HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-2006 Housing & Community Development Commission
AGENDA
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 2006
6:30 P.M.
1. Call Meeting to Order
2. Approval of the March 9, March 23, and March 29, 2006 Minutes
3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda
4. Review the FY07 Annual Action Plan
. Recommendation to Council
5. New Business
. Presentation by the Iowa Equity Fund Regarding Low Income
Housing Tax Credits
· Consideration of a Letter of Support for the Use of General Obligation
Funds for The Housing Fellowship's Tax Credit Application
. Discussion of the Community Development Celebration
. Discussion of Potential FY07 Agenda Items
· Discussion of FY06 Projects that have not Performed per the
Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy
6. Monitoring Reports
. Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - Facility Rehab.
(Richman)
. Hillel Student Center - Accessibility (Hayek)
. Extend the Dream Foundation - Operations & Rental Housing
(Hayek)
7. Adjournment
l ~ 1.
-~= -....at
,...----- .....
!~~~
~ ~_.,
..-.r';"
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Housing and Community Development Commission
Community Development Staff
April 11, 2006
April Meeting Packet
Thank you for your time and dedication during the allocation process. It is a long and sometimes
difficult process, but we appreciate your efforts and ability to form a consensus and make the
necessary recommendations. With your recommendations complete, we can now concentrate on
the administration of current projects, finish the remaining monitoring reports and discuss future
agenda items. The following is a short description of the April 20 agenda items.
Discuss Recommendation to Council: FY07 Annual Action Plan
At the March 23 meeting, you made your budget recommendations ~o Council. As you may know,
the budget is only one part of the Annual Action Plan. The Plan includes the budget for FY07
CDBG & HOME funds, a description of the projects and activities to be funded, a fair housing plan
and several HUD-required documents. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on
the Plan on Tuesday, May 2 and formally approve the Plan that same evening following the public
hearing. A draft copy of this document is included in the packet for review and recommendation.
New Business
Presentation by the Iowa Equity Fund Regarding Low Income Housing Tax Credits
Dan Garrett, Iowa Equity Fund, will be present to provide an overview of the Low Income Housing
Tax Credit program.
Consideration of a Letter of Support for the Use of General Obligation Funds for The
Housing Fellowship's Tax Credit Application
The Housing Fellowship requested a letter of support from HCDC in regards to the use of general
obligation funds from the City in support of their Tax Credit application. Maryann Dennis will be
present to answer questions.
Community Development Celebration
We will need to form a committee to assist with the planning efforts for this year's Community
Development Celebration. Proposed dates and locations for this year's celebration need to be
determined.
Discussion of Potential FY07 Agenda Items
At prior meetings, commission members requested to place certain items on the agenda for future
discussions. At the April meeting, HCDC will discuss what items they want placed on subsequent
HCDC agendas and in what order. Some topics will require further research and consultation with
City departments by staff before proceeding with recommendations to the City Council. The HCDC
Chair and ~taff have enclosed some preliminary information on a couple of the potential topics.
Please review the enclosed information and be ready to discuss agenda items you want to
consider in the next few months. Possible topics include, but are not limited to: design guidelines
for CDBG/HOME assisted housing units (new construction), inclusionary zoning, review of the
Financial Investment Policy, and scattered site policy for CDBG/HOME funded housing projects.
Discussion of FY06 CDBG Projects that have not Performed per the Unsuccessful or
Delayed Projects Policy
The following chart represents the agencies that did not meet the policy requirement to expend at
least 50% of their CDBG award by March 15, 2006. Staff has updated this chart to reflect recent
reimbursement requests. As of this mailing, these are our most recent figures.
Total Spent as of
Project Total Award April 11, 2006 % Expended
Goodwill Industries $60,000 $52 0%
Old Brick Foundation $50,000 $23,750 48%
Free Lunch Program $1,777 $0 0%
Free Lunch/Free Medical Clinic $17,646 $27 0%
Planned Parenthood $10,000 $0 0%
Hillel Student Center $10,000 $27 0%
Compeer $1 ,300 $511.34 39%
Extend the Dream - Operational $1,740 $0 0%
IC Down payment Assistance $30,000 $0 0%
The Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy states that HCDC may recommend the recapture of
unspent funds or HCDC may allow the recipient to retain the funds for the previously approved
project. The FY05 Wood Family Resource Center and United Action for Youth projects were
discussed at previous meetings; however staff will provide updates on both of these projects.
Recipients have the choice of answering questions at the meeting, submitting a written update with
a revised timeline or providing the information to staff to update commission members at the
meeting.
Monitoring Reports
. Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - Facility Rehab. (Richman)
Contact Brian Loring at 358.0438
. Hillel Student Center - Accessibility (Hayek)
Contact Gerald Sorokin at 338.0778
. Extend the Dream Foundation - Operations & Rental Housing (Hayek)
Contact Tom Walz at 339.0401
Once the two current HCDC vacancies have been filled, the FY06 projects assigned to the
previous members will be reassigned.
If you have any questions about the agenda, or are unable to attend the meeting, please contact
Tracy Hightshoe at 356-5244 or by email at tracv-hiahtshoe@iowa-citV.ora.
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2006, 6:30 P.M.
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROOM A
PRELIMINARY
Members Present:
Jerry Anthony, Lori Bears, William Greazel, Matthew Hayek, Kelly Mellecker,
Thomas Niblock, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long, Linda Severson
Public Present:
Ron Berg, Mary Chval, Maryann Dennis, Mark Edwards, Marla Edwards, Beth
Koppes, Jan Lehman, Sandy Lawrence, Suellen Novotny, Mark Patton, Steven
Rackis, Stephen Trefz, Michele Schintter
Call to Order
Anthony called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.
Public Discussion of any Item Not on the Agenda
Bears apologized to the commission members for being unable to attend the last meeting.
Anthony said the city legal department advised that if a commission member has a potential conflict of
interest - such as serving as a board member on any of the agencies that are applying for funds - they
should talk to city staff at the end of this meeting. The matter will be investigated and a decision made
whether the commission member can participate on March 23 when the commission formulates a budget
recommendation to Council.
Hayek said he has discussed his situation with representing Community Mental Health Center as their
outside counsel and it was determined he does not have a conflict.
Bears said she has to abstain from discussing the ARC of Johnson County as she has been on their
board since July. Hightshoe said more research on that situation will be done to find out what options are
available and she will contact Bears later to discuss it.
Discussion Regarding FY07 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment
Partnership Program (HOME) Requests
Anthony said the discussion would occur in two stages, first to discuss the rankings, and then the average
allocations. No decisions are made on allocations at this meeting, though they may be discussed. Score
sheets and recommended allocations from each member have been distributed, but the commission
members should feel free to alter their recommendations and give their changes to staff by early next
week. Staff will make the proposed changes before the next meeting.
Anthony said updated score and allocation sheets were distributed at the beginning of the meeting.
Hightshoe said the allocation sheet is the same, but the ranking sheet has been updated with Greazel's
information. The ranking for public facilities was the only change.
Anthony asked how the commission would like to proceed. City staff has taken pictures of one of the
housing projects and all of the public facility projects. All agreed to begin by discussing the public services
projects and to review them one at a time. Hightshoe suggested discussing the projects that had a large
difference in scoring.
Shelter House - Outreach Coordinator
Richman suggested that Anthony and Shaw share their thoughts regarding why they recommended full
funding for this project. Anthony noted first that this category could only provide up to $14,300.00, so it
would not be possible to recommend funding for all the projects. He chose to fund the Outreach
Coordinator fully because Shelter House would use the money as part of the local match for a large
federal grant, which would potentially bring in an additional $400K in outside funding. The additional
funding would benefit not only Shelter House, but also many other service groups in the community. Not
funding this project would potentially lead to losing out on the larger grant.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 9, 2006
Page 2
Shaw said the match of funds from the outside grant, plus the fact that it would benefit more than just
Shelter House, also primarily influenced his recommendation. He felt it was the one he would like to fully
fund and then review the other projects after that.
Hightshoe said the commission members also have the option to ask the applicants questions if
necessary.
Greazel said he did not recommend funding for this project because there is never enough money to go
around. His philosophy on the issue is that the choice is either to provide funding to one or two projects,
enough to make an impact or to spread the money thinly all around. Putting all efforts into one might
make it strongly viable, versus spreading the money and making several things barely viable. He noted
there is nothing wrong or lacking in any of the projects; he simply chose a few to focus attention on this
year and will choose other projects in the future.
Hayek said he does not know that partially funding would make or break any of the projects. Since not all
of the projects can be fully funded and since all of the applications had a lot of merit, he chose to fund
them all at some level. Some were weighted more heavily than others, but all received something.
Mellecker said she falls between the two approaches, but tried to choose some projects to focus on.
Shelter House representatives did say they would prefer funding go to the Outreach Coordinator, so she
chose to fund that project and not their other project.
Shaw said he was trying to maximize some of the funding, but also spread out the rest of the funding to
the remaining projects, hoping a little would be helpful. In this case, he funded his top candidate fully, and
then spread the rest of the money among the other projects.
Shaw asked for clarification whether Greazel had a strong opinion about not funding any of the agencies.
Greazel said he thinks all of the applications are great programs. It is simply a question of how best to
distribute the money, and trying to make the best judgment. He has decided to try to make a real impact
on a few things and choose other things next year, but stated all were good programs.
Free Medical Clinic - Case Management
Anthony asked if anyone had comments about this project. Greazel said the clinic makes an immediate
difference in people's lives. Some other things are not as urgent, but having medication available is a high
priority. Richman said this program also brings in many in-kind donations from drug companies and other
donors, so it is another one that gives a lot of leverage in terms of funding.
Anthony said he is not sure that he agrees with the funding leverage aspect, because it is not a local
matching situation. He said it is a great program and he wished more money were available to fund it.
Shaw noted the stated intention is to use the funding for case management and said he did weigh that
aspect against whether funding this project would make a significant impact on their services in terms of
direct patient care.
Hayek said the announcement of the clinic's move coincided with the last HCDC meeting. He asked if
there is any information about staffing needs for the new clinic and when it will open. Hightshoe said a
larger space would help them utilize more volunteers. Hayek said that could ramp up the demands on
their staff. Shaw asked whether the case management project would work if it was not fully funded.
Hightshoe said their representative indicated funding would be found.
Anthony asked about the loan forgiveness situation. Hightshoe said the clinic received a loan in fiscal
year 1997 to renovate the Wesley Center into medical office space. It was a 10-year forgivable loan,
which still had approximately 1.5 years left with $5,000 outstanding to be forgiven. Free Medical Clinic
asked if they could move up the expiration date and forgive the remaining debt at that time so they could
move. They did not ask for additional funds for the relocation.
Bears asked if the clinic was supposed to find a tenant. Hightshoe said the Wesley Center is now looking
for a tenant for that space. As far as she knows, they do not have one yet.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 9,2006
Page 3
Shelter House - Security Deposit
Niblock asked if there was a preference specified between the two Shelter House projects. Anthony said
yes, Shelter House stated the Outreach Coordinator. Hayek said that is the project where they need the
match. He added that this is also a great project, helping to move people into employment and housing.
Shaw agreed, and said if the money were available, he would try to fund this particular project completely.
It is one of very few resources available that helps people begin the steps to secure a permanent home.
Hayek asked about the funding amount available in the public services category. Hightshoe said the city's
entitlement amount has been going down every year; however there is a set council earmark of $105,000
that gets distributed to Aid-to-Agencies. Hayek asked for confirmation that it comes out of the public
services pool. Hightshoe said yes.
Hayek asked if any of the FY07 applicants get funding through Aid-to-Agencies. Hightshoe asked
Severson for that information. Severson said Shelter House, Free Medical Clinic and Neighborhood
Centers of Johnson County receive funding through the Aid-to-Agencies process. Hayek noted that VNA,
Compeer and Extend the Dream do not receive funding under Aid-to-Agencies. Anthony said that if
federal funding continues to decline, there might not be any money in this category next year for HCDC to
consider unless there is an adjustment in the way the Aid-to-Agencies earmark is calculated.
VNA - Mental Health Home Care
Anthony said there just is not enough money for all. This application received low points when he scored
it, so he decided not to fund the project. Mellecker said she tried to fund programs that were unique and
filled a specific niche. The fact that they have no city funding is also significant.
Shaw asked for confirmation that VNA has done things to bring the budget more in line. Novotny said yes,
when she became director in 2002, there was a bottom line issue and significant losses. Much was due to
overspending grants. Fifty percent of patients are on Medicaid, which was not covering their costs. They
had only one fundraising event per year and now there are four or five to try to offset their operating
costs. They may have made money in 2005, but they will not know until receiving the 2005 Medicare
reimbursement. They also raised funds to support 12 health units for their mental health patients.
Novotny said a Medicare cost report is done annually for Medicare certified agencies. For 2004, nursing
cost was $84 for home care and Medicaid would only reimburse $74. The gap needs to be subsidized
somehow. There is a larger gap for Medicaid mental health care, where the actual cost is $84, and
Medicaid reimburses $65. She negotiated with Medicaid to have that amount increased from the original
$55. She added the cost report for 2005 has not been done yet.
Shaw asked for confirmation that the cost for services was reduced. Novotny said yes, she has
downsized the organization and reduced the overhead. The field staff could not be reduced, so
administrative staff was cut by 30 percent. There was a 47 percent reduction in staff overall and the
organization cannot cut any more. The $84 cost reflects their current status.
Mellecker said another reason she funded this project was because it appeared a lot of effort from the
organization was put in to reduce costs. Hayek said he likes the application because it is preventive in
nature. Dollars spent now on in-home mental health assistance could help avoid situations in the future
where the person needs institutionalization or becomes homeless. It also is heavily weighted to the zero
to thirty percent income level, and is targeted to the people who need help the most. Richman agreed
with that aspect of this program. He added that in terms of extending help to mental health patients, this
program provides the most for the money, which is why he allocated more money to them than the
others.
Compeer - Director
Hayek noted that all of the commission members recommended low or no funding, so there might be no
need for discussion. Shaw said he was concerned with the group's administrative control of finances. No
points were given on his score sheet for financial and administrative support and ability to deliver on the
project. He noted there was a gap in some reporting, and that is where the application took the biggest
point hit. Anthony said it was a gap in the income reporting.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 9, 2006
Page 4
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - Newcomers Network
Anthony said he gave the lowest recommendation because no report was submitted for the funding the
group received in a previous year. He does not know how the money was used and is very reluctant to
fund them again without that information. He noted the organization itself is great and has done very good
work.
Hayek asked if there was confusion about the report or if it was simply not submitted. Long said they
submitted information, mainly meeting notes, and there are no plans to submit more. Hayek asked how
much did NCJC receive for the project. Long said approximately $5,900. Hightshoe said they presented a
survey at the meeting, but the survey was conducted before the money was awarded so it cannot be
used as the planning study or work plan for which the funds were utilized.
Hightshoe said what was submitted were meeting notes from a large meeting they had. The notes had
identifiable objectives, but were laid out like minutes. Bears asked how long it has been since the project
was completed. Anthony said the project has been done for over a year.
Hightshoe said they did present a document. It is rare that funding is given for a planning project that was
not completed or performed by city staff, thus there were no specific requirements regarding what must
be contained in the study or work plan. However, a work plan/study was required based on the
agreement and application submitted. Anthony said a revised plan or one with more detail has been
requested, so there might be no point in asking. Hightshoe said NCJC views what was submitted as their
report. Long agreed that it comes to a difference of opinion on what the report must contain or how it
should be presented.
Richman suggested requesting a copy of the planning document in the future when applications involve a
specific product to be produced, as a provision of the funding agreement with the agency. Long said that
was in the agreement, but the guidelines did not have very much detail. Shaw said that would help reduce
ambiguity about whether the project had actually been done.
Hightshoe said the previous project was done, though it may not have been done the way that was
envisioned. The report submitted was based on one meeting that divided participants in subcommittees to
address different goals. The subcommittees then identified how they could meet their assigned goal. The
report detailed the work done at that meeting, however it many ways it read like the minutes of a meeting
and did not appear as a formal report, broken down into sections, with a table of contents, etc.
Richman asked if the expectation was for an externally or internally generated report. Anthony said
internally generated by the agency. Long said the commission expected to see a clear-cut plan, what the
neighborhood needs and the steps to take to get there. Hayek asked if the neighborhood center got some
good information out of the study. Hightshoe stated she believed so as the proposed FY07 project came
out of the study and there has been work to meet some of the goals outlined in the document submitted.
Greazel asked where the money for the project went. Shaw said the money went to fund the staff person
who facilitated the discussions. This activity qualified as a planning activity instead of a public service
activity as a study was performed and a subsequent report submitted Hightshoe noted. Shaw said it is his
understanding that the current application for funding is intended to support the staff that will facilitate the
discussions with the newcomers group, which formed as a result of the previous project.
Extend the Dream Foundation - Coordinator
Greazel said he was impressed with the amount of volunteer labor the group had and the level of
expertise amongst their volunteers. He expects them to do good things with the money and to be able to
do what they say they will do.
Shaw said the applicant lost points with him in documenting their ability to meet the need. He said he is
concerned with the group's ability to complete the project. Anthony said this organization has done
excellent things in the past. Last year, some HCDC members saw the facility (F Street - Micro-Enterprise
Project) they were working on and were impressed with how fast the project was completed, the updated
facility and that it is an innovative solution to an identified problem.
Bears added that a lot of businesses in Uptown Bill's are owned by people with disabilities, which gives
their clientele great opportunities. Hayek said he has known many of the people involved and has no
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 9,2006
Page 5
concerns about their abilities to stretch dollars and do great things. Mellecker said she did not fund the
project because of similar concerns that Shaw expressed.
Anthony said he hopes there will be more money in this category to distribute next year, though if CDBG
funds continue to go down and the city continues to take out a set amount (instead of a percentage of
funds) for Aid-to-Agencies, the category may not exist. Greazel agreed it is not a good situation.
Grant Wood PTO - Playground
Shaw asked if the new playground would take the place of the basketball court in the picture. Edwards
said no, it would sit to the side of it. Hayek said the large structure in the picture is the new gym and
resource center that was funded in part by CDBG dollars in 2005.
Shaw asked what is planned for the old playground, whether it would stay or be removed. Edwards said it
would be staying. It only accommodates 30 kids in Kindergarten through 2nd grade. The new playground
would be for the older students. She added that some equipment was lost from the existing playground in
part due to age, and also because of the new building location. Shaw asked if the playground equipment
would be designed for older students. Edwards said it would accommodate 4 to 12-year-olds.
Anthony said he has a philosophical problem with funding school district projects with funds intended for
the low income population. In general, he stated that taxpayers are willing to support school district
projects. A bond was recently approved for the school district for 39 million dollars, which is the total
amount of CDBG funding the city has received during the past 31 years. However, taxpayers, typically,
are unwilling to pay for low-income projects and services. Funding intended for low-income populations
should be used for those populations. If a special bond referendum came through for this project, he
would support it, but does not wish to put CDBG funds into it. He added that he respects the school
district and has nothing against them; it is simply a matter of wise use of scarce resources.
Hayek said he would agree except that there is considerable overlap with the community and
neighborhood programs in this project. More than just the school uses the facilities. The neighborhood is
also involved in the evening after school hours as well as a pre-school program operated by a local non-
profit.
Shaw said the distinction with this project is that without this funding, the project will not happen.
Essentially money for a play space is supported by the income of the people who attend the school. This
is a PTO project rather than a school district one. One of the gaps in the management of play spaces is
that schools in more affluent areas have the ability to fund huge, expensive playgrounds. People in lower
income areas do not have the resources to support projects like this.
Anthony said he generally agreed, but his concern is that the gym and resource center was funded in part
by CDBG funds, which should not have happened. The funding for that should have come from the bond
referendum. So $325K of CDBG funding was given to a project that should have been shared by all
taxpayers. '
Four Oaks - New Construction
Mellecker said there are two major projects in the category, so she fully funded everything else and chose
one major project for the remaining money. Four Oaks is a very good and unique project that is serving a
need not covered elsewhere. Bears asked how long they had been in that facility. Chval said since 1995,
though the agency is 35 years old. They have also been renting space for a few years.
Richman asked what would happen to the project if it did not receive full funding, whether it would be
reconfigured or if funding would be found elsewhere. Chval said they would have to discuss other options.
The environment the children are currently in is not ideal. There are two residential programs at this site,
so the proposed space would provide additional classroom and recreation space, which is important to
the child residents who live there. They would like to move ahead and consolidate some things that would
likely bring savings in the long run through improved infrastructure. There would be discussion about
raising additional funds or scaling the project back, neither of which would be ideal.
Shaw asked Mellecker why she did not fully fund Four Oaks. Mellecker said she felt ReStore was more
private and did not serve lower income families as directly as Four Oaks. She said looking back, she
might change her recommendation to completely fund Four Oaks. She also thought if a large enough
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 9, 2006
Page 6
amount was awarded, the rest could be covered through fund raising or other means. Shaw said he fully
funded the project because it is very important to have a comfortable environment for the resident
children, given that most of them are homeless or near homeless.
Mellecker asked if Four Oaks had looked into other fund raising options, in case the project was not fully
funded. Chval said the amount requested is being matched with their funds and in-kind donations. Fund
raising is something they could investigate, but their funds are fully committed.
Hayek asked for clarification about the JCO project that Four Oaks took over and its impact. Chval said
that the ACE program was not doing well financially, and because of organization restructuring, the
organization who had the contract believed they could not fulfill the contract. Due to this Johnson County
asked Four Oaks to take over the program since they already offered the service to the community and
had some experience. The service deals specifically with delinquent youth, tracking and monitoring
youths who are in the program, and also involves the families in therapy and assists with making changes
to get to the real issues. Hayek asked if this is part of a youth's probation compliance. Chval said yes.
Hayek noted that attorneys in the juvenile court system say the need for that sort of service is spiking in
that segment of the population.
Greazel said his decision not to fund Four Oaks was purely pragmatic, allowing him to fully fund all of the
other projects. He added that he would vote for fully funding next year if the project does not go forward
this year, and that it is a very good and worthwhile project. He hopes the other projects could do what
they proposed with their funding.
Niblock said he would like more information about both of the construction projects, specifically a
breakdown of budget similar to what was submitted for the HOME projects. They are both very good
projects, he just would like more detail. Shaw asked if a process could be set up so similar information for
construction projects could be gathered. Hightshoe said all construction projects are encouraged to
submit construction budgets.
Chval said Four Oaks did submit some information about the budget. However, to submit solid numbers
they would have had to get bids. They did call and discuss with contractors and had a written bid on the
project, but that information mayor may not be what they go with if the project goes through. They did
consult with a reliable contractor for the estimate, a contractor who frequently works on city/CDBG
projects.
Shaw asked if Niblock was looking for additional documentation such as pro forma. Niblock said yes,
those would be helpful for giving a clearer idea about the project. Even having a breakdown of the square
footage of the inside areas would be helpful. Hightshoe stated a proforma is used for rental housing
projects, but additional budget information regarding construction costs could be sought.
Richman suggested discussing the Restore project next, since it is the other large project in this category.
Anthony agreed.
Iowa Valley Habitat - ReStore
Hightshoe said 'there was discussion whether the ReStore project meets a national objective required
under the CDBG program for the project to be eligible to receive funding. Hightshoe stated staff
consulted with their HUD representatives to discuss what national objective this project could meet. The
response was that the project would meet the national objective of the creation of jobs for low-to-
moderate income persons. Though the proceeds of the project would be used for affordable
homeownership, it was not considered a direct benefit to low income persons. To qualify as an area
benefit the location must be in a primarily residential neighborhood, which it is not. It is located in a
commercial/industrial area. Hightshoe stated that if job creation is the way this project meets a national
objective, the maximum amount of funding that can be allocated to the project is $50K per FTE position
created.
Richman said this group applied for funds last year. In one sense Habitat for Humanity does a great job,
and if the store runs as proposed it would generate an income stream for the group. However, there are
no construction or development budgets submitted, no estimated amount of proceeds going back into
housing, no business plan for the ReStore, so it is hard to see what it will generate on an annual basis
and how much will go back into the community as affordable housing.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 9, 2006
Page 7
Patton said he could give the commission more information before they make their final decision in two
weeks. Shaw said he also would like more information from Four Oaks. Richman agreed, and asked also
for a construction budget.
Long asked for confirmation that Habitat would be moving their headquarters to the new location. Patton
said yes. .
Shaw said the project lost points from him because there is no clear indication that this project will be
helping low income people gain self-sufficiency. Patton said they do not check income levels of people
who shop at their store, and donations come from anyone. However, they are in discussion with people
with the furniture project to move their facility to the same location, which would specifically help the low-
income population. Shaw said that is a significant positive point and caused him to fund the project.
Hightshoe stated there may be a problem with having the Furniture Project move to this facility or share
space with this project. There is a prohibition against spending CDBG funding for government expenses
(some exceptions) or for the acquisition/rehabilitation of a government building. The Furniture Project is
funded by the city as a service for low-income residents. Hightshoe cautioned commissioners that if the
project changes substantially from the intent of the application originally submitted the commission needs
to determine if they will continue to consider a substantially modified application.
Mellecker agreed that it did not seem clear that this project would be meeting the objectives, while other
projects clearly did. That also influenced her funding recommendation. Greazel stated it was his
impression the facility would be a lot more than just the store, but also would bring in and partner with
other entities. That information was not in the application, however it probably should have been.
Hayek asked what elements are involved with economic development to support funding. Hightshoe said
job creation. Richman asked what the funding limit would be. Hightshoe said $50K per full time equivalent
(FTE). Richman asked if the number of jobs that would be created is known. Patton said probably 1.5 in
the first year, perhaps up to 2 the second year. Hightshoe said that would be $100K maximum under the
job creation criteria.
Hayek said the commission might be blurring some of the distinctions in the categories, but he sees this
project would perform a lot of different functions, with many benefits providing space for other programs.
There would also be the impact on the landfill and the provision of low-cost furniture for housing needs.
However, he does not know if that will fit with HUD.
Richman asked if economic development is within the purview of the HCDC. Anthony and Hightshoe said
yes. Anthony said the commission could do it if they wish, but can choose not to. Hightshoe said it is an
eligible activity, but it needs to meet a national objective. To meet a national objective, the project must
benefit low and moderate income persons (directly), aid in the prevention of slum and blight, or meet an
urgent need such as what is needed following a natural disaster. This project must provide a direct
benefit to low and moderate income persons. Hightshoe stated as of right now, the way the city would
document this requirement is through job creation for low-to-moderate income persons as 51% of the
potential buyers of the building materials may not be low income. Buyers would be home owners,
landlords, etc.
Greazel suggested gathering more information from Habitat and doing investigation on whether the
project is eligible. Hightshoe said it can be funded; there is just a limit on how much money can be
allocated based on job creation. Shaw asked if there is a limit on the amount of funding Four Oaks could
receive. Hightshoe said no, Four Oaks can show a direct benefit to low-to-moderate income populations.
Richman asked if the ReStore project would go through without full funding from the commission. Patton
said they are working on funding alternatives. Hayek asked Patton and Chval to send more construction
information. Chval asked what information is needed. Niblock said any more specific information about
their construction budget and the project plans would be helpful.
MECCA - Facility Rehab
Bears asked how long the carpet had been in the facility. Berg said about 10 years. Shaw apologized for
looking at the wrong category at the last meeting when discussing self-sufficiency. Greazel asked if a
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 9, 2006
Page 8
quantity discount would be possible for the carpet projects, whether there is any consistency in the type of
carpet the agencies are looking for. Berg said yes, though he did not know others were looking for carpet.
Shaw said everyone is requesting carpet. Greazel said there could be significant savings if a large
enough quantity is purchased.
Berg said the different agencies have a strong record of working together to maximize savings, so it is a
possibility. Shaw asked how that would work. Hightshoe said that if each agency received funds, they
could work together to bid it a$ one project. Greazel said they would have to talk to the carpet people.
Hightshoe said the contractor would have to be willing to separately bill and is not sure if it would be
feasible as each entity might want different carpet; however it was something that could be investigated.
Anthony suggested requiring carpet squares for these projects, so the entire carpet does not need to be
replaced if one part is damaged. Greazel said most commercial buildings do squares. He added that if the
agencies worked together and saved money, fewer funds would be needed. The commission would view
that favorably during future funding requests.
MCHC - Facility Rehab
Long said in addition to carpeting, the city is requiring them to add a railing next to a significant drop
adjacent to the sidewalk. Shaw said that safety concerns were weighted heavily when considering his
recommendation. The carpet requests did not as clearly reflect safety concerns as the issues in this
request when he reviewed the projects.
Greazel said carpet could be a safety concern, catching feet on it and tripping on it, particularly at DVIP.
Shaw agreed that he did consider that for DVIP with children running around. Mellecker noted that
MECCA had a children's room.
The Arc of JC - Facility Rehab
Hayek said this one received the second highest percentage in funding recommendation in this category,
just below DVIP. Shaw said that might be a bang for buck question, since funding this small portion would
allow them to finish their whole project. Bears noted that the agency would be celebrating their 50th
anniversary next year.
DVIP- Facility Rehab
Hayek asked for confirmation that the building was purchased with CDBG funds. Long said yes, it was
new construction. Hayek said the quality of construction is poor, and the deterioration in the facility is
higher than expected even given the high traffic it sees. He asked what sort of standards HUD has for
construction.
Hightshoe said CDBG has no standards beyond those that must meet local building code requirements.
Anthony added that fire code needs to be met as well. Greazel said when he wants to fully fund a project;
he wants it done well instead of what just gets by. That means commercial quality components that will
last. Often these facilities are not done at higher quality because there is no other choice. By putting a
little more money in at the front end, money will be saved in the long term because it will last longer.
Hayek said maybe it is better to fully fund a project to promote long term cost savings than to create gaps
in the short term due to poor quality materials and stated he was alarmed by the state of the facility. Shaw
said it also increases the likelihood that recipients will come back for funding later. Greazel said his theory
is that even if not everyone is funded this year, they should come back again when they have enough
money to do it right.
Mellecker asked if the standards of construction could be changed. Shaw asked for confirmation that the
commission could require higher standards. Hightshoe said it could, but the building code is very complex
and creating standards above what the city allows currently would be very complicated for community
development staff and applicants.
Habitat for Humanity - Land Acquisition
Shaw said there would be a high impact from this project, and he considered the volunteer support a
positive aspect. Hayek said he thought it was good that Habitat is getting into a Land Trust. He noted that
he is increasingly convinced that funding for single-family homes will be difficult to justify if multifamily
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 9,2006
Page 9
buildings or duplexes are an option. There is much more potential bang for the buck in those sorts of
structures, but that is a general concern and not directed at this particular project.
Greazel said one of the challenges is that newer subdivisions are not receptive to multifamily homes. That
means infill in other areas, many of which do not permit duplexes, so there are not many existing lots
available. Hayek said there was progress in zoning because of the recent rewrite of the zoning code. He
added that with costs increasing every year, any opportunity to build multifamily homes should be taken
advantage of. Greazel agreed, but said the lots are very tightly controlled, and there is strong reluctance
to do anything to reduce the desirability of the rest of the lots.
Richman asked if the scattering of sites is an outgrowth of zoning issues, since there few lots for
multifamily buildings. Greazel said there are lots available, but they are in areas that the commission has
been told should not be funded. He said Burns was looking at some duplexes and the costs per unit were
outrageous compared to building south of Highway 6. There is a scarcity, which drives up the cost.
Anthony agreed there are very few places that duplexes can be built, even with the new zoning code, plus
some areas that do allow duplexes have restrictive covenants imposed by homeowner associations that
disallow multifamily housing. There are not very many opportunities.
Shaw asked why Niblock and Richman made their funding choices in this area. Richman asked for
confirmation that $484K is available that needs to be spent within the next two years. Hightshoe said yes,
the commission has two years to commit the funds after they are received. Richman noted there is a long-
term problem with affordable housing in the community, which the commission is forced to deal with on
short-term funds. There is a critical need for good long-term investments, and while the projects proposed
are good, they may not be the best for solving the long-term problem. So he is proposing to hold funds
back to make a larger pool available for next year, and in the meantime see if discussions can produce
other ideas that address the problems better.
Greazel said if he had remembered that not all funds needed to be allocated, he might have made
different recommendations. Hayek asked if Richman had a sense what a better project would be.
Richman said no. He continued to say that the skills in the development community and the desire of the
council could facilitate creation of ideas to address the long-term issues. Hayek asked if Richman was
concerned that the current projects do not provide a long-term benefit. Richman said he would like a
higher level of comfort that funding is being spent in the best way possible, given that the funds are
dwindling.
Hightshoe notified members that the L1HTC preservation project from the Housing Fellowship may only
be funded with CDBG funds. The units proposed in the application were funded with state HOME funds
and are still in the required period of affordability. Thus additional HOME funds can't be allocated to this
project during this period. Anthony asked for confirmation that the Preservation project should be
considered with the Public Facilities projects. Hightshoe said funding for the project needs to come from
CDBG, thus funds for this project would compete with the various public facility, public service, and/or
CDBG eligible housing projects.
Niblock asked for confirmation that there are only three projects to consider for HOME funds. Hightshoe
said yes. Mellecker said Richman's point about the future of the funding and long-term solutions is very
good, since there is so much in flux with the scattered site housing plan and Section 8 changes. For
example, her concern with the Harmony project is she does not know what the demand for three bedroom
rental units will be in the future.
Anthony said he had the least concerns in this category about the appropriate use of funds. He has some
concerns in the other categories because many of the projects are not really adding anything to the pool.
However, he would like to get as much land into affordable housing projects now as possible, since the
funds are diminishing.
Greazel asked Anthony his view about the Tenant Based Rent Assistance project. Anthony said that is
the one project he has some concerns about, as that is about restoring housing assistance that was
provided in past years rather than adding anything to the pool. Of the three projects, that is the only one
he has some concerns with, but it does fill a very high need. If there were more funds, he would give
more to Habitat to help lock in the land for affordable housing.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 9, 2006
Page 10
Hayek asked for clarification about Richman's concerns. Richman said he would like to see a more
comprehensive approach to the problem of affordable housing at the city level, taking zoning and other
structural elements into account. The price of housing is going up, the funding is being reduced and he
would like to set aside some money until those issues can be addressed.
Shaw asked for confirmation that if no other solutions are suggested, if the funds would be given out next
year. Richman said yes, the commission would allocate the funds to the applications presented at that
time. He added that starting a dialogue about the issue would be the first step. Anthony agreed that there
is a need for broader discussion about this topic in the community, including ways to address the
problems more comprehensively. Affordable housing is almost all funded with external sources. There are
barriers in the zoning code and also in the restrictive covenants.
Richman said council and the community might decide the current situation is okay. However, a dialogue
should be started to determine if there is something that the city will pursue. It would be beneficial to set
some money aside for possible solutions that might come out of it. Hayek said he thinks that discussion
has begun in earnest in the community.
Niblock said he felt housing was the biggest need to be addressed during this funding round and there
were some great things in all the projects. He could see where Habitat is going with their projects which is
why he ranked them highest and fully funded it. The others he funded according to how well he thought
they addressed housing issues. Housing is the most important thing, so he funded accordingly.
ICHA - Tenant Based Rent Assistance
Shaw said what this project does is subsidize families who cannot buy homes to help them get into
apartments. The Harmony project is building affordable housing, but the Tenant Based Rent Assistance
will subsidize families so they can rent existing properties at lower rates.
Anthony said Harmony would have to be affordable without Section 8 or rental subsidy. Shaw asked what
rent for the Harmony housing would likely be if they were built. Hightshoe said it would be governed by
L1HTC rules and Section 8 guidelines. Dennis said tax credit housing has a specific formula within their
program, as does Section 8. The owner of a tax credit unit cannot deny tenants occupancy because of
their eligibility for Section 8.
Shaw confirmed that tenants could move in at the affordable rental rate, and then also use a Section 8
voucher to further reduce their cost (the voucher would make up the difference between the rent charged
and the ability of the family to pay the rent based on income). Rackis said the landlord sets the rent and
then the Section 8 voucher would determine how much the Housing Authority would subsidize based on
income. Typically people with a voucher will not pay more than thirty percent of their domestic gross
income for rent.
Mellecker said the Iowa City Housing Authority has tremendous need. Harmony is targeted to a niche, but
ICHA is broader and allows greater .freedom on behalf of the tenants. Hayek said he was surprised
everyone on the commission recommended funding for the Tenant Based Rental Assistance project as
there is a difference between bricks and mortar versus providing a funding stream. Funding this does not
provide any additional rental units. Anthony said it is money that produces no tangible result. Greazel said
that is not the viewpoint for people that need a place to live right now.
Anthony said many people had assistance before, but then funding went down in the community, which
resulted in loss of assistance. So in some sense it is restoring them to the quality of life they had before.
Greazel said in many cases, this is a viable alternative to homeownership. Hayek agreed, but noted the
two ways to fund is either a project that will produce units or one that will pay for vouchers. He noted that
everyone on the commission funded it, which was unexpected.
Mellecker said she also looked at numbers. Rental assistance can help a lot of people, whereas building
six units does not help as many. It seemed realistically the best place to put the money. Shaw asked how
many people would be supported with the rental assistance at the requested level of funding. Rackis said
it was calculated for 36 families for two years, using the HUD formula which includes a per unit cost of
$426. The actual number of families that would be helped depends on actual costs of the units, so the
funds might stretch or reduce.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 9, 2006
Page 11
Rackis added the waiting list is not the only issue in regards to calculating need. Many families move here
without assistance. They often can meet rent for the first couple months, but then cannot meet it any
longer and end up being evicted. So the exact need cannot be calculated, because there is no prior
information about those situations. He added only 44 percent of people in the community are
homeowners, while the rest are living in rentals.
Long asked if there is a list of available accessible units for elderly or disabled tenants. Rackis said every
rental unit is entered into software that determines the number of units that are definitely accessible or
adaptable for people with disabilities. In some cases, an adaptable unit does not have the necessary
requirements for code such as a grab bar in the bathtub, but could have things changed or added easily.
Rackis said he would supply that information to the commission.
Harmony Development, LLC - Rental Units
Long said the sites for the units are not identified, so no pictures are available.
Hayek asked who would receive the architect fee for the project. Long said he is not sure. Greazel said
he was concerned about costs in the proposal, such as the appraisal and architect fees, which also
seemed excessive.
Hightshoe confirmed that the per unit cost was $245,693.00. Shaw asked if that was for six duplexes.
Hightshoe said it is for six single family units. Applicant noted that lots would be easier to find for single
family units. Mellecker said there are a lot of questions about this project, and asked whether it would be
easy to revamp in the future.
Hayek asked for feedback from staff on the per unit cost. Long said it is a little higher than usual. Hayek
asked if it is still higher than typical without the increased land cost. Long said it seems to be. He noted
that with tax credit projects, some of the costs have a cap.
Shaw asked if tax credit projects are increasing recently, and suggested the commission might not
understand the requirements very well because of unfamiliarity. Greazel said there is no requirement for
certain things to be paid, just that it is allowable to pay up to a set amount for certain services. Just
because it is allowed elsewhere does not impact his vote for a local project. His decision is influenced by
cost per unit, and $1 OOK with Habitat versus $240K for one of these is a big difference.
Shaw asked if this increased cost would give a renting tenant a nicer place to live at the same rental rate.
Greazel said income level determines rent, and his issue with this project is that both single-family owner
and rental properties are needed. How those needs are balanced is determined by the commission's
priorities. He added that he agrees with Richman's suggestion to take a two-year look at housing and
priorities.
Long said there is a 50-year affordability period for these units. Niblock asked how long the usual
affordability period is. Long said it depends, though HOME funds require at least 20 years for new
construction. Richman asked what the period is for the tax credit. Hightshoe said additional points are
received for longer affordability periods.
Hayek asked what the reserves line item is. Long said investors require a reserve for maintenance.
Hightshoe said the amount should be significant for a 50-year period of affordability as if the unit receives
HOME funds, additional HOME funds cannot be put into the unit during its affordability period. Richman
said he would assume there would be some positive cash flow from the unit that would allow additional
funds be put into maintenance or a reserve. He added he is not disputing the need for the reserve.
Hightshoe said the amount is higher because of the length of time needed to maintain the unit during its
period of affordability.
Hayek asked for confirmation that the reserve is for long-term maintenance and rehab. Long said yes.
Anthony said tax credit projects have slightly higher quality standards than other projects.
Long said that there will be a representative from the Iowa Equity Fund at the April HCDC meeting to
discuss the tax credit process. Anthony said that would be a good idea.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 9, 2006
Page 12
Anthony said he funded the project because he wants to encourage non-governmental agencies to be
involved in providing affordable housing. Burns and Burns have been providing affordable housing in the
community for a long time, and many times is the only private developer that has been involved in this
area. While $245k per unit is high, they are getting one million dollars of additional funding for the project,
which would be going into the tax rolls, giving property tax benefits for several years.
Greazel asked whether the units are under Section 42. Dennis said all tax credit units are under Section
42. Greazel said the tax credit then is not dollar for dollar. It is closer to 25 cents per dollar, so the
property tax benefit is mfnimal. Anthony said it still brings in some tax benefit and also more investment
from outside the community. It also supports the only developer who has been involved in providing
affordable housing.
Richman said he funded at a level that he hoped would make the project viable, even if it cannot be fully
done as proposed. They asked for $300K to build six units, so hopefully $150K will allow them to make
six units and still make sense for the developer to go ahead.
Housing Fellowship - Preservation
Mellecker asked when the Housing Fellowship would find out whether the city will be supplying other
funds. Anthony said not before the allocation meeting. Richman confirmed that funding for this project
would come from some combination of CDBG and other appropriations from the city. It could be a
combination. Long said yes, it just needs a local commitment. Shaw asked for confirmation that this
project would have to compete with the funds in the Public Facilities/Services category. Hightshoe said
yes. Under the CDBG program, there is no requirement that states so much has to be allocated for public
services, public facilities, or CDBG eligible housing activities. However, there is a requirement that the
city can't allocate more than 15% of its CDBG entitlement on public service activities. Historically the
commission has decided to allocate as much as allowed for public service activities.
Richman said he has a lot of questions. There is a letter now, which has some clarification and has
helped satisfy one of his concerns. He said his major concern before was that it looked like more equity
was being taken out of the project, but it has been shown where the money is being put back. He is not at
zero funding for the project, but would like to ask some additional questions.
Dennis said their long-term plan would be to buy the units back and become the owners. Richman asked
what the term of affordability is for tax credit units. Dennis said 15 years minimum.
Richman said he would like to make sure the commission is comfortable with the affordability period, and
he is concerned with the recurring cost to buy back the units. He said he is also concerned with the
relatively high developer fee. Considering the level of risk in this acquisition is minimal, 20-25 percent of
the total non-acquisition costs seems high.
Greazel asked what happens to the units if this is not funded. Dennis said they would try to find funding to
rehab them. Otherwise there is a chance they would be sold. Greazel asked what the Fellowship would
do with the money if they were sold. Dennis said they would have to pay back the private debt, recapture
the HOME funds and reinvest them.
Greazel asked why they would be sold, since there is no net gain. Dennis said the units are at a level
where it would be difficult to maintain housing quality standards. Greazel asked how long the Fellowship
has owned the units and how they were purchased. Dennis said all of the units have been owned at least
ten years. They were purchased originally with CDBG and HOME funds.
Greazel asked if a reserve was required for repair or improvements. Dennis said there was no
requirement for a reserve. They did rehab the units, but it has been difficult to maintain them because
rents are controlled. These particular units are ones that have been owned for more than ten years that
the Fellowship feels are good candidates for extensive rehab, neighborhood improvement and would be
attractive to investors.
Greazel asked about the project development fee. Dennis said they generally take 15 percent of the
project cost, since they have to do all the rehab activities with hiring contractors and putting out bids, etc.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 9, 2006
Page 13
Anthony asked for opinions on whether the project should be funded jointly with CDBG funds or some
other way through city. Niblock said it seems like an unusual request. He asked if something similar has
come up. Long said the peninsula project. Niblock asked if there was a positive response. Long said yes.
Anthony said no prediction could be made in this case.
Greazel said he is concerned about the request for money to fix up a home and sell it, even if it keeps it
affordable. He asked if a similar request has ever come before the commission. Hightshoe said to her
knowledge a low income housing tax credit preservation project has never come before the commission
before. Richman said he views it as a rehab project, and transferring ownership to a new entity is not a
concern. He is interested in how much the city would be willing to contribute.
Hayek asked for clarification whether the special application to the city is being done because of
something with this particular project or is it simply to seek out additional funding. Long said it does not
qualify for HOME funds, however it needs local commitment for funding. The Housing Fellowship is willing
to pay an interest rate slightly over what it costs to purchase the bond and requests the difference be
placed back in the CDBG/HOME pool of funds. They are trying to match what city council says is the
investment policy for a for-profit entity. The additional money would then go back to the commission,
because HCDC funding is being reduced.
Dennis said Steve Atkins was receptive to the proposal and they will hopefully have an answer very soon.
However, they decided also to pursue funding through HCDC in the meantime. Richman said the return
would not be a substantial amount of money. Dennis agreed, but noted it would be a start.
Richman asked if the units could be maintained at the proposed rent for the period of affordability. Dennis
said yes, it is required. Richman confirmed that the combination of reserves up front along with ongoing
profit will maintain the units. He asked if there would be additional money there to maintain other projects.
Dennis said yes.
Anthony said tax credit programs are the largest source of funds for affordable housing. Iowa City had not
been attracting those funds until recently, for a variety of reasons. Richman said an option for future
projects for the city would be to do a combination of four percent credits and tax-exempt bond financing.
Anthony said this project is a bit more complicated than it seems and needs more consideration. Richman
said the question for the commission is whether CDBG funds would be allocated, and if so, how much.
Shaw added that decision needs to be made without consideration of whether the city will also provide
funds.
Hightshoe announced that the Qualified Action Plan for L1HTC projects does contain standards for
construction that we could consider for future construction projects. If interest, will discuss at a
subsequent HCDC meeting.
Hightshoe said the commission members should send final ranking sheets and recommendations by 9:00
a.m., March 15. Member can email, fax, or call in their proposed changes. Long said he would send a
reminder to the commission members.
Adiournment
There being no further business to come before the committee, Shaw moved to adjourn. Hayek seconded
and the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
s:/pcdlminutes/HC DCI2006/03-09-06. doc
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2006, 6:30 P.M.
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROOM A
PRELIMINARY
Members Present:
Jerry Anthony, William Greazel, Matthew Hayek, Kelly Mellecker, Brian Richman, Michael
Shaw
Members Absent:
Thomas Niblock
Staff Present:
Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long
Public Present:
Ron Berg, Jesse Burns, Mary Chval, Maryann Dennis, Marla Edwards, Tracy Falcomata,
Beth Koppes, Suellen Novotny, Mark Patton, Sandy Pickup, Steven Rackis, Bill Reagan,
Stephen Trefz
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL:
Housing and Community Development Commission Funding Recommendations:
FY07 CDBG\Home Projects
PROJECT NAME
Housing - Home Eligible Activities
Habitat for Humanity*- Homeownership
ICHA - Tenant Based Rent Assistance
FY07 HOME funds not allocated
HCDC RECOMMENDATION
REQUESTED AMOUNT
$220,000
$200,000
$89,409
$220,000
$368,064
Public Facilities, ED, Non-HOME Activities
Arc of Johnson County - Fac. Rehab. $2,852
CMHC- Facility Rehabilitation $18,280
DVIP - Facility Rehabilitation $6,400
Four Oaks - New Construction $200,000
Grant Wood Elementary - Playground $56,437
MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation $22,000
$2,852
$18,280
$6,400
$200,000
$56,437
$22,000
Public Services and Planning
Compeer - Director
Extend the Dream Foundation - Oper.
Free Medical Clinic - Case Mgmt
Shelter House - Outreach Coordinator
VNA - Mental Health Home Care
$1,000
$1,000
$4,900
$4,900
$2,500
$2,584
$2,250
$21,000
$10,000
$10,000
* Includes $25,031 in CDBG funds
Consideration of minutes from February 16, 2006
MOTION: Greazel moved to accept the minutes as submitted. Hayek seconded, and the motion carried on a vote of
6-0.
Public Comment
Dennis distributed a letter to the commission members withdrawing The Housing Fellowship's application for CDBG
funds for preservation of housing units. She said the city is willing to consider a $250K general obligation bond for
the project over twenty years. She asked if the commission would provide a letter of support for the Housing
Fellowship's request for a general obligation bond when it is considered by council.
Anthony asked if there was consensus or discussion from the commission members about support for the
Fellowship's request. Greazel said he was supportive. Hightshoe said a formal vote for that request could be put on
the next meeting's agenda.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 23, 2006
Page 2
Discussion of FY07 CDBG/HOME Funding Requests
MOTION: Greazel moved to begin discussion with the Public Services category, then move to the Public Facilities
category, and discuss the Housing category last. Shaw seconded, and the motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
Hightshoe asked all the commission members to speak up so the visitors in the back of the room will be able to hear
them.
Anthony noted that most of the commission members did not allocate all available funds. He said he is concerned
about this, and will have comments on the issue of holding funds back that he would bring up when appropriate. The
comments may not influence discussion about Public Services, so he would wait until later.
MOTION: Greazel moved to fund the Shelter House Coordinator at $2,250. There was no second, so the motion
died. Hightshoe said that the bylaws indicate the commission has nine members, so five votes are needed in
support for a favorable recommendation.
Richman said most members were recommending between five and ten thousand for the Coordinator application,
so the two groups should talk about why they funded at each level. Shaw said he would be comfortable with giving
this project a lower amount if the funds were spread to other projects. He did not allocate to the other projects
because with full funding to the Coordinator application, he would have had less than $1 K for the others. He added
that funding the Coordinator position would be used to match federal funds, which is why he funded it at a high level.
Mellecker said everyone funded this project at some level, so it should be a higher priority.
MOTION: Greazel moved to fund the Coordinator application at $4K. Hayek seconded.
Richman asked if it would make sense for the commission to come to some consensus on the amounts for all the
projects and then vote on the overall allocations, or if people preferred to go line by line. Anthony said he preferred
line by line. Hayek asked for confirmation that allocations could be changed later with future motions. Anthony said
yes.
Mellecker said looking at the whole category would be the better way to go. Hayek said it is hard to keep track of
what has been proposed for each line. Greazel noted that Long would keep track of the numbers on the projection
screen. Anthony said he is more comfortable with going line by line. Then the commission members could debate
each issue, and go back to amend previous decisions as needed. -Hightshoe said the applications are ordered on
the spreadsheet by the average priority ranking of the commission members.
Richman said he would like to go higher with the allocation for the Coordinator application, such as $4,500. Shaw
said he also wants to go higher, and noted the application had the highest priority for the majority of the commission
members. Hayek said there are other applications that fulfill an immediate need. He said he could not go higher
because of funding for Free Medical Clinic (FMC).
Anthony said he definitely also wants to go higher for Shelter House. A lower level of funding would not advers~ly
affect Free Medical Clinic (FMC) as much as Shelter House (SH). He agreed that both SH and FMC meet real
immediate needs. However, funding SH gives more leverage for outside funding because of the federal match.
Those additional funds would help many agencies.
The commission voted against the motion with a total of 4 in favor and 2 against.
Mellecker asked how much higher would the SH allocation need to be to gain support of the dissenting members.
MOTION: Shaw moved to allocate SH at $6K. No second, so the motion died.
MOTION: Shaw moved to fund at $5K, and Mellecker seconded. The commission voted against the motion with two
in favor and three against, with one abstention.
Richman said that $5K is a high amount considering the available pool is only $14K. He added that everyone wants
to go higher for all the projects, but the funds just are not available. Hayek suggested $4,500. Shaw said he could
support that if more money were put into other projects. He asked for confirmation that the other SH project would
not be funded. Richman suggested considering the funding level for the other SH project at. this point. There was
general consensus to discuss both SH projects together.
Greazel said he would agree to fund $4,500 for the Outreach Coordinator if no money were allocated for the
Security Deposit. Shaw said the Security Deposit is important for renters and helps fill a strong immediate need. It is
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 23, 2006
Page 3
difficult to choose between the two applications even though SH expressed a preference for funding the Outreach
Coordinator. Richman said the commission should respect the preference of the applicant.
Richman suggested again looking at the whole category before making a motion. Anthony said that would be fine.
Richman suggested tentatively that SH Outreach Coordinator be funded at $4500 and asked for input about funding
for FMC. Mellecker said FMC should be funded about equal to SH because it is one of the two that all the
commission members funded. Richman suggested $4,500. Hayek said he would support that amount. Greazel said
he would like more funding for FMC.
Shaw asked about the Security Deposit. Greazel said he can support $4,500, but the total funding for SH should be
no more than that. He said the commission should focus its efforts. Shaw asked if anything under $2K would be
face-saving number for VNA. Greazel said he would rather focus.
Mellecker suggested looking at VNA next because it has the next highest average allocation. Shaw said $4K would
be high. Hayek said he suspected applicants could still use $1 K or less. Richman asked for confirmation that Hayek
thinks funding at lower amounts is still worthwhile. Hayek said yes.
Hightshoe asked if there were any agencies the commission would not be funding. Shaw said NCJC was not funded
except for Hayek. Hayek said he did have some concerns with the report issue, and would agree to not funding the
project. Shaw asked for feedback about the concerns with Compeer's administrative controls. Anthony asked
whether Compeer was also off the table. Shaw said it might be a lower priority. Hayek said he does not consider
them a lower priority. He noted since the group operates on such a low budget, even $1 K would make a big impact.
Hayek asked for clarification about the concerns with Compeer's ability to manage the funds. Anthony said the issue
was with income and population reporting in the past. Hightshoe said the organization said they could improve that.
Hayek noted that would be a question of data rather than managing money. Anthony said if the money is intended to
serve a certain income population, then the issue could be with both. Hayek asked what qualifications are needed to
receive Compeer services. Hightshoe said the organization must keep client income information in their files. The
client may refuse to provide it, but they must document their efforts. They have received federal funding in the past,
but the concern at the last meeting was that income information and time records should be kept. She added there
were some problems that revolved around time records, but those issues were resolved.
Hayek asked if Compeer has clients that do not fall within the income parameters of this funding. Hightshoe said the
majority of their clients are most likely low to moderate income; the problem was the organization was not
maintaining documentation one way or another.
Richman asked who would support$1K for Compeer. Four commission members agreed. Two members supported
$0 funding. Anthony suggested looking at the average allocation for each application and trade money back and
forth within the category. Hayek said that would remove all that have less than $1 K in average allocation. Anthony
said that would be one way to do it, though not the only way. Richman suggested continuing as before. Hayek
agreed.
Greazel said he could support $1 K for Compeer. Mellecker suggested $1 K for Compeer, $2500 for VNA, and $1 K
for Extend the Dream. Those amounts would fund those projects above the average allocation recommendation.
Shaw asked whether the $800 remaining would go to SH Security Deposit. Hayek said it should go to the
Coordinator application and allow SH to internally allocate the funds. Richman suggested dividing it between SH
and FMC.
. MOTION: Shaw moved to allocate the Public Services category with $4,900 to both Shelter House Outreach
Coordinator and Free Medical Clinic, $2,500 to VNA Mental Health Home Care, $1,000 for each the Compe~r
Director and the Extend the Dream Foundation Coordinator, with $0 allocated to the Shelter House Security DeposIt
and the NCJC Newcomers Network. Greazel seconded.
Anthony said he would like to increase the SH Outreach Coordinator allocation even more. The average allocation
for FMC is lower than what is on the table. He recommended giving $4,700 to FMC and putting the rest into SH.
Hayek said he would support the $200 shift. Richman said he preferred the numbers already proposed. Mellecker
noted that FMC asked for-twice as much as SH.
The commission voted on the motion as proposed. It carried on a vote of 5-1, Anthony voting against.
Anthony said at the last meeting when the commission members discussed holding back some funding in reserve,
he initially saw some merit in that approach. Next year there might be some good projects that could be funded.
However there could also be less desirable projects next year, which the commission would have to fund because
the money needs to be allocated within two years. So he does not feel that reason is very strong. Also, if there was
a specific project being considered, that would provide a concrete reason to hold onto the funds.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 23, 2006
Page 4
However, Anthony noted there are fewer applications for funding this year, and after talking to current and past
applicants, and city staff, he believes there are two reasons for the lower number. The reasons are the scattered site
policy limiting the location possibilities, and also the new city investment policy significantly limiting grants and
changing interest rates. He is opposed to both policies, and initially thought this might be a chance to take concerns
to counci!. .Holding back money. and pointing out tht;llower n~mber of ~pplications could bolster arguments against
those policies. However, he realized the cost of holding back IS staggering, so he supports spending all funds.
Anthony asked whether the other commission members who support holding funds back considered the cost of that
approach, or if they decided those costs were outweighed by benefits. Greazel asked what the costs are of not
spending the full funding. Anthony said there is a cost involved with holding back, and the question is whether those
costs outweigh the benefits. Shaw said one cost is that fulfilling some housing needs will be delayed. However, the
benefits he sees are both what Richman discussed at the last meeting, but also the argument that it is important for
the HCDC to discuss priorities during the next meetings, which would make decision-making easier in the future.
Mellecker asked where the funds go if they are not spent. Hightshoe said the commission has two years to allocate
the funds after they enter the city's line of credit on July 1. The funds are available to use, but are not drawn upon.
The funds could wait until next year or there could be a mid-year allocation.
Greazel said one message that not fully spending might send is that the commission cannot spend the money it
already has, which could generate a bad image for the commission and bad feelings about the process amongst the
applicants. Those are two obvious negative outcomes from not spending. However, he agreed he does not like the
direction things are going and would like to change the policies. The question is how. Anthony pointed out that funds
are decreasing, and with this approach the commission is voluntarily decreasing it even more. HUD looks at CDBG
allocations periodically, and Iowa City could be the only community that has not fully spent. No community in the
nation has not fully spent the funds because of the uncertainty inherent in the funding. HUD could come back and
claim it. Hightshoe said HUD could not claim it as the city has two years to commit the funds to a specific project.
She noted it is also possible to have a mid-year allocation; however HUD can't recapture the funds if the City is
following the applicable HOME restrictions.
Hayek said there is still time to allocate it before the deadline. Anthony said there are immediate benefits of housing
vouchers and increasing housing opportunities, families who might not be homeless if a little more support was
given to the projects. He cannot support holding money back because it would be irresponsible and cruel to expect
people to suffer in a difficult situation now versus helping as much as possible. These are not numbers but people,
so he strongly recommends spending all the funds.
Mellecker said her concern is that the same thing will happen next year, but funding would likely be lower. The idea
that there is only a 50 percent chance that projects will be better next year is not valid because the same
organizations would be applying for funds. Anthony said future projects may be of the same quality.
Richman said the idea to hold back funds also requires effort to work with the city and community to discuss ways to
address long-term solutions to the housing situation. It does not make sense just to hold the money back for no
reason, but requires the commission to take on some responsibility for moving the discussion forward. He agreed
there is an immediate need for housing, but a long-term solution is needed.
Anthony said he agrees a long-term solution is needed and that the city needs to be proactive in finding a solution
and increasing affordable housing. However, there is no advantage to be gained in that discussion by holding
money back. The discussion could be held on the topic either way, and it would be a disadvantage to have money
held back when asking the city for more money.
Shaw said if there is a discussion and there is a strategic plan and the commission is actively engaged with specific
priorities, then the $100K held back is being put in place to be used in the future, and the commission is in the
process of using them well. Anthony said his concern is how having money held back would change the nature of
the discussion. Last year, funding was over one million dollars, while this year there is only $830K to spend. Having
funds left over after allocation would undermine the argument that more support is needed.
Hayek said he could see the merit in that point. However, he disagrees with the suggestion that not allocating all th~
money is cruel. The commission is charged with setting policy and determining the most prudent and efficient useQf
the funds. If that involves a decision to hold back and wait for better options, it is a question of effectively applyiqg
the funds. However, the question of whether holding funds back undermines the commission's position with the
council is a good one that should be considered.
Anthony said if there were only a moderate level of housing problems, the commission would have the luxury of
strategizing. He is not against strategizing and making policy decisions. The commission has not been proactive for
the past 20 years and he would like to change that. However, the situation in Johnson County is more similar to an
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 23, 2006
Page 5
emergency room than out patient care. Emergency room treatment means treating the immediate problems, while
out patient care situations allow deferring treatments if needed.
Greazel said when considering whether to hold funds back, he did not do it arbitrarily, but instead looked at the
projects and criteria. He said the commission is not throwing money at just anyone because it is available, but
looking at the projects and determining whether it meets the commission's goals. The commission could tell the
council that they hope at mid-year or next year there will be projects proposed that they feel very confident about
and will use the money efficiently. Anthony said there are enough projects to use the money well. He believes the
commission should be proactive in the community and with the council, and not rely solely on federal money, and
then the additional funds gained locally could be used on an additional allocation.
Richman said the housing situation is both chronic and acute, and to address it solely as a short-term problem will
not solve long-term problems and fulfill the commission's obligation to the community. He does not think holding
back money is a matter of strategizing, but instead is an attempt to address long-term problems. Long-term
problems need more than money, but also to have policy issues addressed. Until those policy issues are addressed,
it is difficult to spend money in a fashion that best meets the long-term problems in the community.
Mellecker said she agrees with Richman, that the commission is looking at making prudent financial decisions and
allocating in the best way possible. Having money set back to use towards policy objectives shows dedication from
the commission to actively engage in a policy discussion.
Anthony said this would be the first commission to look at policy issues. In his memo to the commission at the
beginning of the year, he laid out three initiatives that the commission should try to address. He said he is deeply
committed to housing and has been active in this area for many years, including going before council to ask for
additional funding, and going before the planning and zoning commission to ask for support for affordable housing.
With his experience, he sees no merit in holding money back, since it would not improve the strength of the
commission's argument in a discussion about policy.
Hayek said he does not view holding money back as making a statement or sending a message. He said he thinks
there could be significant changes at the council level in the next year on some of these issues, and there could be
a completely different council outlook on these policies in one way or another. If that is the case, there might be
some new projects proposed that would respond to those changes. He is not thrilled with the current projects, so he
hopes to hold some money back to see whether other projects materialize. If not, the money would be allocated to
similar projects as the ones proposed this year. Anthony said if better projects are not proposed, the money has
been held for no purpose.
Greazel noted that the topic had been thoroughly covered, and suggested moving on to discuss Public Facilities.
Richman said the Housing Fellowship has withdrawn its application. Anthony said that means there is more money
to give to other projects. Long said there has been a change to the amount requested by ReStore to $107K. .
":~J
Richman asked how much remaining funds are available in each category. Hightshoe said there are $484K in
HOME funds and $331 K in CDBG. Richman asked for clarification that HOME funds could be held back in reserve,
while CDBG funds cannot be deferred. Also, CDBG could be put into land acquisition. Hightshoe said yes, in the
Habitat and Harmony projects, the land acquisition would be eligible for CDBG funds. ICHA - Tenant Based Rental
Assistance would not be eligible.
Hayek recommended funding full amounts to DVIP and Arc, since all the commission members supported them. He
suggested continuing with the practice of evaluating the whole category. Anthony agreed. Richman asked Long to
fill in $2,852 for Arc, and $6,400 for DVIP.
Hightshoe said she em ailed the construction estimate information for Four Oaks to the commission members prior
to the meeting. Habitat for Humanity submitted revised budget information that was distributed before the meeting.
Greazel asked if there is support for $107K for ReStore, since it received a lot of support. Hayek said support was
split in half. Shaw said he was able to fully fund everything else if he did not fund ReStore. Mellecker agreed.
Greazel suggested fully funding the Grant Wood playground and ReStore.
Hightshoe said the ReStore project has changed from property acquisition to facility rehabilitation since the
application was submitted. The city would purchase the building and Habitat for Humanity would lease the space.
The lease would have to be approved by the council. The council must approve the below market lease and show
the public purpose or benefit. When asked, Patton stated there was council support of the project. Shaw asked what
the advantage is to the revised plan. Hightshoe said it would be a larger lot and would be able to offer many
services such as an east side recycling area. The furniture project and the salvage barn could possibly relocate
there as well.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 23, 2006
Page 6
Hayek asked how likely it is that the plan would be approved by council. Hightshoe said there is support. Patton said
council is supportive of the general concept. Richman said though he is supportive of Habitat for Humanity, he feels
there is too much in flux with the ReStore project for him to feel comfortable funding it. He does not know whether it
will go through, and does not know as much about the cash flows of ReStore. He said he is more comfortable with
the Four Oaks project. Mellecker said she also favors Four Oaks over ReStore.
Shaw asked if the ReStore project would go forward if it were not fully funded in its new form. Patton said the
sprinkler system in the building is a safety issue that needs to be addressed. Otherwise the building needs to be
converted from a garage into a place that is more comfortable for customers. He does not know how much volunteer
labor will be available.
Greazel said he supports fully funding DVIP and the Arc, and recommended fully funding Grant Wood as well. He
asked for feedback about Grant Wood. Shaw said the average allocation for this project is skewed by one
recommendation for $0. Mellecker said the five middle projects were almost all fully funded. If all of those are fully
funded, $225K is left over. Richman said fully funding Grant Wood is fine.
Anthony asked about funding for MECCA. Greazel said he would support full funding. Shaw asked if the
commission could recommend a cooperative effort between the applicants. Anthony said yes. Greazel said that
MECCA would be fully funded then. Shaw said he is more strongly committed to fully funding CMHC than MECCA
because the repairs are more an issue of safety. If MECCA is fully funded, then he thinks CMHC should also be fully
funded.
Greazel said the discussion is now down to Four Oaks and ReStore. Mellecker said that $225K remains to be
allocated. Richman said the funds could be spent in this category or put into land acquisition for Harmony or Habitat.
Shaw suggested 75 percent of requested amount to Four Oaks and 50 percent to ReStore. Richman said he is not
sold on ReStore. Greazel said he would prefer to fully fund Four Oaks.
Anthony said if Four Oaks is given $200K, then that leaves $25K. He asked if any of the HOME funds could be
applied to this category. Hightshoe said no. Mellecker said she thought this would be a good opportunity for savings,
freeing up $50K by allocating $175 to Four Oaks and $0 to ReStore. Richman noted CDBG funds must be fully
spent this year.
Greazel suggested $150K to Four Oaks and $75K to ReStore. Richman said he does not think that $150K to Four
Oaks would carry the project. Chval said the project would have to be reworked if funded at that level. Greazel said
he would prefer to avoid reworking the project so they could do it without cutting corners. Richman said it costs more
in the long run to build at a lower cost, so the lowest he would go for Four Oaks is $185K. Shaw said the issue is
what to do with the money that is left over. Richman said it should be spent on Habitat or Harmony land acquisition.
Greazel asked whether there was a required amount necessary for the ReStore project. Patton said the greatest
need is for the sprinklers, and they would not turn down any amount. However, the project would go forward
regardless and funding would be found. Shaw said ReStore does not have an income requirement for using their
service, so when considering whether to fund the project, locating the furniture project there had a significant impact
on his opinion. Having the furniture project located on the east side would be a significant improvement on that
service's availability. Greazel said this is another organization with two requests, so he suggested giving more
money in the HOME funds.
Richman said ReStore is in flux, and that he is more comfortable funding the Habitat land acquisition application.
Greazel suggested giving Four Oaks $200K and increasing the Habitat land acquisition allocation accordingly.
Richman confirmed that would mean $0 funding for ReStore and leave $25K in CDBG funds to be spent in land
acquisition. Anthony said ReStore is a good project, and it would go forward regardless, so he could live with that
plan.
Mellecker said the Habitat land acquisition application is better, since there is more information available and the
situation is settled. Shaw suggested looking at the Housing applications and then reviewing the Public Facilities
applications again.
MOTION: Greazel moved to accept funding allocations for the Public Facilities category with full funding requested
amounts for Arc, CMHC, DVIP, Four Oaks, Grant Wood, and MECCA, and $0 for Habitat ReStore. Shaw seconded.
Hayek said he has some discomfort about the ReStore project. He asked whether that application came before the
commission last year. Anthony said yes, and he recommended against funding then. However, now he feels the
project is really flying, so thinks it should be funded at some level. He is not concerned about the project this year.
Richman said he is not yet prepared to support the current motion until he sees how the funding in HOME funds
works out. Anthony suggested voting on the motion and coming back to this category later.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 23,2006
Page 7
The commission voted against the motion, with three in favor and three against.
Anthony asked whether reducing $200K would work for those opposed. Hayek said everything is fully funded in the
Public Facilities categories except for Four Oaks and ReStore. He asked whether moving $25K out of Four Oaks ,to
ReStore would be effective. Anthony confirmed that would be $25K more than the $25K already allocated, taking it
to a total of $50K. Mellecker said $25K might not do anything, so her preference is to do $0 and put the money
somewhere more effeCtive.
MOTION: Hayek moved to allocate $175K to Four Oaks and $50K to ReStore, with full funding to the other Public
Facilities projects. Greazel seconded. The commission voted against the motion with four in favor and two against.
MOTION: Richman moved to allocate $200K to Four Oaks and $0 to ReStore, with a commitment to put the extra
$25K into Habitat's land acquisition after allocating the HOME funds. Greazel suggested not deciding on the Public
Facilities category until the HOME funds have been determined. There was no second, so the motion died.
Greazel suggested $180K for ICHA, based on the average allocation recommendation. Anthony said he would like it
to be higher. Mellecker said she would like it higher as well. She suggested focusing on a few projects and not
funding Harmony. After focusing on some of the projects, the leftover amount did not seem like very much.
Shaw asked whether the Harmony project would scale back if not fully funded, or if it would go through at all. Burns
said it is not a simple yes/no answer. Tax credit projects need to have a certain magnitude to go forward, either in
the number of units or cost per unit, to generate enough tax credits. Considering the millions of dollars leveraged in
previous projects through federal and state programs, he estimated a project similar to Whispering Gardens would
be possible at a lower level. That would require review vis-a-vis the scattered site policy, however. The reason the
Harmony request is at its level is because of the land cost for compliance with the scattered site policy. He
estimated they could do a project similar to Whispering Gardens with $150K and still have enough to leverage state
funds. They cannot apply for state HOME funds without a certain commitment from local funds. He estimated that
$150K minimum would be needed to do the project.
Greazel asked where the money would come from if Burns did a project in another community that did not havEi
HOME funds. Burns said it would be made up with state HOME fund requests. They also have used enterprise zone
benefits for some projects, though that has not been approved in Iowa City. Hightshoe said if the project is not in an
entitlement city, they could apply for funds competitively through the state. Anthony said since Iowa City is an
entitlement city, funding must be provided through the city allocations. Hightshoe added that while some projects
have received both state and entitlement funds, it does not happen often.
Shaw said that the developer has served the city well. Greazel said everyone has done well with the money they
. have received. Anthony said he likes the project because it brings funding into the community through state funding
and investment. His concern was with the cost per unit, but that might be based on tax credit project guidelines
raising the rates. If comparing funding $200K to Harmony versus $200K to Four Oaks, Harmony would bring in
additional funding whereas Four Oaks would not. However, he noted that is an example only and not a fair
comparison since it looks strictly at financial benefits, since Four Oaks provides an essential service and Harmony
does not. He said additional funding is a big plus in his consideration.
Richman suggested $150K for ICHA. It is an important program that helps people right away. Shaw asked whether
this is the only project that involves rental housing. Richman said that Harmony is rental housing. Mellecker said she
thinks giving the tenants options on where they live through housing vouchers is a better plan than creating a few
housing units of a specific type.
Greazel said he is looking at the number of people the programs will impact. Anthony said that is a valid point, and
that the ICHA program is a good program. He said as the application was originally submitted, the funds could be
used outside of Iowa City. However, Rackis said the commission could specify funds given to the ICHA be used only
in Iowa City and he would make it work.
Greazel asked whether there was support for $180K for ICHA. Hayek said he is willing to discuss it but would like to
see how the other projects work out. Greazel said that leaves $84K plus $25K from the Public Facilities category;
He said he would support the funding currently on the board, which includes not funding Harmony. Anthony said he
would like to fund Harmony. Burns is the only developer from the private sector that has provided affordable
housing. The average allocation for Harmony was $64K, and he suggested increasing it to $11 OK. Shaw said that
would be the $84K plus the $25K from the other category.
Richman said if $200K is allocated betWeen Four Oaks and ReStore that leaves $25K to go into land acquisition.
Anthony said with the plan as it stood, Harmony could get $11 OK. Greazel asked what that amount would do in
terms of project viability. Burns said he was mentally comparing numbers to Whispering Garden, which is the basis
for his estimate for $150K. He said a lower interest rate might be possible, though it is already pretty low. Shaw
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 23, 2006
Page 8
asked if Harmony would come back next year with this application. Anthony said they would be back regardless of
whether funds are held back or not. Shaw said it is possible that Harmony would come back next year with a project
the commission could more fully fund because of holding back money this year. Anthony said there is no guarantee
since nothing would be in writing. Shaw agreed.
Hightshoe questioned if commission members were interested in HOME projects that could repay the City as that
was the point of the Financial Investment Policy. Greazel noted that Habitat's project is 100 percent taxable, while
Harmony is Section 42 and not fully taxable. Burns said the amount that is taxable is based on the income approach
in the application. He estimated these units would be around 50 cents on the dollar. He added that since the project
would pay money back, those funds could also be reused for future housing projects. Greazel agreed that is a good
point.
Anthony noted that Habitat does great work, but Harmony would bring in more funding from outside of th~
community. Greazel pointed out that even if the funding were not used in Iowa City, it would be leveraged
elsewhere. Iowa City is very affluent, and a poorer community could also benefit from those funds. Anthony said
many of the poorer communities do not have the same housing problem since while they have low incomes, they
also have affordable housing. Per the census, Johnson County has the highest percentage of people with an
affordable housing problem. Richman said that Habitat would also leverage funding through in-kind donations.
Anthony said that Habitat should receive full funding, but also that Harmony should be funded at some level.
Hayek noted the commission is running up against the issue of holding back money. Richman said he is willing to
fund Harmony, though then discussion is needed about amounts for the other projects. Hayek said he is leaning
toward holding funds back for the future, and that he thinks more private developers should be involved in providing
affordable housing. It is a complex area, which might be why others are not involved, but there is room for private
developers.
Richman suggested funding Habitat at $175K, ICHA at $150K, and Harmony at $75K. Shaw asked whether
Richman was changing his opinion about holding funds back. Richman said no, just reducing Habitat and ICHA and
putting that $75K into Harmony.
Anthony asked how $100K was decided as the amount to hold back. Hayek said that was what he ended up with
during his calculations. Mellecker said her concern is that if funding is split between three projects; all would be
crippled versus making two of them viable. Richman said he could support what has been proposed at this point,
$200K, $200K, and $0.
Rackis said he would like to clarify that ICHA money goes to the landlord and is fully taxable in the private market
unless it is going to a tax credit project. The money goes back into the community.
Mellecker suggested $200K for ICHA and $220K for Habitat. Greazel said he could support that. Hayek asked how
much support there is for funding Harmony, since three people allocated $0 and the others were varied. Shaw
suggested voting on Harmony alone as a line item. Anthony asked if Mellecker, Greazel, and Shaw are still
recommending no funds for Harmony. Mellecker, Greazel, and Shaw said yes.
MOTION: Richman moved to put $200K to ICHA and Four Oaks, $220K to Habitat, and the other numbers as they
currently stand. Mellecker seconded.
Mellecker said that would leave $89,409. Shaw asked what would be done with the held back funds. Richman said
the commission could ask they remain in the City's line of credit while the commission worked with developers and
the community to create good long-term solutions to the housing problem.
Hayek said he would like to fund Harmony, and he also wants to hold money back. He suggested reducing funds for
Habitat and ICHA and using the balance for Harmony. Richman said he would support funding Four Oaks at $190K.
The commission members voted against the motion with four in favor and two against.
Richman asked how much Hayek would like to put into Harmony. Hayek said he does not know, though he originally
had the project at $100K. Richman suggested reducing Habitat and ICHA and funding Harmony, which would still
leave money held back. Mellecker asked where that would put Harmony, and if it would be viable.
Greazel asked how much a $10K reduction would impact the ICHA project. Rackis said the request was based on a
per unit cost of $426 per month, so $200K would support 40 people for one year or 20 people for two years.
Richman asked if a good estimate is $5K per unit per year. Rackis said yes. Greazel noted that Harmony is only six
units, and it comes down to the number of people who would benefit. Hayek said the impacts of the two projects are
impossible to compare. Rackis said what needs to be evaluated is the long-term benefits. In those terms, the two
projects could be compared.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 23, 2006
Page 9
Anthony said the average amount held back is $43K. He suggested holding $50K, then putting 'the other $39K
elsewhere. Shaw said there was agreement to increase the land acquisition allocation for Habitat since ReStore was
not funded. Mellecker said there were two recommendations to hold back $0, which skews the average.
Hayek asked how many commission members would support holding back $100K. Five members agreed, with
Anthony against. Mellecker said $150K would need to be pulled from other projects to fund Harmony. Anthony
suggested holding back $50K, plus reallocating from the other projects. He noted he originally recommended
holding back $0 but has come up to $50K. Richman said he originally wanted to hold back $120K and has come
down to $90K. Hightshoe asked if the commission could come to a consensus if after setting priorities during the
next year, the city puts in an application based on those priorities. Anthony said no that would not alleviate his
concern, since the city could make a proposal even without having funds held back.
Hayek said he could support $75K held back. Anthony asked how the other funds would look at that point. Hayek
said $25K into Harmony plus some from Four Oaks and the other Housing projects. Greazel said he wants to give
Four Oaks full funding so they can do the project as proposed. Hayek said taking $25K from each category would
give Harmony $100K. Richman said he could do $75K for Harmony, but cannot find $100K for the project. Shaw
said he would like to fund Harmony, but it seems like so much more could be done by strongly funding the other
projects; Mellecker agreed.
Anthony said he would be able to support Hayek's numbers, though he would prefer more money for Harmony.
Richman said that would leave $40K to be held back, which he could not support.
Greazel said he would like to put the extra $25K back into Public Facilities, to make it easier to keep track of. Hayek
asked if the two Habitat projects could be considered together. Anthony said no since the ReStore project is a
partnership project that leases a space in collaboration with other groups, while the land acquisition project is a
stand-alone project. Richman suggested making final decisions about the Housing category before deciding what to
do about ReStore.
Shaw noted $60K more is needed to make $100K hold back. Mellecker said she thinks ICHA and land acquisition
are too low. Greazel agreed, and the only place he can find the money is from Harmony. Anthony said he could
support the current numbers.
Mellecker asked for confirmation that Harmony would not be viable if funded under $150K. Shaw said that Burns
was comparing that amount to another project, but that does not mean $100K would not be helpful. Burns said they
would take $100K if that were the amount available.
Anthony said if the commission does not allocate the funds, they are giving up the authority to determine where the
funds should go. Richman noted the council could do anything they want with the funds, since the commission only
offers recommendations. Anthony clarified that if the commission holds back $50K, for example, the council could
allocate the held back funds as they wished. Mellecker said that argues for holding back a higher amount, and that
$100K sends a more solid statement about the commission's commitment and intentions.
Hightshoe asked for clarification on what statement would be expressed by holding funds back. Hayek said he
thinks some changes are coming up in the next year, and having additional funds might give the commission the
opportunity to respond to projects that work with those changes. He noted he is not thrilled with any of the projects
currently on the table. Hightshoe said a justification memo needs to be written that includes why those funds were
held back and what the commission wants the council to do with them.
Richman said he agrees with Hayek's statement about not being thrilled with the projects on the table. However, the
bigger issue is the desire for the commission to work with the council and community to create a better balance
between the short- and long-term needs, which are currently funded through short-term funds. Hightshoe noted that
both the intended statement and reasons behind it need to be clear when the statement is made to the council.
Greazel said $100K would be more valuable next year, since the funding might go down again. Having an extra
amount of money held back might make a project viable that otherwise would not be.
Richman suggested funding Harmony at $75K, Habitat Land Acquisition at $170K, ReStore at $0, ICHA at $165K,
and hold back $100K. Greazel noted that allocating to Habitat at that level would be less than half of what they
requested. Richman said they are still receiving the highest percent of funding from the commission.
Mellecker said she thinks the $75K for Harmony could be used elsewhere more effectively. Shaw said that narrows
down the discussion and asked if it is all about the $75K. Hayek said he could support those numbers. Anthony said
Habitat's Land Acquisition amount is too low. Greazel and Mellecker said they were in favor of $0 for Harmony and
higher funding elsewhere.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 23, 2006
Page 10
;/-t
Anthony asked how many lots $220K would get for Habitat. Patton said four lots at $55K each. Shaw said $170K
would then fund three lots. Mellecker said Harmony's lots are $60K each.
Richman asked how to resolve the disagreements. Greazel said he does not agree with the current suggestion.
Anthony agreed. Hayek said he could live with it. Greazel said he would reduce the hold back amount before
allowing ICHA go that low. Hayek said he would leave Public Facilities as it stands, leave the hold back amount at
$100K, and either take the Housing category as it stands or do something with Harmony. Shaw confirmed that
Hayek would choose holding back over Harmony. Hayek said yes. Richman agreed.
Anthony suggested not holding back funds and distributing the $100K evenly amongst the three housing projects.
Shaw said the money would come from either Harmony or deferred funds. Hayek said he would like $100K held
back. Greazel said he is unhappy with having ReStore at $0 if the Land Acquisition amount is so low. He added if
Habitat does not get full funding for the lots, they will not have the funds to shift around as needed, so he would
need money to be put into ReStore.
Anthony asked why the amount held back is $100K, rather than holding all the HOME funds back. Richman said he
thinks it would be unwise not to fund any affordable during this allocation. Hayek said the number is arbitrary, and
that he decided on $100K because it is a sizeable amount of money that could have a beneficial impact on future
projects. He said he does not see projects that capitalize on densities the change in zoning code was supposed to
address, such as townhouses. Anthony said next year there might not be a scattered site policy, which would open
up more areas for housing. Richman said holding funds back is about balancing long and short-term needs and
goals.
Anthony said in his experience with affordable housing issues, he believes a $100K commitment is not going to
change council opinions or policies in any way. He agrees that the commission should try to change policies, bu.t
recommended maximizing the current funding to meet current needs, and then have the discussion about
addressing those long-term.concerns and policies during the next year.
Mellecker said there is a very good chance funding will decrease next year, and $100K could make or break a
project. Anthony said holding back funds might result in next year's allocation being lower. If there is a cushion, the
push for long-term changes might not be as strong. Mellecker said she thinks it would be easier to change policy
than get additional funding. Anthony disagreed.
Hayek said he does not look at holding back funds as a way to change policies. The policies will change one way or
another, and having the extra funds next year ~ould help fund a project that takes advantage of those changes.
Long pointed out that the council could put the held back funds somewhere else. Richman said the council could do
anything they want, including change the allocations for all the projects.
Anthony said the commission is responsible for recommending allocations to the council for the full amount, and if
the commission cannot decide, it defaults to the council. He said he thinks the commission is capable of allocating
the funds. Shaw said the final say would default to the council either way. Greazel said if the commission allocates
it, the council does not change it very much. Anthony agreed, as long as the full amount is spent. Shaw asked when
the last time money was held back. Anthony said never, and for 99 percent of communities, money is not held back.
Mellecker suggested funding Harmony at $0, Habitat Land Acquisition at $220K, ICHA at $200K, ReStore at $0,
which would leave $90K held back. Anthony said he would support $50K held back, and split the remaining funds
between the two Habitat projects and Harmony. $25K for ReStore would bring Harmony up to $100K.
Greazel said he agrees with Mellecker's suggestion. If Harmony were funded, he would take money from the hold
back funds before reducing other funding. Hayek said if that is the choice, he would agree.,
1,_.""
MOTION: Greazel moved to accept funding in the Public Facilities and Housing categories with Harmony at $0;
Habitat Land Acquisition at $220K (of which included $25,031 in CDBG funds), ICHA at $200K, ReStore at $0, Four
Oaks at $200K, and fully funding the requested amounts for Arc, CMHC, DVIP, Four Oaks, Grant Wood, and
MECCA, which would leave $89,409 held back. Richman seconded and the motion carried on a vote of 5-1, with
Anthony voting against.
Anthony asked for two volunteers for the committee to write the justification memo for the funding decisions. Given
his strong position against holding funds back, he asked for someone who was strongly in favor of the position.
Hightshoe said the justification letter is needed by March 31. Richman and Greazel volunteered to assist. Anthony
said he would email them.
Anthony noted for the record that he strongly objects to holding back any funding. and views it as an abrogation of
the commission's responsibilities as established by the council. He said he feels it would be acceptable if the
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
March 23, 2006
Page 11
commission had a specific project in mind for the funding, but otherwise it is irresponsible not to allocate all the
funds available.
There being no further business to come before the commission, Hayek moved to adjourn. Greazel seconded, and
the motion passed on a vote of 6-0 to adjourn at 9:35 p.m.
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2006, 6:30 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
Members Present:
Jerry Anthony, William Greazel, Kelly Mellecker, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw (via
speakerphone)
Members Absent:
Thomas Niblock, Matthew Hayek
Staff Present:
Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long, Sue Dulek
Public Present:
Stephen Trefz, Tom Walz
Call to Order
Anthony called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Discussion Regarding FY07 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership
Program (HOME) Requests
Dulek stated that this is the time for someone to make a motion to reconsider the funding recommendations that were
made at the March 23 HCDC meeting. No motion was made.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the commission, Greazel moved to adjourn. Richman seconded, and the
motion passed on a vote of 5-0 to adjourn at 6:37 p.m.
FY 2007 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) FUNDS
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP FUNDS
(HOME) FUNDS
March 2006
PREPARED BY THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FY07 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
City Council of Iowa City
Ross Wilburn, Mayor
Regenia Bailey, Mayor Pro Tem
Connie Champion
Amy Correia
Mike O'Donnell
Bob Elliott
Dee Vanderhoef
Housing and Community Development Commission
Jerry Anthony, Chair
Brian Richman, Vice Chair
William Greazel
Matthew Hayek
Kelly Mellecker
Thomas Niblock
Michael Shaw
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Planning and Community Development
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 356-5230
www.icgov.org
FY07 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
Introduction
The Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Action Plan highlights the use of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds. The Annual Action Plan is the result of a
four-month process of public involvement and decision-making regarding the needs, priorities and
proposed uses of CDBG and HOME funds in Iowa City. The following action plan represents the
efforts of local residents, Housing and Community Development Commission members, public
officials and staff to craft a document responsive to identified opportunities and needs in the
community.
Resources
Federal resources expected to be available to address the priority needs identified in this plan
include CDBG and HOME funds. The City anticipates $845,249 in CDBG assistance in Fiscal Year
2007 (July 1, 2006-June 30, 2007), which includes the annual entitlement of $680,249, program
income of $115,000 and unexpended CDBG funds of $50,000. The City anticipates $732,222 in
HOME funds, representing the annual entitlement of $637,222 and program income of $95,000.
The City continues to work with private developers and non-profit organizations to access Low
Income Housing Tax Credits and various other programs to increase affordable housing
opportunities in Iowa City.
Description of Activities
The City of Iowa City distinguishes between five different but complementary areas of program
development in its overall CDBG and HOME programs: Housing, Public Facility, Public Service,
Economic Development and Planning & Administration. Section III of the Annual Action Plan
summarizes the projects to be funded in FY2007 through the use of CDBG and HOME funds.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I
Standard Form 424: CDBG & HOME Program .............................................................................. 2
Resolution Adopting the FY06 Annual Action Plan ........................................................................ 3
SECTION II
FY07 Funding Sources ..... ....... ...1 I' II ............................ II ......... II II ............... ......... .... ........... II .......7
SECTION III
FY07 CDBG and HOME Projects
FYO 7 CDBG\HOM E Budget .................................................................................................... 9
Descri ption of Projects ........................................................................................................ 10
SECTION IV
Geographic Distribution of Resources
Geographic Distribution of Resources Narrative ................................................................... 28
Map Showing LMI Areas (2000 Census data) ........................................................................ 29
Map Showing FY07 Project Locations ................................................................................... 30
Method of Distribution ........................................................................................................ 31
SECTION V
FY07 Annual Action Plan Narrative. ................ ......................... ..................................................33
SECTION VI
FY07 Fair Housing Annual Action Plan .......................................................................................39
SECTION VII
Certifications for FY07 CDBG and HOME Programs..................................................................... 43
SECTION VIII
Publication Notices................................................................................................................... 55
SECTION I
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
1
SF 424
The SF 424 is part of the CPMP Annual Action Plan. SF 424 form fields are included in this document.
Grantee information is linked from the lCPMP.xls document of the CPMP tool.
SF; f;l:24 ~ :
Complete the fillable fields (blue cells) in the table below. The other items are pre-filled with values from the Grantee Information
Worksheet.
Date Receivedb HUD
pplicant
dentifier426004805
tate Identifier
Federal
dentifier42600480S
D Construction
DNon. Construction
CDBG .Grant Amount $680,249
Description of Areas Affected by CDBG Project(s)
$Additional HUDGrant(s) Leveraged Describe
$Additional Federal Funds Leveraged $460,685
$Locally Leveraged Funds $738,041
$Anticipated Program Income $115,000
Additional State Funds Leveraged
$Grantee Funds Leveraged $206,574
ther (Describe)
otal Funds Leveraged for CDBG-based Project(s) $1,405,300
Home Investment Partnerships Program
HOME Project Titles
14.239 HOME
Description of Areas Affected by HOME Project(s)
HOME Grant Amount $637,222
$Additional HUDGrant(s)teveraged Describe
Additional Federal Funds Leveraged $24,000
Locally Leveraged Funds $230,380
Anticipated Program Income $95,000
otalFunds Leveraged for HOME-basedProject(s)
$Additional State Funds Leveraged
$Grantee Funds Leveraged $48,000
her (Describe)
$302,380
ppdcdqg/07 hud action plan.doc
2
Conaressional Districts of: Is application subject to review by state Executive
Applicant..Oistricts 1.....project..District5 Order 12372 Process?
Second Second
Is the applicant delinquent on any federal debt? If DYes This application was made available to the
"Yes" please include an additional document state EO 123.72 orocessJor review on .DATE
explaining the situation. 18LNo Prqgram is not covered by EO 12372
-0 Yes 1<[8] No IJN/A Program has not been selected by the state
for review
Person to be contacted regarding this application
First Name Stephen Middle Initial J Last Name Atkins
itle City Manager Phone 319.356.5010 Fax 319.356.5217
email steve-atkins@iowa-city.org IGrantee Website www.icgov.org IOther Contact Steve Long
Signature of Authorized Representative OateSigned
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
3
Prepared by: Tracy Hightshoe, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING IOWA CITY'S FY07 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, WHICH IS A SUB-PART OF
IOWA CITY'S 2006-2010 CONSOLIDATED PLAN (CITY STEPS), AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO SUBMIT SAID PLAN AND ALL NECESSARY CERTIFICATIONS TO THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND DESIGNATING THE CITY
MANAGER AS THE AUTHORIZED CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to
prepare and submit the FY07 Annual Action Plan as part of the City's 2006-2010 Consolidated Plan (CITY
STEPS), as amended, to plan for the use of federal funds to assist lower income residents with housing, jobs
and services; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission has held a series of meetings
regarding the use of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership
(HOME) funds for City of. Iowa City fiscal year 2007; and
WHEREAS, the City has disseminated information, received public input and held a public hearing on the
FY07 Annual Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the FY07 Annual Action Plan contains the allocation of CDBG and HOME funds attached hereto as
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the FY07 Annual Action Plan will make Iowa City eligible for federal and state funds
administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the public interest will be served by the adoption of the FY07 Annual
Action Plan and submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT:
1. The City of Iowa City FY07 Annual Action Plan, filed in the office of the City Clerk, be and the same is
hereby approved and adopted.
2. The City Manager of Iowa City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the City of Iowa City FY07
Annual Action Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and is further
authorized and directed to provide all the necessary certifications or documents required by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
3. The City Manager is hereby designated as the Chief Executive Officer and authorized to act on behalf
of the City of Iowa City in connection with the FY07 Annual Action Plan.
4. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, terminate or amend CDBG and\or HOME
Agreements entered into in connection with the allocation of public funds with subrecipients,
Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) or other legal entities.
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
4
Passed and approved this
day of May, 2006.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
City Attorney's Office
It was moved by and seconded by
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
the
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Elliott
O'Donnell
Vanderhoef
Wilburn
ppdcdbg/07 hud action p1an.doc
5
SECTION II
FUNDING SOURCES
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
6
SOURCES OF FUNDS
FY07 CDBG Entitlement
FY07 CDBG Estimated Program Income
Unexpended CDBG Funds (from contingency, projects, &
unallocated PI)
FY07 HOME Allocation
FY07 HOME Estimated Program Income
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
TOTALCDBG
TOTAL HOME
FY07 TOTAL
7
$680,249
$115,000
$50,000
$845,249
$637,222
$95,000
$732,222
$1,577,471
SECTION III
FY07 CDBG AND HOME PROJECTS
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
8
FY07 CDBG/HOME BUDGET
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Economic Development Fund - City of Iowa City*
HCDC (3/23/06)
Recommendation or
Request Council Earmark*
_$141,000
Subtotal $141,000
$141,000
$141,000
HOUSING PROJECTS
Affordable Homeownership - Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
Tenant Based Rent Assistance - Iowa City Housing Authority
Housing Rehabilitation - City of Iowa City*
HOME Funds Not Allocated
$220,000
$368,064
$279,021
$220,000
$200,000
$279,021
$89,409
$788,430
Subtotal $867,085
PUBLIC FACILITIES PROJECTS
Facility Rehabilitation - The Arc of Johnson County
Facility Rehabilitation - Community Mental Health Center
Facility Rehabilitation - Domestic Violence Intervention
Program
New Construction - Four Oaks
Playground Improvements - Grant Wood Elementary
Facility Rehabilitation - MECCA
Su btota I
PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS
Operational Expenses - Compeer
Operational Expenses - Extend the Dream Foundation
Case Management - Iowa City Free Medical Clinic
Outreach Coordinator - Shelter House
Operational Expenses - Visiting Nurse Association
Aid to Agencies*
Subtotal
ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING
HOME Program Administration
CDBG Program Administration and Planning
Subtotal
TOTAL
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doC
9
$2,852
$18,280
$6,400
$200,000
$56,437
$22,000
$305,969
$2,852
$18,280
$6,400
$200,000
$56,437
$22,000
$305,969
$2,584
$2,250
$21,000
$10,000
$10,000
$105,000
$150,834
$1,000
$1,000
$4,900
$4,900
$2,500
$105,000
$119,300
$63,722
$159,050
$222,772
$1,577,471
Applicant's Name:
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
Housing Priority Need:
Owner-occupied, Large Related - Medium
Project Title:
Affordable Homeownership - Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
Habitat for Humanity will use funds to acquire four lots to construct
affordable homes for sale to low-moderate income homebuyers.
Production of New Units: Encourage the production of new affordable
rental and owner-occupied housing units. (See CITY STEPS p. 96-
109)
Project Description:
Local Objective:
Location:
Community Wide
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0001
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
01 570-201 (a)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecipient Private LMH
Start Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 09/01/2008
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Housina Units (101 4
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006-001 4
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPubliC Housing Needs
ppdcdbgl07 hud action p1an.doc
10
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total:
$25 031
..................l...........................................
.....$..!.~.~l.~.~~.........................
.....$.?!.?l.Q.QQ.........................
.....$.~.~.?l.Q.QQ.........................
Applicant's Name:
Housing Priority Need:
Iowa City Housing Authority - Tenant Based Rent Assistance
Renter - High
Project Title:
Tenant Based Rent Assistance
The Iowa City Housing Authority will operate a Tenant Based Rental
Assistance program that will target low income households under
30% of the median income.
Project Description:
Local Objective:
Rental Assistance: Encourage the expansion of rental assistance
programs. (See CITY STEPS p. 96-109)
Location:
Community Wide
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0002
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
05S N/A
Type of Recipient National Objective
Local Government N/A
Start Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 6/30/2008
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Households (04) 20 (39 over 2 vears)
LocalID Units Upon Completion
2006.002 NA
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPublic Housing Needs
ppdcdbg/07 hud action p1an.doc
11
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Tenant Rents
Total:
.....$.?.QQ.f.Q.QQ.........................
$85 380
..................l...........................................
.....$.?~?.,(.~.~Q.........................
Applicant's Name:
Housing Priority Need:
Project Title:
City of Iowa City
Owner-occupied, Physical Defects - High
City of Iowa City Housing Rehabilitation Program
Project Description:
Provide rehabilitation services to low-to-moderate income
homeowners. Services include comprehensive rehabilitation,
exterior rehabilitation, emergency repair, accessibility and mobile
home repairs.
Local Objective:
Rehabilitation of Old Units: Encourage and support the rehabilitation
of low-interest rehabilitation loan/grant funds for owner-occupied
housing units. (See CITY STEPS p. 96-109)
Location:
Community Wide
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0003
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
14A 570-202
Type of Recipient CDBG National
Local Government Objective
LMH
Start Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Housina Units (101 27
LocallD Units Upon Completion
2006.003 27
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPublic Housing Needs
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
12
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
Private
Total:
$94 899
..................l...........................................
.....$...!.?~L!.??..........................
.....$.?7.21.9.?.~.........................
Applicant's Name:
The Arc of Johnson County
Child Care Centers - High
Public Facility Priority Need:
Project Title:
Facility Rehabilitation
Replace carpet in their Eastdale Plaza location. Recipient serves
280 clients per year, of which 200 are children with disabilities.
Provision of Dependent Care Facilities - Support development of
respite care, child care, and family resource centers. (CITY STEPS
p. 112)
Project Description:
Local Objective:
Location:
1700 S. First Avenue, Suite 16, Iowa City, IA 52240
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0004
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
03M 570-201 (c)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecipient Private LMC
Start Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Public Facilitv (11) 1
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006-004 1
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
I:8JPersons with Disabilities
DPublic Housing Needs
ppdcdbgJ07 hud action plan. doc
13
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Private Funding
Total:
CDBG
...............................................................
.....$.?&??...................................
.....$.~.Q?.........................................
.....$.~l.~.?.?................................. .
Applicant's Name:
Public Facility Priority
Need:
Community Mental Health Center
Health Facility - Low
Facility Rehabilitation
Install a railing/fence along sidewalk and repair and/or replace
cement work at the facility. Recipient serves over 2,000
individuals with mental illness annually.
Project Title:
Project Description:
Local Objective:
Provision of Health Services - Support expansion needs of existing
medical/dental facilities. (CITY STEPS p. 113-115)
505 & 507 E. College Street, Iowa City, IA 52240
Location:
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0005
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
03P 570-201 (c)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecipient Private LMC
Start Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Public Facility (11) 1
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.005 1
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPubliC Housing Needs
ppdcdbg/07 hud action p1an.doc
14
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Private Funding
Total:
.....$J.~r..?~.Q.............................
.....$.1.l.~.QQ..................................
.....$.??..r..~~.Q.............................
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
Emergency Shelter - High
Facility Rehabilitation
Repair and replace existing flooring at the
domestic violence shelter. Recipient serves 905
victims of domestic abuse annually through
direct shelter, crisis intervention, advocacy and
support services.
Applicant's Name:
Public Facility Priority Need:
Project Title:
Project Description:
Local Objective:
Addressing Shelter Needs of Persons who are
Homeless: Improve and maintain existing
shelter facilities (CITY STEPS p. 108)
Location:
Confidential
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0006
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
03C 570-201 (c)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecioient Private LMC
Sta rt Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Public Facilitv (11) 1
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.006 1
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
IZIthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPublic Housing Needs
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
15
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Private Funding
Total:
.....$.~/:!.9.Q..................................
.....$.?.9.Q.........................................
$6 900
..............L.............................................
Applicant's Name:
Four Oaks Youth Homes
Public Facility Priority Need: Youth Center - High
Project Title:
New Construction - Four Oaks Youth Center
Recipient will construct a new building to house various youth
development programming focusing on supervised treatment,
delinquent behaviors, and space needs for the youth in the youth
emergency shelter. The addition will provide space for over 300
youth annually.
Project Description:
Local Objective:
Provision of Youth Center: Continue support of before/after
school facilities for all youth and investigate the need for
additional space for youth programs. (CITY STEPS p. 112)
1916 Waterfront Drive, Iowa City, IA 52240
Location:
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0007
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
03D 570-201 (c)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecipient Private LMC
Sta rt Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/31/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Public Facilitv (11) 1
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.007 1
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
~the Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPubliC Housing Needs
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
16
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Private Funding
Total:
.....$.?.QQ.r.9.9.9.........................
.....$..!..~.Q.r.9.QQ.........................
.....$.~.~.Q.r.Q.9.9.........................
Applicant's Name:
Public Facility Priority
Need:
Grant Wood Elementary
Neighborhood Facilities - High
Project Title:
Playground Improvements - Wood Elementary
Project Description:
Upgrade and replace playground equipment and surfacing at
Grant Wood Elementary. Project located in a census tract where
over 51 % of the households are considered low-to-moderate
income.
Local Objective:
Provision of Neighborhood Facilities: Explore the need; plan and
construct neighborhood facilities. (CITY STEPS p. 113)
1930 Lakeside. Drive, Iowa City, IA 52240
Location:
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0008
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
03E 570-201 (c)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecipient Private LMA
Start Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Public Facilitv (11 ) 1
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.008 1
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
D Persons with HIV / AIDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPubliC Housing Needs
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
17
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Private Funding
Total:
.....$.?~.f..~~.?..............................
.....$J.Q?l.Q.~?.........................
.....$..!..~.!l.~.~?.........................
Applicant's Name:
MECCA
Public Facility Priority Need: Health Facility - Low
Project Title:
Facility Rehabilitation
Replace existing carpeting at the substance abuse treatment
facility. Recipient provides comprehensive substance abuse
treatment services to approximately 2,800 persons annually.
Project Description:
Local Objective:
Provision of Health Facilities: Support expansion needs of existing
medical/dental facilities. (CITY STEPS p. 113-115)
Location:
430 Southgate Avenue, Iowa City, IA 52240
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0009
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
03P 570.201 (c)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecipient Private LMC
Start Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Public Facilitv (11) 1
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.009 1
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
DPersons with HIVjAIDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPublic Housing Needs
ppdcdbg/07 hud acUon plan.doc
18
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Private Funding
Total:
.....$..~.?!..QQ.Q.............................
$28 000
..................!............................................
.....$.?.Q!..QQ.Q.............................
Applicant's Name: Compeer Program, Community Mental Health Center
Public Service Priority Need: Health Services - High
Project Title: Compeer Program Operational Expenses
Project Description: Operational funding for a part time Compeer director. Compeer
is a program that matches volunteers from the community with
adults receiving treatment for a chronic mental illness.
Local Objective: Provision of Health Services - Continue support of health,
dental, and HIV/AIDS services (CITY STEPS p. 113-115)
Location: 507 E. College Street, Iowa City, IA 52240
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0010
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
050 570.201 (e)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecipient Private LMC
Start Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Peoole (01 ) 19
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.010 19
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
~persons with Disabilities
DPublic Housing Needs
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
19
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Donations
Total:
CDBG
...............................................................
.....$Jl.9.Q.9..................................
.....$..!.l.~.~~..................................
.....$.?l.~.~~.............................m..
Applicant's Name: Extend the Dream Foundation
Public Service Priority Need: Employment Training - High
Project Title: eCommerce Training Program
Project Description: Extend the Dream Foundation will employ a part time
coordinator for the eCommerce training program for persons
with disabilities. The coordinator will assist in the recruitment of
trainees, the coordination of the training program, and individual
tutoring of entry level trainees to become buyers and sellers on
the internet. The skills learned will help the trainee start a
home based business.
Local Objective: Economic Development Needs: Provide Employment Training
and Education - Continue and expand apprenticeship and
employment training programs. (CITY STEPS p. 122-123)
Location: 912 2nd Avenue, Iowa City, IA 52240
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0011
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
05H 570.201 (e)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecipient Private LMC
Start Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Peoole (01' 4
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.011 4
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
~persons with Disabilities
DPublic Housing Needs
ppdcdbg/07 hud acUon plan.doc
20
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
In-Kind
Private
Total:
.....$..!I.Q.QQ..................................
.....$.?I.?.QQ..................................
.....$.?I.~.!.Q..................................
.....$.~I.?.!.Q..................................
Applicant's Name:
Public Service Priority Need:
Project Title:
Iowa City Free Medical Clinic
Health Services - High
Case Management
Project Description:
Operational funds for a case manager for people with chronic
illness.
Local Objective:
Provision of Health Services - Continue support of health,
dental, and HIV/AIDS services (CITY STEPS p. 113-115)
Location:
2440 Towncrest Drive, Iowa City, IA 52240
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0012
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
05M 570.201 (e)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecipient Private LMC
Sta rt Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Peoole (Q 1) 69
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.012 69
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
~the Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPubliC Housing Needs
ppdcdbgJ07 hud action plan.doc
21
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
In Kind Donations
Private
Total:
.....$.~l.2.QQ..................................
.....$..!..Q~l.?.QQ.........................
.....$.~l.?.~Q..................................
.....$..!..!.~l.?.~Q.........................
Applicant's Name: Shelter House
Public Service Priority Need: Other Public Service Needs - High
Project Title: STAR Outreach Services Coordinator
Project Description: Operational funds for an outreach service coordinator for the
Supported Training and Access to Resources (STAR) program.
The program provides supportive services for area homeless
persons. These funds also qualify as match for the STAR
Continuum of Care grant.
Local Objective: Homelessness - Reaching out to Persons who are Homeless and
Assessing Individual Needs (CITY STEPS p. 107-109)
Location: 1700 S. First Avenue, Suite 21, Iowa City, IA 52240
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0013
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
05 570.201 (e)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecipient Private LMC
Start Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Peoole (01) 257
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.013 257
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
i:8Jthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AlDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPubliC Housing Needs
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
22
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Continuum of Care
SHP grant
Total:
....1!..~.Q.Q......................................
$459,860
.....$.~.9.~l.?.9.9.........................
Applicant's Name:
Public Service Priority Need:
Project Title:
Visiting Nurse Association
Health Services 7" High
Mental Health Home Care Services
Project Description:
Operational funds for the cost of home health services for
persons with mental health disorders.
Local Objective:
Provision of Health Services - Continue support of health,
dental, and HIV/AIDS services (CITY STEPS p. 113-115)
Location:
2953 Sierra Court, Iowa City, 52246
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0014
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
050 570.201 (e)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecipient Private LMC
Start Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
PeoDle (Q 1 ) 10
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.014 10
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
~persons with Disabilities
DPublic Housing Needs
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
23
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Private Funding
Total:
.....$.?l.?.9Q..................................
.....$..!.9.!..~~.?.............................
.....$..t~.!..1~.?.............................
City of Iowa City - Aid to Agencies
Youth Services - High, Elder Services - High,
Substance Abuse Services - High
Aid to Agencies
Applicant's Name:
Public Service Priority Need:
Project Title:
These funds are provided to a pool of human service
agencies that assist low-to-moderate income clients. FY07
funds will go to Elder Services, Inc., Mid-Eastern Council on
Chemical Abuse and United Action for Youth.
Project Description:
Local Objective:
Provision of Youth Services, Senior Services, and Health
Services. (CITY STEPS p. 112-124)
Location:
Community Wide
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0015
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
05 570.201 (e)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Subrecioient Private LMC
Start Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Peoole ro1 ) 4.400
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.015 4400
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPublic Housing Needs
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
24
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
City of Iowa City
Total:
.....$J.9.?.r.9.9.9.........................
."..$.~.1.!l.~.?~.........................
.....$.11~l.~.?~.."..."................
Applicant's Name:
City of Iowa City, Iowa
Economic Development Priority Need:
Micro-Business - High, Other Business - Medium
Project Title:
Economic Development Fund
Project Description:
These funds will be used primarily for assisting
micro-enterprise businesses with job creation
and/or retention of low-to-moderate income
persons. Funds may be used by both small and
large businesses (HUD Matrix Code 18A) along
with micro-enterprises for capital improvements,
job training or working capital.
Local Objective:
Economic Development Needs: 1) Encourage
Employment Opportunities that Pay at Least a
Living Wage, and 2) Encourage the Expansion
and Retention of Business and Industry that
Meets the State's CEBA Wage Thresholds. (CITY
STEPS p. 121 - 124)
Location:
Community wide
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0016
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
18C 570.201 (0)
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Local Government LMJ
Sta rt Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Businesses (08) 6
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.016 6
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPubliC Housing Needs
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
25
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Private
Total:
.....$..!1.!l.9.QQ.........................
.....$.?.!.9l.9.QQ.........................
.....$.~.~Jl.Q.QQ.........................
Applicant's Name:
City of Iowa City, Iowa
Project Title:
Planning & Administration
Successfully administer the CDBG and HOME programs. Research
and plan for projects and activities designed to meet the needs of
low and moderate income households.
Project Description:
Local Objective:
Administration of the CDBG and HOME programs
Location:
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240
Objective Number Project ID
See above 0017
HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation
21A 570.206
Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective
Local Government N/A
Sta rt Date Completion Date
07/01/2006 06/30/2007
Performance Indicator Annual Units
Orcanizations (09) 1
Local ID Units Upon Completion
2006.017 1
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Dthe Homeless
DPersons with HIV/AIDS
DPersons with Disabilities
DPublic Housing Needs
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
26
Funding Sources:
CDBG
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housi ng
PHA
Other Funding
Total:
.....$X?~l.Q.?..Q.........................
.....$.~.~.!..???..............................
.....$.???lZ?.?..........................
SECTION IV
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF
RESOURCES
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
27
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES
As stated and shown in Iowa City's 2006-2010 Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS), Iowa City
does not have areas of heavy concentrations of low-moderate income households or minorities (see
p. 61-67 of CITY STEPS). The map of low-moderate income areas, according to the 2000 U.s.
Census, is included in this document.
The map showing Areas of Low to Moderate Income Households shows that a large number of
lower income persons do live in the downtown area, but the housing is mainly student rental units
and does not contain a concentration of low income families. The one area identified as a
Concentration of Minorities (see p. 65 of CITY STEPS) predominately represents persons residing in
University owned or sponsored housing. Due to these factors, the City has not discussed or
adopted a plan to allocate CDBG and HOME funds geographically.
Also, a number of the projects funded by CDBG and HOME will serve persons living community-wide
and not target specific populations (other than low income) or areas. For example, the City's
Housing Rehabilitation Program serves residents on a citywide basis and distributes its resources via
individual projects, which may be located anywhere within the jurisdiction. All of the public service
projects are based in Iowa City and serve individuals and families, living citywide, according to their
needs.
The maps in this section of the FY07 Annual Action Plan shows the Areas of Low to Moderate
Income Households and FY07 projects that have been approved for funding (as described in Section
III). Several of the projects are not identified on this map because their services are citywide, a
specific site has yet to be identified, or the location is suppressed.
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
28
~
Areas of Low to Moderate Income Households
Census tracts where 61% or more of the households
are below 80% of the median family Income for Iowa City
ppdcdbg/07 hud action p1an.doc
29
/...::.~
..
.- .
.
/
.
fI:l
=
c:>
.....
-
c:I
(J
~~
.- as
U '"!":l
e
~~
tr;t---
~~
o
C")
e
'"
o
'" .
~ ~ .e
'" '0 t
"' . ~
o ... "'
~ ~ ~
" i i
.. .. ..
u
o
"0
.:
'"
c.
c
o
n
'"
"0
:J
.c
....
~
J:J
"0
U
"0
0.
0.
.....
Method of Distribution
CDBG Min Amount Max Amount
Competitive 0 0
Formula 0 $680,249
Retained for State Proiect 0 0
Non-Competitive 0 0
State Admin of Program 0 0
ESGP Min Amount Max Amount
Competitive 0 0
Formula 0 0
Retained for State Project 0 0
Non-Competitive 0 0
State Admin of Proqram 0 $87,974
HOME Min Amount Max Amount
Competitive 0 0
Formula 0 $637,222
Retained for State Project 0 0
Non-Competitive 0 0
State Admin of Proqram 0 0
HOPWA Min Amount Max Amount
Competitive 0 0
Formula 0 0
Retained for State Proiect 0 0
Non-Competitive 0 0
State Admin of Proqram 0 0
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
31
SECTION V
FY07 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN NARRATIVE
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
32
FY07 Annual Action Plan Narrative
This section contains information related to the amount of public funding that is available for FY07
projects, including the amount of other funds that are being leveraged by these projects.
Information on homeless and other special needs activities, specific program requirements, and the
process for citizen participation and amendments to the Consolidated Plan are also included in this
section.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 RESOURCES (July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007)
The following is a description of the federal resources the City of Iowa City is anticipating to receive
for use within the community. The City of Iowa City allocates the CDBG & HOME funds shown
below to eligible projects serving low-moderate income persons. In addition, the City expects to
administer Emergency Shelter Grant funds, which are awarded by the State of Iowa.
Federal Resources
FY07 CDBG Entitlement $680,249
FY07 CDBG Estimated Program Income $115,000
Unexpended CDBG Funds (from contingency, projects and excess PI)_$ 50,000
TOTAL CDBG $845,249
TOTAL HOME
$637,222
$ 95,000
$732,222
FY07 HOME Allocation
FY07 HOME Estimated Program Income
FYOS TOTAL
$1,S77,471
Federal Resources (State allocated)
FY07 Emergency Shelter Grants (estimate)
$87,974
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
(3 year period starting in FY05)
$ 175,768
Other Resources Leveraaed
Iowa City is fortunate to have active and vital organizations that provide housing and supportive
services within the community As such, multiple resources (federal, state, local and private) are
available for activities including housing, jobs and human services. In addition to these monies,
other resources like donations and volunteers are utilized.
According to the applications, we have been able to estimate that $1,708,975 in other funds will be
leveraged. This amounts to $1.08 leveraged for each dollar of local CDBG and HOME funds allocated
by the City of Iowa City. In addition, other municipal resources such as general fund expenditures,
infrastructure improvements and tax exemptions may be used to meet the City's HOME match
liability.
Actual leverage and HOME match figures will depend on the outcomes of the projects proposed in
this annual action plan. Upon completion of the FY07 projects the exact amount of other resources
leveraged by these projects will be known and included within the Consolidated Annual Performance
and Evaluation Report.
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
33
Private banks and lending institutions often provide significant capital to both Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) projects.
Both the City and local organizations recognize this mutually beneficial relationship. To promote the
goals and objectives of the Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS) both parties have taken steps to
strengthen and expand our partnerships.
As stated above, other resources include in-kind donations, volunteers, foundations and businesses.
The following is a list of organizations or groups identified as contributing to FY07 CDBG and HOME
projects:
Private (donations)
Private (loans)
Private (foundations)
Private (faith based)
United Way
Johnson County
In-kind Donations (skilled labor, goods, materials, waived fees)
Volunteers
City of Iowa City
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics
HOMELESS AND OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS ACTIVITIES
In FY07 human service agencies, private organizations and the City of Iowa City will be addressing
homeless and other special needs activities. Projects proposed within this plan (publicly funded) are
specifically targeted towards this type of need. In addition to the projects herein there are
numerous other human agencies and others providing assistance through hundreds of other
activities.
Emergency Shelter & Supportive Services for Homeless or Near Homeless Persons
The City of Iowa City's Consolidated Plan identifies these needs as "high" priorities. The needs of
this population are numerous; however to assist the human service organizations Iowa City is
allocating the maximum amount of CDBG pOSSible for public services. CDBG funds will be used by
the Shelter House to fund an outreach coordinator to work with homeless persons. This project will
assist Shelter House provide the match necessary for the HUD funded STAR Program. STAR
provides approximately $448,000 in funds for supportive services for the homeless of Johnson
County. Shelter House administers the program.
The State recently announced the FY07 Emergency Shelter Grant Program awards. Iowa City was
allocated $87,974 in individual awards to fund four local human service organizations that provide
services to persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Domestic Violence
Intervention Program, Shelter House, and Table to Table will receive FY07 ESGP funds. Through an
agreement with the State of Iowa, the City of Iowa City acts as the administrative agent for these
funds.
The Iowa Center for AIDS Education and Resources (ICARE), an Iowa City non-profit agency that
provides support and services to persons with AIDSjHIV, receives HOPWA funds. ICARE received a
$175,768 award in 2004 (FY05) to be utilized over a three-year period from the State of Iowa. The
City anticipates that ICARE will continue to receive funding through the State's annual allocation.
ICARE uses HOPWA funds for rental assistance for persons with AIDS.
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
34
Homeless Prevention
In FY07, CDBG and HOME funded activities will directly address the prevention of homelessness.
Many of the activities undertaken by human service organizations (CDBG funded and Aid to
Agencies funded) are designed to prevent homelessness. Shelter House is receiving CDBG funds as
match for the STAR (HUD continuum of care program).
Public facilities funding is allocated to several service providers whose mission is to assist persons
who are homeless or providing services to prevent homelessness. Domestic Violence Intervention
Program (DVIP) is using CDBG funds to replace the heavily worn carpeting. DVIP is estimating that
it will assist 905 persons in FY07. Other projects include carpet replacement at the Mid-Eastern
Council on Chemical Abuse (MECCA) and a 3,500 sf addition to the Four Oaks Youth Center.
The City of Iowa City will continue its owner-occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program, which
provides comprehensive rehabilitation, exterior repair, emergency repair, residential accessibility
and manufactured home repair services to low-moderate income households. By assisting these
households, and fixing up the existing affordable housing stock, this project helps people remain in
their homes. In addition to our regular housing rehabilitation program our staff will be coordinating
minor accessibility and safety projects with non-profit community partners.
Supportive Services
Supportive service projects funded through CDBG include Iowa City Free Medical Clinic, Compeer,
Extend the Dream Foundation and the City's Aid to Agencies budget (Mid-Eastern Council on
Chemical Abuse, Elder Services, Inc. and United Action for Youth).
The Iowa City Free Medical Clinic will be continuing a case management position to assist very low-
income or homeless persons access medical treatment and medications. Compeer will use the
funds to fund a part-time director. The Compeer program matches volunteers from the community
with adults receiving treatment for a chronic mental illness. Extend the Dream Foundation will use
CDBG funds to fund a part-time coordinator for the eCommerce training program for persons with
disabilities.
The City of Iowa City allocates $105,000 in CDBG funds as a supplement to the Aid to Agencies
budget that in FY07 is $446,973. The City's Aid to Agencies budget is divided up among 14 local
human service agencies. The funds are used for the agency's operational expenses. For ease of
administration, CDBG funds are provided to 3 of the 14 agencies. Iowa City is allocating the
maximum amount of CDBG funds pOSSible for public services. The City of Iowa City will contribute
approximately $341,973 of the City's general funds to the Aid to Agencies budget. The City also
contributes over 13,260 bus tickets annually to area agencies. These tickets enable individuals to
access a variety of needs such as employment, medical care, social services, and daycare. In
addition, the City makes 7,920 bus tickets available annually at a 50% reduction for social service
agencies.
Transitional Housing Needs
Iowa City has adopted a "continuum of care" approach to addressing housing needs. We support
programs and projects that range from homeless shelters to homeownership. One very important
component of this continuum is transitional housing with supportive services. We have successfully
partnered with several local organizations to create additional transitional units for persons who live
alone and for families.
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
35
Non-Homeless Special Needs Populations
This year there are several proposed projects that will target persons with special needs, both
capital activities and operational. The Arc of Johnson County will be replacing worn carpet at their
Eastdale Plaza facility. The Arc of Johnson County provides respite care, childcare and a family
resource center for persons with disabilities. The Community Mental Health Center will be
rehabilitating the exterior of their facility to improve safety issues. The Grant Wood Elementary
School will be using the CDBG funds to install playground equipment and surfacing that is used by
the school children and by the entire neighborhood of which 51% or more of the households are
below 80% of the median income. The Visiting Nurse Association will use CDBG funds to assists
with the cost of home health services to persons with mental health disorders.
In addition, two housing projects (see below) will provide affordable housing to non-homeless,
special needs populations.
Economic Development
Starting in FY03, the City of Iowa City set aside CDBG funds to capitalize an Economic Development
Fund. To maximize the utilization of CDBG funds for economic development the City Council
established the CDBG Economic Development Fund. These funds are available throughout the year,
instead of a once a year funding cycle to allow greater flexibility and attract a greater number of
applicants. Since the Economic Development Fund started in July 2002, it has been successful in
attracting 15 eligible applicants. To date, the City Council has awarded $439,000 to eight economic
development projects. In FY07, an additional $141,000 will be set aside for this Economic
Development fund.
Other Actions
Throughout the year City staff is involved with numerous community development activities
covering housing, jobs and services. By providing technical assistance to other organizations we are
able to develop partnerships, access additional resources and expand the level of service for
persons in need. The City of Iowa City continues to provide on-going support as part of a
Supportive Housing Program grant awarded to the Shelter House.
HOUSING
In a continuance of the City's goal to provide a housing continuum of care, the City will fund two
affordable housing projects. HOME funds were allocated to the Iowa City Housing Authority for
Tenant Based Rent Assistance (TBRA) due to the large waiting list of nearly 3,000 households.
To increase homeownership opportunities for low-income households, the Iowa Valley Habitat for
Humanity will use funds to purchase four lots. Habitat will construct homes on these lots with area
resources, including the owner's sweat equity, to provide an affordable, interest free mortgage to
low-income households.
PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
A. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
1. Activities to be undertaken in FY07 with CDBG funds are described in
Section III on the pages entitled:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
CPD Consolidated Plan System -- Listing of Projects
2. The available CDBG and HOME funds from all resources are listed in Section II of thts
document.
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
36
3. No CDBG activities are being undertaken, with the funds described herein, in FY07
that meet the "Urgent Need" National Objective.
4. (See #1 above)
B. HOME Investment Partnership Program
1. HOME funds are being invested in the forms allowed under 24 CFR 92.205(b)
2. All of the HOME funds used for assistance to homebuyers will be recaptured
(whenever possible) if the home is sold prior to the termination of the mandated
affordability period. As required, a lien will be placed on the any units qualifying
herein to legally insure repayment according to the HOME regulations.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS
Throughout the year the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) holds public
hearings to oversee the operation of the Community Development Division and the Iowa City
Housing Authority, monitor CDBG and HOME projects, and listen to public input into these and other
programs.
The City of Iowa City's current 5-year Consolidated Plan (2006-2010 CITY STEPS) was adopted in
December 2004. Numerous public meetings and hearings were held to solicit public comment
regarding the development of the CITY STEPS plan.
In addition, HCDC and the City Council have held a number of meetings for the preparation of the
FY07 Annual Action Plan and other HUD related documents. The publiC has been invited to
participate in all of the meetings and efforts were made to encourage and increase citizen
participation. The following is a Chronology of the events, meetings, public hearings and actions
taken in relation to the FY07 Annual Action Plan and Iowa City's 2006-2010 Consolidated Plan
(a.k.a. CITY STEPS). .
Dec. 8,2005
Dec. 20, 2005
Jan. 11, 2006
Jan. 25, 2006
Feb. 15,2006
Mar. 9, 2006
Mar. 23, 2006
Mar. 31, 2006
Apr. 18, 2006
Apr. 24, 2006
Apr. 25, 2006
. May 1, 2006
May 1, 2006
May 2, 2065
May 2, 2005
Public notice that CDBG and HOME applications are available
CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop
CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop
Applications due to City of Iowa City by 12 noon
HCDC meeting question/answer discussion with applicants
HCDC meeting: review of groupings & consensus funding scenario
HCDC meeting: recommendation on CDBG/HOME funding awards
Draft FY07 Annual Action Plan - 30-day comment period begins
Council Sets FY07 Action Plan Public Hearing
Public Hearing Notice Appears in Press-Citizen
Display Ad Appears in Press-Citizen
Expiration 30-day comment period on the FY07 Annual Action Plan
If Needed - joint HCDC/City Council meeting
City Council: public hearing on the FY07 Annual Action Plan
City Council: resolution-approving the FY07 Annual Action Plan
Anticipated Dates
May 10, 2006 FY07 Annual Action Plan submitted to HUD
May 26,2006 Submission of Environmental Review Record and FONSI (as applicable)
June 14,2006 Submission of Request for Release of Funds
July 1, 2006 Start FY07 CDBG and HOME projects
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan .doc 37
SECTION VI
FY07 FAIR HOUSING ANNUAL ACTION
PLAN
ppdcdbgJ07 hud action plan.doc
38
Annual Fair Housing Action Plan for FY 07
The City of Iowa City continuously works to identify and overcome barriers and impediments to Fair Housing. Various
City departments work diligently with each other as well as with local organizations, agencies and businesses to solve,
educate and bring attention to problems associated with fair housing.
City of Iowa City- Human Rights Office
Title Two of the Iowa City Code entitled the Human Rights Ordinance prohibits discrimination in housing based on race,
color, creed, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, familial status, presence or absence of
dependents, disability, gender identity, or public assistance source of income. While the Human Rights Staff which
consists of a full-time coordinator and two three-quarter time investigators enforce the Human Rights Ordinance, the
Human Rights Commissioners work to promote the goal of non-discrimination and equal opportunity for all residents of
Iowa City. Responsibilities include education through public programs to share ideas and solutions to local barriers to
fair housing. The Commission consists of nine residents of Iowa City who are appointed by the City Council to serve a
three year term on the Commission. Commissioners, all committed to civil rights, reflect a broad cross-section of the
community, thus insuring diversity of ideas and interests.
Complaint Activity
During the period from July 1, 2005 to April 1, 2006, twenty (20) human rights complaints have been filed.1
Employment Public Education Credit Housing
Accommodation
Aoe 2
Race 3 2
Marital Status
1
National
Origin 1
Sexual
Orientation 2 2
Physical
Disability 2 1
Creed
Sex 5
Color 2
Religion 1
Mental
Disability 3
Retaliation 5
Gender
Identity 1
Public
Assistance
Source of 1
Income
Resolution of Complaints
From July 1, 2005 to April 1, 2006, 19 cases have been resolved.
I The above numbers reflect complainants who may have filed on more than one basis.
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc 39
Actions Taken To Affirmativelv Further Fair Housing in FYOS-06
Actions Taken
Weekly advertisement in local newspapers
ex lainin Fair Housin .
Weekly advertisement in local newspapers
informing community on how to file a
com laint aile in a violation of Fair Housin
Referrals of housing discrimination complaints
outside of Iowa City's jurisdiction were made to
HUD and the Iowa Civil Ri hts Commission.
Public Service Announcements on Housing
Discrimination are shown on local cable TV
Ci Channel 4 .
Community outreach at forums to educate the
ublic on Fair Housin .
Pamphlets and posters on the Fair Housing
discrimination laws are posted at community
organizations and are disseminated at various
local events and activities.
Discrimination complaints were received by the
Human Ri hts Coordinator.
Results
Frequent phone calls and walk-in
in uiries.
Increase in the number of Fair Housing
complaints filed within the last fiscal year.
Interagency cooperation.
Increase in number of inquiries of Fair Housing.
Community more aware of local Anti-
Discrimination laws and Fair Housin .
Increased awareness of Fair Housing.
Complaints were addressed as necessary
See Human Ri hts Commission Annual Re ort.
Plans for Fiscal Year 2007
. Annual Iowa City Human Rights Commission Seminar Landlord Tenant Law.
. Continue to participate in community outreach to bring increased awareness to fair housing and other anti-
discrimination laws.
. Work with City Ch~nnel4 to increase community knowledge of anti-discrimination law.
. Continue to advertise fair housing laws in the Iowa City Press Citizen, the Cedar Rapids Gazette and the Daily
Iowan.
. Continue to inform the public on barriers to fair housing by working with other local organizations and
associations.
Iowa City Housing Authority
The Iowa City Housing Authority, a division of the City of Iowa City, administers and manages federally funded Section
8 and Public Housing programs. The Iowa City Housing Authority covers an area which encompasses Johnson County
and half of Iowa and Washington counties. Funding is provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Established in 1969, the Iowa City Housing Authority serves over 1,200 families a year. Participants qualify based upon
income guidelines. Of the program participants approximately 50% are disabled or elderly. In addition, the Iowa City
Housing Authority strives to improve the quality of life for those they serve; the Iowa City Housing Authority has and
continues to act as a community leader on not only affordable housing but also Fair Housing.2
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
In February 2006 the Community Development Division, with the assistance of the Human Rights Division designed an
evaluation to determine impediments to fair housing. The survey conducted at a community event represented a cross
section of Iowa City residents taking into account men and women of various racial, religious, cultural, social and
economic groups within the City.
Summary
In FY07 City staff and many other local organizations will continue to work on barriers and impediments to fair housing.
The City of Iowa City is committed to furthering fair housing and also educating the community on fair housing laws.
2 See Iowa City Housing Authority: Who We Are & What We Do.
ppdcdbgJ07 hud action plan.doc 40
For further information contact Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator, at 319-356-5022, or Steven Rackis,
Housing Administrator for the Iowa City Housing Authority at 319-356-5400.
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
41
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
SECTION VII
CERTIFICATIONS FOR FY07
CDBG AND HOME PROGRAMS
42
CPMP Non-State Grantee Certifications
Many elements of this document may be completed electronically, however a signature must
be manually applied and the document must be submitted in paper form to the Field Office.
NON-STATE GOVERNMENT CERTIFICATIONS
In accordance with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the consolidated plan regulations, the
jurisdiction certifies that:
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing -- The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, which means it will
conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome
the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions
in this regard.
Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan -- It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and implementing
regulations at 49 CFR 24; and it has in effect and is following a residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance
plan required under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, in
connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or HOME programs.
Drug Free Workplace -- It will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by:
1. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or
use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken
against employees for violation of such prohibition;
2. Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about-
a. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
b. The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
c. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and
d. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace;
3. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance ofthe grant be given a copy of the
statement required by paragraph 1;
4. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph 1 that, as a condition of employment under the grant,
the employee will -
a. Abide by the terms of the statement; and
b. Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the
workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction;
5. Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b) from an
employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide
notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted
employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices.
Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant;
6. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b), with
respect to any employee who is so convicted -
a. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with
the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or
b. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program
approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
7. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs 1,2,
3,4, 5 and 6.
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
43
Anti-Lobbying -- To the best of the jurisdiction's knowledge and belief:
5. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member
of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress
in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal
loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension,
continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or
cooperative agreement;
6. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an
officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract,
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report
Lobbying," in accordance with
its instructions; and
7. It will require that the language of paragraph 1 and 2 of this anti-lobbying certification be
included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants,
and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all
subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
Authority of Jurisdiction -- The consolidated plan is authorized under State and local law (as applicable) and the
jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with
applicable HUD regulations.
Consistency with plan -- The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPW A funds are
consistent with the strategic plan.
Section 3 -- It will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and implementing
regulations at 24 CFR Part 135.
I May 3, 2006
Signature/Authorized Official
Date
I Stephen 1. Atkins
Name
I City Manager
Title
I 410 E. Washington Street
Address
I Iowa City, IA 52240
City/State/Zip
I 319.356.5010
Telephone Number
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
44
Specific CDBG Certifications
The Entitlement Community certifies that:
Citizen Participation -- It is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the
requirements of 24 CFR 91.105.
Community Development Plan -- Its consolidated housing and community development plan identifies community
development and housing needs and specifies both short-term and long-term community development objectives that
provide decent housing, expand economic opportunities primarily for persons of low and moderate income. (See CFR 24
570.2 and CFR 24 part 570)
Following a Plan -- It is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that
has been approved by HUD.
Use of Funds -- It has complied with the following criteria:
8. Maximum Feasible Priority - With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG funds, it certifies that it
has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate
income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. The Action Plan may also include
activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular
urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community,
and other financial resources are not available);
9. Overall Benefit - The aggregate use of CDBG funds including section 108 guaranteed loans during program year( s)
2006, 2_, 2_, (a period specified by the grantee consisting of one, two, or three specific consecutive program
years), shall principally benefit persons oflow and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent
of the amount is expended for activities that benefit such persons during the designated period;
10. Special Assessments - It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG
funds including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied
by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining
access to such public improvements.
However, if CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of
public improvements (assisted in part with CDBG funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or
charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than
CDBG funds.
The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds,
including Section 108, unless CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of fee or assessment attributable to the
capital costs of public improvements financed from other revenue sources. In this case, an assessment or charge may
be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds.
Also, in the case of properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (not low-income) families, an assessment
or charge may be made against the property for public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds if
the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG funds to cover the assessment.
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
45
Excessive Force - It has adopted and is enforcing:
11. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any
individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and
12. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or
location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction;
Compliance With Anti-discrimination laws -- The grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601-3619), and implementing
regulations.
Lead-Based Paint -- Its activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of part 35, subparts A,
B, J, K and R, of title 24;
Compliance with Laws -- It will comply with applicable laws.
I May 03, 2006
Signature/Authorized Official
Date
I Stephen 1. Atkins
Name
I City Manager
Title
I 410 E. Washington Street
Address
I Iowa City, IA 52240
City/State/Zip
I 319.356.5010
Telephone Number
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
46
OPTIONAL CERTIFICATION
CnBG
Submit the following certification only when one or more of the activities in the action plan are designed to meet other
community development needs having a particular urgency as specified in 24 CFR 570.208(c):
The grantee hereby certifies that the Annual Plan includes one or more specifically identified CDBG-assisted
activities, which are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because
existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and other
financial resources are not available to meet such needs.
Signature/Authorized Official
Date
Name
Title
Address
City/State/Zip
Telephone Number
ppdedbgl07 hud aefion plan.doe
47
Specific HOME Certifications
The HOME participating jurisdiction certifies that:
Tenant Based Rental Assistance -- If the participating jurisdiction intends to provide tenant-based rental assistance:
The use of HOME funds for tenant-based rental assistance is an essential element of the participating
jurisdiction's consolidated plan for expanding the supply, affordability, and availability of decent, safe, sanitary,
and affordable housing.
Eligible Activities and Costs -- it is using and will use HOME funds for eligible activities and costs, as described in 24
CFR 9 92.205 through 92.209 and that it is not using and will not use HOME funds for prohibited activities, as
described in 9 92.214.
Appropriate Financial Assistance -- before committing any funds to a project, it will evaluate the project in
accordance with the guidelines that it adopts for this purpose and will not invest any more HOME funds in combination
with other Federal assistance than is necessary to provide affordable housing;
I May 03, 2006
Signature/Authorized Official
Date
I Stephen J. Atkins
Name
I City Manager
Title
I 410 E. Washington Street
Address
I Iowa City, IA 52240
City/State/Zip
\ 319.356.5010
Telephone Number
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
48
HOPW A Certifications
The HOPW A grantee certifies that:
Activities -- Activities funded under the program will meet urgent needs that are not being met by available public and
private sources.
Building -- Any building or structure assisted under that program shall be operated for the purpose specified in the plan:
1. For at least 10 years in the case of assistance involving new construction, substantial rehabilitation, or acquisition of
a facility,
2. For at least 3 years in the case of assistance involving non-substantial rehabilitation or repair of a building or
structure.
Signature/Authorized Official
Date
Name
Title
Address
City/State/Zip
Telephone Number
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc
49
ESG Certifications
I, , Chief Executive Officer of Jurisdiction, certify that the local government will ensure the provision of the
matching supplemental funds required by the regulation at 24 CFR 576.51. I have attached to this certification a
description of the sources and amounts of such supplemental funds.
I further certify that the local government will comply with:
1. The requirements of 24 CFR 576.53 concerning the continued use of buildings for which Emergency Shelter Grants
are used for rehabilitation or conversion of buildings for use as emergency shelters for the homeless; or when funds are
used solely for operating costs or essential services.
2. The building standards requirement of24 CFR 576.55.
3. The requirements of24 CFR 576.56, concerning assurances on services and other assistance to the homeless.
4. The requirements of24 CFR 576.57, other appropriate provisions of24 CFR Part 576, and other applicable federal
laws concerning nondiscrimination and equal opportunity.
5. The requirements of24 CFR 576.59(b) concerning the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970.
6. The requirement of 24 CFR 576.59 concerning minimizing the displacement of persons as a result of a project assisted
with these funds.
7. The requirements of24 CFR Part 24 concerning the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988.
8. The requirements of24 CFR 576.56(a) and 576.65(b) that grantees develop and implement procedures to ensure the
confidentiality of records pertaining to any individual provided family violence prevention or treatment services under
any project assisted with ESG funds and that the address or location of any family violence shelter project will not be
made public, except with written authorization of the person or persons responsible for the operation of such shelter.
9. The requirement that recipients involve themselves, to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate,
homeless individuals and families in policymaking, renovating, maintaining, and operating facilities assisted under the
ESG program, and in providing services for occupants of these facilities as provided by 24 CFR 76.56.
10. The requirements of24 CFR 576.57(e) dealing with the provisions of, and regulations and procedures applicable with
respect to the environmental review responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and related
authorities as specified in 24 CFR Part 58.
11. The requirements of24 CFR 576.21 (a)(4) providing that the funding of homeless prevention activities for families that
have received eviction notices or notices of termination of utility services will meet the requirements that: (A) the
inability of the family to make the required payments must be the result of a sudden reduction in income; (B) the
assistance must be necessary to avoid eviction of the family or termination of the services to the family; (C) there must
be a reasonable prospect that the family will be able to resume payments within a reasonable period of time; and (D)
the assistance must not supplant funding for preexisting homeless prevention activities from any other source.
12. The new requirement of the McKinney-Vento Act (42 USC 11362) to develop and implement, to the maximum
extent practicable and where appropriate, policies and protocols for the discharge of persons from publicly funded
institutions or systems of care (such as health care facilities, foster care or other youth facilities, or correction
programs and institutions) in order to prevent such discharge from immediately resulting in homelessness for such
ppdcdbgl07 hud action plan.doc 50
persons. I further understand that state and local governments are primarily responsible for the care of these
individuals, and that ESG funds are not to be used to assist such persons in place of state and local resources.
13. HUD's standards for participation in a local Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and the collection
and reporting of client-level information.
I further certify that the submission of a completed and approved Consolidated Plan with its certifications, which act as the
application for an Emergency Shelter Grant, is authorized under state and/or local law, and that the local government
possesses legal authority to carry out grant activities in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations of the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Signature/Authorized Official
Date
Name
Title
Address
City/State/Zip
Telephone Number
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
51
APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS
Instructions Concerning Lobbying and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements
Lobbying Certification
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or
entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by
section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty
of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Drug-Free Workplace Certification
1. By signing and/or submitting this application or grant agreement, the grantee is providing the certification.
13. The certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance is placed when the agency awards the grant.
If it is later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violates the
requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, HUD, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal
Government, may take action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act.
14. Workplaces under grants, for grantees other than individuals, need not be identified on the certification. Ifknown,
they may be identified in the grant application. If the grantee does not identify the workplaces at the time of
application, or upon award, if there is no application, the grantee must keep the identity of the workplace(s) on file
in its office and make the information available for Federal inspection. Failure to identify all known workplaces
constitutes a violation of the grantee's drug-free workplace requirements.
15. Workplace identifications must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where
work under the grant takes place. Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g., all vehicles of a mass transit authority
or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in
concert halls or radio stations).
16. If the workplace identified to the agency changes during the performance of the grant, the grantee shall inform the
agency of the change(s), ifit previously identified the workplaces in question (see paragraph three).
2. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with
the specific grant: Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code)
Check if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here. The certification with regard to the drug-free
workplace is required by 24 CFR part 21.
Place Name Street City County State Zin
City Hall 410 E. Iowa City Johnso IA 52240
Washington
Street
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
52
17. Definitions of terms in the Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment common rule and Drug-Free Workplace
common rule apply to this certification. Grantees' attention is called, in particular, to the following definitions from
these rules: "Controlled substance" means a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 V.S.C. 812) and as further defined by regulation (21 CFR 1308.11 through
1308.15); "Conviction" means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or
both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal
drug statutes; "Criminal drug statute" means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture,
distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance; "Employee" means the employee of a
grantee directly engaged in the performance of work under a grant, including:
All "direct charge" employees;
all "indirect charge" employees unless their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the
grant; and
a. temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the grant and
who are on the grantee's payroll. This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the grantee (e.g.,
volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the
grantee's payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces).
Note that by signing these certifications, certain documents must completed, in use, and on file for verification. These
documents include:
1. Analysis ofImpediments to Fair Housing
2. Citizen Participation Plan
3. Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan
Signature/Authorized Official
Date
I May 03, 2006
Name
I Stephen J. Atkins
I City Manager
I 410 E. Washington Street
I Iowa City, IA 52240
I 319.356.5010
Title
Address
City /S tate/Zip
Telephone Number
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
53
ppdcdbg/07 hud action plan.doc
SECTION VIII
PUBLICATION NOTICES
54
October 2005
==----~
.~
' -........
~".
-_.. --- .
,~
:~
.---
:"!
I
I
CITY of
SPRINGFIELD
II
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
RO. Box 8368
SPRINGFIELD, MO 65801
417.864.1031 - 417.864.1030 (FAX)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PURPOSE
APPLICATION It REVIEW
1 PROVISION A: BUILDING LOCATION
PROVISION B: PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
PlOVISION C: BUILDING ENTRANCE
3 PJIOVISION C (CONT.): BUILItING ENTRANCE
4 BROVISION D: WINDOWS
faOVISION E: INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY
5 'ROVISION F: PORCHES
'PROVISION G: GARAGES
7. PROVISJ()N B: VEmcULAlt ACCESS
PROVISION I: ROOF
8 PROVISION J: BUILDIN~ MAsSING It SCALE
PROVISION K: EXTERIOa..BUlLDING MATERIALS
9 PROVISION L: UTILITY PLACEMENT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES
Cny OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DESIGN GUIDELINES
(For the Construction and Rehabilitation of Single-f"amily Horncs and
Duplexes).
PuRPOSE
The City of Springfield's Affordable Housing Design Guidelines
provide a standard framev,rork for clients utilizing city funding for the
construction or rehabilitation of affordable single-family and duplex
hpusing. The purpose of the Guidelines is to foster a positive public
perception of affordable housing by promoting the rehabilitation
and/ or design of single family homes and duplexes in a manner that
domplements surrounding single family housing styles, encourages a
s,treet-scape which promotes neighborhood interactipn, and ensures a
quality design that is less apt to experience functiQnal obsolescence.
Affordable housing design guidelines, while general enough to allmv for
t111ique design elements, promote structures that complement
tradft10nal urban development patterns rather than strictly adhering to
contemporary setbacks, impervious surface ratios, ete.
APPLICATION AND REVIEW
I Prior to loan approval for the construction or rehabilitation of a
single-family home or duplex funded by tile City of Springfield, a site
plan, building Hoar plans, and building elevations for all proposed
structures, shall be submitted to or prepared by a Project Specialist with
the Department of Planning and Development. The Project Specialist
shall review plans and shall consult with additional staff representatives
of the Building Development Services and Planning Department to
ensure conformance with the Design Guidelines.
AFFORDABLE I-lOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI
PROVISION A: BUILDING LOCATION
All principal and accessory structures within a City of Springfield funded
development site shall be located on the lot in a manner consistent with the,
majority of single-family residential structures in the vicinity.
PROVISION B: PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
A minimum three (3) foot wide paved pedestrian path shall be provided from
the primary pedestrian entrance of a single-family home to the driveway and/ or
sidewalk. Minimum three (3) foot wide paved pedestrian paths shall be provided
from the primary pedestrian entrances of each unit in a duplex development to
a driveway and/ or sidewalk.
PROVISION C: BUILDING ENTRANCE
Each single-family home and duplex unit shall be provided \vith no fewer than
two (2) pedestrian entrances in order to promote pedestrian How through all
portions of the unit and lot unless the developer can illustrate that a second
pedestrian entrance is not feasible.
Ii,'"
EX~~G ~
~-y
"'-1'
t;~
l~;
EXIs"rING HOME
Figure 1:
Building Location,
Pedestrian I\ccess, &
Building Entrance.
(
f r
1...c....!/
~~"
'1.Jf
~
PUBUC STREET
Proposed Building t\ is consistent with the Affordable Housing Design Guidelines. It IS set back from the
lot lines in a manner consistent with adjacent existing homes. Proposed Building ,\ also provides direct
pedestrian access to the public sidewalk and street, and includes a second pedestrian access to the rear
yard. \X'hilc proposed Building B proVides pedestrian access to the sidewalk and street, it does not adhere
to the Guidelines because it draws attention to itself and breaks up the streetscape by being located much
ti-lrther back then surrounding existing homes. Also, the lack of a second pedestrian access, especially on
narrow lots, can decrease the use and enjoyment of the entire lot.
AFFORDABLE IIOl'SINC DESIGN Gl'IDELlNES
CITY OJ' SPRIN(;F1ELD, MISSOl'lU
PROVISION C: BUILDING ENTItANCE (CONT.)
1. Single-Family.
The primary pedestrian entrance to a new single-family residential home, or
home to be rehabilitated shaH face the street.
FIGURE 2:
BUIlDING ENTR':\NCE
FIGURE 3:
BUILDING ENTR.\NCE
2. Duplex.
The primary pedestrian entrance to at least one of the units in a new duplex,
or a duplex to be rehabilitated, shall face the street. The primary pedestrian
entrances for both dwelling units may face the street, but only if all other
elements of the street facing facade giyc the impression ()f a single-family
structure. I f possible, incorporate the street facing access for both dwelling
units into one (1) shared entrance.a new duplex, or a duplex to be
rehabilitated, shall face the street. The primary pedestrian entrances for
both dwelling units may face the street, but only if all other elements of the
street facing facade giye the impression of a single-family structure. If
possible, incorporate the street facing access tilr both dwelling units into one
(1) shared entrance.
Yes. All entry features of the home address
the street.
Yes. Both units within this duplex have their
own entrance but all other building elements
emulate a single-family home, including size
and scale.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES
~"..,-
~--~-- '_.~~......
~.....- '.
~-- -,
,............._'--.... -.._,...~----._.._-
.......... "'---"<::::::':-:=~::'----
Yes. \V11ile the front door of this home does not
face the street directly, the overall orientation of the
entry ""~ay elements are forward facing.
8 ~
~--~
---~==~===--------
-...... ------=-----
No. The doors of these duplex units face the side
yard instead of the street. The side of the building is
orientated toward the street.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, lVIIsSOURI
PROVISION D: WINDOWS
On facades which face the street or other public spaces, window openings
shall be similar in rhythm, size and proportion to that of the majority of
single-family homes in the vicinity - particularly structures directly adjacent
to the subject property. On structures to be rehabilitated, every effort shall
be made to maintain the original proportions of windows which face the
street or other public spaces.
FIGURE 4:
\'(' IN IXJ\X'S
B ~ 8
~
B a
Yes. All windows on this
home are a consistent size
and are evenly spaced.
No. The \vindo\V in the
upper right corner is
much smaller th;Ul other
windows. Such a
situation can be a result
of a floor plan that
places a bathroom or
kitd1en against the front
building facade.
No. The lack of
rhythm in the spacing
of the second floor
windO\vs results in ;Ul
unbroken expanse of
siding on the front
building facade.
No. The vertical
windows on the ftrst
fl<xJr and the horizontal
windows on the second
floor clash and create an
inconsistenq' of style.
PROVISION E: INDMDUAL IDENTITY
FIGURE 5:
INDf\IIDU..\L InEN'[1'fY
To the extent possible, single-family homes and duplexes constructed
adjacent to, or in close proximity of, each other should exhibit unique
characteristics - regardless of whether they utilize the same floor plan.
Acceptable alternatives may include varying roof pitches and orientation,
window arrangement, porch arrangement, varying materials, ete. so long as
such alternatives do not conflict with the other design elements addressed
within this document.
\Xllile a consistent size and scale is exhibited by these homes utilizing the S;Ulle floor plan, slight variations
in the roof, exterior building materials, details, windows, lUld door give l'very unit a distinctive identity.
AFFORDABLE IIoI'SI:-;G DESIGN GUIDELINES
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOl'RI
PROVISION F: PORCHES
1. Single-family residential homes and duplexes shall include a front porch.
The front porch of structures to be rehabilitated shall be retained or
replicated in a manner that is consistent with the original. Front porches on
new construction shall be a full facaQe, partial facade or wrap around porch
depending on the design of single-family homes in the vicinity. Alternative
porch arrangements may be considered where no predominant style exists.
A porch may be omitted from the front building facade only if such an
omission is necessary in order to make the unit consistent with surrounding
homes of significant architectural style.
2. Front porches shall be at least six (6) to eight (8) feet in depth; and, at a
minimum shall span at least twelve (12) feet in width or approximately fifty
(50) percent of the front building facade, whichever is greater.
3. Partial facade front porches shall project at least three (3) feet beyond the
front building facade unless the developer can illustrate that such a
projection is not feasible.
FIGURE 6:
PORCHES.
Full facade front porches maximize
the area of the street building
facade that can be used as an
"out-door living room.
Partial facade front porches are
common throughout center-city
Springfield homes and link the
home to the public street.
\X'rap-around front porches can be
an extension of a full or partial
facade front porch to include a
second side of the building facade
adding a distinctiveness to
structures located on corner lots.
6'- B
MIN DEPfH
Front porches of at least 6' to 8'
in depth provide adequate space
for seating and circulation, while
decreasing exposure to inclement
weather.
Front porches projecting at least
three (3) feet beyond the front
building facade promote
neighborhood interaction by
increasing user's view's in both
directions.
Front porches of at least twelve (12)
feet in width can be utilized as an
outdoor living room as opposed to
merely an entry feature such as a
stoop.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI
PROVISION G: GARAGES
1. A garage is not a required building element. When utilized, attached or
detached garages shall be located on the parcel in a manner consistent
with the majority of single family homes in the vicinity, except that it is
preferable to remove the garage from the front building facade where
possible.
2. Attached garages located on front building facades shall be recessed a
minimum of three (3) feet behind the front building line (including the
porch) (Uld, shall not occupy more than tifty (SO) percent of the overall
facade area.
3. Detached garages shall be of a similar height of garages on adjacent lots,
shall have a roof pitch similar to that of adjacent garages and shall be of a
scale that is accessory to the principal residential structure.
FIGURE 7:
G,\R,~GES
f)
(J
The rear d<,tached gamg<' utilized by proposed Building /\ is consistent with <,xisting homes In the
neighborhood. The rear attached garage urilized by proposed Building B is ;llso consistent with the
Guidelines, Recessing the gaclge from the sick facade suggests that the garage IS an addition and limits Its
\.ie\\' from the street and decreases the line;\] dimension of rhe home. The gaf;lge proposed fur Huildll1g C
IS not consistent wirh the Guidelines hecause no cffon Ius hcen made to remClve It frum the fn >nr huilding
facade; or, to de-emphasize its presence on the street.
FIGURE 8:
Garages
-\~-~
~ 8_U
---
Yes, \\'hell permitted, a~d garages
located Oil the front of the building should be
(\c.-ernpluslzed to <lVlllLlillg "treet-scapes that
,Ire domulated hI' WIlle hLlI1k facades,
/
No, ,\rLlched garages that "P;1rI more th,IH tift\
(.'iO) pntcllt of the fwnt hullding Lll;lde ,uld/or
project to\\',lrd the street dominatl' rht "trlUSUlJ1l'
and 1'1'111<1\'(' residenrs' en's fcorll thc streCt
dnreaslIlg ,lwarCIless of sm1'oundlllg actl\.ines.
AFFORDABLE HOI'SING DESIGN Gl'lDEJ.INES
Cl'IY Of SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI
PROVISION H: VEHICULAR ACCESS
\\'here possible, vehicular access to the development site shall he provided via an
alley. The use of shared driveways \vith a single-lanc wide approach should also
be considered in ordcr to dccrcase the width of curb cuts on the public street.
FIGURE 9:
VEIIIU'L\R ACCESS
{j
PUBLIC STREET
Vehicular access to proposed Buildings 1\ & B is consistent with the Affordable Housing Design
Guidelines because both scenarios lead to parking areas placed to the rear of the homes. As illustrated by
proposed Building 1\, a shared access drive should be utilized \vhere possible in order to decrease the
amount of impervious surftlce the lot while also limiting curb cuts on the street. ] f possible, access to
parking areas should be provided via an alley as illustnlted by proposed Building D. Alley access decreases
the amount of paving necessary to reach rear parking areas. Remo\.al of the curb cut from the street also
increases on-street parking opportunities. Vehicular access to prop<Js<.-d Building C is not consistent with
the Guidelines because the wide curb cut results in a street-scape that is dominated by impervious surface
area \vhile increasing storm water run-off into the public street.
PROVISION I: ROOF
1. The principal residential structure's roof pitch, and orientation of the roof
ridge shall be compatible with single-family homes in the vicinity. 'n1is
requirement does not disallow roof line alterations if necessary for
structures subject to rehabilitation so long as the alteration IS reasonably
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The roof style, including gables and dormers, shall be consistent with
single-family homes in the vicinity. False dormers may be permitted to
ensure the consistency of roof style.
FIGURE 10:
ROOF
While a variety of roof styles and elements can
be incorporated onto in-fill homes and duplexes, ridge
orientation and pitch should be consistent with existing homes.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI
PROVISION J: BUILDING MAsSING AND SCALE
As viewed from the street on which the front entrance is oriented. the
proportion of the building height to width should be compatible with the same
proportions of the other buildings on the block. Generally, floor to floor height
of new structures should relate to adjacent single-family homes; and, the overall
height at the eaves should relate to dwelling units within close proximity.
FIGURE 11:
BUJLDlNG I\l\SStNG
i\Nt) SC:\l.E
The higWighted home is inconsistent with surrounding units due to its horizontal dimensions and
noticeably shorter eave heights.
PROVISION K: EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS
FIGURE 12:
EXTERIOR Bl'tWING
J\;1ATI,RL\LS
Exterior surface materials, excluding the roof, shall he compatible \vith that of
other buildings on the block except that the Project Specialist may permit the
use of exterior surface materials such as vinyl siding, aluminum siding, steel
siding, etc., that complement those of the majority of single-family homes
surrounding the lot.
\Vhile the new home in the center primarily utilizes siding as opposed to the surrounding brick
homes, the appliGltion of brick veneer along the base of the building facade and columns balances
the need to apply consistent building materials to new homes while ensuring that such application
does not create an unacct'ptablc increase in the cost of the unit.
A"FORDABLEHOUSING DESIGN Gl'lDELlNES
CITY OF SPRINGFIEl.D, MISSOl'RI
PROVISION L: UTILITY PLACEMENT
FIGURE 13:
UTll.!,],Y PLACEMENT
Electric and gas meters serving ne\v construction shall not be placed on a street
facing building facade. Every effort shall he made to re-Iocate electric and gas
meters to a non-street facing building facade of a dwelling unit to be
rehabilitated.
No. The utility meters on
this home have been placed
on the front facade. ]11ey
must be moyed to at least
one of the side walls.
Acceptable. While still
seen from the street, these
utility connections haye been
de-emphasized by being
placed to the side facade.
Yes. In this scenario,
utilities can be accessed from
an alley and utility meters are
obscured by being located
on the rear facade.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN GUIDEUNES
8
EH
J
---l..- _
B
EB
eny OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI
ZO N I N G PRACTICE
September 2004
II
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
Q) ISSUE NUMBER NINE
PRACTICE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
PART ONE
The Inclusionary Housing Debate:
The Effectiveness of Mandatory Programs
Over Voluntary Programs
By Nicholas j. Brunick
In response to the nationwide affordable housing crisis, many local governments are
turning to inclusionary zoning as an effective tool for creating much needed affordable
housing.
In crafting an inclusionary housing program,
every community faces a major decision:
should the inclusionary housing program be
mandatory or voluntary?
This decision raises questions common
to any policy debate involving markets and
governmental regulation. Is a mandate
needed to produce affordable housing or are
incentives sufficient to spur developers to cre-
ate affordable homes and apartments? Can a
community provide enough incentives
(through density bonuses, flexible zoning
standards, fee waivers, etc.) to entice devel-
opers to build affordable housing without a
mandate? Will mandates for affordability and
the production of affordable housing, even
when coupled with generous "cost offsets,"
chill market activity and exacerbate afford-
ability problems by restricting supply?
Mandatory or voluntary-which approach will
produce more housing and more affordable
housing for the preferred populations?
Every community will engage in its own
political debate and evaluate its own legal
authority to determine its position on man-
dates and incentives. However, experience
with inclusionary housi ng, both recent and
long-standing, provides a number of insights
on this important policy decision. Overall,
mandatory programs produce more housing,
including housing for lower-income popula-
tions. They also provide more predictability
for developers and the community, and do
not stifle development activity. As a result,
more communities are choosing mandatory
approaches. This issue of Zoning Practice, the
first in a two-part series on affordable hous-
ing, will examine inclusionary housing pro-
gram experiences and studies from across the
country.
MANDATORY PROGRAMS
PRODUCE MORE
HOUSING
Experience and research
indicate mandatory
inclusionary housing
programs are more effec-
tive at generating a
larger supply of afford-
able housing than volun-
tary programs. A 1994
study by the California
Coalition for Rural Housing
(CCRH) says, "Mandatory
programs produce the most
very-low- and low-income
affordable un its compared
with voluntary programs,
both in terms of
absolute numbers and
percentage of total
development."
A 2003 study by
CCRH and the Nonprofit
Housing Association of
Northern California found
similar results. The 15
most productive inclu-
sionary housing pro-
grams in California are
mandatory programs. In
fact, the report found that only six percent of
the 10] communities reporting to have an
inclusionary housing program said the pro-
ZONINGPRACTICE 09.04
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 2
ASK THE AUTHOR JOIN USONLlNEI
During October 18~29, go online to portiripote in our "Ask the Author" forum, on intermtive
feature of Zoning Practice. Nicholas;. Brunick will be available to answer questions about tlris
artie/e. Go to the APA website of www.planninq.org ond follow the links to the Ask the Author
section. From there, just submit your questions nbout the ortie/e using an e'/1Jaillink. The
author will reply, posting the answers cumulotively on the website for the benefit of all sub.
scribers. This feature will be ovailobie for selected issues of Zoning Practice at announced
times. After each online discussion is closed, the answers will be saved in an online archive
ovaiiable throuqh the APA loning f'ractice web pages.
gram was voluntary. Two of those communi-
ties (Los Alamitos and Long Beach) "specifi-
cally blame the voluntary nature of their pro-
grams for stagnant production [of affordable
housing] despite a market-rate boom."
According to the National Housing
Conference, a Washington, D.C.-based afford-
able housing advocacy organization, experi-
ence in Massachusetts shows that mandatory
approaches were critical to the success of
inclusionary zoning programs. In Cambridge,
after ten years of voluntary inclusionary zon-
ing districts that failed to produce any afford-
able housing, a mandatory inclusionary hous-
ing ordinance was adopted in 1999. As of
June, the program had produced 135 afford-
able homes with 58 more in the development
pipeline.
Rnally, experience from the Washington,
D.C., metropolitan area supports the same
conclusion. Four mandatory countywide pro-
grams have worked effectively to create
affordable housing in a mixed-income context
in some of the nation's most affluent coun-
ties. In Montgomery County, Maryland, over
13,000 housing units were produced during
the past 30 years through a mandatory pro-
gram requiring a 12.5-15 percent affordability
component in large developments.
Voluntary inclusionary housing programs
can be successful. Rrst, it should be recog-
nized that, theoretically, with enough of a
subsidy any voluntary program could work
extremely well. Realistically, however, housing
subsidies are becoming scarcer. Nevertheless,
voluntary programs can work well when they
are implemented as if mandatory, or when a
community's broader planning policies (like
mandated growth limitations) make the "vol-
untary" inclusionary housing component a
highly attractive option. For example, in
"Inclusionary Housing in California: The
Experience ofTwo Decades," authors Calavita
and Grimes attribute the success of the volun-
About the Author
Nicholas I. Brunick is an attorney and the
Regional Affordable Housing Initiative
Director at 13usiness and I'rof('ssional People
tor the Public Interest (BPI) in Chicago.
without at least a 15 percent affordable hous-
ing component or plans to pay a fee in lieu of
building affordable units. Planning staff in
Chapel Hill explain that developers construe
the inclusionary zoning expectation as
tary inclusionary zoning program in Irvine to
an "unusually sophisticated" and "particu-
larly gutsy" staff committed to making the
program work UournaJ of the American
Planning Association, 1998). Similarly, in
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the voluntary 15
percent affordable hOUSing program for
developments that require rezoning is also
quite successful. The program is so rigor-
ously marketed by town staff and the town
council that no new residential developer,
regardless of requiring a rezoning request,
has approached the planning commission
mandatory because residential development
proposals are difficult, more expensive, and
less likely to win approval without an afford-
able housing component. Chapel Hill's volun-
tary program has produced 162 affordable
homes since 2000 and has collected approxi-
mately $178,000 in fees.
Lexington, Massachusetts, followed a
similar approach with the adoption of a firm
policy related to affordability on all discre-
tionary approvals. Consequently, the commu-
nity succeeded in creating a significant
amount of new affordable housing, joining
ZONING PRACTICE 09.04
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3
Chapel Hill as a model for communities that
may lack the authority to implement a manda-
tory inclusionary zoning law.
The Morgan Hill, California, policy on lim-
iting growth has enabled the success of its
voluntary inclusionary housing program.
Developers have a better chance of obtaining
one of the limited number of development
permits each year if they include affordable
housing in their proposed development.
Under this framework, a voluntary approach
can ensure the production of some affordable
units. However, even with an especially
aggressive staff or broader policies, including
growth limitations that make inclusionary
housing more attractive, voluntary approaches
are not likely to produce as much affordable
housing.
SERVING LOW- AND VERY.LOW.INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS
In general, mandatory programs are better
suited to produce housing that is affordable to
low- and very.low-income households (house-
holds below 80 percent and 50 percent of the
area's median income respectively). The 15
most productive programs in California target
low- and very-low-income populations at a
much greater rate than the 92 other programs
in the state, according to the California
Coalition for Rural Housing and the Non-Profit
Housing Association of Northern California in
Inclusionary Housing in California: ]0 Years of
Innovation, published in 2003. The mandatory
programs in Montgomery County and Fairfax
County, Virginia, succeeded at producing
affordable homes for extremely low-income
households by allowing the local housing
authority to purchase some of the newly cre-
ated affordable units.
Without a mandatory requirement, com-
munities will most likely have to provide an
extremely high level of subsidy to entice
developers to produce homes and apartments
affordable to low- and very-low-income house-
holds. Voluntary inclusionary zoning programs
that do succeed in generating affordable
housing units for a range of low-income
households must rely heavily on federal,
state, and local subsidies in most cases. For
example, Roseville, California, adopted its
Affordable Housing Goal (AHG) program in
1988. The program encourages developers to
work with the city to voluntarily build afford-
able housing within residential developments.
Since 1988, the AHG program produced 2,000
affordable units through significant federal,
state, and local subsidies. However, nearly
$234 million in subsidies would be necessary
to meet the city's goal of 5,944 affordable
units by 2007-almost $218 million more in
funding than the city is expected to capture
between 2002 and 2007. In the absence of
expanded funding, it will be impossible for
WEB-BASED ENHANCEMENTS
FOR ZONING PRACTICE
In order to provide better service to Zoning
Practice subscribers, with this issue we offer
the complete list of references for Nicholas
J. Brunick's article and affordable housing
web resources on the Zoning Practice web
pages of APA's website. We invite you to
check out this enhancement at www.plan.
n Ing.org/Zonl ngPractice/ currentlssue.htm.
We will do this whenever we determine that
we can use the Internet to heighten the
informational value we are delivering to our
subscribers.
Roseville to meet its regional affordable hous-
ing goal through its voluntary program. With a
mandatory inclusionary zoning program, some
of these affordable homes could be produced
through a combination of density bonuses,
flexible zoning standards or other offsets, and
the market adjustments and developer cre.
ativity that result from a mandate to produce
affordable housing.
PREDICTABILITY FOR COMMUNITIES
AND DEVELOPERS
Mandatory programs offer reliability and pre-
dictability to generate results. Mandatory pro-
grams provide developers with predictability
by setting uniform expectations and require-
ments and establishing a level playing field
for all developers. Developers cannot price
and value land appropriately and make
informed investment decisions unless they
know what the local community will allow
them to build and what is required of them.
The worst barrier to housing production and
constricted supply is an unpredictabie devel-
opment atmosphere.
Under voluntary or ad hoc inclusionary
housing programs, a developer may not know
what he or she will be allowed to build or
what will be required of them until they enter
into and complete the negotiated develop-
ment process with the community.
Development decisions are usually fraught
with community politics and can be applied
unfairly to different developers depending
upon their political connections.
Under a mandatory inclusionary housing
program, developers will always know up front
what is required of them. Hopefully, they also
will know up front what cost offsets they will
receive from the community with the afford-
able units. The highly successful inclusionary
zoning programs in Montgomery and Fairfax
Counties (over 13,000 and 2,300 affordable
units produced, respectively) are two such
examples. Like other zoning regulations,
mandatory inclusionary housing programs
with clear cost offsets provide key players in
the housing market with the information
needed to make efficient decisions about allo-
cation of resources. In fact, developers in
Irvine recently lobbied the city council to
change the city's inclusionary housing ordi-
nance from voluntary to mandatory enforce-
ZONINGPRACnCE 09.04
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 4
ment due to the confusion and uncertainty
developers experienced in the development
process under a voluntary program.
Of course, mandatory programs are less
predictable if the cost offsets are uncertain
and decided on a case-by-case basis.
Similarly, voluntary programs, if applied con-
sistently and aggressively, can be made
clearer and less arbitrary. Overall, mandatory
programs are better suited to establish pre-
dictable results for both the local community
and private market actors.
ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT?
In addressing the need for more affordable
housing no one wants a policy that will depress
or stifle housing production. The best available
evidence indicates that mandatory inclusionary
housing programs have not done this.
One recent study by economists at the Los
Angeles-based Reason Public Policy Institute
entitled, Housing Supply and Affordability: Do
Affordable Housing Mandates Work?, claims
inclusionary zoning programs in the San
Francisco Bay area led to a decline in housing
production in those communities, contributing
to rising housing prices overall. The study
claims an analysis of building permit data from
45 communities with inclusionary zoning
showed a decline in housing production in the
"average city" the year after passage of the pro-
gram. The study also claims that an analysis of
building permit data for 33 communities with
inclusionary zoning in the same region showed
that less housing was produced in those cities
in the seven years after passage of an inclu-
sionary zoning ordinance than in the seven
years prior to passage.
The study's methodology exhibits a num-
ber of failings, including a failure to include
communities without inclusionary zoning in
the analysis and a failure to account for or
hold constant other factors that could have an
effect on levels of housing production, such
as the unemployment rate, the prime interest
rate, growth boundaries, lack of available
land, vacancy rates, etc. As a result, the
study's conclusion that inclusionary zoning is
the cause (or a significant cause) of decreased
housing production in these communities
remains wholly unsupported. One cannot tell
whether other factors independent of inclu-
sionary zoning are causing a decline in hous-
ing production or whether development also
has declined in communities without inclu-
sionary zoning.
A more diligent and reliable study of 28
California cities over 20 years by David Paul
Rosen and Associates reaches the opposite
conclusion. Like the Reason Institute study,
Rosen analyzes residential building permit
data obtained from the Construction Industry
Research Board. Unlike the authors from the
Reason Institute, the Rosen study accom-
plishes the following:
. Includes communities with and without
inclusionary zoning programs in the sample
of 28 Californ ia cities;
. Includes communities from a variety of loca-
tions in California (Orange, San Diego, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento
Counties) as opposed to just one region;
. Performs a regression analysis to determine
the extent to which inclusionary zoning
impacts levels of production, and to what
extent other independent variables impact
housing production. The Rosen study meas-
ures the effect of indicators like the unem-
ployment rate, changes in the prime rate,
median price for new construction homes,
the 30-year mortgage rate, and the 1986 Tax
Reform Act, which eliminated many incen-
tives in the U.S. Tax Code that had served to
stimulate the production of rental housing.
The study concludes that the adoption
of inclusionary zoning does not negatively
impact overall levels of housing production.
In fact, in a number of jurisdictions, includ.
ing San Diego, Carlsbad, Irvine, Chula Vista,
and Sacramento, he found that housing pro-
duction increased (in some cases signifi-
cantly) after passage of inclusionary housing
programs. Only in Oceanside did housing
production decrease. The drop was most
likely caused by riSing unemployment and
high rates of housing
vacancy associated with
the economic recession
of the early 1990S and
the Gulf War (Oceanside
is near a military base).
Overall, the study found
that housing production
was most heavily
affected by unemploy-
ment levels, the median
price of new construc-
tion homes, and the
1986 Tax Reform Act.
Rosen's findings
are more consistent
with the balance of
available evidence on
this issue nationwide.
Planning officials and
local monitors of pro-
grams in San Diego,
Sacramento, Boston,
San Francisco, Denver,
Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, Cambridge,
and Boulder claim not
to have seen a decrease
in development activity
following the impiemen-
tation of inclusionary
housing programs.
ZONING PRACTICE 09.04
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 5
TABLE 1. SWITCHING FROM VOLUNTARY TO MANDATORY INCLUSIONARY ZONING
Municipality
or County Reason for Change Result
80ulder,
Colorado
Throughout the 1980s and
1990s, the city's voluntary
ordinance proved ineffective at
generating affordable housing.
Mandatory ordinance went into
effect in 2000. As of June 2004, the
program had created approximately
300 units of housing and had col.
lected $1.5 million in fees.
Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Ten years of voluntary inclu-
sionary zoning districts failed
to generate any affordable
housing.
In 1991, Cambridge switched to a
mandatory program. As of June
2004, this mandatory program had
produced 135 housing units with 58
more in the pipeline.
Irvine, California
Developers initiated a switch
to a mandatory ordinance after
more than 20 years of confu-
sion and uncertainty under a
voluntary program.
New mandatory ordinance (adopted
in the spring of 2003) is a concise
program with uniform expectations
and rewards for developers, As of
June 2004, the mandatory and vol-
untary programs together had cre-
ated 3,400 affordable homes and
apartments with 750 more in the
pipeline. The program also had col-
lected $3.8 million in fees.
Pleasanton,
California
A voluntary ordinance proved
ineffective at creating afford-
able housing in the face of
increasing housing costs and
decreasing availability of land.
Passed mandatory ordinance in late
2000. As of June 2004, the program
had created 408 affordable units
with 154 more in the pipeline. The
program also had collected $14 mil-
lion in fees.
THE MANDATORY TREND
The current trend in inclusionary housing pro-
grams is toward the mandatory end of the
implementation spectrum. A survey for this
article of available literature and existing pro-
grams around the country reveals only one sit-
uation where a community switched from a
mandatory to a voluntary program: Orange
County, California. According to a 1994 report
produced by the California Coalition for Rural
Housing, the switch led to a dramatic drop in
affordable housing. According to Orange
County staff, the county no longer has a for-
mal inclusionary housing program. The county
does negotiate for affordable housing units
on the few remaining vacant parcels that
receive development proposals. Conversely,
communities nationwide have switched to
mandatory programs for additional affordable
units and the benefit of greater predictability.
Details for some of these communities are
summarized in Tables 1 and 2,
TABLE 2. SWITCHING FROM MANDATORY TO VOLUNTARY INCLUSIONARY ZONING
Municipality
or County Reason for Change Result
Orange County,
California
Political environment
A decrease in the production of
affordable housing units. The volun-
tary program produced 952 units in
11 years (1983-1994). The manda-
tory program produced 6,389 units
of affordable housing in four years
(1979-1983).
MANDATORY ORDINANCES IN LARGE CITIES
The five largest cities to adopt inclusionary
zoning-Boston, Denver, Sacramento, San
Diego, San Francisco-chose mandatory
ordinances in the face of severe affordable
housing shortages. This decision reflects
both the perceived and documented effec-
tiveness of requiring developers to set aside
affordable units or pay a fee in lieu of build-
ing units on-site. Denver's mandatory ordi-
nance is credited with the production of
approximately 3,400 units of affordable
housing (constructed or in the development
pipeline) since the law was passed in 2002,
reinforcing the argument that mandatory
programs are more productive.
The October issue of Zoning Practice
will feature a review of big-city inclusionary
zoning programs.
THE MIDWEST SIGNS ON
Mandatory inclusionary zoning programs are no
longer exclusive to high-cost housing markets
on the Coasts. In August 2003, the first inclu-
sionary housing ordinance in the Midwest
became law when Highland Park, Illinois, an
affluent North Shore suburb of Chicago,
adopted a mandatory inclusionary zoning law
requiring a 20 percent affordability component
in any development with five or more units of
housing (See "Affluent Community Sets
Precedent with Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance,"
October 2003). In January 2004, Madison,
Wisconsin, followed with its own mandatory
program. The ordinance requires developers of
projects with 10 or more units to price 15 per-
cent of them as affordable.
THE BOTTOM LINE
With inclusionary zoning, the path most cho-
sen appears to be the more desirable. The
experience of municipalities and counties
nationwide demonstrates that mandatory
inclusionary zoning works as a practical and
effective tool for creating affordabie hous-
ing. While the success of voluntary programs
is contingent on the availability of subsidies
and aggressive staff implementation,
mandatory programs have produced more
affordable units overall, as well as more
units for a wider range of income levels
within the affordability spectrum-all with-
out stifling development.
ZONING PRACTICE 09.04
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 6
A selection of inclusionary housing ordi-
nances featured in this article is available to
Zoning Practice subscribers by contacting the
Planning Advisory Service (PAS) at placeanin-
quiry@planning.org.
The author thanks Lauren Goldberg, Jessica
Webster, and Melissa Buenger for hours of
research, interviewing, and writing that con-
tributed to this article; Susannah Levine and
Ellen Elias for their editing assistance; and
special thanks to Bernie Tetreault and
Patrick Maier at the Innovative Housing
Institute and David Rusk for their assistance
in providing many of the photographs for
this article.
. NEWS BRIEFS
NEW JERSEY PASSES TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS LEGISLATION
By Rebecca Retzlaff, AICP
In March, New Jersey passed a transfer of
development rights (TDR) law (SB 1287/AB
2480) enabling municipalities to adopt and
implement TOR programs. Under the law,
landowners in targeted conservation areas
may sell their development rights and place a
restrictive covenant on their land to preserve
in perpetuity. Developers may purchase the
TOR credits to build at higher densities in tar-
geted development areas.
The act follows a 1989 bill that estab-
lished a pilot TOR program in Burlington
County. According to the new TOR act, "The
Burlington County pilot program has been a
success and should now be expanded to the
remainder of the state of New Jersey."
The law allows jurisdictions to shift
development from environmentally sensitive,
historic, and agricultural areas to receiving
zones more appropriate for development.
According to the law, designation of the receiv-
ing zones will occur after infrastructure avaibil-
ity; zoning issues, such as density and lot
size; and market conditions are considered.
According to E.J. Miranda, spokesperson
for the New Jersey Department of Community
Affairs, the new TOR law will benefit develop-
ers, farmers, municipalities, and smart growth
advocates. "TOR presents an opportunity to
preserve open space by using private-sector
dollars to acquire development rights and
cluster new development in a much smaller
land area. The result is that municipalities
have more control over where growth occurs,
landowners are compensated fairly for their
land, developers have a clear picture of where
they can build, and less of our limited public
funds at the local and state levels have to be
spent on land acquisition."
Before a municipality adopts a TDR ordi-
nance, it must prepare a development transfer
plan, which includes the location and cost of
infrastructure improvements, infrastructure cost-
sharing methods, growth projections, planning
objectives, and design standards for the receiv-
ing zone. The municipality also must prepare a
utility service plan and a real estate market
analysis. To assist municipalities with preparing
these documents, the law established a plan-
ning assistance grant program for the develop-
ment of utility service elements, development
transfer elements, real estate market analyses,
and capital improvement programs,
Susan Burrows, assistant executive
director for external affairs with New Jersey
Future, a smart growth advocacy organization
that helped develop the new law, says one of
the major hurdles to its passage was concern
from farmers that the value ofTDR credits
would be priced fairly and that there would be
a market for the credits. To that end, economic
analyses ofTDR ordinances are to be com-
pleted by outside consultants under the new
law.
The bill requires review and approval or
recommendation of a jurisdiction's TOR ordi-
nance by the county agricultural development
board, the county planning board, and the
New Jersey Office of Smart Growth. Further-
more, jurisdictions passing a TOR ordinance
must also receive endorsement from the
Office of Smart Growth for compliance with
the state plan.
Burrows says there is already high inter-
est in creating TOR ordinances throughout the
state, although no municipality has passed a
TOR ordinance yet. According to Miranda, "The
Office of Smart Growth receives calls everyday
from municipal officials, planners, and devel-
opers interested in hearing more about how
TOR works." Furthermore, more than 80 peo-
ple attended a recent training session co-
sponsored by the New Jersey Department of
Community Affairs (which houses the Office of
Smart Growth) and the New Jersey League of
Municipalities.
Burrows says the new law is a step in the
right direction. "It is one more tool that can be
used to manage growth and development,"
she says. The TOR law in New Jersey has
important implications for smart growth and
development in the state. "Growth manage-
ment is a serious issue here," Burrows says.
"We see the point where the state will reach
build-out."
The New Jersey transfer of development
rights law and program information featured
in this article is available to Zoning Practice
subscribers by contacting the Planning
Advisory Service (PAS) at
placean inquiry@planning.org.
Rebecca Retzlaff, A/CP, is a researcher with the
American Planning Association and a PhD.
student in urban planning and policy at the
University af Illinois-Chicago.
Cover photo of Beacon development in Newton.
Massachusetts. This is an example of a success-
ful indusionary development. Photo provided
by the Innovative Housing Institute.
VOL 21, NO.9
Zoning Proctlce (formerly Zoning News) is a monthly
publication of the American Planning Association.
Subscriptions are available for $65 (U.S.) and $90 (for-
eign). W. Paul Farmer, A1CP, Executive Director; William R.
Klein, AICP, Director of Research,
Zoning Proctice (tSSN 1548-0135) is produced at APA. Jim
Schwab, AICP, and Michael Davidson, Editors; Barry Bain,
AICP, Fay Dolnick, Josh Edwards, Megan Lewis, AICP, Marya
Morris, A1CP, Rebecca Retzlaff, AICP, Lynn M. Ross, Reporters;
Kathleen Quirsfeld, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and
Production.
CopyrightIQ2004 by American Planning Association, 122 S.
Michigan Ave" Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The
American Planning Association also has offices at 1776
Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington. DC 20036;
www.planning.org.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro-
duced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any
information storage and retrieval system, without permis.
sion in writing from the American Planning Association.
Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled
fiber and 10% postconsumer waste.
ZONING PRACTICE 09.04
AMERICAN PlANNING ASSOCIATION I page 7
ZO N I N G PRACTICE October2004
II
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CLUSIONARY HOUSING
Inclusionary Housing:
Proven Success in Large Cities
By Nicholas j. Brunick
For nearly three decades, inclusionary housing served locally as an effective tool for
medium-sized cities and wealthy suburban counties to address the need for affordable
housing.
In a climate of decreased federal support,
local governments in affluent communities
found inclusionary zoning to be a cost-effec-
tive way to produce homes and apartments
for valued citizens, including seniors, public
employees, and working-poor households,
who would otherwise be excluded from the
housing market.
Until recently, no large U.S. city had
adopted an inclusionary housing program. With
the 1990S resurgence of many urban centers as
vibrant locations for new investment, inclusion-
ary zoning has surfaced as a policy solution to
rising housing costs in big cities.
This issue of Zoning Practice-the second
in a two-part series on inclusionary housing-
discusses why large urban centers are examin-
ing and adopting inclusionary housing strate-
gies. The article also presents five case studies
of recently enacted inclusionary housing pro-
grams in Boston, Denver, Sacramento, San
Diego, and San Francisco. Rnally, lessons that
other local govemments (large or small) can
draw from the large-city inclusionary housing
experience will be proposed and examined.
WHY LARGE CITIES?
It is clear that inclusionary zoning is no longer
a policy tool used exclusively in affluent sub.
urbs and small cities. Why are large cities now
beginning to adopt and implement inclusion-
ary housing programs? Though the reasons
are varied, they all stem from the need to pre-
serve the livability and attractiveness of cities
for capital investment and people.
For more than the poor. Large cities are
adopting inclusionary housing programs
because of their proven effectiveness in
addressing the dearth of affordable housing.
In the 1990S, housing costs outpaced income
growth for low- and moderate-income house-
holds. The extension of the affordable hous-
ing crisis to working-class and lower-middle
income households has heightened the
urgency to address the problem.
No funding. Inclusionary zoning is the
market-based tool cities need for producing
affordable housing without using tax dollars.
Public reve~ues remain tight despite the
urban resurgence, and the fiscal capacity of
large cities has been severely hamstrung by
the 30-year retrenchment in federal spending
on cities and housing in general, the poor
economic conditions of the past three years,
and the recent federal tax cuts and other fed.
eral policies that dismiss any significant level
of federal revenue sharing to aid states and
cities during these historically tough times.
Through the use of creative cost offsets
such as density bonuses, flexible zoning stan-
dards, and expedited permitting processes,
large cities can create affordable housing
while preserving the federal and state housing
dollars they receive for more vulnerable popu-
WEB-BASED ENHANCEMENTS
FOR ZONING PRACTICE
In order to provide better service to Zoning
Practice subscribers, with this issue we offer
the complete list of references for Nicholas
j. Brunick's article and affordable housing
web resources on the Zoning Practice web
pages of APA's website. We invite you to
check out this enhancement at www.plan-
n i ng. orgj Zoni ngpractice f currentissue.htm,
We will do this whenever we determine that
we can use the Internet to heighten the
informational value we are delivering to our
subscribers.
lations (extremely low-income, disabled,
homeless, etc.) and preserving more of the
local tax base for other pressing public needs.
The global economy. To be competitive in
a global economy, urban communities need a
sufficient supply of affordable housing for every
level of the workforce, a basic level of economic
equality, and a healthy consumer class.
Inclusionary zoning provides large cities with a
multipurpose policy tool to help maintain a
strong economic environment by creating
affordable housing for entry. level occupations
in key industries, by strengthening the eco-
nomic security of low- and moderate-income
households, and by integrating affordable
housing into market-rate developments and tra-
ditionally market-rate neighborhoods.
Racial and economic segregation. Inclu-
sionary housing can mitigate the symptoms of
racial and economic segregation plaguing many
American cities today, including crime, failing
schools, and social instability, all of which deter
human and capital investment. By producing
low- and moderate-income housing in an attrac-
tive, mixed-income fashion within market-rate
developments, inclusionary zoning programs
help to reverse exclusionary development pat-
terns, which discourage companies and moder.
ate-income households from choosing to locate
or remain in the city.
Sprowl and disinvestment. Sprawl pulls
public and private investment away from the
urban core. If affordable housing cannot be
found in the city, developers and citizens will
look where land costs are lowest for invest-
ment-usually on the fringe of the metropoli-
tan region. Inclusionary zoning programs
allow large cities to use denSity bonuses and
other cost offsets to produce and maintain a
sufficient supply of affordable housing within
ZONING PRACTICE 10.04
AMERICAN PlANNING ASSOCIATION I page 2
ASK THE AUTHOR JOIN US ONLINE!
During November 15-'26, go online to participate in our "Ask the Author" forum, (/II interac'
tive feature of Zoning Practice. Nicholos;. Brunick will be available to answer questions about
this ortide. Go to the APA website at www.planning.org and follow the links to tile Ask tire
Author section. From there, just submit your questions about the wikle using on e-moillink.
The author will reply, posting the answers cumulatively on tire website for the benefit of all
subscribers. This feature will be available for selected issues of Zoning Practice at an/JOunced
times. After each online discussion is closed, tire answers will be saved in an online orc.hive
available through the APA Zoning Practice web pages.
the city core, thereby reducing the economic
pressures that send people, employers, and
investment away from the city.
Large cities face housing shortages that
threaten the economic and social well-being
of their communities. In the absence of a
coherent federal urban policy and significant
federal funding for affordable housing, inclu-
sionary zoning provides large cities with a
market-based tool to address the need for a
wide range of housing options.
LARGE-CITY CASE STUDIES
Since 2000, five major U.S. cities with popula-
tions exceeding 400,000 people have
adopted inclusionary housing programs.
Boston has an executive order requiring
developers to build affordable housing in new
developments, and Denver, San Francisco,
San Diego, and Sacramento have inclusionary
housing ordinances that require affordable
homes and apartments in new developments.
These programs provide trail-blazing exam-
ples that other urban centers can follow.
Boston
Background. The economic boom of the
1990S raised income levels for Boston area
residents, but housing prices went even
higher, soaring at a double-digit pace. As con-
struction and land costs increased, gentrifica-
tion spread from the central downtown areas
to surrounding neighborhoods, displacing
moderate-income families. In addition, afford-
able-housing advocates said the city's unoffi-
cial inclusionary housing program was failing
to produce affordable units, pointing to two
high-profile developments devoid of afford-
able housing. Boston's tight housing market,
and pressure from community-based organi-
zations and housing advocates, led Mayor
Thomas Menino to sign an executive order in
February 2000 creating an inclusionary hous.
ing policy.
The progrom. Under Boston's policy, any
residential project that contains ten or more
units and, 1) is financed by the City of Boston
or the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA),
2) is to be developed on property owned by
the city or BRA, or 3) requires zoning relief,
triggers the requirements of the program. Due
to the antiquity of the city's zoning code,
nearly all residential developments over nine
units are covered by the executive order.
The Boston policy'states that in all qualify-
ing developments, 10 percent of the housing
units must be affordable. While the policy pro-
vides for off-site development of affordable
units, a developer who exercises this option
must include a 15 percent (rather than 10 per-
cent) affordable component. This requirement
creates an incentive for developers to construct
the affordable units on-site. Boston's program
also allows for a fee-in-lieu payment to BRA.
The results. In the initial year of implemen-
tation, eight privately financed high-end housing
developments were subject to the policy
requirements. As a result, approximately 246
affordable units were constructed with many
more in the pipeline. A total of $1.8 million in
fees were collected, with millions more commit-
ted. New housing development continues to
boom in Boston, and development projects
remain lucrative, even with the affordable unit
set-aside requirement. Pleased with the results
thus far, the city is now conducting a demonstra-
tion project to see how a 15 percent affordability
requirement would work.
Denver
Background. Denver has one of the newest
inclusionary housing programs in the country.
About the Author
Nicholas). Brunick is an attorney and the
Regional Ntord,lble Housing Initiative
Director at Business and Professional People
fOI the Public Interest (BPI) in Chicago.
The ordinance, passed by the city council in
2002 in response to the city's workforce hous-
ing needs, was an amendment of the housing
and zoning codes to create a moderately
priced dwelling unit (MPDU) program.
The progrom. Unlike many local inclu.
sionary zoning ordinances, the Denver pro-
gram covers new construction and existing
buildings that are being remodeled to provide
dwelling units. Most programs cover new con-
struction only. Existing developments that are
for-sale must include a 10 percent affordable
component. Because of a state statute and a
Colorado Supreme Court ruling prohibiting
local ordinances from limiting rent levels,
ZONING PRACTICE 10.04
AMERICAN PlANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3
rental developments can voluntarily choose to
price 10 percent of the units as affordable.
In addition to density bonuses, reduced
parking, and an expedited review process,
Denver also provides a cash subsidy to develop-
ers for the affordable units (state law does not
allow the city to provide fee waivers). The
Denver ordinance permits the developer to build
the required affordable units off.site but within
the "same general" area. Instead of construct-
ing the affordable units, developers also may
contribute an in.lieu fee to the special revenue
fund in an amount equal to 50 percent of the
price per affordable unit not provided.
The results. Denver's program stands out
as the most successful to date for a city this
size. Since its passage in 2002, the program has
produced (or is in the process of producing)
3.395 affordable units. To the surprise of city
staff, no fee-in-lieu money has been collected
thus far. Though Denver is considering a few
minor changes to the program's implementa-
tion, it is deemed a tremendous success.
Furthennore, the program has not had a nega-
tive effect on development levels in the city.
Sacramento
Bockground. In the 1990S, Sacramento experi-
enced significant growth in residential and com-
mercial development on its periphery. The com.
mercial development created new jobs for a variety
of income levels, butthe majority of residential
development was upscale. To provide housing to
low- and moderate.income families near or within
these job-rich areas, the city council explored an
inclusionary housing program. Through the work of
a broad coalition of affordable-housing advocates,
labor unions, neighborhood associations, environ-
mental groups, minority-led efforts, faith-based
organizations, and the local chamber of com-
merce, the city council passed the Mixed.lncome
Housing Ordinance in 2000.
The progrom. The ordinance applies to all
residential development over nine units in "new
growth areas," including large undeveloped
areas at the city's margins, newly annexed
areas, and large interior redevelopment areas.
The affordable requirement under the ordinance
is 15 percent of all units, which can be single or
multifamily. Aexibility in unit type helps devel.
opers determine a cost-effective way to con-
struct the affordable units.
Sacramento provides a density bonus of 25
percent, which follows the density bonus
required under California law for certain types of
affordable developments. In addition to the den-
LARGE.ClTY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM M
(rlyflmplemenrallon Threshold Numbel or Urnlsl I
Date/Population Affordllbl~ Unit$ F'rCldu,~d IrH:ome Targel Affordable Requirement Control Period
Boston, Massachusetts
2000
589.141
246 inclusionary units com-
pleted since 2000;
$t.8 million in fees
Denver, Colorado
2002
554.636
3.395 units completed since
2002
SICl1lmento, California
2000
407,075
649 units completed since
2000j more in the pipeline
San 01110. California
1992, expanded in 200)
1,223.341
1,200 units completed
between 1992 and 200);
200 units in the pipeline;
$300,000 in fees
Threshold: ten or more units
Income Target: at least one-
half of affordable units for
households earning less
than 80 percent of the AMI;
remaining affordable units
for households earning 80-
t20 percent of the AMI, with
an average of tOO percent of
the AMI
to percent
"Maximum allowable by
law"
Threshold: 30 units or more
Income Target: 65 percent of
the AMI for rental units and
less than 80 percent of the
AMI for for-sale units
10 percent of for-sale units or
a voluntary 10 percent for
rental units
15 years
Threshold: any development
over 9 units
Income Target: 15 percent of
the units must be set aside as
affordable. One-third of 15 percent
households making 50-80
percent of the AMI. Two-thirds
of households making less
than 50 percent of the AMI
30 years
Threshold: ten or more units
Income Target: rental units
are set aside for households
eaming at or below 65 per- to percent
cent of the AMlj for-sale
units are set aside for house-
holds earning at or below
100 percent of the AMI
55 years for rental and
for-sale units
San Francisco, California
1992, expanded In 2002
776,733
128 units completed
between 1992 and 2000i
450 units completed since
2002i 440 units in the
pipeline
Threshold: ten or more units
Income Target: for rental
units, households earning
80 percent or less of the 10 percent
AMI; for for-sale units,
households earning t:ZO per-
cent of the AMI
50 years for rental and
for-sale units
~
t
~
i
1
:!.
~
.
~
~
~
~
j
sity bonus, developers also may receive
expedited permit processing for the afford-
able units, fee waivers, relaxed design
guidelines, and priority status for available
local, state, and federal housing funds.
The results. The Sacramento ordi-
nance is responsible for the creation of
649 units to date with more to come;
this ordinance has not had a negative
effect on development.
San Diego
Background. In 1992, San Diego voters
imposed an inclusionary housing
requirement in the North City Future
Urbanizing Area (FUA), a developing sec.
tion of the city with no rental or afford-
able housing. The requirement reserves
ZONING PRACTICE 10.04
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 4
M MATRIX
In U~lJ.fee P$ymentj OthtH Del/eloper
Off"Slt~ Oevflloptn~nt Density BtJnu5 In((!ntl..,(>s
Fee: must be equal to 15 per-
cent of the total number of
market-rate units limes an
affordable housing cost factor
Off-site; may build off-site,
but set-aside requirement
increases to 15 percent
Fee: 50 percent of the price
per affordable unit not built
Off-sire: allowed if developer
builds the same number of
affordable units in the
"same general" area
None
No citywide developer incen.
tives, but increased height
and FAR allowances permit-
ted In the financial district
Up to 20 percent for single
family units; up to to percent
for multifamilv units
$5,000 reimbursement for
each for-sale unit, up to 50
percent of the total units in
the development; S10,000
reimbursement for each
affordable rental unit If unit
is priced for households at
50 percent of the AMI or
below; expedited permit
process; parking reductions
Can dedicate land off-site or
build off-site if:
. there is insufficient land
zoned as multifamily on-site 25 percent
. alternative land or units
must be in "new growth"
areas
Fee: calculated based on
the square footage of an
affordable unit. Fee
increases between 2003
and 2006 from $1.00 per
square foot to $2.50 per
square foot
Off.site: developers can opt
to build off-site (set-aside
does not increase)
Fee: determined by several
factors including the pro-
jected value of on-site afford-
able units; in-lieu payments
are made to the Citywide
Affordable Housing Fund
Off-site: developers can
elect to build affordable
units off-site, but the set-
aside requirement increases
t015 percent
Expedited permit process for
affordable units; fee waivers;
relaxed design guidelines;
may receive priority for sub-
sidyfunding
None
None
None
Refunds available on the
environmental review and
building permit fees that
apply to the affordable units
20 percent of all new rental and for-sale
dwelling units for households earning 65 per-
cent of the area median income (AMI).
Developers must build affordable units
because payment of a fee-in-lieu is not an
option. According to San Diego planner Bill
Levin, the FUA's inclusionary zoning program
produced 1,200 affordable units over the last
decade. Development has continued rapidly in
the FUA. The city estimates that 1,200 addi-
tional affordable units will be produced before
the FUA is completely built out.
In July 2003, San Diego adopted a citywide
inclusionary zoning ordinance. The effort to pass
the ordinance was based on the success of the
FUA program, the rising demand for affordable
housing for many groups, and the recommenda-
tion of an inclusionary zoning working group
that included formerly skeptical developers. A
detailed economic analysis of the potential
impact of a citywide ordinance convinced devel-
opers that they would be able to do business
under the new law.
The program. The ordinance requires all
residential developments of ten or more units
to include a 10 percent affordable housing
component. The FUA is exempt from the city-
wide ordinance and will continue to adhere to
the 1992 FUA inclusionary zoning framework.
Neither the 1992 FUA inclusionary zoning
ordinance or the 2003 citywide ordinance pro-
vides developers with incentives or cost offsets
for building affordable units. The city opted to not
market, the architects of the law were concemed
that it might generate substantial fees and little
affordable housing, but city staff are thus far
pleased with the performance of the ordinance
and say it has not stifled development.
San Francisco
Bockgraund. In 1992, San Francisco adopted a
limited inclusionary housing program to address
the shortage of affordable housing for very-low-
and low-income residents. The 1992 ordinance
applied only to planned unit developments
(PUDs) and projects requiring a conditional use
permit, neither of which affected a substantial
amount of residential development in the city.
offer cost offsets, such as fee waivers or density
bonuses, because developers can easily cover
the cost of affordable units through the sale of
market-rate units, according to an economic
analysis conducted for the housing commission.
Developers can opt to make a fee-in-lieu
payment, which is based on the square
footage of an affordable unit compared to the
gross square footage of the entire project.
Upon approval from the plan commission and
the city council, the inclusionary housing
requirements also can be satisfied by provid-
ing the same number of units at another site
within the same community planning area.
The results. Under the citywide law, 200
affordable units are in the development
pipeline, and $300,000 in fees has been col.
lected. Because of the robust San Diego housing
In January 2002, the inclusionary zon-
ing ordinance was expanded to include all
residential projects of ten units or more,
including live-work units. The program's
expansion came in response to the ongoing
affordable housing crisis and political pres-
sure from community groups concerned
about the displacement of low-income
households as a consequence to rising
property values and unattainable live-work
units. live-work units starting at $300,000
in the mid-1990S had reached $700,000 by
the end of the decade.
The pragram. Under the new ordinance,
10 percent of the units in a residential devel-
opment of ten or more units must be afford-
able. The affordable requirement jumps to 15
percent if the units are provided off-site. PUDs
ZONING PRACTICE 10.04
AMERICAN PlANNING ASSOCIATION I page 5
and developments that require a conditional
use permit are subject to a 12 percent afford-
able component, increasing to 17 percent if
the affordable units are built off-site.
San Francisco offers minimal developer
incentives. Incentives are limited to refunds
on the environmental review and building per-
mit fees for the portion of the housing project
that is priced affordably. Developers can make
fee.in-Iieu payments to the Citywide
Affordable Housing Fund instead of building
the units. The amount of the fee is determined
by several factors, including the projected
value of the affordable units if the developer
constructed them on-site.
The results. Since the adoption of com.
prehensive inclusionary zoning in 2002, the
program has generated 450 affordable homes
and apartments with approximately 440 more
units in the development pipeline. Planning
staff report an increase in development activ-
ity since passage of the ordinance.
BENEFITS
Though large cities are newcomers to inclu-
sionary zoning, three valuable benefits can be
seen from the experience thus far. First, inclu-
sionary zoning is a highly versatile policy tool
that can be used effectively in large cities,
affluent suburbs, and smaller communities.
Second, inclusionary housing programs, when
properly designed, will not chill development
in large urban centers. Third, inclusionary zon-
ing can successfully serve a broad range of
income levels and populations in need of
affordable housing in urban centers.
Versatility. Given both the poor prospects
for a renewed federal commitment to afford-
able housing and the proven success of inclu-
sionary zoning programs around the country,
more cities with higher-cost housing markets
should feel emboldened to explore inclusion-
ary housing programs. The cities profiled in
this article have successfully created many new
units of affordable housing (or collected com-
parable fees-in-lieu) using a variety of
approaches with cost offsets, income levels,
and administration, demonstrating a highly
versatile tool that can be tailored to meet the
specific needs of cities large and small.
Effect an development and cast offsets.
Large-city administrators must not buy into
the misconception that inclusionary housing
will only work in large-tract, suburban subdivi-
sions, and that inclusionary zoning require-
ments will drive development out of urban
centers, encouraging sprawl and exacerbating
affordability problems. Evidence from the five
cities profiled in this article, including inter-
viewswith planning staff, shows this to be
unlikely. City staff in San Francisco report that
the overall pace of development has actually
accelerated since passage of the mandatory
inclusionary housing ordinance-not surpris-
ing considering the broad experience of inclu.
sionary housing programs across the country.
In fact, analytical studies, anecdotal evidence,
and developer and community reaction from
communities nationwide indicate that inclu-
sionary housing programs have not caused
overall levels of development to slow.
Large-city administrators
must not buy into the
misconception that
inclusionary housing will
. . . . drive development
out of urban centers.
Three of the cities profiled provide little
in the way of cost offsets to developers. Most
inclusionary housing programs include den-
sity bonuses, flexible zoning, fee waivers, an
expedited permitting process, or other bene-
fits to help developers offset the cost of pro-
ducing affordable homes. The San Diego, San
Francisco, and Boston programs appear to be
working quite well despite offering little or no
cost offsets. Denver and Sacramento provide
a generous list of offsets, and on balance,
have created more affordable units (which
could be attributed to many factors independ-
ent of the inclusionary ordinance) than their
counterparts. This fact demonstrates the
importance of carefully examining and under.
standing the local housing market when
designing a program.
Who Is being served? Inclusionary hous-
ing programs in large cities can be a flexible
tool serving a wide variety of income levels. A
large-city program need not serve only house-
holds at or near 100 percent of the median
income. Denver, the most productive of the
large-city programs, provides for the "deep-
est" income targeting, primarily serving
households at 65 percent of the AMI in rental
units and 80 percent of the AMI for owner-
occupied units. Similarly, Sacramento targets
its program so that two-thirds of the housing
units produced will serve very-low-income
households (households below 50 percent of
the AMI). One-third of the housing units pro-
duced serve households at or below Bo per-
cent of the AMI.
Denver and Sacramento provide devel-
opers with some flexibility in complying with
these eligibility requirements. Denver devel-
opments that are taller than three stories.
equipped with elevators, and where over 60
percent of the parking is in a parking struc-
ture may have affordable for-sale units
priced up to 95 percent of the AMI and
rental units up to Bo percent of the AMI. In
Sacramento, on small projects (less than 5
acres), a developer may meet the inclusion-
ary obligation by pricing all of the affordable
homes at or below Bo percent of the AMI if
all the homes are for-sale units and on-site.
In addition, with special approval, small
condominium developers may price two-
thirds of the affordable units below Bo per-
cent of the AMI and one.third of the afford-
able units below 50 percent of the AMI.
Programs in large cities also can create a
mix of income levels, with some units going to
moderate-income households and others to
low-income households, as is done in Boston
and San Diego. Rnally, a large city can success-
fully use an inclusionary housing ordinance for
moderate- to middle-income residents, as in
San Francisco, which sets the highest income
targets of the five cities profiled.
NOT JUST FOR SUBURBS AND
SMALL CITIES ANYMORE
After decades of decline, American cities are
on the rebound. But continued success cannot
be taken for granted. Ensuring the future
growth and vitality of large urban centers
~
.~
o
..
~
i
$
o
l
ZONING PRACTICE 10.04
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 6
requires deliberate policies and significant
political will. Census data for 2003 show that
cities such as Chicago, which saw population
gains from 1990 to 2000, have again begun
losing population to suburbs with better
housing options for working-class house-
holds. Large U.S. cities must preserve afford-
ability for a broad range of income levels if
they wish to maintain and enhance their place
in theglobal economy and provide a desirable
environment for moderate-income house-
holds.
Inclusionary housing is working in the
cities profiled in this article and elsewhere.
Though a versatile tool in the creation of
affordable housing without having to use
major public subsidies, inclusionary housing
programs cannot be the only answer to hous-
ing needs. Until there is a more effective
option, inclusionary zoning does offer U.S.
cities a market-based policy tool that can help
with this critical effort.
A selection of inclusionary housing
ordinances featured in this article is avail-
able to Zoning Practice subscribers by con-
tacting the Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
at placeaninquiry@planning.org.
The author thanks Lauren Goldberg and
jessica Webster for hours of research, inter-
viewing, and writing that contributed to this
article; Susannah Levine and Ellen Elias for
editing assistance; David Rusk and Teresa
Ojeda at the City of San Francisco; and Beverly
Fretz-Brown and Emily Hottle at the City of
Sacramento for assistance in providing photo-
graphs for this article.
I NEWS BRIEFS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING GETS HUGE BOOST ON
LONG ISLAND
By Josh Edwards
In August, South old, New York, passed an
ordinance requiring developers to set aside
25 percent of the new units as affordable
housing for every subdivision over five units.
The ordinance passed unanimously with
strong support from both residents and devel-
opers. Lacking any loopholes, the ordinance
will require the highest percentage of afford-
able units on Long Island, a measure
intended to help stem the alarming affordable
housing shortage in this mostly affluent east-
ern section of the island.
After months of refinement, the board
agreed on the details: one quarter of all units
must be affordable to individuals or families
earning at or below 80 percent of the median
income for the county, which is $68,250. In
May, Southold approved a housing fund to
accompany the ordinance. Funds will be distrib-
uted in the form of grants and low- and no.inter.
est loans for income-eligible residents for
affordable units and will also be used directly
for the creation of affordable housing.
Developers who choose not to meet the 25 per-
cent requirement must pay a fee toward the
housing fund to subsidize affordable units else-
where in town. Southold is using the fund to
ensure that affordable units remain perma-
nently affordable. Affordable units are resold to
the housing fund at market-rate prices. Buyers
then purchase the units from the housing fund
at the lower subsidized price.
County Supervisor Joshua Horton
describes the affordable housing ordinance
as "a giant step forward" and notes that
South old and other nearby communities have
reached a crisis point as home prices escalate
beyond the reach of most prospective resi-
dents. The average home price in Southold
surpassed $500,000 in 2003. Not surpris-
ingly, vacation homes of wealthy New Yorkers
inflate area home values, and encroaching
sprawl from the metro area exacerbates the
problem. Though development translates into
property tax revenues for the affected Long
Island towns, it also forces many people to
live elsewhere. Town officials say the afford-
able housing shortage is a threat to the local
economy, as workers in lower-paying jobs
simply cannot afford to live in the area. Even
Horton commutes to work from a nearby town
because Southold is too expensive. Officials
hope the ordinance will combat gentrification
and attract young professionals and families
who may not otherwise be able to afford a
home in Southhold.
Copies of the Southhold, New York, afford-
able housing ordinance, and the ordinance
establishing the affordable housing fund, are
available to Zoning Practice subscribers by con-
tacting the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) at
placeaninquiry@planning.org.
Josh Edwards is a researcher with the
American Planning Association in Chicago.
Cover photo A )/.f~ unIt luxury condormnium
development In San FrancIsco Tl"mty thlee
unlb are attorclable under the San rranClsco
orclll1ance Photo proVided by the City of San
Fr,Hltlt.;cO Plannmg Depdrtment.
VOL. 21, NO. 10
Zoning Proctlce (formerly Zoning News) is a monthly
publIcation of the American Planning Association.
Subscriptions are available for $65 (U.S.) and $90 (for-
eign). W. Paul Farmer. AICP, Executive Director: William R.
Klein, AICP. Director of Research.
Zoning Practice (ISSN 1\48-013,) is plOduced al APA.lim
Sc.hwab. Aler, imd Michael Davidson, Editors; Barry Sain,
Alef', Fay Dolnick. Josh Edwards, Megan Lewis. AKP, Mary(]
Morris, Aiel', Rebecca Retzlaff. AlCP, Lynn M. Ross. SmClh K.
Wiebenson, Reporters; Kathleen Quhsfeld, Assistant Editor;
US,) Barton, Design and Production.
Copyrigtlt (~)2oo4 bv American Planning Association. 122
S, Michigan Ave., Suite 1600. Chici1g0, Il6oh03. ThE'
American Planning Associatlon also has offices at 1776
Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 200)6;
Www.plilnning.org.
AI! rights reserved. No part (Jfthi~; publication iTi<lY be repro-
duced Of utilized in any form or by any means. electronic or
mechanical. including photocopying, r('GOrding, or by any
information storage Jnd retrieval s.ystem, without permis-
sion in writing from the American Planning Association.
Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled
fiber and 10% postconsumer waste.
ZONING PRACTICE 10,04
AMERICAN PlANNING ASSOCIATION I page 7
Q)REFERENCES
(from Inclusionary Housing, Part Two, by Nicholas J. Brunick; October 2004)
I
LARGE-CllY CASE STUDIES, BOSTON
Background
Callahan, Tom. 2002. Director, Massachusetts Affordable Housing
Alliance (MAHA). Telephone interview, April,
The Program
McGourthy, Tim. 2004. Policy Director, Boston Redevelopment
Authority (BRA). Telephone interview.
_' 2001. Policy Director, Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA).
Telephone interview, August.
The Results
Kiely, Meg. 2003. Deputy Director of Community Development and
Housing, Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). Telephone inter-
view, August.
McGourthy, Tim. 2004. Policy Director, Boston Redevelopment
Authority (BRA). Telephone interview.
LARGE-CllY CASE STUDIES, DENVER
Background
Glick, Jerry. 2003. Workforce Housing Initiative. Telephone interview,
November.
The Program
Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, LL.C., 3 P.3d 30 (2000)
The Results
LeClair, Marianne. 2004. Program Manager, Workforce Housing
Initiative. Telephone interview, April.
LARGE-CllY CASE STUDIES, SACRAMENTO
Background
Jones, David. 2001. City council member, City of Sacramento, California.
Telephone interview, March.
The Results
Fretz-Brown, Beverly. 2004. Director of Policy and Planning. Sacramento
Housing and Redevelopment Agency. Telephone interview, June,
LARGE-CllY CASE STUDIES, SAN DIEGO
Background
Levin, Bill. 2003. Senior Planner, City of San Diego, California,
Telephone interview, August.
Tinsky, Susan, 2003. Chief Policy Advisor, San Diego Housing
Commission. Telephone interview, August.
ZONING PRACTICE
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
The Program
Levin, Bill, 2003. Senior Planner, City of San Diego, California.
Telephone interview. August.
The Results
Levin, Bill. 2004. Senior Planner, City of San Diego, California.
Telephone interview, August.
Tinsky, Susan. 2003 Chief Policy Advisor, San Diego Housing
Commission, Telephone interview, August.
LARGE-CllY CASE STUDIES, SAN FRANCISCO
Background
Ojeda, Teresa. 2003. Planner, City of San Francisco, California.
Telephone interview, July,
_' 2003, Planner, City of San Francisco, California. Telephone
interview, August.
The Results
Ojeda, Teresa. 2004. Planner, City of San Francisco, California.
Telephone interview, June.
_' 2003. Planner, City of San Francisco, California. Telephone
interview, July.
_, 2003. Planner, City of San Francisco, California. Telephone
interview, August.
LESSONS FROM LARGE CITIES, EFFECT ON DEVELOPMENT
AND COST OFFSETS
Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI). 2003.
Indus/onary Housing: A Policy that Works for the City that Works.
Chicago: Business and Professional People for the Public Interest.
Fretz-Brown, Beverly, 2004, Director of Policy and Planning,
Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. Telephone inter-
view, June,
Kiely, Meg. 2003. Deputy Director of Community Development and
Housing, Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). Telephone inter-
view, August.
LeClair, Marianne. 2004. Program Manager, Workforce Housing
Initiative. Telephone interview, April.
Levin, Bill. 2003. Senior Planner, City of San Diego, California.
Telephone interview, August.
Ojeda, Teresa, 2003. Planner, City of San Francisco, California.
Telephone interview, July.
_' 2003. Planner, City of San Francisco, California. Telephone
interview, August.
~ REF ERE N ( E 5 (continued)
LESSONS FROM LARGE CITIES. WHO IS BEING SERVED?
Fretz.Brown, Beverly. 2004. Director of Policy and Planning,
Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. Telephone inter-
view, June.
OTHER REFERENCES
Brown, Karen Destorel. 2001. Expanding Affordable Housing Through
Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons from the Washington Metropolitan
Area. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy.
Calavita, Nico and Kenneth Grimes. 1998. "Inclusionary Housing in
California: The Experience ofTwo Decades." Journal of the American
Planning Association. 64, no. 2 (spring): 155,
California Coalition for Rural Housing. 1994. Creating Affordable
Communities: Inclusionary Housing Programs in California.
Sacramento, CA: California Coalition for Rural Housing.
California Coalition for Rural Housing and Nonprofit Housing
Association of Northern California, 2003.lnclusionary Housing in
California: 30 Years of Innovation. San Francicso, CA: California
Coalition for Rural Housing and Nonprofit Housing Association of
Northern California.
Mason, Phil. 2003. Senior Planner, Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Telephone interview, June.
_' 2004. Senior Planner, Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Telephone interview, May.
National Housing Conference (NHC). 2002. "Inclusionary Zoning:
Lessons Learned in Massachusetts." NHC Affordable Housing Policy
Review. Washington, D.C.: National Housing Conference.
Paden, Liza. 2004. Assistant Land-Use Planner, Community
Development Department, City of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Telephone interview. April.
Pieropan, Cindy. 2004. Housing Planner, City of Boulder, Colorado.
Telephone interview, 2004.
Rosen, David Paul and Associates. 2002. City of Los Angeles Indusionary
Housing Study: Anal Report. Los Angeles, CA: Prepared by David Paul
Rosen and Associates for the Los Angeles Housing Department.
G)WEB RESOURCES
(from Inclusionary Housing, Part Two, by Nicholas J. Brunick; October 2004)
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FOR THE PUBLIC
INTEREST (BPI)
BPI is a Chicago-based citizen advocacy organization that uses a vari-
ety of approaches, including community organizing, litigation, policy
advocacy, and collaborations with civic, business, and community
organizations to address issues that affect the equity and quality of life
in the Chicago region. For more information visit www.bpichicago.org.
KNOWLEDGEPLEX
KnowledgePlex is a web resource implemented by the Fannie Mae
Foundation. The site is designed to support the efforts of practi-
tioners, grantors, policy makers, scholars, investors, and others
involved or interested in the fields of affordable housing and com-
munity development. Visitors to the site will find documents, news
items, discussion forums, and much more. For more information
visit www.knowledgeptex.org.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
OFFICIALS (NAHRO)
NAHRO is a leading housing and community development advocate for the
provision of adequate and affordable housing and strong, viable commu-
nities for all Americans-particularly those with low and moderate incomes.
NAHRO members administer HUD programs such as Public Housing,
Section 8, CDBG, and HOME. For more information visit www.nahro.org.
NATIONAL HOUSING CONFERENCE
The National Housing Conference is a coalition of housing leaders from
the private and public sectors. For more information visit www.nhc.org,
.~). " .~~_~. ;" ~':~~' o. _.< '_~o" ...~.__......~~~~~~~'(.--.:~:...:l' :j~:'~-l:\l:~:o~~:~',~1L~~~~~~~'~~';.:0 L.:\ '~~~~~.~~~:~'~-.1~J_~~~~~~
BY-LAWS
ARTICLE 1 - THE COMMISSION
Section A. The name of the Commission is the Housing and Community Development
Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, as established by Resolution No. 95-199 of the City Council
of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to Chapter 403A, Code of Iowa (1995),
ARTICLE 2 - PURPOSE
Section A, The purpose of the Commission is to assess Iowa City's community development
needs for housing, jobs, and services for low and moderate income residents, and to promote
public and private efforts to meet such needs.
ARTICLE 3 - DUTIES
Section A. Duties of the Commission shall include: 1) assess and review policies and
planning documents related to the provision of housing, jobs, and services.. for low and
moderate income residents of Iowa City; 2) review policies and programs of the Public
Housing Authority and Community Development Division and make recommendations
regarding the same to the City Councili 3) review and make recommendations to the City
Council regarding the use of public funds to meet the needs of low and moderate income
residentsi 41 actively publicize community development and housing policies and programs,
al1d seek public participation in assessing needs and identifying strategies to meet these
needs; 51 recommend to the City Council from time to time amendments, supplements,
changes, and modifications to the Iowa City Housing Code.
ARTICLE 4 - MEMBERSHIP
Section A. The Housing and Community Development Commission shall consist of nine (9)
members appointed by the City Council of Iowa City. All members shall be qualified electors
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and shall serve as such without compensation but shall be
entitled to the necessary expenses, including traveling expenses incurred in the discharge of
their duties.
Section B, In order to satisfy the purpose and intent of this citizen commission as required
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, when possible, at least one
person shall be appointed to the Housing and Community Development Commission with
expertise in construction and at least one person with expertise in finance. In addition, when
possible, the Commission shall include one person who is a member of the Local Homeless
Coordinating Board, and one person who receives rental assistance.
Section C. The term of office for each member shall be three (3) years. In order to ensure
a staggered turnover, initial appointments shall be three (3) members for each of one, two,
and three years respectively.
Section D. The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson will be elected annually (in September) from
the Commission membership, The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings,
appoint sub.committees with the approval of the Commission, call special meetings and in
general perform all duties included in the office of a Chairperson and such other duties as may
~O::"'"""
;-))
.
;,.
. ,
.' . .
.. _ ~.~.~: ~ ~ ._..~", ~::. .>_ ~. _~~ ~ "~"'~-:'~~':":~--i)~:~'';~ ~~:;'~:~:;::&.:.w'::-:Jr.~~v:.u'~'::lL;~:...~~...~~~~.~\r.C~~__~~~~_~~~~'"
2
be prescribed by the members from time to time, The Vice-Chairperson shall take over the
above duties of the Chairperson in the event of the Chairperson's absence.
Section E. Three (3) consecutive, unexplained absences of a member from regular meetings
will result in a recommendation to the City Council from the Commission to discharge said
member and appoint a new member.
Section F. If a position becomes vacant by reason of resignation or otherwise and results in
an unexpired term the Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that
the appointee shall continue in the position not only through the unexpired term but also
through a subsequent regular term.
ARTICLE 5 - MEETINGS
Section A, Meetings of this Commission shall be on a regular monthly basis. A meeting date
and time will be established by the Commission, A regular meeting may be cancelled if no
urgent business requires a meeting.
Section B. Special meetings of the Commission may be called by the Chairperson and shall
be called by the Chairperson at the request of a majority of the membership.
Section C. Meetings shall be held in an accessible, public meeting place. Notices of meetings
(agenda) for all regular and special meetings shalt be posted and distributed to members and
the media at least 24 hours before any meeting is held. All provisions of the State Open
Meeting law shall be followed, The Chairperson or a designated representative, together with
appropriate members of the City staff shall prepare an agenda for all meetings. Agendas shall
be sent to Commission members at least three (3) days prior to the regular meetings.
Section D, A majority of the members of the Commission (five or more) shall constitute a
quorum of any meeting and the majority of votes Gast at any meeting, at which a quorum is
present, shall be decisive of any motion or election.
Section E. There shall be no vote by proxy,
Section F. Time shall be made available dllring all regular meetings for open public discussion,
Section G, Minutes of all meetings shall be prepared and distributed to the City Council within
three (3) weeks of the meeting in the manner prescribed by the Council. Minutes of all regular
and special meetings will be mailed to all the Commission members during the week prior to
the next meeting. Specific recommendations for the Council shall be set off from the main
body of the minutes.
ARTICLE 6 - AMENDMENTS
Section A. The By-Laws of the Commission shall be amended only with the approval of at
least a majority of the Commission (at least five votesl at a regular meeting or a special
meeting,
Section B. Policy changes or By-Law changes may be adopted at the meeting following the
meeting at which open discussion was conducted on the specific changes.
ppdedbQ\bylaws.hcd
~
~~~~.., _-A....A--
.
.
&))