HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-2005
IOWA CITY SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE
MEETING AGENDA
28 February 2005
City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
4:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes - January 24, January 31 and February 14,2005
3. Taskforce Deliberation Regarding Recommendations to the City Council
4. Adjournment
MINUTES
SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE
JANUARY 24,2005
CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Anthony, Darlene Clausen, Matthew Hayek, Jan Left, Jan Peterson, Sally
Stutsman, Joan Vandenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Anciaux
STAFF PRESENT: Karin Franklin, Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis
OTHERS PRESENT: Amanda Cline, Maryann Dennis, Charles Eastham, Tracy Glaesemann, Alexis
Kluklenski, Luke Pelz
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 6:40 pm.
Approval of the January 3. 2005 Minutes:
Several revisions noted for the Minutes.
MOTION: A motion was made by Leff, seconded by Stutsman, to approve the January 3, 2005
Minutes as amended. Motion carried 7-0.
TASKFORCE DELIBERATION REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Hayek began by reviewing the key points of the previous meeting. He noted that the Taskforce reached a
consensus on three items, those being as follows: 1) concentrations of poverty in the community should
be avoided; 2) Iowa City needs to continue to provide affordable housing; and 3) the City should explore
scattering affordable housing. He said the Taskforce now needs to think about moving to the conclusion
of the process, with the goal to present to the City Council in early March. Hayek said that the UI student
group had completed breaking down the data into census tract and block groups. He suggested
beginning the meeting by reviewing the census data and having the students to discuss the new tables.
Leff said she did not receive Table 2 in her packet. Glaesemann said Table 2 was not included as there
were not revisions. Nasby said Table 2 is the same as the one previously distributed. Glaesemann said
Table 1 was revised because an error was found in the data. Table 3 is data on block groups in the same
format as Table 1, and includes data for both rental and owner-occupied units in separate columns. Table
4 is the percent of assisted housing units in each block group, with 100% being the number of units in all
of Iowa City. Table 4 also includes information on the percent of all housing and rental units located in
each block group.
Hayek asked for confirmation that the data for Table 3 is a comparison of the percent of assisted housing
within each block, while Table 4 is the percent compared to the whole city. Glaesemann confirmed this
was correct. Hayek noted that the Taskforce had decided to set aside criteria specifically relating to
schools because of disagreement about the link between assisted housing and school performance, and
its significance.
Left pointed out that according to Table 4, there are two tracts with the highest percentage of assisted
units in each block group. Those are tracts 4 with 33.5%, which includes Pheasant Ridge and a lot of
assisted housing for elderly and disabled, and 18 with 18.9%. Vandenberg said there are several tracts
with no assisted housing units, or less than 1 %. She noted that zoning or land use may be a factor, but it
still is a dramatic difference. Hayek agreed that Table 4 is significant.
Hayek asked for confirmation that Section 8 is not included in the data. Rackis confirmed that is correct.
Vandenberg asked if Section 8 housing is already scattered around the city. Rackis said yes as the
tenants pick where they want to live. He added that the Section 8 vouchers follow population trends in
the area with approximately 800 vouchers in Iowa City, 250 in Coralville, and 70 in North Liberty. He said
that some Section 8 vouchers would be included in the tract\block data, since the only restriction on
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 2
voucher use is that they cannot be used in housing already subsidized by Section 8 project-based
assistance, and that the rent has to be reasonable and affordable. As such, projects that are on the list
could also be participating in the Section 8 program.
Anthony said that Tables 3 and 5 show some striking data. For example according to Table 3, 15.8% of
all units in tract 14 are assisted, while approximately 50% of rental units in that tract are assisted. Some
block groups have a high percent of the population living below the poverty level. Block groups 1 and 2 of
tract 11 have high percentages of poverty, block group 1 at 52.5% and 2 at 38.6%. In tract 16 block 2,
71.9% are below poverty level. Those numbers are very high.
Hayek noted that census tracts 11 and 21 likely have a high number of students. Clausen said that tract
21 is downtown, while 11 and 16 are student areas. Hayek said that as he understands the data, the only
students not included in the poverty data were those living in dormitories. Nasby and Anthony confirmed
that was correct.
Anthony suggested the Taskforce use the guideline discussed earlier, which was 10% above the City-
wide standard, and apply that number to the block group data for both poverty levels and the percentage
of assisted housing as listed in Table 3. Block groups that meet both standards would be ones where no
more assisted housing should be built. Areas with 10% less than that may be places where more assisted
housing should be encouraged. Hayek agreed, and suggested creating a matrix with this information.
Anthony said that applying the standard to poverty and then combining it with assisted housing would
help tie the data to the mission of the Taskforce. The Taskforce should also look at zoning to see what
types of housing are permissible in those areas.
Hayek said that the data from Tables 3 and 4 dovetail well, giving information about both the percentage
within the block group, as well as how it compares to the rest of the City. Vandenberg noted that the data
from those two tables does not give a clear idea of the density in the area. Anthony noted that the
Taskforce does not have density information, though Table 3 indicates the number of units versus the
total units. Vandenberg added that those numbers have a wide variance, from 13 to 2,600.
Glaesemann said that Table 4 can help give an idea about density, though that information is not directly
linked. It compares the distribution of assisted housing units versus the distribution of housing units and
rental units. For example, tract 4 block group 1 houses 34% of all assisted housing units, and 10% of all
rental units.
Hayek asked if there is a way to quantify the density issue. Anthony replied that Table 3 is the closest,
since it gives the number of assisted units in the block versus the total number of units. The data is given
both for the number of rental units, as well as the total units. Hayek suggested that discussion of density
could be addressed in the recommendations.
Hayek asked if there was agreement to use Tables 3 and 4 to start comparing data. General agreement
expressed with this by those present. Anthony suggested including data from Table 5 as well, because of
the poverty data. Hayek said he would like to account for students in the data. Leff noted the Council
members would be aware of some of the issues with the student population. Anthony added that the
student areas are in poverty from year to year, even if there are different students living there.
Peterson asked if the data could be sorted by family versus elderly or single. Hayek said that is possible,
but may present fair housing problems. Anthony said the Taskforce's proposal could not distinguish
between those groups. Hayek agreed, clarifying that City Policy couldn't distinguish between different
groups. Vandenberg said there is a wide variation in both assisted housing and poverty levels.
Hayek said that Tables 3, 4, and 5 would be used to create the matrix, which would be a more objective
measure. Then the narrative that will accompany the recommendations could include other information
that is not easily quantified.
Vandenberg said that clarification is needed in the written recommendations about which assisted
housing is being referenced in the tables, perhaps even providing a list indicating the number and type of
housing in each tract. Peterson agreed that assisted housing needs to be defined, because the impacts of
different types are entirely different. Hayek said a starting point could be the list of providers. Nasby said
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 3
the provider list could be inventoried by tract. Vandenberg suggested making the inventory by tract and
block group as well.
Hayek said that in addition to making recommendations to the City Council, the Taskforce should also
serve as a provider of information to the City. Vandenberg added that defining assisted housing relates to
the public relations issue, and what sort of assisted housing will be built in different areas. It would help to
dispel some myths about affordable housing.
Vandenberg asked how many neighborhoods have a concentration by the current definition. She asked if
13.7% would be the number to use in the comparison. Anthony said yes, if assisted housing units are
included. Hayek said it would be 17.4% if rental units were used. Hayek said that Table 3 could be
divided into two separate measures. Anthony agreed, noting that they would measure both owner-
occupied and rental units.
Vandenberg asked if the number should be greater than or equal to the comparison number, or just
greater than the number. Anthony and Hayek suggested using greater than the target number.
Vandenberg said tract 105 is a problem for her. Leff noted that tract has 68% of its rental units as
assisted.
Hayek said if the Taskforce could agree on the measures to be used then a subcommittee or City Staff
can create the matrix. Clausen asked if median or average numbers should be used. Anthony said
average is more easily understood. Clausen suggested using average.
Hayek said that poverty data is difficult to use, because almost no blocks are in poverty if applying the
28.6% target number. The ones that are in poverty include mostly students. Anthony noted that the tracts
that meet the criteria are tract 6 block group 1, 1 tract 11 blocks 1 and 2, tract 16 blocks 1 and 2, and tract
21 blocks 1 and 2. He asked which tracts are student areas. Clausen said tracts 11 and 16. Stutsman
added tract 21. Hayek said that tract 6 and portions of tract 23 also have student populations.
Vandenberg said that it seems like the criteria will be excluding neighborhoods that should be included.
Anthony asked if there is agreement to have no more assisted housing in tract 11 if there is an option to
put it elsewhere. Hayek added that the Taskforce needs to decide on how many criteria need to be met in
order for a block to fall within the target group.
Hayek suggested creating the matrix and seeing how the numbers work out, then evaluating the data
again at the next meeting. Taskforce members expressed general agreement. He said that measures
should be decided, and noted that Tables 3, 4, and 5 have been discussed so far. Tables 3 and 4 should
be separated so that rental and owner-occupied are separate. Vandenberg asked that a description of the
nature of the assisted units to be included as well.
Anthony confirmed that if using Table 3, blocks with 10% more than the City average would be places
where more assisted housing possibly would not be wanted. He asked if a similar measure could be
applied to Table 4. Peterson asked if it should be equal to or greater than the number. Vandenberg said it
should be greater than.
Nasby confirmed that the SSHT discussion said that areas 10% above the City average is the Taskforce's
definition of concentrated. So, while an area may be higher than the City average, it may not necessarily
be concentrated by that definition? Hayek said that if the matrix translates into a score sheet for
development applications, then for example certain incentives could be offered for building housing into
areas with very little assisted housing, different or fewer incentives could be offered to put housing into
gray areas, and no incentives would be offered for building in areas with high numbers of housing.
Anthony suggested that recommendations should include concentrated or not, rather than having
different gradations, as that is how the City has used that guideline in the past with poverty and minorities.
Hayek noted that would be clearer. Anthony agreed that incentives should be in place so that developers
will look outside of the tracts that the Taskforce identifies as concentrated.
Anthony asked what cutoff should be used with Table 4. Hayek asked how many total block groups are in
the City. Vandenberg said there are 40. Nasby said that neither housing nor population is equally divided
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 4
into all the blocks. Anthony asked for confirmation that many of the zeros on the chart indicate areas
where housing is not permitted. Nasby said he thought that was likely.
Peterson said she would like to know the zoning for the different areas. Vandenberg agreed that it would
be helpful to know whether proposing housing in certain areas would be feasible or not. Questions were
raised by Taskforce members about where certain tracts are located. Glaesemann said that data from
census tracts located in Coralville were not included on the tables. Clausen noted that tract 104 has no
housing because it includes part of the airport. Franklin said that a mobile home park is located in that
tract. Stutsman asked what the plans are for the Lake Ridge area. Franklin replied the plan is to annex it,
though the owner has not yet agreed.
Hayek asked if the benchmark numbers the Taskforce is using are accurate from a statistical point of
view. Anthony replied that the City has used that measure in the past, and using a different one would
require justification. He said he would prefer to keep to the City's existing logic. Vandenberg asked if the
target number is 2.5. Hayek said it is 12.5.
Peterson asked if the Taskforce would be applying the measure to census tracts or block groups.
Clausen and Anthony replied it would be block groups. Franklin asked how the number 12.5 was decided.
Hayek said that the City has used 10% above the City average. Anthony said the number of block groups
was divided by 100% to obtain the average (100% divided by the 40 block groups).
Franklin noted that some of the block groups are in the County, and asked if they should be included in
the total number. If using that rationale, then some blocks should be removed. For example, block 1 of
tract 105 look likes it includes the industrial park off of Highway 6. It also extends all the way to Interstate
80; so much of the block is not in the City. Blocks 2, 3, and 4 are not in the City at all, so should not be
included in the total of 40. Franklin said in tract 104, it looks like block 4 is in the City but not the other
block groups of tract 104.
Hayek said those corrections can be made. Anthony said the corrections would need to be applied
consistently across all the tables. Clausen said that Table 1 includes all units, which may pose a problem
if it includes units that are not in the City. Anthony noted that Table 1 is not being used for the matrix.
Rackis said that since the census data was collected, approximately 500 rental units have been built,
which is a 3% increase and none of those units are assisted. Clausen asked where The Lodge is located
and how many units it has. Rackis said it is in tract 5. Nasby said it currently has 200+ units. Rackis
added that it is still under construction, so many of its rental permits will not be issued until later in 2005.
The target is to be done by August 2005.
Vandenberg said she would like to know which block groups would be inappropriate for housing or not
zoned for it. Hayek said examination of zoning should be included in the recommendation to the City, so
the Taskforce does not need to evaluate it. Vandenberg said it would be helpful to know what areas could
not be zoned for housing while developing the recommendations.
Franklin said that the block groups would not have very much differentiation in zoning because of the way
they are drawn. While tract 17 block 1 could be excluded because of the industrial area, there are few
other places where it is defined enough to exclusively preclude housing. Most commercial areas are
zoned for retail or office, but there could be residential above the business. Stutsman asked about tract
104. Franklin replied that 104 includes two mobile home parks, though the potential for more housing to
be built there is low.
Hayek asked for confirmation that it would be difficult to make zoning conclusions based on block groups.
Franklin said yes, because residential zoning is widespread even in commercial areas. Vandenberg
suggested that zoning may not be a large issue then. Franklin agreed, noting that tract 17 block 1 is a
good one to remove from consideration because it is an industrial area. However, even that block has
some apartments.
Anthony asked whether information on undeveloped land in each block group is available. Franklin said
an overlay could be done. Anthony said that would help the Taskforce see what areas are available for
future development. Franklin asked whether the focus should be on rental or owner-occupied. The
Taskforce members agreed that information on both would be preferred.
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 5
Hayek suggested deciding on the measures the Taskforce would like to use, and then have a group put
the data together to be presented at the next meeting. Then the Taskforce will evaluate the results.
Hayek said currently Tables 3, 4, and 5, plus the inventory of the types of assisted housing by block
group, have been discussed so far. Vandenberg said that numbers have been decided for all but Table 4.
Hayek suggested using the two columns on the right side of Table 4 for informational purposes. That
means there are currently five measures. Leff asked what the fifth measure is. Hayek said it may not be a
measure, but is the breakdown of the type of housing and where it is located. Nasby said it would not be
included in the matrix, but would be attached for additional information.
Hayek said that if the matrix is acceptable to the Taskforce, then step two of the process has been
completed. Impacts have already been discussed in large part, so that step will not take long to finish.
The Taskforce should then be in a position to discuss recommendations. He suggested the Taskforce
members discuss how to proceed from this point, and asked if having the matrix done by January 31 is
feasible. Nasby said it depends on the speed of the subcommittee. The numbers are available, so it
should not take long. It would need to be done by Thursday to be mailed out with the packet.
Vandenberg asked if the matrix could be emailed. Hayek said it would be also be posted on the internet,
so that would be permissible. Stutsman asked whether the Taskforce would meet if the matrix were not
done. Hayek said it would be done in time, so to plan to meet. He said that the Taskforce would be
looking at the matrix, but also that the members should come to the meeting with thoughts about the
recommendations. Vandenberg added that it would be good to consider benefits of scattering housing.
Peterson asked if the dates for the February meetings have been set. Hayek said no. The Taskforce
members discussed availability for meeting in February. Peterson suggested tabling the discussion until
the January 31 meeting.
Vandenberg asked what the Taskforce's to-do list is. Hayek said that a subcommittee would need to write
the proposal based on feedback from the group, when that phase is reached. Likely what the Council will
want is something in writing that includes some narrative as well as the matrix, and a list of suggestions.
The suggestions are not going to be for the City to do things, but rather for the City to explore or
investigate various options.
Anthony asked if there are any assisted owner-occupied units in the City. Nasby replied yes, between 80
and 100 units. Some are ICHA, Habitat and Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship homes, and some had
down-payment assistance. Rackis added that some are subsidized on a second mortgage, and some are
Section 8. Nasby noted that this matter had come up previously, but since the numbers were quite low
the data was not collected or mapped. Nasby added that this could be done if the Taskforce wanted the
data.
Hayek said that in terms of a to-do list, the group should reflect on the discussion so far, as well as the
group's goals, corrections, and things that could be done better in all housing areas. That could even
include suggestions on landlords and maintenance of rental units. The Taskforce will meet next Monday
and discuss the matrix, then embark on the discussion about recommendations.
Dennis asked if the meeting on January 31 sl would be at 6:30. Nasby said yes.
Hayek said he received a call from Heather Shank, City Staff person for the Human Rights Commission.
They would like to hear about what the Taskforce is doing, so Hayek will be giving a summary at their
meeting on January 25. Nasby said it would be held in Emma Harvat Hall (a.k.a. Council Chambers) at
7:00. Hayek said he thinks that group was the one that sent a letter to the Council asking for an update.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the taskforce, Anthony moved to adjourn. Clausen
seconded, and the motion passed uncontested. Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm.
s:/pcd/minutes/ScatteredSiteHousingT askforcel2005/0 1-24-05ssht.doc
~
C.J
J.
~
~"C
~ J.
Q
'=J)C.J
:::= ~
.~ ~
= ~ t('¡
QC.JO
~:::=O
~~M
~"C
;:: :::=
rJ'J ~
...
"C...
~<
J.
~
...
...
~
C.J
rJ'J
-.:t ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-.... 0
.....
!'f')
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
.....
0
~ 6' = = = f!
= ~ = Q,j
Q,j = e =
= = v.¡ Q,j v.¡
.... -= = ~\oo; ... v.¡ =
t.I ~ = Q,j .... Q,j
~ - ='t .... = "C
U Q,j ....
...;:¡ =-- rJj =
~ ...; ~ ~...; 00 =
...; >
"0
11) I-<
en 11)
~ OJ} ,.os
u :::
:>< .- "'
~.....""'
"E"E~~::E
11)11)~::Ero
~enenO"'"
þ::~~Z~
II II II II II
>. rT' ~ I
11) - I
~~OÔ :
MINUTES
SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASK FORCE
JANUARY 31, 2005
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Jerry Anthony, Matthew Hayek, Jan Leff, Jan Peterson, Joan
Vandenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Darlene Clausen, Sally Stutsman
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis
OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Eastham, Amanda Cline, Maryann Dennis, Tracy Glaesemann, Alexis
Kluklenski, Luke Pelz, Patti Santangelo
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 6:40 pm. He noted that the minutes from the January
24, 2005 meeting are not yet available, and will be reviewed at the next meeting.
DELIBERATIONS REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Hayek began by summarizing points from the last meeting. Consensus was reached on criteria to use to
evaluate the census tract and block groups. Anthony and Nasby then created a matrix to apply the criteria
to the block groups. The matrix was adjusted several times due to some census tracts being eliminated,
as they were not in Iowa City. Nasby passed out the latest draft of the matrix.
Anthony explained the matrix chart, which has all the information from the past several meetings, so there
is nothing new. The matrix has gone though several iterations, so the data will need to be reviewed for
accuracy again before being finalized. Columns 1 and 2 have geographic information, columns 3-6 have
information on rental housing and percentages based on rental units, columns 7-10 have information on
the percentage of assisted housing that is based on all units, columns 11-16 are based on discussions
from the last meeting, columns 17-19 are based on poverty, and 20-21 are left blank and can be filled in
as necessary during the discussion.
Column 3
Column 4
Column 5
Column 6
Column 7
Column 8
Column 9
Column 10
Column 11
Column 12
Column 13
Column 14
Column 17
Column 18
Column 19
total number of rental units per block group
number of assisted rental units per block group
percent of assisted rental units per block group, with 100% equaling all rental
units in the block group
needs to be evaluated in greater detail, because data may not be correct
total number of units in each block group
number of assisted rental units, which is the same as column 4
percentage of all units that are assisted rentals, or column 8 divided by column 7
block groups can be selected using the City criteria, which is the City average
plus 10%
percent of all rental units per block group, with 100% equaling all units in the City
percent of assisted rental units per block group, 100% equaling all assisted rental
units in the City
column 12 divided by the citywide average, which was 3.03 in this iteration
column 12 divided by column 11
percentage poverty rates in each block group
block groups selected for poverty level by City average plus 10%
block groups selected for poverty level by City median plus 10%
Nasby explained the calculation of column 14 as a figure of how close the percent of assisted rental units
is to the percent of total rental units within each block group. The idea is that the percent of assisted
rental units should be close to the percent of rental units each block group represents. For example, a
block group with 1.7% of the total number of rental units in the City should also have approximately 1.7%
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 31,2005
Page 2
of the total assisted rental units, per the fair share approach. The total of column 14 would therefore be
compared to column 5.
Vandenberg noted the calculation in column 14 only compare neighborhoods with rental units, rather than
ownership. Looking ahead, when trying to decide where to put more assisted housing, it would not be
wise to limit consideration to only those places that have rental units. Anthony agreed, and said that the
block groups with too much assisted housing would be shown in column 16.
Anthony pointed out several block groups with very low numbers of assisted units, due to a low number of
units overall. Hayek said that looking at column 3 with the total number of rental units per block group
would be helpful in that evaluation. Anthony agreed, though he noted some block groups would still be
missed, such as tract 105 block 1.
Hayek asked whether columns 14 and 16 should be deleted, based on the discussion.
Vandenberg said she likes to look at the raw scores, rather than the percentages. She continued by
asking what the difference is between columns 18 and 19. Anthony answered that the median is the
number in the middle of a series of numbers. For example, the median of 1, 2, 3,4, 5 is 3. The median of
1, 2, 3, 4, 100 is still 3. The average adds all the numbers up and then divides the total by the number of
items. Vandenberg asked if median is a more accurate statistical figure. Anthony replied that it depends
on what it is used for, though one thing median does is remove outliers.
Dennis asked whether the information on all assisted units in the matrix includes housing for the elderly.
Rackis replied it includes all existing, plus more that will be completed soon. Vandenberg handed out a
chart detailing the different types of assisted housing in each tract. She said it is not completely accurate,
as she does not know how all of the units should be categorized, such as elderly and disabled housing.
She also did not have a breakdown on single versus family units. While the data is not accurate, it is a
suggestion on a possible format for the data layout, and shows the further research that would be needed
to make the information accurate.
Vandenberg asked how one-bedroom units at Pheasant Ridge would be categorized. Rackis said it is
estimated that 221 of 248 units are occupied by students. Single units are usually students, though the
multiple bedroom units could have families. The family could be any type of family that qualifies for
assistance, which could be low-income or a disabled family, for example.
Vandenberg noted that this categorization could be significant. For example, Pheasant Ridge has a large
impact on tract 4 block 1. Having that data sorted would be very helpful. Peterson agreed that it is
important to know what type of assisted housing is being evaluated.
Dennis asked if it would be simple to remove assisted housing units with specific regulations, such as
housing that requires residents to be at least 55 years of age and allows no children. Nasby replied doing
that raises a concern with fair housing and policies that target certain populations. Vandenberg said that
the purpose would be to see where the different types of housing are located. Nasby agreed, noting that
was why a table was put together with categories such as emergency housing, transitional housing,
permanent housing, and permanent supportive housing while not distinguishing what demographic they
were designed to serve. He said that looking at housing according to the type of population served is a
slippery slope best avoided.
Hayek said that still raises the concern that though the matrix will single out certain block groups for
certain measures using the raw numbers, it is still helpful to know what types of housing are in the
highlighted blocks. He asked how the Taskforce would like to approach that, while keeping the fair
housing concerns in mind. Peterson said that since the Taskforce was discussing the approach to
encourage building housing in certain areas, rather than restricting it in others, then it may not be an
issue. Hayek said that if the Taskforce will be encouraging certain development in some areas and not
encouraging it in others, then the result would essentially be the same.
Vandenberg said that if looking at raw numbers, there are many spaces with "x." Anthony agreed, saying
that numbers that were problematical have an "x" in their spaces. Nasby said that an "x" is missing from
column 6, tract 17 block 1, which is 26.09.
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 31, 2005
Page 3
Hayek said there is also the issue of 10 percentage points above the number, and whether to use that
measurement. Anthony said that he believes it would be easier to continue using the City's logic and
apply the 10% to the City average, rather than using a new measure. He noted that using the 10%
measure as stated catches almost all of the block groups that the Taskforce had identified as areas of
concern. Hayek said that is fine as long as it is certain that approach is City policy. Anthony said it is.
Hayek asked if there were any cases when that policy had been applied to very low percentage numbers,
such as 4%. Nasby replied that this policy was applied to only two things, which were low-moderate
income level and minority. The lower number in these two areas was 13%, as such if the Taskforce used
the 10% above criteria; the target number for this would then be 23%.
Hayek suggested that Vandenberg's category chart of the types of housing could serve as narrative
explanation to accompany the Taskforce's recommendations. It would then be informative to the reader,
though it would not be incorporated into a policy. He further suggested having the Taskforce rely on the
percentages in the matrix for identifying problematical areas.
Vandenberg said that there is also the question of impacts. She asked where evaluating the spaces filled
with "x" on the matrix would lead the discussion, unless changing the City average would alter the results
significantly. Anthony said that the City average definitely would change, since one tract had been
removed from the equation. Rackis asked for clarification of what the current City average number of 3.03
represented. Anthony replied that the number represented the percent of assisted rental units each block
group would have if they were evenly distributed throughout the city.
Nasby said the revised number for the City average is 3.22 now that the incorrect census tracts have
been removed. Anthony said that would change the numbers in column 13, though the results should not
change significantly since the block groups that were identified in the earlier calculation were above the
target number by a large amount.
Hayek said that if columns 14 and 16 are removed, there are four ways to evaluate the block groups.
Anthony said they are columns 6, 10, 15, and then either 18 or 19. He noted that the Taskforce still needs
to discuss and agree to use those measures. Vandenberg asked whether the block groups need to be
identified according to the measures once or more than once. Hayek said that is still to be decided.
Vandenberg said that approaching the measures that way might eliminate a lot of the block groups.
Hayek noted that no block groups are identified by all the measures.
Hayek asked whether census blocks are determined by population. Nasby replied that while some effort
is made by the census to make their populations comparable, they are not exact. It is a range.
Glaesemann said that if a tract becomes overpopulated, it will be split and another block is made.
Anthony said that looking at column 7 could show the variation in the number of units in each block group.
Hayek asked about student data for blocks in tract 21. Nasby said that dorms and institutions are not
included.
Hayek suggested going through the matrix and deciding what the Taskforce wants or does not want,
starting with columns 3 through 6. Peterson asked for confirmation that column 6 refers to the percent of
assisted rental units. Hayek said yes, the percent of assisted rental units in that block group. Anthony said
that anything above 18.26% in column 5 should be flagged in column 6.
Vandenberg said that the only number that appears out of place is for the last block in tract 105. Nasby
said that is because of where 105 is located, and also because much of the growth in that tract has
occurred since the census data was gathered, and therefore is not included in the matrix numbers.
Hayek asked for confirmation that the Taskforce is comfortable using the data from columns 3 through 6.
He noted that Clausen and Stutsman still need to evaluate the data and offer their opinions.
Anciaux noted tract 17 block 1 has very few rentals, and asked how blocks with such low numbers should
be evaluated. Vandenberg asked about evaluating those blocks using all units, rather than just rental
units, since that might be more representative of the neighborhood. Rackis said that since the census
data was gathered, as of August 2005 an additional 2083 rental units will have been built in Iowa City, 77
of which are assisted. The number of units per tract or block group is not available, however. The number
of new owner-occupied units is also not as readily available.
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 31,2005
Page 4
Vandenberg said that there is a wide variance in the number of units in each block group. Hayek said that
a floor could be designated to help control for that variable. For example, block groups with less than a
certain number of units would not have certain measures applied to them. Peterson asked whether that
would work or make things too complicated. Anthony noted that it would make it more complicated.
Vandenberg suggested designating a certain number of measures that each block group has to meet in
order to qualify. Hayek said that was one reason the matrix was set up.
Anciaux asked how many units are at Calloway (a.k.a. The Lodge). Rackis replied there are 87 units
online already, and 114 are scheduled to go online by August 1. There are 558 bedrooms divided
between about 200 units.
Hayek asked whether the Taskforce would like to think about the four measures on the matrix and
continue discussion later. Peterson asked for confirmation that the Taskforce members should be thinking
about whether they are good measures. Hayek said yes, and if they are, he also asked that the members
think about how many measures a block group needs to meet in order to qualify. Anthony added that
consideration could also be given to whether any should be removed.
Anthony said it would helpful to see a map of possible places where land is available for future
development. Nasby said he cannot make a small version of the map as it would be unreadable, but there
is a large one available in the Planning Department. He left to get it.
Vandenberg asked what the difference is between columns 15 and 16. Anthony said 15 selects block
groups based on information from column 13. Block groups with a ratio greater than one have been
selected in column 15. A ratio greater than one indicates a higher percentage of assisted rental units than
the citywide average. Peterson asked for clarification on what the citywide average percent of assisted
rental units is. Anthony said that the city average is figured by dividing the total number of assisted rental
units by the number block groups.
Rackis asked whether that means each block group should theoretically have 3.22% assisted units.
Anthony said yes, if they were evenly distributed.
Vandenberg asked for confirmation that the Taskforce needs to decide whether to use column 15 or 16.
Anthony said yes, and also a decision needs to be made between columns 18 and 19. Hayek asked
whether columns 14 and 16 were the result of a miscommunication. Anthony and Nasby said no, those
numbers are fine. Vandenberg asked what the difference is between columns 14 and 16. Anthony said
they are different ratios. Column 14 is calculated by dividing column 12 column 11, while column 13
equals column 12 divided by the City average, in this case 3.03.
Rackis noted again the difficulties with block groups with very low numbers of units. Hayek asked whether
establishing a floor would help control for that, though that would make things more complicated.
Vandenberg noted that the recommendation as a whole would have to be explained in some way.
Anthony agreed that it needs to be as simple as possible because of that. Hayek pointed out that the
recommendations also will need to be understandable to providers, who will use them to base their
decisions on.
Anciaux asked whether students are included in the census data for the poverty percentages per block
group. Nasby said the results are supposed to be based on where they are currently living. Anthony said
that students above the age of 15 are included in the data. He asked if there is a way to remove students
from the data. Nasby replied that a certain age cohort could be removed, such as 18-24. However, not all
18-24 year-olds are students.
Vandenberg said that when looking at multiple indicators on the matrix, tract 4 block 1 and tract 18 block
2 are the ones that stand out. Rackis said that tract 14 block 2 appears three times, and tract 21 block 2
appears three times unless column 16 is removed.
Peterson asked whether column 15 or 16 should be used. Anciaux asked whether the difference between
the two columns is .10%. Peterson said no, the difference is what is being measured. Peterson asked for
confirmation that column 15 is the percent of assisted rental units compared to the citywide average of
assisted rental units, while column 16 is the percent of assisted rental units compared to the citywide
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 31,2005
Page 5
average of all rental units in the City. Anthony said yes. He continued by saying that means, for example,
that in tract 1 block 1 in column 12, 0.09% of the assisted rental units in the City are located in that tract.
Anthony said that column 13 compares assisted rental units in each block group versus total assisted
rental units. Column 14 is column 12 divided by column 11, which compares percentage of assisted rental
versus percentage of rental in each block group. Column 13 is column 12 divided by 3.22.
Peterson confirmed that the Taskforce needs to decide which to use between 15 and 16. Anthony said
yes, and also decide between 18 and 19, then decide whether multiple criteria are needed or not.
Vandenberg suggested that looking only at the percent of assisted units might help control for the fact
that a large number of rental units have come online since the census data was gathered. Only
comparing assisted units citywide with assisted units per block group may give more accurate results.
Anthony noted that approach would be complicated by the block groups that have very low numbers of
rental units may, which may then have a skewed percentage of assisted units. For example, a block
group with 8 assisted units, but only 11 units overall would have an inflated percentage of assisted units.
Peterson said column 15 is closer to what the Taskforce wants to measure. Hayek asked whether there is
consensus about column 15. Leff and Peterson agreed. Anthony asked for confirmation that the
Taskforce is not voting on one over the other at this point. Peterson said no, it is a recommendation for
Clausen and Stutsman. Hayek said a new draft would be sent out with the new numbers for the next
meeting.
Peterson said next is to consider columns 18 and 19. Nasby said only one block group is affected by
choosing one versus the other. Peterson agreed, but added that she would like to figure out which one is
closer to what the Taskforce would like to know.
Hayek asked Anthony what his argument was for using average. Anthony said it would be consistent with
what the City has done in the past. Since the census definition of concentrated poverty is 40%, shifting
the percentage back so far will require justification, and the citywide average has been used in the past.
Also, only one block group will change by using column 18, and the concept of median is more likely to
need explanation.
Hayek asked if any of the Taskforce members present would prefer to use median. None expressed a
preference for median. Vandenberg suggested that the poverty measure not be weighted as heavily as
other measures, because of the student population skewing the numbers. Hayek asked if there was
agreement to use average. Those present expressed general agreement.
Hayek said that a new draft of the matrix would be completed and sent out. He asked that the Taskforce
members come to the next meeting with thoughts and suggestions about the four measures, and how
many are required for a block group to be considered an area of concern. Leff confirmed that the four
measures are 6, 10, 15, and 18. Hayek said yes.
Hayek said consensus needs to be reached on whether to apply a floor to the block groups with very low
numbers of units. Peterson suggested also including the types of units as well as the numbers. If
including information about the types of units can be explained as part of the Taskforce's consideration
without increasing the overall complexity, it should be included.
Vandenberg asked whether Hayek has a structure in mind for the proposal. Hayek replied that it would
involve the data matrix along with an explanation, as well as any accompanying soft data attached to it.
Also, he is considering what a policy based on the Taskforce's recommendations would like, and whether
it is understandable. The current process for building assisted housing is that applications for go through
the Housing and Community Development Commission, and then based on CITY STEPS criteria, are in
place that are applied and given scores, then it is all discussed. That is the system in which the
Taskforce's recommendations would be implemented, and the question is how to do that in a way that
makes sense and is viable. Anthony added that incentives also need to be considered.
Vandenberg asked whether the Taskforce could include analysis of the data along with the
recommendations. For example, even though a certain block group falls into a certain category, it should
not be included for specific reasons. Hayek said that it is possible to a point. Peterson added that there
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
January 31, 2005
Page 6
would be a point where the Taskforce is not available to give special explanations for exceptions to the
data. Vandenberg said that she would then advocate applying a floor to the data.
Anciaux said the only discriminating factors would be hoping the City enacts incentives to build in certain
areas. Vandenberg said she would like the recommendation to be as simple as possible. Rackis said that
if talking about a gap in the fair-share gap, the question is how to close the gap rather than how to restrict
more development.
Hayek said that a new iteration of the matrix will be sent out, and everyone should think about the
measures. Nasby displayed a map of developing areas in Iowa City from the Planning Department, and
explained where some of the recent growth has been and the areas available for development. Next
meetings were planned for February 14 at 4:15 p.m. and tentatively for February 28 at 4:30 p.m.
Vandenberg asked whether the Public Hearing would be in March. Hayek suggested that enough details
should be decided on by the end of the next meeting, and that a subcommittee would probably be formed
to write up the recommendations. Then a Public Hearing would be planned for early March.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:1.5 pm.
~
Cj
",
~
~'O
~ 8
~Cj
= ~
.~ ~
=~lf)
QCjO
=ã~
~'O
;:: =
7J1~
~<
",
~
....
....
~
Cj
7J1
""'" ~ ~
~ >< >< -- >< >< >< -- ><
""'" 0 0
-.:t E2
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
""'" 0
~
Q >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
--
""'"
Q
~ ~ = = = ~
= ~ ~ Q,
Q, 0 E =
~ 0 fIj ~ fIj
..... -= = .. fIj =
c,¡ '= Q, .... Q,
= .... ~ ~ =
= ü == Q, .... ~
-< Q, ....
-< ~ ~ 00 =
Q Q ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 00 >
"0 I-<
~ ( )
;::j 01) .Ds
~.5 ( )
~.....
"E"E'+:.~::E
( ) ( ) 5 ::E CIj
¡ß CIJ CIJ 0 õ
P::~~zz
II II II II II
~ E2 ~ :
~><ooZ :
MINUTES
SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE
FEBRUARY 14, 2005
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Jerry Anthony, Darlene Clausen, Matthew Hayek, Jan Peterson,
Joan Vandenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jan Leff, Sally Stutsman
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis
OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Eastham, Amanda Cline, Tracy Glaesemann, Alexis Kluklenski, Patti
Santangelo
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 4:20 pm. He noted that there are no minutes to be
reviewed.
DELIBERATIONS REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Hayek began by noting the enclosures included in the packet between the Human Rights Commission
and the City. He noted that these were included for the Taskforce members' information. Hayek said that
the Human Rights Commission had requested that he provide them with a status report on the
Taskforce's activities. Hayek noted that Eastham was also at the Human Rights Commission meeting
and the minutes will be posted on the web once they are completed. Also included in the packet was a
revised list from the student group of the assisted rental units per block group and the type of housing,
which was to provide secondary information to the criteria.
Hayek distributed an updated version of the matrix, dated February 14. Anthony confirmed that the
numbers between the latest version and the one distributed in the packets did not change and only
revisions were made to correct typographical errors in the text. Hayek explained that the additional sheet
of information in the packet is a condensed form of the matrix, and includes only the X's, no numbers
except the total number of X's per block group. He noted that there appears to be 19 block groups out of
31 without any X's in any columns.
Vandenberg asked what decision had been made about a floor for certain tracts discussed at the last
meeting. Hayek said that question had not been resolved yet. Vandenberg said she is still concerned
about the data in the column on poverty because of student populations. Hayek agreed, adding there
appears to be no way to factor out student numbers. Peterson said she believed that issue had already
been resolved, the Taskforce having decided that it would not have a large impact on the
recommendations. Vandenberg noted that including the poverty column for tract 21 block group 2 puts
three X's under that block group. Clausen added that the numbers for 21 block group 2 also include
elderly. Peterson asked if the presence or absence of elderly and students would change the Taskforce's
recommendations. Clausen said she does not think so.
Anthony said that there does not appear to be correlation between the X's in the poverty, fair share,
rental, and all units columns. He suggested not considering poverty data. Vandenberg said there is a
credibility issue with the curve created by the student population. Also, things should be kept simple.
Hayek noted that concentrated poverty, by the Taskforce's definition, is indicated only in tracts 11, 16,
and 21. Clausen added that both 11 and 21 include large complexes of housing for elderly, which impacts
the fair share column.
Anthony asked how assisted housing units are created, if it is new construction or acquisition/conversion
of existing buildings. Nasby said that both types of activities have been funded. New housing was built in
the peninsula, while HACAP and Greater Iowa City have done acquisition. Rackis said that there have
been no new public housing units built or acquired since 1996. The last public housing was on
Whispering Prairie, which was new construction.
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
February 14, 2005
Page 2
Clausen asked if the Housing Authority had done both new and acquired. Rackis said yes, that HUD
owned the housing and then made funding available for Housing Authorities to acquire existing
properties. The number of available properties has been shrinking since 1999 due to houses being sold
through programs or using Section 8 vouchers. Anthony asked whether Pheasant Ridge, Autumn Park,
and Capitol House were new or acquired. Nasby replied they were new construction.
Anciaux asked how many units are planned for the new Shelter House. Nasby said that the capacity of
the new facility as proposed would be 70-75. When compiling tract data, shelters were converted into an
approximate number of comparable housing units based on the average household size in Iowa City.
Using that formula, the new facility would have approximately 35 "units."
Clausen noted that the housing for Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship is scattered, and asked if that
was a combination of new and acquired. Eastham replied it is a combination of both.
Hayek said the Taskforce needs to decide what to do with the matrix.
Motion: Anciaux moved to discard the poverty column on the matrix because of confounding factors in
the data caused by student populations.
Vandenberg suggested including the poverty data as additional information to consider, rather than as a
criterion. Hayek said it could be moved to the second tier of information. Peterson noted that the second
tier of information would be lost after the recommendations are submitted to the City Council. Peterson
commented that evaluators of this information are going to look at the baseline numbers rather than the
accompanying information.
Clausen suggested that since removing the poverty information does not change the data very much,
removing it is unnecessary. The information may be useful in the future. Anciaux said that removing the
poverty data would reduce the number of X's in block groups 11.1, 11.2, 16.1, and 18.1 to zero.
Vandenberg asked whether the question is whether housing should not be incented in those areas.
Clausen said that block group 16.2 has an X and its fair share already, so housing should not be
incented. Hayek said that block group 16.1 might be a better example. Vandenberg said she does not
want to make the recommendations so restrictive that housing is only incented in a small number of
areas.
Anciaux withdrew his motion.
Rackis said the question depends on what sort of housing will go into block group 16.2. Vandenberg said
for that reason, she believes there is an impact on the recommendations depending on what is decided
about the poverty data.
Anthony suggested that the Taskforce concentrate on where more assisted housing can go, rather than
where to limit certain housing, and look for consensus on that. Vandenberg agreed. Hayek said the
question of where more assisted housing could go leads back to the 19 block groups without any X's.
Anciaux said one benefit of discarding the poverty data would be having more areas available for
additional assisted housing. Hayek added that without the poverty data, block groups 11.1, 11.2, 16.1,
and 21.1 would be available.
Hayek noted that the group originally thought poverty information would be helpful, but it turned out to be
less so because of the student population. Anciaux asked if any areas without students are affected by
removing the poverty information. Vandenberg said that tract 21 is a combination of students and elderly.
Clausen added that tract 16 is also a combination of student and elderly. Hayek said that all block groups
in the down town area with X's in poverty involve students. Those would be tracts 11, 16, and 21.
Vandenberg said that tract 105 is a potential growth area if a floor is established, because even though it
has a high percentage of assisted units, it has a very low number overall. Clausen said that having that
tract ultimately end up with a disproportionately high number would not be desirable either. She would like
the recommendation for that tract to be revised as the tract develops.
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
February 14, 2005
Page 3
Anthony suggested that two categories of incentives could be useful, one for new development and one
for acquisition. Since many tracts cannot accommodate new development, it would not be helpful to have
incentives only on that type of assisted housing. Anciaux said that block group 18.1 is one area that will
have new construction, most of it single-family residential housing. He would like to incent away from
block group 18.2.
Vandenberg asked if it is possible to have gradations in incentives. Hayek replied that it is possible to
have, for example, different funding available for areas with different numbers of X's on the matrix.
Anciaux said density could also be controlled.
Rackis asked what is statistically insignificant in relation to the idea of "fair share." For example, for an
area at 2.18% of fair share, how statistically significant is that number? It is related to the question of
number of units overall and the percentages. Perhaps incentives could be provided for areas less than
5% above the fair share, for instance, while areas that are 10% and higher would have different
incentives.
Nasby asked Anthony if the X's in the fair share column are for block groups that are over 10% of fair
share. Anthony said no. Nasby asked if it could be read as just above 1. Anthony said yes. Hayek said in
Rackis' example, the block group would be 2.18 times the City average.
Anthony said that fair share is a strong argument for scattering housing. It would be simple to look at
tracts that are below 1 in column 12 and then look at the map to see if the incentive should be on new or
acquisition. Peterson said that sounds like a logical starting point. Vandenberg said explaining fair share
in terms of a number of times more or less than the City average would be a good way to explain the
proposal to the public.
Hayek noted that only using fair share would lose block group 17.1. Vandenberg said that area is very
large. Anciaux added that it includes a large industrial area.
Hayek asked if there was consensus to use fair share as the guiding criterion. Peterson confirmed that
using fair share would lose block group 17.1. Hayek said yes, even though one in four units is assisted,
the block group has a very low number of rental units overall. Anthony said it is unlikely new units could
be built in tract 17. It would have to be acquisition.
Rackis said that if using the fair share approach, density should also be addressed. Single-family units
versus a complex of apartments will change the character of the area.
Anciaux noted column 7 is the total number of rental units in a block group, without owner occupied
included, and asked whether the owner-occupied should be figured into the data. Clausen said that
column 3 has rental units and column 7 is all units. Anthony said that column 8 only includes rental units.
Anciaux suggested that including owner-occupied assisted units would change some of the X's. Then the
recommendation would be not to incent assisted housing in block groups with X's on the matrix, while
using fair share to determine where more can be located.
Rackis said that columns 7 through 10 identify areas of higher density. All the areas with higher
percentages are where there are larger apartment complexes.
Hayek said that the ease of explaining fair share is a good point. Anthony said that once areas without
their fair share are identified, block groups with growth potential could also be identified. There are five
block groups that can accommodate new growth: 1.1, 1.2, 4.1, 104.4, and 105.1. Anciaux added block
group 18.1. Anthony said other block groups could have smaller amounts of development.
Vandenberg asked whether block group 4.1 is likely to split. Anthony said the University owns much of
the land, but there is also a lot available for development. Hayek said that the block groups may split, but
only after reaching a certain population threshold. Peterson noted that block group has the largest
number of rental units. Hayek said it could be considered an outlier, since that tract has such a large and
dense apartment complexes.
Anthony said that of the list of six block groups that will accommodate more growth, two of them are
currently above the fair share. He suggested that an exception be made for those two that would allow for
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
February 14, 2005
Page 4
more development of assisted housing. Hayek confirmed those two block groups that Anthony is
suggesting are 4.1 and 105.1. Anciaux said block group 105.1 has a very low number of units overall.
Clausen said that block group 18.1 also falls into that category, a growth area already above fair share.
Anthony agreed.
Peterson noted that Hawkeye Apartments are not included in the census data, though they still have an
impact on the area. Nasby agreed that they are not counted as assisted units in the data the Taskforce
has been provided. Vandenberg said that tract 4 is very large. She added that the Taskforce would need
a solid rationale to make an exception.
Anthony said that of the six where new growth is possible, perhaps incentives should only. be given for
development in the ones that are below the fair share criterion. So for example, new assisted housing in
block group 1.1 would receive an incentive, but new housing in block group 4.1 would not. Hayek said
that then block group 4.1 is being included with the others that are above fair share, even though it has
potential for growth. Anthony replied that as long as development is not restricted, that should not be a
problem. No additional incentives would be available, but development is still allowed in the tract. Anthony
said that his view of incentives is that they would be additional encouragement to build in certain areas,
while not restricting development. At the same time, no additional incentives would be given for building
assisted housing in certain areas.
Nasby asked what Anthony means by additional incentives, as in additional to what? Anthony asked what
incentive developers currently receive to build assisted housing. What does the City provide to
developers to build in block group 18.2, as an example? Nasby said there are none. Anthony said then
developers are building in that area because of market forces. Therefore, incentives would be given to
build elsewhere, which would take away the market pressure to build in block group 18.2. That can be
done for both new growth and acquisition.
Rackis asked if the recommendation would allow a low-density tax credit project in block group 18.2, and
support a resolution from the City to pursue the tax credits from the state. Anthony said yes in his
example, though the developers would not receive any additional incentives from the City to build there.
Anciaux asked if, in terms of rental units, is there any need for additional project-based section 8 housing
to be built in block group 18.2, or can it be incented elsewhere or denied. Rackis said that if the land is
zoned and HUD is making funds available, it is unlikely the project could be stopped.
Vandenberg said that in regards to incentives in block group 18.2, it depends on the type of housing.
Housing for people who are near to being self-sufficient could be fine, but transitional housing for people
who need a lot of support mechanisms would not be desirable. This aims at the stability of the families,
and that tract 18 cannot handle any more unstable families. However, this likely cannot be dictated by
housing, because there is a large range of housing type.
Hayek asked if there is a difference in cost between building new housing versus acquisition of existing
housing. Eastham said the cost of new housing is generally higher, though not by much, partly due to the
fact that the quality of acquired housing can be lower. However, there is much more public money
available for new construction because of the tax credit program.
Anthony said that underlying the discussion is the question of where new construction can happen in the
city. Very few tracts allow rental housing, so a recommendation should be to make zoning changes to
increase the possibility of rental housing around the City. Vandenberg asked what size rental buildings he
meant. Anthony said a range is possible. Anciaux said that he believes that most of the district plans have
limits on the number of units in complexes.
Vandenberg said that most neighborhoods would not welcome a building with 30 units, so the size of the
complex and the terms of how the idea would sell to the neighborhoods is a consideration. It is much
different to have a duplex built next door than a complex. Anciaux said that some of those zoning issues
might be addressed in the code rewrite.
Hayek said the issue of density has been touched on at various times during the discussion, but the
matrix does not address that question. Nasby asked whether complexes of mixed assisted and market
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
February 14, 2005
Page 5
rate housing would have the same impact. Hayek said that the focus is shifting back to the question of
where certain kinds of housing are prohibited, rather than where it should be encouraged.
Hayek said a final decision needs to be made regarding the matrix. Options include adopting as is,
discarding the poverty information, discarding rental or all units, and focusing on only fair share. Peterson
asked whether using fair share loses something important. Anciaux said rental units need to be included,
since they comprise the bulk of assisted housing. Hayek suggested that fair share addresses that. Issue.
Vandenberg said that using fair share loses only block group 17.1.
Vandenberg suggested creating caveats in the recommendations for using fair share for tract 4 because it
is so big, and tract 105 because it is so small.
Motion: Vandenberg moved to use the fair share column for criteria in deciding how to incent future
assisted housing, with consideration given for the sizes of block group 4.1 and 105.1. Anciaux seconded
the motion.
Anthony asked what the incentives would be. Anciaux said that could be decided later. Hayek agreed,
saying that the Taskforce is still determining where concentrations are located.
Clausen said that block group 17.1 is also very small. Vandenberg said it includes industrial property.
Hayek said it is not on the matrix under fair share. Clausen suggested using different terminology than
that the block group is small, since there are others that are very small. Hayek said that the block groups
have considerable growth potential.
Hayek summarized by saying that essentially the Taskforce would be asserting that block groups with an
X in column 13 have a concentration, and further assisted housing should be put elsewhere. Anthony said
it should be stated the other way, meaning no incentives will be provided for building in those block
groups, while they will be given for building in other areas.
Hayek said that one way to apply that recommendation would be to add a score based on geography to
the HCDC evaluation for developers applying to build. Anthony said that he does not agree, because right
now assisted housing is being built in certain areas due to market forces. Using a numbered scoring
method would reduce the amount of assisted housing built in the City because of the available block
groups, only two allow assisted housing with the points from CDBG. That means developers would have
to go to more expensive areas of the City to build, and would then therefore fewer units.
Peterson agreed that building fewer units would be a problem, and that the Taskforce needs to be very
careful about how this is worked out. Rackis said that care should be taken before recommending not to
in cent building in large portions of tract 18, because a tax credit project with state funds may be building
single-family homes, which would not be unwelcome in the tract and would help relieve some of the
pressure of having enough affordable housing.
Anthony said that any incentive provided per the Taskforce's recommendations should be new, rather
than something that currently exists and is reclassified. So incentives in the recommendations would have
nothing to do with tax credits or CDBG\HOME. Vandenberg said she would be fine with funding some
things in block group 18.1. However, she is concerned that block group 18.2 has reached its limit.
Anthony agreed that block group 18.2 has enough assisted housing because the numbers are very high.
However, if restricting new construction of assisted housing, he would like to exclude emergency housing,
both Shelter House and housing for battered women. Once the new Shelter House is built, it is unlikely a
new one will be built in the next 20 years. However, the current capacity for DVIP is 12 or 14. Saying that
no more emergency housing will be built would essentially say there will be no more space for battered
women.
Anciaux disagreed, saying that if necessary, the City should provide funding to allow the shelters to be
built somewhere besides tract 18. Anthony said that until it is known whether the City can provide the
funding, he does not want to restrict where it can be built. Transitional and non-emergency housing could
be restricted, but emergency should not be restricted on location due to fair share criteria.
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
February 14, 2005
Page 6
Vandenberg asked whether emergency housing should be focused on locating in tract 18. Anthony said
no, just that it not have restrictions on where it can be built. Emergency housing would be an exception to
the recommendations. The number of battered women is very high, and for him the benefits of scattering
housing do not outweigh the potential detriments of preventing additional emergency housing from being
built.
Santangelo said that DVIP has a larger capacity at the present location, but not enough staff to fully
oversee it. Anthony asked how much it could expand in their current location. Nasby said they have
capacity for 60. Vandenberg suggested getting more information from DVIP. Traditionally it has been a
question of staff and funding rather than space.
Anciaux noted that DVIP already has 16 units in block group 18.2, MECCA has 12 transitional units, while
Four Oaks is an emergency shelter with 11 units, and HACAP has housing there as well. It seems as
though that area is saturated with transitional housing already. Anthony said his suggestion is for
emergency housing rather than transitional. Vandenberg said that for safety reasons it might be better for
DVIP to be located somewhere other than tract 18.
Anthony said he is not saying that they should be sent into block group 18.2, just that they should not be
restricted from locating anywhere, wherever they can find a place. Vandenberg suggested saying that
consideration should be given to DVIP, though location would not be disclosed due to security reasons.
Anthony said he thinks HUD classifications should be used, which would be emergency housing.
Vandenberg said that classification then includes Shelter House, more of which should not go into tract
18.
Santangelo said she understood that Shelter House children were planned to go to Mann rather than
Twain. Vandenberg said where they will go is currently undecided. Also, it is a neighborhood issue that
goes beyond the schools. Anthony suggested that the City could identify certain areas in its
comprehensive plan that is zoned for emergency housing, and leave the classification broad.
Hayek said it is good to think about what should be incented in specific terms in the future. However, that
discussion could be endless. The Taskforce has gone through the process to identify where
concentrations are believed to exist, represented by fair share, and can also develop some general policy
goals. Some specifics could be included, but he would like to leave the details of the implementation up to
the City to determine.
Anciaux said he would like to exclude rental units from incentives in any areas that have X's in column 13,
except those that are excluded such as block group 4.1 and block group 105.1. He suggested that raw
land in block group 4.1 would be as inexpensive as the land that has been prepared for development in
tract 18. Anthony said that once the land is zoned, the prices go up.
Peterson said her concern is that if the Taskforce makes some well-intentioned general
recommendations, then leave implementation up to the City, the negative impact of the recommendations
could be greater than the good. Vandenberg said implementation should include a positive educational
campaign about assisted housing to help change the mindset. She would like to challenge the Council to
talk about what the vision for the future of the community is. It should be a countywide initiative to have an
integrated community.
Peterson agreed, but noted her concern is that the Taskforce recommendation not to build in a certain
place will lead to no assisted housing being built at all, which will compound the current problems of
inadequate affordable housing. Anthony agreed that if the issues are addressed, the negative ones will go
forward without any of the positive ones because of political inconvenience and also the time and effort
involved. If the Taskforce thinks through some of the issues, it will give the Council more options to
consider.
Vandenberg asked what some of the brainstormed positive ideas about scattering assisted housing are.
Hayek said before discussing that, the Taskforce needs to come to a consensus, and asked if there was
consensus about using fair share as the criteria. Anciaux noted there was a motion on the table. Hayek
asked if the motion includes a caveat to exclude block groups 4.1 and 105. Vandenberg said yes.
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
February 14, 2005
Page 7
Hayek asked if there was consensus about the motion. Anthony said he would agree, but would like to
include caveat about emergency housing. Peterson agreed that the type of housing matters, but that
could be addressed later. Some general, positive recommendations can be made, but the Taskforce
should review what the potential negative ramifications of those recommendations might be, and how
they might be avoided.
Hayek agreed that there is a campaign ahead and an educational aspect. However, he does not want to
work out specifics about what the incentives should be, the dollar amount, what the source of funding
should be, and so forth. Anthony agreed those dollar amounts and sources need not be discussed
specifically, but other recommendations such as inclusionary zoning could be included.
Hayek suggested forming a subcommittee to write a report to the City, which would set forth the specific
goals and focus on the positive aspects of the recommendations. He noted that many negatives could be
turned into positives. Vandenberg agreed, and said she has suggestions ready for that discussion.
Rackis asked for confirmation that there is room for development in block groups 1.1, 1.2, 4.1, 18.1,
104.4, and 105.1, so if those areas have an X they are exempted with an explanation. Anthony said yes.
Rackis said if the explanation to exempt block group 4.1 is because it has a lot of land available, the
same argument could be made for block group 18.1. Anthony agreed that block group 18.1 is similar in
size to block group 4.1 and has a lot of growth potential. He asked how that should be resolved.
Rackis said that the percentage of the City's overall assisted rental housing in that block group is 1 .83,
which is less than two times above the City average. That is smaller than block group 105.1. Vandenberg
said it depends on what type of housing is being proposed. Clausen agreed that type would be a
consideration, that single-family housing would be preferable in that block group. Anciaux said larger units
might be okay in block group 18.1, though it is not preferred.
Rackis asked if it is more positive to put a single family into a duplex or single-family home rather than a
large multi-unit complex. Nasby noted that having multiple duplexes or single-family units clustered
together could have the same impact as having a single large complex.
Hayek noted there is a large number of block groups with no assisted housing. Anciaux said that is why
he objects to the caveat about emergency housing, and is looking for strong incentives to put it
somewhere besides tract 18.
Vandenberg asked if a second was needed on the motion. Hayek said it was seconded, and a vote is
now needed.
Anthony said that block group 18.1 has a lot of growth potential. Vandenberg said that other places
should be explored first, as block group 18.1 is still on the southeast side of the city. It would also depend
on the type of housing proposed. Anciaux said the current new development in that block group might
start to change the area.
Rackis said that block group is predominantly owner-occupied. Anciaux said if block group 18.1 is largely
owner-occupied, it would help balance out block group 18.2. Anthony said that in the proposed motion,
block groups 4.1 and 105.1 are being exempted because they have a lot of growth potential and the low
number of assisted units and block group 18.1 also fits those criteria. Anciaux noted that there are 664
rental units in block group 18.1. Anthony said that only 68 are assisted, which are less than the number of
assisted units in block group 105.1 and 4.1. He would like to be consistent with what ever is decided.
Anciaux asked if Lakeside Apartments are in block group 18.1. Clausen said they are. Vandenberg said
that there are 32 Housing Authority units in block group 18.1. Rackis said those are being sold.
Vandenberg said that those are a concentration, along with HACAP units. That area should be left off of
the exempt list. Rackis said Lakeside Apartments are not assisted. Vandenberg said they are still an
issue, similar to Hawkeye Apartments. Anthony said that there are only 68 units, while block group 4.1
has 385 units and development will still be allowed there. The Taskforce needs to develop some logic for
that decision. Rackis added that the public housing in block group 18.1 is not concentrated. The lots are
not contiguous, but are located in different parts of the block group.
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
February 14, 2005
Page 8
Clausen asked regarding the growth potential on the high and low ends of the block group sizes, whether
the decision was based on the number of rental units or the number of assisted units. Block group 18.1
should not be exempted because it has a large growth potential, but it also has a large number of rental
units. Anthony disagreed, noting that block group 4.1 has 1535 rental units and is being exempted, but
block group 18.1 has only 664 rental units but will not be exempted.
Vandenberg said that block group 4.1 will probably split because it is so large. Anthony said whether it will
split or not is unknown. Nasby added that if it splits, that will not be decided until 2010. Vandenberg said
that it is a huge area with growth potential. Anthony pointed out that tract 18 could potentially split into
three block groups, so that is not a good basis on which to make the decision.
Vandenberg said that if development is allowed in block group 18.1, which is where it would go. Anthony
said that the Taskforce is talking again about what not to allow instead of incentives to encourage
development elsewhere irrespective of market forces. Vandenberg noted that market forces are working
against building housing in other parts of the city already. She said that she does think incentives should
be given to build in block group 18.1. Anthony replied that new incentives are not being provided for that
block group.
Hayek asked if what is being said is if a block group has an X in column 13, housing will not be permitted
to be built, or that incentives will not be provided. Anthony said the motion on the table is that incentives
will be provided to build in places with no X's on the matrix. Vandenberg added that it should exempt
block groups 4.1 and 105.1. Clausen said Anthony's question is why are those two being exempted.
Anthony agreed.
Vandenberg said they are being exempted because of their growth potential. Anthony asked what the
basis is for that determination. Clausen added that Anthony's point is that block group 18.1 is in the same
position or better as the other two being exempted. Anthony agreed. Vandenberg said the difference is
that in block groups 105.1, there are only 109 total rental units, but is a growing part of the community,
and is very small. However, block group 4.1 is very large, which skews the numbers there as well, and
that there is growth potential even though it has large numbers of assisted units.
Anthony pointed out that block group 4.1 has 1535 units already. Vandenberg suggested not exempting
block group 4.1. Anthony disagreed, saying all areas of new development should be included in the list.
Vandenberg said that market forces are already in favor of building in block group 18.1, and asked why
incentives are needed there. Anthony said if the recommendations are specified, he could evaluate how
to categorize those block groups. However, without knowing the recommendations, he does not want to
treat block group 18.1 differently from block groups 4.1 and 105.1.
Vandenberg pointed out that earlier Anthony had said incentives were needed to counteract the market
forces driving development in tract 18. She asked why incentives would now be needed for development
in block group 18.1. Anthony said incentives are not needed, but it really depends on how the
recommendations are phrased.
Peterson said the motion is that incentives will not be given to places with X's, so block group 18.1 will not
be restricted, but no additional incentives will be given to build there because it has the existing incentive
of market forces. Vandenberg agreed, saying that in block groups 4.1 and 105.1, incentives are needed
to help build housing there.
Eastham said incentives are needed anywhere that affordable housing is being built. He asked whether
the Taskforce would be proposing new incentives, or discontinuing existing ones in certain areas.
Peterson said the Taskforce is talking about new incentives. Eastham said that fact should be made very
clear to the Council. Anthony said it depends on the definition of incentive. If the motion involves existing
incentives such as CDBG and HOME, he does not agree, but he does agree as long as there are new
incentives offered.
Nasby said the Council would probably look at CDBG, HOME and tax credits as an incentive because the
City does not currently put other funding into affordable housing. The recommendation can be made for
new incentives, but as far as how they are viewed, it is likely the Council will see them as the same.
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
February 14, 2005
Page 9
Hayek asked if Anthony meant that the funding should not be restricted according to the X's on the
matrix. Anthony said the funding would have nothing to do with geography. If existing funding is being
used, it is not really an incentive. Nasby said the funding is not guaranteed, so it can be seen as an
incentive. Anthony said that in the absence of additional funding, a geographically based system of
restricting funding will definitely reduce the supply of affordable housing in Iowa City.
Anthony said as an example, if the restriction is that CDBG funds cannot be used to build housing in
block groups 18.1 or 18.2, but they can be used in Manville Heights, in tract 18 the developer can build 15
units, in Manville Heights they can build one. Hayek asked why the recommendation could not be to use
CDBG or HOME funds in addition to another source of funding. Anthony said the developer will be using
CDBG funds regardless of whether the Taskforce's recommendations say to use them. Including them
would decrease the supply of affordable housing.
Anthony said that if CDBG or tax credits are the incentives used, while affordable housing will be
scattered, the number will also be drastically reduced. If the only incentives that will be offered are CDBG
or tax credits, he is not in favor of scattering affordable housing. Vandenberg said the issues are both
what the Taskforce's recommendations are, and how they will be interpreted. Anthony agreed, adding
that is why the recommendations have to be very explicit in saying that new incentives are needed.
Hayek said that while he agrees that using only CDBG funds will reduce the amount of affordable
housing, he disagrees that those sources of funding could not be included in an incentives package for
developers. The Taskforce does not have consensus on that point.
Anthony said unless a definition of incentive is available, he would like to take a vote or have a motion to
clarify what is being incented or restricted, or what kinds of housing are being incented. He would like to
incent transitional and emergency housing into other areas of the city, but only if the incentives given are
in addition to other support they are already receiving.
Vandenberg said taking that approach will be even more difficult because additional funding then needs
to be identified for these incentives. Inclusionary zoning will work with the developers, but the Council will
have concerns about the funding and its source. Hayek agreed that funding will have to come from the
currently available money. Anthony disagreed.
Anciaux asked whether having the City agree to purchase land and put streets and utilities in it, using
CDBG funds, would reduce the price of the land. Anthony said no, first of all because when the land is
zoned, the price goes up, so it no longer is at raw land price and no longer comparable. Land that is
already zoned and ready for development in block group 18.1 is still less expensive than land elsewhere
in the city.
Anthony said the difference between market price in the different areas of the city should be provided as
an incentive for development. So if zoned land costs $100/acre in one area and $50/acre in another, the
City should provide $50 or $51 for assisted housing to move into the more expensive area. Anciaux
asked for confirmation that Anthony is saying the funding should not come from CDBG. Anthony agreed.
Anciaux said the funding should come from CDBG, because the tradeoff is to reduce the assisted
housing problem in tract 18. Anthony disagreed, explaining that given a total amount of available money
in CDBG, the funding would not go as far. In other words, in one area, $1000 would fund 15 units
because of lower costs, but only 1 unit in another area because of higher costs. So it would reduce the
number of available units overall.
Anciaux said that additional funding would be very difficult to get, so the housing will go into tract 18.
Anthony said that additional funding would need to be established. Also, the federal government is
proposing cutting CDBG funding by 50% this year, so those funds are not reliable.
Hayek suggested forming a subcommittee to start putting together a summary of the Taskforce's
decisions in written form.
Nasby noted that the Taskforce has moved away from simple, defendable and understandable criteria.
He suggested that if this many exceptions are needed, perhaps the Fair Share data is not the best criteria
to use.
Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes
February 14, 2005
Page 10
Hayek asked who would be on the subcommittee. Anthony said he is willing. Vandenberg also agreed to
participate.
Hayek asked about meeting dates in March, and suggested the ih and 21st. February 28 at 4:30 is
confirmed. Meeting dates available for those present in March were the ih and 21st at 4:30 p.m.
Nasby asked whether the current motion will be withdrawn or voted upon? Anthony suggested tabling the
motion. General agreement expressed.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to be discussed, Anthony moved to adjourn. Anciaux seconded, and the
motion was accepted unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
s:/pcd/minutes/ ScatteredSiteHousingT askforce/2005/02-14-05ssht.doc
tI)
Q)
"S
.~
~
Q)
e
.2
.::.:.
tI)
(IJ
I-
0)
.~
tI)
::JI!)
°0
Io
Q)N
"=..¡
cn..-
-g ~..-
Qj(IJ..-
=2<D
(IJ .0 0)
U Q) (IJ
cnu.c..
CI>
CJ
I..
~
tn"C
ca I..
1-0
C')CJ
C CI>
.- 0::
tn
::SCl>It)
OCJO
J:CO
caN
CI>"C
~C
tJ)CI>
"Ct::
~<C
CI>
-
-
ca
CJ
tJ)
QC)
.....
--
'I:t
Q
'I:t
Q
--
'I:t
Q
.....
N
--
~
Q
t"-
Q
--
~
Q
'I:t ð ~
..... >< >< >< >< >< ><
--
N 0
Q
..... ~ ~
~ >< >< -- >< >< >< ><
..... 0 0
Q
'I:t ~
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
..... 0
Q
~
Q >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
--
.....
Q
~ ~ = = = e!
~ ~
= ~ ~ 0 e =
~ 0 fI} ~ fI}
..... -= = "" fI} =
(J ~ ~ ~ t= ~ ..... ~
~ - = ..... = "0
U ~ ~ ..... =
~ =-- 00.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
...; ...; ...; >
"'0 ~
~ ( )
:::1 OJ)-ê
U ¡:: ¡;;¡
>< ...... "'
~..... ...,
1::1::~~:E
( ) ( ) ~ :E ~
~VJVJoõ
~«ZZ
II II II II II
~><oð~