Loading...
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