HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-2007 Housing & Community Development Commission
AGENDA
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2007
6:30 P.M.
1. Call Meeting to Order
2. Approval of the April 19, 2007 Minutes
3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda
4. Staff/Commission Comment
5. New Business
· Review of Allocation Process - Creation of Subcommittee
6. Old Business
· Discuss National Community Development Week Celebration
7. Monitoring Reports
· City of Iowa City - Economic Development Fund (Hart)
· Four Oaks - New Construction (Crane)
· Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity - (McMurray)
· The Housing Fellowship - FY06 Affordable Rental & Homeownership
(Anthony)
· Johnson County Permanent Supportive Housing LP - FY06 Affordable
Rental (Douglas)
· City of Iowa City - Housing Rehabilitation (DeFrance)
7. Adjournment
I ~ 1
~~5.....~....
f~Wi!:~
~;. ~....,
....-
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Housing and Community Development Commission
Community Development Staff
July 13, 2007
July Meeting Packet
The July meeting will be short, but necessary to clear out remaining FY07 items. We
welcome new member, Rebecca McMurray to the commission. The following is a short
description of the July agenda items.
Review of Allocation Process - Creation of Subcommittee
With the FY08 allocation process fresh in your mind, staff is interested in hearing your
suggestions for next year. Two years ago a subcommittee was created to review the process
and recommend changes to the allocation process. There were some substantial changes
made to the process, such as separate applications and ranking sheets for different funding
categories. The committee also wanted to consider setting specific funding priorities each year
during the 5-year Consolidated Plan. The commission may decide to appoint a subcommittee
for further review or simply offer suggestions for next year.
Community Development Celebration
The community development celebration will be held Thursday, August 2 from 4:30 to 6:00 PM
at United Action for Youth (355 Iowa Ave.). The awards ceremony will begin at 5:00 PM.
Staff encourages all commission members to attend the celebration.
Monitoring Reports (with contact information)
· City of Iowa City - Economic Development Fund (Hart)
Contact Tracy Hightshoe (356.5244)
· Four Oaks - New Construction (Crane)
Contact Mary Chval (337.4523)
· Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity - (McMurray)
Contact Mark Patton (337.8949)
· The Housing Fellowship - FY06 Affordable Rental & Homeownership (Anthony)
Contact Maryann Dennis (358.9212)
· Johnson County Permanent Supportive Housing LP- FY06 Affordable Rental( Douglas)
Contact Tracy Falcomata (338.7600)
· City of Iowa City - Housing Rehabilitation (DeFrance)
Contact Jeff Vanatter (356.5230)
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(Q>.iowa-citv.org.
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
APRIL 19, 20076:30 PM
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
Call to Order:
Members Present:
Jerry Anthony called the meeting to order at 6:45 pm.
Jerry Anthony, Thomas Niblock, Brian Richman, Charlotte Walker, Holly Hart,
Steve Crane, Andy Douglas
Members Absent:
Marcy DeFrance, Michael Shaw
Staff Present:
Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long, Sue Dulek
Others Present:
Steve Ramirez, Charlie Eastham, Mark Patton, David Dowell, Stephan Trefz,
Jennifer Lewis, Steve Rackis
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council action):
1) MOTION: Richman moved to recommend to the City Council the approval of Habitat's request to use
funds for acquisition, construction and landscaping and the use of the HOME recapture provision instead
of the land trust option as discussed. Niblock seconded.
The motion passed 6:0. Hart abstained.
2) MOTION: Niblock moved to recommend approval of the FY08 Annual Action Plan to City Council. Hart
seconded.
The motion passed 6:0. Walker abstained.
Approval of the March 22, 2007 Minutes
Hightshoe noted that the approval of the February 21st, February 22nd, and March 8th, 2007 meeting
minutes needed modification to reflect the actual votes taken to approve the minutes. Richman moved,
second by Crane, to approve the minutes of each meeting. Passed unanimously. Walker stated she
wanted to amend the minutes as she had assumed they were just approving the February 21st minutes.
Richman motioned to reconsider the first motion. It was seconded. Walker said that a note should be
added on the February 22nd, 2007 minutes regarding the deleted recordings. Walkers said that on the
March 8th, 2007 minutes, under Members Absent, the name Michael Shaw is missing. Walker said that
there is a name spelled incorrectly. David Dowie should in fact be spelled David Dowell. Walker said on
the March 8th, 2007 minutes, first page, third paragraph of Public Comments, the word "people" should be
replaced with "equal."
Richman motioned to approve the February 21S\ February 22nd, and March 8th, 2007 minutes with the
corrections made by Walker. Crane seconded the motion. The motion was passed 8:0.
Walker said that Sue Dulek is not mentioned as present at the March 22 meeting. Walker said that a
citizen from the community, David Dowell was at the meetings, but he is not mentioned. Hart said that on
page 5, the term "Builders of Hope" is used in place of "Blooming Garden." It should read "Blooming
Garden" in that section.
Housing and Community Development Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 2
MOTION: Richman moved to approve the March 22"d minutes as amended. Crane seconded the
motion.
The motion was approved 7:0.
Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda
None.
Staff/Commission Comment
Walker said that the HUD apartment complex in Burlington has 2 and 3 bedroom apartments available for
homeless people. Walker said they do not have to have a section 8 voucher. Walker said if there are any
families that need housing, Burlington isn't that far away, the project has just been renovated, and there
are still units available. Walker said that she notified the Johnson County Homeless Coordinating Board
and told them as well. Walker said that she'd like to see if they could have a meeting at some point to
explain more about the tax credit projects. Walker said there will be more of them coming and it would be
good to have a meeting to discuss it and learn more about it in such a meeting. Long said it was a good
idea. Hightshoe said that the Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) requested that the Council reconsider
the funding recommendations in order to fund the Homes for our Future project. Hightshoe passed out a
copy of the ICHA's request for the commission's review. Hightshoe said that this is Niblock's last meeting
and she congratulated and thanked him for his service. Hightshoe presented Niblock with a certificate of
appreciation and wished him well with his future endeavors.
Discussion of Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity's Request to Amend the Financial Terms and
Budget for their FY07 Affordable Homeownership Project
Anthony noted that this was brought up at the last meeting and deferred to this meeting. Hightshoe noted
a letter from The Housing Fellowship, concerning previous concerns raised by Charlie Eastham, Board
President. The Housing Fellowship submitted a letter in support of Habitat's request and encouraged the
city to continue to review research that may provide new strategies for better homeownership programs.
Hightshoe passed out a copy of the letter for commission review. Richman asked Patton about the
request. Richman stated that it was a two pronged request: 1) they are requesting to take the money not
spent on land acquisition and use it for landscaping and construction purposes; and 2) instead of a land
trust, to place a lien on the property to be repaid by the homeowner upon resale. Patton said yes and
added that there's a twenty-year resale restriction and at any point, 100% of the money is repaid upon
sale. There is no forgiveness of any of that money.
Hightshoe said there's a difference between resale and recapture. Under the HOME recapture provision,
upon sale the funds are repaid (or a portion repaid based on if forgiveness is granted, etc.) and the
affordability period ends. The homeowner may sell to any buyer. The money then returns to the HOME
pot of funds to be disbursed in the next allocation period. She said that Habitat has a mortgage for fifteen
years with the homeowner and has the option of first refusal -they can buy and then resell to an income
eligible household during this period. Hightshoe said for this project, Habitat's own mortgage/program
provides a longer period of affordability than what HUD would require at a minimum. The minimum
affordability for this project based on HOME funds per unit would be 10 years.
Niblock asked how many of the families would typically sell the house within the twenty-year period.
Patton stated to date they've done 44 homes, one person sold within 7 years and two people repaid the
mortgage in order to refinance between 7 and 12 years. Richman said that the only downside of moving
away from a land trust would be that the $40,000 that the city would get back is not worth as much
whenever it comes back as it is today. Richman said that the rationale is to make it more marketable and
Patton agreed. Richman said that is valid. Richman said that they've acquired six lots for $220,000.
Patton said they have purchase agreements pending. Richman said that this is substantially less per lot
than what they've been hearing about the last couple of years. Richman asked if that was strictly due to
the location. Patton said yes. Long said that it's more that particular subdivision (Whispering Meadows),
not particularly south of Highway 6. There are lots south of Highway 6 in other subdivisions that cost
more. Anthony asked if they could use the $52,000 to buy additional lots. Patton said that the city is not
... -.- ..~-"-_...._"'~~-,----,_.._--~
Housing and Community Development Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 3
requiring garages; however Habitat will add them in order for them to fit in with the homes in the
subdivision and provide greater storage. Richman asked the cost of putting in garages. Patton said $4-
6,OO~. Richman said that the guidelines state that housing should comply with neighborhood
reqUIrements. Patton said that the garages will not primarily be used for cars, but predicts most of the
space will be for storage.
Anthony asked for further comments. Anthony asked if he has any units in the land trust. Patton said no.
Hightshoe said they are requiring Habitat to have prospective homebuyers to go through homebuyer
education classes, which mayor may not talk about land trusts.
MOTION: Richman moved to approve Habitat's request to amend the financial terms and budget
for their FY07 Affordable Homeownership Project. Walker seconded the motion.
Anthony said he had one concern. He said if these conditions had been known at the initial allocation, his
recommendation would have been different. However, Anthony said he believes Habitat is a great
organization and he will be voting to approve.
The motion is approved 6:0. Hart abstained.
Long noted that Habitat had two requests. Anthony said they voted on both. Hightshoe wanted to clarify
the motion. She asked if the recapture option is approved and upon repayment the affordability period
ends. Richman wanted clarification. Hightshoe said with this motion, Habitat was granted the recapture
provision and if the homeowner decides to sell, then they would pay back the money and the period of
affordability ends. Richman asked Patton if an owner buys a house, they have to sell it to a qualified
family or Habitat buys it back within the 15-year period. Patton said yes. Hightshoe asked Dulek if this
discussion warranted a change in the original motion. Dulek said that as long as what was discussed was
everyone's understanding, the motion can remain. If not, it can be reconsidered. .
MOTION: Richman moved to reconsider the original motion. Crane seconded.
The motion passed 6:0. Hart abstained.
MOTION: Richman moved to recommend to the City Council the approval of Habitat's request to
use funds for acquisition, construction and landscaping and the use of the HOME recapture
provision instead of the land trust option as discussed. Niblock seconded.
The motion passed 6:0. Hart abstained.
Review of the FY08 Annual Action Plan (recommendation to council)
Hightshoe said the draft Annual Action Plan was in the packet for review. The commission can edit the
plan, if necessary, and then will need to approve the Annual Action Plan and submit a recommendation to
Council. The Annual Action Plan is a part of the five-year CITY STEPS plan. Hightshoe said that there's
a section for each proposed project which identifies the source of funds, describes the project and states
how it relates or fits with the goals and objectives outlined in CITY STEPS. Hightshoe said that it gets
sent to HUD and if approved, the funds go into our line of credit on approximately July 1st. Hightshoe said
the commission must review and recommend approval to City Council. Long said that HCDC can email
additional comments if they come to mind later as the public comment period goes to April 30. Hightshoe
said that the Annual Action Plan can also be reviewed online by the public. Anthony said these are all the
projects they've discussed and approved at the last meeting. Crane asked what happens if the council
disagrees with HCDC's recommendations. Hightshoe said the council may make changes they feel are
necessary. The council makes the final decision before the document is submitted to HUD.
Anthony said that the local objective section links the project to something in CITY STEPS. Hightshoe
said that CITY STEPS identifies that each year the City's goal is to allocate 48% of the funds on housing,
21 % on public facilities, and 8% on public services. Hightshoe said that this year they allocated close to
70% on housing activities. She said that the goals in CITY STEPS regarding the number of housing units
that will be created over this 5 year period might have been over-ambitious and the commission may want
to review this when reviewing annual amendments. Richman said he thinks it will be beneficial for HCDC
Housing and Community Development Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 4
and the community to find a way to turn CITY STEPS into a more user-friendly document. Anthony
agreed.
Douglas asked how the reconsideration of the housing authority request fits into all of this. Hightshoe said
that is up to council to decide. The council may choose not to make any changes or reallocate funds to
fund the request. Anthony said that council has changed HCDC's recommendations in the past.
Hightshoe agreed. Walker asked why they would recommend approval and then later make comments to
change it later. Hightshoe said members could make comments as individual HCDC members if they
don't agree with the consensus/majority vote. Walker said she didn't want to go into it, she was just
curious about the motion. Anthony said Walker can make use of the public comment period and express
any future concerns.
MOTION: Niblock moved to recommend approval of the FY08 Annual Action Plan to City Council.
Hart seconded.
The motion passed 6:0. Walker abstained.
Comments Solicited for the Iowa City Housing Authority FY07 Annual Plan
Steven Rackis passed out an updated version of the Housing Authority's FY07 Annual Plan. Hightshoe
said that the Housing Authority has a 5-year plan that they have to submit to HUD. Rackis said that if
CITY STEPS is an essay test, his 5-year plan is a multiple choice test. In the past, they've conducted
public meetings to get input. Rackis said a 5-year plan outlines goals and are specific to public housing.
He said that the annual plan is mislabeled. He said that the annual plan is a report on the activities of the
5-year plan. Rackis said the only change made was adding a residency preference to the local preference
categories.
Anthony asked how many have graduated from the homebuyer education program. Rackis did not know,
but could find the exact number and send it to him. Rackis said HUD is only concerned with mandatory
programs and the Housing Authority has far exceeded the goals required for the mandatory programs.
Long noted a mistake on page 5 that reads '06 and '07 when it should just read '07. A member
questioned what universal design means. Rackis explained that universal design is making facilities
usable by anyone, regardless of handicap status. Rackis stated he is seeking comments on the Annual
Plan as there is still time to incorporate changes before presenting it to council. Walker said it's a nice
booklet for the public. Patton noted that on page 7. the number .005% should read .5%. Anthony asked
for other comments. There were none.
Discussion of the Community Development Celebration
Hightshoe said that every year there is a celebration to gather community awareness about how our
entitlement funds are used. She said they like to highlight the recipients by providing "Big Check" awards
and by acknowledging outstanding community development efforts supported with CDBG/HOME funds
such as "Outstanding Community Organization." Hightshoe said this year she needs a couple members
to volunteer to organize the celebration. Anthony said last year's intern was a great help, making things
easier this year. Douglas asked what the date was last year. Hightshoe said August 15th. Anthony
volunteered for the subcommittee. Walker unofficially nominated DeFrance. Hightshoe said she'd ask her.
Hart volunteered as well.
Discussion of FY07 Projects that have not Performed per the Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects
Policy
Hightshoe said that, for CDBG funds, staff tries to encourage the applicant to get a project done as
quickly as possible within the fiscal year that they were funded. There is a policy that requires applicants
to spend at least 50% of their funds by March 15. If the project has not met this requirement, the applicant
must provide verbal or written comments explaining the delay and providing a timeline for project
completion. HCDC would then review the information and decide to grant a time extension or deny the
request and recommend recapture of the funds. HCDC would recommend recapture if the project is
making no progress or not sufficient progress. Hightshoe said that, in the past, if a project is making a
good faith effort and proceeding, HCDC has allowed them to continue with an updated timeline.
'.'^._~._^ '-"~^~._'..-'"---"~-_.~---------._-~----
Housing and Community Development Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 5
Hightsh~e sai.d ~hat, as far as HO~E fund~, staff monitors these funds and makes sure the projects are
proceeding within the HOME required perrods. This year Four Oaks and Community Mental Health did
not ~p~nd 50% o! the CDBG award by ~arch 15. Four Oaks submitted a letter explaining the delay and
pro~ldlng a new tlmeframe, the letter IS In the packet. Four Oaks stated due to ground testing issues the
project was delayed. As those have been resolved they moved forward and just awarded the contract to
Southgate Industries. They are anticipating it to be done by the end of July.
Stephan Trefz, Community Mental Health Center, was present and said that they put the fence before the
weather turned, but they weren't able to get the cement done. Trefz said 3 weeks ago the retaining wall
developed a major hole in it. Trefz said that he's discussed taking some of the CDBG funds to repair the
retaining wall. Trefz said a contractor would still repair the steps going up within the next 3 weeks. Trefz
said that one contractor gave an estimate that would correspond with the funds intended for the flat work.
Trefz said that the crumbling retaining wall is high priority. Trefz said there is a sense of urgency. The wall
can be repaired by July. Crane asked if they'd put off the flatwork until next year. Trefz said yes.
MOTION: Hart moved to approve the revised timetable as submitted by both applicants. Richman
seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7:0.
Discussion of Commission Member Communications/Comments
Anthony said that as commission members, we feel the need to get information regarding certain
projects. He said that if a member feels the need to contact agencies for such information, there are a few
ways to get it. The first is as individuals, which is the easiest and best way. Anthony said that another way
is to introduce yourself as an HCDC member. To an agency, Anthony said, this comes off as an act on
behalf of HCDC. Anthony expressed his concerns regarding the latter. Anthony said that maybe they can
have a policy similar to council, which states that the commission must concur with one members
intention to obtain information before the member actually seeks it. Anthony said this would be a very
cumbersome way to go about things. He said it might be more appropriate for members to just seek
information as citizens. Anthony said that without a consensus from the HCDC, it could potentially be a
misrepresentation of the HCDC. Anthony suggested that if a member chooses to seek information from
an agency as a member ofthe HCDC, they should present their intentions to the commission before
doing anything. Anthony said a formal policy is up for discussion. Richman said his opinion is that HCDC
does not need a formal policy. Richman said he would not support a motion to establish a formal policy.
Walker agreed with Richman. Anthony asked if HCDC could then refrain from identifying ourselves as
members of HCDC. Anthony said information can be sought as individuals and then brought to the
commission at a later date. Walker said she wouldn't agree to it. She said that if she's a member of the
HCDC, there's nothing wrong with making it known. Walker said she'd continue to do it, no matter what
HCDC decides. Dulek said it would be problematic if HCDC passes a motion and one member chooses
not to follow it. Dulek said council does have a policy that if a member is going to require staff to conduct
research, it has to be after a council consensus has been achieved.
Richman said that members of the commission need to be judicious and members shouldn't do anything
to impede the city's relationship with HUD. Beyond that, Richman said, members of HCDC should remain
judicious. Walker said she was. Anthony said that if the HCDC "tagline" must be used, then the member
must follow up with a comment similar to "l am requesting this information in my own personal capacity."
Niblock said that his concern is a relationship with local agencies. He said members should use extreme
caution when communicating with local groups. Long said that each member signed up to monitor an
agency, so seeking information is also a responsibility. Long noted the fine balance. Anthony noted that
these monitoring reports are derived from a consensus.
Anthony said that when members interact with agencies, they have a right to seek information. Anthony
said the organizations are obliged to provide information. Anthony said that members do not have the
right to make disparaging comments about specific agencies or individuals. Anthony said he would not
identity any names, but it's happened two times in the past 3 months. Anthony said these organizations
are run by excellent staff and many times are not highly paid. Anthony said disparaging comments are
extremely discourteous and libelous. Anthony said he felt a great need to voice his concerns. Richman
said that he respects Anthony's concerns, but he thinks that members should feel free to seek
Housing and Community Development Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 6
information. Richman emphasized that he doesn't think people should feel constrained from making
comments, as long as they remain judicious. Anthony agreed.
Monitoring Reports
Extend the Dream Foundation - Operational Expenses (Hart)
Hart said that they were trying to raise 5,000 dollars for a volunteer coordinator. Hart said that they were
able to hire a highly qualified volunteer coordinator. They got 1,000 dollars from HCDC and managed to
raise the rest.
Elders Services Inc., MECCA, United Action for Youth - Aid to Agencies (Douglas)
Douglas said he spoke with the 3 directors of the various agencies. Douglas said that each agency gets
CDBG dollars through the aid to agencies process. He spoke with Jim Swain at United Action for Youth
and he enjoyed getting in touch with these people. Douglas said for United Action for Youth, the funds
went to help pay counselors and some were matched with various grants they received. Douglas said that
United Action for Youth serves 2,200 people per year. Douglas said that he spoke with David Purdy with
Elder Services. He said that the money mostly went to case management, home assistance, family
caregiver programs, memory loss program, meals. on wheels, and an abuse and neglect of elderly
program. Their goal was to serve 1,300 people and they've already reached 1,100 people. Douglas said
that their services are very much in demand. Douglas said that he spoke with Ron Berg with MECCA.
They've served 2,300 people with the majority of clients under 80% of the median income. The funds
went for the medical director's salary. Douglas said that usually the public hears about people who don't'
stick with the treatment program but Berg wanted to emphasize that they have a lot of success. Douglas
said that Berg invited HCDC members to participate in a "Meet MECCA" event. Douglas said he will email
details.
HACAP - FY06 Transitional Housing (DeFrance)
Long noted that the HACAP project is over. It's been closed for a long time. Hightshoe said HACAP
purchased three units and returned the funds for the fourth unit. Long said the funds were reallocated
last month.
Adjournment
Crane moved to adjourn the meeting at 8 pm. Niblock seconded the motion. The motion passed 7:0
s/pcd/mins/hcdcl2007/4-19-07 hcdc.doc
~-
" Qn
! !Dn
.
ousln
By David Holtzman
When disability activists ap-
proached the leaders of Habi-
tat for Humanity's Atlanta
chapter in 1989, they didn't
just request housing that was
accessible to people with limited mobility;
they wanted to live in the same communities
as their non-disabled friends and families and
to be able to easily visit neighbors. So they
suggested Habitat make every home ne-
gotiable to everybody, whether or not they
needed a wheelchair or a cane.
Habitat's first respons'e was disbelief.
"They said, 'Why would we create a house
with access for someone who doesn't have a
disability?' They were still thinking segregat-
ed thoughts," says Eleanor Smith, who found-
ed the activist group Concrete Change. It took
26 WINTER 2006
a little over a year to get the Atlanta chapter to
change its practices. Not only did they not
want to make disability housing accessible to
all, but for a long time they didn't see building
homes for people with disabilities as part of
their mission. But Smith and others pointed
out that many poor people have disabilities, so
if Habitat was committed to providing low-in-
come housing, it ought to make sure its resi-.
dents are able to get in and out their front
doors.
The movement Smith helped launch in the
low-income housing field, and housing devel-
opment in general, is sometimes called uni-
versal design. The term refers to a product that
anybody can use, whether they are old or
young, able-bodied or frail. Smith calls what
she does "visitabiJity," meaning minor adjust-
With simple design changes and a
few added features, an attractive
and functional home can be
built for people both with or
without disabilities.
.{ ~Ii,
'~. 0',
:(\T~ di.'l
~',. "t/~~(
{'(O' -'-.J
'~,.':'-""~~:.'l
''':-11
:-t.....
(:'"1l('j.;:;,
or
ments in design that make homes accessible to
most of the population. Unlike universal de-
sign, which usually involves adding a range of
special products to a home and can have a sig-
nificant cost, making a home visitable doesn '(
cost much at all. The only requirements are
that a person with limited mobility can enter a
house, move from one room to another and use
a ground-floor bathroom without assistance,
So the home must have a zero-step entrance
and at least a half-bath on the ground floor, and
interior doors need 32 inches of clearance.
HOl/singfor people with disabilities can be
designed to blend in with the rest of the
neighborhood,
www.nhi.org
People with disabilities arc not the only
ones who benefit from this approach, advo-
cates say. People without disabilities can age in
place, staying in their homes well into their
senior years if their homes are already de-
signed for their needs. And a non-disabled per-
son has no reason to be deten'ed from moving
into one of these units, since the features that
make it possible for a disabled person to live
there are all but invisible.
Beyond Disability Housing
Universal design is unfamiliar to many devel-
opers, including in the CDC world. While vis-
itability has more recognition, it is not yet
mainstream. One reason is that federal fund-
ing for accessible housing is targeted at build-
ings that are exclusively for people with dis-
abilities, or at developers who agree to make a
set percentage of their units accessible.
Ensuring a measure of disability access be-
came law in 1991, at least for multifamily llOUS-
ing, with an amendment to the federal Fair
Housing Act. Under the law, public and pri-
vate developers of buildings with four or more
units must make ground-floor units accessi-
ble, whether or not they receive government
financing. If a multifamily building has an ele-
vator, every unit must be accessible for a per-
son with disabilities.
To meet the Fair Housing Act's standard of
accessibility, housing units require more fea-
tures designed for people with disabilities than
units considered visitable. Many advocates
would be delighted if the government funded
more of this kind of housing, but other advo-
cates are dissatisfied with the accessibility re-
quirement because its purpose is only to com-
ply with the law. It does nothing to integrate
that housing into neighborhoods that include
non-disabled residents or to make accessible
homes appealing to everyone. Often develop-
ers trying to meet the fair housing standard
will install costly outdoor ramps, for instance,
that make these buildings more conspicuous.
In any case, there has been minimal en-
forcement of the law, and no one knows for
sure how many multifamily units have been
developed with accessibility. Moreover, the
law doesn't cover single-famil y homes, which
make up the majority of housing built in the
United States.
From Smith's point of view, the issue is a
matter of civil rights. She points to all the gov-
ernment buildings that have been built accessi-
bly in recent years, so that everyone, disabled
or not, can use them. She asks how housing de-
velopers can justify continuing to discriminate.
www.nhi.org
-.
Steps Toward a Trend
Aside from what's required by law, proactive
developers like the Habitat chapter in Atlanta
am! groups such as the Homebuilders Associa-
tion of Georgia have helped make some 20,000
homes in the United States visitable, by Smith's
rough estimate.
Often homebuilders still react to the idea of
visitability much as Habitat officials did in
1989. Or, they just see no reason to redesign
their houses ifbuyers don't demand it. But that
attitude is changing.
No doubt thanks to the early role of Smith's
group in promoting the concept, "many of
Georgia's nonprofit and for-profit developers
have adapted their house plans to make them
visitable. Cathy Williams, the president and
chief executive officer of the NeighborWorks
organization in Columbus, Georgia, says the
only added cost is to pay for wider doors. The
developer recovers this cost by lowering the
foundation, eliminating the front steps so that
wheelchair-bound residents can roll into their
homes. Few homebuyers even notice the dif-
ference.
Williams' agency is among the community
developers in Georgia that in recent years
adopted the EasyLiving home design, a ver-
sion of visitability promoted by the Home
Builders Association of Georgia. Developers
who build homes to this standard can receive
certification from the EasyLiving Home coali-
tion, whose members include the stale AARI'
chapter, Concrete Change, the state of Georgia
and a statewide network of independent living
councils. Smith says some 500 visitable hous-
es have been built in Georgia so far. Her or-
ganization estimates it costs no more than $25
The Seven Basic Principles
of Universal Design
I. Equitable. Useful to people with all
. sorts of abilities. Provides the same means
of use for all; does not segregate any user;
makes the design safe and appealing to all.
2. Flexible. Accommodates a wide range
of preferences and abilities by providing
choice in methods of use, allowing right-
or left-handed application, adapting to the
user's pace.
3. Simple. Easy to understand and natural
to use, regardless of the user's experience,
knowledge, language or attention span.
Eliminates complexity where possible,
uses common cues and provides effective
prompting and feedback.
4. Perceptible Information. Communi-
caies necessary infornlation to the user re-
gardless of the user's sensory abilities.
Uses different modes to present infornla-
tion; makes them "legible" whether they
are words, pictures or shapes; and makes
the design compatible with other tech-
niques or devices used by people with sen-
sory limitations.
5. Tolerance for Error, Assuming the
user will make mistakes, the design mini-
mizes the hazards of consequent accidents.
Provides appropriate warnings and fail-
safe features and discourages unconscious
action in tasks that require vigilance.
6. Low Physical Effort. Allows the user
to maintain a natural body position, requir-
ing only reasonable exertion, and mini-
mizes repetitive actions and sustained
physical effort.
7. Easy to Approach and Use. Accessible
to approach, reach and manipulate, regard-
less of the user's body size, posture or mo-
bility. That means providing a clear line of
sight to important elements and placing all
components where they can be reached by
a seated or standing user, accommodating
various hand and grip sizes, and making
room for assistive devices or people.
Adapted from a paper by The Center for
Universal Design, North Carolina State
University,1997.
SHFJ TFRH'nRrk ')'7
, ~
Acti\'istsjiml/ the Disahility Rights Actiol/ Coalitiol/.f{J/' HOllsingjoil/ Rep. .fan Scllilkoll'sky
(standing) and Eleanor SlIIith (secondji'{)lII right) at the il/itial press CO/i/I'rel/eejl)r the Inclusi1'e
HOllie Design Act in 2002.
II
:11
extra to build a visitable home on a concrete
slab. and $300 to $600 more to do so for a
home that has a basement or crawl space.
Visitability is growing in popularity in oth-
er states. too. "We make it a policy to do it,"
says Marion Wiley, who directs the Utah Non
Profit Housing Corporation. About half of the
1.700 units his group has developed are for
senior citizens or people with disabilities. The
only barrier to building for visitability, he says,
is if HUD funding guidelines forbid it. For ex-
ample, HUD's Section 8 I I program only funds
units and buildings that will be inhabited ex-
clusively by people with disabilities, or house-
holds that have at least one disabled member.
In a few cases, housing officials in a position
to influence the design of a large number of
units have developed an interest in visitability.
One is Rocky Marcoux, Milwaukee's housing
commissioner and former head of the city's
housing authority. When the city demolished a
public housing development with HOPE VI
funds in 2003, it incorporated visitability prin-
ciples in the New Urbanist-style neighbor-
hood that rose in its place, the Townhomes at
Carver Park. Over 100 of the 122 multifamily
units are visitable, while an additional 14 are
fully accessible for residents who need extra
services. The city also made 16 single-family
homes visitable in another HOPE VI project. In
a third project that opened this year, there are
28 WINTER 2006
46 homes that can be adapted to include sev-
eral universal design elements at little cosl.
Marcoux's sUPP0l1 for these features was'
due in part to the efforts of IndependenceFirst,
a local advocacy group for the disabled lhat
offered him design assistance. BUI it wasn't so
hard to convince Marcoux, who understood
how expensive it can be to retrofit a unit if a
family member suddenly becomes disabled.
or develops a disability over a period of time.
The clear solution was to build new housing to
include access.
Another incentive for Milwaukee housing
officials was that IIOPE VI projects gel extra
points in the application process if they in-
clude plans to make their units visitable.
Smith. of Concrete Change, attributes this to
the work of disability activists. who cornered
then-HUD secretary Henry Cisneros at a con-
ference in 1995. demanding he do something
about inaccessible housing.
"That's good, but we don't have the clout
to say. . How many housing authorities said
they would do this, and who followed up to
see if they did, '" says Smith. "But nobody has
to wait for a law. Any nonprofit could look
into doing this."
Since 2002 disability activists have been
pushing a bill in Congress, sponsored by De-
mocratic Representative Jan Schakowsky of
Illinois. to require developers who receive
federal assistance to make their homes vis-
itable. A number of cities have also moved to
implement visitability, including Atlanta, San
Antonio and Austin. Each city passed an ordi-
I
J
Wheelchair users can easily reach the sink in this unit at Uni1'ersity Neighborhood Apartments ill
Berkeley, CA.
www.nhi.org
nance rcquiring developers to meet visitability
standards in singlc-family homes if thcy re-
ceive city funding.
Going Universal
The number of homes built according to uni-
versal design principles is surely much small-
er than the number that is visitable. Not one
technical or policy documcnt on universal dc-
sign appears on any of thc Wcb sites of the
thrcc leading national community develop-
mcnt inteIlllcdiarics.
Kevin Zwick, director of housing dcvelop-
mcnt for Affordablc Housing Associates (AHA)
in Bcrkcley, Califomia, thinks that will change
quickly once funders begin paying attcntion.
Recently hc has noticcd that some public agcn-
cies in his state are including universal design
as an c1cmcnt that can win developers points
when thcy respond to notices of available
funding. He compares this to where grcen
building was five years ago. "Once you saw
funding agencies incentivizing it for nonprofit
developers, it started to become common-
place," he says.
AHA decided to build a multifamily project
with universal design in 1997 after HeaI1h
Homes, a Bay Area group that promotes this
type of design, conducted focus groups with 10-
Resources
Concrete Change
www.concretechange.org
Disability Rights Action Coalition
for Housing
www.drach.org
Easy Living Home
www.easylivinghome.org
Center for Inclusive Design and
Environm'ental Access
www.ap. buffal~:edu/idea
Center for Universal Design
www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud
ASSIST Community Design Center of Utah
(has a guidebook to providing access)
www.assistutah.org
Adaptive Environments
www.adaptenv.org
Affordable Housing Associates
www.ahainc.org
www.nhi.org
Universal Design
Gets Attention
As more Americans choose to "age in
place," the demand for universal
design homes and products is likely
to increase. Both AARP, with its 35 mil-
lion mcmbers, and thc 235,000 member
National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB) are paying attention to this new
idea. Both organizations feature univer-
sal design in their publications and Web
sites and have started a training collabo-
ration.
NAHB publications Nation's Building
News, 50+ Builder and Sales and Market-
ing Ideas have increasingly featured aI1icles
on universal design. In the March 13,2006,
issue of Nation's Building News a universal
design expeI1 who exhibits at many of the
group's events discussed how easily home-
builders could adopt the concept. On the
home design section of its Web site, AARP
gives prominent coverage of universal de-
cal people with disabilities to find out their
housing priorities. People repeatedly said they
wanted to be integrated with the non-disabled
population. This led AHA to partner with
Hem1h Homes on a 29-unit multifamily build-
ing, with half the units reserved for disabled
people on Berkeley's Section 8 voucher wait-
ing list. The project took until 2005 to com-
plete, paI1ly because of the time it took for AHA
to resolve conflicts over it's own universal de-
sign guidelines and those of the Califomia
Housing Finance Authority (CHFA), a funder
that had its own detailed architectural specifica-
tions f(x such projects.
Between the universal design and CHFA
guidelines, Zwick estimates the project cost 15
to 20 percent more than a conventional multi-
family development. What made the work
more costly than other disabled housing was
providing the same products and designs for
all units, though many of their occupants
would not be disabled. These features include
low counteI1Ops, cabinets and keyholes; extra
floor space for wheelchairs to turn around;
stoves with buttons on the front; and others.
sign, including an article on how the COIll-
ing wave of retiring baby boomers is likely
to make universal design more popular.
NAHB and AARP staI1ed a training pro-
gram in 2002 to ceI1ify professional home
remodelors as aging-in-place specialists;
the program now has 1,000 graduates.
While universal design is much more af-
fordable when it's implemented in a new
building, rather than in a remodel, many
older people living in existing homes
would rather retrofit them than move out.
As in new buildings, the intent is to make
the renovations all but invisible to visitors.
To read what AARP and NAHB are say-
ing, go to www.aarp.org/farnilies/ home-.:,
design, or go to www.nahb.org and search
for "universal design."
-D.H.
"It was costly and complicated because we
were leaming it:' says Zwick. "Our architect
hadn't designed a universal design bui kling be-
fore. We got all these comments about things
we should do in the building. and the architect
pushed back and asked, 'Why do we go this till'
if the standard is [less].' Universal design is go-
ing above and beyond what thc code requires:'
First the Basics?
As they continue to pressure developers to in-
corporate visitability into their home designs.
some question whether they should staI1 push-
ing for universal design. There are those, like
Zwick, who think the time for universal de-
sign is coming soon. But so far its proponents
remain the outliers, while most activists are
more interested in implementing visitability
on a wider scale.
"Our experience is, the more features you
demand, the more people tune out and feel
they're unable to accomplish it," says Smith. If
everyone had visitability, "it would be a good
head staI1. Those who need additional features,
need the basics first." .
SHELTERFORCE 29