HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-2016 Housing & Community Development CommissionI r 1
�III1i1. �
CITY OF IOWA CITY
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 Former-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:
1►=0
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 displacementlemergent 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)
0 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
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
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
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
• FY16 Shelter operations (Aid to Agencies)
• FY16 Facility rehab
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 CH DO 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 Are 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
r
®I, CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
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 2O13-03 (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 2O16-05 (HA)
and requires the following change to Acceptable Methods of Verification.
September 6, 2016
Page 2
Current 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.
3. Section 11.5 Utility Allowances
Add to 10.1
verify all assets via 3`d party documentation
every 3`d year regardless of total asset
amounts. Self -declaration for assets under
$5,000 is acceptable for years 1 and 2.
HUD NOTICE PIH 2O16-05 (HA) changed how Housing Authority's must determine the appropriate
utility allowances to use in the Housing Payment Assistance (HAP) calculation.
Current 11.5
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.)
4. Section 13.2 Interim Reexaminations
New 11.5
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.
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).
Decreases in income due to voluntary leaves of
absence from employment without pay will not
result in an increase of HAP.
Recommendation:
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.
Staff recommends approving all proposed amendments to the HCV Administrative Plan.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
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
�A00s� CITY OF I O WA CITY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 2016
TO: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FROM: SUSAN DULEK, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
RE: CRIME- FREE LEASE ADDENDUM - FAIR HOUSING ACT
QUESTION
HCDC has requested an opinion on whether the attached Crime Free Lease Addendum violates the
Fair Housing Act.
In my opinion, the attached Crime Free Lease Addendum does not violate the Fair Housing Act for the
reasons set forth below. Even assuming a prima facie case can be made, a landlord has a substantial,
legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest in requiring that tenants not engage in criminal activity. Similarly,
the Addendum does not violate the City's Human Rights Ordinance.
HUD Guidance
On April 4, 2016, the Office of General Counsel for HUD issued a "guidance' on applying the Fair
Housing Act ("FHA') to the use of criminal records, a copy of which is attached ("HUD Guidance"). It is
my understanding that the HUD Guidance has made some persons question whether the attached
Addendum violates the FHA. The HUD Guidance does not address the legality of crime free lease
provisions, but rather, the use of a criminal history in screening applicants for rental housing and why
the indiscriminate use of criminal history likely violates the FHA due to the disparate impact it likely has
on African Americans. Indiscriminate use of any criminal history to disqualify tenants is suspect
because it does not consider the time, place or nature of the crime. For example, disqualification of a
tenant for a simple assault 10 years ago may or may not be relevant to whether a tenant poses a threat
to the health or safety of other tenants. When talking about a crime free lease provision the prohibition
is on current criminal activity. Thus, while the two practices can be analyzed under the same theory of
disparate impact liability, the analysis is very different.
Disparate Impact vs. Disparate Treatment
Under the FHA, it is illegal to make certain housing decisions, such as the sale or rental, on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin. 42 U.S.C. §3601 at seq.
Discrimination can be proven under a theory of disparate impact or disparate treatment. Under
disparate impact, the issue is whether a neutral policy or practice has a disproportionate, adverse
impact on a protected class regardless of intent. Disparate treatment means intentional discrimination
against a protected class. In this context, the disparate impact issue is whether the Addendum
adversely impacts a protected class such as tenants of a particular race. With a disparate treatment
claim, the issue would be whether the Addendum is only being enforced against a protected class such
as tenants of a particular religion.
Because the HUD Guidance was the impetus for the question asked by the Commission and the
Guidance addresses the disparate impact of the use of criminal history data, this memo addresses only
disparate impact, not disparate treatment. Disparate treatment involves an intent element that can only
be examined in the context of an individual case.
Three -Step Burden Shifting Analysis
Although HUD for years had a regulation that provided that one could prove a violation of the FHA
using the theory of disparate impact and although many courts had ruled that disparate impact was a
viable theory to prove a violation of the FHA, it was not until a year ago that the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that a violation of the FHA could be proven by disparate impact. Texas Dept. of Housing &
Community Affairs v. inclusive Communities Project, _ U.S. , 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015). In my
research I could not locate a case that considered whether a crime free lease provision violated the
FHA and the HUD Guidance cites no cases.
Liability may be established under the Fair Housing Act based on a practice's discriminatory
effect, as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, even if the practice was not motivated by a
discriminatory intent. The practice may still be lawful if supported by a legally sufficient
justification, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section. The burdens of proof for establishing a
violation under this subpart are set forth in paragraph (c) of this section.
(a) Discriminatory effect. A practice has a discriminatory effect where it actually or predictably
results in a disparate impact on a group of persons or creates, increases, reinforces, or
perpetuates segregated housing patterns because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial
status, or national origin.
(b) Legally sufficient justification. (1) A legally sufficient justification exists where the challenged
practice:
(i) Is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests of the
respondent, with respect to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 3612, or defendant, with respect to
claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 3613 or 3614; and
(ii) Those interests could not be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.
(2) A legally sufficient justification must be supported by evidence and may not be hypothetical
or speculative. The burdens of proof for establishing each of the two elements of a legally
sufficient justification are set forth in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section.
(c) Burdens of proof in discriminatory effects cases. (1) The charging party, with respect to a
claim brought under 42 U.S.C. 3612, or the plaintiff, with respect to a claim brought under 42
U.S.C. 3613 or 3614, has the burden of proving that a challenged practice caused or predictably
will cause a discriminatory effect.
(2) Once the charging party or plaintiff satisfies the burden of proof set forth in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section, the respondent or defendant has the burden of proving that the challenged
practice is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests
2
of the respondent or defendant.
(3) If the respondent or defendant satisfies the burden of proof set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section, the charging party or plaintiff may still prevail upon proving that the substantial,
legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests supporting the challenged practice could be served by
another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.
(d) Relationship to discriminatory intent. A demonstration that a practice is supported by a
legally sufficient justification, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, may not be used as a
defense against a claim of intentional discrimination.
As the HUD Guidance explains, the FHA analysis for disparate impact is a three -step "burden shifting"
process. Burden shifting means that the burden of proof shifts between the person challenging the
policy or practice and the responding party. For the sake of simplicity, I will refer in this memo to the
former as the tenant and tho latter as the landlord. The first step is to determine whether the Addendum
"has a discriminatory effect, that is, that the [Addendum] results in a disparate impact on a group
because of their race...." (P. 3 of the HUD Guidance) In order to prove this, the tenant needs "evidence
providing that the [Addendum] actually or predictably results in a disparate impact." As the Guidance
states, "[r]egardless of the [statistical] data used, determining whether [the Addendum] results in a
disparate impact is ultimately a fact -specific and case -specific inquiry." (P. 4 of the HUD Guidance) If
the tenant can prove this, then the tenant has a made a "prima facie" case of a violation of the FHA, but
that is just the first step in the analysis.
Landlord's Burden of Proof
We do not know whether a prohibition on criminal activity by current tenants has a disparate impact on
African Americans. In any case that impact will not be assumed but rather must be proved as noted
above. Such proof, if it exists, is outside the scope of this memo.
Assuming for the sake of discussion that the tenant has a prima facie case, meaning the tenant can
prove that the Addendum has a discriminatory effect on a protected class, the burden of proof shifts to
the landlord to prove the lease "is justified —that is, that it is necessary to achieve a substantial,
legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the provider." (P. 4 of the HUD Guidance) The landlord could
argue that there is a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest in having a lease provision in
which the tenant agrees not to commit a crime.' This argument is supported by federal law, a U.S.
Supreme Court opinion, and Iowa law.
Federal law requires public housing leases to include crime -free provisions. 42 U.S.C. § 1437d (0(6)
reads:
Each public housing agency shall utilize leases which ... provide that any criminal activity that
threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or
any drug -related criminal activity on or off such premises, engaged in by a public housing
tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's
control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy....
This provision must be read in light of, not in isolation of, federal laws that accord substantial
protections to public housing tenants compared to state laws. See, e.g., 24 C.F.R. Parts 960 and 966.
By this I mean that even in the public housing arena where it is relatively difficult to evict a tenant, as
' All but one of the prohibitions in the Addendum prohibits crimes in or near the rental unit, which is an issue that will be
discussed later in this memo.
3
compared to a non-public housing tenant, Congress has specifically required that public housing leases
include crime -free provisions.
The second reason is supported by and explained in dicta from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002). This case was brought by public
housing tenants challenging a HUD regulation implementing 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(1)(6) that allows a
housing authority to evict a public housing tenant for criminal activity engaged in by a family member or
guest even if the tenant had no knowledge of the criminal activity. Below is an excerpt from the
Supreme Court's opinion including a description of the alleged criminal actions by the tenants' family
members, their caregivers, and their guests and where the actions occurred:
The [federal law], as later amended, provides that each "public housing agency shall utilize
leases which ... provide that any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to
peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or any drug -related criminal activity on or
off such premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's
household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for
termination of tenancy." 42 U.S.C. § 1437d (0(6) (1994 ad., Supp. V). Petitioners [HUD and the
local housing authority] say that this statute requires lease terms that allow a local public
housing authority to evict a tenant when a member of the tenant's household or a guest
engages in drug -related criminal activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or had reason
to know, of that activity. Respondents [tenants] say it does not. We agree with petitioners.
The complaint alleged: (1) that the respective grandsons of respondents William Lee and
Barbara Hill, both of whom were listed as residents on the leases, were caught in the apartment
complex parking lot smoking marijuana; (2) that the daughter of respondent Pearlie Rucker, who
resides with her and is listed on the lease as a resident, was found with cocaine and a crack
cocaine pipe three blocks from Rucker's apartment;' and (3) that on three instances within a 2-
month period, respondent Herman Walker's caregiver and two others were found with cocaine
in Walker's apartment.
And, of course, there is an obvious reason why Congress would have permitted local public
housing authorities to conduct no-fault evictions: Regardless of knowledge, a tenant who
"cannot control drug crime, or other criminal activities by a household member which threaten
health or safety of other residents, is a threat to other residents and the project." 56 Fed. Reg.,
at 51567. [emphasis in original]... With drags leading to "murders, muggings, and other forms
of violence against tenants," and to the "deterioration of the physical environment that requires
substantial governmental expenditures," 42 U.S.G. § 11901(4) (1994 ed., Supp. V), it was
reasonable for Congress to permit no-fault evictions in order to "provide public and other
federally assisted low-income housing that is decent, safe, and free from illegal drugs," §
11901(1) (1994 ad.)....
Section 1437d(1)(6) requires lease terms that give local public housing authorities the discretion
to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the household or a guest engages in drug -
related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of the drug -
related activity.
Id. at 127-129, 134, and 136. Although the tenants alleged multiple constitutional and statutory
violations, they did not allege that HUD's regulations violated the FHA.
The third reason is that Iowa law allows a landlord to take action against a tenant for most of the
activities proscribed in the Addendum. In other words, the landlord has rights under Iowa law to
4
terminate a lease for criminal activity regardless of whether the lease contains anti -crime provisions.
For your information, I am attaching a copy of Section 562A.27A of the Code of Iowa, which allows a
landlord to terminate a lease and evict a tenant for "creating a clear and present danger" on or within
1,000 feet of the rental property. A clear and present danger under Section 562A.27A includes but is
not limited to: possession of a controlled substance, physical assault, threat of physical assault, illegal
use of firearm, the threat to use a firearm, and possession of illegal firearm. This list of criminal acts set
forth in Section 562A.27A largely mirror the acts listed in the Addendum.
One difference between the state law and the Addendum is that Section 562A.27A provides a limited
cure option for a tenant in subsection 3a and there is no such equivalent provision in the Addendum.
Nonetheless, Section 562A.27A shows that the Iowa legislature considered it important that landlords
have a relatively easy remedy to evict tenants for certain criminal acts committed at or near the rental
unit.
Further, it is unclear to me what the argument would be that a landlord does not have substantial,
legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest in not having crimes being committed on or near the rental units
by tenants or their guests. I do note that the provisions in the Addendum with the exception of (e) and
(0 apply to criminal activity occurring "in or near" the rental unit. Subparagraph (a) refers to drug
activity and is somewhat duplicative of Subsection (a) which refers to criminal activity "in or near" the
rental unit. Subsection (f) references prohibited or illegal weapons. Although the landlord has a
stronger argument with respect to criminal activity that occurs in or near the rental unit, a landlord
nonetheless has a legitimate, nondiscriminatory argument that it does not want tenants who sell or use
illegal or prohibited weapons or who engage in illegal drug activity even if not in or near the rental unit.
Additionally, 42 U.S.G. § 1437d (0(6) does not limit the criminal activity to the rental unit premises, and
the drug activity of one tenant in Rucker occurred three blocks from the rental unit.
Tenant's Burden of Proof
Assuming once again for the sake of discussion that the landlord meets its burden, then the burden
shifts back to the tenant in the third step of the FHA analysis. The tenant must prove "that such interest
could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect." (HUD Guidance, p. 7) The
tenant would have to prove that a policy other than a crime -free lease provision would fulfill the
landlord's desire to have a safe environment for tenants to reside, for tenants' guests to visit, and
landlord's staff and private maintenance personnel to perform their work and that such policy would
have a less discriminatory effect. That is a difficult burden to bear.
The HUD Guidance states that "[a]Ithough the identification of a less discriminatory alternative will
depend on the particulars of the criminal history or practice under challenge, individualized assessment
of relevant mitigating information beyond that contained in the individual's criminal record is likely to
have a less discriminatory effect than categorical exclusions that do not take such additional
information into account! (HUD Guidance, p. 7) In short, an individualized assessment plays a key role
in a court's consideration of the third step of the FHA analysis.
Unlike applicants, tenants have the right to a court hearing? Thus, even if there is a provision that
states the lease will be terminated should the tenant engage in criminal activity X, the landlord must
follow Chapters 562A and 648 of the Iowa Code in evicting a tenant. There is no "self-help" eviction in
s
A private landlord is not constitutionally or statutorily required to provide an applicant a review or appeal process. As
required by HUD regulations and its own policy, the Iowa City Housing Authority provides all applicants for Housing Choice
Voucher (aka, Section 8) and public housing with a hearing when it denies an application due to past criminal activity, and the
applicant can appeal that decision to district court.
61
Iowa. The landlord must obtain a court order to evict a tenant and a tenant cannot be forced to move
out until there is a court order. The court will decide whether X is sufficient to terminate a lease under
Iowa law regardless of what it states in the lease about criminal activity and whether the landlord has
shown by a preponderance of evidence that the tenant engaged in X.
A significant difference between using past criminal actions to deny housing and using current criminal
actions to terminate a tenancy is the individualized assessment by the judge in the eviction. Given that
the tenant is provided a court hearing, I find it unlikely that a tenant will be able to bear his or her
burden to prove that a policy other than a crime -free lease provision will satisfy a landlord's desire to
have a safe environment for tenants to reside, for tenants' guests to visit, and landlord's staff and
private maintenance personnel to perform their work and that such policy would have a less
discriminatory effect.
Final Comment
The various provisions in the Addendum refer to the tenant "engaging" in certain acts with the exception
of (b) which states that the Tenant shall not be "charged." A criminal charge must be supported by
probable cause which is less evidence than a preponderance of evidence. The burden of proof in a
civil case, such as an eviction, is preponderance of evidence. According to Iowa Civil Jury instruction
No. 1.04, "Preponderance of the evidence is evidence that is more convincing than opposing evidence.
Preponderance of the evidence does not depend upon the number of witnesses testifying on one side
or the other."
Although the officer needs only probable cause to charge a person with a crime, the officer often has
substantially more evidence at the time the person is charged. For example, the person may have
admitted to committing the crime or the officer or an unbiased witness may have witnessed the criminal
activity. Ultimately, for the prosecution to prove a criminal case, the prosecutor will have to have proof
beyond a reasonable doubt that the tenant engaged in the criminal activity. A judge could hear the
evidence in the criminal trial and rule that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the tenant engaged in criminal activity X and hear the very same evidence in the eviction trial and rule
that the landlord did prove by a preponderance of evidence that the tenant engaged in X.
Regardless whether the Addendum uses the term charged or engaged, it is the judge at the eviction
hearing who will decide whether the landlord has proven by a preponderance of evidence that the
tenant engaged in criminal behavior sufficient to terminate the lease and be evicted.
Attachments
Copy to:
Tracy Hightshoe-w/att.
Kristopher Ackerson-w/att.
Stefanie Bowers-w/att.
W vpS4ENTNF a`
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
II��III WASHINGTON, DC 20410-0500
April 4, 2016
Office of General Counsel Guidance on
Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by
Providers of Housing and Real Estate -Related Transactions
I. Introduction
The Fair Housing Act (or Act) prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of
dwellings and in other housing -related activities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
disability, familial status or national origin.' HUD's Office of General Counsel issues this
guidance concerning how the Fair Housing Act applies to the use of criminal history by
providers or operators of housing and real-estate related transactions. Specifically, this guidance
addresses how the discriminatory effects and disparate treatment methods of proof apply in Fair
Housing Act cases in which a housing provider justifies an adverse housing action — such as a
refusal to rent or renew a lease — based on an individual's criminal history.
H. Background
As many as 100 million U.S. adults — or nearly one-third of the population — have a
criminal record of some sort.2 The United States prison population of 2.2 million adults is by far
the largest in the world.3 As of 2012, the United States accounted for only about five percent of
the world's population, yet almost one quarter of the world's prisoners were held in American
prisons.4 Since 2004, an average of over 650,000 individuals have been released annually from
federal and state prisoners and over 95 percent of current inmates will be released at some point 6
When individuals are released from prisons and jails, their ability to access safe, secure and
affordable housing is critical to their successful reentry to society! Yet many formerly
incarcerated individuals, as well as individuals who were convicted but not incarcerated, encounter
significant barriers to securing housing, including public and other federally -subsidized housing,
42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.
x Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2012, 3
(Jan. 2014), available at httas://www.;wirs.eov/Ddffilesl/bis/gmts/244563,pd
'Nat'l Acad, Sci., Nat'l Res. Coons., The Growth oflncarceration in the United States: lDploring Causes and
Consequences 2 (Jeremy Travis, et al. eds., 2014), available at: hM://www.M.edu/cataloel86l3/the-growth-of-
Marceration-in-the-united-states-eUlorin -cg cruses
4Id.
5 E. Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Prisoners in 2014 (Sept. 2015) at 29, appendix
tbls. 1 and 2, available at httoalwww.bis.eovtindex cfmtty pbdetail&iid=5387.
6 Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Reentry Trends in the United States, available at
http:l/ww a is.govlcont"rAl ubl freentr . df.
S. Metraux, et al. "Incarceration and Homelessness," in Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007
National Symposium on Homelessness Research, #9 (D. Dennis, et al. eds., 2007), available at:
https://w\vw.huduser ggy/Ronal//publicationa/ndfln9 ndf (explaining "how the increasing numbers of people leaving
carceral institutions face an increased risk for homelessness and, conversely, how persons experiencing
homelessness are vulnerable to incarceration.").
www.hud.gov espanoLhud.gov
because of their criminal history. In some cases, even individuals who were arrested but not
convicted face difficulty in securing housing based on their prior arrest.
Across the United States, African Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted and
incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population.8 Consequently,
criminal records -based barriers to housing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority
home seekers. While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair
Housing Act, criminal history -based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if,
without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants
of one race or national origin over another (Le., discriminatory effects liability).s Additionally,
intentional discrimination in violation of the Act occurs if a housing provider treats individuals
with comparable criminal history differently because of their race, national origin or other
protected characteristic (i.e., disparate treatment liability).
III. Discriminatory Effects Liability and Use of Criminal History to Make Housing
Decisions
A housing provider violates the Fair Housing Act when the provider's policy or practice
has an unjustified discriminatory effect, even when the provider had no intent to discriminate.,()
Under this standard, a facially -neutral policy or practice that has a discriminatory effect violates
the Act if it is not supported by a legally sufficient justification. Thus, where a policy or practice
that restricts access to housing on the basis of criminal history has a disparate impact on
individuals of a particular race, national origin, or other protected class, such policy or practice is
unlawful under the Fair Housing Act if it is not necessary to serve a substantial, legitimate,
nondiscriminatory interest of the housing provider, or if such interest could be served by another
practice that has a less discriminatory effecO Discriminatory effects liability is assessed under
a three -step burden -shifting standard requiring a fact -specific analysis."
The following sections discuss the three steps used to analyze claims that a housing
provider's use of criminal history to deny housing opportunities results in a discriminatory effect
in violation of the Act. As explained in Section IV, below, a different analytical framework is
used to evaluate claims of intentional discrimination.
s See infra nn, 16-20 and accompanying text.
s The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and
national origin. This memorandum focuses on race and national origin discrimination, although criminal history
�tolicies may result in discrimination against other protected classes.
24 C.F.R. § 100,500; accord Texas Dept ofHous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys, Project, Inc., _ U.S.
135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015),
1124 C.F.R. § 100.500; see also Inclusive Cmtys. Project, 135 S. Ct. at 2514-15 (summarizing HUD's
Discriminatory Effects Standard in 24 C.F.R. § 100.500); id. at 2523 (explaining that housing providers may
maintain a policy that causes a disparate impact "if they can prove (the policy] is necessary to achieve a valid
interest.").
12 See 24 C.F.R. § 100.500.
A. Evaluating Whether the Criminal History Policy or Practice Has a Discriminatory Effect
In the fast step of the analysis, a plaintiff (or HUD in an administrative adjudication)
must prove that the criminal history policy has a discriminatory effect, that is, that the policy
results in a disparate impact on a group of persons because of their race or national origin.13 This
burden is satisfied by presenting evidence proving that the challenged practice actually or
predictably results in a disparate impact.
Whether national or local statistical evidence should be used to evaluate a discriminatory
effects claim at the first step of the analysis depends on the nature of the claim alleged and the
facts of that case. While state or local statistics should be presented where available and
appropriate based on a housing provider's market area or other facts particular to a given case,
national statistics on racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system may be used
where, for example, state or local statistics are not readily available and there is no reason to
believe they would differ markedly from the national statistics.14
National statistics Sprovide grounds for HUD to investigate complaints challenging
criminal history policies.l Nationally, racial and ethnic minorities face disproportionately high
rates of arrest and incarceration. For example, in 2013, African Americans were arrested at a
rate more than double their proportion of the general population." Moreover, in 2014, African
Americans comprised approximately 36 percent of the total prison vopulation in the United
States, but only about 12 percent of the country's total population.' In other words, African
Americans were incarcerated at a rate nearly three times their proportion of the general
population. Hispanics were similarly incarcerated at a rate disproportionate to their share of the
13 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(c)(1); accord Inclusive Cmtys. Project, 135 S. Cf. at 2522-23. A discriminatory effect can
also be proven with evidence that the policy or practice creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated
housing patterns. See 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(a). This guidance addresses only the method for analyzing disparate
impact claims, which in HUD's experience are more commonly asserted in this context.
14 Compare Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 330 (1977) C f t]eliance on general population demographic data
was not misplaced where there was no reason to suppose that physical height and weight characteristics of Alabama
men and women differ markedly from those of the national population.") with Mountain Side Mobile Estates P'ship
v. Sec y offlous. & Urban Dev, 56 F.3d 1243,1253 (10th Cir. 1995) (" In some cases national statistics may be the
appropriate comparable population. However, those cases are the rare exception and this case is not such an
exception") (citation omitted).
15 Cf. El v. SEPTA, 418 F. Supp. 2d 659, 668-69 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (finding that plaintiff proved prima facie case of
disparate impact under Title VII based on national data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Statistical
Abstract of the U.S., which showed that non -Whites were substantially more likely than whites to have a
conviction), ajj'd on other grounds, 479 F.2d 232 (3d Cir. 2007).
16 See FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Crime in the United States, 2013, tb1.43A, available at
htWs://www.tbi.gov/about-us/eiis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s-2013/tables/table-43 (Fall 2014)
(reporting that African Americans comprised 28.3% of all arrestees in 2013); U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly
Posteensal Resident Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: July 1, 2013 to December 1,
2013, available at bgg://www.census. og_v/t)gMst/data/national/asrh(2014/2014-nat-res.html (reporting data showing
that individuals identifying as African American or Black alone made up only 12,4% of the total U.S. population at
2013 year-end).
17 See E. Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Prisoners in 2014 (Sept. 2015) at dbl. 10,
available at http://www.bis.gov/index.cf n?ty=nbdetail&iid=5387; and U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly Postcensal
Resident Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: July 1, 2014 to December 1, 2014,
available at httnl/www.census.ggv/Dopest/data/national/asrh/2014/2014-nat-res.html.
general population, with Hispanic individuals comprising approximately 22 percent of the prison
population, but only about 17 percent of the total U.S. population.'8 In contrast, non -Hispanic
Whites comprised approximately 62 percent of the total U.S. population but only about 34
percent of the prison population in 2014.19 Across all age groups, the imprisonment rates for
African American males is almost six times greater than for White males, and for Hispanic
males, it is over twice that for non -Hispanic White males.20
Additional evidence, such as applicant data, tenant files, census demographic data and
localized criminal justice data, may be relevant in determining whether local statistics are
consistent with national statistics and whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the
challenged policy or practice causes a disparate impact. Whether in the context of an
investigation or administrative enforcement action by HUD or private litigation, a housing
provider may offer evidence to refute the claim that its policy or practice causes a disparate
impact on one or more protected classes.
Regardless of the data used, determining whether a policy or practice results in a disparate
impact is ultimately a fact -specific and case -specific inquiry.
B. Evaluating Whether the Challenged Policy or Practice is Necessary to Achieve a
Substantial, Letdtimate, Nondiscriminatory Interest
In the second step of the discriminatory effects analysis, the burden shifts to the housing
provider to prove that the challenged policy or practice is justified — that is, that it is necessary to
achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the provider.21 The interest
proffered by the housing provider may not be hypothetical or speculative, meaning the housing
provider must be able to provide evidence proving both that the housing provider has a
substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest supporting the challenged policy and that the
challenged policy actually achieves that interest,22
Although the specific interest(s) that underlie a criminal history policy or practice will no
doubt vary from case to case, some landlords and property managers have asserted the protection
of other residents and their property as the reason for such policies or practices.23 Ensuring
a See id.
9 See id.
20 E. Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Prisoners in 2014 (Sept. 2015) at table 10,
available at hhip:tlwww.bis.govlindex.cfm2o2ghdetail&iid=5387.
2124 C.F.R. § I00.500(c)(2); see also Inclusive Cmtys. Project, 135 S. Ct. at 2523.
12 See 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(b)(2); see also 78 Fed. Reg. 11460, 11471 (Feb. 15, 2013).
21 See, e.g., Answer to Amended Complaint at 58, The Fortune Society, Inc. v. Sandcastle Towers Hag. Dev. Fund
Corp., No. 1:14-CV-6410 (ED.N.Y. May 21, 2015), ECF No. 37 ("The use of criminal records searches as part of
the overall tenant screening process used at Sand Castle serves valid business and security functions of protecting
tenants and the property from former convicted criminals."); Evans v. UDR, Inc., 644 F.Supp.2d 675, 683 (E.D.N.C.
2009) (noting, based on affidavit of property owner, that "[t]he policy [against renting to individuals with criminal
histories is] based primarily on the concern that individuals with criminal histories are more likely than others to
commit crimes on the property than those without such backgrounds ... [and] is thus based [on] concerns for the
safety of other residents of the apartment complex and their property."); see also J. Helfgott, Ex -Offender Needs
Versus Community Opportuniry in Seattle, Washington, 61 Fed. Probation 12,20 (1997) (finding in a survey of 196
resident safety and protecting property are often considered to be among the fundamental
responsibilities of a housing provider, and courts may consider such interests to be both
substantial and legitimate, assuming they are the actual reasons for the policy or practice.24 A
housing provider must, however, be able to prove through reliable evidence that its policy or
practice of making housing decisions based on criminal history actually assists in protecting
resident safety and/or property. Bald assertions based on generalizations or stereotypes that any
individual with an arrest or conviction record poses a greater risk than any individual without
such a record are not sufficient to satisfy this burden.
1. Exclusions Because of Prior Arrest
A housing provider with a policy or practice of excluding individuals because of one or
more prior arrests (without any conviction) cannot satisfy its burden of showing that such policy
or practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. 25 As the
Supreme Court has recognized, "[t]he mere fact that a man has been arrested has very little, if
any, probative value in showing that he has engaged in any misconduct. An arrest shows nothing
more than that someone probably suspected the person apprehended of an offense."26 Because
arrest records do not constitute proof of past unlawful conduct and are often incomplete (e.g., by
failing to indicate whether the individual was prosecuted, convicted, or acquitted), 7 the fact of
an arrest is not a reliable basis upon which to assess the potential risk to resident safety or
property posed by a particular individual. For that reason, a housing provider who denies
housing to persons on the basis of arrests not resulting in conviction cannot prove that the
exclusion actually assists in protecting resident safety and/or property.
landlords in Seattle that of the 43% of landlords that said they were inclined to reject applicants with a criminal
history, the primary reason for their inclination was protection and safety of community).
24 As explained in HUD's 2013 Discriminatory Effects Final Rule, a "substantial" interest is a core interest of the
organization that has a direct relationship to the function of that organization. The requirement that an interest be
"legitimate" means that a housing provider's justification must be genuine and not false or fabricated. See 78 Fed.
Reg. at 11470; see also Charleston Hous. Auth. v. U S Dep't ofAgrie., 419 F.3d 729, 742 (8th Cir- 2005)
(recognizing that, "in the abstract, a reduction in the concentration of low income housing is a legitimate goal," but
concluding "that the Housing Authority had not shown a need for deconcentration in this instance, and in fact, had
falsely represented the density [of low income housing] at the location in question in an attempt to do so").
n HUD recently clarified that arrest records may not be the basis for denying admission, terminating assistance, or
evicting tenants from public and other federally -assisted housing. See Guidance for Public Housing Agencies
(PHAs) and Owners of Federally -Assisted Housing on Excluding the Use of Arrest Records in Housing Decisions,
HUD PIH Notice 2015-19, (November 2, 2015), available at:
htS/ ov/udportal/documents/huddoc7id=PIH2015 19._ofBar hivare Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 241(1957); see also United States v. Berry, 553 F.3d 273, 282
(3d Cit. 2009) ("[A] bare arrest record — without more — does not justify an assumption that a defendant has
committed other crimes and it therefore cannot support increasing his/her sentence in the absence of adequate proof
of criminal activity"); United States v. Zapete-Garcia, 447 F.3d 57, 60 (1st Cit. 2006) ("[A] mere arrest, especially
a lone arrest, is not evidence that the person arrested actually committed any criminal conduct.").
2' See, e.g., U.S. Dep't of Justice, The Attorney General's Report on Criminal History Background Checks at 3, 17
(June 2006), available at hftp://www.bis.goy/conimt-/Lub/Xdf/ag bachecks report2 (reporting that the FBI's
Interstate Identification Index system, which is the national system designed to provide automated criminal history
record information and "the most comprehensive single source of criminal history information in the United States,"
is "still missing final disposition information for approximately 50 percent of its records"),
Analogously, in the employment context, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission has explained that barring applicants from employment on the basis of arrests not
resulting in conviction is not consistent with business necessity under Title VII because the fact
of an arrest does not establish that criminal conduct occurred.21
2. Exclusions Because of Prior Conviction
In most instances, a record of conviction (as opposed to an arrest) will serve as sufficient
evidence to prove that an individual engaged in criminal conduct.29 But housing providers that
apply a policy or practice that excludes persons with prior convictions must still be able to prove
that such policy or practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory
interest. A housing provider that imposes a blanket prohibition on any person with any
conviction record — no matter when the conviction occurred, what the underlying conduct
entailed, or what the convicted person has done since then — will be unable to meet this burden.
One federal court of appeals held that such a blanket ban violated Title VII, stating that it "could
not conceive of any business necessity that would automatically place every individual convicted
of any offense, except a minor traffic offense, in the permanent ranks of the unemployed."3°
Although the defendant -employer in that case had proffered a number of theft and safety -related
justifications for the policy, the court rejected such justifications as "not empirically validated."st
A housing provider with a more tailored policy or practice that excludes individuals with
only certain types of convictions must still prove that its policy is necessary to serve a
"substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest." To do this, a housing provider must show
that its policy accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable
risk to resident safety and/or property and criminal conduct that does not.32
2s See U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n, EEGCEnforcement Guidance, Number 915.002, 12 (Apr. 25, 2012),
available at httu://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance(arrest conviction cfm see also Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc.,
316 F. Supp. 401, 403 (C.D. Cal. 1970) (holding that defendant employer's policy of excluding from employment
persons with arrests without convictions unlawfully discriminated against African American applicants in violation
of Title VII because there "was no evidence to support a claim that persons who have suffered no criminal
convictions but have been arrested on a number of occasions can be expected, when employed, to perform less
efficiently or less honestly than other employees," such that "information concerning a ... record of arrests without
conviction, is irrelevant to [an applicant's] suitability or qualification for employment'), 41d, 472 F.2d 631 (9th
Cir. 1972).
29 There may, however, be evidence of an error in the record, an outdated record, or another reason for not relying
on the evidence of a conviction. For example, a database may continue to report a conviction that was later
expunged, or may continue to report as a felony an offense that was subsequently downgraded to a misdemeanor.
See generally SEARCH, Report of the National Task Force on the Commercial Sale of Criminal Justice Record
Information (2005), available at hU://www.smch.orpJfiles/t)df/RNTFCSCJRI.Xdf.
" Green v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 523 F.2d 1290, 1298 (8th Cit. 1975),
31 Id.
32 Cf. El, 479 F.3d at 245-46 (stating that "Title VII ... require[s] that the [criminal conviction] policy under review
accurately distinguish[es] between applicants that pose an unacceptable level or risk and those that do not").
W
A policy or practice that fails to take into account the nature and severity of an
individual's conviction is unlikely to satisfy this standard.33 Similarly, a policy or practice that
does not consider the amount of time that has passed since the criminal conduct occurred is
unlikely to satisfy this standard, especially in light of criminological research showing that, over
time, the likelihood that a person with a prior criminal record will engage in additional criminal
conduct decreases until it approximates the likelihood that a person with no criminal history will
commit an offense. 34
Accordingly, a policy or practice that fails to consider the nature, severity, and recency of
criminal conduct is unlikely to be proven necessary to serve a "substantial, legitimate,
nondiscriminatory interest" of the provider. The determination of whether any particular
criminal history -based restriction on housing satisfies step two of the discriminatory effects
standard must be made on a case -by -case basis.35
C. Evaluating Whether There Is a Less Discriminatory Alternative
The third step of the discriminatory effects analysis is applicable only if a housing
provider successfully proves that its criminal history policy or practice is necessary to achieve its
substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. In the third step, the burden shifts back to the
plaintiff or HUD to prove that such interest could be served by another practice that has a less
discriminatory effeet.36
Although the identification of a less discriminatory alternative will depend on the
particulars of the criminal history policy or practice under challenge, individualized assessment
of relevant mitigating information beyond that contained in an individual's criminal record is
likely to have a less discriminatory effect than categorical exclusions that do not take such
additional information into account. Relevant individualized evidence might include: the facts or
circumstances surrounding the criminal conduct; the age of the individual at the time of the
conduct; evidence that the individual has maintained a good tenant history before and/or after the
conviction or conduct; and evidence of rehabilitation efforts. By delaying consideration of
criminal history until after an individual's financial and other qualifications are verified, a
housing provider may be able to minimize any additional costs that such individualized
assessment might add to the applicant screening process.
33 Cf.. Green, 523 F.2d at 1298 (holding that racially disproportionate denial of employment opportunities based on
criminal conduct that "does not significantly bear upon the particular job requirements is an unnecessarily harsh and
unjust burden" and violated Title VII),
34 Cf. El, 479 F.3d at 247 (noting that plaintiffs Title VII disparate impact claim might have survived summary
judgment had plaintiff presented evidence that "there is a time at which a former criminal is no longer any more
likely to recidivate than the average person...."); see also Green, 523 F.2d at 1298 (permanent exclusion from
employment based on any and all offenses violated Title VU); see Megan C. Kurlychek et al., Scarlet Letters and
Recidivism: Does an Old Criminal Record Predict Future Offending?, 5 Criminology and Pub. Pol'y 483 (2006)
(reporting that after six or seven years without reoffending, the risk of new offenses by persons with a prior criminal
history begins to approximate the risk of new offenses among persons with no criminal record).
31 The liability standards and principles discussed throughout this guidance would apply to HUD -assisted housing
providers just as they would to any other housing provider covered by the Fair Housing Act. See HUD PHI Notice
2015-19 supra n. 25. Section 6 of that Notice addresses civil rights requirements.
16 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(e)(3); accord Inclusive Cmtys. Project, 135 S. Ct. 2507.
D. Statutory Exemntion from Fair Housing Act Liability for Exclusion Because of Illegal
Manufacture or Distribution of a Controlled Substance
Section 807(b)(4) of the Fair Housing Act provides that the Act does not prohibit
"conduct against a person because such person has been convicted ... of the illegal manufacture
or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802): ,37 Accordingly, a housing provider will not be liable under the Act for
excluding individuals because they have been convicted of one or more of the specified drug
crimes, regardless of any discriminatory effect that may result from such a policy.
Limitation. Section 807(b)(4) only applies to disparate impact claims based on the denial
of housing due to the person's conviction for drug manufacturing or distribution; it does not
provide a defense to disparate impact claims alleging that a policy or practice denies housing
because of the person's arrest for such offenses. Similarly, the exemption is limited to disparate
impact claims based on drug manufacturing or distribution convictions, and does not provide a
defense to disparate impact claims based on other drug -related convictions, such as the denial of
housing due to a person's conviction for drug possession.
IV. Intentional Discrimination and Use of Criminal History
A housing provider may also violate the Fair Housing Act if the housing provider
intentionally discriminates in using criminal history information. This occurs when the provider
treats an applicant or renter differently because of race, national origin or another protected
characteristic. In these cases, the housing provider's use of criminal records or other criminal
history information as a pretext for unequal treatment of individuals because of race, national
origin or other protected characteristics is no different from the discriminatory application of any
other rental or purchase criteria.
For example, intentional discrimination in violation of the Act may be proven based on
evidence that a housing provider rejected an Hispanic applicant based on his criminal record, but
admitted a non -Hispanic White applicant with a comparable criminal record. Similarly, if a
housing provider has a policy of not renting to persons with certain convictions, but makes
exceptions to it for Whites but not African Americans, intentional discrimination exists.38 A
disparate treatment violation may also be proven based on evidence that a leasing agent assisted
a White applicant seeking to secure approval of his rental application despite his potentially
disqualifying criminal record under the housing provider's screening policy, but did not provide
such assistance to an African American applicant 39
"42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(4).
38 Cf. Sherman Ave. Tenants' Assn. v. Disirict of Columbia, 444 F.3d 673, 683-84 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (upholding
plaintiffs disparate treatment claim based on evidence that defendant had not enforced its housing code as
aggressively against comparable non -Hispanic neighborhoods as it did in plaintiff's disproportionately Hispanic
neighborhood).
39 See, e.g., Muriello, 217 F. 3d at 522 (holding that Plaintiffs allegations that his application for federal housing
assistance and the alleged existence of a potentially disqualifying prior criminal record was handled differently than
those of two similarly situated white applicants presented a prima facie case that he was discriminated against
because of race, in violation of the Fair Housing Act).
Discrimination may also occur before an individual applies for housing. For example,
intentional discrimination may be proven based on evidence that, when responding to inquiries
from prospective applicants, a property manager told an African American individual that her
criminal record would disqualify her from renting an apartment, but did not similarly discourage
a White individual with a comparable criminal record from applying.
If overt, direct evidence of discrimination does not exist, the traditional burden -shifting
method of establishing intentional discrimination applies to complaints alleging discriminatory
intent in the use of criminal history information.`'s First, the evidence must establish a prima
facie case of disparate treatment. This may be shown in a refusal to rent case, for example, by
evidence that: (1) the plaintiff (or complainant in an administrative enforcement action) is a
member of a protected class; (2) the plaintiff or complainant applied for a dwelling from the
housing provider; (3) the housing provider rejected the plaintiff or complainant because of his or
her criminal history; and (4) the housing provider offered housing to a similarly -situated
applicant not of the plaintiff or complainant's protected class, but with a comparable criminal
record. It is then the housing provider's burden to offer "evidence of a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse housing decision: ,41 A housing provider's
nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged decision must be clear, reasonably specific, and
supported by admissible evidence.42 purely subjective or arbitrary reasons will not be sufficient
to demonstrate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for differential treatment 43
While a criminal record can constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for a
refusal to rent or other adverse action by a housing provider, a plaintiff or HUD may still prevail
by showing that the criminal record was not the true reason for the adverse housing decision, and
was instead a mere pretext for unlawful discrimination. For example, the fact that a housing
provider acted upon comparable criminal history information differently for one or more
individuals of a different protected class than the plaintiff or complainant is strong evidence that
a housing provider was not considering criminal history information uniformly or did not in fact
have a criminal history policy. Or pretext may be shown where a housing provider did not
actually know of an applicant's criminal record at the time of the alleged discrimination.
Additionally, shifting or inconsistent explanations offered by a housing provider for the denial of
an application may also provide evidence of pretext. Ultimately, the evidence that may be
offered to show that the plaintiff or complainant's criminal history was merely a pretextual
A0 See, generally, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (articulating the concept of a "prima
facie case" of intentional discrimination under Title VIH; see, e.g., Allen v. Muriello, 217 F. 3rd 517, 520-22 (7th
Cir. 2000) (applying prima facie case analysis to claim under the Fair Housing Act alleging disparate treatment
because of race in housing provider's use of criminal records to deny housing).
4' Lindsay v. Yates, 578 F.3d 407,415 (6th Cir. 2009) (quotations and citations omitted).
42 See, e.g., Robinson v. 12 Lofts Realty, Inc., 610 F.2d 1032,103940 (2d Cir. 1979) ("A prima facie case having
been established, a Fair Housing Act claim cannot be defeated by a defendant which relies on merely hypothetical
reasons for the plaintiffs rejection.").
43 See, e.g., Muriello, 217 F.3d at 522 (noting that housing provider's "rather dubious explanation for the differing
treatment" of African American and White applicants' criminal records "puts the issue of pretext in the lap of a trier
of fact"); Soules v. US Dept ofHous. and Urban Dev., 967 F.2d 817, 822 (2d Cir. 1992) ("In examining the
defendant's reason, we view skeptically subjective rationales concerning why he denied housing to members or
protected groups [because] `clever men may easily conceal their [discriminatory] motivations."' (quoting United
States v. City of Black Jack, Missouri, 508 F.2d 1179, 1185 (8th Cir. 1974)).
justification for intentional discrimination by the housing provider will depend on the facts of a
particular case.
The section 807(b)(4) exemption discussed in Section HI.D, above, does not apply to
claims of intentional discrimination because by definition, the challenged conduct in intentional
discrimination cases is taken because of race, national origin, or another protected characteristic,
and not because of the drug conviction. For example, the section 807(b)(4) exemption would not
provide a defense to a claim of intentional discrimination where the evidence shows that a
housing provider rejects only African American applicants with convictions for distribution of a
controlled substance, while admitting White applicants with such convictions.
V. Conclusion
The Fair Housing Act prohibits both intentional housing discrimination and housing
practices that have an unjustified discriminatory effect because of race, national origin or other
protected characteristics. Because of widespread racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. criminal
justice system, criminal history -based restrictions on access to housing are likely
disproportionately to burden African Americans and Hispanics. While the Act does not prohibit
housing providers from appropriately considering criminal history information when making
housing decisions, arbitrary and overbroad criminal history -related bans are likely to lack a
legally sufficient justification. Thus, a discriminatory effect resulting from a policy or practice
that denies housing to anyone with a prior arrest or any kind of criminal conviction cannot be
justified, and therefore such a practice would violate the Fair Housing Act.
Policies that exclude persons based on criminal history must be tailored to serve the
housing provider's substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest and take into consideration
such factors as the type of the crime and the length of the time since conviction. Where a policy
or practice excludes individuals with only certain types of convictions, a housing provider will
still bear the burden of proving that any discriminatory effect caused by such policy or practice is
justified. Such a determination must be made on a case -by -case basis.
Selective use of criminal history as a pretext for unequal treatment of individuals based
on race, national origin, or other protected characteristics violates the Act.
Helen R. Kanovsky, General Counsel
10
CRIME FREE LEASE ADDENDUM
Properly Adores-
Landlord SouthGste Property, Manaperoent, L.L.C.
Tenants)
In consideration of the execution or ranewai at a Residential Rental A.greernent (the "Lease") for the property described
aaove (the •Dweillag Urht^), Landlord and Tenant agree as iolbws.
1- The following terms and cordtions shall apply to Tenant. any member of Tenant's household, any guest of
Tenant or of any member of Tenants househmd, any associate (whether invited or uninvited) of Tenant or of any member
a' Tenant s houseraki, and any person under the control of Tenant or any R-amber of Tenant's household
These persons are referred to in this Cr-me, Free tease Aduendum as "Tenant aid Tenant's Affiliates" -
"Drug -Related Crimmai Act7vitj' means the illegal manufacture, saledietrihution, use:. or possession with ,ntent to
manufacture, sett, distribute, or use of a controlled substance (as defined in Iowa Code Chap.cr 124 or the Controlled
Substance Act (21 U S.C. 8021) or any imitation controlled substance (as defined in Iowa Code Chapter 124A).
(a) Tenant and Tenant's Affiliates shall rot engage in any criminal activity. including Dntg-Related Criminal Art:viry.. in or
near the Apartment Community_
(b) Tenantand 'tenant's Af iihates shah hot be charged with Drug -Related Criminal Activity, assault inreatemng or
intimidating, or the unlawful discharge of firearms whether in or Isar the Apartment GommuNty.
(c) Tenant and Tenants Affiliates shall not engage in any act intended to facilitate-rrnina! aLO ily, Including Drug-
Relateh Criminal Activity. in or near the Apartment Community
id) Tenant and Tenant's Affiliates w,il ro_p.ermn the Dwelling Unil tg be used for or tg fapiita _c(i 1ift_a -EL iyjt,
including Drug-Fielated Criminal Activity, regardless of the identity of the individual engaging in such acirvity_
W Tenant and Tenant's Affi..ates shall not engage in the uelawrul manufacturing sellipg,_uxti si ring._gerpjg$, gr
c;virg_2_a_gentrgljLri_ subsran�,^n_ (as defined In Iowa Code Chapter 12A) or an imIjgt cnc❑ntrolied sLb ni❑ae (as
defined h1 Iowa Code Chapter 124A) ary illegal or prohibited weapon at arty location, whether in or near the
Apartment Community or otherwise in tna Stet_ of Iowa.
(p Tenant and Tenant's Affiliates snail not saiz, use, store, keep or give any {Regal or prohibited weapon at any locatior,
whether in or near the Aparment Community nr otherwise in Ine State of Iowa
(91 Tenant and Tegant's Affiliates shall rot anua(le ^r any illegal d, crimtnal arch itv including _ uf,pgt limited !c,
pf❑SbtUil4n rrimi❑al street nano aciiyty arisauhthreatenipq or in[imicailctg, or the unlawF! tlischame ?t fiearms in
or near the Apartment Community.
(h) Tenant and Tenant's Aftlliaies slim! rut keep the Dwelling Unit as a disorderly house. towa City Code section t1-5-5,
regarding aisordedy houses. provides: "No person shalt permit or suffer to continue. without taking regal steps to
prevent the same. any quarreling, fight. disorderly conduct or other conduct or condition that threatens injury to
indials- (Tenant(s;) (Landlord) Page 8 of 11
Re ,denlial Rental Agreement 2, 1.16
Person or damage, or loud, raucous, disagreeable noises to the o:sturbance of the neighborhood, or to the
disturbance of the genera=. publiz, upoi a prem;ses owned by the person or in the person's possession For
purposes of this Section, 'to the disturuance of the general public' includes :he disturbance of persons beyond the
subject premises and.ror to the disturbance of pe=son upon public places, includng peace officers,'
{i1 Tenant and Tenant's AC, Wes stl not cause an unreasonably hlgh number of calls for police service including., but
not limited to, noise complaints, stray or other animal complaents,uvenile complaints or other public complains
(j) Tenant and Tenant's Arfitiales shall nct engage in any breach o' the Lease teat othenvise ieoPard;�es the hp�llh,
safety cr Pelf re of ;.n;,diord LanC+c 3 s procerhr naraae- a sv other ie'+anP nt ai5ti u_her�perspr�or irtvulving
imminent or actual serious Property q<mA,3e,
2. VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THIS CRIME FREE LEASE ADDENDUM SHALL BE A MATERIAL AND
IRREPARABLE VIOLATION OF THE LEASE ANO GOgD CAUSE FOR IMMEDATE TERMINATION OF
TENANCY. A srnnle violation of any of the provisions of this Came Free Lease Addendum shall be deemed
a serious violating and a material and irreparabpe non-corr,pliar.ce under the Lease. It is understood that a
s:'ndle violation shall be good cause for igrmiaggi of the lLease under Iowa L.aw, Unless otherwise prowdad
bylaw, proof of violation of the terms of this Crime Free Lease Addendum shat no're rprg,m a cnm±nal
conviction. but shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence ranibe
determineo by. but not Limited ta, a police repurt, police citations. information receivec from the police
department or a police officer, or any observations made by the Owner or by the Manager.
3. in case of corfiict between the provisions of this Crime Free tease Addendum end any other provisions of
the Lease, the provisions of this Crime Free Lease Addendum shall control.
4 Tris Crime Free Lease Addendum is +ncorporated into the Lease executed or renewed this day bebaeen
Landlord and Tenant
Tenant Date
Tenant:
Dare:
Tenant
Date.
_.._.
Tenant:
Date:
Landlord:_ Date
By SouthGato Prouerty Management. L.L.C.
Inftiats: (T enani(sj) (Landlmtl} Page 9 of 11
Residential Rental Aq�eemenl 2. i.15
§562A.27A
562A.27A Termination for creating a clear and present danger to others.
1. Notwithstanding section 562A.27 or 648.3, if a tenant has created or maintained a
threat constituting a clear and present danger to the health or safety of other tenants, the
landlord, the landlord's employee or agent, or other persons on or within one thousand feet
of the landlord's property, the landlord, after the service of a single three days' written notice
of termination and notice to quit stating the specific activity causing the clear and present
danger, and setting forth the language of subsection 3 which includes certain exemption
provisions available to the tenant, may file suit against the tenant for recovery of possession
of tc premises pursuant iv chapter 648, except as othei Wise provided in subsection 3. Tile
petition shall state the incident or incidents giving rise to the notice of termination and
notice to quit. The tenant shall be given the opportunity to contest the termination in the
court proceedings by notice thereof at least three days prior to the hearing.
2. A clear and present danger to the health or safety of other tenants, the landlord, the
landlord's employees or agents, or other persons on or within one thousand feet of the
landlord's property includes, but is not limited to, any of the following activities of the tenant
or of any person on the premises with the consent of the tenant:
a. Physical assault or the threat of physical assault.
b. illegal use of a firearm or other weapon, the threat to use a firearm or other weapon
illegally, or possession of an illegal firearm.
c. Possession of a controlled substance unless the controlled substance was obtained
directly from or pursuant to a valid prescription or order by a licensed medical practitioner
while acting in the course of the practitioner's professional practice. This paragraph applies
to any other person on the premises with the consent of the tenant, but only if the tenant
knew of the possession by the other person of a controlled substance.
3. a. This section shall not apply to a tenant if the activities causing the clear and present
danger, as defined in subsection 2, are conducted by a person on the premises other than
the tenant and the tenant takes at least one of the following measures against the person
conducting the activities:
(1) The tenant seeks a protective order, restraining order, order to vacate the homestead,
or other similar relief pursuant to chapter 235F, 236, 598, 664A, or 915, or any other applicable
provision which would apply to the person conducting the activities causing the clear and
present danger.
(2) The tenant reports the activities causing the clear and present danger to a law
enforcement agency or the county attorney in an effort to initiate a criminal action against
the person conducting the activities.
(3) The tenant writes a letter to the person conducting the activities causing the clear
and present danger, telling the person not to return to the premises and that a return to the
premises may result in a trespass or other action against the person, and the tenant sends
a copy of the letter to a law enforcement agency whose jurisdiction includes the premises.
If the tenant has previously written a letter to the person as provided in this subparagraph,
without taking an action specified in subparagraph (1) or (2) or filing a trespass or other
action, and the person to whom the letter was sent conducts further activities causing a clear
and present danger, the tenant must take one of the actions specified in subparagraph (1) or
(2) to be exempt from proceedings pursuant to subsection 1.
b.'However, in order to fall within the exemptions provided within this subsection, the
tenant must provide wiitten proof to the landlord, pior to the commencement of a suit
against the tenant, that the tenant has taken one of the measures specified in paragraph "a",
subparagraphs (1) through (3).
92 Acts, ch 1211, §1; 95 Acts, ch 125, §8, 9; 98 Acts, ch 1090, §71, 84; 2004 Acts, ch 1016,
§1; 2006 Acts, ch 1101, §2; 2013 Acts, ch 30, §178; 2014 Acts, ch 1107, §15
Referred to in g562A.29A
Thu May 19 09:38:00 2016 Iowa Code 2016, Section 562A.27A (9, 1)
Throgmorton lays out development future in memo
Jim Thm morton, 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. M encourage others to send in their
rM thoughts, through letters to the editor or guest columns.
I
The health of our downtown is vitally important to the overall health of our city. Having a healthy downtown
(Photo. David Scrmner/lma C[y requires a collaborative effort on the part of city government, the Downtown District, private property owners
Press-C[¢en) 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 mixed -use and pedestrian -oriented 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.
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 lower -scale,
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 on -street and behind storefronts in parking structures.
Departure from these guidelines will erode the special qualities that make downtown so unique. Ultimately, the city should pursue the creation of a
form -based 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 time -limited 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.
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 3-D 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 three-dimensional 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 off -campus housing. Akey 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 2016-17, 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 off-street parking in neighborhoods adjacent to downtown.
Funds for preparing an on- and off-street parking study are included in the budget for fiscal year 2016-17. Permits for long-term 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 off-street 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.
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.
Anew 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 long-term residents such as
retirees, seniors and young professionals.
Read or Share this story: http://icp-c.com/2cmgryL
Our View: Housing action needs to break through
confusion
Our View, Prrs -Chien editorial board 7:20 p.m. CDTAug.t 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/council-approves-financial-assistance-rose-oaks-
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
RWIPboto 1!5 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.
(Photo. Iowa C.ly Press-Cliren)
This knowledge isn't unique to us, of course. In September, the council will meet
(/story/news/local/2016/06/22/council-considers-affordable-housing-action-plan/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
(ystory/news/local/2016/08/18/forest-view-flier-iowa-city-development-center-for-worker-justice/88909870/) by the Center for Worker Justice threatens
to sow doubt in the minds of low-income 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/forest-view-flier-iowa-city-development-center-for-worker-justice/88909870/). We eagerly hope for the best
when it comes to those residents, and for long-term solutions coming out of September's meetings.
One reminder for the council. With the Riverfront Crossings development now subiect to (/story/news/local/2016/07/05/council-approves-affordable-
housing-requirement/86714736/1 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 10-year 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.//communitvhometrust.orci/). In addition to educational services and
advocacy on behalf of low-income 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.htfic.orcl/) 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://icp-c.com/2blOjfl
Iowa City's plan the right way forward
sally Scott, Guest Opinion 5:28 p.m. CDT Sept tuber 2, 2016
(Photo. Specia/to the Press-C.Ihen)
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:
• 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 low-income tenants impacted by redevelopment.
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 five-year 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 for -profit 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://icp-c.com/2bVVGmzV
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 20111 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.
Figure 1: U.S. maps of health outcomes and social -to -health spending ratio quintiles, 2009
Map A: Percent of adult population that is Map B: Percent of adults who reported 14 or
obese' more days in the last 30 days as mentally
unhealthy days'
Map C: Lung cancer mortality rate per
100,000 population'
f
Map D: Social -to -health spending ratio'
'For Maps A, B, and C red indicates highest quintile (i.e., poorest health outcomes) and green
Indicates lowest quintile (i.e., best health outcomes).
'For Map D, red indicates lowest social -to -health spending ratio; green indicates highest social -
to -health ratio (calculated with Medicare plus Medicaid as the denominator).
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 healthcare 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 healthcare 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
n
U
Ll
Bring your lunch and enjoy!
For Current City Board and Commission members.
The Continuation of Conversations on Diversity
By University of Iowa College of Education
Professor Katrina M. Sanders.
One Will Be Held On:
Tuesday, October 25
12-1 pm
The Other On:
Wednesday, December 4
12-1 prn
Both sessions will be held at Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall.
Please RSVP to humanrights@iowa-city.org.