The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-18-2004 IOWA CITY SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE MEETING AGENDA 18 October 2004 City Hall, Lobby Conference Room 5:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes ITom September 20,2004 3. Taskforce Deliberation Regarding Recommendations to the City Council 4. Adjournment MINUTES SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Anthony, Darlene Clausen, Matthew Hayek, Jan Leff, Jan Peterson Joan Vandenberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Anciaux, Sally Stutsman STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis OTHERS PRESENT: Gary Klein, Marcia Klingaman (Iowa City Neighborhood Council) Maryann Dennis, Charles Eastham, Patti Santangelo CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm. Approval of Auaust 16. 2004 and Auaust 30. 2004 Minutes: MOTION: A motion was made by Anthony and seconded by Vandenberg to approve the August 16 Minutes with no revisions. Motion carried unanimously by those present. MOTION: A motion was made by Peterson and seconded by Anthony to approve the August 30 Minutes with typographical errors corrected. Motion carried unanimously by those present. Presentation bv Iowa Citv Association of Realtors Nasby reported that he had contacted the Association of Realtors to confirm their presentation and was informed that the Iowa City Association of Realtors did not designate representatives to present to the Taskforce. Alsò, Nasby said that no additional information or handouts from the Iowa City Association of Realtors had been received. Hayek said that the Taskforce would proceed to the presentation by the Neighborhood Council. Anthony inquired about information from the Homebuilders Association, as discussed in the September 2 meeting. Hayek noted that he would follow up on obtaining that information. Presentation bv Iowa Citv Neiahborhood Council Klein began by briefly summarizing the function of the Neighborhood Council. There are 28 Neighborhood Associations that meet on a monthly basis to discuss issues they have in common. Klein said that the Neighborhood Council is informal and intended to allow discussion of issues affecting several neighborhoods, and that the Neighborhood Council is composed of representatives elected by the individual Associations. Klein noted that the presentation he is giving to the Taskforce is representative of the active voices in the Neighborhood Associations, rather than being the viewpoint of all Neighborhood Association members. Both Klein and Klingaman said that the Neighborhood Association Representatives were sent information and given opportunity to provide feedback. Most participation tends to come from the Downtown and University area Neighborhood Associations. Some points from responses included: · Concentrating assisted housing units is not desirable. · Designing units to blend into existing neighborhoods in architectural detail and density is preferred. · Designing units to conform to historic district design requirements is encouraged. · Maintenance and management of units is a major determinant on the level of impact on the neighborhood. Oversight of rental units and tenant activities - both in assisted living and otherwise - is necessary. · All neighborhoods need to do "fair share" of assisted housing. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes September 20, 2004 Page 2 Klein said that a concern that was expressed focused on the area south of Highway 6, as it is perceived to currently support greatest number of the higher-density and assisted housing units. Grant Wood and Mark Twain elementary schools feel impact of serving needs of increased numbers of lower income children in these areas, and the police department spends more time in the area. This area has the most affordable land in Iowa City, which supports the continued development of affordable housing. As long as the cost of building remains low in these areas, low-cost housing will continue to be built. At one time, it was understood that the City Council would informally discourage the development of assisted housing south of Highway 6, which appeared to slow development for a number of years. That direction has since changed as some projects have built in that area. Klein said that the "Fair share" policy is a general concern for a number of neighborhoods. One recommendation is introduction of a formal policy to place a moratorium on development of publicly assisted housing south of Highway 6, with exception to projects already approved prior to the effect of the moratorium. This would create scattered site opportunities in other areas de facto, and would not require a formal city policy. He suggested this would also prod the city to investigate use of CDPT funds for inclusionary zoning. Klein said that they understand the possible need for incentives and are generally supportive of incentives to help developers create affording housing. Klein distributed a formal letter addressed to the Taskforce from the Neighborhood Council fully stating the views he summarized for the Taskforce, as well as an inclusionary zoning brief for review and consideration. In summary, there are a number of developers and organizations in Iowa City that are working to create affordable housing opportunities. There is interest from a neighborhood perspective to see what the future looks like, and how it will be determined. Neighborhoods do not wish to have negative impacts on their areas, but the group recognizes the need for assisted housing and the diversity that arises from having these opportunities throughout the city. Hayek: please give details about the process involved in gathering this information from the neighborhoods, and the participation. Klein reported that Klingaman sent email messages that included the letter from the Taskforce to the heads of the Neighborhood Associations, requesting comments. In the Creekside Neighborhood, email messages went to a neighborhood list, consisting of perhaps a third of the actual residents. This included the three questions, and summarized issues and concerns from a neighborhood perspective, and the need for feedback. Very low response rate overall. Clausen reported that this process was also used in the Northside neighborhood. Klein reported that Longfellow had highest response rate with approximately five responses. Klingaman suggested that this is a very complex issue and it can be difficult to grasp full ramifications. Klein concurred, adding that it is not an issue that people feel too strongly about in a theoretical sense. It will become a more "real" situation once a practical solution is offered that impacts a particular place. Only six or seven neighborhoods responded with several responses from areas already impacted by the issue at hand. Hayek: was there a clear consensus for suggestions in the letter? Klein reported that there was a consensus. Klingaman added that the letter was emailed to neighborhood participants for their review and comments, and that lack of response would be assumed to be approval. Only one response to the letter, saying it was good. Perhaps two thirds of the Associations have had some activity or conversations within a year apart from this. Associations become more active when issues of concern are at hand. Vandenberg: is Longfellow typically more active, or is this an issue of concern for that area? Klingaman replied that the area is usually more active, and the comments from that neighborhood implied that the area already had assisted housing and had "done their share." Hayek: was the discussion of the impact of a moratorium, that it could result in less housing overall going forward? Klein replied that no, that idea did not come through. The suggestion came from the Wetherby area, which has several projects and organizations already. Other factors, such as market values, have not operated as restrictions in the community, so perhaps other things need to be put in place. Perhaps this sort of action would be good for a particular area, but must also consider what is good for the city and the developers as well, and try to balance everyone's needs. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes September 20, 2004 Page 3 Hayek: was the moratorium suggested for strictly south of Highway 6? Klein answered that no other area was identified as problematic. The area south of the highway and east of the river, was noted to be an issue by neighborhoods other than those in that region. Klein noted that the issue depends also on property management issues. Change comes from neglect, and there are concerns what will happen with properties long term. Klingaman added that a lot of energy may be required on the part of the neighborhood to convince the city or owner to continue maintenance. Klein noted also that neighborhood associations usually involve a small percentage of active individuals. As such, a few people can influence the opinions of the individual neighborhood associations. Hayek: what would the vote in neighborhoods be on this issue right now? Klein replied that could be asked at the public hearing. Klingaman suggested that the vote would be split. Peterson agreed with Klingaman, adding that there would be differing ideas on what would be "fair." Klein noted that the opinion might be that scattered affordable housing is a good idea, in everyone else's neighborhoods. Hayek: regarding inclusionary zoning brief, are there any particulars to be noted? Klein answered that "inclusionary zoning" is quite variable, and this particular brief asks good questions, especially about issues over which there may be disagreement. Among these are whether the program is mandatory or voluntary, what does "voluntary" mean, what sorts of developments/buildings are included, etc. It also explores the leverage a city policy may allow. Hayek: was the question of types of housing addressed? Klein reported that the comments were not that specific. Rackis: how was "concentration" defined in the inquiries? Klein and Klingaman agreed that it was based on the individual perception of the respondents. Eastham noted that the question of whose perception is important in the answer, and inquired about degree of response from renters and individuals living in assisted housing. Klein and Klingaman replied that in most Associations, participation from these groups is low. Perhaps because of itinerant nature of rental residents, investment in the community tends to be lower among this group. Vandenberg agreed that there is an issue with people moving a lot in certain areas, and that Neighborhood Associations in these areas need to work hard to maintain participation by recruiting new members. Rackis: what distinctions were made in regards to the moratorium suggestion, single versus multi-family housing? Klein replied that he did not have exact details, but understood the suggestion to include all assisted housing. Klingaman noted that the density at Broadway is considered the current issue, though Grant Wood was also of concern a few years ago. The density in the Grant Wood area is lower because of duplexes and single-family homes. Vandenberg inquired about issues in GW raised at the time, and Klingaman explained that most appeared to be centered on children's activities during school breaks, rather than property upkeep or others. Dennis: have any publicly funded developments been welcomed in this community? Klingaman replied that it is difficult to assess what is welcomed versus what is simply accepted as allowable by zoning laws. There is no public process to gather information unless there is an attempt to rezone. Klein added that the question of how to address the issues surrounding assisted housing is recurring. Now we have to consider what sort of incentives may be needed, which is dependent on what sort of values society wishes to promote and what sort of future we are looking for. Hayek: have there been any instances in which the city has discussed changing the zoning for a particular place that was not powered by a project from a particular group waiting to begin? Eastham replied that the Peninsula might fall into that category, though it was a policy change rather than zoning. Klingaman noted that district planning involves looking at undeveloped properties and determining the best future use of those properties. Ideally, the process would involve planning ahead and taking care of the zoning ahead of time, rather than r~actively putting out fires. Update on October 4. 2004 Public Hearina Hayek reported Taskforce is at the end of hearing presentations. A public hearing is scheduled for October 4 at Mark Twain School in the Media Center. Meeting begins at 5:30 pm. Anthony: will any information come from the police department? Hayek replied that the information is difficult to summarize. Nasby noted that there are numerous codes that designate different service calls Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes September 20, 2004 Page 4 from the police, and there are 70,000 calls per year in Iowa City. He said that decisions needed to be made on what information the Taskforce wanted. Also, some problems with information comparison arise because of differing store policies. Some stores such as K-Mart and Cub Foods may have more calls simply because it is their policy to report everything to the police, while other stores like Wal-Mart and Menard's may not have that policy. Nasby said that he and Hayek had reviewed the codes for citations and arrests only, which is still cumbersome. Nasby said that about 90 crime codes have to be reported to the State of Iowa. As such, this could be a starting point and then tie that to a designated period of time. Once that was complete all police service call codes could be plotted onto a map. Hayek said that more information could be gathered as needed. Clausen: what about juvenile court? Vandenberg replied that information could be tracked. Her group did a similar analysis, focusing on assault, juvenile cases, and domestic violence. Nasby noted that there are four police watch areas in Iowa City: downtown, southeast, northwest, and west. Hayek added that it is difficult to divide the city up into four discrete areas. Clausen concurred, suggesting that an overview of the city would be more helpful in making comparisons. Vandenberg pointed out that her previous information indicated much more activity in the southeast area. Nasby added that the police could supply any combination of information; it's just a matter of deciding what is wanted. Leff: what is a watch area? Nasby replied that a watch area is a section of the city defined by the police. Rackis: would rental permit violations such as a disorderly house be reportable to the State? Nasby answered that he would have to look at the list, but probably not since it is a local code violation. Clausen noted that the Taskforce needs to decide what information they want, and weigh how the data might be skewed by other factors. Hayek: what data does the Taskforce want? Vandenberg replied that less is more, and key indicators should be chosen. Leff noted that even only 90 codes seem like a lot. Nasby confirmed that those 90 codes could be plotted, and any types of criminal activity that the Taskforce don't want can then be removed. Eastham cautioned the Taskforce against the difficulties and ambiguities of this data. He said that blanket numbers would not distinguish between homeowners and renters. There are a relatively low number of families living in assisted housing, and crime numbers are likely to be unfairly heaped onto those few. Clausen replied that the Taskforce should decide what data and information it would like to have, and how it will figure into deliberations. Vandenberg agreed, noting that she would like to review impact of the concentration, and correlation of crime and concentration of poverty, not necessarily that people in assisted housing are committing crimes. Rackis agreed that there should be caution in looking at crime data, because it does not distinguish between the owner and renter. Also, he thought that information was not given on multiple calls to the same address. Hayek added that an inference might be drawn that areas with higher crime rates may have higher numbers of people living in assisted housing, and it is up to the Taskforce to decide if this is the case. The information from the police is important and necessary. All data the Taskforce is reviewing has the potential for complications, and the police data is an important piece to the issue at hand. Additional concerns about how the data is ultimately used by the Taskforce can be addressed at a public hearing. Vandenberg pointed out that depending on the viewpoint on the data, it could be used against the Taskforce's recommendation. Clausen agreed, saying that all available data should be reviewed in order to make recommendations. Vandenberg remarked that there are different ways data can be tracked in the juvenile court: where the subject lives, and where the crime was committed. What does the Taskforce want? General agreement that information wanted on where the subject lives. Vandenberg will work on gathering this data. Other Business Hayek noted that more statistics from the city are still coming on rental values, vacancy rates, etc. Also, Vandenberg offered a summary from the Broadway Revitalization Project survey, in conjunction with the National Resource Center for Family-centered Practice. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes September 20, 2004 Page 5 At next meeting, based on public participation, the Taskforce could potentially begin deliberation after the public hearing. Otherwise, can plan to begin deliberation at October 18 meeting. Clausen replied that usually deliberations take place later, to give members time to consider the information. Leff: is it appropriate for Taskforce members to encourage attendance, and how can the hearing be made less intimidating? Hayek replied to the first question, yes, and that the city is planning to do some marketing to encourage people to come and discuss. Also, regarding the environment, happy to have more suggestions. Depending on the size of the group, Taskforce can try to make it informal, and having it at the school may help as well. Leff noted that she hopes to get some input from residents by leaving the city building and going into the community. Clausen: will the Taskforce be deliberating that night? Hayek agreed that because of additional information, it might be useful to give Taskforce members time to consider before beginning deliberations. General agreement expressed that deliberation should begin at October 18 meeting. Vandenberg: since there is no proposal yet, what will residents are asked to respond to? It was suggested to ask them the residents the same sorts of questions that have been asked the other groups. General interest expressed in making the forum non-threatening. Anthony: will the Taskforce be getting information from the Homebuilders and Realtors Associations, and can we have them participate? Hayek suggested that formal notice of the hearings could be sent to the groups that participated so far, including invitation to give additional comments or opinions at that time. Hayek noted proposed future meeting dates: October 18, November 1, November 15, November 22, and December 6. These dates were set with the intent for Taskforce to be done by December, and inquiring whether there should be two or three meetings in November. All will review the dates for next meeting. Santangelo suggested advertising the public hearing at Music at Broadway. Dennis inquired how long hearing is planned to last, since it is beginning right at the dinner hour and may cause problems for those with children. Suggestion to offer childcare services at the site, perhaps in the gym. Time changed to 6:30 pm, tentatively planned to end at 8:30 pm. Vandenberg will check on availability of the additional room and the time change. Leff requested an email confirmation of the time and place, to announce at a neighborhood meeting. Hayek inquired about other discussion. Vandenberg reported that Iowa City is participating in a Youth Development Grant with eight other sites, including a group in Chicago. Noted that she heard at a recent conference that theoretically people in the Chicago area are coached to move to Iowa. Clausen added that was discussed in the research readings, that one of the services offered was assistance with relocation. Vandenberg continued by explaining that a trip is planned to Chicago to talk about this with that group. The Chicago group may have a more political interest in the question of where people are going when they leave that area, in relation to the gentrification of urban Chicago. Dennis pointed out that many people have been displaced in the Chicago area because a high number of units have been torn down. Hayek added final note to the group to plan to be flexible on how long deliberations will take to reach a consensus and produce initial document. Still planning to reach a consensus, then nominate a subgroup to write up a summary, disseminate it to the public, then hold a second public hearing, tweak the proposal, and submit it to the City. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the taskforce, Vandenberg moved to adjourn. Peterson seconded, and the motion passed uncontested. Meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm. s:/pcd/minutes/ScatteredSiteHousingT askforce/OQ-20-04ssht.doc Q ~ M ,...; ~ Q -. M ,...; II) ,...; -. ,...; ,...; ,...; Q -. ,...; ,...; QO ,...; -. Q ,...; ~ ~><><><><><><><>< ,...; Q ~ð><><><><><ð>< Q ~ CJ .. :S ~"O ~ .. o ~CJ = ~ .;; ~ =~~ OCJO ==0 ~N ~"O := = rJ.:J. ~ .... "0.... ~< .. ~ .... .... ~ CJ rJ.:J. Q ~><><><><><><><ð Q ~ ~><><~><><><~>< QO 0 0 Q M ~><><><><><ðð>< Q '" ~ðð><><><><><>< Q M ~ð><><><><><ð>< Q ,...; SS><><><><><ð><>< Q r-- ~><><><><><><><>< Q r-- S:;><><><><><><><>< Q M S:;><ð><><><><><>< Q '" ~><><><><><><ð>< Q ~ = f! =g~~ ~ë= ..... -= = ~ ... fIJ = ~_==-cu-cu ~=ü=~"t.e~ < .~~~ = Q~Q~~~CI5> "C I-< ~ Q) ;::S OJ).g U $:I ¡;;¡ >< ..¡:: Q) EE~~::;S Q) Q) ~ ::;s CI ~ rJ:I rJ:I 0 Õ ~~~ZZ II II II II II ~ ~ ~ : ~><OOZ: --11-1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom 1.5 Person 3 Person 4.5 Person 3ø~Me<ti'nøflnGøaneftbiçklif'll) v$.løntaluf'li*cø_tif'lløW.Oi~(tbinline) 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 year $1,400.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 ë $800.00 g e «I '" J! ... $600.00 0 'a $400.00 $200.00 $- 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 1.5 Person 3 Person 4.5 Person 50% of Median income (thick line) 'is. rental unit cost in Iowa City (thin line) 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 year $2,500.00 $2,000.00 'E $1,500.00 :s 0 i '" .. ..... 0 " $1,000.00 0.00 $- Me4ili....fål'l1il'i...CÔ.I'I1'ftbi~~ \li~.'V$. i~'...~åt...nlt8inl.wl.;'I~~.bi.../li....' 19.98 1..9 2001 2002 y.r '... . . - 2Sedroom 3i<Sêdf'QQI'f'I 4+Sedroom 1.5 Person 3 Person 4.5 Person 2003 Bedroom $2,500.00 $2,000.00 ! $1,500.00 ::;$ 0 e «I ... ""..~ 0 " $1,000.00 $500.00 1 $- Iowa City Housing Authority Executive Summary Iowa City Housing Authority Mission and Strategies: The Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) works to improve the quality of life for clients, acting as a community leader on affordable housing by providing information and education, housing assistance, and public and private partnership opportunities. The ICHA intends to continue its programs, pursue expansion of the amount of rental assistance available, address the need for improved communication and education between tenants and landlords, facilitate and enhance the development of self sufficiency programs, assist families in purchasing their own homes, encourage residents to maintain involvement and participate in the Annual Plan developmental process to ensure coordination with broader community strategies. Strategy 1: Maximize the number of affordable units available to the ICHA within its current resources by: · Employ effective maintenance and management policies to minimize the number of public housing units off-line. · Minimize turnover time for vacated public housing units. · Minimize time to renovate public housing units. · Maintain or increase HCV lease-up rates by establishing payment standards that will enable families to rent throughout the jurisdiction. · Maintain or increase HCV lease-up rates by marketing the program to owners, particularly those outside of areas of minority and poverty concentration. · Participate in the Consolidated Plan development process to ensure coordination with broader community strategies. Strategy 2: Increase the number of affordable housing units by: · Apply for additional HCV units should they become available. · Pursue housing resources other than public housing or HCV tenant-based assistance. · Leverage affordable housing resources in the community through the creation of mixed - finance housing through PubliclPrivate Partnerships. ~ Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship, Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County. The Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship (GICHF) and the ICHA started construction (Spring 2004) of a 10 unit affordable housing complex within the "Peninsula Project", which is a neo-traditional, mixed-income neighborhood design. ~ Construct two (2) affordable housing units in the Longfellow Neighborhood in 2005. The total project plan is to build 10 units over a five-year timeftame. Our intent is to pre-sell these accessible Longfellow Neighborhood units to eligible elderly or disabled families. Steven J. Rackis Page 1 10/13/04 ~ The City ofIowa City supported the efforts ofthe Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County to leverage $200,000 in State Housing Trust Fund Moneys. To this end, the City committed $20,000 ITom the ICHA to the efforts to provide homeownership opportunities in Iowa City. Strategy 3: Target available assistance to families at or below 30 % of AMI · Exceed HUD federal targeting requirements for families at or below 30% of AMI in public housing. · Exceed HUD federal targeting requirements for families at or below 30% of AMI in tenant-based HCV assistance. · Adopt rent policies to support and encourage work. ~ Interim Reexamination Policy: In most cases, the ICHA will recalculate rent based on an increase in income from employment only at a participant's annual reexamination. The ICHA changed this policy to promote economic self- sufficiency by encouraging participants to maintain employment and to seek opportunities for better employment · Employ admissions preferences aimed at families' involuntary displaced, families with children 18 years of age and under or elderly or disabled families. Strategy 4: Target available assistance to families at or below 50% of AMI · Adopt rent policies to support and encourage work ~ Interim Reexamination Policy: In most cases, the ICHA will recalculate rent based on an increase in income from employment only at a participant's annual reexamination. The ICHA changed this policy to promote economic self- sufficiency by encouraging participants to maintain employment and to seek opportunities for better employment Strategy 5: Target available assistance to the elderly: · Apply for special-purpose vouchers targeted to the elderly, should they become available. · FY99 applied and received 100 mainstream vouchers for people with disabilities. This includes elderly. Continues to be funded. Strategy 6: Target available assistance to Families with Disabilities: · Apply for special-purpose vouchers targeted to families with disabilities, should they become available. · Affirmatively market to local non-profit agencies that assist families with disabilities. Steven J. Rackis Page 2 10/13/04 · FY99, Applied and received 100 mainstream vouchers for people with disabilities (including elderly). Continues to be funded. · FY04 Applied for 20 mainstream vouchers for people with disabilities. Currently under HUD review. · Educate local non-profit agencies that assist families with disabilities. Expand the briefing process to include these agencies and their employees as needed. Strategy 7: Conduct activities to affirmatively further fair housing · Educate tenants and owners on fair housing rights through the Administrative Plan, Briefing Sessions and information packets. · Also, the ICHA works extensively with the City of Iowa City's Human Rights Department to ensure fair housing rights. · Provide reasonable accommodations as needed. · Provide information and access to community/housing resources through the ICHA websi te: http://www.icgov.org/housinglauthority/links/index.htm Strategy 8: Promote Self-Sufficiency: The ICHA operates 2 Self-Sufficiency Programs: 1. The Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program promotes self-sufficiency and asset development by providing supportive services to participants' to increase their employability, to increase the number of employed participants and encourages an increase in savings through an escrow savings program. The original FSS program mandate was 83 slots (33 in Public Housing; 50 in HCV). In May 2002, the ICHA received approval ITom HUD to operate a voluntary FSS program along with the HUD mandated program. This action increased the program size to 160 combined slots. Due to 77 successful program graduates, our mandated number of slots is now 6 (93% graduated). For Fiscal Year 2004: · 160 households are currently participating in the Family Self-Sufficiency program. · Total Mandated Public Housing slots filled = 33 (100% of mandate). · Total Mandated Public Housing slots graduated = 26 (79% of mandate). · Current number of Public Housing Tenants enrolled = 31. · Total Mandated HCV slots filled = 50 (100% of mandate). · Total Mandated HCV slots graduated = 50 (100% of mandate). · Current number ofHCV Tenants enrolled = 125. · 100% of our mandatory and voluntary slots are filled. · 60% have escrow accounts established. . Average monthly escrow deposit . Average escrow balance = $200. = $2,000. Steven 1. Rackis Page 3 10/13/04 · Of our total FSS graduates, 35 have moved to homeownership (28 independent of ICHA programs; 7 through ICHA programs). · 9 clients received bikes through the ROSS Bike-to-Work program. · 35 families received cars from the Goodwill Industries of Southeast Iowa's Wheels- to- Work program. 2. Resident Opportunity Self-Sufficiency (ROSS): Resident Opportunity Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) is a grant-funded program that provides participants with resources to improve their employment skills through job coaching and educational opportunities. The program also links clients to resources to meet such needs as child care, transportation, education and job training opportunities, employment, money management and other similar needs necessary to achieve economic independence and self-sufficiency. · The ROSS Program admits and graduates residents on an ongoing basis, with 163 referrals since June 2001. This number far surpasses the original grant goal of serving 130 residents over three years. · The original competitive grant awarded to the ICHA was $150,000 over 3-years (March 2001 - March 2004). This grant, in partnership with Goodwill Industries of SouthEast Iowa, purchased the services of an Employment Specialist. · In March 2004, the ICHA again secured a competitive grant for $250,000 over the next 3-years (2004 - 2007). This grant will maintain the efforts of the Employment Specialist and will provide additional supportive service to aid clients in seeking and maintaining employment. For example, childcare start-up fees, car repairs, short-term education/training, licensure, etc. Through public/private partnerships, the grant will support seminars and workshops, such as FDIC Money $mart, homeownership preparation classes, etc. Strategy 10: Promote Homeownership Options: HCV Homeownership Program: The HCV Homeownership program permits eligible participants in the HCV Program, including participants with portable vouchers, the option of purchasing a home with their HCV assistance rather than renting. The homeownership option is limited to three percent (3%) of the total HCV program budgeted by the ICHA in any fiscal year, excluding disabled and elderly families. Eligible participants for the HCV Homeownership Program must have completed at minimum a one-year lease term with HCV rental assistance. They must not owe the ICHA or any other ICHA an outstanding debt and must meet the eligibility criteria set forth herein. HCV homeownership assistance payments may be used to purchase the following type of housing within Johnson County: new or existing single-family units, condominiums, Steven J. Rackis Page 4 10/13/04 cooperatives, lofts, and, or manufactured units. ICHA will also permit portability ofHCV homeownership payments to another jurisdiction, provided the receiving jurisdiction operates a HCV Homeownership Program for which the participant qualifies, is accepting new families, or authorizes the ICHA to administer the homeownership assistance in their jurisdiction. · Ten (10) Housing Choice Vouchers were used to purchase homes SInce January 2003. As of September 30, 2004, three (3) closings are pending. Tenant-to-Ownership Program (TOP): The Tenant To Ownership Program is funded by Housing and Urban Development (RUD). The Tenant to Ownership Program offers an opportunity for low to very low- income families to purchase a single-family house owned by the ICHA. · Fifteen (15) homes sold and three (3) resold since May 1998. As of September 30, 2004, Five (5) sales are pending. Affordable Dream Home Ownership Program (ADHOP): The Affordable Dream Home Ownership Program operated, managed and funded solely by the ICHA. It offers an opportunity for income eligible families to purchase newly constructed or newer homes. · Seven (7) homes (one a "Universal Design" home) built and sold since May 1999. Homeownership Totals: · The combined efforts of the ICHA Self-Sufficiency and Homeownership programs, May 1998 - Present, resulted in a total of 68 participant families living in their own home. Strategy 11: Other Housing Needs & Strategies: The ICHA recognizes the need for improved communication and education between tenants and landlords/owners. The ICHA continues marketing efforts targeting landlords, educating them on the general nature and mechanics of the program, and providing free advertising by maintaining a current rental listing of vacant units. The ICHA will utilize existing or create new partnerships to develop and deliver workshops/seminars targeting both landlords and tenants (e.g., How You Can Enforce Your Lease, How to be a Good Tenant, etc). Our website features a section dedicated to landlord specific information: http://www.icgov.org/housing/authority/landlord/index.htm Steven J. Rackis Page 5 10/13/04 Iowa City Housing Authority Programs Analysis and Report The University of Iowa and the Johnson County Rental Market: The University of Iowa is the largest employer in Johnson County with 16,495 employees. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics are second with a total employment of 6,130. ACT ranks third with 1,340 employees. The total current enrollment at the University ofIowa is 29,745. Only 20% of University ofIowa students live in Campus housing. The remaining 80% are competing for private market rental units in Johnson County. Of the total enrollment, 53% or 15,765 students live in private market rental units in the City of Iowa City; 6% or 1,785 students live in private market rental units in the City of Coralville. HCV participants are competing for private market rental units with University students. As of September 30, 2004, 67% or 815 of our HCV families live in the City Iowa City; 21 % or 258 HCV families live in the City of Coralville. By Comparison: Total University Of % of Total Total HCV % of Total Iowa Students Student Participants HCV Available Private Market Rental living in Private Population Participants Units by Place and Number Market Rental Units Iowa City 15,600 15,765 53% 815 67% Coralville 4,182 1,785 6% 258 21% Johnson County Housing Market The low vacancy rates and the high instance of renter-occupied units significantly impact the ICHA housing programs. Comparing Johnson County to the State of Iowa shows Johnson County with lower vacancy rates and higher renter-occupied units than the State as a whole (SEE Attachment A): 1990 2000 Johnson State of Johnson State of Iowa County Iowa County Housing 3.1% 6.9% 3.8% 6.8% Vacancy Rates 0/0 Owner- 52.7% 70.0% 56.6% 72.3% occupied % Renter- 47.3% 30.0% 43.4% 27.7% occupied Steven J. Rackis Page 6 10/13/04 Also, the following table represents the population increases for Johnson County from 1970- 2000. Lower vacancy rates plus increased population creates more competition for rental units, which translates into higher rental rates. Actual migration data can be found in Attachment B. 1970 1980 1990 2000 % % % % change change change change 1970- 1980- 1990- 1970- 1980 1990 2000 2000 Johnson County 72,127 81,717 96,119 111,006 13.3% 17.6% 15.5% 53.9% Population Changes Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1990 & 2000. Comparison of Average Monthly Rents v. Average Monthly HCV Housing Choice Voucher Payments (Average Monthly Rent Data is ITom the 2003 Iowa City Area Apartment Rent Survey Prepared by Cook Appraisal, Inc.): Apartment Vacancy % by City and Year City 1998 1999 2001 2003 Iowa City 3.86% 2.27% 1.49% 4.06% Coralville 1.01 % 1.50% 0.89% 7.19% North Liberty N/A N/A N/A 1.14% Average Monthly Rent City 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 Iowa City $ 500.00 $ 507.00 $ 526.00 $ 538.00 $ 612.00 Coralville $ 461.00 $ 468.00 $ 486.00 $ 539.00 $ 532.00 North Liberty N/A N/A N/A $ 570.00 $ 577.00 Steven 1. Rackis Page 7 10/13/04 Average Monthly Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Iowa City Housing 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 Authority HAP Payments $ 274.00 $ 250.00 $ 352.00 $ 376.00 $ 362.00 Total Vouchers 1,070 1,086 1,086 1,149 1,213 Analysis of Public Housing Units: Public housing was established to provide affordable, decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) distributes federal subsidies to the Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA), which owns and manages the housing. The City of Iowa City owns 88 public housing units; the ICHA serves as the landlord and rents these units to eligible tenants. They are scattered throughout Iowa City and were constructed to conform and blend into the existing neighborhood architecture. Unit type Number of units: Single Family Duplex/Zero Lot Multi-Family Row House 38 38 8 4 Economic Impact: · The 88 Public Housing units represent .006% of the total number of rental units in the City of Iowa City. · The total FY04 rental income from our Public Housing properties = $240,746. · The ICHA Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) for the Public Housing properties in FY04 was $20,613 · Approximately $300,000 is paid annually to local private sector contractors for the capital improvement, general maintenance, and repair of the Public Housing units Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS): PHAS evaluates a Public Housing Authority (PHA) by assessing the following: (a) the physical condition of the PHA properties; (b) the PHA's financial condition; (c) the PHA's management operations; and (d) the resident assessment of the PHA's performance. · Fiscal Year 2004 PHAS score = 96%. . Designation Status = High Performer. Steven J. Rackis Page 8 10/13/04 Analysis of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Units: The Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) is funded by the U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with the intent of increasing affordable housing choices for low- income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Families with a HCV voucher choose and lease safe, decent, and affordable privately owned rental housing. All participants must be income eligible and have no incidents of violent or drug related criminal activity for the past five (5) years. Number of available vouchers = 1,213. Economic Impact: · As of September 30,2004, eight hundred and eleven (811) of our HCV families reside in Iowa City. These vouchers represent 5% of the total rental units in the City of Iowa City. · In FY04, the HCV program paid approximately $3,861,551 of Housing Assistance Payments to landlords/owners of rental properties in the City of Iowa City. · The remaining $1,914,111 was distributed to landlord/owners of rental properties in 16 additional communities in our jurisdiction. Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP): SEMAP evaluates the management performance of the Housing Choice Voucher Program by assessing the following: (a) compliance with policies for selecting ITom the waiting list; (b) reasonableness of rents; (c) when determining adjusted income, is information properly verified and documented; (d) is the utility allowance schedule up-to-date; (e) are a certain number of HQS re-inspections done to ensure quality control; (f) is the timely correction of HQS deficiencies being enforced; (g) are actions being taken to encourage housing opportunities outside areas of poverty and minority concentration; (h) Fair Market Rent limits and Payment Standards; (i) are annual reexaminations done for all participants; CD are tenant rent calculations correct; (k) does each unit pass HQS inspection before the beginning date of the assisted lease and contract; (1) are all units inspected annually; (m) is the lease-up rate for the fiscal year being met; (n) are families being enrolled in the Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) as required. · Fiscal Year 2003 SEMAP score = 100%. · Designation Status = High Performer. ICHA Participant Characteristics. Definition of Participant (participant family): A person or family that has been admitted to the Iowa City Housing Authority's HCV or Public Housing program and is currently assisted in the program. 1. Family Characteristics (Head of Household) a. Families receiving an income b. Female Head of Household c. White Head of Household d. Disabled/elderly Head of Household e. Families with children f. AmcanlAmerican Head of Household =99% =72% =68% =53% =47% =28% Steven J. Rackis Page 9 10/13/04 2. Income Sources (All Family Members) a. Employment = 31 % * b. Social Security (SS) =20% c. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) = 16% d. Family Investment Program (FIP)(W elfare) = 10% e. Other Non-Wages Sources (e.g., Student Loans) = 9% f. Child Support = 7% g. Pensions 3% h. Income ITom self-employment = 2% i. Unemployment Insurance (UI) 1% j. No Income Source 1% · When considering families where the head of Household is able-bodied and under the age of 62, seventy-four percent (74%) of these Heads of Household are receiving income from employment. 3. Comparative Analysis of Combined Housing Programs by Jurisdiction for December 1, 2002 through December 31,2002 (United States, State of Iowa, Iowa City Housing Authority [See Attachment C]. ICHA Participants: · Are more likely to have incomes <30% of the jurisdiction's Median Income than the United States and State of Iowa. · Have Average Annual Incomes below the United States, but above the State of Iowa. · Are more likely to report wages as a Source of Income than the United States and State of Iowa. · Are less likely to report Welfare as a Source of Income than the United States and State of Iowa. · Pay less towards their rent than the United States, but more towards rent than the State oflowa. 4. When were the ICHA Participants admitted to the Housing Authority programs and where did they come from [See Attachment D]? Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program: · 15% ofHCV participants were admitted prior to 1998. · 23% ofHCV participants were admitted from 1998 - 2000. · 70% ofHCV participants were admitted prior to January 1, 2003. · 88% of HCV participants lived in Iowa prior to admission. · 6% lived in Illinois prior to admission. · 6% lived in all other States prior to admission. Steven J. Rackis Page 10 10/13/04 Public Housing Program: · 27% of Public Housing tenants were admitted prior to 1998. · 22% of Public Housing tenants were admitted from 1998 - 2000. · 76% of Public Housing tenants were admitted prior to January 1,2003. · 77% of Public Housing tenants lived in Iowa prior to admission. · 6% lived in Illinois prior to admission. · 18% unknown (16 ofthe participants admitted prior to 1998 whose data did not survive conversion ITom DOS to Windows based management system). 5. Program Performance/Integrity Calendar Year and Fiscal Year 2003, the ICHA: · Processed 363 Processed 363 applicants on our waiting lists. Of these applicants, 91 (25%) were denied participation (e.g., prior drug-related activity, prior violent criminal activity, etc). · Ended the participation of 221 program participants. Of these participants, 89 (40%) were formally terminated through our hearing process. Terminations were primarily for drug-related activity, violent criminal activity, and lease violations. 6. Employers with 6 or more ICHA participants on their payroll: University of Iowa Goodwill Industries of SE Iowa NCS Iowa City Community School District Staff Management Hy-Vee Access Direct DHS MCI System's Unlimited Wal-Mart Cambridge Tempositions Inc McDonald's Restaurant Mercy Hospital Iowa City Rehabilitation & Health Care Center Kelly Services Reach For Your Potential Westaff Ch Robinson Company Employment Systems HACAP Sheraton Hotel City of Iowa City Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon Office Detailers 86 59 29 20 19 16 13 12 11 11 11 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 Steven J. Rackis Page 11 10/13/04 7. Housing Choice Voucher Contracts by Owner [10 or more vouchers] as of September 30,2004 (Units entirely South of Highway 6 are in bold & Italics): Owner #of # of Location (primary Vouchers Available Address) Units Town & Campus Apartments 60 100 Arthur Street, Iowa City Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship 51 63 Iowa City & Coralville Coralville Housing Associates 48 102 Coralville Villa Garden Apartments 29 44 Cross park Avenue, Iowa City KSA Investments 28 100 Keokuk Street, Iowa City Coronet Apartments 26 34 Broadway Street, Iowa City Concord Terrace 22 30 Shannon Drive, Iowa City Penn Oaks Condominiums 21 38 North Liberty Pennigroth Apartments 21 38 Wayne Avenue/Dubuque Street, Iowa City Grandview Court Apartments 19 92 Grandview Court, Iowa City Regency Heights (1010 Building) 18 37 Scott Park Drive, Iowa City JAIRAM 18 28 Coralville Lexington Place Apartments 17 30 Shannon Drive, Iowa City Eastern Iowa Properties Ltd. 17 40 Coralville, Iowa City Regency Heights (1060 Building) 17 38 Scott Park Drive, Iowa City Cedarwood Apartments 16 64 Broadway Street, Iowa City Liberty Housing Co. LLC. 14 30 North Liberty Lakeside Manor 14 400 HWY 6 East, Iowa City Hawkeye Community Action Program 14 18 Broadway Street, Iowa City D & S Enterprises 14 74 Iowa City & Coralville Saratoga Springs 12 12 Clearwater Court, Iowa City Terrace Apartments 12 24 Coralville Citizen Building Ltd. Partnership 11 18 E Washington Street, Iowa City Lynch, Lawrence 11 21 Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty MECCA 11 12 Southgate Avenue, Iowa City Systems Unlimited, Inc. 11 23 Iowa City Steven J. Rackis Page 12 10/13/04 8. Average Size of Housing Choice Voucher Households. As of October 12,2004 the Housing Authority has 1,234 active vouchers. Of these vouchers: · 574 (46.5%) are single heads of households, no other family members in the household. · 591 (47.9%) are families with children under 18. · 69 (5.5%) are all other families. Historical Program Data for the HCV program by family composition: Elderly/Disabled All other Participant Characteristics as of June 30, 2004 FY 2003 FY 2002 FY 2001 FY 1999 FY 1998 52% 49% 54% 53% 50% 48% 48% 51% 46% 47% 50% 52% Current Data: Tenants and Participants By Bedroom Size as of October 12,2004 Pro2ram 0 1 2 3 4 5 Combined 19 339 576 339 45 1 1319 Programs Public 0 2 22 48 14 0 86 Housing Housing 19 337 554 291 31 1 1233 Choice Voucher Tenants and Participants By % Bedroom Size as of October 12, 2004 Pro2ram 0 1 2 3 4 5 Combined 1.4% 25.7% 43.7% 25.7% 3.4% 0.1% Programs Public 0.0% 2.3% 25.6% 55.8% 16.3% 0.0% Housing Housing 1.5% 27.3% 44.9% 23.6% 2.5% 0.1% Choice Voucher Steven J. Rackis Page 13 10/13/04 Historical Data: December 1,2002 through December 31, 2003 Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ person persons persons persons persons persons persons persons Combined 42% 21% 15% 11% 7% 2% 1% 0% Programs Public Housing 7% 10% 26% 21% 30% 4% 2% 0% Housing Choice 45% 21% 14% 10% 5% 2% 1% 0% Voucher Source: Housing Authority Electronic Data Submission to the Housing and Urban Development (BUD) Public and Indian Housing (pIH) Data Center. June 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004 Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ person persons persons persons persons persons persons persons Combined 44% 20% 15% 11% 6% 3% 1% 0% Programs Public Housing 6% 21% 22% 16% 28% 5% 1% 0% Housing Choice 46% 20% 14% 10% 5% 2% 1% 0% Voucher Source: Housing Authority Electronic Data Submission to the Housing and Urban Development (BUD) Public and Indian Housing (pIH) Data Center. Steven J. Rackis Page 14 10/13/04 Housing Needs of Families on the ICHA's Waiting Lists 9/30/2004 Waiting list type: (select one) o Section 8 tenant-based assistance o Public Housing rg Combined Section 8 and Public Housing o Public Housing Site-Based or sub-jurisdictional waiting list (optional) Ifused, identif which develo ment/sub"urisdiction: # of families % of total families 3,109 2252 Waitin list total Extremely low income <=30% AMI Very low income (>30% but <=50% AMI Low income (>50% but <80% AMI Families with children Elderly families Families with Disabilities Race/ethnicit -Black Race/ethnicity- White Race/ ethnicity- Asian Race/ethnicity-All Other 56 2% 258 9% 2118 68% 147 5% 960 31% 1845 59% 1148 37% 32 1% 32 1% Characteristics by Bedroom Size IBR 1,131 36% 2 BR 1,125 36% 3 BR 694 22% 4BR 155 5% 5BR 5+BR 30 1% Is the waiting list closed (select one)? rg No 0 Yes If yes: How long has it been closed (# of months)? Does the ICHA expect to reopen the list in the ICHA Plan year? 0 No 0 Yes Does the ICHA permit specific categories of families onto the waiting list, even if enerall closed? 0 No 0 Yes Steven 1. Rackis Page 15 10/13/04 Housing Needs of Families on the ICHA's Waiting Lists 9/30/2004 Waiting list type: (select one) D Section 8 tenant-based assistance [8] Public Housing D Combined Section 8 and Public Housing D Public Housing Site-Based or sub-jurisdictional waiting list (optional) If used, identif which develo ment/sub' urisdiction: # of families % of total families 1,229 541 Waitin list total Extremely low income <=30% AMI Very low income (>30% but <=50% AMI) Low income (>50% but <80% AMI) Families with children Elderly families Families with Disabilities Race/ethnicit -Black Race/ethnicit -White Race/ethnicity-Asian Race/ethnicity-All Other o 0% 61 5% 845 69% 46 4% 389 32% 731 59% 453 37% 11 1% 13 1% Characteristics by Bedroom Size IBR 421 34% 2 BR 456 37% 3 BR 272 22% 4BR 67 5% 5BR 5+ BR 12 1 % Is the waiting list closed (select one)? [8] No DYes If yes: How long has it been closed (# of months)? Does the ICHA expect to reopen the list in the ICHA Plan year? D No DYes Does the ICHA permit specific categories of families onto the waiting list, even if enerally closed? D No DYes Steven J. Rackis Page 16 10/13/04 Housing Needs of Families on the ICHA's Waiting Lists 9/30/2004 Waiting list type: (select one) ~ Section 8 tenant-based assistance D Public Housing D Combined Section 8 and Public Housing D Public Housing Site-Based or sub-jurisdictional waiting list (optional) If used, identif which develo mentlsub' urisdiction: # of families % of total families 1,906 1,735 Waitin list total Extremely low income <=30% AMI Very low income (>30% but <=50% AMI) Low income (>50% but <80% AMI Families with children Elderly families Families with Disabilities Race/ethnicit -Black Race/ethnicity- White Race/ethnicity-Asian Race/ ethnici ty- All Other 57 Annual Turnover 3% 210 11% 1285 67% 103 5% 584 31% 1,129 59% 705 37% 21 1% 19 1% Characteristics by Bedroom Size IBR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 5+ BR 18 1 % Is the waiting list closed (select one)? ~ No DYes If yes: 710 669 421 88 37% 35% 22% 5% How long has it been closed (# of months)? Does the ICHA expect to reopen the list in the ICHA Plan year? D No DYes Does the ICHA permit specific categories of families onto the waiting list, even if enerall closed? D No DYes Steven J. Rackis Page 17 10/13/04 9. More detailed analysis of applicants on the ICHA HCV Waiting List. Definition of Applicant (applicant family): A person or family that has applied for admission to the Iowa Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) or Public Housing program but is not yet a participant in the program. [See Attachment E] a. When did families make applications to the ICHA HCV waiting lists and where do they reside? · From 1998 - June 30, 2004, the ICHA processed/received a total of 5,872 applications for HCV assistance. · As of June 30, 2004, the total active applicant pool = 1,667. · 72 % of the total applicants resided in Iowa at the time of application. · 24 % of the total applicants resided in Illinois at the time of application. · 3% ofthe total applicants resided in All Other States at the time of application. · 66% of the total Illinois applicants applied after January 1, 2003. · 39% of the active applicants applied January - June 2004. · 59% of the active applicants applied in 2003. · 1% ofthe active applicants applied in 2002. · 54% of the active applicants live in Iowa. · 41 % of the active applicants live in Illinois. · 5% of the active applicants live in All Other States. b. Why are 4,205 applicants inactive? · 1,057 (25%) did not respond to the ICHA's January 20, 2004, wait list update letter. · 1,049 (25%) are either housed or in the process of being housed. · 947 (23%) did not respond or did not return information to the ICHA (i.e., the family did not maintain a correct address with the ICHA). · 721 (17%) were ineligible for assistance (primarily for violent or drug related criminal activity within the last 5 years). · 306 (32%) their voucher expired (vouchers are issued for 120 days and may be extended as a reasonable accommodation). . 125 (3%) declined assistance. Steven J. Rackis Page 18 10/13/04 Scattered Sites Attachment A Total Housing Units, Vacant Housing Units, and Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied Housing Units for Johnson County 1990-2000 Universe: Housing units and occupied housing units Occupied 2000 Owner-occupied Renter-Occupied Vacancy Area Total Vacant Number % Number % Rate State of Iowa 1,232,511 83,235 831,419 72.3% 317,857 27.7% 6.8% Johnson County, Iowa 45,831 1,751 24,967 56.6% 19,113 43.4% 3.8% Occupied 1990 Owner-occupied Renter-Occupied Vacancy Total Vacant Number % Number % Rate State of Iowa 1,143,669 79,344 745,377 70.0% 318,948 30.0% 6.9% Johnson County, Iowa 37,120 1,143 18,999 52.7% 17,068 47.3% 3.1% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census 2000 Census: SF1, American FactFinder, Tables H3 and H4 1990 Census: STF1, American FactFinder, Tables H002 and H003 Prepared By; State Library of Iowa, State Data Center Program 1 Housing Unit Comparison 10/13/2004 Scattered Sites Attachment B Migration for Iowa Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 2000 Universe: Population 5 years and over 3,470 -7,999 9,334 -1,004 6,386 11 ,1 03 -2,804 ,651 ,325 -12,077 -378 -2,072 2,834 -3,172 -5,805 -1,563 30,782 51,946 68,459 13,159 32,723 01,431 21,897 23,474 2,145 4,078 9,712 1,068 3,552 14,275 3,001 3,214 32,107 39,869 68,081 11,087 35,557 98,259 16,092 21.911 34,252 43,947 77,793 12,155 39,109 112,534 19,093 25,125 50,887 99,313 128,974 21,131 23,349 204,356 32,989 29,557 85,139 143,260 206,767 33,286 62,458 316,890 52,082 54,682 93,325 92,166 215.013 49 898 42 303 347,472 62,632 65.571 178,464 335,426 42 ,780 83 184 104,761 664,362 114,714 120,253 Cedar Rapids, IA ~ Davenport--Moline Des Moines, IA M~ Dubuque, IA MSA Iowa City, IA MSA Omaha, NE--IA M~ Sioux City, IA--NE Waterloo--Cedar F metropolitan statistical areas. metropolitan statistical areas Domestic net migration is the number of in-migrants from other metropolitan statistical areas A positive net flow indicates more people moving into an area than moving out of the area. Total net migration is the number of in-migrants from other metropolitan statistical areas and abroad minus out-migrants to other A positive net flow indicates more people moving into an area than moving out of the area to other minus out-migrants 2 0/13/2004 (1995 to 2000) Migration Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census 2000 Census: "Gross and Net Migration Tabulations and County-to-County Migration Flow Data Prepared By: State Library of Iowa, State Data Center Program, 800-248-4483, http://www.JiiLQ.lib.iil.yslspecialized-se_ryjcesldatacenterlind§1x.html Scattered Sites Attachment B County-to-County Migration Flows for Johnson County: 2000 Universe: Population age 5 years and over; By In Flows of Greater Than 1% 6.7% 2,203 Linn County, Iowa Iowa Johnson County, Iowa 8.0% 2,838 Linn County, Iowa 5.4% ,759 llinois Cook County, Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa 6.2% 2,209 Polk County, Iowa 5.1% ,662 Polk County, Iowa Washington County Iowa Hennepin County, Minnesota 5.0% 783 Cook County, Illinois 2.5% 2.3% 811 746 Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa 4.3% 2.9% 528 033 2.1% .7% 699 540 Scott County, Iowa Cedar County, Iowa Maricopa County, Arizona .6% .6% 512 508 .4% 473 .4% 468 .4% 3% 1 453 422 Iowa County, Iowa Los Angeles County, California Black Hawk County, Iowa King County, Washington DuPage County, Illinois Johnson County, Kansas Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, owa 2.8% 2.5% 993 882 Scott County, Iowa Black Hawk County, Iowa DuPage County, Illinois Dubuque County, Iowa Washington County, Iowa Iowa Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, owa Johnson County, Iowa 2.4% 2.3% .9% 667 Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa 841 820 .6% 553 Cedar County, Iowa Johnson County Iowa Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Story County, Iowa Muscatine County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, owa .4% .2% 513 422 Lake County, Illinois Des Moines County, Iowa Jefferson County, Iowa Iowa Johnson County, 3% .2% 422 399 Story County, Iowa Denver County, Colorado Milwaukee County, Wisconsin 1% 1% 401 385 Iowa County, Iowa Woodbury County, Iowa Iowa Johnson County, Iowa 0% 339 Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa 1% 377 Johnson County, Iowa Johnson County, Iowa 0/13/2004 0.9% 307 32,723 TOTAL Out Flow Migration 1% 374 35,557 Henry County, Iowa TOTAL In Flow 2 Scattered Sites Attachment C Combined Housing Programs 2003 2002 through December 31, December 1, Total Occupied Units Total Available Units nformation Unit 2,908,439 24,256 1,203 3,298,753 26,212 1,307 Jurisdiction United States State of Iowa owa City HA ncome Limit Unavailable Above Low Income Distribution by Income, Annual Average % Extremely Low Income Very Low < 30% of Income < 50% Low Income < Median of Median 80% of Median ncome ncome ncome 16% 9% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 1% 15% 16% 11% 65% 73% 82% Jurisdiction United States State of Iowa owa City HA Average Annual Income $ Average Annual ncome $ 3,2004 Apri 1 10,594 9,213 9,855 Characteristics Combined Housing Authority Programs Jurisdiction United States State of Iowa owa City HA Resident 3. 2004 Apri Above $25,000 5% 2% 3% Scattered Sites Attachment C Distribution by Income % $5,000 - $10,001 - $15,001 - $20,001 - Jurisdiction 0$ $1 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 United States 5% 14% 41% 19% 10% 5% State of Iowa 4% 12% 48% 23% 8% 3% Iowa City HA 6% 12% 44% 19% 11% 4% Distribution by Source of Income % With Any With Any With Any With Any Jurisdiction Wages Welfare SSI/SS/Pension Other Income United States 34% 20% 50% 22% State of Iowa 32% 17% 56% 19% Iowa City HA 40% 16% 53% 25% Average Monthly Total Tenant Payment (TTP) $ Average Monthly TTP Jurisdiction $ United States $241 State of Iowa $202 Iowa City HA $224 Resident Characteristics Combined Housing Authority Programs 2 Scattered Sites Attachment C All Female Headed Household with Children Non-Elderly, With Children, Disabled Non-Elderly, No Children, Disabled Elderly, With Children, Disabled Elderly, No Children, Disabled Non-Elderly, No Children, Children, Non· Non-Disabled Disabled Non-Elderly, With % Elderly, No Elderly, With Children, Non· Children, Non· Disabled Disabled Distribution of Family Type 49% 41% 44% 7% 5% 5% 16% 24% 35% 1% 0% 0% 9% 7% 3% 46% 39% 46% 10% 8% 4% 1% 0% 0% 11% 17% 6% Jurisdiction United States State of Iowa owa City HA Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Distribution by Head of Household's Race/Ethnicity % American ndian/Alaskan Native Black/African American Hispanic Non-Hispanic 82 98 96 8 2 4 o o o Asian 2 1 1 1 1 1 44 14 28 White 52 85 70 Jurisdiction United States State of Iowa owa City HA Age % Distribution by Household Member' 3. 2004 Apri 83+ 1 3 1 82 8 9 3 62 3 61 7 7 6 51 50 Characteristics Combined Housing Authority Programs 36 38 43 18 6 -17 32 24 28 5 15 18 19 o Jurisdiction United States State of Iowa Iowa City HA Resident Scattered Sites Attachment C 10+ to 20 Over 20 years years ago ago 10 years ago 2+ to 5 years 5+ to ago % 1+ to 2 years ago Distribution by Length of Stay Moved m Past Year Not reported o o o 5 1 1 14 9 8 21 17 15 32 33 37 16 20 26 11 20 14 Jurisdiction United States State of Iowa owa City HA % Distribution by Household Size o o o 7 persons 8+ persons 1 o 1 6 persons 3 1 2 5 persons 6 4 7 4 persons 13 9 11 3 persons 19 15 15 2 persons 22 21 21 person 36 49 42 1 Jurisdiction United States State of Iowa Iowa City HA Average Household Size Average Household Size 3.2004 Apri 4 2.5 2 2.3 Characteristics Combined Housing Authority Programs Jurisdiction United States State of Iowa Iowa City HA Resident June 30, 2004 Scattered Sites Attachment D Housing Choice Voucher Program Active Participants (June 30, 2004) Year of Admission Admission prior to %of 1998 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 TOTAL TOTAL State of Residence Iowa 173 36 113 109 181 158 242 57 1069 87.9% Prior to Illinois 0 0 1 2 12 22 24 15 76 6.3% Admission Other 7 1 5 7 13 9 24 5 71 5.8% TOTAL 180 37 119 118 206 189 290 77 1216 % of Active Participants 14.8% 3.0% 9.8% 9.7% 16.9% 15.5% 23.8% 6.3% 100.0% Housing Authority Active Participants State of Residence 1 Scattered Sites Attachment D Active Participants Housmg Choice Voucher Program -+- State of Residence Priortol Admission Iowa -- State of Residence Prior to Admission Illinois State of Residence Prior to Admission Other 300 250 200 150 100 50 o 2003 2001 1999 Admission prior to 1998 t/ I:: .2 t/ .~ E "t'J « - o ... Q) .c E ~ z June 30, 2004 Year of Admission Housing Authority Active Participants State of Residence 2 June 30, 2004 Scattered Sites Attachment D Public Housing Active Tenants (June 30, 2004) Year of Admission Admission prior to %of 1998 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 TOTAL TOTAL State of Iowa 9 3 7 8 11 11 17 3 69 76.7% Residence Illinois 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 5 5.6% Prior to Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Admission Unknown 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 17.8% TOTAL 24 4 7 9 11 13 19 3 90 % of Active Participants 26.7% 4.4% 7.8% 10.0% 12.2% 14.4% 21.1% 3.3% 00.0% Housing Authority Active Participants State of Residence 3 Scattered Sites Attachment D Active Tenants Public Housmg I/) g 18 ïii 16 .!!! 14 E 12 "tJ 1 0 ~ 8 0 6 a.. Q) 4 .c 2 E ::s 0 z Admission 1999 2001 2003 prior to 1998 Year of Admission I L - Housing Authority Active Participants State of Residence 4 ~ State of Residence Prior to Admission Iowa - State of Residence Prior to Admission Illinois June 30. 2004 State of Residence Prior to Admission Other ~ State of Residence Prior to Admission Unknown Scattered Sites Attachment E Iowa City Housing Authority i I I i -- I I i Housing Choice Voucher Active/Inactive Applications 1988-2004 I I I i i ------- I I i I ----- June 30, 2004 : I I ! I I -- I Date of Application by Year --- I -----~ i I i Prior to ! I I Total % of total I I 1998 19981 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Applications applicants .---. I Iowa 6 31 30 227 1401 1145 1064 376 4252 72.4% Illinois 0 01 01 11 196 280 680 258 1425 24.3% All Other I I State of Residence States 0 01 0 3 41 39 76 36 195 3.3% I TOTAL Applications by Year 6 31 30 241 1638 1464 1820 670 I I TOTAL Applications I 5872 I --- NOTE: The Housing Authority converted to a new software system in Calendar Year 2001. Only active participants were transferred to the new system. I i I 0/13/2004 1 Housing Authority Application Analysis Scattered Sites Attachment E --~----t-- I J l~ I - ~~-! .. ± :-=t , owa City Housing Authority Housmg Choice Voucher A~tive Applications --+-- June~,-2004 %of waitlist Date_ of Application by Year , 1998 Prior to 1998 ! 54.2% 40.6% Tota 904 676 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 -- 362 258 36 528 415 48 14 3 3 o Q¡ 01 o o o o o o o o o o o o Iowa Illinois All Other States 5.2% 87 t State of Residence TOTAL Active Applicants by Year 10/13/2004 1667 656 991 20 I o o 2 o o o , Housing Authority Application Analysis TOTAL Active Applicants Scattered Sites Attachment E T r ¡ %of Tota Tota Number Current Status of All Families on the Iowa City Housing Authority Waiting List 8/6/2004 , i I -j-- 28.4% 1667 i , 18.0% 14.3% 12.3% 7.0% 5.2% 5.0% 3.4% 2.8% 2.1% 1057 839 721 410 306 291 198 166 125 Active Applicants Inactive: Did not respond to 1/20/2004 Wait List Update Letter Housed neligible nformation Not Returned Voucher Expired Tenant Information Packet (TIF) Not Returned Transferred to Occupancy Information Returned to Sender Declined Assistance 0.7% 0.7% 0.2% 41 39 12 TIF Packet Returned to Sender TIF Packet Expired Ready for Occupancy -~ 0/13/2004 3 I t I 5872 Housing Authority Application Analysis TOTAL _._".._~ Scattered Sites Attachment E 1 ] I T --~ -+ t 1 t I ..~~ ~! ~~- Prior tol i . I 1998 19981 19991_ 2000 2001 _ 2002 -ª003 I t I , i I I I -I- I I 11! o -- t ~~~--. Homeless Analysis -~-- Tota 126 2004 12 64 36 , 13 1 182 16 6 1 29 6 36 5 80 2 18 2 2 o o o Active/Inactive Applicant used Shelter House Address on initial application All States Iowa Illinois All Other States -- Activellnactive Participant Homeless at Admission to HCV program * 5 o 1 o o 2 2 o o 7 36 41 82 22 13 2 o Total Admissions by Year 0/13/2004 203 States. other I inois; 2 A 4 t * Only 91 HCV participants admitted as homeless are currently active. NOTE: 73 households never leased a unit: 69 had a prior Iowa address; 2 Housing Authority Application Analysis Total Admissions