noted that the new criteria correctly doesn’t advocate for volunteer impact, because there are lots of projects where volunteers are not practical. Persson agreed but felt it should be reworded because there are a lot of agencies that keep track of the volunteer hours they have because that helps them leverage funds from a variety of sources. Funders want to know if there is a commitment from the community. Byler says the application and scoring sheet state “community partnerships and/or volunteer resources.” Hightshoe said that reflects on the mission of the organization, not the project. Dennis asked about item 4.1 regarding income targeting. Hightshoe said what the applicant applies for is typically what they put in the agreement. Dennis stated it is frustrating as a landlord to manage, if you have 20 units and a certain percentage must be under 30%, when an applicant comes in and the landlord verifies the income is over 30% then the landlord has to take the time to review the individual income levels of the other 19 units to make sure it will keep the percentage correct. Byler noted that is the case with any tax-credit project. Dennis also stated that if an applicant comes in and they are $2 over the 30% AMI, that is still really poor but if the landlord doesn’t have a 30% unit, they need to be turned away. Byler Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 14 of 15 said the points are based on percentages of how many units are below 30% but there are still points given for up to 50% so it’s not like people need to be turned away. There was discussion on point allocations but the Commission wants to try it this year and see how the process goes. Persson moved to use this scoring criteria for this year and if changes need to be made tweak it for upcoming years. Harms seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. STAFF/COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: Ackerson mentioned that the crime-free addendum discussion will be on the agenda in September. Also in September the Commission will elect the chair and vice-chair for the year. ADJOURNMENT: Conger moved to adjourn. Vaughan seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record Name Terms expire July 1 10/22/15 11/19/15 1/21/16 2/18/16 3/10/16 4/21/16 5/19/16 6/16/16 8/18/16 Persson, Dottie 2017 X X X O/E X O/E X X X Byler, Peter 2017 X X X X X X X X X McKinstry, John 2017 --- --- --- --- --- --- X X O/E Conger, Syndy 2018 O/E X X X O/E X O/E O/E X Olmstead, Harry 2018 --- --- X X X X X X X Seiple, Emily 2018 X X X X X X X X X Harms, Christine 2019 --- --- --- --- --- --- X X X Lamkins, Bob 2019 X X X X X O/E X O/E O/E Paula Vaughan 2019 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant Date: September 8, 2016 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Community Development Staff Re: September 15 Meeting The following is a short description of the September agenda items. If you have any questions about the agenda, or if you are unable to attend the meeting, please contact Kris Ackerson at 356-5247 or Kristopher-Ackerson@Iowa-City.org. Nomination & Election of Officers Every September, the commission nominates and elects a chair and vice chair. The commission will nominate and vote for these two positions at this meeting. Public Hearing & Approval of the FY16 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) The CAPER is a HUD required document that the City must submit to HUD within 90 days of the end of the plan year. The report describes the federally funded activities undertaken by the City and its partners, and the accomplishments for federal fiscal year 2015 (City FY16). A draft of the CAPER is online at www.icgov.org/actionplan for your review and comment. At this meeting, we will be asking HCDC to approve the document for submission to HUD. Tentative schedule of project monitoring visits in FY17 Staff will invite entities to HCDC meetings to discuss the status of their projects: • November 20 o Domestic Violence Intervention Program  FY16 Shelter operations (Aid to Agencies)  FY16 Facility rehab o Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County  FY17 Daycare operations (Aid to Agencies)  FY16 Broadway Neighborhood Center Rehab o Habitat for Humanity  FY15 Property acquisition and construction for two homes on Prairie Du Chien Road • February 16 o The Housing Fellowship  FY16 Acquisition of Sabin Townhouses  FY16 Rehab of Wayne and Dover  FY17 Acquisition of residential unit  FY17 CHDO Operating o CHARM Homes  FY16 Acquisition of eight single-room-occupancy (SRO) units o Shelter House  FY15 Rapid Rehousing Program  FY17 FUSE land acquisition and construction  FY17 Shelter operations (Aid to Agencies) • March 16 o Arc of Southeast Iowa  FY16 Classroom renovation o Bilam Properties, LLC  FY16 Rehab of Walden Ridge o Mayor’s Youth Empowerment Program  FY17 Acquisition of housing Date: June 30, 2016 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Steven J. Rackis, Iowa City Housing Authority Re: Updates and amendments to the Iowa City Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) Administrative Plan. Introduction: The purpose of the HCVP Administrative Plan is to: • Establish policies for issues not covered under Federal regulations for the HCVP and Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) programs administered by the Iowa City Housing Authority. • The provisions of this Administrative Plan govern administration of the HCVP and FSS programs administered by the Iowa City Housing Authority. Proposed Amendments to the HCV Administrative Plan: 1. Section 5.1: Waiting list Admissions and Special Admissions. In partnership with the Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board, the Iowa City Housing Authority is proposing the creation of a Special Admission for participants in the FUSE Housing First initiative. A Special Admission requires the completion of a preliminary application. The applicant is placed on the waiting list as a “Targeted Applicant”, meaning they proceed directly into the HCVP eligibility determination process. FUSE referrals must be income eligible, and not subject to any lifetime sex offender registry. FUSE (Frequent Users System Engagement) assists chronically homeless individuals who are the most frequent users of high cost services at public expense. These individuals: a. Continuously cycle through a variety of social and public services. b. Experience chronic homelessness and are a small fraction of the overall homeless population (4-5%). c. Have complex behavioral and social challenges that make it difficult for them to succeed in traditional services. 2. 10.1 Acceptable Methods of Verification. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published NOTICE PIH 2013-03 (HA) on January 22, 2013. This notice establishes guidelines intended to simplify the income determination and rent calculation process, which, together, should reduce Housing Authority staff burden and lower Housing Authority operating costs. This Notice was replaced by HUD NOTICE PIH 2016-05 (HA) and requires the following change to Acceptable Methods of Verification. September 6, 2016 Page 2 Current 10.1 Add to 10.1 The Housing Authority will accept a family’s declaration of the amount of assets less than $5,000, and the amount of income expected to be received from those assets. If the family has net family assets in excess of $5,000, the PHA will obtain supporting documentation (SEE 10.2 Types of Verification) from the family to confirm the assets. The Iowa City Housing Authority will verify all assets via 3rd party documentation every 3rd year regardless of total asset amounts. Self-declaration for assets under $5,000 is acceptable for years 1 and 2. 3. Section 11.5 Utility Allowances HUD NOTICE PIH 2016-05 (HA) changed how Housing Authority’s must determine the appropriate utility allowances to use in the Housing Payment Assistance (HAP) calculation. Current 11.5 New 11.5 The ICHA is required to use the appropriate utility allowance for the size of dwelling unit actually leased by the household (rather than the household unit size as determined under the ICHA subsidy standards.) The ICHA is required to use the lesser of the size of dwelling unit actually leased by the family or the family unit size as determined under the ICHA’s subsidy standards, At each reexamination; the ICHA applies the utility allowance from the most current utility allowance schedule. 4. Section 13.2 Interim Reexaminations Families are required to report increases in household income or changes in family composition, in writing, to the Iowa City Housing Authority between regular reexaminations within 30 days of the effective date of the change (example, from the date of employment). The Iowa City Housing Authority is clarifying how a decrease in income due to a voluntary leave of absence from employment affects the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP). Current 13.2 New 13.2 Decreases in income due to voluntary leaves of absence from employment without pay will not result in an increase of HAP. Decreases in income due to voluntary leaves of absence from employment without pay will not result in an increase of HAP. Temporary absences for continuing education are acceptable and will result in an increase in HAP. Recommendation: Staff recommends approving all proposed amendments to the HCV Administrative Plan. Date: July 12, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, Interim City Manager From: Brenda Nations, Sustainability Coordinator Re: Carbon emissions reduction project Introduction: The City’s 2016-2017 Strategic Plan has several climate objectives, including to undertake a project in FY 2017 that achieves a significant measurable carbon emission reduction. Other objectives include creating a substantive and achievable goal for reducing city– wide emissions by 2030 and to create an ad-hoc climate change task force. In May, staff suggested that we independently move forward on the carbon emissions project in FY17; the Climate Change Task Force and setting a city-wide reduction goal will be comprehensive and take longer to identify concrete actions. In addition to achieving a carbon emission reduction, it was also expressed that it was desirable for the project to benefit our low-income population to advance equity and inclusion. Staff convened to discuss options to fulfill this objective, with this potential benefit in mind. Discussion: Staff from several departments met to create a list of options for projects. The list included many good ideas, but some were either not significantly impactful (such as expanding the bike share program into low-income areas, tree planting efforts in selected neighborhoods, or solar powered bus shelters) or did not provide a specific benefit to the selected population (examples include expanding Big Belly solar recycling to parks, solar on parking ramps, a green roof project, electric vehicle charging stations). Two options that capture both goals were discussed: • 1. Partnering with Green Iowa Americorps to conduct energy audits on the City’s 91 Housing Authority units; and • 2. Partnering with a non-profit on an energy efficiency or renewable energy project. After contacting the Green Iowa Americorps program out of UNI, we found the program to be compatible with our upcoming climate initiatives. As a host city, a requirement of $8,000 of matching funds are required for 5 trained full-time Americorps members to conduct energy audits over an 11 month period. The audits include weatherization and a report on energy efficiency opportunities. All 91 Housing Authority units could be completed in the 11 month period. Staff believes that additional funding could be used to implement measures identified in September 6, 2016 Page 2 the audits (for example, adding additional insulation), to create an even larger financial and energy savings. This work could also leverage MidAmerican rebates to increase the scope of the project. Recommendation: Iowa City has agreed to be a host city for an Americorps program and has the required matching funds to support the program, but not for the more impactful measures that we expect will be identified. Staff recommends $70,000 of the $100,000 budgeted funds to be used to upgrade the 91 City owned Housing Authority units. Energy efficiency measures will be determined by the energy audit reports that we receive from Americorps. Examples of potential improvements include lighting upgrades, insulation, upgrading HVAC systems, and weather proofing. While the physical improvements would not be highly visible to the public, it would benefit the residents of 91 housing units by lowering their energy costs, since they are responsible for the utility bill in these units. Staff would quantify the energy savings and work with communications to publicize our effort with the results. In addition, staff recommends partnering with a local non-profit on an energy efficiency project to create cost savings to the non-profit, thus assisting them in their effort to maximize their service to the community. Financial Impact: Within the FY 2017 Budget, $100,000 has been allocated for this objective. It is recommended that $70,000 be allocated for upgrades identified from energy audits that Americorps will be conducted on the City owned public housing units and the remaining $30,000 be designated for assistance to a local non-profit for energy efficiency, renewable energy or other carbon emission project. If Council concurs, a process would be developed to identify a project. Cc: Doug Boothroy, Neighborhood and Development Services Director Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Throgmorton lays out development future in memo Jim Throgmorton, Guest Opinion 5:21 p.m. CDT September 2, 2016 Editor's note: On Aug. 11, Iowa City Mayor Jim Throgmorton presented a memo on development to the city council. In an effort to advance the community's dialogue on development in the weeks ahead of the council's meeting on the subject Sept. 20, we are reproducing it here in abridged form, along with a piece from Sally Scott of the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition. We encourage others to send in their thoughts, through letters to the editor or guest columns. The health of our downtown is vitally important to the overall health of our city. Having a healthy downtown requires a collaborative effort on the part of city government, the Downtown District, private property owners and developers, historic preservation advocates, business owners, the university and the public as a whole. Having a truly collaborative effort requires mutual commitment to a broadly shared vision for the downtown's preservation, renovation and development. It also requires adoption and use of the financial and regulatory tools necessary for achieving that broadly shared vision. In order to facilitate such a collaborative effort, our council needs to articulate its understandings, intentions and expectations. I offer the following as a starting point for discussion, analysis, negotiation and action. We should review the downtown portion of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan and if necessary, consider amending it. Developed after extensive input from diverse publics, the downtown portion of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings District Master Plan provides a broad vision for the downtown's preservation, renovation and development. The plan also states new development should be mixed­use and pedestrian­oriented in nature. In addition, it should follow a list of very basic rules that are consistent with the existing character of downtown. The following guidelines were developed following a thorough analysis of the patterns and framework that make downtown special. These include: Departure from these guidelines will erode the special qualities that make downtown so unique. Ultimately, the city should pursue the creation of a form­based code to regulate all new development downtown. While providing a vision, the Downtown Plan reflects broad aspirations, lacks the force of law, and can be interpreted in multiple ways. Consequently, its practical meaning depends on the tools being used and the actions being taken. Although the Downtown Plan does not have the force of law, we can use our understanding of the plan as a guide whenever we make discretionary decisions, especially with regard to the use of tax increment financing and other financial incentives. We should work with the Downtown District and historic preservation advocates to update the inventory of historic structures, determine how financial incentives for historic preservation can be used more effectively, and consider the possibility of creating an historic preservation or conservation district for part of downtown. We should find ways to take better advantage of Historic Preservation Tax Credits and provide incentives for the renovation of older buildings, interior and exterior. This would require updating the inventory of historic buildings. Incentives might also include creating an historic preservation district covering part of the downtown, as well as time­limited property tax abatements for renovations of historic structures. We could also consider using Transfer of Development Rights as an incentive to preserve historic structures; however, TDR might not prove very effective in the downtown core because of the limited geographic area, the multitude of different property owners, specific characteristics of several historic properties and the difficulties of assembling land. Use of TDR might also result in conflicts with desired height limitations. New development should be located on sites that do not contain historic buildings. Active uses, such as ground floor retail, should front onto the street frontages and the city plaza. Upper floors should contain office, commercial and residential suites. Buildings should be built to the property line. Corner locations should be reserved for taller buildings, creating a block structure with taller buildings on the corners and lower­scale, historic buildings between them. The taller buildings on the corners should have a lower base consistent with adjacent historic buildings to make them "feel" contextual with the rest of downtown, while also limiting the perceived height of towers.  Parking should be located both on­street and behind storefronts in parking structures. (Photo: David Scrivner / Iowa City Press­Citizen) Buy Photo We should adopt a set of principles concerning the city's use of TIF and other financial incentives for downtown development projects. We need to clearly express what we value concerning development downtown, and to back up those values with a willingness to provide financial incentives to property owners and developers. We should authorize preparation of a 3­D model of downtown, which subsequently can be used to visualize the urban design implications of alternative development proposals. At present, we and the public are heavily dependent on architectural renderings provided by developers. These renderings are helpful, but they provide selective views of proposed buildings and offer little insight into the urban design effects of those individual buildings on streetscapes and the downtown as a whole. Construction of a three­dimensional virtual model of the downtown would provide information needed to envision the effects of diverse design alternatives. We should explore ways to significantly alleviate pressure caused by student demand for off­campus housing. A key first step would be to collaborate with the University of Iowa in developing a housing market assessment pertaining to downtown and the University Impact Zone. This would explicitly include an assessment of the effects of student demand upon the cost of land downtown and upon the prices and rents of residential units. Funds for such a study have already been included in the city's budget for fiscal year 2016­17, and productive conversations have already been held with President Harreld and his staff on this topic. We should evaluate the effects of downtown redevelopment upon the demand for on­ and off­street parking in neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. Funds for preparing an on­ and off­street parking study are included in the budget for fiscal year 2016­17. Permits for long­term residents and the installation of parking meters should be considered, with part of the revenue being directed toward neighborhood associations for purposes they identify. In addition, the implications of expanding the off­street parking waiver for other than historic building renovations needs to be carefully evaluated. The Council's Economic Development Committee is currently reviewing possible changes to the city's TIF policy. I offer the following preliminary suggestions as a starting point for discussion, analysis, negotiation, and action concerning the use of TIF for downtown development projects. A new downtown development project might also include other elements, which can be included in a TIF request and would be subject to normal processes of negotiation and mutual agreement. These additional elements include Class A office space and housing for long­term residents such as retirees, seniors and young professionals. Read or Share this story: http://icp­c.com/2cmqryL The project must be consistent with the overall vision for downtown preservation and development as articulated in the downtown element of the Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the council. The project must incrementally enhance the existing architectural character and identity of the downtown and of the block and/or intersection at which the project would be located, and it must help bring the commonly shared space of the streetscape to life by enhancing the appeal and pedestrian experience of the project at street level. The project must be designed in a manner that is sensitive and complementary to any adjacent historic buildings; it must contribute to a harmonious rhythm and proportion of building elements along the street frontage and ensure that differences in mass and scale are mitigated through facade articulation and, if possible, upper story setbacks. If the project includes 10 or more residential units, the project must comply with the recently adopted amendments to our TIF policy: at least 15 percent of its rental units must be affordable to households whose income is at or below 60 percent of the area median income, and at least 10 percent of its owned units be affordable to households at or below 110 percent of AMI. Payments in lieu of actual units can be made. The project must be designed for and certified as achieving LEED Gold or higher. The project must undergo the city' s rigorous "gap analysis" financial test.  Our View: Housing action needs to break through confusion Our View, Press­Citizen editorial board 7:20 p.m. CDT August 19, 2016 As the continuing saga of Rose Oaks apartments sees its latest twists and turns — this week, the Iowa City Council approved a plan (/story/news/local/2016/08/16/council­approves­financial­assistance­rose­oaks­ tenants/88864906/) to send each displaced resident $250 in relocation assistance — a haze seems to have fallen over the proceedings. Conflicting messages from various organizations make understanding the situation difficult for outside observers, to say nothing of residents embroiled in it. While we are glad some relief has gone to those residents forced to seek new housing, we also recognize this is a temporary solution to a lasting problem, and one only applicable to a specific event in a growing timeline. This knowledge isn't unique to us, of course. In September, the council will meet (/story/news/local/2016/06/22/council­considers­affordable­housing­action­plan/86263006/) to deliberate the best course of action on the affordable housing issue, with a preliminary plan in review until that time. We hope the city government can take this next step and present a unified proposal to ease worried residents. However, the responsibility to not instill panic and confusion among residents does not lie solely with the government. It is the duty of area nonprofits and interest groups to provide constituents with correct information — and a flier distributed (/story/news/local/2016/08/18/forest­view­flier­iowa­city­development­center­for­worker­justice/88909870/) by the Center for Worker Justice threatens to sow doubt in the minds of low­income residents. Though Forest View tenants do face a similar situation to that of the former denizens of Rose Oaks, and the action plan the council will be discussing should address that impending relocation, along with a means of ensuring transition is handled smoothly, it does no one any good to make promises based on policies that have barely been talked about, much less adopted. Having said that, with two housing developments serving as case studies, this is an opportunity for the government and developers to study this area of concern with local examples. Through the fallout from Rose Oaks — where the city, the developer and nonprofit Shelter House handled the exodus in triumvirate — the city can see what worked and what didn't when it comes to displacement in real time. Forest View offers a different sort of challenge (/story/news/local/2016/08/18/forest­view­flier­iowa­city­development­center­for­worker­justice/88909870/). We eagerly hope for the best when it comes to those residents, and for long­term solutions coming out of September's meetings. One reminder for the council: With the Riverfront Crossings development now subject to (/story/news/local/2016/07/05/council­approves­affordable­ housing­requirement/86714736/) a "10 percent rule," and a tenth of the units under an affordable housing mandate, the city has a pilot project to determine the efficacy of this specific proposal. As can happen with these sorts of things, the temporary 10­year period during which the rule applies could quite easily be overlooked once it expires. If the Riverfront Crossings plan works out, we urge that rule be made permanent, if success doesn't lead to universal application. Too often such ambitious endeavors fulfill their sunset provisions, lapse, and fade from memory. We would also encourage the council to look to Chapel Hill in North Carolina. Most striking about that community, similarly built around a large and prestigious state university, is the scope of its affordable housing trust (https://communityhometrust.org/). In addition to educational services and advocacy on behalf of low­income residents, the trust has a stock of subsidized housing units, with monthly costs pegged at 30 percent of household income. Johnson County's trust fund (http://www.htfjc.org/) provides down payment and home repair assistance, as well as a loan program. These go a long way to help potential homeowners, and our local trust does good work. But it never hurts to look at other, similar communities for inspiration. Leadership on this issue will do much to break through the logjam, and we wish council all the luck in doing so. Read or Share this story: http://icp­c.com/2bIOjfl (Photo: Iowa City Press­Citizen) Buy Photo Iowa City's plan the right way forward Sally Scott, Guest Opinion 5:28 p.m. CDT September 2, 2016 In June, Iowa City Manager Geoff Fruin presented a draft Affordable Housing Action Plan at a work session of the City Council. On Sept. 20, the city council will review the plan and start making important decisions about implementation. The Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition sees Iowa City’s plan as a remarkable step forward. It combines high expectations and realistic policymaking. The plan cements affordable housing as a top priority, and commits Iowa City to implementing multiple strategies to create new affordable units. Highlights of the Affordable Housing Action Plan include: The process for developing the plan has been transparent. Our coalition has had several productive exchanges with city staff about the plan. We do not agree on every detail, but we share the fundamental understanding that affordable housing is an economic and social asset that stabilizes households and strengthens our community. As Iowa City begins to implement the Affordable Housing Action Plan, we encourage the city to adopt quantitative affordable housing goals, such as three or five­year averages of the net gain of units. Given the commitment of time and resources that implementation will demand of city staff as well as nonprofit and for­profit partners, it will be important to measure the number of units preserved and produced. In response to Iowa City’s plan, some may say that we need a regional approach to the affordable housing crisis. Our coalition has argued from day one that the shortage of affordable housing is a countywide issue. To their credit, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors has recognized the problem and provided $600,000 to the Housing Trust Fund to create new affordable housing units. However, we know that the percentage of households who are paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing is different for each jurisdiction within the county. Equally important, each jurisdiction has its own political culture, its own way of framing and tackling challenging issues in their community. Given these realities, our coalition promotes affordable housing within individual cities and at the regional level. It is certainly encouraging that in Coralville’s 2016 Goal Setting Report, the mayor and city council members selected affordable housing as one of four priorities for the year. Also of note is that several affordable and workforce housing projects in Coralville are under construction or recently completed. Continuing to make affordable housing a priority, especially including affordable units in areas under development, will help Coralville residents who need it most: lower­ income working people, the elderly and the disabled. In addition, a regional affordable housing work group, which includes representatives of multiple local governments, nonprofit housing providers and the Iowa City Community School District, has been meeting for over a year.  This work group has developed a common definition of affordable housing, and regularly shares affordable housing updates. Building on this progress, our coalition will emphasize the deep connections between affordable housing and health, education, and economic vitality and the importance of creating new affordable housing partnerships across the region. Sally Scott is chair of the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition. Read or Share this story: http://icp­c.com/2bWGmzV Creating a new Affordable Housing Fund of $500,000 to $1 million a year. Developing an annexation policy that includes provisions for affordable housing. Making multiple regulatory changes to city code that would make it easier and cheaper for developers to build new affordable units. Creating a committee to determine the viability of using tax abatements to support affordable housing. Addressing the concerns of low­income tenants impacted by redevelopment. (Photo: Special to the Press­Citizen) How Social Spending Affects Health Outcomes Aug 17, 2016, 9:00 AM, Posted by Elizabeth H. Bradley, Lauren A. Taylor The United States spends more on health care than any other developed nation, yet a recent study suggests social services has a greater impact on health outcomes. In a recent blog post for The New York Times, Dr. Dhruv Khullar, a resident physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, detailed important—and importantly nonmedical—barriers to health that he had witnessed in his patients: a man who couldn’t fathom worrying about his blood pressure when he needed to find food and a place to sleep, a diabetic without reliable access to a refrigerator to store insulin, a mother fretting that mold and cockroaches in her apartment were exacerbating her son’s asthma. Medical care might be necessary for these patients. But that care alone is unlikely to be sufficient. It’s well-known that the United States spends far more on health care than any other developed nation—a record 17.5 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014—while enduring worse health outcomes. Life expectancy in the U.S. is lower, maternal and infant mortality is higher, and the prevalence of chronic illness is far more common than European countries. But these poor health outcomes can also be connected to another type of spending where the U.S. falls far below Europe—social services that target education, housing, nutrition and poverty. In an analysis we published in 2011, the ratio of social service spending to medical care spending was significantly associated with better health outcomes across 34 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries between 2000 and 2005. Key findings on the connection between social services and health outcomes Our latest study, published in Health Affairs, found this same pattern within the United States: · When comparing state-to-state spending between 2000 and 2009, those states with higher ratios of social service spending to health care spending had better outcomes on average. The size of the health effects were substantial. For instance, a 20 percent change in the median social- to-health spending ratio was equivalent to 85,000 fewer adults with obesity and more than 950,000 adults with mental illness. · Many of the states with higher ratios of social to health care spending were in the West, while those with less healthy spending patterns were in the South; states in the Midwest and Northeast had more mixed profiles. · We examined health outcomes for adult obesity, asthma, mentally unhealthy days, days of activity limitations and mortality rates from lung cancer, acute myocardial infarction and type 2 diabetes. Our findings suggests that the allocation of spending, not just the total investment, may be key to improving health outcomes. Which social services matter the most? We reviewed 74 research studies examining the impact of various social services on health outcomes and health care costs, and found that three types of services are particularly meaningful: · supportive housing; · nutritional support (such as in-home meals for older adults and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) supplemental nutritional services); · some case management and outreach programs. These studies suggest that greater investments in such programs could significantly offset health care costs nationally. Real-world experiences support this idea. In 2011, Bud Clark Commons (BCC) opened in Portland, Oregon—a facility designed to provide housing and supportive services for chronically homeless individuals. Those who were covered by Medicaid had average annual health costs of $2,006 prior to taking up residence in the BCC apartments; in the year after moving in, that figure fell by 55 percent, to $899. A similar program that the University of Illinois Hospital leads, in partnership with Chicago's Center for Housing and Health, has seen health costs for residents fall 42 percent. The role of lifestyle changes High health care costs in the United States partly stem from both providers and consumers relying heavily on medical care to address problems that could be alleviated through comparatively inexpensive lifestyle changes. But large scale lifestyle changes will require shifts in our culture, as well as new kinds of partnerships for health—between health care providers, social service agencies and communities. And sometimes the built environment and other structural factors complicate lifestyle decisions. For example, the presence or absence of a grocery store in a neighborhood can dictate access to nutritious food. Key stakeholders are beginning to pay attention to these issues; in Mississippi, UnitedHealthcare just announced an initiative they will carry out with Alcorn State University to distribute fresh produce to Mississippians living in so-called “food deserts.” Changing the conversation Reorienting attention and resources from the health care sector to upstream social factors is critical, but it’s also an uphill battle. More research is needed to characterize how the health effects of social determinants like education and poverty act over longer time horizons. Stakeholders need to use information about data on health—not just health care—to make resource allocation decisions. Financial incentives will need to be aligned to encourage these shifts in thinking and decision-making. To start this conversation, we should try to draw lessons from states that already maintain higher social-to-health spending ratios and observe better health outcomes. Elizabeth H. Bradley, PhD, is the Brady-Johnson Professor of Grand Strategy and Faculty Director of the Yale Global Health Leadership Institute. She is renowned internationally for her work on health system design and large-scale implementation of efforts to improve management capacity in health care delivery within the US and abroad. Read her full bio. Lauren A. Taylor is a doctoral student in the management track of the Health Policy program at Harvard University. Prior to joining HBS, she graduated as a Presidential Scholar from Harvard's Divinity School in 2015, where she served as the Research and Development Director in the Science, Religion and Culture program. Read her full bio. Tags: Family and Social Support, Health Care, Health Care Cost and Value, National