Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council Packet - 8/16/2021
COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 16, 2021 Time indicated below Harold E. Getty Council Chambers RULES FOR WORK SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT Iowa Code Chapter 21 gives the public the right to attend council meetings, but it does not require cities to allow public participation except during public hearings. The city council shall not receive any public comment during a work session. Roll Call Agenda, as proposed or amended Approval of Minutes Minutes of August 2, 2021, as proposed. 4:10 p.m. Discussion of the Housing Needs Assessment. Submitted By:Noel Anderson,Community Planning and Development Director Approx. Update on Engineering Department operations. 4:40 p.m. Submitted By:Jamie Knutson,PE,City Engineer ADJOURNMENT Kelley Felchle City Clerk CITY OF WATERLOO Council Communication Minutes of August 2, 2021, as proposed. City Council Meeting: 8/16/2021 Prepared: REVIEWERS: Department Reviewer Action Date Clerk Office Felchle, Kelley Approved 8/6/2021 - 3:58 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Minutes of August 2, 2021 Backup Material COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 2, 2021 3:30 p.m. Harold E. Getty Council Chambers Members present: Boesen, Amos, Morrissey, Klein, Feuss, Grieder, and Juon. Mr. Morrissey and Mr. Grieder participated in the meeting via Zoom. 160256 -AmosBoesen that the Agenda, as proposed, be approved. Voice-vote Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. 160257 -AmosBoesen that the Minutes of July 19, 2021, as proposed, be approved. Voice-vote Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. Objective: Discussion of Waterloo Housing Authority and Neighborhood Services operations. Felicia D. Smith-Nalls, Neighborhood Services Coordinator, provided an overview of department operations. She shared several events, including a new partnership with the Gallagher Bluedoorn Performing Arts Center, to bring local bands to play a concert for each neighborhood. Julie Dawson, Housing Authority Director, provided an overview of Housing Authority operations. Objective: Discussion of changes to the Shared Mobility Device Ordinance and presentation from Helbiz Iowa, LLC. Martin Petersen, City Attorney, provided an overview of proposed amendments to the shared mobility device license. Some of the changes include requiring a fifteen mile per hour speed limit within the operating area, require that riders be eighteen years old or older and must scan a driver's license or State Issued Identification Card to verify the age, and that each company is allowed a fleet size of up to 150 scooters. Gian Luca Spriano, Director of International Business Development, Helbiz, Inc., provided an overview of their company and how their mobile app works. He explained that Helbiz is currently operating in 13 cities in the United States and 30 cities around the world. The company has hired a local manager from Waterloo to oversee operations in the community and are working to hire additional employees as well. Council members discussed the proposed ordinance changes and the shared mobility program with Mr. Petersen,Mr. Spriano, Craig Bennett with Bird, Kelley Felchle, City Clerk, and Jessica Rucker, Director of Main Street Waterloo. 160258 -Feuss/Amos that the meeting be adjourned at 4:58 p.m. Voice-vote Ayes: Seven. Motion carried. Kelley Felchle City Clerk CITY OF WATERLOO Council Communication Discussion of the Housing Needs Assessment. City Council Meeting: 8/16/2021 Prepared: 8/4/2021 REVIEWERS: Department Reviewer Action Date Planning& Zoning Felchle, Kelley Approved 8/4/2021 - 5:23 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Presentation Backup Material ❑ Housing Needs Assessment Backup Material ❑ Housing Needs Assessment Appendices Backup Material SUBJECT: Discussion of the Housing Needs Assessment. Submitted by: Submitted By:Noel Anderson, Community Planning and Development Director Recommended Action: Summary Statement/ Background Information: Neighborhood Impact: Data: Community Engagement Methods: Analysis and Strategies: Implementation,Accountability, and Communication:: Expenditure Required/ Source of Funds: Alternative: INRCOG Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments Waterloo Housing Needs Assessment Waterloo City Council Work Session August 16, 2021 Brian Schoon, Director of Development Rose Phillips, Housing Planner I N RCOG INRCOG I PARTNERS FOR PROGRESS Developing Strong Local Government through Regional Cooperation 229E Park Avenue I Waterloo Iowa 50703 1 P (319) 235-0311 I F (319) 235-2891 I www,inrcog.org Background Waterloo, IA Housing Needs Assessment Last HNA prepared in 2011 New opportunities and challenges since Great Recession • City staff sought updated data & analysis to guide housing development .Y Y x INRGOG Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments Uses of a Housing Needs Assessment • Assess quality and affordability of current housing stock 5z5.00 • Identify unmet needs yz000 `o 515.00 • Workforce housing $10M • Seniors and people with disabilities • Balance of ownership vs. rental Future supply/demand • Guide residential planning & development policies • What housing sizes & types should be permitted/incentivized? • In which neighborhoods should we focus development efforts? • Support applications for grants, tax credits etc. JVVLI INRCOG Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments df Process GROW Comm ittee Grow Residential Opportunities in Waterloo • HNA update initiated by Planning and Zoning Department • GROW Committee served as steering committee • Housing quality assessed with windshield surveys • Rental market surveys conducted of market-rate and subsidized rental properties • Resident surveys conducted fall/winter 2017/2018 • Data analysis • U.S. Census • American Community Survey • HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy • IWD Occupational and Employment Statistics (OES) IN Iowa Northland Regional • And more Council of Governments Consultation • Waterloo Community Development • Waterloo Housing Trust Fund Department • Exceptional Persons, Inc. • Skogman Realty 0 Northeast Iowa Area Agency on Aging • Lincoln Savings Bank • Eastside Ministerial Alliance • UICCU • Salvation Army • Iowa Heartland Habitat for Humanity • Hawkeye Community College Metro • Amy Wienands Real Estate Center • Farmers Savings Bank • Black Hawk County NAACP • John Rooff • Community Housing Initiatives • Greater Cedar Valley Alliance & Chamber • Waterloo Housing Authority • Waterloo Community School District • Cedar Valley Friends of the Family • Cedar Valley Home Builders Association • Operation Threshold • Cedar Falls Utilities • Americans for Independent Living 4,500 Total Housing Problems 4,000 Highlights v 3,500 �0 3,000 2,500 0 2,000 - - v a 1500 • Widespread housing z 1;°00 cost burden despite 500 lncornes30%AMI Income>30%tos50% Income>50%to s80% low housing prices 3,500 AMI AMI y ■$20,000 to$20.,999 3,000 Owners ■Renters • Limited inventory & :22,50° .$25,000 to$34,949 0 resources for LMI 0 2'0 0 0 r 1,500 - 6 homebuyers 0 1,000 5°° z ° • Affordable high- Renter households in income Renter households in income Average annual home sales below bracket bracket(lowerbound of estimate) median price ■Affordable/Available quality housing for m 8°% Units(jccupied+ vacant LMI renters is limited = aCM ,., y III Afford able/Available y E Units(occupied WO 40% only) O - = c u 20% - — a Severely Cost Burdened 0% Extremely Low-income(<30%AMI) Low-income(31-50%AMI) 5,000 NEED 4,792 Highlights FP__ 0 4,000 3 = 3,000Rehab/Repair. • 2,740 `o Programs • Most homes (82%) are in 2'000 good condition, but o 1,000 revitalization needs are = 72 13 extensive - - LMI CURA Rehabs(Units Low-and Moderate- Units in Fair Condition Rehabilitation/Repair assisted per year) income(580%AMI), • Demand for housing Programs(Units assisted Cost Burdened Owners programs outweighs per year) 700 604 resources 600 500 • Residents appreciate ' 400 downtown revitalization, S 300 want improvements in other = 200 134 neighborhoods 100 12 - • Increased housing 657A Acquisitions(Units Units in Dilapidated Units in Poor Condition production might be needed per year) Condition - if population grows (e.g. 20 more homes/yr if population reaches 71,536 by 2030) - 4 Waterloo Housing Needs Assessment Goals • Goal 1: Maintain and improve the quality of Waterloo's existing housing stock. • Goal 2: Support infill housing development and redevelopment, especially in older neighborhoods. • Goal 3: Expand opportunities for Waterloo's low- and moderate-income homebuyers and homeowners. • Goal 4: Expand rental opportunities and related services for LMI households, including those experiencing homelessness. • Goal 5: Support increased market-rate development. • Goal 6: Support community development, workforce development, and other efforts integrally related to quality of life and housing demand in disinvested neighborhoods. • Goal 7: Support expansion of Waterloo's institutional structure for housing development. Guiding Principles for Recommendations • Balanced approach — New housing construction vs. redevelopment — Neighborhood revitalization and fair housing choice • Shared responsibility — City of Waterloo — Waterloo Housing Trust Fund — Waterloo Housing Authority — Waterloo Community School District — Local employers and entrepreneurs — Philanthropists — Private housing developers & real estate professionals — Banks I N PCOG — Social service providers Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments 1 Possible Funding Sources • HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds • Waterloo Housing Trust Fund (receives Iowa Finance Authority allocation) • Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program • Low Income Housing Tax Credits ... • Workforce Housing Tax Credits (currently exhausted) • Local tax abatements • Local donors • Employers with workforce shortages I N RcoG • General revenue Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments Adoption Process for Waterloo Housing Needs Assessment • GROW Committee recommends adoption • Council Resolution template provided • Click here to read the report: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/g3jull3flo444xj/AAAYoALxRP121mwfBVRS4rnoa?d 1=0 INRGOG Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments Questions ? • Brian Schoon, Director of Development (bschoon @ i n rcog.org) • Rose Phillips, Housing Planner (rphillips@inrcog.org) (319) 235-0311 A ter , INRGOG Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments Waterloo Households with Housing Problems 4,000 Total Housing Problems -0 3,000 0 t v N 3 0 0 2,000 L E 3 Z 1,000 Income!M AMI Income>30%to<50%AMI Income>50%to!M AMI HUD CHAS 2010-2014 100% Owner Households 5595 ■With 1 or More Housing Share o f 80% 77% Problems t ■With 1 or More Severe 6096 Housing Problems Households 4- 4395 40% a 26% °� 1� 6% 10% with Housing 096 IN I - Extremely LowAnaome{0-30% Low-income(31-50%AMI) Moderate�ncome(51-80% MiddIL-hrome(81%r1O1)% AMI) AMI) AMI) Problems b Renter Households 100% 4096 ■With 1 or More Housing Problems Tenure a n d 80% 75% 74% ■With 1 or More Severe Housing Problems 3 60% D ° 40% Income Bracket a 2754 30% 2096 1396 1095 4% 0% 1 1 1 11 1 ■ - = ..LowAncome{0-30% Low-Income(31-50%AMI) Mo derate�n com e(51-80% MiddIL-hrome(81%-10C% AM11 AMI) AMI) HUD CHAS 2010-2014 Affordability of Median - Priced Homes in Waterloo by Selected Occupations $25.00 C 0 a $20.00 , M 3 $15.00 `0 $10.00 a� oa $5.00 - - a� - $0.00 a� ot�et Pae Pae y�ao� met ��a�c abet y�ao� oet5 e�'tet a�et tatiet `.,et �e v4I a�Q PSS. \� atQ 55e� a� �O aco t Ln n Lr et5 iota `ea GJ�� �� yat` �e \�a �e aete take \a�Q etat QIS14, ar Aa ago lea otet5 �e�ae eeae d` �e �a MLS 2/23/15 to 2/22/18, IWD 2016 OES *By hand **Assuming 40 hrs/wk, 52 wks/yr Affordable and Available Units for Lower Income Renters in Waterloo 100% d .3. E U ■Affordable/Available Units 80% (occupied +vacant) c 70° � 0 60/ 66 0 3 Y = L ■Affordable/Available Units *; m 40% (occupied only) c a� w 0 c 20% 20% ■Severely Cost Burdened a 0% _ Extremely Low-Income(!M%AMI) Low-Income (31-50%AMI) HUD CHAS 2010-2014 Rental Affordability for Common Occupations in Waterloo Metro Area $16.00 $14.00 — $12.00 - $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 L $4.00 _ $2.00 $0.00 C5, If5 a�yo a\�y� oa��Q, a a��t c� ,po �a IWD 2016 OES, HUD Fair Market Rents 2016 0 25th Percentile Wage 0 Median Wage Estimated Supply and Demand for Programs Targeting Low- and Moderate- Income Homeowners 4,792 4,000 2,740 c 3,000 t d N 3 O 2 2,000 L O N 1,000 ac c 3 72 13 0 LMI Rehabilitation/Repair CURA Rehabs (Units assisted Low-and Moderate-Income Units in Fair Condition Programs(Units assisted per per year) (<_80%AMI), Cost Burdened year) Owners City of Waterloo, Waterloo Housing Trust Fund, HUD CHAS 2010-2014, 2017 Windshield Surveys Approx. new Net new Units/Year to Demand Variable 2000 2010 2020 2030 households housing units meet added 2018- needed 2018- anticipated Waterloo Projected Housing Supply and Demand 2030 2030** housing need Average Household Size2.39 2.35 Population (assuming no population change, . 68,747 68,406 68,406 68,406 991 -19 141 household size continues to decline by 0.04/decade) Population (assuming modest population increase, •: •: • household size unchanged) *Black Hawk County Assessor data and City of Waterloo Community Planning& Development Department data on City-owned residential lots (176 lots); Black Hawk County Assessor data on privately owned residential lots with assessed value>_$600(2,280 lots). **New households added minus 844 net new units added Comparison of 657A Acquisition Rate to Poor/ Dilapidated Housing 700 604 600 500 N j 400 as c 3 300 0 x 200 134 100 12 657A Acquisitions per year) Units in Dilapidated Condition Units in Poor Condition E Donard S1 E Donald St E VvnBld St go Gates Park Golf Course s, �pd ay Sr Cedar Red Carpet Golf Course Bend Park Q Major Redevelopment Fairview Cemetery Association� a Activities in a s Y Cetyer�ry�, Waterloo's Core Ri ver!{a �9�t�� heS King SY4t Neighborhoods John Deere Tractor h &Engine Museum sr lndependente Ave Independence Awe Indepen dente Av xte i 00 43� � in ark 1;1 `' y x1e y� map data 02418 Google WO m[ Terms 4f USB R Since 2005,a Hy-Vee,several medical facilities,and George Washington Carver Academy have been constructed.The deteriorated Logan Logan Redevelopment Area Plaza strip mall was demolished in 2016,and redevelopment of the site is underway.The new Logan Plaza will include dining,retail,and medical uses. © Former Chamberlain Site Environmental cleanup is underway.City awarded a redevelopment planning contract in 2017. © 120 Center Street Environmental cleanup is underway. - Highway 63 Corridor Several neighborhood streetscape improvements completed,road improvements ongoing.Construction of a grocery store on Franklin _ Street(in Walnut neighborhood)began in Spring 2018. Teen and Educational Center Former low-rise commercial buildings demolished. Boys and Girls Club of the Cedar Valley broke ground for new Teen and Educational Center in June 2018. Former Construction Machinery Site Environmental cleanup completed.A new Public Works Facility opened in 2014. Black's Building Underwent renovations in previous decade.Currently at 75%occupancy or higher. Downtown Redevelopment Ongoing River Trail Development Construction of 72 rental units in six 12-plexes is complete. m8th Street Infill Housing Seven owner-occupied homes have been constructed since 2004. mRiverwalk Trail System Trail extends from Mullan Avenue to 18th Street on both sides of the river,and connects to Black Hawk County's trail network. A"Human Services Campus"has been developed,now housing locations for Operation Threshold,Cedar Valley Food Bank,and Waterloo Rath Redevelopment Area Women's Center for Change.A new warehouse opened in 2013,and the former Rath Administration Building is currently being redeveloped as a high-technology office center. ® 18th Street Bridge Reconstructed bridge opened in 2005. Completed or underway developments include TechWorks Campus,new Hawkeye Community College Adult Learning Center,Grand Various Crossing apartments,Iowa Veterans'Museum,RiverLoop, Dan Gable Museum,Cedar Valley SportsPlex, Phelps Youth Pavilion, SingleSpeed Brewing Company,and Cedar River Dam. Waterloo, 1A Housing Needs Assessment AMUM It` µ ` Table of Contents Introduction and Purpose.............................................................................................................................3 Waterloo's History and Background.............................................................................................................3 History of the City of Waterloo.................................................................................................................3 Community Character and Quality of Life ................................................................................................8 Natural Resources and Environmental Hazards .......................................................................................8 Public Infrastructure and Utilities.............................................................................................................9 CommunityServices................................................................................................................................10 Schools................................................................................................................................................10 OtherCommunity Services................................................................................................................. 10 DemographicAnalysis.................................................................................................................................11 Population, Households, and Age Composition .....................................................................................12 MinorityPopulations .............................................................................................................................. 17 Implications.............................................................................................................................................18 EconomicAnalysis.......................................................................................................................................18 Overview.................................................................................................................................................18 Implications.............................................................................................................................................22 Housingin Waterloo...................................................................................................................................22 Overview.................................................................................................................................................22 HomebuyerMarket.................................................................................................................................28 Affordabilityof Homes for Sale...............................................................................................................29 RentalMarket.........................................................................................................................................32 RentalAffordability.................................................................................................................................38 Housing Programs in Waterloo...............................................................................................................40 The View on the Ground: Property and Resident Surveys .....................................................................50 Windshield Survey of Housing Conditions..........................................................................................50 ResidentSurveys.................................................................................................................................54 Housing Needs of Special Populations....................................................................................................64 People Experiencing Homelessness....................................................................................................64 Seniors and People with Disabilities...................................................................................................69 ImmigrantPopulations .......................................................................................................................73 Housing Supply and Demand Analysis....................................................................................................77 1 Summary of Housing Needs....................................................................................................................80 Housing Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................................82 2 Introduction and Purpose The City of Waterloo is the County Seat of Black Hawk County and an economic hub for much of northeast Iowa. The City has a rich, varied, and sometimes tumultuous history, including its rise to prominence as a center of agriculture-related industry during the late 19th century, strong traditions of labor and civil rights activism during the early and mid-201h century, loss of population and economic capacity during the Farm Crisis years of the 1980s, and subsequent revitalization and reinvention through the 1990s and 2000s. Waterloo's housing stock and housing needs reflect the complex and sometimes contradictory nature of the City's history and recent development. Many of the City's older historic homes, built in the late 19th and early 20th century, have fallen into disrepair and pose health hazards to occupants. The spatial distribution of these housing problems often reflects historic patterns of home valuation and urban renewal. By contrast, several City initiatives, including subsidized rental developments and homebuyer incentives, have contributed to the revitalization of Waterloo's downtown and older neighborhoods. At the same time, home sales and new residential development in southern Waterloo have been brisk in recent years. Waterloo's last Housing Needs Assessment was completed in 2011 in the midst of the Great Recession. As Waterloo continues to recover from the Recession and implement new economic development and quality-of-life initiatives, City leaders recognized a need for an updated Housing Needs Assessment. This document is not intended to duplicate the work of other City planning documents, but draws on past documents and provides data and analysis to guide forthcoming documents such as the next Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as well as the Comprehensive Plan currently under development. This Housing Needs Assessment uses publicly available and locally provided data to assess the strengths and challenges of Waterloo's housing market. Particular attention is given to the housing needs of vulnerable populations, including immigrants, seniors, people with disabilities, and people experiencing homelessness. Future housing supply and demand are compared to determine the adequacy of housing stock available for different populations, and recommendations are given for a balanced approach to meeting Waterloo's housing needs. Waterloo's History and Background History of the City of Waterloo Since its founding, the City of Waterloo has been associated with industry and agriculture. Originally named Prairie Rapids,Waterloo was first settled by Europeans in 1845, platted in 1854, 3 and incorporated in 1868. The City quickly became an important agricultural and railroad town, and the Illinois Central Railroad established its repair shop in Waterloo in 18701. Waterloo grew rapidly in the late 191h and early 20th centuries,with its population increasing from 6,674 in 1890 to 36,230 in 1920. The number of factories proliferated in Waterloo as well, giving it the nickname "The Factory City" by the early 2011 century. Cedar Falls, meanwhile, had become home to a teacher's college that would later become the University of Northern Iowa, and was known as "The Lawn City." The Rath Packing Company was established in Waterloo in 1891, and its pork products became an iconic grocery item across the nation. In 1918, John Deere and Company bought the Waterloo Gasoline Engine Company and transformed it into a tractor manufacturing facility. For the better part of the 20th century, Deere and Rath would be Waterloo's top employers. For much of its history, a distinguishing feature of Waterloo has been its relatively high proportion of Black residents compared to most other communities in Iowa. Waterloo had fewer than 20 Black residents in 1910, but by 1920 the Black population had grown to nearly 1,000, or about 3% of the City's overall population. This increase was due to the Illinois Central Railroad's recruitment of Black workers from the South to serve as strikebreakers during a national railroad worker strike. These newcomers encountered intense hostility due to both their race and their status as "scabs," but many established themselves in Waterloo nonetheless. Due to housing discrimination at the time, Black newcomers were largely confined to a triangle of land near the Illinois Central rail yard known as "Smokey Row" (inner triangle in Figure 1). The new Black residents cultivated faith and civic institutions in the coming years to provide mutual assistance and advocate for their interests, and founded a local chapter of the NAACP2. Waterloo has also been distinguished by a strong union presence for much of its history. Unions at the Rath and Deere plants achieved substantial power in the early 1940s, following New Deal legislation and organizing efforts at both plants throughout the 1930s. At this time, many unions still accepted White members only, and business leaders often leveraged racial resentment among White workers to weaken organizing efforts. By contrast, the United Packinghouse Workers of America (UPWA) Local 46, the union for Rath workers, was among the most racially progressive UPWA locals in the Midwest3. 1 Black Hawk County, IA. (2013).Brief History of Black Hawk County. http://www.co.black- hawk.ia.us/DocumentCenter/View/564. Retrieved 12/3/18. 2 Kinney, P. (2011, Feb. 1). "Great Migration Railroad strike 100 years ago brought an influx of African-Americans to Waterloo."Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier[online article]. http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/article 3ac5cdf6-cef7- 5d54-943a-742b04395ac6.html. Retrieved 12/3/18. 3 Fehn, B. 1997. Ruin or Renewal:The United Packinghouse Workers of America and the 1948 Meatpacking Strike in Iowa.The Annals of Iowa 56: 349-378. 4 Nrw,onY � � � kbJ.yk Y rg s,o•na Cl GrekN Y KK WwwnY R (b � _ RMer S, s r _ C_ S. 4 S $ • o+nrk s Anro.r,sl M MMrshrk y cdi.p.sl � _ r # 5n.krsl Rp°RE (n.nN _ Y Ws Flr•MY ;[4nL - < wpVn - AK1gInY n .Ry �II AFY451 Y �i 'Ntlbwk `•ty 3� AMo.wk r..,.sr a �sn .m A» e.wY � r� �d� '��a ��<` k• Y r F ~ G k� Wu0k,1, r 9 S R.rYo.pA» . ..yy�.e ` W� �NnYc � rNnL Wrn / O�' tP' Lb. ty Ml�np l.b 9oB o Sl a sR'°wet1 A.< Rmn1, I S 'c. 1 l.♦�A» k�i �, q,. r t� ��:,, t� S`r`�s I S Y Mc«uk 3 �MWitY J �• iS 3' � - r � 3 �� frrNnY wate+Yoo Figure 1: "Smoker Row:" Waterloo's Historic Black Neighborhood. Source:African-American Voices of the Cedar Valley:Black Triangle(https://sites.uni.edu/chen/drupal- AA voice/black-triangle) Waterloo's population grew substantially during America's prosperous postwar years, increasing from 51,743 in 1940 to 75,533 in 1970(Figure 2). However,Waterloo's "urban renewal" activities in the 1960s and early 1970s displaced many household s4. Although these activities were intended in part to demolish substandard housing and help its occupants find better housing, Black families had much more difficulty that White families in finding new housing to rent or buy, and many displaced Black families ended up moving to neighborhoods adjacent to the urban renewal area. The departure of White residents from the urban renewal area and its surroundings was part of a broader pattern of"white flight"that accelerated through the 196055. https://it.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=l&article=10104&context=annals-of-iowa. Retrieved 12/3/18. 4 Shirey,T.E. 2014.Common Patterns in an Uncommon Place:The Civil Rights Movement and Persistence of Racial Inequality in Waterloo, IA. [Honors Project, Bowdoin College] https://www.bowdoin.edu/africana- studies/pdf/shires-honors.pdf. Retrieved 12/3/18. 5 Ibid. 5 80,000 75,533 75,985 71,755 68,747 65,198 66,467 68,406 60,000 51,743 46,191 0 40,000 36,230 CL 0 a 26,693 20,000 12,580 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year Figure 2:Waterloo Population Over Time Source: Iowa Data Center In addition to housing trends, many other social, political, and economic factors caused tumult in Waterloo in the 1960s and 1970s. School segregation and employment discrimination in Waterloo prompted vigorous activism and multiple protests throughout the 1960s, as well as a brief outbreak of violence in 1967. These tensions were exacerbated by substantial job cuts at Rath, as the company struggled to modernize and address rocky labor-management relation S6. Further job cuts came at both Rath and Deere in the 1970s as the impact of a national recession hit Waterloo. Moreover, in 1969 and 1970, the College Square and Crossroads shopping centers opened in Cedar Falls and Waterloo, respectively, causing many businesses in downtown Waterloo to close and eliminating jobs on which many residents in Waterloo's older neighborhoods relied. Waterloo's civil rights struggles of previous decades bore new fruit in the 1970s as national legislation began to take effect, allowing many Black families to enter the middle class. However, many of these families moved away from Waterloo's core, and this trend of"black flight" combined with ongoing white flight to further strip the City's core neighborhoods of middle-class residents'. 6 See Conard, R. (2010).Bringin'Home the Bacon:The Rath Packing Company in Waterloo, 1891-1985. Iowa City: Tallgrass Historians, L.C. http://www.citvofwaterlooiowa.com/departments/planning- zoning/bringin home the bacon the rath packing company in waterloo 1891-1985.php. See Shirey 2014 for further discussion. 6 The 1980s was a devastating decade for Waterloo.The Farm Crisis decimated employment at the already struggling Rath and Deere plants, and Rath closed in 1985. Between 1980 and 1990, Waterloo's population dropped from 75,985 to 66,467, a 12.5% decrease (Figure 2). The loss of employment and population left many older homes vacant and in disrepair, and exacerbated the loss of businesses from Waterloo's core. These economic blows were devastating across the board to this largely blue-collar city, which had relied disproportionately on industrial employment. During the 1990s, Waterloo's population increased slightly, and the City began to reinvent itself. Major improvements were made to highways, and the City developed its recreational trail network. IBP opened a new meatpacking facility, which offered lower wages than Rath had provided but increased Waterloo's diversity by attracting workers from Latin America and Bosnia. Starting in the early 2000s, the City undertook major reinvestments in its Downtown and Riverfront areas. In addition to these large-scale changes and investments, grassroots organizations throughout Waterloo endeavored to revitalize neighborhoods and provide resources for residents. For example, the homegrown community centers and other grassroots organizations serving Waterloo's low-income core neighborhoods help to explain the increase in educational attainment and decrease in poverty among residents in these neighborhoods by 20008. Waterloo's history and its impact on the City's current housing stock, economy, and racial and ethnic dynamics, are a distilled version of trends that played out across the nation, particularly in Midwestern industrial cities. A combination of mid-century "urban renewal" projects, redlining, blockbusting, deindustrialization, and the movement of retail and industry away from the city center toward the periphery, have taken a toll on Waterloo's core neighborhoods. These forces have left behind many older housing units in various states of disrepair— many of which are occupied by low-income families who cannot afford better options. However, massive efforts from the grassroots to the City's leadership have resulted in an expansion of cultural and recreational opportunities, and a revitalization of housing markets in some parts of the City. While public funding for massive housing investments is limited', public and nonprofit agencies in Waterloo have demolished some of the City's most dilapidated homes, rehabilitated others, reduced lead paint hazards in older housing stock, and supported construction of new affordable homes for buyers and renters. The challenge for Waterloo going forward is to accommodate residential growth in areas considered desirable by the housing market, while working to reverse or stem decades of disinvestment in other areas. s ibid. s Since the 1990s,the vast majority of public subsidies for new housing in the U.S. have been used to make privately owned housing affordable for low-and moderate-income buyers and renters. 7 Community Character and Quality of Life As a mid-sized Midwestern city with a rich history and abundant natural beauty, Waterloo inspires loyalty from thousands of long-time residents, attracts new residents, and is seeking to be a model for a resurgent Midwestern technological and industrial hub. Waterloo's historic downtown has seen a renaissance as local entrepreneurs have opened new restaurants and retail shops. The Riverloop trail, amphitheater, landscaping, and street art have brought a new dimension to the City's historic industrial riverfront, and are designed to make the Cedar River "an element that unites the community rather than divides it."The downtown area also includes the acclaimed Grout Museum District, sports facilities, theaters, and a Convention Center, and hosts numerous community festivals throughout the year. As the central city in the Cedar Falls-Waterloo Metropolitan Area, Waterloo has a full suite of urban amenities, including a public library, several medical complexes, three postsecondary education institutions, and a regional shopping center. Waterloo also has nearly 50 public parks, including golf courses and urban forests. Several parks are part of the larger Cedar Valley network of walking, cycling, and water trails, which include wayfinding signs to encourage cyclists, hikers, and paddlers to visit Waterloo's urban attractions. Other regional attractions in Waterloo's city limits include the Isle of Capri Hotel Casino, Lost Island Waterpark, and the National Cattle Congress. Moreover, as the hub of the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, Waterloo is in close proximity to a wide range of rural attractions. In addition to large-scale attractions and amenities, Waterloo has a wealth of grassroots initiatives to revitalize neighborhoods and improve the quality of life for residents. The City has over 30 neighborhood associations, most of which are located in core neighborhoods on either side of the Cedar River. The Jesse Cosby Center, a non-profit founded in 1966 in the traditional Smokey Row neighborhood, provides support services for low-income families. Additional grassroots organizations and small businesses, such as a Bosnian mosque, Latino churches and restaurants, Asian and African grocery stores, and a Burmese refugee advocacy center, have emerged to meet the needs of Waterloo's growing immigrant populations. Natural Resources and Environmental Hazards Waterloo's natural environment is largely defined by the Cedar River and its tributaries. The Cedar River bisects Waterloo from northeast to southwest. The City has gentle topography, ranging from the Cedar River floodplain to rolling hills. Much of the area flanking the Cedar River is built out, although extensive agricultural land is found at Waterloo's northern, northeastern, and southern edges.The undeveloped areas along Waterloo's river network are heavily forested. The Corn Suitability Rating (CSR) of Waterloo's primary soil types ranges from 63 to 95, indicating that Waterloo's undeveloped land is well-suited to agriculture. 8 The primary environmental hazards in Waterloo are related to flooding and severe weather, including tornadoes, windstorms, thunderstorms, and severe winter storms. Waterloo experienced a devastating 0.2% annual chance ("500-year") flood of the Cedar River and its tributaries in 2008, and has experienced numerous river floods throughout its history. Much of the City's land area in the 1% annual chance ("100-year") and 0.2% annual chance floodplain is undeveloped, but about 2,800 structures are located in the floodplain. The predominant hazard in Waterloo and Black Hawk County is not river flooding, but rather flash flooding from intense rainfall over a short period, according to the 2014 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for Black Hawk County(MJHMP). Flash flooding, river flooding, and other hazards are likely to be impacted by future development patterns in Waterloo and its surroundings. To address environmental hazards on a regional basis, the City of Waterloo coordinates with other communities in Black Hawk County and the Cedar Valley to plan for hazard mitigation. Waterloo has several environmental hazards common to urban transportation hubs and industrial areas, including exposure to diesel particulates and air toxics, and proximity to contaminated sites. These hazards are primarily located in the downtown area, along highway interchanges, and at the former Rath industrial site. Many properties in these locations are current or former "brownfields" —sites with known or suspected environmental contamination that makes real estate buyers and developers reluctant to invest in them—several of which have been designated as "Superfund" sites by the Environmental Protection Agency. Since 2000, the City has received numerous grants from the EPA and other agencies to clean up contamination and redevelop many of these sites. Public Infrastructure and Utilities Waterloo enjoys ready access to major roadways, including Interstate 380 and U.S. Highways 218, 20, and 63. The highway system in Waterloo received major improvements over the last three decades due to the Interstate Substitution program. Additionally, Waterloo Regional Airport offers commercial, business, and general aviation services for the greater Cedar Falls- Waterloo region. The local street network is maintained by the City of Waterloo's Street Department, and bus transit service is offered in Waterloo and Cedar Falls by the Metropolitan Transit Authority. A major concern expressed by community advocates is the lack of bus service during evenings and weekends in Waterloo and Cedar Falls. The City of Waterloo offers water, stormwater, sanitary sewer, and garbage and recycling services. Electric and gas services are provided by MiclAmerican Energy, while telecommunications services are provided by Centuryl-ink, Mediacom, and McLeodUSA. According to the 2014 MJHMP for Black Hawk County, the City's water system has substantial unused capacity—it is capable of providing 50.4 million gallons per day(MGD), but peak daily use 9 is only 28.8 MGD.The wastewater treatment plant has received extensive upgrades over the last few decades, and its maximum capacity of 36.5 MGD is adequate to handle the average daily load of 14 MGD under normal conditions. Community Services Schools The Waterloo Community School District (WCSD) is the 6t" largest in Iowa, with over 10,000 enrolled students. The District includes 11 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, and 3 high schools. WCSD's boundaries encompass Evansdale, Raymond, Elk Run Heights, Washburn, and Gilbertville, and one elementary and middle school each are located in Evansdale. Neighborhood public schools are viewed as an amenity by many homebuyers, and can strongly influence residential property values. As a result, WCSD has invested heavily in improvements in recent years. Waterloo residents have approved local tax measures to replace obsolete school facilities, renovate existing facilities, and expand academic offerings. Today, WCSD places a strong emphasis on Science, Technology, Mathematics, and Engineering (STEM) education, advanced learning opportunities, preparation for college and technical education, and leadership opportunities. WCSD is one of only two school districts in the state with an International Baccalaureate (IB) program, and offers a Performance Based Diploma Academy (PBDA) to help students catch up on credits when they fall behind due to obstacles in their personal lives. Currently, the shares of students who graduate from East High and West High in 5 years are 95% and 91%, respectively, compared to a statewide rate of 93%. In an effort to encourage newcomers to the Cedar Valley to settle in Waterloo and enroll their children in the public schools, WCSD uses ongoing marketing efforts to highlight the District's achievements. Other Community Services Waterloo provides a wide range of urban services, including police, fire rescue, code enforcement, civil rights outreach and enforcement, community and economic development, planning and zoning, and the parks and recreation services described above. The City has undertaken multiple efforts to enhance Waterloo's quality of life. For example: • In June 2017, the Waterloo Police Department announced a partnership with Tri County Head Start and the Eastside Ministerial Alliance to operate a Community Outreach Center in East Waterloo. The Center provides an opportunity for residents to report crimes and interact with police officers on a more personal level. • The Waterloo Human Rights Commission educates residents about fair housing rights and other civil rights, receives and investigates discrimination complaints, and takes enforcement action against civil rights violators in Waterloo. The Commission has also partnered with the Community Development Department and the Waterloo Housing 10 Authority to sponsor forums on domestic violence, sentencing reform and racial disparities in incarceration, and housing quality. • The Community Development Department administers federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds. The department uses these and other funds to support a wide range of housing activities, including purchase assistance for low- and moderate-income homebuyers, rehabilitation assistance for homeowners, lead hazard reduction in older housing stock, demolition of dilapidated housing, and homeless assistance. The Department also provides support to local neighborhood associations. • The Planning and Zoning Department supports Waterloo's elected and appointed officials in implementing land use policies to guide Waterloo's growth and development. Planning and Zoning plays an important role in economic development and redevelopment of vacant or underutilized land, linking businesses with suitable incentives and locations. In 2017, Planning and Zoning's work with EPA brownfield redevelopment grants was recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "Success Story." Projects in Waterloo supported by EPA brownfield grants include the redevelopment of the former Rath site as a campus for social service providers, consolidation of several City department operations at a former industrial site, and development of the Cedar Valley SportsPlex. Demographic Analysis This section uses data from the decennial Census, as well as the U.S. Census Bureau's 1-year and 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, as appropriate10 11 The decennial Census provides certain basic data for all people and housing units in a community, such as age, race, and tenure (whether a housing unit is owner-or renter-occupied). The 2000 Census was the last decennial Census that provided a "long form" to a large representative sample of the population. The "long form" asked detailed questions about income, housing costs,and other topics not addressed in the"short form"sent to the rest of the population. The Census Bureau started collecting ACS data in 2005 to replace the "long form," using much smaller sample sizes than the"long form" had used. For geographic areas with populations over 65,000,the Census Bureau releases annual ACS estimates calculated from a year's worth of data,as well as estimates derived from data taken over a 5-year period. For smaller geographic areas, such as Census tracts within a city, only 5-year ACS estimates are available. ACS estimates often have large margins of error,especially for small geographic areas or small categories(such as a very small immigrant population). 1-year ACS estimates are more current than 5-year estimates, but have larger margins of error.This document uses both 1-year and 5-year ACS estimates for the City as a whole, depending on the factor being considered.The differences among ACS estimates may not be statistically significant in some cases, but ACS is still considered the most reliable and current public data source for understanding a community's demographics and other characteristics. 11 Population, Households, and Age Composition In 2015,Waterloo's population was estimated at 68,457 according to 1-year ACS estimates(Table 1).As discussed in the History section above,Waterloo's population grew substantially over much of the 2011 century,dropped during the Farm Crisis years of the 1980s, and has partially recovered since then (Figure 2). Since 2000, Waterloo's population has been essentially unchanged. Waterloo's population shifts have been geographically uneven. Between 2000 and 2010, most Census tracts in East Waterloo experienced population losses, while many Census tracts in West Waterloo saw population growth (Figure 3). The most substantial population growth occurred in South Waterloo (Census tract 30.01). Between the 2010 Census and the 2016 5-year ACS, population changes across the City were more variable, particularly in West Waterloo (Figure 4). Most Census tracts in East Waterloo continued to see population declines, although the results are not always statistically significant. In West Waterloo, populations in several Census tracts shrank slightly or plateaued. The areas with sustained growth include Census tracts 15.01 and 13.02 near Sergeant Road and San Marnan Drive, and Census Tract 11, which encompasses Liberty Park and Miller Park. 12 Waterloo, Iowa LEGEND 1 City Boundary -FD6� Primary Highway Local Road Census Tract Percent of Population Change 2000 to 2010 Below--20.0% oaa -19.9%-10.0% i _ -9.9%-0.0% i No Change 0.01%-10.0% I 10.01%-20.0% — j 20.01%-30.0% 30.01%-40.0% 21 s l 40.01%-Over Discl Census Tract Data Source-2000 and 2010 U.S.Census 9,56 -2.84% 2.05% f I n. as 218 II . 1,961i r_ L Magian -2.133% -- � 1.001 96 2. '% a'a —,.,M.a. -s "I a- 2.71% -4.64°5 2 -3.03% 4.17% I 7 • l �/��� p �� 13.841 s._3%a-o. __ IIss 5r a �94•P ._. 2.63°k -17-7 - /�•, �I - -'� ,q. 2 2 _ 8-00% o � j 2.02% as 27 j � I I -4.61% 4 - 21.25% p 53 'I The map does not represent a survey,no liability is assumed far the accuracy of the data delineatedhecein,either expressed or implied by INRCOG ®(Feb} y2018)1—aNoAWmdRegionalCam6lofC3ovaxments 0 0.5 1 2 ^^ Please cap 319-235-0311 to obtav�pemtission for use Miles N Figure 3: Population Change by Census Tracts in Waterloo,2000 to 2010 Source:2000 and 2010 Decennial Census 13 Waterloo, Iowa LEGEND f•r, City Boundary rrC� Primary Highway Local Road Census Tract Percent of Population Change 2010 to 2016 Below--20.0% .r.x.xa -19.9%-10.0% I _ _ -9.9%-0.0% I L_ t 'l.— --•—•------------ —•—•� No Change j� —' I �•• 0.01%-10.0% 10.01%-20.0% 20.01%-30.0% !I Ii 30.01%-40.0% 5.18% I � 40.01%-Over z7 L s f I Disdainner. Census Tract Data Source:2010 U.S.Census iO.t4% I 2016 Census Tract Population data was obtained from the U.S.Census Bureau's 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate. 5 �� I L�—..----••—� Tt x.099/. I 2.3746 21 -18.40% 2 003% T 1 ' 9.03% -6.09% W j- 7)_ I fin.+ - 44#.I am,,,��sr 24.71,/ g 6.09%— �— a"• Y �: ----------------- 4 82. 1f° 4xr -0.62% -2.90% I P ' _ G -6.3tiP�� � I 4-74% . '$ s:'• - a 1al wa,. f .�� 05546_,','n 7.87% 7.r,4% ' 20 27 7.454% t USE 27 o � 26 27 .�_W •—r �y � -0.97% 4,03% I - -6.93% _ e end ; .- -r-'--_� _•—__ The map does net represent a=vey,no 4abi4ty u assured for the accuracy -------------•—••-------', n ofthedatadelm®tcdbaem,eitha-pressai .,pbaiby INRCOG O Tebm y 7318)Iowa Nodkdmld Regional Council of Govexarrnt 0 0,5 1 2 Pleasen11319-235-0311toobtainpe .,.fvum. Miles N Figure 4: Population Change by Census Tracts in Waterloo, 2010 to 2016 Source: 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census, 2016 5-year ACS 14 Table 1:Waterloo Demographic Overview Demographic Variable 2000 2010 2010 (Iowa) 20155- 20151- Statistically significant change from year year 2010? (90%confidence level) Total Population 68,747 68,406 3 million 68,432 68,457 Increase (1-y estimate) Age Median Age 35.9 35.9 38.1 36.2 37.2 Under 18 24.7% 23.7% 23.9% 23.7% 23% 25 to 44 27.4% 26.4% 24.6% 26.1% 26% 65 and older 15.3% 14.0% 14.9% 14.9% 15% Increase (5-y estimate) Households and Families Average Household Size 2.39 2.35 2.41 2.37 2.42 Average Family Size 2.97 2.95 2.97 3.09 3.06 Increase (5-y estimate) Family Households (% of households) 63.0% 60.2% 64.7% 57.8% 60.4% Decrease (5-y estimate) Households with Children (% of households) 29.0% 26.5% 28.4% 25.9% 25.6% Race, Ethnicity, and National Origin White 81.6% 77.3% 91.3% 76.2% 73.1% Decrease (5-y and 1-y estimates) Black/African-American 13.9% 15.5% 2.9% 16.0% 16.1% American Indian/Alaska Native 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% Asian/Pacific Islander 0.9% 1.4% 1.8% 1.8% 2.2% Other race 1.4% 2.6% 1.8% 2.6% 6.3% Increase (1-y estimate) Two or more races 2% 3% 2% 3.0% 1.8% Decrease (1-y estimate) Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 2.6% 5.6% 5.0% 6.4% 7.2% Increase (5-y and 1-y estimates) Foreign-Born 5.2% 6.2% 7.4% Increase (5-y and 1-y estimates) Disability qw People with a Disability* 9,206 7,194 Decrease between 5-y and 1-y estimates % of Population with a Disability* 13.6% 10.6% Decrease between 5-y and 1-y estimates Source:2000 and 2010 Decennial Census, 2015 American Community Survey 1-year and 5-year estimates 15 The median age of Waterloo residents was 35.9 in 2010, unchanged from 2000 (Table 1). By contrast, Iowa's median age increased from 36.6 to 38.1 over the last decade, and many communities throughout the state have aging populations. A more detailed look at Waterloo's population by age cohort suggest that the median age could increase in the coming years as baby boomers age (Figure 5). Over the last decade, the share of Waterloo's population ages 55 to 64 increased substantially, while the 35-44 and 5-19 shares declined. This shift may partly explain the slight decrease in average household and family sizes, and the declining share of households with children over the decade (Table 1), as children grew up and moved out of their parents' homes. On the other hand, the share of children ages 0 to 5 and adults ages 25 to 34 increased over the decade, which may indicate that young adults are settling down in Waterloo and raising families. 85 and older 75 to 84 ■2000 ■2010 65 to 74 60 to 64 55 to 59 0 45 to 54 M 0 35 to 44 U 0) 25 to 34 a 20 to 24 15 to 19 Norm 10 to 14 5to9 Under 5 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Percent of Population Figure 5:Age Composition of Waterloo's Population Source:2000 and 2010 Decennial Census Between 2010 and 2015, average family and household size appeared to increase, but the senior share of the population (65 and older) increased slightly (Table 1). Over time, a growing senior population in a community often leads to lower average household sizes and greater demand for 1- and 2-bedroom units. At this time, it is unclear if Waterloo's population will age in the coming years, if the number of young families with children will increase, or both. A substantial increase 16 in a community's proportion of children or seniors can increase demand for public services while decreasing tax revenues, since a smaller share of its population would be in the workforce. Minority Populations Waterloo's racial and ethnic composition is substantially more diverse than Iowa's, and the City's diversity is increasing(Table 1). Nearly 22%of Waterloo's population identified as non-White and 5.6% identified as Hispanic or Latino in 2010. (Note that the Census Bureau considers ethnicity— whether a person identifies as Hispanic or Latino—separately from race). The White percentage of the population declined steadily between 2000 and 2015, while members of other races, multiracial individuals, and Hispanic or Latino individuals increased as a share of the City's population.According to HUD data,Waterloo has the highest level of segregation between White and non-White residents of any entitlement city11 in Iowa, with concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities in northeast Waterloo and neighborhoods immediately to the west of the Cedar River (Figure 6). � r -- Cedar Falls Cit 6 lJ Q Waterloo-Cedar63 � ,t Falls Boundary , and pry Maur Roads � EMansdale Ru eig f Rail L 20 r Rivers and i1'ater Boles 20 0 otber Places Waterloo City �• D Townships �, l rs efty 1 Racialiv and Y t Ethnically fJ CcacentraWd f ., Areas of Poverty (IRCAPs;'ECAPs) Figure 6: Low/Moderate-Income Areas of Minority Concentration in Waterloo Source:Waterloo and Cedar Falls Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice,2014 " HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool, 11/17/17 release. An "entitlement city" is one that receives community development funding directly from HUD. In most cases, entitlement communities have populations of 50,000 or higher. 17 Data on Waterloo's foreign-born population is not available from the 2010 Census, but the percentage of foreign-born residents in Waterloo increased between 2000 and 2015. ACS data on the national origins of foreign-born residents is statistically unreliable because the populations from individual countries are so small, but the 2015 5-year estimates indicate that Bosnians and Mexicans comprise Waterloo's largest immigrant populations (data not shown). Taken together, ACS data and anecdotal evidence indicate that Waterloo has growing populations from India,the Congo region of central Africa, Sudan, and Vietnam. Another prominent minority group in Waterloo consists of people with a disability, who account for over 10% of the City's population. People with disabilities are often less involved in the workforce than able-bodied people of prime working age, and they tend to have lower incomes as a result. People with disabilities often need accessibility features in their homes, such as wheelchair ramps, wide doorways, and grab bars in bathrooms, to be able to live independently in their communities.A shortage of affordable,accessible housing in a community can force some people with disabilities to move into institutional settings. Implications The stabilization of Waterloo's population since the Farm Crisis years is a boon for community spirit, the City's finances, and school enrollment. However, the community hopes to see a faster rate of growth in the coming years,which would bring more vitality and prosperity. Faster growth would also promote redevelopment of the City's many vacant and underutilized residential and commercial properties, which were built decades ago to accommodate a larger population. If the City both grows and ages in the coming years,there may be a shortage of housing units, including smaller, accessible housing units tailored to seniors, if development and redevelopment does not keep pace. In addition to overall population growth, an important consideration for City leaders is the spatial distribution of growth. Since 2000, much of Waterloo's growth has been in neighborhoods to the southwest, while several core neighborhoods have contracted in population. Waterloo's growth and revitalization as a City depends on the well-being of all neighborhoods, so it is important to promote housing and economic improvements throughout the City. Economic Analysis Overview Although the Farm Crisis of the 1980s deeply disrupted Waterloo's industrial base, the City remains largely blue-collar. Compared to Iowa and Black Hawk County, a greater share of Waterloo's employed residents work in production, transportation, and material moving 18 occupations or in the manufacturing industry (Table 2). By the same token, a smaller share of Waterloo residents work in management, business, science, and arts occupations or in the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) industries, compared to the Iowa workforce overall. Incomes in Waterloo are relatively low, while poverty is relatively high (Table 2). The City's median family income is $51,025, about$10,000 less than that of Black Hawk County, and nearly $19,000 less than Iowa's median family income. The median family income measure excludes most student households. The City's family poverty rate of 9.1%, meanwhile, appears to be higher than the County and State family poverty rates. Similar to median family income, family poverty rates are less likely than individual poverty rates to be influenced by student households. Waterloo's unemployment rate has exceeded the County and State rates over the past decade, especially during the Recession (Figure 7). The City's unemployment rate rose sharply from 4.2% in 2007 to 7.3% in 2009, and declined steadily to 5.5% by 2016.The County's unemployment rate was also higher in 2016 than in 2007. By contrast, the State's unemployment rate had returned to its pre-Recession level of 3.7% by 2016. The nation's overall unemployment rate peaked at a higher level than Waterloo's during the recession (7.3% in 2010), but by 2016 the City's unemployment rate had exceeded the national rate. Table 2:Waterloo Economic Overview Economic Variable Iowa Black Waterloo Is Waterloo significantly Hawk Co. different? (90% CI) Civilian labor force 67.4% 66.5% 64.5% Unemployment rate (official 3.8% 4.7% 5.5% N/A BLS data) Workers in Management, business, science, and arts 34.4% 31.5% 27.7% Lower than Iowa occupations Workers in Production, 0 0 o Higher than Iowa and transportation, and material 17.0% 18.8/o 25.1 /o Black Hawk County moving occupations Workers in Manufacturing 15.7% 18.9% 22.8% Higher than Iowa and industry Black Hawk County Workers in Finance and insurance, and real estate and 7.3% 5.2% 4.6% Lower than Iowa rental and leasing industries Median household income $54,736 $50,169 $44,153 Lower than Iowa and Black Hawk County Median family income $69,382 $63,025 $51,025 Lower than Iowa and Black Hawk County Poverty rate (families)* 7.7% 6.7% 9.1% Poverty rate (individuals)* 12.2% 13.7% 14.0% 19 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015 annual unemployment averages(not seasonally adjusted),2015 American Community Survey 1-year estimates *Difference between Waterloo and Black Hawk Co. is marginally significant. 10.0 Waterloo -0 Iowa J H o M 8'0 Black Hawk County o � USA ca r °C o 6.0 +� H c co v a� E `^ > o o E u 4.0 CU L 2.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Figure 7: Unemployment Rates in Waterloo, Black Hawk County, and Iowa Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Despite Waterloo's relatively high unemployment rate, it has more jobs than workers who live in the City (49,336 jobs vs. 30,161 resident workers; Figure 8). This is not unusual — regional economic hubs exert "gravity" on surrounding areas, attracting workers from other cities and counties. Not surprisingly, Cedar Falls is the most common city where Waterloo's in-commuters live, and a majority of Waterloo's jobs are filled by workers in Black Hawk County and a few neighboring counties (Figure 9, Table 3). Remarkably, though, more Waterloo jobs are filled by workers from Polk County than from Linn County. 20 - N Inflow}Outflow job Counts in 2014 218 58 20 WCI111 WA1 llll �`"'`""" • 100 °v 0 04.�f71� 30 Job Count ■ 28,358 M 32,063-Employed in Selection Area, Live Outside . 2,& 12,898 -Live in Selection Area, Emplpyetl Outside 1,a12■ M 17,263-Employed and 1,572 Live in Selection Area 6 E 0 ■ 1,5162 78 ■ 1,148 sv km ■ 1,017 2011 218 ■ 759 14 731 5 163 ' pj e o 0 474 Figure 8:Worker Inflow Outflow Anal sis fo Figure 9:Top Counties of Residence for Workers Employed in Waterloo Waterloo Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics(LEHD)2014 estimates(primary jobs). Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEND) 2014 estimates(primary jobs). r ® 21 Table 3: Most Common Places of Residence for Workers Employed in Waterloo Number of Percent of City/Town Number of Percent of County Workers Workers Workers Workers Black Hawk 28,358 57.5% Waterloo 17,263 35% Bremer 2,660 5.4% Cedar Falls 5,433 11% Buchanan 1,812 3.7% Evansdale 1,224 2.5% Polk 1,578 3.2% Waverly 804 1.6% Linn 1,162 2.4% Cedar Rapids 701 1.4% Grundy 1,148 2.3% Des Moines 681 1.4% Butler 1,017 2.1% Hudson 586 1.2% Fayette 759 1.5% La Porte City 540 1.1% Tama 731 1.5% Jesup 488 1% Scott 474 1% Independence 405 0.8% Other counties 9,647 19.5% Other cities/towns 21,221 43% Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics(LEND)2014 estimates(primary jobs). Implications Waterloo's overall economic profile poses challenges for meeting housing needs, since it indicates both a relatively low tax base and high housing needs. Waterloo's housing costs are relatively low, as the next section will show, but many low- and moderate-income households still struggle to find affordable, decent-quality housing. For the past several years, the City has both fostered economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents and sought to attract more middle- and upper-income residents. Later sections of this document will provide guidance for fine-tuning these strategies. Housing in Waterloo Overview The City of Waterloo has over 30,000 housing units, a majority of which are single-family detached structures (Table 4). The percentage of vacant units in Waterloo (8.3%), including units that are not on the market for sale or rent, is not significantly different from the County or State. Using 2015 5-year ACS estimates, Waterloo's homeowner vacancy rate of 2.2% appears to be slightly higher than the countywide and statewide rates, while the City's rental vacancy rate of 9.6% is significantly higher than the statewide rate12. Owner and rental vacancy rates of 2% and 5%, respectively, are generally considered healthy. The 1-year ACS estimates for Waterloo's iz The Census Bureau's homeowner and rental vacancy rate calculations exclude units that are not part of the "regular"housing market—e.g.units for seasonal or recreational use,and units that are abandoned or whose owners are not currently offering them for rent. 22 owner and rental vacancy rates are 1.8% (+/-1.5%) and 7.4% (+/-4.4%), suggesting that the City's housing market may be tightening as it continues to recover from the Recession. Waterloo's rental market may indicate a high level of turnover among renters.This is common in communities where a high proportion of renters are economically insecure, since these renters may be compelled to move frequently to find affordable units. Additionally, economically insecure renters may be more likely to fall behind on rent and experience eviction. Overall, Waterloo has an older housing stock than the County or the State. Fewer of Waterloo's housing units were built after 1990, and more of its units were built before 1970. As a result, Waterloo's residential property owners may be more likely to face maintenance challenges. Additionally, lead-based paint was regularly used in homes until it was banned in 1978, and 82% of Waterloo's housing stock was built before 1980. The City's homeownership rate of 64.1% is comparable to the national homeownership rate, but is lower than the County and statewide homeownership rates. Waterloo's median home value of $104,200 is substantially lower than the countywide and statewide median home values, and median monthly housing costs for Waterloo homeowners are generally lower as well.Waterloo's median gross rent, which includes utility costs as well as rent payments, is also relatively low. However, because Waterloo's incomes are relatively low, its lower housing costs do not translate to lower cost burdens (see Glossary of Terms on p. 26). Housing costs are generally considered affordable if they consume no more than 30% of a household's income, but about 1 in 6 owner households with a mortgage are paying 35% or more of their income on housing in Waterloo. Housing cost burden is more prevalent among renters, with about 2 in 5 renters paying 35% or more of their incomes for housing. 23 Table 4:Waterloo Housing Overview Housing Subject Iowa Black Haw'- County awkCounty HOUSING OCCUPANCY Total housing units 1,369,379 57,073 30,684 Vacant housing units 8.7% 7.4% 8.3% Homeowner vacancy rate 1.6% 1.8% 2.2% Rental vacancy rate 6.2% 8.4% 9.6% UNITS IN STRUCTURE 1-unit, detached 73.7% 69.1% 67.0% 1-unit, attached 3.8% 3.7% 4.2% 2 units 2.4% 3.9% 3.9% 3 or 4 units 3.4% 3.9% 4.3% 5 to 9 units 3.7% 4.8% 5.4% 10 to 19 units 3.9% 5.1% 5.2% 20 or more units 5.3% 6.0% 6.5% Mobile home 3.8% 3.5% 3.4% YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT 2010 or later 1.8% 1.6% 1.3% 2000 to 2009 11.8% 7.9% 5.5% 1990 to 1999 10.9% 6.8% 4.8% 1960 to 1969 10.6% 14.9% 14.6% 1950 to 1959 10.6% 18.1% 18.6% 1940 to 1949 5.7% 7.4% 8.7% 1939 or earlier 26.5% 21.1% 25.2% HOUSING TENURE Owner-occupied 71.5% 67.5% 64.1% Renter-occupied 28.5% 32.5% 35.9% MORTGAGE STATUS Housing units with a mortgage 61.2%* 62.6% 62.9%* Housing units without a mortgage 38.8%* 37.4% 37.1%* HOUSING VALUE AND COSTS Median value (owner-occupied) $129,200 $130,200 $104,200 Median monthly owner costs (units with mortgage) $1,171 $1,074 $959 Media monthly owner costs (units without mortgage) $434 $402 $391 Median gross rent $697 $700 $672 Housing costs>_35% of income (owner HHs with mortgage) 15.1% 14.5% 16.7% Housing costs>_35% of income (owner HHs without mortgage) 8.5% 6.6% 7.0% Housing costs>_35% of income (renter HHs) 36.1% 41.8% 42.1% Source: 2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Iowa and Black Hawk County values in bold and italic are significantly different from Waterloo values at the 90%confidence level. *Difference is marginally significant 24 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, a custom dataset prepared for HUD by the Census Bureau, can be used to further understand housing-related hardships among households in different income brackets. CHAS data determines how many households are low- or moderate-income (LMI) by comparing a household's income to the Area Median Income (AMI) for households of the same size. According to the definitions used in this report, households up to 50% AMI are low-income, while those between 51% and 80%AMI are moderate-income (see Glossary of Terms on p. 32).A drawback to CHAS data is the lag time between when it is collected and released, in addition to the limitations described earlier for ACS estimates. Figure 10 shows the number of households by income bracket and tenure in Waterloo. Owner households with incomes over 100% AMI comprise the single largest group of households in Waterloo, but 52 percent of the City's households are LMI. Most extremely low-income households (ELI; see Glossary on the following page) are renters, while ownership becomes the dominant tenure type by the moderate-income bracket (>30% to 50% AMI). Homeownership is an important wealth-building avenue, and communities typically aim to have a critical mass of homeowners in each neighborhood. However, as Figure 10 shows, rental housing is a necessary option for many LMI households who may be unable to financially sustain homeownership. +, 9,000 N 8,000 s U 7,000 c �0) 6,000 3 0- 5,000 N E ° 0 4,000 a°) LA 3 a0i 3,000 o 3 2,000 0 .0 1,000 . 3 Z Extremely Low- Low-Income(31- Moderate-Income Middle-Income Middle/Upper Income(0-30% 50%AMI) (51-80%AMI) (81%-100%AMI) Income(>100% AMI) AMI) ■Owners ■Renters Figure 10:Waterloo Households by Income Bracket and Tenure Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy(CHAS) 2010-2014 Figure 11 shows the percentage of owner and renter households at different income brackets with housing problems. As the Venn diagram at the bottom of Figure 11 indicates, the CHAS 25 definition of "housing problems" is extremely limited, including only cost burden, a lack of complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, and overcrowding (one or more persons per room). Cost burden is by far the most common housing problem in Waterloo and most communities across the U.S., but considering these other housing problems gives a fuller picture of the challenges low- and moderate-income (LMI) families face in finding affordable and adequate housing. As Figure 11 highlights, "severe housing problems" are a subset of overall housing problems. By far the most common severe housing problem is a housing cost burden over 50% of income, known as "severe cost burden." Focusing on severe housing problems provides a more conservative analysis than focusing on all housing problems. However,even a cost burden slightly above 30%can be a hardship for LI households, especially those with extremely low incomes (ELI; see Glossary below). GLOSSARY OF TERMS • Area Median Income (AMI): Median annual household income (pretax) for a metropolitan area, subarea of a metropolitan area, or non-metropolitan county. • Middle/Upper-Income(MUI): Household is above 100%of the AMI for households of the same size. • Middle-Income (MI): Household is between 81% and 100% of the AMI for households of the same size. • Moderate-Income (Mod): Household is between 51% and 80% of the AMI for households of the same size. • Low-Income (LI): Household is at or below 50% of the AMI for households of the same size. This term is also used for households between 31%and 50%AMI. • Low- and Moderate-Income (LMI): Households at or below 80% AMI for households of the same size. • Extremely Low-Income (ELI): Household is at or below 30% of the AMI for households of the same size. • Housing Costs: Includes the household's rent or mortgage payments, utility payments, property taxes, insurance, and mobile home or condominium fees, as applicable. • Affordable Housing: Housing that costs no more than 30%of a household's gross income. • Cost Burdened: Household pays >30%of its gross income on housing costs. • Moderately Cost Burdened: Household pays >30% but no more than 50% of its gross income on housing costs. • Severely Cost Burdened: Household pays>50%of its gross income on housing costs. 26 Owner Households 100% 85% ■With 1 or More Housing 080% 77% Problems s ■With 1 or More Severe 0 Housing Problems 60% 0 = 43 40% 26% L 0 20% 14% a 6% 10% 0% 11 1 N I M ■ ■ Extremely Low-Income(0-30% Low-Income(31-50%AMI) Moderate-Income(51-80% Middle-Income(81%-100% AMI) AMI) AMI) Renter Households 100% 90% ■With 1 or More Housing 75% Problems 80% 74o� ■With 1 or More Severe Housing Problems 3 60% 0 x 0 40% = 27% 30% a L a 20% 13% 10% 9% 0% N - = Extremely Low-Income(0-30% Low-Income(31-50%AMI) Moderate-Income(51-80% Middle-Income(81%-100% AMI) AMI) AMI) Severe Housing Problems HousingHousing Problems Housing costs>50%of income •• 1'. of ••rn Incomplete kitchen or Overcrowding(>I person per • • Figure 11: Housing Problems by Tenure and Income Bracket in Waterloo Source: HUD CHAS 2010-2014 27 Not surprisingly, housing problems are more prevalent at lower income brackets in Waterloo (Figure 11). Among ELI households, housing problems are ubiquitous and usually severe. As one moves up the income ladder, the prevalence of severe housing problems decreases more rapidly than the prevalence of housing problems overall. This indicates that as a household's income increases, its housing problems are more likely to be moderate. Renter households are generally more likely than owner households to experience housing problems, including severe problems, although the data in Figure 11 does not distinguish between owners with and without mortgages13. In terms of absolute numbers, LI renter households (:550%AMI) comprise over half of all LMI households with housing problems in Waterloo (4,440 out of 8,000 households — See Appendix A). Homebuyer Market According to local Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data (Table 5), Waterloo's median home sale price of $111,000 is considerably lower than that of Cedar Falls, its neighbor city ($189,900), or Dubuque, another industrial river city in eastern Iowa ($186,294). However, Waterloo's volume of home sales compared to its total population and owner housing stock is relatively low, indicating some market tightness. Waterloo's ratio of home sales to population is 0.014, equal to Cedar Falls' ratio and lower than Dubuque's ratio. Additionally, Waterloo's ratio of sales to owner housing stock is lower than in Cedar Falls and Dubuque. Table 5: Home Sales in Waterloo and Comparison Cities Median Median Average Ratio of Number er Ratio of City Population Sale Price Days on Annual Sales to Owner Sales to Market Sales Population Units Owner Units Waterloo 68,357 $111,000 34 961 0.014 18,484 0.052 Cedar 40,828 $189,900 24 587 0.014 9,639 0.061 Falls Dubuque* 58,535 $186,294 46 1036 0.018 15,437 0.067 Source: MLS 2/23/15 to 2/22/18 except*1/1/15 to 2/21/18, 2016 5-year ACS " In communities that have high housing costs and/or had large housing bubbles before the Recession, housing problems are often more prevalent among LMI owners with mortgages than among LMI renters. Since Waterloo's housing costs are relatively low, LMI owners with mortgages may not have substantially higher rates of cost burden than LMI renters. 28 Affordability of Homes for Sale Affordability of homeownership is a function of both a community's housing costs and the incomes of prospective homebuyers. Table 6 shows the maximum affordable home prices at different income levels, which were calculated based on the following assumptions: • 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 4.3% interest • Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgage with 3.5% down payment • Front-end ratio of 31%, back-end ratio of 41%, monthly household debt other than mortgage is 15% of income • Assessed value is 85% of purchase price • Annual mortgage and homeowner insurance costs combined are 1.5% of the purchase price Table 6:Affordability of Homes for Purchase in Waterloo Buyer Annual Income Affordable Purchase Price Household with minimum income needed to buy median-priced Waterloo home $38,481 $111,000 Household at annualized laborshed wage $42,796 $123,251 ($823/week) Household at annualized median wage in Black Hawk County ($18.24) $37,946 $109,483 Household at Waterloo's median household income $44,153 $127,103 (2015 ACS 1-y) Female-headed household with median earnings for female full-time,year-round worker(2015 ACS 1-y) $31,778 $91,973 Household with minimum income needed to buy home built in 1968 or later outside 100-year $53,980 $155,000 floodplain* Source: Iowa Workforce Development [IWD] Region 7 2017 Annual Profile; 2015 ACS 5-year and 1-year estimates; MLS 2/23/15 to 2/22/18 except*5/23/14 to 5/22/17, IWD 2016 Occupational and Employment Statistics(OES) Waterloo's median home purchase price of$111,000 is affordable to a household with an annual income of at least $38,481. This is somewhat lower than the average laborshed income, the median income for all occupations in Black Hawk County, and Waterloo's median household income. Ostensibly, this means that Waterloo's home prices are well matched to the incomes of 29 people who live and work in the greater Waterloo area. However, some lower income buyers may have difficulty buying a median-priced home in Waterloo. For example, the median annual earnings for female-headed households in Waterloo are only $31,778, which allow a maximum purchase price of only $91,973. Moreover, many lower-priced homes are older and may have costly deferred maintenance needs. The median price for a home built within the last 50 years outside the 100-year floodplain is $155,000, which is only affordable at a household income of $53,980 or higher. $25.00 - c 0 CM $20.00 U O $15.00 0 w W 0o M $10.00 a� c $5.00 _ a� L - a� $0.00 t�et5 P\ae5 P`ae5 �s Fety �a��5 �ety �a��y ,ety ��ety �\et� a�et5 \,et5 e* a\Py��S Late Pyyet�` i ``earP �a o i Cry 11411 Ata�e �\r mete 5�0` Ac" mot �e \ Ib �\a�� �t•�aor�� t a �tao iota � e � �a o 5 mea otet5 �e\ae �ea�J eeaea �a Figure 12:Affordability of Median-Priced Homes in Waterloo for Selected Occupations Source: MLS 2/23/15 to 2/22/18, IWD 2016 OES *By hand **Assuming 40 hrs/wk,52 wks/yr Figure 12 compares the 75th percentile wage of key occupations in Black Hawk County to the lowest wage needed to afford a median-priced home in Waterloo. The occupations shown collectively account for 14% of all occupations in Black Hawk County, and the 7511 percentile means that 75% of workers in an occupation earn this wage or less. A household must earn at least $18.50 per hour to purchase a median-priced home in the City, assuming its breadwinners work 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Several blue-collar occupations that are typically considered to be pathways to the middle class, including carpentry,team assembly, welding, and 30 truck driving, offer sufficient wages at the 75th percentile to buy a median-priced home. Several industrial and health occupations, including meat packers, laborers, nursing assistants, and medical assistants, fall a few dollars short of the 75th percentile wage needed to afford a median- priced home. Notably, some vital service occupations, including child care workers, personal care and home health aides, and teacher assistants, fall far short of the wage needed to purchase a median- priced home (Figure 12). Many homebuyer households have two breadwinners, but one earner can easily slip below full-time employment due to job loss, illness, or child care responsibilities. Thus, homeownership is difficult to attain for low-wage couples with children. Low-wage single parents struggle even more to purchase homes because they are often the only breadwinner. This means,for example,that a single mother working as a nursing assistant at the 75th percentile wage would fall short of the income needed to purchase a median-priced home. Of course, half of the homes sold in Waterloo are below the median price, meaning that some inventory is available for homebuyers who cannot afford a median-priced home. Figure 13 compares the annual average home sales below the median price to the number of renter households in two ACS income brackets that may include LMI prospective homebuyers. In 2015, the $25,000 to $34,999 income bracket ($12.02 to $16.83 per hour) had an estimated 2,307 renter households in Waterloo, while the $20,000 ($9.62 per hour) to $24,999 bracket had 582 renter households, for a total of 2,889 potential LMI homebuyers. 3,500 ■$20,000 to$24,999 3,000 H ■$25,000 to$34,999 :2 2,500 0 .r- 2,000 2,000 s 1,500 0 1,000 3 500 Z 0 Renter households in income Renter households in income Average annual home sales below bracket bracket(lower bound of estimate) median price Figure 13: Comparison of Lower-Income Renter Households and Lower-Priced Home Inventory in Waterloo Source:2015 ACS 1-year estimates; MLS 2/23/15 to 2/22/18. Lower bounds of estimates are calculated by subtracting the margin of error from the estimate. 31 Renter households in each of these income brackets outnumber the average annual inventory of 480 homes sold below the median price in Waterloo.At this level of inventory, it would take over 6 years for all renters in these income brackets to buy homes. Even when the lower bound estimates of renter households in these brackets are used (total of 1,787 households), it would take nearly 4 years for all renters in these brackets to buy homes below the median price. If the costs of repairing "fixer-uppers" among these 480 homes were taken into account, the inventory would be even smaller. Purchase assistance programs are essential for many LMI households aspiring to homeownership. Purchase assistance is commonly offered by local governments or nonprofit agencies with a pre-approved pool of lenders willing to issue mortgages to households in the program. Credit counseling agencies can help households improve their credit histories to meet lenders' requirements, and purchase assistance programs often require participants to attend a homebuyer education course offered by a HUD-approved credit counseling agency.The City once operated a Housing Partnership program, which offered purchase assistance for LMI households buyout homes in the Consolidated Urban Revitalization Area (CURA), which is described in the section on Waterloo's housing programs.The Housing Partnership provided up to$5,000 in down payment assistance, and up to $29,000 to reduce the purchase price for newly constructed homes. LMI prospective homebuyers in Waterloo may still receive down payment assistance from the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA), but the maximum amount is only $2,500. To expand opportunities for LMI first-time homebuyers, the City or one of its partners may need to offer a local purchase assistance program again. Rental Market To obtain firsthand information on prices and vacancy rates for Waterloo's rental housing stock, surveys were requested from several property managers, two of which responded. The average rents reported range from $599 for 1-bedroom units to $931 for 3-bedroom units. These rents are higher than HUD's Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for efficiencies and 2-bedroom units, comparable to FMR for 1-bedroom units, and lower than FMR for 3-bedroom units. Although the rents reported in the surveys do not consistently exceed FMRs, they are out of reach for many low-wage workers, as the Rental Affordability section will show (see Figure 15). Moreover, the survey responses in Table 7 show a low vacancy rate (2.2%) and a turnaround time of less than a month for vacant units. This suggests that the professionally managed rental market is much tighter than Waterloo's overall rental market. As later sections will discuss, renters who cannot afford or qualify for high-quality units are forced to rent substandard units, and some even become homeless. 32 Table 7:Waterloo Rental Market Information from Property Manager Surveys Variable Survey HUD Fair Market Rent FY2017 Results in Waterloo Metro Area Rental units represented in survey 638 Efficiency $613 $496 Average Rent 1 Bedroom $599 $597 2 Bedrooms $787 $755 3 Bedrooms $931 $986 Vacancy Rate 2.2% Days on Market (weighted average) 26 An additional survey was administered to managers of subsidized multifamily rental properties in Waterloo. Located within the city limits are several privately owned rental properties that are subsidized by HUD's Project-Based Section 8 program, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), or both. Together, these properties account for 1,260 subsidized units. Additionally, the Waterloo Housing Authority has 50 public housing units for seniors.These 1,310 rental units have "project-based" subsidies that stay with the unit. By contrast, Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs, also known as Section 8 vouchers) are "tenant-based" subsidies that recipients use to rent units of their choice in the general rental market14. Project-Based Section 8 is targeted mainly to ELI and LI renters, providing a "deep" subsidy by paying the difference between the rent they can afford to pay (30% of income) and fair market rent for the unit. LIHTC, by contrast, provides a "shallow" subsidy by indirectly reducing the cost of construction, allowing rents to be set at a level affordable to households at a certain income level (usually 40% to 60% AMI). However, LIHTC tenants below the maximum allowed income level may pay more than 30% of income on rent. Waterloo's rental developments with project-based subsidies can be grouped into two broad categories: general occupancy developments (also known as "family" developments) and developments for seniors and people with disabilities. Of the 24 subsidized multifamily rental developments identified in Waterloo, responses were received from 17 properties with a combined total of 928 units. This analysis does not include smaller subsidized rental properties owned by local nonprofits, but these units comprise a small percentage of all subsidized rental units in Waterloo. 14 The total rent, including the tenant-paid and HCV-paid portions, must not exceed the local housing authority's "payment standard."Generally,the payment standard cannot be less than 90%or more than 110%of Fair Market Rents. 33 Table 8 and Table 9 summarize data from the 7 subsidized general occupancy developments for which surveys were collected. Of the 301 rental units in these properties combined, 239 (79%) are in LIHTC developments that do not provide deep subsidies to tenants, although these developments generally accept Housing Choice Voucher recipients. Nineteen of the family units (6.3%) are vacant for rent, while 110 households are on waitlists. If one development with a 40% vacancy rate is omitted from the analysis, the average vacancy rate of the remaining developments is 3.3%. Notably, another development with 40 units and 0%vacancy accounts for 50 waitlisted households, and their waitlist is closed. Among the two Project-Based Section 8 family properties,vacant-for-rent units spend only 4 days on the market on average when they are listed for rent, while the LIHTC units spend an average of 64 days on the market. However, time on market varies widely for vacant LIHTC units, with two developments reporting zero days on market and another two developments reporting 180 days. In terms of accessibility, about half of the family units are either fully compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standards, or have some accessibility features such as wide doorways, grab bars in bathrooms, and lever door handles. As Table 9 shows, the difference between average rents for shallow-subsidy LIHTC units and market-rate units varies widely, from less than $100 for 1-bedroom units to over $500 for the few 4-bedroom units in this housing stock. Even among units for households up to 60%AMI, the most common target income for shallow-subsidy LIHTC units, rent varies considerably. For example,the lowest rent for 1-bedroom units for 60%AMI households is$388, while the highest rent is $596, almost equivalent to HUD's Fair Market Rent (FMR) for 1-bedroom units in the Waterloo-Cedar Falls metropolitan area. Similarly, the highest rent for 2-bedroom units at 60% AMI is $709, only $56 less than the 2-bedroom FMR. This range occurs because LIHTC property managers may charge up to the maximum affordable rent for a unit's targeted income bracket, but some property managers—especially nonprofits—choose to charge less. Notably, the 1-bedroom FMR in Waterloo is lower than the maximum affordable rent for a 60% AMI household, while the 2-bedroom FMR is comparable to the maximum affordable 60% AMI rent. In communities like Waterloo with relatively low-cost rental markets, it is not uncommon for rents affordable to LMI households to equal or exceed FMRs, which can limit demand for LIHTC units. Surprisingly,though,the LIHTC development with the lowest rents for households at 60% AMI also has the highest vacancy rate and turnaround time for vacant units, while the development with the highest rents for 60%AMI units has a 0%vacancy rate and a waitlist equal to one-third of its units (data not shown). Some of Waterloo's more expensive LIHTC units may have strong demand because they tend to be of higher quality than less expensive market-rate units.These units may also be an important resource for Housing Choice Voucher recipients, who have a limited amount of time to find a unit below FMR where vouchers are accepted. 34 Table 8: Survey Data for Subsidized General Occupancy Rental Developments* in Waterloo Total Units by Bedroom Size Weighted Partly/Fully Development Total Max Units by Vacant for Households Average Days Accessible Type Units Income Max 1 2 3 4 Rent on Waitlist on Market Units Income Project-Based Section 8** (2 62 50-80% 62 0 32 20 10 3 26 (2 AMI*** properties) 4 18 properties) 30%AMI 8 0 4 4 0 LIHTC, no 40%AMI 2 0 0 0 2 deep subsidy 239 50%AMI 30 0 10 16 4 16 84(3 64 143 (5 properties) 60%AMI 175 52 81 42 0 properties) 80%AMI 24 1 12 1 12 0 0 Totals 301 301 64 1 139 82 16 19 110 54 161 *Rental developments for which surveys were received. **Some Project-Based Section 8 developments have received LIHTC financing for renovation. ***In most cases, Project-Based Section 8 beneficiaries must be<_50%AMI, and at least 75%of these beneficiaries must be:530%AMI. Local data for Project- Based Section 8 units in Waterloo indicates that 97%of beneficiaries are<_50%AMI and 77%are<_30%AMI. m Table 9: Comparison of Rents in Waterloo's Subsidized General Occupancy Rentals* to Fair Market Rents and Maximum 60%AMI Rents Unit Number Average Rent Range for HUD Fair Market Rent Maximum Allowed Rents for Size of Units Rent 60%AMI units FY2017 in Waterloo Units Affordable at 60%AMI in Metro Area Black Hawk County(FY 2017) 1 BR 64 $508 $388-$596 $597 $714-$717 2 BR 107 $648 $460-$709 $755 $765 -$768 3 BR 62 $740 $780-$822 $986 $918-$921 4 BR 6 $700 N/A $1,222 $1,061-$1,064 *Rental developments for which surveys were received. 35 Table 10 and Table 11 summarize data from the 10 subsidized developments for seniors and people with disabilities for which surveys were collected. These developments have a combined total of 577 units, nearly twice as many as in the family developments. In contrast to family developments, most of these developments for seniors and people with disabilities (80%) have deep subsidies, predominantly from the Project-Based Section 8 program. Survey data on vacancy rates, waitlists, and unit turnover indicates an even tighter market than for affordable general occupancy developments. Only 3 units (0.5%) were identified as being vacant for rent, with combined waitlists of nearly 200 and an average turnaround time of only 10 days for vacant units. Most developments for seniors are also open to people with disabilities, and most have at least a few accessibility features in their units. However, disability advocates in Waterloo have expressed concern that the supply of fully wheelchair-accessible subsidized apartments is limited (see the section on housing needs for seniors and people with disabilities). One reason for this limitation is that many of Waterloo's senior complexes were built several decades ago when architectural features to accommodate wheelchairs were not widely used. Indeed, in the first 3 developments listed in Table 11, few of the units are fully wheelchair accessible. For 3 other developments,the managers did not specifically list wide doorways among the units'accessibility features. Moreover, as the discussion of housing needs of special populations will show, the supply of affordable, accessible units is simply too small to meet the needs of all LMI people with disabilities. Overall,the survey data for subsidized developments in Waterloo shows that they fill a vital need in the community's housing market. This is especially true for deeply subsidized units and the developments serving seniors and people with disabilities,which have low vacancy rates and long waitlists. Notably, demand exceeds supply for Housing Choice Vouchers as well —the waitlist is about 2,000 households or four years long. Even among shallow-subsidy developments for general occupancy, demand is generally brisk.This suggests that Waterloo has potential demand for new shallow-subsidy rental units serving households in the 40%to 60%AMI range. However, developers should ideally conduct market studies to ensure that they can fill their units without "cannibalizing" occupancy from existing subsidized developments. To make maximum use of its existing affordable housing stock,the City may also wish to work with the few developments that have high vacancy rates and turnaround times to help them fill units. The greatest demand is for deep subsidies and units affordable to ELI renters. However, in the current state and federal funding climate, it is increasingly difficult to develop affordable rental housing for these populations. Whenever possible, the City should foster rental development that is affordable to ELI households — for example, by helping developers obtain additional subsidies for LIHTC units to allow them to reduce rents. 36 Table 10: Survey Data for Subsidized Rental Developments for Seniors and People with Disabilities* in Waterloo Total Units Units by Bedroom Size Vacant Weighted Development Total Households Max Income by Max for on Waitlist Avg Days Type Units Income 0 1 2 Rent on Market Project-Based Section 8** (7 50-80% properties)or 460 AMI*** 460 47 411 2 3**** 2_79**** 8.5**** Public Housing(1 property) LIHTC, nodeep 40%AMI 15 0 8 7 subsidy(2 117 50%AMI 57 0 57 0 0 117 15 properties) 60%AMI 45 0 22 23 Totals 577 577 47 498 32 3**** 2_196**** 10**** *Rental developments for which surveys were received. **Some Project-Based Section 8 developments have received LIHTC financing for renovation. ***In most cases,Project-Based Section 8 beneficiaries must be<_50%AMI,and at least 75%of these beneficiaries must be<_30%AMI. Local data for Project-Based Section 8 units in Waterloo indicates that 97%of beneficiaries are<_50%AMI and 77%are!20%AMI. ****One property manager did not provide data on vacancies,waitlists,or days on market. Table 11:Accessibility Features and Occupancy Restrictions in Subsidized Rental Developments for Seniors and People with Disabilities* in Waterloo Units in Accessible Units/Features(as described by manager) Occupancy Restrictions/Waivers Development Grab bars in every bathroom,6 units wheelchair accessible Age 62+,or 55+with age waiver, or 50 with walk-in shower,open floor plan. mobility-impaired. No age requirement for wheelchair accessible units. 57 6 units with roll-in showers,ADA cabinets and appliances. Age 62+or disability 85 Some [units have]wide doors,walk-in showers, lower cabinets Age 62+or wheelchair-bound etc. 60 Grab bars in bathroom(s), lever door handles,front loading Age 55+ washer/dryers,walk-in showers with seats. g 81 Wide doorways, open lower cabinet in kitchen,elevated stool, Age 62+or disability grab bars in bathroom, lever handles, roll in showers. 80 Wide doorways, open lower cabinet in kitchen,elevated stool, Age 62+or disability grab bars in bathroom, lever handles, roll in showers. 84 Door openings wider, bathroom grab bars in bathroom,sinks Age 62+or disability.A 55+age waiver has lower, peep hole is lower, lever door handles. been granted in the past. Age 62+or disability. Others can apply, but 30 Grab bars,walk-in showers, kitchen is set up for handicap. preference goes to 62+, people with disabilities,and people experiencing homelessness. Age 62+or disability. Others can apply, but 50 Grab bars,walk-in showers, kitchen is handicap accessible. preference goes to 62+, people withdisabilities,and people experiencing homelessness. *Rental developments for which surveys were received. 37 Rental Affordability As the Housing Overview showed, severe cost burden is widespread among LMI households, especially renters. In Waterloo and most other communities around the nation, rents that are affordable to lower income households, especially ELI households, are insufficient to cover the costs of building, operating, and maintaining market-rate rental housing, while subsidized housing units are in short supply. Additionally, many affordable rental units are occupied by households in higher income brackets, so they are not available to LMI households. Figure 14 shows rental units that are both affordable and available to ELI and LI renter households in Waterloo15. For this discussion, LI renters include those between 31% and 50%AMI. There are affordable rental units available for 27% of ELI households and 98% of LI households, including both occupied and vacant units. Expressed another way, there are 27 affordable and available units for every 100 ELI renters, and 98 affordable and available units for every 100 LI renters. For ELI renter households, the percentage of households in affordable units and the percentage that are severely cost burdened adds up to nearly 100%, suggesting that virtually the only way an ELI renter can avoid severe cost burden is to find a subsidized unit. 100% V) ■Affordable/Available 0800 Units (occupied + (V vacant) 3 Y O v 70% _ T 60% � m a) ■Affordable/Available Units (occupied m v 40% only) •� _ O c __ U 20% zo% ■Severely Cost a Burdened 0% Extremely Low-Income (!530%AMI) Low-Income (31-50%AMI) Figure 14:Affordable and Available Units for Lower Income Renters in Waterloo Source: HUD CHAS 2010-2014 11 CHAS data provides estimates of units affordable to and rented by members of different income brackets, based on reasonable assumptions about the household size that would occupy each unit. For example, the rent for a 2- bedroom unit would be compared to the amount of rent affordable to a household size between 2 and 3 persons. CHAS data may overestimate the number of units affordable and available to lower income brackets, since a household at the lower end of an income bracket would pay more than 30% of income in a rental targeted to a household at the higher end of that income bracket. However, it is unlikely that a household slightly over 30%AMI would be severely cost burdened in a rental targeted to a 50%AMI household. 38 In practice, not all affordable vacant units are necessarily available to lower income households. Higher-income households are often more competitive in the rental market, since they are less likely to have eviction histories or credit problems, and they may be able to pay security deposits more quickly.This is true even for many subsidized rental developments, which often use tenant screening criteria similar to those of market-rate developments. When we exclude vacant units from the analysis, there are only 23 affordable units available for every 100 ELI renters, and only 66 affordable units available for every 100 LI renters. Competition for vacant units is more likely to be a factor for LI renters (31% to 50%AMI), since vacant rentals affordable to ELI households are fewer and more likely to be subsidized with income restrictions. This competition for affordable vacant units may explain why a full 20% of LI renters remain severely cost burdened. Figure 15 compares wages in common occupations in the Waterloo area to Fair Market Rents (FMRs) in Black Hawk County. The chart shows both median wages and 25th percentile wages, used to approximate entry-level wages in each occupation shown. Many of the area's most common occupations, including foodservice workers, cashiers, retail workers, and janitors, cannot afford a 1-bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rent of$569 for 2016, let alone a 2-bedroom unit at the 2016 FMR of $729. Many median-wage workers in these occupations, as well, are unable to afford 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units at Fair Market Rent. As noted in the discussion above about housing affordability for low- and moderate-income homebuyers, housing is more affordable when a household has two or more breadwinners. However, workers are susceptible to disruptions such as illness, layoffs, and child care emergencies, and many households are headed by single parents. Moreover, at the low end of the wage spectrum in Figure 15, there is not much difference between entry wages and median wages, which are little more than half the wage needed to afford a 2-bedroom apartment that could accommodate a family without overcrowding. The next section will provide local qualitative data on housing quality and affordability, and resident perspectives on Waterloo's housing stock. 39 $16.00 $14.00 $12.00 $10.00 a� � $8.00 3 $6.00 c $4.00 $2.00 $0.00 o,11�eth F�5e5et�o�y a�ey� Pyy �� 4� ,`e °°a �a >a e��e�\ �0Joao �°a o � o� e,'; tie e � .ao `o Go ce ,po 00 0 �a ■25th Percentile Wage ■Median Wage Figure 15: Rental Affordability for Common Occupations in Waterloo Metropolitan Area Source: IWD 2016 OES, HUD Fair Market Rents 2016 *In Top 20 most common occupations(out of 340) **In Top 50 most common occupations(out of 340) tExcept maids and housekeepers ttBy hand Housing Programs in Waterloo As the preceding sections have shown, Waterloo has significant housing needs despite its relatively soft housing market. With its relatively low incomes, and a relatively high proportion of properties with low taxable values, Waterloo faces challenges in providing housing for LMI families and supporting development efforts to attract higher-income residents. Currently, the City uses several different funding and policy tools to promote an adequate, high-quality supply of housing. These programs have varying purposes — some support new construction or rehabilitation of homes for low-and moderate-income households, while others are intended to increase Waterloo's housing starts and residential tax base, or to revitalize older neighborhoods. Often, these housing programs are designed to achieve several goals at once. 40 Table 12: Programs Promoting Housing Construction, Rehabilitation,and Sales in Waterloo Approx. Activity Responsible Entity Units/ Notes Year Single-family comprehensive rehabilitation City of Waterloo Community assistance for LMI homeowners Development Department 20 (CDBG/HOME) Emergency repair assistance for LMI City of Waterloo Community Supplemented by Waterloo Housing Trust Fund homeowners Development Department 20 grants. (CDBG/HOME) Wheelchair ramp construction for LMI City of Waterloo Community homeowners with disabilities Development Department 3 (CDBG/HOME) Units assisted annually varies. Waterloo has City of Waterloo Community received multiple HUD lead hazard reduction Lead-based paint hazard control in owner- grants since 2003,which have assisted about occupied and rental housing Development Department (HUD Lead- 24 Based Paint Hazard Control grant) 400 total units. Most units assisted are owner- occupied since interest from landlords is limited. Accessibility modifications for LMI Northeast Iowa Area Agency on Aging 5 Supplemented by Waterloo Housing Trust Fund homeowners with disabilities (NE13A) grants. New construction of owner-occupied Iowa Heartland Habitat for Humanity 7 About 1 home per year is partially funded by housing for LMI households City of Waterloo HOME funds. Down Payment Assistance Waterloo Housing Authority 9 Provided as a 5-year forgivable mortgage to qualified LMI,first-time homebuyers Consolidated Urban Revitalization Area Average annual home (CURA) tax abatement for residential or construction/rehabilitation projects from 2013 commercial new construction or City of Waterloo Community Planning& 31 (18 new, to 2017. It is unknown how many of these rehabilitation (<_10%value increase) in core Development Department 13 rehab) homes would have been constructed or neighborhoods rehabilitated in the absence of the CURA. City Limits Urban Revitalization Area Increase in annual average single-family and (CLURA)tax abatement for new City of Waterloo Community Planning& 21 two-family home starts, compared to years construction of single-family or two-family Development Department before CLURA was enacted. structures near city limits 41 Approx. Activity(cont'd) Responsible Entity Units/ Notes Year Based on data from 11/20/2017 to 5/3/2021. Available for units on City-owned infill lots, and private lots in subdivisions that are at least 20 Infill Housing Incentive-$5,000 per 22 approved years old and have 60%of lots developed. City housing unit constructed or rehabilitated City of Waterloo Community Planning& for will refund $5,000 of the lot purchase price to on an infill lot Development Department incentive/4 the developer.This incentive is available both completed in the CURA and CLURA, and there is some overlap between units receiving the Infill Housing Incentive and CURA or CLURA tax abatements. Average annual units assisted 2014-2020. Workforce Housing Investment Program *% WHTC has not been available in Waterloo since 2018, so the annualized rate captures (WHIP) $1,000 matching funds for housing City of Waterloo Community Planning& 23 fluctuations in state assistance. In general, units supported by state Workforce Development Department Housing Tax Credits (WHTC) WHIP is designed to support multifamily units outside the CURA, which are not eligible for CLURA tax abatements. Nk IF The City has filed for 175 homes since 657A acquisition and rehabilitation or City of Waterloo Community Planning& 12 beginning utilization of the 657A program ca. demolition/reconstruction of abandoned Development Department acquired/6 2006.The City has acquired 169 lots and nuisance properties redeveloped conveyed 79 lots or buildings for residential rehabilitation or infill, or commercial infill. 42 Table 12 lists the main programs promoting new construction, rehabilitation, and sale of housing stock in Waterloo. Many are operated by or receive financial support from the City, while others are operated by nonprofit agencies in the region with other funding sources. Several programs are available to improve existing housing stock for LMI households, including comprehensive rehabilitation assistance, emergency repair assistance, and accessibility modifications for people with disabilities. Additionally, Iowa Heartland Habitat for Humanity constructs about seven (7) new homes annually for LMI homebuyers, partly with City assistance. To fund ongoing programs for LMI homeowners and homebuyers, the City relies mainly on annual allocations from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's(HUD's) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME programs. Most of the programs targeted to LMI households are designed for homeowners and homebuyers, although the City's Lead-Based Paint(LBP) Hazard Control Grant program will assist some rental properties. The City supports affordable rental development in other ways as well. For example, the renovations of Hotel President, a subsidized rental development in downtown Waterloo, were eligible for CURA property tax abatements. The City also uses some of its HOME allocation to fund temporary rental assistance to help about 12 households exit homelessness each year (see Table 17 in the section on housing needs for people experiencing homelessness). As Table 12 shows, the City's Community Planning & Development Department oversees three programs to support the housing market in Waterloo's older neighborhoods. The first program provides tax abatements for residential new construction and rehabilitation in the Consolidated Urban Revitalization Area (Figure 16). Eligible property owners may receive 100%tax abatement for the value increase for three years, or a partial tax abatement for the value increase over ten years. Between 2013 and 2017, the CURA saw 18 new homes constructed and 13 rehabilitation projects approved annually, on average. Commercial property improvements in the CURA, such as new dining and retail options on Franklin Street, are also eligible for tax abatements. The second program involves City acquisition of abandoned residential properties through a legal process provided in Chapter 657A of the Iowa Code. Many of these properties are structurally unsound, infested with vermin, or used for illegal activities, and may be eyesores that reduce neighborhood property values and diminish community pride. It is possible to rehabilitate some properties acquired through the 657A process, while others are so dilapidated that they must be demolished. Once the City has acquired a property, it searches for a buyer willing to rehabilitate the existing structure, or to reconstruct housing where the original structure was demolished. The new owner then offers the property for sale or rent. Since 2006, the City has sold 79 657A properties, some for residential rehabilitation or infill and others for commercial infill. 43 i ---.—• --'--- ---•—'—� ❑Consolidated_Ubran_RevRalizaRn Area ` Waterbo Corp} Limits I I 1 1 a j a5 a2s a a.s vies 1 j li� 77 • r�� 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 L RIZure 16:Waterloo's Consolidated Urban Revitalization Area (CORA) The third program provides an additional financial incentive for rehabilitation or new construction of housing units on infill lots. Since 2017, the City has offered $5,000 per housing unit built or rehabilitated on City-owned lots, and the incentive was extended to certain private lots in 2019 (see Table 12). City-owned residential infill lots are sold through a bidding process, with bids ranked according to price offered, the proposed development's taxable value and compatibility with surrounding development, and other relevant factors. The sale of City-owned 44 lots must be approved by the City Council and subject to a development agreement. The $5,000 is paid to the developer upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. By providing an immediate benefit to developers, this payment provides an additional incentive to complement tax abatements for which the property may be eligible. The developer must pay at least $5,000 for the lot, but the first$5,000 of the purchase price is refunded once the unit is ready for occupancy. While the infill incentive is available for eligible lots citywide, it is particularly valuable in older neighborhoods. The program is funded by the same City bonds issued annually to help fund demolitions of unsafe structures on City-owned lots. The debt service on the bonds is paid from general revenue regardless of whether the bonds fund demolition or redevelopment, so the $5,000 incentive uses the bond revenue to invest in the city's tax base and provide a net benefit. Iowa Heartland Habitat for Humanity has reconstructed homes on several vacant 657A lots in Waterloo. Typically, Habitat's construction costs exceed the appraised value when the home is complete,since the lots are located in distressed neighborhood with few recent comparable sales for appraisers to consult. The problem of low appraisals deters other potential infill housing developers in addition to Habitat for Humanity. To some extent, the infill incentive and rebate discussed above reduces the barrier posed by low appraisals. To promote new construction, the Community Planning and Development Department oversees a tax abatement program for new 1- and 2-family housing units in the City Limits Urban Revitalization Area (CLURA), which encompasses the neighborhoods not included in the CURA (Figure 17). The CLURA program was initiated in 2011 to increase Waterloo's housing starts and tax base in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Since its inception, the program has seen 715 new 1- and 2-family homes built. The City's annual 1- and 2-family construction rate has risen from 58.4 units per year to 79.44 units per year since the CLURA program, and the City's overall housing numbers, on an annual basis, have risen from 119.80 to 170.78, also since the CLURA inception. Without the CLURA program, many of these units might have been built in other communities where property values are higher. In September 2017,the City extended the CLURA tax abatements to 2022. In addition to the City of Waterloo, the Waterloo Housing Trust Fund (WHTF) is an important funding source for housing activities benefiting LMI residents. WHTF supports emergency repair and accessibility modification programs for homeowners (see Table 12), as well as shelter and housing programs for people experiencing homelessness (see Table 17). WHTF,founded in 2013, was organized as a 501(c)3 nonprofit with initial approval from the City of Waterloo. Like other Local Housing Trust Funds (LHTFs) around the state, WHTF is eligible for a maximum formula allocation from the Iowa Finance Authority each year based partly on its population size, and must secure local matching funds equal to 25%or more of its allocation from IFA. Matching funds may come from local governments, philanthropic organizations, corporate donors, and similar 45 sources. If a LHTF does not obtain local matching funds totaling at least 25% of its maximum allocation, it is not eligible for the full allocation amount. The Waterloo Housing Trust Fund has become increasingly important as other housing and community development resources have declined. Waterloo received Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funds from the federal government to assist with recovery from the Great Recession, and substantial funding was available to build and rehabilitate housing in the wake of the 2008 floods. However, these funds were one-time awards provided for a specific purpose. As these funds have been expended, Waterloo stakeholders report that housing has become a lower priority for local donors than it was in the past. 46 ■ ■■ ■■�i�.011111 Ell y 1 7■■■■■Irk■1: .II' �� ~ ■rte■ �•1 iII�1111ir.77� Illli:ll ■PAP ' ME md r ■!I■'■■■I■■■■moo EFA moo MORI-Am rim ■■�■■■�■■■■■ `y 0 off 0 so LMI renter households who could potentially buy homes (see Figure 13). By the same token, only a fraction of potentially eligible households is assisted by programs targeting existing owner- occupied housing in Waterloo. As Figure 18 shows, Waterloo has an estimated 2,740 cost burdened LMI homeowners who might potentially benefit from rehabilitation, emergency repair, lead hazard reduction, or accessibility assistance, but only about 72 eligible homeowners are assisted annually. Even if all 13 homes rehabilitated annually with CURA assistance (see Table 12) were owned by LMI households, the total of 85 households assisted would still comprise a small share of all homeowners in need. Not all LMI owners with moderate cost burden would need or want assistance from these programs, but some non-cost-burdened LMI owners may be interested in assistance—especially if they have substantial medical costs, student loan debt, or other expenses that reduce their disposable income. For comparison, Figure 18 includes an estimate of housing units in fair condition in Waterloo.The estimate of 4,792 units is projected from the percentage of housing units in fair condition according to windshield surveys conducted in 2017 (see following section). Homes in fair condition have a moderate amount of exterior deferred maintenance and may have interior maintenance needs as well. Not all units in fair condition are owner-occupied, and those that are include owners both below and above the LMI income limits for home rehabilitation assistance programs in Waterloo. Nonetheless, this comparison further illustrates the mismatch between need and resources for improving Waterloo's owner-occupied housing stock. 48 6,000 4 5,000 ,792 N 70 O 4,000 s a� N 3 O 2 0 2,740 N 3,000 c wo c 2,000 1,000 72 13 LMI Rehabilitation/Repair CURA Rehabs (Units assisted Low-and Moderate-Income Units in Fair Condition Programs (Units assisted per per year) (<_80%AMI), Cost Burdened year) Owners Figure 18: Estimated Supply and Demand for Programs Targeting Low-and Moderate-Income Homeowners in Waterloo Source:City of Waterloo,Waterloo Housing Trust Fund, HUD CHAS 2010-2014, 2017 Windshield Surveys 49 The View on the Ground: Property and Resident Surveys Windshield Survey of Housing Conditions The quality of a community's housing stock is an important component in understanding its housing needs. If poor-quality housing is widespread in a community, many low- and moderate- income households may have housing-related hardships even if they are not cost burdened. A prevalence of housing with maintenance needs may also indicate an opportunity to meet existing and future demand by rehabilitating vacant units. Between July and September of 2017, staff from the Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments (INRCOG) conducted windshield surveys in a subset of Waterloo Census tracts.The City's GROW (Grow Residential Opportunities in Waterloo) Committee, which promotes increased homeownership and seeks to strengthen Waterloo's housing market, assisted INRCOG with the selection of three Census tracts for the windshield survey that were considered representative of the City as a whole, in terms of demographic, economic, and housing characteristics (Figure 19, Appendix B). Each unit was given a rating of Good, Fair, Poor, or Dilapidated depending on the condition of the structure in which it is located. To a lesser extent, the condition of the yard surrounding the structure contributed to the rating. The rating system, shown in Table 13, was relatively generous, focusing more on structural problems than on cosmetic issues. A large majority of the housing units in the Census tracts surveyed (82%) were in good condition. However, nearly 1 in 5 homes were in Fair condition or worse. Over 15% of homes were rated Fair, and nearly 100 homes were in Poor or Dilapidated condition. Extrapolating the windshield survey results to the City's total housing stock, nearly 4,800 units are in Fair condition,while over 700 units are in Poor or Dilapidated condition. These homes can have negative impacts on surrounding property values, neighborhood pride, and visitors' first impressions of Waterloo. 50 A2425 s 41 + $ _ j ..-......."-.. ......... k "' �±r� ��•�y�.y \y I I DwqxE 15.03. 4 I _ IE •� f - 17 `+ I,"�"fy ` � -tri* # 4 '_ r rt ' H 12- '9 Figure 19:Windshield Survey Census Tracts Source: Iowa Data Center(Census Tracts where windshield surveys were conducted are circled in red) 51 Table 13: Housing Quality Criteria for Winshield Survey of Waterloo Housing Units Units %of Estimated Category Description in Units in Units Survey Survey Citywide* Unit appears well maintained and structurally sound.The foundation and porch structure appear structurally sound and roof lines are straight. Most siding, gutters, trim, windows, and doors should be in good repair with good exterior paint condition. Minor problems such as small areas of peeling paint and/or other routine maintenance items are allowable under this category. A moderate amount of moss or mildew on siding or Good roofs is allowed under this category if the components with moss or mildew are otherwise sound. 2,997 82% 25,153 The yard appears well maintained and is in good condition. The lawn is well kept, with shrubs and bushes trimmed. Roof maintenance needs are allowed under this category if the roof has a few (-5) years left. A roof that should be replaced ASAP is not allowed under this category, even if the rest of the home is well-maintained. Unit appears structurally sound, but is in need of some maintenance and minor repair. These units usually require minor repairs such as painting the house, fixing a broken door or window, putting on new shutters, replace or fix awnings, etc. Issues that are primarily cosmetic but that cover a sufficient portion of the structure to be unsightly(-30 or more square feet), such as peeling paint on siding, may put the home in the Fair "Fair" category. There may be moderate issues with one or two major components, such as mild 571 15.6% 4,792 deterioration of roof shingles (possibly meriting a new roof) or a few hairline cracks in the foundation. Yard appears somewhat maintained, but is in need of some additional work or maintenance. Tall grass or weeds are apparent on the property and,in some cases,trash or debris is visible from the street.Simple lawn care or yard clean-up would improve the look of the grounds. Unit appears to have been neglected for a long period of time with one or more visible structural defects, such as uneven roof lines, a broken porch, broken windows/doors, or major cracks in the foundation. The unit is still habitable, but requires major repairs which would be difficult to correct through normal Poor maintenance. 72 2% 604 Yard appears to have been neglected for a long period of time leaving the yard in quite poor condition. Significant yard debris or trash is visible from the street and the yard would require a great deal of time and work to bring to back to a good condition. A unit suffering from excessive neglect, where the building appears structurally unsound and maintenance Dilapidated is non-existent. The building is not fit for human habitation in its current condition, and multiple windows 16 0.4% 134 and/or doors may be boarded up. The building may be considered for demolition or, at minimum, major rehabilitation will be required. Total 1 3,656 100% 30,684 Citywide estimates based on 2015 5-y ACS estimate of 30,684 housing units in Waterloo. 52 As the preceding section showed, the number of housing units in fair condition Waterloo far exceeds the number of LMI owners receiving rehabilitation and renovation assistance annually. Moreover, Waterloo's estimated housing stock in poor and dilapidated condition exceeds the number of housing units acquired annually by the City through the 657A process (Figure 20). At the current rate of twelve 657A acquisitions per year, the City would need 11 years to acquire all properties in dilapidated condition, and 50 years to acquire all homes in poor condition. Over the next few years, some homes currently in poor condition may become dilapidated if they continue to be neglected. Since an average of six 657A homes are redeveloped by new private owners annually, most vacant, dilapidated properties will be out of the active housing market for the foreseeable future. 700 604 600 500 c 400 as c 3 300 0 x 200 134 100 12 657A Acquisitions(Units per Units in Dilapidated Units in Poor Condition year) Condition Figure 20: Comparison of 657A Acquisition Rate to Housing in Poor and Dilapidated Condition in Waterloo Clearly, the scale of Waterloo's housing needs far exceed available resources for rehabilitation and reconstruction. This partly explains why the City supplements its revitalization efforts with the CLU RA tax abatement program for new home construction—it cannot afford to rely solely on programs for existing housing in core neighborhoods. In the short term, the CLURA program has helped the City to keep its total population stable and increase its tax base. In the long term, though, housing and neighborhood quality in Waterloo's core will continue to play a role in the City's public image and overall well-being.As the next section discusses, revitalization throughout Waterloo is a prominent concern among Waterloo residents. 53 Resident Surveys The City of Waterloo's GROW Committee served as the steering committee for the development of this Housing Needs Assessment.The GROW Committee consists of stakeholders in Waterloo's housing market, including representatives from local for-profit and non-profit home builders, real estate firms, and financial institutions, as well as staff from the City's Community Planning & Development and Community Development Departments. The GROW Committee provided insight and guidance on broad housing market issues to address in this document, such as challenges and opportunities for building moderately priced market-rate housing, and the challenge posed by low appraised values in some residential neighborhoods. Recognizing the need for a broad perspective to inform this document, the GROW Committee provided guidance to INRCOG staff in the process of identifying and seeking input from low- and moderate-income residents who may be unable to afford homeownership, or who may live in neighborhoods where new home building activity is limited. People at all income levels desire good-quality housing that they can afford in neighborhoods where they want to live, and housing and neighborhood conditions affect the willingness of homebuyers and businesses to make investments. When residents are financially unable to invest in major improvements, and businesses are unable or unwilling to invest, public support is needed to catalyze revitalization efforts that will raise property values and attract private capital. Waterloo residents who are most impacted by neighborhood challenges should play an integral role in setting priorities for public investment. With this principle in mind, INRCOG conducted a survey of Waterloo residents at venues that serve low- and moderate-income people, members of minority groups, or both. To expedite the survey process and encourage residents to participate, the survey form was brief, and did not include questions about the respondent's race, ethnicity, income, or other sociodemographic factors (see Appendix C). Surveys were collected from the venues shown in Table 14. Survey results for English Language Learners (ELL) at the Hawkeye Community College (HCC) Metro Center are discussed separately in the section on housing needs of immigrants.This section reviews results for the remaining 100 surveys. Based on INRCOG staff's observation, survey respondents from the Salvation Army lunches and resident resource fairs were racially diverse. The HSC and Senior Companion groups are also diverse, with Black members overrepresented relative to their share of Waterloo's population, and they have barriers in terms of educational attainment and employment (see Appendix C). This suggests that the surveys were successfully targeted to LMI and minority residents. 54 Table 14:Venues for Collecting Surveys of Waterloo Residents Venue Number of Surveys Two Salvation Army community lunches 17 Two resident resource fairs at public schools in low/moderate-income 6 neighborhoods Predominantly Black worship center 10 Hawkeye Community College Metro Center- English Language Learners 153 Hawkeye Community College Metro Center- High School Completion 26 Hawkeye Community College Metro Center-Senior Companions 41 Total 253 Figure 21 maps the places of residence for survey respondents. Many points on the map are approximate, since many respondents gave limited information to identify their neighborhoods. The map includes English Language Learners as well as other groups surveyed, and many respondents in the Church Row area are in the ELL group. Figure 22 shows responses to multiple-choice questions on the survey, while responses to open- ended questions are compiled in Appendix C. Several examples of open-ended responses are included in this discussion. Nearly half of respondents are renters, and 35% are homeowners. A significant minority (12%) are staying with family and friends, and 4% are homeless. Only 13% of respondents reported that their housing is unaffordable, but nearly 30% reported that their home has problems that they cannot afford to fix or the landlord will not fix. When respondents were asked how easy it is to find affordable and desirable housing in Waterloo,the most common response (42%) was "somewhat hard." Combined, "somewhat hard" and "very hard" responses (66%) outweighed "somewhat easy" and "very easy" responses (32%). Similarly, open-ended feedback about finding affordable, high quality housing in Waterloo was far more negative than positive. Several respondents indicated that "affordable" housing in Waterloo is not necessarily of good quality or in neighborhoods where they want to live. Moreover, for higher-quality rentals—both market-rate and subsidized—security deposits and tenant screening criteria are a barrier to many low-income renters. Those with criminal records or past evictions have particular difficulty finding good-quality rentals. Because the housing that is "affordable" and easy to find in Waterloo tends to be lower quality, two respondents checked both "Somewhat Easy" and "Somewhat Hard" on the survey form. Low-income homebuyers also face barriers when applying for mortgages and finding affordable homes, even in Waterloo's relatively low-cost home sale market. For those who are unable to work, housing choices are especially limited. 55 !UoiiW SL f a'rL■Id 51 I _ - Electric Park Ballroom xre _ R.4L..QQ 0.. �'in 14f M1Ri KL 0 ff31 _ q 'sya+ridsia 0.vr 63 Hope Martin � Memorial Perk l 0 "4w 99 9 COW aL y2y r Evan 9 %9 Deerwond Park c Evansdale ' �QWB ltie W'�r7Aa5is 6r _..in,5r � y�l� Survey respondents who Listed "East 27 � Side" - - Losl Islond WSwoiark U Side"as their neighborhood English Language Learners 7 1 A11 others 17 1D Cedar Valley Arboretum &6otanic Gardens L FU Figure 21:Approximate Places of Residence for Survey Respondents (English Language Learners and Other Groups Source:Google Maps 56 What is your housing situation? Is your current housing Does your home have situation affordable? problems that you can't afford to fix or the landlord won't fix? In 4% 2% 47 ■ Family/friends ■ Homeless ■ Other ■ Own ■ Rent ■ No ■Yes ■ Yes ■ No How easy is it to find an affordable, Have you or anyone you Have you or someone you safe, comfortable place to live in know ever received a know ever experienced Waterloo? Housing Choice Voucher? housing discrimination? ■Very easy -V 24% milk ■ Somewhat easy ' ■ Somewhat easy/ somewhat hard �4'NEO ■ Somewhat hard 2% ■Very hard ■ No ■Yes ■ No ■ Not Sure ■ Yes Figure 22: Multiple-Choice Survey Responses for Non-ELL Respondents 57 Nearly 30% of respondents indicated that they or someone they know have received a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) from the Waterloo Housing Authority at some point. However, many had difficulties using their vouchers. Of the 21 respondents who indicated that they or someone they knew had received a voucher, 10 indicated that it was difficult to 1) find a landlord who would accept the voucher and 2) find a unit in a desirable neighborhood. Of these 10 respondents, at least 2 reported that they or someone they knew were unable to use the voucher before it expired. Five respondents gave mixed feedback, while the remaining 6 respondents found the process to be at least somewhat easy. See Appendix C for detailed feedback about vouchers. Notably, during the survey process, INRCOG staff received varying perspectives about Housing Choice Vouchers from some individuals who did not complete surveys. From the perspective of some voucher recipients and Waterloo Housing Authority staff who assist them, many units are substandard despite the use of Housing Quality Standards (HQS) inspections. From the perspective of some landlords who accept vouchers, however, the program gives them little recourse to address problems with tenants, such as property damage. When asked if they or someone they knew had experienced housing discrimination, a majority of respondents (59%) marked "No," 13% marked "Yes," and the remaining 28% were unsure. Twelve respondents who marked "Yes" or"Not Sure" provided open-ended feedback, with some describing discrimination based on race or criminal records. While federal and state fair housing laws do not include criminal history among "protected classes" (e.g. race, sex, disability), HUD released guidance in 2016 that places some limits on the use of criminal records as a screening criterion for tenants or homebuyers.Since blanket prohibitions on renting to people with criminal records have a disparate impact on the fair housing choices of some protected classes, housing providers are required to take into account the nature of the offense, how long ago it occurred, the extent to which the offender is rehabilitated, and other factors16. Since this HUD guidance is relatively recent, it is not known how strongly it is being enforced. The final portion of the survey asked respondents, "What are the best things that have happened in Waterloo in the past few years?" and "What changes would you like to see in Waterloo?" Common themes among the responses are tallied in Table 15. The most widely cited positive aspects of Waterloo include new development and businesses, cultural attractions and events, and the Mayor. Several respondents identified specific developments and cultural attractions that they value, including the SportsPlex, the splash pad, Friday 'Loo, and My Waterloo Days. Notably,several respondents reported that the best things to happen in Waterloo in recent years were personal milestones, such as marriage, children, and making new friends. Some other respondents, however, answered "Nothing." 16 https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/HUD OGCGUIDAPPFHASTANDCR.PDF 58 Table 15: Survey Responses from Non-ELL Respondents on Positive Developments and Changes Needed in Waterloo Best things in Waterloo: #of Changes needed in Waterloo*: #of responses responses New businesses/ 12 Crime/Safety 23 development Cultural attractions/events 11 Housing cost/supply 16 Mayor 10 Housing condition/age 11 Street improvements g General entertainment/ 10 recreational opportunities Personal factors 7 More businesses 8 (marriage/children etc.) New schools 3 Development in East Waterloo 6 Police 2 Discrimination 5 Youth activities 5 Social services/support for low- and moderate-income people 5 Road conditions 4 Jobs 4 Community cohesion 3 General redevelopment needs 3 Black-owned businesses 2 Taxes 2 *Some comments were coded in more than one category Respondents gave much more extensive feedback about changes needed in Waterloo, and concerns about crime, safety, and housing were paramount (Table 15). Respondents expressed concern about the condition and age of Waterloo's housing stock, as well as the supply of affordable housing. Many respondents also expressed a desire for more amenities and services, including entertainment and recreation opportunities, businesses, youth activities, and social services for low- and moderate-income people. In particular, respondents identified a need for 59 more business, recreation, and other opportunities in Waterloo's older neighborhoods beyond the downtown area. Several respondents also expressed a desire to reduce discrimination and increase community cohesion. One striking finding from this feedback is that residents appreciate the prominent new developments in the City, including new businesses, recreational opportunities, road improvements, and new and renovated schools. City planning, investment, and decisions by elected officials have been instrumental in many of these activities, including preservation of historic buildings, the downtown riverfront redevelopment, and the Logan Avenue developments. The message from residents seems to be, "We like the new development — expand it to other parts of town." In particular, residents would like to see more investment in central, eastern, and northern neighborhoods. As Figure 23 shows, the City has initiated several redevelopment activities in Waterloo's core neighborhoods. Projects 1 (Logan Redevelopment Area) through 6 (Former Construction Machinery Site) are the most visible redevelopment activities in low-income residential neighborhoods with minority concentrations (see Figure 6). The Logan Redevelopment Area, Former Construction Machinery Site, and Highway 63 Corridor projects have already created substantial visual improvements in the area, and construction of the Teen and Educational Center began in June 2018. Notably, the Highway 63 Corridor project is coordinated with a larger redevelopment effort in the Walnut Neighborhood, including construction of a grocery store on Franklin Street, and planned construction or rehabilitation of 16 homes.The former Chamberlain site and 120 Center Street are still in the environmental cleanup and planning stages, which may have fewer visible, tangible improvements from the general public's perspective. Residents also have a strong desire to improve substandard housing in disinvested neighborhoods by rehabilitating homes when possible, and demolishing and replacing dilapidated homes when necessary. These resident perspectives further underscore the importance of City policies that balance new development with revitalization of older neighborhoods. As previous sections have shown, the scale of need for housing rehabilitation and reconstruction in Waterloo far exceeds the resources currently available. The numerous comments about crime highlight one of the biggest community development challenges in Waterloo. However, Waterloo's crime levels declined bV about 30% between 2014 60 and 201817,18,19. The City supports efforts to improve crime prevention, such as the development of the Community Outreach Center in East Waterloo and forums addressing criminal sentencing reform. Overall, crime prevention efforts cannot be conducted in isolation from efforts to improve the quality of life and economic opportunities for LMI residents. A related concern, encountered by INRCOG staff in conversations related to the survey effort, is that the public narrative about Waterloo is largely negative, obscuring its many positive attributes. These positive attributes are apparent in the stories of residents who have experienced major life events in Waterloo, such as marriage and the birth of grandchildren, and could potentially be the basis for a marketing campaign. To promote investment and greater cohesion among different neighborhoods in Waterloo, it may be beneficial for the City to support development efforts that showcase attractions in these neighborhoods. For example, the City recently obtained grants to preserve the history of Smokey Row, using signage and trails to guide visitors. The survey did not explicitly ask residents about jobs, and many respondents may be outside the workforce due to age or disability20(see Figure 15). However, access to jobs, and the wages those jobs offer, are just as important to housing affordability as are housing costs and quality.The City already uses some local and state incentives to support employers who offer wages above subsistence level. Additionally, the Waterloo Community School District is developing the Waterloo Career Center, which is housed in Central Middle School and will offer training for twelve career and vocational pathways in the coming years, in partnership with local employers. If these efforts are continued and expanded, they may both help employers fill workforce shortages and help low-income Waterloo residents increase their earning power and ability to obtain decent housing. These initiatives may also help to narrow employment disparities, provided that communities impacted by high unemployment rates play an integral role in designing, implementing, and monitoring these efforts. Other efforts to expand access to good 1'Reinitz,J. 2017,Jan. 10. "Crime continued decline in 2016 in Waterloo."Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier[online article]. https://wcfcourier.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/crime-continued-decline-in-in- waterloo/article 28867758-633b-5df8-9928-2a88598f49f6.html. Retrieved 12/5/18. "Reinitz,J. 2018,Jan.9. "Crime in Waterloo falls for 3rd straight year."Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier[online article]. https://wcfcourier.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/crime-in-waterloo-falls-for-rd-straight- year/article aclelOdc-d710-5692-9228-Ofb82f7f8e1f.html. Retrieved 12/5/18. 19 Reinitz,J. 2019,Jan. 11. "Crime in 2018:Waterloo police release new statistics."Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier [online article]. https://wcfcourier.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/crime-in-2018-waterloo-police-release-new- statistics/article 58c6O61d-949a-5bOc-aaea-af8b0a5d4bd5.html Retrieved 2/4/2021. 20 Sociodemographic data in Appendix D shows that most of the Senior Companions are unemployed or retired, while about equal portions of High School Completion (HSC) students are employed and unemployed. Almost by definition, HSC students are seeking to improve their earning power.The Salvation Army lunches target particularly vulnerable populations,and some non-elderly respondents may have been struggling with physical or mental illness and unable to work. 61 jobs may include transportation programs, such as employee vanpools, and carefully considered employer policies toward criminal background checks of job applicants". 11 See Gubernick, L. 2017. Erasing the Mark of Cain—An Empirical Analysis of the Effect of Ban-the-Box Legislation on the Employment Outcomes of People of Color with Criminal Records. Fordham Urban Law Journal 44(4): 1153- 1215. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=l&article=27 09&context=uli. (Retrieved 3/17/18). Note that criminal background checks have some advantages if they dispel employer stereotypes about minority candidates by revealing them not to have criminal or felony backgrounds. However,disparate arrests and convictions of minorities are a substantial barrier to employment. 62 61_b CPO Donald ss E Donald St E Donald st a, Gates Park Golf Course s, end Oh, df, S� Cedar Red Carpet Golf Course Bend Park Fairview Cemetery W Association s CeryBr � Rive,ka � n`�pet K1n9 7c .0 �yr9r 71 Ar£�JaR 4% Matin' P John Deere Tractor &Engine Museum r Independence Ave Independence Ave Independence Ay 238 934 � 63 4. �v ❑Q In � ark h y�y 218 r<�a data:�2plSGoa le 560m Termsofuse R # Project Status Since 2005, a Hy-Vee, several medical facilities, and George Washington Carver 1 Logan Redevelopment Academy have been constructed.The deteriorated Logan Plaza strip mall was Area demolished in 2016, and redevelopment of the site is underway.The new Logan Plaza will include dining, retail, and medical uses. 2 Former Chamberlain Site Environmental cleanup is underway. City awarded a redevelopment planning contract in 2017. 3 120 Center Street Environmental cleanup is underway. Several neighborhood streetscape improvements completed, road improvements 4 Highway 63 Corridor ongoing. Construction of a grocery store on Franklin Street(in Walnut neighborhood) began in Spring 2018. 5 Teen and Educational Former low-rise commercial buildings demolished. Boys and Girls Club of the Cedar Center Valley broke ground for new Teen and Educational Center in June 2018. 6 Former Construction Environmental cleanup completed.A new Public Works Facility opened in 2014. Machinery Site 7 Black's Building Underwent renovations in previous decade. Currently at 75%occupancy or higher. 8 Downtown Redevelopment Ongoing 9 River Trail Development Construction of 72 rental units in six 12-plexes is complete. 10 8th Street Infill Housing Seven owner-occupied homes have been constructed since 2004. 11 Riverwalk Trail System Trail extends from Mullan Avenue to 18th Street on both sides of the river, and connects to Black Hawk County's trail network. A"Human Services Campus" has been developed, now housing locations for 12 Rath Redevelopment Area Operation Threshold, Cedar Valley Food Bank, and Waterloo Women's Center for Change.A new warehouse opened in 2013, and the former Rath Administration Building is currently being redeveloped as a high-technology office center. 13 18th Street Bridge Reconstructed bridge opened in 2005. Completed or underway developments include TechWorks Campus, new Hawkeye Community College Adult Learning Center, Grand Crossing apartments, Iowa 14 Various Veterans' Museum, RiverLoop, Dan Gable Museum, Cedar Valley SportsPlex, Phelps Youth Pavilion,SingleSpeed Brewing Company, and Cedar River Dam. Figure 23: Major Redevelopment Activities in Waterloo's Core Neighborhoods Source:The New Waterloo website 63 Housing Needs of Special Populations People Experiencing Homelessness In Iowa and across the nation, planning for homeless services is generally done by geographically defined Continuums of Care (CoCs), or networks of local governments, health and social service providers, and other entities that work with homeless populations. The State of Iowa is covered by four CoCs, with Woodbury, Pottawattamie, and Polk Counties each in a separate COC22. The rest of Iowa's land area is in a "Balance of State" CoC. Since Waterloo and Black Hawk County are part of the Balance of State CoC, detailed data on homelessness for the City or County alone is not readily available. To give a sense of scale of homelessness in the Balance of State CoC and the Waterloo area, Table 16 compiles summary data. One data source is the Point-in-Time (PIT) Count of homeless individuals, which is conducted in late January in most CoCs across the state and the nation. In the Iowa Balance of State CoC, 1,792 people in 1,038 households were "literally homeless," meaning that they were staying in shelter or in a place not meant for human habitation. Close to 30% of households identified were families with children. In Black Hawk County, 101 people were identified as homeless in the 2013 Point-in-Time Count. While PIT Counts provide a snapshot, a community's homeless population is not static — many people enter and exit homelessness over the course of a year. Table 16 estimates the number of people who entered the homeless service system in a year in the Balance of State CoC and Black Hawk County. In the Balance of State CoC, 5,485 people entered and 5,994 people exited the homeless system at some point in fiscal year 2016, spending a median of 43 days homeless. Over the course of 2016, 952 people who became homeless in Iowa listed their last permanent address in Black Hawk County. These numbers suggest that approximately 1 in 6 people who become homeless in Iowa are from Black Hawk County. zz Of the two respective CoCs that encompass Woodbury and Pottawattamie Counties, each CoC includes a neighboring Nebraska county. 64 Table 16: Homelessness Data for the Iowa Balance-of-State Continuum of Care and Black Hawk County IOWA BALANCE OF STATE CONTINUUM OF CARE POINT-IN-TIME COUNTY—JANUARY 2017 Sheltered Household/Population Type Emergency Transitional Unsheltered Total Shelter Housing Homeless Households Households without children 478 213 45 736 Households with at least one adult and one child 84 210 0 294 Households with only children 5 3 0 8 Total Homeless Households 1 567 426 45 1 1,038 Homeless Persons—Age Group Children 184 466 0 650 Young Adults (18-24) 91 87 3 181 Adults >24 years 491 423 47 961 Total Homeless Persons 1 766 1 976 50 1,792 Homeless Persons—Gender Female 296 542 7 845 Male 468 432 43 943 Transgender 1 2 0 3 Do not identify as Female, Male, or Transgender 1 0 0 1 Total Homeless Persons 766 976 50 1,792 INDIVIDUALS PASSING THROUGH THE HOMELESS SYSTEM Persons Entering Persons Exiting Mean/Median Geographic Area/Facility Time Period Homelessness* Homelessness** Days Homeless*** Iowa Balance of State Federal FY Continuum of Care 5,485 5,994 133/43 2016 Last Permanent Address w 952 No Data No Data 2016 as in Black Hawk County *Entries into Emergency Shelter, Safe Havens, or Transitional Housing **Exits from Emergency Shelter, Safe Havens,Transitional Housing, or Rapid Re-Housing ***Length of Time in Emergency Shelter, Safe Haven, or Transitional Housing WATERLOO/CEDAR FALLS POINT-IN-TIME COUNT-JANUARY 2013 Population Sheltered Unsheltered Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 64 0 Persons in Households with Only Children 0 0 Persons in Households with Only Adults 37 0 Total 101 0 Source: HUD 2017 Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Report,Iowa Balance of State CoC FY2017 CoC Consolidated Application to HUD, Institute for Community Alliances 2017 Analysis of Housing in Iowa, Waterloo/Cedar Falls Consortium 2015-2019 Five-Year Consolidated Plan 65 Table 17: Shelter and Housing Programs for People Experiencing Homelessness in Black Hawk County Organization Facility/Program Type* Number of Beds/Units Notes Salvation Army Emergency Shelter [men] ES 18 beds Salvation Army Emergency Shelter [women & ES 8 units w/32 beds total 30 women on waitlist as of Jul/Aug 2017 children] Catholic Worker Emergency Shelter [men &women] ES 22 beds (15 men, 7 women) House Christian Community House of Hope [mothers & TH 10 units w/24 beds total 40 women on waitlist as of Jul/Aug 2017 Development children] Pathways Behavioral Junkman/Knoebel Center [men TH 25 beds Services recovering from addiction] Cedar Valley Friends Northeast Iowa Permanent Housing 27 beds (16 family units w/17 Mix of families vs. individuals depends on who of the Family [domestic violence survivors] PSH beds total, 10 adult-only beds) is participating in the program at any given time 12 units w/13 beds (1 family Community Housing Mix of families vs. individuals depends on who CHI - Permanent Housing PSH unit w/2 beds, 11 adult-only Initiatives beds) is participating in the program at any given time Cedar Valley Friends CVFF-CVAD Rapid Rehousing 36 beds (9 family units w/29 Mix of families vs. individuals depends on who of the Family [domestic violence survivors] RRH beds, 7 adult-only beds) is participating in the program at any given time Hawkeye Area Supportive Services for Veteran Varies- program is available in several Eastern Community Action Families (SSVF) RRH No data Iowa counties Program Not listed on the 2017 Housing Inventory County Operation Threshold Tenant-Based Rental Assistance RRH 30 units (approximate) for the Iowa Balance of State Continuum of Care. Funded by City of Waterloo, Waterloo Housing Trust Fund, and United Way. Exceptional Persons, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Not listed on the 2017 Housing Inventory County Inc. (people with disabilities) RRH 7 units (approximate) for the Iowa Balance of State Continuum of Care. Funded by Waterloo Housing Trust Fund. Total ES and TH Beds 127 Total PSH and RRH Units 91 *ES = Emergency Shelter TH =Transitional Housing PSH = Permanent Supportive Housing RRH = Rapid Re-Housing Source: HUD 2017 Housing Inventory Count Report, Community Housing Initiatives New Project Application (HOPES)for 2017 Iowa Balance of State CoC Competition, Waterloo Housing Trust Fund 66 Table 17 shows the supply of shelter and housing beds for people experiencing homelessness in Black Hawk County. Although the total number of Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing beds (127) is somewhat higher than the total number of homeless individuals in Black Hawk County in the 2017 PIT Count, the waitlists for certain programs suggest that there is more housing instability and pent-up need for shelter than these facilities can address. Moreover, shelters alone are unable to meet the needs of many people who use them. For example, between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017, the Salvation Army shelters in Waterloo served 213 individuals, of whom 129 had no income at entry and 81 had a disabling condition. Of the 180 individuals who left the Salvation Army shelters during this same time period, only 79 (44%) exited to a permanent housing destination. The supply of permanent housing opportunities for people experiencing homelessness is limited in Black Hawk County. As shown in Table 17, Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) and Rapid Re- Housing(RRH) programs (discussed further below) assist only about 91 households in Black Hawk County. Even if we conservatively assume that each of these households has 3 members, PSH and RRH assistance is available for fewer than one-third of the estimated 952 households that become homeless each year (Table 16). Moreover, much of this assistance is targeted to domestic violence survivors or veterans, not the general homeless population. Black Hawk County's Local Homeless Coordinating Board (LHCB) acts as an informal Continuum of Care, coordinating efforts among service providers and local government agencies, and promoting the expansion of permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness. Several recent efforts have been supported by LHCB and its members: • The LHCB, along with other homeless service networks in Iowa's Balance of State CoC, is implementing a new Coordinated Entry system to streamline the process for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness to receive assistance.Traditionally, people in need of homeless services have received them on a first-come, first-served basis, and the services are not always well tailored to their needs. Black Hawk County's Coordinated Entry system, launched in early 2019, standardizes the intake processes by homeless service providers so that people in need are referred to the most appropriate program23. 13 Some critics charge that Coordinated Entry(CE) is merely a means to screen people out of the homeless system. (See Bassuk et al. 2015.Services Matter:How Housing&Services Can End Family Homelessness. Needham, MA:The Bassuk Center on Homeless and Vulnerable Children & Youth. http://www.bassukcenter.org/services-matter/. Retrieved 3/14/18). However, homeless service programs — including emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive service programs, and permanent housing programs that are not based on a Housing First model—have always screened people out. Traditionally, homeless households have been screened out of programs based on factors such as family composition or ability to follow program rules that might be overly restrictive—reasons that are much less fair or transparent than those used by Coordinated Entry programs.A well-designed CE program refers homeless households to programs that match their need based on their level of vulnerability,and prevents agencies 67 • The developers of Unity Square Townhomes set aside 8 apartments for people exiting homelessness. • Community Housing Initiatives, an Iowa-based nonprofit affordable housing providerwith an office in Waterloo, started a SOAR program in May 2017. SOAR, funded by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), assists people with disabilities who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness with applications for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance. By helping homeless and at-risk people with disabilities navigate the complex application process for these programs, SOAR helps applicants receive a decision from the Social Security Administration much more quickly. CHI's SOAR program is open to all homeless and at- risk people with disabilities in the Waterloo area, not just to those involved in CHI's other programs. • Black Hawk County joined the White House Data Driven Justice Initiative (DDJ) in 2016. DDJ facilitates data sharing between law enforcement and health care systems to identify low-level offenders with mental illness who frequently interact with the criminal justice system, and divert them to programs that provide housing and treatment. An additional development relevant to homeless services is Black Hawk County's participation in the Stepping Up initiative, a national effort to divert people with mental illness from the criminal justice system and connect them to treatment and housing. The County joined the Stepping Up initiative in 2015, and the local Stepping Up committee is working with law enforcement, healthcare providers, mental health professionals, and other agencies to build the relationships needed to effectively identify and serve people with mental illness who have frequent contact with law enforcement. The local Stepping Up initiative is in the process of coordinating with the Waterloo area's homeless service system. Specifically, the Stepping Up initiative is attempting to identify pathways for people with mental illness to find housing once they have been diverted from the criminal justice system. The efforts listed above are part of a broad nationwide shift from a "treatment first" model of addressing homelessness to a "Housing First" model. According to the Housing First model, housing is a fundamental right, and the root cause of homelessness is the severe shortage of affordable housing in communities across the nation, not the behavioral issues of homeless people themselves. Housing is seen as a platform of stability on which other interventions, such as job skills training and mental health or substance abuse counseling, are more likely to succeed. However, Transitional Housing programs still provide an important option for certain homeless from cherry-picking or "creaming" preferred clients. However, when funding for homeless services is limited, CE programs cannot ensure that everyone who needs assistance will receive it. 68 households with complex needs, such as domestic violence survivors, parenting teens, and recovering addicts. A key element of the Housing First model is that voluntary supportive services are made available to homeless participants—the participants are not required to participate in services as a condition of receiving housing assistance. To some extent, Transitional Housing Programs can also apply this concept by limiting requirements and barriers to entry. The national shift toward Housing First, and best practices for preserving Transitional Housing options, are discussed in more detail in Appendix D. One possible approach in Waterloo, as in most communities across the nation, may be to expand assistance options for homeless individuals and families whenever possible, and direct households to the options that best meet their needs. With recent local efforts to expand Housing First programs and implement a Coordinated Entry system for homeless services, this process is already underway by the LCHB and its affiliated members.The process needs sustained political and financial support from local governments, philanthropic organizations, and other agencies. Seniors and People with Disabilities As the Demographic Analysis section showed, 15% of Waterloo's population was 65 years or older in the 2015 1-year ACS estimates, while 10.6% of the population had at least one disability. There is substantial overlap between these two populations–according to the 2015 1-year ACS, 37%of people with disabilities are 65 or older. Many seniors and people with disabilities struggle to find adequate housing, since they are often on fixed incomes and need homes that have accessibility features such as grab bars in bathrooms, wheelchair ramps, and wide doorways to accommodate wheelchairs. According to HUD CHAS data, senior-headed households (with a household head age 62 or older) are generally less likely to have housing problems (Table 18). Among low- and moderate-income homeowners, senior-headed households are at least 20 percentage points less likely to have housing problems than non-senior-headed households in the same income bracket. This is not surprising, since many senior homeowners have paid off their mortgages. Among low-income renters, senior-headed households are nearly 20 percentage points less likely to have housing problems than non-senior-headed households, which may reflect the impact of Waterloo's subsidized rental stock for low-income seniors. Only in the moderate-income renter category are senior-headed households more likely than non-senior-headed households to have housing problems (38% compared to 29%, respectively). However, among LMI senior-headed households, renters are more likely than owners to have housing problems, suggesting that Waterloo's affordable senior housing stock does not fully meet the needs of senior renters. 69 Table 18: Housing Problems among Senior-Headed Households Percent of Households with One or More Housing Problems Owner Household Type Extremely Low- Low-Income Moderate-Income Income(0-30%AMI) (31-50%AMI) (51-80%AMI) Not Senior-Headed 89% 55% 36% Senior-Headed 64% 30% 16% Percent of Households with One or More Housing Problems Renter Household Type Extremely Low- Low-Income Moderate-Income Income(0-30%AMI) (31-50%AMI) (51-80%AMI) Not Senior-Headed 88% 79% 29% Senior-Headed 69% 61% 38% Source: HUD CHAS 2010-2014 1,000 ■Moderate-Income 800 290 (51-80%AMI) 120 0 s H 600 0 ■Low-Income(31- 50%AMI) 0 (u 400 -0 E Z 200 ■Extremely Low- Income(0-30% AMI) Owner Households Renter Households Figure 24: Counts of Senior-Headed Households with Housing Problems in Waterloo Source: HUD CHAS 2010-2014 Although LMI senior-headed households are generally less likely to have housing problems than LMI households overall,the number of such households with housing problems is still substantial (Figure 24). Housing problems are found among an estimated 1,735 LMI senior-headed 70 households, slightly over half of which are owner households. However, these numbers may underestimate the housing needs of low-income seniors, since CHAS data does not take home accessibility into account. For seniors with disabilities, home accessibility improvements or availability of affordable, accessible rentals often make the difference between staying in their homes or moving into institutional settings. Like senior-headed households, households with a disabled member tend to be underrepresented among LMI households with housing problems, though not to the same degree as senior-headed households. For example, among renter households between 31% and 50% AMI, 69% of households with disabled members have housing problems, compared to 76% of households without disabled members (Table 19). LMI owner households with disabled members may disproportionately include seniors who have paid off their mortgages, while LMI renters with disabled household members may have more access to subsidized units than those without disabled members. Table 19: Housing Problems among Households that have Members with Disabilities Percent of Households with One or More Housing Problems Owner Household Type Extremely Low-Income Low-Income(31-50% Moderate-Income (0-30%AMI) AMI) (51-80%AMI) No household members 89% 49% 30% with disability Household member has 81% 32/ 18/ ° ° a disability Percent of Households with One or More Housing Problems Renter Household Type Extremely Low-Income Low-Income(31-50% Moderate-Income (0-30%AMI) AMI) (51-80%AMI) No household members 91% 76% 29% with disability Household member has 88% 69% °35/ a disability Source: HUD CHAS 2010-2014 Approximately 2,750 LMI households with disabled members have housing problems (Figure 25). In contrast to senior-headed households, housing problems occur among a higher number of renter households with disabled members than among owner households, and ELI households account for a majority of LMI households with disabled members and housing problems. Among these 2,750 households, ambulatory limitations are the most common disability type, 71 highlighting the importance of developing and retrofitting affordable units with accessibility features. 2,000 185 ■ Moderate-Income 1,600 (51-80%AMI) 0 s W = 1,200 2 ■ Low-Income(31- 0 800 200 50%AMI) L E Z 400 ■ Extremely Low- Income (0-30% _ AMI) Owner Households Renter Households a. Housing Problems by Tenure 2,000 ■Moderate- 245 Income (51-80% 1,600 AMI) 0 t 1,200 3 0 800 75 ■Low-Income (31- 0 50%AM I) ai -0 400 E .- Z � ����`° ■Extremely Low- 0 e�aec Income (0-30% Z e� AMI) �e La Disability Type (note that one person may have more than one type of disability) b. Housing Problems by Disability Type Figure 25: Households with a Disabled Member and One or More Housing Problems Source: HUD CHAS 2010-2014 72 The data on housing problems among LMI households with disabled members reinforces anecdotal evidence from local disability service providers, who attest that affordable rental housing for people with disabilities is in short supply. Many of Waterloo's subsidized rental housing developments are restricted to both seniors and non-elderly people with disabilities, and the availability of these dedicated units may partly explain why rates of housing problems are lower among LMI renter households with disabled members than among those without. However, as a group, low-income (up to 50%AMI) renter households with disabled members are more likely to have housing problems than low-income senior-headed renter households. Moreover, the greater concentration of housing problems among renter households with disabled members in the ELI income bracket, as compared to ELI senior renters, suggests that Waterloo's subsidized special needs housing has made less headway among people with disabilities than among the low-income senior population. Immigrant Populations Reliable data on the housing needs of immigrant populations is not available, so a paper survey on housing and quality of life in Waterloo was administered to English Language Learner (ELL) classes by Hawkeye Community College Metro Center instructors. As discussed in the Resident Surveys section above, the ELL surveys were part of a larger effort to obtain resident input on housing and community development needs in Waterloo (Table 14). Translations of the survey were not available, so instructors assisted ELL students with understanding and completing the surveys (See Appendix C for the survey instrument). A total of 153 completed surveys were collected from ELL students. The sociodemographic data in Appendix E indicates that the most common languages spoken by ELL students at the HCC Metro Center are French, Spanish, and Burmese. Figure 26 shows the ELL group's responses to multiple choice questions,while responses to open- ended questions are included in Appendix E. A majority of respondents (61%) are renters and about one-quarter are owners — a higher ratio of renters to owners than among non-ELL respondents. Similar to non-ELL respondents, 13% of ELL respondents live with family and friends,although some respondents who own or lease their own homes may have misunderstood this question. Also similar to the non-ELL groups, the percentage of ELL respondents who report housing problems (29%) is about double the percentage who report that their housing is unaffordable (15%). In open-ended feedback, respondents reported a wide range of housing problems, from leaky faucets to mold, vermin, and cracks in walls and ceilings. However, ELL and non-ELL respondents diverge sharply on the ease of finding decent, affordable housing. In the ELL group, the most common response to this question was "Somewhat Easy" (34%), and "Very Easy" and "Somewhat Easy" responses combined (65%) outweigh "Very Hard" and "Somewhat Hard" responses (33%). Language barriers may have prompted some 73 respondents to interpret the question as simply "How easy is it to find housing?". Comments from the minority of respondents who marked "Somewhat Hard" or "Very Hard" suggest that some immigrants face housing barriers similar to those of low- and moderate-income Americans—including the low quality of inexpensive housing and concerns about safety—as well as language barriers. When asked if they or anyone they know had experienced housing discrimination, the vast majority of ELL respondents (83%) marked "No" – far higher than the percentage of non-ELL respondents who answered "No." Six percent and 11% of ELL respondents marked "Yes" and "Not Sure," respectively, and some of these respondents provided open-ended feedback that they experienced discrimination based on their accent, limited English proficiency, or race. It is possible that discrimination rates among ELL students may be higher, since they may be less familiar with the concept of housing discrimination, and less likely to recognize it when it occurs. Table 20 identifies the most common categories of feedback from ELL respondents regarding recent positive developments and changes needed in Waterloo. Because the ELL instructors who administered the surveys often discussed questions with their classes as a group, many respondents gave similar answers, and the responses may be influenced by suggestions from some instructors (see Appendix C). The positive developments identified by ELL respondents are largely different in type and emphasis than those identified by ELL respondents. Schools, ELL education, and jobs are paramount, and multiple respondents also cited cleanliness, affordable rents, and good hospitals and emergency services. ELL respondents, like non-ELL respondents, value Waterloo's cultural attractions and events,with several citing specific examples such as the SportsPlex and Juneteenth.The "good people"theme may be similar to the personal factors cited by several non-ELL respondents. 74 What is your housing situation? Is your current housing Does your home have situation affordable? problems that you can't afford to fix or the landlord won't fix? 0% 1% ■ Family/friends ■ Homeless ■ Other ■ Own ■ Rent ■ No ■ Yes ■ Yes ■ No How easy is it to find Have you or anyone you Have you or someone you an affordable, safe, know ever received a know ever experienced comfortable place Housing Choice Voucher? housing discrimination? to live in Waterloo? ■ Very easy ■ Somewhat easy ■ Somewhat easy/somewhat hard ■ Somewhat hard ■ Very hard 2% ■ No ■ Yes ■ No ■ Not Sure ■ Yes Figure 26:Waterloo English Language Learner Responses to Multiple-Choice Survey Questions 75 Table 20: Survey Feedback from English Language Learners on Positive Developments and Changes Needed in Waterloo Good things in Waterloo: #of Changes needed in Waterloo: #of responses responses Schools 25 Crime/Safety 20 ELL education/teachers 22 Road maintenance/repair needed 13 Jobs 22 Hospital/heath costs 13 Cleanliness of city 9 Better jobs 13 Cultural attractions/events 8 Housing condition/age 10 Affordable rents 8 More public transportation 6 Good people 7 Housing cost/supply 6 Emergency services 7 Cleanliness/garbage 5 Hospital 6 More businesses 4 Streets/street improvements 2 Accommodation for immigrants/ 3 English Language Learners Recreational opportunities 2 Taxes 2 Less road construction 2 Discrimination 2 Other transportation issues 2 Safer school bus stops 2 Similar to non-ELL groups, ELL respondents provided more feedback about changes needed in Waterloo than about positive developments, and identified crime as a major concern. Other major concerns among ELL respondents, including road maintenance needs, healthcare costs, and jobs, were less prevalent or did not arise among non-ELL respondents. On the surface, some of the concerns cited by ELL respondents — such as healthcare costs and garbage — seem to contradict the positive attributes identified.This may reflect conflicted feelings among individual 76 respondents, as well as variations among neighborhoods in Waterloo. Concerns about housing condition and costs were widespread, but received less emphasis than among non-ELL respondents. By contrast, several ELL respondents expressed a desire for more public transportation options, while only one non-ELL respondent mentioned public transit. Similar to non-ELL groups, though, several ELL respondents expressed a desire for more businesses and cultural opportunities. Overall, the feedback from ELL respondents highlights challenges that immigrants face finding housing and living in Waterloo. While most ELL respondents are satisfied with their housing— more so than non-ELL respondents—a substantial minority of ELL respondents have concerns about the quality of their housing. Several respondents expressed a desire for better jobs, suggesting that many English Language Learners hold jobs with low wages, difficult working conditions, or both. Some respondents may have faced unlawful housing discrimination on the basis of national origin, race, or color. ELL respondents may also be more reliant on public transit than Americans of similar incomes, as evidenced by the comments that more bus service is needed. Despite these challenges, some English Language Learners may also have certain advantages over LMI Americans. As shown in the sociodemographic data in Appendix C, about one-quarter of ELL students have education and training beyond high school, including over 18% with a Bachelor's degree or higher. This is not surprising, since citizens of many countries are more likely to obtain U.S. visas if they come from middle-class and professional backgrounds. Moreover, many immigrants come to the U.S. without the substantial debt burdens, past evictions, and bankruptcies that can result from a lifetime of low-wage work or unemployment in the U.S. It is important to understand these advantages possessed by some immigrant groups, since their upward mobility is sometimes used by policy makers and private citizens to make generalizations about LMI and minority Americans who have not achieved the same success. It would be beneficial for employers, housing providers, elected officials, educators, and others to support both groups in addressing the unique challenges they face. Housing Supply and Demand Analysis This section combines data on population and household size trends, home construction, demolitions, available residential lots, and other factors to estimate supply and demand for new housing in Waterloo between 2018 and 2030.According to City data on residential permits issued from October 2014 to October 2017, an average of 142 units were permitted annually(Table 21). These permitted units include a combined total for single-family homes, townhomes, and condominiums of 50 units annually on average, as well as an average of 92 multifamily units.The annual volume of building permits issued is only 0.46% of the City's total housing stock, which is 77 relatively low compared to the optimal value of 1%for a "normal" housing market.At Waterloo's current rate of residential permitting, 1,846 units will be added between 2018 and 2030. The City conducts an average of 26 demolitions per year. Additionally, some residential units are withdrawn from the housing market each year due to deterioration, abandonment by owners, or other factors. The Iowa Housing Needs Assessment, published by Iowa State University in 2009, determined an attrition rate of 0.67%for existing single-family, owner-occupied housing in metropolitan counties. By taking into account both Waterloo's demolition rate and the 0.67% attrition factor, we estimate that 836 units will be lost from Waterloo's housing stock between 2018 and 2030, resulting in a net addition of 1,010 units (see Appendix E for methodology). Currently, Waterloo has 2,456 vacant residential lots that could potentially be developed, including 176 City-owned lots and 2,280 lots owned by other parties. Over time, new residential development will be able to absorb buildable lots. An estimated 338 residential units will be demolished between 2018 and 2030, possibly contributing new buildable lots. Depending on how many new lots are added from demolitions, Waterloo has an excess of 610 to 948 lots, or an average of 779 excess lots. To calculate future housing demand in Waterloo, we modeled two scenarios (Table 21): • Scenario 1: Waterloo's population remains unchanged from 2010 to 2030; linear projection of average household size decline from 2000 to 2010 (-0.04 per decade). • Scenario 2: Waterloo's population grows at a modest rate from 2010 to 2030 (see Appendix E for methodology). Average household size remains unchanged from 2010 (2.35). Scenario 1 is similar to Waterloo's actual demographic trends between 2000 and 2010 — the population remained essentially unchanged while average household size decreased. In Scenario 1, Waterloo's population remains at 68,406, but the decrease in household size results in an additional 991 households by 2030. Since 1,010 net new housing units will be available by 2030 if residential permitting continues at its current rate, a slight excess of units (19 units) would be available. The City can meet new housing demand under Scenario 1 by permitting 141 housing units per year—almost equal to its current rate. In Scenario 2, the population increases to 70,344 by 2020 (a 2.8% increase over 2010), and then to 71,536 by 2030 (a 1.7% increase over 2020). In this scenario, the City adds 1,274 households by 2030, requiring 264 additional housing units. To meet the total new housing demand, the City would need to permit 162 units per year, or 20 more units than its current annual rate. 78 Table 21: Future Housing Supply and Demand Projections for Waterloo Supply Variable Value Source Current housing stock 30,684 ACS 2015 5-year estimates New homes/year 142 City of Waterloo building permit data 10/2014—10/2017 Demolitions/year 26 City of Waterloo demolition data 11/2015—10/2017 Estimated attrition 0.67% Source: Iowa Housing Needs Assessment 2009 (conservative) Gross new units added 2018- 1,846 142 units/year x 13 years 2030 Units lost 2018- 2030 836 Calculated using demolition rate and assumed attrition rate-see Appendix G for methodology Net new units added 2018- 1,010 Units added—Units lost 2030 Available lots (as of 2017) 2,456 City of Waterloo data on available lots* Estimated new lots needed to -779 Average of-610 (Gross new units added—Available lots) and -948 accommodate projected new (excess units by 2030 lots) (Gross new units added—Available lots—Demolitions) Approx. new Net new Units/Year to Demand Variable 2000 2010 2020 2030 households housing units meet added 2018- needed 2018- anticipated 2030 2030** housing need Average Household Size 2.39 2.35 Population (assuming no population change, household size continues 68,747 68,406 68,406 68,406 991 -19 141 to decline by 0.04/decade) Population (assuming modest population 68,747 68,406 70,344 71,536 1,274 264 162 increase, household size unchanged) *Black Hawk County Assessor data and City of Waterloo Community Planning&Development Department data on City-owned residential lots(176 lots); Black Hawk County Assessor data on privately owned residential lots with assessed value>_$600 (2,280 lots). **New households added minus 844 net new units added See Appendix E for methodology 79 Summary of Housing Needs Waterloo's housing market is relatively soft, with generally lower housing costs and higher vacancy rates than Iowa as a whole. However, incomes in Waterloo are low as well, compared to county and statewide levels, so residents are at least as susceptible to housing cost burden as households statewide. Extremely low-income (ELI) households and renter households are especially likely to pay more than they can afford for monthly housing costs. As Waterloo's substantial cost burden rates suggest, its rental and ownership housing inventories are less affordable and accessible than they appear at first glance. According to Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data, homes for sale in Waterloo spend little more than a month on the market on average, and sale volume as a share of all owner housing is relatively low, indicating some market tightness. Median home prices may be out of reach for some low- and moderate-wage workers who provide vital services in the community, while the inventory of low-cost homes is limited and, in some cases, substandard. For renters, units available in newer and professionally managed complexes tend to be more expensive. Extensive survey feedback from low- and moderate-income residents confirms that "affordable" rental units tend to be low-quality and located in distressed neighborhoods. Subsidized rental developments provide a vital but limited resource for LMI renters, with generally low vacancy rates and long waitlists, particularly for units with deep subsidies. Demand is especially high for subsidized rentals accessible to seniors and people with disabilities. Although subsidized rental housing for these populations noticeably reduces their susceptibility to housing cost burden, Waterloo still has hundreds of LMI seniors and people with disabilities who face cost burdens or other housing problems. Naturally, people experiencing homelessness in Waterloo face the most acute housing problems. While data on homelessness in Waterloo is limited, close to 1,000 people in Black Hawk County may become homeless at some point each year. The supply of shelter and transitional housing beds, Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) rental units, and Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) funds is insufficient to assist all those experiencing homelessness in the County. As in other communities across the nation, homeless service providers and their partners in Black Hawk County are striving to improve coordination and shift toward a "Housing First" model, while preserving transitional housing for certain homeless populations with complex needs. Waterloo offers several different housing programs with a range of overlapping goals. The City of Waterloo operates owner-occupied rehabilitation and repair programs for LMI homeowners, and provides financial support for new home construction for LMI homebuyers, as well as home accessibility modifications for people with disabilities. To promote investment in core neighborhoods,the City offers tax abatements in a designated Consolidated Urban Revitalization Area (CURA), and has acquired dozens of abandoned residential properties through the 657A 80 process for private developers to purchase and redevelop. To increase Waterloo's tax base and keep its housing market competitive, the City promotes new home construction in neighborhoods outside the core with the successful City Limits Urban Revitalization Area (CLURA) tax abatement program. Additional programs, including a $5,000 incentive for rehabilitation or new construction of housing on infill lots and a $1,000 match for certain projects receiving state Workforce Housing Tax Credits, complement the CURA and CLURA tax abatement programs. In total, however, Waterloo's housing needs exceed available resources. This document provides first-hand perspectives of housing and neighborhood quality in Waterloo, both from windshield surveys in representative Census tracts, and surveys of LMI residents and members of the City's growing immigrant population. Additionally, GROW Committee members provided valuable guidance on the challenges and opportunities for expanding housing development and homeownership in Waterloo. The windshield surveys indicated that most of Waterloo's housing stock is in good condition, but over 4,000 units citywide are estimated to be in fair condition, while hundreds more are in poor or dilapidated condition. Many Waterloo residents reported that they or people they know live in substandard housing in distressed neighborhoods, since they cannot afford or qualify for better housing. In addition to cost, many residents have difficulty finding housing due to credit problems, criminal or eviction histories, or language barriers, and may be vulnerable to exploitation by the landlords willing to rent to them. Housing Choice Voucher ("Section 8") recipients face the additional challenge of finding a landlord willing to accept Section 8 before their voucher expires. Moreover, a substantial minority of respondents reported that they or someone they know may have experienced discrimination based on race, national origin, or other "protected classes." Survey respondents expressed great appreciation for the City's revitalization efforts over the past two decades, including downtown and riverfront redevelopment.At the same time, respondents are concerned by the prevalence of substandard housing, crime, and a shortage of private investment in some areas. Many respondents expressed a desire to demolish and rehabilitate deteriorated housing and bring more businesses and youth activities to underserved areas. Many such efforts are already underway, including redevelopment of the Highway 63 Corridor, Logan Area, Walnut Neighborhood, and former industrial sites. However, these projects can take several years. Progress is being made on environmental cleanup and planning, but it may not be immediately visible or tangible to residents. Waterloo's future housing needs are a moving target, since trends in population, household size, and infill housing development are difficult to predict. This document projects future housing supply and demand through 2030 based on two scenarios: constant population with declining average household size, and modest population growth with average household size unchanged. Under the first scenario, the current rate of housing production in Waterloo will provide 81 adequate housing to serve new households and replace units lost through demolition or attrition. Under the second scenario, the City's housing production rate would have to increase by about 20 units per year to keep up with demand. Both scenarios hope that the City would make efficient use of infill residential lots in established neighborhoods. The City could place greater emphasis on new construction to meet future housing demand, but the benefits of doing so must be weighed against the costs of allowing infill lots to remain vacant in distressed neighborhoods. Of course, it may be unrealistic to redevelop all infill lots,since many may be vacant for a reason — market demand and appraisal values in these neighborhoods are low. Infill housing development is most likely to be successful when it is part of a broader strategy to improve neighborhoods and boost housing demand. Housing Goals and Objectives Based upon the findings of this Housing Needs Assessment, the following goals have been developed to maintain, revitalize, and expand Waterloo's housing stock in a coordinated manner with broader community development efforts: GOAL 1: MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF WATERLOO'S EXISTING HOUSING STOCK. GOAL 2: SUPPORT INFILL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY IN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS. GOAL 3: EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR WATERLOO'S LOW-AND MODERATE-INCOME HOMEBUYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. GOAL 4: EXPAND RENTAL OPPORTUNITIES AND RELATED SERVICES FOR LMI HOUSEHOLDS, INCLUDING THOSE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. GOAL 5: SUPPORT INCREASED MARKET-RATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. GOAL 6: SUPPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, AND OTHER EFFORTS INTEGRALLY RELATED TO QUALITY OF LIFE AND HOUSING DEMAND IN DISINVESTED NEIGHBORHOODS. GOAL 7: SUPPORT EXPANSION OF WATERLOO'S INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. Each goal is supported by several proposed objectives, many of which include italicized bullet points with further details and context.The City of Waterloo does not have sole responsibility for the proposed goals and objectives, which can only be accomplished in collaboration with developers, nonprofit agencies, financial institutions, philanthropic organizations, and other 82 stakeholders. However,the goals and objectives are phrased in terms of actions the City can take, at least as a facilitator or collaborator. Many of the objectives below would require new or redirected funding sources. Ideally, general revenue or other City revenue — beyond the CDBG and HOME funds the City already receives— would be one of the funding sources available to implement the Housing Needs Assessment's goals. If expanded or redirected City funding is not politically or financially feasible, support from private donors will become increasingly important. The goals and objectives identify specific initiatives that could benefit from private-sector support, such as start-up funding for a Community Land Trust (CLT) or Neighborhood Finance Corporation, a damage contingency fund to encourage landlords to rent to Housing Choice Voucher and Rapid Re-Housing recipients, and a gap financing program for housing development in neighborhoods with low appraised values. The goals and objectives promote a balanced approach to housing and community development. The City must strike a balance between revitalizing distressed neighborhoods and expanding fair housing choice, and between expanding tax base in growth areas and reinvesting in older neighborhoods. As a result, the objectives include provisions for targeted investments in both distressed neighborhoods and growth areas. GOAL 1: MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF WATERLOO'S EXISTING HOUSING STOCK. Objective 1: Maintain and, if possible, expand the City of Waterloo's programs for single-family rehabilitation and emergency repair for LMI homeowners. • Consider supplementing declining Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds with a local revenue source, such as general revenue, a modest hotel tax increase, Waterloo Housing Trust Fund monies, etc. Objective 2: When possible, make housing funds available for rehabilitation of rental units for LMI households. • Consider shifting CDBG or HOME funds toward rental rehabilitation in the next Consolidated Plan, if appropriate. • To the extent possible, avoid rewarding negligent landlords and ensure that participating landlords have a good faith commitment. For example, rental rehabilitation assistance may be targeted to landlords below a certain income threshold, as allowed by the funding source. The landlord's good faith may also be demonstrated by their commitment to keep rents affordable to LMI tenants for a certain period of time, as federal and state funding sources require. 83 Objective 3: Pursue a robust and balanced residential code enforcement strategy. • Effective code enforcement should treat similar violations equitably to avoid court challenges. In cases where it is necessary or appropriate for the City to take possession of a dilapidated property through the 657A process, legal challenges can be avoided by demonstrating that the City has a record of conducting code enforcement equitably. • To be conducted equitably and effectively, a code enforcement strategy needs reliable political and financial support. • When operating or supporting owner-occupied and rental rehabilitation programs, consider prioritizing property owners who are facing code enforcement actions. • Consider providing local funds to help property owners above the LMI threshold correct code violations. For example, private-sector donations or general revenue may support rehabilitation assistance for property owners between 81%and 120% AMI who have no alternatives to correct code violations. GOAL 2: SUPPORT INFILL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY IN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS. Objective 1: Consider requiring owners of vacant buildings to apply for a license and pay a fee, an approach that at least one other community in Iowa has used successfully. • Fees should be reasonably related to costs imposed on the City by vacant properties, and the City may place liens on vacant properties with unpaid fees24. Objective 2: In neighborhoods where development costs typically exceed the appraised value of newly constructed housing, pursue "gap financing" to allow nonprofit and for-profit developers to recoup costs and collect a reasonable developer fee. • Increasing the volume of new home sales in disinvested neighborhoods is critical for increasing the number of comparable sales that appraisers use to evaluate future home construction. 21 For more information,see the Building American Cities Toolkit at http://www.communityprogress.net/toolkit- pages-292.php. Retrieved 6/27/18. 84 • Whenever possible, invest gap financing in small or moderately sized target areas, to maximize the likelihood that these homes will be considered as comparable sales in future appraisals in the area. • Gap financing may be provided by City funds, local donors, a Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) grant, etc. The Waterloo Housing Trust Fund should avoid funding new construction of owner-occupied homes without strong support from stakeholders, since doing so would prevent affordable housing developers from accessing financing directly from the Iowa Finance Authority. If appropriate, the Trust Fund may offer a new home construction funding program that is complementary to the efforts of affordable housing developers that receive funding directly from IFA. For example, if the community determines that for-profit developers need additional incentives to develop affordable housing but nonprofit developers do not, the Trust Fund may choose to provide gap financing to for-profit developers only, allowing nonprofit developers to remain eligible for IFA funding. Objective 3: Explore interest among neighborhood leaders and residents in forming a Community Land Trust (CLT) to acquire and exercise stewardship over properties experiencing or at risk of deterioration or speculation 21, as well as 657A properties. Determine whether a sustainable nonprofit could be formed to operate a CLT, or whether an existing nonprofit would be able and willing to assume CLT responsibilities. • CLTs may develop both ownership and rental housing on the land they own. Owners of CLT homes do not own the land, but rather have a ground lease with the CLT. CLT homeownership is a limited-equity model— buyers must be income- qualified, and must sell the property to another income-qualified household at a below-market price. • Identify possible startup funding sources for a CLT to acquire properties, such as a grant from the Waterloo Housing Trust Fund, donations from local philanthropists, a one-time allocation of general revenue, etc. • In addition to helping stabilize disinvested neighborhoods, CLTs can prevent displacement if any of Waterloo's disinvested neighborhoods happen to experience gentrification in the future. 2s For more information on CLTs,see Hawkins-Simon, D.and Axel-Lute, M.April 4,2018. "Organizing and the Community Land Trust Model."Strong Towns [website]. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/4/4/organizing-and-the-community-land-trust-model. Retrieved 6/26/18. 85 Objective 4: To ensure that new development does not happen at the expense of existing neighborhoods, consider dedicating a modest percentage of increased tax valuation in CLURA developments to fund improvements in core neighborhoods, with input from neighborhood leaders. Objective 5: Conduct community development activities in a coordinated and transparent manner to build trust in disinvested neighborhoods. • Whenever possible, coordinate demolitions with redevelopment on the same lots in a relatively short timeframe. • Consider working with neighborhood leaders, local schools, and others to coordinate tours and visits to new developments and improvements to increase their visibility. • Continue to communicate regularly with neighborhood leaders about the status of multi-year projects, such as remediation of brownfield sites. • Consider providing a dedicated funding stream for historic preservation from development permit fees, general revenue, or another source. To the extent possible, support historic preservation in neighborhoods with a relatively high concentration of demolition activities. GOAL 3: EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR WATERLOOS LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOMEBUYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. Objective 1: Maintain and, if possible, expand the City of Waterloo's programs for single-family rehabilitation and emergency repair for LMI homeowners (see Goal 1, Objective 1). Objective 2: Maintain and, if possible, expand programs to provide accessibility improvements to owner-occupied homes where people with disabilities live. Objective 3: Explore opportunities to provide home purchase assistance for LMI prospective homebuyers in greater amounts than the Iowa Finance Authority provides. • Consider shifting CDBG or HOME funds toward purchase assistance, homebuyer education, and credit counseling in the next Consolidated Plan, if appropriate. • Encourage the Waterloo Housing Trust Fund, local nonprofit agencies, and mortgage lenders to offer or support purchase assistance programs. For example, a mortgage lender could apply to Federal Home Loan Bank(FHLB) Des Moines for a down payment assistance grant on a nonprofit agency's behalf. 86 • Encourage local lenders and real estate professionals to work with homebuyers who participate in purchase assistance programs. Objective 4: Continue working with local developers of LMI ownership housing to provide City- owned lots at nominal cost. Objective 5:To promote fair housing choice for LMI homebuyers and protected classes, support the construction of affordable ownership housing in neighborhoods near the city limits that are experiencing new development. • Consider shifting CDBG or HOME funds toward land acquisition by nonprofit housing developers in the next Consolidated Plan, if appropriate. • Ensure that adequate land in Waterloo's growth areas is zoned for moderate- density residential development, including townhomes and condominiums. • Encourage developers to propose subdivisions with diverse housing sizes, styles, and layouts that would be allowed in a Planned Residence District according to the Zoning Ordinance. GOAL 4: EXPAND RENTAL OPPORTUNITIES AND RELATED SERVICES FOR LMI HOUSEHOLDS, INCLUDING THOSE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. Objective 1: When possible, make housing funds available for rehabilitation of rental units (see Goal 1, Objective 2). Objective 2: Encourage a balanced approach to affordable rental development that both revitalizes distressed neighborhoods and expands fair housing choice in more affluent neighborhoods. • Encourage rental developers to use 657A parcels by either rehabilitating existing structures or demolishing and reconstructing housing. • Ensure that adequate land in Waterloo's growth areas is zoned for multifamily development. • Encourage developers to propose subdivisions with diverse housing sizes, styles, and layouts that would be allowed in a Planned Residence District according to the Zoning Ordinance. Objective 3: Prevent displacement of tenants in rental properties subject to code enforcement actions (see also Goal 1, Objective 3). 87 • When appropriate, encourage landlords with code enforcement violations to participate in rental rehabilitation programs. This approach has the advantage of imposing an affordability period on units for LMI renters, which can prevent landlords from increasing rents to unaffordable levels to reflect the value of improvements. • Consider working with the Black Hawk County District Court to explore the feasibility of establishing an expedited legal process with a dedicated judge for eviction hearings26. Such a process might also be permitted by Iowa law to prevent landlords with outstanding violations from evicting tenants27. • Consider working with Iowa Legal Aid, the City Attorney, and other legal professionals to explore the feasibility of a City rent escrow program, which would allow tenants in properties with unresolved code enforcement issues to pay reduced rents into a City-managed escrow account until repairs were made",". • Ensure that resources are available for tenants displaced by code enforcement. Consider requiring landlords to pay relocation costs for evicted tenants if the landlord withdraws a substandard building from the rental stock rather than bringing it up to code30. Consider using City funds or partnering with other funders to offer relocation assistance for tenants displaced by rising rents in properties that have been brought up to code. Objective 4: Whenever possible, work with affordable housing developers to bring rents down to levels affordable to extremely low-income (ELI) households. • Consider offering CDBG or HOME matching funds for proposed Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments to reduce the mortgage debt needed to finance the project. z6 Wells,S. March 31,2016. "Eviction Court needs more attention from communities." Nonprofit Quarterly [website]. https://non profitquarterly.org/2016/03/31/eviction-court-needs-more-attention-from-communities/. Retrieved 6/26/18. 2'Lind, K. December 14, 2011. "The People's Court."Shelterforce [website]. https://shelterforce.org/2011/12/14/the peoples court2/. Retrieved 6/26/18. 28 See ChangeLab Solutions. 2014.A Guide to Proactive Rental Inspection Programs. https://www.changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/Proactive-Rental-Inspection- Programs Guide FINAL 20140204.pdf. Retrieved 6/26/18. 2'Note that Iowa Code Ch. 364.17 allows cities to establish an escrow account for rental payments to correct code violations. However, Iowa Code does not explicitly protect tenants who pay into a City escrow account from being evicted for nonpayment of rent.The City would need qualified legal advice to address this ambiguity. '0 ChangeLab Solutions 2014. 88 • When appropriate, require developers of ELI rental housing to include accessibility features for people with disabilities, beyond those that may be required by other funding sources for the development. • On an ongoing basis, communicate with nonprofit housing developers in the region about potential opportunities to develop or rehabilitate affordable rental housing. Objective 5: Communicate regularly with owners and managers of Waterloo's subsidized rental housing. If a development is experiencing high vacancy rates or unit turnaround times, facilitate measures to increase occupancy— such as introducing the property manager to a social service agency that can refer prospective tenants. Objective 6: In coordination with property owners, support retrofits of older subsidized senior housing developments to improve accessibility for people with disabilities. • Consider shifting CDBG or HOME funds toward accessibility improvements for subsidized rental developments in the next Consolidated Plan, if appropriate. • Work with the Waterloo Housing Authority to investigate opportunities to fund accessibility improvements in Ridgeway Towers. • Encourage the Waterloo Housing Trust Fund to offer accessibility improvement funds specifically for subsidized rental properties. Objective 7: Pursue a comprehensive effort to expand housing opportunities for Housing Choice Voucher (HCV or "Section 8") recipients. • Work with the Waterloo Housing Authority and local landlords to identify measures to increase landlords' willingness to participate, such as increasing accountability of tenants and providing financial assistance, when appropriate, to correct Housing Quality Standards (HQS) deficiencies. • Consider adding "source of income"as a protected class to the City's Fair Housing Ordinance, with Housing Choice Vouchers and other forms of public rent assistance explicitly included in "source of income."This approach has been used successfully by other jurisdictions to improve the chances of HCV recipients finding housing before their vouchers expire31 Objective 8: Work with local homeless assistance stakeholders to advance the community's shift toward a "housing first" model to address homelessness. "Tighe,J.R., Hatch, M.E.,and Mead,J. 2017.Source of income discrimination and fair housing policy.Journal of Planning Literature 32(1):3-15. http://4ournals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0885412216670603. Retrieved 6/26/18. 89 • Support Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) and Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) programs whenever possible with City funds, and encourage other local funders (e.g. Waterloo Housing Trust Fund, philanthropic organizations) to support these projects. • Encourage private and nonprofit donors in the region, including the Waterloo Housing Trust Fund, to incentivize Housing First approaches in their grant scoring criteria. • Encourage RRH providers in the region to harmonize their programs to the greatest extent possible, to avoid duplication of efforts and confusion among landlords. • Work with the Waterloo Community School District, social service agencies, employers, and other stakeholders to improve support systems for households once RRH assistance ends. • Encourage the Waterloo Housing Authority and owners of subsidized rental properties to establish preferences for households exiting homelessness for a certain number of Housing Choice Vouchers or units. • Encourage transitional housing providers to tailor services to populations with unique needs and reduce barriers to entry. Objective 9: Help coordinate efforts among the Waterloo Community School District, social service providers, Child Protective Services,and traditional homeless service providers to identify and serve precariously housed families who might not always qualify for HUD homeless assistance. • When appropriate, use state and local funds to support activities and populations (including families that are doubled up with others due to economic hardship) that HUD homeless assistance programs do not typically support. Objective 10: Consider offering or financing cultural competency and trauma-informed care trainings for local entities that interact with homeless and precariously housed families. Objective 11: Encourage owners and managers of existing affordable housing, and developers of proposed affordable housing, to use flexible tenant eligibility screening criteria to ensure that as many ELI and homeless households as possible can benefit from affordable housing targeted to them. • To the extent possible, owners and managers of units for ELI and homeless populations should accommodate prospective tenants with credit problems or past eviction or criminal histories. 90 Objective 12: Encourage the Waterloo Housing Authority, homeless service providers, and social service agencies working with precariously housed families to develop programs that benefit these client groups in a coordinated fashion. • RRH programs typically offer "housing navigator" services to identify willing landlords in advance, and help place RRH recipients with barriers to renting. These programs could potentially be expanded (with funding sources other than HUD homeless assistance) to serve HCV recipients and precariously housed families as well. • Encourage both RRH providers and the Waterloo Housing Authority to maintain contingency or "risk mitigation"funds to reimburse landlords for damage created by tenants. Contingency funds may increase landlords' willingness to participate in these programs32. GOAL 5: SUPPORT INCREASED MARKET-RATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. Objective 1: Continue to monitor the impact of the City Limits Urban Revitalization Area (CLURA) and CURA on new housing starts and property tax revenue, and extend past 2022 if appropriate. Objective 2: Use Waterloo's land use planning documents, including the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code and map, to encourage development of moderately priced market-rate housing in areas undergoing new development. • Encourage developers to propose subdivisions with diverse housing sizes, styles, and layouts that would be allowed in a Planned Residence District according to the Zoning Ordinance. • Ensure that adequate land in Waterloo's growth areas is zoned for moderate- density residential development, including townhomes and condominiums. GOAL 6: SUPPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, AND OTHER EFFORTS INTEGRALLY RELATED TO QUALITY OF LIFE AND HOUSING DEMAND IN DISINVESTED NEIGHBORHOODS. Objective 1: Continue to support community policing and other efforts to build trust between law enforcement and residents. Objective 2: Continue to work with employers and neighborhood leaders to identify opportunities to match vacant positions with unemployed residents. 3' Hiler, H. 2016.Landlord Risk Mitigation Funds:A Literature and Design Review.St. Paul: Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.www.mnhousing.gov/get/MHFA 1040835. Retrieved 6/26/18. 91 • Address obstacles to hiring these residents, such as transportation issues or past criminal records. Identify solutions to obstacles, such as employer-supported vanpools and flexible applicant screening criteria. Continue to work with local employers to support vocational education and training. Objective 3: In collaboration with the University of Northern Iowa Small Business Center, the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance, neighborhood leaders, and other stakeholders, identify strategies to expand marketing of small business assistance in underserved neighborhoods. Objective 4: Support marketing efforts to improve public perception of Waterloo and historically disinvested neighborhoods. • Continue working with Main Street Waterloo and the Waterloo Convention and Visitors Bureau to develop events to draw the public into neighborhoods beyond downtown, such as a walking or bus tour similar to Tour de 'Loo. • In collaboration with the Waterloo Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance, the Waterloo Community School District, real estate professionals, and others who market Waterloo to households and businesses, continue incorporating positive stories of people living ordinary lives into marketing efforts. Objective 5: Continue to support efforts to create a historic district in the Smokey Row area and preserve other landmarks. Objective 6: Facilitate partnerships among WCSD and real estate professionals to educate newcomers to the Cedar Valley about Waterloo schools' diversity and extensive curricular options. GOAL 7: SUPPORT EXPANSION OF WATERLOO'S INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE FOR PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Objective 1: Consider a one-time allocation of general revenue or other City funds to capitalize a revolving loan fund for the Waterloo Housing Trust Fund to help it become self-sustaining. Objective 2: Consider partnering with the Des Moines-based 501(c)3 nonprofit, Neighborhood Finance Corporation (NFC), to open a satellite office in Waterloo to provide home purchase, improvement, and refinance loans in underserved neighborhoods. • NFC opened an office in Cedar Rapids in fall 2018. This office is designed to complement rather than duplicate existing programs, such as those operated by 92 the Housing Trust Fund for Linn County. This office was capitalized with $1 million in funds from the City of Cedar Rapids in Fiscal Year 2018, and$5 million or more in commitments from local lenders over five years. Objective 3: Communicate regularly with philanthropic organizations and other donors in the region about Waterloo's housing needs. • Educate local housing donors about the need for ongoing support for affordable housing, since the costs to build, operate, and maintain below-market-rate housing exceed what LMI households can afford in mortgage payments or rents. Some affordable housing activities, such as revolving loans and housing development undertaken by a Trust Fund itself(thus earning developer fees), can potentially become self-sustaining, but other activities cannot. Forgivable loans, grants, and Rapid Re-Housing rental assistance, for example, need ongoing funding from outside sources. • Encourage local donors to provide predictable, multi-year support for affordable housing efforts to enable local agencies to build capacity, hire knowledgeable staff, and meet housing needs on an ongoing basis. • Encourage local donors to support programs that cannot readily be funded by federal sources, such as Rapid Re-Housing assistance for doubled up families. Objective 4: Continue to foster coordination among City of Waterloo departments with housing and development-related responsibilities. 93 Waterloo, IA Housing Needs Assessment Appendices Contents Appendix A: Housing Problems Among Low-and Moderate-Income (LMI) Waterloo Households.............2 Appendix B: Characteristics of Census Tracts Selected for Housing Quality Windshield Survey.................3 Appendix C: Supporting Documentation for Resident Survey......................................................................4 SurveyInstrument.....................................................................................................................................4 Sociodemographic Data for Survey Respondents from Hawkeye Community College Metro Center Programs...................................................................................................................................................7 Open-Ended Survey Responses from Non-English Language Learner Respondents................................9 Open-Ended Survey Responses from English Language Learners..........................................................18 Feedback about Housing Choice Vouchers from Non-ELL Respondents................................................25 Appendix D: Overview of the Housing First Approach to Ending Homelessness and Recommendations for Waterloo.....................................................................................................................................................26 Appendix E: Methodology for Housing Supply and Demand Analysis........................................................36 HousingSupply........................................................................................................................................36 HousingDemand.....................................................................................................................................37 PopulationProjections............................................................................................................................38 1 Appendix A: Housing Problems Among Low- and Moderate-Income (LMI) Waterloo Households 4,500 Total Housing Problems 4,000 N :2 3,500 0 v 3,000 Ln = 2,500 0 2,000 1,500 z 1,000 500 Income 5_30%AMI Income>30%to 5_50%AMI Income>50%to 5_80%AMI 3,500 Severe Housing Problems 3,000 Ln 0 2,500 ai Ln 0 2,000 0 1,500 v E 1,000 5 z 500 Income 5_30%AMI Income>30%to 5_50%AMI Income>50%to 5_80%AMI 1,800 Moderate Cost Burden 1,600 1,400 0 v 1,200 Ln 1,000 0 800 a) -0 600 ;_ z 400 •� 200 Income 5530%AMI Income>30%to 5_50%AMI Income>50%to 5_80%AMI ■Owners ■Renters Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy(CHAS) 2010-2014 2 Appendix B: Characteristics of Census Tracts Selected for Housing Quality Windshield Survey Geographic Area Housing Units Median Age Population Under 18 Senior Population White/Caucasian Black/African-American Hispanic/ Latino (65+) (of any race) Census Tract 9 1,066 34.8 19% 12% 80% 13% 10% Census Tract 11 1,238 32.4 32% 9% 80% 9% 19% Census Tract 16 1,258 39.6 22% 17% 73% 17% 4% City of Waterloo 30,988 36.2 24% 15% 76% 16% 6% In Civilian Median Household Median Family Individuals in Geographic Area Housing Units Labor Force Unemployment Rate Income Income Families in Poverty Poverty Census Tract 9 1,066 64% 8.6% $32,310 $42,879 17% 25% Census Tract 11 1,238 76% 2.6% $48,077 $58,672 13% 14% Census Tract 16 1,258 67% 11.4% $41,944 $53,092 10% 14% City of Waterloo 30,988 65% 4.2% $44,153 $51,025 9% 14% Vacant Single-Family Residences Built Homeownership Median Value of Median Gross Geographic Area Housing Units Housing Units Detached Residences 1939 or Earlier Rate Owner-Occupied Units Rent Census Tract 9 1,066 8% 28% 17% 34% $128,500 $587 Census Tract 11 1,238 6% 87% 41% 77% $89,700 $767 Census Tract 16 1,258 5% 79% 26% 75% $84,000 $594 City of Waterloo 1 30,988 8% 67% 25% 64% $104,200 $672 Source:2015 ACS 1-year estimates(City of Waterloo),2015 ACS 5-year estimates(Census Tracts) 3 Appendix C: Supporting Documentation for Resident Survey Survey Instrument Waterloo Housing and Quality of Life Survey This survey will help the City of Waterloo better understand the housing needs of Waterloo residents. The survey also includes questions about the quality of life in Waterloo. This survey is optional, and your responses will remain anonymous. This survey is for informational purposes only—it will not be used to file a complaint about housing problems or discrimination on your behalf. If you are a renter and you want to report an unsafe or unhealthy condition in your home, please call the City of Waterloo's Code Enforcement Department at (319) 291-3820. If you want to report housing discrimination, please call the Waterloo Human Rights Commission at (319) 291-4441. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! 1. What neighborhood do you live in? 2. What is your housing situation? ❑ I own a home u I rent a home ❑ I live with family or friends ❑ I am currently experiencing homelessness ❑ Other(please explain) 3. Is your current housing situation affordable? ❑Yes ❑ No If you answered "No," please explain: 4 4. Does your home have any problems (such as leaks, peeling paint, mold, etc.)that you can't afford to fix or the landlord won't fix? ❑Yes ❑ No If you answered "Yes," please explain: 5. How easy is it to find an affordable, safe, comfortable place to live in Waterloo? ❑Very easy ❑Somewhat easy ❑Somewhat hard ❑Very hard Please explain your answer: 6. Have you or anyone you know ever received a Housing Choice Voucher(also called a Section 8 voucher) from the Waterloo Housing Authority? ❑Yes ❑ No 7. If you answered "Yes"to the above question: • Were you/they able to find a place to rent before the voucher expired? • How easy was it to find a landlord who would accept Section 8? • How easy was it to find a rental unit in a neighborhood where you/they wanted to live? *A change was made to Question 7 after surveys were conducted at the Salvation Army lunches and the predominantly Black worship house.The bullet point"Were you/they able to find a place to rent before the voucher expired?"was added. Before this change was made, some survey respondents had noted that they had received vouchers but were unable to use them. 5 S. Have you or someone you know ever experienced housing discrimination? ❑ No ❑Yes ❑Not Sure If you answered "Yes" or "Not Sure," please explain: 9. In your opinion,what are the best things that have happened in Waterloo in the past few years? 10. What changes would you like to see in Waterloo? If you have any other thoughts about housing and quality of life in Waterloo, please share them in the space below.Thanks again for your feedback! 6 Socio demographic Data for Survey Respondents from Hawkeye Community College Metro Center Programs Student Data: Program Year 2017 07/01/2016-06/30/2017 HIGH SCHOOL EQUIVALENCY STUDENTS RACES 0.2% Races ETHNICITY White 0.0% 1'6% 0.2% White 287 63.9% % 100.0/ Asian 38.1% Asian 6 1.3% Black or African American 171 38.1% 80.0% •Black or African American Indian 7 1.6% American Alaska Native0 0.090 60.0°% •American Indian Native Hawaiian 1 0,1% 40.09/6 •Alaska Native Pacific Islander 1 0.2% •Native Hawaiian I' 20'0°% Ethnicity _ .Pacific Islander 1.3% 63.9% Hispanic or Latino 41 9.1% 0.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 408 90.9% Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino AGE Native Language Arabic 0 0.0% NATIVE LANGUAGE Burmese 0 0.0% 3.8% ^0.2% 65+ Chinese 1 0.2% 2.9%� English 418 93.1% Fars! 0 0.0% French 0 0.0% 50-64 Haitian 0 0.0% Hindi 0 0.0% Karen 0 0.0% Other 13 2.9% 35-49 Panjabi 0 0.0% Portuguese 0 0.0% Russian 0 0.0% 93.1% Spanish 17 3.8% 20-34 Urdu 0 0.0% ■Chinese English Other Spanish Age 0-19 48 10.7% LABOR FORCE 0-19 ■ 20-34 315 70.2% STATUS 35-49 59 13.1% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0°% 50-64 26 5.8% 60.0% 65+ 1 0.290 so.o°i° HIGHEST DEGREE / r Highest Degree/Diploma Earned DIPLOMA EARNED None 433 96.4% 40.0% 0,7%_ 0.9%� 1.8% HSE Certificate 0 0.0% High School Diploma 3 0.7% 30.0% 1Technical/Certificate 4 0.9% Some college,no degree 8 1.8% 20.0% A.A./A.S.Degree 1 0.2% 4 yr.College Graduate 0 0.0% 10.0% Higher than B.A./B.S. 0 0.0% Earned outside the US 9 2.0% 0.0% ea 6- Labor Force Status Q�o� Q�oi �1101 None High School Diploma Employed 218 48.61% Technical/Certificate •Some college,nodegree Unemployed 220 49.0% •A.A./A.S.Degree Not in labor force 11 2.4% Generated 11/08/2017 Allison Pritchard,Data Specialist/Administrative Assistant 7 Student Data: Program Year 2017 07/01/2016-06/30/2017 ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS RACES Races ETHNICITY 40.0% - White 181 32,07. 35.0% Asian 182 32.2% 24.1' 30.09/. Black or African American 200 35.4% 25.0% American Indian 0 0.0% 20.0% Alaska Native 0 0.0% 15.0% Native Hawaiian 0 0.0% 10.0°1° - Pacific Islander 2 0.4% 75.9%�_ 5.0% 0.0% Ethnicity White Asian Black or Pacific Hispanic or Latino 136 24.1% ■Hispanic or Latino ■Not Hisparicor Latino African Islander Not Hispanic or Latino 429 75.9% American Native Language Arabic 6 1.1% NATIVE LANGUAGE AGE Burmese 128 22.7% Chinese 1 0.2% Urdu i English 0 0.0% Spanish _. r0.25/ Farsi 2 0.4% Russian French 172 30.4% 47.3°/ Haitian 14 2.5% Portuguese Hindi 1 0.2% Panjabi Karen 25 4.4% Other Other 70 12.4% Karen Panjabi 2 0.4% Hindi Portuguese 1 0.2% Russian 2 0.4% Haitian Spanish 136 24.1% French Urdu 5 0.9% Farsi 40.2 Age English 0-19 1 0.296 Chinese 20-34 267 47.3% Burmese 35-49 227 40.2% Arabic -0-19 ■20-34 -35-49 50-64 65+ 50-64 60 10.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 65+ 10 1.8% Highest Degree/Diploma Earned HIGHEST DEGREE/ LABOR FORCE None 246 43.5% DIPLOMA EARNED 3.4% STATUS HSE Certificate 2 0.49'0 15.2°,6l J High School Diploma 167 29.6% % 43.5% 80.0 Technical/Certificate 7 1.2% 1.9%� 70.0% Some college,no degree 27 4.8% 60.0/° A.A./A.S.Degree 11 1.9%5C0 4 yr.College Graduate 86 15.2% 40.0% Higher than B.A./B.S. 19 3.4% 30.01% Earned outside the US 561 99.3% 20.0% 29.6% 10.0% ' Labor Force Status \-0.4% 0.0% Employed 379 67.1% None HSE certificate Employed Unemployed Not in la bor High Scho°[Diploma Tech nical/Certificate force Unemployed 183 32.4% •Somecollege,nodegree A.A./A.S.Degree Not in labor force 3 0.5% •4yr.cnuege Graduate •Higher than B.A./B.S. Generated 11/08/2017 Allison Pritchard,Data Specialist/Administrative Assistant 8 Senior Companions The Senior Companion program at HCC Metro Center currently includes 59 volunteers, data for whom is provided below. Senior Companions receive a stipend for providing assistance and companionship to other seniors.To be eligible to serve as a Senior Companion, a volunteer must be at least 55 years of age and have an income below 200% of the federal poverty level. Data for the current Senior Companion volunteers is shown below: Age Range: 60 to 91 Race: 63% Black/African-American 39%White/Caucasian Native Language All English speaking Schooling The majority have a high school education or less Completed: Employment Status: 7 Companions have part-time jobs,the remainder are unemployed or retired County of 58 in Black Hawk County (majority in Waterloo), 1 in Buchanan County Residence: Open-Ended Survey Responses from Non-English Language Learner Respondents Affordability • [Affordable] Only because of my dad [Renter] • 1 don't make a lot of money and I have a kid so it's hard to make rent. [Renter] • 1 receive Social Security Disability and my rent is $450 for a 1br. I receive only $9 in food stamps. More rentals should be subsidized. [Renter] • Its expensive [Renter] • Too high, run down [Lives with Family/Friends] • High property taxes [Owner] • 1 am on a fixed income, and I don't get enough to pay bills. I can't afford it. [Owner] • Low income [Owner] • Will be more so when my employment situation changes [Owner] Problems that landlord won't fix or owners can't afford to fix • Downstairs door [Renter] • 1 called the landlord and he is fixing the apt. [Renter] • It is hard to get work done [Marked "other"—HUD apartment] 9 • Landlord won't turn on the heat, we have a newborn in the home [Renter] • Little things are falling apart that the landlord is unwilling to repair [Renter] • Maintenance area like change in carpeting, etc. [Renter] • Mold in bathroom, sewer issues [Renter] • Mold, sink stops up, don't have anywhere else to go, no money for a deposit [Renter] • Paint [Renter—lives at Renaissance Park] • Peeling paint [Renter] • My house is not up to code and landlord isn't doing nothing about it [Renter—says City is kicking him out] • They only fix what they want to fix at Mt. Carmel (HUD) [Renter] • Peeling paint [Lives with Family/Friends] • Problems, can't explain [Lives with Family/Friends] • Looking for house with less home invaders that steal [Marked "other" for housing situation — currently relocating] • Abandoned building falling down [Homeless] • Mold & peeling paint [Homeless] • Basement [Owner] • Basement foundation, mold in basement, leaks in basement [Owner] • Cracked ceiling in kitchen [Owner] • Cracks-windows- basement walls [Owner] • My basement gets flooded when it rains heavily (almost every year). It requires a lot of cleanup and upkeep, can't afford to fix all this time. [Owner] • Need a new roof and windows [Owner] • New roof[Owner] • Under the roof[Owner] Availability of safe, affordable, comfortable housing in neighborhoods where respondents want to live Very Hard/Somewhat Hard (includes 2 responses from respondents who marked both "Somewhat Hard" and "Somewhat Easy") • Because most of the houses [are] middle to first class. [Renter] • Because of the violence and shooting and break-ins. [Renter] 10 • Crime. [Renter] • Due to price range and neighborhood. [Renter] • For a good neighborhood you pay more. [Renter] • Hard by yourself. HAVE to have roommate. [Renter] • 1 had an involuntary manslaughter charge 30 years ago and did prison time, so I can't get into subsidized housing. [Renter] • 1 marked both [somewhat easy/somewhat hard] because over the years of moving, laws and rental agreements have changed,and with a background it's really have switched up[sic]. [Renter] • Landlord can charge anything on place that a dump and think they doing you a service. [Renter] • No income. [Renter] • Not a lot of affordable housing. [Renter] • Overcharging for renters. [Renter] • Rent high on the Westside. [Renter] • Too expensive considering going pay rate to get home in decent neighborhood. [Renter] • Waterloo is ghetto only nice places are too expensive. [Renter] • It takes forever to get screened. [Respondent marked "Other—HUD apartment"] • Rent is too high. [Two survey takers—one owner and one renter—provided this response] • Too costly, not good place to live if you do find something you can afford. [Lives with Family/Friends] • Because of the [violence]. [Lives with Family/Friends] • Can't rent without renting experience.Can't find a reasonably priced place in a nice neighborhood. [Lives with Family/Friends] • Because rent is way too high. [Lives with Family/Friends] • High rent, slum lords. [Lives with Family/Friends] • Felony convictions. [Homeless] • Finances/Age Restrictions. [Homeless] • Cause no money or job. [Homeless] • Cost of living is high, it's hard to find or buy a house and still pay bills and buy groceries even with 2 working adults regardless of neighborhood you live in. [Owner] • Credit approval difficulties. [Owner] • For my[relatives] -they have Section 8 and the landlords of the better property refused them and the only houses available were in terrible condition. [Owner] 11 • Houses on the east side tend to be cheap[er] than houses on the west side. [Owner] • How good your credit is. [Owner] • 1 don't think anywhere is safe;you have to have a safe alarm. [Owner] • The affordable areas are in bad neighborhood[s]. [Owner] • It takes more money and I am not able to work. [Owner] • There are some areas that need to be improved on. [Owner] • To find a safe place for my daughter and [girlfriend] it's not always affordable. [Owner] • We have had issues with theft and vandalism. [Owner] • When I was looking, I was turned down. It took me over a year to find a decent home with decent cost. [Owner] Very Easy/Somewhat Easy • There are plenty of affordable places to live. [Owner] • There are some areas that needs to be improved on. [Owner] • There are a lot of houses for rent but they look ugly dirty etc.They don't paint or put new carpet :-(. Rats, Roaches. [Renter] • Safe. [Renter] • A lot of houses have enough room for water beds, lamps, air conditioning, maybe affordable! [Respondent marked "Other—currently relocating"] • Because there are a lot of renters that would help a lot of people. [Lives with Family/Friends] • It's not hard to find a place to stay. [Lives with Family/Friends] Discrimination • After getting out of prison trying to find a place to live. • All the time. • Being a black sometimes you learn that certain people aren't accepted in certain areas. • 1 had 5 years of clean time and they told me I had to have 8 years. • 1 thought we bought a better house than what we did. We've had to put in a lot of work to reach market value. • Landlord not giving proper notice [lease violation for not washing dishes - not told 48 hrs in advance to do so.Another tenant was given 48 hours to clean up before an inspection.] • Not for race but dogs. • Nothing new, happen all the time. 12 • People change their mind when they see me but have had my [relative] go and who is white and they change their mind. • Racism,told housing not available but still on the market. • [Relatives are] African-American and ... Puerto Rican -denied access in CF. • They want all white, no black. Best in Waterloo • A Black Mayor with a lot of interest in improving Waterloo overall. • A new mayor. • Building more businesses where not occupied. • Bus routes have improved to airport, SportsPlex, new motels with pools. • Community a little more involved with each other. • Downtown upgrades, more east side businesses. • Entertainment close by, African-American mayor, New development, Radio stations improved. • Family things free. • Fixing Logan Ave and building new stores around Hy-Vee (Logan). • Fixing streets! • Good Q. Hart. • Got my dream job. Found my [girlfriend]. • Hanging out with friends, meeting new people. • Have a good mayor, fix up streets good. • Having Friday 'Loo in the park and having music. • 1 do have my own place. • 1 have a grandson, and we have a good mayor who's making changes. • 1 have found a new church home. I have raised 6 kids and put them through school. • Mayor Hart. [2 survey takers provided this response] • Mayor, bldg projects. • More jobs. • More places for entertainment. • My marriage. • My Waterloo Days. 13 • New business. • New development. • New streets. • Nice people. • None. You're so behind in things,trash all over town.This city's so sad looking, poor, old ... • Not much. • Nothing. [6 survey takers provided this response] • Nothing really. [2 survey takers provided this response] • Nothing really besides a couple new places that have been opening. • Nothing that's why I'm leaving Waterloo Iowa. • Nothing!! [Except that] We have a Black Mayor! • Redevelopment. • Road construction. • Road construction this past year/current in highways/roads. • Schools are all new, young ones are born, old die. • The best thing that have happened in Waterloo, we have more store[s] on the east side. • The newer schools. • The police have been very busy. • The police is doing a good job. • The river loop, new mayor, and our new school being built. • The splash pad. • The street repairs, repairs to the 4th Street bridge. • They are building more buildings for Waterloo and streets are getting fixed. • They are making, or trying to make, Waterloo's downtown nice;the ampitheater; splashpad. Changes needed in Waterloo • [Install] viewfinders- Eiffel Tower style binoculars. • A lot. • A lot of different things. • All the run down house taken down and build new ones. 14 • All the shootings+stabbings+ robberies to stop. • Assistance w/housing. Landlord regulations & guidelines, more Black-owned businesses, eliminate segregation in regards to east side/west side. • Better entertainment. • Better roads, more businesses, and more housing. • Breaking in people['s] cars. • Certain changes in City Council. • Clean up all the shootings and drugs. • Cleaner, more affordable housing (that does NOT flood) as well as NO vandalism or theft or belittling of others. • Crime-get better police. • Crime to stop. • Decrease criminal activity. • Equal right on housing and JOBS! • Everything. • Fix the old house[s], take them down. • Fixing east side/downtown. • Funding and more services to help the lower class. • Get our taxes lower and keep our old houses and fix them up. • Good quality affordable homes in ALL neighborhoods! • Helping the vets and help people in need. • Houses fixed up. • How if you could stop hoodlums from hanging out in front of nice stores. • 1 need an affordable place and a job. • 1 would like to see less violence. • 1 would like to see street[s] change. • Keep crimes down. • Less addicts! • Less crimes. • Less shootings. 15 • Less violence. • Longer hours that the city bus runs. • Lower rent. • Lower taxes, streets plowed, lower sewer+water bills. • Lower the rent. • More activities for the kids. • More activities, more things to do for recreation. • More affordable homes. • More affordable housing for seniors. • More Black people to own their own business and spread the wealth. • More businesses, more job opp[ortunities]. • More changes on east side of Waterloo, no restaurants on East Side, more clothing stores. • More community activities. • More fairness as in jobs& rentals. The years I have lived here,the discrimination has risen. • More family oriented places. • More for youth to get involved in. • More housing. • More interaction between East and West neighborhoods. • More lights in the neighborhood. • More low rent house[s]. [2 survey takers provided this response] • More on east side. • More place for homeless place [sic]. • More places to help the community, and places for kids to go and stay out of trouble. • More rec centers, skating roller rink,family painting. • More redevelopment. • More retail stores on Eastside of Waterloo. • More store[s] in Waterloo. • More stores on east side, less liquor stores. • No gangs, better neighborhood. 16 • No more violence. • No violence. • Not many changes. • People stop asking for money every time I go to the store. • Rent go down. • Safer and affordable place for people with lower income that has a family. • Safer neighborhoods. • Skating rink, more entertainment to area for teens to do. • Slumlords held accountable to fix up property and keep the neighborhood decent. • Stop all shooting. • Street fix, shooting stop. • The east side of Waterloo needs more things to do. • To see less crime meaning no shootings, stabbings, death from the shooting, stabbings. • Trash building,tear down. • Unity. • Youth programming, affordable nice rental. Additional comments • [Survey respondent provided verbal feedback that the East Side has less community cohesion than when she was growing up,fewer options for shopping and entertainment, etc.] • Affordable apt complexes. • Better opportunities, equal opportunities, less discrimination, less racism, less police brutality, less prison, lighter laws, no camera. • Cheaper rent. [2 survey takers provided this response] • Crack down on slum lord[s];they could keep some of the housing in better shape. • Crack down on the scum lords [sic]. Make them clean up and fix up the places. • Discrimination won't end. • Don't feel safe living here in Waterloo. • It's cheaper than [Coastal state—redacted] so I really shouldn't complain. • Just more things for kids to do. • Maybe I'll help with Habitat for Humanity. [Homeless respondent] 17 • More up-to-date housing (electric, plumbing etc.). • Need to get rid of low life landlords. • Nothing for entertainment to do in Waterloo. • They are too high - rent and deposit. • They should give people a chance that's trying to do something in life. [Respondent provided verbal feedback that he has $735 fixed income plus income from part-time employment. He says people on fixed incomes without employment struggle even more.] • Upgrade in life. "Your" Waterloo so behind in all kinds of things.You're still in the 60s/90s. • Use Public Market. Open-Ended Survey Responses from English Language Learners Affordability • 1 pay more money for rent and light bill and water, $600 for 2 BR house and you got take care of everything by yourself. Even the snow removal, mower etc. Beside that we need food, gas and others.Then we spent a lot of money and we save just penny. [Renter] • It's not affordable for me to pay$800 a month for 3 bedrooms and just one bath for parents and children. [Renter] • It is hard to pay for my bill. [Owner] • We pay a lot in house payments and hospital debts, house maintenance payments. [Owner] Problems that landlord won't fix or owners can't afford to fix • Bedbugs [Renter] • Have problems but landlord fixes. Very slowly. Had mouse problem for 6 months. Can't afford exterminator, landlord didn't care. [Renter] • 1 have a bat problem at night. [Renter] • 1 have a problem in bathroom.The water is go very slow. I tell my manager, is come for fixed. His does not hold. [Renter] • 1 wrote my landlord to fix our bathroom sink, but they didn't come. Also, our rent house is too old, lot of peeling paint, sometime mold. [Renter] • My bathroom ceiling is broken [Renter] • My landlord try to fix my kitchen sink but the problem stay same. My bathroom leaked and its floor is always wet. [Renter] • Peeling paint, mouse, roaches [Renter] 18 • There are large cracks in the wall, but the landlord won't fix them. [Renter] • Leaky faucet, mold, clogged drains [Renter] • Leaky pipes, mold [Renter] • Leaky faucet [3 survey takers provided this response — 2 renters and 1 person living with family/friends] • Leaky [Lives with Family/Friends] • Clogged drains [Lives with Family/Friends—2 survey takers provided this response] • Many things from within [Owner] • My neighbor house has roof crack and they did not fix it.The crack causing leaking into my house and damage my ceiling. First I thought it was my house and called my insurance company to estimate the leak, but they said it is not my house. [Owner] Availability of safe, affordable, comfortable housing in neighborhoods where respondents want to live Very Hard/Somewhat Hard • Downtown Waterloo and East Waterloo have some affordable locations, but are in crime-ridden areas. Would willingly rent if housing had updated security features. As you move outside this area, rent increases drastically for less space, but safer area. I don't like this. [Renter] • If I have some problem in my house difficult to contact my landlord and also some mice are inhabit my house; there are some hole in kitchen cabinet connected to the basement. [Renter] • Rent for housing or apartment,food,job. [Renter] • Because houses are very expensive and not a very good condition. [Renter] • Because it is hard to know it is safe or not. [Renter] • Because sometime some owner choose the renter in considering their wage. [Renter] • Because the rent too expensive [Renter] • Cause most house are too old and have a lot of roach. [Renter] • If we can't use Google good well, this is gonna be hard to find house,just sometime. [Renter] • No English.Application hard to fill out. [Renter—2 ELL survey takers gave this response] • Some house is stolen things because not safe house. Easy to come in home. [Renter] • Somewhat easy because for those people who got job they can find easily but hard sometimes for those or some people they have to pay double deposit for some reasons. Hard because "when you black it very hard." To find a place they always show you something that you maybe don't like. It doesn't matter if you got your money.They always think that black people or Asian people can't have something good. [Renter] 19 • The safe neighborhood is very expensive. [Renter] • We have 3 bedrooms and 1 bath only and we pay$800 a month. [Renter] • Because some of my neighbors is a little make scare, I feeling not comfortable but I like my landlord. He is very nice for us. [Respondent listed "Other" living situation—apartment] • They ask for many requirements. [Respondent answered "Other—mobile home"] • Some people don't want to rent a house. [Lives with Family/Friends] • My neighbors cause too many problems, because we have by my home rent people, and people live garbage everywhere, put the cars in my [sidewalk] and use my parking private. [Owner] • Sometimes other people come and knock to door and they want to money. [Owner] • Because the city need put more attention of young people, because too many kids has guns and have only 17 years old. [Owner] • It is somewhat hard because you have to find a good neighborhood before that you will go to live in. [Owner] Very Easy/Somewhat Easy • Because if you need a house and you looking for that, you will find. [Lives with Family/Friends] • Because I am from another country and I am not native from here, so brother and sister from the church and our school at metro community college Hawkeye help us to find the exact information. [Lives with Family/Friends] • My utilities are available. [Lives with Family/Friends] • You just have to call for renting apartment and you will be OK. [Lives with Family/Friends] • If you want to find an affordable, safe, comfortable place, you can choice safe place. [Owner] • In Waterloo there are many, comfortable place to live. [Owner] • Our kids didn't have many leisure places; Many houses look old and also some buildings are not remodeling at the time. [Owner] Discrimination • A neighbor called the city to complain about some small weeds instead of just asking me. They refuse to speak to me ever. • Because some places when you call the number, they put for the house who going to be rented, they can't give to you if you accent in English. • Probably, but don't know for certain. Some landlords come across as racist. • Some banks has a specific rules for some people when are take loans. • Some ones check credit and say no. Some one doesn't like to Burmese people. 20 • Some people are racist. • When people don't know to speak English some time the landlord don't respect and did bad stuff to them. Best in Waterloo • 1 just notice more new building in Waterloo than last 2 years. • No taxes for some foods on market, best wage about some companies, Metro Center; best place to learn English for immigrant people. • The road's construction. • Waterloo receive more residents. • Was easy to find a good place a safe place to live. • SportsPlex • Thanksgiving • 1 like Cinco de Mayo. • Me child to go school. • School [for] my baby boy. • The job, aids and benefits to people who need it • Work(4 responses) • Good school, city is clean, rent is good price (6 responses) • Rent is good price, schools are good, city have many job • Schools are good, city is clean (2 responses) • Schools are good (4 responses) • Rent is good price, school are good • School, hospital,jobs, roads (9 responses of this nature) • In Waterloo in the past few years they have big party. • 1 like the people,good jobs • 1 like because my job is here and English classes are free. • 1 like the people, good jobs, the English classes are free, the teachers are great, emergency services are good (11 responses of this nature) • English classes at Hawkeye. I like Waterloo because, I take small time for to go to my job. • English classes at Hawkeye,jobs are good (10 responses of this nature) 21 • Culture days • Quiet and beauty • The festival in my church we have every year, and Cinco de Mayo it very nice celebration. • Well opportunities about jobs • My Waterloo Days, Cinco de Mayo,Juneteenth • Waterloo Day is the best • Waterloo going to be a big city with many peoples, because sometimes it's easy to find a job. Changes needed in Waterloo • 1 would like to see more new house. Because when we go outside old house are more than new. • 1 hope the Medicaid system at Waterloo changes. • Less crime- more friendly. Say "hi" to your neighbors. NO MORE SHOOTING! • More buses, new road, more stores, French can be include on some public place or administration, create new companies. • We need more buses! • 1 want to see more swimming pool. Especially near where I live. • More buses • 1 want to learn computer class,we need to come more bus every half hour. • The rent was cheap, but now the rent it's expensive.The rent come down cheap in future. • To build more homes for rents or loans; to ensure transport public; to buy more public bus. The companies would ensure the transport for their workers, for to buy bus, that could avoid more accidents.To add businesses. • Nice apartments and house not only from the outside but inside too; clean place with a good price; we need more apartments or houses for rent or whatever; good prices for everyone to be able to rent. We need to reduce the number of homeless people.The rent need to be reasonable for everyone.We need a security apartment like put the camera to control the building. We need transportation too (different city like Waterloo-->Cedar Rapids-->Tama-->lowa City) just some transportation for the City near Waterloo. Fix some roads. • 1 want to do a beautiful downtown Waterloo. • Fixed the road;that the company accepts even those who do not speak English. • 1 want more police on the street. • 1 want most police around Waterloo area. • 1 need ROAD of Waterloo to be clean more, some area are not safe, maybe we need more police in the street at night. 22 • 1 want Waterloo safe, clean, nice roads and green land. • Safe, less taxes for the homes • Security • 1 want to see Waterloo more safe; we need more police. • Police • Clean more the street • Police deployment near strategic places like in downtown and where people live. • No lots of construction in the streets. • When snowing I want to see clean the road. • Too many construction. • 1 think they have too many garbage everywhere.We need to put focus on education and security, and not put cameras for speed, because too many people is running fast for the job,we need put cameras and places where criminal specif[ically]. • The changement [French for"change"] that I would like in Waterloo it is easy work and hospitals. Because I hear people say the jobs in Waterloo is very hard and the hospitals are very expensive. • Improve the streets • Checking more the streets • Better streets • Discrimination at work • The hospitals are very expensive • We need more stores, grocery store in the area. And more people. • To have pretty house more and to replace a old house in Waterloo. • Need better jobs, need good banks. Bad city tax. • City is dirty, better jobs (3 responses of this nature) • Better jobs (4 responses) • Better jobs, hospital is expensive, apartment is old (10 responses of this nature) • Less crime/work discrimination/shopping discrimination • More opportunities for the people we aren't Americans, loans for buy to houses (helpers) • More safe place and opportunities of job • 1 want more sidewalks. I want improved bus stops. 23 • More places to riding bicycle • The bus stop should be drop up the students to be closer with their house. For safe. • 1 think children's bus stop need to be closer to their homes. • Better public transportation • Waterloo street need to repair, especial down town street and University Ave street • Live more safety in East Side because that side is more unsafety. • More fun places • Better roads. Better dining options. That intersection by exit 190 on 218 that takes you onto Washington.Very dangerous where connects with other road (before 5 Sullivan Bros Center&kid emporium). • 1 would like to see more new house and new street. • The road is bad. Additional comments • Sometimes,we are not sure to buy a house, and we have to rent. But some of landlord are good, and they responsible for their house. But some are bad and they don't want to come and fix. The old house are have so many mold, peeling paint and leaks. Sometime they take too long to fix. • Would like to built new house for rent or for sale, need lights for some streets and some intersections. • Some place in the Waterloo are good, but some place are not good so we need more good thing in Waterloo, some apartment are very expensive. • We need copy of other cities, because the people is [leaving] to Waterloo, because is dangerous for live. For example Cedar Falls is growing fast is safety. 24 Feedback about Housing Choice Vouchers from Non-ELL Respondents Have you or someone How easy was it to How easy was it to find Were you/they able to find a find a landlord who a rental unit in a you know ever received a place before the voucher neighborhood where HCV from the Waterloo would accept Section Housing Authority? [Y/N] expired? [Open-ended]* g? [Open-ended] you/they wanted to live? [Open-ended] [respondent answered earlier No version of survey without this Very difficult None take Section 8 question] Yes No Not easy Not easy Yes No Hard Hard [respondent answered earlier Yes version of survey without this Not easy-couldn't find a place in time Not at all question] [respondent answered earlier [Received a voucher No version of survey without this but] it was hard to find question] something Yes Don't know Very hard Very hard [respondent answered earlier Yes version of survey without this Not very easy for her Not easy question] [respondent answered earlier Yes version of survey without this Terrible Horrible question] [respondent answered earlier Yes version of survey without this It's very difficult! question] [respondent answered earlier Yes version of survey without this Not easy or very hard Somewhat hard question] Yes Yes Hard Very easy Yes Yes Easy Not very easy Yes Yes Easy Not easy Yes Yes Easy somewhat Not easy Somewhat easy, not Yes Yes many in good pretty easy neighborhoods [accept] it anymore. [respondent answered earlier Yes version of survey without this Yes Somewhat easy question] Yes Yes Easy Somewhat Yes Yes OK OK Yes Yes Good Good Yes Yes Easy Easy Yes Yes Very easy Very easy 25 Appendix D: Overview of the Housing First Approach to Ending Homelessness and Recommendations for Waterloo Homelessness is often thought of as a perpetual, intractable social problem. However, it first became a prevalent and widely discussed issue in the early 1980s, driven by the perfect storm of deinstitutionalization, rising housing costs, and stagnating wages'. Since the early 2000s, social service providers and government agencies have shifted to a "housing first" model for addressing homelessness. Traditionally, homeless service providers used a "treatment first" model, assuming that people experiencing homelessness had to become "housing ready" before moving back into independent housing. Often, the only way a homeless individual or family in an emergency shelter could receive assistance to find a new apartment was to enroll in a transitional housing (TH) program, which are often operated in buildings with multiple dormitory-style or apartment-like units. In a typical TH program, participants may stay for up to two years with little or no rent, allowing them to save for a security deposit on an independent rental unit. However, they are often required to accept mental health/substance abuse treatment, participate in life skills training classes, and abide by various house rules. Many TH programs require participants to observe an initial period of sobriety before they can be admitted, and participants must often maintain sobriety or be ejected from the program. The restrictive nature of many TH programs can clearly be seen in HUD's Family Options Study,where TH programs were more likely to turn homeless families away than any other intervention2. The Housing First model, by contrast, sees homelessness as a housing crisis first and foremost. According to this model, housing is a fundamental right, and the root cause of homelessness is the severe shortage of affordable housing in communities across the nation, not the behavioral issues of homeless people themselves. Housing is seen as a platform of stability on which other interventions, such as job skills training and mental health or substance abuse counseling, are more likely to succeed. A key element of the Housing First model is that voluntary supportive 'This discussion relies heavily on research cited in Homeward Bound:2015 Policy and Resource Guide for Housing Homeless Floridians. http://www.flhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Homeward-Bound-Homeless-Guide- 06.2015.pdf. (Retrieved 3/8/18). Most of the information in this document is relevant to communities across the nation. z Gubits et al. 2015.Family Options Study:3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.hud user.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Family-Options-Study-Full-Report.pdf. (Retrieved 3/13/18). 26 services are made available to homeless participants—the participants are not required to participate in services as a condition of receiving housing assistance. Most Housing First programs fall into two broad categories: Permanent Supportive Housing(PSH)—Independent, subsidized rental units with "wrap- around" support services. PSH programs are often operated by nonprofit agencies that build or manage subsidized multifamily rental developments, or master-lease rental units throughout the community and then sublease them to tenants. PSH is targeted to individuals and families who have substantial barriers to self-sufficiency, such as a disability or substance abuse. PSH tenants have leases that give them the same rights and responsibilities as any other tenant in the "regular" rental market—the only difference is the rent subsidy. PSH tenants also receive case management and support services, which may or may not be provided by the same agency that owns or manages the housing. PSH is a much more effective model than TH at helping high-need individuals and families, particularly those who are chronically homeless, find and maintain permanent housing. Research has shown that traditional TH programs targeting these homeless populations have high attrition rates, since many participants are unable or unwilling to abide by program rules'. Additionally, the cost of PSH is often comparable to or even less than allowing these individuals to remain homeless, since high-need homeless individuals often cycle through expensive public crisis services such as jails, hospitals, and detoxification centers4. For example, the cost of Frequent Users Systems Engagement (FUSE) program operated by Shelter House in Iowa City is less than 60% of the cost of allowing frequent users of crisis services to remain homeless (Figure 1). PSH programs are not always successful in mitigating substance abuse and mental health issues, but they reduce the likelihood that participants will die on the street under inhumane conditions such as exposure, violence, or disease. Moreover, individuals who struggle with homelessness and disability prefer Housing First PSH programs to other 3 See Barrow,S., and Zimmer, R. 1999.Transitional Housing and Services:A Synthesis. In: Fosburg, L.B. and Dennis, D.L., eds. Practical Lessons: The 1998 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. Washington, DC: HUD and HHS. pp. 310-340. http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/elibrary/1998 Transitional-Housing-S.pdf. (Retrieved 3/8/18).Transitional Housing programs targeting individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders were found to have retention rates as low as 13%. 4 Kuehn, B.M. 2012.Supportive Housing Cuts Costs of Caring for the Chronically Homeless.Journal of the American Medical Association 308(1): 17-19. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/12aO/bel552dd7f10d4d310elcebc2e46c92a64d9.pdf. (Retrieved 3/8/18). 27 types of programs'. While research on families in PSH is much more limited than research on individuals, PSH has been shown to be effective for families as well'. Between 2410 and 2014, just four frequent users cost the communitr over 52,500,000 2.1 million dollars The cost of housing four A frequent users is less than S2 000 00060%of the cost ofletting them re, 2-,a a fire and dye on the street_ 51,500,000 k$718,792 $1,262,869 51,000,400 ID Joe,$698,353 S�oO,aao ,: Kart,5314,082 SO Four Case Studs Partiapants ores 4 Years FUSE Program Cost and Decreased Community Sernces Figure 1: Cost Savings of FUSE Permanent Supportive Housing Program in Iowa City, IA Source:Shelter House 2018. https://shelterhouseiowa.org/sp fag/data-driven-problem-solving/. (Retrieved 8/16/21.) Rapid Re-Housing (RRH)—Temporary financial assistance and case management to help homeless families and individuals return to permanent housing as soon as possible. RRH programs are commonly targeted to households with moderate barriers to housing stability—those who need some assistance to escape homelessness, but who do not have severe enough barriers to qualify for PSH. RRH programs help homeless families address immediate barriers to finding rental housing in several ways, such as: 'Rog et al. 2014. Permanent Supportive Housing:Assessing the Evidence. Psychiatric Services 65 (3):287-294. https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.201300261. (Retrieved 3/8/18). 6 Hayes et al. 2013. The Service and Housing Interventions for Families in Transition(SHIFT)Study:Final Report.Washington, D.C:American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/SHIFT Service and Housing Interventions for Families in Transition fin al report.pdf. (Retrieved 3/13/18). Note that the report was initially published by the National Center on Family Homelessness,which was later absorbed by the American Institutes for Research. 28 • Helping participants find apartments with landlords willing to rent to tenants who may have past evictions, criminal histories, or other barriers • Paying security and utility deposits • Providing rental subsidies for several months • Providing voluntary, limited case management to help participants address issues that are directly related to housing stability (e.g. budgeting for rent payments, ensuring that guests do not damage the apartment or disturb neighbors) • Helping participants obtain assistance from "mainstream" social service programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), child care subsidies, mental health clinics, etc. RRH programs have some latitude in the type and duration of assistance they provide, and some programs tailor the amount of assistance provided to each household based on their level of need. For the most part, existing evidence on RRH programs shows that they work at least as well as TH programs and are far less costly. Indeed, the impact of TH programs on housing stability and income are less than expected, considering that these programs often have an explicit focus on improving self-sufficiency. Moreover, the stringency of eligibility criteria and program rules does not appear to affect participants' outcomes, which casts doubt on the need for such rules in the first place 7. Further discussion in this section will address the limits of using RRH as a cost-saving measure. Households with higher incomes at program entry are more likely to stay housed once RRH assistance ends$, but RRH programs can still have high success rates with households that start with little or no income. For example, of the veterans without income who Cunningham et al.2015.Rapid Re-Housing: What the Research Says.Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/54201/2000265-Rapid-Re-housing-What-the-Research- Says.pdf. (Retrieved 3/13/18). Gubits et al. 2015. Note that the HUD Family Options Study has an "Intention-To-Treat" (ITT) design—it measures the effect of the program that families were assigned to—that is, given priority access to. Not all families assigned to RRH,TH,or other interventions used those interventions, and some families assigned to one intervention ended up using a different intervention during the study period.There were no significant differences between households assigned to TH and RRH in terms of housing stability after 37 months (except that RRH-assigned households were less likely than comparable TH-assigned households to live in poor-or fair-quality housing). However, compared to TH assignment, RRH assignment had a positive impact on some indicators of adult and child well-being, as well as on food security. Gubits et al. 2013.Family Options Study:Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Family0ptionsStudy final.pdf. (Retrieved 3/13/18). 8 Rodriguez,J.and Eidelman,T. 2017. Homelessness Interventions in Georgia: Rapid Re-Housing,Transitional Housing, and the Likelihood of Returning to Shelter. Housing Policy Debate 27(6): 825-842. 29 entered the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program in Fiscal Year 2014, 75% exited to permanent housing destinations, compared to 82% of veterans who were in the highest income bracket measured at program entry. These numbers include recipients of both RRH and homelessness prevention assistance, but RRH recipients account for a majority of SSVF participants, and recipients of both types of assistance show low rates of return to homelessness overall (Figure 2). In fact, it can be counterproductive to require RRH participants to have income before or shortly after being admitted to the program, since participants feel pressured to take low-paying jobs that they can find quickly. RRH programs without minimum income requirements may give participants more time to find gainful employment9. Moreover, by requiring that participants have a source of income at program entry, RRH programs may exclude households who are most in need of RRH assistance. Compared to traditional congregate TH programs, two major benefits of RRH are that they shorten a household's homeless episode and give them more flexibility to choose their housing location and living arrangements. Households in TH programs are still considered homeless, and the need to leave the TH facility at the end of their stay creates another disruption in their lives. While poor households experience numerous hardships whether they are homeless or housed, homelessness itself is traumatic10. Indeed, homeless individuals and families themselves express preferences for programs that help them find permanent housing quickly. Additionally, research has shown that many families turn down admission to congregate TH programs because they have concerns about neighborhood quality or proximity to work and family networks, because they dislike the congregate living arrangements, or because some members of their family would not be admitted11. By comparison, RRH gives families more control over where and how they live. s Fisher et al. 2014. Leaving Homelessness Behind: Housing Decisions among Families Exiting Shelter. Housing Policy Debate 24(2):364-386. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170684/. (Retrieved 3/13/18). 10 Deck,S.and Platt, P.2015. Homelessness is Traumatic:Abuse,Victimization,and Trauma Histories of Homeless Men.Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment&Trauma 24(9): 1022-1043. Whitbeck et al. 2015. Homelessness-Related Traumatic Events and PTSD among Women Experiencing Episodes of Homelessness in Three U.S.Cities.Journal of Traumatic Stress 28(4):355-360. 11 Fisher et al. 2014. No families who were eligible for TH objected to service participation requirements, although the authors note that families who did object may have been initially screened out of these programs. Rog et al. 2014. 30 i Prevention:veterans In HH w/o Chi Idren Prevention:Veterans in HH wf[hildren —Rapid Re-housing:Veterans in HH w/Children —Rapid Re-housing:Veterans-in HH w/o Children 10076 - 100X. 10046 Pr ' 90� 95% 9s% 3195 23% 27% 24% 3396 8094 90% 90% 7096 85% 04 8596 6096 N N rn 7 so% 4 4035 L 69% 75% 7595 = a 3x96 3 m m 70% 7o°i 2UJ6 � O 1096 4d 4596 o r. r 0% m a � a0t IVt9yti5 � 4 r3 5596 n=42,498 50% 5x76 1 31 bl 91 121 151 181 211 241 271 301 331 351 Days Since Program Exit Veterans Served by SSVF who Exit To Permanent Housing by Rates of Return to Homelessness After 1 Year by Program and Household Type Income at Program Entry, Fiscal Year 2014 Figure 2: Permanent Housing Outcomes and Rates of Return to Homelessness for Supportive Services for Veteran Families(SSVF) Participants. Source:Supportive Services for Veteran Families(SSVF)FY 2014 Annual Report. *To be conservative, this analysis excludes veterans who exited the SSVF program by receiving a VA Supportive Housing(VASH)voucher,which operates similarly to a Housing Choice Voucher. 31 Much of the federal funding for homeless services comes from HUD,which has shifted substantial amounts of funding from transitional housing programs to Housing First programs in recent years.These changes have caused anxiety in many communities as transitional housing programs have lost funding. While transitional housing should not be the only option for homeless households in shelters to access housing assistance, it has a vital role to play in serving homeless populations with complex barriers who might not qualify for PSH. Some strategies to help TH agencies stay in operation include: • Lowing barriers to entry for their programs, such as sobriety and service participation requirements. • Targeting programs to households with complex needs, such as homeless youth, teen parents, families fleeing domestic violence, and individuals who desire a structured environment for substance abuse recovery.A coordinated entry program,such as the one being developed in Black Hawk County, is essential to ensure that TH is targeted to those who need it most. • Converting to a "transition-in-place" program, where participants can enter into a regular lease in the same unit where they lived during the program, and begin paying full rent for the unit. It may be easier to operate a transition-in-place program if the units are scattered-site, owned or master-leased by the agency and (sub-)leased to TH participants. This may require that the congregate facility be converted (see below) or sold. • Converting a transitional housing facility to an emergency shelter or Permanent Supportive Housing development. Although the available research shows that RRH is preferable to TH for many homeless households who would not qualify for PSH, there are several concerns about shifting a community's resources toward RRH. • One concern is that RRH programs may set vulnerable families up to fail, although the research cited above shows that a majority of RRH participants remain housed once assistance ends. It is true that RRH is less successful in communities with high rents and low vacancy rates, such as Seattle and San Francisco. In these communities, RRH may contribute to gentrification and displacement of minorities by placing families in lower- cost suburbs far from their community of origin 12. This outcome is less likely in a iz See Sharon Lee's article, "The Overselling of Rapid Re-Housing," in the 11/28/17 online edition of Shelterforce. https://shelterforce.org/2017/11/28/the-overselling-of-rapid-re-housing/. (Retrieved 3/13/18). Note that many of the tenants in the TH programs she cites are ultimately referred to PSH developments, indicating that the TH 32 community such as Waterloo, where rents are relatively low and vacancy rates are high. Eviction is a concern for households leaving RRH programs who cannot afford their rents, since it further damages their rental history and limits their ability to rent a decent unit. However, this is also a concern for households who move to unsubsidized units after "graduating" from TH or leaving directly from shelter 13. Both RRH and TH programs arguably have an ethical obligation to help former participants avoid formal eviction judgments. While most households leaving RRH programs do not return to homelessness, these programs could do a better job of improving housing stability. Compared to households in emergency shelters that are not referred to any specific housing program ("Usual Care"), the evidence is mixed on whether RRH reduces returns to homelessness. HUD's Family Options Study showed that families assigned to RRH had only slightly lower returns to homelessness than those assigned to Usual Care, and only in the first year of the 3-year study period14. These weak results may reflect the fact that a substantial minority of households assigned to RRH turned it down, while some households assigned to Usual Care managed to enroll in RRH on their own15. Two other studies—one in Philadelphia" and another in Georgia17—show that RRH participants are significantly less likely to return to homelessness after assistance ends, compared to households receiving Usual Care. There may be self-selection bias in these two studies — households who accept RRH assistance may be different in some way from households who are offered RRH assistance but decline it. The results from Philadelphia and Georgia suggest that RRH can be quite effective for households who choose to use it, but the Family Options Study should prompt communities to ask whether their RRH programs are designed in a way that discourages enrollment for many of the households whom it is designed to serve. Communities may be able to improve RRH outcomes relative to Usual Care by making RRH a more attractive option for homeless households. For families who do enroll in RRH programs, the time limits on housing assistance, and uncertainty about when it will end, create "considerable anxiety"18. It may be beneficial to design RRH programs so that each programs act as a waiting room for high-need households until a PSH unit becomes available (Personal communication with author). 13 See Cunningham et al. 2015. 1a Gubits et al. 2015,2013 1s Gubits et al.2015.This is not a flaw in the study's design—the Family Options Study purposely used an Intention- to-Treat (ITT) design to study how priority access to different homelessness interventions affects the outcomes of comparable families, and to reduce the effect of self-selection bias. 16 See Cunningham et al. 2015 17 See Rodriguez et al.2017. 1a Fisher et al. 2014. 33 family has greater clarity about how long their assistance will last, and under what circumstances it can be extended. To improve outcomes relative to Usual Care, it may also be necessary to offer RRH housing assistance for longer periods of time. The stakes for improving RRH recruitment and outcomes are high, since agencies and communities are largely evaluated on how much they are "moving the needle" on homelessness when they apply for HUD homeless assistance funding. • A second concern is that RRH programs may place homeless individuals and families in substandard housing. As surveys from Waterloo residents indicate, higher-quality rentals in the City tend to be too expensive for low-income residents. Federally funded RRH programs require rental units to meet baseline housing quality standards, although the units that meet these standards are still of lower quality than many other rentals in the community. Nonetheless, the quality of units rented by RRH participants should be compared to the quality of rental units that they could afford without RRH assistance— including the units rented by households leaving transitional housing. If RRH programs refer homeless households to rentals that are comparable in quality to what they would rent without RRH assistance, then these programs are beneficial insofar as they help households move into these units more quickly. A study of decision-making among families leaving homeless shelters did find that a fair number of families in RRH programs were dissatisfied with their housing, but dissatisfaction was also common among families who left shelter with housing subsidies or without any housing assistance19. In fact, HUD's Family Options Study showed that homeless households assigned to RRH were less likely to live in housing of fair or poor quality after 37 months than those assigned to TH)20. RRH programs can ensure that participants find adequate housing by scrupulously enforcing minimum standards for unit quality, listening to the preferences of participants, and steering new participants away from rental units that past participants found unsatisfactory. • A third concern about shifting from TH to RRH is that families may lose the benefit of the intensive support services offered by some TH programs. Trauma, mental illness, and health problems are widespread among homeless parents and their children, and can undermine their self-sufficiency and quality of life if left unaddressed. Some experts on the unique needs of homeless families support the concept of Housing First, including offering support services on a voluntary basis, but are concerned that the support services available to RRH participants are insufficient21. In other words, transitional housing programs may not be the most effective or desirable setting for providing support services 19 ibid. 2°Gubits et al. 2015. 21 Hayes et al. 2013. 34 for many families, but these families' needs cannot be met by RRH alone. Indeed, RRH households face the same struggles as other poor families, such as finding employment, covering living expenses, and coping with physical and mental health issues. Additionally, many if not most RRH households continue to experience housing instability, and will have to move to another home at some point after the housing assistance ends". Overall, Rapid Re-Housing is a more controversial type of housing program than Permanent Supportive Housing, since RRH only provides temporary assistance. However, it may be possible for the Waterloo area's homeless services network to incorporate the best elements of RRH, while being sensitive to the complex needs of homeless households who do not have severe enough barriers to qualify for PSH. For example, when households enter the homeless service system, providers can—with the household's consent—use that opportunity to screen household members for trauma, mental illness, and other hardships23, and connect them to more intensive support services than RRH case management alone can offer. A community can also increase local financial support for "mainstream" agencies that provide these services. Furthermore, as mentioned above, a community can offer RRH housing assistance for longer periods of time. These measures would make RRH less effective as a cost-saving measure relative to TH or Usual Care, but more effective as a humane, respectful, and comprehensive approach to helping households with moderate barriers exit homelessness quickly and improve their quality of life. 22 Cunningham et al. 2015. 21 See Bassuk et al. 2015. Services Matter: How Housing & Services Can End Family Homelessness. Needham, MA: The Bassuk Center on Homeless and Vulnerable Children &Youth. http://www.bassukcenter.org/services-matter/. (Retrieved 3/14/18).This report notes that the Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool for Families (VI-SPDAT) does not address all relevant vulnerability indicators for parents and children in homeless families. 35 Appendix E: Methodology for Housing Supply and Demand Analysis Housing Supply Variable Value Source Current housing stock 30,684 ACS 2015 5-year estimates New homes/year 142 City of Waterloo building permit data 2014- 2016 Demolitions/year 26 City of Waterloo demolition data 2014- 2016 Estimated attrition (conservative) 0.67% Source: Iowa Housing Needs Assessment 2009 Lost units calculated using demolition rate New homes by 2030 1,846 142 homes/year* 13 years Units lost by 2030 338 26 demolitions/year * 13 years Net new units by 2030 1,508 New homes permitted minus units lost Lost units calculated by averaging loss from demolition rate and loss from 0.67%attrition rate) New homes by 2030 1,846 142 homes/year* 13 years Units lost by 2030 1,334 Avg. of demo lossess &attrition @ 0.67%/yr Net new units by 2030 512 New homes permitted minus units lost Average of above two methods Average units lost by 2030 836 Average of 338 and 1,334 Average net new units by 2030 1,010 Average of 1,508 and 512 36 Housing Demand Pop. Pop. Change 2018 Pop. Estimate Population Projection 2010 2020 2010- (2010 pop.+ (Change 2030 2020 2010-2020 * 0.07)) Population (assuming no population change, household 68,406 68,406 0 68,406 68,406 size continues to decline by 0.04/decade) Population (assuming modest population increase, household 68,406 70,344 1,938 68,542 71,536 size unchanged) HH HH size 2018 HH HHs in 2018 HHs in 2030 HHs added (2010 HH (Pop. 2018 (Pop- 2030/ Population Projection size size.+(0.04* size /HH size HH size 2018- 2010 0.07)) 2030 2018) 2030) 2030 Population (assuming no population change, household size 2.35 2.347 2.27 29,144 30,135 991 continues to decline by 0.04/decade) Population (assuming modest population 2.35 2.35 2.35 29,167 30,441 1,274 increase, household size unchanged) Source:2000 and 2010 Decennial Census, population projections in this section 37 Population Projections Waterloo County Waterloo Year Population Linear Geometric Population %of County 1900 12,580 32,399 0.38828 1910 26,693 14,113 1.121860095 44,865 0.59496 1920 36,230 9,537 0.357284681 56,570 0.64045 1930 46,191 9,961 0.274937897 69,146 0.66802 1940 51,743 5,552 0.120196575 79,946 0.64722 1950 65,198 13,455 0.260035174 100,448 0.64907 1960 71,755 6,557 0.10057057 122,482 0.58584 1970 75,533 3,778 0.052651383 132,916 0.56828 1980 75,985 452 0.005984139 137,961 0.55077 1990 66,467 (9,518) -0.125261565 123,798 0.53690 2000 68,747 2,280 0.034302737 128,012 0.53704 2010 68,406 (341) -0.004960216 131,090 0.52182 Avg. 1910-2010 5,075 0.199781952 0.57405 Avg. 1940-2010 2,777 0.05543985 1 1 0.57462 Avg. 1960-2010 535 0.010547841 10.55011 Year/Projection Period Population Projection Type Woods& Poole Economics 2009 Avg. Population 2020: Linear Geometric 9 Projection estimates 1910-2010 73,481 82,072 76,141 77,232 1940-2010 71,183 72,198 76,216 73,199 1960-2010 68,941 69,128 72,965 70,344 Woods& Poole Avg. Population 2030: Linear Geometric Economics 2009 estimates* Projection 1910-2010 78,556 98,469 78,552 85,192 1940-2010 73,960 76,201 78,629 76,263 1960-2010 69,475 69,857 75,275 71,536 Source: Iowa Data Center (decennial Census data), Woods & Poole Economics 2009 population projections for Black Hawk County. *For each time horizon (1910-2010, 1940-2010, 1960-2010),the County population projections from Woods & Poole Economics are multiplied by Waterloo's average share of the County's population over that time horizon. 38 CITY OF WATERLOO Council Communication Update on Engineering Department operations. City Council Meeting: 8/16/2021 Prepared: 8/4/2021 REVIEWERS: Department Reviewer Action Date Engineering Felchle, Kelley Approved 8/4/2021 -4:05 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Presentation Backup Material SUBJECT: Update on Engineering Department operations. Submitted by: Submitted By: Jamie Knutson, PE, City Engineer Recommended Action: Summary Statement/ Background Information: Neighborhood Impact: Data: Community Engagement Methods: Analysis and Strategies: Implementation,Accountability, and Communication:: Expenditure Required/ Source of Funds: Alternative: Engineering Department Update • University Avenue — Phase 1 (Ansborough Ave to Greenhill Rd ) • Construction Complete working on punchlist items — Phase 2 (Greenhill Rd to W. City Limits) • Construction Complete working on punchlist items — Phase 3 (Ansborough Ave to Hwy 63) • Fletcher to Hwy 63 is open again • Road paving complete between Fletcher and Ansborough • Working on trail, sidewalks, bridge railings and other enhancements Engineering Department Update • Reconstruction Update — Designed and Inspected by Engineering Staff • $5,259,000 • 2.2 miles — Streets partially completed • Crossway Dr. , W. 4t" St. (Audubon Area), W. 4t" St. (Church Row Area), E. 4t" St., Kimball Frontage Rd. , Katoski Dr., Hoff Rd., Commercial St. — Streets not started • Kimball Frontage Rd. Engineering Department Update • Overlay Update — Designed and Inspected by Engineering Staff • $ 1 ,741 ,000 • 2. 1 miles of roads — Streets completed • Shaulis Rd . , Logan Frontage Rd . , Mitchell Ave. , Heath St. , Forest Ave. , Bertch Ave. — Streets under construction • Hoff Rd . , Quincy St. , Sunset Rd . EngineeringDepartment Update — Newell St. RISE • Open and serving Con-troll • Ready for acceptance — WARP Dr. RISE • Open and ready to serve new businesses • Working on acceptance documents — Shaulis Rd. RISE • Construction has started between Sink Creek and Hwy 218 (In front the Theme Park) • FEMA Permit has been submitted — Once permit is received, construction on bridge can begin — Hyper Dr. RISE • Being designed and inspected by Engineering Staff. Will save the City approximately $75,000 by doing this work in house. Engineering Department Update • Bridge Construction Projects — Hammond Avenue (Orange to Washburn ) • Design is complete • ROW acquisition moving to condemnation • Project will be let after ROW acquisition — Park Avenue and 11th Street • September 21 , 2021 IDOT letting • Construction timeline — Park Avenue first then 11th Street. — Can be sequential or concurrent — Park Avenue to start in December 2021 Engineering Department Update • Sidewalk Zone 10 (2020 Construction ) — Completed repairs to 350 parcels for assessment • Sidewalk Zone 1 Construction Update — 1 ,722 parcels inspected — 270 parcels have repairs completed — 651 parcels to assessment program — Started Digital inspections • Revised documents to property owners to make clearer • Provides aerial maps showing sidewalk repair locations • Automatic cost calculations, saves staff time doing manual calculations • Makes re-inspections of sidewalks easier and quicker Engineering Department Update • Stormwater Update — Upton Regional Detention Basin • Construction to start at the end of August — Delane Regional Detention Basin • Design complete • Construction schedule to be determined — Reviewing other possible projects with IDNR to see if they qualify as an SRF sponsored project that would provide funding assistance — Updating Stormwater Ordinance • Clarifying some items and adding additional items Engineering Department Update • Miscellaneous Projects — Design of new storm sewer for the Orange Grove/Home Park/Reber area. • Construction to be part of Highway 63 Sanitary Sewer Project — Highway 63 enhancements under construction — Completed streetscaping enhancements on Jefferson St. from Westfield Ave. to W. 3rd St. — Completed construction of the Virden Creek flood control improvements. • Designed to keep properties from being placed in the floodplain and paying for flood insurance Engineering Department Update • Projects For Other Departments — Hope Martin Shelter • Designed/Inspected for Leisure Services — Greenbelt Fishing Pier • Inspected for Leisure Services — Hammond Avenue Sanitary Repairs • Designed/Inspected for Waste Management — Walker Street Sanitary Repairs • Designed for Waste Management, construction this year. — Chemical Building Parking Lot • Designed/Inspected for Leisure Services Engineering Department Update • Projects For Other Departments — REAP grant for shelter and restroom construction at Greenbelt Lake • Designing for Leisure Services, construction to be determined, inspection by Engineering — Reconstruction of sanitary sewer next to Lowell School • Designed/Inspected for Waste Management — Completed construction of new sanitary sewer in 3200 blk of Airline Hwy for Planning — Completed construction of new sanitary sewer and water main to serve the MidPort area for Planning — Completed construction of new water main to new hanger at airport for Planning/Airport