HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-2005
IOWA CITY SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE
MEETING AGENDA
24 January 2005
City Hall, Lobby Conference Room
6:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes - January 3,2005
3. Taskforce Deliberation Regarding Recommendations to the City Council
4. Adjournment
MINUTES
SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE
JANUARY 3,2005
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Jerry Anthony, Darlene Clausen, Matthew Hayek, Jan Leff,
Jan Peterson, Sally Stutsman, Joan Vandenberg
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis
OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Eastham, Maryann Dennis
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm.
Approval of the December 6. 2004 and December 13. 2004 Minutes:
Some edits noted for the minutes. Leff gave edits to Hayek. Anciaux moved to accept both the December 6
and 13 minutes as revised. Stutsman seconded and the motion passed 7-0.
DELIBERATIONS REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Hayek suggested the Taskforce begin this meeting by discussing the new data and information regarding the
location of service agencies as requested by the Taskforce and compiled by City staff. He also noted that
the packet contained additional information from Vandenberg. Hayek distributed the list of service providers
he and Peterson compiled by looking at the United Way Service Providers list index. Hayed said that this
was the list that was sent to City Staff and all locations were then plotted on the map. This map was posted
on the wall and the agencies were identified according to the reference numbers on the list that was
distributed. He noted that the list is subject to change if the Taskforce members want to add or subtract
agencies.
Clausen asked what the providers in bold denoted. Nasby answered that the key to the different typefaces is
located at the bottom of the last page. Regular typeface denotes on-site services, bold denotes services
provided in the community (e.g. in home care), and italics denote a combination of site based and in-
community services. Stutsman asked whether National Alliance for the Mentally III (NAMIJC) should be on
the list. Peterson replied it depends on what are considered direct services. NAMIJC provides support and
education. Stutsman said she understood that organization to be mostly advocacy. Peterson said it also
provides support groups, classes, and operates a hotline.
Hayek reiterated that the list is subject to editing. For example, Johnson County Public Defender is on the
list, but its location is determined by other factors, as the office needs to be in a commercially zoned area
and near the courthouse. Hayek said that he, Peterson, and City staff tried to be inclusive on the list rather
than exclusive. Peterson added that compiling the list was difficult because some offices are not located in
areas where they provide services, while others offer services that are unrelated to their locations.
Anthony arrived at this point.
Vandenberg noted that there is a Coralville Family Resource Center now that could be added. Stutsman
asked whether the Iowa Department of Human Services is on the list. Peterson agreed it should be added if
it is not on the list. Hayek asked how the Taskforce would like to approach the list, as it would be too much to
edit during a meeting. He suggested looking over the list after the meeting and sending comments and
suggestions to him via em ail.
Anthony asked if the Taskforce members could have a map of the locations. Nasby said yes, though it would
be probably have to be shrunk to ledger size. He asked whether the Taskforce would like the current map or
the one after the list is changed. Hayek recommended making changes and then replotting the map before
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 3, 2005
Page 2
sending out to the Taskforce members. Peterson asked for confirmation that amendments would include
providers that the Taskforce members think are not relevant, or should be added. Hayek said yes.
Anthony asked if the list was of all services in the City. Nasby replied no. Hayek said that he and Peterson
tried to be inclusive when compiling the list, but it is not exhaustive. Stutsman asked whether the Juvenile
Court should be on the list. Hayek said it depends on where the services are provided. Stutsman replied the
office is on Kirkwood Avenue, so usually provided at that location. Leff said they also have liaisons in the
schools.
Hayek noted there is a large number of providers whose administrative headquarters are in one place, but
that offer programs or assistance in the schools or neighborhoods. Peterson suggested that is true for the
majority of service providers, as the office location is usually determined by other factors, such as availability
of space. Hayek gave the example of the Girl Scouts, who have troops in many of the elementary schools
but are actually based in Cedar Rapids.
Hayek said he would send an email reminding the Taskforce members to send comments and suggestions
to him. Stutsman noted that the Iowa Department of Human Services is located under "H" on the list.
Clausen asked what Hayek is looking for, since this is all new information to some. Stutsman replied people
might have changes or edits to the current list. Hayek agreed, adding that the goal is to have all relevant
services listed, but if someone does not have any suggestions, that's fine. Anciaux noted there are some he
does not recognize. Peterson added that some that are not listed would require phone calls to get specific
information about what they do and where. Also, she questioned what the information would ultimately tell
the Taskforce, since such a small number of services are located in a specific place for a specific reason.
Vandenberg asked whether outreach programs should be included or not. Stutsman replied yes. Hayek said
those services may not be able to be plotted, but it would be helpful to have a list.
Peterson said that for instance, certain services are targeted to certain schools for specific reasons, such as
student advocates and special Girl Scouts troops. Some organizations that have gone to great lengths to
provide services in the area can probably be identified easily. Hayek asked if it would be possible to plot
those on a map. Vandenberg said yes.
Leff asked if the services could be listed by census tract. Anciaux suggested they be listed by census block
group. Leff added that it would be helpful know what agencies exist in the different tracts. Vandenberg added
that she would like to know if they provide service to the neighborhood. Leff volunteered to help gather this
information, if needed.
Peterson said there are things such as transitional housing that have an impact on the neighborhood, but
does not provide services. Vandenberg said there are different types of services. Hayek agreed, noting that
Elder Services is an example of one that is difficult to categorize, since their office mostly coordinates elder
care that is done in the client's homes. Stutsman said that service is denoted on the list in bold, which
indicates that it is out in the community. Hayek added that it is currently plotted as a dot on the map, but
perhaps instead it should be on a list saying it provides services out in the community.
Clausen said that the map indicates most services are located in the central and eastern parts of the City.
Peterson replied that agencies try to find places with affordable rent. Hayek added that there is also the
question of commercial versus residential zoning, which dictates where certain things can be located. All of
that needs to be considered as well.
Hayek asked when the tract data will be available. Nasby replied it will be ready for the next meeting packet,
and asked if the Taskforce would like any other information to be broken down by block group. Hayek said
possibly, and that the Taskforce will talk about it.
Hayek moved on to the discussion about the additional school data. Vandenberg began by noting that data
from the School District might be over-represented because the district regularly gathers this data and has it
readily available. She continued by saying the chart she submitted in the recent packet reflects 2003
proficiency data, 2002-03 mobility data, and 2003-04 free/reduced information. The data is compared to the
overall school enrollment for each building. The data submitted by Eastham for the last meeting included
only free/reduced lunch students. The newer chart in the packets is looking at overall enrollment in the
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 3, 2005
Page 3
school and the data does in her opinion indicate a stronger relationship between mobility and reading
proficiency.
Hayek asked why the data now reflects a diagonal rather than a horizontal line. Vandenberg replied it is
because the total number of students eligible for free/reduced lunch at each school varies widely. For
example, 50 students at Lemme are eligible for free/reduced, while 210 are eligible at Wood. Anthony asked
for confirmation that the difference between the two charts is that the one submitted by Vandenberg shows
the percentage of the whole school, while the one submitted by Eastham shows the percentage of just 3rd
through 6th grades in free or reduced lunch. Eastham replied that is not correct, and that the y-axis is different
on Vandenberg's chart from the one he submitted, not the x-axis.
Anthony asked if both charts deal with percentages of 3rd through 6th grades on free/reduced lunch.
Vandenberg replied that is correct, except on the reading proficiency chart, which reflects total enrollment in
each school. She noted that the distinction between the two data sets is significant. For example, 50% of
students at Wickham were not proficient, but only 30 students total are on free/reduced lunch. Those 15
students have a different impact than 45% not proficient students of the 210 students at Wood who are
eligible for free/reduced lunch.
Eastham said that in his view, the opposite is the case, because the best comparison is with like numbers to
like numbers. He noted that Vandenberg makes a valid point that it is difficult to evaluate schools with
relatively low numbers of students on free/reduced lunch with one year's data. He suggested another way to
look at the data might be to designate a cutoff number of students on free/reduced lunch, and only look at
schools that meet or exceed that number.
Vandenberg distributed an additional table, which gives a breakdown of the additional professional, certified
staff and programs in each elementary school. It does not include programs that are district-wide, and
assumes a general estimate of $50K per full-time position. All schools have at least one part time guidance
person and one part time reading person. This also shows what schools have programs previously
discussed by the Taskforce, such as BD and ESL. Leff added that some special education services, such as
tutoring, are for students who need a little extra help but are not severely disabled, and all schools offer it.
Stutsman asked whether Hills had received some additional funding through grants. Vandenberg replied yes,
Hills and Penn have access to additional resources because they are more rural schools. Peterson asked for
confirmation that efforts had been made to obtain additional resources and grants for certain schools and
programs. Vandenberg agreed. She noted also that the asterisk on the chart by Wood is to indicate the plan
to have preschool and/or after-school programming for Wood for next year.
Stutsman asked what the "mental health" designation indicates. Vandenberg explained that it is onsite
therapy for students who are beyond the expertise of school staff.
Hayek asked about the designation of students who are not LF in the ESL program at Longfellow.
Vandenberg replied that indicates how many students attend the programs that are from other neighborhood
schools. Peterson noted that most of the students in ESL at Longfellow are not from that school, but are
assisted by a full time staff person. Vandenberg replied that the full time numbers of staff are weighted
according to the numbers of students.
Anciaux asked if the high numbers of ESL students at Mann are from Hawkeye Court. Vandenberg said it is
more due to Forest View trailer park. Peterson asked if additional services are being provided at Forest View.
Leff replied that tutoring services are offered.
Hayek asked the Taskforce members to talk in general about the current position of the deliberations and
how to proceed. He noted that the procedure so far had been to develop defensible and reasonable criteria
to apply to different areas of the City, which has been a struggle. At the same time, there seems to be a
consensus that tract 18 has the bulk of the problems in the community. He asked which way the Taskforce
like to approach the issue, either to continue pursuing the criteria, or to begin with the area that has the
problems and attempt to support that conclusion with statistics or other information.
Anthony asked if the group is done with the school district charts, or if they will be discussed later. Hayek
replied the group could get back to the charts. Stutsman suggested doing the general discussion about the
criteria first, which may make the charts irrelevant. Vandenberg said she would like to find and build on the
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 3, 2005
Page 4
group's common ground. Peterson said she would like to take a break from looking at data, since she is not
sure what relevance the data has or what it will tell the group. Vandenberg agreed.
Leff said that there are probably a large number of people who already would agree that there is a problem,
and will be sympathetic to and support for the Taskforce's decision and recommendations. Anthony replied
he is not sure, as some groups will be concerned with changes because of what the cost of land and zoning
laws already in effect will have on their operations. They may have an opposite view, and are the ones that
will need to be convinced.
Anthony expressed concern with the process of the deliberation, first of all because the Taskforce does not
reflect equal representation from all sides of the issue. The Taskforce was created because of the letter
written by the School District, and two people from the district are part of the Taskforce. However, no one
who produces, administers, or lives in assisted housing is on the Taskforce. A case will need to be made to
the ones not represented on the Taskforce. Having a realtor, developer, or a resident of assisted housing on
the Taskforce would help legitimize the decisions to those groups. Since they are not part of the decision-
making process, all data and decisions will need to be very clear and defensible in order to reach out to the
ones not represented.
Anthony continued by noting that at the November 22 meeting, there had been discussion about keeping
away from school district data during the deliberations. He still believes that should be the approach because
the proficiency data is not linked to assisted housing, and it can be read both ways. Other factors can be
investigated and used in the Taskforce deliberations. He noted it is not the Taskforce's mandate to address
educational issues within the School District, but to evaluate the housing issue. He suspects that the
Taskforce's recommendations will still benefit the schools. However, not approaching the solutions from a
school-impact perspective will increase the legitimacy of the Taskforce's decisions.
Hayek asked if the school data should be removed from both the criteria of a concentration, as well as the
impacts. Anthony replied yes, because of the lack of link to assisted housing. Vandenberg agreed that it is a
community issue, not just a school issue, but noted that the Taskforce does not have very much data from
other areas of the community. Also, she said the neighborhood school is a reflection of the neighborhood,
and people buy or do not buy houses in certain attendance areas because of the school. The two are very
closely related, so it would be important to establish that link.
Vandenberg added that while data on the number of students on free/reduced lunch who live in assisted
housing is not available, she does have the number of students who are in poverty. An increase in poverty in
certain areas is not desirable, and increasing the amount of assisted housing will increase the number of
students who are in poverty. Different groups have common ground already, as they all want to have more
affordable housing in Iowa City. The question is where it will be located, and how to make it palatable or
positive to the rest of the community.
Anthony said that since the poverty data could be obtained, the Taskforce can use the poverty data for
deliberations and leave out the link to the schools. Vandenberg said that is fine, though she believes there is
a link to the schools. Anthony agreed that there is a link between free/reduced lunch and proficiency, but
questioned whether it is related to assisted housing. Solutions created by the Taskforce may work for the
schools as well, but since there is a lack of representation from all sides of the issue, he would like to avoid
the question of school impacts altogether.
Hayek suggested considering school impacts in the same category as the other impacts. Anthony replied
that if there is a correlation between school performance and poverty, the Taskforce probably could just
examine poverty and leave the schools out of the discussion. The school data is conflicting and not
conclusive, and he is not comfortable using it.
Vandenberg asked what the Taskforce members' common ground is, whether there is consensus that
concentrations of poverty exist. Anciaux noted that according to federal standards, Iowa City does not have
concentrated poverty. However, the group can say that meeting federal standards is undesirable, so assisted
housing should be spread out more to prevent increased concentrations from occurring in the future.
Anthony suggested waiting for the block group data to see what it shows. Alternatively, the group can use
the CITY STEPS standard of adding 10% as a benchmark to evaluate poverty.
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 3, 2005
Page 5
Vandenberg asked what goal the Taskforce is shooting for, adding that she does not wish to take the path of
least resistance. Developing in certain areas because it has the cheapest land and least hassle is probably
not the best way to plan a community. A better community does not have such a strong division between th!3
good and bad parts of town. Anciaux said Iowa City already has a strong division. Leff agreed, saying that
people in the community also probably agree that there is a problem on the south side of town.
Peterson observed that a lot of the impact data the Taskforce would like to examine is not available, which
poses a problem and leaves the group with only school data. Leff noted also that the letter from the School
District led to the creation of the Taskforce, and leaving out the school impacts would seem to negate that
fact and the people who said there is a problem. Vandenberg agreed, saying that approximately 170 people
from different facets of the community expressed concern about putting all the poor people in the same area
of the city.
Rackis said he was at the conference and does not recall the conclusion was there is a concentration of
assisted housing, although assisted housing was a topic of discussion. A letter from the School District
stated a concentration of assisted housing was affecting school performance. However, after the Taskforce
was formed the City Council rejected a request by Burns to build duplexes for disabled people south of
Highway 6. The Council decision was partially due to the School District as it had identified a concentration
of assisted housing in that area. The Taskforce was formed to determine whether or not that was a true
statement. If the Taskforce concludes there is a concentration of assisted housing in tract 18 without
accounting for the fact that it is 57% owner-occupied, the group could appear to assume that none of the
people in the owner-occupied units have children in the schools.
Vandenberg said it does not matter where people live, if they are in poverty. Rackis replied it is still a leap of
faith if only assisted housing is included in the discussion. Vandenberg disagreed; saying that in the future,
more poor people in one area is undesirable, regardless of where they live. Assisted housing equals more
poor people. Anthony disagreed; saying that poor people can also live in owner-occupied housing. Rackis
agreed.
Vandenberg noted that building more housing would bring more poor people into the area. Dennis replied
that more housing would house the poor people already in the community. High rent is very burdensome, so
giving them more affordable places to live would help them become less poor. Vandenberg asked if it would
be better if poor people could afford to live in different areas of town. Dennis said that would be great.
Vandenberg noted that is the common ground, since some of the poor people do not want to live on the
southeast side of town either.
Dennis said she is leery of saying that one of the recommendations is to stop building housing in a certain
area, as opposed to making other areas easier to develop. As soon as a restriction is placed on building
housing in one area, it will be big news because it is a violation of federal fair housing law. Hayek said
incentives could be given to develop elsewhere. Rackis agreed that a proactive rather than restrictive
approach would be more effective. Anthony added that all types of affordable housing, both rental and
owner-occupied, should be made more available throughout the community. That is not happening now
because of land costs and zoning, and that funneling lower income housing to the southeast side should be
stopped. The Taskforce expressed general agreement.
Rackis noted that much of the discussion about assisted housing in the community is based on
misinformation. For example, an old school principal thought that Pheasant Ridge is a Housing Authority site,
and said he wished the Housing Authority would stop expanding their programs. However, the Authority has
not expanded its public housing stock since 1998. Vandenberg replied that though people are not informed
about how public housing is administered, they still perceive a problem with concentration that needs to be
addressed.
Rackis added that the perception is that the Housing Authority runs Pheasant Ridge and Cedar Wood, and
that any housing with African American families who receive a subsidy is public housing administered by the
Housing Authority. People also say that the Housing Authority has advertised in Chicago, though that rumor
cannot be verified. Regardless, the City Council rejected a proposal for assisted housing on the basis that
the School District identified a concentration of assisted housing in certain parts of the City.
Hayek said that he has three things that the group seems to agree on at this point, they are as follows: 1)
Concentrations of poverty should be avoided, if possible; 2) More affordable housing is needed in Iowa City;
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 3, 2005
Page 6
and 3) Affordable housing, whether assisted or not, should be scattered throughout the community. The
Taskforce expressed agreement with those three items. Stutsman asked whether a statement about
incentives should be added. Hayek replied that would be a step under implementation of policy.
Hayek suggested starting from those three points of agreement, and re-examining the criteria with those
three goals in mind. Perhaps also a re-examination could be done in a way that focuses less on school data.
Vandenberg noted that showing all the negative impacts or issues associated with assisted housing are not
the best way to proceed from a public relations perspective. Effort should be made to put a positive spin on
things, and look perhaps instead at the ultimate goal rather than the problems. Explaining how a
concentration of poverty and the culture of poverty that it produces can have far-reaching negative aspects is
more difficult to explain.
Anthony agreed, saying that though restricting development in tract 18 would cause controversy, giving
incentives instead would be effective because most people would prefer to live elsewhere. If a real option
were given, developers would be happy to accommodate that preference. Hayek said the Council would still
need to have reasons why the Taskforce wants to give incentives for housing in other areas. Anthony
agreed, saying that those reasons would be developed using the three common ground statements.
Eastham recommended giving some sort of time limit or framework in which the recommendations would be
carried out. Because the housing market is always changing, a recommendation with an ultimate goal and a
plan for re-evaluation in the future could be easier to accept. He said that a set of recommendations that
come about now will not have any effect for 15 years may not be effective if the housing market has changed
significantly in five years. Stutsman asked whether that too would be an implementation issue.
Peterson asked for confirmation that the group's recommendations are not being made at this point yet, as
she has other considerations to add to the discussion that might be helpful, such as guidelines for property
management. Hayek said no; these are not the final recommendations.
Stutsman asked Hayek to restate the three common ground statements again. Hayek did so. Peterson said
those are three very good large statements the group agreed with. She asked Anthony for confirmation that
he was referring to those statements when talking about giving reasons to the Council. Anthony said yes.
Hayek asked whether the Taskforce should go through a similar exercise with the criteria the group had
developed earlier. Anthony said he would like to wait for block data. Hayek noted that additional data is
available, such a median income and housing values. On the maps, if the areas populated by students are
set aside, patterns do emerge. Those two measures show concentrations of poverty, at least in relation to
the affluent areas.
Vandenberg asked whether incentives could be developed to put more housing on the west side of the river.
Hayek replied that is a question beyond the scope of the Taskforce, and is something the Council will have to
address. Anthony said that if the Taskforce has recommendations about zoning that the Council accepts,
perhaps the zoning laws can be amended and helps address the density question.
Rackis said that low-income families could not compete with students in some areas because the rental rates
are so high. His program restricts the amount of rent that can be paid, which is exceeded in the downtown
and other university areas. This limits low-income household's housing choices.
Dennis said that the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship does not have high numbers, but it appears their
units are scattered. They only own one multi-family unit in Coralville. Some information may be gathered, at
least anecdotally, that explains that poor people like to live in a house. Once they find a house that is safe,
decent, and affordable, they tend to stay, so kids stay in those schools. This is opposed to saying too many
poor people live in apartments. Peterson asked for confirmation that Dennis' and Eastham's groups would
have developed affordable housing in other parts of the City already if they had been able to get property.
Eastham agreed.
Hayek said he is noting down shelter and transitional housing, which are very controversial and should be
considered in light of those common ground statements.
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 3, 2005
Page 7
Stutsman said that she would like to pursue dispelling myths and misinformation about public housing. The
recommendations will not be very helpful if the Council cannot combat the people who protest having
assisted housing in their neighborhoods. The only way to work on that aspect is to educate people and give
the facts. Vandenberg said the data from Dennis would be helpful for that part, to help show that people who
live in assisted housing are good neighbors.
Rackis said the Housing Authority could supply that data as well. His program has turnover because people
buy a house, or because they are removed from the program. However, that also leads into a discussion
about good landlords and management versus bad. Bad landlords lead to a concentration of problems.
Vandenberg agreed, noting that people like living at Pheasant Ridge and stay there for long periods, as
opposed to Cedar Wood, which has high turnover and many problems.
Vandenberg said some attention should be given to marketing, since focusing on all the negative impacts will
not help convince people to accept assisted housing in their neighborhoods. The Taskforce expressed
general agreement. Rackis said that the focus could be on the positive aspects, such as the high home-
ownership percentage in tract 18, because of people who transitioned out of public housing into home
ownership. Peterson suggested Habitat probably has information about positive outcomes as well.
Vandenberg added that the distinction should be made in the education part of the project between what
sorts of assisted housing are being dispersed. For example, the Taskforce is not suggesting that a place like
Cedar Wood will be built somewhere else. Peterson agreed, noting that goes back to the issue and problem
of referring to assisted housing as though it was one thing, rather than a huge variety, not all of which is
owned by the City.
Rackis agreed that most people's perceptions of assisted housing are of public housing, which in the past
usually involved a big tower with a lot of units, or a larger area over several blocks where families are
warehoused. Either way involves concentration. Most people think of Pheasant Ridge or Cedar Wood, rather
than a duplex or a zero-lot unit. People don't want to have large apartment units going up, and that's what
they think assisted housing will mean in their neighborhoods.
Anciaux said there was another Taskforce the Council created on neighborhood relations, and some of the
things they were considering should be revisited, such as the issues of neighborhood nuisances. Stutsman
said that sometimes those concerns could involve cultural issues. Anciaux agreed, and noted that while
those issues are outside the purview of this Taskforce, they should be noted because neighborhood
nuisances cause some of the perceptions that need to be addressed.
Rackis said that some of the recommendations made by that Taskforce that would have had a positive
impact on the neighborhoods and schools were not implemented because of lack of money. A lot of the
recommendations involved activities for children outside of school and City Recreation Center hours, to give
them something constructive to do.
Leff suggested talking about the next meeting time before Anciaux needs to leave. Hayek said there are five
Mondays in January. Clausen noted that one is a holiday. Leff said that the holiday is the 1 tho Vandenberg
asked when the students would have the block data. Nasby said it would be available by the end of the
week. Hayek said that the group should meet two more times in January, in order to keep up the momentum
and try to stay on schedule. Clausen suggested meeting on a night other than Monday during the week of
the 1 tho Various members noted conflicts with those dates, and Nasby noted that the data would not be
available in time for meeting on the 10th. Hayek recommended meeting on the 24th and 31st.
Anciaux left at this point.
Meetings set for the 24th and the 31st, both at 6:30 p.m. Nasby said he would confirm the room reservation.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the taskforce, Leff moved to adjourn. Anthony seconded,
and the motion passed 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 pm.
s:/pcd/minutes/ScatteredSiteHousing T askforcel2005l01-03-05ssht.doc
IOWA CIIY COMMUNIIY SCHOOL DISTRICT RESOURCES BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Certified/ Professional Staff FTE (Guidance, FRC, Reading, Class Size Reduction, ESL, Special Ed: Behavioral Disordered,
Special Ed: Resource, Special Ed: Level ll\lll & Autism, At-Risk & Pre-School and After-School)
School Name Number of Students Resources (FTEs) Averaae Hours Per Student
Hills 164 10.1 128.10 hours per student
Twain 295 15.66 110.42 hours per student
Mann 261 12.0 95.63 hours per student
Wood 432 11.37 54.74 hours per student
Roosevelt 248 5.51 46.21 hours per student
Penn 487 8.5 36.30 hours per student
Kirkwood 366 6.1 34.67 hours per student
Lucas 419 5.76 28.59 hours per student
Coralville Central 458 5.4 24.59 hours per student
Lemme 273 3.0 22.86 hours per student
Lonqfellow 276 3.03 22.83 hours per student
Weber 493 5.08 21.43 hours per student
Shimek 224 2.29 21.26 hours per student
Hoover 275 2.08 15.73 hours per student
Horn 303 2.16 14.83 hours per student
Wickham 563 3.6 13.30 hours per student
Lincoln 256 1.5 12.19 hours per student
All information in the table above was provided by the ICCSD to the Scattered Site Housing Taskforce on 1/3/05. City of Iowa City
Staff used this information to make the calculations for the "Average Hours Per Student" data shown above.
Note:
105
2
4
18
101
4
c::J Tract
# Tract ID
c:J BlockGroup
# Block Group ID
4
2
3.01
4
Johnson County, IA
3
l
THEi
Souce: us Census2000 UNIVERSIlY
This document was created by the OF IOWA
Department of Urban and Regional Planning. University of Iowa
Iowa City Metro Area
Divisons
Census
Physical Assisted Housing Inventory
Prepared for: The Scattered Site Housing Task Force
By: Amanda Cline, Tracy Glaesemann, Alexis Kuklenski, Luke Pelz
4 January 05
Table 1
Percent of
Number of all Number of Percent of Number of rental units
occupied assisted occupied units Number of assisted that are
CT units# units that are assisted rental units units assisted
1 2040 38 1.9% 643 38 5.9%
2 1570 0 0.0% 1081 0 0.0%
4 2380 385 16.2% 1535 385 25.1%
5 3099 8 0.3% 1459 8 0.5%
6 1749 8 0.5% 1388 8 0.6%
11 1723 42 2.4% 1440 42 2.9%
12 869 13 1.5% 246 13 5.3%
13 1192 20 1.7% 155 20 12.9%
14 1861 112 6.0% 541 112 20.7%
15 1235 8 0.6% 377 8 2.1%
16 2917 93 3.2% 2709 93 3.4%
17 1300 26 2.0% 441 26 5.9%
18 3131 217 6.9% 1334 217 16.3%
21 612 81 13.2% 612 81 13.2%
23 1174 1 0.1% 626 1 0.2%
104 2327 0 0.0% 575 0 0.0%
105 1889 75 4.0% 338 75 22.2%
Iowa City 31068 1127 3.6% 15500 1127 7.3%
#Includes owner-occupied units and occupied rental units
Units included in inventory:
Provider or buildinç (sorted alphabeticallv)
Autumn Park
Capitol House
Concord Terrace
DVIP
Ecumenical towers
Citizen Building
Emerson Pointe
Four Oaks- Emergency youth shelter
Four Oaks- Transitional housing
GICHF
GICHF- Longfellow Manor*
Penninsula Dev. (7 GICHF & 10 ICHA)*
HACAP
ICHA
Lexington Place
MECCA '
Pheasant Ridge
Regency Heights I & II
Shelter House
Successful Living
Systems Unlimited
Villa Garden
TOTAL
Units
64
81
30
16
81
18
54
6
6
88
6
17
38
84
30
12
248
75
12
38
99
48
1150
Note: Units for residential facilities (Shelter House,
DVIP, & Four Oaks) were calculated by dividing the
number of beds by the average number of people per
household in Iowa City according to 2000 census
data.
. Units under construction
Source: Assisted units collected by University of Iowa and City of Iowa
City; Community data from 2000 Census Data Summary File 3
Physical Inventory of Rental Assisted Housing by Block Group
Prepared for: The Scattered Site Housing Task Force
By: Amanda Cline, Tracy Glaesemann, Alexis KuklenskL Luke Pelz
23 December 2004
Table 3
All
. d it
Rental Units
OCCUDle un s
Number of N umber of Percent of all
Census Block all occupied assisted occupied units
Tract Group units# units that are assisted
1 1 1,010 3 0.3%
1 2 1,030 35 3.4%
2 1 594 0 0.0%
2 2 372 0 0.0%
2 3 604 0 0.0%
4 1 2,380 385 16.2%
5 1 470 0 0.0%
5 2 2,629 8 0.3%
6 1 1,749 8 0.5%
11 1 810 29 3.6%
11 2 913 13 1.4%
12 1 379 11 2.9%
12 2 490 2 0.4%
13 1 670 12 1.8%
13 2 522 8 1.5%
14 1 269 3 1.1%
14 2 708 87 12.3%
14 3 884 22 2.5%
15 1 683 2 0.3%
15 2 552 6 1.1%
16 1 1,577 12 0.8%
16 2 1,340 81 6.0%
17 1 430 18 4.2%
17 2 327 2 0.6%
17 3 543 6 1.1%
18 1 1,783 68 3.8%
18 2 1,348 149 11.1%
21 1 13 0 0.0%
21 2 599 104 17.4%
23 1 403 1 0.2%
23 2 765 0 0.0%
23 3 6 0 0.0%
104 1 354 0 0.0%
104 2 398 0 0.0%
104 3 334 0 0.0%
104 4 1,241 0 0.0%
105 1 780 75 9.6%
105 2 332 0 0.0%
105 3 429 0 0.0%
105 4 348 0 0.0%
Iowa City 31,068 1150 3.7%
# Includes rental and owner-occupied housing
Percent of all
Number of rental units
Number of assisted that are
rental units units assisted
240 3 1.3%
403 35 8.7%
426 0 0.0%
80 0 0.0%
575 0 0.0%
1,535 385 25.1%
170 0 0.0%
1,289 8 0.6%
1,388 8 0.6%
602 29 4.8%
838 13 1.5%
76 11 14.5%
170 2 1.2%
106 12 11.3%
49 8 16.3%
39 3 7.7%
248 87 35.1%
254 22 8.7%
226 2 0.9%
151 6 4.0%
1,387 12 0.9%
1,322 81 6.1%
69 18 26.1%
74 2 2.7%
298 6 2.0%
664 68 10.2%
670 149 22.3%
13 0 0.0%
599 104 17.4%
186 1 0.5%
434 0 0.0%
6 0 0.0%
98 0 0.0%
118 0 0.0%
47 0 0.0%
312 0 0.0%
109 75 68.8%
52 0 0.0%
81 0 0.0%
96 0 0.0%
15,500 1150 7.4%
Source: Assisted units collected by
University of Iowa and City of Iowa
City; Community data from 2000
Census Data Summary File 3
Physical Inventory of Rental Assisted Housing by Block Group
Prepared for: The Scattered Site Housing Task Force
By: Amanda Cline, Tracy Glaesemann, Alexis Kuklenski, Luke Pelz
23 December 2004
Table 4
Percent of ªº Percent of
occunied all occupied
Percent of all housing units rental units
Census assisted units in in each block in each block
Tract Block Group each block group group group
1 1 0.3% 3.3% 1.5%
1 2 3.0% 3.3% 2.6%
2 1 0.0% 1.9% 2.7%
2 2 0.0% 1.2% 0.5%
2 3 0.0% 1.9% 3.7%
4 1 33.5% 7.7% 9.9%
5 1 0.0% 1.5% 1.1%
5 2 0.7% 8.5% 8.3%
6 1 0.7% 5.6% 9.0%
11 1 2.5% 2.6% 3.9%
11 2 1.1% 2.9% 5.4%
12 1 1.0% 1.2% 0.5%
12 2 0.2% 1.6% 1.1%
13 1 1.0% 2.2% 0.7%
13 2 0.7% 1.7% 0.3%
14 1 0.3% 0.9% 0.3%
14 2 7.6% 2.3% 1.6%
14 3 1.9% 2.8% 1.6%
15 1 0.2% 2.2% 1.5%
15 2 0.5% 1.8% 1.0%
16 1 1.0% 5.1% 8.9%
16 2 7.0% 4.3% 8.5%
17 1 1.6% 1.4% 0.4%
17 2 0.2% 1.1% 0.5%
17 3 0.5% 1.7% 1.9%
18 1 5.9% 5.7% 4.3%
18 2 13.0% 4.3% 4.3%
21 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
21 2 9.0% 1.9% 3.9%
23 1 0.1% 1.3% 1.2%
23 2 0.0% 2.5% 2.8%
23 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
104 1 0.0% 1.1% 0.6%
104 2 0.0% 1.3% 0.8%
104 3 0.0% 1.1% 0.3%
104 4 0.0% 4.0% 2.0%
105 1 6.5% 2.5% 0.7%
105 2 0.0% 1.1% 0.3%
105 3 0.0% 1.4% 0.5%
105 4 0.0% 1.1% 0.6%
Iowa City 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
# Includes rental and owner-occupied housing
How to read the table: Less than one percent (0.3%) of the 1,150 assisted rental unfts
in Iowa city are in Census Tract 1, Block Group 1. This compares to 3.3% of all
occupied housing units and 1.5% of all occupied rental units in Iowa Cfty.
Source: Assisted units
collected by University of
Iowa and City of Iowa City;
Community data from 2000
Census Data Summary File 3
Income, Housing Value, and Poverty Data by Block Group
Prepared for: The Scattered Site Housing Task Force
By: Amanda Cline, Tracy Glaesemann, Alexis Kuklenski, Luke Pelz
7 January 2005
Table 5
Median value of Median contract Percentage of
Median household owner-occupied rent of renter population below
Census Tract Block Group income 1999 units occupied units poverty level 1999#
1 1 $63,333 $169,300 $587 9.0%
1 2 $41,667 $149,000 $480 14.2%
2 1 $32,742 $83,500 $506 9..9%
2 2 $41,324 $93,800 $612 6.8%
2 4 $24,858 $80,900 $446 24.9%
4 1 $34,583 $176,100 $400 19.5%
5 1 $49,107 $162,500 $456 11.1%
5 2 $42,078 $139,800 $536 15.0%
6 1 $23,727 $106,200 $484 27.5%
11 1 $21,786 $124,200 $472 38.6%
11 2 $18,733 $97,500 $478 52.5%
12 1 $56,250 $145,000 $789 2.1%
12 2 $53,438 $120,300 $526 9.8%
13 1 $74,900 $145,300 $675 1.7%
13 2 $61,333 $131,.100 $636 1.3%
14 1 $54,135 $114,600 $389 3.1%
14 2 $53,977 $117,300 $529 9.4%
14 3 $50,521 $123,400 $413 6.8%
15 1 $37,358 $94,300 $533 5.9%
15 2 $52,083 $123,600 $474 10.0%
16 1 $22,355 $142,900 $552 46.0%
16 2 $12,361 $120,000 $583 71.9%
17 1 $48,170 $96,100 $531 8.2%
17 2 $44,038 $94,500 $631 8.8%
17 . 3 $35,042 $98,800 $462 25.2%
18 1 $34,805 $86,400 $467 10.7%
18 2 $38,897 $111,200 $516 17.5%
21 1 $4,911 $0 $346 100.0%
21 2 $12,799 $0 $543 63.3%·
23 1 $43,421 $142,900 $522 16.9%
23 2 $26,991 $219,000 $577 26.9%
23 3 $90,957 $0 $0 0.0%
104 1 $40,938 $118,500 $270 17.7%
104 2 $38,750 $122,300 $378 9.4%
104 3 $53,906 $160,600 $425 2.9%
104 4 $36,886 $54,100 $440 8.8%
105 1 $47,240 $57,500 $696 5.7%
105 2 $43,182 $130,000 $395 9.5%
105 3 $52,292 $115,200 $471 4.7%
105 4 $39,000 $85,000 $397 10.1%
Iowa City (median) $41,496 $117,900 $482 10.0%
Iowa City (average) $40,709 $112,797 $505 18.6%
# Poverty status was determined for all people except institutionalized people, people in military group quarters,
people in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old. These groups also were excluded
from the numerator and denominator when calculating poverty rates.
Source: 2000 Census Data Summary File 3
L
THE Íim
UNIVERSnY
OF IOWA
Planning, University of Iowa
Souce: US Census2000
This doçument was created by the
Department of U!"ty,m and Regional
MedlanHóusf!hold Income
$4,911 - $26,029
I!iII $26,030 - $39,000
Johnson County, IA I!iII $39,001 - $50,521
""~e _ $50,522-$67,525
_ $67,526 - $93,392
,
-- ",,",-,,=~_,~_,,,~ ","=~",.m~N"".~""",,,.V""_""._",~ ",'_"~_"""~"7.'_{,"i;i,;';""')"'~."d"_·0''''''-__'_''''''''__'""'_-'
Iowa City Metro Area
Income