Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-2005 IOWA CITY SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 3,2005 City Hall 410 East Washington Street Lobby Conference Room 4:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes from April 25, 2005 3. Discussion of Draft Recommendations from Taskforce to City Council 4. Adjournment MINUTES SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE APRIL 25, 2005 HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Jerry Anthony, Darlene Clausen, Matthew Hayek, Jan Leff, Jan Peterson, Sally Stutsman, Joan Vandenberg STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis OTHERS PRESENT: Amanda Cline, Maryann Dennis, Charles Eastham, Tracy Glaesemann, Luke Pelz, Patti Santangelo CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Hayek called the hearing to order at 4:35 pm. APPROVAL OF MARCH 28. 2005 AND APRIL 24. 2005 MINUTES: Hayek asked if there were revisions for the March 28 Minutes. Several typographical edits submitted for the Minutes. MOTION: A motion was made by Stutsman, seconded by Peterson, to approve the March 28,2005 Minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Anciaux arrived. Hayek asked if there were revisions for the April 4, 2005 Minutes. Several typographical edits submitted for the Minutes. Hayek suggested a change on page four in the first full paragraph to say, "the project was still funded by IFA." Anthony agreed. MOTION: A motion was made by Stutsman, seconded by Leff, to approve the April 18, 2005 Minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TASKFORCE TO CITY COUNCIL: Hayek reviewed the progress from the last meeting. He noted that several of the original recommendation points were revised or clarified, while some items were tabled for further discussion. The packets sent to the Taskforce members for the current meeting included a draft of the updated recommendations, dated April 19, 2005. He said that is the current working draft and asked whether the Taskforce would like to talk about the matrix first, or after reviewing the other points. General agreement expressed to discuss the matrix first. Vandenberg said she and Anthony worked on the matrix, and they both think it is important to evaluate the assisted units in a context containing all housing units, rather than just rental units. If the Taskforce would like more rental units to go into more neighborhoods, it makes sense for the comparison to be with all units in the block groups. However, using the matrix numbers with all units naturally leads to the percentages of assisted units being smaller. Stutsman asked for a definition of "all" housing units. Anthony said it is both rental and owner-occupied. Vandenberg agreed it would be all households, and noted that the data had been included on one of the earlier drafts of the matrix, but then was not used. Anthony said data included since January has been rental only, so changing to all units is a large shift from previous discussions. Vandenberg noted for example in tract 105 that the number of rental units is 109, while the total number of household units is 780. As such the percentage of the 75 assisted units in the tract is a very different percent when compared to 780 total units, versus on the 109 rental units. Vandenberg said she and Anthony were also looking at ways to evaluate the nature of the assisted housing units. There is a continuum in the community of emergency housing, transitional housing, and housing for the elderly and disabled. Additional columns on the matrix would indicate the numbers of elderly/disabled units, and emergency/transitional units in each block group. The idea is to have the total Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 2 number of assisted units, but also to have the data divided three different ways, to see the different housing types. Clausen asked for confirmation that the new columns would have data only from different types of housing, such as elderly\disabled. Vandenberg said yes, the first new column indicates the number of assisted housing units, excluding the elderly/disabled and emergency/transitional. The next column indicates how many emergency/transitional units are in an area, since those types of housing have a higher need for other services nearby. The third column has the total number of all assisted housing units. The block group would be flagged if any of those three columns were higher than the city average. Vandenberg continued by noting that block groups will vary in the number of flags in those three columns. If all three columns are flagged, that area would be a "low" priority for additional assisted housing. She said Nasby suggested block groups with two flags would be areas to encourage "home ownership". One flag would be "medium" priority for additional housing, while no flags would have a "high" priority. This goes back to gradations in incentives, rather than an either/or approach to future development of assisted units. The idea is to look at the different types of housing without being exclusionary. Vandenberg said another option for an additional column would be the "potential for development" in a particular area. She said that another column could be added to indicate an area's accessibility to other services and jobs, though that is not something for this Taskforce to evaluate. Peterson suggested including that column but leaving it blank, to keep that issue in mind for those who look at the matrix later. Stutsman asked if the matrix would be included with the materials given to City Council. Vandenberg said yes, after the Taskforce approves it. Vandenberg said the Taskforce needs to decide if the percentages on the new matrix should be flagged if they are above the city average, or if the city average numbers should be multiplied by 110 percent. Anthony added that the data for both the number of assisted rental units and the number of all rental units should be from the same year, which has not yet been adjusted. Currently the number of assisted units is from 2004, while the number of all units is from the 2000 Census (data collected in 1999). He also said the development potential and access to services columns have not been incorporated into the matrix yet. Not having those three things, he and Vandenberg evaluated the current data and shifted the focus from just rental units to include all units. Anthony said he and Vandenberg have not concluded yet how to construct the matrix. He agreed that a decision needs to be made whether to use the citywide average or something else. If something else, that method needs to be developed and explained. Hayek asked what led to the three new columns. Vandenberg said she thinks the elderly/disabled housing skews the data, since that type of assisted housing has a lower impact on the neighborhood. At the same time, emergency and transitional housing has a much higher impact because of the needs that accompany families at that level. The third column, including all units, might be redundant. Peterson said she likes having the three columns there, dividing the data into the different types. Anthony said the largest change was from counting only rental units to counting all units. Hayek asked what the rationale was for that change. Anthony said some block groups do not have many rental units overall. For example, tract 105 has 109 rental units and 80 of them are assisted. One of the recommendations said there should be a better distribution of rental units, both assisted and unassisted. Using data from all units will target the distribution of rental units. Stutsman asked what definition would be used for potential for development. Vandenberg said it would probably be new construction, but that does not address the potential for acquisition or rehab of current units. Peterson said rehab units were supposed to be discussed at this meeting. Hayek said that was more along the lines of not limiting funding for maintenance of existing units. Anciaux asked if "existing" meant a unit that is already a transitional housing unit, or an existing unit that would be converted into a new transitional unit. Hayek said it is not about changing the type of housing, but allowing funds to be put into maintaining an existing unit currently owned by HACAP. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 3 Peterson said she was unsure which rehab situation was being addressed at the public hearing. Anciaux said he understood the question to be about purchasing a dilapidated unit and renovating and converting it into a new transitional housing unit. Hayek said that he thought that was a separate issue. Peterson agreed that is another situation the Taskforce should clarify. Hayek said he understood it to be a question of funding current transitional units for maintenance. Anciaux said he understood it to mean buying and rehabilitating a unit, thus increasing the number of transitional units. Peterson agreed with Anciaux's understanding, that it was not a new building, but would be a new transitional unit. Hayek said he sees no difference between building a new unit versus converting an existing unit in an affected area. Peterson said that was the question. Vandenberg asked Nasby if he has anything to add regarding how to better define new versus rehab. Nasby said the City has funded straight acquisition with HACAP and Successful Living, mostly with transitional housing. They identify the unit and purchase it, and it becomes part of their stock, so it does not involve building or rehabbing. They have also done solely a rehab of property. Vandenberg asked if new construction or converting existing units is easier. Nasby said no way is easy, but there are benefits to both approaches. Dennis asked if an applicant for federal aid through the city generally knows where a new unit will be going. Nasby said not necessarily as the last few projects the City funded did not have sites. Dennis said when the Housing Fellowship applies for new units; they do not always know where they will be located. They have a budget and a general per unit cost. Nasby agreed that is how it usually works. Anciaux asked if the Fellowship is required to locate units in Iowa City. Dennis said yes, if the funding is administered by Iowa City, but they do have units in Coralville, and owner-occupied units in Lone Tree that were not City funded. Vandenberg suggested calling the column potential for new construction instead, since it would be difficult to evaluate areas for other types of construction so that might clarify things. Leff asked if access to services refers primarily to transportation. Vandenberg said she was thinking about where jobs are and where transportation systems are. Peterson said they would be things that are necessary to sustain self- sufficiency. Clausen asked if it would include childcare. Hayek asked how the potential for development and access to services would play into the matrix. Vandenberg said she sees those as the second part of the process in identifying areas for development. This approach would identify the ideal place to develop, which has access to those services and a low concentration of existing assisted housing. Those things would not necessarily be part of the policy, but would be additional information to consider when looking at future development. Hayek asked if those columns would affect the preference column. Vandenberg said maybe. Peterson said even if that column is blank, she would like to include it in the materials given to the Council as items that should be investigated when pursuing future development. Anthony noted access to services was addressed several times at the public hearing, so it would be helpful to address it. Hayek asked if anything could be decided on at this meeting that would help the subcommittee with their next step. Stutsman said it appeared that all the Taskforce members were in agreement to add the new columns. Anthony said he has some concerns about the columns, most importantly the question of what the cutoff should be. He asked if the cutoff should be the city average or something else. Peterson suggested looking at both options, to see which most closely demonstrates what the Taskforce is trying to say. She does not know how the data will appear. Vandenberg noted that the data needs to be updated before it can be evaluated. Peterson asked how 110 percent is different from "more than 10 percent above the city average." Anthony said for example if a tract has 20 assisted units and 1000 total units, assisted units comprise 2 percent of the total. If the city average is .5 percent, 110 percent of .5 percent would be .55 percent. With the CITY STEPS approach, adding 10 percent to the city average, the percent would instead be 10.5 percent. So the difference is between .55 percent and 10.5 percent. Anthony noted that any cutoff except the CITY STEPS approach would have to be explained and justified. He said a third option would be to use the city average, and a fourth option is to use two times the standard deviation, which is fairly common in statistical analysis. Any value that is two standard Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 4 deviations on either side of the mean would be considered an extreme case. Peterson asked for confirmation that CITY STEPS adds 10 percent to the city average. Anthony said yes. Nasby said that as an example, in CITY STEPS, the citywide average is used in showing low and moderate-income concentrations. The City average of low-moderate income household is 53 percent, so anything higher than 63 percent is concentrated by that definition. He noted that the 10% approach in CITY STEPS deals with larger percentages. Vandenberg added that the percentages of assisted units are very small now that all housing units are figured into the data. Anthony said that CITY STEPS percentages are small as well. Anciaux said that even though the percentages are small, problem areas could still be identified. Anthony agreed. Hayek asked if the Taskforce could decide the statistical question at this time. Anthony said a judgment call should be made on which method to use, and then see what the results look like. Stutsman suggested going with the CITY STEPS option, since it has been used before. Anthony agreed that would be the easiest approach as far as the easiest to defend, since it is already established, but others might disagree on whether it would reflect what the Taskforce is saying. Hayek said that without the elderly/disabled unit numbers, a 10 percent rule would not flag any block groups. Peterson agreed that she is concerned that the number would be so big that all the work up to this point would be useless. Anthony said that with total assisted units, the citywide average is 4.07, and there are block groups with greater than 14 percent. Anciaux asked which ones. Anthony said 4.1 and 21.2, but 18.2 is not flagged using the citywide average, though it would be flagged with transitional housing. Hayek asked what the citywide average of emergency/transitional housing is. Vandenberg said that with the current numbers, the average is .5 percent, which would then translate to 10.5 percent as being the threshold. Hayek noted that nothing in two of the three new columns would be flagged using that method. Peterson said, as such, she is concerned by that approach. Hayek said in the third column, only two block groups are flagged. Anciaux asked which two are flagged. Hayek said 4.1 and 21.2. Anciaux noted that 21.2 would include student populations. Hayek said he does not know specifics about the standard deviation approach. Anthony said he has not applied it to this issue, but it is a fairly common statistical measure. Peterson agreed. Hayek asked if it would be difficult to explain, and asked for an explanation of how it would work. Anthony said if the city average for all assisted units is 4.07, and the standard deviation is 1 percent, then any value above 4.07 plus two times one, or 6.07, would be concentrated. Vandenberg asked how the standard deviation would be calculated. Anthony said the software would calculate it. Vandenberg asked approximately what it would be. Anthony said it depends on the distribution and there is no way to know ahead of time. Vandenberg said she is concerned that whatever method used will catch all the nuances of the data, considering the very small percentages. Peterson said that seeing all the results of the different methods would be helpful. Anthony said the data can be calculated using all the methods very easily, but defending the method might be more difficult. Peterson asked for confirmation that, in terms of explaining and justifying it, the method applying 110 percent would be the most difficult to use. Anthony agreed. He asked if the data should be calculated using all four methods. Hayek agreed. Hayek asked if there was consensus to use data from the same year for consistency's sake. Anciaux agreed, if the data is available. Peterson asked which way the data should be adjusted, and if the census data can be updated. Anthony said city staff has provided the total number of new units constructed since 1999, though that does not include the block groups where they are located. Nasby said building permit information could be used from 2000-2004. It does not indicate whether the structure was actually built, but it would give some idea on the number. That information can then be geocoded to give the block group locations. He said the other method would be to discount assisted housing built since 2000. Peterson said she would prefer not to discount the assisted housing built after 2000. Anthony agreed that if data on units built since the census is available, it should be used. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 5 Rackis said that a much larger number of unassisted rental units have been built since 2000 than assisted units. Out of 2000 units built in that time, only 75 are assisted. Anciaux asked how many of the 2000 units are in the Lodge. Nasby said about 220. Hayek asked how long it would take to gather that information. Glaeseman said it is done and would be available for the next meeting. Hayek asked if there was consensus to update the census data to include new construction since 2000. The Taskforce members agreed. Hayek asked about the "access to services" and "potential for development" columns. Anthony said the subcommittee has yet to come up with some measures for those two. Vandenberg said she thinks those items are in the implementation phases, which are included only as topics for consideration while developing an overall plan. Peterson agreed. Hayek said the Taskforce could suggest the city consider those aspects. He asked whether the columns should be included. Peterson said she would like them to be included, even if they are blank. If it is only in the narrative, it might get lost. Dennis noted that there are not any services available where land has not been developed. Rackis said that there are no bus routes in the peninsula area yet. Vandenberg asked if a route would be put in that area. Rackis said it is a matter of supply and demand. Hayek asked about the three new columns. Vandenberg reiterated that they would be the percent assisted without elderly/disabled, percent of emergency and transitional, and percent of all assisted units. Peterson said she already stated her opinion. Anthony said he and Vandenberg have not discussed the new columns. Anciaux asked if a heavier weight could be put on emergency and transitional housing. Anthony said yes. Anciaux asked if that could be justified because of the heavier reliance on services. Anthony said that is unknown. Stutsman asked if that is an unfair assumption. Peterson said no, because a family in emergency or transitional housing would by definition have high needs. Anciaux said in terms of the high percentage of transitional housing in block group 18.2, a transportation service program should be developed to allow transitional housing to be located in other areas. Peterson asked if that would be provided by HACAP. Anciaux said yes. Leff said the intent of the question regarding rehab housing is not clear from the minutes from the hearing. Hayek said that building a new unit and converting an existing building are the same. Peterson agreed, but noted the important thing is that the Taskforce members are in agreement about what is being discussed, and the recommendations are clear as well. Anciaux said that if the question is about converting existing buildings into new transitional housing, there are buildings in other parts of Iowa City that can be converted. Hayek said the minutes from the last meeting say, "Hayek noted that a point raised at the hearing was to insure that the policies do not impact the ability to maintain and rehabilitate existing housing." Anciaux said he does not object to maintaining current transitional housing. However, as 45 percent of transitional housing is located in block group 18.2, something needs to be done to spread it out in the future. Leff said the minutes from the hearing say, "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." Peterson and Anciaux agreed that sounds like buying new units and converting them. Peterson said what Axeen was saying is that this is good for the neighborhood. Anciaux said there are other places outside of 18.2 where that can be done. Leff said the minutes from the hearing go on to say, "There should be a process to allow rehabilitation projects to take place in prohibited areas...." She added that she could understand Peterson's and Anciaux's interpretation. Peterson asked if all of the Taskforce members are in agreement that what is meant by rehabilitation of units needs to be clarified in light of this. All agreed. Vandenberg asked about Anthony's reservations regarding the three new columns. Anthony said the matrix refers to specific policy objectives 2 and 3. However, specific policy objective 1 already explicitly refers to transitional housing. He is not sure having it also in the matrix is necessary. He also asked for clarification from staff whether it is okay for elderly to be specifically identified and removed from the data. That is permissible with emergency/transitional, but is it permissible with elderly housing asked Anthony. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 6 Nasby said that it did not appear the elderly\disabled are being singled out as a separate group, since they are included in the data. He said it was also his understanding from the attorney that emergency and transitional housing can be specified, and said he would check with the attorney regarding elderly\disabled. Anthony said he would like to know for sure. Peterson said she thinks having the column information available is about looking at each block group and understanding what is located there. There is a difference in the kinds of impacts from different types, and it is helpful to see what is in the neighborhoods. Stutsman agreed, and noted that having the information available would assist with the educational aspect. Peterson said that it would be helpful also to have student housing information. Clausen asked for confirmation that the column with assisted units excluding elderly and disabled does include emergency and transitional. Vandenberg said yes. Hayek said it seemed there was nothing else to discuss on the matrix until the new data has been gathered. Anthony said that he would like to define what high, medium, and low preferences mean. He said one way to define them would be to assign a dollar amount to each level. Peterson suggested letting the city decide on the levels. Vandenberg said that her understanding is high would have incentives and low would not have incentives. Medium would therefore have some incentives. Anthony said once the development potential data is available; the preferences could be fine tuned. Hayek suggested moving on to the other discussion points. He said he would like to cover everything else and leave the matrix as the only unresolved issue at the end of the meeting. He suggested quickly reviewing the objective points in order again. All agreed. Hayek said the only change to general objective 1 was from "maintain" to "strengthen." General agreement was expressed for that change. Hayek said the change to general objective 2 was from "without reducing" to "while increasing." Peterson said she is not sure what housing is being referenced in objective 2. She said that increasing the supply of housing for her would mean affordable housing rather than only assisted housing. The absence of affordable housing is why there is such a high demand for assisted housing. Increasing affordable housing would decrease the pressure for assisted housing. Peterson said her concern is that general objective 2 is recommending an increase in assisted housing, when she would like to increase affordable housing. If it becomes impossible to scatter assisted housing and increase the stock of assisted housing at the same time, linking those two objectives together might result in both being lost. She said there is a difference between affordable and assisted housing that should be clarified. Anthony said that general objective 1 asks for an increase in affordable housing generally, and then the second objective talks about assisted. So he views that as asking the city to primarily increase the supply of affordable housing, and if not, then increase assisted housing to help make up for the shortfall. Peterson asked if Anthony thinks the city can scatter and increase at the same time. Anthony said if one assisted unit is built next year outside of 18.2, then both objectives have been met. Peterson asked if the objective says "maintain," and 18.2 is not available for development, then it would have to be scattered. Anthony said yes, but the potential is that the city could scatter without increasing and addressing the need for affordable housing. Peterson asked if he meant affordable or assisted, since this objective refers to assisted. Anthony said assisted. Anciaux said the Taskforce would have to rely on the elected officials to evaluate the recommendations versus their budget, and do the right thing. He thinks that if the money is available, they would do it, but if the money is not available, then they cannot do it. Hayek said he shares Peterson's concern. He said he is worried that with this set of recommendations, the Taskforce might be overreaching. He would like to strike a balance between challenging the city to take bold steps, but still make the recommendations practical. Anthony said he believes specific objective 2 is more demanding than the general objective 2. Hayek said those are two different concepts. Specific objective 2 talks about spending money to bring the same supply on board in a scattered fashion. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 7 Peterson said the original general objective 2 asked for maintaining the current supply. She asked if it would be over reaching to recommend the city strengthen its commitment to assisted housing while increasing affordable housing, and also recommending the city increase the supply of assisted housing while scattering it. Anthony said the city could then say the current supply is all that is needed, which he is not comfortable with. Unless affordable housing is available for everyone, the supply of assisted housing should not be blocked. Also, asking for an increased supply will protect the recommendations from challenges of exclusionary effects. Anciaux said there are ways to incent developers to help with the recommendations without costing the city extra money. Vandenberg agreed, and asked whether the Taskforce would prefer more units or scattered units, assuming the city has a limited amount of money to spend. Anthony said that is a public policy question, whether the benefits of scattering outweigh the negative aspects of not having enough affordable housing. Peterson asked if Anthony meant assisted housing. Anthony said assisted, but only if enough affordable housing is available for everyone. If that is the case, then the amount of assisted housing can be reduced. A significant portion of the population in Iowa City does not have affordable housing, and the numbers are not changing significantly. Anciaux said if assisted housing is primarily located in one area, the property values will decline in the area, allowing more to be purchased there. Anthony said he does not agree, since property values in tract 18.2 are higher than many other places. Hayek confirmed that all the Taskforce members agree that a scattered site policy is a worthwhile endeavor, and most agree it would cost money to adopt the policy since a reduction in the available assisted housing is not a desirable outcome. He said that the general objectives started out saying that if the supply can be maintained while extra funds are made available to scatter, then scattering is desirable. However, asking also to spend additional money to increase assisted housing might take the recommendations beyond the realm of practical consideration. Peterson suggested leaving general objective 1 as currently stated, to strengthen the commitment and increase opportunities, and then change general objective 2 by adding a period after "community" and deleting the final clause. Vandenberg said she agrees. Anciaux agreed with removing "increasing" and "spend money" as much as possible. Peterson asked Anthony if that would be agreeable, even though it sidesteps the issue. Anthony replied that he would like a commitment to affordable housing in each of the objectives, so that if the city adopts anyone of them, affordable housing would be part of it. Hayek said he agreed with Peterson's suggested edit. Leff agreed as well. Clausen said she shared Anthony's concern. Peterson said that any part of the recommendations could be ignored by the city. Anthony agreed, but said it should be there, allowing the city do the editing. Hayek noted the Taskforce members are not in agreement on whether the clause should be in the objective. Vandenberg said including the end clause dilutes the commitment to scattering. Anthony said the issue really is as Vandenberg said a question of whether the benefits of scattering assisted housing outweigh the potential negative impacts of reducing the amount of assisted housing that is available. Anthony said the question is whether such a policy would benefit the public good, and if it cannot be proven to benefit the public good, the policy can be challenged at any time and struck down. Hayek said there is a diversity of opinion on what constitutes a benefit to the public good. Anthony agreed, and said if the policy cannot be proven to be a benefit, it will be struck down. Vandenberg asked who could strike it. Anthony said anyone who challenges it, if it goes to court, it would be struck down. Stutsman said she would like the city legal staff to respond to that, and give their opinion about the issue. Hayek said that scattered site policies have been adopted in many communities already. Anthony agreed, and noted that those communities have been able to demonstrate the benefits of the policy. He said that usually those policies are accompanied by additional funding and inclusionary housing policies, as well. Hayek said the three options are to leave the statement as written, stop the sentence after the word "community," or change the statement back to as it was originally written to say "maintaining the supply." Peterson said she does not agree with the third option to change back to "maintain," while ending the sentence after "community" asks for an increase in stock in conjunction with scattering. Stutsman, Leff, and Vandenberg agreed. Anthony and Clausen said they would like to keep the final clause. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 8 Stutsman asked if a minority opinion could be noted. Hayek said yes, consensus is not needed for every objective. The narrative can indicate that complete consensus was not reached for certain points. He suggested taking a vote on the issue. Peterson confirmed that the reason for the lack of consensus on this point could be explained in the narrative. Hayek said yes. Rackis noted for clarification that the primary source of funds for assisted housing has been HOME and CDBG funds, which are primarily used as financial assistance to build affordable housing. The funds are not used to provide direct housing payment assistance. He suggested recommending CDBG and HOME funds continue to be used for that purpose, but then also recommend increased commitment to find ways to build affordable housing throughout the community. Anthony suggested a fourth option for general objective 2, to say, "Iowa City should adopt a scattered site policy to ensure a fair share distribution of assisted housing in the community without using CDBG and HOME funds for scattering." Peterson asked how that would be accomplished. Anthony said by putting in additional resources. Peterson asked for confirmation that this would mean funding for scattering would mean new funding, rather than CDBG and HOME funds. Anthony agreed. Hayek said that is already being requested. Nasby questioned if Anthony's suggestion would put CDBG and HOME funds into housing only in the tracts that are already concentrated. Anthony disagreed, saying if a new affordable unit could come into the housing supply using CDBG funding; the easiest option might be for it to be located into one of the concentrated areas. Putting it elsewhere would require additional funding to pay the land price differential. Nasby said the assumption is then development would only occur in the over represented tracts. Anthony noted that if land was available in under represented tracts, and the land was zoned for it, a lot of the developments in 18.2 would have been located in those other areas. Assisted housing does not locate in 18.2 by choice, but for purely financial reasons. So he is suggesting funding from somewhere other than CDBG and HOME funds to pay for the land price differential. Peterson asked if both types of funding, both CDBG/HOME funds as well as additional funding, could be used to locate assisted housing outside of the concentrated areas. Vandenberg asked if this should be addressed as a specific objective instead of a general one. Hayek said the general policy objectives are designed to express the global findings. Peterson agreed, noting that otherwise both the general and specific points number 2 would say the same thing. Hayek suggested voting on the proposed change to general objective 2, adding a period after the word "community," and deleting the final clause. MOTION: Peterson moved to edit the general policy objective 2 to say, "Iowa City should adopt a scattered site policy to ensure a fair share distribution of assisted housing throughout the community." Leff seconded. Anthony objected to the revision, saying that the original change to "increasing" was reached after much discussion at the previous meeting. He still agrees with the reasoning for the original edit, which was a widespread concern expressed at the public hearing that the policy statement would result in a reduction of affordable housing. Everyone at the public hearing said scattering is a good thing only if affordable housing is protected from reduction. Eastham asked Peterson to explain why the motion for the current revision was proposed. Peterson said her concerns from the previous meeting were twofold. First, there is some confusion between the terms assisted and affordable. She said she feels strongly that the community needs to increase the availability of affordable housing, and it is the absence of affordable housing that creates a great need for assisted housing. Second, since general objective 1 asks for an increased commitment to assisted housing as well as an increase in affordable housing, and general objective 2 asks for scattering, adding a clause to request an increase in assisted housing while scattering might be over reaching. The final clause seemed redundant and excessive. Anthony said the entire scattering policy could be discarded for reasons unrelated to what it says, and that he would address that point later. Hayek asked if anyone else would like to address that issue. Stutsman said that looking at it from a policymaker perspective, the first two general policy statements should not contain too many specifics, but only address the overall goals the Taskforce would like the city Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 9 to pursue. Peterson noted that specific objective 2 does ask for additional funds beyond CDBG and HOME funding. Leff said the phrase "strengthen the commitment" implies supplying additional resources. Hayek asked for a vote. The motion was passed with a vote of 5 in favor, and 3 against (Anthony, Clausen, Anciaux). Hayek addressed the narrative at this point, suggesting that once the recommendations are finalized, the subcommittee comprised of Anthony, Hayek, and Vandenberg would draft the narrative. Then, instead of having the Taskforce meet to go through the entire document together, give each member an opportunity to write an additional supplemental piece to attach to the narrative document. That would give all members an opportunity to express their individual opinions and note the issues they are particularly concerned about. Anthony asked that the Taskforce have an opportunity to read and vote on the narrative, and asked that it be sent to the members in their meeting packets. Hayek asked for confirmation that Anthony is not recommending a line-by-line evaluation. Anthony said no, to vote on whether to accept the entire document. Hayek said he raised that point now because of the close vote on general objective 2. Hayek suggested reviewing the specific objectives. He reviewed changes to specific objective 1, to move one sentence to the beginning of the statement, and deleting the final sentence. Stutsman asked for clarification of what the phrase "make land available" means in this objective. She said that could be interpreted as the city needing to buy the land and make it available for emergency housing, rather than through zoning or other means. Anciaux said in this situation he thinks the city should buy the land, using CDBG or other funds. Hayek asked if Anciaux says that because of the difficulty of finding land for that type of housing anywhere in the city. Anciaux said yes. Anthony noted that there is land available in several places, such as the land now committed to the Super Wal-Mart. Anciaux said yes, but while there is still land available in that area, it is not located close to schools or downtown services such as the recreation center and library. Hayek said the original specific objective 2 was deleted, so all the other objectives have changed numbers. He suggested tabling discussion on specific objectives 2 and 3 until the matrix has been finalized. All agreed. Hayek said there were no changes to objective 4. The only change to objective 5 was to change "almost all" to "most." Hayek said that objective 6 had substantial changes, including the addition of the word "additionaL" Stutsman asked if the hyphenated "low-moderate" could be changed to "low or moderate." Clausen suggested changing it to "low to moderate." Nasby suggested specifying the income level, such as "under 80 percent area mean average." All agreed with that Nasby's suggestion. Hayek confirmed the statement would read, "The City should take additional steps to increase sustainable home ownership among its population under 80 percent area mean income." All agreed. Hayek asked Vandenberg for the revision to objective 7. Vandenberg distributed copies to the Taskforce members. She said she is not sure who is being referred to in the statement, since she is thinking about the high-end needs population, such as the homeless and near homeless. Peterson said the discussion was for the broader continuum, because even families that have recently moved into home ownership will not be able to sustain it without access to additional services. Hayek said the discussion about services was broad, but noted that the bulk of the needs are at the lower end. Vandenberg said there are different levels of need, so defining terms and containing the spectrum could be difficult. Clausen asked about adding the word "creative", and deleting the word "other." Peterson said the original idea was for creative collaborations. Anciaux asked what Human Services does for families who are homeless or near homeless. Peterson said the department hardly gets involved unless there is a substantiated child abuse situation. Stutsman said she would prefer not to use the word "creative," and to leave "low-income" in as a preventive measure. Sometimes if low-income families have help, they will not become homeless or near homeless. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 10 Hayek asked for confirmation that "homeless/near homeless" should be deleted from the statement. Stutsman said yes, change that to "low-income." Peterson confirmed that the statement currently says, "The City should work collaboratively with private and other public partners to develop comprehensive support services for low income families." Hayek asked about the second sentence. Leff said it is important to specifically state some of the services the Taskforce is talking about, to give examples of what is being referenced. Vandenberg said skill development could refer to either students or adults. Leff agreed. Dennis suggested changing it to "low income households," to be more inclusive. The Taskforce members agreed. Peterson asked about including job opportunities. Stutsman said that is included in the phrase, "among the many needs," otherwise the list could be very long. Hayek said that objective 8 had a change to say, "The policy should offer effective incentives for developers to include a percent of affordable housing in new developments." All agreed. Hayek said the change to objective 9 was "perils" to "impact." All agreed. Hayek said objective 10 had the word "local" deleted. All agreed. Hayek said objective 11 asks for "vigorous enforcement" of the nuisance law, and clarified the second sentence to indicate that neighborhood opposition to assisted housing is often caused by insufficient management of housing that is not assisted. All agreed. Hayek said objective 12 had no changes, and objective 13 had the first clause removed. All agreed. Leff asked if a disclaimer statement should be written to specify that "City" throughout the document refers to Iowa City. Unless "City" should stand for Iowa City, it should not be capitalized. Peterson said it should stand for Iowa City. Leff said a statement at the beginning should specify that. Anciaux suggested saying, "Iowa City, hereafter referred to as the City." All agreed. Peterson asked to review the order of the objectives. Vandenberg said that considering the education aspect is important, she would put that point as specific objective 1. Then objective 2 would be collaboration with other municipalities, so the current number 9 would be 1 and the current 10 would be 2. Anciaux said he would prefer keeping the current number 1 in its current place. Vandenberg said that would be fine, but would like to put numbers 9 and 10 higher in the list. Clausen said she would like to move number 7 higher on the list as well. Vandenberg said her rationale is that the education and collaboration are important for getting the work done. Peterson asked for confirmation that Vandenberg is beginning the list by saying the public needs to be educated about why this is important, the whole county needs to be enlisted because this is a wider issue, and then the others are specific things that Iowa City needs to do. Vandenberg agreed. Clausen said the current number 7 should be moved up, perhaps after the other points. Leff asked if these are being ordered chronologically, or according to importance. Ordering them with education and enlistment first might imply that those things need to be done before any of the other objectives could be met. Anthony suggested organizing the specific objectives according to the related general policy objective. So the specific objectives that would help to achieve each general objective would be organized together. Hayek said that two umbrella headings, which are the two general policy objectives, could each be put on a separate page with their supporting specific objectives. Vandenberg noted that some specific objectives would fit under both general objectives. Rackis suggested grouping them according to things Iowa City has absolute control over versus those things that would require collaboration. Stutsman said they could be ordered according to priority. She said to her a list of recommendations would have the most important points first. Peterson said that was what prompted the group to reconsider the order, and put 9 and 10 higher on the list. Hayek said those two statements are more positive from a marketing perspective. Peterson agreed, noting those statements do not leave Iowa City as solely responsible for improvements. Hayek said he agrees with moving 9 and 10 up to 1 and 2, and 7 up as well. Anciaux said he would like the current number 1 to stay near the top, because it addresses both 1 and 2. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes April 25, 2005 Page 11 Clausen confirmed that the new order is as follows: 1 is 3, 2 is 4,3 is 5, 4 is 6,5 is 8, 6 is 9,7 is 7,8 is 10, 9 is 1, 10 is 2, and 11, 12, and 13 remain the same. Hayek confirmed there were no other comments regarding the order. None were raised. Stutsman said she would like to discuss what the Taskforce members want in the narrative, in order to give the subcommittee some direction. Anthony agreed, and said it should be done during this meeting. Hayek said the narrative starts out with a general explanation about the Taskforce, including a discussion of the process, how the Taskforce was formed, when it met, who presented, and other general information. Then it goes into the core findings, which is not fully developed because it was begun before the objectives were written. Vandenberg suggested e-mailing the outline to the Taskforce members, and allowing each person to respond. Hayek said the open meeting policy is not violated if people respond individually. Stutsman asked if Hayek plans to have the narrative written for the next meeting. Hayek said yes. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 26, 2005 at 4:30. Hayek confirmed that he would e-mail the basic outline of the narrative out to the Taskforce members, who then should email back individually any additional notes or issues that should be addressed in the narrative to any of the subcommittee members. Nasby asked if a deadline should be included for responses. Hayek said he would include that in the e-mail message. Anthony asked if the subcommittee could look at other communities' matrices for comparison purposes, if they find that information. The Taskforce members agreed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business to come before the Taskforce, Anciaux moved to adjourn, and Vandenberg seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Recommendations for City Council 28 September 2005 DRAFT ONLY INTRODUCTION The Scattered Site Housing Taskforce ("Taskforce") was created by the Iowa City City Council by unanimous vote on April 6, 2004. The Council's instructions to the Taskforce were to "study the existing distribution, location and types of assisted housing in Iowa City" and "recommend policies or actions, as appropriate, regarding the disbursement, location, and type of future assisted housing." The Taskforce consisted of eight individuals from the community who volunteered their time and talents to the inquiry: · Don Anciaux - Chair, Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission · Jerry Anthony - Professor of Urban and Regional Studies, University of Iowa · Darlene Clausen - Representative, Iowa City Neighborhood Association · Matthew Hayek - Chair, Housing and Community Development Commission · Jan Leff - President, ICCSD Board of Directors · Jan Peterson - Executive, United Way of Johnson County · Sally Stutsman - Supervisor, Johnson County Board of Supervisors · Joan VandenBerg - At-Risk/Youth and Family Coordinator, ICCSD Between April 2004 and October 2005, the Taskforce toured much of the community's assisted housing infrastructure, conducted 24 open session meetings, and held two public hearings. Numerous individuals and organizations were invited to present data and opinions. Of the 17 organizations that presented, 11 were providers of assisted housing. Others presenters included housing-related departments at the City, University oflowa experts, residents, developers, and so on. The Taskforce reviewed over a thousand pages of written material submitted by these organizations and individuals. Following this exhaustive review, the Taskforce began a process of deliberating the issues at hand. This report (1) summarizes some ofthe trends identified by the Taskforce and (2) offers a number of policy recommendations for consideration by the Council. Page 1 of 8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Recommendations for City Council 28 September 2005 DRAFT ONLY TRENDS The Taskforce identified numerous trends that need community attention. The more salient trends include the following: (1) Demand for housing assistance is on the rise. In 2000, the waiting list delay for Section 8 housing vouchers through the Iowa City Housing Authority was zero. An individual or family could apply for housing assistance and, if qualified, receive a voucher immediately. By 2005, the waiting list has grown to more than 2,650 names. An individual or family applying now for housing assistance faces an approximately two- year wait for a voucher. It should be noted that Iowa City is by no means unique in this regard; other metropolitan areas and even smaller communities within the state have witnessed this very trend in recent years. The influx of low-moderate income populations likely stems from housing policy shifts in major metropolitan areas as well as demographic and economic changes. Many of those who seek housing assistance also need other services. Iowa City is particularly susceptible to these changes due to its broad array of services such as health care, human and social services, education, and public safety. (2) Local housing costs are among the highest in the state. Whether renters or owners, Johnson County households face among the highest housing costs in Iowa. In fact, Johnson County has the highest proportion of cost-burdened households statewide. While the cost of housing within Iowa City drives the countywide average, this dynamic is changing as Coralville now has a higher median price for single-family units. The Taskforce found that numerous members of the community whose incomes are modest (below 50% median income) are unable to pay market rates to rent or purchase housing. Land prices continue to rise. (3) Assisted housing tends to be concentrated. The Taskforce found that certain census block groups contain a disproportionately high number of assisted housing units, while other block groups contain few (and often no) assisted housing units. Census block groups are the smallest geographic measurement for which reliable statistical data are available. This fact makes it very difficult to gauge the concentration of assisted housing within, for example, a single square block or a portion of a single street. Without a doubt, large multi-unit assisted housing complexes result in an even higher concentration in the immediate vicinity. (4) Emergency and transitional housing is even more concentrated. Within the spectrum of assisted housing, emergency and transitional housing (i.e. housing for the homeless or nearly-homeless) is especially concentrated. Two census block groups in particular stand out in this regard. Census tract 18 [CB 18-1 and 18-2] presently contains 45% of all transitional housing and 69% of all emergency housing. If the local homeless shelter is relocated pursuant to current plans, census tract 18 could end up with 100% of all Page2of8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Recommendations for City Council 28 September 2005 DRAFT ONLY emergency housing. The taskforce believes this situation merits special attention. [Waiting on data to separated for 18-1 and 18-2.] (5) Poverty and mobility pose a challenge to our schools. The school district has witnessed marked changes in its student population. Poverty levels at certain schools, measured by the percentage of students receiving a free or reduced price lunch, are on the rise. By way of example, 26% of Mark Twain Elementary students received a free or reduced price school lunch in 1995; by 2004, the figure was 61%. 19% of Grant Wood Elementary received a free or reduced price lunch in 1995; by 2004, the figure was 45%. At schools elsewhere within the district, the free/reduced lunch rates are as low as 2%. Other data are likewise alarming. Rates of student mobility (the likelihood that a student will not start and finish an academic year at the same school) are on the rise. At Twain, the mobility rate exceeded 60% by 2003, while elsewhere in the district the mobility rates were as low as 8% (Lincoln Elementary). Teachers who addressed the Taskforce noted the difficulty of providing quality educational outcomes to high-poverty, highly-mobile student populations. The district targets higher-poverty schools with considerably more resources (up to ten times the amount targeted to lower-poverty schools) in the areas of guidance, reading, class-size reduction, ESL, special education, before-and-after school programs, family resource centers, and the like. Despite this, however, educators from the classroom to the central administration office shared what they described as a growing crisis for education within the community. Notwithstanding the commitment of additional resources, Twain and Wood are the two ICCSD elementary schools on the federal watch list. The Taskforce is concerned with what it regards to be increasingly disparate school environments within the same public school system. Due to confidentiality restrictions on school data, the Taskforce was unable to confirm links between poverty and mobility on the one hand and assisted housing on the other. However, it believes the City, the school district, and other relevant organizations should research this issue further and explore appropriate responses. (6) Local service providers. The taskforce heard from numerous agencies and non-profits that provide housing and/or services to low-moderate income populations. The message from these entities is that their workloads continue to increase and that many of them struggle to keep up with the demand for housing, social and human services, and the like. As budgets for these services are reduced by the federal and state governments, additional burdens are placed on local government, the agencies themselves, and private donors. (7) The University impact. The taskforce found that rental units of all kinds (both assisted and unassisted) are found mostly within a third of Iowa City's residential census block groups, and mostly near the University of Iowa. This is due to zoning as well as market demands. Approximately 15,270 UI students live off-campus in Iowa City. As a result, families compete with college students for rental housing. The college students can often pay higher rental rates and/or find roommates to share rent expenses, placing low- moderate individuals at a disadvantage. Page 3 of 8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Recommendations for City Council 28 September 2005 DRAFT ONLY (8) Federal funding for housing programs is decreasing. City staff and the presenters discussed the declining levels of support for housing, jobs and services for low-moderate income persons. Drops in CDBG, HOME and Section 8 funding have diminished the federal resources available for local housing needs. RECOMMENDATIONS The Taskforce urges the Council to consider two sets of objectives: General 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. Specific policy obiectives: (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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 69 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.) (6) The City should commit resources to encourage future assisted housing to be placed in underrepresented census block groups identified by the fair share matrix provided with these recommendations. This means committing additional funding (i.e. beyond current expenditures and beyond the CDBG/HOME funding stream from HUD) to providers of assisted housing to offset the increased cost of developing housing in such areas. (7) 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. Page4of8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Recommendations for City Council 28 September 2005 DRAFT ONLY (8) 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 housing and development policy. (9) 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. The City should collaborate with public and private partners on comprehensive services to those in poverty. Assistance in the areas of transportation, child care, counseling, education, and employment can help individuals and families become self sufficient. (10) 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 groups. Such a policy would disperse rental housing away from the University of Iowa student areas and make it easier for families to compete with students for such housing. (11) The City should take additional steps to increase sustainable home ownership among its population earning less than 80% of area median income. (12) 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. (13) 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. (14) In conjunction with its review of the Consolidated Plan (CITYSTEPS), the City should provide for a yearly review of fair share data so that the matrix provided with these recommendations is updated as conditions within block groups change. The Taskforce recommends that City staff and HCDC coordinate this annual task. (15) 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 5 of8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Recommendations for City Council 28 September 2005 DRAFT ONLY FAIR SHARE MATRIX As described above, the Taskforce concluded that concentrations of assisted housing are a growing problem for the community and should be addressed as a matter of policy. At the same time, the growing need for both affordable and assisted housing requires a continued commitment. How best to address concentration and housing demand is the challenge we face. After considerable analysis and deliberation, the Taskforce decided to establish a "fair share" matrix (Table ). For this, each ofthe 31 applicable census block groups was assigned two numbers. The first number is the present amount of housing units (both assisted and unassisted) within a given block group as a percentage of all housing units in the community. The second number is the present amount of assisted housing units within that block group as a percentage of all assisted housing units in the community. This approach demonstrates how a given block group compares to other block groups in terms of its share of assisted housing. Additionally, the taskforce wanted the matrix to be easy to understand, employ readily available and reliable data, and permit efficient updating as new building occurs within the community. The fair share matrix demonstrates that the total current number of housing units within a given block group may be as low as four and as high as 2,945. Similarly, the fair share matrix demonstrates that the total current number of assisted housing units within a given block group may be as low as zero and as high as 385. The basic premise of the fair share matrix is this: for a block group to contain its "fair share" of assisted housing relative to other block groups, its percentage of all assisted housing should approximate its percentage of all housing. The Taskforce believes this approach provides the most equitable means of improving the distribution of assisted housing. It should be noted that the fair share matrix does not - and cannot - answer all questions or account for all variables. For example, zoning constraints within certain block groups preclude medium- or higher-density apartments and condominiums, discouraging the even distribution of such housing. However, after considering various different approaches and data sources, the Taskforce concluded that the fair share matrix represents a fair, logical way to measure the assisted housing landscape. While the fair share matrix was selected as the primary means by which concentration or lack of affordable housing opportunities should be gauged, other data were considered and are worth mentioning. The Taskforce reviewed the following data and discussed their merits and faults at great length. Consensus was not reached regarding the use of these data, and as such they were not included as criteria in the fair share matrix. . Data regarding public housing and Section 8 assisted housing by type and by block group . Data regarding assisted rental housing as a percentage of all rental housing per/within each block group Page 6 of8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Recommendations for City Council 28 September 2005 DRAFT ONLY · ICCSD free/reduced lunch data · ICCSD mobility data · ICCSD test scores data · Poverty, median housing price data · Location of hum ani social services data · University of Iowa - Field Problems Project List of Presenters Habitat for Humanity Shelter House Domestic Violence Intervention Program City of Iowa City Housing Authority City of Iowa City Community and Economic Development Office City of Iowa City Urban Planning Office Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship Successful Living, Inc. Hawkeye Area Community Action Program Bums & Bums, L.C. Mid-Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County Iowa City Neighborhood Council Wells Fargo Bank (private lender representative) University of Iowa - Residential Services University of Iowa - Urban and Regional Planning Home Builders Association of Iowa City Iowa City Area Association of Realtors (invited but declined to present) Iowa City Community School District Page 7 of 8 Iowa City Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Recommendations for City Council 28 September 2005 DRAFT ONLY S.S.H. T. Meeting Dates April 29, 2004 May 12,2004 Bus Tour May 17,2004 June 7, 2004 June 21, 2004 July 12,2004 July 19,2004 August 2, 2004 August 16,2004 August 30, 2004 September 20,2004 October 4, 2004 Public Hearing at Twain Elementary School October 18, 2004 November 8, 2004 November 22, 2004 December 6, 2004 December 13,2004 January 3, 2005 January 24, 2005 January 31, 2005 February 14,2005 February 28, 2005 March 28, 2005 April 4, 2005 Public Hearing at the Senior Center April 25, 2005 May 26, 2005 (cancelled) October 3, 2005 Page 8 of8 Iowa City Housing Authority Homeownership Programs 9/26/2005 TENANT TO OWNERSHIP PROGRAM (TOP) Public Housing homes sold to Public Housing families ADDRESS Date SIZE TYPE Sold 2258 Russell Drive May-98 4-bedroom unit House 1417 Pine St. May-98 3-bedroom unit House 1702 California Ave. May-98 3-bedroom unit House 2409 Aster Ave May-99 3-bedroom unit House 2308 Lakeside Dr. Jul-99 3-bedroom unit House 2709 Wayne Ave. Jul-99 3-bedroom unit House 2660 Indigo Ct. Dec-99 3-bedroom unit House 1417 Franklin St. Jun-OO 3-bedroom unit House 1905 Gleason Nov-OO 3-bedroom unit House 244 Amhurst Sept.02 3-bedroom unit House 3410 Shamrock Dr. Sept.02 4-bedroom unit House 145 S Westminster St Jan.03 3-bedroom unit House 1528 Crosby Lane Sept.03 4-bedroom unit House 1927 Grantwood St. Mar.04 4-bedroom unit House 2608 Indigo Ct. Sept.04 3-bedroom unit Zero 1508 Dover Dec.04 4-bedroom unit House 2311 Nevada Feb.05 3-bedroom unit House 2614 Indigo Ct. Dec. 04 3-bedroom unit Zero 718 Highland Dec. 04 3-bedroom unit House 1905 California May 05 3-bedroom unit House 2537 Whispering Prairie Aug. 05 3-bedroom unit House 2434 Aster Aug. 05 3-bedroom unit House FSS TOTAL PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS SOLD 22 AFFORDABLE DREAM HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM (ADHOP) Newly constructed or newer homes sold to income eligible families ADDRESS Date SIZE TYPE Sold 2750 Irving Ave. May-99 3-bedroom unit House 2774 Irving Ave. Jul-99 3-bedroom unit House 2814 Irving Ave. Oct-99 3-bedroom unit House 1512 Dickenson Jul-OO 3-bedroom unit House 1605 Dickenson Jan-02 3-bedroom unit House 1821 B Street Sept.02 3-bedroom unit House 2409 Aster Sept. 02 2-bedroom unit House 145 S Westminster May.05 3-bedroom unit House TOTAL ADHOP HOMES SOLD 8 PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN RESOLD (Both Programs) 2nd 4th 1st Sale Sale Sale Program Date Date 2750 Irving ADHOP May'99 Mar.02 1702 California TOP May'98 May 02 1417 Pine TOP May'98 Feb.03 1927 Grantwood St. TOP March'04 Mar.05 3410 Shamrock PI TOP Sept.03 Apr.05 2409 Aster TOP May-99 Sept.02 2774 Irving ADHOP Jul-99 2558 Russell TOP May-98 ISECTION 8 HOMEOWNERSHIP Closing Date 1821 B Street IC 9/27/2002 Hills Bank - ADHOP 624 Eastwood Dr. Solon 3/26/2003 USDA 320 Railroad St. Tiffin 6/1/2003 UICCU 710 Blue Jay Ct. Tiffin 1/27/2004 USDA FSS 640 Emily St. NL 4/15/2004 USDA - Term 7/31/04 402 Upland, IC 6/18/2004 Hills Bank FSS 1424 Denali Ct. Coral. 7/2/2004 Hills Bank FSS 2086 South Ridge Dr Coral. 8/17/2004 Interval Mortgage 2608 Indigo Ct. IC 9/10/2004 ISB& T - ADHOP 46 Parkview Ct. NL 8/27/2004 USDA FSS Fairchild St. IC 12/22/2004 Hills Bank - Habitat for Humanity 718 Highland IC 12/21/2004 ISB&T - TOP 3410 Shamrock PI IC 4/11/2005 ISB& T - ADHOP resale FSS 1905 California IA 5/5/2005 ISB&T - TOP 635 Jules Ct. NL 9/28/2005 USDA TOTAL SECTION-8 HOMEOWNERSHIP CLOSINGS 14 Scattered Sites Attachment D Housing Choice Voucher Program Active Participants (March 2005) Year of Admission Admission prior to %of 1998 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 TOTAL TOTAL State of Residence Iowa 173 36 113 109 181 158 242 164 18 1194 87.3% Prior to Illinois 0 0 1 2 12 22 24 58 8 127 9.3% Admission Other 7 1 5 7 13 9 24 7 1 74 5.4% TOTAL 180 37 119 118 206 189 290 229 27 1368 % of Active Participants 14.8% 3.0% 9.8% 9.7% 16.9% 5.5% 23.8% 18.8% 2.2% Housing Authority Active Participants State of Residence June 30, 2004 Scattered Sites Attachment D Active Participants Housmg Choice Voucher Program -+- State of Residence Prior to Admission Iowa --- State of Residence Prior to Admission Illinois June 30, 2004 State of Residence Prior to Admission Other 2003 2001 1999 Admission prior to 1998 t/) c o t/) .~ E "C <C - o ... Q) .c E ::::I Z 300 250 200 150 100 50 o Year of Admission Housing Authority Active Participants State of Residence 2 Scattered Sites Attachment D Public Housing Active Tenants (March 2005) Year of Admission Admission prior to %of 1998 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 TOTAL TOTAL State of Iowa 9 3 7 8 11 11 17 9 4 79 81.4% Residence Illinois 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 5 10 10.3% Prior to Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2.1% Admission Unknown 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16.5% TOTAL 24 4 7 9 11 13 19 10 10 97 % of Active Participants 26.7% 4.4% 7.8% 10.0% 12.2% 14.4% 21.1% 11.1% 11.1% 107.8% Housing Authority Active Participants State of Residence 3 June 30, 2004 Scattered Sites Attachment D -+- State of Residence Prior to Admission Iowa - State of Residence Prior to Admission Illinois State of Residence Prior to Admission Other State of Residence Prior to Admission Unknown 2003 2001 1999 Admission prior to 1998 II) c .2 II) .!!! E "0 « .... o ... Q) .c E j z Active Tenants Public Housmg 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 o June 30. 2004 Year of Admission Housing Authority Active Participants State of Residence 4 Over\Under Fair Share Under Under Over Under Under Under Over Under Over Under Under Under Over Over Under Under Over Under Over Over Under Over Under Over Under Over Under Under Under Under Over Percent of Assisted Units in CTIBG 0.39% 3.43% 13.94% 0.00% Percent of All Housing Units in CTIBG 3.56% 3.85% 9.79% 0.01% 10.25% 6.33% 2.93% 3.29% 1.39% 1.75% Number of AssistE!.,d Units 4 Fair Share Assisted Housing Units Based on Percentage of All Housing In Each CnBG Total Number of Housing Units 1023 Permits 2. 4% 12.18% 2.66% 1.41% 2.76% 0.90% 5.89% 4.61% 0.86% 2.34% 4.61% 10.71% 0.00% 8.16% 4.44% 13.85% 0.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.71% 0.49% 3.57% 1.48% 3.50% 0.79% 1.76% 1.71% 38 392 o 21 9 30 14 14 4 13 9 6 90 28 10 16 15 81 21 3 13 102 162 o 104 1 o o o 76 1276 2.57% 1.83% 0.98% 2.57% 3.66% 2.47% 2.02% 5.83% 4.78% 1.59% 1.21% 1.93% 7.70% 5.26% 0.05% 2.61% 1.60% 2.73% 0.02% 2.18% 3.24% 100.00% 1108 2813 4 2945 1819 841 947 400 504 740 526 281 739 1053 711 580 1675 1375 456 348 556 2214 1512 14 751 460 786 5 627 931 28744 90 486 o 293 7 8 18 2 5 59 3 o 26 144 2 8 73 3 1 2 11 420 123 o 139 30 2 o o 618 2661 2000 Census All Housing Units 935 1018 2327 4 2652 1812 833 929 398 499 681 523 281 713 909 709 572 1602 1372 455 346 545 1794 1389 14 612 430 784 5 627 313 26083 Block Group 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 Census Tract 1 1 4 5 5 6 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 21 21 23 23 23 104 105 Iowa City Totals , , 2000 Census Iowa City and Coralville \ -'- --,- --,-- -' .~~,,~._,. ------ , ~ , . ~ ~ t ~ .~~-~--' ~__,~H.f~(lERT < ..... .......- Ni:"'~ , , (~--- , , ') \, I", / "- I / /'--- / ..... I -- /, 1\" '~ Q . Q ~ \ " , " ) ~ ... -- \ í"'---- / '. , .-",-'-'-- - -- ----- ~~.._,""="'>"" ~ -- -.... ,-,--,,------,-~-_. .----.-- - , - / / / / ./ -- \\is c: ''ttlS -f'1--o,t 0 (~) IMJ-erseY',¡ecl l,1i. ()ohl~C¡ CfPw-lvof\;.¡.,'.pg ,- 'I'" , , J " j I , \ I -< ~ 'J' ",'"' , ---,-.-.. ._---,,--- / --,,, "--"- \ I , I \ I I , , , I , I, ~\" ~ .J-=-e " ~ '--"- \ ---. " ~ -"-" -.~ " "-- ---"",,--,._- i1lìúf S~ r.u 7f1., 0. -,,~,~-~; orE: N I , D > . . " ·i -', } ,,-, ;; ",' 'C" ., ..', , '& ',' ',-' <