Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-2005 IOWA CITY SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE MEETING AGENDA 28 March 2005 Senior Center Assembly Room 6:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes - February 28,2005 3. Public Meeting - Draft Recommendations from Taskforce 4. Adjournment Please enter the Senior Center through Linn Street Entrance or the North Ramp MINUTES SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE FEBRUARY 28, 2005 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Jerry Anthony, Darlene Clausen, Matthew Hayek, Jan Left, Jan Peterson, Joan Vandenberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Sally Stutsman STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Eastham, Amanda Cline, Maryann Dennis, Tracy Glaesemann, Alexis Kluklenski, Luke Pelz, Påtti Santangelo CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 4:45 pm. Approval of the January 24. Januarv 31. and Februarv 14. 2005 Minutes: Several edits and revisions submitted for the Minutes. MOTION: A motion was made by Left, seconded by Vandenberg, to approve the January 24, January 31, and February 14, 2005 Minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. DELIBERATIONS REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL Hayek said the subcommittee that was formed at the end of the February 14 meeting, which consisted of himself, Anthony, and Vandenberg, met two times and wrote a draft of the Taskforce's initial findings. He distributed the latest draft of the findings, and added that the plan is for the list of findings to be part of a larger narrative document, which has not been created yet. At this point, the Taskforce should review and discuss the findings document, then schedule a public hearing to invite public comment, after which the Taskforce will meet to finalize and adopt a report for the City Council. Hayek added that he would like to review each point of the findings during this meeting. The beginning of the document has three general policy objectives. The first one addresses current and future concentrations of poverty. He invited Anthony to comment on that point. Anthony suggested that discussion of poverty be avoided in the findings because there is no clear correlation between assisted housing and poverty. Also, the Taskforce has been charged to look at assisted housing, not poverty, and the poverty data is skewed by the student data. It is a good point to have, but without a clear correlation between assisted housing and poverty, the statement might not fit into the Taskforce's findings. Anthony noted that assisted housing can be occupied by people at higher incomes, 50-70% median income. On the other hand, poverty is defined at 30% median income or less. Anthony added that poverty does need to be addressed, and the subcommittee members were discussing a section in the overall report that would examine transitional housing and provide the context for the Taskforce's recommendations. He suggested that concerns about poverty be addressed there. Hayek suggested omitting "current" and saying instead "take steps to prevent" poverty. Anthony said there is still a question regarding the connection of assisted housing with poverty. He said that the statements about poverty are good to have in the document, but there is no data to support it if it were challenged. Vandenberg agreed that it is good to include a statement about poverty as a policy statement, for consideration in regards to future development. She said poverty goes beyond assisted housing, and that issue could be addressed in the report as well. It is good to have it up front and prominent. Peterson said Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 2 it seems like the Taskforce is back at square one regarding poverty, where many members know pockets exist, but there is no supporting data they can use to specifically define it. Clausen said she agrees with Hayek's suggestion 'to omit "current," and say instead to "prevent" poverty. Including the statement might convey to the City that.the Taskforce wants attention given to the issues of poverty without tying it to specific numbers. Hayek said he would like to have a statement about poverty in the findings. Clausen confirmed that excluding poverty data would exclude columns with X's in poverty. Peterson agreed that saying "prevent" would work. General agreement expressed for the change. Hayek read Point 2 of the general findings. Anciaux suggested saying "increase affordable housing generally." Peterson suggested switching the order of the clauses, so that affordable housing is listed first. Hayek suggested changing the statement to "maintain commitment to both affordable and assisted housing." Peterson and Leff agreed. Anciaux questioned whether the City should maintain the commitment to assisted housing. Hayek observed the statement as worded might imply a current commitment on the part of the City. Peterson suggested changing the statement to "maintain assisted housing and increase availability of affordable housing." Anciaux suggested "increase opportunities for affordable housing." The Taskforce members expressed general agreement. Nasby asked whether "generally" would be included or deleted from the statement. Hayek said it should be removed. Nasby said without including the word "generally," the statement might be interpreted to mean affordable housing only for low-moderate income families, though families at 80-100% median income also need affordable housing. . Anciaux suggested making two separate statements, one saying commitment to assisted housing should be maintained, then a second statement about increasing opportunities for affordable housing in general. Hayek suggested the subcommittee discuss and edit that point. Hayek read Point 3 of the general findings. Anthony suggested adding "without reducing the supply of affordable housing" at the end of the statement. Hayek said that issue is addressed in the specific points in the next section. Anthony said this point directly addresses scattering, and his concern is that only this point and not others in the findings would be used. Hayek asked if the same language should be used in both statements, and asked Anthony to restate his addition. Anthony said "without any reduction in the supply of affordable housing." The Taskforce expressed general consensus for the point, as edited. Hayek read Point 1 under the specific findings section of the document. Anthony said the subcommittee had discussed an additional provision to the statement that the City should take steps to find locations in other census tracts for transitional and emergency housing. The point is not to stop transitional housing, but to locate it somewhere other than block group 18.2. Anciaux asked whether the statement should specify tract 18 in general, or block group 18.2 in particular. He would prefer not to have any additional assisted housing in tract 18 at all. Vandenberg agreed. Anciaux asked how many units would be in the new Shelter House. Peterson said 35 unit equilvants or about 70-75 people. Anciaux asked whether all transitional and emergency housing is currently located in tract 18. Vandenberg said not all transitional housing is located there, although nearly all of the family units are there. Anciaux estimated 90% is located in that area. Vandenberg said she does not know exact numbers. Anthony said that transitional housing is there because the properties are inexpensive. Peterson added that the strength of the market would be tough to fight. Anciaux said he would like to reserve comments on this point for later in the meeting. Hayek read Point 2. Anciaux asked if the recommendation in this point is legal. Rackis said no, under Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, residency requirements are prohibited. Residency preferences are allowed, but cannot be based on how long an applicant has resided or worked in a Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 3 residency preference area. If someone from outside the residency preference area gets a job or an offer for a job, they must be given the same preference as current residents of the preference area. Anciaux asked whether people could use a Section 8 voucher issued outside of Iowa City. Rackis said yes, provided the transfer is allowed by the Housing Authority that issued the voucher. If Iowa City is too expensive for the voucher in the issuing office, it will be denied. He added that a working family preference does not have to be tied to residency, just whether the family is working. If someone working in Cedar Rapids comes to the top of the waiting list in Iowa City, the same working family preference is given as to someone who lives in Iowa City. This approach has been considered as a way to reduce costs per unit, but there is no way to control whether the person would quit the job immediately upon receiving the voucher. It is a question of what the preference is intended to accomplish. Hayek asked Rackis how he would recommend helping current residents qualify for assisted housing first. Rackis said he would expand existing programs such as Greater Iowa City Housing Fèllowship. He does not know whether that goal is achievable through Section 8 vouchers and public housing, though he would be willing to discuss it. He added that a residency preference would serve a single UI student before it would help a single mother from another community who is currently on the waiting list. Clausen asked why this finding was included. Anthony said it would be fairer to current residents of Iowa City. Rackis added that another way to help local residents is to provide local money, rather than Federal funding. Peterson asked whether students who come to Iowa City for school and pay non-resident tuition are considered residents for housing purposes. Rackis said no, what it means is that if someone has an offer of a job, including nonresident students, that person would be afforded the same preference as someone who currently lives in the geographic preference area, regardless of where that person currently lives or works. Dennis said that this is not allowed because in the past it had been used as a tactic to keep people of protected classes from living in certain places. Hayek said that he understands from the City's legal staff that some form of residency preference would be permissible. Rackis said that HUD does allow certain preferences, which are in accordance with nondiscrimination and equal opportunity. Dennis noted that while the Taskforce does not intend to use a preference to discriminate, historically that was why HUD disallowed residency requirements. Hayek said the intent of the recommendation is to suggest the City explore permissible means of adopting a residency preference that would be within HUD and constitutional boundaries. Rackis said he is willing to discuss different options before the final recommendation is written. Hayek added that much of the discussion on how it would work should be on the implementation end, while the Taskforce needs to discuss whether the recommendation makes sense. Clausen said it seems like this recommendation and a preference would be limiting in the long run. Vandenberg said she would like to help the situation of assisted housing availability become finite, to help the people who are already in Iowa City. If Iowa City has a short waiting list for housing, people will move here because of that fact, which would mean the City would never be able to meet the needs of its residents. There are some very poor public policy'situations in the surrounding urban areas that directly impact Iowa City. . Rackis said such a policy would not stop people from moving to Johnson County for the housing. If a residency preference is adopted that says preferelJce will be given to people who live here or have a job here, all people have to do is get a job or establish an address in order to be bumped to the top of the waiting list. Vandenberg said if the City would provide funding, the City might be more supportive of helping local programs. Rackis said all current funding is Federal. Vandenberg agreed, but would like a recommendation for the City to provide funding. Eastham asked why the Taskforce is looking at Section 8 when the charge is to look at publicly assisted housing. Hayek said he thinks it falls within the purview of the Taskforce. If others do not agree, they will have an opportunity to raise that concern at the public hearing. Eastham asked whether the residency preference would be extended to all publicly assisted housing, which would include housing through other programs such as Habitat and the Housing Fellowship. Hayek said it would be applied to public housing owned by ICHA and Section 8. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 4 Rackis said ICHA funding is Federal. Vandenberg said the problem is that there are other city housing policies that are much more restrictive than Iowa City's" which directly affects the local community. Anciaux asked Eastham if the Housing Fellowship recruits from outside of Iowa City for eligible families. Eastham said no, and they do not advertise at all. Anciaux suggested instead encouraging the City to recruit and urge its current eligible residents to apply for housing and get on the waiting list. More information should be made available. Rackis said ·60% of the people on the ICHA waiting list have Iowa addresses. Residents at Emerson Point are encouraged by the landlord to fill out an application for a unit. Various groups that work with eligible populations encourage people to apply, regardless of their residence. Anciaux asked whether the City should be putting more effort into distributing information about available programs, and encouraging residents to apply. He asked whether any recruiting methods are currently in place. Rackis said there is a Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC) in the family self-sufficiency program, which was built to leverage resources. There are any number of activities through the PCC and other local homeless coordinating boards, that occur on a weekly or monthly basis, where information about different programs is shared. People who deal witp eligible populations are made aware of the programs available to assist those populations, including housing. The advertising is through interagency referral, and with -2200 names on the waiting list, it seems additional advertising is not needed. Dennis said there is a difference between referral and recruitment. Anciaux agreed that "encourage" would be a better term. However, if the feeling is that residents are not being served, they should be encouraged to apply. Rackis said outreach is being done, and added that he would be willing to discuss the idea of residency preferences, so that the Taskforce is aware of what making that recommendation may entail. Hayek said the intent of this recommendation was to address the issue raised by many of the organizations that presented for the Taskforce, saying that the current housing needs in Iowa City are overwhelming and do not let up. The suggestion is that'the best thing to do with limited resources is to help the current residents, and examine ways to reduce the future needs. He would like to discuss in general if such a recommendation is a good idea, and if so, the subcommittee can meet with Rackis and other offices to learn more about this matter. The recommendation may simply say the City should examine constitutionally or HUD-permissible approaches to some sort of preference. The intent is not to have the Taskforce work out all the implementation details. Anciaux said that one of the attendees at the first public hearing worked at Oral-B or another company in that area, and was receiving housing assistance. Other employees at those companies might be eligible if they would apply. Vandenberg said that with a waiting list of 2200, very little outreach is done since the end of the list is so far off. Anciaux asked if there is a point system that would move applicants up the list. Rackis said no. The current preference is if applicants are elderly, disabled, or a family with children under 18, because eligibility for those preferences can be verified by third-party data. Hayek asked if there were any additional comments on the two parts of tbis point, 1) to address current needs and attempt to reduce future needs, and 2) it is a recommendation that the City pursue or adopt a permissible preference policy. Rackis said no mention could be made of a time frame. Anthony asked if there was consensus with the points. Clausen asked for confirmation that the residency preference will not require people to live in Iowa City for a certain number of years before being able to apply. Hayek said it would be a preference, not a requirement, in whatever form that HUD allows. Vandenberg said the recommendation is to allow people who live in Iowa City to have the first chance at available housing. Clausen said she does not agree with that recommendation, since there are people who might be living in another community simply because they cannot afford to live in Iowa City, even though they want to live here. Vandenberg said the option in those cases would be to give the same preference to people who are currently employed in Iowa City. Clausen said she agrees with having a preference system, but does not agree with the way it is currently worded in the document. Hayek said the subcommittee members would like to know whether there is support from the other Taskforce members for the intent behind the recommendation, before the subcommittee consults with outside experts and revises the language of the recommendation. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 5 Clausen said her concern comes from statements that indicate people are encouraged to move to Iowa City because it is easy to get housing here, which is not true. It may play into other prejudices based on people's race or their trade, so when they get here they are labeled. Anciaux said he thinks the point is that there are enough needy people who already live in the community and need services, without doing additional recruiting or encouragement. With the current resources, he would prefer to help someone who already lives here. Hayek noted the recommendation is for a preference, and is not intended to prevent people from moving to Iowa City. Clausen said she agrees with a preference. Hayek said the subcommittee would take up revisions to the recommendation. Hayek read Point 3. The Taskforce expressed general consensus for the point as written. Hayek read Point 4. Anthony said the general language needs to 'be adjusted. The Taskforce expressed general consensus with the point. The subcommittee will revise. Hayek read Point 5. Anthony explained that the logic behind this point is that if the private market can provide enough affordable housing options, assisted housing would not be needed. The Taskforce expressed general agreement with the point as written. Hayek read Point 6. Anthony said the subcommittee did a fair-share analysis of rental housing, and found that most rental housing is concentrated in 10 block groups. Peterson asked how many total block groups are in Iowa City. Nasby said 31. Anthony noted that a recommendation to scatter assisted housing is only practical if rental housing is built in more block groups. Nasby said that rental units are allowed anywhere, but the distinction is with the higher density rental units. Anthony agreed, saying that was why the statement recommends low- and medium-density rental units. The intent is for housing that is denser than single-family housing, but not huge complexes of apartments. Clausen suggested revising the phrase "fake rental housing away," so it does not imply a reduction of current rental housing. Anthony suggested using the word "disperse." The Taskforce expressed general agreement with the point as edited. Hayek read Point 7. The Taskforce expressed general agreement with the point as written. Hayek read Point 8. Anciaux asked whether the County is responsible for funding Welfare. Peterson said the City funds a lot of human services. Anciaux asked if the City has an obligation to provide assisted housing. Rackis said no, the programs through the ICHA follow HUD requirements and are Federally funded. Anciaux confirmed Rackis' statement that the City currently does not provide any funding for housing. Peterson noted that human services are not required, but that Iowa City provides funding for them. She added that Iowa City carries a greater burden for human services. Coralville does not choose to fund them, because by mandate, it is only required at the County level. Vandenberg said the County is the largest source of funds. Peterson said that other communities do some funding as well, but welfare is a County issue, and the Taskforce is concentrating on Iowa City. The Taskforce expressed general agreement with the point as written. Hayek read Point 9. Anciaux suggested omitting the word "minimal" from the statement, and let the City determine the percentages. Vandenberg suggested changing it to "a percentage." Hayek asked Nasby if "affordable housing" needs to be defined for this recommendation point. Nasby asked how "affordable" is defined, as it can have different meanings for people at different economic levels. Peterson suggested using existing statistics to determine what is reasonable. Hayek said he does not want to over define the points, and suggested attaching an appendix with examples of how an inclusionary zoning policy might work. Vandenberg noted that this option would require minimal cost to taxpayers. Anciaux noted that anything in residential housing is a drain to the tax Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 6 base, because industrial and commercial areas are the things that need to be developed to increase the tax base. The Taskforce expressed general agreement with the point, as edited. Hayek read Point 10. Peterson said she likes including this recommendation point, and suggested having an appendix with information about how much it costs to live in Iowa City, versus how much the average person gets paid in various jobs. Leff agreed that having the City provide funds to do an educational series similar to the recent series on the School Districtwould be helpful. Anthony asked Nasby about the funds that are being made available for education on affordable housing. Nasby deferred to Rackis. Rackis said the ICHA is providing funding, in partnership with the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County. The Taskforce expressed general consensus for the point, as written. Hayek read Point 11. Peterson said it should be "school districts." The Taskforce expressed general consensus for the point, as edited. Hayek read Point 12. Anciaux suggested changing "assisted and low-moderate" to "aiL" Many of the problems are not with assisted housing. Peterson noted a typographical error in the next sentence. Rackis noted that of approximately 300 nuisance ordinance citations in the city, only six have involved people in public housing and Section 8. Vandenberg said that the Taskforce wants more rental properties in more neighborhoods, so it might help make neighborhoods more amenable to having rental properties if they are afforded some protection through the City. Anciaux agreed that objections to plans for rezoning relate to rental property, the concern being whether it will be managed well. The Taskforce expressed general consensus for the point, as edited. Hayek read Point 13. He noted that this point is ~elated. to regularly reviewing changes in the fair-share matrix over time, so it is current and updated. Ant~ony said that new development could change whether a particular block group has an X or not. Peterson said it is a way to follow up on the housing situation, and see if there are changes over time. Hayek said the fair-share data is already several years old. While it will not be an easy task to update the data initially, after that periodic updates should be easier to accomplish. Eastham pointed out that further development of. affordable housing in the peninsula area, after it is all completed, will result in tract 1.2 being above the City average, if 10% is built as affordable rental housing. Anciaux asked what "affordable" means in this case. Eastham s.aid for rental housing, it is affordable if rent is low enough that the residents pay less than 30% of their income for housing. He said public assistance is used to build them, so that rent can be kept at that level. Anciaux asked how much it costs to build the unit. Eastham said -$130K. Hayek noted there is a lot of development slated for that area. Eastham said that the criteria compares assisted housing to assisted housing, rather than comparing assisted housing to all rental housing. Hayek asked if there were any further comments: The Taskforce expressed general consensus for the point, as written. Hayek read Point 14. He said that this was included to ensure that the policy is reviewed. and whether it is having a beneficial impact. Anthony suggested changing "housing" to "scattered site" policies. Hayek suggested changing it to "such." He added that tlie intent of this point is to avoid inertia. Peterson said many of the ramifications of the policies are unknown, so a review would be beneficial. Leff agreed with changing "housing" to either "scattered site" or "these." Anthony said another option is to have a time limit for the policy, and it can be reviewed regularly and adopted again if it is working. Nasby said policies always are at the discretion of the Council, whether or not there is a time limit. Anthony said that it might be more acceptable if it has a time limit, rather than being adopted as a permanent policy that is up for review periodically. If it has positive effects, then adopting it a second time would be easier. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 7 Peterson said she would like to review her notes to see if she had additional items to include in the recommendations. She asked how she would proceed with getting those on the table for additional discussion. Hayek said the draft of the recommendations would be revised by the subcommittee. Peterson asked whether there is an issue in Iowa City with not very many landlords accepting Section 8 vouchers. Rackis said no, there are 450 landlords in Iowa City who are currently active in the Section 8 program, and the yearly average utilization of vouchers is 99%. As such, there is not a high incidence of people bringing their vouchers back. Peterson asked whether the active landlords are scattered throughout the county. Rackis said yes. Vandenberg noted that was a problem historically, when the rental market was smaller. However, the market has loosened up enough that the problem has been reduced. Rackis said Iowa City and Coralville numbers are fairly steady, but more vouchers are going to other communities as well, such as North Liberty. Dennis said one of the myths has been that landlords would not accept Section 8 vouchers because the people were bad tenants. However, the reality in Iowa City is more likely that landlords do not want to accept Section 8 because the rents are controlled. Rackis added that with the previous certificate program, landlords were required to use the Housing Authority lease rather than their own, which gave a lot of influence to the Housing Authority. However, with the current voucher program, the landlord is protected by Iowa Landlord-Tenant law. Hayek said that in terms of additional items to add to the current list, he would like to have the subcommittee revise and finalize the document without having to meet again before the public hearing. Peterson said she would em ail any additional items to the subcommittee members. Hayek asked if that would be a problem in relation to the open meeting policy. Nasby said it can be discussed amongst the subcommittee and included in the document, and Peterson can raise the point again later if it is not adequately addressed. Leff thanked the subcommittee for all the hard work put into the document. Hayek said if anyone has any additions, email it to the three subcommittee members, and they would work to finalize the document with City staff, post it, and set it for a publi,c hearing. Hayek said the public hearing should be held on a Monday. Vandenberg said it should happen after spring break. Anthony asked if there is a time frame needed for notice of the public hearing. Nasby said 24 hours is required by state law, but he would give at least two weeks notice. Hayek suggesting having the public hearing on March 21, and then a Taskforce meeting on March 28. The Taskforce normally would meet on the first arid third Mondays, which would be March 7 and 21. He asked if the document could be revised and posted in time for a public hearing on March 7. Nasby said no. Peterson said the 21st and 28th are fine. Clausen asked how the Taskforce would see the document before the public hearing. Nasby said the revised copy would be mailed out in the meeting packet once it is completed by the subcommittee. Peterson said that one concern she had which was not addressed by the document related to neighborhood based services and access to critical services. Where concentrations of families who do need support are located, investment is needed into family resource centers and other kinds of neighborhood-based access. This would include childcare and transportation services as well. Peterson added that her other suggestions related more to the schools than to the City. Discussions were initially slanted towards the schools, so she has a separate list of things for the schools to consider. Anthony said the school suggestions could be included in the section of the report where schools are discussed. Leff said that would be point 11. Peterson noted that point 11 addresses housing. Hayek suggested school policies could be added to point 11. , Leff suggested that a letter could be sent back to the School District, since that is where the letter to the City Council originated, with a list of suggestions for them to consider. Anthony said the final report would Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 8 include information about schools, where this could be included as well. Vandenberg said number 11 might help with revitalizing tract 18, and some of that would require some strategies for the School District as well. Peterson said one of the drawbacks to scattering housing for high needs families is the ability to serve them with an accessible community building, neighborhood supports, and the informal supports. Some families may feel very isolated and unable to access services. Vandenberg agreed, and said she has some thoughts to add to that discussion. Peterson agreed to include the school suggestions in point 11. Hayek said he might emai Peterson some language regarding this recommendation before finalizing the revisions, so that it says what she intends. Vandenberg' agreed it is very relevant to housing, because of concerns about isolation and community supports. Hayek asked when the public hearing could be held on the 21st. He asked what time the first one was held. Nasby said 6:30 p.m.. Anciaux said he would like to have the next public hearing in the Council Chambers. Nasby said Council Chambers would be a larger space, as would the library. Anciaux agreed that the library would be more friendly. Nasby will see if space is available at the library at that time. He noted that Council will be meeting that evening so Harvat Hall would not be availabale. Rackis noted it is a work session. Hayek said the Taskforce should go ahead with the public hearing on the 21st. Santangelo asked whether the hearing would be taped and broadcast. It might be a good way for more people to see it, especially if it can be requested on the library channel. Anciaux agreed that was a good idea. Nasby asked what time the meeting will be on March 28th. Clausen suggested 4:30. General agreement expressed with that time. Anciaux said he would like to discuss point 1 agaiQ. He would like to add to the statement that tract 18 already has x percent of transitional and y percent of the emergency housing, which would go up with the addition of 35 units for the homeless. This recommendation is not intended to impact the location of the new Shelter House, but things need to be done to make sure no more is located in that tract. Clausen asked whether the percentages would already be included in the report. Anciaux said the current language is not strong enough, and does not c,larify that this is not a NIMBY situation. Putting the percentages in there might show that it is an overly utilized area, with more than its fair share. Hayek said one way to address this would be to include the percentages in the report. Anciaux would like to include some concrete information about why no more of these types of housing should be located in that area. Clausen asked whether saying it should not exceed a certain number would accomplish this. Hayek asked whether Anciaux wants percentages in this space, or in the section of the report that discusses tract 18 specifically. Vandenberg said the shortened version of this document could lose the percents. Anciaux suggested also omitting the statement regarding the arrangements to bus homeless shelter children, since those arrangements have not been finalized. Vandenberg agreed that since the distinction has been made that these are community and housing issues, the last part about school issues should be removed, beginning with "and the fact that... " Peterson asked whether it is fair to consider other housing that are not public or assisted housing, such as trailer parks or large low-cost apartment complexes. She asked if there is any way to consider the presence of those kinds of housing as well. Rackis suggested that might be something to address in the management point, since for example most trailer parks start out nice but then are not maintained well. Vandenberg said that the question relates to concentrations of poverty, which is not accounted for in the criteria. A block group might have a trailer court and a large apartment complex, but no assisted housing, so it would appear to be a viable place for more assisted housing. Hayek suggested adding some language about revitalization of neighborhoods. Peterson said she brought it up as something to consider and keep in mind during the discussions. It relates to \mderstanding what a neighborhood looks like, and that the issues are not always public or assisted housing. It would be something to address in both point 1 and under management as well. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 9 Vandenberg suggested saying "future considerations of poverty, considering assisted and non-assisted housing." It should be a broad consideration, rather than focused only on one type of housing. When the City is looking at concentrations of poverty, recommend that the definition be broad enough to include things like trailer courts. ' Hayek said there is lack of consensus about the ability to link poverty and assisted housing. Rackis said that one of the dilemmas is that assisted housing is one of the solutions to poverty. People who receive assistance pay less income to their rent, which assists their financial situation. People in assisted housing are perhaps not going to appear in poverty data because they are participating in one of the solutions. Employment and training are some of the other solutions. Nasby said the recommendation could be interpreted different ways as it is written, including not allowing redevelopment in student areas because students are typically in the poverty group. Leff asked if it is possible to include data tied to point 1 to prevent future concentrations of poverty, which would be attached in an appendix. The appendix could give information about the locations of trailer courts and their numbers of units, for example. Anciaux noted that not all of the trailers are low income. For example, units in Saddlebrook are expensive and are not an affordable solution. However, if the point is to diversify housing types throughout the city, trailers are a type that is over represented on the southeast side of Iowa City. Clausen asked if information could be included with information about the different gradations of poverty, and their types. Hayek said they are all good points, but the question is where they fit. Vandenberg added that the difficulty with the whole process has been with quantifying things. Even the block group data is still very broad. Anthony agreed that there is no criterion that is going to be perfect. Anciaux asked if some concentrations of poverty would be identified if the student data could be filtered out. Anthony said that it is possible, but is very hard to predict. Peterson said she would like to strongly encourage the City to examine what each area looks like, since the different types of poverty and housing, such as elderly or student, could not be sorted. What a neighborhood is like should not be based solely on numbers. Hayek said the question is whether the percentage should be included in point 1, or elsewhere in the report. Anciaux said he does not want the information to be overlooked. The statement should start out "Census tract 18 has x amount of the transitional and y amount of the emergency housing," though the clause "this will go up with the addition..." can be omitted. Then go on with the next statement "The City should neither encourage nor support..." The next statement saying, "This recommendation is not meant to impact" should include the number of additional units, 35. Vandenberg asked what the process is for the public hearing, whether people will be responding to this document. Hayek said yes, the public hearing is inviting public comment on this document. Vandenberg said it then makes sense to have the information in the document. Hayek agreed, noting there will be a narrative as well, and the list needs to be succinct. Vandenberg asked whether only the findings will be discussed at the. public hearing. Hayek said that has not been discussed yet. Anthony said it might be a good idea for someone to present how the Taskforce came to the conclusions, and identify the seven tracts that are discussed in the document. He suggested Hayek describe the matrix and how the Taskforce came to their conclusions. Hayek suggested the whole report be made availaþle fór the public hearing. Vandenberg pointed out the Taskforce will not have a chance to review the whole document prior to the hearing. Hayek noted that specific recommendations are not being made yet. Rackis asked if the rationale for each point would be explained. Hayek said the rationale is contained in many of the points, and will also be in the preamble and the appendix. Clausen asked why point 1 pointed specifically to tract 18, when at previous meetings other tracts such as 4 had been discussed. Nasby said it is because the point addresses only transitional and emergency housing. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 28, 2005 Page 10 Stutsman arrived at this point. Dennis asked whether the revised document would be available prior to the meeting. Hayek said yes. Rackis distributed the Federal regulations on local preferences. He said that the first question to address when considering local residency and work preferences is what the goal is, and whether it can be accomplished. They should not be used for the purpose of delaying or denying access to a Federal program. He noted that Part 5.105 basically says not to enact anything that would infringe on legislation for protected classes. Anciaux noted congratulations to City High on their trip to the State basketball tournament. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to be discussed, Anciaux moved to adjourn. Anthony seconded, and the motion was accepted unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. s:/pcd/minutesiSSHT/2005/02-28-05,doc Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Recommendations For City Council 18 March 2005 DRAFT ONLY The Taskforce recommends the followin2 2eneral policy obiectives: (1) Iowa City should maintain its commitment to assisted housing and increase opportunities for affordable housing generally. (2) Iowa City should adopt a scattered site policy to ensure a fair share distribution of assisted housing throughout the community without reducing the supply of such housing. The Taskforce recommends the followin2 specific policy obiectives: (1) The City should neither encourage nor support additional transitional or emergency housing within census tract 18. At present, 45 percent of all transitional housing, and 70 percent of all emergency housing, is located within tract 18. The new Shelter House facility will result in the location of 100 percent of all emergency housing within tract 18. The City should make land available for emergency and/or transitional housing elsewhere in the community. (This recommendation is not intended to impact plans for the new Shelter House facility. The Taskforce recognizes the difficulty to date associated with finding a location for the new shelter. It also considers this issue to have been resolved by the City.) (2) Given the community's substantial- and growing - need for assisted housing and services, the City should adopt a residency preference for Section 8 vouchers and/or public housing. (3) The City should commit resources to encourage future assisted housing to be placed in underrepresented census block groups identified by the fair share matrix provided with these recommendations. This means committing additional funding (i.e. beyond current expenditures and beyond the CDBG/HOME funding stream from HUD) to providers of assisted housing to offset the increased costs of developing housing in such areas. (4) Ifit commits sufficient resources to scatter assisted housing without causing a reduction in current rates of supply, the City should not support additional assisted housing in census block groups identified as significantly overrepresented. (5) The City should encourage affordabie housing within the private market. This may involve changes in zoning and code regulations; permitting smaller lot sizes, row housing, and the like; and exploring creative approaches to housing and development policy. Page 1 of2 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Recommendations for City Council 18 March 2005 DRAFT ONLY (6) The City should encourage low- and medium-density rental housing (such as duplexes, town houses and the like) to be developed in currently-underrepresented areas ofthe community. At present, almost all rental housing is confined to only 10 of 31 census block groups. Such a policy would disperse rental housing away from the University of Iowa student areas and make it easier for families to compete with students for such housing. (7) The City should take steps to increase home ownership among its low-income population. (8) The City should ensure that the needs of our assisted housing population are adequately met by the community's service providers. The City should avoid imbalances between the level of need and the ability to meet that need through human and social services. (9) The City should develop an inclusionary zoning policy for new housing developments. The policy should incent developers, using hold-harmless or other appropriate "carrots," to include a percentage of affordable housing in new developments. Density bonuses and similar approaches should be considered by City planners. An inclusionary zoning policy holds great promise for affordable housing at minimal cost to taxpayers. (10) The City should launch a campaign to educate the community about the importance of affordable housing, the perils of allowing the status quo to continue, and the degree to which housing and development decisions must involve all segments of the community. (11) The City should enlist other local municipalities, as well as the county and area school districts, for purposes of collective action to address affordable housing and services. The issues of housing and poverty cannot be solved by the City alone. (12) The City should expect owners and managers of all rental housing to manage their facilities adequately. Much public opposition to such housing results from deficient maintenance and management of tenant populations. As a mere 1,150 of the approximately 15,000 rental units in Iowa City are assisted, it is important to monitor even unassisted housing facilities. (13) In conjunction with its review of the Consolidated Plan (CITYSTEPS), the City should provide for a yearly review of fair share data so that the matrix provided with these recommendations is updated as conditions within block groups change. The Taskforce recommends that City staff and HCDC coordinate this annual task. (14) In the event some or all of these recommendations are adopted, the City should conduct a comprehensive review of any scattered site policies at five-year intervals. The City should consider a sunset provision to ensure that such policies are closely monitored. Page 2 of2 . >~~' Scattered Site Housing .Taskforce Fair Share Matrix Table -' . ", '\; , ~" Census Tract Ovør\Under Represented Fair Share* . . 18 18 . Over Over 183% 401% ,,)Wt(~::~11t~ ,-,'if A- ØN", "'¡¥~"?~'# ,,«1;_)tr ,i!þ,> 105 1 Over 202% *Recommendation from the Scattered Site Housing Taskforce would target public incentives for the development of affordable housing in Census Track\Block Groups that are "under" represented. i' \. - , . . . , "~on,,,,,