Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2009 Housing & Community Development Commission AGENDA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2009 6:30 P.M. 1 . Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the March 12 and March 26, 2009 Minutes 3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda 4. Staff/Commission Comment 5. Fair Housing Presentation by the Iowa City Human Rights Department 6. Review of the FY10 Annual Action Plan and FY09 Annual Action Plan Amendment . Recommendation to Council 7. Discussion of FY09 Projects that have not Performed per the Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy 8. Review of the FY10 Allocation Process 9. Discussion of the Community Development Celebration 10. Monitoring Reports . Iowa City Free Medical Clinic - Building Acquisition & Operations (Richman) . MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation (DeFrance) . Iowa City Housing Authority - FY06 & 07 Tenant Based Rental Assistance (Shaw) 11 . Adjournment 1 ~ 1 -~= -~... ~~ail!:~ ~~~aa.~ .-. - CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Housing and Community Development Commission Community Development Staff April 1 0, 2009 April Meeting Packet Thank you for your time and dedication during the allocation process. It is a long and sometimes difficult process, but we appreciate your efforts and ability to form a consensus and make the necessary recommendations. With your recommendations complete, we can now concentrate on the administration of current projects and finish the remaining monitoring reports. The following is a short description of the April agenda items. Fair Housing Presentation by the Iowa City Human Rights Department Kristin Watson, Human Rights Investigator, will discuss fair housing laws, review potential housing discrimination practices and discuss the procedure to file a discrimination complaint. Discuss Recommendation to Council: FY10 Annual Action Plan & FY09 Annual Action Plan Amendment (FY09 Amendment) At the March 26 meeting, you made your budget recommendations to Council. As you may know, the budget is only one part of the Annual Action Plan. The Plan and FY09 Amendment includes the budget for CDBG & HOME funds, a description of the projects and activities to be funded and several HUD-required documents. The 30-day public comment period began on April 4 and runs through May 4. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Plan and FY09 Amendment on Tuesday, May 5 and formally approve the Plan and FY09 Amendment that same evening following the public hearing. Public copies are also available at the Iowa City Public Library and at the Planning Department; City Hall. Discussion of FY09 CDBG Projects that have not Performed per the Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy Staff will identify the projects that have not spent at least 50% of their CDBG award by March 15th and provide project updates. The Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy states that HCDC may recommend the recapture of unspent funds or HCDC may allow the recipient to retain the funds for the previously approved project. Review of the FY10 Allocation Process With the FY10 allocation process fresh in your mind, staff is interested in hearing your suggestions for next year. The commission may decide to appoint a subcommittee for further review or simply offer suggestions for next year. The FY11 allocation process will be the first year of our next Consolidated Plan (CITY STEPS 2011-2015). (Over) Community Development Celebration We will need to discuss the future of the community development celebration. Comments and suggestions will be reviewed. Monitoring Reports . Iowa City Free Medical Clinic - Building Acquisition & Operations (Richman) Contact Sandy Pickup - 337.9727 or spickup3@mchsi.com . MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation (DeFrance) Contact Ron Berg - 351.4357 or rberg@meccaia.com . Iowa City Housing Authority - FY06 & 07 Tenant Based Rental Assistance (Shaw) Contact Steve Rackis - 887.6065 or steven-rackis@iowa-city.org 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-hiqhtshoe@iowa-citv.orq. MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12,2009 -7:00 PM MEETING ROOM A, IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Preliminary Members Present: Stephen Crane, Andy Douglas, Charlie Drum, Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay, Rebecca McMurray, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw Members Absent: Marcy DeFrance Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long Others Present: Ashlee Swinton (Successful Living), Steve Rackis (Housing Authority), Charlie Eastham (The Housing Fellowship), Brianne Wojak (Successful Living), Tom Walz (Extend the Dream Foundation), Maryann Dennis (The Housing Fellowship), Ann Berg (MECCA), Sandy Pickup (The Free Medical Clinic), Yolanda Spears (Isis), Steve Noack (Successful Living), Kate Moreland (United Action for Youth), Diane Funk (Home Ties), Joshua Weber (Builders of Hope), Andy Johnson (Housing Trust Fund) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROV AL OF THE FEBRUARY 17 & 19. 2009 MINUTES: Hart motioned to approve the minutes. Shaw seconded. The motion carried 8-0 (DeFrance absent). PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Douglas said that the subcommittee looking into an event on affordable housing was considering getting a speaker to look at how the economic downturn has affected low-to-middle income housing consumers. Douglas said the subcommittee would investigate resources to help arrange a speaker if the idea sounded agreeable to the Commission. Shaw asked if the speaker would be speaking to the HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 2 of 17 issues and its impacts or if the speaker would have some sort of expertise that would allow them to provide suggestions and context for the problem. Douglas said that his hope was that the speaker could address both the issues and impact and provide expertise and suggestions. Hart asked if the subcommittee had any speakers in mind. Drum said they were looking for suggestions. Douglas said that Andy Johnson of The Housing Trust Fund suggested someone at the state economic development office. Shaw suggested that discussion of Jumpstart might be a useful topic for the speaker to address. Richman asked if the subcommittee had a date in mind. Douglas said they were looking at late April. Drum added that a firm date would be set when the speaker was decided on. Shaw asked if there was some funding available to help arrange the speaker; Staff said there was not. Shaw suggested staying local if that was the case. Douglas said the subcommittee would continue looking into the idea. Richman suggested they make sure to leave enough time for the Commission to get the word out about the event. Richman noted that he had sent out an e-mail asking Commissioners to identify any real or perceived conflicts of interest with respect to the allocation process. Hightshoe reported that she had received and addressed all responses. Richman asked if anyone had thought of any potential conflicts since initially responding to his e-mail. Shaw noted that his response had been verbal. No other Commissioners had comments on the subject. Long gave a brief update on the status of flood recovery. Long said a new program was beginning on March 13th for replacement single family housing for homes that were lost in the floods. Long said the City would be acquiring and demolishing 40 homes this summer through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. He said that up to $1 million dollars would be coming through this new program, called the Single Family New Construction Unit Production Program that would provide down-payment assistance; up to 30% of the purchase price or $54,000, whichever is less to income eligible homebuyers. The terms of the assistance would be a 10-year forgivable loan. Long said the City was developing partnerships with developers and builders to allow the City to construct up to 17 homes; the homes would be required to be constructed for less than $180,000. Long said these homes would have to be moved into or sold by December 31,2009. Hightshoe said that the City was looking at a variety of housing options such as townhouses and duplexes, even manufactured homes that will be permanently affixed to the foundation. Long said there is excitement about the program. Hightshoe said that Staff is first identifying cooperating homebui1ders and developers and then will look into partnerships with lenders; she said the program is proceeding pretty fast. Long said Staff was continuing to work on rehabilitation of damaged homes, and is currently working with 52 households and 62 businesses. He noted that there were a lot more homes and businesses to be helped. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - CITY BOARD AND COMMISSION SURVEY: Hightshoe explained that the Human Rights Commission was surveying board and commission members to determine if there were any barriers to service and to gather demographic information. Completion of the survey is voluntary; they can be turned in at the end of the meeting. UPDATE ON THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (a.k.a. STIMULUS BILL): HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12,2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 3 of 17 The stimulus bill was passed. Hightshoe gave a brief breakdown of the funding. She said there is additional CDBG funding of$1 billion, of which Iowa City will receive $176,785 (determined by formula). A neighborhood stabilization program received $2 billion nationally; however, Iowa City does not have that program and will not receive those funds. Public Housing received $4 billion in capital funding, of which the Iowa City Housing Authority will be receiving $191,000. Hightshoe said that the guidance the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave for the $176,785 was brief and consisted of using the funds quickly with maximum job creation and economic benefit. Hightshoe said that while no guidance had been given on whether the funds were eligible for public services, she did not anticipate that they would be. Long said this meant HUD was looking for construction projects, "bricks and mortar" projects that can begin within 120 days of amending their fiscal plan. Hart asked if it was correct that the additional funds could not be used for the building of rental housing. Hightshoe clarified that CDBG funds cannot be used for building rental properties. Hart asked if the funds could be used for public facilities and Hightshoe said that they could. Richman said that the easiest way to deal with the funding is to take it and toss it in with the $831,000 that is currently available, with the qualification that it could, for the most part, only be used for public facilities projects. Richman explained that effectively this additional funding allows the Commission to take money that would otherwise be spent on public facilities projects and allocate it toward other projects. Hightshoe reminded Commissioners that the goal in the five-year plan is to spend 20% of funding for public facilities projects, but that in actuality, only 13% was spent toward them to date (4 years completed out of our 5 year plan). Richman said that when new allocation sheets are done they will show available funding of approximately $1 million with new maximums and minimums. Hart asked where the $191,000 discussed earlier came into the picture. Long explained that the $191,000 was strictly for public housing and would be allocated by HUD to the Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA). He noted that Steve Rackis, Director of the ICHA, was present and could explain more about that. Rackis said that the guidance ICHA received was for "bricks and mortar" projects with job creation. He said the primary focus would be on renovating and reconstructing vacant public housing units with contracts issued within 120 days. CONSIDER AN EXCEPTION TO THE POLICY FOR ALLOCATION OF UNCOMMITTED CDBG & HOME FUNDS: Hightshoe explained that this agenda item is a result of the stimulus package. She said that there is a current HCDC policy on how to allocate additional funding provided by HUD. The policy states that the Commission will first look at existing projects, then will look at unfunded applications, and then will look at new proposals. Hightshoe said that Staff had consulted with the legal department and determined that the simplest way of combining the stimulus money with the FYI 0 funding is to make an exception to this policy. The exception would be that the extra funds will be allocated to FYI 0 applications that meet the purpose/intent of the Stimulus package; the source of the funds. Hightshoe explained this would differ from the existing policy as we would not be looking at FY09 projects or HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 4 of17 new projects that would require additional funding availability notices. Long explained that the changes would really just be administrative changes that Staff would implement. Shaw made a motion for an exception to the existing policy for allocation of uncommitted CDBG and HOME funds and to allocate the additional funds received through the Stimulus bill to FYIO applications. Hart seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 8-0 (DeFrance absent). DISCUSSION REGARDING FYIO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) REQUESTS: . Review Proiect Rankines . Discuss Averaee Allocation Worksheet Richman explained that there were two meetings left in the allocation process. This evening's meeting would be a discussion of each of the projects and the rankings/allocations that Commissioners submitted to Staff. On March 13th, Hightshoe will send Commissioners revised allocation sheets, giving them an opportunity to reallocate based on discussions held at tonight's meeting. In two weeks, March 26th, the Commission will reconvene and will finalize allocations and zero in on dollar amounts for each project, making its recommendations to City Council. McMurray asked to confirm for her own understanding that the Commission has more money to give out but that it cannot go to public services. Long clarified that the funds could be used for a Rehabilitation Project, but not toward new construction. Richman said that basically the Commission has another $176,000 that has to be spent on public facilities projects, which frees up some money that can then be spent on housing projects. Long noted that the projects would have to be of the "bricks and mortar" type. Douglas said that essentially the extra money can go toward anything; it is just a matter of how Staff accounts for it administratively. Richman said that as long as the Commission spends at least $176,000 on public facilities projects, then the rest of the money can go either to public facilities or housing; based on the number of applications, he added, that will likely not be an issue. Richman asked Staff if there were any projects under public facilities that might not be eligible for the stimulus money and was told that there were not. Long noted that there were some housing projects that were CDBG eligible but not stimulus recommended (land acquisition projects). Drum asked if the First Mennonite Church project would be eligible under the stimulus and Hightshoe said that it would be. Long noted that new construction of housing is not eligible for CDBG funds. Housine Activities: Richman asked if anyone wanted to put forth the principles or thoughts that guided their approach to allocations. Hart responded that she tried to think ofprojects that met the greatest or most dire need. She said this led her to give priority to rental assistance and the creation of rental properties. She noted that she did not do this perfectly across the board. Hart said she was tom between funding the Builders of Hope project and the similar Shelter House project. She said she liked the idea of the Shelter House project being LEED certified, but noted that they had so much need elsewhere she HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 5 of 17 chose not to fund their rental project. Hart said she was also guided by her assumptions of when projects might be able to find other resources or personal resources to call on, versus those who probably had nowhere else to go. She said some people might raise their eyebrows at her choices but she tried to go where the resources were most needed. Drum said he tried as best he could to stick to the scores he got from the ranking sheets. He said that he tried to put his personal preferences aside. He cited Local Foods as an example, saying that they were one of his personal favorites, but that they did not score high on his rating sheet and therefore he did not fund them. He said he also was guided by the most good for the money. He said he would like to hear more about Builders of Hope, but that his impression was that it was a lot of money for a very small number of units (four), which turned him off. McMurray noted that there was not as much on the order of homeowners hip in this funding cycle. She said that the only homeownership project was Dolphin Lake which had an impressive track record and received the most funding from her. Richman noted that this was a different dynamic than in previous years when there have been multiple homeownership projects. ISIS Investments: Richman noted that Crane had funded Isis on the low-end. Crane said that he just did not really have a good grasp of how much rehabilitation they had to do based on the dollar amount the Commission had to fund. He said his reasoning was to fund just one unit this time, because last year two had been funded. Hightshoe said that the per-unit cost was a good basis for analysis. Shaw noted that last year ISIS had asked for funding for four units, had received funding for two, and then proceeded on time and on budget. Richman said that he had analyzed the projects based on their dollars per bedroom costs because the unit sizes and types were so different. He said for this project he came out with a cost of$16,000 per bedroom. Douglas said he thought that sounded like a pretty efficient use of dollars. McKay said that he was impressed with Isis's ability to pull off the projects and get them done in a timely manner, as opposed to projects that are sometimes two years away. Shaw said that Isis had already pulled off so much with a limited staff, and done so very efficiently. He said that they had demonstrated that their projects were a good use of City money and provided a great amount of services and support to their families. He said he would be interested in funding at least two units this time around. Hart said she liked the idea of doing two units for Isis as well, and that she had been impressed with their efficiency. She noted that she had also been impressed with the innovative use ofland and the program offered by The Housing Fellowship (THF). The Housinl! Fellowshio - Rental Shaw noted that McMurray had funded this project on the low-side; McMurray could not immediately recall her reasoning for this. Crane noted that he had funded The Housing Fellowship on the high side because they always do a good job. Richman suggested that since McMurray had allocated more toward homeownership than other people there may simply have been less left over for THF's project. McMurray said she thought this was the case. Douglas said that he had funded the project high based on THF's proven track record and their ability to plug into the tax credit system. Richman said that there were obviously a lot of different funding approaches taken by the various Commissioners, just as there were a wide variety of projects asking for funding. He asked ifthere HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 6 of 17 was any sense of how people felt about one project format versus another. McKay said that while he may not have been consistent in applying this, some of his thinking was in how fast the money can be injected into the community, how fast it can be spent and the housing can become available. Crane said that he would likely move some of the new funding to Isis, as he is comfortable with doing two units now that more money is available. Shaw said that the projects are strong for different reasons. He said that with Isis there is a sense that there will be good support for the families and that such a net will likely help the projects to be sustainable for the families. With THF, Shaw said, there is a strong institutional structure to be able to maintain the properties as affordable housing. Either way, families will be receiving some sort of affordable housing support. Richman noted that with the Isis project the idea is for the families to eventually buy the rental properties, so it is difficult to compare the two. Shaw said that keeping families locked into the community for 10-15 years and getting them to a place where they can buy a home and be solidly invested in the community is difficult to compare with a project of20 units that will provide affordable housing to a large number of families over the years. Hart asked ifTHF knew what the average length of stay was for their families. Maryann Dennis ofTHF said that she did not know that statistic offhand but offered the anecdote that the property manager for the organization had been a tenant since 1993. She offered to get the figure and provide it to the Commission. Hart said that her impression had always been that the stays of families in THF housing were fairly stable and long-term. Long asked Dennis to e-mail the information to Hightshoe or him and he would distribute it to the Commissioners. Shaw asked what the per-unit cost was for THF's project. Drum said it was $30,000. Richman said that to determine per unit cost, he used the dollars being allocated by HCDC. Hart said she used the per-unit cost as listed on the application. Richman said he calculated $8,000 per bedroom for this project. Drum asked ifit was the same per bedroom figure for Isis. Richman said that Isis's project was $16,000 per bedroom. The HousinJ! Fellowshiv CHDO OveratinJ! Hightshoe clarified that at the time THF applied they did not know what the HOME entitlement was and requested $50,000. Staff calculated the most the City can provide in CHDO operating expenses is $30,687, 5% of the FY09 HOME entitlement. This amount is subject to change if the actual FYlO HOME entitlement amount is considerably different, however the City anticipates about the same HOME entitlement as last year. HOME rules prohibit more than 5% of the entitlement for CHDO operating expenses. Douglas said it looked like there was some consensus on the funding amount for THF's CHDO application. Richman asked if McKay had concerns based on the fact that he did not fund THF's CHDO request. McKay said he thought it was more a question of having first put the money where he thought it should be and not having any left over. Shaw asked if anyone had concerns about the ratio of funding for this request versus the others. He noted that the Commission was talking about funding 82% of that request. Hart said that was not a consideration for her, that it was more a matter of how well the money would work in that context. Richman noted that in some respects it was a different request than all of the other applications because it was for administrative and operating costs. Long pointed out that the money would help to maintain over 100 units in Iowa City and produce more affordable housing. Drum said that seemed like a good investment. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 7 of 17 Shelter House - Rental Richman noted that five Commissioners had allocated no money to this project and three had partially funded, and one had nearly fully funded the project. Hart said she thought this sounded like a great project, but she saw no way Shelter House could pull it off at this time as there was so much additional fundraising to do. She said she personally liked the idea of LEED certification. She said that she felt that allocating money elsewhere or to Shelter House's other projects might be the best bet this time around. She said she assumed they would be back with the same project the following year, perhaps with even more fundraising done. Douglas asked if the new Shelter House was also intended to be LEED certified. Staff said it was not. Hart said that she knew that Shelter House intended to look at costs that could be cut for this rental project, but in her opinion it may be better to leave costs such as LEED certification in and then wait on the project. Douglas said he had concerns about funding two big projects for Shelter House and because he really likes the new Shelter House project he decided to put his weight behind that one. McMurray asked if Shelter House had expressed any reservation about having simultaneous construction projects. Hightshoe said that Shelter House had replied that they did not think the projects would wind up being simultaneous. Richman asked if this project was one in which it could not proceed without full HCDC funding, an "all or nothing" type project. Crane said he had asked Shelter House that question and the response had been that whatever could be given would be of help. Richman asked for input from the Commissioners who allocated no dollars to the project on their reasoning. Shaw asked if there had been concerns about Shelter House foraying into the rental market for the first time. Hart said that was not a concern for her and that she thought it was a great project. She said she simply felt there were other pressing needs right now and this would not have immediate benefits. Richman said that for him the cost per bedroom was $33,000 and was way too high for him to back. He noted that in some respects it is an experimental format in affordable housing. He said that while he does not dispute the need, he does have concerns for the cost. He added that he is not a believer in funding only the lowest per bedroom cost across the board, but that there were a couple that stood out as too expensive given the limited funding. Hightshoe noted that given the high cost of construction it would be difficult to recoup those costs with single room occupancy units with capped rents. Douglas asked ifit was fair to say that this project and the Builders of Hope project are quite similar. Richman said they seemed so to him. Douglas said his thinking had been that rather than fund two similar projects, fund one. Arvind Thakore - Homeownership: Richman noted that this was the Dolphin Lake Pointe Enclave project. Richman noted that McMurray had been on the high end for this project. She said that she had been really impressed with what he had done so far and supported the homeownership aspect of this project. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12,2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 8 of 17 Shaw said he was impressed with the fact that Thakore had worked with Grant Wood Elementary and come up with a street named Paul Davis Street (a longtime Grant Wood principal). Shaw said this had a big impact for him. He said that the previous year he had not funded as high because he had concerns about the continuing specter of absentee landlordism for that property. Shaw said that although the primary base of operations for the project is not Iowa City, the project has demonstrated a willingness to engage with the community and communicate with the neighborhood and surrounding areas. He said that the effort to reach out and work with the school for a street name shows a commitment to the local community and the neighborhood as a whole. McMurray noted that the crime rate had decreased remarkably in the area. Shaw noted that there were not as many people because of all the empty units due to construction, which could also account for the drop in crime. Richman asked what Commissioners felt about the long-term viability of the project. Shaw said he believed that it depended on their ability to continue to beat the bushes for funding. He said there would have to be an ongoing evolution of the space and a cultural shift in the community. He said if the project could be successfully re-branded then there would be far-reaching effects for the whole area. Right now, Shaw said, it is still seen as "Lakeside." Douglas said that the project had sold out its first phase and that this was impressive. Long noted that the project has not actually sold any properties; rather, it has purchase offers for the whole first phase, which will begin to be sold April 1 st. Richman said he actually went there and went through the files of purchase offers. He said that there are indeed purchase offers, but that the deposits are only $100. Crane said he was actually outspoken against the project last year. However, because of the progress that has been made and the money that has gone into it, he has somewhat changed his opinion. He said the big question now was whether the prospective homeowners can get their funding to purchase the units. He said that if they can, he believes the project will be viable. He said that he does question how much money can actually be made by the investors. Shaw said that it is probably the case that so much money has been put into it now that it has to work. Richman said that he too was not a proponent of this project last year. He said that credit has to be given for the fact that there has been a lot of investment in this project. He said the units are nice looking. He said his concern was the same as Crane's. His concern was whether the people wanting to buy these units would be able to get a loan for them. Shaw said two years ago they may have, but now it could be a different story. Crane said that he understood that Thakore may now be moving here. Richman said that this program is essentially a down-payment program, providing $10,000, less than 10% of the purchase price. Crane said that a minimum 10% down payment was currently being required for financing with the more realistic number being 15-20%. Crane said it might be possible that first-time home buyers could use their new tax credit (passed in the stimulus package) in conjunction with this. Richman noted that as that is a tax credit, a consumer would still have to have the cash available. Hart said she also thought that Thakore had done an excellent job with this project, but that she had felt there were more pressing needs. She said she felt like if the units were not sellable they could ultimately be rented. Crane said he did not know if rental income would support the project. Long noted that units funded by HOME funds cannot be rented. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12,2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 9 of 17 Richman asked ifthe terms being requested were the same as last year's. Hightshoe said they were. Drum said that at issue for him was that it was a for-profit project rather than a non-profit and that it was owner-occupied versus rental. He said he loved this project but that it did not target primarily low-income people and was low on the CITY STEPS priority list. Douglas said that the housing survey seemed to indicate a greater need for affordable rental housing than homeownership. Iowa Citv Housinl! Authoritv - TBRA: Shaw said that this was a very consistent project that reliably uses its dollars in the most efficient manner. He said for him it was a matter of determining the allocation amount. Richman pointed out that this project is not a "bricks and mortar" project, but does have immediate impact for the very low income population of the community. McKay said that he was influenced by seeing how quickly the dollars turn into housing for people who might otherwise have to go without. He said that the way ICHA is able to leverage these funds to provide housing to the elderly and the disabled is very much a factor for him. McMurray said her allocation was on the lower end because ICHA had not yet used their FY09 allocation. Douglas said he had wondered about that as well. Steven Rackis ofICHA said that it had not yet been used as they are hoping to add it to the FYI 0 allocation to be able to serve more families for a longer period of time. Richman noted that all Commissioners funded the project, but amounts varied. Builders of Hope: Richman noted that five Commissioners allocated nothing to this project, whereas four Commissioners partially funded it. McKay said that so much of the square footage was going to be used to house services unique to the organization. He said that there are so many services already available in this town that he could not see why money should be used to construct a building to house more instructors and therapists. He said this drove his thinking in allocating nothing to the project. Richman asked ifhe was correct in his belief that there were now four units and Hightshoe said that was correct, and that it was also correct that there was a commercial component to the project, though HOME funds would not be used for that portion. Crane said he was a proponent of this project last year but that the per-unit cost was of concern to him this year. Based on the limited funds available, he chose not to allocate toward the project this year. Drum said the for-profit aspect of the project was a factor in not allocating funding to it. Richman said that it probably was not very profitable, but that $65,000 per unit was too high. He said that it probably served a need in the community, but that the costs were too high at this time. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12,2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 10 of 17 Douglas said he liked the overall sound of the project, and since he was not funding the Shelter House model, he wanted to fund this one. He said that the financial arguments presented by Commissioners make sense, although he does feel it is a good project. Hart said that her thinking was similar to Douglas's, although she had mistakenly believed she was funding the less costly version of the model. She said the projects this group has done in the past have been quite worthy, but that another year may be a better time for this. Richman said that Builders of Hope had a project two years ago that he was not a big proponent of, but that it turned out very well. However, in terms of dollars, this project was a little problematic for him. William Witti!! - Rental: Richman noted that this was another one where four people funded the project and four did not. Hightshoe noted that this would probably be a project where CDBG funding was used rather than HOME, as she did not think the comprehensive rehabilitation required by HOME could be done with success in this case. Richman said that although the cost of the project is low, it does not necessarily add new affordable units to the community. Hart said she had gone on the high-end for funding this project because she felt there was a safety issue at play. She said that having lived in similar housing types, she believed the units fill a need for those who cannot afford more. She also felt that there were probably not other resources from which the money could come. Douglas asked if the project seemed viable in the revised pro forma. Hightshoe said that if the predicted 5% vacancy rate was applied it could be viable; however, if the historical 15% vacancy rate applied, then it would not be. McKay said his problem was both the occupancy rate and the fact that the money being put into the house was not going toward making the rooms look better (thereby increasing the occupancy rate). Hightshoe noted that the kitchen and bath would be improved. Drum said that for him it was once again the for-profit issue. He said he had a hard time refurbishing someone's house. Richman pointed out that there probably was not much profit in the for-profit project. Long pointed out that as a for-profit property taxes were being paid by the owner. Hart said that Wittig had mentioned that he was working with the STAR program and to keep the place better kept up with higher occupancy rates. Drum said he did not see much effort being put into up-keep. Richman asked, in light of Hart' s assertion that there probably was not another funding source for the project, if there was a mortgage out on the property. Long said there were at least two mortgages on the property. Crane noted that the combined mortgages were higher than the assessed value of the house. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 11 of 17 Drum said he had been under the impression that Wittig had purchased the house very recently, but that it appeared he had owned it for quite some time. Long said that he had owned it since the mid 1990's. Richman asked if Drum had toured the property. Drum said he had and it is rough looking. Crane asked how many people resided there, and was told that there were 16 units with 12 people living there currently. Shaw said this had been one of his concerns, that if the occupancy rate can be filled with 16 residents, then you have 16 residents living in a very small space. He asked what the impact of that amount of people would be on the landlord's ability to keep the property up. Drum said he really appreciates what Wittig is trying to do and does not mean to disparage that. He said if there was enough money to fund all of the projects, he would fund this. However, since the money is limited, he thinks other projects better fit the community's needs. Dan Tonnesen - Rental: Richman noted that no one funded this project. He said there were issues with the lack of completeness in the application, but wondered if anyone else wished to speak to the issue. McKay said he just had the feeling that the project was going to go whether HCDC gave them a dime or not. He said it is a for-profit project and if they can make it work, they should do so. PUBLIC FACILITIES: First Mennonite Church - Home Ties Addition: Crane said he was in strong support of the project, largely due to the amount offundraising they had already done. He said he was very impressed with what they have achieved with their fundraising versus the amount of their request. Drum said he was impressed as well with the support they have from the church. He said that he was impressed that the church had basically given over their entire Sunday school area and their general meeting room to this daycare. He said he was impressed with the church's commitment to the daycare. He said that the addition would also solve the ongoing security problem with the daycare. McKay said that every Friday the church packs up the rooms used by the daycare so they can be used by the congregation and then every Monday unpacks them again. He said that the church has gone to considerable inconvenience, staff time, expense and trouble while getting no direct benefit from the daycare. He said he was very impressed with the church's commitment to the daycare. A member of the public, Brianne Wojak of Successful Living, spoke up to attest to what an amazing program Home Ties is and what a unique service it provides, saying she has worked closely with them in her professional capacity. United Action for Youth - Facilitv Rehabilitation: Hart said that this was not a bad project, but that she felt it was one that was less of dire need and more for aesthetics. Drum said that the windows issues and the resulting loss of heat were real issues that went beyond the cosmetic, as did the steps. Richman said his funding was based on the fact that the organization had gone out and gotten the labor for free. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12,2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 12 of 17 Shelter House - New Construction: Hart said that she had allocated higher because she was hoping to help push the project to completion as it had been in the works for four years. Richman asked if this project was eligible for the stimulus funding; Hightshoe said it was. Long noted that digging would have to commence prior to JulylO, 2009 for it to be eligible. Richman noted that this was by far the biggest request on the Public Facilities list. He asked if anyone felt strongly that the 70-bed facility should receive greater than the average Commissioner allocation of $119,000. Shaw asked about the capital campaign the Shelter House was doing. Drum asked if it was worth discussing how people wanted to handle the extra money; if they wanted to move it around as planned. Richman noted that if they wanted to, the Commission could use the extra money to fully fund Shelter House without changing much of anything else. He noted he was not advocating either way. McMurray said that Shelter House could be given 50% and the other projects could still be funded. Richman said it could also basically all be moved up to housing. Shaw said that the reality of the Shelter House is that every little bit helps and the more the Commission gives the less stress that is put on their capital campaign. Conversely, Shaw said, if the Commission does not give as much, the project will still move forward regardless. Richman said that past requests have usually been approached in one of two ways: 1) they are fully funded (such as Four Oaks) or 2) priming the pump (Splash Pad) and giving momentum for outside fundraising. Richman said that it seemed to him the Commission was going to have to decide which approach to take with Shelter House. Long said that as the Commission thinks about some ofthese projects and the stimulus money, they may want to think about what they have to report to HUD. He said things such as carpet replacement might not be what HUD has in mind because it is a one-shot stimulus, whereas "bricks and mortar" projects are "stimulating" in the way HUD is seeking. Shaw said the idea is to put more people to work. DVIP - Facilitv Rehabilitation: Crane asked if the air conditioning is not working. Shaw replied that they are 15 years old, original to the building and had some trouble operating last summer. Shaw said that shelters are pushing the state hard for a new formula for funding to help them stay open. He said this may be a situation where there is no other funding source. MECCA - Facilitv Rehabilitation: Shaw said that he has appreciated that the security upgrades are directly related to residents and services provided and will directly improve their lives. He said he liked that the systems were considered in the context of their impact on the outcomes of services provided, which was a somewhat rare thing in this funding category. Richman agreed. CMHC - Facilitv Rehabilitation: Crane said that he funded it as a safety issue for clients. Hart said that while the windows were an important project, the pavement takes precedence. Richman said this was one of two projects that he HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 13 of 17 did not fund. He said it was simply a matter of prioritization for him. Hart asked if Richman took the tour of the property and he said he did not. Hart said the tour had made a difference for her. NeiI!hborhood Centers of Johnson County - Facility Rehabilitation: Staff clarified that $26,615 is stated on the application. The applicant made an error in the budget, however $26,615 is the amount HCDC must consider. Shaw asked what the priority order was for the projects because even if the full request was granted, it would still not be what they had intended to request. Crane said that he allocated enough to fund the deck due to the safety issues. McMurray asked if the Commission could specify which project they intended to fund and Hightshoe said that they could. Hightshoe said that this is the second year an allocation request has been made for the deck and the third year funding for the asphalt has been requested. Crane noted that given the allocation amount on the application both projects could not be funded even if they wanted to. Arc of Southeast Iowa - Facility Rehabilitation: Richman noted that this was another project that half of the Commission funded and half did not. Hart said she believes Arc does fantastic work and that they are very deserving of new carpet, but that it is one thing that people could live without and delay for another year. Douglas said he agreed, and he thought the amount was so small they could probably raise it themselves. Crane agreed. Richman said he just did not feel the carpet was in that bad of shape other than a few rough spots under the desk. Drum agreed that it was a project that could wait another year, noting that the carpet on the administrative side of the building was in worse shape. Crane reminded him that Arc had said they were only interested in replacing carpet in the area clients were served in at this time. There was no further discussion on Arc at this time. Richman said there were basically four projects in Housing and Public Facilities where half of the Commission funded it and half did not: Shelter House rental project, Builders of Hope project, William Wittig rooming house project and The Arc carpet project. Richman asked if everyone felt they had enough information on these projects to move one way or the other on these projects. He asked if there was anything else about these projects that needed to be discussed. Shaw said it made sense to figure out which of the similar rental projects offered by Builders of Hope or Shelter House is the project to fund since it seems as though people picked one or the other to fund. Richman said there were several people who came out with zeros for both projects. It was determined that Commissioners felt they had enough information to proceed. PUBLIC SERVICES Richman pointed out that there is a minimum allocation of $2,500 for Public Services this year, and that this meant that at a minimum half of the projects that applied will not receive funding. He asked Commissioners to realize that in two weeks they would be saying no to at least half of these projects. Douglas asked if there were any that everyone had agreed not to fund, and was told that there was not. Crane noted that there were also no projects that everyone had agreed on. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 140f17 Shaw asked Crane how he reached his decisions. Crane said that he had concerns about the financials of Extend the Dream and that with Compeer he was concerned with the director turnover. He said that he liked all of them but that he had to leave two out so these were the two that he chose. McKay said that he chose to fund only The Free Medical Clinic (Free Med) in the amount of $1 0,000 because he feels that they serve a very desperate social need and that their services will be even more in demand as the economy attempts to recover. Hart said that she gave nothing to Free Med because she thought that they were in the best position to find outside funding. Hart said she funded Shelter House high because she felt that they could make the dollar go a long way and do a lot of good. In funding Extend the Dream and Compeer, she felt that they were organizations that could not really count on funding from other resources. Hart said it was her understanding that Extend the Dream now had the services of Taxes Plus and was on firm financial footing; Long said that their financials were better than they had been. Hightshoe said that Staff did have concerns with all-volunteer agencies and the administrative and regulatory burdens placed on them when dealing with federal funding sources. She said this is part of the reason the Commission had gone to the minimum Public Service allocation of$2,500. Hightshoe just said that it was something to think about when allocating funds to an organization run entirely by volunteers: are more regulations being imposed upon them than in which they might not have the capacity to comply with or could the funds be more easily obtained through fundraising with no built-in restrictions? Hart said that this new information about Extend the Dream could affect her funding decision. Hart said that it was her understanding that the turnover issue with Compeer could be alleviated by funding the director position. Hart said that she felt Local Foods could probably find a few more friends to use as its funding source, as might Successful Living (whose presentation she found very nice). Hart acknowledged that the additional funding sources could be simply her impression. Hightshoe noted that there had been discussions in the past about funding the same agencies year after year and whether to put a limit on it; an issue which she said had not been resolved. Crane said that this was a consideration in his decision not to fund Extend the Dream as they have had the same basic request funded for the past three years. McKay asked what the e-commerce that shows up in their budget refers to. Hart said they hold trainings to teach people how to sell things on E-bay. Hightshoe noted this was for supplemental income purposes. Hart said she felt like more and more people are utilizing their services. Richman noted that Extend the Dream has been very good at leveraging their dollars and they have shown consistency. He said that he respected that they never asked for a lot of money. Douglas said that he loves Local Foods but is not a strong supporter of financing them. He said that they are getting a lot of money from New Pioneer Co-op and seemed to have hooked themselves in to other funding sources. Shaw said that they are growing and it may be time to see if they can fly with their new wings. Richman said they seem like they would be able to fly if pushed out of the nest. Drum pointed out that in other situations the Commission rewarded those who went out and raised money on their own whereas in this case it seems to be seen as a reason not to fund them. Hart said that all of the services serve critical needs; it is just a question of what is going to go the farthest. McKay said that in looking at Extend the Dream's budget he noted that they are spending $5,000 on internet; he said he could find them internet for one-third that cost. He said $5,000 exceeds what the organization is even requesting. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12,2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 15 of 17 Shaw wondered if the best way to allocate for public services would be to reward the top four agencies for their administrative abilities and capacity, since it is accepted that all of the agencies provide good services. Hightshoe said that from Staffs perspective they are monitoring organizational structure and financial information more closely. All federal recipients must have a structure that separates financial duties and must have a system of record keeping and maintaining client information that is readily available. This is hard for some of the small agencies to do, especially for very small amounts of federal funding. Crane said that the income for the executive director for Local Foods is rather low without the HCDC funding although it is not something he would want to continue to fund. He said the goal would be for Local Foods to find other funding sources to sustain the position. Douglas said that he did not fund Shelter House under Public Services because he had funded their new construction project. Richman noted that Free Med and Shelter House had received the most votes for funding from Commissioners. Richman asked Commissioners to consider which two of the six projects they would choose not to fund if they had to drop two. Hart said she had given more to Shelter House thinking they would get more bang for their buck. Long noted that Commissioners can ask the applicants at the next meeting if the projects are still feasible with only $2,500. Crane said he found it rather confusing that the project that was ranked last (Compeer) seemed to have quite a bit of funding allocated to it. Hart said she had funded Compeer because she thought it might help the long-term stability of the project. Shaw said that there is a value judgment to be made by the Commission as to whether a program is effective and can grow in the community and should therefore receive more funding. McMurray said that there were other mental health resources in the community to serve the Compeer population. Hightshoe said the agency serves 22 people. Richman said he had funded the program but was persuadable. It was discussed that Compeer had not received funding last year, but had the year before. Shaw asked if significance is given to having to repeatedly fund programs. Crane asked how long Local Foods had been funded and Hightshoe said it was funded in FY08 and FY09. She noted that this information is found in the staff review under "Applicant History." Shaw noted that all of the agencies in question had received past funding. Richman noted that it is a question as to whether these organizations are even intended to be entrepreneurial and self-supporting. Shaw said he was not thinking of self-sufficiency so much as whether the agencies were administratively self- supporting enough to comply with all of the necessary regulations. Long asked if anyone had questions for Successful Living. Long asked Successful Living if only $2,500 of the requested $8,000 was granted it would be enough to sustain the program. Steve Noack of Successful Living replied that it would be difficult, but that any help would be appreciated. He said that the hours of the position would likely be cut down. Wojak noted that Successful Living receives no Aid to Agencies funding at all and that it was their hope that the new position could direct the recreation activities and look for new funding and fundraising opportunities with the goal of becoming more sustainable. Wojakjoked that she would love to not be at this meeting at 9:45 p.m. at this time next year and that funding this position would help to make that possible. Wojak stated that the pilot project has been going very well and has grown each week, and that they would certainly take any funding that could be given. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH ] 2, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page]6 of]7 Long asked Sandy Pickup of the Free Medical Clinic if their project would continue with or without full funding. Pickup said that it will continue with partial funding if necessary. McMurray asked if pharmacists volunteer in addition to the doctors that volunteer. Pickup explained that the skills of a pharmacist are not as necessary as the skills of a prolific paper-pusher that could fill out and document the intensive paperwork necessary for the project. Richman noted that the two most higWy ranked Public Service projects were also the projects that received the fewest votes for zero funding. He proposed agreeing that those two projects and one or two others be funded for the next round of allocations. He said that would reduce the number of moving pieces to deal with in two weeks. Drum asked ifthere was anyone project that could be dropped now. Shaw said he was comfortable with that suggestion. Richman suggested that when people fill out their next allocation worksheet they assume that Free Med and Shelter House get funded at some level, and then everyone can pick one to two others to fund. McMurray concurred. Crane asked if they should allot four at $2,500. Richman and Shaw said it was up to each Commissioner how to allocate and at what amounts. Douglas asked if Compeer and Successful living were somewhat similar. Drum said he did not think so. Wojak, who volunteers at Compeer and works at Successful Living, said that while they both serve the chronically mentally ill, the clients at Successful Living receive more life-skills training and the Compeer program is about one on one relationships. Hart asked how many clients Successful Living currently served. Wojak said they serve 84 clients. Hightshoe said she would send out revised allocation sheets on March 13th and asked Commissioners to return them to her by March 18th. Long said that since the final dollar amounts are not yet known and will not be until the President's budget is passed, he wondered ifit was alright with the Commission if the numbers varied by 5% or less if the change was applied across the board. He said ifit varied more than 5% it might be necessary to reconvene. The Commission gave their consent. ADJOURNMENT: Shaw motioned to adjourn. Crane seconded. The motion passed 8-0 (DeFrance absent). The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 - 6:30 PM MEETING ROOM A, IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY PRELIMINARY Members Present: Stephen Crane, Marcy DeFrance, Andy Douglas, Charlie Drum, Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw Members Absent: Rebecca McMurray Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long Others Present: Steve Noack, Ashlee Swinton (Successful Living), Steve Rackis (Housing Authority), Maryann Dennis, Charlie Eastham (The Housing Fellowship), Ron Berg (MECCA), Sandy Pickup (The Free Medical Clinic), Diane Funk (Home Ties), Heather Weber, Joshua Weber (Builders of Hope), Arvind Thakore (Dolphin), Bill Wittig (Private Owner), Terry Sobotta (Iowa Realty) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action): Housing and Community Development Commission Funding Recommendations: FYI0 CDBG/HOME Projects Public Services: Iowa City Free Medical Clinic (Operations): Shelter House (Operations): Successful Living (Operations): Public Services Total: $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $10,000 Housing Activities: The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating: Isis Investments LLC - Rental: The Housing Fellowship - Rental: Dolphin Lake Point - Homeownership: Iowa City Housing Authority - TBRA: William Wittig - Rental: Housing Total: $30,687 $150,000 $220,000 $90,000 $110,000 $20,000 $620,687 Public Facilities: Community Mental Health Center - Facility Rehabilitation: The Arc of Southeast Iowa - Facility Rehabilitation: Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - Facility Rehab: Shelter House - New Construction: MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation: United Action for Youth - Facility Rehabilitation: DVIP - Facility Rehabilitation: $23,504 $4,500 $26,601 $83,215 $32,399 $18,000 $12,256 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 2 of 16 Public Facilities Total: $200,475 Total FYI0 CDBG/HOME Funds Available to Allocate: $831,162 Housing and Community Development Commission Funding Recommendations: 2009 American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. Stimulus Bill) FY09 Annual Action Plan Amendment First Mennonite Church - Home Ties Addition: $60,000 Shelter House - New Construction: $116,785 (Shelter House Total FY09 & 10 CDBG Award of $200,000) Total 2009 American Recovery & Reinvestment Act Funds: $176,785 On a vote of 8-0 (McMurray absent) the Commission agreed to make the above mentioned recommendations to City Council for FYI 0 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) And Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds and for the 2009 American Recovery & Reinvestment Act funds. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: None. DISCUSSION REGARDING FYIO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) REQUESTS: . Discuss FYI0 CDBG/HOME Applications . Develop FYI0 CDBG/HOME Budget recommendations to Council . Consider an Amendment to the FY09 Annual Action Plan for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. Stimulus Bill) Richman said that all Commission members have had an opportunity over the last month to review the applications and projects, and that tonight's meeting was where the final allocation recommendations would be made. Richman proposed starting with Public Services as it is the only independent category. He noted that with Housing and Public Facilities, funds could be moved from one category to another. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 3 of 16 PUBLIC SERVICES: Richman noted that no Commissioners allocated funds to Extend the Dream on their allocation worksheets, so he proposed allocating $0 to that agency for the time being; the other Commissioners agreed. Hightshoe asked if each category would be voted on individually, or if a final vote would be taken at the end of all of the decision-making process. Richman said there would be one motion at the very end of the process. Richman noted that only one Commission member funded the Compeer Program. Douglas, the funding member, said that he could withdraw his proposed funding as it seemed the consensus was to not fund Compeer. Richman suggested allocating $0 to that proj ect for the time being. He reminded Commissioners that changes to these numbers could be made at a later time. Richman suggested starting with the average allocation for the remaining four Public Service agencies: $4,056 for Iowa City Free Medical Clinic, $3,111 for Shelter House (Operations), $1,444 for Successful Living (Operations), $1,111 for Local Foods Connection (Operations). Richman said that HCDC policy is that the $10,000 available in this category must be allocated with a $2,500 minimum for each agency. Richman asked if anyone felt strongly about either increasing or decreasing funding for the Iowa City Free Medical Clinic. Hightshoe noted that the average allocations worksheet lists in order the average score after the ranking sheets were compiled. The application with the highest score is first and then second, third, etc. This is the same for housing and public facilities. McKay proposed raising the Free Medical Clinic's allocation to $5,000. Shaw inquired as to the rationale for this, noting that at least three people had spread the allocations evenly in $2,500 increments. Shaw pointed out that the prior meeting's consensus was that each Commissioner would allocate to the two agencies that had previously received the most votes for allocation and then spread the remainder as they saw fit. He said that it is a question of whether the Commission wants to "load up" the top two selections, or spread the money among more groups. Drum said these comments basically lead to a discussion of Local Foods Connection, because they were at the bottom of the remaining agencies in terms of allocations. He noted that there were five Commissioners who allocated nothing. Shaw said he could be swayed either way, as he is still wrestling with the choice of placing federal reporting burdens on small, understaffed organizations versus funding an organization that has in the past used CDBO money well and put itself in a position to grow into a self-sustaining organization. He said this was a discussion the Commission should have. Richman said that his feeling was that Local Foods is an organization that has really moved toward being self-sustaining and may no longer need CDBO money in such a critical way. He said this was his rationale for not funding Local Foods, but that he was open to discussion on the matter. Drum said that it is an organization that he personally supports, but that it did not rank well on his allocation sheet and so he chose not to fund it. Richman said that it seemed the choice was whether Local Foods would receive $2,500 or $0. Crane said the Free Medical Clinic was his first priority, and that he would be willing to move Local Foods to $0. DeFrance said that the Free Medical Clinic was also her highest priority because of the high number of Iowa City residents it serves; she said this rationale is also what led her to fund Shelter House and Local Foods. Shaw noted that McMurray had funded Local Foods. Richman pointed out that the vote would be taken at the end of the meeting so that McMurray could have the opportunity for input if she arrived at the meeting prior to its end. Shaw asked how many years Local Foods had been funded. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 4 of 16 Hightshoe said it had been funded in FY08 and FY09. Shaw analogized that the Local Foods seed had taken root and may now be able to grow on its own. He noted that in some ways not funding Local Foods was almost like punishing them for their success. Richman said that ultimately there are philosophical issues to consider when it comes to allocating the funds, but that that is the nature of the task. He proposed allocating $0 to Local Foods and bumping the free Medical Clinic up to $5,000. The Commission agreed to do so for the time being. Richman noted that Successful Living also had an average allocation that was below the $2,500 minimum, and asked if the Commission would like to move it up to the $2,500 level or down to $0. McKay said that with the burden of federal reporting in mind, he would consider moving Successful Living to $0 and then moving Shelter House up to $5,000. Richman said that his feeling on the federal reporting requirements is that each agency was aware of those requirements when they applied for the funds and so it will not be an unforeseen burden for these organizations. Long and Hightshoe pointed out that the three organizations still under consideration for Public Services funding have all received federal funding of some sort in the past and are therefore familiar with the requirements. Long said that if Staff had concerns about those agencies and reporting they would have informed the Commission of that. Hart said she would be willing to go either way, but was leaning toward $5,000 for the Free Medical Clinic, $2,500 for Shelter House, and $2,500 for Successful Living. Richman asked the representatives of Successful Living that were present if they would be comfortable with an award for less than the requested amount, and they indicated that they would be. Crane noted that all of these agencies have put a lot of time and effort into this process and that he would prefer to fund three or four of them rather than just two. A consensus was indicated for funding Successful Living at the $2,500 level. For the purposes of discussion, the Commission agreed to fund Free Medical Clinic at $5,000, Shelter House at $2,500, and Successful Living at $2,500. HOUSING ACTIVITIES: Richman suggested next discussing the Housing Activities applications. He suggested beginning by once again seeing if consensus could be reached on which projects would not be funded. Don Tonnesen -Rental: Drum noted that Don Tonnesen's application (Anchor Housing) had received no votes for allocation. Richman agreed that this project could be dropped from discussions ifno one had changed their opinion on it since submitting their worksheet. The Commission agreed to allocate $0 to this project. Builders of Hove - Rental: Richman noted that Builders of Hope had received only one vote for funding (McMurray). Richman suggested funding the project at $0 for now and then revisiting if necessary prior to a vote. The Housinf! Fellowshiv - CHDO Overating: Richman noted a high level of consensus on the CHDO Operating funds for The Housing Fellowship, with everyone funding at either $30,000 or the full request of$30, 6887. Shaw said that if the Commission was willing to fund at $30,000, then they might as well go ahead and give The Housing Fellowship the additional $687 they had requested. A consensus was indicated for funding The Housing Fellowship (CHDO Operating) at $30,687. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 5 of 16 Isis Investments LLC - Rental: The application from Isis Investments LLC was discussed next. Crane noted that the average allocation for this project had been $150,000 of the requested $250,000, with Richman allocating a little more and Hart allocating a little less. Shaw said his rationale had been that Isis did two units very successfully last year so he was willing to go ahead and fund three units this year. Crane said he had a similar rationale for his final allocation figure. Douglas noted that this was one of those "shovel ready" projects being encouraged by the Stimulus Package. Richman said he had previously funded Isis at three units ($150,000) but had decided to bump it up to four units ($200,000). He said there are two big traditional rental projects under consideration for funding: projects by Isis and The Housing Fellowship. Richman said the nice thing about Isis is that the units come on line fast because they are an acquisition rehabilitation project as opposed to new construction. He said he was comfortable moving down to $150,000 if others were more comfortable with that. Shaw said he would be comfortable going to $200,000 ifit could be changed later in the discussions if the money was found to be needed elsewhere. Hart said she liked both projects, but had just been looking for more money for The Housing Fellowship. She said she would be fine with $150,000 for Isis if that was the consensus. The Commission agreed to set the allocation for Isis at $150,000 for the time being. The HousinJ! Fellowshio - Rental Crane noted that he had allocated high on this project because they have always done a good job. He said he would be willing to go down to the level of the average allocation ($202,552) to be more in line with what others have allocated. Richman said that it helped him to list the pros and cons for the Isis project and The Housing Fellowship project. A con for Isis is that the affordability covenant is only for fifteen years instead of the 30 years The Housing Fellowship has proposed. He said that is sort of the nature of the hybrid rental/option to buy project that Isis offers. Richman said his concern with The Housing Fellowship is the relatively high developer fee. Richman said that it is also true that much of the developer fee will ultimately go back in the community because The Housing Fellowship has a history of doing good projects. Shaw asked if the concern Richman had was bumping into the same situation the Commission ran into in the fall with having the terms of the loan change. Richman said that in a sense this was an issue for him in that the loan would not amortize and no money would come back into the City over time to be reallocated for other projects. He acknowledged that this just might be the nature of affordable housing in Iowa City at this time, and that perhaps the only way it can be feasible is to have no ongoing loan payment. Hightshoe pointed out that Staff concurred with the terms put forth by The Housing Fellowship because they will look more appealing to a syndicator trying to broker the tax credit deal. A consensus was reached to fund The Housing Fellowship (Rental) at $200,000 (ten units) for the time being. Shelter House - Rental: Richman asked for comments on the Shelter House rental project. Richman noted that five Commissioners had not funded the project and four had. Drum noted that six Commissioners had actually not funded the project as he had made a mistake in allocating to the project and had not intended to. Shaw said that while he had allocated some funding to the project, he was comfortable with the arguments previously made by others that it may be better to do more immediate, shovel-ready projects this year and save this for another time. McKay said he had had the same thought. Douglas said he thought that Staff still had some concerns about the ability to pull this project off at this time. Hightshoe said Staff had concerns about cash flow because the Shelter House will have to get a private loan to fund this project. She said that Staff had expressed that they could not give their recommendation to the project based on the current numbers and that they had not received a revised pro forma (as had been HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 6 of 16 requested at the last meeting from Shelter House). McKay said he would be willing to go to $0 on the project and Douglas said that he would too. Consensus was reached not to fund the Shelter House (Rental) project at this time. Dolohin Lake Point - Homeownershio: Richman asked Staff what the assumed down payment on one of these units would be, and was told it was $9,000. Richman said that what he liked about this project is that it is the only home ownership project on the table this year. He said that last year he was much more skeptical about this project, but that he feels that a good job has been done there in terms of moving the construction along. Richman said he is still concerned about whether the proposed buyers will be able to get financing. Shaw said that given the fact that the project will be rolling out slowly; there is always a chance that in a year or two as more units come on line the financial conditions may be more conducive to the target population. Richman said that last year $68,000, or roughly seven units, had been funded. He said that part of the decision was based on the question of how many more units the Commission wanted to fund. Drum said he believed this may have been where the error was on his worksheet, and that even though his aim was to fund more rental units, he liked this project a lot. Shaw asked Hart why her funding allocation was $0. Hart replied that her reason was that the project was a low CITY STEPS priority. She said she thinks it is a good project and that it is doing well; she said she is not opposed to funding it as the only home ownership application. Douglas said he was more interested in funding rental properties this time around, but that in light of the additional funding he had allocated some to this project. The Commission reached consensus to fund the project at $100,000. Iowa Citv Housin!! Authoritv - TBRA: Richman recalled that TBRA funds about one family for each $4,800 in funding. Shaw said he had intended to fund about 20 families. He noted that with $60,000 in TBRA funding still available from last year there may be a capacity issue for the Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA), with more TBRA funding than is needed, and that perhaps it would be best to give more money to another group. McKay said that he had funded TBRA highly because he knew that the money gets used in a very good way. He said he was flexible on the amount of funding. Shaw said that if $60,000 was left over from last year's allocation it may be that there is not a great enough demand for the units for which TBRA can be used. McKay said he was willing to consider that possibility. Hart said that the availability of this funding could make or break for the people who need it. Shaw noted that $60,000 was the entire FY09 allocation to TBRA and all of it is left. Drum noted that if the Commission funded TBRA at $120,000 and the $60,000 from last year was taken into account it would be almost as if the Commission had funded the full $180,000 request. Hightshoe said that that amount would fund 25 families over a two year period. Crane and Douglas said they were fine with raising their allocation amounts as their low allocations had been because they felt stronger about other projects. Richman said he too was willing to allocate at $120,000 for now. William Witti!! - Rental: Richman noted that four Commissioners had proposed some level of funding for this project and five had allocated $0. Richman said whether or not to fund this project had been a tough decision for him. He said this project was different than any other that had been funded in the past in that the units already exist and are affordable. Shaw noted that there are a number of questions about the property. Richman asked Commissioners what some of their questions about the property were. Drum said he had questions about the affordability period. Richman noted that Wittig had expressed a willingness to extend the affordability period and Wittig confirmed that he had. Hightshoe pointed out that because the property HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 7 of 16 currently had no federal attachment or lien it could be sold tomorrow and that affordability could vanish; CDBG funds would actually provide an affordability period that does not currently exist. Shaw and Drum noted that this meant the current affordability or use as transient housing could disappear without the restrictions attached with our funds. Richman pointed out that first someone would have to be willing to step in and purchase the property. Shaw said that for him there was also a capacity and occupancy issue with the property. DeFrance asked if the property had a valid rental permit. Long said he believed there were some issues being worked out. Wittig said that there were two or three issues that needed to be finished by July. DeFrance asked ifit was true Wittig had owned the property for twelve years, and he said that he had owned it since 1996. Drum said he had trouble coming to terms with funding this project and DeFrance said she did too. She said that she had done some research on the property and that she had learned that the property was purchased for $135,000 in 1997. She said that she did not understand why there was a mortgage for $211,000. Wittig said the first mortgage was for $161,000 and that he had refinanced to refurbish the units. Wittig explained that the occupants were generally transient and were often hard on the property. DeFrance said she just wondered if the $76,000 was actually put back into this property because all she could see for repairs was a new furnace and a roof. Wittig said all of the money went into the property; he said that some of the reinvestment was actually the property taxes because the property is taxed as a commercial property. DeFrance said that based on the rents stated by Wittig in the last meeting it seemed that there was a lot of income to be had from this property. Wittig said that ifhe had all 16 rooms fully occupied he would not even have applied for the funding. He said that the problem with transient housing like this is that the vacancy rate runs at 15-20%. He said it is also difficult to collect the rents that are due because of the population he serves. Wittig said that he has generally used his real estate income to keep the property afloat. Wittig said that with tax depreciation it is generally a wash. In the past couple of years, however, his real estate income has decreased making it more difficult to keep the property going. Richman noted that $135,000 had been paid for the property and that $211,000 was owed on it, a difference of $75,000. He said that a new furnace and a roof was probably about $20,000. Wittig said there was a second mortgage of $50,000 taken out that paid for all of the roof, the soffits, gutters and 2-3 years of back property taxes. DeFrance said the commercial property tax rate was $7,552 per year. DeFrance said that in all honesty she was concerned about the maintenance of the property and rental permit compliance. She said she noted several things on the exterior of the building that would not take a lot of money but were not well maintained. She said there are nine pages of complaints against the property beginning in 1992 and running through the present in regard to the property's inspections. Wittig said he believed these types of complaints were growing fewer all of the time and that a lot of progress has been made. Wittig said that a tremendous amount of cooperation exists between his property and Shelter House and the STAR program. DeFrance said she was comfortable leaving the funding at $0 for this project. Drum said he would like to leave it at $0 as well. He said that the combination of the money-pit aspect of the property, the fact that it is privately owned, the short affordability period, and the condition of the property all make him not inclined to fund it. Hart said she has waivered with this property, with part her concern being the continual need for money for upkeep for this property. She said the fact that it was privately owned did not concern her as much. She said that it was in the property's favor that so much work was being done with the STAR program and that while it is not the most attractive property, it does seem as though there has been some improvement over the years. Richman said he had funded the property but that the question in his mind is if the new Shelter House is funded does it in any way reduce the need for this HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 8 of 16 property. Hart said that it seems to her that there is a need for this type of housing in the community. Wittig said that a larger Shelter House would only increase the need for units like his, as his units provide transitional housing for those coming out ofhomelessness. Richman noted that there seemed to be strong opinions against funding the property and weaker feelings for funding it. Wittig asked Staff what the designation "High Priority for Stimulus" meant that was written on the overhead next to his property's entry. Hightshoe said it simply meant that the project was CDBG eligible as rental rehabilitation could start immediately and it was a bricks/mortar type project. Hart said that it just seemed to her that there was still a pressing need for this kind of interim or halfway housing. She said they may not always be the most attractive kind of units, but that there is a real need for them. Douglas said he could champion the cause a little more. He said that there is a strong need for this housing type and he would like to see it funded at the $30,000 level at least. Shaw agreed that there was a need for this type of housing but said that his concern was that in funding this project the Commission may be striving to fill that need with housing that was substandard rather than a higher quality of housing. Douglas asked ifit was actually the case that the property was substandard or if the concerns were largely cosmetic. DeFrance said the concerns were more than cosmetic. Drum said that the property had been inspected. Crane asked Wittig what concerns were being addressed with the property that had to be rectified by July. Wittig said the bathrooms had issues and that it was better to simply gut them and rebuild them than to try to do piecemeal repairs. He said there was chipping paint on the exterior and that it made more sense just to get new siding and windows than to repaint. Wittig pointed out that a number of the permit violations brought up by DeFrance had actually occurred prior to his ownership, and said that he had been working diligently to try to make the property an asset in the neighborhood. He said that new siding and windows would add a whole new look to the property and would help to take it to the next level. Wittig said that the windows and siding he is hoping to have funded are improvements that will last 20-30 years, and could not be done based on the cash-flow alone. McKay asked if Wittig would be able to bring the property into compliance ifhis request is not fully funded. Wittig said that one of the big items on the request was $24,000 for a separate electrical panel in each unit which has been discussed with Housing Inspection Services (HIS), but has not as yet been made a requirement. Wittig said deleting that project would take $24,000 off the total. Wittig noted that the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County had approached him with an offer of help for what funds come up short through HCDC. Wittig said a partial funding would help to leverage funding from the Housing Trust Fund. Hightshoe noted that this housing type is considered transitional housing and was meant as a stepping stone between Shelter House/homelessness and, for those who qualify, a Section 8 voucher or other low- income housing. Hightshoe noted that the Builders of Hope and Shelter House rental projects were also for transitional housing. Richman asked what would happen to a project like this if it were sold prior to the expiration of the affordability period. Hightshoe said a lien would be placed on the property and the purchaser would have to be willing to comply with the affordability terms. Wittig said that when the second mortgage is paid off in eight years, the cash-flow will be greatly improved. DeFrance said that it was hard for her to swallow that after collecting rents for twelve years Wittig had to borrow an additional $76,000 to get the property in the black. She said every rental property takes maintenance and that she is still concerned about all of the complaints against the property. She said she is skeptical that a new roof and furnace ate up $76,000. Wittig said he was not trying to convey that putting in a new roof and furnace and air HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 9 of 16 conditioner ate up all of that money. He said that much of that money was utilized for property taxes and during times of poor cash-flow. Wittig said he had gone through three different property managers before taking over the day to day operations of the property himself four years ago. He said that prior to that he imagined that the vacancy rate was somewhere between 25 and 50%. The roofreplacement project put him at 50% vacancy. Wittig said that he believes with the enhancements discussed in the application and the cooperation of Shelter House and STAR that vacancy rates will level off at about 15% vacancy. He said that as happy as it would make everyone involved, the reality of a 5% vacancy rate is not in the near future. The previous owner, Wittig said, had 100% occupancy but had terrible problems with drugs and other unsavory problems. Wittig said there are still issues of course and that every six months or so he has to evict someone for a legal-related problem (violence or substance abuse). Wittig said that people coming out of the STAR program or Shelter House are in need of this kind of transitional housing. He said that these people were not college graduates or even high school graduates often and that they were not stellar tenants or model citizens. He said his tenants have had problems with drugs and legal problems and are trying to clean up their lives. DeFrance asked if Wittig had leases for his tenants. He said that he did not unless they were 30-day month-to-month. DeFrance asked where the funding for the rents comes from. Wittig said it came from many sources: Johnson County Assistance, Veterans Affairs, cash, payment directly from employers. Shaw said that this was a function of being able to work with other services such as STAR and Shelter House to be able to support people in transition from homelessness. Shaw said these statements led him toward funding the project as he believes there may be good collaboration between Wittig's property and other agencies. DeFrance asked where the tenants came from. Wittig said there were referrals from Shelter House and STAR, and there was also word-of-mouth referral. Hart said she was still inclined to advocate for some funds for this project. She said she was glad that there was a landlord willing to improve a property like this. She said that neither the clientele nor the properties for transitional housing were necessarily pristine, but that it is extremely difficult for these people to find accommodations. She said there seemed a real intent on the part of the owner to improve this property, and that without it a lot of people might fall through the cracks. Richman said he would be willing to see the City invest in the property if the five year affordability period was increased. Drum and Shaw said that a longer affordability period would also be a requirement for them. Crane asked how many rooms were currently occupied. Wittig said that 12 of the available 15 rooms (one room is reserved for the site-manager) were full. Wittig said that it was always possible at the end of the month that a number of them could leave as there were no leases in place. McKay asked Staff how much of this type of housing was available in the city currently. Hightshoe said it was very difficult to find this kind of housing. McKay said that with that in mind he would be willing to fund it. He said that he thinks the city needs this type of housing and if Wittig can bring the property into compliance with less than the full allocation request he is willing to invest in it. He said that while he funds it reluctantly, he thinks it is something that should be done. Drum said that with a ten-year affordability period he would be willing to partially find the project. DeFrance asked if Wittig had said that it would be $24,000 to remodel two bathrooms. Wittig said the $24,000 was for electrical subpanels in every room, but that he thought as a grandfathered-in legal non-conforming use the issue had not yet been pushed by HIS. Wittig said he was currently gathering estimates on windows and that he had run into an issue wherein CDBG and HIS had conflicting requirements. Richman said a number would have to be floated for funding level. McKay recommended $25,000. Shaw said it was relevant to him how much money it would take to get the property up to code, and HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 10 of 16 whether that amount would increase the safety of the residents. McKay said $25,000 would cover the bathrooms and some of the kitchens, which are expensive and are quality of life issues for the residents. DeFrance asked what items the July 1 sl re-inspection was for. Wittig said the re-inspection was for the two bathrooms and for chipping paint on the exterior. Hightshoe noted that there were no lead-based paint considerations for this property as it is a single room occupancy property and not subject to Lead Based Paint provisions. Shaw said that this was his concern with partially funding the project: that it would be funded and would remain in substandard condition. Crane said that his understanding was that $25,000 would cover essentially everything on the list except the electrical. Wittig said that $66,400 would do everything with the electrical and that it would take about $40,000 to do only siding, windows, bathrooms and kitchens. Shaw asked Wittig what he would spend the money on ifhe received $25,000 from HCDC. Wittig said it would first be spent on bathrooms, then kitchens, and then if help was received from the Housing Trust Fund the siding and windows would be attended to. Shaw said his greatest concern was safety and that whatever funding level was necessary to ensure that the house did not bum down next year due to faulty wiring was what he would like to see done; toilets, he said, are just toilets. Hightshoe said that an award from HCDC (albeit partial) may help Wittig to leverage funds from the Housing Trust Fund to cover other project costs. The Commission set the allocation level at $25,000, with a ten-year affordability period required. Hightshoe asked for the Housing Activities section in general if the Commission was amenable to the staff recommended financing terms as the terms presented to City Council. The Commission briefly reviewed the financing terms and agreed to staffs recommendations. Hightshoe noted that The Housing Fellowship had a financing period of30 years, which would mean that in the final ten years when some renovations may be due The Housing Fellowship will not be able to apply for more HOME funds for the project. In light of that, Hightshoe asked if the Commission was interested in lowering the period to 20 years. The Commission chose to leave the terms as requested by The Housing Fellowship for the 30 year period. Richman proposed that for the Wittig project a condition be placed on the funding that says all property taxes and tax liens are satisfied prior to release of funds. He said that as a matter of public policy it does not make sense to allocate funds if the property taxes are not being paid. The Commission agreed to this stipulation. Richman proposed moving on to Public Facilities projects and then looking back to see if funding needed to be moved around somewhat. PUBLIC FACILITIES: Shaw proposed funding all projects fully for visual purposes, except the Shelter House new construction projects since their allocation request was so high, and then work their way backwards. Drum suggested leaving The Arc of Southeast Iowa out of the initial mix as well since their request was so small. The Commission agreed to do this. Richman said this formulation left approximately $178,000 for Shelter House, if The Arc was left unfunded. Shaw pointed out that there was the ability to take money from the Housing Activities side of things and the Public Facilities side and switch dollar amounts around. Richman said that he believed full allocation for MECCA and Community Mental Health Center (CMHC) was a little too more than he was comfortable with. Hart said that CMHC could get their parking lot fixed for $23,504; she said she had HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 11 of 16 allocated for the driveway only, leaving the windows for another year. Crane said that he felt the alley/parking lot was a hazard the way it was currently and needed to be fixed. Shaw said it had to be thought of in the context of where the funding would be moved to, what the Commission would be valuing more than the windows. Hart said she would like to see more money allocated to Shelter House. Douglas said that he would too. Drum said he would be willing to fund the pavement only for CMHC as that was his greatest concern. A consensus was reached to fund CMHC at $23,504. Shaw noted the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County (NCJC) has the difference between the full funding and the $18,600 for the back deck area. Crane noted that the additional money was for the asphalt in the front of the building. Shaw said that he had been there recently and did not see the asphalt as something that was necessarily a safety risk at this point, but that the agency had requested funding for it for the last three years. McKay said that an argument could be made that $4,500 for The Arc would have a more significant impact on them than it would on the Shelter House project. Shaw said that the argument could also be made that The Arc was using the $4,500 for rugs, whereas Shelter House was using it for housing and to provide a safe place to sleep. Richman said he did not find The Arc carpet to have been in that bad of shape, and that there were higher priorities to be funded. Shaw asked if The Arc was funded at all last year and Crane replied that safety lights had been funded for them. Shaw pointed out that The Arc asks for just little bits of money and that every little bit helps. Crane said that was how he felt too; that they just ask for a little bit and that while the carpet is not that bad, the perception change the new carpet could have for some of their kids could be important. Drum said that while he agreed that there may be more urgent projects, he does like the idea of spreading money to different groups of people needing different kinds of help. Shaw said that this year could be a year that affords the opportunity to deal with the little things (due to the Stimulus Package) whereas next year may not. DeFrance and Drum expressed agreement with that sentiment. Shaw pointed out that The Arc did receive the lowest ranking. DeFrance countered that the money would make a big difference for that agency. Drum asked if anyone was strongly opposed to fully finding The Arc, saying that he was not. Hart said she was not strongly opposed unless that money could help complete one of the more critical projects. Richman said he had not funded the project but was not strongly opposed to doing so. He said the question was which other project the money will be taken from. Drum said he was not sure that was the right way to look at it unless the whole allocation process was to be reexamined in that light. A consensus was reached to fully fund The Arc at $4,500. Shaw noted that there had been discussions about taking the NCJC to an allocation level of$18,600 to fund the back deck only. Richman said that it may be pertinent to keep in mind that due to a clerical error, "fully funding" the NCJC is actually 65% of what they had actually intended to request. McKay said that was his rationale for fully funding the agency the first time around. Crane said he would be fine with raising his allocation to $26,615 because he felt the deck was a safety issue. Hart said she was fine with fully funding NCJC. Crane asked what else Richman had mentioned as being over-funded in his opinion. Richman said he had felt that fully funding MECCA was a little too much. He said he funded the first priority of the three projects laid out by MECCA. Richman said that for him what it comes down to is that he would like to see enough money go into the Shelter House to make sure the project goes forward. Hightshoe said that Shelter House had indicated they still needed $1.5 million more to construct, and that every little bit helps. Richman said that he would like to see Shelter House funded at $200,000. Shaw suggested HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 12 of 16 bumping Shelter House's allocation up to $200,000 and seeing what needs to be cut from there. Crane said he had agreed with Richman regarding MECCA, and had funded only the security entry system as that was their stated priority and he did not know that the other two projects were immediately necessary. Hart asked what that amount would be and Crane replied $32,399. Richman noted that the allocation process was within $5,000 of complete, a figure which could easily be worked out. Richman said the larger question was how Commissioners felt about the split between Housing Activities and Public Facilities, and whether they wished to move money from one category to another. Hightshoe said she wished to indicate CITY STEPS priorities as this is our final year. In the five year plan the goal is to dedicate 20% of allocations to Public Facilities, and the current average (after four years) is 14%. Richman said he feels fairly good about the current breakdown, but acknowledged that other Commissioners may feel otherwise. Hart said she was inclined to fund more Public Facilities in general, but that it seemed as though this year they were almost fully funded. Shaw asked what the amount of money was that had been added by the Stimulus Package. Hightshoe said it was $176,785. Shaw said the task at hand was to make sure that $176,785 was directed toward high priority stimulus projects. Richman said this would not be a problem since Shelter House alone, a qualifying project, was funded at $200,000. Shaw asked if they should take a look at Public Facilities projects that had not been fully funded, listing MECCA and CMHC, a difference of $25,000. Long pointed out that two projects that were more lowly ranked than MECCA and CMHC had been fully funded. Shaw asked ifthere were any projects in Housing Activities that it might make sense to pull money from to make sure Public Facilities was as fully funded as possible. Crane noted that as it stood the budget was still $5,000 off and asked what thoughts were on taking $5,000 from the Wittig project since five of the nine Commissioners had initially not funded the project at all. Crane noted that the Wittig project seemed to have at least one additional funding source to help make that money up. Shaw again asked ifthere was a way to fully fund the Public Facilities projects by pulling money down from Housing Activities. Hightshoe said she thought many of the Public Facilities projects would be very thrilled with the recommended allocations. Crane said that the Public Facilities numbers were pretty high compared with other years. Hart said she did not know what Housing Activities item she would want to cut. DeFrance said she would not want to cut any. Richman asked how people would feel about moving some money from either TBRA or the Wittig project up to either The Housing Fellowship or Isis. DeFrance said she had no problem with that. Richman said he supported the TBRA project but that he would also be comfortable with an allocation of less than $120,000. Drum said even though he felt hesitant about giving the Wittig project money; it is still a housing type that is not represented elsewhere in the allocations. Shaw asked if Richman was suggesting taking money from Public Facilities and shifting it to one of the higher Housing priorities. Richman said the question was what was of a higher priority and he was simply asking if the Commission wanted to take TBRA down to $100,000 and fund an additional unit for The Housing Fellowship. He said the money could be taken from anywhere including Dolphin or TBRA and would fund an additional rental unit. Shaw said he wanted to express a strong opinion about not touching the money for Shelter House new construction. Hart observed that one of the reasons TBRA never gets high rankings is that it does not have a lot of the aspects that are rated. Hart and Crane said that they would be comfortable with taking $10,000 from TBRA and $10,000 from Dolphin and funding The Housing Fellowship for an additional $20,000. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 13 of 16 Shaw asked again ifthere was not an interest in fully funding the Public Facilities projects. Crane said that this year Public Facilities had been funded quite a bit higher than in years past. Hart said that where Public Facilities projects had not been fully funded, the most critical needs at least had been provided for. DeFrance noted that she is not against transitional housing at all, but that she had specific concerns about the Wittig project. She said there is a tax lien on the property and it bothers her to see the Commission allocate $20,000 that could help a group with a good track record rather than this house which has a bad one. Shaw said he had concerns about the track record as well, but that he believes there has been some progress. Hart said the bad track record was prior to Wittig's ownership. DeFrance said that it was not all prior to his ownership and that the property has been an ongoing concern since 2001 and Wittig purchased it in 1997. DeFrance said she is concerned about the fact that there is a tax lien on the property and she wants to make sure the money is being spent to benefit the most people. Richman said that if the Commission puts the conditions on the allocation that the affordability period is extended to 10 years and all tax liens and back taxes have to be satisfied then he is comfortable. Richman asked Staff if the Commission could specify what projects the money could be spent on, and asked the Commission if that would make them more comfortable. Hightshoe said that the Commission could stipulate what the money was spent on. Crane asked what the maximum allocation for the Housing Trust Fund might be. Maryann Dennis, The Housing Fellowship, said The Housing Trust Fund has $215,000 to allocate and that she believed they only received two applications. Hightshoe said that this would be a loan and would have to be repaid. Crane motioned to approve the allocations for FYIO Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) And Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) and 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act funds (ARRA) as discussed. Shaw seconded. The motion carried 8-0 (McMurray absent). BUDGETARY CAHNGES: Richman noted that the allocation amounts from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are not yet finalized. Staff has proposed that if the allocations exceed the budgeted amounts by less than 5% they will distribute the money evenly among the applicants. Richman asked what would happen for those projects that had been fully funded. Hightshoe said the money would go pro rata to those projects that had not been fully funded. Drum asked if there would be a priority order to the additional funds. Hightshoe said that would be up to the Commission. Hightshoe said that it was possible to allocate all additional funding to just one project. Shaw started to move that ifthere is additional funding ofless than 5% of the FYI0 Iowa City allocation the first priority will be to fully fund Public Facilities and the remainder would be distributed evenly among other projects; however, Long pointed out that how additional money could be spent would depend on its source. Hightshoe said it could be that the CDBG budget was correct but more HOME funds were received; in that case, only additional HOME projects could be funded, not CDBG eligible projects. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 14 of 16 Shaw motioned that if there is additional funding ofless than 5% of the FYI 0 allocation, the money will be distributed pro rata among the appropriate agencies for the funding source. Drum seconded. There was discussion among Staff and the Commission as to what projects exactly were CDBG and which were HOME eligible. Richman said he would like to see any additional funding go into Housing Activities rather than fully funding Public Facilities. Richman said he felt like the Commission had done a great job with Public Facilities this year. Hart said she would like to see additional funds go into Shelter House. After some discussion, Richman suggested any additional CDBG funding would go to Shelter House new construction, and any additional HOME funds would be split pro rata between TBRA and Dolphin. Shaw amended his motion to state that if there is additional funding of less than 5% of the FYIO allocation (and 2009 ARRA funds) additional CDBG funds will be allocated to Shelter House - New Construction and additional HOME funds will be allocated pro rata between TBRA and Dolphin. If the City receives more than 5% of the FYIO allocation (and 2009 ARRA funds), the commission will meet again to discuss. McKay seconded the amended motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0 (McMurray absent). STIMULUS PACKAGE: Long said that Staff needed to separate out the Stimulus funds and amend the FY09 Action Plan to reflect the changes. Crane asked if it would be easiest to simply allocate the full $176,785 to Shelter House new construction. Long said that the Home Ties project was definitely "shovel ready." Richman asked Staff to offer a suggestion of where to allocate the stimulus funds. Long said that Home Ties and Shelter House would be logical places to allocate the funds. Hart motioned to amend the FY09 Action Plan to designate First Mennonite and a portion of the Shelter House allocation as funds from the stimulus package. Drum seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 8-0 (McMurray absent). Hightshoe noted that two or three Commission members were needed to serve on a committee to present their rationale for their funding decisions to the City Council in a document. Hightshoe said Staff would create the preliminary document and then the committee would make changes and recommendations to tweak it. Hart, Shaw and Drum volunteered to serve on the committee. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, lOW A CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 15 of 16 ADJOURNMENT: McKay motioned to adjourn. Crane seconded. All were in favor and the motion carried 8-0 (McMurray absent). The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. The Case for Affordable Housing 111 Amen,.. PlInnlnl ASloOItlon Ivlakl'ng Grt'tl'T CommunitJ'e5 ,'{oppen March 2009 The Case for Affordable Housing An excerpt from a new Planners Press book sets out strategies for the future. By Alan Mallach, FAICP Sixty years after Congress passed the Housing Act of 1949, calling for "a decent home in a suitable living environment" for every American, housing conditions have improved dramatically for the nation's lower income families. And yet the need for housing continues. The percentage of households living in substandard housing has dropped sharply, as has the number of those living in overcrowded conditions, although not as much. Both, however, continue to be problems for millions of households. Meanwhile, the cost of housing has risen dramatically, to the point where today the majority of lower income households are heavily burdened by excessive housing costs. Yet, despite the continuing persistence of severe housing problems in American society, housing programs - except for the current focus on the foreclosure crisis engulfing our towns and cities have received little attention in recent years. In 1996 reporter Jason DeParle wrote that "housing has simply evaporated as a political issue," and things have not changed much since then. Perhaps, as the current crisis forces us to ask how we could have gone so badly wrong, that may change. If so, it is worth taking a look at why we need to build affordable housing, and how to go about it. What are today's housing needs? http://www.planning.org/planning/2009/mar/affordablehousing.htm?print=true (1 of 9) [3/4/2009 8:09: 16 PM] The Case for Affordable Housing ~ he housing problem that affects the most Americans today is cost burden, which happens when families spend so much for housing that their ability to pay for the other necessities of life is compromised. While the weight of the burden varies widely from household to household depending on income and nonhousing expenses, the federal government has adopted the standard that a household spending more than 30 percent of gross income for shelter is cost-burdened, and one spending more than 50 percent is severely cost-burdened. For a low-income family earning $20,000 to $30,000 per year, it is easy to see that what's left after taxes and annual housing costs of $8,000 to $10,000 will be difficult to stretch to cover the cost of putting fdod on the table, getting to and from work, and raising children. Although cost burdens have been rising steadily since 1950, they took a sharp upward turn between 2000 and 2007, both for renters and - even more so - for home owners, as house prices skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. The number of renters spending 30 percent or more of their income for rent went from just over 13 million to over 18 million in seven years. During the same period, the number of cost-burdened home owners nearly doubled, going from 12 to 23 million. Today, more than one out of three American households - and half of all renters - is cost-burdened. Most low-income people with cost burdens are not home owners, but renters. Housing needs also arise from overcrowding, when limited money or inadequate housing supply forces families to move into housing that is too small for them, or where families double up in the same house or apartment. The federal government currently defines overcrowding as more than one person per room, and severe overcrowding as more than 1.5 persons per room. A family of five living in a typical two-bedroom apartment, which contains four rooms, is considered overcrowded, while a family of seven in the same apartment would be considered severely overcrowded. Although renters make up less than one-third of American households, they make up nearly two-thirds of overcrowded households. Renters also suffer more from substandard housing conditions. While today nearly every American house or apartment has heat and indoor plumbing, other problems are still http://www.planning.org/planning/2009/mar/affordablehousing.htm?print=true (2 of 9) [3/4/20098:09:16 PM] The Case for Affordable Housing widespread. According to the American Housing Survey, nearly one out of seven low-income families lives in physically deficient housing. Finally, disproportionate numbers of lower income households are geographically segregated and concentrated in high-poverty areas - usually urban but also rural locations, particularly in the South. Although their homes may meet minimum standards of living space and condition, the areas in which they live are isolated, with limited access to jobs, poor public services, and poor schools. Areas of concentrated poverty not only lack opportunity, but are subject to other ills, including high crime rates, abandoned buildings, and environmental contamination. This issue represents a fundamental challenge to American social and housing policy, which can only be addressed by entire regions, not just by the cities where poverty is most heavily concentrated. Is this a housing problem or an income problem? One question constantly recurs in housing policy: Should affordable housing problems be addressed by increasing the supply of housing that lower income families can afford, or by increasing the demand for housing by raising their incomes so they can afford housing that already exists? This is a very different question than that faced by policy makers in the 1930s, when millions of families lived in houses and apartments that lacked even the rudiments of decent housing and a new unit in a new building was their only hope to attain sound and safe living conditions. Since the 1980s the federal government has favored addressing the demand side of the equation through the Housing Choice Voucher program, originally known as Section 8. For the 2007 fiscal year, HUD planned to spend nearly $22 billion on vouchers, while spending only $5 billion to build or rehabilitate affordable housing units. This is not an either-or proposition. It should be seen instead as a different question: Where is it better to increase supply or to enhance demand? High-demand and low-demand markets http://www.planning.org/planning/2009/mar/affordablehousing.htm?print=true (3 of 9) [3/4/20098:09:16 PM] The Case for Affordable Housing '~here are many places where we need more affordable housing. We need to increase the affordable housing supply in areas of high housing cost and demand, where the supply of moderately priced housing is severely limited; in low- poverty, primarily suburban areas, where affordable housing is needed to deconcentrate poverty and foster regionwide opportunity; in areas where the imbalance between jobs and housing promotes sprawl and threatens economic competitiveness; and in areas where housing is in short supply for particular segments of the population, such as large families, the frail elderly, and individuals with special needs. At the same time, there are parts of the U.S. where it makes more sense to expand demand rather than add supply. Large parts of the South and Midwest contain an ample supply or even an excess of housing relative to demand. In those areas, housing vouchers can add enough to a household's income to allow those families to afford decent housing in the private market, usually at much lower cost to the public purse than providing them with a brand-new unit. This is not true everywhere. In high-demand, high-cost areas like the New York or San Francisco metro areas, housing is in short supply relative to demand, and what is available is far more expensive. As a result, the cost per household for a demand-side program will be far greater. It is far less expensive to fill the gap between what a low-income family can afford and the cost of private market housing in Yazoo County, Mississippi, even though the family is far poorer than its counterpart in Stamford, Connecticut, because the market cost of housing is so much lower. The housing may not be there, though. In high-demand areas, households at all income levels compete for a limited supply of sound, reasonably priced housing. Even with financial help, a low-income household may be unable to find a home or apartment that meets its needs. Families in those areas who receive vouchers are often frustrated in their search for such a home, and end up giving their vouchers back to the housing agency. A 2000 study found that only 47 percent of families receiving vouchers in Los Angeles and 57 percent in New York City were able to find an apartment meeting the program standards. High-demand areas need new affordable housing the most, because the supply of housing on the private market is either too limited or too expensive for a demand-side program to work at any reasonable cost. http://www.planning.org/planning/2009/mar/affordablehousing.htm?print=true (4 of 9) [3/4/20098:09:16 PM] The Case for Affordable Housing In distressed cities like Flint, Michigan, or Youngstown, Ohio, on the other hand, building new affordable housing may actually be a bad idea. New housing built under programs like the Low Income Tax Credit, even with the public subsidy, ends up renting for more than most of the housing in the private market, which already has a large surplus of vacant houses. New affordable housing in those areas can actually undermine the existing housing market and contribute to further housing deterioration and abandonment. Deconcentrating poverty and building regional equity As America became more suburbanized after World War II, it also became more segregated. And as the middle class fled the cities, suburban communities became the locus of jobs, resources, and opportunity. Lower income households, particularly people of color, were unable to move along with those opportunities. They stayed instead in older cities and a handful of inner suburbs largely lacking the social, economic, or fiscal resources that would give their residents opportunities and a decent quality of life. Within those cities and suburbs, these households are disproportionately in high-poverty areas where they are doubly burdened by the social problems associated with the concentration of poverty, including a lack of private-sector business activity; increased costs of retail goods and services; limited job networks and poor access to employment; limited educational opportunity; greater crime; diminished physical and mental health; reduced ability to build assets; declining local government services and fiscal capacity; and increased political and societal fragmentation. Despite the economic revival of many cities since the mid-1990s, these problems still plague the nation. Deconcentrating poverty and creating opportunities for lower income households to share in the benefits of American society should be seen as a basic societal goal. While this is not solely a housing issue and cannot be addressed through housing policies alone, it cannot be achieved without providing affordable housing opportunities. In most growing metropolitan areas this goal cannot be achieved by enhancing housing demand through vouchers because of the high price and limited supply of housing in the region's opportunity-rich areas. Meaningful efforts to deconcentrate poverty and foster regional equity demands that new housing opportunities be created in those areas by building additional affordable housing. Fostering economic competitiveness http://www.planning.org/planning/2009/mar/affordablehousing.htm?print=true (5 of 9) [3/4/2009 8:09: 16 PM] The Case for Affordable Housing merica's metropolitan regions are paying a high price for decades of policies that have dispersed employment centers without providing housing for the workforce needed to sustain them. Sprawl, long commuting distances, air pollution, and increasing demands on infrastructure are some of the consequences. As these regions have become more aware of that price and the fragility of their economic underpinnings, they have also begun to realize that the lack of affordable housing affects their ability to remain competitive not only nationally but globally. In recent years, coalitions have emerged in Minnesota, Connecticut, and elsewhere, making the case that their states' economic prosperity may well depend on their ability to address their shortage of affordable housing. The affordable housing that may have the greatest impact on economic competitiveness may not be the same as that designed to address other housing needs. The term "workforce housing II has come into widespread use to describe housing oriented toward individuals who will fill jobs in the local economy, such as schoolteachers or nurses' aides. While there is no generally accepted definition, the term is often used in a way that is both broader and narrower with respect to the populations it attempts to serve than other definitions of affordable housing. It reflects the fact that many full-time workers may earn decent salaries, but are still unable to live near where they work, particularly in high-cost areas such as the New York or Boston suburbs. Housing shortages for specific populations In some regions or cities, lower income households may be able to find affordable housing, but for others it is out of reach. In Stamford, where small apartments are much less expensive than large houses, it might be cost-effective to use vouchers to meet the housing needs of single http://www.planning.org/planning/2009/mar/affordablehousing.htm?print=true (6 of 9) [3/4/2009 8:09: 16 PM] The Case for Affordable Housing people and couples, but not the needs of large families. In such areas, it might be desirable to direct resources for new housing production toward creating affordable homes for large lower income families. Who should be the focus of additional housing supply will vary from area to area depending on the characteristics of the population and the area's housing supply. While some regions have ample affordable housing for the elderly, others may need more. This is particularly true in areas of the Midwest, where the number of older households is rising steadily. This may be true even in areas that are not lacking in moderately priced housing overall, but which may lack enough housing to meet the needs of the elderly. The same may be true for people with special needs, by virtue of their physical or developmental disabilities. Individuals with disabilities and the elderly often need housing with particular features and may benefit from being housed in clusters to enable them to share facilities and supportive services. Where do we go from here? In the situations described above it makes most sense to build new affordable housing rather than just providing households with vouchers. It can also make sense in urban areas, even in distressed areas, where it is part of a larger strategy to revitalize a city or neighborhood, or where, as in many urban neighborhoods from Los Angeles to Boston, market changes and gentrification have begun to price many lower income residents out of their communities. Vouchers, moreover, are a limited resource. It is one thing to argue theoretically that it is better to build demand through vouchers than build new housing, but another matter to provide the means to do so. In contrast to some European countries, where housing allowances are an entitlement program, in the U.S. they are a scarce resource or a lottery, available only to a fraction of those eligible. Federal outlays for Housing Choice Vouchers have not risen in constant dollars since 2002. It is hardly reasonable to expect a nonprofit developer to refrain from building affordable housing if the need exists, and if additional vouchers are not available and not likely to become available in the foreseeable future. Similarly, public entities often prefer to provide one-time capital funds to finance additional affordable housing, rather than make the long-term commitment of funds year after year to address the demand side through vouchers. Furthermore, by adding to the affordable housing supply we gain at least one potentially important benefit that is not available with vouchers: permanence. Once a new affordable housing unit has been created, it can remain an affordable unit for as long as is appropriate and desirable, up to and including forever. By contrast, demand-side assistance is not only dependent on continued annual government funding; it is also at the mercy of the marketplace to ensure that units will be available to future voucher holders. http://www.planning.org/planning/2009/mar/affordablehousing.htm?print=true (7 of 9) [3/4/2009 8:09: 16 PM] The Case for Affordable Housing Although it may be unrealistic in the short run, in the long run a basic housing allowance for all families who need it should not be out of reach. In the meantime, if affordable housing is fated to remain a lottery, we need to make it a fairer and better one for all concerned. That means using resources more efficiently to increase the number of beneficiaries without spending more money; targeting resources more effectively to ensure that those with the greatest needs benefit; and finally, using housing programs so they enhance the health of the communities where they are used, instead of undermining them. Everyone now realizes that to increase lower income home ownership by simultaneously making it more expensive and lowering credit standards was not only a bad idea, but a disaster for lower income families and their communities. Home ownership for lower income people is an inherently risky proposition. If increasing lower income home ownership is a good idea - which it mayor may not be - we need to come up with radically different ways of doing so. We need policies to ensure that owners can afford their homes and that provide them with a support system to keep them in their homes when they run into the inevitable financial problems associated with limited incomes. Home ownership can never be the beginning and end of a housing policy, as it has been for most of the past decade. More than half of the nation's low-income families are renters. Without adequate amounts of decent, affordable rental housing in our cities and towns, millions of families will continue to live in unsound, overcrowded or cost-burdened conditions, at constant risk of homelessness. Looking forward, we need to restructure the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, the one national program that builds affordable rental housing. The program should be redesigned so funds are targeted where added supply is truly needed, to encourage putting low-income rental housing in mixed income housing developments, and to build new housing in areas where jobs and good public services exist. We could take a cue from France, where much of the new affordable rental housing is included in mixed income condo projects, financed through partnerships between nonprofits and private developers. Redesigning the tax credit program is not enough. We also need to focus on replenishing the dwindling supply of plain vanilla rental housing -like the modest garden apartments of the '50s and '60s - and preserving the existing stock, both subsidized projects in need of repair or refinancing and the affordable housing in the private market, which will continue to house most lower income renters for the foreseeable future. For the next couple of years, we will be busy digging ourselves out of the current crisis. We should spend some of this time also thinking about where we go from here - how we build a new set of affordable housing policies in this country that will be fair and cost-effective and meet the needs of the millions of American families who still suffer from bad housing and neighborhood conditions. http://www.planning.org/planning/2009/mar/affordablehousing.htm?print=true (8 of 9) [3/4/20098:09:16 PM] The Case for Affordable Housing Alan Mallach is a nonresident senior fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program of the Brookings Institution and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. He is the author of the new APA Planners Press book Planning, Building, and Preserving Affordable Housing, from which this article is adapted. , A Decent Home: Resources Images: Top - Properly designed and sited affordable housing can provide a visual anchor in a distressed neighborhood. The Border Falcon Condominiums were developed by Neighborhood of Affordable Housing, a community development corporation in East Boston, and designed by The Narrow Gate Architects. Photo The Narrow Gate Architects. Middle - Affordable housing developments for families need secure outdoor areas. This outdoor play area with carefully controlled vehicle access was designed by pyatok Architects, Inc., for Gateway Commons in Emeryville, California. Photo pyatok Architects, Inc. Bottom - High-demand markets need the most new affordable housing. North Beach Place, a 341-unit HOPE VI development designed by Barnhart Associates in San Francisco, fronts on a busy urban street while providing a private space for residents in the development's interior. Photo Bob Canfield, courtesy of BRIDGE Housing. @Copyright 2009 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved http://www.planning.org/planning/2009/mar/affordablehousing.htm?print=true (9 of 9) [3/4/2009 8:09: 16 PM]