Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-2005 IOWA CITY SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE 'MEETING AGENDA 25 April 2005 City Hall 410 East Washington Street Emma Harvat Hall 4:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes from March 28 and April 4 3. Discussion of Draft Recommendations from Taskforce to City Council 4. Adjournment MINUTES SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE MARCH 28, 2005 SENIOR CENTER, ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Jerry Anthony, Darlene Clausen, Matthew Hayek, Jan Leff, Jan Peterson, Sally Stutsman, Joan Vandenberg STAFF PRESENT: Amy Blessing, Deb Briggs, Mary Copper, Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis OTHERS PRESENT: Allan Axeen, Regina Bailey, Ann Boberg, Crissy Canganelli, Melissa Copeland, Amy Correia, Maryann Dennis, Terry Dewich, Rick Dobyns, Charlie Eastham, Bob Elliott, Dave Franker, Teresa Garcia, Tracy Glaesemann, Andy Johnson, Garry Klein, Jim McCue, Anne Murphy, Matt Otte, Rita Offut, Andrew Peterson, Mary Kate Pilcher, Patti Santangelo, Carol Spaziani, Tammy Spies, Dee Vanderhoef, Charlotte Walker, Larry Wilson, Theresa Wilson CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Hayek called the hearing to order at 6:35 pm. INTRODUCTION Hayek began the meeting by welcoming all the attendees and explaining that the purpose of the public hearing was to give people an opportunity to offer feedback and comments on the draft recommendations concerning the Taskforce findings, which are under consideration for presentation to the City Council. Hayek said that the Taskforce was formed in 2004 by the City Council, and was asked to review assisted housing in Iowa City and assisted housing policies. The Taskforce was also asked to make some recommendations, if needed, based on their findings to be considered for future housing policies concerning the distribution and location of different types of assisted housing. Hayek introduced and then thanked all of the Taskforce members for all the hard work they have put into the deliberation process, as well as the groups that participated by presenting information and providing commentary. Hayek said that the Taskforce heard presentations from approximately 17 different groups and individuals. This public hearing is to gather feedback about the recommendations, and then the Taskforce will reconvene in April to either reach final consensus on the draft, or make any necessary revisions. . Upon approval by the Taskforce the recommendations will then be presented to the City Council. Hayek said that copies of the recommendations were available if anyone did not have a copy. He read through all of the recommendations, and then noted that a map of Iowa City's census tracts and block groups was on display at the back of the room. He said that block groups are subsets of census tracts, and the smallest geographic area for which census data is available. The map is also available in the packets at the back of the room. He said that Anthony would give an explanation of the matrix. Anthony noted that the Taskforce has not yet voted or otherwise approved the draft recommendations. He said that the recommendations have come out of extensive discussion, and the Taskforce members felt it would be appropriate to share with the public the lines of thought the Taskforce is pursuing. Anthony explained that the Fair Share Matrix is based on the premise that all different parts of the city should have a fair share of assisted rental housing. In order to develop the matrix, the Taskforce had to decide what kinds of assisted housing to include, how to divide the city into different parts, and what a fair share would be. Then parts of the city were evaluated and identified as under- or over-represented in regards to the existing number of units of assisted rental housing. Anthony said that the first task was to determine what kind of assisted housing to include. The Taskforce determined in preliminary discussions that the number of owner-occupied households that received assistance was not a sufficiently large in number, so it was excluded from consideration. He noted also that public housing was excluded from the matrix because there are few public housing units, it is not an expanding program, and the City can do very little about the existing locations of public housing. Additionally, Section 8 housing is dispersed throughout the city already and the location choices were Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 2 tenant based, so that program was also excluded. That left only location based assisted rental units. He said that the City of Iowa City currently does not provide any funding for assisted housing. Anthony continued by saying the Taskforce then decided to use block groups as their unit of consideration, as it is the smallest unit for which census data is available. Neighborhoods as outlined in the comprehensive plan were not used because they are too large for adequate analysis, and also the boundaries have changed over time. The Taskforce determined that census tracts were also too large, and so decided to use census block groups. There are 31 block groups in Iowa City, as designated by the U.S. Bureau of Census. Anthony said what that means in regards to the notion of Fair Share, is that each block group should have close to an equal percentage of assisted housing. So for example, if there were 100 assisted rental units in Iowa City, an equal distribution of assisted rental housing would mean that each block group should have close to three units. Anthony said the assisted housing for each block group was calculated as a percentage of the total number of assisted rental units in the city, which is represented on the Fair Share Matrix. What the table means is that if each block group should have close to three percent (3.23%) of all the assisted housing units, for example census tract four, block group one has ten times as much as it should if there were a fair distribution. Alternatively, census tract one, block group one has one-tenth the amount it should. Otte asked why there are two census tracts numbered one on the matrix. Anthony explained the census tracts are broken into 1, 2, or 3 block groups, so the listing is for tract one with blocks one and two. The U.S. Census Bureau, not the Taskforce or the City made the block group designations. One attendee asked what the difference is between assisted rental housing and Section 8. Nasby said that the definition used by the Taskforce was that assisted housing are projects the City put funding into for their development. Hayek said that the Resolution passed by the Council defined assisted housing as any housing development or acquisition intended for low to moderate income households, including rental, home ownership, transitional housing, and residential facilities receiving any public assistance or support, including federal, state, county, or city funding. The attendee asked for confirmation that Section 8 is included in that definition but was excluded from the Taskforce consideration. Hayek explained that Section 8 is a voucher, but the Taskforce is evaluating physical units. Rackis said that a voucher is not required for development property. It is a subsidy paid on behalf of an eligible family to a private market landlord, so it is not a fixed location. Hayek said that the terms "housing choice voucher" and "Section 8" are used interchangeably. Hayek asked all audience members with comments for the Taskforce to limit their statements to three minutes, and to limit their comments to the recommendations themselves. If individuals have additional questions or comments, please wait until everyone has a chance to speak before taking an additional turn to speak. He added that all attendees should put their names on the sign-in sheet being passed around, for the minutes. Presenters were invited to come to the table with the microphone, or speak loudly enough for the microphone. Anciaux noted that presenters should state their names, and Hayek agreed. PUBLIC HEARING Dennis said she is the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship Executive Director. She distributed a hard copy of her statement to the Taskforce members, then said the Housing Fellowship has long been a proponent of scattered site affordable housing. They currently own and manage 109 rental units, located in 13 of the 15 Iowa City and Coralville elementary school attendance areas. The Housing Fellowship's staff and trustees care about what happens in the community and the schools. Dennis noted that the Fellowship has advertised vacant units only five times in the past 15 years. The Fellowship does not recruit from outside of Johnson County, and any statements implying that they do are completely false. She said that 64 percent of their tenant households have elementary school aged children, and 10 percent of units with elementary school aged children have incomes that exceed qualifications for free and reduced lunch. The majority of their tenant families are hard working one-wage earning households that cannot afford local market rent. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 3 Dennis continued by saying that decent, stable, affordable housing keeps children in schools, and adults in jobs. Johnson County is the most costly county in Iowa. The Fellowship has only scratched the surface of the overwhelming need for affordable housing in Iowa City and Johnson County. Many of the recommendations are innocuous, but the Fellowship's concern is that these recommendations will lead to a slippery slope that will effectively stop assisted housing from being built. For example, the Fair Share Matrix included with the recommendations will not allow the Fellowship to develop more affordable housing in the peninsula area, and many other areas that include the fastest growth and most available land. Since the recommendations do not require an increase in assisted housing, if the Council were to adopt them, it could happen that not one more unit of affordable housing would be built. Approval of general policy objective 2, and specific policy objectives 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 would insure against a reduction, but would not provide any increase in affordable housing. If the recommendations remain as drafted, she cannot support them, and she would encourage Council not to adopt them. Eastham said he is the President of the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship. He distributed a proposed revision to the Fair Share Matrix, which will allow them to continue with new assisted rental housing development. Also in the handout are suggested specific changes for the specific recommendations 2, 3, and 4. He said the difficulty with the Matrix as drafted is the prohibition against completing development in certain areas, such as the peninsula. His revision offers an alternate analysis of block groups, with the suggested revision that the number of assisted rental units be adjusted for the number of occupied homes in each block group. He noted there is wide range in the numbers of homes in the different block groups. He estimated that 60 percent of the total homes in Iowa City are located in only one third of the block groups, so it would make more sense to have a distribution of assisted units that is proportionate to the numbers of houses already in the block groups, or a simple numerical average throughout the City. Eastham continued by saying that he would like new assisted housing in developing residential areas be determined by the proportion of homes, as well as adjusted for the potential for future development in each block group. New assisted housing development is most likely to occur in tracts 1, 4, 18, and 105, and it would be beneficial to have assisted housing in new residential developments in those areas. Eastham said that in regards to an objection to specific policy recommendation 2, establishing a residency preference, he thinks that topic is outside the scope of the Taskforce and should be removed. The implications and consequences have not been analyzed, the need for a preference has not been established, and any preference will have negative effects on children of racial minorities. Also, objective 4 should be deleted. The objective of scattering housing would be achieved simply and effectively by providing incentives, as provided in objective 3. Johnson said he is the Executive Director of the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund. He provided a written copy of his statement for the Taskforce. He said first that he would like to acknowledge that the Trust Fund was invited to present to the Taskforce. However, they did not feel able to assist in the deliberations at that point, due to the newness of the organization. He said his statement indicates some of the activities and accomplishments of the Trust Fund over the past year, and that they are consistent with the recommendations to the extent that they address the need for increased resources, community education and awareness, and cooperation and coordination between the communities of Johnson County. Johnson said he would like to see more support for an increase in assisted housing. While specific objective 2 acknowledges a growing need for additional assisted housing, general objective 2 only recommends maintaining the current commitment to assisted housing. He recommended changing general objective 2 to advocate an increase in the commitment to assisted housing, while adopting a scattered site policy and increasing the supply. Johnson added that the recommendations contain prescriptions on additional assisted housing in some areas, and a delay in access to housing to some people. Then it also recommends additional resources and efforts to increase assisted housing in other areas. The concern is that the restrictions will take effect without incentives being offered to build in other areas, because of the relative ease of denying ~ervices and resources compared to the difficulty of scattering due to the need to find additional resources, as well Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 4 as community opposition. If the recommendations were submitted as they are drafted, the Trust Fund would urge the Taskforce to remain vigilant in holding the City accountable for addressing the whole range of recommendations. Rackis said his comments are in writing, and are comments of the Housing Authority staff observations regarding the recommendations. He said the housing choice voucher program was beyond the scope of the Taskforce, because the vouchers do not acquire or develop property. He said staff analysis of a potential residency preference indicated it would serve little purpose, and that further analysis is needed regarding that recommendation. HUD will not allow a residency requirement, nor will HUD allow a residency preference based on how long an applicant has resided or worked in a preference area. State law requires only presence and intent to remain permanently or indefinitely in the state to establish residency in Iowa. Any number of activities, such as enrolling children in school, presenting a voter registration card, or obtaining a driver's license would be taken as third-party verification of intent. Rackis read a letter from a Housing Authority client, to illustrate an example of the type of person the Housing Authority is serving. He noted that the average length of stay for 75 percent of participants in their program is five years or less. Axeen said he is with Hawkeye Area Community Action Program (HACAP), and part of their mission is to provide safe and affordable housing. HACAP's focus is on homeless families, and their focus is limited to transitional housing. Some of their activities are HUD supported, and some are not. He foresees possible difficulty with the rehabilitation of older housing in the prohibited areas. Buying and renovating helps revitalize neighborhoods and keep them from getting run down. There should be a process to allow rehabilitation projects to take place in prohibited areas, and allow the HCDC some determination. Axeen said that one of the greatest barriers for homeless families is transportation, so affordable housing has to be accessible to public transportation. It also needs to be near schools and an affordable daycare. Census blocks that are designated for no new growth have over 150 Head Start slots. Clients also need access to jobs. He said he does not want to have some areas blocked from development. Currently those are the areas where a lot of service is provided, and it would not be optimal to have HUD dollars blocked from rehabilitation. Correia said she is on the Board of Directors for the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund. She challenged the idea that assisted housing causes problems in neighborhoods, and asserted that the lack of critical investments in those neighborhoods cause instability for families and schools. Tract 18 has had critical investment in its economy through tax increment financing. If families in the Grant Wood and Mark Twain attendance areas are moving frequently because of difficulty with finding an affordable place to live, and if it is an area of town where people want to live that has abundant rental housing, then the investment into assisted housing in those neighborhoods should be increased. Correia continued by saying the Taskforce should encourage a balanced housing policy, one that invests in people as much as property. Federal subsidies are given disproportionately to higher income families. In 2003, the Federal government spent close to $57.2 billion in tax-related expenditures to households with an average income of $148,000. The subsidies are entitlement programs, so all qualified and eligible households receive them. On the other hand, programs for low-income housing do not meet needs. Correia said Iowa City's housing issues are part of a trend across the country, due in part because wages are not keeping up with housing costs. The fastest growing segment of the economy is for jobs at the lowest wage. She suggested that the first general point in the document be changed to recommend an increased investment in tract 18 to help stabilize families and children in schools. She also said that points 2,8, and 12 are outside the purview of the Taskforce. Hayek asked what the subsidy is for high-income housing. Correia said it is the federal mortgage interest tax deduction. Those tax breaks allow families to invest in their properties and futures, and the tax expenditures that go to low-income families allow them to lower their housing costs to an affordable level. Then they can invest in their basic human needs and try to invest in their futures as well. Anthony noted that the mortgage interest deduction is the largest housing program in the country, and benefits the richest people. Not all housing programs are targeted for poor people. Everyone who itemizes his or her tax deductions is getting a federal tax subsidy. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 5 Boberg said she is a citizen, and had several concerns to raise that the public will want to know. One is a concern about renting versus owning, and assisting housing while not assisting ownership. The idea of owning versus renting is a concern that will need to be explained, since many higher income families also do not own. Second is a question about what the private sector is currently doing. At one time banks were creating programs that involved very low down payments and favorable rates for certain income levels. The public, realtors, and potential homeowners will want to have information about the private sector's activities. Also, Iowa City has a very good open space requirement for new development, so there is a need to maintain a density-based open space policy versus acreage-based. Finally, she noted that assisted housing should be built as safely as possible, and that affordability should never compromise safety. Santangelo said she is involved with HACAP, GICHF, and the Local Homeless Coordinating Board. She agreed with Axeen that transportation and locations of services such as childcare are a concern. She noted in regards to the proposed residency preference, Iowa City has a two-year waiting list, so people who receive assistance will have already been living in the area. Many of the census tracts have no job opportunities, so it would be difficult to locate someone there who is dependent on public transportation. HACAP has childcare in Coralville, but there is no bus service. She added that the need is to increase assisted housing, and increase minimum wage so people can afford their housing. Walker said it would have been nice to have the audience fill out a questionnaire to find out their opinions, to see if there was agreement amongst the audience on the recommendations. Anciaux said there are extra copies of the recommendations that audience members can write comments on to give to the Taskforce. Hayek said that anyone who is uncomfortable with speaking may submit a letter for consideration at the next Taskforce meeting. McCue said he is a retired citizen. He said that the perils of allowing the status quo referred to in specific objective 10 should be spelled out and that point should also be more prominent. The point needs to be made that this is the beginning of a conversation that includes many topics. He would like to hear the Taskforce respond to some of the specific concerns raised by previous presenters as well. Hayek said that the recommendations will be attached to the end of a narrative that will give a broader explanation of some of the points. That narrative would describe some of the conditions that the Taskforce does not want to see continue. Klein said that the majority of the current and growing population in the city are in the south and east sides. As populations diminish in neighborhoods, there is a greater tendency for those neighborhoods to decline. The Taskforce is offering an opportunity, because some neighborhoods would benefit from revitalization by renovating existing buildings. He would like to know what the price tag will be, and who will be paying. Klein asked what a residency preference is. Rackis said that with a local residency preference in place, residents of a geographic area would be served first, before anyone else. HUD says that people who receive a job offer in that area would also qualify for the residency preference. It would create a two-tiered system, though one ramification is that single students, for example, could be given preference. Currently single students are at the bottom of the list, but they would benefit from a residency preference. Hayek asked for confirmation that the Iowa City Housing Authority has other preferences currently in place. Rackis said yes, noting that the preferences are for persons with disabilities, elderly families, and families with children under 18, all of which are given equal weight. All of those preferences require third- party verification. Klein noted that additional explanation on that point in the document might be helpful. Klein asked if the Taskforce looked at how different tracts are currently zoned, and whether there are more areas of residential zoning in some tracts than in others. Anthony said the Taskforce did not and looked at housing numbers. They did request that information, but a zoning map overlay on a census tract map was not available. Hayek said that the census blocks in the matrix are all residential to some extent. He said that they discussed some block groups to be omitted because they did not have an appreciable amount of residential zoning. Klein said that the block groups might not be equally comparable in regards to potential land use. Anciaux said the Taskforce looked at police boundaries and elementary school attendance areas too. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 6 Klein added that some consideration should be given to relative affordability, and whether the opportunities are comparable in different tracts in regards to access to jobs and transportation. Service providers also go where things are less expensive and with least public resistance. Having a policy should help, but the playing field needs to be level, and make sure it will help who it is intended to help. He thanked the Taskforce members for their work, and for beginning the discussion about this issue. Klein announced that a panel discussion by FAIR on Affordable Housing would be held on Thursday, March 31 at Iowa City Public Library at 7:00 p.m. in meeting room A. Otte said he is with the Community Mental Health Center's homeless outreach program. He said that he supports other presenters' statements about removing specific objectives 2 and 4, and he does not agree with a residency preference. When working with homeless clients, he must first set people up with residency, so he would be working against a preference. His group has plans to build housing in some of the over represented block groups. He noted that some of the over represented areas have the most available land. He also does not agree with the map that was used to determine the matrix. For example, block group 4.1 has Pheasant Ridge right on the edge, which excludes that large area from further development. Anciaux asked if Otte is against the residency preference, even though Rackis said people only have to live in the community or have a driver's license to establish residency. Otte said yes, and if that is the case, then a residency preference is meaningless. Anciaux said everyone in Iowa City would benefit from the preference. Otte said he then does not see how that would benefit anyone. Anciaux asked for confirmation that Otte was concerned about census tract one block two. Otte said yes, that it was his understanding that nothing more could be built there. Anciaux said that particular block group is currently listed as under represented. Santangelo pointed out that only three more units would cause that block group to be over represented. Anciaux confirmed that is the peninsula area. Otte said there is a lot of land available and it ready to be developed. Offut said she is with Shelter House. She said all appear to agree that more low income housing is needed, but her concern is that while limiting certain areas from building, ultimately the available areas will not be feasible for renovating or building new housing, or will not have services available. The recommendations look good, but there are potential problems when looking at the larger picture, and they should be investigated and evaluated. She said the recommendations were not completely bad, and thanked the Taskforce members for their work. However, some points need to be investigated further. Hayek asked whether Offut 's concerns are that funding will not be available to put the recommendations into effect. Offut said the funding will still be available, but building in other areas will not cost the same. Vandenberg said that the Taskforce is trying to look at strategies to counteract the market forces. Offut said that excluding areas will create problems, potentially reducing the amount of housing that is built in the future. Hayek noted that the policy does not prohibit building in any areas of Iowa City just that the City would not provide funding for it, and would be designed to assist with locating housing into under represented areas. He noted that part of the recommendations is a call for a review to see whether the policy is working. Offut said that not having funding available to renovate deteriorating housing in the over represented tracts would cause them to fall into further disrepair. Anciaux asked when an area should be declared over represented. Offut said she not an expert in that area and could not answer. Hayek said he understands the two points about maintaining the current stock and the fact that the recommendations could impede renovation of existing housing. Offut noted that there are price limits to funding from some grants. Axeen agreed that HUD has maximums already in place. McCue added that he agreed with the suggestions to remove the recommendation for a residency preference. Either it is meaningless, or it would mean that "they" would go to the bottom of the list, "they" being poor African Americans moving from Chicago who really don't belong in Iowa City. That was not the intent, but that might be how it will be interpreted. Walker said that people could live in Illinois and be on the waiting list in Iowa City, which does impact residents in Iowa City. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes March 28,2005 Page 7 Vandenberg said that the problem is that the Section 8 program is federal, and Iowa City experiences fallout from other areas' negative housing policies and issues. The shorter the waiting list becomes, the more likely it is that people outside of the Iowa City community will come here to live, and the intent is to work to well serve the current members of the community. Briggs said that if everyone qualifies for the preference, it does not accomplish what it was intended and becomes meaningless. If someone from out of state gets a job in Iowa City, in one day that person becomes a resident and qualifies for the preference. Even if that person quits the job the next day, that person is still a resident. Rackis noted that not all applicants are participants in the Section 8 program. While 57 percent of the waiting list is Iowa residents, and 42 percent of the waiting list is Illinois residents, 88 percent of people admitted to the program are Iowa residents. It is very easy to establish residency in Iowa, which means that it is easy to qualify for the preference. Vandenberg said the intent behind the residency preference was not to exclude anyone, though she agreed at this point that it probably would not work. Rackis said the ICHA is serving local residents already. Peters said he is a member of the board of Shelter House and a researcher at The University of Iowa. He recommended not using block groups when it does not make sense to do so. The point was made of tract four block one that it hides very wealthy neighborhoods that would benefit from additional assisted housing. He also said regarding specific objectives 9 and 10, consider being very systematic in targeting block groups with the greatest disparity. The incentives might be used most cost-effectively if targeted in those areas. Hayek asked if Peters meant that the least represented would be approached first. Peters said yes, that his concern that the areas listed as under represented that still contain a high percent will be populated first. Hayek said the Taskforce did discuss a gradation system that would take into consideration proportionately how under represented each area is. Peters suggested using the word "effective" or "evidence-based" instead of "appropriate." Axeen said that the Taskforce has done a great service. This is an issue that has never been discussed publicly before. He asked if any attempt was made to quantify cost differences between building units in different areas. Hayek said that the Taskforce did not get estimates from the City, though the Taskforce knows it would be considerable. Given all that the Taskforce is attempting, that aspect was left to the City to determine. The crux of the matter is that a choice has to be made whether to leave things as they are, whether to maintain current funding while scattering, or explore additional funding. There were good points raised about wanting the supply to be increased, but the Taskforce would like to ensure at a minimum that the current supply not be diminished. Axeen said that should be emphasized in the presentation to the Council. Dennis said she agrees that tract 18 has enough, but if that is a point of agreement, there need to be more teeth put into the inclusionary zoning recommendation. Also regarding incentives for scattering, establish that developers are required to do it, or they will not. Anciaux noted that the Taskforce has no budgetary authority, and the City Council will have to decide whether the policy can be funded or not. Vandenberg said that making these things mandatory would not work without including the other area communities. Dennis agreed that is her concern as well. Anthony agreed that in order to maintain the current supply, the City would have to contribute significant funding. A scattered site policy would benefit public welfare, but it could only work if funding or strong inclusionary zoning policies are adopted. Copeland said she is with Shelter House. She first thanked the Taskforce members for their hard work. She asked if Shelter House would be considered an address for the residency preference. Rackis said that would be determined on a case-by-case basis. The ICHA attorneys have determined that Shelter House is not a legal domicile. However, at the time of application, if there is presence in Iowa and intent to stay, HUD says at this point that address qualifies. Copeland said that when there was a local preference in effect, a lot of people who wanted to live in Iowa could establish residency by coming to Shelter House. Shelter House does not have space to accommodate all those people, so that created problems with overcrowding. Hayek asked if Shelter Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 8 House believes the residency preference would have the same detrimental effects as the local preference. Copeland said she couldn't speak to that. Canganelli said she is the Executive Director of Shelter House and a member of Housing Trust Fund Board. A residency preference will have no productive end result, and creates a notion of ~tent to exclude people. The State Council on Homelessness has been consistent in their interpretation of who a resident is, that being presence and intent to stay. Canganelli added that, in regards to general objective 1, the location of Shelter House has not been resolved. Litigation is still pending on that case. Hayek said he understood that the City had agreed that Shelter House could locate in tract 18. Canganelli said that decision and the organization's ability to go further with the project are separate things. Canganelli continued by saying she agreed that there are no teeth in the recommendations for inclusionary zoning and development in under represented areas. Additional evaluation of the services is also necessary. There has been a large growth in service jobs, and development has not kept pace with the demand for affordable housing for that economic group. She said she hopes the Taskforce members will continue to follow the issue and actively participate in the future leadership of this effort. Correia asked for confirmation that the Taskforce formed because of a letter the School District sent to the City Council. Hayek said it would be fair to say that event is what triggered creation of the Taskforce, but that it is also fair to say that there had already been discussion on the City level in 2003 as well. Correia asked if the School District has evaluated attendance area boundaries, and offered some suggestions on changing school populations. Copper said she is a Self-Sufficiency Coordinator with the ICHA. She asked if there were detailed recommendations for steps the City should take in specific objective 7, or if the Taskforce members know what the City has done already. She recommended that specific objective 7 be changed to say the City should take "more" steps, or acknowledge what the City has already done. Copper outlined some of the activities that the City has undertaken to increase home ownership. She said they have approached it on two levels, both with clients and with lenders. Her office presented to the lenders in 2002-2003, beginning with a group presentation. She and Briggs have also met individually with lender representatives, and have consistently had bank representatives on their coordinating board. Copper continued by outlining their activities for clients, which include a Personal Economic Planning Workshop, ISU Extension presenters, and numerous other workshops about personal credit. She explained that their family self-sufficiency program participants are invited to these activities, and information is also disseminated about the workshops to MECCA, UAY, and other agencies that serve low-income families. They have also had presentations by area lenders and realtors. Copper said the path to home ownership is not just about a policy encouraging home ownership and getting as many people into homes as possible. Families first need to have assistance to get into stable homes, in order to pursue employment and take care of their families, or pursue education. The family self-sufficiency program is a five-year program that involves an escrow savings account. It is designed to encourage asset-building and increased earnings. After five years, the families graduate, access their savings, and either move into home ownership or pursue other goals such as education. Copper said that in five years, 35 families have graduated from the program and moved to home ownership. That is only the escrow program, and not the three other home ownership programs coordinated by ICHA. She said she is curious whether the Taskforce had any additional suggestions. Hayek said the City did present, and the Taskforce was aware that there are programs in place, but it is the Taskforce's position that the City needs to do more. Anciaux asked if local lenders are cooperating with home ownership efforts. Briggs said that local lenders have been excellent, but that the large national lenders do not offer as many opportunities. The local lenders seem to understand and support the City's programs. Although the national lenders have been contacted about finding out more aboµt their current programs, they have not produced information. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 9 Anciaux asked what percentage of the program graduates moved to home ownership. Copper said there have been 100 graduates, 82 have left housing, and 35 have moved to home ownership. Anciaux asked if there is a 100 percent graduation rate. Copper said yes, and noted that while it is good to support home ownership, families need to have the stability of affordable housing before they can move on to ownership. Anthony said that Johnson County has the highest housing prices in the entire state. Johnson County also has the lowest homeowner rate in the state. Including all the CDBG and HOME funds, the amount spent on housing has resulted in 1150 units over 30 years, which is about 38 units per year. To really make housing affordable, a lot of local support for housing has to be gathered, and the Council has to see this as a policy priority. Although developers and others might be against such a policy, construction of affordable housing is a large generator of the local economy. It has one of the largest income-multiplier effects among many industries. Franklin Roosevelt created the secondary mortgage market in order to lift the economy out of the depression, which increased home ownership from 40% to 60-70% today. Briggs said that 20 families have become homeowners through the purchase of public housing units. The Section 8 home ownership program that has been in existence for two years has had 14 sales. Proceeds from sales of public housing are used towards the development of new affordable home ownership opportunities, which have resulted in 9 sales. Anciaux asked Anthony if the low home ownership numbers were due to the high number of students. Anthony said they were not necessarily included, and that compared to other communities with similar demographics, Iowa City is still worse off. The Public Hearing portion of the meeting ended at 8:35 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS Approval of the February 28.2005 Minutes Several edits and revisions were submitted for the Minutes. MOTION: A motion was made by Anciaux, seconded by Stutsman, to approve the February 28, 2005 Minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously. Next Meetina Next meeting scheduled for April 4, 2005 at 4:15 p.m., location to be announced. Hayek distributed hard copy of comments on the recommendations, from someone unable to attend the public hearing. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business to come before the Taskforce, Stutsman moved to adjourn, Anciaux seconded the motion, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. MINUTES SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE APRIL 4, 2005 SENIOR CENTER, ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Jerry Anthony, Darlene Clausen, Matthew Hayek, Jan Leff, Jan Peterson, Sally Stutsman, Joan Vandenberg STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis OTHERS PRESENT: Maryann Dennis, Charles Eastham, Tracy Glaesemann, Luke Pelz, Patti Santangelo, Amanda Cline, Alexis Kluklenski CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Hayek called the hearing to order at 4:25 pm. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TASKFORCE TO CITY COUNCIL Hayek said that the Taskforce gathered a lot of information from the public hearing, written contributions from the community, and the two recent public forums. Vandenberg asked if the minutes from the FAIR meeting were posted anywhere. Hayek said he was unsure whether minutes were taken at that meeting. Hayek suggested going through the draft recommendations one by one, and discussing the feedback and any possible edits. He asked if there were comments or suggestions for editing general objective 1. Clausen said that there was a suggestion at the public for a change to general objective 2, which she agreed with. The suggestion from Johnson with the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund was to recommend Iowa City "increase" the commitment to affordable housing, and adopt a scattered site policy "while increasing" such housing. Peterson said those suggested changes would apply to both general objectives 1 and 2. She noted the word "maintain" was a common point of concern expressed at the hearing. Peterson asked if there were any concerns with those changes. Anciaux said that the City is not required to provide any assisted housing. The objectives should say to maintain the commitment and increase the supply if possible; otherwise the entire document will say "increase" numerous times. The Taskforce should not try to force Council to increase its commitment if the money is not available. Anthony arrived. Hayek summarized the discussion to this point for Anthony, and noted the suggested edit on the table. Vandenberg suggested saying "increase" in general objective 1 while taking out the final clause in objective 2, so that it only is about scattering assisted housing. Anciaux said he recommended leaving the statement as "maintain." Clausen said that if it says to maintain, there is no expectation for change. Peterson said it would acknowledge the current commitment, but then asks for increased opportunities in objective 2. Anciaux said increasing opportunities could be through zoning, working with lending institutions, and other means. Peterson asked whether the change to objective 2 should be "while increasing." Anciaux agreed, noting that while it would be welcome for the commitment to increase that decision should be left to Council. Vandenberg says objective 1 acknowledges current activities and efforts, which is important. Anthony said he is concerned with leaving the statement as "maintain." He asked staff for confirmation of what the current commitment is, in monetary terms. He said his understanding is that the City contributes no own-source funds for assisted housing. He said CDBG funds are from the federal government and those funds are not competitive, so the City receives them every year. Anciaux said the City does not have to put CDBG funds into assisted housing and can use it for other things. Anthony disagreed, noting the City must use the funds for housing projects, or it would either not receive the funds or would face litigation from HUD. Nasby clarified that CDBG funds can be used for non-housing activities, but it is correct that all HOME funds must be used for housing. Anthony asked Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 4, 2005 Page 2 what the break down in CDBG and HOME funds were for the upcoming fiscal year. Nasby said the entitlement amounts from HUD were about $760,000 in CDBG funds and $677,000 in HOME funds. Nasby said the City does provide some general funds for housing currently in the amount of $200,000 per year for housing rehabilitation costs for the Targeted Area Rehabilitation Program (TARP). Families who make up to 110 percent of median income can use this funding, but a number of the clients have been low-moderate income. However, it is not only for households that would be considered low-moderate income. He added that $670,000 has also been put into the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship's peninsula project in partnership with the Iowa City Housing Authority. These funds were in the form of a general obligation bond. Anthony confirmed that except for the general obligation bond, which is a one-time event, the $200,000 amounts were annual numbers. He said that by comparison, there was a $14 million bond issue for the School District in 2004. Nasby noted that bond for the school was issued by the Iowa City Community School District, not the City. Anthony asked for confirmation that the people of Iowa City are supporting the School District. Stutsman said the school district is not supported through City taxes. Anciaux said school funding is derived from property taxes and State income tax. Anthony asked for confirmation of what the citizens of Iowa City provide for assisted housing. Nasby said that currently $200,000 has been provided for the housing rehabilitation program, and that amount is projected for the next several years. Anthony pointed out that amount was in contrast to $1.4 million from the federal government in CDBG and HOME funds. Anthony suggested that the City does not provide substantive support for assisted housing, since most funding comes from outside sources, such as CDBG and HOME funds. Using the word "maintain" would indicate the City should continue to provide $200,000, even though one of the largest problems in the City is the lack of availability of affordable housing. Anciaux asked if CDBG funds could be used for non-housing projects. Anthony said those funds could only be used to benefit lower-income families. Nasby confirmed the funds are provided for activities that serve people at 0 - 80 percent median income. Anthony said those funds could not be used to build a new City Hall, for ex~mple, though they could be used to build a childcare facility that benefits families at 0 - 80 percent median income. Nasby agreed. Anciaux asked if there is a mandate for the City to provide public, assisted, or affordable housing. Stutsman said the City has some flexibility on where the funding is used, with the stipulation that it benefits 0 - 80 percent median income people. Anciaux asked if there was a mandate to provide anything else. Anthony said there is no mandate to provide assistance above what is provided by federal programs. Anciaux asked if Anthony had a dollar figure that should be expected above what is already available. Anthony said no, but he has a general assessment of the current needs. He said his concern was with the commitment to affordable or assisted housing only being maintained. Hayek noted that the recommendations as currently written keep those two categories separate, asking for the commitment to assisted housing be maintained, while increasing availability of affordable housing. For purposes of discussion, the separate categories should be kept in mind. Anthony said this is an opportunity to suggest something substantive for the community, since clearly the biggest need is for affordable housing, either assisted or not assisted. He said there should be a strong commitment to that goal. Clausen said she agrees with Anthony, and that since these are the general policy recommendations, she would like to begin up front by saying the expectation is for more commitment from the City. All the other objectives explain how it should be done. Peterson asked for confirmation that the change to general objective 2 would be to say, "while increasing" supply. She noted that if objective 1 were changed to "increase," both statements would call for an increase. She said she does understand Anthony's point, however. Stutsman said it comes down to the definition of commitment. To her, "commitment" means a policy commitment, and usually if a policy commitment is made, the dollars need to go with it. Clausen suggested changing the statement to say, "strengthen." Stutsman agreed that noting something positive in those statements, as recognizing and acknowledging the City's current efforts, would be beneficial. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 4, 2005 Page 3 Hayek asked for opinions about Clausen's suggested edit. Peterson said that using "strengthen" still implies the current activity is not adequate. Consensus has not been reached whether to say that right at the beginning of the document. She noted also that there are no other recommendations for the City to put additional funds into this, so there are no other places to suggest an increase funding. Vandenberg agreed that one of the common concerns at the hearing was what a scattered policy would cost more, which perhaps should be addressed. Hayek said the Taskforce was asked present an opinion to the Council on what the City should do. He said he sees a distinction between what the City should do, versus what it can or decides it is willing to do. What the City decides to do is not for the Taskforce to determine. Peterson said the question then comes back to where the teeth are in the recommendations. Hayek said if the City implements some of the recommendations that require additional dollars and the funding does not materialize, the City could be criticized in five years. Peterson noted that specific objective 3 does call for additional funding above CDBG and HOME funds. Stutsman suggested saying, "continue its commitment." Anthony said that is the same as "maintain." Anciaux noted that the recommendations would say "increase" a lot, but he is willing to withdraw his suggestion. Hayek said that in the specific objectives, it is one thing to spend additional resources to achieve scattered housing without reducing the current supply, and another thing to scatter housing while also allocating additional resources to increase the available supply. Both of those are valid and distinct approaches. Vandenberg said that from the perspective of implementation, having multiple statements asking for an increase might lead to the recommendations not being taken seriously. Anciaux said that saying increase in both statements is fine, but he would like the Taskforce to be aware of the potential problems with funding. Anthony agreed with Vandenberg regarding the point on implementation, and suggested being more specific about what to do and how. This would show that the Taskforce really thought about the recommendations, and including specifics might increase the likelihood of the policy being implemented. Stutsman agreed that giving specifics would be helpful. At the same time, she asked what the role of the Taskforce is versus the roles of staff and policymakers. She said it might not be a good use of time for the Taskforce to spell out specifics if in fact the Council does not adopt the policy. Peterson said it would be easy for Council to say that the objectives are good ideas, but not implement them because the Taskforce did not make at least some attempt at figuring out if the policy is feasible. Anthony said all the recommendations are ones that staff could have made, but the deliberations on this matter were given to the Taskforce instead. If the Taskforce does not make the most of the opportunity, nothing is going to happen. Clausen said that Council would have to appoint another Taskforce to create an implementation plan, in order to usè the recommendations. Hayek said it would be presumptuous for the Taskforce to tell the Council how to implement the recommendations and where the funds should come from. Stutsman agreed that the process typically followed is that a general recommendation is made, and then it is up to the Council and staff to decide how the policies will be implemented. Vandenberg asked staff what the expectations are for how far the Taskforce should go towards implementation. Nasby said the Taskforce appears to have strayed from its original charge regarding the recommendations of additional funding. The Taskforce could probably focus on the question of where to put additional assisted housing given the existing funding. Anciaux noted that a scattered policy would cost more because housing would not be in the less expensive areas. Nasby agreed that the recommendation for funding is reasonable in light of the discussion related to scattering. Hayek said the Taskforce was asked to look at possible policies regarding the future distribution, location, and types of assisted housing. Within that, discussion of additional costs involved with scattered site distribution is reasonable. Peterson asked if any recourse is available if the Council does not adopt the policies as planned or if they do not work as planned, and scattered site housing takes place without additional resources maintaining the current supply. Hayek said there some suggestions built into the recommendations. However, if the Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 4, 2005 Page 4 supply decreases, it would be a Council issue. Peterson noted that the concern often expressed at the hearing was that good intentions could lead to bad results. Rackis said that one thing to consider regarding the question of how Council will look at the recommendations, is that the only Council decision regarding assisted housing to date has been against locating assisted housing in a particular area. Part of the rationale was the statement that the School District had identified a concentration of assisted housing south of Highway 6. While funding for the proposal that the Council turned down was still identified from IFA, and the development proceeded, an identified concentration was still used to support the Council decision. Stutsman asked for confirmation that this decision was made before the Taskforce had formulated their recommendations. Rackis said yes, the Council decision was in November 2004. Dennis said that decision was made after the City had allocated HOME funds to purchase the land. Hayek said the Taskforce has a couple of opportunities to emphasize that the Taskforce does not want the result of reducing or limiting assisted housing, one of which will be in the narrative that will accompany the recommendations. He said the Taskforce should limit itself to a succinct list of recommendations, and the Council will need to decide whether to implement them, and how. Stutsman said the Taskforce's recommendations need to be based on investigation and discussion, not on a guess about how the Council will react. Hayek asked if general objective 1 should be left as written or changed to either "increase" or "strengthen." All Taskforce members present agreed with the change to "strengthen." Peterson asked for confirmation that general objective 2 should be changed to ''while increasing." Hayek said that change would also affect specific objective 4. Clausen pointed out that many things might change, so those should be dealt with after the general objectives are considered. All Taskforce members present agreed with the change to ''while increasing." Regarding specific objective 1, Clausen said the main point of the statement, expressed in the third sentence, should be put at the beginning of the objective. Peterson agreed that would strengthen the statement. Hayek said a Shelter House representative asked to remove the statement that the question of where the new facility would be located was resolved. He suggested deleting it. Nasby asked what is meant by "make available" as stated in the objective, whether that means land should be zoned, purchased by the City, or something else. Hayek said it might include using available public space. Vandenberg said a different sort creative deal could be arranged as well. Stutsman said using the word "land" means to her that the City should buy the land and build the shelter. She suggested changing the word to resources. Anciaux said he preferred using "land." Hayek said that the biggest obstacle the organization faced was obtaining land. Anthony agreed that the organization was able to obtain funding, but not land. Peterson said the statement should make it clear that the assumption is that Shelter House will be locating in tract 18. Anciaux said if the lawsuit results in the Shelter House not locating in tract 18, then the City should provide an area where it can go. Peterson said that view is contradictory to the statement that the objective is not intended to impact where the new facility will go. She suggested adding the word "negatively" before impact. Stutsman suggested editing it to say, "supports the current proposed plan" to put the new facility in tract 18. Anciaux said no, he does not support putting any more emergency housing in tract 18. He said the statement about Shelter House should be left as it is stated. Peterson summarized the changes, including rearrangement of the sentences and omitting the statement that the question on the location of the new facility had been resolved. All Taskforce members present agreed. Anciaux recommended deleting specific objective 2. All Taskforce members present agreed. Vandenberg asked if there is a way to decrease demand for assisted housing. Anciaux suggested making sure local residents are knowledgeable about the available programs. Unless the family is involved in social service, Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 4, 2005 Page 5 they might not know about the programs. He said a statement to the effect that local residents should be informed about available programs should be included with specific objective 7. Rackis said while the number of people on the waiting list is somewhat indicative of demand it is not entirely accurate. People on the waiting list do not always update their information, so they are dropped from the list when applications are processed. Also, not all people on the list lease a unit with the program. He agreed that it never hurts to continue outreach in the community. Anciaux said that some local people might not bother to apply if the waiting list is very long. Rackis said that applicants from out of town are usually the ones to move on, but local residents usually do apply even if the waiting list is long. Hayek asked if Anciaux and Vandenberg were looking for specific recommendations in terms of outreach efforts. Anciaux said it seems staff does a good job with outreach. Peterson said her concern is that a residency preference singles out one group that cannot get housing, while there are many other groups that have trouble as well, for example, the people who are recruited to come to Iowa City for jobs. She agreed that it is important to keep the demand in mind and all the other factors that affect it while considering the recommendations, to make sure they address the issues. Anthony said that less assisted housing would be needed if there were more affordable housing available generally. An alternate proposal could be for a living wage standard. Also, it would be helpful for the new housing supply being built by local homebuilders was not aimed at the $250,000 and over market for single-family homes. Anciaux asked if a developer makes more money from a $300,000 house or three $100,000 houses. Anthony said it is his understanding that the money or profit is the same. It is a trend for most developers to pitch housing towards the higher income groups as less time is involved in managing construction. Vandenberg said one person spoke of a full statistical analysis of the housing stock. Nasby said the Maxfield Research group conducted one in 1998. Anciaux asked for confirmation that the housing stock had been increasing since then. Peterson said there is a lot of housing going up, but much of it is in the higher price brackets. Vandenberg said there is not much housing under $200,000 available. Hayek noted that Leff supported deleting specific objective 2. Regarding specific objective 3, Clausen said that transportation was noted as an important issue, if housing is scattered throughout the City. Perhaps the objective should also recommend commitment of resources to other services. Stutsman said it is not practical to take public transportation to numerous different points in town, to childcare and a job for instance. Anciaux said one aim could be to have the babysitter and job nearby. Not everything has to require a bus ride. Vandenberg said the edit begs the question of what types of services are needed, as related to the type of assisted housing. Some families have transportation, so only need housing assistance. Stutsman said those with high needs should be close to services, while others have fewer needs. Clausen said the letter suggested proactively searching out and mapping sites suited for affordable housing. If that was available, then people could take the individual circumstances of assisted housing sites into account. Anciaux noted that as soon as land is zoned, the price increases, so it would be beneficial to identify those sites and acquire them before the prices go up. Anthony suggested having zoning that is more accommodating to low-density multi-family housing, such as duplexes and town homes. Right now the Comprehensive Plan says that multi-family housing would be used as transitions between commercial space and single-family housing. So all of the multi-family housing is concentrated near the commercial sites, one of biggest of which is the K-Mart area. Zoning classifications is driving that development. Vandenberg said that some feedback given is there is a real mismatch already of where people live versus where they work. So it seems like taking the transportation and job opportunities into account could be beneficial. Stutsman asked if the objective should say anything about childcare in those areas. Clausen said childcare is a service, and the objective is looking at all services. Hayek suggested addressing transportation and service issues in objective 8. Number 3 is long, and a statement about those issues might be overlooked. Vandenberg said it could also be its own objective. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 4, 2005 Page 6 Vandenberg suggested evaluating the alternative fair share matrix submitted by Eastham at the hearing. She asked what benchmark was used to determine whether housíng should be encouraged or discouraged in certain areas. Eastham said that the benchmark was the average plus 10 percent, and evaluated what areas were higher or lower than that number. He said that some judgment was exercised in the evaluation. He also noted that the numbers of housing units in the block groups is inaccurate, as they are based on 2000 census data. Additionally, there is higher potential for development in tracts 4, 105, 1 and 18 in the near future. Vandenberg said she does not have a specific recommendation, but would like to open the issue of an alternate matrix for discussion. Her concern is with the potential for limiting development in areas such as tract 105. Anthony agreed that the matrix should be revisited because, of the six block groups where additional assisted housing is not recommended, four of them have significant development potential. Of the remaining 24 block groups, development is only possible in four. So the recommendation to scatter all over the City really means only scattering into four block groups. Peterson said considering how much time and effort has been put into the Taskforce's deliberations already, it makes sense not to hurry forward without all the necessary consideration. Anthony suggested re-evaluating the matrix, in light of the public comments and additional data. Hayek said that the approach to the matrix had been that it could be recalculated in the future, in consideration of areas with future development. So increases in market-rate housing would change the numbers on the matrix, which would in turn support different areas for assisted housing over time. Anthony agreed the potential for change is still in the matrix, but with the existing numbers, new housing is possible only in four block groups out of 24: 1.1, 1.2, 5.2, 14.3. Of the seven under represented areas, only four have growth potential. Peterson asked about tract 105. Anthony said that tract is identified as over represented. Peterson asked if information is available about which of the seven block groups identified as over represented have the greatest development potential. Hayek said that information might be in the packets. Nasby said the map showing the platted lots could not be reduced in size and still be readable, though he did bring the large map to a previous meeting. Clausen agreed with the suggestion to revisit the matrix, regarding specific objective 3. Peterson asked for confirmation that the discussion is not about what the objective says, but instead about what matrix it is based on. Hayek agreed. Anciaux suggested leaving the matrix as is, but noting that the numbers are skewed in relation to tracts 4 and 105 because of the relatively low number of overall units. Stutsman asked if that could be part of the narrative. Hayek said that if the matrix comes with a list of qualifications and loopholes that need to be explained, it becomes meaningless. Also, if several qualifications to the matrix are put into a narrative, those qualifications will likely be lost. He said the objectives need to be based on something without loopholes, which is also clear. Vandenberg asked if areas with potential could be evaluated and listed as an increased preference. She also noted she is still wary of putting more assisted housing in tract 18. Hayek noted that tract 18 has potential for growth, and a change in opinion about the matrix will lead to opening development in 18. Vandenberg asked if there was any disagreement that there is a problem in tract 18. Anciaux said 18.2 has a problem, but 18.1 does not. He is pleased with the current development in the area, though he does not know exactly what their price range is for those new units. Dennis said a concern is that the City or the Housing Fellowship could not go into tract 18 and build single-family homes in Sandhill Estates, for example, which might help the neighborhood. Rackis said there was also a suggestion at the hearing for more low density housing, such as zero-lot, duplexes, and row houses. Anciaux said there are townhomes in Sandhill Estates. Eastham noted that Sandhill is in block 18.2. Anthony asked if the City uses CDBG funds to pay some city employee salaries. Nasby said only in his division. Stutsman asked what the Taskforce wants to say in this objective, and where it should go from there. Peterson said they were trying to come up with some sort of matrix that is not so restrictive. Stutsman Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 4, 2005 Page 7 asked if the Taskforce wants to adopt the alternate matrix submitted by Eastham. Anthony said it would be very helpful if staff could create a map that shows the tracts and block groups, the areas where development has occurred, and the areas where development is possible. Hayek said it has been done, but not distributed individually. Peterson asked if it would be harder to make it understandable and explain how the matrix was arrived at if the Taskforce adopts the alternate one. Anthony said as long as the information is available graphically on a map, it would be easy to explain. Vandenberg said some of the over represented block groups have no real potential for development. Anthony said that is the case for three of them. Vandenberg confirmed those areas are 21.2, 16.2, and 14.2, while 4.1, 105.1, and 18.1 are areas with great potential for development. Anciaux asked how many Housing Fellowship units are in 18.2. Eastham said approximately 12. Hayek asked if the concern with the current matrix is that it impacts areas with potential growth, or if it is something else. Vandenberg said that committing additional resources to 105.1 and 4.1 would be good, because those are areas that she thinks could handle more assisted housing. She asked if a compromise would be to have gradations of preference rather than a "yes/no" designation. Hayek said Nasby put together a gradation chart that was in the packets a couple of months ago, with areas that are highly incented, moderately incented, or not incented. Hayek noted that the Taskforce is not going to come up with a different matrix during this meeting, and first the problems with the current matrix need to be identified in order to solve them. Peterson said her problem is the unintended consequences of blocking off areas that could have more assisted or affordable housing developed, resulting in reduced stock of assisted housing. She said if the Taskforce recommends scattering into areas that cannot be developed, then the result will be reduced stock of assisted housing. So the recommendations should take into consideration not just the matrix data but also where growth is possible. Hayek confirmed that the concern is with cutting off funding in areas where there is potential future growth. Clausen added that by cutting off funding, it would reduce the amount of assisted housing. Hayek asked if there are any additional concerns. Rackis noted that the assisted housing numbers the Taskforce is using includes units that have not yet been built, which is being compared to 2000 census data for all other existing housing. More current housing information could be gathered by evaluating the certificates of occupancy issued since 2000, and adding those to the data for the matrix. Hayek confirmed that what Rackis is saying is that the denominator in the calculation is data from 1999, while the numerator is data from 2005. Rackis agreed. Anciaux noted that preliminary plats have been done for many units that are not included in the data, though they won't have building permits associated with them yet. He asked if the number of platted units could be included, which could adjust the data to allow more assisted housing in 18.2. Nasby said platted land may not necessarily be developed for some time so its impact is indeterminable. Anciaux said that assisted housing could also be located in platted land, rather than opening the block group to more assisted housing in less optimal locations. Dennis asked why plats should not be included if the goal is to determine areas of potential development for affordable housing. Nasby said that since the actual development of an area is unknown (assisted or non-assisted units), platted lots should not be used in the equation. Opening up an area might result in a heavy concentration of assisted housing, or none being located there, as such there are too many unknowns for undeveloped lots to be included. Stutsman suggested sending the question about the matrix to subcommittee and table the discussion. Hayek agreed, and asked if objective 4 should also be tabled. The Taskforce members agreed. No edits were suggested for specific objective 5. Regarding objective 6, Clausen suggested including a recommendation to proactively search out and map sites that are needed. Hayek asked if it would be a map for potential rental sites. Clausen said for affordable housing in general. Vandenberg said all the elements including the map, the matrix, and Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 4, 2005 Page 8 perhaps a preference for housing close to jobs and transportation, should be tied together. Anthony said that once the information is mapped, the picture would be clearer. Vandenberg said that tying things together might make it all more concrete. Nasby asked Anciaux to discuss the district planning process, as an attempt to look at areas that are already developed, areas that have potential for development, and what types of land uses will go into them. Anciaux said in the new development code RS-8 has deviated from the original designation of single-family residential in cases where people build duplexes for rental. Hopefully more single-family residential housing will be located in RS-8, with duplexes on the corners. As far as district planning goes, he does not have that information at hand. Hayek noted that Franklin suggested saying almost all rental housing was confined to a limited number of block groups, and that the statement should say "most." He asked if the Taskforce agreed with that edit. The Taskforce members present agreed to the edit. Regarding specific objective 7, Stutsman suggested adding the word "additional." Anthony suggested changing it to "significant additionaL" Clausen asked what number would be significant, and how much more is expected. Hayek said he is more comfortable with just adding "additional." Rackis noted that the objectives should not over reach. The issue with home ownership is the sustainability of ownership, which requires steady income from employment. Giving a specific target number might mean there are more families with obtaining ownership, but also more families going bankrupt. Peterson asked what the Taskforce wants the City to be doing that is not already being done. Anciaux said the City should take steps to increase sustainable home ownership among low-income populations by reaching out to people not represented in outreach programs. Anthony said he liked the first part of the statement that talks about sustainable home ownership. Peterson said she did not mean that the objective should be changed, but was asking a question for her own clarification. Vandenberg said the program sounds very successful, but the question is whether more can be done. Anthony asked for confirmation that the family self-sufficiency program is not a City program. Rackis confirmed it is a federal program, dealing most often with families who either have a voucher or live in public housing. Anciaux said he would like to reach people who are not involved in the voucher program or public housing, or do not have access to someone who can tell them about the available programs. He would like to see some program to educate people about the opportunities available, such as through lending institutions for first-time buyers. Dennis suggested changing the objective to read "'ow and moderate income." Stutsman said she is hesitant about spelling out specific steps to take. The City Council needs to direct staff to investigate possible steps based on current programs and resources. Peterson said she was not advocating making specific suggestions, but was asking for clarification for her own information. What Copper listed at the hearing sounded very good and effective. Anthony noted that program is federal too. Anciaux said the City does not need to duplicate an existing program, and he is concerned that there are people who would benefit from the program who do not know about it. Santangelo said that information about available programs has been brought up at the Local Homeless Coordinating Board, and that information has gone out to all the agencies. Anthony said that though a bank might offer 147 different lending programs, it is limited on how much it can lend based on income. Land and housing in Iowa City is just too expensive for many people. Hayek said one of the trends within the private banking industry has been to work on bringing low- and moderate-income families to home ownership. However, there has understandably been more success at the higher end of the income spectrum than the lower. Hayek said he agrees with editing the statement to include "additional" or "sustainable." Vandenberg said she would like to add, "moderate." Taskforce members present agreed with those changes. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 4, 2005 Page 9 Regarding specific objective 8, Peterson said this objective should be emphasized. Clausen agreed that housing cannot be expanded without ensuring access to community service providers. Peterson asked if transportation would be included in this statement, whether City services are separate from community service providers and human social services. Vandenberg suggested adding the word "comprehensive" the statement. Peterson said her concern with the statement as currently written is that it sounds like this is just a non- profit organization problem, rather than a private-public partnership. Stutsman suggested making an additional objective, because community service providers are different from city services. The City does not supply human services, though it does provide funding for them. Perhaps city services should be discussed separately. Peterson asked how services provided through the schools should then be categorized. She said she sees it as a comprehensive private-public partnership to ensure that adequate supports are available and the needs are met. Clausen suggested that if the objective discusses comprehensive services, it should be moved higher up on the list. Peterson said the Taskforce wants to encourage creative public-private partnerships to ensure that the necessary support systems are available throughout the community. Stutsman asked if this objective could be number 2. Anthony suggested rethinking the order of all of the objectives after they are done. Hayek asked for confirmation on the language for the statement. Anthony asked for clarification of what "imbalances" should be avoided, whether they are financial, spatial, or something else. Peterson said that agencies are overwhelmed, and while they are usually designed to meet one need, families come in with multiple needs. Anthony confirmed that the concern is financial. Peterson said the concept behind the objective is that the City should pay attention to making sure there are adequate supports. Hayek said one question that might be asked is how money should be allocated if the City provided a sum of money to be used for both housing and services. He asked if the emphasis should be on housing or services, if one would be reduced in favor of funding another. Anciaux suggested adding other sources to the statement, including the state and the federal government. Peterson suggested talking about creative partnerships that potentially would be alternate sources of funding. By having realtors, developers, bankers, the transportation department, non-profits, and schools get together to discuss the issues at hand, solutions for ways to provide support for families might be created. She noted also that the discussion should not beonly about funding. Hayek said it would be beneficial to discuss things other than dollars, because if all the objectives involve money, they are not likely to get very far. Peterson said she does not mean only money. Partnerships are imperative to begin addressing the underlying factors that are creating the problem. Otherwise a solution will never be found. Stutsman asked if the statement should be "creative public-private partnerships need to be established to ensure that the needs of the assisted housing population are met." Vandenberg suggested "The City should work collaboratively with other private and public partners to develop comprehensive support services to address the non-housing needs throughout the community." Rackis agreed that the statement should include something about a comprehensive public-private partnership approach. Peterson said it should not be limited to people in assisted housing but also support people who have moved out of assisted housing but are still at risk. She said here needs to be an accessible network of supports for families. Stutsman said Vandenberg is on the right track regarding the language of the objective. Hayek suggested tabling the discussion on objective 8, and sending it back to subcommittee for reworking. The Taskforce members agreed. Regarding specific objective 9, Clausen said one suggestion from the hearing was to remove the word "carrot." Peterson noted another suggestion was to change "appropriate." Hayek said the suggestion was to change "appropriate" to "effective" or "evidence-based." Peterson suggested using "incentive" instead of "carrot." Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 4, 2005 Page 10 Vandenberg suggested changing it to "hold harmless." Hayek said that term can be confusing, and explained that it has to do with helping developers who engage in inclusionary zoning avoid losses. Peterson suggested changing the statement to, "The policy should provide effective incentives for developers to include a percentage of affordable housing." Hayek agreed that "hold harmless" and "evidence-based" are not necessary. Peterson suggested changing "provide" to "offer." Santangelo asked if the areas where more assisted housing will not encouraged would have inclusionary zoning. Hayek said the Taskforce is talking about affordable housing, rather than assisted. Vandenberg said she was considering the moderate-income affordable aspect, so the two are not in conflict. Peterson agreed. Hayek asked if there were other suggested changes. No changes were offered, and the Taskforce members present agreed to the ones listed. Regarding specific objective 10, Peterson said there was a question about the perils at the hearing. Clausen said that generally the statement is not clear about whom the campaign should be reach. Anciaux said it should not be for people to learn what programs are available, but to educate the general public who is afraid of this type of housing coming into their neighborhoods. Clausen asked if this would be a fact sheet that would be distributed. Vandenberg suggested having a media partner do a story to dispel some myths, similar to the series on No Child Left Behind in the newspaper. Peterson said she thinks of it more broadly, how crucial it is to every segment of the community, and to educate people about the impact of not having adequate affordable housing. This supports number 8, to encourage continuing conversations about the issues, because this affects everyone in the community. The campaign would not necessarily dwell on the scary things, but instead look at things like the impact on employers when employees cannot find an affordable place to live or find decent childcare. It is a way to educate the community about the importance of affordable housing, and the degree to which housing and development decisions must involve all segments of the community. Clausen asked if the clause about the perils should be removed. Peterson said maybe, and instead focus on the positive impacts of assisted housing. Talking about perils gives it a different slant. Hayek noted that the Taskforce does see perils with concentration. Peterson agreed, and added that the rest of the sentence is very good, but "perils" is distracting. Clausen suggested using "impacf' instead. Hayek suggested changing the order of the clauses. Stutsman agreed with using "impact" instead of "peril." The Taskforce members present agreed with that change. Regarding specific objective 11, Anciaux said 11 and 8 should be combined. Peterson said 11 is crucial. Vandenberg said that if inclusionary zoning is being considered, Coralville and North Liberty need to be included in the discussion. This goes beyond service and into the housing policy. Stutsman suggested removing "local" as being redundant. Hayek add&d that this is also part of the education process. The Taskforce members present agreed with the change to remove "locaL" Regarding specific objective 12, Clausen noted that the City already expect the owners and managers to keep up their properties. The housing inspection services looks at occupancy rates and other issues. She suggested instead that the City needs to enforce its expectations. Stutsman asked who determines what is appropriate. Clausen said there are things Housing and Inspection Services are not able to address because of lack of staffing. Enforcement of current expectations would be effective. Anciaux said that the statement should reaffirm that a lot of the nuisance complaints with Section 8 or low-income housing is due primarily to the perception that those tenants cause problems, when in fact they are not the problem. Vandenberg said the general problem is poor management that is not diligent enough to fix problems. Peterson asked what power the City has to address that. Anciaux said it can revoke rental permits. Rackis said the process is complaint-driven right now, and a police officer has to issue the criminal Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 4, 2005 Page 11 complaint before housing inspection services moves in to take action. So the police officer on the scene has discretion on whether to issue a nuisance ordinance or criminal complaint. Peterson asked if the current system is a matter of City policy. Rackis said yes. Peterson said that since the City already expects this and it is not happening, how does the Taskforce encourage it to happen. Nasby said one way might be through stricter enforcement. Peterson asked if the policies themselves need to be changed. Clausen said they were just changed. Rackis agreed that the nuisance ordinance is only a year old. Peterson said she means changes to the process rather than the ordinance. Rackis said that each individual police officer has discretion on whether to issue a criminal complaint, so enforcement varies. He suggested changing the statement to expect owners and managers of "all housing to adequately manage their facilities, and to continue to enforce." Anciaux suggested "strictly enforce." Peterson said what is wanted is something more than what is happening now. Dennis noted that the judges are not City employees, so it is very difficult for landlords to evict people for unauthorized residency, even if the unauthorized resident signs for the certified letter. That is an issue with the judges, though, not the City. Rackis said that in many cases the landlords do not cooperate with the City. Peterson said the Taskforce would like to write something that would start to work towards addressing all those issues. Dennis said the new ordinance came out of the Neighborhood Housing Relations Taskforce, which was a process very similar to the Scattered Site Taskforce. The new ordinance has not been in place very long, and exception might be taken to the suggestion that the City needs to do more. Vandenberg suggested saying the Taskforce wants to support the efforts of the previous group. Peterson asked for confirmation that what Dennis is saying is that what the other Taskforce created is good but has not been in place long enough. Dennis agreed. Peterson asked if there is anything the Scattered Site Taskforce can say that can help it get enforced. Stutsman said it is fine to say the Taskforce supports the efforts of the Neighborhood Housing Relations Taskforce. Hayek noted by saying that, the Scattered Site Taskforce members are supporting something that they have never read. Anciaux said he thinks the statement is fine as written. Clausen said it should not say "should" because those standards are already expected. Anthony suggested saying the City should do more. Anciaux said the statement is effective as it is, because it is simply that not having effective management gives assisted housing a bad reputation. Clausen said that she does not see why that statement would be a recommendation, since the expectation is already in place. Hayek said that the intent was to reference the importance of effective rental management, without spelling out what it constitutes. Peterson said it is an important statement to include. Clausen asked if "should" could be removed. Anthony suggested removing the first sentence. Stutsman asked why "should" should be deleted. Clausen said it is because the expectation is already there. Hayek suggested, "As part of the implementation of these policies, the City's vigorous enforcement of rental housing regulations is critical." That would not say to do it or change it, but emphasize that enforcement is part of the solution. Peterson agreed with "vigorous enforcement." Clausen agreed with Hayek's suggested statement. Stutsman suggested changing "such" to "rentaL" Anciaux suggested changing it to "assisted." Hayek noted there are unassisted large multi-family complexes that are poorly managed and associated with assisted housing. Peterson agreed that happens all the time. Peterson confirmed that the edited statement would be "Much public opposition to assisted housing results from deficient maintenance and management of non-assisted tenant populations." Hayek said that strong management is desired for both. Anthony said that is captured in the first sentence, which talks about all rental housing. Nasby suggested changing the last sentence to monitoring "all housing." The Taskforce members present agreed with the changes. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 4, 2005 Page 12 Regarding specific objective 13, no edits were suggested. Regarding specific objective 14, Clausen suggested removing the first clause and saying, "The City should conduct a comprehensive review." The Taskforce members present agreed with the edit. Hayek noted that a point raised at the hearing was to ensure that the policies do not impact the ability to maintain and rehabilitate existing housing. He suggested bringing that up in the context of the matrix. Vandenberg confirmed that she and Anthony would be discussing the matrix before the next meeting. Peterson suggested making a note to discuss the rehab issue at the next meeting. Hayek said he would create a bullet point for that. Anciaux asked which objectives were not finalized. Hayek said specific objectives 3, 4, and 8. Vandenberg said she would work on 8. Peterson added that the order should be discussed. Anciaux said 8 and 11 should be combined. Peterson said they lose impact that way. Vandenberg left at this point. Next meeting set for April 25 at 4:30 p.m., location to be determined. Anthony noted that the City Attorney's office submitted an opinion prior to the public hearing, which was a public document but the Taskforce did not receive it before the hearing. Clausen asked what the date on the document was. Anthony said March 16. Nasby noted that the packets for the hearing were mailed by March 17, to give as much notice as possible before the hearing. The packets were done already, and the memo did not get routed in time. Hayek said that the Taskforce did not discuss Johnson's additional memo about a comprehensive housing summit, which was submitted after the hearing on March 31. He distributed copies of the document and suggested talking about it at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business to come before the Taskforce, the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. s:/pcd/minutes/ScalleredSiteHousingT askforcel2005l04-Q4-05sshtf.doc Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Recommendations for City Council 19 April 2005 DRAFT ONLY The Taskforce recommends the followin2 2eneral policy obiectives: (1) Iowa City should strengthen 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 while increasing the supply of such housing. The Taskforce recommends the followin2 specific policy obiectives: (1) The City should make land available for emergency and/or transitional housing throughout the community. 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. (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.) (2) 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 HOO) to providers of assisted housing to offset the increased costs of developing housing in such areas. (3) If it 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. (4) The City should encourage affordable 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 housiç.g and development policy. (5) 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 of the community. At present, most rental housing is confined to only 10 of 31 census block Page 1 of2 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Recommendations for City Council 19 April 2005 DRAFT ONLY groups. Such a policy would disperse rental housing away from the University ofIowa student areas and make it easier for families to compete with students for such housing. (6) The City should take additional steps to increase sustainable home ownership among its low-moderate income population. (7) 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. [Joan to provide language re: collaboration with public and private partners on transportation, child care, etc.] (8) The City should develop an inclusionary zoning policy for new housing developments. The policy should offer effective incentives for developers 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. (9) The City should launch a campaign to educate the community about the importance of affordable housing, the impact of allowing the status quo to continue, and the degree to which housing and development decisions must involve all segments of the community. (10) The City should enlist other 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. (11) The City should expect owners and managers of all rental housing to manage their facilities adequately. The Taskforce encourages vigorous enforcement of existing policies. Much public opposition to assisted housing results from deficient maintenance and management of unassisted tenant populations. As a mere 1,150 of the approximately 15,000 rental units in Iowa City are assisted, it is important to monitor all rental facilities. (12) In conjunction with its review ofthe 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. (13) 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 0[2