HomeMy WebLinkAboutINRCOG - Housing Needs Assessment - 12.20.2021CITY OF WATERLOO
Council Communication
Resolution adopting the City of Waterloo 2021 Housing Needs Assessment, and authorizing the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute any said document.
City Council Meeting: 12/20/2021
Prepared: 12/8/2021
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
o Waterloo HNA 2021
Type
Backup Material
o Sample Resolution for HNA 2021 Backup Material
SUBJECT: Resolution adopting the City of Waterloo 2021 Housing Needs Assessment,
and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute any said document.
Submitted by: Submitted By: Noel Anderson, Community Planning and Development
Director
Recommended Action: Adopt resolution and authorize signatures as requested.
Developers within the City of Waterloo currently utilize the Workforce
Housing Tax Credit available through the Iowa Economic Development
Authority in order to construct new residential units in Waterloo. Currently
developers utilize the tax credit within grayfield and brownfield sites. In order
to utilize the credits within a greenfield area the City of Waterloo will need to
Summary Statement: receive a "distressed workforce housing" designation from the state of Iowa.
In order to receive the distressed housing designation the city will need to
have a Housing Needs Assessment conducted and submitted to the state.
The City of Waterloo has received requests from area developers that are
interested in continuing their investment in Waterloo and would like to utilize
the Workforce Housing Credits within greenfield areas of the city.
Data/Analysis and Strategies: Economic Development
Implementation, Accountability, Housing Bonds
and Communication:
Expenditure Required/Source of None
Funds:
Page 150 of 418
Waterloo, IA Housing Needs Assessment
Adopted by Waterloo City Council Resolution XXXX on [Date]
I
Page 151 of 418
Table of Contents
Datallote...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Glossary.........................................................................................................................................................
3
ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................4
Introduction and Purpose...........................................................................................................................14
Waterloo's History and Background...........................................................................................................14
History of the City of Waterloo...............................................................................................................14
Community Character and Quality of Life..............................................................................................19
Natural Resources and Environmental Hazards.....................................................................................19
Public Infrastructure and Utilities...........................................................................................................20
CommunityServices................................................................................................................................21
Schools................................................................................................................................................
21
OtherCommunity Services.................................................................................................................21
DemographicAnalysis.................................................................................................................................22
Population, Households, and Age Composition.....................................................................................23
MinorityPopulations..............................................................................................................................28
Implications.............................................................................................................................................
29
EconomicAnalysis.......................................................................................................................................29
Overview.................................................................................................................................................
29
Implications.............................................................................................................................................
33
Housingin Waterloo...................................................................................................................................33
Overview.................................................................................................................................................
33
HomebuyerMarket.................................................................................................................................39
Affordability of Homes for Sale...............................................................................................................40
RentalMarket.........................................................................................................................................43
RentalAffordability.................................................................................................................................50
Housing Programs in Waterloo...............................................................................................................52
The View on the Ground: Property and Resident Surveys.....................................................................62
Windshield Survey of Housing Conditions..........................................................................................62
ResidentSurveys.................................................................................................................................66
Housing Needs of Special Populations....................................................................................................76
People Experiencing Homelessness....................................................................................................76
Page 1152 of 418
Seniors and People with Disabilities...................................................................................................81
ImmigrantPopulations........................................................................................................................85
Housing Supply and Demand Analysis....................................................................................................89
Summary of Housing Needs....................................................................................................................92
Housing Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................................95
Page V3 of 418
Data Note
Prior to City approval, this document was updated to incorporate limited 2020 decennial Census data that
had recently been released.
Glossary
• Housing Costs: Includes the household's rent or mortgage payments, utility payments, property
taxes, insurance, and mobile home or condominium fees, as applicable.
• 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.
• Housing Problems: The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Survey (CHAS) defines "housing
problems" as housing cost burden, incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities, or overcrowding
(one or more persons per room). Cost burden is by far the most common housing problem in most
communities. Incomplete plumbing/kitchen facilities, overcrowding, and severe cost burden,
specifically, are considered "severe housing problems."
• Area Median Income (AM1): Median annual household income (pretax) for a metropolitan area,
subarea of a metropolitan area, or non -metropolitan county.
• 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% AMI for households of the same size.
• Low -Income (LI): Household is at or below 50% AMI for households of the same size. This term is
also used for households between 31% and 50% AMI*.
• Moderate -Income: Household is between 51% and 80% AMI for households of the same size*.
• Middle -Income: Household is between 81% and 100% AMI for households of the same size.
• Middle/Upper-Income: Household is above 100% AMI for households of the same size.
• Subsidized Housing: Housing built or purchased with government or nonprofit subsidies to make
it affordable, typically to LMI or middle -income households. Most subsidized rental housing is
privately owned.
• Market -Rate Housing: Rental or ownership housing that is not subsidized.
• Affordable Housing: Housing that costs no more than 30% of a household's gross income. May
be subsidized or market -rate, depending on the context of the conversation.
*Some government programs for housing and other benefits use the terms "very low-income" and "low-
income" for households up to 50% and 80% AMI, respectively.
Page V4 of 418
Executive Summary
Introduction and Purpose
• Waterloo's housing stock and housing needs reflect the complex nature of the City's
history and recent development. Several City initiatives, including homebuyer incentives
and subsidized rental developments, 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.
• This Housing Needs Assessment uses publicly available and locally provided data to assess
the strengths and challenges of Waterloo's housing market. 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.
Demographic Analysis
• In 2020, Waterloo's population was 67,314. The City's population grew substantially over
much of the 20th century, dropped during the Farm Crisis years of the 1980s, and has
been relatively steady since then.
• 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 South and West Waterloo saw population growth.
• Waterloo's racial and ethnic composition is substantially more diverse than Iowa's, and
the City's diversity is increasing. Over 32% of Waterloo's population identified as non-
White and 7.1% identified as Hispanic or Latino in 2020.
• An estimated 6.2% to 7.4% of Waterloo's population was foreign -born in 2015. Bosnians
and Mexicans likely comprise Waterloo's largest immigrant populations, and the City has
growing populations from India, the Congo region of central Africa, Sudan, and Vietnam.
• People with disabilities account for over 10% of the City's population.
Economic Analysis
• Incomes in Waterloo are relatively low, while poverty is relatively high. The City's median
family income in 2015 was $51,025, about $10,000 less than that of Black Hawk County,
and nearly $19,000 less than Iowa's median family income. The family poverty rate in
2015 was 9.1%.
• 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 in the 2014 Longitudinal
Page V5 of 418
Employer -Household Dynamics estimates). This is not unusual — regional economic hubs
exert "gravity" on surrounding areas, attracting workers from other cities and counties.
Housing in Waterloo - Overview
• Waterloo's homeowner vacancy rate of 2.2% is slightly higher than the countywide and
statewide rates, while the City's rental vacancy rate of 9.6% is significantly higher than
the statewide rate (2015 5-year ACS). The 2015 1-year ACS estimates for Waterloo's
owner and rental vacancy rates are 1.8% (+/-1.5%) and 7.4% (+/-4.4%), suggesting that
the City's housing market tightened as it continued to recover from the Recession.
• Waterloo has a relatively low median home value ($104,200) and median gross rent
($672), according to the 2015 5-year ACS. However, because Waterloo's incomes are
relatively low, its lower housing costs do not translate to lower cost burdens. 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.
• Among extremely low-income (ELI) households, housing problems (mainly
unaffordability) are ubiquitous and usually severe. Renter households are generally more
likely than owner households to experience housing problems.
Homebuyer Market
• Waterloo's median home sale price of $111,000 (MILS 2015-2018) is relatively low.
However, the City's volume of home sales compared to its total population and owner
housing stock is relatively low, indicating some market tightness.
Affordability of Homes for Sale
• Ostensibly, Waterloo's home prices are well matched to the incomes of 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. The 75th percentile wages for
several industrial, health, and essential service occupations, including meat packers,
laborers, nursing assistants, medical assistants, child care workers, personal care and
home health aides, and teacher assistants, fall short of the wage needed to afford a
median -priced home.
• With an annual inventory of 480 home sales below the median sale price, it would take
over 6 years for all lower income potential homebuyers (currently renters) to purchase
homes. If the costs of repairing "fixer -uppers" among these 480 homes were taken into
account, the affordable inventory for these buyers would be even smaller.
Page ' 56 of 418
Rental Market
• A survey was conducted of property managers for market -rate rental units in Waterloo.
Among the firms that responded, average rents reported range from $599 for 1-bedroom
units to $931 for 3-bedroom units. The rental units included in the survey have 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.
• Waterloo has several privately owned rental properties that are subsidized by the federal
Project -Based Section 8 program, the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), or
both. Together, these properties account for 1,260 subsidized units for low- and
moderate -income (LMI) renters. Additionally, the Waterloo Housing Authority has 50
public housing units for seniors and currently issues 1,056 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs
or "Section 8" vouchers). Surveys were collected from 17 of Waterloo's 24 subsidized
rental developments.
• Waterloo's subsidized rental developments for general occupancy by LMI households
(also known as "family" developments) are mostly funded by LIHTC. This program
provides only "shallow" subsidies to set rents at 30% of gross income for households at
40% to 60% of area median income. In some cases, rents at the surveyed LIHTC family
developments are comparable to or lower than "Fair Market Rents" (FMRs), meaning that
modest unsubsidized units may actually be more "affordable" than LIHTC units. This is not
uncommon in communities with relatively low market rents. Nonetheless, these
developments in Waterloo have dozens of households on waitlists and generally low
vacancy rates, possibly because they tend to be higher -quality. LIHTC units also generally
accept HCV holders, who often struggle to find rentals with landlords willing to rent to
them.
• Waterloo's subsidized rental developments for LMI seniors and people with disabilities
are mostly funded by the Project -Based Section 8 program, which provides "deep"
subsidies to bring the rent down to 30% of every tenant household's income. Survey data
indicates an even tighter market for these units than for subsidized general occupancy
units. 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 of Waterloo's subsidized developments for seniors are also open to people with
disabilities and have some accessibility features. However, many were built decades ago
when architectural features to accommodate wheelchairs were not widely used.
Moreover, the supply of affordable, accessible units is simply too small to meet the needs
of all LMI people with disabilities.
Page V7 of 418
• The greatest demand is for deep subsidies and units affordable to extremely low-income
renters. However, in the current state and federal funding climate, these units are
increasingly difficult to finance. Whenever possible, the City should support rental
development that is affordable to ELI households. Developers of shallow -subsidy rental
properties should conduct market studies to ensure that they can fill the units without
"cannibalizing" occupancy from similar existing developments.
Rental Affordability
• In most communities, 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 rentals 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.
• Waterloo has only 27 affordable and available units for every 100 ELI renters. The
percentage of ELI renters in affordable units and the percentage that are severely cost
burdened (paying >50% of income for housing) 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.
• Many of Black Hawk County's most common occupations, including entry to median -wage
foodservice workers, cashiers, retail workers, and janitors, cannot afford 2-bedroom units
or, in many cases, even 1-bedroom units at Fair Market Rents.
Housing Programs in Waterloo
• The City of Waterloo uses several funding and policy tools to promote an adequate, high -
quality supply of housing. Some programs support new construction or rehabilitation of
homes for LMI households, while others are designed to increase Waterloo's housing
starts and residential tax base, or to revitalize older neighborhoods.
• 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.
• Waterloo offers three programs to support the housing market in Waterloo's older
neighborhoods. First, the City provides tax abatements for new housing construction and
rehabilitation in the Consolidated Urban Revitalization Area (CURA), which includes most
neighborhoods in East Waterloo and near West Waterloo. Second, the City acquires and
resells abandoned residential properties through the Iowa Code Chapter 657A legal
process. Third, the City offers a $5,000 incentive for infill housing development or
rehabilitation on city -owned and certain private lots. This incentive is available citywide
but is especially valuable in older neighborhoods.
Page 1758 of 418
• To promote new construction, Waterloo offers a tax abatement program for new 1- and
2-family housing units in the City Limits Urban Revitalization Area (CLURA), which includes
neighborhoods outside the CURA. The CLURA program was launched in 2011 to increase
Waterloo's housing starts and tax base in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Since its
inception, the City's annual 1- and 2-family construction rate has risen from 58.4 units per
year to 79.44 units per year.
• The Waterloo Housing Trust Fund (WHTF) is an important funding source for housing
activities benefiting LMI residents, including emergency repair and accessibility
modification programs for homeowners, as well as shelter and housing programs for
people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. WHTF is funded by an annual allocation
from the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA), which requires a 15% to 25% match from local
sources such as city governments, philanthropic organizations, and corporate donors.
• The mismatch between housing need and available resources underscores the
importance of strong public -private partnerships to support housing activities in
Waterloo. The 16 LMI homebuyers assisted annually is far fewer than the estimated 1,787
to 2,889 LMI renter households who could potentially buy homes. Additionally, Waterloo
has an estimated 2,740 cost burdened LMI homeowners who might benefit from home
renovation assistance, but only about 72 eligible homeowners are assisted annually.
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 windshield survey of exterior housing quality was conducted in a representative subset
of Waterloo neighborhoods. A large majority of the housing units surveyed (82%) were in
good condition, but nearly 1 in 5 homes were in Fair condition or worse. 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.
• 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. At the
current rate of twelve 657A acquisitions per year, the City would need 11 years to acquire
all dilapidated properties, and 50 years to acquire all homes in poor condition. 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.
Page V9 of 418
Resident Surveys
• Resident surveys were conducted at venues that serve low- and moderate -income
people, members of minority groups, or both.
• 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. 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, 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.
• 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. Many
respondents reported that it was difficult to 1) find a landlord who would accept the
voucher and 2) find a unit in a desirable neighborhood.
• 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. Some residents recounted discrimination based on race or criminal records.
(HUD released guidance in 2016 that limits the use of criminal records as a screening
criterion for tenants or homebuyers.)
• The most widely cited positive aspects of Waterloo include new development and
businesses, as well as cultural attractions and events. Several respondents identified
specific attractions that they value, including the SportsPlex, the splash pad, Friday 'Loo,
and My Waterloo Days.
• When residents were asked about changes needed in Waterloo, concerns about crime,
safety, and housing were paramount. Respondents expressed concern about the
condition and age of Waterloo's housing stock, as well as the supply of affordable
housing. Many also identified a need for more business, recreation, and other
opportunities in Waterloo's older neighborhoods beyond the downtown area.
• Residents have a strong desire to improve substandard housing in disinvested
neighborhoods by rehabilitating homes when possible, and demolishing and replacing
dilapidated homes when necessary.
• Some residents expressed concern that the public narrative about Waterloo is largely
negative, obscuring its many positive attributes.
• Good jobs are just as important to housing affordability as are housing costs and quality.
Initiatives such as the Waterloo Career Center may help employers fill workforce
Page V0 of 418
shortages while narrowing employment disparities among demographic groups. Other
efforts to expand access to good jobs may include employee vanpools, child care
assistance, and carefully considered employer policies toward criminal background
checks.
People Experiencing Homelessness
• Since Waterloo and Black Hawk County are part of the Balance of State "Continuum of
Care" (CoC) for homeless services, detailed data on homelessness for the City or County
alone is not readily available. In the Balance of State CoC, 5,485 people entered and 5,994
people exited the homeless system at some point in FY 2016, spending a median of 43
days homeless. In 2016, 952 people who became homeless in Iowa listed their last
permanent address in Black Hawk County, suggesting that about 1 in 6 people who
become homeless in Iowa are from Black Hawk County.
• Although Black Hawk County had more Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing beds
(127) than total number of homeless individuals in Black Hawk County in the January 2013
Point -in -Time (PIT) Count (101), the waitlists for certain programs suggest that there is
more housing instability and pent-up need for shelter than these facilities can address.
• The supply of permanent housing opportunities for people experiencing homelessness is
limited in Black Hawk County. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) and Rapid Re -Housing
(RRH) programs assist only about 91 households in Black Hawk County, or fewer than one-
third of the estimated 952 households that become homeless each year. 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. The LHCB is implementing a new HUD -mandated Coordinated Entry (CE)
system, which standardizes the intake processes by homeless service providers so that
people in need are referred to the most appropriate program.
• The County's recent homeless service efforts are part of a broad nationwide shift from a
"treatment first" model of addressing homelessness to a "Housing First" model. 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.
Seniors and People with Disabilities
• An estimate 15% of Waterloo's population is 65 years or older, while 10.6% of the
population has at least one disability. There is substantial overlap between these two
populations — about 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
Page 1V 1 of 418
incomes and need homes that have accessibility features such as grab bars in bathrooms,
wheelchair ramps, and wide doorways to accommodate wheelchairs.
• Although LMI senior -headed households are generally less likely to have housing
problems than LMI households overall, an estimated 1,735 LMI senior -headed
households have housing problems. Slightly over half of these are owner households.
• Approximately 2,750 LMI households with disabled members have housing problems,
which occur among a higher number of renter households with disabled members than
among owner households. ELI households account for a majority of LMI households with
disabled members and housing problems.
Immigrant Populations
• A survey on housing and quality of life in Waterloo was administered to English Language
Learner (ELL) classes by Hawkeye Community College Metro Center instructors.
• 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.
• When asked if they or anyone they know had experienced housing discrimination, the
vast majority of ELL respondents (83%) marked "No." Some respondents recounted
discrimination based on their accent, limited English proficiency, or race. Actual housing
discrimination rates against ELL students may be higher than estimated, since they may
be less familiar with the concept of housing discrimination and less likely to recognize it
when it occurs.
• When asked about Waterloo's positive aspects, ELL respondents primarily cited schools,
ELL education, and jobs. Multiple respondents also cited cleanliness, affordable rents, and
good hospitals and emergency services. Like non -ELL respondents, they value Waterloo's
cultural attractions and events, with several mentioning specific examples such as the
SportsPlex and Juneteenth.
• When asked about changes needed in Waterloo, ELL respondents identified crime as a
major concern, as well as road maintenance needs, healthcare costs, and jobs. Similar to
non -ELL groups, several ELL respondents expressed a desire for more businesses and
cultural opportunities.
Housing Supply and Demand Analysis
• According to City data on residential permits issued from October 2014 to October 2017,
an average of 142 units were permitted annually, serving as a baseline for housing supply
and demand projections. This building permit volume is only 0.46% of the City's total
Page 11162 of 418
housing stock, which is relatively low compared to the optimal value of 1% for a "normal"
housing market. At Waterloo's baseline rate of residential permitting, 2,840 new units
will be added between 2021 and 2040.
• The City conducts an average of 26 demolitions per year. Additionally, communities
experience housing stock "attrition" as some units are withdrawn from the housing
market each year due to deterioration, abandonment by owners, or other factors.
• Accounting for new housing construction, demolition, and attrition, an estimated 1,384
units will be lost from Waterloo's housing stock between 2021 and 2040, resulting in a
net addition of 1,456 units — 728 per decade or 73 annually.
• As of 2017, Waterloo had 2,456 vacant residential lots that could potentially be
developed, including 176 City -owned lots and 2,280 lots owned by other parties. An
estimated 520 residential units will be demolished between 2021 and 2040, possibly
contributing new buildable lots. Depending on how many new lots are added from
demolitions, Waterloo may have a surplus up to 136 lots or a deficit of 384 lots. The
average estimate is a shortfall of 124 lots by 2040.
• If Waterloo's population remains unchanged from 2020 to 2040, and household size
continues to decline at historic rates, the City would add 1,224 households by 2040. To
meet new demand without overbuilding in this scenario, the City could permit 138
housing units per year between 2021 and 2030 — slightly less than the baseline rate of
142 per year — and reduce the annual permitting rate to 122 units per year from 2031 to
2040.
• Waterloo's housing demand is projected for a scenario with constant household size and
moderate population growth: from 67,314 in 2020 to 69,980 in 2030 (a 3.96% increase)
and 71,022 by 2040 (a 1.5% increase). In this scenario, new households would be added
faster than the baseline residential permitting rate until 2030, but would lag behind
permitting rates from 2031 to 2040. To meet demand without overbuilding, residential
permitting rates would need to increase to 151 units per year from 2021 to 2030, and
then drop to 114 units per year from 2031 to 2040.
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.
Page 1V3 of 418
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. 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 stakeholders. However, the goals and objectives are phrased in terms
of actions the City can take, at least as a facilitator or collaborator.
Page 1V4 of 418
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-20th 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 homebuyer
incentives and subsidized rental developments, 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,
Page jV5 of 418
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 19th 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 20th 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.
Page jV6 of 418
g
S Neink r• 2 msl
n5t
Nr,,. hm '
t&tt"�
w Q•ne'r 5[ � - '
wemxrs r `
0' Cmlpei[
I amRr+e 31nv[ `•M e
S F � anhe.m
� w r
�' A •mMiry 41
4 � (.arCel jr
rticnaxA
.....qri
a agyv Si .g
-1K 51
'° nm•sntl5c
r.r•-s,
r
>ex+
�It
s1
fir,. r1Nn.
g`
.—V
`.+�4
T� J
5 yn
L
0.'
l+r,
-
fh tl4iSr fC
..
r
S
' t.�
nke
P 1C VireL
• �Y
�V�trl.
>• P•
� In d••i A..«
Y'`Y'
yt4
L 3
4'�
n
NxxL•
�
N�'
��•
�rs8'
114
PR
s•3
_ _
;
�
s
ffi
F
Ovate
K�.• Alnx•A� Q�
�
�Ile
fh
m
��
S kapAn
p '�
pg
a 6vtlefgw 3
5
411rwxq `s
�ib ti-
�`i7S •�C,..
°
n3.. i1B A� '
£3.
9 SYr
�eA N�RSf
a
C=rK�Tfwe Aaa
4
6
� n
4..L�
v->v?-a�;1�SDeP4
`N'fH
� Gn'lspn A•.e
trt6M.
r,
'A .11,
� u'.!A
�4 g
:
Figure 1: "Smokey Row:" Waterloo's Historic Black Neighborhood.
Source: African -American Voices of the Cedar Valley: Black Triangle (https://aa-voices-museum.uni.edu/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 1960S5.
httos://ir.uiowa.edu/cei/viewcontent.cei?referer=&httDsredir=1&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.
Page 1V7 of 418
80,000 75,533 75,985
71,755 68,747 68,406
65,198 6,467
60,000 51,743 67,314
46,191
c
0
40,000 36,230
a
0
°- 26,693
20,000 12,580
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
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 relations6.
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.cityofwaterlooiowa.com/departments/planning-
zoning/bringin home the bacon the rath packing company in waterloo 1891-1985.php.
See Shirey 2014 for further discussion.
Page 1V8 of 418
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.
8 Ibid.
9 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.
Page 1V9 of 418
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.
Page 1�70 of 418
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
Page21J1 of 418
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 6th 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
Page21172 of 418
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 appropriatelo
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.
Page2173 of 418
Population, Households, and Age Composition
In 2020, Waterloo's population was 67,314 (Table 1). As discussed in the History section above,
Waterloo's population grew substantially over much of the 20th century, dropped during the
Farm Crisis years of the 1980s, and has been relatively steady since then (Figure 2).
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.
Paget' 74 of 418
Waterloo, Iowa
LEGEND
_ J City Boundary
-W-� Primary Highway
Local Road
Census Tract
Percent of Population Change 2000 to 2010
Below - -20.0%
�.�
-19.9% -10.0%
-9.9% - 0.0%
I--
r---�.
--
.No Change
-_ �_'
j
0.01% -10.0%
1
; 10.01% - 20.0%
20.01% - 30.0%
10.53 0
30.01% - 40.0%
40.01% - Over
T7
r
III
r
Disclaimer:
CensusTrad Data Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census
-
_ s. 1.00% 2.05%
6.89
1 _ � I
l ` 21 T .�.
j, L.1.00%-- �I
_ . 2.96% 4
p a a _
l ^ r
Iyyyyl� 2.71% g 4.54 % s a � G
A I
I
5466 _ % Diu
w � 4 17
$p3.84/ "..
0:89%
I i
II
zo z I �s:na% � 1a. � z � ;� �:,� 1
ONE
E
j 2.02% a 7 I
I � I
i sLsLa t:! c >L-lp A
I
- 21.25%
I
- I
0 0.5 1 2
Miles N
Figure 3: Population Change by Census Tracts in Waterloo, 2000 to 2010
Source: 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census
Page 175 ofA18
5.18%
014%
LEGEND
J.r-I
City Boundary
Primary Highway
Local Road
Census Tract
Percent of Population Change 2010 to 2016
Below - -20.0%
-19.9% - 10.C)%
-9.9%-0.0%
------- No Change
0.01% -10.0%
10,01% - 20.0%
20.01% - 30.0%
30.01% - 40.0%
40.01% - Over
Disclaimer:
Census Tract Data Source: 2010 U.S. Census
2016 Census Tract Population data was obtained from the
U.S. Census Bureau's 2012-2016 American Community Survey
5-Year Estimate
-6.09% 2.37%
24%
21
-------------- ...............
0.03%
la,.40%
9.03%
sq•
0179%
rr -6rogy. 11
14.82
0. 6 2'1,
-2.90%
4.74%
0.55%
7.87%
7.5-3%
27
14 54%
6.61%
ONE
-0.97%
6.93%
403%
21
0 0.5 1 2
Miles N
Figure 4: Population Change by Census Tracts in Waterloo, 2010 to 2016
Source: 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census, 2016 5-year ACS
Page 1760fA18
Table 1: Waterloo Demographic Overview
Demographic Variable
2000
2010
2010
(Iowa)
2015 5-
year
2015 1-
year
2020
2020
(Iowa)
Statistically significant change
2010-2015? (90 /o confidence level)
Total Population
68,747
68,406
3.05M
68,432
68,457
67,314
3.19M
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%
22.9%
23.1 %
23.2%
25 to 44
27.4%
26.4%
24.6%
26.1 %
26.0%
65 and older
15.3%
14.0%
14.9%
1 14.9%
1 14.5%
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 HHs)
63.0%
60.2%
64.7%
57.8%
60.4%
Decrease (5-y estimate)
Households with Children (% of
HHs)
290%
26.5%
28.4%
25.9%
25.6%
Race, Ethnicity, and National Origin
White
81.6%
77.3%
91.3%
76.2%
73.1%
67.5%
84.5%
Decrease (5-y and 1-y estimates)
Black/African-American
13.9%
15.5%
2.9%
16.0%
16.1 %
18.0%
4.1 %
American Indian/Alaska Native
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
Asian/Pacific Islander
0.9%
1.4%
1.8%
1.8%
2.2%
4.1 %
2.6%
Other race
1.4%
2.6%
1.8%
2.6%
6.3%
3.3%
2.8%
Increase (1-y estimate)
Two or more races
2%
3%
2%
3.0%
1.8%
6.5%
6%
Decrease (1-y estimate)
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
2.6%
5.6%
5.0%
6.4%
7.2%
7.1%
6.8%
Increase (5-y and 1-y estimates)
Foreign -Born
5.2%
6.2%
7.4%
Increase (5-y and 1-y estimates)
Disability
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, 2010, and 2020 Decennial Census; 2015 American Community Survey 1-year and 5-year estimates
Page 177 of 418 26
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
t
o 35 to 44
U
25 to 34
Q 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
Page2178 of 418
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). Over 32% of Waterloo's population identified as non-White and
7.1% identified as Hispanic or Latino in 2020. (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).
4 �"•zie�.
Cedar Falls Citp — —
r�� 1
218
4
Q 1X'Aerloo-Cedar 63
Falls Boundary
s udy
Major Road
EwansdaFe ', Ru.' eig
f Rail ? r
Rivers and Water
Bodies
0 Otbar Places Waterloo City
0 Townships
Racially and a c
Ethnically
DP
Concentrated _J -,
Areas of Poverty L
(RCAPs: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.
Paget' 79 of 418
An estimated 6.2% to 7.4% of Waterloo's population was foreign -born in 2015. Data on
Waterloo's foreign -born population was not available from the 2010 Census, but the percentage
of foreign -born residents in Waterloo increased from 5.2% in 2000. 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
population growth in the coming years, which would bring more vitality and prosperity.
Population 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, an important consideration for City leaders is the spatial
distribution of growth. Since 2000, Waterloo's neighborhoods to the southwest have grown,
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
Page2?0 of 418
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,
Higher than Iowa and
transportation, and material
o
17.0 /0
0
18.8 /0
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%
Page3?1 of 418
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
a v Iowa
J y
o 8'0 Black Hawk County
USA
cc 0 6.0
c co
a, v
E
0 0
E 4.0
a�
c Li
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.
Page31182 of 418
Inflow/Outflow Job Counts in 2014
20
32,033 - Employed in Selection Area, Lire Outside
1
12,898 - Live in Selection Area, Employed outside
17,263 - Employed and Live in Selection Area � a
50 km
20 mi
5 163
�- 1 awikaa
1- r
M a f(^ll
160
i
Job Count
■ 28 358
'\ ■ 2,660
-..
■ 1.812
��qqqq
■ 1 10:. aa
. 1.14n
218
® 1,017
n 7_59
731
Figure 8: Worker Inflow/Outflow Analysis for Figure 9: Top Counties of Residence for Workers Employed in Waterloo
Waterloo Source: Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEND) 2014 estimates (primary jobs).
Source: Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics
(LEHD) 2014 estimates (primary jobs).
Page 183 of 418 32
Table 3: Most Common Places of Residence for Workers Employed in Waterloo
County
Number of
Workers
Percent of
Workers
Black Hawk
28,358
57.5%
Bremer
2,660
5.4%
Buchanan
1,812
3.7%
Polk
1,578
3.2%
Linn
1,162
2.4%
Grundy
1,148
2.3%
Butler
1,017
2.1 %
Fayette
759
1.5%
Tama
731
1.5%
Scott
474
1 %
Other counties
9,647
19.5%
City/Town
Number of
Workers
Percent of
Workers
Waterloo
17,263
35%
Cedar Falls
5,433
11 %
Evansdale
1,224
2.5%
Waverly
804
1.6%
Cedar Rapids
701
1.4%
Des Moines
681
1.4%
Hudson
586
1.2%
La Porte City
540
1.1 %
Jesup
488
1%
Independence
405
0.8%
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
12 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.
Page3V4 of 418
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 of $672, 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 on p. 3). 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.
Page3V5 of 418
Table 4: Waterloo Housing Overview
Housing Subject
Iowa
Black Hawk
County
Waterloo
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
Page 186 ofA18
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 on p. 3). 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 p. 3) are renters, while ownership becomes the dominant tenure
type by the moderate -income bracket (>50% to 80% 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
° 8,000
t
7,000
cv 6,000
Q- 5,000
.a
E
c u 4,000
0 .�
3 r3,000
o -a
2,000
o M
0 1,000 .
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
Fieure 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
Page3%87 of 418
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 on p. 3).
Page31788 of 418
100%
a 80 %
0
s
aA
3 60 %
0
x
40 %
c
v
U
L
CCU 20 %
0%
100%
80 %
0
s
a�
60 %
0
x
� 40 %
85 %
77°%
Owner Households
43 %
14%
N
Extremely Low -Income (0-30% Low -Income (31-50%AMI)
AMI)
90%
■ With 1 or More Housing
Problems
■ With 1 or More Severe
Housing Problems
26%
6% 10%
_ 2%
Moderate -Income (51-80% Middle -Income ( 100%
AMI) AMI)
Renter Households
75°% 74%
27%
u
a 20%
0%
Extremely Low -Income (0-30% Low -Income (31-50%AMI)
AMI)
■ With 1 or More Housing
Problems
■ With 1 or More Severe
Housing Problems
30%
130 0 10% 9%
N
Moderate -Income (51-80% Middle -Income (81%-100%
AMI) AMI)
Figure 11: Housing Problems by Tenure and Income Bracket in Waterloo
Source: HUD CHAS 2010-2014
Page 189 ofA18
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 Comoarison Cities
Number
Median
Average
Ratio of
Ratio of
edian
of
City
Population
Days on
Annual
Sales to
Sales to
Sale Price
Owner
Market
Sales
Population
Owner Units
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
13 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.
Page3VO of 418
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
0 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
$38,481
$111,000
median -priced Waterloo home
Household at annualized laborshed wage
$42,796
$123,251
($823/week)
Household at annualized median wage in Black
$37,946
$109,483
Hawk County ($18.24)
Household at Waterloo's median household income
$44,153
$127,103
(2015 ACS 1-y)
Female -headed household with median earnings for
$31,778
$91,973
female full-time, year-round worker (2015 ACS 1-y)
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
Page4VII of 418
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.
c
O
M
a
U
U
0
L
O
O
h,0
M
GJ
C
�1
{d
L
a
t
Ln
n
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
1 11
1 1
00 M 00 01 M
O1 ei ai ri r-I
/ 11
�e�a \aea \aea �a��a meta
P P
at �o CJate ea��r cPaa\a �t�� `
a
�e
��eta o\e�y meta \,era e*
i <P'
aa�a �o e ae� arc `�< co
ea \ a�P i�a� La Pa a� =moo eea
caa�a� lea` a,�e a� �aeieta, �`a\e� a\a�Q�.
ca \ae�a a,4A aea�
ote �e �e ee
�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 75t" 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 751h 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
Page41192 of 418
truck driving, offer sufficient wages at the 751" 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 75t" 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 75t" 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
�a 3,000
■ $25,000 to $34,999
2,500 582
0
s
N 2,000
t 1,500
0
1,000
E 500
z 480
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.
Page4lP3 of 418
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 "market -rate"
(unsubsidized) 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.
Page4V4 of 418
Table 7: Waterloo Rental Market Information from Property Manager Surveys
Variable
Survey
Results
HUD Fair Market Rent FY2017
in Waterloo Metro Area
Rental units represented in survey
638
Average Rent
Efficiency
$613
$496
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. The City of Waterloo currently issues 1,056 HCVs.
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.
Page4V5 of 418
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 other words, modest unsubsidized units may actually be more "affordable" than LIHTC
units. This is not uncommon in communities like Waterloo with relatively low market rents, and
it can limit demand for LIHTC units.
Page4' 96 of 418
Table 8: Survey Data for Subsidized General Occupancy Rental Developments* in Waterloo
Development
Type
Total
Units
Max
Income
Total
Units by
Max
Income
Units by Bedroom Size
Vacant for
Rent
Households
on Waitlist
Weighted
Average Days
on Market
Partly/Fully
Accessible
Units
1
2
3
4
Project -Based
Section 8** (2
properties)
62
50 - o
***
AMI***
62
0
32
20
10
3
26 (2
properties)
4
18
30% AMI
8
0
4
4
0
40%AMI
2
0
0
0
2
LIHTC, no
deep subsidy
(5 properties)
239
16
84 (3
properties)
64
143
50% AMI
30
0
10
16
4
60%AMI
175
52
81
42
0
80% AMI
24
12
12
0
0
Totals
1 301
1
1 301
1 64
1 139
1 82
1 16
1 19
1 110
1 54
1 161
*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 :550% AMI, and at least 75% of these beneficiaries must be !20% AMI. Local data for Project -
Based Section 8 units in Waterloo indicates that 97% of beneficiaries are <_50% AMI and 77% are !20% AMI.
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.
Page 197 of 418 46
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.
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
reported in the City's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan for HUD block grant funds was about 2,000
households, or four years long, and was still 882 households long when the 2019-2023
Consolidated plan was prepared. 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,
Page41798 of 418
developers of shallow -subsidy rental properties should ideally conduct market studies to ensure
that they can fill the units without "cannibalizing" occupancy from similar existing 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.
Page4V9 of 418
Table 10: Survey Data for Subsidized Rental Developments for Seniors and People with Disabilities* in Waterloo
Development
Type
Total
Units
Max Income
Total Units
by Max
Income
Units by Bedroom Size
Vacant
for
Rent
Households
on Waitlist
Weighted
Avg Days
on Market
0
1
2
Project -Based
Section 8** (7
properties) or
Public Housing (1
460
AMI***
460
47
411
2
3****
>_79****
8.5****
property)
LIHTC, no deep
40%AMI
15
0
8
7
50%AMI
57
0
57
0
subsidy (2
117
0
117
15
properties)
60%AMI
45
0
22
23
Totals
577
577
47
498
32
3****
>_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 :550% AMI and 77% are <_30% 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+
g
washer/dryers, walk-in showers with seats.
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 with
disabilities, and people experiencing
homelessness.
*Rental developments for which surveys were received.
Page 200 ofA18
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 rentals
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%
■ Affordable/Available
s 80% Units (occupied +
(V +r vacant)
3 Y
0 u 70%
60%
CO
+, ■ Affordable/Available
E Units (occupied
oC0 40% only)
o —
L 20%
y 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.
Page_q&1 of 418
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 251" percentile wages,
used to approximate entry-level wages in each occupation shown. At the 251" percentile wage,
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.
PageA02 of 418
$16.00
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
c $4.00
$2.00
$0.00
2
�eyyey
a.� 4�o
a
ado
o�
�y ey*
5 R R
a�,ot a""ot
�y
to
,00
�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 designed 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.
Page_92203 of 418
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-
Development Department (HUD Lead-
24
grants since 2003, which have assisted about
occupied and rental housing
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
City of Waterloo Community Planning &
31 (18 new,
construction/rehabilitation projects from 2013
commercial new construction or
Development Department
13 rehab)
to 2017. It is unknown how many of these
rehabilitation (!510% value increase) in core
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
Page 204 of 418 53
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
(WHIP) $1,000 matching funds for housing
City of Waterloo Community Planning &
2018, so the annualized rate captures23
units supported by state Workforce
Development Department
fluctuations instate assistance. In general,
Housing Tax Credits (WHTC)
WHIP is designed to support multifamily units
outside the CURA, which are not eligible for
CLURA tax abatements.
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.
Page 205 of 418 54
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 Consolidated Urban Revitalization Area (CURA) property tax
abatements, discussed further below. 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.
Page3gP6 of 418
OW
1
•l+ terl4Q orp_LJfT5t5
i
11
{i5 0.25 0 0.5 Niles
r
low TI ._i...........
i
':
77
Figure 16: Waterloo's Consolidated Urban Revitalization Area (CURA)
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
Page407 of 418
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 greater
benefit than demolition expenditures alone would offer.
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 offers 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 launched 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 or at risk of 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 15% to 25% of its allocation from
Pageg08 of 418
IFA. Matching funds may come from local governments, philanthropic organizations, corporate
donors, and similar 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.
Page409 of 418
Area NOT ImIuded In City
Limns IJ.an Revitialiation Area
lli
■7_
�iU
Ali=
W7.1 i
t
47
.�:i
r+fi�� 9iiiiii�wll
1!A Lam' �f�0� '•`�a .
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.
Page(J11 of 418
6,000
4,792
5,000
0
4,000
Ln
0
x
2,740
Ln
3,000
an
Ln
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
Page 212 of 418 61
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.
Page�213 of 418
WN
I
82425
16
4
{
31
02
__,
._..._.._
1915.03
j
s.
qo
l`
.sue
-'i
,
!•
'
km
row
-
-p,
irtl
_ .
A
M-'46
Eld'
a-
.18
1
14
— IYcr wi.
Y_L _
10
�I ji
i ,
`
' :
20
I . th
_4
'
%
Y
Figure 19: Windshield Survey Census Tracts
Source: Iowa Data Center (Census Tracts where windshield surveys were conducted are circled in red)
Page(A14 of 418
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
is non-existent. The building is not fit for human habitation in its current condition, and multiple windows
Dilapidated
and/or doors may be boarded up. The building may be considered for demolition or, at minimum, major
16
0.4%
134
rehabilitation will be required.
Total
3,656
100%
30,684
Citywide estimates based on 2015 5-y ACS estimate of 30,684 housing units in Waterloo.
Page 215 of 418 64
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
N
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
\A/ntarinn
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 CLURA 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.
Page6%16 of 418
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 Q.
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.
Page A17 of 418
Table 14: Venues for Collectine Survevs of Waterloo Residents
Venue
Number of
Surveys
Two Salvation Army community lunches
17
Two resident resource fairs at public schools in low/moderate-income
neighborhoods
6
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.
Pageg718 of 418
E
9 1 "i I Ek-10 Si
9 9 01"g-
Eledric Park Ballroom 9 9 9
9
Hape Martin -P
Me rnQr i al Park 90
Q MR
9 0
9 9
9 9 40, Evan
M99
9% VOW Deerwoud
9 Park
90 Evansdale
C11:3zr®r.
Survey respondents who
Listed "East Side" or "West Lost Wand Walefoark
TI*
Side" as their neighborhood
English Language Learners 7 1
DValley Arkrelum
All others 17 10 edar 9
ziHa
Figure 21: Approximate Places of Residence for Survey Respondents (English Language Learners and
Other Groups
Source: Google Maps
Page (Al 9 of 418
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?
4%
2%
■ 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
■ Somewhat easy All
■ Somewhat easy/
somewhat hard
■ Somewhat hard 2%
Very hard
■ No ■ Yes
■ No ■ Not Sure ■ Yes
Figure 22: Multiple -Choice Survey Responses for Non -ELL Respondents
Page 220 of 418 69
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
Page, l of 418
Table 15: Survey Responses from Non -ELL Respondents on Positive Developments and Changes
Needed in Waterloo
Best things in Waterloo:
# of
responses
New businesses/
development
12
Cultural
attractions/events
11
Mayor
10
Street improvements
8
Personal factors
(marriage/children etc.)
7
New schools
3
Police
2
Changes needed in Waterloo*:
# of
responses
Crime/Safety
23
Housing cost/supply
16
Housing condition/age
11
General entertainment/
recreational opportunities
10
More businesses
8
Development in East Waterloo
6
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
Page A22 of 418
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 by about 30% between 2014
Page�2?3 of 418
and 20181718,19 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.
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 ac1e10dc-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 58c6061d-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.
Page A?4 of 418
jobs may include employee vanpools, child care assistance, and carefully considered employer
policies toward criminal background checks when making conditional offers to job applicants21.
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.
Page,,25 of 418
f Dona10 s1 F Donald Sl E Donald St
on
0 Gates Park Golf Course
yS
A
Ada
yS
Cedar Red Carpet Golf Course
Bend Park Q
Fairview Cemetery
®�
Association
CetlergvyPr
i
y
�o�
Rive. Rd
iy1Fe1 Y:m a
e
218 a91s
John Deere Tractor
o
& Engine Museum
%
Independence Ave
Independence Ave
971
21a
C.
63
Q
ah�
5
O�6
odd
l�
op
00
a9
a
'�ri,
y�
218
Shy
W b�
LPi
y
�e�eva.
j
Mao data 022018 G000le 500 m
Independence Ar
#
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
14
Various
Community College Adult Learning Center, Grand Crossing apartments, Iowa
Veterans' Museum, RiverLoop, Dan Gable Museum, Cedar Valley SportsPlex, Phelps
Youth Pavilion, SingleSpeed Brewing Company, and Cedar River Dam.
Figure 23: Malor Redevelopment Activities in Waterloo's Core Neighborhoods
Source: The New Waterloo website
Page 226 of -Al
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, suggesting that about 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.
Page V7 of 418
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
Household/Population Type
Sheltered
Unsheltered
Total
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
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
567
426
45
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
766
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
Geographic Area/Facility
Persons Entering
Persons Exiting
Mean/Median
Time Period
Homelessness*
Homelessness**
Days Homeless***
Iowa Balance of State
5,485
5,994
133/43
Federal FY
Continuum of Care
2016
Last Permanent Address
was in Black Hawk County
952
No Data
No Data
2016
*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
Page 228 ofAl8
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
Community Housing
12 units w/13 beds (1 family
Mix of families vs. individuals depends on who
Initiatives
CHI - Permanent Housing
PSH
unit w/2 beds, 11 adult -only
is participating in the program at any given time
beds)
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
Community Action
Supportive Services for Veteran
RRH
No data
Varies - program is available in several Eastern
Program
Families (SSVF)
Iowa counties
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
Page 229 of 418 78
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 and other homeless service networks in Iowa's Balance of State CoC are
implementing a new Coordinated Entry system, as mandated by HUD, 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.
23 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 less fair or transparent than those used by Coordinated Entry programs. A well -designed CE program refers
Page A30 of 418
• The developers of Unity Square Townhomes set aside 8 apartments for people exiting
homelessness.
• Community Housing Initiatives, an Iowa -based nonprofit affordable housing provider with
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
homeless households to programs that match their need based on their level of vulnerability, and prevents agencies
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. Another emerging concern is whether
CE exacerbates racial disparities, and the designers of the Vulnerability Index- Service Prioritization Decision
Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) started phasing out this assessment tool in 2021 (see OrgCode 2021:
https://www.orgcode.com/bl og/a-m essage-from-orgcod a-on-the-vi-spdat-moving-forward).
PageA31 of 418
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
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
PageA32 of 418
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.
Table 18: Housing Problems among Senior -Headed Households
Owner Household Type
Percent of Households with One or More Housing Problems
Extremely Low-
Income (0-30% AMI)
Low -Income
(31-50% AMI)
Moderate -Income
(51-80% AMI)
Not Senior -Headed
89%
55%
36%
Senior -Headed
64%
30%
16%
Renter Household Type
Percent of Households with One or More Housing Problems
Extremely Low-
Income (0-30% AMI)
Low -Income
(31-50% AMI)
Moderate -Income
(51-80% AMI)
Not Senior -Headed
88%
79%
29%
Senior -Headed
69%
61 %
38%
Source: HUD CHAS 2010-2014
1,000
■ Moderate -Income
(51-80% AMI)
800 290
120
0
°n 600
0
■ Low -Income (31-
50%AMI)
0
a i 400
M
3
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
PageE?233 of 418
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
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
with disability
89°%
49%
30/ °
Household member has
a disability
81%
32%
18%
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
with disability
91%o
76/0
0
29/
Household member has
a disability
88%
69/0
35/ °
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
Pageg34 of 418
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,
highlighting the importance of developing and retrofitting affordable units with accessibility
features.
2,000
185 ■ Moderate -Income
1,600
(51-80% AM I )
0
t
v
1,200
0
_
■ Low -Income (31-
0
50%AMI)
800
ai
E
0
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
1,200
3
= 800 75 ■ Low -Income (31.
0 50% AMI)
L �
400
E •�
Z
5\0� °`� �;�,e ���� ■ Extremely Low-
���� �P� c,°� aeIncome (0-30%
P lea del AMI)
ae
to
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
PageA35 of 418
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"
PageA36 of 418
and "Somewhat Hard" responses (33%). Language barriers may have prompted some
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 Q. The positive developments identified by ELL respondents are
largely different in type and emphasis than those identified by non -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.
PageA37 of 418
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
0% 1%
won't fix?
■ 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
V14
■ Somewhat hard 1
■ Very hard
2%
■ No ■ Yes
■ No ■ Not Sure Yes
Figure 26: Waterloo English Language Learner Responses to Multiple -Choice Survey Questions
Page 238 of 418 87
Table 20: Survey Feedback from English Language Learners on Positive Developments and Changes
Needed in Waterloo
Good things in Waterloo:
# of
responses
Schools
25
ELL education/teachers
22
Jobs
22
Cleanliness of city
9
Cultural attractions/events
8
Affordable rents
8
Good people
7
Emergency services
7
Hospital
6
Streets/street improvements
2
Changes needed in Waterloo:
# of
responses
Crime/Safety
20
Road maintenance/repair needed
13
Hospital/heath costs
13
Better jobs
13
Housing condition/age
10
More public transportation
6
Housing cost/supply
6
Cleanliness/garbage
5
More businesses
4
Accommodation for immigrants/
English Language Learners
3
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
PageA39 of 418
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 2021 and 2040. According to City data on residential permits issued
from October 2014 to October 2017, an average of 142 units were permitted annually, serving
as a baseline for the housing supply and demand projections in this section (Error! Reference
source not found.). 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
PageA4O of 418
housing stock, which is relatively low compared to the optimal value of 1% for a "normal" housing
market. At Waterloo's baseline rate of residential permitting, 2,840 new units will be added
between 2021 and 2040.
The City conducts an average of 26 demolitions per year. Additionally, communities experience
housing stock "attrition" as some 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 1,384 units will be
lost from Waterloo's housing stock between 2021 and 2040, resulting in a net addition of 1,456
units (see Appendix E for additional calculations). For the housing demand projections discussed
below, the net unit production rate is assumed to be 728 per decade or 73 annually.
Table 21: Future Housing Supply Projections for Waterloo
Supply Variable
Value
Source
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
Gross new units added 2021 -
2,840
142 units/year x 20 years
2040
Units demolished 2021-2040
520
26 demolitions/year x 20 years
Total units lost from housing
Calculated using demolition rate and assumed
stock 2021 - 2040
1,384
attrition rate - see Appendix E for methodology
Net new units added 2021-
Units added minus Units lost (728/decade or
2040
1,456
73/year)
Available lots (as of 2017)
2,456
City of Waterloo data on available lots (2,280 non -
City -owned, 176 City -owned)*
Estimated new lots needed to
Average of 384 (Gross new units added minus
accommodate projected new
124
Available lots) and -136 (Gross new units added
units by 2030
minus Available lots minus Demolitions)
*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). See Appendix E for additional calculations.
As of 2017, Waterloo had 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 520 residential units will be
demolished between 2021 and 2040, possibly contributing new buildable lots. Depending on how
PageAl1 of 418
many new lots are added from demolitions, Waterloo may have a surplus up to 136 lots or a
deficit of 384 lots. The average estimate is a shortfall of 124 lots by 2040.
To calculate future housing demand in Waterloo, we modeled two scenarios (Table 22):
• Scenario 1: Waterloo's population remains unchanged at 67,314 from 2020 to 2040;
linear projection of average household size decline from 2000 to 2010 (-0.04 per decade).
• Scenario 2: Waterloo's population grows at a moderate rate from 2020 to 2040 (see
Appendix E for methodology). Average household size remains unchanged from 2010
(2.35).
Table 22: Future Housing Demand Projections for Waterloo
New HHs
Net units
Additional units
Permits/yr to
Demand Scenario
Projected
added
New
added/
needed 2021-
meet need
Pop. 2030
2021-2030
HHs/yr
yr
2030**
2021- 2030
#1 (assuming no pop.
change, HH size declines*)
67,314
692
69
73
-36
138
#2 (assuming moderate pop.
growth, HH size unchanged)
69,980
817
82
73
89
151
New HHs
Net units
Additional units
Permits/yr to
Demand Scenario
Projected
added
New
added/
needed 2031-
meet need
Po p�2040
HHs r
/y
2031-2040
yr
2040**
2031- 2040
#1 (assuming no pop.
change, HH size declines*)
67,314
'
532
53
73
-196
122
#2 (assuming moderate pop.
growth, HH size unchanged)
71,022
443
44
73
-285
114
New HHs
Net units
Additional units
Demand Scenario
Projected
added
New
added/
needed 2021-
Pop.2040
2021-2040
HHs/yr
yr
2040**
#1 (assuming no pop.
change, HH size declines*)
67,314
1' 224
61
73
-232
#2 (assuming moderate pop.
growth, HH size unchanged)
71,022
1,260
63
73
-196
*Average household size decreased from 2.39 in 2000 to 2.35 in 2010, a decline of 0.04/decade. Future households
are projected from 28,962 occupied housing units in the 2020 decennial Census, assuming an average household
size decline of 0.04/decade. **New households added minus 728 net units added per decade. See Appendix E for
population projection methodology.
Page4�42 of 418
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 67,314, but the decrease in household size results in an
additional 1,224 households by 2040. Since 1,456 net new housing units will be available by 2040
if residential permitting continues at its baseline rate, a surplus of 232 units would be available.
The City can meet new housing demand under Scenario 1 by permitting 138 housing units per
year between 2021 and 2030 — slightly less than the baseline rate of 142 per year — and reducing
the annual permitting rate to 122 units per year from 2031 to 2040.
In Scenario 2, the population increases to 69,980 by 2030 (a 3.96% increase from 2020) and to
71,022 by 2040 (a 1.5% increase from 2030). In this scenario, the City adds 817 households
between 2021 and 2030, or 82 households annually. This household growth rate outpaces the
estimated net housing addition rate of 73 units annually. As a result, this scenario would require
89 additional housing units beyond the 728 units projected to be added each decade. To meet
this demand, the annual rate of housing permits would need to increase from its baseline of 142
to 151 units per year.
Between 2031 and 2040, projected population growth in Scenario 2 is slower than in the previous
decade. As a result, this scenario projects that the City will add fewer households (44) than
housing units (73) on an annual basis. The baseline permitting rate of 142 units per year would
result in a surplus of 285 units by the end of the decade. A permitting rate of 114 units per year
would be sufficient to meet new housing demand between 2031 and 2040.
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.
Page4�43 of 418
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
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
PageA44 of 418
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 2040 based on two scenarios: constant population with declining
average household size, and moderate population growth with average household size
unchanged. Under the first scenario, the baseline rate of housing production in Waterloo will
provide adequate housing to serve new households and replace units lost through demolition or
attrition. Under the second scenario, the City's housing permitting rate would have to increase
from a baseline of 142 units annually to 183 units annually between 2021 and 2030, to keep pace
with increased 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.
PageA$5 of 418
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 S: 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
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.
PageA46 of 418
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.
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.
Page�,47 of 418
• 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 fees".
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.
• 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
" For more information, see the Building American Cities Toolkit at http://www.communityprogress.net/toolkit-
paRes-292.php. Retrieved 6/27/18.
Pageq�48 of 418
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 25, 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.
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.
" 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 [websitei.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/4/4/organizing-and-the-community-land-trust-model. Retrieved
6/26/18.
PageA49 of 418
• 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.
• 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.
PageA50 of 418
• 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, mal<e 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).
• 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
Paggo1 of 418
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 made28,29.
• 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.
• 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
26 Wells, S. March 31, 2016. "Eviction Court needs more attention from communities." Nonprofit Quarterly
[website]. https://non profitquarterIV.org/2016/03/31/eviction-court-needs-more-attention-from-communities/.
Retrieved 6/26/18.
27 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.
29 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.
ao ChangeLab Solutions 2014.
Pagq&52 of 418
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," unless such an ordinance is preempted by
State law. 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.
• 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.
"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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0885412216670603. Retrieved
6/26/18.
Pagq(?253 of 418
• 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.
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.
Paggg54 of 418
• 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 programs".
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.
• Address obstacles to hiring these residents, such as transportation issues or past
criminal records. Identify solutions to obstacles, such as employer -supported
12 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.
Pagq(A55 of 418
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 WATERLOOS 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
the Housing Trust Fund for Linn County. This office was capitalized with $1 million
PaggA56 of 418
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 on 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.
PaggA57 of 418
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE CITY OF WATERLOO 2021 HOUSING NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, the 2021 Housing Needs Assessment was presented at a Waterloo City Council Work
Session on August 16, 2021; and
WHEREAS, said assessment was presented at the regular Waterloo City Council meeting on [date]; and
WHEREAS, said assessment identifies the City's housing needs; and
WHEREAS, said assessment outlines housing goals and objectives that may be implemented by the
community to meet its housing needs; and
WHEREAS, a housing needs assessment assists the community in securing housing funds and provides
documentation of the need for such funds; and
WHEREAS, said Housing Needs Assessment is intended to be consistent with the City of Waterloo's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Code of Ordinances, and other policies and procedures established by the
City;
WHEREAS; said plan is in the best interests of the City of Waterloo,
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved that City Council of Waterloo, Iowa approves and adopts the
City of Waterloo 2021 Housing Needs Assessment;
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2021.
Quentin Hart, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kelley Felchle
City Clerk
Page 258 of 418