Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-2005 IOWA CITY SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE MEETING AGENDA 3 January 2005 City Hall, Lobby Conference Room 5:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes - December 6,2004 and December 13,2004 3. Taskforce Deliberation Regarding Recommendations to the City Council 4. Adjournment Please Note Meetin2: Location City Hall, Lobby Conference Room MINUTES SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE DECEMBER 6, 2004 SENIOR CENTER, LOWER LEVEL CLASSROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Jerry Anthony, Darlene Clausen, Matthew Hayek, Jan Left, Jan Peterson, Sally Stutsman, Joan Vandenberg STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Eastham, Amanda Cline, Tracy Glaesemann, Alexis Kluklenski, Erick Owomoyela CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Approval of the November 22.2004 Minutes: Several revisions in spelling and grammar were noted for the Minutes. MOTION: A motion was made by Stutsman, seconded by Left, to approve the November 22 Minutes as amended. Motion carried 7-0. Peterson arrived at this point. DELIBERATIONS REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL Hayek began the meeting by handing out a list of criteria the group had discussed for consideration in constructing a definition of "concentration". Hayek said that this list was created from the November 22 discussion. He said the goal is to discuss the five listed criteria as needed, perhaps adding more, then adopt or rejeCt the criteria in order to reach a group consensus about the definition. He also noted the list of secondary considerations at the bottom of the page, to keep in mind for the discussion, as these may be more related to impacts of concentration. Vandenberg asked at what meeting the tables referenced in the criteria list were handed out. Hayek replied they are from the research done by the University students and distributed at the November 8 meeting. Stutsman asked if mobility and quality of life data are considerations that will or will not be included in the discussion. Hayek replied he would like to include those things, but the data does not seem to be available. For example, mobility data collected by the Census is only available on a county level. Vandenberg added that school mobility data is available, too. Hayek noted that while the information from the Broadway study is helpful, its scope is too narrow. Hayek asked if the Taskforce would like to consider mobility in schools. Vandenberg said the data is already compiled and would be easy to gather. Peterson said the type of assisted housing is a factor that leads to high mobility, and can present a special problem. Clausen asked if the mobility data includes information on the type of housing in which the students live. Vandenberg replied that the data involves the percentages of students who enroll in and leave each school building. Stutsman noted that mobility was listed as one of the biggest challenges in the schools. Peterson replied that mobility definitely correlates with poverty. Though she was thinking more in relation to transitional housing, it is also an issue with lower income housing in general because of lack of stability. Hayek suggested it could be a proxy for neighborhood cohesion. Peterson asked if mobility would be added to the criteria list. Hayek asked if there is a consensus to add mobility data from the schools to the criteria list. Anthony said that it should be added only if it can be linked to low ITBS scores. Peterson asked if the data is linked. Vandenberg replied yes, mobility is a big issue even for middle class children. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 6, 2004 Page 2 Anthony asked if the data is available for mobility versus low ITBS scores. Vandenberg replied that data could be retrieved. Anthony noted that he did not find a correlation between mobility and low scores in his preliminary study of the currently available data. Vandenberg said that data might be available by looking at students who had attended at a particular school building for less than a year. She said she will check on getting the information for the Taskforce. Anthony said mobility could be useful if it can be linked to performance. Hayek invited discussion about the criteria currently on the list. Stutsman asked if Hayek is looking for a consensus on the items. Hayek replied that the Taskforce needs to decide yes or no to the list of criteria. Some discussion may be needed for the individual points. Clausen asked if a percent per census tract cutoff should be defined. Anciaux answered that the question is whether the Taskforce wishes to use this criteria. Peterson asked if rental and ownership data should be included in the criteria. Hayek replied the first table includes data on all kinds of assisted housing, which is linked to the Physical Inventory of Assisted Housing list that sparked much discussion at the last meeting. Stutsman asked why that information would not be included. Peterson replied there might be different impacts due to owner-occupied versus rental units, in terms of stability, income, and density. Assisted housing is a very large category, and may not get to where the problem lies. Hayek asked what the breakdown of assisted housing units is in the community. Nasby replied they are predominantly rental units, and noted that specific numbers and addresses can be obtained for owner- occupied assisted units. He said that an estimate of the number of assisted owner-occupied units is under 100, and as such the ratio of rental to owner-occupied unites is probably about 10: 1 or higher. Clausen noted that the table indicates a much longer list of rental units than owner-occupied ones. Hayek said he is not sure how much impact that distinction may have on the discussion. Vandenberg said that the spectrum of the types of housing, including student, elderly, and disabled, may be addressed as a secondary concern when discussing impacts. Hayek agreed, saying that though numerically there may be a concentration of a particular housing type, the impact could be different. Vandenberg asked about the final point under the secondary considerations, whether the crime data was not useful. Hayek replied that the current data broken down by watch area basically shows where the large retail centers are located. He noted that the data gathered by the Gazette was from a very small number of incident codes and was only for a short period of time. Hayek asked the Taskforce if the crime data was useful. Vandenberg replied that point may also be an impact. Leff noted that the data does not give meaningful information about serious crimes such as assault. Stutsman said that data can be gathered, but it would be very time-intensive to weed out those who were charged versus those who were not, to remove duplicate data. Hayek agreed that the crime data would be more appropriately considered an impact. Peterson said the criteria seemed very clean in terms of defining concentration, while impacts are separate under the secondary considerations. MOTION: Vandenberg moved to adopt the five definition criteria listed with the addition of mobílíty data in elementary schools, as available. Stutsman seconded. Hayek asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Anthony suggested the Taskforce make the link between mobility data and school performance before adopting that as a criteria, to avoid having criteria adopted for which no link can be found. Also, regarding the question of rental versus owner-occupied assisted housing, for example tract 18 has the highest percentage of owner-occupied units in the city, which may skew the data under consideration. The criteria should be linked to school performance, to give a solid base to the argument. Vandenberg asked where the owner-occupied statistic came from on census tract level. Anthony replied Rackis provided it. Peterson noted the potential problems with owner-occupied versus rental unit data is the reason she keeps looking at that particular issue. Anciaux said that the highest percentage of assisted housing is rental units, which is indicated on table 1 on the right side. He is looking at the percentage of assisted rental units only, and not considering owner-occupied assisted housing units because there are relatively so few. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 6,2004 Page 3 Anciaux continued by saying that if a concentration is found, a goal can then be created for not to allow more than a certain percent of all units built in a particular area be assisted units, for example. Vandenberg asked if a specific percentage needs to be identified in the criteria. At one time the proposal was to use two times the city average. Anciaux said yes, it will need to be determined. Section 8 vouchers will continue to be used where the families can find housing, but guidelines can be laid out for developers interested in building assisted housing, outlining where it can be built. Peterson said she does not want to randomly pick a number because of the ramifications it will have on the availability of affordable housing. Vandenberg explained that the formula of two times the city average was discussed at the November 22 meeting, and was a Federal desegregation guideline. Peterson noted that a rationale is needed for any number chosen. Hayek said he thinks everyone on the Taskforce agrees that any number chosen is somewhat arbitrary and at a minimum needs to be defensible. Anthony said that regarding the criteria, which are all good, unless they are linked to an impact, there could be no defense of the decision. If percentage of free/reduced lunches can be linked to assisted housing, it should be taken into consideration. Clausen asked if the link with free/reduced is known. Anthony replied no. Clausen asked if free/reduced can be linked to criteria points 1 and 2. Leff said linking with points 3 through 6 can be done. Clausen agreed, but noted that elderly and disabled cannot be related to schools, so if they are included, free/reduced cannot be linked to points 1 and 2. She is fine with linking it to points 3 through 6. Anciaux asked if the criteria need to be linked to school proficiency, or if it is enough to discuss where low- income housing is located and whether or not it is concentrated. Anthony said other criteria could be linked to low-income housing locations and concentration. However, for point 3 about free/reduced lunch, the Taskforce does not have data with which to make a link. Free/reduced numbers are not available according to the type of housing, whether assisted or not. Also, the Taskforce is not looking at the impacts in schools, just whether or not there is a concentration. For that, the data is not needed, so it should be removed. Clausen asked for confirmation that the free/reduced data in question was not available because of confidentiality issues. Anthony and Vandenberg replied yes. Leff asked if point 3 should be removed. Clausen agreed. Nasby noted there is a motion currently on the table, and asked if there is an amendment to the motion. Hayek replied the Taskforce is still discussing it. Vandenberg asked if it is a large leap to say that a high number of assisted housing units in an elementary school attendance area impacts free/reduced lunch numbers. Anthony replied it is a large leap, because in some areas, though overall school enrollment has decreased, free/reduced enrollment has increased. Also, in areas where school enrollment has increased, free/reduced enrollment has increased at a higher rate than general enrollment. He feels that increases in free/reduced is because as the economy suffers, a greater number of families qualify for free/reduced even though they do not live in assisted housing. Also, he would like to see free/reduced numbers compared to ITBS performance scores. Anthony suggested that since the free/reduced data is unavailable, the Taskforce should turn its attention to something else. Vandenberg added that the data would become very complex because of factoring out the additional programs and resources available at schools with the higher percentages of free/reduced. Anthony replied that the data is not helpful then, it is not needed to determine concentration of assisted housing, and so it should be left out. Hayek asked if leaving that data out affects other processes, such as impacts. Anthony said if numbers are available, they should be used. Otherwise, drop the line of inquiry and move on, because developers will be dismayed by the Taskforce's decision, so the numbers used need to be clear, and the Taskforce's recommendation needs to be defensible and reasonable. Peterson said that the discussion of impact will be very important in the process, because that has more meaning for her than just looking at concentration. Impacts are what will lead to development of the housing recommendations. Anthony noted that some Iowa City schools have done very well on their ITBS scores, and asked if the percentiles given are statewide comparisons. Leff replied they are against a national percentile and that Iowa City schools scores slightly lower in the state percentiles. Anthony asked how Iowa City School District Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 6,2004 Page 4 compares within the State. Leff replied Iowa City still ranks among the highest scoring districts, along with Ames and West Des Moines. Stutsman asked if the motion will be amended. Vandenberg asked if the motion should be amended. Hayek asked if there is a consensus that point 3 should be removed from the criteria list. Clausen and Leff agreed. Peterson said it would be wise to be cautious. Stutsman agreed to remove it from the criteria if it can be addressed under impacts. MOTION: Vandenberg amended her motion to accept the list of criteria with the addition of school mobílíty data, to include deleting point 3 from the list. Stutsman seconded. Anthony noted that point 4 can go either way in an argument. For example, not having services in other tracts would be an argument against building assisted housing in those tracts, because services would then have to be moved into those other locations. Anciaux noted that the reference articles presented two opposed opinions about the concentration of services. However, since Iowa City is small, it is less likely that services will be inaccessible regardless of where they are located. Clausen noted that at the last meeting it was discussed that services moved to a certain area after the need arose. Peterson said services were located there because that was where they were needed, and questioned whether that is a problem now. Hayek replied that it is not a problem so much as it could be an indication that there is a concentration in an area. Stutsman added that there has been resistance to establishing services in outlying areas because of transportation issues. Hayek said that is an impact issue, so the question is whether point 4 should be used to define concentration. Anciaux questioned how much more concentration of low-income families is desired in areas that are close to services. Not everyone needs the same services. Stutsman said the services are located where they are because there was a need. Anciaux noted that the services are offered for the entire community. Peterson suggested the services are located there because the land or space was affordable. Anciaux replied that if financial concerns are the primary reason for determining locations of services, assistance should be provided to help spread them out. This may create more housing opportunities, by not forcing families to live in certain locations in order to have access to these services. Peterson said she is in favor of having services accessible to all residents of Johnson County, so the question is whether this is a viable indicator. Anthony asked if the criteria point helps in the definition in any way. Anciaux noted that services can go anywhere in the Iowa City area and be accessible to residents. Hayek added that statement assumes private or public transportation. Stutsman also disagreed, saying that not all families have cars. Anciaux replied that in making that statement, he assumes all people have access to public transportation. Vandenberg said services are located where they are largely because of an issue of need. Peterson noted that Shelter House is being built in its new location because of financial reasons. Anciaux said that in his opinion Shelter House should have been located elsewhere. Peterson asked where. Anciaux replied across from the IC Recreation Center by the bus depot. Vandenberg suggested that both considerations factored into the decisions of where to located services. Stutsman suggested property values are lower in the area because there is a high concentration of low- income families. Vandenberg agreed, saying that perception became reality. Hayek said the task is to determine whether the location of services, whether police, non-profit, or social/human service, is helpful in identifying concentration of assisted housing. Clausen replied that she thinks it is an impact of concentration. The location is not a definition of concentration, though concentration of assisted housing may draw services into an area. Anciaux noted that a satellite police station was opened in the Broadway area. Vandenberg agreed that other services such as DHS and Adult Corrections have chosen to have additional offices in the area too, so it should be a consideration under impacts. Rackis arrived at this point. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 6, 2004 Page 5 Peterson said it is a very complex issue, because there are a number of considerations that factor into location selection. Leff questioned that while Vandenberg said some services chose to have offices in that area, was it really a choice? Vandenberg replied that it might have been more an issue of efficiency, and not so much choice. Peterson said that when dealing with limited resources, services do choose to operate in certain areas because it is easier to reach a higher number of people. Leff said she thinks location of services is a criterion. Stutsman agreed, pointing out that there are no services in Walnut Ridge because there would be no point in placing them there. Leff noted there are many tracts without as high a number of services. Stutsman said that policymakers have chosen to locate offices in the area because of the accessibility and efficiencies. Clausen said then the services are not a definition, because having services located in an area does not mean there is a concentration present. Vandenberg said her interpretation is that a need for services in an area is an indicator of concentration. Anciaux noted that having services in an area does not mean more assisted housing needs to be built in that area. While traveling on the bus with children may be difficult, for example, Iowa City is still not a very large area for service providers to spread out into. Hayek asked how many would like to remove point 4 from the criteria. Anthony, Clausen, and Peterson would like it categorized as an impact. Leff would like to keep it as a criterion. Vandenberg said it is both criteria and impact. Hayek agreed it is both, but would like it to remain a criterion. Anciaux said it should be a criterion, because the number of services in the area both now and in the future should be taken into consideration. Hayek suggested noting the concerns of the three who would like to have point 4 removed, but continuing with the vote on the amended motion as outlined above. The Taskforce members expressed general agreement with that suggestion. Rackis offered some insight on the decisions to locate services in Eastdale Mall. As far as Workforce Development was concerned, the chief consideration was cost. Also, Goodwill Industries and another service agency was already there at the time Workforce was moving. In conjunction with the Federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998, the Governor of Iowa made DHS a mandatory partner for co-location with the employment training programs. He said that DHS was interested in that building because of a desire to move the Income Maintenance workers into the same facility as the Promised Jobs workers, who were working with the same population. DHS was also able to share a phone system with other groups, which made the move affordable for them. So, many dynamics were involved in locating the services in Eastdale Mall, not all involving the local area population. Stutsman noted that during the deliberations to decide where to locate services, that area was indicated as being very appealing. The County had even purchased land on Mall Drive for a Human Services Health Service. Rackis added that another reason was because it is on a bus line, which is a key requirement for Workforce Development. Hayek asked if there is agreement with noting the concerns on point 4 in the criteria and continuing with the vote. Leff asked if a vote is needed on the amendment first. Hayek said yes. Anciaux asked if all motions could be withdrawn and process begun again, to avoid confusion. Nasby said no they should be voted on. Hayek explained that the amended motion currently on the table for a vote is to approve criteria points 1, 2, 4, and 5, with the addition of mobility data from elementary schools if it is linked to proficiency as point 6. Hayek asked if there was any more discussion about the motion. VOTE: 7-0-1 voted in favor of the amended motion (Anthony abstaining). Reservations of some of the Taskforce members are noted with the acceptance of criteria point 4. Peterson asked what the next step is. Hayek replied next is a determination whether there is a concentration according to the adopted criteria. Clausen asked if a specific percentage needs to be established first. Anthony suggested investigating impacts first. Hayek asked if the Taskforce would like to adopt Vandenberg's suggestion of two times the City averages. Anciaux asked what the Federal guidelines are for a concentration. Vandenberg replied it is 40%. Anthony and Nasby noted 40% is for poverty. Nasby noted that poverty level is 30% of the area median income. Anthony said that there are census tracts that meet that 40% poverty standard. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 6,2004 Page 6 Anthony asked if the City has guidelines for measuring any kinds of concentration. Nasby replied it does in CITY STEPS. Anthony asked for confirmation that the guidelines outlines in CITY STEPS is acceptable with HUD. Nasby said the CITY STEPS Plan has used this definition since 1995 and HUD had accepted the plans. Anthony recommended following the City guidelines regarding concentration as outlined in CITY STEPS. Nasby said, for clarification, the number for defining concentration in CITY STEPS is 10% more than the City average, and this is used for indicating concentrations of both low/mod income and minority households. Hayek asked if the same measure is used for all issues. Nasby explained that HUD only requires the City to determine concentrations for those two demographic categories. Hayek asked how that would be applied to the two tables adopted in the criteria. Nasby replied that with a 7.4% citywide average in the number of assisted rental units, any tract with 17.4% or higher would be concentrated. Anthony recommended using the City guidelines as the Council has already approved it and HUD has accepted the definition. Vandenberg said she did not know such a guideline already existed, and agreed that using the CITY STEPS number makes sense. Stutsman asked for confirmation that determination of the City guideline was a community process. Nasby replied that the number was established in the original CITY STEPS plan in 1995, and though it is open to discussion annually, it has not been changed for any of the succeeding two 5-year plans. He said that the definition of concentration is a community-determined guideline so each city could be different. Clausen said if the CITY STEPS guideline is used, only tract 4 has a concentration looking at the one table. Vandenberg said if table 2 is used, there are concentrations in tracts 4 and 18. Hayek asked what this City guideline is used to determine. Nasby replied it is used to determine concentrations of low/mod income and minority households. The threshold is 10 percent more than the City average. For example, the City average of low/mod income households is 53.4%, so any tract with 63.4% or more low/mod income families would be concentrated. Anthony confirmed it is 10 percentage points above the City average. Anthony noted there is a correlation between race, income, and assisted housing. A City-adopted standard is much more defensible than creating a new number. Vandenberg agreed, but added that if following that guideline, tract 18 does not have a concentration. Clausen replied that data from table 2 includes tract 18. Anthony noted that table 2 is the percentage of the total assisted units in each tracts, which is a different number. Nasby said that if the Taskforce is using table 1, it depends on which half of the table is used, whether it is rental only or includes owner-occupied units. He suggested perhaps taking a two-tiered approach. Anthony said that 10% would need to be added to each table to determine the averages of all the sets of data. Clausen pointed out that in table 1, tract 18 does not qualify. Anciaux noted however that the percentage in tract 18 could not rise very much. Anthony agreed. Anthony said that extending the City guideline to include this issue is easy to defend. Vandenberg disagreed; saying that not having a concentration in tract 18 does not make sense. Anciaux replied that tract 18 is very close to the proposed cutoff and the number of assisted units can only rise 1.1 %. Clausen said the number would be different if using the number of all units in the tract. Vandenberg said that it would be important to factor out elderly and student populations in that case, in order to keep to the spectrum of need in mind. Anciaux pointed out that assisted housing consists primarily of rental units, and is also the type of housing the City can influence most directly, so the Taskforce should go with the data in table 2. Though tract 18 does not qualify, it is close to the cutoff point. Vandenberg replied that it does not make sense for that tract not to fit in to the criteria. Anciaux added that there is a concentration of services in that area, too, which may skew the data. Nasby said that if considering only rental units, keep in mind that some tracts have a very low percentage of rental units overall, which would remove those from consideration. For example, tract 105 would not qualify even though it includes Windsor Ridge, because it is a predominantly owner-occupied tract. Vandenberg said that while she agrees with the City's definition of concentration, perhaps table 2 is not the correct table to use in the criteria. . Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 6, 2004 Page 7 Anciaux asked what assisted housing population Windsor Ridge serves. Nasby replied it is 75 units of housing for the elderly. Anthony noted that if using the left-hand side of table 1, tract 105 fits, and so perhaps that is the data to use. Nasby pointed out that side of table 1 includes owner-occupied units. Anciaux said that using the data from the left side of table 1, tract 18 has a relatively low number and has room for an additional 10% of assisted housing units. Rackis replied that is because of the high number of owner- occupied units in the tract overall. Tract 18 has a higher percentage of owner-occupied units than the City as a whole. Also, the total number of units is very high already, plus there is room to grow. Vandenberg clarified that the difficulty is with density. Anthony agreed, questioning what if the Taskforce focuses only on rental units while the difficulties are the result of owner-occupied units? If so, and owner- occupied units are allowed to increase, the issues may become worse. Right now, in tract 18, 58% of the units are owner-occupied, while 42% are rentals. So, it is likely the issue rests with both types. Hayek pointed out that those numbers reflect all units, whether or not they are assisted housing. Anthony agreed, noting that in order to solve the problem, other populations may need to come into the area rather than limiting the number of assisted rental units. Anthony continued by noting that what is currently being said in these deliberations is that more assisted housing is not wanted in certain tracts. While that may be a valid concern due to impacts of assisted housing, it may not prove to be a good public policy because of adverse effects on the amount of affordable housing overall. Root causes of why assisted housing is moving into those tracts need to be examined, such as cost of land and zoning laws. For example, Anthony said that tract 18 is one of the few places where zoning allows construction of rental units. Also, in the comprehensive plan, assisted housing has deliberately been concentrated into certain areas. So, saying no more assisted housing will be built in certain tracts means that effectively no more assisted housing will be built, unless some of the underlying factors are addressed. Those factors need to be addressed in the discussion of where to stop assisted housing from being built, in light of where assisted housing is allowed to be built. Stutsman said that NIMBY-ism will not allow assisted housing to be built in certain areas. Anciaux suggested that a fair-share policy and possibly some type of inclusionary zoning could be considered. Hayek said the Taskforce needs to finish the discussion about what percent to use in determining concentration, whether that would be the CITY STEPS' number or some other one. After doing that and determining if there are concentrations according to the criteria adopted, then the Taskforce will look at impacts. Anthony said there is a strong logic with going with the CITY STEPS' numbers, because of having to defend the decision to developers, as well as the fact that not using the City's numbers may be questioned. The Taskforce members expressed general agreement. Stutsman noted the issue is with what tables the number will be applied to. Peterson pointed out that both tables 1 and 2 are only part of the criteria just accepted by the Taskforce. Hayek agreed, asking if the City standard would only apply to table 2, the poverty level per census tract. Anthony replied no, it should be applied across the board. Hayek noted that, statistically speaking, if comparison numbers are at the lower end of the spectrum, 10 percentage points added to a lower number has much more significance than if added to a higher number. Anthony said he still recommends using the City number because deviating from a City standard will require very strong logic to back up. The same number can be applied across the board for many different issues. If the City and HUD accept the number, then go with it. Vandenberg asked whether the formula should be applied to table 2. Hayek replied that the number of census tracts should be divided into 100 to obtain an average per tract for assisted housing. There are 17 tracts, but it might not be defensible to simply divide into 100 to get an average. Anthony disagreed, saying that table 2 is just the total of where the units are, and does not relate that to the total number of units in each tract. What needs to be decided is which side of table 1 should be used. Hayek pointed out that table 2 is part of the criteria, then suggested that perhaps table 2 should not have any formulas applied to it, but should stand alone. Anthony said that table 2 does not give any useful information. For example, assuming there are a total of 100 assisted units in the City overall, table 2 says that of those 100 units, one third are in tract 4. If tract 4 has only 34 units total, then having 34 assisted units in that tract is Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 6, 2004 Page 8 a problem. However, if tract 4 has 3400 units total, 34 of which are assisted, then there is not so much of a problem. The table does not give information relative to the rest of the City. The issue is table 1. Vandenberg noted that table 2 gives information on the varied percentages in different areas. Clausen agreed, saying the table shows that assisted housing is not scattered, because of all assisted housing available, most of it is located in two tracts. It gives information on its own, without applying formulas to the data. Hayek said that table 2 could be used, with exceptions in the data noted when discussing impacts. For example, though a tract may show a high number of assisted housing units, the impact is different for some reason, possibly because of a higher number of units overall. Anciaux asked where tract 105 is located. Hayek replied it is on the east side of town. Nasby suggested that additional data could come from listing the percentage of all housing units in the City that are located in each tract, and compare that to the percent of assisted housing units in each tract. Vandenberg replied then the density issue comes into play, which is a dual issue for the schools because of problems that arise from both assisted housing, as well as the overall high number of units in the attendance areas. The percentage may show a small number compared against the overall tract population. The number of rental units varies widely between tracts. Rackis said it is a problem not to be able to determine how many high-needs students live in assisted housing versus non-assisted units. Vandenberg said that anecdotally, she knows that DVIP, MECCA, and HACAP are issues. Rackis agreed that the type of assisted housing is a concern. Anciaux asked if the City tracks how many houses are sold on contract, which then are listed as owner- occupied but operate as rentals. Is this a problem in Iowa City? Nasby said that the Recorder's Office may have that information, but it does not appear to be as pervasive in Iowa City as elsewhere. He said that in the Housing Rehabilitation Program he would guess the number of contract sales at less than 2%. Anthony said the reason he has concerns with table 2 is because some tracts do not allow assisted housing because of zoning. Issues like those need to be factored out, so it does not say much. Hayek pointed out that lack of assisted housing one place does not mean it is not concentrated, and may questions about current zoning. Vandenberg asked whether any areas were identified as having more than the City average when the City created the 10% criteria for low/mod income families. Nasby replied that census tract 4 qualified as 10% above the City average for minority households. For low/mod income, the census tracts down town qualified but none of the others. Hayek noted that is a product of the student population living in the downtown area. Vandenberg said that the difficulty lies in considering so broad a spectrum, including students, elderly, and disabled. The high need families are the ones with high impact, and including all the groups complicates the issue. Anthony said that students should be taken into account, because even though they are temporary, more students replace the ones who leave, and the character of the neighborhood remains the same. Hayek said that students may not be factored out, but perhaps recognition could be given that student poverty is different than other kinds of poverty. For one, it is temporary. Stutsman agreed, saying it is self- imposed, as well. Anthony noted that though it is self-imposed on an individual basis, groups of students come through again and again, and that has an impact. Clausen agreed that students have an impact on the Northside neighborhood. Vandenberg pointed out that students do not live in assisted housing. Clausen noted there is less assisted housing located in those areas populated by students. Hayek said that student poverty issues can be discussed as impacts. Peterson said she views the secondary considerations as impact questions to consider. So, when a concentration is identified, the impacts can begin sorting out the various types. She noted it is strange not to have tract 18 meet the criteria, though. Vandenberg agreed. Hayek said that if elderly and disabled are factored out, the only tracts that have above 17.4% according to table 1 are tracts 4 and 14. Tract 21 is largely elderly/disabled, and 105 is only a high percentage due to Regency Heights. Anthony asked why elderly should be factored out, since they need to use services and the Taskforce is looking at all assisted housing. Clausen agreed, noting that the Taskforce is not just looking at school data, Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 6, 2004 Page 9 but the issue of assisted housing overall. Hayek agreed, but added that it could be argued that the impacts of the different types are different. Peterson noted that would be covered in the impact discussion Peterson asked whether a tract is out of the discussion if it does not qualify according to the 10% formula applied to table 1. Clausen suggested taking into consideration that tract 18 meets a certain number of the listed criteria, such as three of the five. Then it would qualify in another way. Leff agreed that meeting some but not all criteria would work. Hayek asked for confirmation that meeting three of the five criteria points would qualify for the definition of concentration. Peterson asked if tract 18 would then qualify. Clausen said it meets point 4. Vandenberg said that programs for high needs are consistently targeted for schools in tract 18. Tract 18 needs to qualify. Nasby left the meeting. Anciaux asked what Federal criteria was used for the desegregation guideline. Vandenberg replied it was two times the district average. Anthony noted the City does not use that as its criteria. Vandenberg agreed that it makes sense to use the City number. Anthony said he is looking for a number that is defensible in a debate. Stutsman asked what the point of continuing the discussion is, if the criterion shows there is no problem. Leff replied that not all criteria need to be fulfilled in order to qualify. Stutsman agreed that the criteria make sense, but tract 18 should be included. Clausen noted that tract 18 is very close to the potential cutoff point. Anciaux said that if the left side of table 1 is used, then tract 18 is not that close to the cutoff. Vandenberg asked if it is valid to use the percentages that way, since they vary so much. Left said that though tract 18 is only 1.1 % away from a potential cutoff when using table 1, which may still be too much more for the schools to handle. Anciaux replied that 1.1 % may be the light at the end of the tunnel for residents of the area. Vandenberg added that it would be 1.1 % of the total number of units, which would be a lot of people. Leff said that is why she agrees with having tracts qualify by meeting three of the five criteria. Anciaux asked how many blocks are in a census tract, and if it would be difficult to break table 1 data down into blocks. Glaesemann replied each census tract is broken down into two or three block groups, and data is available on how many assisted housing units are located in each. Peterson asked how many blocks are in a block group. Anthony replied tracts are broken into 10-15 blocks. Anciaux suggested that obtaining data from the block groups may skew the data and also might give more specific information about the location of housing. He noted that he would like to have the information broken down to the block level. Glaesemann replied that while census data does break down to the block level, certain data such as income are not available at that level, in order to preserve anonymity. Anthony agreed. Glaesemann added that the students gathered and mapped the information for table 1, so the data is available only down to the block group. Clausen asked for confirmation that block group size varies. Glaesemann replied yes, depending on the population. Hayek noted that the Taskforce has not formally adopted the City's guideline for concentration being at 10% above the City average, or decided whether it applies to table 1,2, or both. Vandenberg said the percentage cannot apply to table 2. Hayek agreed, saying that table 2 should stand on its own. Anthony agreed the percentage should apply only to table 1, and noted that tracts that do not allow assisted housing need to be factored out of the data. Vandenberg said information outlining the fact that some tracts do not allow assisted housing could be included in the Taskforce's report. Hayek said that Anthony's recommendation to apply a percentage that is defensible is a good approach, though it will have an impact on the data on table 1. Clausen pointed out that tract 18 will qualify using other criteria, and data gathered at the block group level may give more specific information about other areas that qualify. Vandenberg said that tract 18 will qualify according to the nature of assisted housing available. MOTION: Stutsman moved to adopt the CITY STEPS criteria for concentration, that being 10% above the City average, applied to the right side of table 1. Leff seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 6, 2004 Page 10 Peterson asked whether the Taskforce needs to officially adopt a number for the criteria needed for a tract to have a concentration. Anciaux said he would like to see the data broken down into block groups first. Clausen said she would like to see the mobility data linked with proficiency. Anthony would like to have the location of services in official form, so as not to rely solely on personal knowledge. Clausen added that information outlining both where the service is and when it was put in that location would be helpful. Hayek inquired about the next meeting date, which currently is December 20. Anciaux, Leff, Vandenberg, and Hayek may have conflicts that night. Anciaux suggested meeting December 13. Glaesemann noted that block group data will not be available in time for a meeting on December 13, since that would give only two days to put the data together and Finals are coming up. Clausen asked if the mobility and proficiency data can be gathered in a week. Vandenberg said it depends on where the data is and how difficult it would be to pull. For example, if it is in a database, it can be put together quickly. Anciaux and Anthony suggested meeting next in 2005. Vandenberg asked about the timeline for the Taskforce, and whether some members should work on some topics outside of the meetings in order to keep things on schedule. She volunteered to assist with that. Hayek replied the plan still is to report to the City by the end of January or early February. However, the Taskforce still has to get through steps two through four and have a public hearing. Hayek asked about meeting on December 13. Anthony replied that the data may not be available. Anciaux agreed that the students need to concentrate on Finals. Stutsman asked about meeting December 27. Rackis replied that the City offices are closed that day. Vandenberg asked if there is a way to divide and conquer the issue. Hayek agreed that would be helpful, except the process is linear and not conducive to that approach. Also, the process is likely to speed up now that the criteria have been decided. Step four will not require a large research project, rather recommendations to the City on what to consider and investigate. Clausen asked if the data can be received prior to the meeting to give time to read through it and be prepared. Hayek noted that waiting until January to meet is a very long time, and asked how many people would be available to meet on December 20. Four ~eople would be available. Six people are available on December 27. Hayek asked about meeting on the 13 h even though the data may not be available. Vandenberg suggested that meeting on the 13th would keep the momentum going. Leff agreed. Stutsman asked if it would be useful to meet without the data. Glaesemann asked about meeting on a different day during the week of the 13th. The data will not be available before the meeting, but it could be passed around. Hayek asked if another day would work for the rest of the Taskforce. Peterson suggested meeting at a different time during the day during the week of the 13th. Anciaux would not be able to attend. Vandenberg asked whether there would be something to discuss without the data. Hayek asked if the school data would be available by the 13th. Vandenberg replied she probably could get it by then. Clausen suggested looking at points 4-6 and waiting on the block group data. Clausen asked also where information about the location of services could be obtained. Hayek replied that Staff could put that together. Consensus reached to meet next on December 13 at 5:00 p.m. Rackis said he will check on the conference room. Hayek noted that it would be fine if the block group data were not available. Hayek distributed data received from Charles Eastham from Greater Iowa City Housing Authority on ITBS scores and proficiencies for review. It will also be included in the packet for the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Anciaux moved to adjourn. Clausen seconded, and the motion passed uncontested. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 pm. Minutes submitted by Robyn Miessler-Kubanek s:/pcd/minutes/ScatteredSiteHousingTaskforce/12-06-04ssht.doc MINUTES SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE DECEMBER 13, 2004 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Jerry Anthony, Darlene Clausen, Matthew Hayek, Jan Leff, Sally Stutsman, Joan Vandenberg STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Eastham, Amanda Cline, Maryann Dennis, Gerry Klein CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm. Approval of the December 6. 2004 Minutes: Hayek said the minutes from the December 6, 2004 meeting are not yet available, and will be reviewed at the next meeting. DELIBERATIONS REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL Hayek began by noting he will have to leave at 6:30 p.m. and Stutsman said she would also need to leave by then. He then reviewed the decisions from the December 6 meeting, including a consensus on five criteria to be used to define concentration, which will be applied to the different parts of Iowa City. The first criterion uses data from table 2 from the Physical Inventory of Assisted Housing, indicating the percent per tract of all assisted housing units citywide. The second criterion use data from table 1 of the Inventory, indicating the percent of all assisted rental units citywide, with the addition of a 10 percentage point threshold as defined by CITY STEPS. The third criterion is the location of services per census tract and/or in school attendance areas. Fourth, poverty levels per census tract. Fifth, mobility rates in elementary schools, if that data can be linked to poor academic performance. Hayek noted that additional information was in the packets from Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship (GICHF) and the school district. The GICHF data was submitted by Eastham at the December 6 meeting. Hayek invited Eastham to discuss his data. Eastham explained that the data is a comparison of proficiency in reading, as measured by 2003 ITBS scores from third through sixth grades, related to the measure of school stability given to the Taskforce at an earlier meeting. It also compares to the percent of free/reduced lunch enrollment from kindergarten through sixth grades at all elementary schools. However, data was not plotted for schools with low enrollment in free/reduced. In response to a question he said that there were five schools with less than 30 students enrolled in free/reduced lunch. Eastham noted that Vandenberg provided stability data, expressed as a percentage, which he used because of the apparent relationship between stability and academic proficiency. The measures for stability and proficiency were not from the same year. The proficiency data used was from the 2002 school year, while the stability data was from 2003. Anciaux arrived at this point. Vandenberg asked from which handout the data was gathered. Eastham answered it was the one she provided to the Taskforce from a couple months ago. Eastham continued by saying that though there is a noticeable difference in proficiency in five schools, but no relationship is apparent from the plotted data between proficiency and stability. He suggested that school proficiency is affected at least as much by other factors as by mobility. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 2 Vandenberg asked what five schools had low proficiency. Eastham replied they are the schools with 60- 70% of students who are not proficient, and includes Lemme, Twain, Wood, Coralville Central, and Longfellow. He noted that when comparing Hills and Roosevelt, those two schools have relatively better proficiency rates in spite of very different mobility rates and comparable free/reduced enrollment. Vandenberg asked where the percentage of free/reduced students who are not proficient came from. Eastham said it was taken from the 2002 data provided by the School District. Vandenberg asked if the tables use data from different years. Eastham replied yes, though the data is only one year apart. Vandenberg noted that how stability and mobility are defined might be different. Mobility tracks the number of instances of students enrolling and leaving in one school year. Stability is the number of students who attend one school for one full year. Eastham replied that his recollection of the presentation from the School District indicated stability is a more accurate measure of student movement than mobility, which is why he used the stability number. Vandenberg added that impact on the school mobility would be a greater measure because of movement in and out of classrooms. Eastham said the same comparison could be done using mobility instead, though it may indicate even less of a relationship than comparing stability. Vandenberg asked for confirmation that the data used for Wickham, which indicates 50% of students in third through sixth grades enrolled in free/reduced lunch were not proficient, was from 2002. Eastham replied yes, he did not have non-proficiency data from 2003. Vandenberg noted, using Wickham as an example, that the total enrollment of free/reduced is probably lowèr at some of the schools indicated. Total number on free/reduced lunch at Wickham was 25. She added that she is interested in viewing data on the tables from the same year. Eastham said he would do a new table using different data, if available, though he thought the relationships probably would not change. Hayek asked for confirmation that Eastham is saying there is not a significant relationship between stability and proficiency. Eastham replied that the data does not indicate a relationship between less stability, higher free/reduced lunch rates, and proficiency. Hayek confirmed that Eastham is saying that the impact on proficiency is negligible, regardless of how stable the school enrollment is for the student. Eastham answered that stability is not the most obvious factor indicated, and there are a large number of factors within a school that influence proficiency. He also noted that it is unknown whether there is a link between this data and the number of assisted housing units in the attendance areas. Hayek asked if the rest of the Taskforce had any additional questions on Eastham's data. Clausen asked for reiteration of the explanation of the difference between stability and mobility. Anthony replied mobility indicates students who enroll and leave a particular school, while stability indicates the number of students who remained enrolled for a full year. Vandenberg added that the data is gathered by fiscal year, and that Iowa City has a high mobility rate because of it being a University town. Anthony agreed, noting that Iowa City has 48% rental housing market. Leff pointed out that enrollment can change dramatically after the school year begins. For example, in one school 82 new elementary students enrolled after the official count in September, and the school that added the most students was Twain. The official enrollment count is due on the third Friday in September, and determines how much money the schools receive. Anciaux asked for confirmation that schools do not receive additional State funding for students who enroll after the official count is submitted. Leff replied that is correct, schools do not receive funding until the following year. Vandenberg noted in regards to the mobility rate for Twain in 2002, that the school added 100 students from January through the end of the school year. Stutsman asked if Twain is on track to duplicate that number. Vandenberg replied no. Leff said that the school that has added the most students this year so far has been Twain. Dennis asked how many of the students live in assisted housing. Vandenberg and Leff replied that information is unknown. Dennis asked how many assisted housing units were added in that attendance area, Vandenberg replied the number of additional assisted housing units since July might be available. Gathering information on new student addresses may be possible, as well. It also depends on how assisted housing is defined, though she estimates that a large number were on some sort of support. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 3 Anthony said it is unlikely 83 units of assisted housing have been added since July, so he hesitates to assume a link between the added students and assisted housing. Vandenberg noted that the 83 students added were from 2002, and was closely related to the transitional shelter units and subsidized housing available in the area. Vandenberg noted additional data submitted from the School District database, which looked at fourth grade reading comprehension scores. National standards are that a score of 40% or lower is not proficient, 41-90% is intermediate proficiency, and high proficiency is greater than 90%. Vandenberg added that poverty and proficiency are not perfectly linked. There are economically disadvantaged children who do well academically. Peterson arrived at this point. Vandenberg said that approximately 19.5% of students in the entire school district were not proficient, while 39.2% of students new to the district that year were nOt proficient. The second number includes all new students, including ones that had just moved to Iowa City before the tests were administered. The next table separated out the numbers in relation to free/reduced lunch enrollment that showed 46% of students who were on free/reduced lunch were not proficient. Of students on free/reduced lunch who were not in the district the previous year, 53.5% were not proficient. She noted there is a dramatic comparison with the number of students who are and are not on free/reduced,. with non-proficiency in students on free/reduced lunch higher than the general population by almost 20 percentage points. Vandenberg said additionally about mobility in general that it is an issue even for children who not in poverty, though it strongly correlates to poverty. Children are much more likely to change schools if they come from families with incomes below $10,000. The last page of the data Vandenberg submitted includes mobility information for the past four years. The numbers are calculated by dividing the number of incidences in and out of each building by the total enrollment of that building. The numbers vary widely from building to building. She added that some schools have Behavior Disorder or ESL programs, which students move into and out of, and is included in the data. Hayek asked which schools offer BD and ESL programs. Vandenberg replied she does not have the BD data on hand, though she knows that Longfellow has BD and ESL, Mann, Roosevelt, and Kirkwood have ESL, and Horn, Wood, and Twain have BD. She can gather that information to ensure its accuracy. Stutsman asked if students are transferred in from other attendance areas for these programs. Vandenberg replied they are sometimes, though that varies as well. Students are kept in their home schools when possible, though that is not always the case. Anthony asked how the district mobility data compares statewide. Vandenberg replied it depends on what part of the state is being compared. She has not seen that particular data released from the State Department of Education, but it may be available. Leff said the UEN, which includes the eight largest districts in the state, might have that information. Vandenberg replied that the data is collected for Iowa City, but is not submitted to the State, and that she can check on it. Anthony said he would like to compare Iowa City mobility rates to the rest of the State, as well as to national statistics. Anthony asked whether the mobility data distinguishes between students who change schools within the district, and those who enter and leave the district. Vandenberg replied that one of the charts details any movement in and out of the school buildings, but the ITBS score database does not distinguish students that way. Anthony asked for confirmation that a student transferring from one school to another within the district would be recorded as two separate incidents. Vandenberg and Leff replied that is correct. Anthony suggested that the mobility rate could also reflect the local housing market, so areas with high number of rental units would have a corresponding high mobility rate. Lower rental areas would have lower rates of mobility within the district. Anthony said he agrees that mobility is an issue that affects school performance. However, it is unclear whether that is an issue in Iowa City because the data does not distinguish between movement within the district and movement into and out of the district. According to a paper from the State Department of Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 4 Education website, one study concluded that residential stability may alleviate many of these issues, and one way to increase residential stability would be to increase the amount of available affordable housing in the area. This may help reduce the amount of intra-district mobility. Anthony went back to note the data submitted by Eastham, saying that while charts using data from the same year could be created, it is unlikely the results would change drastically. Also, he asked why the focus is on only two schools, since other schools have high non-proficiency rates as well. For example, Roosevelt has a stability rate of approximately 75%, which is about same as Longfellow, yet the two schools' proficiency rates are very different. Additionally, many schools have higher non-proficient rates, so perhaps a larger issue is being missed. Hills has a high free/reduced rate, but less than 40% are not proficient, while Lemme has only 20% enrollment in free/reduced, but has a 60% rate of non proficiency. Vandenberg replied that the data might be misleading because of a wide range in the number of students at the individual schools. For example, there are only 20 students at Lemme enrolled in free/reduced lunch. Also, some schools already have many interventions in place, which would indicate that additional programs have had a positive impact. Anthony agreed, but pointed out that parents might ask why interventions are not in place at other schools with high non-proficient rates. Vandenberg replied that it is because overall, Twain and Wood are less proficient. Lemme only falls into that category when the data is disaggregated. Anthony noted that standard practice in policy discussions typically involves comparing percentages, because it standardizes issues. Vandenberg compared Lemme and Twain. Lemme has 30 non-proficient students, while Twain has 66 who are not proficient. She agreed that additional supports would help all the schools. However, the schools that lack stability and performance overall are the ones that get the most attention. Twain's numbers would be even higher if it was not receiving so much additional funding for additional programs. There is a difference between the overall percent and the percent of the free/reduced lunch population. Vandenberg said that according to the chart supplied by Eastham, the schools with high instability are indicated, though Roosevelt is an anomaly. While it may depend on how the data is viewed, her reading of the data indicates there is a problem with having high concentrations of poverty in the Wood and Twain attendance areas. Stutsman left at this point. Anthony said he does not see evidence of that link from the chart, because the line through the chart is horizontal and does not indicate a relationship. Penn also could be included in the category. Vandenberg asked for confirmation that Anthony is referencing the first chart. Anthony replied yes, and continued by pointing out that Mann has stability issues due to a high number of students who are children of graduate students, so should be performing poorly. Leff asked what the percentage of foreign students is at Mann. Vandenberg replied that Mann has a mix. The free/reduced lunch number is lower, and many students come from other, more stable neighborhoods. The number of ESL students who were not proficient is not available. Vandenberg said that 46.5% of freelreduced students who had been in the district less than a year were proficient, while 80.5% are proficient throughout the district. Anthony noted that while the table may indicate that students who just moved are less proficient than students who have been here longer, that percentage does not give any information about where the students live, whether in assisted housing or not, or in what school they are enrolled. Anthony pointed out that with Iowa City being one of the better school districts in the nation, it would be surprising if there were not a gap in performance with students who just arrived. While the data says that students who arrived recently are not doing as well, it is not helpful since it is not linked to assisted housing or what school they are attending Hayek suggested using the second number on the chart to answer the question of where students are located. Anthony replied that would not work because the overall percentage does not indicate which schools the students enrolled in. Hayek clarified that the second number can be used to show that Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 5 students on average perform more poorly when coming to this school district, as opposed to where the students came from. Anciaux asked how many students are in 4th grade. Vandenberg replied that 717 students were tested this year. Anciaux asked how many were not in the district last year. Vandenberg replied she does not have that data. Vandenberg said that according to her knowledge, in areas with high rates of mobility and poverty, students do not do well academically. She asked if there was agreement with that statement. Anthony replied absolutely, all evidence and data shows that high mobility and poverty leads to poor school performance. Vandenberg said she does not need to tie the mobility to assisted housing, because it is a question of poverty and housing density. She does not want to increase the amount of poverty in an area that already has concentrations of poverty. She asked if some conclusion about the negative effects of poverty could be drawn already. Anthony replied that the issue is that the data cannot be tied to where students live, and other factors may confound the data. He continued by agreeing that generally, mobility has an impact on performance, but it does not appear to be strongly impacting certain schools' performance, according to the data available. Reducing the rate of mobility would probably improve performance at all the schools. However, changing mobility rates in Iowa City would be very difficult because the economy is very transient because of the University, as well as the expensive housing market. Those two factors will make improving mobility rates in the district overall very difficult. Vandenberg pointed out that while people's mobility cannot be changed, public policy could be developed to prevent an increase in poverty in certain areas. It is safe to conclude that increasing poverty rates will increase mobility rates. Anthony replied he is not sure that is true, because even people who are not poor who live in Iowa City cannot afford a house. That fact will affect elementary students' mobility within the school district. He agrees that mobility is an issue, but in an area with such a high turnover rate, he is unsure how much it can be reduced. He noted that resources or students could be shifted around in the district if the two can be linked, but he does not see that strong a link. Vandenberg said that though mobility rates may not be changeable in Iowa City, she would like to develop some sort of policy that will encourage certain kinds of development to occur in other areas of the City. She would like to have a community that does not have pockets where people live close together and have high rates of poverty. Anthony replied that he agreed, but though he would like to use the mobility data, no clear link has been established between mobility and performance, and there is no link to assisted housing. Hayek said the Taskforce members need to decide individually if the data indicates a link between mobility and school performance or not. Vandenberg added there are many ways to interpret data, and there are so many variables at work, such as additional support given to certain schools. Leff noted that each school has its own personality and may have other factors affecting their mobility rates, which makes using a straight percentage difficult. Anthony suggested moving some populations of students to other schools to help raise overall scores. An assisted housing policy would take years to have an effect on the schools, but strategic redistribution of students through bussing or other means might make faster changes in the meantime. Hayek asked whether the mobility criterion should be maintained or removed from the list. Anthony said it should be removed, as the link between mobility and school performance requires a leap of faith. He agrees that it has an impact, but the data does not show a strong relationship. Also, there is no link between mobility and assisted housing. Leff and Vandenberg said to keep it. Anthony said he wants to rely on evidence to create a defensible policy in the final analysis. Also, there are four other criteria that can be used and only quantifiable and identifiable data should be used. Anciaux asked whether people in affordable housing are more stable. Anthony replied that people who live in affordable ownership housing have more stability than those who do not. This is true for both rental Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 6 and ownership, but more so with ownership. Vandenberg noted that one of the points made by Habitat for Humanity is that people who live in their own homes do better in school. Anthony agreed. Hayek said that the fifth criterion was accepted at the last meeting, so it may need to be officially dropped from the list if that is the wish of the Taskforce. Anthony said that at the last meeting, the data was not available. Clausen added that it was stated the data would be used if it showed a link to proficiency. Hayek agreed, and said now it is up to the individual Taskforce members whether the data shows a link or not. Anthony said there is a question on two links, between mobility and performance, and between mobility and assisted housing. Hayek noted that the link to assisted housing is a second issue, because the only stipulation made at the last meeting was the necessity for a link between mobility and school performance. Hayek agreed that the question of the link to assisted housing would have to be addressed at some point, perhaps as an impact rather than a criterion. He added that he is satisfied with the link between mobility and performance, and the second link warrants discussion later on. Rackis asked why consideration was not being given to Penn, Kirkwood, Lucas, and Coralville Central schools, given the data submitted by Eastham. Their rates of non-proficiency all exceeded Twain, though Wood had the highest rate of non-proficiency of all schools. Vandenberg asked whether those numbers were based on percentages. Rackis said they are total numbers. Vandenberg asked which table Rackis is referencing. Hayek asked Rackis to hold it up. Vandenberg noted that the rates at Twain are affected by interventions already in place at that school. Rackis asked whether the high rates at Twain and Wood are from students in assisted housing. Vandenberg replied the higher rates are caused by concentration of poverty. Rackis pointed out that even if poverty is concentrated because of assisted housing, tract 18 still has 57% owner-occupied units. Anciaux said he thinks the block data might prove to be more helpful in that analysis. Hayek said that multiple criteria would allow more areas to be defined as concentrations. One or two of the criteria will identify some schools or areas, but having multiple criteria will operate as checks and balances. After applying the criteria to the different area and seeing how things work out, then the Taskforce can look for trends and consistencies in areas that fulfill multiple criteria, and then draw conclusions. Vandenberg noted that people have different views of the data, which leads to an impasse. Hayek replied that each person on the Taskforce will come to an individual decision about each issue, but extenuating factors can be brought into the explanation of the findings. For example, in regards to the question about which schools should raise concerns, while unexpected schools may be flagged by using some of the criteria, they may not fit into the overall consideration because they do not fulfill enough criteria points, or because of extenuating circumstances. Vandenberg asked whether there is consensus that having multiple large assisted housing programs and complexes in a very small area is an issue that requires intervention by some sort of public policy. Peterson replied yes it is an issue. However, there are some leaps involved in going from problems in the schools due to the unstable, high poverty areas, to changes in the housing policy that may have far- reaching and unforeseen ramifications on the availability of affordable housing. It seems like an educational issue is being addressed by examining housing. Vandenberg said it is a neighborhood issue, but that schools are strongly involved because they have quantifiable data. The police data was not very helpful, for example. Peterson agreed there is a problem, and that she unaware of any other area in the county with the kind of concentration of that kind of housing cited by Vandenberg. Vandenberg asked for a sense of where the. Taskforce members are, in terms of their opinions on the subject. Anthony replied that he sees no link at all between school performance and assisted housing, and is very concerned about how the process to consider assisted housing was started. He asked why other factors are not under consideration, such as the age of the housing or race. He would like a clear link between assisted housing and the criteria the Taskforce is using. For example, if mobility can be clearly linked to school performance and also to assisted housing, then it should be used. Otherwise, Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 7 there is other data available that can be linked to assisted housing. He would also like to expand the list of criteria. Anthony added that he would like to restrict consideration to solid evidence, and a solid link to assisted housing, because the Taskforce's findings will be challenged. He would like to remove criteria that do not have firm evidence to support it. If it is controversial and debatable within the Taskforce, drop that criterion. Hayek asked if the Taskforce would like to drop all the current criteria and work backwards from the desired goal. Anthony agreed that is a good idea, since there seems to be a strong opinion that no more assisted housing should go into tract 18. Clausen said she is not comfortable with the mobility data as it stands, and does not believe it shows a good link or make very much sense because there are just as many schools that fall above the line as below it. She noted she would like to look at the size of the complexes in question as a criterion for concentration, because of large complexes having such a high number of families living close together Peterson noted that the kind of housing is important, that there is less of a problem with assisted housing than with high services/high needs transitional housing. Needs are different for people in shelter and transitional housing, as opposed to a family that only needs assisted housing. Hayek said that it appears the Taskforce members can agree with that statement. Anciaux asked if more assisted housing should go into transitional areas. Peterson replied it depends on the type, because the category of assisted housing is so large. Anciaux said that some sort of poverty is necessary to live in assisted housing, so if a tract already has a high amount of transitional housing and poverty in it, should more assisted housing be put in that tract, bringing in more poverty? Peterson answered that it would depend on the available alternatives for providing affordable housing. If there were no alternatives for providing affordable housing, then she would not be able to support a limitation on where it can be built. Clausen noted one alternative would be putting assisted housing elsewhere, into areas that currently have none. Anciaux agreed it would be built somewhere. Hayek asked for confirmation that Anciaux is asking about assisted housing that would be built in the future, rather than moving currently existing housing. Anciaux replied yes, he means housing planned to be built in the future, and asked if it should be directed into the same area or elsewhere? Peterson answered that the issue is not black and white, since the category of assisted housing is so large and she does not know the ramifications of answering the question, even theoretically. Vandenberg said that one implication might be to cut off assisted housing, which is not something anyone on the Taskforce wants to see happen. However, she would like to have some effort made to combat NIMBY-ism and have a public policy that would allow other kinds of housing to be available in other areas of the City. Also, if more assisted housing will be going into the southeast side of town, she would like consideration given to the additional supports needed by families in transitional and shelter housing that would allow them to become self-sufficient, and a policy that allocates money to those services. Peterson said that asking for money for services is a different argument than asking for a policy that restricts assisted housing. Hayek replied that no one has said that assisted housing will be restricted. Vandenberg noted there is fear that assisted housing will be too restricted. Hayek agreed, but added that while there are a number of different responses available, that aspect is more appropriate for the solutions end of the discussion. He said he does not believe the Taskforce would recommend against additional assisted housing being built in tract 18 without also strongly recommending that housing be made available elsewhere in the City. Peterson said that there seemed to be a sudden leap from looking at the definition of concentration to asking whether more housing should be put in a particular place. She asked for confirmation of what is currently being discussed, whether it centers around the School District or something else. Vandenberg suggested that the Taskforce is being bogged down, and agreed that working backwards may yield better results. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 8 Anciaux asked what the shortage in assisted housing currently is within the community. Anthony said the numbers are available. Hayek noted the CITY STEPS document would have that information. Anthony added that Iowa City has the most expensive housing and the lowest homeowner rate in the State. Hayek said that the plan was to apply several defensible, quantifiable measurements to each area. The areas may be census tracts, school attendance areas, or something else. The plan was to apply the measure to the areas see how things fit in according to the criteria, and see whether patterns will appear. Perhaps there is only one area in town with these strong concerns, and the recommendation of the Taskforce would be to take steps to alleviate that one situation. However, a consensus needs to be reached among the Taskforce members. If there is a lot of disagreement over the criteria list, then another approach may be needed. Clausen noted there is a lot of disagreement with criteria point 5. Also, the locations of services per census tract are not available. Once that data is available, applying the criteria may work. She added that she is not sure if the current criteria list has the right things on it, though it is a good start. Vandenberg asked what table 1 data will tell the Taskforce. Anciaux replied that data might not be as beneficial as block group data may be. For example, there is a difference between the western and southeastern ends of tract 18. Also, tract four can be examined this way, which includes Pheasant Ridge. Vandenberg added that the different types of housing have not been nailed down. Peterson replied that particular discussion is supposed to happen later, with the secondary considerations noted at the bottom of the criteria list. Hayek said that the Taskforce members are all trying to do the right thing. Anthony agreed, noting that if the process were easy it would have been done already. Rackis added that common ground may already have been identified, because there seems to be agreement that there are different concerns for different types of housing. That raises the question of density, in terms of a duplex or townhouse, versus an apartment complex. Peterson said she does not like lumping different types of assisted housing together. Anciaux asked if more assisted housing is wanted, in general. Peterson replied that it depends on what type. She does not see assisted housing as being one thing. Anciaux noted that census tract data is not specific enough, either. Hayek asked if the Taskforce would like to vote on the mobility data. Anciaux recommended waiting until the next meeting. Hayek asked whether the other criteria should be kept and applied as planned. Leff suggested making mobility a secondary consideration. Hayek replied that is possible. Clausen agreed that if mobility is reclassified, the individual circumstances for each school can be easily detailed. Vandenberg said that more research could be done for the free/reduced data as well. Hayek asked when the Taskforce should next meet. There are five Mondays in January. He would like the Taskforce members to look at the data and criteria before the next meeting, and consider the possibility of moving mo.bility to a secondary consideration. Clausen asked if the data could be sent out a week earlier, to give more time to evaluate it. Nasby replied he does not know when the block group data will be available, as the students are not back from break until the middle of January. The data may not be ready until January 18. Vandenberg suggested all the members thinking about what they believe to be true about the data already, and look for common ground. Hayek said that individually, all can consider criteria points 1 and 2, and locations of services once that is provided. Nasby asked what services are wanted for mapping? Clausen suggested public services. Anciaux suggested any service that assists a low-income person. Nasby said that could include almost any service, so a better definition is needed. Peterson said that since the definition currently includes students, elderly, disabled, and all types of housing, the list could be extensive. Hayek suggested working with Peterson and City Staff to develop a list of services for consideration by the Taskforce. Vandenberg said that the Taskforce needs to define assisted housing. A lot is involved by including students, elderly, and disabled, so terms need to be defined. Hayek replied that qualifications can be noted if areas are identified inappropriately by the criteria, for example because it is a student area or Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 9 because of some other reason. Vandenberg noted that excluding certain populations would also exclude some services. Clausen asked for the United Way web address. Rackis said the Iowa City site has links to just about everything, including to the United Way site. Hayek suggested Rackis em ail the address to him, and he will email it to the Taskforce. Peterson said that the United Way website is not a comprehensive list of human services. She noted that if all populations will be included, the Taskforce's list should be comprehensive. Hayek said work would be done to gather the additional information before the next meeting on January 3, 2005. Peterson asked how the locations of services would be determined. Hayek said he would work with her and City Staff to come up with a list, and then circulate it to the Taskforce members for their approval. Vandenberg asked if it would include all services. Peterson said since all populations are being included, all services should be considered. Hayek said that reasons for excluding certain services could be addressed during the discussion of secondary considerations. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the taskforce, Anthony moved to adjourn. Vandenberg seconded, and the motion passed uncontested. The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 pm. s:/pcd/mi nutes/ ScatteredSiteHousingT askforÅ“/12-13.04ssht.doc December 17,2004 TO: Steve Nasby , Joan Vanden Berg ¡ti FROM: RE: Additional Data Please send the two enclosed charts to the task force. It is the same format as the charts that Charlie prepared, however I used 2003 ITBS proficiency data for the total school populations and correlated with 2003 Free and Reduced lunch and 2002-2003 mobility data. I also have a chart with school resources that I will send electronically next week. I won't be in the office, but will try to check e-mails the week of December 20th, Thanks and Happy Holidays! 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% % FIR Students In K-6 Grades 0.0% 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% - s::: ( ) ;g 30.0% e c. C) .= 25.0% 'C C'G ~ Õ 20.0% s::: ';fl. 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 10.0% .wo .TW .RO . HL . KI .MN . PN . LlII cc . LO .~HV · LE . WE . SH . HN .LI , , , , , , 50.0% 60.0% 3-6 Grade % of all students not reading proficient vs % FIR Students in K-6 Grades 2003-04 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% .. c CI) :§ 30.0% .... 0 ... c. C) .: 25.0% ~ ftS e õ 20.0% c ~ 0 15.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3-6 Grade % of all students not reading proficient 2002-2003 Mobility ~- .WO - · HL .RO · ",j(W . PN . LU .CC · LO -- IW( . LM .WE -- .SH . HN - .LI ----¡- ----¡- 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% School Mobility 60.0% .TW