Loading...
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-- . . &))