Docstoc

non-metropolitan

Document Sample
non-metropolitan Powered By Docstoc
					  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                                                   HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Section One — General Information ......................................................................................................................................1
 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................1
 Citizen Par ticipation ...................................................................................................................................................................1
 State Profile................................................................................................................................................................................2
      Background and Trends.......................................................................................................................................................2
      Population Overview ............................................................................................................................................................2
      Population Changes, 1990 to 2000 ......................................................................................................................................3
      Racial and Ethnic Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................8
      Number of Households ......................................................................................................................................................15
      Age of Householder ...........................................................................................................................................................15
      Household Income .............................................................................................................................................................15
      Poverty Status ....................................................................................................................................................................16
      Family Status and Poverty Level .......................................................................................................................................16
      Housing and Commuting ....................................................................................................................................................17
      Change in Residence .........................................................................................................................................................17

 Section Two — Housing Needs Assessment .....................................................................................................................18
 Iowa total ..................................................................................................................................................................................19
    County Classification ..........................................................................................................................................................19
    Trends in Iowa‘s Age D istribution ......................................................................................................................................21
    Trends in Racial and Ethnic Composition, and Immigration ..............................................................................................23
    Income and Job Growth .....................................................................................................................................................25
    People living with HIV/AIDS ...............................................................................................................................................26
    Homelessness....................................................................................................................................................................28
    Who is Homeless in Iowa ...................................................................................................................................................30
    Why Iowans Are Homeless ................................................................................................................................................30
    Facilities and Services for the Homeless...........................................................................................................................31
    Needs of Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless in Iowa ...................................................................................................33
    Iowa's Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) .............................................................................................33
    Homeless Management Infor mation System Data ............................................................................................................34
 Subpopulations.........................................................................................................................................................................34
    Needs of Persons Threatened with Homelessness...........................................................................................................36
    Need for Supportive Housing including Housing for Non-Homeless Per sons w ith Special Needs ..................................36
    Iowa Council on Homelessness.........................................................................................................................................40
    State of Iowa's Accessing Mainstream Resources Action Plan ........................................................................................40
    Priority Homeless Needs Analysis .....................................................................................................................................40
    Priority Identification...........................................................................................................................................................41
    Strategy Development........................................................................................................................................................41

 Section Three — Housing Market Analysis.........................................................................................................................42
 Overall market trends...............................................................................................................................................................42
    Iowa total ............................................................................................................................................................................42
 Housing Affordability ................................................................................................................................................................44
    Iowa total ............................................................................................................................................................................44
    Iowa ....................................................................................................................................................................................45
 Composition of the Housing Stock...........................................................................................................................................46
    Iowa ....................................................................................................................................................................................47
    Iowa ....................................................................................................................................................................................48
 Condition and Adequacy of the Housing Stock .......................................................................................................................48
    Iowa total ............................................................................................................................................................................49
    Iowa total ............................................................................................................................................................................50
 Housing Available to People with Special Needs ....................................................................................................................57
 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................................................................57

                                                                                              i
 2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                                                  HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Section Four — Strategic Plan .............................................................................................................................................60
Priorities ...................................................................................................................................................................................60
    Priority Housing Needs ................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.60
Non-housing Community Development Needs .......................................................................................................................72
    Needs as Expressed in CDBG Applications ......................................................................................................................72
Services to Empower Families.................................................................................................................................................74
    Wor kforce Development.....................................................................................................................................................74
    Welfare to Work..................................................................................................................................................................75
    Head Start ..........................................................................................................................................................................76
    State and Local Programs..................................................................................................................................................76
Anti-Poverty Strategy and Affordable Housing Activities.........................................................................................................76

Section Five — Action Plan ..................................................................................................................................................78
Housing Resources ..................................................................................................................................................................78
     Non-Housing Community Development Resources ..........................................................................................................82
HOME Recapture and Resale Provisions................................................................................................................................93
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Compliance ...........................................................................................................93
Other Forms of Investment ......................................................................................................................................................94
Affir mative Marketing ...............................................................................................................................................................94
Minority and Women Business Outreach ................................................................................................................................95

Section Six — Performance Measures and Monitoring .....................................................................................................96
Perfor mance Measures............................................................................................................................................................96
Monitoring.................................................................................................................................................................................96

Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................................97
Appendix 1: Demographic Profile by County ...........................................................................................................................98
Appendix 2: Continuum of Care Housing Activity Chart ........................................................................................................102
Appendix 3: Housing Profile by County .................................................................................................................................106
Appendix 4: Comments on Draft Plan & Responses.............................................................................................................110

Note: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for the State of Iowa is also a part of this plan and is
available as a separate document.




                                                                                             ii
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                         HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


S E C T I O N O N E — G E N E R A L I N F O R M AT I O N

INTRODUCTION
The Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development details the State‘s need for affordable
and supportive housing and other community and economic development activities. Priorities and
strategies are presented to address this need.

Completion of the Plan is required for the State to be eligible for many federally funded housing and
community development programs. Basic content is dictated by federal law through guidelines supplied by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The Plan was prepared by staff of the Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED), in consultation
with other State agencies that operate in the broad area of housing and community development. Major
sources of data were the 2000 Census, CHAS 2000 data, data from other State agencies and IDED
program information.

As required, IDED consulted with the following organizations in developing the Plan:

   Iowa Department of Education (children)
   Iowa Department of Elder Affairs (elderly)
   Iowa Department of Human Services (homeless)
   Iowa Department of Public Health (lead-based paint hazards)
   Iowa Department of Education and Iowa Department of Human Services (persons with disabilities)
   Iowa Finance Authority
   Iowa Civil Rights Commission


CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Public input was solicited through a variety of methods. First, two Focus Group sessions were held in
December of 2003 and January of 2004 to discuss state housing needs, state housing efforts, and how the
state efforts (including the administration of CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs) could be made more
effective. The following groups participated either in person or through the Iowa Communications Network:

 Community Action Agency representatives                    Iowa League of Cities
 Department of Housing and Urban                            Iowa Rural Development Council
  Development (Des Moines)                                   Iowa State Association of Counties
 Fannie Mae                                                 Representatives of 5 Iowa cities
 Federal Home Loan Bank                                     Representatives of CHDO organizations
 For-profit housing developers                              Representatives of COGs (Directors and staff)
 Iowa Bankers Association                                   Representatives of private Housing Consultants
 Iowa Civil Rights Commission                               USDA - RD
 Iowa Coalition for the Homeless                            Veteran's Administration
 Iowa Finance Authority

                                                     1
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                  HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Public input was also solicited during a 30-day draft review and comment period. The draft Plan was made
available to the public by mail, e-mail, and was posted on IDED's website.
Finally, the public was invited to comment through two public hearings. The first public hearing was held at
the IDED on October 1, 2004. The second public hearing with four regional sites in Iowa was held on
October 20, 2004.

A summary of the comments received on the Plan and IDED's response to them is contained in the last
section of this document.


STATE PROFILE
BACKGROUND AND TRENDS

Population change and attributes such as age, family status and household size shape the housing market
in Iowa. Iowa experienced a population gain in the last decade, but that growth has been very uneven
geographically. In contrast to rural and non-metropolitan areas of the State, the areas around Des Moines,
Iowa City, and Cedar Rapids experienced strong growth. Non-whites and Hispanics comprise a very small
part of Iowa‘s population, but their numbers are increasing. There is significant d isparity between the
income distribution of white, non-Hispanics and other racial and ethnic groups.

The number of households grew slightly between 1990 and 2000. Homeowners represent about 72
percent of households in Iowa. There is also a high proportion of elderly households, especially in non-
metropolitan areas. Renters are more than twice as likely as homeowners to have incomes below 50
percent of area median family income (MFI). Female-headed households have very high rates of poverty.

Housing and jobs are linked, literally, by commuting. Medium- and long-distance commuting among Iowa
workers is becoming more prevalent. The availability of affordable housing in many small ―bedroom‖
communities and rural areas contributes to this phenomenon.

POPULATION OVERVIEW

Since the early 1900s, Iowa‘s population has either grown slowly or remained stable. In a few periods,
there were population losses, such as occurred between 1980 and 1990. The long -term dynamics of
change include a steady loss in farm and other rural populations and growth in many medium and large
communities.

In the late 1800s, as many Iowa counties were settled, population density was about 30 to 50 persons per
square mile. This figure usually included at least four farm families p er square mile, plus persons living in
towns directly serving farmers‘ needs. Statewide, there are now about two farm families per square mile.
Some of the original towns grew, but many remained small and some disappeared.

Forty-four of 99 counties had peak Census populations in 1900 or earlier. In 1990, 10 counties had less
than half their peak Census population. By 2000, nine cities had grown to populations of 50,000 or more,
and the 20 metropolitan counties in the state now have 53 percent of the State‘s population, compared to
44% in 1990. However, some of this increase is due to the higher number of counties now classified as
metropolitan (20 in 2003 compared to 11 in 1990).

Refer to Appendix 1 for detailed demographic data, by county, from the 2000 census.
                                                              2
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


Population Changes, 1990 to 2000

State population increased by 5.4% from 1990 to 2000. As noted earlier, however, this moderate increase
masks significant distinction. Metropolitan counties grew by 28% between 1990 and 2003, while non-metro
counties dropped in population by 14% during the same period. Table 1.1 below shows a breakdown of
population changes.

Table 1.1: Population Change


                                                        Population                         Change
                                                1990                   2000        Total            Percent
                         State                2,776,755              2,926,324   149,493               5.4
                         Metro Counties       1,222,711              1,563,592   340,881              27.9
                         Non-metro
                                              1,554,044              1,362,732   (191,312)            -14.0
                         Counties


Metro Counties with Population Gains



                                                            Population                       Change
                                                1990                   2000        Total            Percent
                         Polk                 327,140                374,601      47,461                     14.5
                         Linn*                168,767                191,701      22,934                     13.6
                         Johnson               96,119                111,006      14,887                     15.5
                         Dallas                29,755                 40,750      10,995                     37.0
                         Scott*               150,973                158,668      7,695                      5.1
                         Story*                74,252                 79,981      5,729                      7.7
                         Woodbury*             98,276                103,877      5,601                      5.7
                         Pottawattamie*        82,628                 87,704      5,076                      6.1
                         Warren                36,033                 40,671      4,638                      12.9
                         Black Hawk*          123,798                128,798      4,214                      3.4
                         Benton*               22,429                 25,308      2,879                      12.8
                         Dubuque*              86,403                 89,143      2,740                      3.2
                         Madison*              12,483                 14,019      1,536                      12.3
                         Mills*                13,202                 14,547      1,345                      10.2
                         Washington*           19,612                 20,670      1,058                      5.4
                         Harrison*             14,730                 15,666       936                       6.4
                         Jones*                19,444                 20,221       777                       4.0
                         Bremer*               22,813                 23,325       512                       2.2
                         Guthrie*              10,935                 11,353       418                       3.8
                         Grundy*               12,029                 12,369       340                       2.8




                                                   3
   2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                              HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Non-metro Counties with Population Gains



                                               Population                                   Change
                                     1990                2000                 Total                Percent
 Jasper*                            34,795              37,213                2,418                   6.9
 Marion                             30,001              32,052                2,051                   6.8
 Muscatine*                         39,907              41,722                1,815                   4.5
 Sioux*                             29,903              31,589                1,686                   5.6
 Dickinson*                         14,909              16,424                1,515                  10.2
 Plymouth*                          23,388              24,849                1,461                   6.2
 Henry                              19,226              20,336                1,110                   5.8
 Iowa*                              14,630              15,671                1,041                   7.1
 Boone*                             25,186              26,224                1,038                   4.1
 Marshall*                          38,276              39,311                1,035                   2.7
 Clarke*                            8,287               9,133                  846                   10.2
 Allamakee*                         13,855              14,675                 820                    5.9
 Mahaska*                           21,532              22,335                 803                    3.7
 Cedar*                             17,444              18,187                 743                    4.3
 Tama*                              17,419              18,103                 684                    3.9
 Louisa*                            11,592              12,183                 591                    5.1
 Winneshiek*                        20,847              21,310                 463                    2.2
 Buena Vista*                       19,965              20,411                 446                    2.2
 Delaware*                          18,035              18,404                 369                    2.0
 Hamilton*                          16,071              16,438                 367                    2.3
 Wapello*                           35,696              36,051                 355                    1.0
 Lucas*                             9,070               9,422                  352                    3.9
 Decatur*                           8,338               8,689                  351                    4.2
 Jackson*                           19,950              20,296                 346                    1.7
 Greene*                            10,045              10,366                 321                    3.2
 Buchanan*                          20,844              21,093                 249                    1.2
 Davis*                             8,312               8,541                  229                    2.8
 Crawford*                          16,775              16,942                 167                    1.0
 Fayette*                           21,843              22,008                 165                    0.8
 Van Buren*                         7,676               7,809                  133                    1.7
 Howard*                             9,809               9,932                 123                    1.3
 Page*                              16,870              16,976                 106                    0.6
 Wright*                            14,269              14,334                 65                     0.5
 Ringgold*                          5,420               5,469                  49                     0.9
 *County gained population 1990-2000, but not between 1980-1990

Fifty-four of 99 counties gained population from 1990 to 2000 (twenty of 20 metropolitan counties and 34 of 79 non-metropolitan
counties).




                                                          4
   2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Polk, Warren and Dallas counties comprise the Des Moines metropolitan area and Johnson County is the Iowa City metropolitan area.
Story and Johnson counties contain the two largest State universities. Most of Polk County‘s growth (92 percent) occurred outside Des
Moines, while most of Johnson County‘s growth (64 percent) was within Iowa City.




                                                            5
2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                               HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Map 1.1: Iowa Metro Counties Map

                                                                                                                                                            WINNISHEIK     ALL A MA
         LYON           OSCEOLA         DICKINS ON       EMME T        KOSSU TH         WINNEBA GO         WOR TH         MI TCHE LL      HOWA RD                           -KEE




          SIOUX          O’BRIE N        CLAY        PALO AL TO                         HANC OCK            CERRO             FL OYD     CHICK ASAW
                                                                                                            GORD O
                                                                                                                                                              FAYE TTE      CLAY TON




        PLYMOU TH       CHEROKEE         BUENA       POCA HON TAS      HU MB OLD T         WRIGH T        FRAN KLIN                         BRE MER
                                         VISTA                                                                            BU TLER



                                                                                                                                                                            DELAWA RE            DUBU QUE
                                                                                                                                                BLAC K        BUCHA NAN
                                                                           WEBSTE R                                                             HAWK
                                                                                                            HARDI N           GRU NDY
        WOODBU RY             IDA           SAC          CALH OU N                         HA MIL TON



                                                                                                                                                                                           JONES           JACKS ON
                                                                                                                                        TA MA            BEN TON          LINN

            MON ONA            CRAWF OR D         CARR OL L        GREENE             BOONE             STORY       MA RSHA LL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                CLIN TON

                                                                                                                                                                                           CEDAR


                                                                                                                     JASPER            POWESHIEK           IOWA          JOHNS ON
                                                  AUDU -      GU THRIE          DAL LAS           POLK                                                                                                         SCOTT
                  HARRIS ON         SHELBY         BON

                                                                                                                                                                                            MUS CA TI NE


                                                                                                                                                    KEOKU K        WASHING-
                                                                                                 WARRE              MA RION        MA HASKA                          TON
                      POTTAWA TTA MIE             CASS             ADAIR        MA DISON           N

                                                                                                                                                                                       LOU ISA



                                                                                                                                                                             HENR
                                                                                                          LUCAS           MONR O           WAPELL O         JEFFERS ON         Y
                         MI LLS          MON T-          ADA MS            UNION           CLAR KE                          E                                                             DES MOINES
                                        GOME RY


                                                                                                            WAYNE         APPANOOSE         DAVIS               VAN
                         FRE MON T       PAGE            TAYL OR           RINGGOL D                                                                          BUREN
                                                                                        DECA TUR                                                                                 LEE




                                                            Iowa Metropolitan Counties
                                                                                                                6
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                   HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The Iowa Metro Counties Map shows Iowa‘s 20 metropolitan counties. These include the cities and surrounding suburbs of
Ames (Story County), Cedar Rapids (Benton, Jones, and Linn Count ies), Council Bluffs (Harrison, Mills, and Pottawattamie
Counties), Davenport (Scott County), Des Moines (Dallas, Guthrie, Madison, Polk, and Warren Counties), Dubuque (Dubuque
County), Iowa City (Johnson and Washington Counties), Sioux City (Woodbury County) Waterloo-Cedar Falls (Black Hawk,
Bremer and Grundy Counties).

Five hundred fifty-four of Iowa‘s 949 incorporated municipalities (57.4 percent) gained population from 1990 to 2000. Of these,
twenty-six gained 1,000 or more. Table 1.2 below shows population gains greater than 1,000 for cities in metropolitan counties.

Table 1.2: Cities with Population Gains over 1,000


                           1990                     2000                     Gain
                           Population               Population
 West Des Moines           31,702                   46,403                   14,701
 Cedar Rapids*             108,772                  120,758                  11,986
 Ankeny                    18,482                   27,117                   8,635
 Marion*                   20,403                   26,294                   5,891
 Urbandale                 23,500                   29,072                   5,572
 Des Moines                193,189                  198,682                  5,493
 Clive                     7,462                    12,855                   5,393
 Coralville                10,347                   15,123                   4,776
 Sioux City*               80,505                   85,013                   4,508
 Council Bluffs*           54,315                   58,268                   3,953
 Johnston                  4,702                    8,649                    3,947
 Ames*                     47,198                   50,731                   3,533
 Bettendorf*               28,139                   31,275                   3,136
 Altoona                   7,242                    10,345                   3,103
 Davenport*                95,333                   98,359                   3,026
 Waukee*                   2,512                    5,126                    2,614
 Iowa City                 59,735                   62,220                   2,485
 Grimes*                   2,653                    5,098                    2,445
 North Liber ty*           2,926                    5,367                    2,441
 Waterloo*                 66,467                   68,747                   2,280
 Cedar Falls*              34,298                   36,145                   1,847
 Indianola*                11,340                   12,998                   1,658
 Hiawatha*                 4,986                    6,480                    1,494
 Pleasant Hill*            3,671                    5,070                    1,399
 Stor m Lake*              8,769                    10,076                   1,307
 Norwalk                    5,726                   6,884                    1,158
 *City gained population from 1990-2000, but not from 1980-1990.

Storm Lake is the only city in a non-metropolitan county with a population gain of more than 1,000 from 1990 to
2000. Storm Lake's population increased 1,307 -- from 8,769 in 1990 to 10,076 in 2000.




                                                              7
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

RACIAL AND ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS

Part A of Table 1.3 shows the racial and ethnic distribution for the State in 2000, and changes since 1990.
The numbers of non-Hispanic whites increased by 3.2 percent (84,800) from 1990 to 2000, and they
accounted for 93.9 percent of the total population in 1990, and 96.6 percent for the non-metropolitan
counties.

In contrast, although other racial and ethnic groups are comparatively very small in number, they all grew
during the past decade. The largest growth, both in numbers (+49,826) and percentage (152 percent), was
among Hispanics. The number of Asian and Pacific Islanders increased 51 percent (+12,718). The Native
American population grew 32.9 percent (+2224). The State‘s African-American population grew 30 percent
(+14,360).

High growth rates of Hispanics and Asians indicate significant in-migration of these groups to Iowa. This
growth has been stimulated by job opportunities in some locations, particularly in the food processing
industry. Naturally, this has affected the availability and affordability of housing in and around these areas.

Three small eastern Iowa cities have relatively large proportions of Hispanic residents. In 2000, Conesville
had 250 Hispanics in a total population of 424 (59 percent), and West Liberty had 1349 Hispani cs in a total
population of 3332 (40.5 percent). Both communities are in Muscatine County. Similarly, Columbus
Junction (Louisa County) had 741 Hispanics in a population of 1900 (39 percent). County-wise, Louisa,
Buena Vista, and Muscatine Counties have increased percentages of Hispanics (12.6 percent, 12.5
percent, and 11.9 percent). Each of these counties is home to major food processing plants.

Non-white and Hispanic groups have markedly lower incomes than white, non-Hispanics. Part C of Table
1.3 shows that while 40.1 percent of white, non-Hispanic households have incomes below 80 percent of the
area MFI (HUD Section 8 figures), 66.3 percent of households among African-Americans and 63.7 percent
of Native Americans are below that figure. Similarly, 58.2 percent of Hispanic households and 49.1 percent
of Asians households are below 80 percent of area MFI.

In addition to 1.3, the maps on pages 9 through 12 and table 1.4 on page 13 indicate the geographic
concentrations, by county, of African-American, Native American, Asian and Hispanic populations in Iowa.




                                                      8
2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                           HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Table 1.3: Population and Household Data

 State of Iowa                                                                                                        FY:
                                                                                                                                Five Year Period:
                                                                                                                                         Through FY:
                                                                                                                      2005                2010

 POPULATION                         1990 Census        2000
                                       Data         Census Data
                                                                          % Change                              Relative Median Income
                                                                                                                     of Jurisdiction
                                                                                                      State Medi an   Sub-State           National
 White (non-Hispanic)                  2,663, 840        2,748, 640              3.18                 Family          Median              Median
                                                                                                      Income          Family              Family
                                                                                                                      Income              Income

 Black (non-Hispanic)                     47,493            61,853               30.2
                                                                                                            $48,005           NA                 $57,500


 Hispanic (all races)                     32,647            82,473              152.6


 Native American
                                           6,765             8,989               32.9
 (non-Hispanic)

 Asian & Pacific Islanders
                                          24,926            37,644               51.0
 (non-Hispanic)

 Two or More Races                           NA             31,778                NA



 Other (non-Hispanic)                      1,084             5,642               520



 Total Population                      2,776, 755        2,926, 324               5.4



 Household Population                  2,677, 235        2,822, 155               5.4



 Non-Household Population                 99,520          104,169                 4.7


 Special Categories
 (e.g. students, military, migrant farm workers, etc.)



                                        Total       % of Total            % Very Low    % Other low    % Moderate         % Above 95%
 HOUSEHOLDS                          Households     Households              Income         Income         Income             MFI*
                                        2000                              0-50% MFI*    51-80% MFI*    81-95% MFI*


 White (non-Hispanic)                  1,089, 910             95%              20.6%         19.5%             8.6%             51.3%



 Black (non-Hispanic)                     20,334              1.8%             46.1%         20.2%             6.9%                26.6



 Hispanic (all races)                     19,949              1.7%             30.9%         27.3%             9.9%             31.9%

 Native American
 (non-Hispanic)                            2,388               .2%             42.3%         21.4%             6.0%             10.3%


 Asian & Pacific Islanders
 (non-Hispanic)                           10,286               .8%             30.5%         18.6%             7.5%             43.4%



 Other                                     6,318               .5%                NA            NA              NA                  NA


                                                                                                              81 - 100% MFI
 All Households                        1,149, 185            100%              21.4%         19.7%
                                                                                                                  58.8%


*Or, based upon HUDF adjusted incom e limits if applicable
                                                                      9
2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Map 1.2: African American COUNTY MAP

                                                                                                                                                                WINNISHEIK     ALLAMA-
                     LYON         OSCEOLA        DICKINSON           EMMET       KOSSUTH          WINNEBAGO       WORTH           MITCHELL       HOWARD                          KEE




                     SIOUX         O’BRIEN        CLAY          PALO ALTO                         HANCOCK         CERRO             FLOYD      CHICKASAW
                                                                                                                  GORDO
                                                                                                                                                                   FAYETTE      CLAYTON




                 PLYMOUTH         CHEROKEE        BUENA         POCAHONTAS       HUMBOLDT          WRIGHT       FRANKLIN          BUTLER          BREMER
                                                   VISTA


                                                                                                                                                                                DELAWARE            DUBUQUE
                                                                                                                                                     BLACK         BUCHANAN
                                                                                     WEBSTER                                                         HAWK
                 WOODBURY               IDA            SAC           CALHOUN                       HAMILTON
                                                                                                                  HARDIN           GRUNDY                                                             767
                                                                                      1,364                                                      10,179
                     2,097                                                                                                                                                                    JONES         JACKSON
                                                                                                                                              TAMA           BENTON           LINN


                        MONONA           CRAWFORD            CARROLL         GREENE             BOONE         STORY      MARSHALL
                                                                                                                                                                             4,919                              CLINTON
                                                                                                             1,463                                                                            CEDAR
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 946
                                                                                                                          JASPER             POWESHIEK         IOWA          JOHNSON
                                                             AUDU-       GUTHRIE          DALLAS         POLK                                                                                                  SCOTT
                             HARRISON         SHELBY          BON
                                                                                                                                                                             3,223
                                                                                                        18,113                                                                                                9,689
                                                                                                                                                                                               MUSCATINE


                                                                                                                                                          KEOKUK       WASHING-
                                                                                             MADISON     WARREN          MARION         MAHASKA                          TON
                                 POTTAWATTAMIE               CASS            ADAIR

                                                                                                                                                                                           LOUISA
                                        671
                                                                                                                                                                                 HENRY
                                                                                                                 LUCAS        MONROE             WAPELLO        JEFFERSON
                                   MILLS           MON T-            ADAMS           UNION         CLARKE                                                                                    DES MOINES
                                                  GOMERY
                                                                                                                                                                                              1,511
 Metro                              FREMONT       PAGE              TAYLOR           RINGGOLD      DECATUR
                                                                                                                  WAYNE       APPANOOSE           DAVIS         VAN BUREN

 County                                                                                                                                                                              LEE
                                                                                                                                                                                 1,066
    808

  African American
  Residents
                                                 African American residents in counties
                                                 in which their population exceeds 500.
                                                                                                  10
2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                             HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Map 1.3: Native American COUNTY MAP
                                                                                                                                                        WINNISHEIK     ALLAMA-
            LYON          OSCEOLA        DICKINSON           EMMET       KOSSUTH          WINNEBAGO      WORTH            MITCHELL       HOWARD                          KEE




             SIOUX         O’BRIEN        CLAY          PALO ALTO                         HANCOCK         CERRO             FLOYD       CHICKASAW
                                                                                                          GORDO

                                                                                                                                                           FAYETTE      CLAYTON




           PLYMOUTH       CHEROKEE        BUENA         POCAHONTAS       HUMBOLDT          WRIGHT       FRANKLIN          BUTLER          BREMER
                                           VISTA


                                                                                                                                                                        DELAWARE            DUBUQUE
                                                                                                                                             BLACK       BUCHANAN
                                                                             WEBSTER                                                         HAWK
                                                                                                          HARDIN           GRUNDY
           WOODBURY             IDA            SAC           CALHOUN                       HAMILTON



             1,753                                                                                                                    TAMA           BENTON           LINN
                                                                                                                                                                                      JONES        JACKSON



                MONONA           CRAWFORD            CARROLL         GREENE             BOONE         STORY      MARSHALL            1,102
                                                                                                                                                                                                       CLINTON

                                                                                                                                                                                      CEDAR


                                                                                                                  JASPER             POWESHIEK         IOWA          JOHNSON
                                                     AUDU-       GUTHRIE          DALLAS         POLK                                                                                                  SCOTT
                     HARRISON         SHELBY          BON
                                                                                                1,001                                                                                  MUSCATINE
                                                                                                                                                                                                      500
                                                                                                                                                  KEOKUK       WASHING-
                                                                                     MADISON    WARREN           MARION         MAHASKA                          TON
                         POTTAWATTAMIE               CASS            ADAIR

                                                                                                                                                                                   LOUISA



                                                                                                                                                                         HENRY
                                                                                                         LUCAS        MONROE             WAPELLO        JEFFERSON
    Metro                  MILLS           MON T-            ADAMS           UNION         CLARKE                                                                                    DES MOINES
                                          GOMERY
    County
                                                                                                          WAYNE       APPANOOSE           DAVIS         VAN BUREN
                            FREMONT       PAGE              TAYLOR           RINGGOLD      DECATUR
                                                                                                                                                                             LEE



     808
    Native
   American
   Residents
                      Native American residents in counties in which their
                                   population exceeds 500.

                                                                                                       11
2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                             HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Map 1.4: Asian COUNTY MAP

                                                                                                                                                       WINNISHEIK     ALLAMA-
            LYON         OSCEOLA        DICKINSON           EMMET       KOSSUTH          WINNEBAGO      WORTH            MITCHELL       HOWARD                          KEE




            SIOUX         O’BRIEN        CLAY          PALO ALTO                         HANCOCK         CERRO             FLOYD       CHICKASAW
                                                                                                         GORDO
                                                                                                                                                          FAYETTE      CLAYTON




           PLYMOUTH      CHEROKEE        BUENA         POCAHONTAS       HUMBOLDT          WRIGHT       FRANKLIN          BUTLER          BREMER
                                          VISTA

                                          884
                                                                                                                                                                       DELAWARE            DUBUQUE
                                                                                                                                            BLACK       BUCHANAN
                                                                            WEBSTER                                                         HAWK
                                                                                                         HARDIN           GRUNDY                                                           514
           WOODBURY            IDA            SAC           CALHOUN                       HAMILTON
                                                                                                                                       1,254
             2,501
                                                                                                                                                                                     JONES        JACKSON
                                                                                                                                     TAMA           BENTON           LINN


               MONONA           CRAWFORD            CARROLL         GREENE             BOONE         STORY      MARSHALL                                            2,634
                                                                                                                                                                                                      CLINTON
                                                                                                4,080                                                                                CEDAR


                                                                                                                 JASPER             POWESHIEK         IOWA          JOHNSON
                                                    AUDU-       GUTHRIE          DALLAS         POLK                                                                                                 SCOTT
                    HARRISON         SHELBY          BON
                                                                                                                                                                    4,578                            2,502
                                                                                               9,858                                                                                  MUSCATINE


                                                                                                                                                 KEOKUK       WASHING-
                                                                                    MADISON    WARREN           MARION         MAHASKA                          TON
                        POTTAWATTAMIE               CASS            ADAIR

                                                                                                                                                                                  LOUISA


                                                                                                                                                                        HENRY
   Metro                                                                                                LUCAS        MONROE             WAPELLO        JEFFERSON
                          MILLS           MON T-            ADAMS           UNION         CLARKE                                                                                    DES MOINES
   County                                GOMERY


                                                                                                         WAYNE       APPANOOSE           DAVIS         VAN BUREN
     808                   FREMONT       PAGE              TAYLOR           RINGGOLD      DECATUR
                                                                                                                                                                            LEE

   Asian
   Residents


                                        Asian residents in counties in which their
                                                population exceeds 500.
                                                                                                       12
2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                              HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Map 1.5: Hispanic COUNTY MAP
                                                                                                                                                        WINNISHEIK     ALLAMA-
            LYON         OSCEOLA        DICKINSON           EMMET       KOSSUTH          WINNEBAGO       WORTH            MITCHELL       HOWARD                          KEE



                                                                                                                                                                             520
            SIOUX         O’BRIEN        CLAY          PALO ALTO                         HANCOCK          CERRO             FLOYD      CHICKASAW
                                                                                                          GORDO

            808                                                                                           1,291                                            FAYETTE      CLAYTON




           PLYMOUTH      CHEROKEE        BUENA         POCAHONTAS       HUMBOLDT          WRIGHT       FRANKLIN           BUTLER          BREMER
                                          VISTA
                                                                                              706         642
                                        2,560                                                                                                                            DELAWARE           DUBUQUE
                                                                                                                                             BLACK       BUCHANAN
                                                                            WEBSTER                                                          HAWK
           WOODBURY            IDA            SAC           CALHOUN                       HAMILTON
                                                                                                          HARDIN           GRUNDY                                                           1,056
                                                                              944                                                            2,359
              9,468                                                                                                                                                                   JONES        JACKSON
                                                                                                                                      TAMA           BENTON           LINN


               MONONA           CRAWFORD            CARROLL         GREENE             BOONE         STORY        MARSHALL           679                             2,722
                                                                                                                                                                                                        CLINTON
                                  1,482                                                         1,238             3,523                                                               CEDAR
                                                                                                                                                                                                        627
                                                                                                                  JASPER             POWESHIEK         IOWA          JOHNSON
                                                    AUDU-       GUTHRIE          DALLAS         POLK                                                                                                   SCOTT
                    HARRISON         SHELBY          BON
                                                                                                                                                                 2,781                                6,445
                                                                                2,199           16,490                                                                                 MUSCATINE



                                                                                    MADISON     WARREN           MARION         MAHASKA
                                                                                                                                                  KEOKUK       WASHING-
                                                                                                                                                                 TON
                                                                                                                                                                                        4,973
                        POTTAWATTAMIE               CASS            ADAIR


                           2,892                                                                                                                                 564               LOUISA



                                                                                                                                                                         HENRY
                                                                                                                                                                                   1,537
                                                                                                         LUCAS        MONROE             WAPELLO        JEFFERSON
  Metro                   MILLS           MON T-            ADAMS           UNION         CLARKE                                                                                     DES MOINES
                                         GOMERY
  County                                                                                                                                     799                                       740
                                                                                                          WAYNE       APPANOOSE           DAVIS         VAN BUREN
    808                    FREMONT       PAGE              TAYLOR           RINGGOLD      DECATUR
                                                                                                                                                                             LEE


  Hispanic                                                                                                                                                                   902
  Residents

                                            Hispanic residents in counties
                                        in which their population exceeds 500.
                                                                                                         13
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                             HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Table 1.4: Counties with More than 500 Minority Residents
                    Counties w ith
                       more than
                     500 resident
                      who are:
                     Counties with more than 500 residents
                      who are:
                                                                                     2000
                                                                                   Population

                                                                 Polk                  18,113
                                                                 Black Hawk            10,179
                                                                 Scott                  9,689
                                                                 Linn                   4,919
                    African-American                             Johnson                3,223
                                                                 Woodbury               2,097
                                                                 Des Moines             1,511
                                                                 Story                  1,463
                                                                 Webster                1,364
                                                                 Lee                    1,066
                                                                 Clinton                  946
                                                                 Dubuque*                 767
                                                                 Pottaw attamie*          671
                                                                 Woodbury               1,753
                    Native American                              Tama                   1,102
                                                                 Polk                   1,001
                                                                 Scott*                   500
                                                                 Polk                   9,858
                                                                 Johnson                4,578
                                                                 Story                  4,080
                    Asian                                        Linn                   2,634
                                                                 Scott*                 2,502
                                                                 Woodbury*              2,501
                                                                 Black Hawk             1,254
                                                                 Buena Vis ta*            884
                                                                 Dubuque*                 514
                                                                 Polk                  16,490
                                                                 Woodbury               9,468
                    Hispanic                                     Scott                  6,445
                                                                 Muscatine              4,973
                                                                 Marshall*              3,523
                                                                 Pottaw attamie         2,892
                                                                 Johnson                2,781
                                                                 Linn                   2,722
                                                                 Buena Vis ta*          2,560
                                                                 Black Hawk*            2,359
                                                                 Dallas*                2,199
                                                                 Louisa*                1,537
                                                                 Craw ford*             1,482
                                                                 Cerro Gordo            1,291
                                                                 Story                  1,238
                                                                 Dubuque*               1,056
                                                                 Webster*                 944
                                                                 Lee                      902
                                                                 Sioux*                   808
                                                                 Wapello*                 799
                                                                 Des Moines*              740
                                                                 Wright*                  706
                                                                 Tama*                    679
                                                                 Franklin*                642
                                                                 Clinton*                 627
                                                                 Washington*              564
                                                                 Allamakee*               520
                   * County reached 500+ level after 1990




                                                       14
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                  HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS

There were 1,149,276 households in Iowa in 2000. Since 1990, the number of households grew by 82,156,
or about 7.1 percent. A total of 608,934 households (53 percent) were in the 20 metropolitan counties, and
540,342 (47 percent) were in non-metropolitan counties.

In 2000, 72.3 percent of all Iowa households lived in owner-occupied homes. Owners represented 69.8
percent of all metropolitan county households, and within the nine central cities of the metropolitan area,
owners represented 68.5 percent of households. In non-metropolitan counties, owners represented 75.1
percent of all households, with a homeowner rate of 78.9 percent in communities with populations less than
2,500.


AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER

The median age of all heads of households in Iowa was 48.1 years in 2000. Median age for all
homeowners was 50.9 years, and median age for all renters was 37.8. Heads of household are older (49.0
years) in non-metropolitan areas and younger (45.9) in metropolitan areas. The proportion of householders
65 and older was 18.1 percent for the State. Of the total number of householders 65 or older, 55.8% lived
in rural counties and 44.2% lived in metropolitan counties.

An analysis of change in age of household head from 1990 to 2000 shows the number of householders
younger than 35 decreased by 28,202, (-9.9 percent). There was some growth in the householder age
group of 45 to 54 years, representing aging ―baby boomers.‖ This group grew statewide by 3.8 percent, or
8,363 householders. A significant trend in age of householder is the growth in households headed by
persons older than 75. This group grew 15.1 percent (+19,173 households).


HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Twenty-one percent of households in Iowa have incomes at or below 50 percent of the area MFI and 19.6 per cent have incomes
between 50 and 80 percent of the area MFI. Table 1.5 below breaks down the figures for renters and homeowners.

Table 1.5: Renter Versus Homeowner Co mparison


       Percent of Area MFI:                0 to 30 Percent               31 to 50 percent              51-80 percent

                                               69,401                         59,843                       78,854
                          Renters

                                               45,493                         72,133                      147,461
                          Owners



These figures show renters are significantly more likely to have low incomes, particularly in the categories
below 51 percent of MFI.




                                                             15
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


POVERTY STATUS
The highest rate of poverty among all persons is 15.5 percent in Decatur County. The highest rate of
poverty among families is 10.9 percent, also in Decatur County. Grundy County has the lowest rate of
poverty for all persons (4.6 percent) and Bremer County has the lowest poverty rate for families (2.9
percent).

For the purposes of this Plan, areas of concentration for low-income families are defined as those counties
with a rate of poverty 150 percent or greater than State poverty rates of 13.6 percent for all persons and 6.0
percent for families. With the exception of Johnson and Story Counties, which are home to the University
of Iowa and Iowa State University respectively and have high student populations, the highest rates of
poverty are concentrated in southern Iowa and a few other parts of the State more isolated from
metropolitan areas and from non-metropolitan employment centers, as shown in Table 1.6 below.
Table 1.6: Greatest Extent of Poverty by County


   Greatest Extent of Poverty For All Residents                 Greatest Extent of Poverty For Families

         County                     Percent                         County                    Percent
                                       15.5                                                      10.9
         Decatur                                                     Decatur

                                       15.0                          Wayne                       10.8
         Johnson
        Appanoose                      14.5                        Appanoose                     10.1

         Ringgold                      14.3                         Ringgold                     9.4

          Story                        14.1                          Wapello                     9.4

          Wayne                        14.0                           Davis                      9.0
          Lucas                        13.7

FAMILY STATUS AND POVERTY LEVEL

Household family status is significantly related to household income. Married families generally have the
highest incomes. The number of married families with children declined from 1990 to 2000 by 9.4 percent
(-27,213 households). The decline was greatest in non-metropolitan counties, at 17 percent (-29,031),
while metropolitan counties increased (+1,838). Other family types g enerally have lower incomes. In
particular, female-headed single-parent households have markedly lower incomes than other families. The
poverty rate for female-headed single parent households (with and without children) was 23.4 percent in
2000, compared to a 6 percent poverty rate for families and married couples.

For single-parent households headed by females with children under age 18, the poverty rate was 30.5
percent. For those whose children were under age 5, the poverty rate was 46.1 percent. The number of
female-headed households with children increased 19 percent since 1990 (+10,777 households), in both
metropolitan (+5,836) and non-metropolitan (+4,941) areas.
                                                     16
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


HOUSING AND COMMUTING

Housing availability and costs are directly related to commuting, which is a significant and growing factor in
the State‘s work force. Since many Iowa communities  particularly smaller communities  no longer have
enough jobs for their residents, people commute to nearby communities with job surpluses. Statewide,
there are 2.6 applicants for every available job opening. Among counties with a high percentage of
commuters, Mahaska County has the most applicants per available job opening at 3.9.

The practice of commuting is increasing throughout Iowa, in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.
In 2000, the average commute time was 18.5 minutes, with 18.4% of workers traveling 30 minutes or more
to work. In addition, more than 30 percent of workers in 43 counties worked in another county. These
include 12 metro counties, 15 counties that are adjacent to metro counties, and 16 non-metro counties.
Counties from which workers commute tend to have lower housing costs (home sale prices and rents) than
counties to which they commute for jobs.

CHANGE IN RESIDENCE

Census figures for 2000 show 56.9 percent of Iowans lived in the same houses in which they lived in 1995.
This indicates a high degree of stability in residence and low turnover in housing sales and rental units. In
many communities, elderly homeowners remain in the houses where they raised families, even though they
no longer need the space of a house. The lack of housing suitable for the elderly at various levels of
income and care needs reinforces this situation.




                                                     17
   2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT



SE C T IO N T WO — H OU S IN G N E E D S A S S E S SM E NT

This section summarizes a variety of data about the state’s demographic makeup, identifying the trends
that determine housing need. Data are drawn primarily from the 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and
Housing, supplemented with local data sources where available. Detailed demographic data are provided
for each county in Appendix 1. This section summarizes trends for four types of counties:

■ Metropolitan counties include a central place of 50,000 people or more.
■ Micropolitan counties have a central place with a population of 10,000 to 49,999.
■ Small Urban counties have at least one city with 2,500 or more population, but no city larger than 9,999.
■ Rural counties do not have a city with as many as 2,500 people.


Map 2.1: County categories based on urban population




According to the 1990 and 2000 US census, Iowa‘s population increased by 5.4% over the decade. In
comparison, the population of metropolitan counties increased by 10% and the population of rural counties
decreased by 3.2%. The bulk of the movement was toward the biggest cities; micropolitan and small urban
counties experienced less than 2% growth on average.
                                                   18
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                               HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

As one would expect, household trends mimic population trends. Metropolitan counties enjoyed the
greatest increase, while rural counties experienced a slight decrease.


Table 2.1



                Population and Household Change in Iowa: 1990-2000
                                              Population                 Households
                                                 %                           %
     Iowa total                                  5.4                        7.8

  County Classification
     Metropolitan                                10.0                      12.7
     Micropolitan                                 1.9                       3.9
     Small Urban                                  0.4                       2.9
     Rural                                       -3.2                      -0.7

Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 1
Notes: 1. Household rates based on occupied housing


As Table 2.1 shows, the number of households increased faster than the population as a whole, an
indication that household size has declined. The smallest families are most likely to be found in rural
counties, perhaps because they have the largest proportions of elderly residents.
TABLE 2.2



                                 Average Household Size
                                                 1990                      2000
                                                 People                    People
Iowa Total                                        2.50                      2.45
County Classification
    Metropolitan                                  2.56                      2.50
    Micropolitan                                  2.48                      2.44
    Small Urban                                   2.51                      2.45
    Rural                                         2.45                      2.39

Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 1

A census tract analysis (Map 2.2) shows in even more detail that the most rapidly growing areas are tracts on the
fringe of sizeable cities such as Des Moines, Ames, Council Bluffs/Omaha, and the corridor along I-380 between
Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. Some cities such as Waterloo/Cedar Falls and Sioux City are experiencing slower
growth, or spotted growth.



                                                          19
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT




Forecasts of population in 2010 were developed using the cohort-survival method. Rates of natural increase were
calculated from birth and death records, and it was assumed that migration rates would remain the same as they
were during the 1990s. A more detailed discussion of this method can be found in Appendix B.

Map 2.3: Projected 2010 population by county




                                                     20
     2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
 If current trends in population growth continue in Iowa, growth will continue to be concentrated in the following areas
 in the next decade:

    Des Moines central region, stretching south to the border;
    The Quad Cities - Iowa City- Cedar Rapids-Waterloo/Cedar Falls sector in the east; and
    Sioux City, and the Omaha/Council Bluffs area in the west.


 TRENDS IN IOWA’S AGE DISTRIBUTION
 Few people would be surprised to learn that Iowa is one of the grayest states in the nation. In their 2003 report titled
 ―Housing for Older Iowans: On the Crest of the Age Wave,‖ Kaskie and Ourjiri state that in 2000, Iowa had the fourth
 highest proportion of seniors 65 years and older after Florida, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. According to that
 report, nearly one quarter of the state‘s population is projected to be 65 or older by 2025 (compared with 15% in the
 2000 census). Iowa‘s ranking rises when considering those age 85 and older, sharing the top spot with North
 Dakota—2.2% and 2.3%, respectively (Kaskie and Ourjiri. 2003).

 Though currently a small proportion of the overall population, the age group 85 years and older is growing fairly
 quickly. Numbering 54,401 in 1990, the group included 65,118 people in the 2000 census, a 20% rise, compared to
 a statewide average population increase of 5%. While this is a large increase, it is somewhat tempered by the fact
 that it is a smaller group to begin with, making double-digit increases easier than if it was a larger group. (These, and
 the following finding, are displayed in Figure 2.1)

 The age group experiencing the largest growth is 45-55 year-olds. In the decade between the 1990 and 2000
 censuses, this group grew by 44% (from 272,972 persons to 392,794). At the other end of the spectrum, the state
 lost people aged 25-34. This group decreased by 16% in the same time period. To a lesser degree, the state lost
 65-74 year-olds as well (7% decrease).

 Both of the growth trends discussed above are exaggerated in metropolitan counties, which experienced a 27%
 increase in the oldest population group (compared to 20% statewide) and a 50% increase in those age 45 -55
 (compared to 44% statewide). Shrinkages in the 25-34 and 65-74 year-old age groups are more likely to occur in
 rural counties (29% and 15% decreases respectively, compared to 16% and 7% statewide).

 A look at the change in household type helps us better understand the shifting age composition throughout
 the state. While non-family households are becoming more common (a 19% increase state -wide from
 1990-2000), family households are still the majority (in 2000, 6 7% of all households state-wide were
 families).

                       T ABLE 2.3                                                         T ABLE 2.4
     Change in Household Type: 1990-2000                                     Proportion Family Households
                        Family            Non-family
                                                                                                  1990            2000
                       % change           % change
 Total state               3                 19                     Total state                   70%             67%
 Metropolitan              8                 24                     Metropolitan                  69%             66%
 Micropolitan             -1                 15                     Micropolitan                  71%             68%
 Small Urban              -1                 13                     Small Urban                   72%             69%
 Rural                    -5                  9                     Rural                         71%             68%
Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing            Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing


                                                           21
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                    HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT



                                                                                     Figure 2.1
                                                                           Age Profiles: 1990 and 2000
  100%         2%              2%            1%               2%             2%               2%           3%                  3%        3%              3%
               6%              5%            5%               4%             6%               6%           6%                  7%        8%              8%
   90%                                       7%               6%
               8%              7%                                            9%               8%
                                                                                                          10%                  9%
                                             8%               8%                                                                         11%            10%
   80%         9%              9%
                                                                            10%               9%                                                                      85+
                                                                                                          10%                  9%
                                             10%                                                                                         11%            10%           75-84
                                                              13%
   70%        10%              13%                                          10%
                                                                                              14%
                                                                                                                                                                      65-74
                                                                                                          10%              13%
                                                                                                                                         10%                          55-64
                                             15%                                                                                                        13%
   60%                                                                                                                                                                45-54
              14%                                             15%
                               15%                                          14%
                                                                                                          13%                                                         35-44
                                                                                              15%                          15%           13%
   50%                                                                                                                                                                25-34
                                                                                                                                                        14%
                                             17%                                                                                                                      15-24
              15%                                             14%
                               12%                                          15%                           14%                                                         <15
   40%                                                                                        12%                          10%           13%
                                                                                                                                                        10%

   30%        14%                            16%              16%
                               15%                                          13%                           12%
                                                                                              13%                          13%           11%
                                                                                                                                                        12%

   20%


              22%              21%           21%              21%           22%               20%         22%              20%           22%
   10%                                                                                                                                                  20%



    0%

              1990            2000          1990             2000           1990              2000       1990              2000         1990            2000

                    Iowa Average                   Metropolitan                   Micropolitan                  Small Ur ban                    Rural
  Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 1




Population characteristics of Counties. Iowa’s metropolitan counties were younger than rural counties in the 1990 census, an inclination that only gets stronger a de cade later.
In 1990, 30% of the population living in metropolitan counties was 55 or older. This proportion dropped to 23% in 2000. Th e age composition of those counties classified as
Micropolitan, Small Urban, and Rural is fairly static from one census to another. Consistent across all county types is a loss of population in ages 25-34. Non-metropolitan
counties also see an increase in ages 45-54. Movements by specific age groups are discussed in more detail below.

                                                                                         22
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                             HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


TRENDS IN RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION, AND IMMIGRATION
Though still predominately a white, native-born state, Iowa is becoming more racially diverse. The 1990 census
reported that 1.6% of Iowa‘s population was foreign born, a number that increased to 3.1% in 2000. While the group
is still small, the numbers more than doubled (from 43,316 to 91,085).

The racial composition of the state shows some change as well. However, it is unclear how much of the shift is due
to the change in the way the question regarding race was asked from 1990 to 2000. In 1990, respondents were only
allowed to choose one race; in 2000, multiple races were accepted and the data were reported as each race alone,
and then one response category for two or more races. For instance, those checking the ―white‖ box in 1990 may
have chosen ―white‖ and ―Pacific Islander‖ in 2000. If this was the case, they would be recorded in the figures below
as ―white‖ in 1990, but as ―Two or more‖ in 2000. For a more detailed discussion on this topic, see Appendix B.
Despite this uncertainty, it appears Iowa is becoming less homogeneous, showing increases in most minority groups.
Numbers of American Indians and Alaskan Natives, however, remain static.



                                    Figure 2.2
                      Statewide Change in Racial Compositon
                                    1990-2000
        100%            0.4%
                                            1.1%
         99%            0.9%
                        0.3%                                 Two or more rac es (2000 only)
                                            1.3%
         98%
                        1.7%                                 Other
         97%                                1.2%
                                             0.3%            Asian/Pacific Islander
         96%

         95%                                2.0%             American Indian/Alaskan
                                                             Native
         94%                                                 Black
                       96.7%
         93%
                                                             White
         92%                                94.0%

         91%

         90%
                       1990                 2000

   Source: 1990 and 2000 US Census of Population, Summary File 1




People with Hispanic ancestry have increased as well, comprising 1.1% of the population in 1990 and 2.8% in 2000.
When looking at the numbers themselves, the group more than doubled (30,642 in 1990 and 81,501 in 2000).
Metropolitan and micropolitan counties are driving the trends seen throughout Iowa, but all sizes of counties are
seeing a more diverse population. This is seen not only in the proportion of foreign-born population, but also in
increases of minorities and those who consider themselves Hispanic.

                                                        23
     2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


                                     T ABLE 2.5
                   Percentage of Population Foreign-born
                                     1990                          2000
                                       %                               %
 Total State                          1.6                           3.1
 Metropolitan                         2.2                           4.1
 Micropolitan                         1.2                           2.7
 Small Urban                          0.8                           1.7
 Rural                                0.6                           0.9

Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 1

 Micropolitan counties had the highest concentration of Hispanics in 2000 (3.7%, compared to 3.2% in Metropolitan
 counties).
                                                            Figure 2.3
                                          Change in Racial Composition by County Type
                                                            1990-2000
     100%

       99%

       98%
                                                                                                  Two or more races (2000 only )
       97%
                                                                                                  Other

       96%                                                                                        Asian/Pacific Islander

                                                                                                  American Indian/Alaskan Native
       95%
                                                                                                  Black
       94%                                                                                        White

       93%                                                                                       Note: The 2000 census
                                                                                                 allow ed respondents to
       92%
                                                                                                 choose more than one race
       91%                                                                                       for the first time. Because of
                                                                                                 this, there is a “Two or more
       90%
                1990     2000      1990       2000      1990     2000      1990           2000   races” category in 2000. The
                                                                                                 other categories represent
                 Metropolitan        Micropolitan        Small Urban              Rural
                                                                                                 respondents who said only
                                                                                                 that race.


 Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 1




                                                           24
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                              HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

INCOME AND JOB GROWTH
The median household income in Iowa increased 50% from 1989 to 1999. Non-family income grew faster, with a
statewide average increase of 60%, reaching 68% in small urban counties. Iowans experienced larger increases
than the U.S. as a whole (see Figure 2.4).



                                                      Figure 2.4
                                             Percent Change in Income
  80%
                                                     1989-1999

  70%                                                                                      68%
                                       60%                                                                  61%
  60%                                                   58%                      53% 54%         57% 56%
                      49%   50% 50%           48% 49%                49% 52%
  50%           42%                                            47%
          40%
  40%

  30%

  20%

  10%

   0%
             Nation             Iowa           Metropolitan     Micropolitan     Small Urban        Rural

                            Household Income            Family Income          Nonfamily Income

 Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and housing, Summary File 3


However, median household incomes in Iowa ($39,469) continue to lag behind the national household
median ($41,994). Demonstrating a direct relationship between community size and income within Iowa,
median household income shrinks as community size shrinks, ranging from a median household income in
Metropolitan counties of $37,721 to $33,590 in rural counties.

2000 census data shows there is disparity in incomes by race and to a lesser degree ethnicity. White -only
headed households earned a median income of $39,923 in 1999, compared to a median of $24,938 for
African-American households. Hispanic or Latino households earned a median of $32,971 in 2000. As
one would expect, elderly populations earn smaller incomes than average ($21,442), with metropolitan
elderly earning more than rural elderly ($22,917 and $17,841, respectively).

Job growth and unemployment trends reflect the increases seen in income over the 1990s. In 1990, the
average unemployment rate for the state was 4.3%, compared to a low of 2.6% recorded in both 1999 and
2000.




                                                          25
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                            HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Since 2000, the unemployment rate has steadily increased, until this year; the first five months of 2004
appear to reverse the trend. The average unemployment rate for 2003 was 4.5%, the highest recorded in
Iowa since 1992. The average for January through June in 2004 is 4.1%.


                                                         Figure 2.5
                                         Average Unempl oyment Rate in Iowa 1990-2004
                  4.6%    4.7%
 5.0%                                                                                                         4.5%
          4.3%
 4.5%                             4.0%                                                                 4.0%          4.1%
                                           3.7%          3.8%
 4.0%                                             3.5%
                                                                    3.3%                        3.3%
 3.5%
                                                                           2.8%
 3.0%                                                                             2.6%   2.6%

 2.5%
 2.0%
 1.5%
 1.0%
 0.5%
 0.0%
          1990    1991    1992   1993     1994    1995   1996       1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002   2003   Jan-
                                                                                                                     June
                                                                                                                     2004


Source: Iowa Workforce Information Network, Labor Market Information (http://iwin.iwd.state.ia.us/websaras/index.asp)


Steady from April to May 2004, weekly and hourly earnings are up slightly from a year ago. Weekly hours
worked remains unchanged. If an Iowan earning the weekly average worked all 52 weeks in the year, their
annual income would be $23,492.

                          Table 2.6
             Statewide Hours and Earnings
                          May 2003      May 2004
  Weekly earnings (avg)       $439.87     $451.77
  Weekly hours (avg)            32.9         33.0
  Hourly earnings (avg)        $13.37       $13.69

Source: Iowa Workforce Development, Employ ment Statistics Bureau



PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS
The 2002 Epidemiological Profile for Iowa, authored by Randy Mayer, the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Coordinator for the
Iowa Department of Public Health, reported an unprecedented high in the number of people living with HIV/AIDS
(1,123). This number increased to 1,202 in March 2004 (Mayer, 2004). This can be credited to both the steady


                                                          26
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                           HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
diagnosis of HIV infection and the widespread use of antiretroviral therapies that have delayed the onset of AIDS and
death, and thereby increasing the number of persons living with HIV.

For the first time since 1996, Iowa experienced an increase in the number of people diagnosed with HIV
infection. From 2001 to 2002, the number of HIV diagnoses increased 7%. This increase is solely
attributable to foreign-born persons: Since 1999, diagnosis of HIV among foreign-born persons has
increased 250%. In contrast, diagnosis among US-born persons in Iowa has been decreasing since 1994.
AIDS diagnoses have been declining since a 1999 spike, when the state reached a high of over 80 cases
diagnosed. This trend may change in the coming years due to the increase in HIV diagnosis among
foreign-born persons.

Foreign-born persons diagnosed with HIV are more likely to be female, black or Hispanic, and heterosexual
or with an unidentified risk than US-born persons with HIV. Most foreign-born persons with HIV emigrated
from Africa or Central or South America. However, it is unclear how many immigrants were already
infected before moving to the US or if they became infected after they arrived.

Certain minority groups are much more severely impacted with HIV infections when comparing diagnosis
rates to population. Black, non-Hispanic males and females; and Hispanic males are more likely than their
white counterparts to be diagnosed with HIV. In fact, diagnosis rates for Hispanic males and black, non -
Hispanic males are more than 11 times higher than for white, non-Hispanic males. Despite these hard-hit
populations, the majority of persons living with HIV/AIDS are white (60% of people diagnosed with HIV in
2002 were white, non-Hispanic persons).

People with HIV/AIDS are more likely to live in metro areas, as Map 2.4 shows. From 2000 to 2002, 74% of persons
diagnosed with HIV lived in one of Iowa‘s ten most populous counties (compared to 66% of AIDS diagnosis from
1982-1989). These counties account for 47% of the population.

Map 2.4: Persons living with HIV or AIDS




                                                        27
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
While Story, Linn, and Dubuque are in the top-ten most populous counties, they have fewer cases per
population than the statewide average. In contrast, Marshall County stands out as having a population less
than 50,000, but showing a higher concentration of HIV/AID cases per pe rson than average. A few
circumstances play into this, including a large meatpacking facility, which may explain the notable increase
in the Hispanic population in that county since 1997, now accounting for 9%. While this special case
deserves consideration, the actual number of cases is quite small, so caution should be used when drawing
conclusions.



HOMELESSNESS

The data for this section of the report was drawn mainly from ―Iowa‘s Homeless Population: 1999
Estimates and Profile‖ (MacDonald & Jenney 1999). Supplemental data was obtained from ―Iowa‘s
Homeless Children/Youth and Their Families,‖ (Botcher 2002). The definitions of homeless and near-
homeless populations are based on the McKinney Act definitions.
A "Homeless Individual" or a "Homeless Person" includes:

 an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and

 an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is:

     a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living
      accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the
      mentally ill);

     an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or

     a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation
      for human beings.

Many different methodologies have been used in studies concerning the homeless population throughout
the years, making direct comparisons tricky at best. Still, studies completed in the early 1990s suggest
some stability in the size of the homeless population. A study conducted in 1997 shows a much higher
count, while the 1999 study cited above shows an estimate more in line with what was seen previously.
The methodology used to estimate the homeless population from the actual counts in the 1999 study was
more conservative than the one used in the 1997 study; the actual counts of the two studies were similar,
suggesting the homeless population remained of similar size. Talks with se rvice providers confirmed this
hunch. Because of this, interpretation of these two studies cannot be that the homeless population
decreased significantly between 1997 and 1999. In each case, actual counts (usually during a defined
time period) were used at the basis for the annual estimates.

The 1999 study reports the annualized estimate of the homeless population at 18,592, of whom half were
children. The near-homeless population was estimated at 7,306, with children accounting for 41%.

The 2001-02 homeless children/youth study reports a much higher number of homeless youth, more than
double what was reported in the 1999 study (20,155, compared to 9,383). However, this report does not

                                                     28
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
suggest the number of homeless youth actually increased in that time, but rather that there were significant
methodological differences with the previous report.

The estimated number of homeless households was 9,694 and the estimate of near-homeless households
was 3,186. The most common household type was a single adult (36% of all homeless households), while
30% were single adults with children. Single adults with children made up the largest group of near-
homeless households (34%).

Although homeless persons live in all counties in Iowa, they are more likely to congregate in urban
counties. Map 2.5 shows the estimated number of homelessness individuals by county in 1999.

Map 2.5: Estimated number of homeless people by county, 1999




African-Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately homeless. While making up 1.9% and 1.8% of the
total population in Iowa in 1999, they constituted 18.1% and 7.1% of the homeless population. Both the
1999 and 2001-02 reports agree that similar trends occur with children.
Women represent a slightly higher proportion of the homeless population (52.1%). Women are also more
likely to head single-parent homeless households (80%). These findings likely correlate with causes of
homelessness. Both studies show family disruptions such as divorce or domestic violence as the number
one cause of homelessness. Secondary causes include job loss, an inability to pay mortgage/rent, and
especially in high poverty counties, mental illness.
The most common source of income for homeless (46.3%) and near-homeless (19.4%) households is from
employment. This is especially true in low-poverty, urban areas (70.2%). This finding is especially
important as it may contradict the mainstream perception of homeless people. It also suggests that wages
may be too low and higher paying jobs are unavailable to many.
The second most common source of income for homeless and near-homeless populations is food stamps
(9.3% and 18.5%, respectively). Homeless people in rural areas are more likely to get income from
FIP/TANF and food stamps (20% and 30%, respectively).

                                                    29
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WHO IS HOMELESS IN IOWA

The most recent study of statewide homelessness in Iowa was conducted in 1999 and published in 2000.
This study, authored by Dr. Heather MacDonald of the University of Iowa, found that 59.7 % of homeless
Iowans are children. Family breakups are the number one reason for homelessness according to the
study. Single adults with children comprise the largest population of the homeless in Iowa. Women count
as well over half of the adult homeless population, relating to their role as the single parent in 80% of the
single family households identified in the study. Results of the study found that 18,592 Iowans were
homeless and 7,306 Iowans were near-homeless in 1999.

The Iowa Department of Education conducts a study on homelessness in Iowa every two years. The most
recent study was conducted in 2001/02. Entitled Iowa's Homeless Children/Youth and their Families, this
study focused on homeless children and youth in Iowa who were accompanied by an adult. The results of
this study found an annualized estimate of 22,639 homeless children/youth in Iowa during the reporting
period. Racial and ethnic data compiled by the study found that 67.3% of these children were white, 19.7%
were African-American, 7.2% Hispanic, 1.8% Native American, .8% Asian, and 3.25 were listed as "other".
Approximately half of the children were male and half were female.

In all of the studies cited here, as well as in the annual point in time surveys done through out Iowa each
year, one thing remains clear - the number of persons fitting the definition of chronic homeless in Iowa is
relatively small. The chronic homeless population primarily occurs in the metropolitan areas in Iowa.


WHY IOWANS ARE HOMELESS

As reported in the 1999 study of homelessness in Iowa, half of all homeless households have income from
employment. What this implies is that while homeless people are employed the wages are not high enough
to keep them in housing. Higher paying jobs seem to be out of their reach fo r whatever reason. According
to Dr. MacDonald "lack of living wage jobs and affordable housing were reported by most service providers
as the most significant barrier to resolving homelessness in every type of community".

The 1999 study found that common factors lead to homelessness in Iowa. These factors and their import
are detailed in the following table:




                                                    30
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Table 2.7: Causes of Homelessness/Near-Homelessness by Household

 Cause                            % Homeless         % Near Homeless
 Eviction                               9.1                      10.6
 Substance Abuse                        7.6                       2.7
 Mental Illness                         7.9                      10.6
 Physical Disability                    3.2                       8.9
 AIDS Related                           0.2                        0
 Utility Disconnection                  0.5                      16.0
 Domestic Violence                     10.4                       0.3
 Family Breakup                        24.3                       5.1
 Job Loss                              13.3                      14.7
 Loss of FIP / TANF                     0.2                       0.7
 Loss of Food Stamps                    0.1                       .03
 Loss of Other Benefits                 0.1                       1.7
 Deinstitutionalization                 3.7                       1.4
 Other                                 13.6                       3.4
 Unknown/Not Reported                   5.7                      23.5


FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR THE HOMELESS

All Iowa counties have some type of services directed towards homeless persons. Even the most rural
county has a food bank or food voucher program. The vast majority of homeless shelters and services are
found in the larger counties. Current data regarding the number of food programs is not readily available.
The following table indicates the number of housing programs available across the state (this data was
compiled from the state's most recent Continuum of Care applications).


Table 2.8: Housing for the Homeless in Iowa (by county size)

 Type of Facility             # Facilities in          # Beds         # Facilities in             # Beds
                              Counties Under                          Counties Over
                              50,000 Population                       50,000 Population
 Emergency Shelters           26                       510            58                          1253

 Transitional Housing         9                        196            63                          1905

 Permanent Housing            2                        30             21                          1289

Occupancy rates of homeless facilities in Iowa are high, and use of nearly all facilities has increased. Most
shelters report a need for longer service periods, more support services, and more beds. The State of Iowa
has an estimated total overnight sleeping capacity of 5384 beds. This count includes both emergency
shelter, as well as transitional and permanent housing. Most of these facilities run near their capacity levels
at all times. During the winter months the situation becomes even worse.

                                                     31
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

The availability of day shelters, congregate meal sites, and other facilities serving homeless persons on
less than an overnight basis is extremely limited in Iowa. Such services exist exclusively in metropolitan
areas. All areas of the State are serviced by a "safety net" of programs that may provide vouchers under
certain prescribed conditions to assist homeless persons in obtaining shelter, meals or services. Vouchers
are provided through FEMA and the ESGP and state-funded Homeless Shelter Operations Grant Program.

A network of programs exists to serve the homeless and near homeless in Iowa. All 99 counties are served
by local and regional offices of the Iowa Department of Human Services (IDHS) and by Community Action
Agencies operated by 19 nonprofit organizations. The State has established a network of 37 Local
Homeless Coordinating Boards that cover 94 of the 99 Iowa counties. These Boards help to coordinate the
homeless services provided within their county jurisdictions and assist in developing strategies to meet
anticipated needs in their communities. Services offered are not unifo rm across areas, but the range of
services available is extensive, including job training, daycare, self-help classes, counseling,
referral/service coordination, transportation, health care, emergency food and clothing, and family
development assistance. The Department of Veteran Affairs provides a variety of programs and services in
offices throughout the state to assist its targeted client group.

The State administers several programs targeted to prevent low-income individuals and families from
becoming homeless. The most visible programs include the following:

   Emergency Shelter Grants Program (ESGP) This program is funded through annual allocations from
    HUD and is administered by the Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED). Up to 30 % of
    funds may be used for homeless prevention activities. This is a growing need in Iowa. Funding is used
    to pay for housing counseling, legal information, and emergency rent and utility payments to keep
    people housed.

 Homeless Shelter Operations Grant Program (HSOG) This program virtually identical to the ESG
  Program, and is used to fund the same activities. There is currently no direct appropriation for this
  funding through the state budget process. It does receive 5 % of the State's Real Estate Transfer T ax
  annually. In addition, the Iowa Finance Authority has allocated a portion of its funding to this program
  over the past several years.

 Emergency Assistance Program (EAP) EAP is actually two distinct programs administered by the Iowa
  Department of Human Services. The first is entirely state-funded, providing economic assistance to
  families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, through the use of vendor payments for
  rent, house and utility payments. The second program, which is eligible for matching federal funds,
  uses vendor payments for services aimed more at keeping families together and/or restoring family
  relationships. While currently not funded due to budget constraints, reinstatement of this funding will be
  a legislative priority of the Iowa Council on Homelessness.

Appendix 2 provides information on homeless shelters, emergency shelters, transitional housing
and permanent supportive housing in the Balance of State Continuum of Care.




                                                    32
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

NEEDS OF SHELTERED AND UNSHELTERED HOMELESS IN IOWA

The nature and extent of homelessness differs from county to county in Iowa. Every county reports
instances of homelessness in the studies. Rural homelessness is less obvious but exists in the "doubling
up" of families and residency in inadequate structures. Urban homelessness is more visibly concentrated
and publicized.

The need for facilities and services also differs in rural areas and urban centers. In rural areas homeless
individuals and families are likely to need transportation so they can seek support services. Often these
services are many miles apart. Providing assistance in rural areas also requires increased attention to
coordination of services, as programs are often more limited and difficult to access. Because rural
residents are distributed over large geographic areas, fewer shelter facilities can be maintained and
supported. Portions of non-metropolitan Iowa are without emergency shelter facilities and must depend on
vouchers or other crisis assistance.


IOWA'S HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (HMIS)

Iowa has been very active in establishing a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The Iowa
Homeless Information Management Network completed its initial implementation in July of 2001 engaging
the participation of 116 homeless service provision agencies (with only one corresponding system end user
for each agency) across the State of Iowa. These agencies represent a wide array of disciplines, including
emergency shelters, transitional housing projects, youth shelter and services, domestic violence service
providers, agencies that provided transitional living support for persons exiting from corrections, substance
abuse treatment and residential mental health treatment. The Network also included agencies across Io wa
who provide homeless prevention services in the form of housing vouchers, emergency rent and utility
assistance, food and clothing supplies and information and referral. All agencies were funded through the
Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESGP) or the Homeless Shelter Operations Grant Program (HSOG-
State funded).

Since its inception the Network has expanded to 137 participating agencies with 209 licensed end users.
The Network now includes all of the project sponsors with Iowa's competitive and formula HOPWA
(Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS/HIV) grants, the transitional housing providers funded by the
Iowa Finance Authority's Housing Assistance Fund, and most recently, Hope Ministries, one of the state's
largest faith-based mission shelter and transitional housing providers not funded by any state or federal
dollars, secured licenses for the Network.

With additional Supportive Housing Program (SHP) dollars granted this year (2004) to the Network
administrators, Iowa's HMIS will grow considerably in scope and function. By the end of 2004 an additional
300 users will be on the Network, including case managers at most of our participating agencies. The
Network tools will enable agencies to better coordinate services to clients as agencies begin to share client
information (with permission from the client) within the Network, and begin to use the case management /
outcome measurement function of the system.




                                                    33
 2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DATA

Subpopulations

Data from Iowa's Homeless Management Information System reveals for the period of July 2003 through
June 2004 the numbers of homeless Iowans served by the Network service providers and the primary
reason stated for their homelessness:

     Table 2.9: Reason for Homelessness                               Table 2.10:
     Reason for Homelessness        Number                         Homeless Count
Domestic Violence                    1927                        by Type of Household
Addiction                            1345
Other                                1130
Evicted                              1116
Unable to Pay Rent/Mortgage           913            Type                       Number
Unemployment                          711            Single Parent              4028
Moved to Seek Work                    563            Female Single Parent       1688
Physical/Mental Disabilities          475            Two Parent Family          910
Jail/Prison                           389            Couple with no Children    264
Family/Personal Illness               184            Couple (Parent & Friend)   98
Divorce/Separated/Family Breakup      176            and Child
Relocation                            84             Male Single Parent         89
Reduced Wages/Loss of Income          30             Grandparent(s) and Child    31
Discharged from Institution w/o       28             Non-custodial              19
Housing                                              Caregiver(s)
Service Resistant / Client Choice     10             Foster Parent(s)           4
Fire/Disaster                          3




                                                34
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
                        Table 2.11: Homeless Population

                 Gender                                        Race
Female               6350                     White                       8013
Male                 5501                     Black                       2384
Transgender          8                        Other                        569
Unknown              6                        Black/African Am./White     278
Total                11,865                   American Indian             240
                                              Other Multi-Race            107
                                              Asian                       64
                                              Am.Ind./Alaskan/White       42
                                              Pacific Islander            30
                                              Am Ind./Al.Native/Black     24
                                              Asian/White                 17
                                              Native Hawaiian             11
                                              Alaskan Native              5
                                              Unknown                     81
                                              Total                       11,865


Of the 11,865 total homeless listed above, 831 (7%) are of Hispanic origin.




                                                    35
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


NEEDS OF PERSONS THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS

In 1997 a study on homelessness in Iowa conducted by Iowa State University found that many of Iowa's
homeless share one or more of the following characteristics:

   Low levels of education
   Lack "life skills"
   Unemployed
   Single Heads of Households
   Female
   Under 40 years of age supporting one or more children
   Live in non-metropolitan areas
   Dependent on other than earned income for their means of support
   Live in substandard housing units, and
   Pay 30 to 70 percent of their income to cover housing costs

One of the greatest factors leading to homelessness is the inability to pay rent or utility bills. Required
payments of deposits for rental units and utilities intensify this problem if a low-income family or individual
tries to move. Another related risk factor is the lack of affordable housing.

Rural homelessness is very sensitive to issues of employment, availability of low-income housing, family
difficulties, and other economic and personal problems that remain hidden.

The counties least vulnerable to homelessness are those where the measures of poverty in proportion to
the total population suggest that there are fewer poor overall and, therefore, fewer people likely ever to
become homeless.

Homelessness prevention must be addressed comprehensively, with a coordinated cross-disciplinary
approach. A commitment must be made for complete long -term supportive services to individuals and
families to help them escape poverty. Short-term assistance to stabilize a client's environment should be
provided immediately upon entry to the service network. Finally, community-level planning and
coordination of local resources must be achieved.



NEED FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING INCLUDING HOUSING FOR NON-HOMELESS PERSONS WITH
SPECIAL NEEDS

The documentation on facilities and services in Iowa that assist persons who are not homeless but require
supportive housing (i.e., elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with alcohol or other drug
addictions, and persons diagnosed with AIDS) is limited in availability.

As outlined in the January 2004 Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities (MHDD) System Redesign
Report to the Governor and General Assembly in Iowa, each year more than 50,000 adult Iowan's use one

                                                     36
      2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                                     HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
 or more services funded by the disability services system. The report also stated that "the services used
 range from short-term outpatient counseling provided to an individual with depression by a community
 mental health center, to intensive mental health treatments and extended institutional stays for individuals
 with severe mental health needs and challenging behaviors. Families may need nursing or respite care to
 supplement the primary care they provide for an individual with autism or brain-injury. An individual with
 profound mental retardation may need care in a supervised environment 24 hours a day. The special
 needs of individuals with disabilities range from no special needs whatsoever to needs for financial
 management training, medication management, assistive devices, transportation, personal care attendants,
 assertive community treatment or trained peer support. In other words, the needs are as individual as the
 individuals themselves."
 Although some families can pay for the full range of services and support their loved one ‘s need, many
 cannot. Iowa allocates county tax revenue, makes state legislative appropriations, and directs federal
 health system dollars (primarily Medicaid) toward meeting the needs of those who cannot pay the full cost
 on their own.
 Iowa is currently working to ensure the provisions of the Olmstead Decision are effectively implemented.
 The vision of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities (MHDD) Commission is "to build and
 implement a coordinated system for Iowans with mental illness, mental retardation or other developmental
 disabilities, or brain injury, where individuals receive necessary, high quality services and support on an
 equitable, timely and convenient basis, enabling them to live, learn, work, recreate and otherwise contribute
 in their chosen communities."
 For many populations with special needs, a stable environment requires both housing and supportive
 services. For others, the main need is for specially adapted housing. But for all groups, the primary need
 in Iowa is for affordable housing units. Complete data on the number of non-homeless persons who
 require supportive housing is not readily available. Some data is readily available but other data has to be
 based upon estimates. The data for each of the special needs population follows in Table 2.12 below.

 Table 2.12: Persons with Special Needs

                    Special Need Category                                               Estimated Number of Persons
 1.           Elderly Disabled                                                        279,935
 2.           Frail Elderly (ages 85 and older)                                       65,118
 3.           Mentally Disabled                                                       114,075
 4.           Self-Care Disability                                                    55,437
 5.           Physical Disability                                                     200,836
 6.           Persons with Alcohol/Other Drug Addictions                              228,423
 7.           Persons with AIDS/Related Disorders                                     1,202

Sources for Table 2.12:

1.    Types of Disability by Age for the Civ ilian Non-Instit utionalized Population 5 years and over with Disabilities for Iowa and it s Counties - 2000 Census

2.    US Census Profile of Selected Social Characteris tics: 2000

3.    Types of Disability by Age for the Civ ilian Non-Instit utionalized Population 5 years and over with Disabilities for Iowa and it s Counties - 2000 Census

4.    Types of Disability by Age for the Civ ilian Non-Instit utionalized Population 5 years and over with Disabilities for Iowa and it s Counties - 2000 Census

5.    Types of Disability by Age for the Civ ilian Non-Instit utionalized Population 5 years and over with Disabilities for Iowa and it s Counties - 2000 Census

6.    SAMHSA-HHS- 9.4 percent of general population over 12 years of age are abusers-estim ate

                                                                                  37
     2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                    HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
7.   IA. Dept. of Health HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, June 2004


 Obviously, some of the above categories overlap each other. For example, many of the elderly and frail
 elderly population may also be included in the physically disabled figure. In addition, not all persons within
 these categories need supportive housing. The Iowa Department of Human Services advocates "housing
 as homes" with an option for services on an as needed basis rather than as a planned housing component.
 The Iowa Department of Elder Affairs estimates between 27,000 to 39,000 persons older than 60 need help
 carrying out daily living tasks. A portion of the continuum of care program in Iowa includes supportive
 living, but in-place services and home care are preferred to planned supportive housing units.

 Another source of data relating to special needs is available through CHAS Data: Housing Problems
 Output for Mobility and Self Care Limitation. See Table 2-13. Using the figures in this table, one can
 compute that a total of 47,850 households (21,120 rental and 26,730 owner) have a combination of
 physical or mental limitations, and a housing problem which is typically severe cost burden. This figure
 could be construed to represent all of the special needs populations 1 through 5 in the list above (Elderly
 disabled through Physical Disability) who also have housing problems.

 Many providers stress the need for a wide array of housing options ranging from independent living to
 supported independent living to group settings to specialized care. Service providers must work toward
 consensus on the appropriate range to options and cooperative funding to support them. Beyond the issue
 of bricks and mortar is the need to blend required support services with the appropriate housing options.

 Few programs offer single room occupancy with a planned service component. Group homes serving
 targeted populations generally include a service component in the facility plan. Iowa funds and delivers
 services through local management by county Central Points of Coordination (CPCs), services from a
 network of providers, administrative oversight by the Iowa Department of Human Services, and policy
 oversight by the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities (MHDD) Commission.

 The State does not directly operate public or assisted housing. The Iowa Department of Human Rights
 directs family and self-sufficiency programs serving 38 counties. Participants in these programs are likely
 to be good candidates for existing low-income homeownership programs because of the broad range of
 services and ongoing support they receive.




                                                                   38
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

The following table (from CHAS data) attempts to further specify the number of households and whether there are mobility and self-care limitations, and
housing problems (especially affordability problems).
Table 2.13: SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation
                      Name of Jurisdiction:                                                        Source of Data:                     Data Current as of:
                              Iowa                                                                CHAS Data Book                     2000

                                                        Renters                                                                    Owners

        Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem     Extra               Elderly               All             Total            Extra               Elderly               All            Total           Total
                                                         Elderly              1&2                Other            Renters           Elderly              1&2                Other            Owners        Households
                                                          1&2               Member             Households                            1&2               Member             Households
                                                        Member             Households                                              Member             Households
                                                       Households                                                                 Households

                                                           (A)                 (B)                (C)                (D)              (E)                 (F)                (G)              (H)              (I)

1. Household Income <=50% MFI                                    11,280                5,770             14,705       31,755                15,545                8,370             10,750     34,665                 66,420

2. Household Income <=30% MFI                                      5,990               3,290             9,475        18,755                  6,020               3,100             4,865      13,985                 32,740

 % with any housing problems                                        46.8                50.6               73.6             61                 60.5                67.3               73.1          66.4                63.3

3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI                               5,290               2,480             5,230        13,000                  9,525               5,270             5,885      20,680                 33,680

 % with any housing problems                                        42.1                43.8               58.5             49                 23.9                32.5               57.1          35.6                40.8

4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI                               2,870               1,560             5,790        10,220                10,960                8,195             11,390     30,545                 40,765

 % with any housing problems                                        32.6                17.3               18.3            22.2                 9.2                16.3               31.4          19.4                20.1

5. Household Income >80% MFI                                       2,715               1,295             6,815        10,825                14,630              13,644              35,025     63,299                 74,124

 % with any housing problems                                        14.4                 3.9                9.1             9.8                 3.3                 5.6                8.2           6.5                  7

6. Total Households                                              16,865                8,625             27,310       52,800                41,135              30,209              57,165    128,509                181,309

 % with any housing problems                                        37.7                35.6               42.9             40                  18                 19.5               23.4          20.8                26.4




                                                                                                   39
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

IOWA COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

In the fall of 2003 the Governor of Iowa established, through Executive Order 33, the Iowa Council on
Homelessness. This Council will draw upon existing reso urces to identify and prioritize efforts to prevent
individuals and families from becoming homeless and to eliminate the barriers that keep people homeless.
The Council will engage in planning activities to ensure the resources of each State agency are utilized in
the most efficient and effective manner to support the goals of addressing the needs of the homeless and
eliminating homelessness. The Council will identify and utilize federal and other funding opportunities to
address and alleviate homelessness within the State of Iowa. In addition, it will work to identify causes and
effects of homelessness in Iowa, develop recommendations to address homelessness, and foster greater
awareness among policy makers and the general public. It will also, on an a nnual basis, advise the
Governor's Office and the Iowa Finance Authority on workable strategies to eliminate homelessness in
Iowa and for developing a well-coordinated and seamless service delivery system to prevent and alleviate
homelessness.

One of the first tasks of this Council will be developing and accessing funding for a new study on the
homeless in Iowa. The study should begin providing data about homeless Iowans in the fall of 2004 with
data continuing to be collected and analyzed through 2005. This data is vital to the work of the Council as
well as all other Iowa state agencies and local providers who work to shelter the homeless and help return
them to permanent housing.

STATE OF IOWA'S ACCESSING MAINSTREAM RESOURCES ACTION PLAN

The State of Iowa has been privileged to attend two of the policy academies sponsored by the federal
government to assist states in ending homelessness. The first academy was held in Miami in December of
2003. As a result of this meeting the attendees developed a p lan entitled "Accessing Mainstream
Resources Action Plan". This plan was endorsed by the Iowa Council on Homelessness in the spring of
2004 and sent to the Governor's Office as part of the plan the Council will be preparing in the coming year
(2004). Another plan concerning homeless families is still in development. Both of these documents will
serve as action plans the Iowa Council on Homelessness can draw upon as it begins to do its work on
these issues and others involving homeless and near-homeless Iowans.

PRIORITY HOMELESS NEEDS ANALYSIS

Services and facilities for the homeless have expanded in recent years, particularly in the areas of
supportive housing through the Balance of State's Continuum of Care. Despite these efforts the incidence
of traditional homelessness has also increased.

Programs and services for the homeless are available to varying degrees statewide. Federal and state
financial assistance is provided to shelters and services on an annual basis. The demand exceeds fund
availability by a ratio of two to one.




                                                    40
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                     HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PRIORITY IDENTIFICATION

Homeless individuals and families are a MEDIUM priority. Both need a wide range of social services and
housing options. This middle priority recognizes the need to stabilize assistance in the form of social
services apart from direct housing assistance. There is an extensive network of providers to serve this
population, but it is severely under-funded relative to demand. A continuum of services and housing
options must be developed to address the problems faced by the diverse people who comprise Iowa's
homeless population. Limited funding streams have been, in some cases, combined to maximize the range
of assistance available.

STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

 Maintain existing State funding through the IDED and IFA which funds shelter staff,
  outreach/assessment and operations.
 Continue to use federal funds in conjunction with the state funds to support coordination of resources.
  The State encourages maximum allowable use of the homeless prevention funding.
 Seek increased funding to expand transitional and permanent housing options, with special emphasis
  on "at-risk" youth and families.
 Support and certify the need for locally-initiated projects to develop transitional, permanent and single
  room occupancy housing for the homeless, including those with special needs.
 Seek flexible funding for case management and client services aimed at helping the formerly homeless
  and those at risk of homelessness maintain permanent housing and independent living.




                                                    41
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                         HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SE C T IO N 3 — H O U SI NG M A RK E T A NA L Y SI S
This analysis is based primarily on data from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing, using both the
published census tabulations and the special tabulations commissioned by HUD. Where relevant, other
locally collected data, and more recent estimates of housing conditions from the 2002 American
Community Survey data available for the State of Iowa, is included.

Appendix 3 includes detailed housing-related data, by county, from the 2000 Census.

OVERALL MARKET TRENDS
Iowa‘s housing stock increased faster than the number of households over the 1990s, but demolition of
obsolete units meant that vacancy rates also diminished somewhat. Metropolitan counties saw the greatest
increase in units (at 12.7%), but although population increased at just less than 10%, vacancy rates in
metropolitan areas fell from 4.7% in 1990 to 4.4% in 2000. Table 3.1 shows the change in the demand for
and supply of housing in four types of counties over the 1990s. As the prev ious section showed, rural
counties lost population on average, but small declines in the housing stock resulted in somewhat lower
vacancy rates in 2000.

                                                   TABLE 3.1
                           Changes in the demand for and supply of housing, 1990-2000

                                   Population
                                                  Units change   Vacancy rate 2000   Vacancy rate 1990
                                    change

              Iowa total               5.4%           7.8%              5.3%               5.7%
                  County Classification
          Metropolitan                10.0%          12.7%              4.4%               4.7%
          Micropolitan                 1.9%           3.9%              5.8%               6.0%
          Small Urban                  0.4%           2.9%              6.4%               6.8%
          Rural                       -3.2%          -0.7%              7.9%               8.6%

         Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3
         Note: Vacancy rates exclude vacant seasonal units.

Growing suburbanization of employment has driven these trends. Clearly, Iowa has quite sharply
differentiated housing markets, with metropolitan areas offering much tighter housing markets than
micropolitan and small urban areas, and rural counties at the other end of the spectrum with stagnant or
declining markets. However, within these broad county categories there is substantial variation. Map 3.1
shows that the housing stock has grown slower in the central city tracts of metropolitan areas than in the
suburbs of those same counties (mirroring the trends in population growth, shown in Map 2.2 of the
previous section).




                                                       42
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                             HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Map 3.1: Housing stock growth by tract - percent of homes built in the 1990s




Homeownership rates increased in all parts of the state over the 1990s, from just over 70% in 1990 to
72.3% in 2000. American Community Survey data estimate that ownership rates in the state increased
slightly from 2000 to 2002, to 72.68% in 2002. Chart 3.1 shows that ownership rates are highest in rural
counties (at 77%), but even in metropolitan areas ownership rates (at 69.8%) exceed those for the nation
as a whole. High rates of homeownership reflect both the state‘s demographic makeup (with an older and
predominately white population), but also the relatively affordable price of homes in Iowa.

                                Chart 3.1: Home ownership rate: 1990-2000
                                                                    77.02%
                                                    75.71%
                                    73.95%                     74.54%
                                              73.51%
                                                                                    72.34%
                              71.82%
                    69.84%                                                     70.03%

              67.16%




                metropolitan micropolitan       small urban         rural               Iowa
                                                 1990 2000

             Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3




                                                          43
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                            HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Nevertheless, household incomes in Iowa increased less rapidly over the 1990s than housing prices did,
and affordability became more of a problem for owners. Rents increased more slowly than family incomes
however, so the affordability problem for renters improved somewhat. Table 3.2 compares increases in
median family income with increases in gross rents and home values, for different types of counties.
Appendices 1 and 3 detail these housing market changes by county.

                                                TABLE 3.2
                                 Changes in income and housing prices, 1990-2000
                         Median      Change in       Median       Change in        Median      Change in
                         family       income          gross       gross rent     home value   value 1990-
                      income 2000    1990-2000      rent 2000     1990-2000         2000         2000
         Iowa           $ 44,548          53.2%          $ 398           39.6%    $ 69,030      82.9%
         total
         County Classification
    Metropolitan        $ 50,383         53.5%           $ 470            42.7%   $ 90,415      87.7%
    Micropolitan        $ 45,242         47.8%           $ 421            40.1%   $ 71,829      76.5%
    Small Urban         $ 43,325         54.5%           $ 375            37.9%   $ 64,733      81.4%
    Rural               $ 39,704         55.8%           $ 345            38.9%   $ 50,438      88.6%
   Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3
   Note: Average median home values are shown for all counties in each category

Cost-burdened households are those spending 30% or more of their income for housing. Despite the fact
that affordability improved somewhat for renters over the 1990s, a much higher proportion of renters in the
state are burdened than is the case for owners, as we would expect given the lower average incomes of
renters. Table 3.3 shows the percent of owners and renters that were cost-burdened in 2000, and the
percent of those with incomes less than $35,000 that were cost-burdened. The table also shows the
change in the percent of cost-burdened households from 1990 to 2000. Households in metropolitan areas
were more likely to be cost-burdened, and the percent with cost-burdens increased fastest there over the
1990s. Map 3.2 shows the proportion of cost-burdened owner households by tract, and Map 3.3 shows the
proportion of cost-burdened renters.
Map 3.2: Percent of Cost-burdened Owners, 2000




                                                          44
 2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                           HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Map3.3: Percent of Cost-burdened Renters, 2000




     TABLE 3.3
     Percent of Cost-burdened Households




                                              Low-income
                          All Owners                                     All Renters       Low-income Renters
                                                Owners

                                 percent             percent                                           percent
                                                                               percent
                                 change              change                                            change
                       2000               2000                    2000         change      2000
                                 1990-               1990-                                             1990-
                                                                               1990-2000
                                 2000                2000                                              2000
           Iowa      14.16%      1.73%   31.85%       11.04%      34.11%        -1.55%        48.40%    6.90%
      County Classification
      Metropolitan   15.16%      2.38%     37.75%     13.57%      37.00%        -1.06%        54.10%    8.57%
      Micropolitan   13.54%      2.08%     30.27%     11.46%      32.27%        -1.21%        44.28%    6.27%
      Small Urban    12.63%      0.06%     25.91%      7.72%      27.69%        -3.25%        37.54%    3.26%
      Rural          12.79%      0.92%     23.98%      8.12%      26.59%        -3.54%        35.20%    2.29%

    Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3
    Note: Low-income owners and renters are defined as those with incomes less than $35,000




                                                         45
 2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                              HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
We also considered how the proportion of cost-burdened owners and renters may have changed between
2000 and 2002, using American Community Survey data for Iowa. ACS data suggest that affordability may
have worsened slightly since the last census. An estimated 15.88% of owner households were cost-
burdened in 2002 (the lower bound of this estimate is 14.2%, and the upper bound is 17.45%). Among
renters, the ACS estimates that 35.9% were cost-burdened in 2002 (the lower bound of this estimate is
33.47%, and the upper bound is 38.2%). The ACS is based on a smaller sample than the 2000 census, but
the upper and lower bounds of the confidence intervals shown suggest it is likely that a slightly higher
proportion of owner households in the state were cost-burdened in 2002 compared to 2000, while this may
or may not be true for renters.


COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSING STOCK
Iowa‘s housing stock is made up of a majority of single family detached homes. Even among rental units,
single family homes account for almost as many units as multifamily housing does, as Chart 3.2 shows.

 Chart 3.2 : Housing uni ts by structure type and Tenure - 2000

  900000

  800000

  700000

  600000

  500000

  400000

  300000

  200000

  100000

        0
                    owner                renter                total
                            single   clustered mu ltifamily    manufactured


Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3

Note:       single = single family detached
            clustered = single family attached and structures with between two and four units
            multifamily = structures with five or more units

Over the 1990s however, there was a small trend away from the dominance of single family homes, with
more multifamily homes and manufactured homes added to the stock during the decade. Table 3.4 breaks
down the composition of the owner-occupied housing stock built during the 1990s and compares it to the
overall composition of the housing stock in 2000.




                                                          46
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
                                                  TABLE 3.4
                           Composition of owner-occupied units built during 1990s
                          and overall composition of owner-occupied stock in 2000
                            Single & Clustered                                 Manufactured Housing
                                                      Multifamily Housing
                                   Housing                                    built 1990s 2000
                                                       built 1990s 2000
                             built 1990s 2000
          Iowa                82.0%         93.5%        1.97%         0.9%          15.9%      5.6%
     County Classification
     Metropolitan             83.8%         92.9%         2.2%         1.3%          14.0%      5.8%
     Micropolitan             76.6%         93.3%         1.8%         0.6%          21.5%      6.1%
     Small Urban              80.7%         94.6%         1.5%         0.5%          17.7%      4.9%
     Rural                    77.4%         94.7%         0.5%         0.1%          22.0%      5.2%

    Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3

Multifamily homes (those in structures containing five or more units) accounted for a very small share of the
owner-occupied stock, as we would expect. Nearly 16% of owner-occupied homes added over the 1990s
were manufactured homes, although they made up just 5.6% of the total owner-occupied stock in 2000.
They accounted for an even higher share of owner-occupied units added in all types of non-metropolitan
counties over the 1990s. Manufactured homes may be particularly attractive choices in markets with low
housing prices, where it is often difficult to finance a new conventionally built home that may cost more than
its appraised market value. Map 3.4 shows the percent of the housing stock co mposed of manufactured
homes by census tract.

Map 3.4: Manufactured Homes as a percent of the housing stock, 2000




                                                        47
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                             HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

The renter-occupied housing stock varies more widely in different types of counties. Table 3.5 shows the
composition of the rental stock in each type of county for units added during the 1990s and for the total
stock in 2000. Metropolitan renters are more likely than others to live in multifamily units, although the
percent of renters living in multifamily units increased in all types of co unties between 1990 and 2000.


                                              TABLE 3.5
                               Composition of Renter-occupied Units built during 1990s
                               and overall composition of renter-occupied stock in 2000
                         Single & Clustered Housing         Multifamily Housing         Manufactured Housing
                        built 1990s    2000             built 1990s 2000             built 1990s 2000
          Iowa                   27.9%         59.5%            68.1%        37.6%             4.0%       2.9%
     County Classification
     Metropolitan                21.8%         49.0%            75.3%        49.0%             2.9%       2.0%
     Micropolitan                41.4%         68.4%            54.4%        28.4%             4.0%       3.2%
     Small Urban                 44.3%         76.6%            47.3%        18.4%             8.3%       4.9%
     Rural                       47.4%         82.7%            40.9%        12.7%            11.8%       4.7%

    Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3

Manufactured housing accounts for a small share of rental housing, although in rural counties it accounted
for 11.8% of new rental units added during the 1990s.


CONDITION AND ADEQUACY OF THE HOUSING STOCK
Iowa‘s housing stock is much older than that of neighboring states. Metropolitan areas have seen more
rapid recent housing growth, so they have a higher share of newer units. Chart 3.3 shows the percent of
owner- and renter-occupied homes in each type of county that were built before 1940.

                                  Chart 3.3 : Percent of Homes Built Before 1940



                                                                               48.0
                                                               40.7     41.1
                                                      38.5
                                    34.9 35.8
                                                                                               32.1
                         24.9                                                          28.4
                  21.9




                  metropolitan       micropolitan        small urban         rural            Iowa

                                         renters                 owners


             Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Po pulation and housing, Summary File 3


                                                          48
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                  HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Although age is not a direct indicator of housing quality, older homes are more likely to have problems with
lead-based paint, energy efficiency and other issues. Overall, only small proportions of the state‘s housing
units lack complete plumbing or kitchens, the only direct housing quality indicators measured by the
census. Overcrowding is not a significant problem in Iowa, although metropolitan renters are somewhat
more likely than others to live in overcrowded units (more than one person per room). Table 3.6 shows the
proportion of owner- and renter-occupied units that are overcrowded and / or that lack these essential
facilities, by county type.


                                   Table 3.6: Percent of Units with Physical Housing Problems
                                              Owner-occupied                          Renter-occupied
 Iowa                                         1.7%                                    5.3%
 County Classification
 Metropolitan                                1.7%                                        6.1%
 Micropolitan                                1.7%                                        4.8%
 Small urban                                 1.6%                                        3.8%
 Rural                                       1.7%                                        3.5%

Source: HUD Special Tabulations 2000
Note: Physical housing problems are defined as lacking plumbing or kitchen facilities or overcrowded.


Although the census does not directly count units with lead -based paint, it is possible to estimate the
number of affected units based on studies of the incidence of lead paint by age cohort of the home. Table
3.7 shows the total estimated affected units; these are also shown in Map 3.5, by census tract. Because
these estimates were based on a sample of units, confidence intervals were also constructed to show the
range within which the true number of affected units is likely to fall.



                                              TABLE 3.7
                         Estimated Homes with Lead-Based Paint
                          Estimated                    Lower bound                           Upper bound
                         units percent                   estimate                             Estimate
       Iowa
                         831,419         67.5%          734,869          59.6%          927,969         75.3%
       total
       County Classification
  Metropolitan         403,922           63.1%          355,891          55.6%          451,954         70.6%
  Micropolitan         164,851           71.9%          146,103          63.7%          183,599         80.1%
  Small Urban          212,588           72.0%          188,419          63.8%          236,757         80.2%
  Rural                 50,057           74.2%           44,455          65.9%           55,658         82.5%



Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3
Note: Estimates were based on propor tions repor ted in the National Survey of Lead-based paint in Housing, US Dept. of Housing
and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency (June 1995) Table 2-1. The report estimated that 76% of
homes built between 1960-1979, 92% of units built between 1940-1959, and 88% of units built before 1940, had lead-based
paint somewhere in the building. The confidence intervals for these estimates w ere 12% , 8% and 9% respectively; these
confidence intervals were used to develop the upper and lower bound estimates.



                                                              49
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Map 3.5: Estimated number of homes with lead-based paint, by census tract, 2000




However, many older homes are occupied by elderly households who are less likely to suffer the effects of
lead-based paint hazards. Table 3.8 estimates the number of very low income households (incomes less
than 50% of the area median) with children six years old or younger living in homes with lead-based paint
hazards.

                                            TABLE 3.8
                           Estimated Very Low Income Households with Children
                           living in homes affected by Lead-Based Paint Hazards
                              Owner-occupied units                    Renter-occupied units
                                   HUs      %                              HUs      %
     Iowa total              92584               11.14%              80052             25.18%
 County Classification
 Metropolitan               40659               9.56%              45292              24.66%
 Micropolitan               18034              11.65%              14203              26.03%
 Small Urban                26198              12.76%              16816              25.53%
 Rural                      7693               16.68%               3741              27.18%


Source: Calculations based on HUD Special tabulations 2000 and HUD and EPA (1995)
Note: Very Low income household are defined as households with income less than 50% of MFI
Owner households with young children are more likely to be affected if they live in rural areas; the
difference is less marked for renters, but renters are proportionately more likely to be affected than owners.
Older homes are also less likely to be energy efficient, and high heating costs may make low-priced
housing very expensive. Low income households who applied for energy assistance in Iowa in 1999 spent
an average of 19% of their income on heating costs (Iowa’s Cold Winters, 1999). This may account for the
fact that there are surprisingly high proportions of cost-burdened households living in areas with low
housing prices.
                                                     50
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Lower-income households are more likely to occupy units with one of these problems, and they are also
more likely to have cost burdens in addition to physical problems with the units. Table 3.9 shows the
number and percent of owner and renter households with different types o f housing problems, by income
and household type.

Extremely low income households (those earning less than 30% of the area median income) account for
the largest share of cost-burdened renters, while low income renters (with incomes from 50% to 80% of
median income) are least likely to be cost-burdened. Among extremely low income renters, nearly half of
elderly households, and more than three quarters of family households, face some type of housing
problem. For the vast majority, that problem is affordability. Conditions improve only slightly for very low
income renters (earning between 30% and 50% of median income), with nearly 45% of elderly households,
and 54% of small family households paying more than 30% of their income for housing. For large family
households in this income category, physical housing problems (overcrowding or inadequate facilities)
alone affect nearly 23%.




                                                    51
 2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

                                              Table 3.9: Owners and Renters with Housing Problems
                                                     By income category and household type
                             Renters                                                   Owners
   Total                Elderly     Small        Large       All         Total         Elderly    Small    Large       All        Total      Total
                         1 &2      Related      Related     Other       Renters         1 &2      Relat   Related     Other      Owners    Households
   extremely           member      (2 to 4)      (5 or    Households                  member       ed      (5 or    Households
   and very low-      households                 more)                               households   (2 to    more)
   income                                                                                          4)
                       36,254      34,525        6,960        51,505    129,244          67,711   25,42    7,342        17,153   117,626       246,870
   households,                                                                                        0
   by type

   Extremely             18,901     17,900       2,935        29,665        69,401       25,204   9,660    2,410        8,219     45,493       114,894
   low-income
   households
   % with any               49.8      78.9        88.6          76.2          70.2         63.5    76.8     84.6          71.2      68.9           69.7
   housing problems
   % Cost Burden            49.2      77.3        77.0          75.2          68.7         62.9    76.1     80.3          70.0      67.9           68.4
   % Severe Cost            30.3      56.8        51.8          58.1          49.9         34.4    59.7     62.2          55.3      45.0           48.0
   Burden
   Very low-             17,353     16,625       4,025        21,840        59,843       42,507   15,76    4,932        8,934     72,133       131,976
                                                                                                      0
   income
   households
   % with any               45.4      58.0        65.2          59.9          55.6         27.0    61.8     71.1          56.1      41.2           47.7
   housing problems
   % Cost Burden            44.6      54.1        42.4          58.1          52.0         26.5    60.6     57.3          54.8      39.6           45.2
   % Severe Cost            14.4       7.3         5.3          11.5          10.7          9.6    25.5     18.4          24.4      15.5           13.4
   Burden
   Low-income            12,520     26,275       6,149        33,910        78,854       61,340   49,10   14,394        22,623   147,461       226,315
                                                                                                      4
   households
   % with any               23.7      15.8        31.0          16.9          18.7         12.2    32.7     37.3          35.6      25.1           22.9
   housing problems
   % Cost Burden            22.7      10.1          5.4         15.3          14.0         11.8    31.4     23.8          34.6      23.0           19.8
   % Severe Cost             6.2       0.3          0.3          0.7           1.4          3.2     6.7      3.9           7.0       5.0            3.8
   Burden
   All other             12,169     47,014       7,785        42,665    109,633         117,824   329,4   57,994        61,089   566,367       676,000
                                                                                                    60
   households
   % with any                8.3        3.9       22.7           3.2           5.5          4.1     6.0     11.9           9.8       6.6            6.4
   housing problems
   % Cost Burden             6.5        0.7         0.8          0.9           1.4          3.8     5.4       5.2          9.1       5.5            4.8
   % Severe Cost             1.5        0.1         0.1          0.1           0.2          0.6     0.6       0.6          0.8       0.6            0.6
   Burden
   Total                 60,943    107,814      20,894      128,080     317,731         246,875   403,9   79,730      100,865    831,454      1,149,185
                                                                                                    84
   Households
   % with any               34.9      27.6        42.6          33.4          32.3         16.1    13.1     22.3          24.7      16.3           20.7
   housing problems
   % Cost Burden            33.9      23.9        20.9          31.7          28.8         15.7    12.4     14.1          23.8      14.9           18.8
   % Severe Cost            15.1      10.7         8.4         15.6          13.4           6.3     3.7      4.1           8.7       5.1            7.4
   Burden


Source: HUD Special Tabulations 2000 (CHAS Data Book)
Note: Extremely low-income households are those earning 30% of median income or less; very low-
      income households are those earning between 30% and 50% of median income; low-income
      households are those earning between 50% and 80% of median income. Households with ―some
      problem‖ are those that are cost-burdened or overcrowded, or occupying units lacking complete
      plumbing or kitchen facilities. Households who are cost-burdened spend more than 30% of their
      gross income on housing costs; those who are severely cost-burdened spend more than 50% on
      housing.




                                                                       52
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                     HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

To what extent is the available supply of units adequate to meet the needs of these households? Table
3.10 estimates the units affordable to renters and owners by income category. Each section of the table
shows the number of units (by size of unit) affordable to renter or owner households in each of four income
categories, the percent of units in that price range that are occupied by households in the income category
for which the units are affordable, the percent of older units, and the percent of households occupying the
units in that category that have either a financial or physical problem with the unit, and the number of
vacant for-rent or for-sale units in the price range. For instance, the table shows that although there are
31,035 three-bedroom rental units that would be affordable to extremely low-income households, only
15.6% of these units (4,841) are occupied by extremely low-income renters.

There is a lower incidence of problems among units that have rents affordable to extremely low-income
households than among units affordable to very low-income households, presumably because fewer
occupants of the first category of units are cost-burdened. Table 3.10 also shows how many vacant units
were available at rents or prices affordable to households in each income category. Data is not available,
however, to show how many vacant units may lack plumbing or kitchen facilities, or how many may need
significant repair. Not all of the vacant affordable units may be of adequate quality. Another point to
remember is that vacant units are shown by contract rent (not necessarily including utility or other costs)
and thus total housing costs may be higher than the table suggests, especially if a unit is old and lacks
adequate insulation, for instance.




                                                   53
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                  HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

                                           Table 3.10: Available Affordable Units by Size
                                  Renters Units by # of bedrooms               Owned or for sale units by # of bedrooms

 Housing Units by Affordability    0-1        2       3+     Total                                0-1      2       3+      Total

                                                                          Value affordable to
Rent affordable to extremely
                                                                       extremely low-income
low-income households
                                                                                 households
# occupied units                  29,925 23,590 31,035       84,550                                N/A      N/A     N/A       N/A
% extremely low-income
                                    54.4      34.4    15.6      34.6                               N/A      N/A     N/A       N/A
occupants
% built before 1970                 44.9      62.0    80.5      62.7                               N/A      N/A     N/A       N/A
% some problem                      23.4      19.7     9.2      17.1                               N/A      N/A     N/A       N/A
# vacant for rent                  3,225     3,875 2,455       9,555                               N/A      N/A     N/A       N/A
                                                                          Value affordable to
Rent affordable to very low-
                                                                            very low-income
income households
                                                                                 households
# occupied units                  50,110 67,250 32,860 150,220                                   14,435 109,975 232,480 356,890
% very low-income occupants         50.0      37.0    29.2      39.6                               38.5     29.3    17.1     21.7
% built before 1970                 61.3      54.0    77.8      61.7                               80.2     76.6    79.0     78.3
% some problem                      39.6      34.1    27.3      34.4                               30.3     19.6    15.0     17.1
# vacant for rent                  4,460     5,300 1,675     11,435           #vacant for sale     965     3,915   5,305 10,185
                                                                          Value affordable to
Rent affordable to low-income
                                                                                 low-income
households
                                                                                 households
# occupied units                  20,065 36,245 18,200       74,510                               5,910   62,310 197,460 265,680
% low-income occupants              65.4      49.9    48.4      53.7                               50.7     35.8    21.4     25.4
% built before 1970                 44.1      47.2    64.8      50.6                               73.4     71.1    64.7     66.4
% some problem                      50.6      36.9    37.1      40.6                               36.9     16.4    12.4     13.9
# vacant for rent                   940      1,115     255     2,310          #vacant for sale     235     1,375   2,000    3,610
Rent affordable to all other                                           Value affordable to all
households                                                                 other households
# occupied units                   4,085     2,535 1,945       8,565                              3,520   26,760 178,560 208,840
# vacant for rent                   375       170       30      575          # vacant for sale     175      740    2,250    3,165

Source: HUD Special tabulations 2000 (CHAS Data Book)
Note: Extremely low-income households are those earning 30% of median income or less; very low-
        income households are those earning between 30% and 50% of median income; low-income
        households are those earning between 50% and 80% of median income. Units with ―some
        problem‖ are those occupied with a household that is cost-burdened, or those that are
        overcrowded, or lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities.

The following table estimates how many units of an appropriate size are available to meet the needs of
households with housing problems. This table is based on a comparison of the estimates of households of
different sizes in each income category with housing problems (from Table 3.9), and the estimates of

                                                                54
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                               HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
available affordable units of an appropriate size (from Table 3.10). Households could face problems related
to the physical characteristics of the units they currently occupy (such as a lack of plumbing or kitchen
facilities, or because the unit is too small for the household), or they could be cost-burdened. The ―supply‖
of units is calculated by subtracting the number of a particular group of households who have housing
problems, from the number of available (vacant) units that would be affordable to households in that
category.
Among renter households, deficits are largest for those earning less than 50% of median income, and two -
bedroom units in a price range affordable to small related households in this income category are in
especially short supply. There are also large deficits of small units affordable to elderly owner households;
many of these owner households may face a variety of problems in maintaining their homes, and it is
possible that decent quality rental housing may be a good alternative for some. Quite large deficits of
affordable rental units that are efficiencies or one bedroom imply that the rental stock to meet this need
does not exist.

                                  Table 3.11: Estimated Supply of Affordable Available Units
                                               By unit size and household type
                                          Renter Households                                Owner Households
                         Elderly      Small       Large                      Elderly    Small       Large
                         (1-2         families    families                    (1-2      families    families
                         persons)      (2-4       (5 or more                 persons)   (2-4        (5 or
                                      persons)    persons)                              persons)    more
                                                                                                    persons)
                                                                 Total                                           Total
  Extremely low-         9,413        14,123      2,600          26,136
  income households
  with problems
  Available affordable   3,225        3,875       2,455          9,555
  units
  Supply                 -6,188       -10,248     -145           -16,581
  Very low-income        7,878        9,643       2,624          20,145      27,481     17,159     5,546       50,186
  households with
  problems
  Available affordable   4,460        5,300       1,675          11,435      965        3,915      5,305       10,185
  units
  Supply                 -3,418       -4,343      -949           -8,710      -26,516    -13,244    -241        -40,001
  Low-income             2,967        4,151       1,906          9,024       7,483      16,057     5,369       28,909
  households with
  problems
  Available affordable   940          1,115       255            2,310       235        1,375      2,000       3,610
  units
  Supply                 -2,027       -3,036      -1,651         -6,714      -7,248     -14,682    -3,369      -25,299
  Moderate-income        1,010        1,834       1,767          4,611       4,831      19,768     6,901       31,500
  households with
  problems
  Available affordable   375          170         30             575         175        740        2,250       3,165
  units
  Supply                 -635         -1,664      -1,737         -4,036      -4,656     -19,028    -4,651      -28,335

Source: Calculated from HUD Special Tabulations 2000 (CHAS Data Book)
Notes: Extremely low-income households are those earning 30% of median income or less; very low-
income households are those earning between 30% and 50% of median income; low-income households
are those earning between 50% and 80% of median income. Households with ―some problem‖ are those
that are cost-burdened or overcrowded, or occupying units lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. It
is assumed that elderly 1-2 person households would occupy efficiency and one -bedroom units; small
                                                           55
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                            HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
related families would occupy two bedroom units; and large related families would occupy units with three
or more bedrooms. This table does not differentiate between extremely low-income (less than 30% of
median income) and very low-income (30% to 50% of median income) owner households.
Among both renters and owners, small related families (requiring a two-bedroom unit) face the largest
deficit of available, affordable units. Rental assistance may help some renter families and small elderly
households who are cost-burdened but occupying an otherwise adequate unit. As Table 3.6 showed, a
relatively small percentage (5.3%) of rental units statewide (but a slightly larger percentage in metropolitan
counties) have physical problems that would require the household to find a new unit.
Surprisingly, there is a larger supply of vacant for-sale homes affordable to low- and very low-income small
families than there are homes affordable to moderate -income small families. However, not all of these low-
priced vacant for-sale homes may be in suitable condition; a limitation of census data is that very little
detailed data is collected on the condition of homes, and low-priced homes may lack energy-efficiency
improvements or modern amenities that moderate-income home owners in particular are likely to expect.
    Table 3.12: Housing Units Constructed with HUD and FmHA Assistance

                                                                State           Metro           Non-metro
                                                                                                            3,180
                                Public Housing                          4,746           1,566
     HUD Programs
                                                                    4,503           2,747               1,756
                                Section 202
                                                                    3,711           2,400               1,311
                                                 Elderly
                                                                        792             347                 445
                                         Non-elderly
                                                                    6,722           3,989               2,733
                                Project-based
                                Section 8
                                                                   22,000          11,665              10,341
                                Tenant-based
                                Section 8
                                                                    3,793           2,820                   973
                                Section
                                236/221(d)3
                                                                        944             612                 332
                                                 Elderly
                                                                    2,849           2,208                   641
                                                 Family
                                                                   11,649           1,462              10,187
     USDA - RD Programs         Section 515
                                                                    8,312               921             7,391
                                                 Elderly
                                                                    3,337               541             2,796
                                                 Family
                                                                   31,413          12,584              18,829
     Total Project-based
                                                                   22,006          11,665              10,341
     Total Tenant-based



                                                           56
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                             HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
The supply of assisted housing units designated for people with special needs varies widely between
categories of need. We investigated subsidized housing units designated for elderly households, and for
households containing a person with a disability. We also investigated the number of emergency shelter
beds available to people who were homeless, and the number of transitional units available for homeless
individuals and families, as of 2000. The following table summarizes the supply of units for people with
special needs by county type.

                                      Table 3.13: Estimated Supply of Subsidized Units
                                             For People with Special Needs, 2000
                         Elderly units             Disabled units          Emergency shelter   Other homeless units
                                                                           beds
 Iowa                    23,780                    344                     2.422               1,160
 County Classification
 Metropolitan            10,053                  106                      1,847                1,008
 Micropolitan            4,891                   38                       478                  113
 Small Urban             6,772                   176                      71                   39
 Rural                   2,064                   24                       26                   0

Source: Assessing Iowa‘s Housing Needs, 2000 (assembled from HUD data for the state of Iowa, and data
        from the Iowa Department of Human Services)

There is a large supply of units designated for elderly households in all types of counties, but few units for
non-elderly people with disabilities. Available units are concentrated in metropolitan and small urban areas.
Facilities for homeless individuals and families are concentrated in metropolitan and micropolitan areas,
with very few in small urban or rural counties.


CONCLUSIONS
Iowa‘s housing markets differ quite sharply between metropolitan areas and other parts of the state. A
summary analysis was developed at the census tract level using population and housing stock growth
rates, vacancy rates, and median home value to indicate the relative condition of housing markets. Four
distinct clusters of housing markets emerged:

 rapidly growing markets (58 census tracts), which on average saw their populations growing at 26%
  and their housing stocks growing by 26.7% over the 1990s, with high median home values ($150,660)
  and low vacancy rates (3.3%);
 stable growing markets (149 census tracts), with population growth that averaged 11.4% and housing
  stock growth that averaged 15.9%, median home values somewhat higher than the s tate average at
  $106,307, and low average vacancy rates (3.8%);
 stagnant markets (328 census tracts), with low average population growth (1.84%), moderately high
  rates of average housing stock growth (8.9%), median home values somewhat lower than the state
  average ($77,400) and vacancy rates close to the state average (5.1%);
 declining markets (258 census tracts) with average population growth that was close to zero (0.15%),
  average housing stock growth of 5.7%, low median home values ($51,874) and relative ly high vacancy
  rates (7.5%).


                                                          57
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Map 3.6 shows the spatial distribution of these different types of housing markets. Unsurprisingly, rapidly
growing tracts are mostly in metropolitan counties (with the exception of a small pocket of rapid growth in
Dickinson County, a prime recreation area), but they are suburban tracts rather than central city tracts.
Many central city tracts are in fact more similar to the stagnant or declining markets typical of more rural
parts of the state. The growth of bedroom communities surrounding metropolitan areas (mostly in counties
included in the OMB‘s new definition of metropolitan areas in 2003) has ensured most of those
communities experienced stable growth in their housing markets.
Map 3.6: Housing Markets in Iowa




These growth patterns have resulted in increased commuting, as some employed in fast growing
metropolitan suburbs search for more affordable homes in lower priced bedroom communities surrounding
the metropolitan cores. In 1990, nearly 83% of workers were emp loyed in their county of residence, but this
figure dropped to just over 78% in 2000. Chart 3.4 shows that average travel time increased for workers in
all types of counties from 1990 to 2000, with residents of rural counties traveling furthest to work on
average.

                                                       Chart 3.4 :
                                     Average travel ti me for workers (in minutes)
                                                     1990-2000           20.6
                              18.6          17.7           18.3                        18.5
                       17.0                                         16.6           16.3
                                      15.6            14.9




                      metropolitan   micropolitan    small urban         rural            Iowa
                                                      1990     2000

                 Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3
                                                        58
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                    HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

If fast growing employment markets are not able to offer employees affordably priced housing in
reasonable commuting distance, these trends will continue, increasing rural sprawl and the infrastructure
costs associated with it, and further burdening low-income workers with high commuting costs.

Additional information on State demographics, housing needs, housing resources and condition, and
conclusions can be found in a recent housing study done in January of 2003 by Dr. Heather Mac Donald
with the Urban and Regional Planning Program at the University of Iowa. The study was titled "Meeting the
Challenges of the Next Decade" and was funded by the Iowa Finance Authority and the Iowa Department
of Economic Development. Much of the data in sections 2 and 3 of this Plan were also developed by Dr.
Mac Donald and staff at the University of Iowa.




                                                   59
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


SE C T IO N F OU R — S TR AT EGI C P L AN

The State is required to establish general priorities for assisting low-income residents, the homeless and
persons with special needs based on the analysis of needs and existing inventory described in the previous
sections of this plan. The State of Iowa is also required to set forth in the Plan its strate gy, objectives and
actions for 1-year and 5-year periods. This section outlines the State of Iowa's Strategic Plan. Most data in
this section comes from the CHAS 2000 Data available on the HUD web site.

PRIORITIES

Priority Housing Needs

ELDERLY: 1 AND 2 MEMBER L OW-AND MODERATE RENTER HOUSEHOLDS

Analysis

Elderly renters are significantly poorer than other renters. Fifty-nine percent of elderly renters (about
36,000 households) have incomes below 51 percent of area MFI. Elderly households are 19 percent of all
renters, but 28 percent of extremely low and very low-income renters.

About 50 percent of elderly households in the extremely low-income category (zero to 30 percent of MFI)
have housing problems. This figure is the lowest among all household types. Thirty percent of elderly
households in this income group experience severe cost burden. This is considerably lower than the
proportion for other family types in this income group.

Forty-five percent of elderly renters at 31 to 50 percent MFI have housing problems, fewer than for other
renters in this income group.

Twenty-four percent of elderly renters at 51 to 80 percent of MFI have housing problems, more than
average for all renters in this income group. The proportion of elderly with severe cost burden is relatively
low, at 6 percent of households.

Elderly renters are more likely to live in non-metropolitan areas than are other family types. There are
lower rents in non-metropolitan areas, but many rental units in these areas are single family homes that
may be too large, old and/or in need of rehabilitation.

Utility costs can be problematic for all low-income renters but utility cost increases may be especially
difficult for elderly persons on fixed incomes to manage. The bills for new or upgraded sewer or water
service often result in "sticker shock" for many elderly residents.

Priority Identification

Elderly renters at zero to 30 percent of MFI and those at 31 to 50 percent of MFI are HIGH priorities.
Those at 51 to 80 percent MFI area with a cost burden of 30 to 50 percent are a MEDIUM priority, while
those elderly with a cost burden of over 50 percent are a HIGH priority. These priorities recognize that

                                                      60
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
elderly renters have disproportionately low incomes, even though they have relatively lower rates of
housing problems.

Strategy Development

The strategy for assisting elderly renters involves the primary activity of rehabilitation to address the quality
of the rental stock available, particularly in non-metropolitan areas. The strategy's secondary activities are
new construction and rental assistance to deal with spot rental shortages, especially in units suitable for
elderly, and to help renters experiencing cost burden.


Investment Plan

The Plan for this strategy is as follows:

  Rehabilitation                            New Construction                      Rental Assistance
  1-year goal: 290 households               1-Year Goal: 303 households           1-Year Goal: 6 households
  5-year goal: 1450                         5-Year Goal: 1515 households          5 Year Goal: 30 households
  households                                Programs: HOME, LIHTC,                Programs: HOME
  Programs: CDBG, HOME,                     IRB's
  LIHTC, IRB's

Small Related Low-and Moderate-Income Renter Households (two to four persons)

Analysis

Renters as a group have much lower incomes than homeowners. Forty -one percent of renter households
have incomes below 51 percent of MFI, compared to 14 percent of owners.

Small families (those with two to four related persons) comprise 34 percent of all renter households, but
about 27 percent of those in the very low income category. About 32 percent (34,525) of all small related
rental households have very low incomes (below 51 percent of MFI).

Among small related rental households with zero to 30 percent of MFI, 78.9 percent have housing problems
and 56.8 percent have severe cost burden. This severe co st burden rate is about 26 percent more than
that of elderly renters.

Fifty-eight percent of small related rental households with incomes between 31 and 50 percent of MFI have
housing problems, and 7.3 percent have severe cost burden. These figures are comparable to the overall
rates for renters in this income group.

About 16 percent of small related rental households with incomes of 51 to 80 percent of MFI have housing
problems, slightly above the average for renters in this income group. Severe cost burden for small related
renters in this group is rare (less than one percent).

Rental housing for this group needs extensive rehabilitation. About one -third of rental housing is more than
50 years old. Much of the non-metropolitan rental stock is comprised of older, single-family homes. There
are not enough rental rehabilitation programs outside a few large cities to affectively address this problem
in the State.
                                                      61
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                         HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

There are about 53,000 assisted rental housing units in Iowa. In non-metropolitan areas, 9,000 units of
assisted housing (both HUD and USDA -RD) are specifically for the elderly.

Low prevailing rents, especially in non-metropolitan areas, are a deterrent to construction of new rental
units. In growing metropolitan areas however, rents have increased beyond the reach of many low-income
families. Concentrations of racial and ethnic minority families are greatest in these growing metropolitan
areas.

Commuting costs can be a heavy burden for very low-income families. Low rents in areas far from
employment centers are often more than offset by commuting costs.

Energy costs also weigh heavier proportionately on very low-income families. Similarly, the high incidence
of lead-based paint hazards is potentially very high among the older ho using stock.

Priority Identification

Small related renter households with incomes at zero to 30 percent of MFI and those at 31 to 50 percent of
MFI are HIGH priorities. Small related renter households with incomes at 51 to 80 percent of MFI, with cost
burden over 50 percent, are a HIGH priority. Small related renter households with incomes at 51 to 80
percent of MFI, with a cost burden less than 50 percent, are a MEDIUM priority. The priorities reflect
sharply higher rates of cost burden among lowest income renters.

Strategy Development

The strategy for assisting small, related renter households involves the primary activities of rehabilitation,
new construction and acquisition. Rehabilitation addresses the quality of the rental stock available,
particularly in non-metropolitan areas. New construction and acquisition address needed replacement and
additions to the rental housing stock. The strategy's secondary activity is rental assistance, to help renters
experiencing cost burden, and for whom HUD Section 8 assistance is not available.

Investment Plan

The plan for this strategy is as follows:

  Rehabilitation                            New Construction                  Rental Assistance
  1-year goal: 459 households               1-year goal: 452 households       1-year goal: 6 households
  5-year goal: 2295 households              5-year goal: 2260 households      5-year goal: 30 households
  Programs: CDBG, HOME,                     Programs: HOME, LIHTC,            Programs: HOME
  LIHTC, MF Bonds                           MF Bonds

Large Related Low-and Moderate-Income Renter Households (five or more persons)

Large families (those with five or more related persons) make up 7 percent of all renter households and
about 5 percent of households in the extremely low and very low-income categories. About one-third
(6,960) of large family households have very low incomes.

Among large related rental households with zero to 30 percent of MFI, 88.6 percent have housing
problems. Over 51 percent of families in this income category have severe cost burden. Proportions of

                                                       62
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                         HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
both housing problems and severe cost burden are somewhat higher than the average for all household
types in this income group.

Over 65 percent of large related rental households with incomes between 31 and 50 percent of MFI have
housing problems. The rate of housing problems is slightly above average for household s in this income
category. About 5 percent have severe cost burden, a figure lower than average for this income group.

Thirty-one percent of large related rental households with incomes between 51 and 80 percent of MFI have
housing problems. Severe cost burden is low, at 0.3 percent of families in this group.

Low-income large family renters, like low-income small family renters, experience the following problems:
units in need of rehabilitation; lack of available assisted housing; lack of new unit co nstruction, especially in
non-metropolitan areas; and rising rents in growth areas, including many areas with concentrations of
minority racial and ethnic groups. Commuting costs, energy costs and threats of lead -based paint hazards
are also problems for large families.

Problems specific to low-income large family renters involve overcrowding. Since the overall rental market
is comprised mostly of smaller households, new rental construction does not include as many large units as
the existing housing stock (mostly older, single family homes).

Priority Identification

Large related renter households with incomes at zero to 30 percent of MFI and those at 31 to 50 percent of
MFI are HIGH priorities. Large related renter households with incomes 51 to 80 pe rcent of MFI are a
MEDIUM priority. As with small, related household renters, these ratings reflect the sharply higher rates of
cost burden among the lowest income large related household renters.

Strategy Development

The strategy to assist large related renter households involves the primary activities of rehabilitation and
new construction. Rehabilitation addresses the quality of the rental stock available, particularly in non-
metropolitan areas. New construction deals with needed replacement and add itions to the rental housing
stock, especially for 3-bedroom and larger units. The strategy's secondary activity is rental assistance, to
help renters experiencing cost burden, and for whom HUD Section 8 assistance is not available.

Investment Plan

The plan for this strategy is as follows:

    Rehabilitation                          New Construction                       Rental Assistance
    1-year goal: 134 households             1-year goal: 142                       1-year goal: 6 households
    5-year goal: 670                        households                             5-year goal: 30 households
    households                              5-year goal: 710                       Programs: HOME
    Programs: HOME, LIHTC,                  households
    MF Bonds                                Programs: HOME, LIHTC,
                                            MF Bonds




                                                       63
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

OTHER LOW-AND MODERATE-INCOME RENTERS
Analysis

"Other" renters are those households made up of a single non-elderly person or two or more unrelated
persons. These comprise 40 percent of all renter households and about 40 percent of these "other"
households are extremely low or very low income (51,505 or 128,080).

About 76 percent of these renters with incomes zero to 30 percent of MFI have housing problems, and 58.1
percent have severe cost burden. Both of these rates are higher than the overall rates for renters in this
income group.

About 60 percent of "other" renters with incomes 31 to 50 percent of MFI have housing problems, and 11.5
percent have severe cost burden. Both rates are higher than the overall rates for renters in this income
group.

About 17 percent of other renters with incomes of 51 to 80 percent of MFI have housing problems, which is
about average for renters in this income group. Severe cost burden for other renters in this income group
was less than 1 percent.

Low-income "other" renters experience problems comparable to those experienced by small and large
family renters: units in need of rehabilitation; lack of available assisted hous ing; lack of new unit
construction, especially in non-metropolitan areas; and rising rents in growth areas, including many areas
with concentrations of minority racial and ethnic groups. Commuting costs and energy costs are also
problems for other renters. Lead-based paint hazard is not presumed to be as serious a problem for other
renters as it is for families with children, although risks exist for children visiting "other" households with
potential lead-based paint hazards.

Priority Identification

Other renter households with incomes zero to 30 percent of MFI and those at 31 to 50 percent of MFI are
HIGH priorities. Households in this category with incomes of 51 to 80 percent of MFI, with a cost burden
over 50 percent, are also a HIGH priority. Other renter households with 51 to 80 percent of MFI, with a
cost burden less than 50 percent, are a MEDIUM priority. As with related household renters, these ratings
reflect the sharply higher rates of cost burden among the lowest-income other renters.

Strategy Development

The strategy to assist other renter households involves primary activities of rehabilitation and new
construction. Rehabilitation addresses the quality of the rental stock available, particularly in non-
metropolitan areas. New construction addresses needed replacement and additions to the rental housing
stock. The strategy's secondary activity is rental assistance, to help renters currently experiencing cost
burden, and for whom HUD Section 8 assistance is not available.




                                                     64
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                     HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Investment Plan

The plan for this strategy is as follows:

    Rehabilitation                          New Construction                     Rental Assistance
    1-year goal: 24 households              1-year goal: 67                      1-year goal: 6
    5-year goal: 120                        households                           households
    households                              5-year goal: 335                     5-year goal: 30
    Programs: CDBG,                         households                           households
    HOME, LIHTC, MF Bonds                   Programs: HOME,                      Programs: HOME
                                            LIHTC, MF Bonds


EXISTING LOW-AND MODERATE-INCOME HOMEOWNERS
Analysis

Existing homeowners comprise 72 percent of all households in the State. A total of 117,626 homeowners
have extremely low or very low incomes. This accounts for 48 percent of all extremely low or very low-
income households, but only 14 percent of all homeowners. This means the number of extremely low or
very low-income homeowners is comparable to the number of extremely low or very low-income renters,
but the proportion of extremely low or very low-income owners is much smaller than that of renters.

Among owners with incomes of 0 to 30 percent of MFI, 68.9 percent have housing problems, compared
with 70 percent of renters in same income group. Forty-five percent of these owners have severe cost
burden, similar to the 49.9 percent rate for similar income renters.

Among owners with 30 to 50 percent of MFI, 41.2 percent have housing problems, and 15.5 percent have
severe cost burden. Over 55 percent of the renters in this income category have housing problems.

Twenty-five percent of owners with incomes of 51 to 80 percent of MFI have housing problems, while only
18.7 percent of the same income group in the renter category faces this problem. Severe cost burden for
owners in this group was 5.0 percent.

Elderly homeowners are poorer as a group than non-elderly homeowners. While elderly comprise 30
percent of all owners, they represent 58 percent of all owners below 50 percent MFI. However, elderly
owners with incomes of zero to 30 percent of median have somewhat fewer housing problems than non-
elderly owners (63.5 percent compared to 75 percent), and about half the rate of severe cost burden (34.4
percent compared to 58.2 percent).

Elderly owners with incomes of 31 to 50 percent of MFI had nearly half the rate of housing problems of non-
elderly owners (27 percent compared to 63 percent) and a much lower rate of severe cost burden (9.6
percent compared to 22.8 percent).

Among elderly owners with incomes of 51 to 80 of MFI, the rate of housing problems is about one -third that
for non-elderly owners (12.2 percent compared to 35.2 percent). Severe cost burden was low for elderly

                                                    65
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
owners in this income group, at 3.2 percent, compared to a rate of approximately 6 percent for non-elderly
owners.

Clearly, the number of low-income elderly homeowners is high. But the proportion of elderly owners with
housing problems including cost burdens is significantly lower than for non-elderly owners. This reflects
both that many elderly owners have paid their entire mortgages and that housing costs less in non-
metropolitan areas, where many elderly owners live.

About nine out of ten owner-occupied homes in Iowa are single-family, detached houses. Values of owned
homes are low in the state compared to many parts of the country. The 2000 Census median home value
for Iowa was $82,500. Housing costs in relation to income were also low: the median value wa s 2.09
times the median household income for the state ($39,469). On the other hand, the housing stock is older:
40 percent of owned homes were built fifty or more years ago. In most parts of the state, ownership
options for elderly are limited to single family homes, yet many elderly would prefer cooperative and
condominium arrangements. In turn, there are many larger homes that would be available to families with
children, if elderly owners could secure housing more suitable to their needs.

The age of the housing stock indicates a need for rehabilitation. The level of cost burden in the group with
incomes zero to 30 percent of MFI is high, so subsidies may be justified for rehabilitation assistance. But
cost burden is fairly low among owners above 50 percent of MFI. This seems to indicate a financial
capacity to cover a substantial portion of moderate rehabilitation costs.

Commuting cost is not included in available figures on cost burden. Yet in many parts of Iowa, low housing
prices are offset by expenses related to commuting to employment centers.

Priority Identification

Existing owner households at zero to 30 percent of MFI and those at 31 to 50 percent of MFI are HIGH
priorities. Existing owner households at 51 to 80 percent of MFI are a MEDIUM priority.

Strategy Development

The strategy to assist existing homeowners involves rehabilitation, to upgrade units which otherwise might
deteriorate due to lack of funds for maintenance and investment.

Investment Plan

The plan for this strategy is as follows:

Rehabilitation
1-year goal: 248 households
5-year goal: 1,240 households
Programs: CDBG, HOME




                                                    66
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

FIRST-TIME LOW-AND MODERATE-INCOME HOMEBUYERS WITH CHILDREN
Analysis

Low-income families with children and the potential to become homeb uyers could be included in the small
or large related household priority categories discussed previously. For many of these families,
homeownership would mean greater housing choice.

Ownership potential is enhanced by the affordability of homes in relation to incomes. However, barriers to
ownership include required down payments and the unavailability of smaller mortgages. Many low cost
homes are also older and in substandard condition, which requires potential buyers to spend additional
money, initially, for rehabilitation. The affordability of housing in communities farther from employment
centers may be offset by high commuting costs. Much of the affordable housing stock is likely to contain
lead-based paint hazards.

A number of programs are designed to assist first-time homebuyers. The level of assistance per family,
however, typically is small, so families served tend to be from the higher end of the low-income group.

Priority Identification

First-time homebuyers with children and incomes at zero to 30 percent of MFI and those at 31 to 50
percent of MFI are MEDIUM priorities. First-time homebuyers with children and incomes at 51 to 80
percent MFI are a HIGH priority. Increased homeownership among families with children is desirable. But
for households at zero to 30 percent of MFI, ownership can be unrealistic without subsidies. A greater
potential for sustaining homeownership exists among families at 51 to 80 percent of MFI.

Strategy Development

The strategy to assist first-time homebuyers with children involves the primary activity of acquisition
assistance and the secondary activities of home buyer assistance, and rehabilitation to upgrade the stock
of housing available for this household type to purchase.

Investment Plan

The plan for this strategy is as follows:

Acquisition Assistance                      Homebuyer Assistance            Rehabilitation
1-year goal: 1350 households                1-year goal: 52 households      1-year goal: 83 households
5-year goal: 6750 households                5-year goal: 260 households     5-year goal: 415 households
Programs: HOME, ADDI,                       Programs: HOME, ADDI,           Programs: CDBG, HOME,
FIRST HOME                                  FIRST HOME                      FIRST HOME




                                                        67
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

FIRST-TIME LOW-AND MODERATE-INCOME HOMEBUYERS WITHOUT CHILDREN
Analysis

Low-income households without children that have the potential to become homebuyers would probably
come from the small, related household category (e.g., childless couples) or from the "other" renters‘
category, both of which were discussed previously.

Ownership potential is enhanced by the affordability of homes in relation to incomes. However, barriers to
ownership include required down payments and the unavailability of smaller mortgages. Many low cost
homes are also older and in substandard condition, which require potential buyers to spend additional
money, initially, for rehabilitation. The affordability of housing in communities farther from employment
centers may be offset by high commuting costs. Much of the affordable housing stock is likely to contain
lead-based paint hazards.

A number of programs are designed to assist first-time homebuyers. The level of assistance per family,
however, typically is small, so families served tend to be from the higher end of the low-income group.

Priority Identification

First time homebuyers without children with incomes at zero to 30 percent MFI are a MEDIUM priority.
First-time homebuyers without children with incomes at 31 to 50 percent MIF and 51 to 80 percent MFI are
MEDIUM priorities. It is difficult to initiate and sustain homeownership among the lowest-income group.
Arguably, the need for ownership among low-income households with children exceeds the need for
homeownership among households without children.

Strategy Development

The strategy to assist first-time homebuyers without children involves the primary activity of homebuyer
assistance and the secondary activity of rehabilitation, to upgrade the housing stock available for this family
type to purchase.

Investment Plan

The plan for this strategy is as follows:

Acquisition                                 Homebuyer assistance               Rehabilitation
1-year goal: 450 households                 1-year goal: 17 households         1-year goal: 28 households
5-year goal: 2,250 households               5-year goal: 85 households         5-year goal: 140 households
Programs: CDBG, HOME,                       Programs: HOME, ADDI,              Programs: CDBG, HOME, FIRST
ADDI, FIRST HOME                            FIRST HOME                         HOME




                                                        68
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PRIORITY HOMELESS NEEDS
Analysis

Services and facilities for the homeless have expanded in recent years, particularly in the area of domestic
abuse/family crisis intervention. However, the incidence of trad itional homelessness has also increased.

Programs and services for the homeless are available to a varying degree statewide. Federal and state
financial assistance is provided to shelters and services on an annual basis. The demand always exceeds
the awards and in the past two years not all applicants were able to be funded.

Priority Identification

Homeless individuals and families are a MEDIUM priority. Both need a wide range of social services and
housing options. This middle priority recognizes the need to stabilize assistance in the form of social
services apart from direct housing assistance. There is an extensive network of providers to serve this
population, but it is severely under-funded relative to demand. In fact state funding for the domestic
violence programs has been eliminated altogether. A continuum of services and housing options must be
developed to address the problems faced by the diverse people who comprise Iowa's homeless population.
Limited funding streams should be combined to maximize the range of assistance available.

Strategy Development

The strategy to assist homeless individuals and families involves the primary activities of providing shelter
and meeting basic health and clothing needs. The strategy's secondary activities are homelessness
prevention and crisis intervention. The State's overall strategy to promote a continuum of housing and
services for the homeless includes the following:

Maintain existing State funding through the IFA homeless assistance program which funds shelter staff,
outreach/assessment and operations.

Continue use of federal ESGP funds in conjunction with Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) funding and IFA
funds to support coordination of resources. Funds are distributed through a joint application process. The
State will encourage maximum allowable ESGP funding for homeless prevention.

Continue to seek increased funding to expand transitional and permanent housing options, with special
emphasis on "at-risk" youth and families.

Continue to support and certify the need for locally-initiated projects to develop transitional, permanent and
single room occupancy housing for the homeless, including those with special needs. Seek flexible funding
for case management and client services aimed at helping the formerly homeless and those at risk of
homelessness maintain permanent housing and independent living.




                                                     69
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Investment Plan

The plan for this strategy is as follows:

Rehabilitation                              Transitional Housing               Rental Assistance
1-year goal: 20 households                  1-year goal: 25 units              1-year goal: 10 households
5-year goal: 100 households                 5-year goal: 125 units             5-year goal: 50 households
Programs: CDBG, HOME,                       Programs: CDBG, HOME,              Programs: HOME,
ESGP/HSOG, IFA                              ESGP/HSOG, IFA                     ESGP/HSOG

PRIORITIES FOR OTHER PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Analysis

Persons with special needs often have very low incomes. Primary income sources include Social Security
Disability Income (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI). A person whose income source is SSI
may receive as little as $500 per month in assistance, while a person on SSDI could receive as much as
$1200 per month. Waiting lists for subsidized rental units and other independent living arrangements
exceed a year. As more individuals opt to leave group care settings, they must assume housing expenses.

Priority

Persons with special needs are a HIGH priority. This recognizes these persons have disproportionately low
incomes and may have life skills problems impacting housing options.


Strategy Development

The strategy to assist persons with special needs involves a primary activity of rehabilitation, to address the
quality of rental stock, and secondary activities of new construction and rental assistance to address the
statewide shortage of suitable and affordable units.

Investment Plan

The plan for this strategy is as follows:

Rehabilitation                  New Construction            Acquisition                  Rental Assistance
1-year goal: 20                 1-year goal: 60             1-year goal: 20              1-year goal: 140
households                      households                  households                   households (80 from
5-year goal:100                 5-year goal: 300            5-year goal: 100             HOPWA)
households                      households                  households                   5-year goal: 700
Programs: CDBG,                 Programs: CDBG,             Programs: CDBG,              households (including
HOME, LIHTC, IFA Loan           HOME, LIHTC, IFA            HOME, IFA Loan               HOPWA)
Program(s)                      Loan Program(s)             Program(s)                   Programs: HOME,
                                                                                         HOPWA, IFA Loan
                                                                                         Program(s)

                                                       70
2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                  HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Table 4.1: Priority Housing Needs (summarizes the discussion

                     Priority Housing Needs                                    Priority Need Level                Estimated       Estimated
                          (Households)                                    (High, Medium, Low, No Such Need          Units         Dollars to
                                                                       0-30%          31-50%          51-80%                       Address
                                       Cost Burden . 30-50%               H              H               M         14,025          $365M
                     Small Related
                                       Cost Burden > 50%                  H              H                H        11,460          $298M
                                       Substandard                        H              H               M          2,432           $63M
                                       Ov ercrowded                       H              H               M
                                       Cost Burden 30-50%                 H              H               M          2,547           $66M
                     Large Related
                                       Cost Burden > 50%                  H              H                H         1,751           $46M
 Renter
                                       Substandard                        H              H               M          2,832           $74M
                                       Ov ercrowded                       H              H               M
                                       Cost Burden . 30-50%               H              H               M         10,879          $283M
                     Elderly
                                       Cost Burden > 50%                  H              H                H         9,002          $234M
                                       Substandard                        H              H               M          377             $10M
                                       Ov ercrowded                       H              H               M
                                       Cost Burden . 30-50%               H              H               M         20,201          $525M
                     All Other
                                       Cost Burden > 50%                  H              H               H         19,984          $520M
                                       Substandard                        H              H               M          1,233           $32M
                                       Ov ercrowded                       H              H               M
                                       Cost Burden 30-50%                 H              H               M         54,345         $1,412M
 Owner                                 Cost Burden > 50%                  H              H                H        39,026         $1,015M
                                       Substandard                        H              H               M          4,706          $122M
                                       Ov ercrowded                       H              H               M



             Priority Homeless Needs                                      Priority Need Level                        Estimated
                                                                  (High, Medium, Low, No Such Need                   Dollars to
                                                                                                                      Address
 Assessment/ Outreach                                 Families        Individuals    Persons with Special Needs        $10M
                                                      H               H              H
 Emergency Shelter                                    Families        Individuals    Persons with Special Needs        $10M
                                                      H               M              H
 Transitional Housing                                 Families        Individuals    Persons with Special Needs           NA
                                                      M               M              M
 Permanent Supportive Housing                         Families        Individuals    Persons with Special Needs           NA
                                                      M               M              H
 Permanent Housing                                    Families        Individuals    Persons with Special Needs           NA
                                                      H               H              H




                                                                 71
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Non-housing community development needs are categorized generally as public infrastructure, community
facilities and services, and economic development. There is no comprehensive, detailed list of Iowa‘s non-
housing community development needs. However, information sources such CDBG applications help
identify what cities and counties perceive as needs.

Needs as Expressed in CDBG Applications

IDED administers the HUD-funded CDBG program among all Iowa counties and all but the eleven largest
cities (which receive their CDBG funds directly from HUD). A variety of community development projects
are eligible under the CDBG program, generally in the categories of housing, public infrastructure (primarily
water and sewer), public facilities and services and economic development.

Almost all CDBG-funded projects must primarily benefit low- and moderate income persons. The practical
application of this requirement means more than half of those persons benefiting from the project must
come from households with incomes less than 80 percent of area MFI. Non-housing CDBG applications,
therefore, are almost exclusively limited to projects where residents of the benefiting area (or prospective
employees in economic development projects) are predominantly from low- and moderate income
households. Projects which by their nature benefit an entire jurisdiction (e.g., sewer plants or water supply
wells) are allowable CDBG applications only for the poorer communities.

Needs shown through CDBG applications are also shaped by local match for projects and by local
government initiative and capacity. Local match is not required, but since it is a rating factor, it has become
standard practice for communities to match local funds to CDBG funds in a ratio of one to two or higher.
Local government capacity is constrained by lack of full-time, experienced staff, although councils of
government, university extension services, United States Department of Agriculture Resource Conservation
and Development offices and private consultants serve as resources for communities.

Communities often cite lack of initiative as a reason for not participating in the CDBG program. The State
tries to stimulate initiative through outreach. Table 3.22 shows the distribution of non-housing community
development project applications and awards in Iowa from 2000 to 2004 (five program years).
Awards
Activity # % of




                                                     72
             2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                                   HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Table 4.2: Community Development Block Grant Applications and Awards

                        Applications                                                                 Awards
        Types            #    % of #    $ Amount         % of $              Activity                #       % of #   $     Amount       % of $
 COMMUNITY
                                                                  COMMUNITY FACILITIES &
 FACILITIES &           245     31%       $75,800,458      33%                                       121       27%        $29,993,243      27%
                                                                      SERVICES: Subtotal
 SERVICES
                                                                                         Planning        0      0%                 $0       0%

                                                                                Public Services          2      0%           $249,306       0%

                                                                                 Public U tilities       3      1%           $999,000       1%

                                                                                        Sidewalks        0      0%                 $0       0%

                                                                                        Day Care      38        9%        $13,318,225      12%

                                                                       Medical Suppor t Systems          5      1%         $1,349,460       1%

                                                                                Senior Centers           7      2%         $1,991,714       2%

                                                                             Homeless Shelters           4      1%           $498,407       0%

                                                                                Public Facilities     30        7%         $2,973,790       3%

                                                                                 Fire Protection         0      0%                 $0       0%

                                                                              Handicap Center s       18        4%         $5,312,890       5%

                                                                        Neighborhood Facilities          0      0%                 $0       0%

                                                                                          Streets        0      0%                 $0       0%

                                                                                 Stor m Sewers        14        3%         $3,300,451       3%

                                                                            WATER & SEWER
 WATER & SEWER          478     60%      $136,228,236      60%                                       249       56%        $64,132,820      59%
                                                                                   Subtotal:

                                                                                    Rural Water       32        7%        $11,669,853      11%

                                                                               Non-rural Water        83       19%        $21,117,185      19%

                                                                                Sanitary Sewer       134       30%        $31,345,782      29%

 ECONOMIC                                                                    ECONOMIC
                         73      9%       $15,254,174       7%                                        73       16%        $15,254,174      14%
 DEVELOPMENT*                                                      DEVELOPMENT Subtotal:



 TOTALS                 796    100%       $227,282,868    100%    TOTALS                             443     100%         $109,380,237   100%


 *    Applications are submitted as Pre-Applications for all types of funding for businesses. They are then assigned to the
     fund source and asked to prepare necessary documents.

          $A


                                                                  73
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
#
Applications for infrastructure, public facilities and public services projects are reviewed during an annual
competition. From 2000 through 2004, water and sewer system applications represented 60% percent of all
non-housing applications and 60% percent of the funds requested. These figures document the need for
basic public works among CDBG applicants. The Table also illustrates the degree to which the state
program responds to local needs, as expressed through the application process. Water and sewer projects
constituted 60% of the requests, and water and sewer projects received 59% of the total funding in the
award process. Community facilities and services comprised 31% of the total applications, and received
27% of the dollars awarded.

SERVICES TO EMPOWER FAMILIES
Families in poverty face barriers to self-sufficiency including economic, social, cultural and political
isolation. These barriers must be addressed before and during participation in workforce development or
employment activities. The Human Investment Plan recommends the following service delivery
approaches for families in poverty:

 Focusing on the family system rather than on the individual.
 Orienting services linking families with the community.
 Accessing, when eligible, Family Investment Program (FIP) and therefore receiving services through
  PROMISE JOBS and Family Development and Self-Sufficiency (FaDSS).

Workforce Development

Iowa's Strategic Plan for workforce development entitled "Building Tomorrow's Future" recommends
several avenues to build better economic lives for Iowa's families:
 Strengthen the connection between education and workforce development through an enhanced
  school to work program across the State.
 Continue to explore ways to make higher education more affordable and available to Iowans.
 Seek ways to fully utilize the talents of all Iowans.
 Work to make higher paying jobs available to women in Iowa.
 Identify and assist under-employed families to access jobs more in line with their skills/abilities.
 Assist welfare recipients with readiness skills they will need when they enter the job market.
 Work to more fully utilize the skills and abilities of minorities in Iowa.
Career Link, a part of the CDBG set-aside for economic development activities, provides additional training
resources for unemployed and under-employed workers. Recent revisions allow clients to access
vocational training and post secondary education programs lasting up to two years. Career Link funds
provide direct assistance to clients to fund transportation, childcare and some classroom costs. The Career
Link program links job training directly to employers' needs and availability. Classroom training is designed
by the employer and the training institution.
The network of Workforce Development Centers located throughout the State provides a comprehensive
delivery of employment and job training services. Providers of state and federal programs are co-located in
these centers to provide client intake, assessment, employability development planning, placement and
referral services.



                                                    74
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Other workforce development strategies include expanding the Promise Jobs program, providing
employment training to FIP recipients, initiating career academies linking high school students to workplace
and post secondary education opportunities.           Through existing state training programs prospective
employees, who were initially unqualified because of a single or minor skill deficiency, can be provided
training to address those deficiencies, making those individuals qualified to meet a company workforce
needs.
Developing today the educational opportunities and skills required in tomorrow‘s work force is the goal of
the state‘s Accelerated Career Education (ACE) program. Crucial to the success of the ACE program has
been industry support and involvement in developing the most current and advanced curriculum for
students enrolled.

WELFARE TO WORK

The State of Iowa Department of Human Services has contracted with the Iowa Workforce Development
agency to implement the State's welfare to work initiative. Family self-sufficiency is at the heart of the effort
to move people into the work world from welfare. Reform efforts include strategies to help transition clients
from welfare to work, enhancing family stability and responsibility. The State has removed many of the
disincentives for self-sufficiency built into the former public assistance program with new methods to
support families in need.

PROMISE JOBS, or "Promoting Independence and Self Sufficiency through Employment" is Iowa's welfare
reform program. Designed to assist Family Investment Program (FIP) recipients to become self-sufficient,
PROMISE JOBS is a participation requirement for most FIP recipients. Participants develop an
individualized Family Investment Agreement (FIA) that outlines what steps they will take to leave public
assistance. Persons who fail to participate or comply with their FIA are considered to have chosen a
Limited Benefit Plan (LBP) and lose their FIP benefits.

The FIA may incorporate a self-sufficiency plan which the family has developed with another agency (for
example, a HUD funded transitional housing program) or person, so long as that self-sufficiency plan meets
the requirements of the rules and is deemed by PROMISE JOBS staff to be appropriate to the family's
circumstances.

PROMISE JOBS provides a number of programs to participants, including life skills training, job seeking
and skills training, on-the-job training, monitored employment, basic education, post-secondary classroom
training, parenting skills training, family development services, family planning services, and entrepreneurial
training.

        Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 requires that, to the greatest
        extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment arising from the investment of
        CDBG funds be provided to low-income persons residing in the project area (generally
        defined as the county). The intent of Section 3 is to harness the economic power of HUD
        investments in housing and community development and to expand economic
        opportunities for low-income households in the neighborhoods where they live.

        The State of Iowa’s CDBG Management Guide, provided to all CDBG recipients,
        addresses the requirements of Section 3 and includes procedures, instructions, and
        reporting forms. Section 3 is discussed at the annual workshop for new grant recipients,
        and technical assistance is available from staff.
                                                      75
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

        Recipient Section 3 reports are due when contracts expire. Recipients submit the reports
        based on Davis Bacon payrolls, and the information is compiled in a database. Annual
        reports are then submitted electronically each March via the HUD website.

HEAD START

The Head Start program is available across the State of Iowa.

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

Many programs administered by many agencies are available across the State of Iowa to empower
families. Rental and mortgage assistance and utility assistance is available through the local DHS offices
as well as through many of the State's Community Action Agencies. Homeless prevention programs
funded through federal and state homeless grant programs (ESGP and HSOG) are avai lable at agencies
throughout the State. Counseling and intervention programs are also available through local Community
Action programs, as well as through domestic violence shelters/programs and mental health centers.

Housing rehabilitation and repair is offered locally through city entitlement programs as well as through the
Balance of Housing Fund Programs. Weatherization programs are operated state -wide through the 18
regional Community Action Agencies. Legal assistance is offered state -wide through Legal Aid of Iowa.
Supportive services offered state-wide include Head Start, Family Investment Program (FIP), Promise
Jobs, and faith based programs operated by Catholic Charities and Lutheran Services of Iowa.
State-wide childcare initiatives include the formation of the Empowerment Board established to work on
issues affecting child development for ages from birth to five.
Health care is offered state-wide through the County Public Health Nursing Program. Substance abuse
and mental health treatment can be found regionally in Iowa through hospitals, substance abuse program
providers, and mental health agencies.
Iowa State University Extension offers financial literacy programs in all 99 Iowa counties. Case
management services are available across Iowa through Lutheran Services and Catholic Charities as well
as through many of the Community Action Program offices. Transportation services are more readily
available in urban areas but some rural areas are served by regional transit services.


ANTI -POVERTY STRATEGY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES
Homeownership can be seen as an element of asset accumulation as a means to escape poverty. The
State has a number of programs (including CDBG and HOME) that can be accessed for homeownership
opportunities. The newest program, the American Dream Down Payment Initiative (ADDI), further targets
assistance to first-time home buyers only and contains specific provisions to address the needs of public
housing tenants, towards getting them into home ownership.
The Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) has several programs targeted to low-income home buyers: the
FirstHome program and the FirstHome Plus program. The FirstHome Plus program is designed to help
first-time homebuyers or individuals who have not owned a home in the last three years to pay for closing
costs, down payments, and any required repairs to the unit. By using this program, lenders are able to
alleviate or at least diminish one of the biggest concerns for first-time homebuyers who are able to make a

                                                    76
 2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                    HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
house payment but don't have the necessary cash reserves to pay for loan costs. This program can only
be used with the FirstHome program. The FirstHome program, for first -time homebuyers, helps the
borrower obtain a below-market interest rate on their mortgage loan if they are purchasing a home in the
State of Iowa. Annual household incomes for program eligibility must fall within IFA's Maximum Household
Income Limits.




                                                  77
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


SE C T IO N F I VE — A CT IO N PLA N

The Consolidated Plan instructions require the State to set forth its methods for distributing funds made
available under the HOME, CDBG and ESG programs to meet housing and community development
objectives for the 2005 program year. Additionally, the Plan must address some requirements specific to
the HOME program.

This section addresses the State‘s Action Plan for 2005.

HOUSING RESOURCES

The following resources are available to the State for implementing housing strategies:

Iowa Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)

The State CDBG program is funded by HUD, and administered by IDED. The State has set aside 25
percent of CDBG funds for housing, which are combined with State HOME funds in what is called the IDED
―Housing Fund.‖ Applications for the CDBG program are accepted on an annual application basis from all
counties and to cities with populations less than 50,000. CDBG funds may be used for rehabilitation of
owner- and renter-occupied housing, homebuyer programs, property acquisition and, in limited
circumstances, new construction.

HOME Investment Partnership Program

First funded in 1992, HOME is a federal program dedicated to affordable housing for low-income persons.
HOME funds projects in rehabilitation, acquisition, new construction, homebuyer assistance and rental
assistance. IDED administers the HOME program in Iowa, which is available statewide. Applications for
HOME are made on an annual basis through the ―Housing Fund.‖ Local governments and private
proprietary and nonprofit entities may apply. IFA participates in review of projects requesting LIHTC and
HOME funding.

American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) Program

The ADDI program was created in 2003 with the American Dream Downpayment Act (Public Law 108-186.)
Funds made available through this program are for the purpose of assisting low-income persons or
households to become first-time homebuyers.

Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program

IDED administers this HUD program, which funds a variety of facilities and services for homeless persons
and for homelessness prevention. It is available through annual competition among local governments on
behalf of one or more shelters within their jurisdictions. There is a joint application for ESG and State funds
administered by the IDED.



                                                     78
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Homeless Shelter Operations Grant (HSOG) Program

This program is very similar to the ESG program. The are State funds appropriated through the Iowa
Legislature, with a contribution from the Iowa Finance Authority.

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDs (HOPWA)

HOPWA funds may be used for a variety of housing-related purposes, including but not limited to housing
information services, resource identification, tenant-based rental assistance, emergency assistance and
supportive services. Eligible beneficiaries are low-income persons with AIDS or related diseases and their
families.

Federal Weatherization Funds

The State Department of Human Rights (DHR) receives funds from the U.S. Department of Energy and
other federal sources for weatherization of housing for low-income persons. These funds are distributed to
Community Action Agencies around the State, which conduct local weatherization programs. DHR receives
about $10 million per year in weatherization funds.

Single-Family Construction Loan Program

IFA offers low-interest construction loans to eligible developers for new construction or
acquisition/rehabilitation of affordable, owner-occupied single-family homes. The maximum loan for a
house is 80% of the cost. The price of the home, including the home and land, net of all subsidies, mus t be
below $125,000. The length of the loan is 9 months or when the house is sold (whichever comes first).

Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)

IFA administers the LIHTC program in Iowa. The program provides tax credits to developers who construct
or rehabilitate low-income rental housing. Applications are accepted and reviewed on a competitive basis
annually.

State Housing Trust Fund

IFA operates a state housing trust fund with two different components: A Local Housing Trust Fund
Program will be allocated 60% of the overall funds, and the remainder to a Project-Based Housing
Program. Thirty percent of the funds in the Local Housing Trust Fund Program must be targeted to serve
Extremely Low-Income people.

IFA Low Interest Loan Program for Homebuyers

IFA has sold tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds to make low interest mortgage loans. The loans are
originated by participating lenders around the State. Loans are made under FHA, FmHA or VA programs or
under conventional terms. FHA and VA minimum down payments apply; usually no more than 5 percent
down payment is required. There are maximum upper limits on buyer income, housing price and mortgage
amounts, and downpayment assistance is available to lower-income buyers.

                                                    79
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Iowa Housing Assistance Program

This program provides grants to help pay closing costs, down payments or costs of repairs necessary to
obtain financing or mortgage insurance. Applications are made through participating lenders around the
State. Upper income limits are 80 percent of area MFI. Funding levels are dependent on IFA revenues,
grants and/or State appropriations.


Multifamily Loan Program

IFA seeks to preserve the existing supply of affordable rental units at risk of being lost and to foster the
production of new affordable rental units in the State of Iowa. There are three types of Programs:
Preservation of Affordable Housing, Low Income Housing Tax Credits and Substantial Rehabilitation of
Non-Restricted Projects. The Preservation of Affordable Housing loan program requires that the projects
must have been developed using at least one of the following: Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC),
state or local HOME funding, tax-exempt bonds, a HUD or USDA Rural Development program (i.e. Section
515), IFA Housing Assistance Fund (HAF), or the former Iowa Housing Corporation (IHC). The Low
Income Housing Tax Credits loan program is available to new projects and includes both construction and
permanent loans. The Substantial Rehabilitation of Non-Restricted Projects loan program is for projects
that currently do not have affordability restrictions, but as a condition of a loan the project is required to
restrict 40% of the units rent at FMR or below.

Multifamily Accelerated Processing

IFA is an approved Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) Lender with the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). MAP is a new processing procedure designed to establish national
standards for approved Lenders, like IFA, to prepare, process, and submit loan applications for Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) multifamily mortgage insurance. MAP may be used for the following FHA
Multifamily Mortgage Insurance Programs: Sections 221 (d)(3) (for non-profits only) and 221 (d)(4)
(apartments), Section 220 (apartments in urban renewal areas) and Section 232 (health care, board and
care homes, and assisted living facilities), either new construction or substantial rehabilitation. It may also
be used under Section 223 (f) for refinancing or purchase of existing apartments or Section 232 type
facilities. IFA will focus mainly on the 221 (d)(3) and (d)(4) programs below.

Senior Living Revolving Loan Fund Program

IFA program designed to assist with the development of affordable assisted living properties and service -
enriched affordable housing. The targeted tenants are Medicaid-eligible people who currently reside in
nursing homes and other institutions, or would move into an institution if this type of community -based
service was unavailable. The loans can also be used to purchase an existing building and convert it to the
either assisted living or housing with services. "Service -enriched affordable housing" is defined by IFA as
"integrated, affordable and accessible housing coordinated with, but separate from, personal assistance
and supportive services for persons with disabilities."




                                                     80
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Home- and Community-Based Service Rent Subsidy Program

IFA administers this rent subsidy program for persons who receive services under a federal Medicaid
waiver program called Home- and Community-Based Service (HCBS) and who are at risk of nursing facility
placement. The program provides a monthly rent assistance payment to these persons to help them live
successfully in their own home and community.

AfterCare Rent Subsidy Program

IFA administers this rent subsidy program for youth who have aged-out of foster care. Assistance is
available for eligible youth who are at least 18 years old but not yet 21, and participates in a self-sufficiency
plan in coordination with one of the eight social service agencies that are members of the Iowa AfterCare
Service Network.




                                                      81
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Non-state Administered Housing Resources

 HUD loans, loan guarantees and other forms of assistance made directly to local owners, by application.

 USDA Rural Development loans, loan guarantees and subsidies made directly to local households and
  project owners, by application.

 Federal Home Loan Bank assistance for affordable housing in projects sponsored by member lending
  institutions.

 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide loans, some of which are affordab le to low and moderate income
  home buyers.


NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES

The following resources are available for non-housing community development projects:

Iowa CDBG Program

Seventy-five percent of the State CDBG program is available for non-housing community development
needs that principally benefit low- and moderate income people. CDBG funds are available for annual
competition for infrastructure (primarily water and sewer), public facilities and public services. A portion of
the state's CDBG funds are set aside for economic development projects; applications for these are
accepted on a continual basis.
Iowa State Revolving Fund

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has capitalized a revolving fund for sewage treatment and
water system improvements. This fund is administered by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Priority for use of the fund is established by the potential for water quality enhancement. The loans are
below market, but rates are dependent on bond sales and interest subsidy available.
―RISE‖ Program

RISE is administered by the Iowa Department of Transportation. It is designed to enhance economic
development through improvements to city and county transportation systems.
Home- and Community-Based Services Revolving Loan Program Fund
IFA program created to assist in the development and expansion of facilities and infrastructure that provide
adult day services, respite services, and congregate meals for low-income people.

Non-state Administered Community Development Resources

 USDA Rural Development Administration grants and loans for water, sewer and other community
  facilities.
 U.S. Economic Development Administration regional revolving loan funds for economic development
  and funds for public works projects designed to stimulate economic development.

                                                     82
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Leveraging Private and Non-Federal Funds

Non-federal leveraging for the federal programs cited in the Plan are anticipated from the following sources:

 CDBG -- No match is required, but match is likely from State Housing Fund, the Iowa Finance
  Authority, local governments and private developers.
 HOME and ADDI -- Iowa continually exceeds federal match requirements. Match is expected from the
  State, private developers, local governments and local nonprofit agencies.
 ESG -- Required match under ESG is provided by the shelters, local governments and nonprofit
  agencies.
 HOPWA -- No match is required, but match will come from the sponsors in the form of cash resources
  and non-cash resources.

ACTIVITIES
Home Method of Distribution

The purposes of the Iowa HOME Investment Partnership Program are as follows:
 Foster expansion and ensure continued supply of safe, decent, sanitary and affordable housing
    (primarily rental housing) for low-income Iowans;
 Develop and strengthen the capacity of local governments and other housing development entities to
    identify, design and implement strategies addressing affordable housing needs;
 Provide financial assistance to accomplish affordable housing initiatives.

Administrative Structure
The State of Iowa is a HUD participating jurisdiction. The State assigned administration and implementation
of the HOME program to IDED in 1992. Sandy Ehrig, Administrator of the Division of Community and Rural
Development, and Terry Vestal, Housing Team Leader, are directly responsible for HOME program
administration. IDED staff will work in consultation with state and federal agencies and other organizations
to further refine program design and implementation. These include HUD, IFA, FHLB, USDA - RD, and
Fannie Mae. The Department will coordinate its internal activities with funding opportunities from the CDBG
program when appropriate. IDED will administer the HOME program through State administrative rules
consistent with 24 CFR 92. Staff will provide technical assistance to eligible applicants in the course of
project development through training sessions open to all interested participants and through individualized
technical assistance when/where possible. The Division will perform required monitoring, performance and
evaluation reviews to ensure compliance with all applicable federal rules, including 24 CFR 92.650, et. al.

Program Description

IDED will reserve up to 10 percent of the FY ‘05 allocation for administrative purposes. The intent is to
provide support for local administration by using a portion of the reserve to directly fund administrative
costs incurred by successful state recipients, including Community Housing Development Organizations
(CHDOs). All remaining funds will be distributed to eligible applicants using an annual application process.
Applications will be accepted once a year. Applications will be reviewed and awards will be made until all
HOME funds have been obligated.

Applications are reviewed using a threshold and criteria review system. The criteria reflect priorities
established in this plan, which include the following:
                                                    83
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                     HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
 need for financial assistance to accomplish the proposed activity or project as evidenced by market
   conditions, expected beneficiaries, key participants, type and amount of funding leveraged from other
   sources and HOME funds requested;
 impact of the activity or project as documented by the consistency with Plan priorities, degree of local
   participation and direct benefit to the targeted population;
 proposal feasibility, including financial feasibility, administrative capacity, readiness to proceed, and
   schedule
E
EXAMPLE: RANKING CRITERIA FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED REHABILITATION
1.      How well does the applicant explain the program objectives?
         High Score = Complete, accurate, concise description with all necessary details
         Medium Score = Missing pieces of information which raises some questions
         Low Score = Incomplete, inaccurate, confusing or contradictory information
2.      What level of need is explained and documented in the application?
         High Score = Well documented and explained, references to supporting data given
           (excerpts/attachments, etc.)
         Medium Score = Weaker arguments, references or support documentation
         Low Score = Insufficient need arguments given, little or no support documentation
3.      Number/percentage of low- and moderate-income homeowners in the community?
         High Score = High percentage of LMI in community, high percentage of homeowners vs.
           renters, likelihood of greater numbers of participants that are both homeowners and LMI
         Medium Score = Mid-range % of LMI and/or homeowners in the community, reduced likelihood
           of number of participants (LMI & homeowners)
         Low Score = Very few LMI and/or homeowners, very little likelihood of sufficient numbers of
           participants
4.      What level of impact will the completion of this program have on the community?
         High Score = High degree of need met with proposal, high beneficiary numbers, high LMI
           benefit
         Medium Score = Meets identified need but not high LMI benefit, or has high LMI percentage
           benefit but low beneficiary numbers
         Low Score = Very little of the identified need impacted, low beneficiary number, few LMI served
5.      What level of involvement does the community have in other housing/community
        improvement activities?
         High Score = Active in housing, has other related programs/projects/activities, lots of active
           players (lenders/realtors, etc.), comprehensive and complementary activities
         Medium Score = Some efforts underway but few players and/or little coordination
         Low Score = Little or no other housing/community improvement activities, little community
           involvement
6.      At what level is the program part of an ongoing, comprehensive local housing effort?
         High Score = This proposal is part of a much larger comprehensive effort, many related or
            complimentary housing projects being undertaken
         Medium Score = Related to other housing efforts, more could be accomplished
         Low Score = Few or no other housing related activities undertaken, little or no relationship
                                                   84
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

7.      What level of readiness does this community show?
         High Score = Public hearings and meetings, have already marketed the activity, pre -apps
           taken, documented interest in participation, players lined up
         Medium Score = Not quite as ready, potential for success and timely completion but less effort
           made to line the participants and players up
         Low Score = Little or no effort made up-front to ensure success or timeliness

After the applications have been evaluated using the above review criteria, all applications are summarized
and funding recommendations are presented to the IDED Community Division Administrator and IDED
Director, and a final funding decision is determined.

The attached certifications require IDED to evaluate each activity or project to ensure the minimum HOME
funds necessary, in combination with other sources of capital, be provided to produce or retain affordable,
safe and decent housing units. It is not IDED‘s intent to duplicate local risk analyses or penalize proposals
because of unique packaging of local, state or other federal resources. Where program awards are made to
local recipients for unspecified sites, the recipient will be asked to establish a project investment
methodology to be used in the selection of project sites and the feasibility of establishing the sites in a
timely manner. Recipients will be monitored throughout the life of the award to ensure compliance with the
approved investment methodology.

IDED will make HOME funds available for the following types of projects:
 Owner-occupied Rehabilitation
 Homeownership Assistance
 Rental (including transitional housing)
 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance

IDED expects additional outreach and technical assistance will be needed in rural areas to increase
capacity for HOME participation. Building local capacity for housing production or expansion is a State
priority, to achieve equitable geographic distribution and urban/rural mix across Iowa.

The State reserves not less than 15 percent of the HOME funds for investment in housing owned,
developed or sponsored by CHDOs. This reserve account does not preclude CHDOs from receiving
additional HOME funds. IDED will continue to work with the State‘s Community Action Agencies and other
non-profits to establish and/or maintain interest in and eligibility for CHDO participation in the HOME
program. Eligible CHDO activities will not be more restrictive than those contained in federal rules. CHDOs
will be encouraged to be sub recipients for administration and management of proposals submitted by other
applicants.

The state reserves up to 60% of its annual HOME allocation for multi-family rental projects jointly funded by
the Iowa Finance Authority with their Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. This is a joint application,
joint review, and joint decision-making and award process.




                                                    85
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ADDI Method of Distribution

ADDI funds will be used to provide downpayment and closing costs or acquisition assistance to LMI 1st-
time homebuyers. The maximum amount of ADDI funds available per household assisted will be $10,000.

ADDI funds received will be allocated along with the State‘s Housing Fund awards (HOME and CDBG
Housing Set-Aside) in 2005. Applications will be reviewed and awards made during our annual competitive
process. Review criteria for ADDI will be the same as any other homeownership assistance activity.
HOPWA Method of Distribution
Eligible HOPWA activities are those permitted by HUD regulations, authorized by the AIDS Housing
Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12901) as amended, and further defined in 24 CFR Part 574. The HOPWA
Program was established by HUD to address the specific needs of low-income persons living with
HIV/AIDS and their families. IFA will assist the following activities through the HOPWA program:
 Housing information services including, but not limited to, counseling, information, and referral services
  to assist an eligible person to locate, acquire, finance and maintain housing. This may also include fair
  housing counseling for eligible persons who may encounter discrimination on the basis of race, color,
  religion, sex, age, national origin, familial status, or handicap.
 Resource identification to establish, coordinate and develop housing assistance resources for eligible
  persons (including conducting preliminary research and making expenditures necessary to determi ne
  the feasibility of specific housing-related initiatives).
 Acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion, lease, and repair of facilities to provide housing and services.
 New construction (for single room occupancy (SRO) dwellings and community residences only ).
 Project- or tenant-based rental assistance, including assistance for shared housing arrangements.
 Short-term rent, mortgage, and utility payments to prevent the homelessness of the tenant or
  mortgagor of a dwelling.
 Supportive services including, but not limited to, health, mental health, assessment, permanent housing
  placement, drug and alcohol abuse treatment and counseling, day care, personal assistance,
  nutritional services, intensive care when required, and assistance in gaining access to local, State, and
  Federal government benefits and services, except that health services may only be provided to
  individuals with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or related diseases and not to family members of
  these individuals.
 Operating costs for housing including maintenance, security, operation, insurance, utilities, furnishings,
  equipment, supplies, and other incidental costs.
 Technical assistance in establishing and operating a community residence, including planning and
  other pre-development or pre-construction expenses and including, but not limited to, costs relating to
  community outreach and educational activities regarding AIDS or related diseases for persons residing
  in proximity to the community residence.
 Administrative expenses for project sponsors receiving amounts from grants made under this program
  may use not more than 7 percent of the amounts received for administrative costs.
Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) has partnered with AIDS Service Organizations (ASO) and housing agencies
across the state to create the AIDS Housing Network of Iowa (AHNI) to provide eligible activities throughout
the state. The AHNI Advisory Committee currently includes representatives from the ASO and housing
agencies, Iowa Coalition for Housing and the Homeless, Iowa Institute for Community Alliances,
Department of Public Health, University of Iowa and consumers. The allocation of funds to the sponsors
                                                    86
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
will be determined by a competitive process with input from the AHNI Advisory Committee. The
competitive selection process will include, but not be limited to: need, capacity, partnerships and service
area.
The sponsors must assist both of the following participant categories with HOPWA funds:

 Low-Income – Individuals and families whose income does not exceed 80% of the median income for a
  county or metropolitan statistical area, as determined by HUD, adjusted for household size. The
  restriction of income level is not applicable if individuals or households are receiving supportive
  services information only.
 Living with HIV/AIDS – At least one individual in the household must have AIDS or HIV infection.
  Households may include those who are connected by law, blood or are of special significance to the
  individual with HIV/AIDS.
CDBG Method of Distribution

As outlined in Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act, the primary goal of the CDBG
program is “the development of viable communities, by providing decent housing and suitable living
environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate incomes.”
In addition to the national program goals and objectives outlined by this Act, the State will do the following
through its administration of the CDBG program:

   Design the program to be flexible enough to address community priorities.
   Ensure neutrality and fairness in the treatment of all applications.
   Promote development of affordable housing.
   Assist communities in the preservation and development of basic infrastructure.
   Promote economic development activities that principally benefit LMI persons through job creation.

Projected Use of Funds

All incorporated cities and all counties in the State, except those designated as HUD entitlement areas, are
eligible to apply for and receive funds under this program. Those activities outlined as eligible under Title I,
Section 105, of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, are considered
eligible under Iowa‘s CDBG program. Eligible activities include public facilities (such as streets, water and
sewer facilities, parks and community buildings), public services, housing rehabilitation and economic
development. Administrative Rules for the program contain a complete listing of eligible activities. At least
seventy percent of CDBG funds allocated to local governments will be used for activities that principally
benefit low- and moderate-income persons.

For FY ‘05, no more than $100,000 plus 2 percent of the federal grant amount will be used for
administrative costs. The State will use 1 percent of the grant amount for specialized technical assistance
programming. The State will reserve 25 percent of CDBG funds for the combined Economic Development
Set-aside, Public Facilities Set-aside, and Career Link programs. The Economic Development Set-Aside
funds are to be used to make direct loans and forgivable loans to private enterprise when it can be shown
new jobs will be created or jobs will be retained that would otherwise be lost. Public Facilities Set-Aside
funds will be used to fund infrastructure development in direct support of economic development
opportunities. Career Link provides training opportunities. As a specific housing initiative, the Housing Fund
Set-aside will target 25 percent of available funds for programs designed to address the affordable housing
needs of low- and very-low income persons. Additionally, the CDBG Program allows for up to 5% of the
                                                      87
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
federal grant amount to be set aside for ―Opportunities and Threats‖, to allow the program to be responsive
to unanticipated situations that require funding. The remaining funds will be available for the general
competitive program. IDED may also use provisions allowed by federal law for short-term interim project
financing. An amount not to exceed $25 million may be made available under CDBG short-term interim
project financing during any program year.
Program Income/Remaining Funds/Recaptured Funds
Units of local government may retain program income when the income will be used for the same activity
as identified in the original IDED contract. Program income from direct loans from the Economic
Development Set-Aside Program may be retained by the grantee when it has established an IDED-
approved reuse plan.
Minimally, the plan must contain the following:
 Strategy for management of money in the fund;
 Demonstrated capacity to comply with applicable state and federal requirements;
 Ability to capitalize the revolving loan fund adequately within five years of award and show it is likely
  the community will be able to make a loan of at least $50,000 from the fund within five years.
IDED may require the return of program income not expended at the end of a contract period unless the
grantee has an approved plan for the reuse of program income. Any funds (including program income)
recaptured or remaining for any reason under the programs established herein and not covered by an IDED
approved reuse plan shall be returned to the general competitive program. Recaptured funds will be
committed to current (open) contracts. Any funds reallocated to the State by HUD will be distributed in the
established percentages to each of the existing programs. Any remaining or redistributed funds at the end
of the current program year are carried forward for allocation to the fund(s) where the need is the greatest
in the subsequent program year upon receipt of the next year‘s funding allocation from HUD.
Selection Procedures
In addition to satisfying the general program minimum threshold requirements, projects must follow the
specific rules pertaining to the applicable individual program component (Economic Development Set-
aside, Competitive Program, Public Facilities Set-aside, and Housing Set-aside Fund).
Minimum Threshold Criteria
Applicants must do the following:
 Show project addresses at least one of the three national objectives (primarily benefit low- and
  moderate-income persons, aid in the prevention of slum and blight or alleviate conditions which pose a
  serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of a community’s residents);
 Show project funds will be used only for eligible activities as described in the Act;
 Provide evidence of local capacity to administer grant (past experience with state or federal grants,
  staff qualification or plans to contract for grant administration);
 Have acceptable past performance in CDBG administration (if applicable);
 Show it is feasible to complete the project with funds requested;
 Meet the Iowa Citizen Participation Plan requirements;
 Identify community development and housing needs, including low- and moderate-income persons‘
  needs; and
 Present signed certifications as required by the Act
                                                    88
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


CDBG PROGRAM COMPONENTS – SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Each program component has specific requirements associated with its purpose. Requirements for each of
the individual program areas are discussed below.
Economic Development Set-aside Program
Applications are taken and awards are made on a continual basis. Funds are utilized as direct loans and
forgivable loans to a business. Assistance is provided to leverage private financing in business activities
resulting in the creation or retention of jobs principally for low- and moderate-income persons. There is a
ceiling of $1,000,000 per project. Projects funded under the set-aside program must meet a number of
minimum threshold criteria. At least 51 percent of the jobs created or retained must be taken by or first
consideration must be given to LMI persons. A minimum ratio of one job created or retained for every
$10,000 of CDBG funds must be maintained. Funding must be justified as necessary and appropriate.
Competitive Program
All eligible applicants for the regular CDBG program will compete with every other city and county eligible
for funding. Communities with populations less than 1,000 population may receive up to $300,000, those
with populations between 1,000 and 2,500 may receive up to $500,000, those with populations between
2,500 and 15,000 may receive up to $600,000, and those with populations greater than 15,000 population
may receive $800,000 each year. Communities with populations less than 250 are limited to $1,000 per
capita as are unincorporated areas of a county proposing direct service projects.
Public Facilities Set-aside Program
The Public Facilities Set-Aside Program finances construction and improvements to public facilities that aid
in economic development (i.e., water systems, sanitary and storm sewer systems, streets and rail and
airport facilities). There is an award ceiling of $500,000 per project. Any funds remaining at the end of the
program year will revert to the competitive program. Applications are taken on a continual basis. A decision
for funding a complete application will be made within 60 days. All applications for the set-aside program
must meet a number of minimum threshold criteria. At least 51 percent of the jobs created or retained must
be taken by or first consideration must be given to low- and moderate-income persons. There must be a
ratio of one job created or retained for every $10,000 in funds awarded. Local governments must provide
matching funds equaling at least 50 percent of the CDBG amount requested.
Housing Fund
All eligible applicants for the Housing Fund will compete with every other eligible applicant for funding.
Applications are accepted and awards made on an annual basis. Funds are used to assist in the
preservation or creation of affordable housing. There is an $800,000 per project ceiling for multi-family
activities, and $500,000 maximum for single-family activities. The maximum award on a per unit basis is
$24,999 per unit for the hard costs of construction, except for new construction rental projects, which may
be awarded up to $50,000 per unit. The other exception to the $24,999 limit is for rehabilitation activities
specifically designed to accomplish lead-hazard abatement and serve only units or structures built prior to
January 1, 1978, in which case the limit rises to $50,000 per unit. An applicant may apply for more than
one activity or project a year under the Housing Fund.


                                                    89
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Factors considered in rating applications are as follows:

     Magnitude of Need  based on proportion of substandard housing concentration, population
      growth, constraints to affordability and significant factors which have prohibited the development of
      affordable housing);
     Magnitude of Impact -- based on degree of Housing Fund and other federal funds in the overall
      activity or project, local commitment to activity or project, direct benefit to low- and moderate-
      income persons, degree to which activity or project addresses identified need and magnitude of
      need;
     Feasibility  based on administrative capacity, long term affordability, subsidy level proposed,
      amount of firm financial commitment to the activity or project from other sources, and readiness to
      proceed and schedule;
     Involvement by the community in housing issues and activities.

The following is a more detailed description of the review criteria for applications submitted for non -housing
CDBG projects:

1) What is the magnitude of need for the project?
    High Score = Relatively immediate health or safety concern
    Medium Score = Action needed sometime in the next few years
    Low Score = Proposed project is an ‗amenity‘
2) To what degree can the project be completed in a timely fashion?
    High Score = Construction to commence quickly, minimum length, realistic time -frame
    Medium Score = Average/reasonable construction timetable based on project type
    Low Score = Late start, lengthy/unrealistic/unclear timetable
3) To what degree will CDBG funds be leveraged by other funds?
    High Score = One-half or more of project financed with leveraged (non-CDBG) funds
    Medium Score = One-third to one-half of project financed with leveraged funds
    Low Score = Less than one-third of project financed with leveraged funds
4) To what degree is the cost per beneficiary within a reasonable range?
    High Score = Approximately $1000 or less CDBG dollars per beneficiary
    Medium Score = Approximately $5000 or less CDBG dollars per beneficiary
    Low Score = Approximately $10,000 or more CDBG dollars per beneficiary
5) What is the potential degree of impact the activity will have on the identified need and the
   standard of living or quality of life of the proposed beneficiaries?
    High Score = Activity directly and substantially addresses the identified need
    Medium Score = Partial impact on the identified need
    Low Score = Does not have substantial impact on the identified need
6) To what degree is the proposed activity appropriate for CDBG funding?
    High Score = Clearly furthers most aspects of the federal objective
    Medium Score = Relates to some aspects of the federal obje ctive
    Low Score = Does not appear to further the federal objective in any meaningful way

                                                     90
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

7) To what degree is the project ready to proceed?
    High Score = Preliminary work is done and needed financial resources are secured
    Medium Score = Some preliminary work done, but some important elements remain undetermined
      (e.g. site, some financing)
    Low Score = Little preliminary work done on site or financing
8) What is the capacity of the recipient or subrecipient to operate and maintain the proposed
   activity to ensure its continuing viability?
    High Score = Qualified personnel are already on staff and condition of existing systems indicates
       past record of proper maintenance.
    Medium Score = Some problems with maintenance and/or lack of staff, but clear and manageable
       plans for improvement
    Low Score = Existing facilities have been neglected, no qualified personnel on staff and inadequate
       plans for improvement

Short-term Interim Financing Program

This program provides short-term or interim financing for projects which create or retain employment
opportunities, prevent or eliminate blight or accomplish other federal and state community development
objectives. Financing may be used for construction or improvement of public works; purchase, construction,
rehabilitation or other improvement of land, buildings, facilities, machinery and equipment, fixtures and
appurtenances or other projects undertaken by a proprietary or nonprofit organization; assistance for
otherwise eligible projects or programs. Applications are accepted at any time and are processed,
reviewed and considered on a first-come, first-served basis. IDED makes funding decisions within 30 days
of receipt of a complete application and to the extent funds are available. Awards may not exceed $25
million. Selection is based on the following threshold criteria: evidence of local capacity to administer the
funds; acceptable performance in the administration of prior state or federal grants; feasibility the project
will be completed with funds requested (the applicant must identify other funding sources and the terms of
assistance); evidence the project will be completed within 30 months of the grant award date; an
irrevocable letter of credit or equivalent security instrument from an AA-rated lender; commitment of
permanent financing for the project.

If an application satisfies all threshold criteria, it is evaluated on the following:
 Does CDBG participation leverage substantial local financial participation?
 Is the cost of CDBG short-term funds per person benefited reasonable?
 Is the need for CDBG assistance reasonable?
 Does the public benefit substantially exceed the value of assistance?

(measured by the present value of assistance to the direct and indirect wages and aggregate payroll lost,
dislocation and potential absorption of workers and loss of economic activity).

Plans to Minimize Displacement

The State takes several steps to minimize displacement resulting from CDBG activities. All applicants for
CDBG funds must certify they will make every effort to minimize displacement. Upon review of the
application, the State assesses the need for any displacement identified in the application. The State also
requires grant recipients to pay relocation costs in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
                                                        91
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                         HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended and implemented by 49 CFR, Part 24 or other
approved Local Displacement Plans.

Citizen Participation

IDED held public hearings to take comments on the proposed method of CDBG distribution. IDED also
encouraged the public to submit comments. CDBG program records are available to the public and may be
viewed during regular office hours. However, the State will not disclose personal financial data and/or
income tax returns submitted as part of an economic development project.

ESG and HSOG Method of Distribution

Eligible and ineligible program activities are those permitted for the ESG program found under regulations
issued by HUD, authorized by the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1988, as amended,
and as further defined in 24 Code of Federal Regulations Part 576. The Homeless Shelter Operations
Grant (HSOG) regulations can be found under the administrative rules for the Iowa Department of
Economic Development. The State of Iowa will allow the following activities assisted under the ESG and
HSOG Programs:

 Renovation, major rehabilitation or conversion of buildings for use as emergency shelters for the
  homeless.
 Provision of essential services if the service is new or is a quantifiable increase in the level of service.
  No more than 30 percent of the grant may be used for this purpose.
 Payment for activities that assist in homeless prevention (e.g., short-term subsidies to help defray rent
  and utility costs for families faced with eviction or termination of utility services, security deposits or first
  month’s rent for a family to acquire an apartment; programs to provide mediation services for
  landlord/tenant disputes; programs to provide legal representation to indigent tenants in eviction
  proceedings; payment assistance to prevent foreclosure on a home). No more than 30 percent of the
  grant may be used for this purpose.
 Payments of maintenance, operation, insurance, utilities and furnishings (including up to 10 percent of
  grant funds for staff costs necessary to operate a homeless shelter).
 Administration (up to 5 percent of the grant may be used for administrative purposes). The State will
  forward available administrative funds to local government grant recipients and encourage them to
  make funds available to the local shelters as needed.

Distribution Procedures

Funds will be available to all cities and counties in Iowa. IDED will request applications from providers in
the fall of each year. Local applicants will have at least 60 days to submit an application. The application
will request information including the amount of funds requested, the need for the funds, other available
funding, historical records of expenses (a recent audit report is requested), the impact on shelter operations
if funds are not granted, the amount and source of the required local match and the estimated number of
persons served. Applications will be reviewed by IDED staff, who will make funding recommendations to
the Department Director. Funding decisions will be coordinated with other homeless assistance programs
within the State to eliminate duplication and attempt to maximize utilization of scarce resources to alleviate
the effects of homelessness in Iowa.


                                                       92
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Matching Requirements
Under the ESG program, each recipient must match the grant amount with an equal amount of local match.
This can consist of such items as cash, value of the property, staff salaries, and volunteer hours. This local
match may come from a unit of local government or from a nonprofit sub recipient. IDED will evaluate
pledged local effort to determine eligibility and require each source to certify the amount, source and
dedication of its pledge. There is no local match requirement under the HSOG program.

Other General Requirements
IDED will continue to ensure that assisted shelters remain in service as required by federal rule, and that
they meet local government safety and sanitation standards.


HOME RECAPTURE AND RESALE PROVISIONS
IDED expects to continue its investment of HOME funds, in part, for the benefit of first-time homebuyers
through acquisition assistance (including ADDI) and/or supplemental rehabilitation activities when
determined appropriate to further the HOME goals. To maintain maximum flexibility and potential to further
these goals, IDED will require state recipients to enforce the recapture or resale provisions of 92.254(a)(5)
or provide appropriate HOME funds repayment. Any recaptured funds or repayment funds will be used to
assist subsequent first-time homebuyers.
The recapture or resale provisions and/or repayments shall be enforced through conditions contained
within the IDED‘s contract documents with its state recipient, implemented through local security
agreements (mortgage liens or deed restrictions) and monitored for compliance. The IDED will recoup all
or a portion of the HOME assistance if the housing does not continue to be the buyers' principal residence
for the duration of the affordability period. The HOME recipients will be encouraged to provide first-time
homebuyers with counseling and technical assistance to maximize the homebuyer‘s ability to occupy,
maintain the property, and remain current in mortgage payments. The Iowa land sales recording and
abstracting processes will assist IDED and its state recipients in ensuring that long-term affordability is
maintained.

TENANT BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE (TBRA) COMPLIANCE
Iowa statistics indicate that rental assistance payments remain a priority for the use of HOME funds.
Available local market information substantiates a high level of need in this area.
IDED will consider applications for TBRA when the applicant includes certifications indicating compliance
with the following:

 That such use is an essential element of its current housing planning strategy for expanding the supply,
  affordability and availability of decent, safe and sanitary housing and clearly specifies the local market
  conditions that lead to such a determination.
 That tenants assisted with these funds may be selected from the local public housing authority Section
  8 waiting list TBRA may be provided to low- and very-low income families in accordance with written
  policies and criteria related to rules such as those established by the Housing Act of 1937. The local
  recipient shall be required to execute a memorandum of understanding with the participating project
  owner delineating further requirements. Local recipients will be required to consider the tenants‘ need
  for utility deposits and security deposits as a part of determining tenant need.

                                                     93
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

OTHER FORMS OF INVESTMENT
IDED will continue to search out creative and collaborative means of supplementing HOME funds for
affordable housing programs.
Most of the additional forms of assistance are established in federal rule. Accordingly, the State
Administrative Rule established the following eligible forms of assistance under the HOME Program:
 Equity investments                                      Deferred payment loans
 Interest bearing loans or advances                      Grants
 Non-interest bearing loans or advances                  State of Iowa Housing Enterprise Zone tax
 Interest subsidies                                        benefits
IDED may seek an amendment to the Administrative Rule to allow additional types of investment activity.

Other sources of funding that may be combined in an activity or project include, but are not limited to, the
following:
      Federal Home Loan Bank                                Local Government General Fund
      Iowa Finance Authority                                Foundation loans/grant
      USDA – RD                                             Charitable source contributions
      Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac                            Local bond revenues
      Other HUD Housing Programs                            Discounted loans from private lenders
      Local tax abatement                                   Market rate loans from private lenders
      Local tax increment financing

AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING
The State requires HOME program recipients and owners of projects to adopt affirmative marketing
procedures and requirements for all HOME rental housing containing five or more units. Recipients pattern
their affirmative marketing efforts from the HOME regulations of the Housing Fund Management Guide ,
distributed to all recipients. The Guide outlines the following required components of affirmativ e marketing
procedures:

 Methods for informing the public, owners and potential tenants about fair housing laws and policies;
 Description of what owners and/or the recipient will do to affirmatively market housing assisted with
  HOME funds;
 Description of what owners and/or the recipient will do to inform persons not likely to apply for housing
  without special outreach;
 Maintenance of records to document actions taken to affirmatively market HOME-assisted units and to
  assess marketing effectiveness;
 Description of how efforts will be assessed and what corrective actions will be taken where
  requirements are not met;
 Affirmative marketing analysis will be a part of the ongoing monitoring of rental projects throughout the
  period of affordability.

IDED staff members provide technical assistance to grant recipients in the development of and compliance
with their affirmative marketing plans.



                                                    94
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

MINORITY AND WOMEN BUSINESS OUTREACH

The State requires all grant recipients to solicit participation of minority - and women-owned businesses in
contracting under the HOME program. Grantees are to include qualified minority- and women-owned
businesses on solicitation lists and solicit their participation whenever they are potential sources. The
Housing Fund Management Guide , distributed to all program recipients, addresses the Minority/Women
Business Enterprise policy. It states grantees must prescribe procedures for a minority outreach program to
ensure the inclusion, to the maximum extent possible, of minorities and women and entities owned by
minorities and women in all contracts. The guide provides grantees with a list of clearinghouses for
solicitation of minority- and women-owned businesses. Through project monitoring, IDED field
representatives review each grantee‘s documentation of efforts and results in securing contracts with
minority- and women-owned businesses.

The State has an ongoing program of identifying and assisting minority - and women-owned businesses. A
component of this effort is the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals‘ targeted small business
certification program. The list of certified businesses maintained as part of this program is available to
grantees.

The Iowa Targeted Small Business Act requires all State departments, agencies, commissions and public
education institutions to promote the procurement of goods and services from certified targeted small
businesses. IDED‘s Targeted Small Business Financial Assistance Program provides funding for minority-
and women-owned businesses in loans, equity substitution grants or loan guarantees.




                                                    95
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


SEC T IO N SI X — P ER FO RMA N C E M EA SUR ES                          AND     MO NIT OR IN G

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The Council of State Community Development Agencies (COSCDA), of which the State of Iowa is a
member, is spearheading an effort with several other national organizations of local and state grantees to
refine a ―Performance Outcome Measurement System‖ framework. The effort, which is in response to CPD
Notice 03-09, is expected to lead to a comprehensive approach to the measurement of outco mes for HUD‘s
four major community development formula grant programs – Community Development Block Grants,
HOME Investment Partnership Program, Emergency Shelter Grants, and Housing Opportunities for
Persons with AIDS. Once completed, the system will include objectives, outcomes and indicators for each
type of activity undertaken with funds made available from these programs. The State of Iowa plans to use
this system once it is finalized.


MONITORING

IDED has had responsibility for the CDBG Program since 1982 and the HOME program since 1992, and
has developed thorough and effective monitoring procedures for the programs. These include compliance
reviews of applications, desk audits of each Request for Funds and Quarterly Performance Report, on-site
monitoring for most of the projects in each program, and formal procedures for reviewing audits and closing
out projects. HUD has had few findings in its review of the State‘s programs over the years, and there are
no outstanding findings. IDED has applied similar standards and procedures to the ESG program, as well
as to other state-funded programs.

IDED has formalized monitoring checklists that are used during their on-site monitoring visits. The
checklists include a General Monitoring checklist, as well as a specific monitoring checklist for each type of
housing activity: Owner-occupied rehabilitation, rental new construction, etc.




                                                     96
 2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
APPENDICES                       HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

AP PEN DICE S
Appendix 1:                                Appendix 3:
Demographic Profile by County              Housing Profile by County

Appendix 2:                                Appendix 4:
Continuum of Care                          Comments on Draft Plan &
Housing Activity Chart                     Response




                                97
               2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
              APPENDICES                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Appendix 1: Demographic Profile by County
                                                                                                                                                                        Percent
                                                                                                                                                      Change in       Change in
                                                                Percent                                                                                  Median          Median
                                                Population    Change in    Projected                                                     Median       Household       Household
                  County                           Change    Population   Population        Percent   Percent   Percent     Percent   Household    Income 1990-    Income 1990-
County Name       Classification   Population    1990-2000    1990-2000        2010         Age 65+   Age 85+   Minority   Hispanic     Income             2000            2000
Iowa Total                          2,926,324     149, 569        5.4%     3,086,410         14.9%      2.2%       6.0%       2.8%      $36, 415        $12, 479         52.1%
Adair             Rural                 8,243         -166       -2.0%         8,081         22.1%      4.1%       0.8%       0.7%      $34, 389        $13, 128         61.7%
Adams             Rural                 4,482         -384       -7.9%         4,071         21.4%      3.0%       0.9%       0.2%      $30, 734        $10, 205         49.7%
Allamakee         Small Urban          14,675         820         5.9%        15,278         18.4%      3.0%       4.3%       3.7%      $34, 388        $12, 453         56.8%
Appanoose         Small Urban          13,721          -22       -0.2%        13,634         20.0%      3.2%       2.2%       1.1%      $29, 089        $10, 631         57.6%
Audubon           Rural                 6,830         -504       -6.9%         6,254         23.5%      3.9%       1.1%       0.2%      $34, 375        $13, 867         67.6%
Benton            Metropolitan         25,308        2,879       12.8%        27,895         15.4%      2.4%       1.0%       0.4%      $42, 177        $15, 052         55.5%
Black Hawk        Metropolitan       128, 012        4,214        3.4%      135, 588         14.0%      2.0%      11.6%       1.9%      $37, 619        $11, 902         46.3%
Boone             Micropolitan         26,224        1,038        4.1%        27,352         16.4%      2.9%       1.7%       0.7%      $45, 164        $19, 611         76.7%
Bremer            Metropolitan         23,325         512         2.2%        24,378         16.0%      2.6%       1.9%       0.8%      $39, 950        $13, 707         52.2%
Buchanan          Small Urban          21,093         249         1.2%        21,283         14.5%      2.0%       1.8%       1.0%      $37, 056        $13, 037         54.3%
Buena Vista       Micropolitan         20,411         446         2.2%        21,182         16.9%      2.7%      12.4%      12.5%      $33, 629         $8,168          32.1%
Butler            Rural                15,305         -426       -2.7%        14,624         20.1%      3.2%       0.9%       0.5%      $36, 030        $13, 269         58.3%
Calhoun           Rural                11,115         -393       -3.4%        10,732         22.1%      3.9%       1.9%       0.9%      $33, 041        $10, 489         46.5%
Carroll           Small Urban          21,421           -2        0.0%        20,839         18.7%      2.8%       0.9%       0.6%      $35, 213        $11, 959         51.4%
Cass              Small Urban          14,684         -444       -2.9%        13,758         20.8%      3.6%       1.3%       0.8%      $33, 417        $11, 473         52.3%
Cedar             Small Urban          18,187         806         4.6%        18,694         16.2%      2.8%       1.3%       0.9%      $41, 220        $14, 156         52.3%
Cerro Gordo       Micropolitan         46,447         -286       -0.6%        45,318         17.7%      2.6%       3.6%       2.6%      $36, 938        $10, 324         38.8%
Cherokee          Small Urban          13,035       -1,063       -7.5%        11,638         20.4%      3.0%       1.6%       0.6%      $36, 598        $13, 743         60.1%
Chickasaw         Small Urban          13,095         -200       -1.5%        12,522         17.9%      2.7%       1.4%       0.4%      $38, 462        $14, 297         59.2%
Clarke            Small Urban           9,133         846        10.2%        10,107         17.1%      3.0%       3.9%       3.4%      $35, 919        $14, 623         68.7%
Clay              Micropolitan         17,372         -213       -1.2%        16,395         18.0%      2.8%       2.6%       1.2%      $37, 619        $11, 910         46.3%
Clayton           Rural                18,678         -376       -2.0%        17,922         18.5%      3.0%       1.3%       0.6%      $34, 829        $13, 770         65.4%
Clinton           Micropolitan         50,149         -891       -1.7%        48,646         15.8%      2.1%       3.4%       1.7%      $39, 239        $12, 316         45.7%
Crawford          Small Urban          16,942         167         1.0%        16,957         17.1%      2.6%       7.6%       9.0%      $33, 984        $11, 638         52.1%
Dallas            Metropolitan         40,750       10,995       37.0%        52,949         11.1%      1.6%       5.3%       5.3%      $46, 106        $19, 037         70.3%

                                                                                       98
               2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
              APPENDICES                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
                                                                                                                                                                        Percent
                                                                                                                                                      Change in       Change in
                                                                Percent                                                                                  Median          Median
                                                Population    Change in    Projected                                                     Median       Household       Household
                  County                           Change    Population   Population        Percent   Percent   Percent     Percent   Household    Income 1990-    Income 1990-
County Name       Classification   Population    1990-2000    1990-2000        2010         Age 65+   Age 85+   Minority   Hispanic     Income             2000            2000
Davis             Small Urban           8,541         229         2.8%         8,834         17.4%      3.1%       1.2%       0.8%      $32, 879        $12, 922         64.7%
Decatur           Rural                 8,689         351         4.2%         9,645         17.7%      2.8%       2.6%       1.3%      $26, 557         $8,307          45.5%
Delaware          Small Urban          18,404         369         2.0%        18,394         15.0%      2.0%       0.9%       0.6%      $39, 232        $13, 615         53.1%
Des Moines        Micropolitan         42,351         -263       -0.6%        41,353         16.7%      2.4%       5.7%       1.7%      $39, 245        $12, 750         48.1%
Dickinson         Micropolitan         16,424        1,515       10.2%        17,684         20.6%      2.8%       1.1%       0.6%      $37, 813        $10, 706         39.5%
Dubuque           Metropolitan         89,143        2,740        3.2%        90,917         14.7%      2.2%       2.7%       1.2%      $38, 525        $11, 376         41.9%
Emmet             Small Urban          11,027         -542       -4.7%        10,582         19.4%      3.4%       2.6%       4.4%      $35, 102        $11, 257         47.2%
Fayette           Small Urban          22,008         165         0.8%        21,702         19.0%      2.9%       2.3%       1.5%      $34, 231        $12, 673         58.8%
Floyd             Small Urban          16,900         -158       -0.9%        16,722         19.2%      3.2%       1.5%       1.1%      $36, 290        $12, 633         53.4%
Franklin          Small Urban          10,704         -660       -5.8%         9,923         20.5%      2.9%       5.7%       6.1%      $36, 415        $12, 433         51.8%
Fremont           Rural                 8,010         -216       -2.6%         7,844         19.8%      3.0%       2.1%       1.8%      $38, 295        $14, 835         63.2%
Greene            Small Urban          10,366         321         3.2%        10,470         21.6%      3.9%       1.8%       1.3%      $34, 599        $12, 154         54.1%
Grundy            Metropolitan         12,369         340         2.8%        12,562         19.3%      3.2%       0.9%       0.6%      $39, 519        $13, 447         51.6%
Guthrie           Metropolitan         11,353         418         3.8%        11,751         20.5%      3.1%       1.5%       1.6%      $36, 207        $12, 582         53.3%
Hamilton          Small Urban          16,438         367         2.3%        16,788         18.0%      2.6%       2.9%       1.0%      $37, 944        $12, 238         47.6%
Hancock           Small Urban          12,100         -538       -4.3%        11,438         17.9%      2.8%       2.2%       3.1%      $36, 942        $12, 131         48.9%
Hardin            Small Urban          18,812         -282       -1.5%        18,119         20.7%      3.6%       2.6%       2.1%      $36, 011        $12, 397         52.5%
Harrison          Metropolitan         15,666         936         6.4%        16,703         17.7%      2.8%       1.3%       0.5%      $37, 400        $14, 755         65.2%
Henry             Small Urban          20,336        1,110        5.8%        21,497         14.7%      2.4%       5.7%       1.6%      $37, 674        $13, 009         52.7%
Howard            Small Urban           9,932         123         1.3%        10,101         20.1%      3.2%       0.6%       0.2%      $35, 338        $13, 283         60.2%
Humboldt          Small Urban          10,381         -375       -3.5%        10,082         21.0%      3.2%       2.4%       1.4%      $37, 457        $12, 398         49.5%
Ida               Rural                 7,837         -528       -6.3%         7,153         21.8%      3.1%       1.0%       0.4%      $34, 327        $12, 010         53.8%
Iowa              Small Urban          15,671        1,041        7.1%        16,691         17.1%      3.1%       1.0%       0.7%      $40, 783        $14, 964         58.0%
Jackson           Small Urban          20,296         346         1.7%        20,226         17.3%      2.5%       0.7%       0.5%      $34, 656        $12, 264         54.8%
Jasper            Micropolitan         37,213        2,418        6.9%        38,911         16.0%      2.2%       2.6%       1.3%      $42, 532        $13, 221         45.1%
Jefferson         Small Urban          16,181         -129       -0.8%        16,102         13.8%      2.3%       3.9%       1.1%      $34, 058         $9,362          37.9%
Johnson           Metropolitan       111, 006       14,887       15.5%      131, 147          7.4%      1.0%       9.7%       2.6%      $41, 617        $12, 373         42.3%

                                                                                       99
                 2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                APPENDICES                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
                                                                                                                                                                       Percent
                                                                                                                                                     Change in       Change in
                                                                  Percent                                                                               Median          Median
                                                  Population    Change in    Projected                                                  Median       Household       Household
                    County                           Change    Population   Population     Percent   Percent   Percent     Percent   Household    Income 1990-    Income 1990-
County Name         Classification   Population    1990-2000    1990-2000        2010      Age 65+   Age 85+   Minority   Hispanic     Income             2000            2000
Jones               Metropolitan         20,221         777         4.0%        20,790      15.8%      2.2%       3.2%       1.3%      $36, 010        $11, 785         48.6%
Keokuk              Rural                11,400         -224       -1.9%        11,156      20.2%      3.4%       1.1%       0.6%      $33, 717        $10, 652         46.2%
Kossuth             Small Urban          17,163       -1,428       -7.7%        15,565      20.1%      3.1%       1.2%       0.9%      $33, 582        $10, 764         47.2%
Lee                 Micropolitan         38,052         -635       -1.6%        37,229      16.5%      2.4%       5.8%       2.1%      $38, 795        $12, 767         49.1%
Linn                Metropolitan       191, 701       22,934       13.6%      214, 929      12.2%      1.6%       6.0%       1.5%      $45, 824        $16, 354         55.5%
Louisa              Micropolitan         12,183         591         5.1%        13,148      14.1%      2.1%       6.1%      12.7%      $40, 764        $15, 112         58.9%
Lucas               Small Urban           9,422         352         3.9%         9,793      19.3%      3.5%       1.5%       0.5%      $31, 370         $8,785          38.9%
Lyon                Small Urban          11,763         -189       -1.6%        11,458      18.8%      2.9%       0.8%       0.3%      $36, 950        $13, 267         56.0%
Madison             Metropolitan         14,019        1,536       12.3%        15,544      15.2%      2.8%       1.6%       0.6%      $42, 076        $14, 159         50.7%
Mahaska             Micropolitan         22,335         813         3.8%        23,411      16.3%      2.4%       3.2%       1.3%      $38, 873        $16, 535         74.0%
Marion              Micropolitan         32,052        2,051        6.8%        33,776      15.9%      2.7%       2.5%       0.7%      $40, 258        $13, 781         52.0%
Marshall            Micropolitan         39,311        1,035        2.7%        40,617      16.4%      2.3%      10.0%       8.9%      $42, 289        $13, 033         44.5%
Mills               Metropolitan         14,547        1,345       10.2%        15,917      12.6%      1.7%       2.0%       1.2%      $44, 883        $17, 288         62.6%
Mitchell            Small Urban          10,874          -54       -0.5%        10,654      21.6%      4.0%       0.2%       0.1%      $36, 004        $10, 954         43.7%
Monona              Small Urban          10,020          -14       -0.1%         9,787      23.9%      4.4%       1.5%       0.4%      $33, 131        $12, 627         61.6%
Monroe              Small Urban           8,016          -98       -1.2%         7,852      19.5%      3.1%       2.0%       0.4%      $35, 395        $13, 594         62.4%
Montgomery          Small Urban          11,771         -305       -2.5%        11,549      20.3%      3.7%       2.1%       1.3%      $35, 161        $12, 093         52.4%
Muscatine           Micropolitan         41,722        1,815        4.5%        44,798      12.9%      1.9%       9.3%      11.9%      $41, 403        $11, 776         39.7%
O'Brien             Small Urban          15,102         -342       -2.2%        14,549      21.1%      3.7%       2.1%       1.7%      $35, 470        $12, 370         53.5%
Osceola             Small Urban           7,003         -264       -3.6%         6,884      18.9%      3.0%       2.0%       1.9%      $34, 264        $11, 188         48.5%
Page                Small Urban          16,976         106         0.6%        17,039      19.8%      3.1%       3.2%       1.4%      $35, 922        $13, 550         60.6%
Palo Alto           Small Urban          10,147         -522       -4.9%         9,627      21.3%      3.6%       0.9%       1.3%      $31, 617        $10, 516         49.8%
Plymouth            Small Urban          24,849        1,461        6.2%        26,223      16.0%      2.3%       1.5%       1.1%      $39, 746        $13, 936         54.0%
Pocahontas          Rural                 8,662         -863       -9.1%         7,744      21.7%      3.4%       0.5%       0.7%      $32, 539         $9,977          44.2%
Polk                Metropolitan       374, 601       47,461       14.5%      423, 753      11.1%      1.5%      11.6%       4.4%      $44, 853        $13, 760         44.3%
Pottawattamie       Metropolitan         87,704        5,076        6.1%        92,912      13.7%      1.5%       4.0%       3.2%      $39, 347        $13, 264         50.9%
Poweshiek           Small Urban          18,815         -218       -1.1%        18,590      17.6%      3.0%       3.0%       1.2%      $38, 933        $13, 838         55.1%


                                                                                     100
               2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
              APPENDICES                                        HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
                                                                                                                                                                     Percent
                                                                                                                                                   Change in       Change in
                                                                Percent                                                                               Median          Median
                                                Population    Change in    Projected                                                  Median       Household       Household
                  County                           Change    Population   Population     Percent   Percent   Percent     Percent   Household    Income 1990-    Income 1990-
County Name       Classification   Population    1990-2000    1990-2000        2010      Age 65+   Age 85+   Minority   Hispanic     Income             2000            2000
Ringgold          Rural                 5,469          49         0.9%         5,492      24.0%      4.1%       1.2%       0.3%      $29, 174         $8,285          39.7%
Sac               Rural                11,529         -795       -6.5%        10,486      22.7%      3.9%       2.1%       0.8%      $32, 882        $11, 294         52.3%
Scott             Metropolitan       158, 668        7,689        5.1%      166, 172      11.8%      1.5%      11.4%       4.0%      $40, 893        $11, 575         39.5%
Shelby            Small Urban          13,173          -57       -0.4%        12,851      20.4%      3.1%       1.2%       0.7%      $37, 425        $14, 387         62.5%
Sioux             Small Urban          31,589        1,686        5.6%        34,557      15.0%      2.2%       2.7%       2.1%      $40, 288        $14, 223         54.6%
Story             Metropolitan         79,981        5,729        7.7%        89,282       9.8%      1.6%       8.9%       1.7%      $43, 033        $15, 750         57.7%
Tama              Small Urban          18,103         684         3.9%        18,569      18.7%      3.1%       9.5%       3.2%      $37, 989        $13, 038         52.3%
Taylor            Rural                 6,958         -156       -2.2%         6,894      22.4%      3.9%       2.3%       3.6%      $30, 802        $11, 201         57.1%
Union             Small Urban          12,309         -441       -3.5%        11,749      18.7%      2.8%       2.0%       0.7%      $31, 777        $10, 561         49.8%
Van Buren         Rural                 7,809         133         1.7%         7,801      19.1%      3.1%       0.9%       0.2%      $31, 097        $11, 929         62.2%
Wapello           Micropolitan         36,051         364         1.0%        36,621      17.8%      2.6%       3.9%       2.4%      $32, 946        $11, 930         56.8%
Warren            Metropolitan         40,671        4,638       12.9%        45,140      11.8%      1.7%       2.1%       1.1%      $50, 226        $18, 765         59.6%
Washington        Metropolitan         20,670        1,058        5.4%        21,364      17.9%      3.2%       3.0%       2.7%      $39, 511        $13, 030         49.2%
Wayne             Rural                 6,730         -337       -4.8%         6,466      23.8%      4.0%       1.5%       0.6%      $29, 833        $11, 420         62.0%
Webster           Micropolitan         40,235         -107       -0.3%        39,986      17.4%      2.7%       6.4%       2.0%      $35, 676        $13, 099         58.0%
Winnebago         Small Urban          11,723         -399       -3.3%        11,355      18.9%      3.5%       2.4%       2.3%      $38, 640        $14, 704         61.4%
Winneshiek        Small Urban          21,310         463         2.2%        22,318      15.7%      2.5%       2.4%       0.8%      $38, 882        $14, 348         58.5%
Woodbury          Metropolitan       103, 877        5,601        5.7%      112, 518      13.4%      1.8%      12.4%       9.0%      $36, 142        $11, 437         46.3%
Worth             Micropolitan          7,909          -82       -1.0%         7,816      19.4%      3.6%       2.5%       1.1%      $35, 392        $13, 507         61.7%
Wright            Small Urban          14,334          65         0.5%        14,241      21.2%      3.9%       4.3%       4.6%      $35, 769        $10, 294         40.4%




                                                                                   101
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
APPENDICES                                                               HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

         AP PEN DIX 2: CO NTINUUM OF CARE HOU SING ACTIVIT Y CHA RT
Appendix 2: Continuum of Care Housing Activity Chart

 Fundamental Components in CoC System - Housing Inventory Chart
 EMERGENCY
 SHELTER
     Provider                         Facility         HMIS     Geo          Target   Pop.         2004 Yr-   Rd Units/     Beds       2004     All      Beds
                                                                Code                                                                  Year-              Overflow/V
             Name                     Name                                                         Fam.                     Indiv.            Seasonal
                                                                            A           B          Units      Family Beds   Beds     Round                oucher

 Current Inventory
 Shelter House                 Shelter House             C      192466      M                        0            10          20       30       12          NA
 DVIP                          DVIP                      C      192466      FC          DV           0            25          15       40        0          NA
 Youth Homes                   Youth Homes               C      192466      YMF                      0             0          12       12        0          NA

 Mr. Ray Krug                  Cedar House Shelter       N      199133      M                        1             4          4        8         0           0
 Foundation 2                  Youth Shelter             C      199133      YMF                      0             0          15       15        0           0
                               Catholic Worker
 St. John of the Cross         House                     N      199133      M                        3             9          3        12        0           0
 The Salv ation Army           Motel Vouchers            N      199133      M                        0             0          0        0         0           1

 Waypoint Servic es            Domestic Violence         C      199133      M           DV           8            25          9        34        0           1

 Waypoint Servic es            Madge Phillips Center     C      199133      M                       10            29          18       47        0           0

 Willis Dady                   Emergency Shelter         C      199133      M                        8            32          16       48        0           0
 Dom & Sexual Abuse            Dom & Sexual Abuse
 Res Ctr                       Res Ctr                   C      199065      FC          DV           5            15          1        16
 Cedar Valley Friends of
 the Family                    Friend's House            C      199017      FC          DV           2             6          2        8
 Dubuque Rescue
 Mission                       same                    P 6/05   191464      SM                                                6        6
 Hope House                    same                      N      191464      FC                       4             8                   8
                               Domestic Violence
 YWCA                          Shelter                   C      191464      FC          DV           4             3                   3                     2

 Hillcrest Family Serv ic es   Youth Shelter             C      191464      YMF                                               23       23
 Hillcrest                     Sav e Hav en              C      191464      YMF                                               4        4


                                                                                             102
 2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
APPENDICES                                                             HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Maria House                same                        C      191464      FC                1    2             2          1

Jail Div ersion Program    Elm Street Facility       P 6/05   191464      SMF                              2   2
Good Connections           Family Shelter              C      199015      M                 5    21        4   25   --    3
Good Connections           Men‘s Shelter               C      199015      SM                -    -         3   3    --    --

House of Compassion        House of Compassion         C      199127      M                 2    7     12      19
Domestic Violence
Alternativ es/Sexual       Domestic Violence
Assault Center             Shelter                     C      199127      M      DV         5    15        2   17
Salv ation Army            Salv ation Army             N      199127      M                                              40/yr
Seeds of Hope              Seeds of Hope               C      199083      M                                              7/y r
ACCESS                     ACCESS                      C      190138      M      DV         8    17        7   24   --    --

YSS                        Rosedale Shelter            N      190138      YMF               --   --    16      16   --    --


Emergency Residence        Emergency Residence
Project                    Project                     C      190138      M                 2    5     11      16   --    3
John Lewis (JLCS)          Men's Shelter               C      191254      SM                0    0     52      52
John Lewis (JLCS)          Women's Shelter             C      191254      SW                0    0     12      12
Salv ation Army            Family Shelter              C      191254      FC                8    54        6   60
Family Resources           Family Shelter              C      191254      FC     DV         10   54        6   60
                           Battered Women's
Family Service League      Shelter                     C      199013      FC     DV         8    30    10      40   0     0

Salv ation Army            Salv ation Army Shelter     C      199013      M                 5    14        7   21   0     0
                           Catholic Worker
Catholic Worker House      House                       N      199013      SM                           11      11   0     0


Black Hawk County          Black Hawk County
Youth Shelter Program      Youth Shelter Program       N      199013      YMF                          15      15   0     0
Victory Center             Men's Shelter             P-7/04   199045      SM                0    0     26      26   0     0
Victory Center             Women's Home                N      199045      FC                4    8         0   8    0     0
YWCA DV/SA Center          Shelter                     C      199045      SF     DV         0    0     15      15   0     0
                           Northern Lights
Northern Lights Alliance   Alliance                    C      199033      SM                           10      10
Domestic Abuse
Prev ention Center         Same                        C      199027      SF     DV                        6   6


                                                                                      103
 2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
APPENDICES                                                      HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Family Crisis Support       Domestic Violence
Netw ork                    Shelter                C   199029     SF/SC    DV             9     10      19
Women & Children
Resource Center             Journey House          N   199005      FC      DV             4         2    6
CADA/SA                     Same                   C   199035      SF      DV                   10      10
Center Against
Abuse/SA                    Same                   C   199041     SF/FC    DV             15    15      30
Crisis Interv ention and
Adv ocacy                   Voucher Program        N   199049      FC      DV             1         2    3
Local Ministerial
Assoc's/Red Cross           Voucher Program        C   199049     SMF/FC                  2         2    4

Burlington Area Shelter     Same                   C   199057     SF/FC                   4         5    9
                            Domestic Violence
YWCA of Burlingon           Center                 C   199057     SF/FC    DV             5         4    9
YWCA of Burlingon           Same                   C   199057     SF/FC                   21        2   23
Tri-State                   Same                   C   199107      FC      DV             15            15
Emma Cornelious             Same                   C   199111     SF/FC                   6     12      18
Southern Iowa Economic
Assoc.                      Transitional Shelter   C   199123      FC                     2              2
Muscatine Center for
Strategic Action            Same                   C   199139     SMF/FC                  32    84      116
Domestic Violence Ed. &
Shelter                     Same                   C   199145     SF/FC                   3         3    6
Family Crisis Centers of
NW IA                       Same                   C   199167     SF/FC                   9         9   18
Crisis Center & Womens
Shelter                     Same                   C   199179     SF/FC    DV             20    19      39
Youth Shelter Care of
North Central IA            Same                   C   199187      YMF                          20      20

Upper DM Opportunity        Same                   C   199187      SM                               3    3
Crisis Interv ention
Serv ic e                   Same                   C   199033      FC      DV         2   15    15      30
Crisis Interv ention
Serv ic e                   Same                   C   199123      FC      DV         6   27    27      54
Francis Lauer               Same                   C   199033      YMF                          16      16
Turning Point               Same                   C   199125      FC      DV                                 23
Helping Servic es           Same                   C   199191      FC      DV                                 11

Rural Iow a Crisis Center   Same                   C   199191      FC      DV                                 58

                                                                                104
 2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
APPENDICES                                     HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Matura Action              Same   C   199175       M                                               5
YWCA of Fort Dodge         Same   C   199187     SF/FC                  12         4    16


Domestic /Sexual Assault
Outreach Center            Same   C   199187    SMF/YMF                        20       20
                                                SUBTOTAL          111   595    665     1260   12   108
Under
Development



                                                SUBTOTAL           0     0         0    0     0    0




                                                            105
             2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
          APPENDICES                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Appendix 3: Housing Profile by County


                                                                                          Change in                                                  Average     Homes
                                         Rental     Home        Median                                   Change in       Cost-          Cost-
               Vacancy   Homeowner                                            Median       median                                                  travel time    built
   County                               vacancy   ownership    gross rent                              median home     burdened       burdened
                 rate    vacancy rate                                       value 2000    gross rent                                                  2000       before
                                          rate       rate        2000                                   value 90-00   owners 2000   renters 2000
                                                                                            90-00                                                   (minutes)     1940


Iowa total      5.32%       2.00%       6.99%      72.34%       $397.69     $69, 030.17    39.56%        82.91%         14.16%        34.11%         18.45       31.57%
Adair           7.01%       2.51%       7.30%      75.34%       $373.00     $59, 300.00    55.42%        98.99%         10.56%        24.04%         19.94       43.74%
Adams          10.33%       1.83%       6.75%      74.83%       $333.00     $46, 500.00    39.33%        59.79%          9.29%        20.43%         19.89       50.40%
Allamakee       4.87%       1.99%       6.41%      76.53%       $348.00     $68, 100.00    43.21%        71.97%         13.07%        27.35%         19.32       38.25%
Appanoose      10.35%       3.43%       9.26%      74.06%       $346.00     $45, 400.00    36.22%        83.81%         16.10%        39.41%         20.38       36.84%
Audubon         6.06%       2.01%       5.97%      78.98%       $351.00     $48, 700.00    38.19%        94.80%         11.06%        19.14%         18.28       48.55%
Benton          4.97%       2.72%       6.81%      79.37%       $385.00     $82, 700.00    37.01%        118. 78%       14.78%        26.28%         25.01       40.87%
Black Hawk      3.66%       1.49%       5.00%      68.91%       $472.00     $77, 000.00    44.79%        75.00%         12.42%        41.82%         15.67       22.22%
Boone           4.95%       2.00%       7.02%      75.63%       $443.00     $74, 900.00    47.18%        86.78%         13.15%        25.66%         20.85       43.74%
Bremer          4.13%       1.79%       5.42%      78.14%       $400.00     $88, 000.00    38.89%        91.72%         11.72%        23.00%         19.01       36.95%
Buchanan        8.08%       1.15%       7.07%      78.12%       $376.00     $73, 900.00    38.75%        103. 58%       13.00%        26.04%         23.25       35.14%
Buena Vista     7.23%       2.11%       5.92%      70.53%       $417.00     $64, 900.00    39.93%        57.91%         12.28%        29.90%         14.93       36.97%
Butler          5.15%       1.78%       4.95%      80.42%       $351.00     $62, 200.00    25.81%        99.36%         12.50%        28.72%         22.29       46.21%
Calhoun         9.54%       4.40%       11.32%     77.44%       $315.00     $54, 700.00    23.53%        103. 35%       14.64%        27.85%         18.65       45.24%
Carroll         5.37%       1.96%       7.30%      74.28%       $403.00     $75, 900.00    42.40%        82.89%         12.27%        24.54%         14.37       34.34%
Cass            6.21%       2.71%       7.49%      74.58%       $357.00     $59, 500.00    30.77%        70.98%         11.14%        26.52%         18.91       47.06%
Cedar           4.85%       1.44%       5.38%      76.87%       $441.00     $84, 600.00    39.56%        83.91%         15.11%        23.03%         23.97       41.45%
Cerro Gordo     5.05%       2.39%       5.47%      71.54%       $404.00     $75, 400.00    25.86%        66.45%         15.49%        32.37%         15.17       33.12%
Cherokee        7.66%       2.32%       9.18%      73.50%       $353.00     $57, 300.00    42.91%        83.65%         12.20%        26.03%         16.38       44.82%
Chickasaw       5.38%       2.73%       6.42%      80.35%       $325.00     $71, 200.00    24.05%        95.07%         11.39%        23.06%         20.84       43.59%
Clarke          7.61%       2.12%       7.36%      72.27%       $449.00     $64, 700.00    56.99%        86.46%         12.62%        22.34%         23.27       36.25%
Clay            6.19%       2.68%       3.99%      69.16%       $379.00     $74, 400.00    43.02%        81.02%         12.38%        25.26%         14.19       31.00%
Clayton         6.41%       1.91%       9.78%      76.60%       $353.00     $66, 400.00    46.47%        79.46%         14.25%        19.98%         20.78       49.38%
Clinton         6.24%       1.84%       9.68%      72.89%       $399.00     $70, 900.00    30.39%        81.79%         12.61%        34.14%         19.55       39.46%
                                                                                  106
            2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
           APPENDICES                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

                                                                                           Change in                                                  Average     Homes
                                          Rental     Home        Median                                   Change in       Cost-          Cost-
                Vacancy   Homeowner                                            Median       median                                                  travel time    built
      County                             vacancy   ownership    gross rent                              median home     burdened       burdened
                  rate    vacancy rate                                       value 2000    gross rent                                                  2000       before
                                           rate       rate        2000                                   value 90-00   owners 2000   renters 2000
                                                                                             90-00                                                   (minutes)     1940


Crawford         7.35%       2.08%       7.76%      73.06%       $362.00     $58, 200.00    33.09%        74.77%         13.38%        24.48%         16.66       41.82%
Dallas           5.12%       2.61%       6.22%      76.38%       $529.00     #########      57.44%        119. 07%       18.25%        31.80%         22.02       26.24%
Davis            7.63%       1.95%       7.55%      79.76%       $352.00     $55, 000.00    28.00%        91.64%         11.60%        28.46%         24.95       38.92%
Decatur          9.69%       3.10%       10.25%     71.14%       $340.00     $45, 400.00    54.55%        99.12%         14.96%        39.68%         22.17       37.52%
Delaware         4.73%       2.36%       9.88%      77.98%       $370.00     $79, 700.00    30.74%        79.50%         13.35%        32.45%         21.34       36.55%
Des Moines       6.20%       2.25%       8.98%      74.23%       $439.00     $70, 100.00    36.76%        68.92%         13.76%        33.01%         16.03       41.38%
Dickinson        6.71%       3.03%       10.81%     78.04%       $416.00     $96, 800.00    42.47%        97.55%         15.13%        24.29%         15.47       19.02%
Dubuque          4.66%       1.54%       8.76%      73.47%       $434.00     $93, 300.00    37.78%        74.72%         12.57%        32.75%         15.51       32.45%
Emmet            7.29%       4.26%       9.35%      75.17%       $322.00     $53, 000.00    30.36%        89.96%         11.47%        18.07%         16.83       44.55%
Fayette          6.74%       1.91%       8.59%      75.63%       $360.00     $58, 300.00    44.00%        92.41%         12.30%        31.84%         18.25       46.13%
Floyd            5.83%       1.63%       9.14%      74.08%       $357.00     $64, 700.00    34.72%        81.23%         12.20%        26.90%         18.44       36.16%
Franklin         7.30%       3.06%       8.88%      74.79%       $374.00     $55, 200.00    33.57%        80.98%         12.13%        27.04%         17.24       46.06%
Fremont          6.63%       3.09%       7.68%      74.46%       $391.00     $64, 400.00    49.24%        101. 25%       12.82%        30.99%         21.90       45.05%
Greene           7.93%       2.58%       6.04%      75.58%       $342.00     $51, 800.00    29.06%        87.68%         16.67%        25.31%         19.44       46.70%
Grundy           5.05%       2.43%       4.61%      79.67%       $376.00     $72, 500.00    38.75%        92.31%         11.54%        21.52%         20.59       39.48%
Guthrie          9.94%       2.35%       8.31%      79.55%       $389.00     $61, 800.00    34.60%        104. 64%       16.79%        25.00%         26.67       40.46%
Hamilton         4.86%       2.25%       5.06%      72.79%       $422.00     $70, 500.00    43.05%        76.69%         16.12%        24.29%         15.95       41.63%
Hancock          5.44%       1.94%       5.68%      78.19%       $353.00     $59, 600.00    21.31%        61.08%         12.11%        21.31%         17.55       38.28%
Hardin           7.47%       2.45%       8.97%      74.58%       $403.00     $57, 200.00    40.42%        71.26%         12.14%        26.05%         17.47       42.41%
Harrison         6.60%       2.72%       6.83%      76.58%       $418.00     $74, 900.00    50.90%        124. 92%       14.78%        34.01%         27.30       49.52%
Henry            6.94%       2.23%       9.69%      73.11%       $428.00     $76, 700.00    38.96%        73.92%         13.38%        27.20%         17.16       33.73%
Howard           7.15%       1.47%       8.21%      79.19%       $333.00     $59, 500.00    42.92%        97.02%         12.85%        27.17%         19.20       46.66%
Humboldt         7.01%       3.00%       6.17%      75.93%       $362.00     $71, 700.00    34.07%        111. 50%        9.58%        26.84%         18.82       39.12%
Ida              7.06%       1.55%       8.22%      73.23%       $338.00     $55, 500.00    26.12%        90.07%         11.13%        23.12%         15.67       49.57%
Iowa             5.48%       1.92%       7.02%      77.87%       $412.00     $85, 600.00    39.66%        98.61%         14.26%        23.98%         21.69       44.19%
Jackson          4.95%       1.76%       5.15%      75.85%       $386.00     $76, 500.00    41.91%        84.34%         14.40%        27.24%         21.87       35.98%

                                                                                   107
            2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
           APPENDICES                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

                                                                                           Change in                                                  Average     Homes
                                          Rental     Home        Median                                   Change in       Cost-          Cost-
                Vacancy   Homeowner                                            Median       median                                                  travel time    built
   County                                vacancy   ownership    gross rent                              median home     burdened       burdened
                  rate    vacancy rate                                       value 2000    gross rent                                                  2000       before
                                           rate       rate        2000                                   value 90-00   owners 2000   renters 2000
                                                                                             90-00                                                   (minutes)     1940


Jasper           5.56%       1.99%       10.14%     75.74%       $448.00     $82, 500.00    46.89%        82.52%         14.80%        26.37%         19.50       31.56%
Jefferson        7.38%       1.82%       9.24%      67.36%       $426.00     $72, 500.00    25.66%        54.91%         17.34%        38.07%         14.08       35.13%
Johnson          3.41%       2.04%       3.39%      56.68%       $564.00     #########      36.89%        71.67%         15.28%        50.72%         17.70       14.51%
Jones            6.05%       1.95%       5.24%      75.85%       $416.00     $80, 400.00    49.64%        94.20%         13.05%        25.59%         24.46       38.05%
Keokuk           7.60%       2.98%       7.08%      78.83%       $372.00     $51, 900.00    48.80%        117. 15%       12.92%        29.69%         25.20       50.87%
Kossuth          7.36%       2.50%       12.24%     77.59%       $347.00     $54, 300.00    33.46%        60.18%         12.32%        23.74%         16.73       39.50%
Lee              7.71%       2.00%       9.71%      75.48%       $398.00     $60, 300.00    35.84%        69.38%         12.20%        35.36%         16.84       39.21%
Linn             4.09%       1.65%       5.83%      72.73%       $510.00     $99, 400.00    38.21%        70.79%         13.35%        31.80%         17.78       20.73%
Louisa           6.52%       1.49%       8.07%      77.32%       $419.00     $66, 600.00    37.83%        70.33%         10.95%        27.26%         23.53       38.32%
Lucas            8.26%       2.51%       13.70%     78.35%       $326.00     $50, 900.00    26.36%        69.10%         12.26%        31.82%         25.56       43.83%
Lyon             6.46%       2.82%       9.20%      81.73%       $350.00     $64, 000.00    38.89%        101. 89%       12.82%        22.73%         18.42       42.45%
Madison          5.23%       1.31%       6.98%      77.98%       $445.00     $87, 700.00    51.36%        107. 33%       20.86%        28.74%         27.24       44.25%
Mahaska          5.81%       1.56%       8.41%      71.06%       $420.00     $68, 100.00    45.33%        85.56%         10.43%        33.40%         18.93       37.18%
Marion           5.12%       2.11%       8.18%      75.53%       $472.00     $88, 300.00    46.13%        80.94%         13.04%        36.87%         19.68       27.76%
Marshall         5.54%       2.01%       7.75%      73.76%       $458.00     $71, 200.00    42.68%        71.15%         15.53%        37.16%         17.07       36.35%
Mills            4.55%       2.33%       8.00%      79.47%       $465.00     $92, 900.00    45.77%        98.08%         19.57%        33.02%         23.46       32.60%
Mitchell         5.77%       2.18%       5.91%      81.46%       $334.00     $66, 500.00    43.97%        90.00%         11.01%        26.02%         19.29       47.13%
Monona           8.26%       2.85%       8.67%      76.23%       $384.00     $54, 400.00    58.02%        92.23%         13.75%        28.67%         22.83       47.06%
Monroe           8.43%       2.46%       6.72%      78.50%       $399.00     $52, 400.00    46.69%        94.80%         10.64%        39.85%         24.44       44.40%
Montgomery       8.42%       2.24%       8.53%      73.23%       $361.00     $55, 900.00    42.13%        59.71%         13.98%        34.53%         17.59       47.79%
Muscatine        4.15%       1.77%       6.16%      75.38%       $460.00     $84, 700.00    34.11%        67.72%         14.81%        32.02%         17.32       35.50%
O'Brien          7.33%       2.62%       10.03%     76.84%       $373.00     $58, 300.00    49.80%        79.38%          9.63%        25.65%         16.88       40.51%
Osceola          7.09%       2.57%       7.49%      77.75%       $374.00     $53, 400.00    42.75%        97.78%         12.18%        25.72%         15.59       45.22%
Page             7.34%       2.71%       8.34%      71.66%       $407.00     $60, 000.00    60.87%        74.93%         12.86%        37.10%         14.83       44.48%
Palo Alto        9.19%       1.45%       12.86%     74.00%       $337.00     $53, 500.00    37.55%        85.12%         13.94%        28.61%         15.54       38.70%
Plymouth         4.91%       1.87%       7.92%      77.41%       $416.00     $88, 200.00    39.60%        83.37%         12.27%        30.04%         19.13       34.41%

                                                                                   108
            2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
         APPENDICES                                            HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

                                                                                           Change in                                                  Average     Homes
                                          Rental     Home        Median                                   Change in       Cost-          Cost-
                Vacancy   Homeowner                                            Median       median                                                  travel time    built
   County                                vacancy   ownership    gross rent                              median home     burdened       burdened
                  rate    vacancy rate                                       value 2000    gross rent                                                  2000       before
                                           rate       rate        2000                                   value 90-00   owners 2000   renters 2000
                                                                                             90-00                                                   (minutes)     1940


Pocahontas       8.66%       1.88%       8.05%      79.15%       $315.00     $40, 400.00    28.05%        50.75%         10.79%        22.53%         18.26       47.69%
Polk             4.34%       1.94%       6.56%      68.82%       $574.00     #########      31.35%        73.86%         17.30%        34.25%         18.24       19.35%
Pottawattamie    4.91%       1.69%       8.79%      71.07%       $537.00     $84, 900.00    44.74%        83.37%         15.78%        35.56%         20.15       30.66%
Poweshiek        5.76%       2.37%       6.68%      71.86%       $432.00     $81, 600.00    42.57%        75.11%         13.42%        25.18%         16.34       35.76%
Ringgold         8.10%       2.81%       5.02%      75.55%       $368.00     $45, 000.00    40.46%        106. 42%       15.80%        35.69%         22.02       42.56%
Sac              7.68%       3.03%       10.33%     76.76%       $329.00     $50, 000.00    31.60%        81.82%         12.45%        27.72%         16.77       42.60%
Scott            4.45%       1.87%       7.15%      70.51%       $496.00     $92, 400.00    37.40%        70.79%         15.35%        38.11%         18.44       22.36%
Shelby           4.68%       1.92%       5.87%      77.05%       $399.00     $73, 800.00    52.87%        106. 15%       11.31%        27.57%         18.31       44.50%
Sioux            4.45%       1.35%       7.62%      80.38%       $385.00     $84, 700.00    43.66%        88.22%         11.36%        27.67%         13.01       31.94%
Story            3.56%       1.72%       4.58%      58.28%       $575.00     #########      46.68%        81.79%         14.40%        46.19%         16.94       18.67%
Tama             6.28%       2.53%       8.64%      77.56%       $418.00     $64, 200.00    37.50%        98.15%         12.81%        25.02%         20.68       47.37%
Taylor          11.06%       2.87%       9.71%      76.63%       $352.00     $37, 900.00    49.79%        61.28%         10.42%        26.74%         20.24       52.39%
Union            6.23%       1.05%       7.86%      72.03%       $344.00     $55, 600.00    18.21%        67.98%          9.22%        29.10%         16.35       45.96%
Van Buren        6.58%       1.79%       5.87%      79.35%       $334.00     $43, 100.00    39.17%        100. 47%       14.78%        21.87%         23.85       46.30%
Wapello          5.34%       1.97%       7.21%      75.64%       $419.00     $50, 100.00    51.81%        88.35%         13.83%        38.59%         19.09       37.47%
Warren           3.36%       1.29%       6.98%      79.89%       $494.00     #########      41.95%        71.72%         14.91%        30.38%         25.79       18.25%
Washington       5.03%       1.94%       8.35%      75.34%       $424.00     $83, 600.00    42.76%        95.33%         15.97%        30.05%         21.61       40.96%
Wayne           13.23%       3.40%       7.22%      79.51%       $303.00     $35, 600.00    30.04%        78.00%         14.79%        24.10%         21.65       44.62%
Webster          5.79%       1.66%       7.19%      71.22%       $408.00     $66, 000.00    37.84%        77.42%         11.79%        30.99%         16.01       37.60%
Winnebago        4.94%       1.90%       6.12%      76.10%       $341.00     $61, 200.00    25.83%        56.12%          9.48%        20.95%         14.85       34.12%
Winneshiek       4.55%       0.85%       5.72%      73.57%       $389.00     $86, 000.00    40.94%        68.96%         11.43%        29.66%         15.89       45.58%
Woodbury         5.08%       1.68%       7.84%      68.60%       $494.00     $76, 400.00    52.00%        88.18%         14.66%        34.24%         17.59       35.40%
Worth            6.45%       3.21%       8.89%      79.04%       $357.00     $55, 900.00    40.55%        67.37%         14.16%        25.48%         19.97       48.73%
Wright           6.21%       4.22%       6.84%      74.11%       $350.00     $52, 500.00    24.11%        56.25%         11.17%        27.85%         16.03       38.91%




                                                                                   109
  2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
APPENDICES                                             HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

                 Appendix 4: Comments on Draft Plan & Responses
A number of comments were received from the Iowa Finance Authority relating to several new IFA
programs that had not been presented in the ―Resources‖ section of the Plan. Also, several technical
corrections or clarifications were noted by IFA relating specifically to the Action Plan and which IFA
programs should be listed in particular categories (e.g. 80 units of ―Special Needs‖ housing anticipated from
the HOPWA program, or that Homeowners and Homebuyers programs should not include the LIHTC
program as one of the programs addressing those needs.

All of the IFA comments were accepted and incorporated into the Final Draft of the Plan.

A number of comments were received from the University of Iowa Clinical Law Program relating to the
accessibility of housing to persons with disabilities. Their comments can be summarized as follows:

 The Consolidated Plan should be better publicized, including to agencies and groups concerned with
  disability services and housing accessibility; IDED will extend its efforts in future public comments
  periods by targeting information to specific interest groups with special attention given to
  setting times and places for public meetings that fit potential commenting entities schedules
  and accommodations if needed.
 More information should be included in the Consolidated Plan that highlights the needs of persons with
  disabilities in housing, and persons with disabilities should not aggregated in the larger group of
  "persons with special needs"; IDED will continue to use designations and categories established
  by HUD in its instructions for the Consolidated Plan. We feel it would be useful to reach
  consensus on the scope or definition of "persons with disabilities" to ensure clarity in the
  discussion of this issue in the future. This issue would be an appropriate topic for the Housing
  Roundtable and will be placed on the agenda in the next six months.
 A greater priority should be made within the Housing Fund towards home modification programs and
  other projects that serve households that include a person with a disability. Some of the proposals in
  this section included the possibility of earmarking federal funds exclusively for home modification
  programs, having a separate pilot program within the Housing Fund for that purpose, etc.; IDED will
  consider such proposals during the planning period and administrative rule process with the
  2006 funding cycle.
 The state should insure that homes built or modified with CDBG or HOME funds include minimum
  standards for access or visitability, especially relating to a) Wall reinforcement for grab bars, b) Interior
  doors, c) Switch and outlet requirements, and d) No-step entrances. IDED, along with a host of other
  state agencies, has endorsed state legislation to require new construction supported with
  public dollars meet the minimum standards for access. At this time the endorsement applies
  only to new construction.

A comment was received from the USDA-RD Housing office in Iowa relating to state priorities toward
housing rehabilitation. The commenter proposed that housing rehabilitation should not be undertaken if the
rehabilitation cost was significantly higher than the assessed value (the example given was of an assessed
valuation of $15,000, and a rehabilitation cost of $25,000, in which case it was suggested that the
rehabilitation should not be undertaken.)

No action is being taken at this time in relation to this comment. The state does provide suggested
guidelines to subrecipients of federal funds relating to the desirability of single-family
                                                     110
    2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
APPENDICES                                          HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

rehabilitation, taking into consideration the expected cost and the anticipated after-rehabilitation
value of the structure. Although this is not precisely the same standard as suggested by the USDA-
RD comment, it does address the same general issue of financial feasibility/cost effectiveness. The
state feels that because of the diversity of housing values across the state, and in order to maintain
some flexibility by the subrecipients, it would be better to address this issue with non-mandatory
guidelines, rather than with a mandated formula.

A comment was received from a non-profit charitable organization in Des Moines, asserting that the Des
Moines Transit Authority (MTA) has discriminated against homeless persons in the operation of some of
their ticket and token sales. The commenter suggests that those practices are not consistent with the
Assurances that the city signs as part of its application for HUD funding. The comment does not request
any specific action or response on the part of the state to this comment.

The state’s response to this comment will be to refer the complaint to the City of Des Moines for
their consideration and possible response within their own Consolidated Planning process.

A number of comments were received from the consulting firm Fisher, Sheehan, and Colton, sent on behalf
of the Iowa Department of Human Rights. The comments all related to the high costs of energy and the
need for more energy efficiency in housing in order to keep housing more affordable to low-income
individuals. The conclusions/recommendations of this correspondence can be summarized as follows:

   Homeownership and rental units developed either as new construction or substantial rehab by grantees
    or participating jurisdictions (PJs) should be developed to Energy Star standards;
   Programs providing first time home buyer assistance should promote Energy Efficient Mortgages
    (EEMs) as a priority loan product. The Consolidated Plan should commit the state to entering into an
    agreement with local Home Energy Raters to p rovide Home Energy Ratings to each first time home
    buyer receiving state affordable housing assistance.
   All grantees or participating jurisdictions developing affordable rental housing subject to utility
    allowances administered by local Public Housing Authorities will certify that they have in place
    adequate processes to ensure that the PHA has complied with HUD regulations requiring timely
    adjustments to utility allowances in response to changing home energy prices.

The state’s response to this set of comments is that, although they appear to have merit, additional
research and consideration should be undertaken before attempting to implement any of them. If
these standards are to be implemented, they should be implemented consistently by all affected
agencies, so as not to have a situation where one state agency mandates the requirements, and
others may not. For this reason, this is an issue that should be referred to the Housing Roundtable,
an informal working group of representatives from various federal and state housing agencies
working in the state. The Housing Roundtable will review the proposals, and come up with
recommendation(s) to implement or not implement each of the suggestions. The Roundtables
recommendations might clearly include legislative proposal(s) relating to any or all of these issues.




                                                 111