HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-2006 Housing & Community Development Commission
AGENDA
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21,2006
6:30 P.M.
1. Call Meeting to Order
2. Approval of the August 15, 2006 Minutes
3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda
4. Nomination and Election of Officers
5. New Business
. Public Hearing & Approval of the FY06 Consolidated Annual
Performance & Evaluation Report (CAPER)
. Selection of Projects to Monitor in FY07
. Timeline for the Annual Review of the Consolidated Plan
6. Old Business
. Discussion of Design Standards for Federally Assisted Housing Projects
. Discussion of CDBG and HOME Investment Policies
. Discussion of CDBG & HOME Council Earmarks
7. Adjournment
! ~ 1
-~=-IlIt...
f~we~
~ ~..~
-.~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
September 17 , 2006
Housing and Community Development Commission
Community Development Staff
HCDC Meeting on September 21, 2006
This month we welcome Steve Crane to the commission. The following is a short description of the
September agenda items. If you have any questions about the agenda or if you are unable to attend
the meeting, please contact Tracy Hightshoe at 356-5244 or by email at tracy-hightshoe@iowa-
city.org.
Nomination & Election of Officers
Every September. the commission nominates and elects a Chair and Vice Chair. The commission
will nominate and vote for these two positions at this meeting.
New Business
. PubRc Hearing & Approval of the FY06 ConsoRdated Annual Pelfonnance Evaluation
Report (CAPER) The CAPER is a HUD required document that the City must submit to HUD
within 90 days of the end of the plan year. The report describes the federally funded activities
undertaken by the City and its partners, and the accomplishments for the federal fiscal year
2005. A draft of the CAPER is included in your packet for your review and comment. At this
meeting, we will be asking HCDC to approve the document for submission to HUD.
. Selection of Projects to Monitor. Each year commission members choose 3-4 projects to
monitor during the year. A list of projects is included in the packet. Please review and indicate
at the meeting which ones you would like to monitor for FY07.
. Timeline for the Annual Review of the Consolidated Plan (CITY STEPS)
We are in the process of reviewing our CITY STEPS Plan. Details will be forthcoming regarding
the number and locations of public meetings to solicit input regarding the Consolidated Plan.
The community meetings win taKe place before the October HCDC meeting. Last year meetings
were conducted HACAP and Mercer. HACAP focused on transitional housing and supportive
services for families and the meeting at Mercer focused on employmentlwork force issues.
FolloWing the community input meetings, HCDC will hold a public hearing at their October 19
meeting. If HCDC decides to recommend any formal budget amendment(s), the proposed
amendment(s) will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. We will keep you
posted on the dates and times of the meetings.
Old Business
. Oiscussion of Design Standards for "Federally Assisted Housing Projects. Enclosed are
draft guidelines for assisted single family and duplex homes. Staff emailed these guidelines to
local low income housing developers of single family/duplex homes and is in the process of
obtaining their feedbaCK. The purpose of the guidefines is to foster a positive public perception
of affordable housing by promoting homes that complement surrounding single family housing
styles. promote designs that may lessen neighborhood resistance to new housing projects and
ensures a quality design for the low incomehousehdlds that wifflivein the unit. Based on
commission input and approval. the guidelines would be submitted to Council for consideration
for FY08 housing projects.
. Discussion of COBG & HOME lnvestment PoRcies & Council Eannarks. Linda Severson,
JCCOG Human Services Coordinator, will be present to discuss the Aid-to-Agencies earmark
and the funding process for those agencies who receive funding. The commission will also
continue to discuss investment policies for CDBG/HOME funded projects.
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2006, 6:30 P.M.
FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER, GRANT WOOD SCHOOL
PRELIMINARY
Members Present:
Jerry Anthony, Marcy DeFrance, Holly Hart, Matthew Hayek, Brian Richman,
Michael Shaw
Members Absent:
William Greazel, Thomas Niblock
Staff Present:
Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long
Call to Order
Anthony called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Minutes
MOTION: Hayek moved to accept the minutes as written. Shaw seconded, and the motion carried on a
vote of 6-0.
Public Discussion
Long thanked the commission members for attending the Community Development Celebration event.
New Business
Discussion of CDBG and HOME Investment Policies and Council Earmarks
Long distributed the original policy resolutions for the commission members' reference. He said the
commission typically looks at the policies annually, and also talks to the agencies to see how well the
policies are working. Currently there are four earmarked amounts. 1) To cover administrative costs; this
amount is designated by HUD, 2) Aid to Agencies; this started in 1994 and combined with city funds
provides an allocation to approximately 14-16 human service agencies annually 3) economic
development funds, and 4) housing rehabilitation. These were all explained in the memo to the
commission members sent with the meeting packet.
Richman asked what the commission should be discussing in regards to the earmarks. Long said some
council members are questioning whether having the commission allocate $14K for public services is a
good use of the commission's time. The city has approximately 14 agencies the council funds through a
review and recommendation process. One issue with the council's process is that it is difficult for new
projects to get funding. On the other hand, though new projects are more likely to be funded through the
HCDC process, it takes a lot of time for the commission to allocate a small amount of money.
Long said he sees three options for the $14K. 1) The commission requests more funding for this
category, 2) the council takes over allocating the $14K along with the other $105K, or 3) leave things as
they are. He said the discussion is intended to find out the commission's view. The amount of money that
will be left over from those allocations in the future is unknown at this point, but it will probably be
approximately the same next year.
Hayek asked whether the amounts of money the council allocates are static. Long said usually a cost of
living increase is given every year, and the amount also depends on how long the agency has been on
the list. They are currently shifting into a performance-based system.
Richman asked how the council allocates the money. Long said there is no formal application, it is not
competitive or political. The council members who take care of the process review the agencies and
make a recommendation to the council on the amounts.
Hayek asked whether this system was set up to ensure stability for certain agencies, to consistently
receive an annual income. Long said the original purpose is unknown, as no documentation is available.
Hightshoe said that the funding is fairly stable, since the $1 05K taken off the top remains the same even
though total CDBG funding has been decreasing.
Long said there is a perception that there is double-dipping, because some agencies have several
different programs that could also receive funding through the commission's application process. He
noted that the HCDC process is much more public. Shaw asked if the list of agencies receiving money
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
August 15,2006
Page 2
from the council allocation is formally noted somewhere and available for review. Hightshoe said yes,
there is a list. Long said the commission could recommend that the council make its process more public.
Richman said the HCDC system is transparent and accountable. Long said at least one council member
would like more openness, and perhaps even an open hearing. Richman asked if it would be beneficial
for the agencies to have two application processes to deal with. Hayek said he does not have a problem
with having the council recapture the $14K. It does not make sense to have the HCDC take over such a
small amount. It would make mor!3 sense to give up the allocation of that part of the money completely, or
to get more money. $14K is not a good use of the commission's time.
Shaw noted that if the funding trend continues, soon the public services money that the commission
allocates would be gone. Hayek said it is good to have guidance and oversight of allocating the money.
Anthony agreed that the amount of money is not worth the amount of time it takes to allocate it.
Hayek said if the council continues to allocate the funds, opening more money to new agencies and
projects would be good. Richman said whether the amount of money will increase is unknown, and he is
unsure about whether sending all the money and allocation into an unknown system is a good idea. Shaw
said it would be easier to make an informed decision about this if the reason for the current system was
known. Richman agreed it is difficult to evaluate an unknown process and unknown list of agencies. It
does not make sense to put additional funds into an unknown system.
Shaw said the reasons for the current arrangement might be very good, but since they are unknown, it is
impossible to make that judgment. Richman said the options currently are to give the $14K back to
council, ask the council to give the commission more money for the public service category, or to continue
with the status quo. He added that he would prefer not to give up the money, but cannot decide between
the two other options.
Anthony asked if a decision could be deferred for now. Long said he would be talking to the council soon
regarding this topic. He said he has the impression that two council members believe it would be more
efficient for the council to handle all public service money. Richman said with the current level of funding,
that is correct, but things might change in five years as well.
Hightshoe said the amount could be determined by percentages instead of a set amount. Hayek said that
would defeat the purpose of the fund, if it were intended to provide a steady income stream to the
agencies. He asked if all agencies on the list are assured of funding. Long said no, the allocations are
becoming more performance based. Also, the list has been pruned in the past.
Richman said he would like to know more about the council process before deciding. Hayek asked staff to
let council know that HCDC shares their concerns about the current system efficiency, and are interested
to hear their thoughts on the purpose and process. Shaw said he would rather not have the funds go into
an unknown process. Long confirmed that the commission members prefer a transparent and competitive
process. Hayek noted that the other council members might not even want additional responsibility of the
fund allocation.
Hightshoe said the agencies on the list would be nervous about a competitive process. Long noted that
agencies on the bottom of the list would be happy about it. Richman said he does not have a big problem
with the status quo. However, a change might be beneficial to the agencies that receive the money. Hart
agreed she would like to know more about the process and intent behind it before making a
recommendation.
Richman summarized that the commission would like to know what agencies are currently on the list, how
new agencies get put on the list, and how decisions about distributing money are made. Hayek clarified
that he would like to know whether the percentages of funding for each agency change, and whether the
process is at all competitive. Also, what conventional wisdom drives the decision-making.
Anthony asked also for clarification on what happens if the council takes over allocation of the remaining
funds. Shaw asked whether the commission could ask the council to wait on making a decision until more
information is available. Long said the commission can request that. Hayek suggested asking the council
to make their process more open. Richman reiterated that the commission needs more information on the
current process before making a recommendation to council.
Economic Development
Long summarized the memo by saying though economic development funds are calculated at nine
percent of the total annual allocation, the money is actually only taken from CDBG allocation because
HOME funds cannot be used for this purpose. There is currently approximately $244K in the loan fund,
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
August 15, 2006
Page 3
and the CDBG allocation is shrinking. The commission could keep the current level of funding at nine
percent, but clarify that the percentage should be calculated from the CDBG allocation only. That would
reduce the amount of money going into the fund annually.
Anthony asked how long money can stay in the loan fund. Long said there is no time limit. Hightshoe said
the fund has not been marketed to potential applicants very much. She said the plan is to change the
focus and work with other lending institutions more and do gap funding, in order to find better-qualified
applicants. Richman said since not all the economic development money has been spent and this pot of
funding exists, it makes sense to decrease the annual allocation.
MOTION: Richman moved to recommend clarification of the City Council Resolution 01-367 to state that
nine percent allocation of funding for economic development be calculated using only the CDBG funds.
Hart seconded.
Hayek asked where housing contingency funds come from. Long said combined HOME and CDBG
money. He added that an asterisk with a note would be added to indicate the clarification. Hightshoe
asked if this would be intended for the upcoming allocation year, or the next. Long said 2007.
Hayek asked for clarification that approximately $140K is set aside for economic development every year.
Long said yes. Hightshoe said some was diverted one year to the Family Resource Center. Hayek asked
why there is money still in the loan fund. Long said that the regulations governing the funds can be a
deterrent, but marketing the program will help increase awareness and interest in it. Hightshoe said the
hope is to do more business expansions and gap funding, ultimately to decrease the risk the City takes
when awarding funding to a business and provide permanent, stable jobs to low-to-moderate income
persons.
Anthony asked what the application process is to receive funds. Hightshoe said applications go to the
Economic Development Commission. Long said it is not very competitive because there are relatively few
applications. He added that since the nine percent is currently based on both CDBG and HOME funds, it
turns out that approximately 15 percent of CDBG funds go into economic development.
Richman said it seems as though the program is not being utilized well, so it would make sense to put
money where it can be allocated. Anthony said he is also concerned that there is no limit on how long
money can remain in the fund. Richman said guesses can be made on the original intent of the policy, but
the question is what the best decision would be for the current situation.
Long said the original intent was to set up a pool of money that prospective businesses could tap into. It
would be a revolving loan fund, so applications could be taken at any time. Shaw asked how applicants
would be affected by this clarification. Long said ultimately less money would go into the fund, so less
money would be available over time. Hightshoe said the applications that have been funded in the past
have typically been about $25K to $30K.
Richman said that based on the current information, decreasing the amount going into the loan fund
would have no significant effect. At this time, though, there is enough money to fund the current demand.
He added if there is a need for more funds at a later date, further adjustments could be made then. Hayek
asked whether word about the fund has been communicated. Long said yes, ICAD knows. Hightshoe said
a campaign has not gone out to lenders, however. Hayek said he is concerned whether the demand will
remain the same if advertising increases.
Hightshoe said it would reduce the amount flowing into the fund. Shaw suggested making changes if
demand has not changed after two years of increased marketing. Hayek said it would make sense to
market it more, and then if there is no increase in activity, reduce the amount going in. Richman said that
the availability of economic development funds is only part of a decision to start a small business. He said
marketing the program might not increase the number of applicants.
VOTE: Richman's motion carried on a vote of 5-1, Hayek dissenting.
CDBG and HOME Program Investment Policies
Long said that the current policy designates a zero percent loan for non-profit organizations (NPO)
providing rental services. This is good for programs with an income from rent, which can be used to pay
back the loans. However, HACAP cannot pay back loans since they house homeless families who
generally do not have incomes. Staff is recommending the policy to be tweaked to allow for Conditional
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
August 15, 2006
Page 4
Occupancy Loans (COL). As long as the organization is providing the services specified in the loan
agreement, the funding would be considered a grant.
Anthony asked for confirmation that the NPO would have to pay back the loans if they stop operations or
move. Long said yes. He noted that tweaking the policy in this way could decrease the amount of money
being recycled back through the system through loan repayment revenue.
Hayek asked who would get COLs. Long said public facilities. He added that some agencies with income
streams could pay back their loans with interest, but the system does not have the flexibilities to address
that side either. The intent is to try to sustain programs and also support the NPOs.
Hayek asked if any other groups besides HACAP would qualify for this. Hightshoe said possibly DVIP.
Richman asked whether HUD defines the term "transitional housing." Long said yes, the maximum stay in
this type of housing is 24 months, during which time residents meet with counselors to work on stabilizing
their situation and generating income. DeFrance asked what happens if an agency cannot pay back a
loan. Long said foreclosure is an option, though it is likely the loan would be forgiven.
DeFrance asked why one organization would receive special terms. Long said it would be good to be able
to evaluate each organization's ability to repay the loan individually. Right now the policy does not have
that flexibility. Hayek asked whether Emergency Housing would also fall in this category. Long said yes,
that type of housing usually receives declining balance loans or COls.
Shaw asked whether the commission could recommend reevaluation of the policy, to allow discretion on
what type of loan to apply. Anthony asked whether this flexibility existed in policies before. Long said yes.
Richman said it sounds likes the commission should reevaluate the policies as a whole, rather than
piecemeal. He said the other effect of this sort of policy revision is that the commission would have to
decide what kind of loan each project would get at the time of allocation decisions, which would take time.
Long said applicants can always ask for an amendment from council after the loan is given, though that is
not widely known. Shaw agreed that it would make more sense to look at the policies overall. There are
overarching issues that come along with discretionary power. Anthony agreed with having the
commission revisit the issue later in a larger context.
Hightshoe asked whether the commission members would like staff to do a preliminary evaluation and
make a suggestion to the commission, or if the commission would like to discuss it. Hayek said he would
prefer to have staff provide a starting point. Shaw said he would also like to know what the impact would
be on staff if a revised policy were adopted.
Discussion of Design Standards for Federally Assisted Housing Projects
Hightshoe noted this was discussed briefly at a previous meeting. There are currently no set standards
for staff to use when evaluating housing proposals. The agreements state that the city must approve the
design before the developer can obtain a building permit, but yet provides no base standards to evaluate
the designs submitted. The code currently has basic design standards for multi-family housing, but not
for single family/duplex homes. These guidelines are intended to ensure that the house fits into the
neighborhood. She suggested having staff work with the Planning and Zoning Commission to create a
proposal for HCDC to evaluate.
Shaw left at this point.
Long said the intent is not for staff to police designs, but there have been some complaints about funded
housing that does not blend into the neighborhood. Having standards would give staff some leverage
when raising concerns with the developers.
Hart asked whether the problems have been with the house design or the neighbors. Hightshoe said
both. Long said some houses have obviously not fit in. Hayek said having staff present a proposal for
review is fine. He stated though standards might increase the price, housing should blend with the
neighborhood where it is placed. Hightshoe said if a subsidized housing in a neighborhood does not "fit"
in, it can create resistance in other neighborhoods as well. The purpose of basic design standards would
hopefully be to reduce neighborhood resistance to affordable housing as well as not stigmatize the house
as "assisted."
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
August 15, 2006
Page 5
Shaw returned at this point.
Anthony recommended having staff explore the idea and come back to the commission with a proposal.
He confirmed these would be part of the contract with the developer receiving the funds. Hightshoe said
yes. She added staff would like to have this in place for the fiscal year 2008 projects.
Old Business
Amendment to HCOC Bylaws, Specifically Article 4 Section B, Article 6, and Application Form
Anthony noted this is the mandatory second discussion on whether to change the bylaws. Hightshoe
reviewed the discussion of the option to remove reference to HUD, leave preferences as currently stated,
but remove reference to the Local Homeless Coordinating Board representative.
Hayek asked about potential conflicts of interest with commission members who have received rental
assistance. Richman suggested recusing those people from the relevant parts of the allocation
discussion. Anthony noted that rental assistance discussion also has impact on the overall decisions, so
recusing from parts of the meetings would not be effective. Hayek noted it would be very unlikely to have
someone involved in the commission with that particular conflict of interest.
Hart asked if there was a reason to remove the category questions. Hightshoe said they are not required
as well some may feel they are too personal or should be considered private.
MOTION: Hayek moved to amend the bylaws to remove the reference to HUD, remove the Local
Homeless Coordinating Board representative, leave all other preferences as stated, and remove the
demographics questionnaire section of the application, except for low income. DeFrance seconded, and
the motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
Monitoring Reports
Johnson County Permanent Supportive Housing LP - Affordable Rental (FY06)
Hightshoe reported they did receive a tax credit and plan to begin building soon. There are some access
issues because of the highway, but financing is arranged.
Housing Fellowship - Affordable Homeownership (FY03 and FY06)
Hightshoe reported the money has been spent for FY03, purchasing two duplexes. They also purchased
and renovated a house on Stanford Avenue.
Housing Fellowship - Affordable Rental (FY05 and FY06)
Hightshoe reported that they are currently looking for lots for FY06.
Adiournment
MOTION: Hayek moved to adjourn. Shaw seconded and the motion carried on a vote of 6-0. The meeting
was adjourned at 8: 15.
s/pcd/minutes/H C DC/2006/08-1 5-06 He DC .doc
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) consists of nine Iowa
City residents appointed by the City Council. They represent, as nearly as possible, a
cross-section of the Iowa City population in background, ideas, geographic location, age
and socioeconomic status. Committee members serve for three years.
The purpose of HCDC is to advise the Council on community needs in general and on the
use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment
Partnership program (HOME) funds from a citizen viewpoint. To accomplish this HCDC
provides systematic communication between citizens and policymakers with regard to
community development projects. The Commission's work has been primarily directed at
developing, coordinating, and reviewing the City's activities carried out in conjunction
with the City's Consolidated Plan (CITY STEPS). In addition, the Commission reviews
the Community Development Division and Iowa City Housing Authority policies and
periodically makes recommendations to the Council regarding these policies.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2006
. In FY06 the City of Iowa City and its subrecipients expended $1,183,491 in CDBG
funds and $855,111 in HOME funds to assist low-moderate income persons. To
ensure that community needs are met, HCDC members monitored projects
throughout the year. HCDC members also organized the annual Iowa City
Community Development Celebration that featured an awards ceremony honoring
outstanding CDBG and HOME recipients and volunteer contributions. The 2006
Celebration was held at Grant Wood Elementary.
The FY06 project accomplishments are as follows:
. Economic Development Fund - Loparex Inc. (underway)
. Micro-Enterprise Property Acquisition - Extend the Dream Foundation (17 persons)
. Operational Support - Aid to Human Service Agencies (5,835 people)
. Emergency Assistance - Shelter House (10 households)
. Facility Rehabilitation - Goodwill Industries, Inc. (94 people)
. Facility Accessibility - Emma Goldman Clinic (5,230)
. Facility Rehabilitation/Historic Preservation - Old Brick
. Safety Improvements - Wesley Foundation for the Free Lunch Program (525 people)
. Facility Rehabilitation - Wesley Foundation for the Free Lunch Program (525 people)
. Facility Rehabilitation - Domestic Violence Intervention Program (1,713 persons)
. Facility Rehabilitation - Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County (1,778 persons)
. Accessibility Improvements - Hillel Student Center (underway)
. Facility Rehabilitation - Planned Parenthood (underway)
. Facility Rehabilitation - FY05 United Action for Youth (underway)
. New Construction - FY05 Wood Family Resource Center (completed)
. Housing Rehabilitation - City ofIowa City (38 households)
. Affordable Home Ownership - Habitat for Humanity purchased two lots
. Affordable Home Ownership - The Housing Fellowship purchased one lot
. Transitional Housing - Hawkeye Area Community Action Program purchased three units
. Affordable Rental Units - Extend the Dream Foundation purchased three units
+ Tenant Based Rent Assistance - Iowa City Housing Authority (29 elderly/disabled
households)
+ Affordable Rental Units - River City Housing Collective (Applicant Withdrew)
+ Administration - CDBG & HOME
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
A total of $1 ,488,062 was allocated to 16 projects, plus program administration for FY07.
The following is a list of the FY07 projects:
+ Economic Development Fund - City of Iowa City
+ Facility Rehabilitation - 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
+ Case Management - Iowa City Free Medical Clinic
+ Outreach Coordinator - Shelter House
+ Operational Funding - Compeer
+ Operational Funding - Extend the Dream Foundation
+ Operational Funding - Visiting Nurse Association
+ Aid to Human Service Agencies - MECCA, VA Y, ESI
+ Affordable Homeownership -Habitat for Humanity
+ Tenant Based Rent Assistance - Iowa City Housing Authority
+ Housing Rehabilitation - City of Iowa City
+ Program Administration & Planning
The monitoring of all ongoing projects as well as FY07 projects will continue. The
commission will continue 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.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Jerry Anthony, Chair
Brian Richman, Vice Chair
Steve Crane
Marcy DeFrance
Holly Jane Hart
Matt Hayek
Kelly Mellecker
Tom Niblock
Michael Shaw
List of FY07 Projects for Monitoring
FY07 CDBG/HOME PROJECTS FUNDED AMOUNT MONITOR MONTH
Case Management - Iowa City Free Medical Clinic $4,900 October
Outreach Coordinator - Shelter House $4,900 October
Tenant Based Rent Assistance - Iowa City Housing Aut:l1_~~_ $200,000 November
--
Playground Improvements - Grant Wood Elementary $56,437 November
Facility Rehabilitation - Community Mental Health Center $18,280 December
Facility Rehabilitation - The Arc of Johnson County $2,852 December
Fadlity Rehabilitation - MECCA $22,000 December
Facility Rehabilitation - Domestic Violence Intervention Proaran $6 400 January
Operational Exoenses - Visitina Nurse Association $2,500 January
Operational Expenses - Compeer $1.000 Janu~~
Operational Exoenses - Extend the Dream Foundation ~---- $1.000 ---- e--- April
Elder Services Inc. UAY. MECCA - Aid To Aaendes* $105.000 April
Affordable HomeownershiD - Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity $220.000 May
Housina Rehabilitation - City of Iowa City* $279021 Mav
Economic Develooment Fund - City of Iowa City* $141000 JU!l~
New Construction - Four Oaks $200 000 June
CARRYOVER PROJECTS
Land ACQuistion - Shelter House (FY04) $230,000 October
Planned Parenthood - Facility Rehab. (FY06) $10,000 October
Hillel Student Center - Accessibility (FY06) $10,000 November
Affordable Home Ownership- GICHF (03) $102,000 November
UAY - Facility Rehab. (FY05) $30,000 November
Affordable Rental - Whisoerino Garden (FY04) $144,303 January
GICHF/ICHA Rental Construction (FYOS) $190,000 January
HACAP - Transitional Housina (FY06) $300,000 -- April
GICHF - Rental (FY06) $175,000 May
GICHF - Homeownership (FY06) $181,200 June
JC Penm. SUDD. Housino L.P. - Rental (FY06) !t275 000 June
Affordable Housing Design
Guidelines
September 2006
~~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Community Development
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
319.356.5230
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5
1 PURPOSE
APPLICATION & REVIEW
2 PROVISION A: BUILDING LOCATION
PROVISION B: BUILDING MASS, SCAL
PROVISION C: PEDESTRIAN ACCES
PROVISION D: INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY
3 PROVISION E:
4 PROVISION F:
6
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES
(For New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation of Single-Family and Duplexes/Attached
Single Family Housing Units)
APPLICATION AN
single-family
positive
n of single-
ements surrounding single-
eighborhood interaction, and
e housing unit.
PURPOSE: The City of Iowa City's Affordable Housing Desi
framework for developers utilizing Community Developm
Partnership funding for new construction or substanti eha
and duplex/attached single family homes. The p
public perception of affordable housing by promoting
family and attached single family homes in a manner that
family housing styles, encourages a stre e which prom
ensures a quality design for the low incom that will Ii
ilding permit, a site plan, building floor
amily uses funded by the City of Iowa City,
and Community Development (PCD). PCD
ditional staff representatives from Housing and
ce with the Design Guidelines.
These guidelines are in [tion to the requirements in the zoning code. If the provisions of these
guidelines are inconsistent with one another or if they conflict with provisions found in other adopted
ordinances, resolutions, or regulations of the City, the provision that is more specific to the situation will
control. When regulations are equally specific or when it is unclear which provision to apply, the more
restrictive provision will control.
Affordable Housing Design Guidelines
1
PROVISION A:
PROVISION B:
PROVISION C:
PROVISION D:
BUILDING LOCATION
All principal and accessory structures within a City of Iowa City
funded development site shall be located on the lot in a manner
consistent with the majority of single-family residential structures
in the vicinity.
BUILDING MASS, SCALE AND ROOF
As viewed from the street on which the fron
proportion of the building height to width
same proportions of other buildings 0
height of new structures should r
and, the overall height at the
proximity.
ance is oriented, the
d be compatible with the
Generally, floor to floor
ingle-family homes;
es within close
roof line alterations if
ion so long as the alteration
Cling neighborhood. False gables
itted to ensure the consistency of roof style.
wide paved pedestrian path shall be
e primary pedestrian entrance of a single-family
ay and/or sidewalk. Minimum three (3) foot-
d pedestrian paths shall be provided from the primary
n entrances of each unit in a duplex/attached single
development to a driveway and/or sidewalk. If the
lex/attached single family units have a shared entrance or
both open into the same porch, one path shall be provided.
INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY
To the extent possible, multiple financially assisted homes constructed
adjacent to, or in close proximity to each other should exhibit
distinguishing characteristics - regardless of whether they utilize the same
floor plan. Acceptable alternatives may include varying roof pitches and
Affordable Housing Design Guideines
2
orientation, window arrangement, porch arrangement, varying materials,
etc. so long as such alternatives do not conflict with the other design
elements addressed within this document.
Figure 5:
PROVISION E:
Individual Identity:
BUILDING ENTRANCE &
,fill be provid~
es in order to promote
nit and lot unless the
'n entrance is not
ain entrances to ground
must be clearly demarcated by one
porch or canopy, transom and
and pediment, or other significant
atmentat emphasizes main entrances. Simple
ay does not meet this standard.
-Fam y.
imary pedestrian entrance to a new single-family residential
or home to be rehabilitated shall face the street.
plex and Attached Single Family Dwellings.
he primary pedestrian entrance must follow the applicable zoning
code.
3
A. EE ~rrrm EH
- n--
Ii_B_ I B:JJ
~~~:::~~~^::~=~.::^.-".'.. '
FIGURE 1
---..-
B. ____
. --
A. Yes. Both units within this duplex have their own entranc
simulate a single family home, including size and scale.
B. No. The doors of these duplex units face the side yard i
building is oriented toward the street.
gle family
ew construction if porches are
are on structures directly
rch of structures to be
struction shall be a full facade,
or wrap a "'Jind porch epending on the design of single-
the vicini. . Alternative porch arrangements may be
no predo ant style exists. A porch may be omitted
de only if such an omission is necessary in
unit consistent with surrounding homes of similar
which face the street or other public spaces, window
Ings shall be similar in rhythm, size and proportion to that of the
ajority of single-family homes in the vicinity. Window proportions shall
be compatible with the architectural style of the house.
At least 15% of any street facing fa<;ade must be windows or pedestrian
entryway doors. Windows in garage doors to not count towards meeting
this standard, but windows in a garage wall do count towards meeting this
standard.
4
PROVISION G:
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS
Exterior surface materials, excluding the roof, shall be compatible with
that of other buildings on the block except synthetic siding may be used if
complementary to the majority of single-family homes surrounding the lot.
Exterior walls of buildings that are not prim
have a durable foundation consisting
concrete that extends at least two fee
sonry or stucco, must
stucco, or dressed
Exposed, unpainted or unst
fa~ade that faces a street..,
or masonry such that trim is
n of the building.
or wall material used on the side of a
al than what is used on the street-facing wall,
wall material must wrap around the corners to the sides
fleast three feet.
S & OTHER OUTBUILDINGS
arage is not a required building element. When utilized,
ached 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 he
recessed a minimum of three (3) feet behind the front building
facade (including the porch) and, shall not occupy more than
fifty (50) percent of the length of the street facing facade.
3. Detached garages shall be of a similar height as garages on
adjacent lots, shall have a roof pitch similar to that of adjacent
garages and shall be of a scale that is subordinate to the
5
principal residential structure.
PROVISION I:
VEHICULAR ACCESS
Vehicular access to the assisted property shall be consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood.
PROVISION J:
UTILITY PLACEMENT
Electric and gas meters serving new co
street facing building fayade. Every
electric and gas meters to a no
dwelling unit to be substanti
6
nil Center jor Community Change
Housing Trust Fund Pr
Portland Advocates Win Tax Increment
Set-Aside for Housing
Portland's Affordable Housing
Now! coalition was victorious
in getting tlle City Council
to pass unanimously a resolution
esta blishing a tax increment financ-
ing set aside for the development,
preservation, and rehabilitation of
housing. The funds must be used for
housing that is affordable to house-
holds with incomes no higher than
80% of the area median income.
The Coalition has cQntinued to
work with the Portland City Coun-
cil to commit City general funds to
meet the housing needs of the lO'vvest
income Portlanders, winning $5.4
million from the City's FY 2006-07
budget.
The urban renewal resolution
instructs the City's redevelopment
agency, the Portland Development
Commission, to work in partnership
with the Bureau of Housing and
Community Development, the
Office of 1\1anagement and Finance,
the Housing and Community
Development Commission,
Affordable Housing Now! and
other interested stakeholders to
develop and present to Council
by September 1,2006 either an
implementation plan to create such a
set aside fund or other options
to ensure guaranteed funding for
affordable housing.
Creating an urban renewal set
aside for affordable housing has
been a central target of Affordable
Housing NO'V! since the coalition's
inception four years ago. Afforda ble
Housing NO'V! supporters turned
out in large numbers for the hearing,
\vith representatives ti'ol1J the
Community Development Network,
City Club ofPortbnd, Stand for
Children, the Coalition for a Livable
COIlt/lIller! 01/ page 2
-,
Indianapolis City/County Council Finds Revenue for
Marion County Housing Trust Fund ............3
Iowa Commits Funds to Sustain the State
Housing Trust Fund ..............5
New Jersey's Special Needs Housing Trusl Fund
Completes Its First Year ........... ........... 6
Montgomery County, Maryland Issues Annual Report
on Housing Iniliative Fund........ ..... . .. B
lowcountry Housing Trust in Charleston, South
Carolina Brings Innovation to the Region.. 10
o
~
2
o
~
~
~
~
as
~
~
~
z
~
~
The Jigsaw Puzzle.
PORTLAN 0 (OI/fi/I//<'d/j'o;/I fillg" J
Future, and tenant leaders from the
Community Alliance of Tenants.
i\1emhers of A ffonLlblc I lousing
NO\N! are extremely pleased
with provisions of the resolution
specifying that alloC<ltion guidelines
meet the housing needs of people
in each income category: extremely
low income, very low income, and
low income. The resolution also
requires the Portland Develo"pment
Commission to work with the
Bureau of Housing and Community
Development and the City Auditor
to both report on tax increment
financing spending and revenues
for rental and ownership housing at
each income range for the past ten
years, as well as the budgeted and
projected tax increment financing
spending for housing in each income
group over the next five years against
projected revenues for that period.
At the same time, the Portland City
Council passed a second resolution
making a commitment to address the
decline in children in the Portland
public school system. Increasing
families in inner neighborhoods
will not only help Portland public
schools and their levels of funding,
but will reduce the pressure on
outlying districts increasingly
confronted with overcrowding. A
Portland State University study
of households who moved in mid-
year from the Portland public
school district found that 76% of
respondents identified their former
housing as a factor in their decision
to move. Moreover, some 1,620
students in the public school district
are attending school as their families
experience homelessness at some
point during the school
year. Finally, the Council notes
that about 41 'X, of ,111new housing
units constructed in Portland over
a four-year period received some
kind of assist,111ce from the City,
underscoring the importance of
the City increasing its resources
committed to afforcbble housing.
Setting aside a portion of tax
increment financing revenues will,
of course, help in reaching these
goals. Homeownership costs in
Portland have soared, increasing
by 92% bet\veen 1995 and 2005,
while median incomes increased by
only 59cYcl. Some 43 % of the City's
population is rent-burdened, p,lying
more than 30% of their income for
housing costs. One in five Portland
households spends more than half of
their income for housing.
The Resolution states that the
Portland Development Commission
will prioritize revenues from
all Urban Renewal Districts for
affordable housing in accordance
,vith adopted City housing priorities
including "Home Again: A 10-
Year Plan to End Homelessness in
Portland and1\1ultnomah County,"
No Net Loss of affordable housing
in the Centra] City, the Affordable
I-lousing Preservation Ordinance,
ancl the minority homeownership
campaIgn.
Affordable Housing NO\i\!!
is a coali tion of marc than 40
organizations, including civic
organizations, nonprofit housing
developers and member-driven
community groups whose goals
are to secure new resources for
affordable housing for the Portland
Metro area by building a movement
COlltillued a/I piTge /2
Indianapolis City/County Council Finds Revenue
for Marion County Housmg Trust Fund
The Indianapolis City-
County Council approved
an ordinance that provides
the first permanent and regular
funding source for the Indianapolis/
Marion County I-lousing Trust
Fund. The new source is revenue
associated with the electronic filing
of property sales disclosure forms.
This funding source is expected to
generate as much as $300,000 every
year for the trust fund.
The Indianapolis/Marion County
Housing Trust Fund was created
in 2000 by an act of the state
legislature. The Housing Trust
provides financial assistance to low
income families and individuals to
either rent or purchase a home;
makes grants, loans, and loan
guarantees for the development,
rehabilitation, or financing of
housing for low income families and
individuals; and provides technical
assistance to nonprofit developers
who specialize in affordable
housing. At least half of the Funds
allocated for housing Illust be for
units to be occupied by those whose
incomes are at or below 50% of the
county's median income. Funds
may also be used to cover expenses
of administering the housing trust
fund.
The state legislature authorized
the establishment of a housing
trust fund advisory committee.
The committee consists of eleven
members and includes appointments
from the l\1ayor's Office, the
J\1etropolitan Development
Commission, the Coalition for
Homeless Intervention and
Prevention of Greater Indianapolis,
Local Initiatives Support
Corporation, Indianapolis Coa Ii tion
for Neighborhood Development,
and the Indianapolis Neighborhood
Housing Partnership. The
committee makes recommendations
to the Metropolitan Development
Commission regarding uses of the
housing trust fund and sources of
capital for the fund.
A subcommittee of the Advisory
Committee has spent the last year
researching potentia] funding
options for the Fund. In 2004,
Mayor Bart Peterson directed the
first $500,000 of a promised $2
million to the trust fund. Revenues
came from the transfer of the
former l\1arket Square Arena site to
corpqpte development interests for
development of condominium and
retail development.
In the summer of 2005, the Fund
awarded $300,000 in grants to
three local organizations. Each
organization received $100,000 and
a matching $250,000 grant from
the Central Indiana Community
Foundation. These three projects
COlltillIlCt! Oil piI,ge-l
3
INDIANAPOLIS (OllfhIllCdfiOl!! pflge'
will assist more than 100 Ellnilies
who are either experiencing housing
crises or homelcssness. 'rhe Central
Indian;l Community Foundation's
Family Success Initi;llive is ,1 six-
ye;lr COl1lmitment to eng,lge thc
cOlllll1unity in developing the next
generation of productive citin:ns hy
improving the lives offamilies. The
Housing 'lhlSt Fund h;ls received
donations from other priva te
COrpOl"<ltlons,
In May 2006, a coalition of
community partners launched
"A I-Iome \Vithin Reach," ,1
public awareness drive calling for
permanent and reliable revenue
sources for the IIousing Trust Fund
that will total five million dollars
per ye,lr. '['he Ilousing'T'rust Fund
currently has $] .4 milli<lll in funds
,1\'ailahle, hut housing advoC<1tes
and elected offici,lls ,llike have
recognir,ed the need for ;111 ongoing
dedicated source of puhlic funding.
Mayor B,1rl Peterson pr,lisec1 the
City-County Council for approving
the ordinance and called the new
funding mechanism "a good start."
But he made it dear that he would
work with community development
leaders and homelessness advocates
to continue to look for new ways to
generate more revenue for the
fund. He also praised the "A T Tome
\Vithin Re;1Ch" public awareness
drive for raising avvareness about the
importance of funding alTordahlc
housing initi,ltives.
Contoct Don Shepley, (oo!itionlor Homcless Inlervclrlion ond
Prevention 01 Greoler Indionopolis, 960 Eosl Woshington Slreet,
Suite 200B, Indionopolis, IN 46202 (317-630-0853) www.
AHomcWithinRcoch. (1[9.
Percent increase required in hourly wage to afford a
2-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent
Percent increase required since 1998
45% ---------.----------- - --- ---- -----.--- --.------------ --------- -----------.-.--.------------
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
00/0
1998 199920002001 200220032004200520062007200820092010
MAnION COUNTY
.1 i . { f I ~ L j '-, !
A HOME W"ITHIN REACH
FMR Hourly wage %
Year (2-BR apt) needed increase
1998 $535 $10.29 0%
1999 $545 $10.48 2%
2000 $559 $10.75 4%
2001 $578 $11.12 8%
2002- $588 $11.31 10%
2003 $592 $11.38 11%
2004 $655 $12.60 220/0
2005 $673 $12.94 26%
2006 $687 $13.21 28%
2007 $701 $13.48 31%
2008 $715 $13.75 34%
2009 $729 $14.02 36%
2010 $743 $14.29 39%
Since 1998, the hourly wage needed to afford a 2-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent (FMR) has increased by 26 percent
(as of 2005). If FMR continues to increase at the same rate, that percentage will jump to 39 percent by 2010, making the
hourly wage needed to afford a 2-bedroom apartment at FMR $14.29. The table above shows the estimated increases in
FMR and the corresponding increases in hourly wage needed to afford the FMR.
For more information about the Housing Trust Fund, please visit www.AHomeWithinReach.org or call 317.630.0853.
4
5/9/06
www.AHomeWithinReach_org
Iowa Commits Additional Funds to Sustain
the State Housing Trust Fund
The Iowa Housi ng 'Eust
Fund Network succeeded
in securing funds to
sustain operation of the state's
lJousing 'Thlst hllld for FY2007.
Approximately $2J million will
be available through the trust
fund. ]'he Appropriation bill also
contains intent language to continue
funding with $1.S million in FY2008
increasing to $S million in FY2010.
The Iowa Legislature created
the State Housing lJ:ust Fund in
2002 to help ensure decent, safe,
affordable housing for Iowans
through two important programs,
The Local Housing 11:ust Fund
Program receives 60 percent of
the trust fund allocation to provide
grants for communities, counties
and organizations that wish to
create a local housing trust fund.
The remaining 40 percent goes
to the Project-Based Program
that aids the development and
rehabilitation of single-family and
multi-family housing. The Iowa
Finance Authority administers both
programs and provides technical
assistance to housing-related
organizations.
The Network was formed by
affordable housing advocates in
October 2001. The Network is
composed of representatives from
local housing trust funds, nonprofit
housing developers and providers,
governmental entities and business
interests that support affordable
housing activities throughout the
state. The Network is working to
secure permanent sources of revenue
for the State Housing Trust Fund
and develop revenue streams for
local housing trust funds.
The 200S Iegishtive
session hegan with I louse
File 8KO \\hich passed
unanimously in the
House of Representatives
in April 200S. HF 880
would h:1\'e dedicated
revenues from the sta te's
real esta te transfer tax to
the housing trust fund.
In 2006, the bill was
replaced with SF 2387
which allowed for a transfer of
funds in the Housing Improvement
Fund to the State Housing Trust
Fund. The Housing Improvement
Fund has been underutilized as a
home buyer assistance program. The
bill also allowed for appropriated
funds to the Iowa Finance Authority
for designated fiscal years into the
future. The legislature ultimately
refused to forward fund the
program, but left the intent language
in the Appropriations bill. The
Network is asking the Iowa Housing
Finance Agency to fully fund the
total of requests received for both
the Local Housing Trust Fund and
the Project-Based Programs.
All funds going to the Local
Housing Trust Fund Program must
be matched by local dollars. All
projects must serve low income
households with at least 30% of the
funds serving extremely low-income
households. The local trust fund
must have a local governing board
recognized by the city, county,
council of governments or regional
officials as the board responsible
for coordinating local housing
programs. As part of the approval
HOllsillg 7!-1I.\'t FUlld of.7o!Jmoll COllllt)' Presidellt Am)'
Correia (I'it!.> t/x A/ifa7lli/)' at the IowlI Valle)' Habitllt
for Hllwallit), home assisted with HTFJCflmds.
process, the local housing trust fund
must have a Housing Assistance
Plan approved by the Iowa Finance
Authority.
The Iowa State Housing Trust
Fund has generated interest in local
housing trust fund development
throughout the state. The program
has funded local housing trust funds
in Dallas County, Polk County,
Scott County, Johnson County,
Dubuque, Floyd County, Oskaloosa
and the Iowa Northland Regional
I-lousing Council. In addition,
other local housing trust funds have
now been certified. In FY2004
and 200S, nearly $3.5 million was
committed through the programs
to address critical housing needs
throughout the state. The Iowa
Housing Trust Fund Network is
building into a formidable force and
will continue in its effort, working in
collaboration with the Iowa Housing
and Homeless Coalition, to secure
ongoing funding for the state's
Housing Trust Fund.
Contact: Sheila lumley, Iowa Housing Trust Fund Network, c/o
Polk County Housing Trust Fund, 409 SW 8th Street. Des Moines,
IA 50309 (515.282.3233).
5
New Jersey's Special Needs Housing Trust Fund
Completes lts First Year
New Jersey's $200 million
Special Needs I-lousing
Trust Fund is already
demonstrating its ability to meet a
goal of helping create 10,000 new
affordable housing opportunities for
people with mental illness and other
special needs across New Jersey over
the next ten years. This landmark
legislation was signed into law by
acting Governor Richard Codey in
August of 2005.
The Special Needs Housing Ti:ust
Fund is administered by the New
Jersey Housing Mortgage and
Finance Agency and is supported
by bonds issued by the New Jersey
Economic Development Authority
through its existing- unused bond
capacity. The bonds will be
supported with the commitment
of proceeds from motor vehicle
surcharges, including unsafe driving
surcharges. The Authority has
issued the first $50 million bond for
the Special Needs Housing Tmst
Fund.
The funds are to be used to develop
permanent supportive housing,
community residences and other
supportive housing arrangements
for people with special needs,
including mental illness and physical
or developmental disabilities. It is
intended to ensure that individuals
with special needs have access to
meaningful housing alternatives
to avoid institutionalization and
homelessness.
The Trust Fund represents a limited
resource with a large mandate. To
6
ensure that the TJ:l1st Fund proceeds
are expended in the most efficient
manner that most positively imp,lcts
the intended beneficiaries, the
New Jersey Housing Mortgage and
Finance Agency has established a
list of policy priorities for the 'n'ust
Fund. These include:
.
Providing permanent
supportive housing and
residential opportunities for
persons with menta] illness.
Leveraging Trust Fund
capital financing. The Fund
will give priority to those
applications that require no
more than 50% of the total
development cost to come
from the Trust Fund.
Addressing the needs of very
low-income people with
special needs. It is the intent
of the fund to use 75% of its
proceeds for those earning
no more than 30% of the
area median income.
Meeting locally determined
priorities described in the
Continuum of Care Plan.
Meeting State of New Jersey
determined priorities for
underserved populations in
the State Consolidated Plan.
Maximizing long-term
affordability for at least
thirty years.
Minimizing temporary or
permanent displacement.
Demonstrating good and
appropriate project location,
siting and design.
Containing development
costs.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Since August 2005 when the Trust
Fund was created, 31 projects have
been awarded more th,l11 $31 million
in funds for construction and/or
permanent fInancing from the
Special Needsf10using lhlst Fund.
This funding has leveraged an
additional $28,329,623 from other
State, Federal and I()cal sources.
All of the projects funded with the
l)"ust Fund have an identified source
of rental assistance. The rental
assistance may come fr0111 the state's
Department of Community Affairs
Project Based Rental Assistance
Program, the Department of
Human Services Rental Assistance
Program, HUD Shelter Plus or the
811 Program, or even local public
housing authorities. In addition,
each development has some source
of funding for supportive services.
The total number of units/beds that
will be created with the committed
funding to date is 350. They will
provide permanent supportive
housing to homeless families,
chronically homeless individuals,
homeless, homeless women
with children who need substance
abuse treatment services, mental
health consumers, persons with
developmental disabilities and
physical disabilities and homeless
youth and youth aging out of foster
care.
There are 8,000 chronically
homeless people in New Jersey, the
vast majority of whom suffer from
mental illness. The wait for housing
in the state system can be up to five
,"
years, forcing nearly half of these
individuals to live with aging parents
or other family members. This
housing shortage destroys quality
of life, puts unnecessary costs on
citizens and makes recovery that
much harder.
The New.Jersey I-lousing Mortgage
and Finance Agency is beginning to
consider revisions to fine tune
both technical and financial aspects
of the guidelines, based on lessons
learned during the successful first
year of operations. Among the
changes being considered is the
incorporation of a design check list
as part of the application process.
'''lorking with the New.Jersey
Institute of]cchnology, Center for
Architecture and Building Science
THE NEW JERSEY PRESERVATION
BALANCED HOUSING PROGRAM was
created in 1985 and is administered by the Department of
Community Affairs. In July of 2006, the Department an-
nounced awards of $28.9 million in funding to support the
creation of 739 affordable rental units in nine New Jersey
communities throughout the state. Funds are awarded
four times each year.
The Neighborhood Preservation Balanced Housing program
creates housing opportunities in viable neighborhoods for
households of low and moderate income. Assistance is
provided to municipalities certified by the Council on Afford-
able Housing.
The most recent awards ,include funding from $ 11. 8 mil-
lion in federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits and $ 17.1
million in Balance Housing/Home Express funds. DCA's
Neighborhood Preservation Balanced Housing Program is
funded through a portion of the New Jersey realty transfer
tax receipts. The Home Express Program, created jointly
between DCA and the Housing Mortgage Finance Agency
allows HMFA to administer Balanced Housing funds on
behalf of DCA for rental projects that are eligible for federal
low-income housing tax credits.
Research, these may include features
that better define user neeels, green
and sustainability standards, and
quality design.
Con locI: Pamela S, McCrory, Supportive Housing and Special
Needs, New Jersey Housing Mortgage and finance Agency, PO,
Box 18550, Trenlon, NJ 08650,2085 (609'278-7456),
HOMfS fOR NEW JERSEY
ReJidellt.r mill'
jill' HOllies for
New.len'el',
NEW JERSEY'S RENTAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM was created in 2004 to provide housing
vouchers for families and individuals in need of housing
assistance. Seventy-five percent of the vouchers go to
households earning no more than 30% of the area median
IIlcome.
The vouchers ore allocated according to a formula:
· 30% go to seniors aged 65 and older and on the
DCA Section 8 housing choice voucher program
waiting list.
· 31 % go to households currently on the DCA Sec-
tion 8 waiting list,
· -17% go to homeless families with children.
· 17% go to project based assistance.
· 5% is retained for administrative costs.
Currently, the program has received $25 million. It is admin-
istered by the Department of Community Affairs.
7
Montgomery County, Maryland Issues
Annual Report for Housing Initiative Fund
T~l.e IIOUSi.ng Initil:ive Fund
111 i\lontgolllery County,
M;lryhnd is ;l key source
of ,1lTonhble housing lin;lllcing for
the county ,1ml its Report for 2005
describes why. 'fhree years ago, ;l
dedicated source of public funding
was made avaihble to the I-lousing
Initiative Fund by committing
2.5 percent of the County's
property tax revenues to the funcl.
Since its inception in 1988, the
Housing Initiative Fund has been
administered by the County's
Department of Housing and
Community Affairs. In fiscal year
2005, almost $17 million in funding'
was available.
Housing Initiative Fund dollars are
available throughout the year and
can be used for predevelopment,
bridge, acquisition, and permanent
financing. Funding can be in
the form of low-interest or no-
interest loans, forgivable grants,
or operating subsidies. lndividual
requests for funding are reviewed
throughout the year by a Housing
Loan Review Committee that
makes recommendations to the
Department of Housing and
Community Affairs.
The Housing Initiative Fund
recognizes the importance of the
role it plays in the housing market
in Montgomery County. Between
1999 and 2004, average rents rose
from $871 to $1,154 (an increase
of 32 %) and the median price of a
single-family home or townhouse
rose from $199,900 to $392,000.
8
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Tbe 415 units in Ba17'ington Apartments have been In-alight up to
code and affordability preserved for Silt'el' Sp7'ing 7'e.ridmts.
\Vhile homeowners can cash in on
home appreciation, the rising cost
of homeownership is pricing many
people out of the market and rising
rents have the same impact.
The l-lousing Initiative Fund's 2005
report focuses on four program
areas: housing options for seniors;
acquisition and renovation of at-risk
housing; comprehensive options
for special needs populations; and
building neighborhoods.
Housing Options for Seniors. More
than half of the Housing Initiative
Fund funding was used to support
the preservation of existing senior
housing and the creation of new
housing opportunities for seniors.
A low interest $1. 6 million loan
helped provide 32 new apartments
as part of the Grace House Assisted
Living Community in Norbeck,
HIF funding leveraged Bank of
America funds and allowed Homes
for America to purchase a 212-
unit building, complete major
renovations and allow senior
residents to stay in their homes, with
a comprehensive resident services
program. More than 200 senior
apartments have been constructed in
Colesville.
Acquisition and Renovation of
At-Risk Housing. Extensive
renovations were supported
for Barrington Apartments and
Blair Park Apartments, including
acquisition, so that residents were
prevented fron'1 being displaced,
some federal subsidies were retained
,
and additional services provided.
Comprehensive Options for Special
Needs Populations. Montgomery
County's Department of Housing
and Community Affairs, Department
of Health and Human Services, and
nonprofit service providers have
joined together to create and fund a
continuum of needed services. The
Partnership for Permanent Housing
enabled housing choice vouchers
to he awarded to the nonprofIt
Montgomery County Coalition
for the Ilomcless. F,lmilies can
use the vouchers to move out of
motels or elllergency shelters and
into pcrm,l11ellt huusing. IIIF is
an integral p~lrt of [his program.
;\ {~)]'Jller motel W~lS acquired and
renovated to provide ,1Il innov~ltive,
permanent supportive housing
development ill Gaithersburg.
Senecl Heights provides seventeen
units of transitional housing for
formerly homeless families and
40 units of permanent supportive
housing. HUD awarded the
project its first national H01\1E
Doorknocker Award.
Building Neighborhoods to Call
Home. In 2005, the Housing
Initiative Fund supported the
~argetedneighborhood, community
revitalization, resident services,
and educational activities of three
nonprofits: Montgomery Housing
Partnership, CASA de Maryland,
and the Community Preservation
and Development Corporation.
The Montgomery I-lousing
~
=
=
=
~
~
=
~
~
<:0
'"
MONTGOMfRY COUNTY
Tbcficxibilil)' of tbe HO/lsillg I/lili{/Iive F/llld (/llows it to/ill/d tbe
Alolltg07l1C'r)' HOl/sillg PIIl1I1e7'sbip, {/ 1I01lP7'Ofil bomiJlg devc!opC7; to
Sl/pp0l1 b07llc,vo7'l: clubs, prc-scbool progr{/7IIs, SII71Il1/iT ((Imps, beflltb
fain', ICe!l I{/Ik.', (lIId computer clauf.f ill sit. .,cpawlc devc!opmCllts.
Partnership used HIF funding to
support homework clubs, pre-school
programs, summer camps, health
fairs, teen talks, and computer
classes at six separate developments.
CASA de .Maryland provided
bilingual financial literacy classes;
workshops on homeownership and
pedestrian safety; and targeted
Gmce House will provide 32 new apm1'ments in an
assisted living communit)' in N01'beck.
services to residents of six apartment
buildings. The Community
Preservation and Development
Corporation helps children and
adults use technology to improve
and empower their lives, as well as
other community activities.
Contact: Elizabeth Davison, Montgomery County Department of
Housing and Community Affairs, 100 Maryland Avenue, 4'11 floor,
Rockville, MD 20850 (240.777.3600)
9
,....,.,
Lowcountry Housing Trust Brings Innovation
to the Charleston, South Carolina Region
The Lowcountry Housing
Thlst in Charleston,
South Carolina continues
to adv,lnce its go,)1 of addressing
affordable housing in the greater
Tri-County area of Berkeley,
Charleston, and Dorchester
Counties. \iVhile the Trust does not
yet have a dedicated source of public
funding, it is creating a role for itself
in the region, exploring new and
more permanent options of funding,
and demonstrating the impact the
housing trust can have in addressing
affordable housing needs. The
Trust has been particularly creative
in reducing barriers to affordable
housing production through
incentives and reduced fees.
The Lowcountry Housing Thlst
is a nonprofit corporation that
provides capital to assist nonprofit
organizations, government
entities, and private developers
in constructing or rehabilitating
affordable housing. The Trust,
which gre\v out of the widely
recognized lVlayor's Council on
Homelessness and Affordable
Housing, was created to foster a
regional approach to the need for
housing. The 'Thlst serves the three
counties and is working to secure
local funding from each, beginning
with Charleston County. The City
of Charleston provided initial seed
money to get the Tl.-ust operative.
The Trust receives and leverages
ftmding from several sources.
At the 2005 Kick Off Event, $1
million dollars from the South
Carolina State Housing Finance
Authority, was announced by
participating cities and founding
funder \iVachovia. More than twenty
contributions have been made to the
fund. And Charleston County, the
City of Charleston, the Charleston
Trident Home Builders Association,
the Charleston 'Vater Systems,
the CharlestonlVletro Chamber of
Commerce, and League ofYVomen
Voters of the Charleston Area, the
City of North Charleston, the lcrwn
of I--Iollywood have expressed their
support for a dedicated source of
ftmding for the Trust.
These funds are made available to
eligible projects through zero and
low-interest loans
awa rded thrOlwh
to
a competItIve
application
process. The funds
can be used for
predevelopment
costs, site
acquisition,
construction
funding, and gap
financing for
~
~
~
'-'"
""
;g
=
=
>-
~
~
""
=
=
~
9
AnnoZ/71cC7lIe7lt of tbe Cbarleston HOlising 1i'ust, now
called the L01l'COU71tr)' HOlisil/g Trust.
10
affordable housing serving citizens
with incomes primarily below 80'/(')
of the area median income.
In the Spring 2006 Funding Round,
the 'n-ust announced $400,000
available for subsidizing affordable
housing in Charleston County.
Funds were committed by the City
of Charleston, the City of North
Charleston and Charleston County.
Applications were accepted for
the construction, rehabilitation or
conversion of non-residential to
residential for-sale or rental housing.
The Trust has also announced the
availability of $100,000 to subsidize
affordable housing in Berkeley,
Charleston, and Dorchester
Counties. This predevelopment
revolving loan pilot program will be
used for low-interest loans to cover
eligible predevelopment expenses.
The Lowcountry Housing ll-ust
has collaborated with Charleston
'Vater in creating the Charleston
'Vater Afforda hIe Housing Incen tive
Program. The program encourages
developers to build housing tb1t
more Lowcountry residents can
afford through regulatory and
financial incentives. The program
lowers b,)rriers to affordable housing
production by deferring <lnd
reducing the payment of water and
wastewater impact fees.
Each residential unit certified
by Lowcountry Housing Trust
as affordable to low or very-low
income households are eligible for
and will receive a$500 reduction
for the engineering services portion
of the water impact fee; another
$500 reduction for the engineering
services portion of the w;istewater
impact fee; :1I1d delayed payment of
the wa tel' and/or W;lstew;1ter i In pact
fees.
During 200S, the Lowcountry
I-lousing Thlst made ten awards.
These developments will:
· Lower the purchase price
for three homes to be
constructed in Charleston
and sold to very low income
households;
· Subsidize fifteen apartments
~dtordable to very-low
income households in
Dorchester County;
· Prm'ide funding for
infrastructure improvements
and construction of four
detached homes for sale to
low and very low income
households in Mt. Pleasant;
· Subsidize the rehabilitation
of nvo abandoned structures
to cre1te three apartments
affordable to low income
households in Charleston;
· Subsidize the construction
of 72 apartments for very
Imv income households in
Charleston;
· Lmver the purchase price
of two hOlnes for Io-w
income families in North
Charleston;
· Provide funding for
infrastructure inlprovements
to build thirteen homes
for sale to households with
incomes below 40% of the
median and 67 homes for
sale to households with
incomes below 80% of
UNIlED MUHODlST RElIEF CENTER
the median
in North
Charleston;
· Provide
funding to
construct SIX
houses for
sale to low
.
and vcry-
low income
households
in a 23-unit
development
in Mount
Pleasant;
Provide funding for
infrastructure improvements
to build five Sea Island
Habitat homes for sale to
low and very low income
families on Johns Island; and
Subsidize the rehabilitation
of three vacant houses for
sale to very low income
households in Berkeley and
Charleston Counties.
C071JtrtloioJ/ all a 71ew bome JJI'ovided by tbe United A1et/?-
odist Relict" emt('/' on ,"wttered sitt's,
.
The Trust, working with the
Affordable Housing Coalition of
South Carolina, recognizes that state
enabling legislation will probably
be necessary to secure a sufficient
public funding source at the local
level. Spartan burg, Columbia,
Aiken and Myrtle Beach have
also expressed interest in regional
housing trust funds, based on the
work and success of the Lowcountry
Housing Trust.
Contact: Tammie Hoy, lowcountry Housing Trust, PO, Box
21163, Charleston, SC 29413 (843-973-7285), www,
lowc ountryhousin gtrust _ org,
HUMANITIES fOUNDATION
Seven Fa1"lltS const1"llction by tbe HUI/umities Founda-
tion 7vill provide 72 units for families 071 Da71iel Itland,
11
((JUtillll<'il/iu711 pllge .?
large enough to make funding for
affordable housing for people with
low incomes a political priority in
the Metro area. Affordable Housing
NO\V! recommended the 30% set
aside of taxincrement financing for
affordable housing based on research
on the practices in California. The
coalition spent the last year meeting
with members of City Council to
discuss the need for tax increment
financing guidelines and dedicating
funding to affordable housing.
In addition to the progress in
establishing an urban renewal
set aside for housing, Affordable
Housing NGVV! has continued
to win additional general fund
allocations from the City of
Portland, which committed $5.4-
million in ne\\' housing funds in
its 2006-07 budget. Affordable
Housing NO\V! has also been
working with the Portland City
Council to commit $30 million to
CENTER/or
COMMUNITY CHANGE
Housing Trust Fund Project
1113 Cougar Court
Frazier Park, CA 93225
Return Service Requested
* PRINTED ON RECYLED PAPER
the Portlandl-lousing Investment
Fund over a three to four year
period. In the last three budget
cycles since beginning the Housing
Investment Fund campaign,
Affordable Housing NO\V! has
worked with the City Council
to secure nearly $1 <J million for
housing for hardworking families
earning low wages, seniors and
people with disabilities. Affordable
I-lousing NO\V! will pursue
securing the remaining $11 million
in 2007.
As an advocacy tool for both
the urban renewal set aside and
the Housing Investment Fund,
Affordable Housing NO\V! had
individual jigsaw puzzles comprised
of thirty pieces nLlde for each
member of City Council. The
jigsaw puzzle fe<ltured a photo
collage of pictures provided by
Affordable l-lousing NOV,TI member
organizations th,lt depict people
who bave either benefited from
affordable housing or currently arc
"'''''H'' AUTO"3-DtGIT 522
R7182-697 2-39
STEVE LONG
HTFJC
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 E WASHINGTON ST
IOWA CITY IA 52240-1825
in need of a s,lfe, stable place to call
home.
Starting on February 14,2006,
weekly delegations of Affordable
Housing NO\V! supporters
delivered pieces of a jigsa'.v pUi',zlc
to the members of City Council
along with glossy photos of the
people featured in the puzzle. Each
delegation shared a story about
the importance of housing to their
orgal1iz,ltion and the people depicted
in the puzzles. These stories both
described the success of folks who
were given housing opportunities
and the hardship involved for those
who are still waiting. After fifteen
weeks of delegation visits, the entire
camp<lign held a Housing Rally <It
City Hall at the end of 1Vlay, when
the final pieces of the puzzle were
delivered.
Contorl MiclHlel Anderson, Community Development Network
of Portlond, 2627 N.E. Mortin luther King Jr. Blvd, Room
202, Portlond, OR 97212 (503-335-9884) wwwcdnportlond
org/ohn
1,1,1'1.1 J 11,1.1 J I J ,III J 11",111'11,"1.1 J 1,1. 11111111111111.1