Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC 8.18.16.pdf AGENDA Housing and Community Development Commission Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:30 P.M. Helling Conference Room, City Hall 410 East Washington Street 1. Call meeting to order 2. Approval of the June 16, 2016 minutes 3. Public comment for topics not on the agenda 4. Consider recommendation to reduce units for CHARM Homes CDBG Project– proposed FY16 Annual Action Plan Amendment #4 5. Discuss affordable housing strategies for the City 6. Discuss and consider adoption of changes to the CDBG and HOME scoring criteria 7. Staff/Commission Comment 8. Adjournment MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2016 – 7:00 PM DALE HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Christine Harms, John McKinstry, Harry Olmstead, Matthew Peirce, Dorothy Persson, Emily Seiple MEMBERS ABSENT: Syndy Conger, Bob Lamkins STAFF PRESENT: Kris Ackerson, Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Joe Hughes, Paul Roessler RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the City Attorney’s office review the SouthGate Property Management Crime Free Lease Addendum for legality. CALL TO ORDER: Byler called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. APPROVAL OF MAY 19, 2016 MINUTES: Olmstead moved to approve the minutes of May 19, 2016 with minor edits. Pierce seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DISCUSSION OF CRIME FREE ADDENDUM BY LANDLORDS: Byler noted there was a copy of the crime free addendum used by SouthGate Property Management in the Commission’s packet. Byler stated that the City Attorney’s office will review the addendum if a majority of the commission requests it. Hightshoe noted that SouthGate’s crime free lease addendum is not used as a screening item; it is more a code of conduct once a person gets a lease and what behaviors one could lead to eviction. Hightshoe mentioned that the City Attorney has been reviewing all of SouthGate’s leases as part of a review of all Section 8 landlords and found it met all City and State requirements. Ackerson spoke with the City Attorney and what she said was the Crime Free Lease Addendum addresses tenants once they are in a unit, and not the screening process, but would review it again and provide the Commission with her opinion. Harms noted that the Human Rights Commission has various ways to oversee regulation of treatment of individuals within the City. In a recent report to Council the report showed that the trends in disproportionality have been decreasing with regards to the minority population traffic stops. When looking at the map of where the majority of the minority traffic violations occur, it is around the Broadway neighborhood so Harms feels it might be worth having more information and review. Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 3 of 8 Byler stated he doesn’t have a problem with a Crime Free Lease Addendum in general, however this particular one from SouthGate Property Management does have some vague paragraphs. “Tenants and affiliates should not cause an unreasonably high number of calls for police service, including, but not limited to, noise complaints…” which could lead to fear to call the police. But that doesn’t seem to be an issue for the legal staff of the City to address but rather Council if they want to pass an ordinance stating there cannot be nuisance penalties in a lease. Olmstead feels that the Council won’t want to pass an ordinance without input form the City Attorney’s office. Persson moved to recommend that the City Attorney’s office review the SouthGate Property Management Crime Free Lease Addendum for legality. Olmstead seconded the motion. Charlie Eastham stated he sent Ackerson an email with the Crime Free Lease Addendum items highlighted that he felt were objectionable. He followed what he felt the context of the Office of the General Counsel Guidance of Fair Housing Act. Eastham notes that the guidance memo outlines the use of screening procedures on housing providers that have a disparate racial impact that is the heart of the guidance memo. He feels it is clear that the use of the Crime Free Lease Addendums would more than likely have a disparate racial and ethnic impact to continuing access to housing. The guidance also states that the use of allegations or arrests without the proof of actual conduct is not acceptable. Joe Hughes (SouthGate Companies) stated they manage about 600-700 units around Iowa City. The SouthGate Companies has been in business for 54 years, started by the Braverman Family, and have always done their best to give back to the community, care for their residents, and keep their residents safe. This winter they donated use of their building at 1920 Boyrum Street for overflow of the homeless shelter. Hughes noted that SouthGate is involved in affordable housing projects and is a sponsor of the affordable housing forum. The Crime Free Lease Addendum was initiated as a way to keep the children, families, and residents safe. They do not want drugs in their complexes, specifically with what used to be Broadway (now Orchard Place) there were issues there, a shooting (landlord killed). SouthGate worked with the City to completely remodel that building inside and out and work to keep drugs and crime out of there. Hughes said that HUD came out with new guidelines this spring that address some of these issues, so SouthGate is reviewing their leases and Crime Free Lease Addendum with their legal team as well to check for needed updates or improvements. Hughes feels it is good to have the City Attorney review this, as well. SouthGate will update the document as needed. Byler asked if Hughes knew the timeline of their legal team’s review of the leases. Hughes felt it would be complete in the next couple of months. Persson asked when they change something like an addendum, is it reviewed by the City Attorney or someone within the City Staff? Hightshoe said not necessarily, the Housing Authority does review leases if they are used for Section 8 housing, but the City Attorney does not. The City Attorney will review leases periodically to make sure they are in compliance with State and Federal Codes. The City has encouraged landlords to institute a Crime Free Lease Addendum to protect other tenants from life safety or health safety concerns. Persson asked if the City was keeping any data that is being reviewed to show that all parties are being treated fairly. Hightshoe said if someone using a voucher is denied the City keeps those records, but they do not keep track of landlord evictions if there is not a housing choice voucher involved. Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 4 of 8 Eastham stated that two or three years ago the Coalition for Racial Justice submitted a request from Steve Rackis, the Housing Authority Administrator, for data broken down by race for a three-year period showing denials and terminations. After review of that information it showed a proportion of African American denied or terminated was higher than whites. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. DISCUSS WHEN A QUORUM OF HCDC MEMBERS EXISTS AT VARIOUS COMMUNITY MEETINGS: Byler stated this became a question because at the last Affordable Homes Coalition meeting there were four or five Commissioners present. There are currently four HCDC members that are voting members of the Affordable Homes Coalition. Byler stated that if there were five it becomes an issue due to open meetings laws. McKinstry added that much of what is discussed at the Affordable Homes Coalition is under the purview of HCDC so the members that attend the Affordable Homes Coalition will have more information than those that are not there. Byler suggested that where there will be an Affordable Homes Coalition meeting to find out who is planning to attend and to make sure that no more than four Commissioners attend any one meeting. DISCUSSION OF WALDEN RIDGE REHAB PROJECT: Byler said he asked to have this on the agenda due to an article in the paper describing arrangements other than what he felt they had discussed and agreed upon. Hightshoe referred to the HCDC minutes (October 22, 2015) that stated a recommendation of a CDBG loan of $600,000 to Bilam Properties, LLC (a SouthGate Companies entity) to rehabilitate 53 units at Walden Ridge with the following financial terms: 15-year amortization, 15-year term, 3% full amortizing with a 15-year compliance period. Payments would begin once the rehabilitation is completed. Executing the agreement would be contingent on SouthGate paying off the $600,000 loan for the Orchard Place (aka Broadway Condos) project. Hightshoe also noted in the minutes, “CDBG rules require that 51% of the units be rented to those under 80% of median income at no more than the CDBG fair market rent.” These terms match the application for funds. After talking with SouthGate and actually writing the agreement, it was changed to 40 units (a decrease) because not all of the units needed to be gutted and remodeled. However, even at the 40 units 26 will be affordable rental units (51% of 53 units would have been 27 affordable units so it was reduced by 1). CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF REQUEST TO REDUCE UNITS BY CHARM HOMES – PROPOSED FY16 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT #1: Ackerson said they have not drafted the amendment yet, Staff wanted to bring this to the attention of the Commission first. Charm Homes is having trouble finding two accessible four-bedroom homes to provide 8 single-resident occupancy rooms. So what they are proposing to reduce the number of rooms and use the funds to buy one house and then rehab and retro-fit the house to make it accessible – a reduction of 50% in the number of units. Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 5 of 8 Byler asked the amount of funding that was awarded to Charm Homes. Ackerson said they were awarded approximately $60,000, which was to be divided into two down payments on homes. But instead they will now be making one down payment and use the rest of the funds for the rehab. Ackerson will draft an amendment and bring it to the Commission at the next meeting. OVERVIEW OF CDBG AND HOME EXPENDITURES DURING FY2015: Byler said this agenda item was requested because there was some curiosity among the Commissioners on how the funds are allocated. Ackerson noted the table in the Commissioners’ packets is also in the Annual Action Plan. The table shows the housing projects at the top, the bottom two rehab projects listed under housing are City Council project set-asides. Byler asked how the City Council sets this money aside…is it during the City Council budget meetings? Hightshoe explained that when the Commission approves the five-year consolidated plan, it includes the set-asides. In each year’s Action Plan there are set-asides for administration, aid to agencies, neighborhood amenities, economic development, and owner occupied rehab based on the amounts in the consolidated plan. There would need to be an amendment to the five-year plan to change the amount allocated to set-asides. Hightshoe noted that there needs to be consistency in the set-asides, especially for administration. Byler questioned if people on staff could do various things, so if one year a project came in for HOME or CDBG funding that needed $800,000 then the staff person that was doing owner-occupied rehab would then have to work on the $800,000 project. Hightshoe said not necessarily, the owner-occupied specialists are trained in rehab. She said they have rehabbed over 400 homes in the past 20 years, and those homeowners are primarily under 50% median income, they do emergency repair to mobile homes, which no one else in the County will do, so there is a lot of value in the owner- occupied rehabs, they stabilize neighborhoods. McKinstry stated this topic came up in the Affordable Homes Coalition as well and he disagrees on part. First there is great value in maintaining neighborhoods, and the concern with making the funding competitive is who would manage the program, so it needs to be City directed. Byler agreed that the program is valuable, the question is if they are allocating $300,000 out of a $10 million budget it is different than when you are taking $300,000 out of a $500,000 budget. At what point, as the budget shrinks (as it continues to do so) does this become the entire budget. Hightshoe mentioned that staff will be presenting affordable housing strategies to City Council at their June 21 work session. Commissioners are welcome to come listen. Persson voiced her concern that whatever money is spent does go to help people not just pay an agency to exist. She is always very concerned if there is a need and someone steps up and fills that need, but if people want to be competitive and not cooperative that can be an issue. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIES: Byler noted that in the packet there were statements from local groups (The League of Women Voters of Johnson County, Affordable Homes Coalition, and The Consolation of Religious Communities) all of which had valid aspects. Byler suggests that since these groups consist of people that are well known to the Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 6 of 8 Council that the Commission either make a specific recommendation that is not in one of these documents, or make a blanket statement of support for these documents. Olmstead suggested the Commission serve as a conduit to bring representatives from each of these organizations together with this committee to formulate that strategy. Byler acknowledged that could be done, noting that the work session on June 21 Staff will be presenting their ideas to the Council. Hightshoe said she will email the presentation out to the Commission after the presentation to Council and in the next meeting packet. Once that is in the packet, the Commission can then discuss it and compare it to the statements received by the outside organizations and will have all the information to make an informed recommendation. Byler agreed with Hightshoe to wait and hear all the information before making a recommendation. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF CHANGES TO THE CDBG AND HOME SCORING CRITERIA: Byler stated there had been some discussion at previous meetings whether the Commission wanted to more highly value matching funds on the scoring criteria. The scoring sheets are not binding, but they are what the partner organizations look at for feedback. It has been more common as funds are dwindling to see applications with no leveraging resources at all so often that scoring section is 0. Byler asked if the goal was to have the partnering organizations only apply for funding when they have matching funds for projects, or are committed to go raise matching funds, should that be worth more point-wise. Persson agreed it is something the Commission should adopt. She feels that organizations that need to go out and fundraise are more aware of their images and clientele and work harder to keep those images positive. Additionally it can open the cause to members of the public that didn’t know there was even a need. Harms agrees and notes that when she worked to raise money for the splash pad it was hard work but necessary. Byler suggests that the first section, the Need Priority, is the most vague section and gives Commissioners the ability to assign points based on judgment. He suggests keeping Need Priority at 20 points, make Leveraging section 50 points, and make the last three sections 10 points apiece. Seiple stated that Impact/Benefit is a very important category and isn’t sure that should only be worth 10 points. Eastham commented that the Leveraging items do not include other public subsidies. Especially for public housing there is a need to get money from other public entities. Hightshoe agreed and said perhaps #3 under Leveraging should just say “does the project leverage other financial resources”. Byler agrees with Seiple’s point and suggests then a ranking of Need Priority at 10 points, make Leveraging section 50 points, Feasibility section 10 points, Impact/Benefit 20 points and Capacity/History 10 points. Olmstead suggested sending the updated scoring sheet to the agencies to get their input as well. Byler said they could but some agencies may not want to go raise money so won’t want leveraging to be worth so many points. It will be on the agenda for the next meeting so if an agency wants to come address the issue they can. Housing and Community Development Commission June 16, 2016 Page 7 of 8 DISCUSS FUNDING SOURCES AND PROCESS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES: Byler noted he had not sent letters to the engineering firms yet, he has a draft letter prepared. So this will need to be on a future agenda to discuss. STAFF/COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: Hightshoe noted that the So You Want To Start A Business series ended after five workshops. The first three were very well attended with over 30 at each workshop. The last two had only 11 attendees each. The workshop information is on the City’s website at: www.icgov.org/businessworkshops The City has also changed their micro-loan policy and will now lend up to $10,000 with 3% interest and partner with MidwestOne Bank to administer the loans. Ackerson noted that at the end of the packet he included a list of definitions. The County has a semi- regular meeting with the City Staff from all the municipals in the County and the school districts to come up with common definitions for affordable housing. Hightshoe noted that the Iowa City team was selected by the Robert Woods Foundation as an Invest Health Team. This is a partnership with The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and the mission of the Team is to research affordable housing and health – specifically the disparity among low-income housing families with asthma and behavioral and mental health issues. ADJOURNMENT: Olmstead moved to adjourn. Seiple seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record Name Term expires July 1 9/17/15 10/22/15 11/19/15 1/21/16 2/18/16 3/10/16 4/21/16 5/19/16 6/16/16 Harms, Christine 2016 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X X Lamkins, Bob 2016 X X X X X X O/E X O/E Persson, Dottie 2016 X X X X O/E X O/E X X Byler, Peter 2017 X X X X X X X X X McKinstry, John 2017 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X X Peirce, Matthew 2017 --- --- --- X X X X O/E X Conger, Syndy 2018 O/E O/E X X X O/E X O/E O/E Olmstead, Harry 2018 --- --- --- X X X X X X Seiple, Emily 2018 X X X X X X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant EXHIBIT A FY16 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment #4 July 2016 REVISED JULY 14, 2016 The Annual Action Plans are a portion of Iowa City’s Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS). The Annual Action Plan includes information on the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds for housing, jobs, and services for low-moderate income persons. The Annual Action Plan outlines proposed activities and their budgets. The FY16 Plan Amendment #4 proposes to reduce the number of SRO units for the planned CHARM Homes LLC project from eight units to four units and add rehabilitation activities, due to difficulty in finding ADA accessible units to purchase. This project is already included in the Annual Action Plan and is being revised. The City Council will consider this recommendation on September 6 following a 30-day public comment period and an amendment will be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) subject to City Council approval. Jurisdiction: City of Iowa City, Iowa Contact Person Jurisdiction Web Address: http://www.icgov.org/actionplan Tracy Hightshoe Neighborhood Services Coordinator 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319.356.5244 Tracy-Hightshoe@iowa-city.org Proposed Amendment Project Name CHARM Homes LLC, Affordable Rental Housing Target Area Goals Supported Increase the supply of affordable rental housing Needs Addressed Expanding Affordable Rental Housing Funding CDBG: $61,650 Description The applicant proposes to acquire one property with four single room occupancy units each and rehab the property for accessibility. Targeted groups are the elderly and those with disabilities. Target Date 3/31/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 4 units for elderly and those with disabilities. 0-30% MFI: 75 percent 31%-50% MFI: 25 percent Location Description To be determined Planned Activities Property acquisition and rehabilitation Publication Notice Iowa City Press Citizen August 19, 2016 PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE FY16 Annual Action Plan Amendment #4 The City Council will hold a public meeting, accept comments, and consider approval of Iowa City’s FY16 Annual Action Plan Amendment #4 on September 6, 2016. The meeting will be held at City Hall, Emma Harvat Hall, 410 East Washington Street at 7:00 p.m. The Annual Action Plans are a portion of Iowa City’s Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS). The Annual Action Plan includes information on the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds for housing, jobs, and services for low-moderate income persons. The Annual Action Plan outlines proposed activities and their budgets. This amendment proposes to reduce the number of SRO units for the planned CHARM Homes LLC project from eight units to four units and add rehabilitation activities, due to difficulty finding ADA accessible units. Copies of the proposed amendment is available from the Neighborhood and Development Services Department, 410 East Washington Street; the Iowa City Public Library, 123 S. Linn Street; or on Iowa City’s web site (www.icgov.org/actionplan). Additional information is available by calling 356-5230. Comments may be submitted in writing to the Neighborhood and Development Services Department at the address above or by email to Kristopher-Ackerson@iowa-city.org. If you require special accommodations or language translation please contact Tracy Hightshoe at 356-5230 or 356-5493 TTY at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. Public Comments Received with Staff Response The 30-day public comment period for the FY16 Annual Action Plan Amendment #4 starts July 1 and ends August 1, 2016. The City Council is holding a public meeting on September 6, 2016. Comments Received: None Staff Response: N/A Affordable Housing Action Plan CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 21, 2O16 Presentation Overview Existing programs Recent progress Current efforts New strategies ◦City driven affordable unit production ◦Market driven affordable unit production Miscellaneous other topics Summary of recommendations Final thoughts Existing Programs Creating and maintaining an affordable housing stock Existing Programs Public Housing / Publicly Owned Housing ◦81 public housing units ◦10 publicly owned housing units in the Peninsula Housing Choice / Veteran Supportive Services Vouchers ◦1298 vouchers with 98% utilization (1215 HCV / 83 VSS) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ◦137 units supported in the last 3 years Home Investments Partnership Program (HOME) ◦93 units supported in the last 3 years General Rehabilitation Improvement Program (GRIP) ◦24 units supported in the last 3 years UniverCity Program ◦Primary objective is neighborhood stabilization ◦Secondary objective is affordable homeownership opportunities ◦16 of 54 houses have been sold at or below 80% of AMI RFC Density Bonus Option Trends in CDBG and HOME Funding $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 $1,000,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 CDBG HOME As demand for affordable housing has grown, traditional resources have declined and further reductions are anticipated 2013 Property Tax Reform Pending financial pressures: ◦Significant drop in multi-residential taxable value (11% of all taxable value) ◦State revenue outlook will place increasing risk on ‘backfill’ dollars ($1.6m) ◦Declining agriculture values will start to have impact on the ‘rollback’ further dropping taxable value of all residential properties ◦Continued volatility in insurance and pension costs Recent Progress Expanding affordable and workforce housing through TIF and advancing Fair Housing Recent Progress Expanded Affordable / Workforce Housing Through TIF ◦Sabin Townhomes (3 of 28 units to be affordable rentals) ◦Riverside West Apartments (12 of 96 to be workforce rentals) ◦Chauncey (5 of 66 units to be publicly owned housing) CA Ventures Court / Linn (32 of 320 to be affordable rentals plus $1 million affordable housing contribution to the City) Towncrest LIHTC Senior Housing- $600k City contribution (36 of 40 units to be affordable) Single Family New Construction concluded with 141 new homes built with an average sales price under $180,000 Revised Tax Increment Financing Policy ◦Adopted May 3, 2016 covering all Urban Renewal Districts ◦15% affordable housing requirement for projects with ten units or more ◦Maximum 60% AMI for rental and 110% AMI for ownership ◦Fee in lieu of may be negotiated to maximize impact Strategy for Advancing Fair Housing ◦Amended Human Rights Ordinance on February 16, 2016 to include Housing Choice Vouchers as a Source of Income Current Efforts Inclusionary housing, Housing First, and establishment of an affordable housing fund Current Efforts Inclusionary Housing in Riverfront Crossings ◦City Council will consider adoption of an inclusionary zoning policy to be triggered by re-zonings in the Riverfront Crossings District Housing First ◦City Council considering code amendments to pave the way for the State of Iowa’s first FUSE Housing First operation ◦$275,000 of CDBG/HOME funds were also committed to the project in May 2016 Establishment of the City’s First Affordable Housing Fund ◦$1 million from the sale of the Court / Linn property was deposited into a newly created affordable housing fund ◦Sale proceeds are not restricted in use New Strategies – City Driven Affordable Unit Production Adding new affordable housing stock through direct investment or mandates New Strategies Creation of units through annexation / development ◦Traditional annexations ◦Annexations / developments utilizing Tax Increment Financing Development of a funding source Use of the Iowa City Affordable Housing Fund City driven affordable unit production Opportunities with Annexation /Development Traditional annexations ◦Mandatory contribution to affordable housing ◦Land dedication in or outside of annexation area ◦Density bonuses Annexation / development utilizing TIF ◦When City assistance with public infrastructure is needed (Ex: Alexander School area) ◦State law requires LMI set-aside when City participates in infrastructure to support residential development Annexation / Development with TIF McCollister Extension = $3,500,000 Required LMI set-aside = $1,575,000 ◦45% LMI in County ◦Collected over life of TIF as increment is produced (10 year period) ◦Set aside can be used within the Urban Renewal Area or elsewhere in the community Note: City does not need to use 100% of the TIF increment. In many cases it may be necessary to use a portion of the increment and allow the remainder to be distributed to the taxing bodies for operational support Development of Funding Sources Source Annual Revenue Notes Local Option Sales Tax $9-14 million Requires referendum and neighboring community support. Could be coupled to address other needs (roads, parks, public facilities, CIT, etc.) Utility Franchise Fee $900,000 per every 1% increase (up to 4% increase is possible) Requires City Council vote. This source may be needed in the future if we expand public safety operations as the community grows. GO Bond $100,000 - $1,000,000+ Requires City Council approval in the annual budget process and competes directly with other capital needs including roads, parks, trails and public facilities. City would pay interest on each issue thus increasing the cost. Emergency Property Tax Levy Up to $900,000 Requires City Council approval in the annual budget process. Levy can be adjusted from year to year. Conflicts with financial goals of diversifying revenue sources and lowering the tax rate Development of Funding Sources Source Annual Revenue Notes Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Varies based on district District-wide increment can be used to support affordable housing projects in the same urban renewal area. This strategy is most viable in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings areas. (City captures TIF increment for affordable housing; not project based) Proceeds from Broadway Condo Sale $1,300,000 Currently held one-time proceeds from previous sale of public housing. Funds must be used to purchase/develop low-income housing (80% AMI or below). Ultimately subject to HUD approval. TOP / ADHOP Funds $600,000 Currently held one-time proceeds from a previous sale of public housing units. HUD has approved use of the money for low income home ownership, public housing or the development/acquisition of new accessible affordable rental housing units for families at or below 80% AMI. Iowa City Affordable Housing Fund Newly established fund that includes the $1 million sale proceeds from Court / Linn and potential future annual revenue from the City and/or fee in lieu of contributions No existing process for distributing the collected funds. Options include: ◦Contribute all or portion of available funds to the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund ◦Charge the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) to make an annual recommendation in conjunction with the CDBG / HOME fund distribution process ◦Hold and strategically seek land appropriate for banking ◦Provide a local match for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program ◦Seed a down payment assistance program that can be used in conjunction with affordable housing units produced through the Riverfront Crossings Inclusionary Zoning ordinance Staff recommendation (to be adopted by City Council resolution and subject to change by the same action) ◦50% of all contributions to the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund ◦30% of all contributions held in reserve for land banking or emergent situations determined by the City Council ◦20% of all contributions directed toward projects seeking LIHTC with remainder going to the CDBG/HOME process ◦Future contributions to the fund may be geographically restricted and will be accounted for accordingly New Strategies – Market Driven Affordable Unit Production Adding new affordable housing stock through changes in regulation and incentive programs New Strategies Regulatory changes Tax abatement Strategic Low Income Housing Tax Credit Investments Market driven affordable unit production Regulatory Changes Waive parking requirements for affordable units in the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown areas ◦Lower the cost of construction and provide incentive to include affordable units Review opportunities to relax multi-family design standards but do not create a separate standard for buildings with affordable units ◦Lower the cost of construction and expedite building approvals Eliminate minimum size for Planned Unit Developments (PUD) ◦Create flexibility to cluster density in infill situations and provide for units that are affordable by design Increase allowable bedrooms from 3 to 4 outside of the University Impact Area (keep occupancy restrictions at 3 unrelated) Permit more building types by right as opposed to requiring a PUD, which many developers seek to avoid ◦Density bonuses by right ◦Greater use of duplex, triplex and fourplex types in certain zones ◦Introduce Cottage Clusters as an allowable use in residential zones and permit them by right ◦Tradeoff between allowing by right versus a public process that allows for neighborhood input Contemplate a form-based code for the Alexander Elementary School neighborhood and for the downtown transitionary neighborhoods Tax Abatement State law provides the ability for cities to create a revitalization area and subsequently provide for tax abatement on residential projects (tax abatement is an exemption of the value of specified improvements that are subject to property tax) While residential tax abatement programs have been offered by cities throughout the State, staff is not aware of any that are tied directly to the provision of affordable units A tax abatement program may potentially be created that provides exemption from taxes on a specified scale ◦Could include new construction and rehabilitation ◦City may be able to create certain requirements such as affordability standards and accessibility features beyond what the building code requires ◦In order to limit financial exposure, the City may be able to cap the annual amount of taxes that can be exempt under such a program Staff recommends a stakeholder committee be created to vet this concept similar to the process used for the RFC Inclusionary Zoning effort Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) Conduct an annual Request for Proposal Process (RFP) for LIHTC projects ◦Process would seek proposals that align with the state scoring criteria ◦City staff and the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) would review proposals and award funding from the Affordable Housing Fund ◦If no LIHTC projects are received or determined to be viable then HCDC would use such funds in the regular CDBG / HOME application process or recommend rolling funds over to the following year’s LIHTC RFP process ◦City could consider such an RFP process specifically for land it has banked in the future ◦Project based vouchers could also be considered along with locally funded vouchers in order to make applications for LIHTC more attractive Miscellaneous Other Topics Tenant displacement, location models and rental permits Miscellaneous Other Topics Affordable Housing Location Model ◦Exempt the RFC, Downtown and the University Impact Area ◦Consider changes to reduce distance of restricted areas and/or account for neighborhood densities in a manner that might allow for additional units in restricted areas. ◦Staff does not support eliminating the model and believes scattered site subsidized housing is a long-term strategy that is in our best interest as a community Miscellaneous Other Topics Collecting Rent Data on City Permits ◦The need for reliable rent data is understood, but rental permits are not the best mechanism for collecting such data ◦Permits are on a two year cycle and rents can fluctuate within that period ◦Staff has no ability to verify accuracy of rents and limited resources to analyze the data in any meaningful manner ◦A point in time analysis using rental advertisements or other similar methodologies may produce more meaningful results Miscellaneous Other Topics Tenant Displacement ◦Council approval of major site plans when 12 or more households will be displaced and there is no accompanying rezoning ◦Such applications would require a transition plan to better inform residents and the general public (requires a comprehensive plan amendment) ◦Mailings to current residents could be required upon application and a good neighbor meeting would be encouraged consistent with current policy Rent abatement for emergency orders when vacation of property is not necessary Conclusion Summary of Recommended Actions 1.Continue to fund existing local programs including GRIP and UniverCity 2.Adopt an Inclusionary Zoning code amendment for the Riverfront Crossings District 3.Adopt code amendments that enable the FUSE Housing First use in the community 4.Provide staff funding direction heading into the FY 18 budget process ◦Staff recommends aiming for $500,000 to $1,000,000 depending on budget conditions ◦Recommended revenue sources include district-wide TIF in the urban core and property tax 5.Develop an annual process for distributing dollars from the City’s newly created Affordable Housing Fund ◦Staff recommends 50% to the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund ◦30% held in reserve for land banking or emergent situations determined by the City Council ◦20% directed to HCDC for LIHTC support or supplemental aid through the CDBG / HOME application processes Summary of Recommended Actions 6.Hold the $1,900,000 million in housing authority funds for an opportunity to leverage significant private investment and/or to develop/acquire low income replacement housing 7.Consider an annexation policy that provides for affordable housing contributions 8.Consider use of TIF on a case by case basis to support residential development and/or annexation through the provision of public infrastructure and capture the required LMI set-aside for use throughout the community (Ex: McCollister and Foster Road) 9.Pursue regulatory changes to City Code: ◦Waive parking requirements for affordable units in RFC and downtown ◦Review possible changes to the multi-family design standards for all units in an effort to reduce cost and expedite approvals ◦Eliminate minimum size requirements for PUDs ◦Increase allowable bedrooms from 3 to 4 outside the University Impact Area (keep occupancy at 3) ◦Permit more building types by right as opposed to requiring a PUD process (density, multiplex units, cottage clusters, etc) 10.Pursue a Form-based code for the Alexander Elementary neighborhood and the downtown core Summary of Recommended Actions 11.Strategically seek LIHTC projects through an RFP process overseen by the HCDC (ties to use of the Affordable Housing Fund) 12.Create a committee of staff, developers and other interested stakeholders to determine the viability and potential parameters of a tax abatement program that would support affordable housing 13.Exempt the Riverfront Crossings, Downtown and University Impact Areas from the Affordable Housing Location model and consider modifications to reduce size of restricted areas and/or account for neighborhood densities 14.Tenant Displacement ◦Council approval of major site plans when 12 or more households will be displaced and there is no accompanying rezoning ◦Such applications would require a transition plan to better inform residents and the general public (requires a comprehensive plan amendment) ◦Mailings to current residents could be required upon application and a good neighbor meeting would be encouraged 15.Rent abatement for emergency orders when vacation of property is not necessary Final Thoughts Expectations for action should be high, but realistic. Progress will take years, if not decades, and span political terms. Strategies must be flexible, provide for opportunistic action, and be able to be maintained over time. No silver bullet solutions – cities across the country are struggling immensely with this issue and many tools utilized in other States may not be permitted in Iowa (e.g. rent control) Market rate housing is not the enemy – all supply matters ◦From 2010-2014 Iowa City averaged 197 single-family, duplex and townhome housing permits per year (Coralville 60, North Liberty 199) and 285 multi-family permits (Coralville 72 and North Liberty 71) ◦Demand for housing projected to be strong across all demographics, particularly students and seniors, but also families and urban dwellers ◦If these demands are not met there will be more pressure on the overall housing stock and competition drives prices up for all buyers Iowa City must be strategic about growth ◦Smart growth strategies and a focus on quality will sustain strong demand for decades and ensure public services can be delivered efficiently and cost effectively – build up more than out – expect neighborhood pushback ◦Should not lose sight of scattered site location principles ◦Student housing demand will continue to place more pressure on neighborhoods and create demand for large scale student developments on the periphery of the community and in neighboring communities. We must continue to provide student housing opportunities close to campus, which will most appropriately be in the form of dense urban developments. Next Step Community feedback ◦Request comments from the City’s Housing and Community Development Commission ◦Allow for feedback from local housing organizations , advocacy groups., and developers. Staff is able to present this to various groups who express an interest in the strategy ◦Consult with adjacent cities and Johnson County to see if there is interest in a regional funding source or shared action strategies ◦Utilize one of the August or September work sessions to review feedback and provide staff direction on which strategies to pursue 1 CDBG/HOME EVALUATION CRITERIA HCDC Member: Points Ar c o f S E I o w a CS C C C h i l d c a r e DV I P S h e l t e r MY E P F a c i l i t y Sh e l t e r H o u s e Un i t e d A c t i o n f o r Y o u t h CH D O o p e r a t i o n s - T H F Dia m o n d S e n i o r A p a r t m e n t s Ha b i t a t f o r H u m a n i t y MY E P Th e H o u s i n g F e l l o w s h i p I.Need Priority (max. 10 points) 1 How well has the applicant documented the ability of the project to meet need(s) identified in CITY STEPS? 0-10 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II.Leveraging Resources/Budget (max. 50 points) 1 Does the project have realistic cost estimates, including bids?0-5 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Does the project leverage community partnerships and/or volunteer resources?0-5 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Does the project leverage other financial resources?Matching funds: 0-25% = 0-10 pts 26-50% = 11-20 pts51-75% = 21-30 pts 76-99% = 31-40 pts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 III.Feasibility/Need for Subsidy (max. 10 points) 1 How well has the applicant demonstrated the requested level of public subsidy is necessary (private/other funds not available)? 0-3 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Does the project schedule adequately demonstrate the project will be completed within the required time period? 0-3 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Does the project provide a long-term solution to the need identified?0-4 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IV Impact/Benefit (max. 20 points) 1 What primary percent of median income persons are targeted? Guide: 0-30% = 10 pts31-50% = 6 pts 51-60% = 4 pts 61-80% = 1pt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Does the project have a reasonable per-person cost compared to other projects of similar scope/cost? 0-5 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Does the project serve a reasonable number of people compared to other projects of similar scope/cost? 0-5 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Capacity/History (max. 10 points) 1 Does the organization have the capacity to complete the project, proven either by prior project completion or current expert staffing? 0-10 Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum Points: 100 TOTAL:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public Facilities Housing 8/11/2016 CommonBond pioneers a new way to finance affordable housing ­ StarTribune.com http://www.startribune.com/commonbond­pioneers­a­new­way­to­finance­affordable­housing/389257221/1/2 BUSINESS CommonBond pioneers a new way tofinance affordable housing AUGUST 6, 2016 — 11:49AM NEAL ST. ANTHONY CEO Deidre Schmidt of CommonBond Communities, Minnesota’s largest owner and manager of affordable housing, just paid $16 million to buy a 112-unit Apple Valley apartment complex that the organization intends to preserve for its working-class tenants at a time when for-profit owners are scooping up rental units, adding amenities and hiking rents — causing a housing crisis for some amid a red-hot market. And CommonBond did it without any government subsidy. That’s very rare in a business where nonprofit owners such as CommonBond, PPL and Aeon, who house and provide support services to the working poor and first-generation immigrants, often need public assistance to subsidize rents or buy down a mortgage on a new development or purchase-and-rehabilitation project that might otherwise be acquired by an owner aiming for an upscale clientele. However, government resources for affordable housing are limited for assisting the crowd of maintenance and day-care workers, beginning teachers and families struggling on $33,000-to-$50,000 a year in an economy where rents rise faster than income. CommonBond, which bought 16-year-old Boulder Ridge Apartments, is pioneering locally a new strategy just rolling out around the country. CommonBond, which makes most of its money from earned revenue and donations, is effectively increasing the down payment by tapping two deep-pocketed equity sources who are “social impact” investors: the national Enterprise Community Loan Fund and a local foundation that has yet to disclose its investment. They are taking a long-term equity position to get a rate of return that is less than the double-digit annual return sought by a real estate investment trust or private equity. “They are taking a less-than-market rate return for our pledge to keep a lid on rent,” Schmidt said last week. “We are not acquiring the property and adding a pool and club house and ratcheting up rent. We’ll make necessary improvements. And we intend to house anyone currently there who is a good tenant. It’s people in service industries, new college grads, child care workers, young teachers, hospitality workers.” Ed Padilla, the CEO of Northmarq, a commercial real estate financier, is the chairman of CommonBond’s board. He also is an immigrant who grew up with his family in a small apartment on St. Paul’s West Side en route to a law degree and business career. Padilla likes this model because it gives nonprofits opportunities to house more people. And, as smart business types know, kids without stable housing don’t do well in school and don’t graduate ready for work or more education. That’s costly. Those kids cost us more in public services. “This a whole new way to capitalize affordable [housing] that doesn’t require additional public funds,” Padilla said. “The government programs are good and helpful, such as tax credits, rent subsidies and government bonds. But this a new structure and the government programs [may decline or simply not meed the growing need]. “Also this addresses the issue of the concentration of affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods. Those housing options also should exist in great communities like Apple Valley, Woodbury and Chanhassen. They have older buildings, and they do need capital. We will deliver an affordable product that is nice and keeps [low-income workers] in the community. There are jobs in these communities.” CommonBond at Boulder Ridge serves households who make $33,000 to $47,700, and they pay rents that range from $1,100 for a one-bedroom to $1,599 for a three bedroom. That isn’t cheap. Rents have really skyrocketed and will continue to until the housing-to- renter supply tips with more housing. The first major conference on what’s being dubbed “naturally affordable housing” is scheduled in the Twin Cities for developers and financiers this fall. (http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/ows_147036880181901.jpg) COMMONBOND CommonBond bought Boulder Ridge, shown behind CommonBond’s Jesse Menton, left, and Boulder Ridge’s AJ Wilwerding. (http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/ows_147036880476413.jpg) Ed Padilla 10 ARTICLES EVERY 30 DAYS > SUBSCRIBE (HTTPS://USERS.STARTRIBUNE.COM/PLACEMENT/6/ENVIRONMENT/3/SIGN-UP/START) FOR MORE LOG IN (HTTPS://USERS.STARTRIBUNE.COM/MEMBER_CENTER) 7/11/2016 Affordable housing is one key to better outcomes in school | The Gazette http://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/staff­editorial/affordable­housing­is­one­key­to­better­outcomes­in­school­20160710 1/5 Jul 10, 2016 at 6:43 am | Print View Can high housing costs lead to poor school performance? Researchers from a variety of fields believe they’ve found a connection. Children who live in households without adequate and affordable housing or who experience frequent moves consistently perform poorly in school when compared to their peers. The correlation between safe, stable housing and school performance is one more reason we all must work to ensure there is an adequate supply of decent affordable housing options for residents in Corridor communities. Affordable housing is one key to better outcomes in school The first of five brand new homes built by Four Oaks' Affordable Housing Network in Wellington Heights is ready for the owners to begin moving in on Friday, December 5, 2014 in Cedar Rapids. (Cliff Jette/The Gazette­KCRG TV9)   7/11/2016 Affordable housing is one key to better outcomes in school | The Gazette http://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/staff­editorial/affordable­housing­is­one­key­to­better­outcomes­in­school­20160710 2/5 COST­BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS A cost­burdened household uses more than 30 percent of its income to pay for housing expenses. Severely cost­burdened households pay 50 percent or more. According to Taz George, a research analyst with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, a significant number of Corridor residents are bearing heavy burdens just to keep a roof over their families’ heads. Johnson County — and Iowa City specifically, where residents have watched housing costs rise by 1 percent a year for the past 35 years even as incomes have stagnated or fallen — has a significantly higher share of cost­burdened households than do similar communities throughout the nation, George told attendees at a recent affordable housing conference hosted by the Johnson County Housing Coalition. Roughly 63 percent of Iowa City renters are cost burdened, he said. In Coralville, the percentage drops to about 48 percent. In North Liberty, roughly 37 percent of these households are cost­burdened. Overall, 36 percent of households in Johnson County spend more than half their income on housing expenses. In Linn County, 44 percent of households are cost­burdened, with half of those qualifying as severely cost­burdened. And while higher housing costs most dramatically impact low­income households, the problem is becoming more frequent among households earning more, George said. In 2005, about 5 percent of moderate­income households, or those earning between $35,000 and $50,000 a year, were spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing. By 2014, nearly a third were cost­ burdened. EFFECTS ON KIDS Researchers at the MacArthur Foundation studying housing affordability in connection with children’s behavioral and emotional problems, found that stresses related to poor housing quality and instability, which includes affordability, led to substandard parenting practices and often parental depression, which made it more difficult for parents to form relationships with other adults important to their child’s well­being, such as pediatricians and teachers. Another study found that housing insecure and homeless children are four times more likely to score below the 10th percentile in standardized tests than their peers with stable housing, even when controlled for income. Further, teachers in classrooms with students that frequently move experience lower morale and higher turnover rates, which can negatively impact other students. These are community problems: In the short­term, taxpayers pay a price through increased child and parent health care costs and added reliance on other safety net programs. Over the longer term, communities suffer through decreased educational outcomes and stagnating productivity.   7/11/2016 Affordable housing is one key to better outcomes in school | The Gazette http://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/staff­editorial/affordable­housing­is­one­key­to­better­outcomes­in­school­20160710 3/5 Stephanie Ettiger de Cuba, a research and policy director at Children’s Health Watch in the Boston Medical Center, compared communitywide investments in affordable housing to a vaccine: When parents aren’t overly burdened by housing woes, they have more emotional and financial resources to devote to their children and their community. Children develop better and go on to become more productive citizens. “Quality, stability and affordability in housing provides long­ and short­term community benefits,” she told participants at the Johnson County housing conference. “It is good for the community and for society because the more people who are vaccinated, the less chance contagious disease will spread.” “We know it is all connected,” de Cuba said. FINDING SOLUTIONS One factor in housing affordability is the law of supply and demand. When there are too few available properties of different type, size and cost than there is demand for those properties, housing costs tend to rise. Iowa City, just like Ames and other college and university communities, is challenged with persistently high demand for affordable rental units. When all housing options are included, Linn County has about a 7 percent overall vacancy rate. This is well below the nearly 13 percent national average. Local leaders must ask themselves, when the widespread cost of housing insecurity is so high and the benefits of stable housing so broad, why isn’t there more public investment in affordable housing? Iowa City has joined the ranks of communities throughout the nation who are requiring residential developers to incorporate affordable housing into new projects. Known as Inclusionary Zoning, the policies often mandate that a certain percentage of housing units be set aside for residents within certain income thresholds. The Iowa City policy, signed this past week, specifically targets the Riverfront Crossings district where higher­density projects are allowed. Developers will need to set aside 10 percent of their project’s total rental housing units for a period of 10 years and make them affordable to households making 60 percent or less of the area’s median income. Projects that receive taxpayer­funded incentives are required to set aside a larger percentage of rental units and agree to keep them affordable for a longer period of time. The ordinance also applies to units that will be sold, requiring the set­aside properties to be affordable to households earning no more than 110 percent of the area’s median income. Developers who do not wish to include affordable housing units have the option of making direct   7/11/2016 Affordable housing is one key to better outcomes in school | The Gazette http://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/staff­editorial/affordable­housing­is­one­key­to­better­outcomes­in­school­20160710 4/5 payment to an affordable housing fund designated by the city or provide land for affordable development. In Cedar Rapids, a proposed mixed­income apartment development has been awarded $8 million in tax credits as part of a state demonstration project. Crestwood Ridge Apartments, slated for 1200 Edgewood Rd NW, will offer market­rate units, affordable housing units (up to 60 percent of the area median income level) and five supportive­housing units earmarked for currently homeless families. The supportive­housing component is possible through a partnership between Minnesota­based CommonBond Communities, the developer and property manager, and the Willis Dady Emergency Shelter. If approved, the project will nearly double the number of supportive­housing units available in Linn County for occupancy by the general homeless population. These are worthy explorations of the ways that cities can incentivize development of affordable housing. Many more initiatives and ideas are needed. Clearly, our communities and our common future are strengthened when there is ample supply of decent, safe and affordable housing for all of us who call the Corridor home. • Gazette editorials reflect the consensus opinion of The Gazette Editorial Board. Share your comments and ideas with us: (319) 398­8469; editorial@thegazette.com Give us feedback Have you found an error or omission in our reporting? Tell us here.  Do you have a story idea we should look into? Tell us here. More From the Gazette Dylan Favre totals 7 TDs for Cedar Rapids Titans in 66­36 playoff rout (The Gazette) From Around the Web You Might Also Like   8/1/2016 Why Lead Paint Still Haunts Industrial Cities in the U.S. ­ CityLab http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/07/why­lead­paint­still­haunts­industrial­cities­in­the­us/493397/?utm_source=nl__link3_07291 1/6 Why Lead Paint Still Haunts Industrial Cities in the U.S. Decades after the federal government banned consumer uses of lead paint, children are still being poisoned in their own homes. ARIA BENDIX | @ariabendix | Jul 29, 2016 | 3 Comments The sun sets behind a mural of the late Freddie Gray in Baltimore. Though he would eventually symbolize a far more visible tragedy, his life also represents that of many young children in Baltimore who have been poisoned by lead paint. (REUTERS/Bryan Woolston ) Don't miss any of our latest stories, sign up for CityLab's daily e-mail newsletter. Email Sign up One milligram of dust. That’s all the lead it takes to poison a child—the From The Atlantic CityLab 8/1/2016 Why Lead Paint Still Haunts Industrial Cities in the U.S. ­ CityLab http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/07/why­lead­paint­still­haunts­industrial­cities­in­the­us/493397/?utm_source=nl__link3_07291 2/6 equivalent of three granules of sugar. Years before his death, Freddie Gray was found to have 35 micrograms of lead in his blood—seven times the amount that can impair brain development, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Though Gray would eventually symbolize a far more visible tragedy, his life also represents that of many young children in Baltimore who have been devastatingly poisoned by lead paint. In fact, lead poisoning has become so common in Baltimore ghettos that local children are often referred to as “lead kids.” For these children, exposure to dust caused by the chipping, flaking, or peeling of lead-based paint poses serious, and sometimes fatal, health risks. Among a host of other issues, lead poisoning can lead to permanent brain damage, which often results in learning disabilities and increased violent behavior. According to the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative, a national organization working to combat lead poisoning, children who have been poisoned are seven times more likely to drop out of school and six times more likely to end up in the juvenile justice system. The home where Freddie Gray lived from 1992 to 1996 reads like a textbook description of lead infestation. Lead paint chips were strewn about the floor and strips of paint were peeling off the walls and windowsills. Door and window frames are common contributors to lead exposure, since the act of closing a door or opening a window can cause dust to build up and fumes to circulate. Still, only certain homes are at risk. When I ask Ruth Ann Norton, the president and CEO of the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative, why industrial communities are more prone to lead poisoning, she is quick to identify the culprit: age of housing. A “toxic legacy” Though the problem is entirely preventable, lead poisoning is still burdened by what Norton calls a “toxic legacy” dating back to the 1920s, when lead paint reached its peak use in the U.S. In 1951, Baltimore became the first city to ban the use of lead-based paint in homes. But it was not until 1978 that the federal government finally instituted a nationwide ban. The problem was exacerbated in industrial cities during the late 20th century as the manufacturing industry declined and residents began to seek employment elsewhere. It was this period of job loss that compelled cities to ignore health concerns in an effort to hold on to existing residents. “In a city like St. Louis, 8/1/2016 Why Lead Paint Still Haunts Industrial Cities in the U.S. ­ CityLab http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/07/why­lead­paint­still­haunts­industrial­cities­in­the­us/493397/?utm_source=nl__link3_07291 3/6 RELATED STORY The Long, Ugly Historyof the Politics of Lead Poisoning Baltimore, or Detroit,” Norton says, “there was surplus housing, which became abandoned housing. What [industrial] cities did, which was a big mistake, is they lost their adherence to standards … The fear was that, if they enforced their housing codes, people would abandon their houses and leave.” That logic turned out to be backwards. Not only are healthy, lead-free homes cheaper and easier to maintain, Norton says, but they are also more likely to attract investment and improve the safety of a neighborhood. And yet, with many of these contaminated homes still standing, lead poisoning is relatively unshakeable in industrial cities. Although Baltimore has achieved a 98 percent reduction in childhood lead poisoning since 1993, there are still 535,000 children between the ages of one and five being poisoned each year in the U.S. Lead poisoning is even more endemic to poor black communities, which are less likely to be able to afford newer, lead-free homes than wealthier communities. According to a 2009 study, blood lead levels are highest among black children, who are three times more likely to have highly elevated blood- lead levels than white children. Children from poor families or who live in housing built before 1950 are also at high risk, the study found. Who’s to blame? Even after Freddie Gray’s stepfather Richard Shipley realized that their tenement in Sandtown-Winchester was infested with lead in the ‘90s, there was little that he or his family could do. A lead-paint inspector advised the family to move, Shipley told The Washington Post, but escaping a lead-infested home in Baltimore’s ghettos was like removing oneself from the fabric of the city itself. Although Gray and his siblings filed a lawsuit in 2008 and received an undisclosed settlement in 2010, most lead lawsuits are not as successful. In reality, determining who is to blame for the enduring crisis of lead paint in the U.S. is a difficult task. Perhaps the most obvious offenders are the manufacturing companies, although courts have ruled that they are not legally responsible for lead paints produced and installed decades 8/1/2016 Why Lead Paint Still Haunts Industrial Cities in the U.S. ­ CityLab http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/07/why­lead­paint­still­haunts­industrial­cities­in­the­us/493397/?utm_source=nl__link3_07291 4/6 Poisoning Or, why the longest-lasting childhood epidemic in U.S.history wasn’t ever treated like one. ago. Then there are the landlords, who don’t always have residents’ best interests at heart. According to the Residential Lead- Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, sellers and landlords are required to “disclose … the presence of any known lead-based paint, or any known lead- based paint hazards” and allow ten days for the buyer or renter to conduct a lead inspection (the inspection itself is not mandatory). Although he recognizes that not all landlords are irresponsible, David Fukuzawa, the managing director of The Kresge Foundation’s Health and Human Services Programs, says that many landlords “are abusing their position and privilege.” In turn, some tenants refrain from complaining to their landlords for fear of getting evicted, despite the fact that retaliatory eviction is illegal in most states. In these cases, many citizens feel that the federal government has a responsibility to step in. “As a country, we need to figure out what it is that we want,” says Baltimore Health Commissioner Leana Wen. “If we decide that this is an issue we cannot tolerate any longer, we have to make lead paint abatement a requirement.” Still, Fukuzawa finds that the issue is best tackled on a municipal level. “The solution is going to look a little bit different in every community,” he says. “What it looks like in Detroit is different than what it looks like in south L.A.” While approaches may differ from city to city, places like Detroit and Baltimore are excellent examples of municipal governments that have united their communities over a shared concern about lead paint. “Not seeing our residents as problems, but rather as solutions to our problems—that is a big element of why our work [in Baltimore] has been so successful,” Wen tells CityLab. In particular, she notes, Baltimore has excelled at developing public-private partnerships and working toward a common goal of universal lead screening for children ages one and two. Unfortunately, the city’s home investigations are not frequent enough to address many cases of lead poisoning—even in a state like Maryland, which has the strongest lead laws in the country. The city also lacks an easily accessible point-of-care testing system that could simultaneously diagnose and treat lead victims. Limits to funding 8/1/2016 Why Lead Paint Still Haunts Industrial Cities in the U.S. ­ CityLab http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/07/why­lead­paint­still­haunts­industrial­cities­in­the­us/493397/?utm_source=nl__link3_07291 5/6 Another major roadblock to eradicating childhood lead poisoning—particularly in industrial cities—is lack of funding. According to a new report released this month by the Center for American Progress, the CDC’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention program has been hard hit by budget cuts, in turn limiting the program to 29 states and the District of Columbia. These limitations are concerning, since the CDC has singular access to information about when and where lead poisoning occurs. Without an extensive CDC prevention program, it becomes difficult for major government agencies like the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to decide where to allocate funds. Just last week, HUD released $52.6 million in grants to remove lead hazards from over 2,800 low-income households. But even with these grants in place, current funds are not enough to eliminate lead poisoning in the U.S. Nearly two decades ago, President Bill Clinton’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children determined that HUD would require a minimum budget of $230 million a year to protect children from lead poisoning. This funding would allow HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes to provide additional lead screenings and prevent lead exposure in low-income households and those with children below age six. With this budget, Norton estimates, the U.S. could reasonably expect to end childhood lead poisoning as a major public health problem in five years. Even so, not all government officials support efforts to reduce lead poisoning. Last August, Kenneth Holt, Maryland’s Secretary of Housing and Community Development, sparked controversy when he conjectured that mothers might intentionally poison their children with lead in exchange for free housing. While addressing an audience at the Maryland Association of Counties summer convention, Holt floated the idea of weakening Maryland’s lead paint laws to prevent residents from taking advantage. And yet a 2009 study from the Economic Policy Institute found that taxpayers actually receive a $17-$221 return on investment for every dollar invested in controlling lead hazards. The reason is simple: Keeping children safe from lead hazards can prevent future health issues, reduce criminal activity, limit the number of kids who end up in special education programs, and improve individual IQs and lifetime earnings—all of which reduce stress on the economy. “There is no other public health program in the country that has that kind of dollar return,” Norton says. But Fukuzawa is careful to note that “we can’t subsidize our way out of this 8/1/2016 Why Lead Paint Still Haunts Industrial Cities in the U.S. ­ CityLab http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/07/why­lead­paint­still­haunts­industrial­cities­in­the­us/493397/?utm_source=nl__link3_07291 6/6 ALL POSTS |@ariabendix |Feed problem.” In all likelihood, permanently eradicating lead poisoning from the U.S. will require the full cooperation of both local communities and national entities. Beyond industrial cities While aging industrial cities are the most vulnerable to lead poisoning, no city is exempt from the hazardous history of lead paint. Even small towns and rural communities are at risk. In addition to major industrial cities, the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative has worked to eliminate lead poisoning in a number of locations nationwide, including southern cities like Austin, San Antonio, and Atlanta and places like Marin County, California. And yet, because states monitor the number of children with lead poisoning on a volunteer basis in exchange for CDC funding, not all states have signed up for the challenge. As a result, many citywide lead problems go unnoticed. As of earlier this year, only 26 states had reported recent data on blood lead levels to the CDC, and another 13 states had not reported any data. In Baltimore and beyond, children like Freddie Gray suffer every day from an illness not only lacking in visibility and awareness, but in the information required to make a difference. In reality, investing in the reduction of lead poisoning is meaningful on a number of levels. “The poisoning of our children is a health issue, but it’s also a civil justice issue and an economic development issue,” Wen says. “It ties into everything else in our city.” About the Author Aria Bendix is a former editorial fellow at CityLab.