Work Session - Source of Income Report Copyright 2014
City of Dubuque Work Session - Bottom # 1.
ITEM TITLE: Source of Income Report
SUMMARY: Housing and Community Development Department Director
Alvin Nash, Human Rights Director Kelly Larson, City
Attorney Crenna Brumwell and Planning Services Manager
Laura Carstens will conduct a work session with City
Council on the Source of Income Committee Report.
SUGGESTED DISPOSITION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Source of Income Report-MVM Memo City Manager Memo
SOI Legal Research Supporting Documentation
Staff Memo Staff Memo
Summary of Residential Rental Survey Results Supporting Documentation
Residential Rental Survey Report Supporting Documentation
SOI Dialogue Sessions Report Supporting Documentation
PowerPoint Presentation - Updated Supporting Documentation
THE CITY OF DUUUCYUe
had
DUB E
Masterpiece on the Mississippi 2007.2012.2013
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: City Council Work Session — Source of Income Report
DATE: November 23, 2016
Housing and Community Development Department Director Alvin Nash, Human Rights
Director Kelly Larson, City Attorney Crenna Brumwell and Planning Services Manager
Laura Carstens are transmitting information on the Source of Income Committee Report
for the City Council Work Session.
From May to October 2014, the Human Rights Commission and Dubuque Area
Landlords Association discussed whether a Source of Income Ordinance was needed
or should be created. In November 2014, the Commission recommended forming a new
task force to review Source of Income for 90 days, and then make a recommendation to
the City Council.
In December, 2014, the City Council approved an alternative process, forming a Source
of Income Committee to conduct a two-year study and then report their findings and
options. Committee members were drawn from City Boards and Commissions,
Dubuque Area Landlords Association, and Dubuque Chapter of NAACP to meet with
City staff from the Legal, Housing & Community Development, Human Rights, and
Planning Services Departments to study the issue.
Three sub-committees were formed and undertook the following work:
• developed definitions related to fair housing and source of income
• conducted research on Source of Income ordinances and community housing
• reviewed data and information on Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program
• developed residential rental surveys for housing providers and renters
• planned for public engagement opportunities with key stakeholders
On December 21, 2015, the Source of Income Committee provided a midpoint update
to the City Council on their work progress, including the following information.
Source of Income issues in Dubuque
• Housing providers need to be able to maintain property values, fill vacancies,
minimize and recover costs of property damage.
• Renters need equal opportunity to live in safe, sanitary, decent housing of their
choice that they can afford.
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; however, some sources of income aren't
readily accepted by all housing providers which could make it difficult for families
with children, people with disabilities, or people of color who rely on those
sources of income to find housing.
• Reduce red tape related to housing assistance, because regulations can make it
difficult for some housing providers to accept some sources of income.
Source of Income Committee goals
• To collect data and study options to determine the best course of action.
• To develop a compromise policy that would affirmatively further fair housing and
address the concerns of housing providers and property owners.
• To examine the impact of a Source of Income ordinance, examine ways for
housing providers to address concerns, and examine how persons with Housing
Choice Vouchers can have a complete range of fair housing choices.
In April 2016, a Property Owner survey was mailed to 1 ,440 rental license holders and a
Renter survey was mailed to 822 Housing Choice Voucher recipients. In May 2016, the
Renter survey was mailed to 900 randomly selected residents of market rate
apartments. A total of 171 housing providers responded to the surveys; 34 of those
housing providers accept Housing Choice Vouchers.187 renters who use a Housing
Choice Voucher, and 54 renters who do not, responded to the surveys.
Four sessions of Source of Income Community Dialogues were held in September
2016; two were marketed to housing providers and two were marketed to renters. A
total of 89 individuals attended these sessions; 64 people turned in demographic
information. Only 2 people identified themselves as renters.
Staff developed three scenarios for discussion, which were based on the comments and
concerns staff have heard from residents on all sides of the issues since May 2014.
Preliminary Options
The following preliminary options range from two extremes: "Maintain the status quo" to
"Adopt a Source of Income ordinance". Four other options offer consideration of a 'mix
and match' of educational programs, administrative policies, and incentives to increase
the number of Housing Choice Voucher housing providers and units in Dubuque.
2
Preliminary Option 1. Maintain status quo.
• City does not take action and allows housing providers to continue under current
federal law and local requirements regarding voluntary participation in the
Housing Choice Voucher program.
Preliminary Option 2. Add Source of Income definition to current discrimination
ordinance.
• Create legal definition of Source of Income to include all forms of local, state and
federal housing assistance, including Housing Choice Vouchers, and add Source
of Income to the current city discrimination ordinance.
• Requires mandatory acceptance of all sources of legal income or support
benefits for tenant(s) passing criminal background check, meeting providers'
lease requirements, and Housing Choice Voucher program regulations.
Preliminary Option 3. Create a Source of Income Housing Ordinance separate
from discrimination ordinance.
• Create an ordinance defining Source of Income separate from the discrimination
ordinance.
• Source of Income ordinance could range from 'should consider' to 'must
consider" to 'must accept' Housing Choice Vouchers, perhaps with a mix of
education and financial incentives.
Preliminary Option 4. Adopt and implement a mix of educational/outreach
programs to increase participation in Housing Choice Voucher program.
Preliminary Option 5. Adopt and implement a mix of financial incentives to
increase participation in the Housing Choice Voucher program.
Preliminary Option 6. Adopt and implement a mix of financial incentives/policies
for creation of Housing Choice Voucher units throughout community.
The Housing Choice Voucher Program is very important to the most vulnerable citizens
of the City of Dubuque, especially the elderly, disabled and underemployed.
Recently, the City Council supported multiple affordable housing projects at St. Mary's
(Steeple Square), Holy Ghost, St. Patrick's School (Full Circle Communities), Nativity
School (University Lofts), Sacred Heart School (Marquette Place) and Applewood to try
and provide the disadvantaged more housing opportunities.
During that process, it was pointed out that:
"The Analysis of Impediments is used to develop the City of Dubuque
Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a five-year plan for the use
of Community Development Block Grant funds in the community.
Updated for the Fiscal Years 2016-2020, the most recent plan identifies a
3
need housing for elderly populations, homeless, and persons with
disabilities. These populations often have limited income and housing
choices and will likely benefit from the additional affordable, accessible
housing options. American Community Survey five-year estimates for
Selected Housing Characteristics provide information on the number of
households experiencing cost burden. Economists call a household "cost
burden" when housing costs exceed 30% of the household income. The
most recent 2014 American Community Survey estimates show 52% of
renter households are cost burdened, compared with 21 % owner occupied
with a mortgage. With over half of the renters in Dubuque experiencing
cost burden, the addition of tax credit rental units will provide opportunity
for renters to live in housing they can afford. When households pay 30%
or less of their income for housing, a number of benefits occur.
Households are able to save for real wealth building assets, like a down
payment on a home and continuing education."
Most of these project locations are outside of Dubuque's area of concentrated poverty.
This allows area residents to take advantage of quality, affordable housing options and
is consistent with the City's goals to de-concentrate poverty as identified in the Analysis
of Impediments. The Analysis of Impediments examines the barriers to fair housing and
identifies strategies to eliminate these barriers. The location of most of these
developments will assist to affirmatively further fair housing by creating affordable,
accessible housing options in areas of low poverty concentration.
The City is also implementing the Comprehensive Housing Activities for Neighborhood
Growth and Enrichment Program, or CHANGE Program, to assist low income
homeownership and rental properties to improve building and living conditions. Over
700 properties for low income individuals will be positively impacted over the next 5
years in the City's most economically challenged neighborhoods.
As the City Council looks to identify resources to assist with affordable housing and
possibly the selection of an option to help Housing Choice voucher holders with greater
choice, there will be resources available. To encourage more residential development
within the City limits, the City Council has approved two residential Housing Tax
Increment Financing Districts and will be considering a third one next month. By state
law, 38.1 % of the increment generated from a Housing TIF District must be used to
support affordable housing within the community. Over the next five years, the City is
projected to receive almost $2 million in Housing TIF dollars to assist with affordable
housing issues.
No decisions are expected tonight.
4
The Source of Income Committee will now make a presentation.
,Liti144 kelvti7,4rel.-„,,
Mic ael C. Van Milligen
MCVM:jh
Attachment
cc: Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager
Alvin Nash, Housing & Community Development Director
Kelly Larson, Human Rights Director
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
5
THE CITY OF
DUB E MEMORANDUM
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
CRENNA M . BRUMWELL , ESQ
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
To: Source of Income Committee
DATE: September 7, 2016
RE: Research
Attached you will find an update on the research I have been working on related to
source of income laws, articles, information, etc. Please note, while this is a good
summary, I'm not certain it is possible to provide all of the information available to the
group. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of websites with articles and information
on source of income issues across the country. If there are specific resources or
information missing the group feels should be included please let me know.
Specific attachments include:
1) Charts showing jurisdictions and the items included in adopted source of income
laws/ordinances. If you see gray shading in a row this is an indicator there are
no specific items delineated in the legislation other than to say "source of
income."
2) Definitions, if available, of source of income from jurisdictions. Note: some
jurisdictions do not have a definition while others refer to state law.
3) Additional SOI Resources/Information
4) Excerpt from Appendix B of State, Local, and Federal Laws Barring Source of
Income Discrimination produced by the Poverty & Race Research Action
Council. The excerpt specifically documents federal laws, law reviews, and
studies.
5) Cedar Rapids, Iowa documentation from 2010
Thank you.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DUBUQUE, IOWA
SUITE 330, HARBOR VIEW PLACE, 300 MAIN STREET DUBUQUE, IA 52001-6944
TELEPHONE (563)589-4381 /FAX (563)583-1040/EMAIL cbrumwel@cityofdubuque.org
Alimony'Annuity'Bequests Child Support I Federal Assistance Gift Grant Housing Assistance Inheritance Life Insurance Pension Public/Local Assistance Settlement Social Security State Assistance SSI Wages
STATE LAWS
California _
Connecticut X X X X X X X X
District of Columbia X X X X X X X X X X
Maine X X X X
Massachusetts X X X X
Minnesota X X X X
New Jersey X
North Dakota X X X X
Oklahoma X X X
Oregon X X X X
Utah _ _
Vermont X
Wisconsin X X X
Total 3 1 1 3 7 1 8 0 1 0 9 1 2 6 1 2
Alimony Annuity Bequests Child Support Federal Assistance Gift Grant Housing Assistance Inheritance Life Insurance Pension Public/Local Assistance Settlement Social Security State Assistance SSI Wages
Corte Madera,CA X
East Palo Alto,CA X
San Francisco,CA X X X X
Santa Monica,CA X X X X
Chicago, IL
Cook County, IL X
Harwood Heights, IL
Naperville, IL
Urbana, IL X X X X X X X X X X X X
Wheeling,IL
Iowa City, IA X X X X X X
Annapolis, MD
Baltimore, MD
Frederick, MD X X X X X X X X X X X
Frederick County, MD
Howard County,MD X X X X X
Montgomery County, MD X X X X X X X X X X X
Boston, MA
Cambridge, MA X
Quincy, MA X
Revere, MA
Ann Arbor, MI
Hamburg, MI _
Grand Rapids, MI X X X X X X X X X
Saint Loius, MO X X X X X X X X X
Buffalo, NY X X X X X X
Hamburg, NY
Nassau County, NY X X X
New York City, NY X X X X X
Suffolk County, NY
Westchester, NY X X X X X X
West Seneca, NY
Linndale,OH
South Euclid,OH
University Heights,OH
Warrensville Heights,OH
Wickliffe, OH
Borough of State College, PA X X X X X X
Philadelphia, PA X X X X X X
Pittsburg, PA X X X X X X X X X
Memphis, TN
Austin,TX X
Bellevue,WA
King County,WA X X X
Kirkland,WA
Redmond,WA
Seattle,WA X X X X
Tumwater,WA
Vancouver,WA X X X X X X
Cambridge,W X X X
Dane County,WI X
Madison,WI X X X
'Ripon,WI X X X
Sun Prairie,WI
Wauwatosa,WI X X X
Total 8 4 2 7 16 4 3 21 2 3 7 24 1 9 16 5 12
Alimony'Annuity Bequests Child Support Federal Assistance Gift Grant Housing Assistance I Inheritance Life Insurance Pension I PubliclLocal Assistance Settlement Social Security State Assistance I SSI Wages
Wilmington, DE
Miami-Dade County, FL X X X X
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Alimony Annuity Bequests Child Support Federal Assistance Gift Grant Housing Assistance Inheritance Life Insurance Pension Public/Local Assistance Settlement Social Security I State Assistance SSI Wages
PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Hawaii X X X X X X
Maryland X X X X X X
New York X X X X X X X X X
Total 1 0 0 1 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 3
State, County, Local Definitions of Source of Income
along with Proposed State Legislation Information
Primary Source: Poverty & Race Research Action Council (www.prrac.ora)
California (2000 - Amended 2005)
"For the purposes of this section, 'source of income' means lawful, verifiable income paid
directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant. For the purposes of this section,
a landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant."
Connecticut (1989)
"'Lawful source of income' means income derived from Social Security, supplemental
security income, housing assistance, child support, alimony or public or state
administered general assistance."
District of Columbia (2005)
"'Source of income' means the point, the cause, or the form of the origination, or
transmittal of gains of property accruing to a person in a stated period of time; including,
but not limited to, money and property secured from any occupation, profession or activity,
from any contract, agreement or settlement, from federal payments, court ordered
payments, from payments received as gifts, bequests, annuities, life insurance policies
and compensation for illness or injury, except in a case where conflict of interest may
exist."
D.C. Code Ann. § 2-1402.21(e): "The monetary assistance provided to an owner of a
housing accommodation under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937,
approved August 22, 1974 (88 Stat. 662; 42 U.S.C. § 1437f), either directly or through a
tenant, shall be considered a source of income under this section."
D.C. Code Ann. § 42-2851.06(c): "The owner of a housing accommodation shall not
refuse to rent a dwelling unit to a person because the person will provide his or her rental
payment, in whole or in part, through a Section 8 voucher."
Maine (1975 - Amended 1985)
"It is unlawful housing discrimination, in violation of this Act:
For any person furnishing rental premises or public accommodations to refuse to rent or
impose different terms of tenancy to any individual who is a recipient of federal, state or
local public assistance, including medical assistance and housing subsidies primarily
because of the individual's status as recipient."
Massachusetts (1971 - Amended 1989)
"It shall be an unlawful practice: . . . For any person furnishing credit, services or rental
accommodations to discriminate against any individual who is a recipient of federal, state,
or local public assistance, including medical assistance, or who is a tenant receiving
federal, state, or local housing subsidies, including rental assistance or rental
supplements, because the individual is such a recipient, or because of any requirement
of such public assistance, rental assistance, or housing subsidy program."
Minnesota (1990)
"'Status with regard to public assistance' means the condition of being a recipient of
federal, state, or local assistance, including medical assistance, or of being a tenant
receiving federal, state, or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent
supplements."
New Jersey (2002)
"All persons shall have the opportunity to obtain employment, and to obtain all the
accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of any place of public
accommodation, publicly assisted housing accommodation, and other real property
without discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital
status, affectional or sexual orientation,familial status, disability, nationality, sex or source
of lawful income used for rental or mortgage payments, subject only to conditions and
limitations applicable alike to all persons. This opportunity is recognized as and declared
to be a civil right."
North Dakota (1983 - Amended 1999)
"`Status with regard to public assistance' means the condition of being a recipient of
federal, state, or local assistance, including medical assistance, or of being a tenant
receiving federal, state, or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent
supplements."
Oklahoma (1985 - Amended 1991)
"A. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory housing practice for any person, or any agent or
employee of such person: . . . 8. To refuse to consider as a valid source of income any
public assistance, alimony, or child support, awarded by a court, when that source can
be verified as to its amount, length of time received, regularity, or receipt because of race,
color, religion, gender, national origin, age, familial status, or handicap...."
Oregon (2014)
"'Source of income' does not include federal rent subsidy payments under 42 U.S.C.
1437f, income derived from a specific occupation or income derived in an illegal manner,"
"A person may not, because of the race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national
origin, marital status, familial status or source of income of any person: (a) Refuse to sell,
lease or rent any real property to a purchaser. . . ."
AMENDMENT WITH BILL: A landlord may not refuse to rent to an applicant or tenant, or
treat an applicant or tenant differently from others, because their source of income is a
Section 8 voucher or other form of housing assistance. o Under Oregon's current fair
housing law, a landlord cannot discriminate against an applicant or a tenant based on the
tenant/applicant's source of income. However, current law exempts housing assistance
from the definition of the term "source of income." o HB 2639 removes this exemption,
effective July 1, 2014, and provides that Oregon's "source of income" fair housing
protections apply to applicants and tenants who are voucher holders or recipients of
federal, state, or local housing assistance. o Under the new law, a landlord may not refuse
to rent to a person or treat a person differently from other applicants or tenants because
their source of income is a Section 8 voucher or other form of housing assistance.
Texas (Prohibits local regulation) (2015)
(a) REGULATION OF RENTAL OR LEASING OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS.
Except as provided by this section, a municipality or county may not adopt or enforce an
ordinance or regulation that prohibits an owner, lessee, sublessee, assignee, managing
agent, or other person having the right to lease, sublease, or rent a housing
accommodation from refusing to lease or rent the housing accommodation to a person
because the person's lawful source of income to pay rent includes funding from a federal
housing assistance program.
(b) This section does not affect an ordinance or regulation that prohibits the refusal to
lease or rent a housing accommodation to a military veteran because of the veteran's
lawful source of income to pay rent.
(c) This section does not affect any authority of a municipality or county or decree to
create or implement an incentive, contract commitment, density bonus, or other voluntary
program designed to encourage the acceptance of a housing voucher directly or indirectly
funded by the federal government, including a federal housing choice voucher.
Utah (1993)
"(1) It is a discriminatory housing practice to do any of the following because of a person's
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, source of income, or disability:
(a) refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, refuse to negotiate
for the sale or rental, or otherwise deny or make unavailable any dwelling from any
person;
(b) discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the
sale or rental of any dwelling or in providing facilities or services in connection with
the dwelling; or
(c) represent to any person that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale,
or rental when in fact the dwelling is available."
Vermont (1987)
"(a) It shall be unlawful for any person: (1) To refuse to sell or rent, or refuse to negotiate
for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling or other real
estate to any person because of the race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age,
marital status, religious creed, color, national origin, or handicap of a person, or because
a person intends to occupy a dwelling with one or more minor children, or because a
person is a recipient of public assistance."
Wisconsin (1980)
"(1) Intent. It is the intent of this section to render unlawful discrimination in housing. It is
the declared policy of this state that all persons shall have an equal opportunity for
housing regardless of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national
origin, marital status, family status, lawful source of income, age or ancestry and it is the
duty of the political subdivisions to assist in the orderly prevention or removal of all
discrimination in housing through the powers granted under ss. 66.0125 and 66.1011. . .
"...1(m) Definition: (h) "Discriminate" means to segregate, separate, exclude or treat a
person or class of persons unequally in a manner described in sub. (2), (2m) or (2r)
because of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, marital
status, family status, lawful source of income, age or ancestry."
County Ordinances
Cook County, IL (2013)
"Source of income means the lawful manner by which an individual supports himself or
herself and his or her dependents."
Frederick County, MD (2002)
(A) Discrimination based upon race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital
status, disability, familial status, or source of income is contrary to the public policy of
Frederick County. (B) Discrimination based upon the following is unlawful in Frederick
County: (1) Race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status or disability in
employment, housing, or public accommodations, (2) Familial status in housing or
employment, and (3) Source of income in housing. (C) "Discrimination" means any act
that is unlawful under Federal or State law based upon race, color, religion, national origin,
sex, age, marital status, or disability. "Discrimination" also means acts that are unlawful
under Federal or State law based upon familial status in housing or employment or source
of income in housing."
Howard County, MD (1992)
"Source of income means any lawful source of money that is paid to or for the benefit of
a renter or buyer of housing, including: (1) A lawful profession or occupation; (2) A
Federal, State or local government assistance, grant or loan program; (3) A private
assistance, grant or loan program . . . ."
Montgomery County, MD (1991)
"Any lawful source of income (grant, gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child
support, government or private assistance) or occupation must be considered in
determining qualifications for rental or sale of property and these sources of income and
occupation may be verified."
Nassau County, NY (2000)
"'Source of income' means any lawful source of income, including federal, state, local,
non-profit assistance or subsidy program."
Suffolk County, NY (2015)
A. "It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (1) To refuse to sell, rent, lease or
otherwise deny to or withhold from any individual or group of individuals any housing
accommodation, constructed or to be constructed, land or commercial space, or an
interest therein, or refuse to negotiate for the sale, rental or lease of any housing
accommodation, land or commercial space, or an interest therein, to any individual or
group of individuals, because of the group identity, veteran status, status as a victim of
domestic violence or lawful source of income of such individual or individuals or to
represent that any housing accommodation, land or commercial space, or an interest
therein, is not available for inspection, sale, rental or lease when, in fact, it is so available,
or to otherwise deny to or withhold any housing accommodation, land or commercial
space, or an interest therein, or any facilities of any housing accommodation or
commercial space from any individual or individuals because of the group identity, veteran
status, status as a victim of domestic violence or lawful source of income of such or
individual or individuals; (2) To discriminate against any individual or group of individuals
because of the group identity, veteran status, status as a victim of domestic violence or
lawful source of income of such individual or individuals in the terms, conditions or
privileges of the sale, rental, or lease of any housing accommodation, land or commercial
space, or an interest therein, or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection
therewith; (3) To discriminate against any individual or group of individuals in making
available a residential real estate transaction, or in the terms and conditions of such a
transaction, because of the group identity, veteran status, status as a victim of domestic
violence or lawful source of income of such individual or individuals; (7) To make, print,
or publish, or cause to be made, printed or published, any statement, advertisement, or
publications, or to use any form of application for the purchase, rental, or lease of any
housing accommodation, land or commercial space, or an interest therein, or to make
any record or inquiry in connection with the prospective purchase, rental, or lease of such
housing accommodation, land or commercial space, or an interest therein, which
expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination with respect
to group identity, veteran status, status as a victim of domestic violence or because of the
lawful source of income of such individual or individuals, or any intent to make any such
limitation, specification, or discrimination; (8) To induce or attempt to induce, for profit or
otherwise, any person to sell, rent or lease any housing accommodation, land, or
commercial space, or an interest therein, by representations, explicit or implicit, regarding
the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of an individual or group of individuals
because of his, her or their group identity, veteran status, status as a victim of domestic
violence or lawful source of income; (9) To threaten, intimidate, or interfere with
individuals in their enjoyment of a housing accommodation, land or commercial space
because of their group identity, veteran status, status as a victim of domestic violence or
lawful source of income, or the group identity, veteran status, status as a victim of
domestic violence of their guests, invitees, visitors or associates. B. It shall be an unlawful
discriminatory practice for any real estate broker, real estate salesperson, or an employee
or agent of a real estate broker or real estate salesperson: (1) To refuse to sell, rent or
lease any housing accommodation, land or commercial space, or an interest therein, to
any individual or group of individuals or to refuse to negotiate for the sale, rental or lease
of any housing accommodation, land or commercial space, or an interest therein, to any
individual or group of individuals because of the group identity, veteran status, status as
a victim of domestic violence or because of the lawful source of income of such individual
or group of individuals, or to represent that any housing accommodation, land or
commercial space, or an interest therein, is not available for inspection, sale, rental or
lease when, in fact, it is so available, or otherwise deny or withhold any housing
accommodation, land or commercial space, or an interest therein, or any facilities of any
such housing accommodation or commercial space from any individual or group of
individuals because of the group identity, veteran status, status as a victim of domestic
violence or because of the lawful source of income of such individual or individuals. (2)
To print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated any statement, advertisement or
publication, or to use any form of application for the purchase, sale, rental or lease of any
housing accommodation, land, or commercial space, or an interest therein, or to make
any record or inquiry in connection with the prospective purchase, sale, rental or lease of
any housing accommodation, land or commercial space, or an interest therein, which
expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to group
identity, veteran status, status as a victim of domestic violence or as to lawful source of
income, or any intent to make any such limitation, specification or discrimination. C.
Exceptions. (2) The provisions of Subsection A(1) through (7) shall not apply: (a) To the
rental of housing accommodations in a building which contains housing accommodations
for not more than two families if the owner or members of his or her family reside in one
of such housing accommodations; or (b) To the rental of a room or rooms in a housing
accommodation if such rental is by the occupant of the housing accommodation or by the
owner of the housing accommodation and he or she or members of his or her family
reside in such housing accommodation; or (3) The provisions of § 528-9, as they relate
to unlawful discriminatory practices on the basis of lawful source of income, shall not
apply to housing accommodations that contain two or fewer housing units; provided,
however, the provisions of§ 528-9 shall apply to all housing accommodations, regardless
of the number of units contained in each, of any person who has the rights to sell, rent or
lease or approve the sale, rental or lease of at least three housing accommodations within
Suffolk County, constructed or to be constructed, or has the rights to sell, rent or lease or
approve the sale, rental or lease of interests in at least three housing accommodations.
(4) Nothing in Subsection A(4), (5) and (6) requires that a housing accommodation or
multiple dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a
direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in
substantial physical damage to the property of others."
King County, WA (2006)
"'Discriminate' means any action or failure to act, whether by single act or as part of a
practice, the effect of which is to adversely affect or differentiate between or among
individuals or groups of individuals, because or race, color, religion, national origin,
ancestry, age, gender, marital status, parental status, participation in the Section 8
program, sexual orientation, disability, or use of a service or assistive animal by an
individual with a disability."
"'Participation in the Section 8 program' means participating in a federal, state or local
government program in which a tenant's rent is paid partially by the government, through
a direct contract between the government program and the owner or lessor of the real
property, and partially by the tenant."
Dane County, WI (1987)
"Discriminate and discrimination mean to segregate, separate, exclude or treat any
person or class of persons unequally because of race, gender, age, religion, color,
national origin, ancestry, marital status of the person maintaining the household, family
status, mental illness, physical condition, appearance, lawful source of income, including
receipt of rental assistance under 24 Code of Federal Regulations Subtitle B, Chapter VIII
[the "Section 8" housing program], student status, arrest or conviction record, sexual
orientation, military discharge status or political beliefs."
Miami-Dade County, FL (2009)
"Source of income shall mean the lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid
to a representative of a tenant, including, but not limited to, Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers, Supplemental Security Income, Social Security, pensions and other retirement
benefits."
Local Ordinances
Corte Madera, CA (2000)
"It is unlawful for the owner or manager of rental housing to discriminate against an
existing tenant on the basis of that tenant's use of a Section 8 rent subsidy. It is a violation
of this prohibition for a property owner or manager to refuse to accept a Section 8 rent
subsidy for which an existing tenant qualifies, or to terminate the tenancy of an existing
tenant based on the property owner's or manager's refusal to participate in a Section 8
rent subsidy program for which an existing tenant has qualified."
East Palo Alto, CA (2000)
"For purposes of this subsection, 'source of income' means all lawful sources of income
or rental assistance program, homeless assistance program, security deposit assistance
program or housing subsidy program. Source of income includes any requirement of any
such program or source of income or rental assistance."
San Francisco, CA (1998)
"For purposes of this Subsection (a), source of income means all lawful sources of income
or rental assistance from any federal, State, local, or nonprofit-administered benefit or
subsidy program. "Source of income" also means a rental assistance program, homeless
assistance program, security deposit assistance program or housing subsidy program.
"Source of income" includes any requirement of any such program or source of income,
or rental assistance."
Santa Monica, CA (2015)
"It shall be unlawful for any person offering for rent or lease, renting, leasing, or listing any
housing accommodation, or any authorized agent or employee of such person, to do or
attempt to do any of the following: (a) Refuse to rent or lease a housing accommodation,
or access to or use of the common areas and facilities of the housing accommodation,
serve a notice of termination of tenancy, commence an unlawful detainer action, or
otherwise deny to or withhold from any person or persons, a housing accommodation on
the basis of disability, age, source of income, parenthood, pregnancy, or the potential or
actual occupancy of a minor child. (b) Represent to any person, on the basis of disability,
age, source of income, parenthood, pregnancy, or the potential or actual occupancy of
the minor child that a housing accommodation is not available for inspection or rental
when such housing accommodation is in fact available for inspection or rental. (c) Make,
print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, sign,
advertisement, application, or contract with regard to a housing accommodation offered
by that person that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination with respect to
disability, age, source of income, parenthood, pregnancy, or the potential or actual
occupancy of a minor child. (j) For purposes of this part, "source of income" includes any
lawful source of income or rental assistance from any federal, State, local or non-profit-
administered benefit or subsidy program including, but not limited to, the Section 8
voucher program."
Wilmington, DE
"Except as provided in section 35-80 it shall be an unlawful practice for any person
because of race, age, marital status, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, handicap,
national origin, or economic or family status to: (1) Refuse to sell or rent to those who are
welfare recipients, or who are dependent upon other fixed incomes, or to a parent with
minor children, or to handicapped persons, if such refusal is based only upon the status
of the applicant as stated above. . . ."
Chicago, IL (1990)
"Source of income: means the lawful manner by which an individual supports himself or
herself and his or her dependents."
Harwood Heights, IL (2009)
"It is declared to be the public policy of the Village of Harwood Heights ("village"), in the
exercise of its power to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals, and
welfare, to assure fair housing and freedom from discrimination throughout the
community, to protect the community from the effects of residential segregation based
upon a person's race, color, sex, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual
orientation, marital status, parental status, military discharge status, source of income,
gender identity, or housing status, and to secure its citizens the economic, social, and
professional benefits of living in a stable, integrated society."
Naperville, IL (2000)
"Unlawful Discrimination: Discrimination against a person because of his or her race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, familial status, physical
or mental handicap or disability, military status, sexual orientation, or legal source of
income."
Urbana, IL (1975)
"Source of income. The point or form of the origination of legal gains of income accruing
to a person in a stated period of time; from any occupation, profession or activity, from
any contract, agreement or settlement, from federal, state or local payments, including
Section 8 or any other rent subsidy or rent assistance program, from court ordered
payments or from payments received as gifts, bequests, annuities or life insurance
policies."
Wheeling, IL (1995)
"Source of income means the lawful manner by which an individual supports himself or
herself and his or her dependents." BUT: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in this title, nothing contained in this chapter shall require any person who does
not participate in the federal Section 8 Housing Assistance Program (42 U.S.C. 1437f) to
accept any subsidy, payment assistance, voucher or contribution under or in connection
with such program or to lease or rent to any tenant or prospective tenant who is relying
on such a subsidy, payment assistance, contribution or voucher for payment of part of the
rent for such housing accommodation."
Iowa City, IA (1997)
"It shall be an unlawful or discriminatory practice for any person to: A. Refuse to sell, rent,
lease, assign, sublease, refuse to negotiate or to otherwise make unavailable, or deny
any real property or housing accommodation or part, portion or interest therein, to any
person because of the age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial
status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of
dependents or public assistance source of income of that person."
Marion, IA
"Lawful source of income" means any lawful, verifiable source of money paid directly or
indirectly to or on behalf of a renter or buyer of housing, including income derived from:
A. Any lawful profession or occupation. B. Any government or private assistance, subsidy,
voucher, grant, or loan program. C. Any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child
support, or other consideration or benefit. D. Any sale or pledge of property or interest in
property.
Annapolis, MD (2009)
"It is an unlawful housing practice: A. For any person: 4. Otherwise to deny or withhold
any housing unit from any person because of the person's race, color, religion, disability,
familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, sex, lawful income or
national origin, 5. To include in the terms, conditions or privileges of any sale, lease,
sublease, rental, assignment or other transfer of any housing unit any clause, condition
or restriction discriminating against any person in the use or occupancy of such housing
unit because of race, color, religion, disability, familial status, sexual orientation, gender
identity, marital status, sex, lawful income, or national origin, 6. To discriminate in the
furnishing of any facilities, repairs, improvements or services, or in the terms, conditions,
privileges or tenure of occupancy of any housing unit because of race, color, religion,
disability, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, sex, lawful
income, or national origin."
Baltimore, MD (2014)
"(a) Projects subject to affordable housing requirements. For any unit in any residential
project that meets the requirements of § 2B-21(a), § 2B-22(a), or, when effective, § 2B-
23(a) of this subtitle, a person may not: (1) refuse to sell or rent, refuse to negotiate for
the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person
because of that person's source of income; (2) discriminate against any person in the
terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or rental of a dwelling,
or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling,
because of that person's source of income; (3) make, print, or publish, or cause to be
made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the
rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on
the source of income that may be used to pay rent; (4) represent to any person, because
of that person's source of income, that any dwelling is not available for inspection or rental
when the dwelling is available; or (5) for profit, induce or attempt to induce any person to
sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into
the neighborhood of a person using a particular source of income. (b) Projects receiving
cost offsets for affordable housing. For any unit in any residential project that receives a
cost offset from the Housing Commissioner under § 2B-24 of this subtitle, a person may
not: (1) refuse to sell or rent, refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise
make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of that person's source of
income; (2) discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the
sale or rental of a dwelling, or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities
in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling, because of that person's source of
income; (3) make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice,
statement, or advertisement with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicates any
preference, limitation, or discrimination based on the source of income that may be used
to pay rent; (4) represent to any person, because of that person's source of income, that
any dwelling is not available for inspection or rental when the dwelling is available; or (5)
for profit, induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by
representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a
person using a particular source of income."
Frederick, MD (2002)
"'Source of Income' means any lawful, verifiable source of money paid directly or indirectly
to a renter or buyer of housing including: (1)Any lawful profession or occupation; (2) The
condition of being a recipient of federal, state, or local government assistance, including
medical assistance, subsidies, rental assistance, or rent supplements; (3) Any gift,
inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, trust or investment accounts, or
other consideration or benefit; and (4) Any sale or pledge of property or interest in
property."
Boston, MA (1980)
"It is the policy of the City of Boston to see that each individual, regardless of his/her race,
color, religious creed, marital status, military status, handicap, children, national origin,
sex gender identity or expression, age, ancestry, sexual preference or source of income
shall have equal access to housing and to encourage and bring about mutual
understanding and respect among all individuals in the City by the elimination of
prejudice, intolerance, bigotry and discrimination in the area of housing."
Cambridge, MA (1992)
"Source of income means public assistance recipiency. Source of income shall not
include income derived from criminal activity."
Quincy, MA (1992)
"'Source of income' means public assistance recipiency. "Source of income" shall not
include income derived from criminal activity."
Revere, MA (1994)
"'Source of income' means the manner or means by which an individual supports herself
or himself and his or her dependents, except in this chapter it shall not include any criminal
activity from which a source of income is derived."
Ann Arbor, MI (1978)
"Source of income. Any legal source from which a person obtains money."
Hamburg, MI (2005)
"It shall be unlawful: A: To refuse to sell or rent or refuse to negotiate for the sale or to
deny any dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status,
disability, national origin, source of income, sexual orientation or because the person has
a child or children."
Grand Rapids, MI (2000)
"Source of lawful income means consistent income derived from wages, social security,
supplemental security income, all forms of federal, state or local assistance payments or
subsidies, Section 8 assistance, child support, alimony and public assistance which can
be verified and substantiated."
Saint Louis, MO (2006)
"It shall be a prohibited housing or realty practice and shall constitute a discriminatory
housing practice: (a) For any person, including, without limitation any real estate broker,
salesman or agent, or any employee thereof, to discriminate against any individual
because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, legal source of
income, disability, national origin or ancestry, with respect to the use, enjoyment or
transfer, or prospective use, enjoyment or transfer, of any interest whatsoever in realty .
Buffalo, NY (2006)
"Source of Income: Payments from a lawful occupation or employment, as well as other
payments including, but not limited to, public assistance, supplemental security income,
pensions, annuities, unemployment benefits, government subsidies such as Section 8 or
other housing subsidies."
Hamburg, NY (2005)
"Source of Income: Any income or source of rent payment from lawful sources."
New York City, NY (2008)
"The term lawful source of income shall include income derived from social security, or
any form of federal, state or local public assistance or housing assistance including
section 8 vouchers." §8-107(5): Housing accommodations, land, commercial space and
lending practices. (a) Housing accommodations. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory
practice for the owner, lessor, lessee, sublessee, assignee, or managing agent of, or
other person having the right to sell, rent or lease or approve the sale, rental or lease of
a housing accommodation, constructed or to be constructed, or an interest therein, or any
agent or employee thereof: (1) To refuse to sell, rent, lease, approve the sale, rental or
lease or otherwise deny to or withhold from any person or group of persons such a
housing accommodation or an interest therein because of any lawful source of income of
such person or persons. (2) To discriminate against any person because of any lawful
source of income of such person. (3)To declare, print or circulate or cause to be declared,
printed or circulated any statement, advertisement or publication, or to use any form of
application for the purchase, rental or lease of such a housing accommodation or an
interest therein or to make any record or inquiry in conjunction with the prospective
purchase, rental or lease of such a housing accommodation or an interest therein which
expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination as to any
lawful source of income.
Westchester, NY (2013)
"It shall be unlawful: A. To refuse to sell or rent or refuse to negotiate for the sale or deny
a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status,
handicap, national origin, source of income or because the person has a child or children."
'Source of income' shall mean, as it relates to unlawful discriminatory real estate
practices, lawful, verifiable income derived from social security, or any form of federal,
state or local public assistance or housing assistance, grant of loan program, including
the federal housing subsidy known as 'Section 8,' any disability payment, and assistance,
or grant or loan program from a private housing assistance organization."
West Seneca, NY (1979)
"It shall be unlawful:
A. To refuse to sell or rent or refuse to negotiate for the sale or deny a dwelling to any
person because of race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap, national origin,
source of income or because the person has a child or children."
Linndale, OH (2012)
"It is hereby determined to be the continuing policy of the Village of Linndale to do all
things necessary and proper to secure for all its citizens their right to equal housing
opportunities regardless of their race, color, religion, sex, familial status, as defined in
Section 4112.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, national origin, disability as defined in that
section, ancestry, military status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and source of
income."
South Euclid, OH (2015)
"It is hereby declared to be the purpose of this chapter to provide, within constitutional
limitations, for fair housing throughout the City, to assure that all persons have full and
equal opportunity to consider all available housing for themselves and their families within
the City without being discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
sexual orientation, gender identity, age, ancestry, disability, including people associated
with or residing with a person meeting the definition of a disability, ethnic group, marital
status, familial status, national origin, military status, association with someone of a
protected class, sources of income, or receipt of public assistance and to promote a
stable, racially integrated community."
University Heights, OH (2012)
"It is hereby declared to be the purpose of this chapter to provide, within constitutional
limitations, for fair housing throughout the City, to assure that all persons have full and
equal opportunity to consider all available housing for themselves and their families within
the City without being discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
sexual orientation, gender identity, age, ancestry, disability, familial status, or national
origin, military status, association with a protected class or source of income, and to
promote a stable, racially integrated community."
Warrensville Heights, OH (2012)
"It is hereby designated to be the continuing policy of the City to do all things necessary
and proper to secure for all citizens their right to equal housing opportunities regardless
of their race, color, creed, sex, religion, family status, disability or national origin, ancestry,
military status, sexual orientation, gender identity or source of income."
Wickliffe, OH (2009)
"Source of Income" is not defined in the ordinance, but all forms of housing discrimination
based on source of income are prohibited.
Borough of State College, PA (1993)
'Source of income' means income received through any legal means including, but not
limited to, wages, salaries, interest, dividends, child support, alimony, public assistance,
pensions or other retirement benefits, social security or other documentation of ability to
pay. Nothing herein shall be construed to mean a landlord must rent to someone who
does not have the ability to pay."
Philadelphia, PA (1980)
"Source of Income. Shall include any lawful source of income, and shall include, but not
be limited to, earned income, child support, alimony, insurance and pension proceeds,
and all forms of public assistance, including Aid For Dependent Children and housing
assistance programs."
Pittsburgh, PA (2015)
(jj) SOURCE OF INCOME. All lawful sources of income or rental assistance program,
including, but not limited to, earned income, child support, alimony, insurance and
pension proceeds, and all forms of public assistance including federal, state and local
housing assistance programs. This includes the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program."
Memphis, TN (2002)
"'Source of income' means a regular, verifiable income, or its equivalent, from which an
individual can pay rental, mortgage or other payments associated with the provision of
housing. The term shall specifically include Section 8 vouchers or certificates issued by
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development"
Austin, TX (2014 - Repealed)
The Ordinance amended the City's fair housing code to prohibit landlords from refusing
to rent to prospective tenants on the basis of "source of income," which is defined to
include "housing vouchers and other subsidies provided by government or non-
governmental entities." Unsuccessful challenge to ordinance in court (Austin Apartment
Association v. City of Austin) was followed by state legislative repeal (below).
Bellevue, WA (1990)
"No person shall refuse to rent a dwelling unit to any rental applicant solely on the basis
that the applicant proposes to rent such unit pursuant to a Section 8 voucher or certificate
issued under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 USC 1437(F));
provided this section shall only apply with respect to a Section 8 certificate if the monthly
rent on such residential unit is within the limits of fair market rent as established by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development."
Kirkland, WA (2013)
"No person shall refuse to rent a dwelling unit to any rental applicant solely on the basis
that the applicant proposes to rent such unit pursuant to a Section 8 voucher or certificate
issued under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1437f);
provided, this section shall only apply with respect to a Section 8 certificate if the monthly
rent on such residential unit is within the allowable rent as established by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development. 'Dwelling unit' shall have the meaning set forth in
KZC 5.250."
Redmond, WA (2012)
"(A) No person shall refuse to rent a dwelling unit to any rental applicant solely on the
basis that the applicant proposes to rent such a unit pursuant to a Section 8 voucher or
certificate under the House and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 USC 1437(F));
provided this section shall only apply with respect to a Section 8 certificate if the monthly
rent on such residential unit is within the allowable rent as established by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development. Dwelling unit' shall have the meaning set forth in
RZC 21.78."
Exceptions for this ordinance included permanent residents who are renting, sub-renting,
leasing, or subleasing a single-family dwelling (6.38.030(A)(1)) or religious organizations
wishing to rent to the same religion (6.38.030(A)(3)).
Seattle, WA (1989)
"'Discrimination' means any conduct, whether by single act or as part of a practice, the
effect of which is to adversely affect or differentiate between or among individuals or
groups of individuals, because of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin,
age, sex, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, gender identity, political
ideology, honorably discharged veteran or military status, participation in a Section 8
program, the presence of any disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal
by a disabled person."
"'Section 8 program' means a federal, state or local government program in which a
tenant's rent is paid partially by the government program (through a direct contract
between the government program and the owner or lessor of the real property), and
partially by the tenant."
Tumwater, WA (2010)
"It is declared to be the•policy of the city in the exercise of its police power for the public
safety, public health, and general welfare, for the maintenance of business and good
government and for the promotion of the city's trade, commerce and manufacturers, to
assure equal opportunity to all persons to live in decent housing facilities regardless of
race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, any sensory, mental, or physical
disability, familial status, marital status, sexual orientation or use of federal housing
assistance, and to that end to prohibit discrimination in housing by any person, including
real estate brokers, real estate salesmen and agents, owners of real property and lending
institutions, to forward the cause of community, and to secure a reduction of all tensions
and discriminations because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, any sensory,
mental, or physical disability, familial status, marital status, sexual orientation or use of
federal housing assistance."
Vancouver, WA (2015)
Definitions "As used in this section: 'Dwelling unit' means any building or portion thereof
which contains living facilities including provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking and
sanitation, including not more than one kitchen for not more than one family. 'Source of
income' includes income derived from social security, supplemental security income,
other retirement programs, and any federal, state, local, or nonprofit-administered benefit
or subsidy programs, including housing assistance, public assistance, and general
assistance programs. 'Source of income' does not include income derived in an illegal
manner." Section 8.45.020 Refusal to rent based on source of income prohibited "No
person shall refuse to rent a dwelling unit to any rental applicant on the basis that the
applicant proposes to rent such unit with a 'source of income' as defined in this Chapter."
Section 8.45.030 Exceptions "Nothing in this chapter shall: A. Apply to the renting,
subrenting, leasing, or subleasing of a portion of a single-family dwelling, wherein the
owner or person entitled to possession thereof maintains a permanent residence, home
or abode therein; B. Be interpreted to prohibit any person from making a choice among
prospective tenants on the basis of factors other than the source of income; 1. If income
screening criteria are elected to be used, any source of income in the form of a rent
voucher or subsidy must be subtracted from the total of the monthly rent prior to
calculating if the income criteria have been met. C. Prohibit a religious organization,
association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised
or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society,
from limiting the rental or occupancy of dwellings which it owns or operates for other than
a commercial purpose to persons of the same religion, or from giving preference to such
persons, unless membership in such religion is restricted on the basis of race, color,
national origin or other illegal discriminatory basis; D. Be construed to prohibit treating
people with disabilities more favorably than people who do not have disabilities; E. Be
construed to protect criminal conduct; or F. Prohibit any person from limiting the rental or
occupancy of a dwelling based on the use of force or violent behavior by an occupant or
prospective occupant, including behavior intended to produce fear of imminent force or
violence against the person or property of the owner, manager, or other agent of the
owner."
Cambridge, WI
"It is declared to be the policy of the village to assure equal opportunity to all persons to
live in adequate housing facilities regardless of race, color, religion, ancestry, national
origin, sex, handicap, sexual preference, marital status of persons maintaining a
household, lawful source of income, place of birth, or age, and, to that end, to prohibit
discrimination in housing by any persons."
Cambridge follows WIS. STAT. § 106.50 and does not include Section 8 vouchers in
"lawful source of income."
Madison, WI (1977)
"Source of income includes, but shall not be limited to, moneys received from public
assistance, pension, and Supplementary Security Income (SSI). Source of income shall
be limited to legally derived income."
"Housing. It shall be an unfair discrimination practice and unlawful and hereby prohibited
for any person having the right of ownership or possession or the right of transfer, sale,
rental or lease of any housing, or the agent of any such person: (a) To refuse to transfer,
sell, rent or lease, to refuse to negotiate for the sale, lease, or rental or otherwise to make
unavailable, deny or withhold from any person such housing because of sex, race,
religion, color, national origin or ancestry, age, handicap/disability, marital status, source
of income, including receipt of rental assistance under 24 Code of Federal Regulations
Subtitle B, Chapter VIII [the "Section 8" housing program] . . ."
Ripon, WI (1988)
"In connection with any of the transactions set forth in this section which affect any
housing accommodation on the open market or in connection with any public sale,
purchase, rental, financing or lease of any housing accommodation, it is unlawful within
the city of Ripon for a person, owner, financial institution, real estate broker or real estate
salesman, or any representative of the above, to: A. Refuse to sell, purchase, rent or
lease, or deny to or withhold any housing accommodation from a person because of his
or her race, color, religion, age, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
disability, marital status, familial status, lawful source of income, or place of birth."
Sun Prairie, WI (2007)
"'Protected class' includes persons of a specific race, color, religion, ancestry, national
origin, sex, handicap, sexual preference, marital status of person maintaining a
household, lawful source of income, place of birth, age or other federal or state designated
protected classes for purposes of fair housing." "'Discrimination' or 'discriminatory
housing practice' means any difference in treatment based upon race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin; or any act that is unlawful under this chapter. Discrimination as defined
in this chapter does not include, and specifically exempts defining any of the following as
protected classes for purposes of fair housing discrimination unless required by state
statute or federal law: . . . 5. Refusal of Section 8 housing tenants, if not otherwise income
qualified, if the owner has either refused all Section 8 tenants or if they have previously
set capacity controls on the number of Section 8 units allowed within the property."
Wauwatosa, WI (1986)
"'Discriminate' and 'discrimination' mean to segregate, separate, exclude or treat any
person unequally only because of sex, race, color, sexual orientation as defined in
Section 111.32(13m)of the Wisconsin Statutes, handicap, religion, national origin, familial
status, sex or marital status of the person maintaining a household, lawful source of
income, age or ancestry."
Wauwatosa follows WIS. STAT. § 106.50 and does not include Section 8 vouchers in
"lawful source of income."
Proposed Legislation
Hawaii (2014)
"Source of income" means any lawful source of money paid directly or indirectly to a
renter or buyer of housing, including: (1) Any lawful profession or occupation; (2) Any
government or private assistance, grant, loan, or rental assistance program, including
low-income housing assistance certificates and vouchers under the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended;"
Maryland (2016)
"'Source of Income"' means any lawful source of money paid directly or indirectly to, or
on behalf of, a renter or buyer of housing. Source of income includes income from: (1) A
lawful profession, occupation, or job; (2) Any government or private assistance, grant,
loan, or rental assistance program, including low-income housing assistance certificates
and vouchers issued under the United States Housing Act of 1937."
New York (2014)
"The term "source of income", when used in this article, means any lawful source of
income paid directly or indirectly to a renter or buyer of housing, including: (a) any lawful
profession or occupation; (b) any government or private assistance, grant or loan
program;"
Additional SOI Resources / Information
Much information gathered came from the Poverty & Race Research Action Council
(PRRAC). The PRRAC compiles a document (Appendix B of State, Local, and Federal
Laws Barring Source of Income Discrimination. Appendix B is available at:
http://www.prrac.orq/pdf/AppendixB.pdf. The appendix was last updated in May 2016.
An excerpt from the document on federal laws, law review articles, and studies is
attached.
Current Lawsuits:
Santa Monica, CA ordinance is being challenged in court. Lawsuit was filed in 2015 and
remains pending.
Significant Recent Changes:
Austin, TX ordinance nullified by State Legislative action. (2015).
Iowa Information
Cedar Rapids, IA — considered ordinance —did not adopt
http://www.thegazette.com/2011/01/06/ordinance-chanqe-would-protect-section-
8-housing-applicants
http://www.thegazette.com/2011/11/24/cedar-rapids-civil-rights-commission-
wants-source-of-income-a-protected-housi nq-class
https://uiowa.edu/legalclinic/cedar-rapids-civil-rights-ordinance (information
available at links on this website is attached)
Iowa City -- Iowa City added Section 8 vouchers to the definition of public assistance
source of income definition in 2016
http://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/local/2016/02/03/iowa-city-housing-
discrimination-protection-section-8/79714092/
http://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/local/2016/02/17/iowa-city-council-
adopts-fair-housing-changes/80523198/
Additional Articles
Jenna Bernstein, Section 8, Source of Income Discrimination, and Federal Preemption:
Setting the Record Straight, Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 31:4 (2010).
"Courts should invalidate the state and local laws on the ground that mandating
participation in Section 8 runs counter to federal preemption doctrine and violates
the Supremacy Clause."
Available at:
http://cardozolawreview.com/Joomla1.5/content/31-4/JENNA.B ERNSTEI N.31-
4.pdf
Mark Capozzoli, What Rights do Tenants have from Discriminatory Practices of Landlords
in Low Income Housing?, Annotated Bibliography.
Focuses on discrimination tenant face because they are involved in the federal
Section 8 program. Law allows economic discrimination in many instances.
Legislation is necessary to balance the rights of landlords (contract right) and the
rights of tenants (no discrimination) based on receipt of federal assistance.
Available at:
https://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/98capozzoli.htm
NOTE: Many additional resources are available from this location
older than the resources I have provided.
Fair Housing Justice Center Resources
No License to Discriminate (2008)
Available at:
http://www.fairhousincgjustice.orq/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/License to Discriminate finaIDRAFT.pdf
National Multifamily Housing Council / National Apartment Association Joint
Legislative Program
Fair Housing: Source of Income Discrimination
Available at:
https://www.nmhc.orq/uploadedFiles/Articles/Issue Fact Sheet/Fair%20Housinq
%20Source%20of%20lncome%202014-01.pdf
Equal Rights Center
1) Source of Income Discrimination in Housing (2015)
Available at:
http://www.equalrightscenter.orci/site/DocServer/S01 Toolkit.pdf?docID=2604
2) Will You Take My Voucher?: An update on Housing Choice Voucher discrimination
in the District of Columbia (2013)
Available at:
http://www.equalrightscenter.orq/site/DocServer/Will You Take My Voucher.pd
f?docID=1921
3) Still in Search of Decent Housing A Five Year Reflection on Discrimination Against
Housing Choice Voucher Holders in the District of Columbia (2011)
Available at:
http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Still In Search of Decent Hou
sinq.pdf?docID=361
Housing Law Bulletin, Volume 38 (2008)
1) States Uphold Source of Income Discrimination Laws Protecting Voucher Holders
Available at:
http://nhlp.orq/files/04%20NHLP%20Bull%20Jan%2008%20states%20uphold%2
Osource%20of%20income.pdf
2) Courts Consider Landlord Defenses to Source of Income Laws
Available at: https://nhlp.org/files/NHLP Bull NovDec08 FINAL2.pdf
National Low Income Housing Coalition
Tenant Talk, Volume 4, Issue 2 (2013), pages 8-13.
Examples of sources of income that landlords sometimes will not accept are:
• Housing Choice Vouchers ("Section 8") • SSI (Supplemental Security Income
received by people with disabilities)
• Social Security
• Veterans benefits
• Alimony or child support payments from a missing spouse
• TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)
Source of income discrimination can be less direct. Landlords might simply try to
discourage a household with a voucher from renting by demanding a much higher
security deposit. Source of income discrimination is sometimes just a stand-in for
discrimination based on race, ethnicity, disability, age, a parent's marital status, or
whether a family has children — all of which are "protected classes" under the Fair
Housing Act. While discrimination against protected classes is illegal, source of
income is not a protected class under federal law.
HUD Resources:
1) Prohibition of Discrimination Against Families with Housing Choice Vouchers by
Owners of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and HOME Developments
Available at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/publications/notices/01/pih2001-2.pdf
NOTE: There are more federal programs which prohibit discrimination against
holders of vouchers. See PRRAC link.
2) The Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational
Outcomes (2011)
Available at:
https://www.huduser.qov/publications/pdf/freeman impactlaws assistedhousingrcr0
6.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Housing vouchers were initially championed as a more
efficient way of subsidizing housing for the poor and more suitable for a nation whose
primary housing problem is one of affordability(Lowry 1971). More recently, vouchers
have come to be seen as a tool for promoting economic and racial/ethnic integration
(McClure 2008). Because vouchers augment the purchasing power of tenants a more
expansive set of geographic options should be available. Indeed, when the Housing
Choice Voucher program was enacted, improving the neighborhood outcomes of
voucher recipients was a stated goal. The advantages of vouchers vis-à-vis project
based housing assistance is dependent upon voucher recipients being able to locate
a landlord who will accept the voucher. For a number of reasons, this is not always
the case. Some landlords wish to avoid the administrative burden associated with the
voucher program. Other landlords resist renting to voucher recipients perhaps
because they perceive this group to be undesirable tenants and/or fear their other
tenants would object to voucher recipients as neighbors (Sard 2001). This type of
discrimination based on the source of income could prevent the voucher program from
living up to its full potential. Indeed, various evaluations of the voucher program have
found that at least 20% of all housing searches using a voucher are unsuccessful
(Finkel and Buron 2001). Furthermore, many Local Housing Authorities fail to utilize
all of their vouchers in a given year(Finkel, Khadduri et al. 2003). Discrimination based
on source of income could be a contributing factor to some of the difficulties voucher
recipients encounter when attempting to use a voucher. Discrimination based on
source of income might not only be an obstacle to using a voucher but might also lead
to voucher recipients being more clustered in disadvantaged neighborhoods. While
vouchers do deliver better locational outcomes than project based housing assistance
(Newman and Schnare 1997), there is both anecdotal and systematic evidence that
indicates many voucher recipients are concentrating in disadvantaged neighborhoods
(Pendall 2000). Voucher recipients might locate in disadvantaged neighborhoods for
a number of reasons. It seems plausible, however, that discrimination against voucher
recipients based on their source of income would play a significant role in limiting the
neighborhood options of voucher recipients. In localities where discrimination occurs,
voucher recipients might find their options more constrained and hence be relegated
to more disadvantaged neighborhoods. Thus, discrimination against voucher
recipients on the basis of their source of income might limit the success of the voucher
program by lowering utilization rates (the utilization rate as used hereafter is defined
as the number of leased units divided by the number of contracted units for the Annual
Contributions contract) among Local Housing Authorities (LHAs) and increasing the
likelihood that voucher recipients reside in more disadvantaged neighborhoods. One
possible policy antidote to discrimination against voucher recipients and the resulting
problems this discrimination creates are Source of Income (SOI) antidiscrimination
laws (hereafter referred to as SOI laws). These SOI laws make it illegal for landlords
to discriminate against voucher recipients solely on the basis of their having a voucher.
A number of state and local jurisdictions have passed such laws (Tegeler 2005). The
existence of SOI laws might make it easier for voucher recipients to lease apartments,
thereby increasing the utilization rates of LHAs in jurisdictions that have such laws
and serve to open up a wider set of geographic options to voucher recipients, thereby
improving their locational outcomes. The research presented in this report tests these
two hypotheses, (1) SOI laws increase utilization rates among LHAs, and, (2)that SOI
laws improve locational outcomes for voucher recipients (i.e. facilitates voucher
recipients living in more advantaged neighborhoods). Using a difference-in-
differences approach utilization rates among LHAs in jurisdictions with SOI laws were
compared to utilization rates among LHAs in jurisdictions without SOI laws before and
after the passage/repeal of the SOI laws. LHAs in jurisdictions that had a SOI law
during the 1995-2008 study period were matched with LHAs in adjacent jurisdictions
that did not have such laws. Three states, the District of Columbia, five cities and two
counties saw the status of their SOI law change during the study period and had
adjacent jurisdictions with LHAs that could be included in the analysis. A similar
analytical approach was employed to examine SOI laws and the locational outcomes
of voucher recipients including tract level measures of the poverty rate, percent white,
and percent of the tract who are voucher recipients. These neighborhood
characteristics were contrasted between voucher recipients residing in jurisdictions
with SOI laws and voucher recipients residing in adjacent jurisdictions without Sal
laws before and after the SOI law was passed/repealed. Voucher recipients residing
in the jurisdictions described above were included in the analysis. Among the findings,
when utilization rates among LHAs in jurisdictions with SOI laws were compared to
utilization rates in jurisdictions without such laws, both during the period when the laws
were in effect and during the period when the laws were not in effect it was found that
utilization rates increased in the LHAs when SOI laws were present. Improvements in
utilization rates ranged from four percentage points to 11 percentage points. This
evidence is consistent with the notion that SOI laws facilitate the utilization of housing
vouchers. When the locational outcomes of voucher recipients living in jurisdictions
with SOI laws was compared to the locational outcomes of voucher recipients living in
jurisdictions without such laws, both during the period when the laws were in effect
and during the period when the laws were not in effect the evidence suggests the
neighborhoods of the former group were more advantaged. There were statistically
significant differences across all three locational outcomes. That is, poverty rates and
voucher concentrations were lower and the percent white was higher. But the
differences were not that great. The poverty rate was one percentage point lower in
the tracts of voucher recipients living in jurisdictions with SOI laws while these laws
were in effect. The tract level measures of the percent white and percent who are
voucher recipients differed by only half a percentage point between voucher recipients
living in jurisdictions with SOI laws and voucher recipients living in jurisdictions without
such laws during the period when the laws were in effect. Stratified analyses that
focused on the elderly and large families, two groups who have been found to be
relatively unsuccessful using the voucher program, found the improvements in
locational outcomes to be larger, albeit inconsistently so, for these groups. For large
families there was a two percentage point decline in the percent of voucher recipients
in a tract associated with the presence of a SOI law. For the elderly there was a one
percentage point lower poverty rate and a three percentage point higher percent white
in the tracts of voucher recipients who lived in jurisdictions with SOI laws while these
laws were in effect. This evidence also suggests SOI law do facilitate movement into
more advantaged neighborhoods. Stratified analyses for blacks and Hispanics were
more mixed. Blacks residing in jurisdictions with SOI laws while these laws were in
effect experienced tract level poverty rates one percentage point lower than blacks
living in jurisdictions without SOI laws. Hispanics residing in jurisdictions with SOI laws
while these laws were in effect lived in tracts with one percentage point fewer whites
than Hispanics living in jurisdictions without SOI laws. This is the one instance where
the relationship was opposite of what was hypothesized. The other observed
relationships for blacks and Hispanics were either not statistically significant and/or
not large enough to be substantively meaningful. For policy makers several lessons
can be distilled from this research. SOI laws do appear to have the potential to make
a substantial difference in utilization rates and locational outcomes, the latter under
certain circumstances. As was mentioned earlier the improvements in utilization rates
ranged from four percentage points to 11 percentage points. In a LHA with 10,000
vouchers this could translate into 400 to 1,100 additional families receiving assistance.
The evidence for locational outcomes was more mixed. While in general there was
evidence of SOI laws being associated with access to more advantaged
neighborhoods the increases were not dramatic nor was the benefit of SOI laws
apparent for all groups. Nevertheless, because expanding the range of neighborhoods
available to voucher recipients is in vogue, even the modest benefits associated with
SOI laws suggests an examination of whether these laws should be extended is
warranted. This is especially the case if we consider the possibility that SOI laws be
passed at the federal level. Such a law might be expected to have a more significant
impact given the greater resources of the federal government for enforcement and the
great visibility of federal laws. Taken together, the results of this research suggest SOI
can have an important impact on the performance of the Housing Choice Voucher
program. In a world of limited resources and a desperate need for more affordable
housing, such a finding should not be taken lightly
\(_
FEDERAL LAWS PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST E yccr()
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER FAMILIES
HOME PROGRAM
42 USC 12745 (a)(1)(D):
"(a)(1) Housing that is for rental shall qualify as affordable housing under this subchapter only if
the housing—
(D) is not refused for leasing to a holder of a voucher or certificate of eligibility under section
1437f of this title because of the status of the prospective tenant as a holder of such voucher or
certificate of eligibility"
24 CFR 92.252(d):
"(d) Nondiscrimination against rental assistance subsidy holders. The owner cannot refuse to
lease HOME-assisted units to a certificate or voucher holder under 24 CFR part 982—Section 8
Tenant-Based Assistance: Unified Rule for Tenant-Based Assistance under the Section 8 Rental
Certificate Program and the Section 8 Rental Voucher Program or to the holder of a comparable
document evidencing participation in a HOME tenant-based rental assistance program because
of the status of the prospective tenant as a holder of such certificate, voucher, or comparable
HOME tenant-based assistance document
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC)
26 U.S.C. § 42(h)(6)(B)(iv):
"(6) Buildings eligible for credit only if minimum long-term commitment to low-income
housing...
(B)Extended low-income housing commitment. For purposes of this paragraph, the term
`extended low-income housing commitment'means any agreement between the taxpayer and the
housing credit agency...
(iv) which prohibits the refusal to lease to a holder of a voucher or certificate of eligibility under
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 because of the status of the prospective tenant
as such a holder..."
26 C.F.R. § 1.42-5(c)(1)(xi): Regulations Relating to IRS
"(c) Certification and review provisions—
(1) Certification. Under the certification provision, the owner of a low-income housing project
must be required to certify at least annually to the Agency that, for the preceding 12-month
period—
(xi) An extended low-income housing commitment as described in section 42(h)(6)
was in effect(for buildings subject to section 7108(c)(1) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1989, 103 Stat. 2106,2308-2311), including the requirement under section 42(h)(6)(B)
(iv)that an owner cannot refuse to lease a unit in the project to an applicant because the applicant
holds a voucher or certificate of eligibility under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of
1937,42 U.S.C. 1437f(for buildings subject to section 13142(b)(4) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 312,438-439)"
Mark-to-Market
United State Housing Act of 1937,42 U.S.C. § 1437f
24 C.F.R § 401.556: Regulations Relating to HUD
"A Restructuring Plan must prohibit any refusal of the owner to Iease a unit solely because of the
status of the prospective tenant as a section 8 voucher holder."
Multifamily Properties Purchased from HUD
National Housing Act, 12 U.S.0 § 1701z-12
"The Secretary shall require any purchaser of a multifamily housing project owned by the
Secretary which is sold on or after October 1, 1978, to agree not to refuse unreasonably to lease a
vacant dwelling unit in the project which rents for an amount not greater than the fair market rent
for a comparable unit in the area as determined by the Secretary under section 1437f of Title 42
to a holder of a certificate of eligibility under that section solely because of such prospective
tenant's status as a certificate holder."
24 C.F.R§ 290.19: Regulations Relating to Multifamily properties purchased from HUD
"The purchaser of any multifamily housing project shall not refuse unreasonably to lease a
dwelling unit offered for rent, offer to sell cooperative stock, or otherwise discriminate in the
terms of tenancy or cooperative purchase and sale because any tenant or purchaser is the holder
of a Certificate of Family Participation or a Voucher under Section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 14371),or any successor legislation. This provision is limited in
its application, for tenants or applicants with Section 8 Certificates or their equivalent(other than
Vouchers), to those units which rent for an amount not greater than the Section 8 Fair Market
Rent, as determined by HUD. The purchaser's agreement to this condition must be contained in
any contract of sale and also may be contained in any regulatory agreement,use agreement, or
deed entered into in connection with the disposition."
24 C.F.R§ 290.39: Regulations Relating to Multifamily properties purchased from HUD
"(a) Nondiscrimination requirement. For any mortgage described in paragraphs (c) or(d) of this
section that HUD sells without FHA mortgage insurance,the project owner shall not
unreasonably refuse to lease a dwelling unit offered for rent, offer to sell cooperative stock, or
otherwise discriminate in the terms of tenancy or cooperative purchase and sale because any
tenant or purchaser is a certificate or voucher holder under 24 CFR part 982...
(c)Applicability to mortgages securing unsubsidized projects receiving project-based assistance
(partially-assisted projects) or securing subsidized projects.
(1)The nondiscrimination requirement in paragraph (a) of this section applies to the
project owner upon the sale of a mortgage without FHA mortgage insurance if, at the time HUD
offers it for sale, the mortgage secures:
1) An unsubsidized project that receives any of the forms of assistance
enumerated in paragraphs (4)(i) to (4)(iv) of the "subsidized project"
definition in § 290.5; or
(ii)A subsidized project, as defined in § 290.3,
(2)This requirement shall continue in effect until the mortgage debt is satisfied.
(d) Covenant requirement for all delinquent mortgages sold without FHA mortgage insurance.
This paragraph(d) applies to the sale of any mortgage that is delinquent at the time HUD offers
it for sale without FHA mortgage insurance, without regard to the subsidy status of the project.
The mortgage purchaser and its successors and assigns shall require the mortgagor to record a
covenant running with the land as part of any loan restructuring or final compromise of the
mortgage debt and shall include a covenant in any foreclosure deed executed in connection with
the mortgage. The covenant shall set forth the nondiscrimination requirement in paragraph(a) of
this section. The covenant shall continue in effect until a date that is the same as the maturity
date of the mortgage sold by HUD."
HUD Regulations and Notices
See also HUD Notice PIH 2002-15 (HA) (June 7, 2002)Reinstatement -Notice PIH 2001-2
(HAs), Prohibition of Discrimination against Families with Housing Choice Vouchers by Owners
of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and HOME Developments (This Notice reinstates Notice
PIH 2001-2 (HA), same subject, indefinitely.Notice PIH 2001-2 (HA) expired January 31,2002)
Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008—engrossed and referred to Senate committee
In response to the federal loan and foreclosure crisis in the United States, the House of
Representatives passed legislation which provided a loan and grant program for the distribution
of money to areas severely impacted by foreclosures and predatory lending. Participants in this
program cannot discriminate against holders of Section 8 vouchers. Section 8(h) of H.R. 5818.
Capital Magnet Fund
From Interim Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 25 (February 8,2016):
12 CFR §1807.401(b) Nondiscrimination against rental assistance subsidy holders. The
Recipient shall require that the owner of a rental unit cannot refuse to lease the unit to a Section
8 Program certificate or voucher holder(24 CFR part 982, Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance:
Unified Rule for Tenant-Based Assistance under the Section 8 Rental Certificate Program and the
Section 8 Rental Voucher Program) or to the holder of a comparable document evidencing
participation in a HOME tenant-based rental assistance program because of the status of the
prospective tenant as a holder of such certificate, voucher, or comparable HOME tenant-based
assistance document. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Annotated Bibliography: Law Reviews and Studies
Law Review Articles on Source-of-Income Discrimination
Paula Beck,Fighting Section 8 Discrimination: The Fair Housing Act:sNew Frontier, 31 Harv.
C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 155 (1996).
Author discusses the fai lures of the section 8 program to promote integration, reviews the
effectiveness of current state and federal laws to protect against source-of-income
discrimination, and suggests that an amendment to the Fair Housing Act is needed. By
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of source-of-income, the social and economic
burdens of section 8 vouchers will be shifted from low income renters to the landlords
and middle-income renters who are in a better position to absorb them.
Kim Johnson-Spratt, Note,Housing Discrimination and Source of Income:A Tenant's Losing
Battle, 32 Ind. L. Rev.457 (1999).
Author presents an overview of source-of-income litigation and discusses remedies for
the lack of protection given to source-of-income under federal law. Previous
discrimination cases have met with success by molding source-of-income discrimination
into discrimination of a protected category such as familial status or gender. In
jurisdictions where source-of-income protection does exist, results have been mixed and
suggest that existing protections are inadequate. Without a federal law banning source-
of-income discrimination, section 8 voucher holders lack a meaningful choice in
obtaining housing. The author examines Paula Beck's proposal to amend the Fair
Housing Act and rejects the proposed amendment as incomplete and unlikely. The author
further suggests that given legislative intent and the purpose of the section 8 statute and
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,protection
against source-of-income discrimination may be implied in both laws. Given the public's
fears of judicial activism, however,the best approach may be for HUD to promulgate a
rule prohibiting discrimination on the basis of income source.
Laura Bacon, Note, Godinez v. Sullivan-Lackey: Creating a MeaningJid Choice for Housing
Choice Voucher Holders, 55 DePaul L. Rev. 1273 (2006).
Author offers Chicago and its local law barring source-of-income discrimination as a
potential model for creating a realistic solution to discrimination against section 8
voucher recipients. Focusing on the HCVP in Chicago, the author discusses the history
of the program and its limited effectiveness in the face of source-of-income
discrimination. The city's ordinance, subject to challenge in Godinez v. Sullivan-Lackey,
was upheld by the Illinois Appellate Court. The case may serve as an example to other
cities and municipalities of the legal viability of local fair housing ordinances. Although
there are shortcomings to the local legislative approach, if states and cities add source-of-
income protection to their legislative agendas, the goals of HCVP can be more likely
realized.
Tamica H. Daniel,Note, Bringing Real Choice to the Housing Choice Voucher Program:
Addressing Voucher Discrimination under the Federal Fair Housing Act, 98 Geo. L.J. 769
(2010).
Author provides an overview of the status of voucher discrimination under federal law
and argues for an amendment to the Fair Housing Act which would add voucher holders
as a protected class. The author analogizes to a similar legal climate as existed prior to
the addition of familial status as a protected class under the Fair Housing Act in the
1980s. The author argues that current State,county and city statutes and ordinances
which protect against source-of-income discrimination do not go far enough to
significantly reduce the occurrences of voucher holder discrimination. The author argues
that in lieu of a Congressional amendment to the Fair Housing Act, the courts could allow
voucher holders to bring disparate impact claims for voucher discrimination, and thereby
support the goals and purposes of the federal legislation.
Jonathan Sheffield, Cook County Prevents Source of'Income Discrimination from Begetting
Unlawful Race Discrimination and So Should Illinois, 19 Pub. Interest L. Rptr. 86 (2014).
Author points to a recent amendment to Cook County's human rights ordinance that
prohibits discrimination against Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders, and argues for
Illinois to outlaw source of income (SOI) discrimination throughout the state to promote
fair housing. The author presents research findings highlighting the impact SO[
discrimination on HCV holders and their ability to move out of high-poverty, distressed
neighborhoods into opportunity neighborhoods. The author also highlights the work of
fair housing advocates in Cook County, who help monitor and enforce SOI
discrimination. The author explains that some Cook County suburbs, such as Glenview,
have attempted to nullify the recently amended ordinance by adopting retaliatory
ordinances that repeal the protections for HCV holders.
Related Law Review Articles
Mark A. Malaspina, Note, Demanding the Best: How to Restructure the Section 8 Housing-
Based Rental Assistance Program, 14 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 287 (1996).
Author reviews the flaws in the section 8 program, noting that many of the program's
problems result from inappropriate use of supply-side housing policies in a demand-side
program (including federal eviction standards, housing quality requirements, and fixed
payment structure which may fail to motivate voucher-holders). Author further suggests
reforms to (1) improve the administration of the program by replacing local public
housing authorities with regional government agencies, (2) increase mobility through the
implementation of counseling services and extended deadlines for finding an acceptable
apartment, and (3) introduce a new payment structure. Landlord acceptance of section 8
vouchers could be further increased by a federal nondiscrimination provision, barring
source-of-income discrimination.
Paul Boudreaux, Vouchers, Buses, and Flats: The Persistence of-Social Segregation,49 Vill. L.
Rev. 55 (2004).
Author presents an analysis of the failure of the Housing Choice Voucher Program in the
face of the social trend towards racial and socio-economic segregation, the scarcity of
affordable housing in many cities, and the difficulties of finding a landlord who will
accept the voucher. Despite its goals, the rental subsidy program fails to protect its
recipients from the discrimination that promotes segregation. Unless landlords are
prevented from discrimination on the basis of source-of-income, real integration will not
be possible.
Kristine L. Zeabart, Note, Requiring a True Choice in Housing Choice Voucher Programs, 79
Ind. L.J. 767 (2004).
Author offers an overview of the Gautreawc litigation and suggests that its remedies
should be adopted by HUD, ensuring metropolitan-wide mobility. Author also argues
that the HCVP is inadequate to meet its goals of increasing disbursement of public
housing residents throughout an area and decreasing segregation. In looking at
segregation, focus is given to the individual, community, and programmatic barriers that
limit true housing choice. Through increased counseling,heightened enforcement against
hate crimes,mobility grants, and equity insurance,the government may better promote
low-income renters'moves to integrated areas. At the same time, the continued need for
public housing stock suggests the possibility of redevelopment of demolished buildings
as mixed communities.
Kinara Flagg, Mending the Safety Net Through Source of Income Protections: The Nexus
Between Antidiscrimination and Social Welfare Law,20 Colum. J. Gender& L. 201 (2011).
Margery Austin Turner et al.. Housing Discrimination against Racial and Ethnic Minorities
2012 (2013)available at http://www.huduser.org/portal/Publications/pdf/HUD-
514_HDS2012.pdf
This summary report presents findings from HUD's fourth such study of discrimination
by private real estate agents and rental properties,which applied paired-testing
methodology in 28 metropolitan areas to measure the incidence and forms of
discrimination experienced by black, Hispanic, and Asian renters and homebuyers. They
found that while the most blatant forms of housing discrimination have declined, their
data demonstrates that well-qualified minority homeseekers are just as likely as equally
qualified white homeseekers to get an appointment and learn about at least one available
housing unit, but minority homeseekers are told about and shown fewer homes and
apartments than whites.
Recent Studies of Source-of-Income Discrimination
Susan J. Popkin & Mary K. Cunningham,The Urban Institute, CHAC Section 8 Program:
Barriers to Successful Leasing Up(1999).
This Urban Institute study examines the reasons behind voucher holders'unsuccessful
searches for housing in Chicago. The authors describe four types of discrimination: (I)
racial discrimination; (2) discrimination against families with children; (3) discrimination
against Section 8 tenants; and(4) discrimination against former public housing high rise
residents now attempting to use Section 8 vouchers. Although the study found that many
factors may contribute to families'difficulty in locating housing, discrimination against
voucher holders particularly demonstrates the need for mobility services to facilitate the
transition to less segregated housing.
Susan J. Popkin & Mary K. Cunningham,The Urban Institute,Searching for Rental Housing
with Section 8 in Chicago Region (2000).
This Urban Institute report examines the challenges facing a growing population of
Section 8 voucher holders in Chicago and seeks to build on their 1999 study of
unsuccessful voucher holders. The authors find that Chicago voucher holders have
special needs as a group that will require a more intensive approach to housing
counseling. Additionally,they find that few differences exist between those voucher
holders who are successful at finding housing and those holders who are unsuccessful.
Discrimination, financial barriers, and participants'personal problems create barriers to
finding housing through Section 8 in Chicago. Housing authorities must strategize as to
how these difficulties can be managed.
Lawyers Committee for Better Housing, Inc., Locked Out: Barriers to Choice for Housing
Voucher Holders, Report on Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Discrimination (2002).
This study by Lawyers Committee for Better Housing seeks to substantiate the accounts
of discrimination encountered by Section 8 voucher holders in the Chicago area. LCBH
worked with two fair housing centers to conduct phone and in-person testing. The study
finds that(1) voucher holders are routinely discriminated against, (2) evidence exists
indicating increased discrimination against vouchers seeking to rent in an area designated
by the Chicago Housing Authority as an "exception rent area," and (3) evidence shows
that vouchers face increased discrimination due to race and ethnicity. As a result, LCBH
recommends: mandatory landlord education, education for voucher holders regarding
their rights and remedies, increased enforcement of Chicago's Fair Housing Ordinance,
increased landlord testing for noncompliance with fair housing laws, greater inclusion
source-of-income protection of county and state laws, and implementation of a media
campaign to debunk myths of renting to voucher holders.
New York ACORN,Housing,for Everyone: New York City, Section 8, and Source of Income
Discrimination (2007).
ACORN conducted three series of tests to document discrimination experienced by
Section 8 voucher holders seeking to rent in New York City. Results indicated that only a
limited number(less than 21%) of property management companies offered apartments
within voucher rent limits. Of these, less than half would accept a Section 8 voucher. In
addition, only 13% of those apartments identified by common rental listing sources
would accept vouchers. ACORN also found that over 40%of the units listed in the New
York City Housing Authority's own rental materials were unavailable. To remedy this,
ACORN recommends that New York City adopt source-of-income/Section 8 protection
similar to than in place in a number of other states and cities.
Fred Freiberg and Diane.L. Houk,Fair Housing Justice Center, No License to Discriminate:Real
Estate Advertising, Source of Income Discrimination, and Homelessness in New York City
(2008).
The Fair Housing Justice Center examines whether real estate brokers in New York City
comply with the March 2008 addition of a prohibition on source-of-income
discrimination to local fair housing law. The report focuses on the listings placed by
brokers on the www.craigslist.org website during the month of July 2008. During that
period, at least 363 postings used discriminatory language that made unavailable housing
units based on receipt of Section 8 vouchers or of other"program"assistance. Seventy-
six percent of those advertised units were priced at rates affordable to low-and moderate-
income renters, and many were within the fair market rent allowed for voucher-holders.
In response, the FHJC makes a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening and
expanding fair housing enforcement activity: (1) City government should support
systemic testing investigations: (2) fair housing organizations should increase efforts to
notify state authorities when there is evidence of discrimination; and(3) fair housing
enforcement should emphasize remedies that end discrimination,provide redress, and
promote future compliance with fair housing laws. Additionally,the FHJC recommends
that appropriate standards be created to evaluate the fair housing training received by
brokers and that such training be required of all brokers. Finally,the FHJC also
recommends that source-of-income protection be included in New York State fair housing
law.
Lance Freeman and Yunjing Li. "Do Source of Income(SOI)Anti-Discrimination Laws
Facilitate Access to Better Neighborhoods?" Paper presented at the Association of Public Policy
and Management Fall Research, Baltimore,MD,November 8, 2012.
In recent decades vouchers have come to be seen as a tool for promoting economic and
racial/ethnic integration. The advantages of vouchers over project-based housing
assistance depend on the ability of voucher recipients to locate a landlord who will accept
the voucher. Some landlords wish to avoid the administrative burden associated with the
voucher program. Other landlords perceive voucher recipients to be undesirable tenants
and/or fear their other tenants would object to voucher recipients as neighbors. This type
of discrimination based on SOI could hinder the use of vouchers to move to more
desirable neighborhoods. State and local SOI anti-discrimination laws are one policy
response to address this issue. SOI laws make it illegal for landlords to discriminate
against voucher recipients solely on the basis of their having a voucher. The research
presented here tested whether SOI laws improve locational outcomes for voucher
recipients. This research found that SOI laws appear to have a modest impact on
locational outcomes.
Martha Galvez. "Defining Choice in the Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Role of Market
Constraints and Household Preferences in Location Outcomes"PhD diss., Robert F. Wagner
School of Public Service,New York University,2011.
This dissertation examines neighborhood concentration and quality outcomes for
Housing Choice Voucher holders in 3 15 metropolitan areas(MSAs) in 2004, coupled
with an in-depth analysis of move preferences and outcomes for a sample of new voucher
holders in Seattle, Washington, in 2009. Results show that voucher holders lived in nearly
all MSA neighborhoods and few experienced extremely high neighborhood poverty rates.
However, assisted households were unevenly distributed in a manner similar to black
residential segregation. On average, neighborhood quality for voucher holders was no
better than that of similarly poor households or Low Income Housing Tax Credit unit
locations. Results are consistent for the Seattle sample of households, who tended to shift
from one low opportunity neighborhood to another. Results are more promising for black
households specifically: on average nationally,black voucher holders lived in lower
poverty,less distressed neighborhoods compared to similarly poor blacks in the same
MSAs.
Regression analyses suggest voucher holders are more concentrated and live in higher
poverty rate neighborhoods in MSAs that are more racially segregated, and where a
larger share of voucher holders is minority.Average neighborhood poverty rates for
voucher holders were slightly lower in areas with source of income anti-discrimination
laws in place.
Survey results for the Seattle sample suggest location outcomes mirrored pre-program
mobility preferences. Respondents who wanted to change neighborhoods tended to do so,
and respondents who wanted to lease in place likely did so. Respondents who were
dissatisfied with pre-program neighborhood quality were more likely to change
neighborhoods and to experience improvements in quality. In contrast, place attachments
and market perceptions were only weakly correlated with move preferences or outcomes.
Importantly,dissatisfaction with pre-program neighborhood quality was the exception
and not the norm. The majority of the sample was satisfied with their pre-program
neighborhoods, despite living in areas that offered limited access to economic mobility
opportunities.
Other Resources
PRRAC'S Housing Mobility Webpage: www.prrac.org/projects/housingmobility.php
Housing mobility resources,program descriptions, and family stories: www.housingmobility.org
O.
o1m. .-e ce/ L ai i c cellar- ra i cis - c►v1 I i1 fhts—
9 DY ;
nonce
Proposed Changes to the CR Civil Rights Code:
The Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission began working with a University of Iowa law professor and a
few of his students last year to rewrite our civil rights ordinance, chapter 69 of the Municipal Housing
Code.
Chapter 69.19 of this code specifically covers Fair Housing. The other parts of the Civil Rights Ordinance
Chapter 69 cover the administration of the city department and the commission, how the complaint
process is completed, and also discrimination in employment, public accommodations (such as
restaurants, stores, hotels) and credit(lending).
Several changes have been proposed, and have been approved by city's attorney and the Commission.
The next step is review and approval by HUD, then back to City Council for their approval. So we are still
a few months out before anything proposed becomes law.
So, what are the changes that will affect landlords? Following are the current federal, state and local
(City of CR) protected classes that EVERY landlord should know and understand:
(These apply to Housing only):
Fair Housing Federally Protected Classes: (total 7)
Race, Color, Religion, National Origin, Sex, Family Status, Mental or Physical Handicap
Iowa added: (total 9)
Creed, Gender Identity
Cedar Rapids has added: (total 11)
Age, Sexual Orientation
Proposed to be added to Cedar Rapids: (would bring the total to 14 protected classes)
Marital Status, Lawful Source of Income, Gender Identity
Other areas protected besides Housing are Employment, Public Accommodation, Education and Credit
(Lending) Those areas all have some or all of the above classes.
How will adding these proposed protected classes affect the way we do business as landlords? "Lawful
source of income"could force all landlords participate in the Section 8(Leased Housing) program,for
example.This is currently a voluntary federal program, set up by the federal government and
administered by the states and counties. Since source of income has been added in a few other areas
across the country, complaints have been filed and have been found in favor of the tenant, setting
precedents for the rest of us. No longer would this be a voluntary program.
After review by the regional HUD office, there will be a public forum presented by the Cedar Rapids Civil
Rights Commission. This will give everyone a chance to discuss and get a good grasp on the proposed
ordinance before it goes to City Council for final approval.
Landlords need to pay close attention to these developing changes, and be ready to actively voice any
concerns we may have. We also will need to learn exactly what we will need to do to comply with the
new ordinance. Watch for more information in future newsletters.
Laura O'Leary
Landlords of Linn County Past President
Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commissioner
Proposed Changes to the Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Code
Municipal Code Chapter 69
August 2010
On July 21, 2010 the Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission unanimously endorsed changes to the local civil
rights ordinance. The proposal was forwarded to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for
certification that the ordinance is substantially equivalent to the federal fair housing act. After HUD certifies
the proposal, the Commission will formally present the endorsed revised ordinance to the Mayor and City
Council for public hearing. The proposed code:
• Protects individuals from housing discrimination based on the person's lawful source of income,
including alimony, worker's compensation, SSI, Section 8 vouchers and other types of income or
subsidies. Requires certain housing providers to accept Section 8 vouchers if the applicant passes
personal background, credit and criminal history checks, the apartment or house meets HUD's building
code standards, and the rent does not exceed HUD's limits.
• Provides "across-the-board" coverage for all other protected classes of individuals in credit, education,
employment, housing and public accommodations.
• Holds designers and builders of multifamily dwellings and public accommodations responsible for
meeting Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility standards from the date a
certificate of occupancy is issued until compliance is achieved.
• Provides for local enforcement of many Americans with Disabilities Act public accommodations
provisions, including ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and barrier removal requirements. Applies
to private and governmental activities and facilities.
• Spells out the rights and responsibilities of persons with disabilities to be accompanied in public by or
to live with animals that assist, support or provide or perform a disability-related service or task.
• Protects individuals from discrimination based on association with someone in a protected class.
• Protects persons who file a complaint or lawfully oppose an unfair or discriminatory practice from
retaliatory acts.
• Streamlines administration and enforcement.
• Extends the deadline for filing an administrative complaint to 300 days for credit, education,
employment and public accommodation complaints, and to one year for housing complaints.
The University of Iowa Clinical Law Program prepared this fact sheet Please call Len Sandler at 319.335.9030
or send an email to leonard-sandler@uiowa.edu if you have questions or comments. To obtain a copy of the
existing code, the proposed code or this fact sheet (in alternate formats), please visit the Commission website
at http://www.cedar-rapids.org/government/departments/civil-rights/pages/default.aspx or contact the
Commission by calling (319) 286-5036 or sending an email to civilrights@cedar-rapids.org.
Civil Rights Protections in Cedar Rapids
Existing Cedar Rapids Municipal Code Chapter 69 and Proposed Revisions
University of Iowa Clinical Law Programs
August 2010
V denotes coverage V with shaded area denotes amendment
Protected Areas of Protection
Classes Public
and Actions Credit Education Employment Housing Accommodations
Age 1/ v d V 1,
Color d d 1/ v 1/
Creed d d d d V
Familial Status
Gender Identity V V V V 1/
Marital Status V V if v V
Mental Disability V V V d v
National Origin if V V If
Physical Disability if il
Race V d d d v
Lawful Source V
of Income
Religion V V V V V
Association V V V V V
Retaliation V V V V V
Intimidation V V V V V
Sex V V V V if
Sexual Orientation V V V V
THE CITY OF Dubuque
katd
DUB E All-America City
1
Masterpiece on the Mississippi ®
2007•2012•2013
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Alvin Nash, Housing and Community Development Director
Kelly Larson, Human Rights Director
Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
SUBJECT: City Council Work Session -- Source of Income Report
DATE: November 23, 2016
Introduction
This memorandum transmits information for the Source of Income Committee report at
the City Council work session on at 6:00 PM.
Background
From May to October 2014, the Human Rights Commission and Dubuque Area
Landlords Association discussed whether a Source of Income Ordinance was needed
or should be created. In November 2014, the Commission recommended forming a new
task force to review Source of Income for 90 days, and then make a recommendation to
the City Council.
In December, 2014, the City Council approved an alternative process, forming a Source
of Income Committee to conduct a two-year study and then report their findings and
options. Committee members were drawn from City Boards and Commissions,
Dubuque Area Landlords Association, and Dubuque Chapter of NAACP to meet with
City staff from the Legal, Housing & Community Development, Human Rights, and
Planning Services Departments to study the issue.
Three sub-committees were formed and undertook the following work:
• developed definitions related to fair housing and source of income
• conducted research on Source of Income ordinances and community housing
• reviewed data and information on Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program
• developed residential rental surveys for housing providers and renters
• planned for public engagement opportunities with key stakeholders
On December 21, 2015, the Source of Income Committee provided a midpoint update
to the City Council on their work progress, including the following information.
c:\program files\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\cfc08afa-71 ca-4a2f-98fa-
b618e9193162\pdfconvert.22877.1.memo_mvm_soi_work session_11_28_16.doc
Source of Income related definitions
• Income: financial resources such as wages, benefits, alimony, dividends,
pensions, social security, retirement distributions, unemployment compensation,
or business profit.
• Source of Income: the place, person, or thing where income is coming from, such
as a retirement account, the government, an employer.
• Fair Housing: an equal opportunity to live in the housing of your choice that you
can afford.
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: intentional proactive actions designed to
ensure that people have an equal opportunity to live in the housing of their choice
that they can afford.
• Affordable Housing: housing that does not cost so much that a household is
unlikely to be able to meet other basic needs on a sustainable basis. It is
generally accepted that the amount paid for housing should not exceed 30% of a
person's income.
• Housing Subsidy: financial support designed to make housing affordable.
Source of Income issues in Dubuque
• Housing providers need to be able to maintain property values, fill vacancies,
minimize and recover costs of property damage.
• Renters need equal opportunity to live in safe, sanitary, decent housing of their
choice that they can afford.
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; however, some sources of income aren't
readily accepted by all housing providers which could make it difficult for families
with children, people with disabilities, or people of color who rely on those
sources of income to find housing.
• Reduce red tape related to housing assistance, because regulations can make it
difficult for some housing providers to accept some sources of income.
Source of Income Committee goals
• To collect data and study options to determine the best course of action.
• To develop a compromise policy that would affirmatively further fair housing and
address the concerns of housing providers and property owners.
• To examine the impact of a Source of Income ordinance, examine ways for
housing providers to address concerns, and examine how persons with Housing
Choice Vouchers can have a complete range of fair housing choices.
2
Discussion
Source of Income Legal Research
The Legal Department undertook the enclosed comparative analysis of Source of
Income ordinances at the state level — both adopted laws and proposed legislation — as
well as local ordinances at the city and county level. The study found 'source of income'
includes 17 different financial resources, such as alimony, child support, federal
assistance, housing assistance, pensions, social security, retirement distributions, and
wages. The top four sources mentioned most often were: federal assistance, housing
assistance, public/local assistance, and state assistance.
Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program is the federal government's major
program to assist families and individuals in finding decent, safe, and affordable housing
in the private sector. The program is administered and funded by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Since housing assistance is provided to residential rental property owners on behalf of
the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing, including single-
family homes, townhouses and apartments. The City of Dubuque Housing and
Community Development Department has 1 ,072 vouchers to assist very low-income
families and individuals.
Eligible applicants for the Housing Choice Voucher Program must earn no more than
50% of the average median income for Dubuque according to the Eligibility Guidelines
set forth by HUD. Applicants must also be 18 years of age. They are screened
according to the City of Dubuque admissions policy for the Housing Choice Voucher
program to determine final eligibility at time of voucher issuance.
More information and data on the Housing Choice Voucher Program participants are
found in Appendix B of the Final Dialogue Sessions Report.
Residential Rental Surveys
The Committee developed two Residential Rental surveys with substantial input from
the Dubuque Area Landlords Association. The first was a survey of property owners and
managers of rental housing. The second was a survey of renters.
In April 2016, the Property Owner survey was mailed to 1 ,440 rental license holders and
the Renter survey was mailed to 822 Housing Choice Voucher recipients. In May 2016,
the Renter survey was mailed to 900 randomly selected residents of market rate
apartments. A total of 171 housing providers responded to the surveys; 34 of those
housing providers accept Housing Choice Vouchers.187 renters who use a Housing
Choice Voucher, and 54 renters who do not, responded to the surveys.
Survey results are found in the enclosed Summary of Residential Survey Results and
the Final Residential Rental Survey Report.
3
Community Dialogues
Four sessions of Source of Income Community Dialogues were held in September
2016; two were marketed to housing providers and two were marketed to renters. A
total of 89 individuals attended these sessions; 64 people turned in demographic
information. Only 2 people identified themselves as renters.
Staff developed three scenarios for discussion, which were based on the comments and
concerns staff have heard from residents on all sides of the issues since May 2014.
A Final Community Dialogue session open to all, was held in October 2016. The
purpose of this final session was to:
1 . share what was captured during the first four sessions so that renters and
housing providers could hear the perspectives from other groups,
2. answer questions and correct misinformation, and
3. discuss what needs to occur so that all parties can live with the results.
The Final Report on the Source of Income Dialogue Sessions is enclosed.
Preliminary Options
The following preliminary options range from two extremes: "Maintain the status quo" to
"Adopt a Source of Income ordinance". Four other options offer consideration of a 'mix
and match' of educational programs, administrative policies, and incentives to increase
the number of Housing Choice Voucher housing providers and units in Dubuque.
Preliminary Option 1. Maintain status quo.
• City does not take action and allows housing providers to continue under current
federal law and local requirements regarding voluntary participation in the
Housing Choice Voucher program.
Preliminary Option 2. Add Source of Income definition to current discrimination
ordinance.
• Create legal definition of Source of Income to include all forms of local, state and
federal housing assistance, including Housing Choice Vouchers, and add Source
of Income to the current city discrimination ordinance.
• Requires mandatory acceptance of all sources of legal income or support
benefits for tenant(s) passing criminal background check, meeting providers'
lease requirements, and Housing Choice Voucher program regulations.
Preliminary Option 3. Create a Source of Income Housing Ordinance separate
from discrimination ordinance.
• Create an ordinance defining Source of Income separate from the discrimination
ordinance.
• Source of Income ordinance could range from 'should consider' to 'must
consider" to 'must accept' Housing Choice Vouchers, perhaps with a mix of
education and financial incentives.
4
Preliminary Option 4. Adopt and implement a mix of educational/outreach
programs to increase participation in Housing Choice Voucher program, such as:
• Voluntary Voucher Provider Participation Pilot.
• Housing Provider Education Program on Benefits of Voucher Participation.
• Create City-produced brochure on Renter Responsibilities / Being a Good
Neighbor for all housing providers to distribute to their renters.
• Active webpage of Housing Choice Voucher -participating sites and available
rental units.
• Collective self-monitoring by City, housing providers, public and select
commissions.
Preliminary Option 5. Adopt and implement a mix of financial incentives to
increase participation in the Housing Choice Voucher program, such as:
• Create a "Damage Recovery Fund" for Housing Choice Voucher housing
providers potentially to recover damages, and to make renters accountable for
their damages.
• Tax incentives for qualified improvements Voucher properties.
• Extend 50% reduction of City stormwater and refuse collection fees for low-
income households to include water and sanitary sewer fees for Voucher units.
• Waive or discount license and inspection fees for Housing Choice Voucher
housing providers.
• Provide exceptions to Voucher requirements for housing providers
Preliminary Option 6. Adopt and implement a mix of financial incentives/policies
for creation of Housing Choice Voucher units throughout community, such as:
• Foster partnerships with private and non-profit housing developers to provide
Housing Choice Voucher units; e.g., rent-to-own homes, adaptive reuse of
historic properties, new construction.
• Housing TIF (tax increment financing) incentives to build mixed income housing
developments; i.e., that include "market rate" and "low-income rate" units.
• Support for Low Income, Workforce, and Senior Housing Tax Credit projects,
with emphasis outside areas of concentrated poverty.
Requested Action
The requested action is to provide this information to the City Council for their review,
comments, and questions at the work session. We also are interested in City Council
direction for what they would like to see in the final report.
Enclosures
cc: Source of Income Committee
F VUSERSVLCARSTEN\WPASource of Income AMemo MVM SO'work session 11 2816 doc
5
TlI1BM
:.fa s°itlN M6lE
FBI ri� e4_cn...
Summary of Residential Rental Survey Resultseitmi:74
R- -
Survey Reach MEI
Number of Respondents
Housing Providers
11111 IP CM HCV Renters
187 —I Non-H CV Renters
O,
c
N
D
187 34 Housing Of housing providers who do
Renters Providers not participate in the HCV
using HCV Accepting I program, 22% advertise "no
HCV housing" or "no Section 8"
D
while 77% do not.
% Respondent Race/Ethnicity
120
96 95
100 $
80
6o n
40 I I 21
20 I 16 1 1 2 1 3 o 0 1 2 2 0 3
o
r/P ``ate `ate a`1 aa� \�0
• P
lb
Housing Providers • HCV Renters • Non-HCV Renters
—1—
Perspectives on Responsibility
Housing Providers and renters agree that the top five most important
characteristics of responsible tenants are:
• paying rent on time
• keeping the unit clean
• keeping the property maintained
• respecting others
• following rules and laws
Housing providers and renters agree that the top five most important
characteristics of responsible landlords are:
• maintaining property
• responding in a timely manner
• communicating with tenants
• following rules and laws
• being respectful to one another
The majority of housing providers and renters agree or strongly agree
that there is a need to support responsible tenants and responsible
landlords.
Top areas of agreement on how to support responsible landlords and
tenants included:
• maintaining property
• communicating
• enforcing rules
• conducting background checks
dam Perspectives on 501 Ordinance & Discrimination
• 31% of HCV renters reported that they have
experienced a situation where they found a unit
they wanted and could afford but could not rent it
because the housing provider did not accept
vouchers.
• 9% of HCV renters reported experiencing
discrimination when finding a place to live.
• The most common experience related to housing
provides not accepting vouchers, followed by race,
family status, gender, then credit.
Dubuque should have a 501 Ordinance
go%
8o%
7o%
6o%
so% '
40% '
30%
20% I I
io% 1o% - - -
Agree/StronglyAgree Neutral Disagree/Strongly
Disagree
Housing Providers • HCV Renters • Non-HCV Renters
Alternatives suggested by housing
providers Alternatives suggested by renters
• Hold tenants accountable • Increase number of affordable units
• Build more low income housing • Advertise units that accept HCV
• Let market determine • Support renter employment,
• Support renter employment volunteerism
Perspectives on Risk & Incentives
Housing Provider Experience with Damages,
Unpaid Rent and Recovery
Unpaid Rent Recovery
i
Unpaid Rent liv...;in. Mi.
Damage Recovery
Damage
o% 10% 20% 30% 40% 5o% 6o% 7o% 8o%
• Non-HCV Renter L HCV Renter
Would you participate in the HCV program if a damage fund existed?
• Yes = 36% No = 64%
Most common reason housing Most common reason housing
providers gave for never providers gave for stopping
participating in the program was participation in the program was
personal choice, followed by damage/collection issues,
damage/collection issues and followed by program
program requirements. Ai
requirements and personal choice.
HCV is fair and dependable way to
pay rent
100
8o
11-1 — LAX
6o
40
20
o
Agree/Strongly Disagree/Strongly Neutral
Agree Disagree
L Housing Providers • HCV Renters • Non-H CV Renters
2016
0
I..
Residential Rental SurveyReport
Asian
Hispanic •'incentives Latino
Include Tenant
"°°" Mow w indlan Alio, andlordF; mat
PC�talter Problem "' '
child RuIVV Duties participate City
Respect Staff Home Mexican G' a
hK — Checks Need..,��
Family rime
d.�..�Fa i r e� Willing
��. Tar, open
r�� Rental Race Provide Tenr
Require Being place°8te
Afford Gifts age Po�°Cost
a American opportunity `°`� cw
Luse e ; 51 .
__ Boa s� Pio ie
orie-eLeeETal �°�° Background Discriminatesi Hud cle■n ""e wages i;�' ' �-
Lease Work income Data Person
Lo" Access
Rights Job ■..�. ..,r. SSI ....sone a SoF
*ages
ucnrcies ��.,_,n� Children � ..�.�. �� Community
Property State
�nSI°n EaualSource Support
Ren Po°" F°`Ie°■MCK., Commission °090^'MerketCOUnCIl.--
6�M� °� Accept
lnCel Benefits Male �°�y'�
Voucher a""'``Educate social
AdvertiseSuggestedc�s sIec water Maintain ,Program,
Renter ecunconcernsccity
Black ,,y Disagree
Y Ordinance,�e,;�t _ HCV Spanish Encourage
Choice Experience Agree
Past Apartment Federal Rests �° iLAWS vet l`
Kelly Larson
IricoreExerencedHawaiian OPIn104 Researchco.tEnforce Maintenance I Human Rights Director
RESIDENTIAL RENTAL SURVEY REPORT
BACKGROUND
In May 2014,the Dubuque Human Rights Commission began to research whether or not to recommend
updating the City's non-discrimination ordinance to make it illegal to refuse to rent to someone based
on the fact that they would be using a Housing Choice Voucher to pay a portion of their rent. The
Commission researched this issue between May and October 2014,engaging in conversations with the
Dubuque Area Landlord Association and hosting one public hearing. In November 2014,the Human
Rights Commission forwarded its research to the City Council along with a recommendation that the
Council establish a task force with go days to consider the issue and make a recommendation.
In December 2014, City Council approved a staff recommendation
for an alternative,two year process and appointed a working group
to study the issue and develop a set of options. Members were NOTE TO READERS
drawn from City Boards and Commissions,the Dubuque Landlord
Association,and the NAACP to meet with City staff from the Legal,
Housing &Community Development, Human Rights,and Planning The 2016 Residential Rental
Services Departments to study the issue. The group's goals include Survey was crafted by a
collecting data and studying options in order to provide the City combination of City staff and
Council with a range of alternatives to address legitimate concerns community members seeking
of housing providers while also ensuring that persons receiving to work together to find
assistance through Social Security, Disability,and/or Housing solutions to complex housing
Choice Vouchers have a complete range of fair housing choices. problems facing our local
community. While it was not
Three subcommittees were formed to conduct research during the created and analyzed by
first six months. The Source of Income (SOI) Analysis professional researchers and
subcommittee gathered and reviewed data on ordinances and analysts, it nevertheless
community housing needs,developed shared definitions,and contains valuable renter and
began planning for public engagement opportunities; 2)the housing provider perspectives
Housing Choice Voucher/Landlord Policy subcommittee gathered and experiences related to
and reviewed data and information on the Housing Choice Voucher Dubuque's housing situation.
(Section 8) Program and from the Dubuque Area Landlord The intention is to use this as
Association and developed a first draft of the Residential Rental a supplement to additional
Survey. The Administrative Analysis and Policy Sub-Committee data when making decisions,
researched state and local SOI ordinances and types of federal and keeping in mind the survey
state assistance identified as a source of income. The full group limitations as set forth at the
then re-convened and submitted a progress report to the City end of this report.
Council at a work session in December 2015.
During the first six months of 2016,the full working group refined
and administered the Residential Rental Survey,which is the
subject of this report. Data from this survey,along with other data
1
that has been collected,will be used as part of community dialogue sessions later this year,and also will
be included in the final report to Council in December 2016.
THE RESIDENTIAL RENTAL SURVEY
The working group developed two surveys: 1)a Residential Rental Survey of Property Owners and
Managers,and 2)a Residential Rental Survey of Tenants/Renters. In April 2016,the Property Owner
survey was mailed to 1,440 rental license holders. Also in April 2016,the Tenant survey was mailed to
822 Housing Choice Voucher recipients. These surveys showed due dates of May 15, 2016. In late May
2016,the Tenant survey was mailed to 900 randomly selected residents of market rate apartments.
These surveys showed due dates of June 3o, 2016. The difference in due dates allowed staff to keep
separate tallies of responses from renters receiving Housing Choice Vouchers and those who are not
participants in the Housing Choice Voucher program.
Survey recipients were instructed to return the surveys to the Housing and Community Development
Department,where they were collected and forwarded to the Human Rights Department. Using an
upgraded version of Survey Monkey,staff in the Human Rights Department created an on-line version
of the survey and proceeded to manually input the surveys responses to allow for automated data
analysis. This is a report of that data analysis.
SURVEY REACH
This section of the report summarizes the total number of respondents,along with demographic
information from respondents who chose to answer questions about their background and household
makeup.
Number of Respondents
A total of 171 housing 54
providers, 187 renters
who use a Housing Choice —
ir;i0 171
Voucher,and 54 renters
who do not use a Housing
Choice Voucher 187
responded to the survey.'
• Housing Providers • HCV Renters • Non-HCV Renters
AGE
136 housing providers reported their age. Of those, 47.79%were 6o and older; 32.35%were 45-59;
14.71%were 35-44; 4.41%were 25-34;and .74%were 18-24.
Throughout this report,we have exercised some judgment on where to use percentages and where to use raw
numbers. Keep in mind that some percentages are representative of small numbers of people.
2
178 HCV renters reported their age. Of those, 46.63%were 6o and older; 30.90%were 45-59;8.99%
were 35-44;11.24%were 25-34;and 2.25%of were 19-24.
46 non-HCV renters reported their age. Of those, 23.91%were 6o and older;21.74%were 45-59;
15.22%were 35-44; 17.39%were 25-34;and 21.74%were 19-24.
Age - % of Respondents
6o
50 46.63 47.79
40
30.9 32.35
30 —
23.91 q
21.74 21.74
zo 17�
15.22 14.71
11.24
8.99
10 . 4.41 2.25 7_4
0
6o+ 45-59 35-44 25-34 18-24
•HCV Renters •Non-HCV Renters •Housing Providers
No respondents were
under age 18.
However, respondents Number of Youth under 18 in Renter
to the rental surveys Households
indicated the number 40
of youth under 18 living
in their households.
30 6
Amongst HCV renters, 20
a total of 64 youth 10 25 2
under age 18 live in the 10
households,while a 0
total of 14 youth under oto 5 6to 10 11 to 14 15 to 17
age 18 live in the non- ■HCV Renters ■Non-HCV Renters
HCV renter
households.
3
GENDER
175 HCV renters reported their Gender- % of Respondents
gender,with 28%identifying as male 8o 72 72.34
and 72%identifying as female. 70
62.04
Amongst non-HCV renters, 47 60
reported their gender,with 72.34% 50 '
identifying as female and 27.66% 40 - 37.96
identifying as male. 30 =28 27.66
137 housing providers reported their 20
gender,with 62.04%identifying as 10
male and 37.96%identifying as 0
female. Male Female
•HCV Renters •Non-HCV Renters ■Housing Providers
VETERAN STATUS
Respondents who are
Veterans
178 HCV renters reported their veteran status,with
41.0 5.62%indicating they are veterans.
47 non-HCV renters reported their veteran status,with
6.38%indicating they are veterans.
• HCV Renters • Non-HCV Renters
4
RACE AND ETHNICITY
133 housing providers reported their race. Of those, 96.24%identified as White; 2.26%identified as
Black/African-American; .75%identified as Asian; .75%identified as American Indian-Alaskan Native;
zero identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Of the 97 housing providers who reported their
Hispanic/Latino origin, 2.03%identified as of Hispanic, Latino,or Spanish origin.
Housing Provider Race/Ethnicity -
Respondents
0.75 °.75—L,z.06, o
•White
• Black/African-American
•Asian
•American Indian/Alaskan Native
•Hispanic/Latino
96.
•Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
18o HCV renters reported their race. Of those,78.33%identified as White; 20.56%identified as
Black/African-American;1.11%identified as Asian; 2.78%identified as American Indian/Alaskan
Native; .56%identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Of the 125 who reported their
Hispanic/Latino origin,zero identified as of Hispanic, Latino,or Spanish origin.
HCV Renter Race/Ethnicity - % Respondents
,,o.56
0
' ■White
•Black/African American
•Asian
•American Indian/Alaska Native
•Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
•Hispanic/Latino
5
47 non-HCV renters reported their race. Of those, 95.74%identified as White;6.38%identified as
Black/African-American; 2.13%identified as Asian; zero identified as American IndianjAlaskan Native;
and 2.13%identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Of the 38 who reported their Hispanic/Latino
origin, 2.63%identified as of Hispanic, Latino,or Spanish origin.
Non-HCV Renters Race/Ethnicity -
Respondents
0
2.13
1
2.37_2.63
6.38
1.
•White
• Black/African-American
• Asian
I, American Indian/Alaska Native
• Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
• Hispanic/Latino
DUBUQUE RESIDENCY
% Housing Provider Place of
Residence
144 housing providers reported
whether or not they are
Dubuque residents. Of those, ■ Dubuque
72.92%indicated that they live •
■ Dubuque County
in Dubuque,while 27.08%
• Elsewhere in IA
indicated that they reside
outside of Dubuque. • IL
■WI
• Other
6
179 HCV renters reported the
length of time that they have Length of Residency - % Renters
lived in Dubuque. Of those,
3.91%have lived here less than
one year; 6.15%have lived here _
1-3 years; 9.5%for 4-5 years;
1o.61%for 6-io years; 11.73%for
11-20 years;and 58.1%more
than zo years.
Amongst non-HCV renters, 28
reported�their time in Dubuque
434.17
with 8.33%living here less than 8.33 10.6
gLig
one year;18.75%for 1-3 years; less than 1 Ito 3Years 4-5 years 6-loyears 11-2oyears 2o+years
10.42%for 4-5 years; 4.17%for year
6-io years;4.17%for 11-20 years; •HCV Renters •Non-HCV Renters
and 54.17%more than zo years.
HOUSING PROVIDER BUSINESS OPERATIONS
This section of the report summarizes survey respondent experiences with their rental property in
general. Housing providers were asked several questions about their rental business.
NUMBERS OF UNITS
168 housing providers reported the number of residential units they own within the City of Dubuque.
Of those:
• 112 reported they owned 1-2 rental
units; # Rental Units Owned
• 26 reported they owned 3-4 rental
units;
• 12 reported they owned 5-10 rental
units; • 1to z
• 6 reported they owned 11-15 rental • 3 to 4
units; - 5to 10
- 11to 15
• 1 reported they owned 16-2o rental • 16 to zo
units; • zito 5o
• 5 reported they owned 21-50 rental • 5o or more
units;
• 5 reported that they owned 5o or
more rental units;
• z indicated they were no longer
renting.
7
Housing providers were also asked how many of their units were occupied by HCV recipients. 128
providers responded to this question. Of those:
• 99 indicated that none of their units
were occupied by HCV recipients # Rental Units occupied by HCV Participants
• 22 reported 1-2 units occupied by HCV
recipients 1 311
1
• 1 reported 3-4 units occupied by HCV • 5 to io
• zero reported
■zero
recipient • 1to 2
• 3 reported 5-10 units occupied by HCV •3t04
recipients
• 5 to 10
• zero reported 11-15 units occupied by
• 16 to zo
HCV recipients
■ 21 to 50
• 1 reported 16-2o units occupied by
HCV recipients ■ More than 5o
• i reported 21-50 units occupied by
HCV recipients
• i reported more than 5o units
occupied by HCV recipients.
VACANCY RATE
Vacancy Rate 136 housing providers reported on their vacancy
rate. Of these:
1 1
1 • 8o indicated no vacancy
■ •
o% • 23 indicated 1-5%vacancy
• 1-59/0
• 6 indicated 6-so%vacancy
1,
•6-1o%
• 11.15% • 5 indicated 11-15% vacancy
• 16-2o% • i indicated 16-2o%vacancy
• 21-50% • 4 indicated 21-5o%vacancy
• 50-75% • 1 indicated 50-75%vacancy
■ 100% • 8 indicated soo%vacancy.
8
LANDLORD ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP
Housing providers were asked
whether or not they were a member
Yes
of the Dubuque Area Landlord's
Association. Of the 144 who
responded to this question,36
indicated they are members of the "O
Association and log indicated they
are not. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% SO% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ADVERTISING
Housing providers responded to some questions regarding their advertising practices.
112 housing providers responded to the following
question:
41114 ■Yes
If you do not participate in Section 8 HCV program, do
•No you include a statement such as "No Section 8"or
"Section 8 Housing need not apply"when advertising
a rental unit?
Of these, 25 indicated that they do include such a
statement while 87 indicated that they do not.
83 housing providers responded to the following
question:
If you could apply the rental criteria you already
use to select a tenant, would you be willing to •Yes
advertise rental unit availability without including • No
a statement such as "No Section 8"or"Section 8
Housing need not apply?"
Of these, 46 indicated they would be willing to omit
such a statement while 37 indicated they would not.
9
119 housing providers responded to a
question regarding whether or not Yes
they would be willing to post an Equal
Opportunity Housing sign on their
residential property. Of those,34 No
indicated they would be willing, 8o
indicated they would not be willing,
and 5 stated that they already do so. Already do
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
117 housing providers responded to a Yes
question regarding whether or not
they would be willing to include a
reference to being an equal
Ilo
opportunity housing provider in their
rental housing advertisements. Of
those,39 indicated they would be
willing,72 indicated they would not, Already do '
and 6 indicated that they already do
5o. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RENTER HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
Renters were asked several questions about their household composition.
HCV RENTERS
181 HCV renters indicated
how many individuals lived
in their household. 1-3
• 87.29%had
between land 3 46
people in the unit
• 10.5%had
between 4 and 6
7 or more
people
• 2.21%had7or
more people. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
10
0
181 HCV renters indicated
the bedroom size of their 7
current house/apartment.
Of those: 2
• 52.49%live in a one s
bedroom
• 23.76%i n a two 4
bedroom
• 9.94%in a three 5
bedroom
• 2.21%in a four Manufactured
bedroom Home
• 4.42%in single Single
occupancy occupancy
• half of a percent in a o% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
five bedroom.
Lesotho.5600
182 HCV renters reported their
monthly rent:
$600 760
• 56.59%pay less than$500
• 37.91%pay$500-$700
$7st.st,o6o ' • 5.49%pay$751-$1,000
• zero pay$1,000 or higher.
}7,600+
C% .0% 20% 30% 43% 53% c0% 70% 1C% 90% 103%
11
Less than .
$10,000
178 HCV renters reported their annual
$10,000-$14,999
income.
$15,000-$24,999
• 56.74%have an annual income of
less than slo,000 $25,000434,999
• 26.40% have income from
$10,000-$14999 $35,000-$49,999
• 14.04%from $15,000-$24,999 $50,600474,999
• 1.69%from $25,000-$34,999
• half of one percent from $35,000 $75,000-$99,999
to $49,999 $100,000-$149,9
• half of one percent from $50,000 99
to $74,999. $150,000-$199,9
99
$200,000+
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
# of years renting
Orlb ■ Less than one year 170 HCV renters indicated how long they
■ stosyears have been renting,with 57 renting for 15
■ 6to so years years or more; 49 renting 1-5 years;31
it*
■ 31 to 14 years renting 6-10 years; 22 renting 11-14 years;
zz and 11 renting less than one year.
• 15+years
Yes I've owned
182 HCV renters expressed their past ahouse
experience with, and interest in, owning a
home. I have not
owned a house
23.08%of HCV renters have owned a home in
the past.
Ito I have not
owned a hous...
Of the 76.91%who have not, 24.73%
indicated they wou Id like to own a home and
Ito I have not
29.67%indicated that they would not want to owned a hous...
own a home.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
12
NON-HCV RENTERS
52 non-HCV renters indicated how
-3
many individuals lived in their
household. Of those:
46
• 78.85%live with 1-3 people
• 19.23%live with 4-6 people yyy
7 or more
• 1.92%live with 7 or more
people.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0
53 non-HCV renters provided the bedroom
size of their current house/apartment:
2 • 3.77%live in o bedroom housing
• 16.98%live in 1 bedroom housing
3 • 45.28%live in 2 bedroom housing
4 . • 28.30%live in 3 bedroom housing
• 5.66%live in 4 bedroom housing
5 • 0%live in 5 bedroom
• o%live in manufactured housing
Manufactured
Home • o%live in single room occupancy
Single housing
Occupancy
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Leas than$510
54 non-HCV renters responded to monthly
rent cost. Of those
$500-750
• 18.52%pay less than $500
• 48.15%pay between$500-$75o $75141,000
• 25.93%pay$751-$1,000
• 7.41%pay$1,000 or more.
$1,000+
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
13
I ess than
$10,000
$10,000414,999 S3 non-HCV renters responded with their annual
income. Of those:
$15,000-$4,999
• 16.98%or respondents live below an income of
$25,000$34,999
$10,000
$75,000-$49,999 • 13.21%between $10,000-$14,999
• 15.09%between $15,000-$24,999
$50,000474,999
• 22.64%between $25,000-$34,999
$75,000-$99,999 ' • 15.09%between 35,00-$49,999
$100,0004149,9 • 13.21%between $50,000-$74,999
99
•3.77%between $75,000-99,999
$150,0004199,9
99 •0%$100,000 and up
$200.000♦
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
# years renting
52 non-HCV renters indicated how long they have
been renting,with 8 renting for 15 years or more; 21 • Less than iyear
renting 1-5 years; 10 renting 6-10 years;3 renting 11- • 1-5Years
14 years;and 10 renting less than one year. • 6-soy ears
• 11-14 years
■ 15+years
Yes rue owned
a house
54 respondents indicated whether or not they
I have not have ever owned a home,with 38.89%indicating
owned a house
that they have.
110 l have not Of the 61.11%of respondents who have not
owned a haus.-
owned a home, 40.74%would like to own a home
Ho l have not . while 9.26 would not want to own a home.
owned a hone._
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PERSPECTIVES ON RESPONSIBLE HOUSING PROVIDERS AND TENANTS
This section describes the perspectives respondents hold on what it means to be a responsible housing
provider or renter,and what efforts could be made to support responsible housing providers and
renters.
14
DEFINING "RESPONSIBLE TENANTS"
141 housing providers described their perspective on a responsible tenant. The five most common
responses were:
• Pay rent=98
• Maintain property= 93
• Respect property/landlord/neighbors=53
• Clean =44
• Follow rules/laws =40
HCV renters described their perspective on defining a responsible tenant. The five most common
responses were:
• Pay rent=76
• Clean =61
• Follow the rules/laws =40
• Respect landlord, neighbors= 28
• Maintaining property/yard/no damage = 25
Non-HCV renters described their perspective on defining a responsible tenant. The five most common
responses were:
• Maintain property= 28
• Pay rent=25
• Respect landlord/neighbors= 14
• Follow the rules/laws =ii
• Clean =io
DEFINING "RESPONSIBLE LANDLORDS"
142 housing providers described their perspective on a responsible landlord. The five most common
responses were:
• Maintain property= io8
• Timely/responsive = 43
• Respect= 23
• Follow rules/laws =23
• Communicate = 19
HCV renters described their perspective on defining a responsible landlord. The five most common
responses were:
• Maintaining the property=70
• Timely/responsive =36
• Communication =39
• Following rules/laws=11
15
• Respectful =
Non-HCV renters described their perspective on defining a responsible landlord. The five most
common responses were:
• Maintaining property=31
• Timely= l3
• Communication =
• Respect=9
• Following rules=2
SUPPORTING "RESPONSIBLE TENANTS"
Strongly agree
157 housing providers responded to the
statement:there is a need to take
Agree
affirmative steps to support responsible
tenants.
Neutral
• 30.57%strongly agree
• 38.85%agree
Disagree '
• 23.57%are neutral
• 2.55%disagree Strongly
• 4.46%strongly disagree Disagree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
176 HCV renters responded to the
Strongly Agree
statement:there is a need to take
affirmative steps to support responsible Agree
tenants.
Neutral
• 35.80%strongly agree
• 43.75%agree Disagree
• 16.48%are neutral Strongly
Disagree
• 3.41%disagree
• half a percent strongly disagree. corn mouidsyou.entw
wd y ..
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
16
47 non-HCV renters responded to the
Strongly Agree
statement:there is a need to take
affirmative steps to support responsible Agree
tenants.
Neutral
• 36.17%strongly agree
•
34.04%agree Disagree I
• 23.4o%are neutral Strongly
troh l I
Disagr• 4.26%disagree
Commerrts:How
• 2.13%strongly disagree would you...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
98 housing providers described their perspective on howto support responsible tenants. The five most
common responses were:
• Background checks= 28
• Enforcement=16
• Communicate = 14
• Maintain property= 12
• Education =6
HCV renters provided their perspective on how to support"responsible tenants." The five most
common suggestions were:
• Assistance = 19
• Background checks= 16
• Communication =10
• Respect=lo
• Maintenance = 9
Non-HCV renters offered their perspective on supporting responsible tenants. The five most common
responses were:
• Incentives-6 mentioned
• Education—4
• Maintain the property—3
• Do background checks-2
• Respect tenants-2
17
Tenant education program
Of HCV voucher recipients, 21.39%of
187 respondents reported they have Yes
attended a tenant education program.
22.46%indicated that they had not
No,not
attended a tenant education program interested L ..
and are interested in doing so,while
56.15%of respondents had not tio,interested
attended a program and are not in attending
interested in attending one.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
51 renters who do not use a housing
choice voucher responded to whether Yes
or not they have attended a tenant
education program. Of those, 5.88% „o,not
have attended a program; 21.57%of interested i...
respondents have not attended a
program but are interested;and tioiinttendng
in attending
72.55%have not attended a program
and are not interested. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
SUPPORTING "RESPONSIBLE LANDLORDS"
Strongly Agree
154 housing providers responded to the
statement:there is a need to take
affirmative steps to support responsible Agree
landlords.
• 33.12%strongly agree NeUt`e1
• 41.56%agree
• 21.43%are neutral Disagree I
• 1.3o%disagree
Strongly '
• 2.6o%strongly disagree Disagree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
18
174 HCV renters responded to the
Strongly Agree
statement:there is a need to take
affirmative steps to support responsible Agree
landlords.
Neutral
• 35.63%strongly agree
• 40.80%agree Disagree
• 1.9.54%are neutral
• 3.45%disagree Disagree
• half of a percent strongly disagree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
47 non-HCV renters responded to the
statement:there is a need to take Strongly Agree
affirmative steps to support responsible
landlords. Agree
• 25.53%strongly agree Neutra'
• 44.68%agree
Dixotwee
• 29.79%are neutral
• o%disagree Strongy
Disagree
• o%stronglydisagree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
88 housing providers described their perspective on how to support responsible landlords. The five
most common responses were:
• Enforcement= 22
• Assistance=12
• Background checks=11
• Maintain property/no damage=10
• Respect=g
HCV renters provided their perspective on how to support"responsible landlords." The five most
common suggestions were:
• Communication=17
• Enforcement=lo
• Maintenance=g
• Assistance= g
• Appreciation=6
21 non-HCV renters offered their perspective on supporting responsible landlords. The five most
common suggestions were:
• Maintaining property=4
• Communicate=3
19
• Educate =3
• Incentives=3
• Enforce codes =2
SOURCES OF INCOME USED AND ACCEPTED FOR RENT PAYMENTS
This section summarizes the Sources of Income used by renters and accepted by housing providers.
SOURCES OF INCOME USED BY RENTERS RECEIVING A HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER
182 HCV renters reported the sources of
Wages
income that they use to help pay their rent.
8 %indicated that the use a housinSectionC .. ■_■_
59 Y 9 9 Housing Choi...
choice voucher towards rent payment;
Disability
52.75%use Social Security Benefits;27.47% benefits
use disability benefits; 21.43%use wages; Veterans I
benefits
6.04%use a pension; 3.85%use child
support;and 1.10%use Veteran's Benefits. Child support '
In addition,7.14%use other sources of
income such as retirement, self-
Alimony
employment income,TANF/FIP, pension .
unemployment benefits,and interest
income. social
Security...
Other Sources ■
of Income...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Bedroom Size
Zero,$413
135 HCV renters provided information
about their voucher payment amount. Bedroom Size
One,$511
Of those,4.44%receive a voucher
m payment of$309 fora single room BedrooTwo,$746
occupancy unit; 1.4%receive $264 for a
Bedroom Size
manufactured home; 11.85%receive Three,$968
$413 for an efficiency; 51.85%receive Bedroom Size '
$511 fora one bedroom; 18.52% Four,$1,032
receive $746 for a two bedroom; 9.63% Bedroom Size
Five,$1,187
receive 968 fora three bedroom;and
nufact2.22%receive $1,032 for a four Mary me,$264 I
bedroom.
SRO,$309 ,
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
20
14 HCV renters indicated receiving an
exception rent,where the HCV Yes
program pays a little more for rent in
certain areas of town. Of those,3
indicated they received less than
$200,7 received less than $400, 1 No
received less than $600,and 2
received less than $800. One was 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
uncertain.
SOURCES OF INCOME USED BY NON-HCV RENTERS
Wages
45 non-HCV renters reported the sources of
Section 8
income they use to help pay their rent. Of Housing Choi...
those,75.56%use wages; 24.44%use social Disability
benefits
security benefits; 11.11%use a pension;8.89%
use disability benefits; 4.44%use veteran's Veterans
benefits
benefits;4.44%use child support;15.56%use
Child support ,
other sources of income, such as interest
income and supportfrom family. No Alimony
respondents reported receiving Alimony. 1
Pension
person reported using a Housing Choice
Voucher. Social
Security...
Other Sources
of Income...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
SOURCES OF INCOME ACCEPTED BY HOUSING PROVIDERS
137 housing providers indicated the various sources of income that they will accept. Of these, 94.16%
accept wages; 24.82%accept Section 8/HCV; 59.12%accept disability benefits;59.12%accept veterans
benefits;36.5o%accept child support; 38.69%accept alimony; 6o.58%accept pension;65.69%accept
social security benefits;35.77%accept any income sources that goes into a financial institution and can
be garnished for wages; 13.14%accept other sources of income, such as business income,gifts,
interest,and self-employment.
21
Wages
Section 8 HCV ■
Disability
Benefits
Veterans
Benefits
Child support
Alimony
Pension
Social
Security...
Any income
source that...
Other Sources
of Income
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
EXPERIENCE AND PERSPECTIVES ON THE HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM
This section of the report summarizes survey respondent experiences with the Housing Choice Voucher
program,along with perceptions and opinions about the program.
PROPERTY OWNERS AND MANAGERS
9.66%of 145 housing providers
Strongly Agree
strongly agree that the HCV
program provides owners and
managers of residential rental units Agree
with a dependable and fair source of
income; 24.14%agree; 48.28%are lleutral
neutral; 6.21%disagree; 11.72%
strongly disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
22
Of the 117 housing providers who gave
reasons for never participating in the HCV Program NM
Requirements
program:
• 17.95%reported it was because of DamageiCollecti
on Issues
program requirements
• 33.33%reported it was because of personal Choice
damage/collection issues
• 48.72%reported it was because of Other(please ■
personal choice specify
• 45.30%indicated they had "other" 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
reasons
Of the 57 housing providers who gave Program
requirements
reasons that they stopped participating in
the HCV program: Damage/collect'
• 24.56%reported it was because of on issues
program requirements
Personal choice
• 5o.88%reported it was because of
damage/collection issues
Other(please
• 19.30%indicated it was because of specify)
personal choice 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
• 50.88%indicated they had"other"
reasons
RENTERS RECEIVING A HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER
SD ongly Agree 1.1
43.96%of 182 HCV renters strongly Agree
agree that the HCV provides tenants
with a dependable and fair wayto Neutral
assist in paying rent;42.86%agree;
10.44%are neutral; 2.2o%disagree;
Disagree I
and half of a percent strongly
disagree. Strongly
Disagree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Of 13 who commented on the program,io expressed appreciation for it and 3 felt it provided
insufficient support.
23
172 of HCV renters reported their
experience with the HCV program. Of Bad
those:
Fair Al
• o%rated their experience as bad
• 9.30%rated their experience as fair Good
• 33.14%rated their experience as
good Very Good
• 27.33%rated their experience as very
good Great
• 30.23%rated their experience as
great 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
166 HCV renters reported on their
Bad
experience with HCV briefing they
attend. Of those:
Fair
• o%rated their experience as bad
• 4.82%rated their experience as fair Good
• 40.96%rated their experience as
good Very Good
• 28.92%rated their experience as
very good Great
• 25.3%rated their experience as great 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes 172 HCV renters reported on their awareness of
the rules and regulations of the program. Of
those, 90.70%indicated they are aware of all
the rules and regulations,while 9.30%
Ho
indicated they are not.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% B0% 90% 100%
24
RENTERS NOT RECEIVING A HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER
13.64%of 44 non-HCV Strongly Agree
renters strongly agree
that the HCV provides
Agiee
tenants with a
dependable and fair way
to assist in paying rent; Neutral
22.73%agree; 50%are
neutral; 11.36%disagree; Disagree ■
2.27%strongly disagree.
Strongly I
Disagree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
HOUSING PROVIDER EXPERIENCES WITH PROPERTY DAMAGE
DAMAGE BY HCV RENTERS
25%of 156 housing providers have
experienced significant damage to a Yes
rental unit they own or manage by a
tenant who participates in the HCV
program,while 33.97%have not No til=
experienced significant damage and
41.03%indicated the question was not
applicable. N/A
11.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
DAMAGE BY NON-HCV RENTERS
38.51%of 148 housing providers
indicated they have experienced Yes
significant damage by a tenant who
does not participate in the HCV
program,while 54.73%have not No
experienced significant damage by a
non-HCV renter and 6.76%indicated
that the question was not applicable. NIA
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
FREQUENCY OF DAMAGE BY HCV RENTERS
Of those who experienced significant damage from an HCV renter:
25
• 23 experienced it 1-2 times over the past ten years;
• 2 have experienced it 3-4 times over the past ten years;
• 4 have experienced it 5 or more times over the past ten years.
In addition,3 housing providers reported experiencing damage every time they rented to an HCV
participant while 12 indicated that they have never experienced significant damage renting to an HCV
participant.
FREQUENCY OF DAMAGE BY NON-HCV RENTERS
Of those housing providers who experienced significant damage over the past ten years by a non-HCV
renter:
• 36 experienced it 1-2 times
• 12 experienced it 3-4 times
• g experienced it 5 or more times over the past ten years
• 7 responded they never experienced it
• 2 answers were non-responsive to the question
AMOUNT OF DAMAGE BY HCV RENTERS
Of those housing providers who experienced
significant damage by an HCV renter: Under$500
• 19.15%reported damage under$500
• 19.15%reported damage between
$500 and$1,000 $500$''°°°
• 68.09%reported damage over$1,000
Over$1,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
AMOUNT OF DAMAGE BY NON-HCV RENTERS
Of those housing providers who experienced
significant damage by a non-HCV renter: Under$500
• 20.69%reported damage under$500
• 34.48%reported damage between
$500 and $1,000 $60041,000
• 60.34%reported damage over$1,000
Over$1,000 MIMI
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
26
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES BY AN HCV RENTERS
Of those housing providers who experienced significant damage by an HCV renter:
• 1 respondent reported being able to recover damages"always"after filing a claim in court.
• 2 indicated recovery 1-2 times
• 33 indicated they have never been able to recover
• 5 indicated they never filed
• 2 were non-responsive to the question
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES BY NON-HCV RENTERS
Of those housing providers experiencing significant damage by a non-HCV renter:
• 1 respondent reported being able to recover damages"always"after filing a claim in court
• 11 indicated recovery 1-2 times
• 1 indicated recovery 5 or more times
• 29 indicated they have never been able to recover damages
• 6 indicated they never filed
• 5 were non-responsive to the question
FREQUENCY OF UNPAID RENT BY HCV RENTERS
6o housing providers indicated whether or notthey experienced unpaid rent from a renter who
participates in the HCV program
• 19 indicated they have never experienced unpaid rent
• 19 indicated they experienced this 1-2 times
• g indicated they experienced this 3-4 times
• 8 indicated they experienced this more than 5 times
• 3 indicated the question was not applicable
• 2 were non-responsive to the question
FREQUENCY OF UNPAID RENT BY NON-HCV RENTERS
58 housing providers indicated whether or not they experienced unpaid rent from a renter who does
not participates in the HCV program:
• 14 indicated never experiencing unpaid rent
• 17 experienced it 1-2 times
• 9 experienced it 3-4 times
• 15 experienced it 5 or more times
• 3 answers were unresponsive
AMOUNT OF UNPAID RENT BY HCV RENTERS:
27
Of 44 housing providers who indicated
their costs related to unpaid rent by a Under$500
tenant using a HCV:
• 25%experienced costs under$500
• 29.55%experienced costs between $500-$1'000
$500-$1,000
• 5o%experienced a cost over Over$1,000
$1,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
AMOUNT OF UNPAID RENT BY NON-HCV RENTERS
Of housing providers who experienced
unpaid rent bya non-HCV renter,48 Under$500
indicated their costs
• 12.5%experienced costs under
$500-$1000
$500
• 47.92%experienced costs
between s oo and $1,000 over$1,0o.
• 52.o8%experienced costs over
$1,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RECOVERY OF UNPAID RENT BY HCV RENTERS
Of housing providers experiencing unpaid rent by HCV participants, 47 indicated whether or not they
were able to recover in court. Of those:
• i indicated always being able to recover
• 4 indicated recovery 1-2 times
• i indicated recovery 3-4 times
• 1 indicated partial recovery
• 26 indicated never being able to recover
• 4 indicated never filed
• 1 indicated the question was not applicable
• 9 non-responsive to the question
RECOVERY OF UNPAID RENT BY NON-HCV RENTERS
Of housing providers experiencing unpaid rent by a non-HCV renter, 44 responded as to whether or not
they recovered in court:
• 1 indicated always being able to recover
• 8 indicated recovery 1-2 times
• i indicated recovery 3-4 times
• 1 said partial recovery
28
• 23 indicated never being able to recover
• 3 never filed
• 2 indicated the question was not applicable
• 5 not responsive
HOUSING PROVIDER INTEREST IN ESTABLISHMENT OFA DAMAGE FUND
139 housing providers indicated
whether or not they would consider
participating in the HCV program if Yes
there was a fund for damages. Of
those:
• 35.97%indicated they would
consider participating if there No
was such a fund
• 64.03%indicated they would 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
not consider participating if
there was such a fund
RENTER EXPERIENCES FINDING QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PERCEIVED QUALITY OF CURRENT UNIT
187 HCV renters rated their current Bad
housing.
• Half of a percent rated their .—
housing as bad
Good
• 20.32%rated their housing as
fair
Very Good
• 32.09%rated their housing as
good
Great
• 27.81%rated their housing as
very good 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
• 19.25%rated their housing as
great
29
Bad
54 non-HCV renters rated their current
housing. Fs"
• o%rated their housing as bad Good
• 14.81%rated their housing as fair
• 35.19%rated their housing as good Very Good
• 27.73%rated their housing as very
good Great
• 22.22%rated their housing as great 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 60% 90% 100%
AWARENESS OF SAFETY AND QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
Of 186 HCV renters:
Yes
• 94.09%say they are familiar with the
requirements that housing be safe
and meet certain minimum quality Ne '
conditions
• 1%of respondentssaythey B11o'do you
5 9 are know how to...
not familiar with requirements.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
41 HCV renters indicated whether or not they
knew where to find out about safety and Yef
quality requirements.
63.41%said that they do know how to find
these requirements,while 36.59%do not.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Ye. tio Of 54 non-HCV renters:
68.52%are familiar with the requirements that
110 1111.1 housing be safe and meet certain minimum
quality conditions
K No,do you
know how to... 31.48%of respondents said they are not
familiar with requirements.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
30
zo non-HCV renters indicated whether or not
Yes they knew where to find out about safety and
quality requirements.
110 25%said that they do know how to find out
these requirements,while 75%do not.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
EXPERIENCE FINDING HOUSING WHILE USING AN HCV
Of 169 HCV renters who responded to
the question, 68.64%have not
Yes,1-2 times
experienced a situation where they
found a place they wanted and could
afford, but could not rent it because Yes,3-4times
the landlord would not accept an HCV.
Of the remaining HCV renters,
Yes,5 or more .
times
• 15.38%experienced this 1-2
times
• 6.51%experienced this 3-4 No
times
• 9.47%experienced this 5 times 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
or more
EXPERIENCE WITH SAFETY AND QUALITY2
HCV Renter Experience in General
78.80%of 184 HCV respondents have not experienced significant problems with safety or quality of
housing they rented in general,while 21.20%have experienced significant problems.
2 HCV renters completed two sections of the survey related to their rental experience. One section asked them to
respond based on their general rental experience and the other asked them to respond specifically based on times
when they were actively using a HCV. Both sets of responses are included in this section.
31
Never
For those HCV renters who did experience significant
safety or quality problems in general:
1-2
• 25%experienced this 1-2 times in the last so
years.
3-9
• 16.07%experienced it3-4 times
• 12.5%experienced it 5 or more times
Sur more
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Of those HCV renters who experienced significant safety or quality problems in general, the five most
common problems were:
• Maintenance=ll
• Water/moisture=8
• Crime=5
• Pests=3
• Security=3
Of 52 HCV renters who had an experience with Never
significant safety or quality problems in general,
landlords addressed the problem:
1-2
• 1-2 times for26 renters
• 3-4 times for 3 renters 2-4
• 5 or more times for 5 renters.
28 HCV renters indicated that the landlord never Ser more■
addressed their problem.
U% 1U% 28% 3U% 4U% 5U% SU% N% eU% e]% 113116
32
79.55%of 176 HCV renters know how to `es
contact the City to file a complaint about
safety or quality problems if the landlord is not
making needed repairs, while 20.45%do not No
know how to do this.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
HCV Renter Experience While using an HCV
84.30%of 171 HCV renters have not experienced significant problems with safety or quality in a place
they rented using a housing choice voucher over the last ten years.
For those who did experience safety or quality
Yes.1.2 times
problems while using a HCV:
• 2.92%experienced significant
Yes,]'times
problems 5 or more times
• 3.51%experienced significant
problems 3-4 times Yes.S of mote
mes
• 8.77%experienced significant
problems 1-2 times ,10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Of those who have experienced significant problems with safety and quality while using an HCV, the
five most common problems were:
• Safety/Security=11
• Maintenance=5
• Water/Moisture=5
• Utilities=4
• Accessibility=3
Non-HCV Renter Experience
81.13%of 53 non-HCV renters have not experienced significant problems with safety or quality of
housing they rented,while 18.87%have experienced significant problems.
33
For those HCV renters who did experience
Never
significant safety or quality problems in
general:
1-3
• 54.55%experienced this 1-2 times in
the last so years.
3-4
• 27.27%experienced it 5 or more times
18.18%indicated that they have never had 5ermore
this experience in the past ten years.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Of those non-HCV renters who experienced significant safety or quality problems,the five most
common problems were:
• Maintenance =6
• Water/moisture =3
• Appliances not working =1
• Utilities= 1
• Pests=1
Never
Of 11 non-HCV renters who had an experience
with significant safety or quality problems,
1.2
landlords addressed the problem:
• 1-2 times for 6 renters 3.4
5 non-HCV renters indicated that the landlord
never addressed their problem. Ser more
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
55.10%of 49 non-HCV renters know how to Yee ir
contact the City to file a complaint about
safety or quality problems if the landlord is
not making needed repairs, while 44.90%do No
not know how to do this.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
34
RENTER FAMILIARITY WITH FAIR HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Yes
Of 183 HCV renters,86.34%are familiar with the
fair housing requirements,while 13.66%are not.
No ■
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Of sob HCV renters, 68.81%know how to find
Yes
out aboutfair housing requirements,while
30.19%do not.
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
Of 180 HCV renters, 68.89%know who to
contact for help if they think they are being
discriminated against in housing,while 31.11%
No do not know who to contact.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
Of 53 non-HCV renters, 66.04%are
familiar with fair housing requirements
and 33.965 are not.
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
35
Of 28 non-HCV renters, 42.86°/a know Yes
diMMIhow to find out about fair housing
requirements and 57.14%do not.
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Of 5o non-HCV renters, 58%know who Yes
to contact for help if they think they are
being discriminated against,while 42%
do not know who to contact for help. No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RENTER EXPERIENCES WITH DISCRIMINATIONS
HCV Renter Experience in General
Yes
Of 182 HCV renters, 9.24%have
experienced discrimination with regard to N,
AMR=
finding a place to live in general,while
90.66%have not. yes,piese
briefly...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3 HCV renters completed two sections of the survey related to their rental experience. One section asked them to
respond based on their general rental experience and the other asked them to respond specifically based on times
when they were actively using a HCV. Both sets of responses are included in this section.
36
Of HCV renters who have experienced
discrimination while finding a place to live Never TI
in general:
1-2
• 6.52%experienced this 1-z times
in the past ten years
• 8.70%experienced it 3-4 times 3-4
• 8.70%experienced it 5 or more
times 4Ofmore
76.09%indicated never experiencing
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
discrimination in the past ten years.
Of the HCV renters who reported experiencing discrimination:
• 7 said that the landlord would not accept Section 8/HCV
• 2 indicated based on race
• 1 indicated family status
• 1 indicated gender
• 2 indicated based on credit
• 1 indicated criminal history
• 1 indicated not fitting in
Of 41 HCV, who had an experience
of discrimination, their landlord Nor
addressed the concern
• 1-2 times for4 renters 1-2 ■
• 5 or more times for3
renters
3-4
34 renters indicated that the
landlord never addressed their
concerns. 6 of »ere ,
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
37
HCV Renter Experience While using an HCV
g.o4%of 166 HCV renters have
experienced discrimination with Yes,1-2 times
regard to finding a place to live
while participating in the HCV
program. Of these: Yes,3-4 times
• 4.82%have experienced
discrimination 1-z times Yes,5 or more
times
• 1.81%have experienced it
3-4 times
• 2.41%have experienced it No
5 or more times
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
go.g6%of HCV renters have not experienced discrimination while participating in the HCV program.
Of the HCV renters who reported experiencing discrimination:
• 6 said that the landlord would not accept Section 8/HCV
• 1 said the landlord was slow to make repairs
• lsaid the landlord wouldn't let move in
• z said the landlord didn't allow pets
t,e.e,
Of 37 HCV renters that experienced
discrimination while participating in the
program,the landlord addressed the '' ■
problem
3-4
• 1-z times for 5 people
• 5 or more times for 1 person
or more
31 people indicated that their landlord
never addressed their problem.
0% 10% 20% 33% ,0% S0% 60% 70% 80% 50% 100%
38
Non-NCV Renter Experience
Never 5.66%of 53 non-HCV renters have experienced
discrimination with regard to finding a place to
live. Of these:
1-2
•3 people had this experience 1-2 times in the
last ten years
3-4 •1 person did not have this experience in the last
ten years
5 or more
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Of non-HCV renters experiencing discrimination:
• 1 indicated based on age
• 1 indicated based on disability
• 1 indicated based on size
(lever
Of 4 non-HCV renters who experienced
discrimination,
'2 •1 person had the landlord address the concerns
1-2 times
•3 renters never had the landlord address the
3-4
concerns
5 or more
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
39
LEASES
yes "Mir
91.21%of 182 HCV renters received a
copy of their lease,while 8.79%had
not. '10 .
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
84.75%of 177 HCV renters had their
landlord/property manager go over
the rules of the lease with them,while
No
15.25%had not
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
II
94.44%of 54 non-HCV renters received a copy of
No I their lease,while 5.56%had not
I
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
88.68%of 53 non-HCV renters had their
Yes landlord/property manager go over the rules of the
lease with them,while 11.32%had not
w■
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PERSPECTIVES ON SOURCE OF INCOME ORDINANCE
This section of the report summarizes survey respondent perspectives on whether or not to add"legal
source of income"to the City's ordinance prohibiting housing discrimination.
HOUSING PROVIDER PERSPECTIVES
40
148 housing providers responded to the
statement: Dubuque should have a Strongly agree
I=
source of income ordinance to
encourage access to affordable rental Agree
housing for low income households.
Neutral
• 8.11%strongly agree
• 20.27%agree Disagree
• 33.11%are neutral
• 13.51%disagree Strongly
Disagree
-
• 25%strongly disagree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
There were 62 comments about suggested steps instead of a SOI ordinance to encourage access to
affordable housing:
• 12 referred to tenant accountability
• i background checks
• 10 build more low income housing
• 2 cover damages
• 6 get jobs
• 4 increase wages
• 6 support self-sufficiency
• 3 incentives
• 8 let market take care of it
• 1 require landlords to take 10-20%low income
• 2 support HCV landlords
• 10 non-responsivejlDK/n/ajnone
142 housing providers responded
to the statement:property owners Strongly Agree
should be required to accept all
legal sources of income,assuming Agree
the applicant can meet the regular
tenant criteria: Neutral 11
• 6.34%strongly agreed
•
28.87%agreed Disagree -
• 26.06%were neutral
Strongly
• 14.79%disagreed Disagree
• 23.94%strongly disagreed
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
41
HCV RENTER PERSPECTIVES
179 HCV renters responded to the
statement: Dubuque should have a StrongyAgree
source of income ordinance to
encourage access to affordable Agree
rental housing for low income
households. Neutrd
• 32.40%strongly agreed
• 46.93%of 179 respondents Disagree
agreed
• 18.44%of 179 were neutral Disagree
• o.56%disagreed
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
• 1.68%strongly disagreed
In the comments to this section, 5 of 16 indicated there is need for more quality,affordable housing
Respondents gave input on other steps that ought to be taken to encourage access to affordable
housing
• Lower cost of housing=5
• Increase funding=2
• Advertising units that take HCV=3
• Allow zero income=2
• Provide jobs=2
• Provide childcare=1
• Non-discrimination = 1
• Half of the respondents to this question said they didn't have an opinion or that they supported
SOI
169 HCV renters responded to the statement:
property ownersjmanagers should be required s"°"g"Agfee
to accept all legal sources of income,
Agree
assuming the applicant can meet the regular
tenant criteria. neutral
• 31.95%strongly agreed Disagree
• 43.20%agreed
• 23.67%were neutral os`ag;ee
• o.59%disagreed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
• 0.59%strongly disagreed
In addition:
42
• 2 of 8 respondents were unsure of either their opinion or what the question was asking
• 1 thought there needed to be better access to affordable housing
• 1 thought there needed to be a cap on pricing
• 1 thought tenants need to uphold the duties of their lease
• 1 agreed if the landlord thinks their budget can handle the cost
• 1 emphasized they agree
• 1 emphasized that the income must be legal
NON-HCV RENTER PERSPECTIVES
44 non-HCV renters responded to the
Strongly Agree
statement: Dubuque should have a
source of income ordinance to encourage Agree
access to affordable rental housing for
low income households. iteutra,
• z5%strongly agreed
Disagree '
• 27.27%agreed
• 36.36%were neutral strongly .
Disagree
• 4.55%disagreed
• 6.82%strongly disagreed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
There were 5 comments about having an Sal ordinance to encourage access to affordable housing
• 1 respondent was unsure about the premise of the questionjwhatthe SOI ordinance was
• 1 preserve landlord choice
• 1 meet peoples'need for shelter
• 1 hold tenants accountable
• 1 expressing gratitude for existence of the program because used in the past
In addition,7 respondents who disagreed with ordinance gave input on other steps that ought to be
taken to encourage access to affordable housing
• 2 suggested supporting HCV in getting jobs
• 2 suggested supporting HCV in volunteeringlgiving back
• 1 suggested dispersing affordable housing in other areas of town
• 1 suggested letting the market determine affordability
• 1 suggested moving HCV families into single family housing
43
42 respondents answered to whether or
Strongly Agree not property owners/managers should be
required to accept all legal sources of
Agfee income, assuming the applicant can meet
the regular tenant criteria
Neutral
• 26.19%strongly agree
Disagree • 40.48%agree
• 16.68%are neutral
Strongly,
Disagree • 11.90°/%disagree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% • 4.76%strongly disagree
7 people provided comments related to requiring landlords to accept all legal sources of income:
• i person commented on risk to landlord
• 2 person commented on regulatory requirements
• i person suggested landlords be fined for refusing
• 2 people suggested preserving landlord choice
• i person suggested there is a need for more affordable housing in better neighborhoods
SURVEY LIMITATIONS
This survey was created by the Source of Income working group,which is not comprised of professional
researchers. As such, itis important to consider the survey results in conjunction with additional data
collected by the committee,and to be aware of the following limitations.
• Some respondents did not complete the entire survey.
• The survey was distributed in English only and was written at a fairly high reading level.
• There was no ability to prevent people from making copies and completing more than one
survey.
• Some individuals hold rental licenses under several different company names. Housing
Department staff had to manually eliminate duplications, resulting in the possibility of human
error and a single owner receiving more than one survey to complete.
• Before generating a random list of non-HCV tenants from the rental property listings, Housing
Department staff had to manually remove addresses occupied by Housing Choice Voucher
recipients. This raises the possibility of an HCV recipient receiving the non-HCV survey due to
human error. However,only one respondent to the non-HCV survey completed the questions
related to HCV recipients, suggesting that all but one of the results received were from non-
HCV recipients.
• It is unclear whether all respondents understood the question regarding vacancy rates. While
most respondents provided an actual rate in response to the question, a few responded by
listing the number of months a unit had been vacant along with a number of units vacant.
• There seemed to be different interpretations of the questions about responsible landlords and
responsible tenants. Some respondents answered the question from the perspective of how
the City could support responsible landlords or tenants,while others answered from the
44
perspective of how landlords could support other landlords,tenants could support other
tenants,or landlords and tenants could support each other.
• There seemed to be some confusion related to multi-part questions. For example:
o After indicating they had never experienced significant damage, some respondents
proceeded to answer the question about how frequently they experienced significant
damage by stating "never,"though the instructions directed them to skip the question.
o Some respondents who indicated their landlord"never"addressed concerns appeared
to have responded in this manner because there were no concerns that needed to be
addressed.
o Five to ten respondents answered questions about the amount of damage or unpaid
rent experienced,though they had responded to a prior question indicating they had
"never"experienced damage or unpaid rent.
• The question regarding court recovery seemed to be interpreted in different ways,with some
responding to the question even though they had never filed a claim for recovery in court.
45
2016
I..
I..
Source of Income Dialogue Sessions Report
Asian
Hispanic incentives Latino
Include Tenant
Dubuquea .�
Recommend Arow Indian Moreago, .andlord
C�taiter Problem "'I
child Ru'eV egal
Duties participate Cit
Respect'' " Staff Home��r Mexican■ Good
°°9rtt Famll+u Checks Time-Need
de,.,e.,,Fa i rur
Tenant Rlphtz r.lwti Willing
r�R��. Tanf � option
�� RentaiRace Provide to
Require Being^~"PIaCe°ta
Afforddood GiftsDa�lage �-COSt
7.American opportuntty aoncu
•Quality y - 5tWgtnog
t �°r RaceR
v Security White
Voucher er
Garnished Human 4.p ...p Age_ CNIC1
Manage Sigelificant
ASSiSt
Ssl Safety Reasons-"n_.
onecnoce�,,«RR �,,�, _Background Discriminates=ms-People
Legal Hud ae■n """ wages '71;15- ^^nr.
Lease Work incomeData erson
F'n." Access
Rights SSI ,� ,soc�i wanoe 4So I
ossa uitu
Agree
UC"ttles IrICRIa Children R....RHume ""x'
Property " q�a community
Pensl°° State
Source Support
ze, i�.Faced
. E ual
Rm sn MarketCounCIl
L C91 Benefits Male ''' Accept
�.'1 • II°Educate social
voucher. elate Water _Program_
AWerUseSuggested��R ... _ Maintain
Renter ens
Concerns city
Blackv— Disagree
room Belnp
ZOrdinance,�; HCV spanisn Encourage
Choice Experience Agree
Past Apartment KellyLarson
ails Vet�nl��ai'1��
p Federal
eta A�° °
IncomeHawaiian niae Researchco.tEnforce Maintenance Human Rights Director
0
SOURCE OF INCOME DIALOGUE SESSIONS REPORT
BACKGROUND
In May 2014,the Dubuque Human Rights Commission began to
research whether or not to recommend updating the City's non-
discrimination ordinance to make it illegal to refuse to rent to NOTE TO READERS
someone based on the fact that they would be using a Housing
Choice Voucher to pay a portion of their rent. The Commission
researched this issue between May and October 2014,engaging
in conversations with the Dubuque Area Landlord Association This dialogue process was
and hosting one public hearing. In November 2014,the Human designed and facilitated by City
staff with experience in group
Rights Commission forwarded its research to the City Council process,implicit bias,and the
along with a recommendation that the Council establish a task complexity of democratic
force with go days to consider the issue and make a decision-making in situations
recommendation. involving values conflicts.
In December 2014, City Council approved a staff In addition,staff involved in the
recommendation for an alternative,two year process and design have been in the position
appointed a working group to study the issue and develop a set of listening to various resident
of options. Members were drawn from City Boards and perspectives on this issue over
Commissions,the Dubuque Landlord Association,and the the past two years,including
NAACP to meet with City staff from the Legal, Housing & perspectives from housing
providers,renters,commission
Community Development, Human Rights,and Planning Services members,and advocates.
Departments to study the issue. The group's goals include
collecting data and studying options in order to provide the City Staff acknowledges that no
Council with a range of alternatives to address legitimate individual is free of bias,making
concerns of housing providers while also ensuring that persons full transparency crucial in these
receiving assistance through Social Security, Disability,andjor situations. Consequently,while
Housing Choice Vouchers have a complete range of fair housing staff has categorized and
compiled the information in this
choices.
document to improve usability,
Three subcommittees were formed to conduct research during unedited notes are also provided
the first six months. The Source of Income (SOI) Analysis in Appendix D.
subcommittee gathered and reviewed data on ordinances and
community housing needs,developed shared definitions,and
began planning for public engagement opportunities. The Housing Choice Voucher/Landlord Policy
subcommittee gathered and reviewed data and information on the Housing Choice Voucher(Section 8)
Program and from the Dubuque Area Landlord Association and developed a first draft of the
Residential Rental Survey. The Administrative Analysis and Policy Sub-Committee researched state
and local 501 ordinances and types of federal and state assistance identified as a source of income. The
full group then re-convened and submitted a progress report to the City Council ata work session in
December 2015.
1
City Staff began to develop a dialogue process,which is the subject of this report. Data from this
process,along with other data that has been collected,will be included in the final report to Council in
December 2016.
DIALOGUE SESSION DESIGN
The dialogue sessions were modeled after the National Issues Forum format,which fosters recognition
of the pros and cons of opposing viewpoints and conflicting values,and provides the opportunity to
have an open dialogue around a series of questions. Staff developed three scenarios for discussion,
which were based in the comments and concerns staff have heard from residents on all sides of the
issues since the conversations began in 2014.
The goals for the sessions were:
Draw out personal experiences of renters and housing providers regarding their experience with
rental housing and/or with the voucher program in Dubuque. To meet this goal,we created a
skit using landlord and tenant stories similar to stories staff has heard over the years in working
with landlords and tenants. We paid particular attention to concerns that have been raised over
the past two and a half years as the Source of Income issue has been under consideration by the
working group. See Appendix A.
Provide participants with data on the HCV program operation and the effect that the current
situation is having on renters, housing providers and the community as a whole so that they
appreciate why the issues must be addressed as a community and they have enough information
to participate in conversations about the options.To meet this goal, we created a series of fact
sheets. See Appendix B.
Help the participants to see the scope of the problem from the City government perspective and
the potential consequences and for whom, using facts to tease out the side effects and why this is
an issue for government in terms HUD,potential loss of funding,etc. To meet this goal,we
created a series of dialogue handouts to supplement the fact sheets. See Appendix C.
Capture and report to City Council the various perspectives on this issue,the real world
experiences of housing providers and renters,and the factual data related to the program. This
goal is being met through this report,the residential rental property survey,and the work of the
SOI working group to collect census and program statistics and conduct legal and best practices
research.
2
We offered four sessions in September,two of which were marketed to housing providers and two of
which were marketed to renters. Marketing included sharing information through the Dubuque Area
Landlord Association,Transitional and Emergency housing providers,the NAACP,the Circles Initiative,
Project H.O.P.E., City Life Alumni, Operation New View,the Multicultural Family Center,and
Distinctively Dubuque Alumni. In addition, information was shared through Facebook,a news release,
City Channel Dubuque, City electronic signs,and Notify Me.
Participants at each of the first four sessions were invited to complete pre-and-post questionnaires to
gauge increased understanding of the issues and potential changes in perspective. Volunteers were
asked to serve as scribes at the tables and capture dialogue content. We were unable to have trained
facilitators present at each of the tables,which impacted the success of the dialogue process.
We offered a final session in October to: 1) share what was captured during the first four sessions so
that renters and housing providers could hear the perspectives from other groups, 2)answer questions
and correct misinformation;and 3)discuss what needs to occur so that all parties can live with the
results. Participants at the final session were invited to complete an evaluation of the dialogue process
overall.
DIALOGUE REACH
This section of the report summarizes the total number of participants,along with demographic
information from participants who chose to answer questions about their background and household
makeup.
A total of 54 people signed into the session held on September 13, 7 signed in to the session held on
September 14, 22 signed in to the session held on September zo,and io signed in to the session held on
September 21. Of these 93 individuals, 5 signed in to two sessions,for a total of 89 unique attendees at
sessions.
64 people turned in demographic information,though not every person responded to every question.
Gender Age
■22-30
•31-40
■Male 41-50
■Female 115
I
ia 14 •51-60
61+
3
Race/Ethnicity
•Black/African
■Housing Provider American
2'3111111
•White
1
•Ten ant
•American
•Other Indian/Alaskan Native
2
■Two or moreraces
Education
■No High School Diploma
1
■High School Diploma
10
4tim
r ■College Degree
•Master Degree
■Doctorate Degree
Years in Dubuque
■otos
■6toio
6 •ii.to is
6a ■16 to 20
1 ■21'CO 25
■26 to 30
In.. ■31t040
■41to50
■5o+
4
Neighborhood ■Downtown
•Point Area
io ■North End
■South End
10 ! ■HiIIJCollege
■West End
IN Do not live in Dubuque
5
PRE AND POST FORUM SURVEY RESULTS
All participants were invited to complete a pre-forum survey and a post-forum survey. 64 people
completed the pre-forum survey and 42 completed the post-forum survey.
PRE-FORUM PERSPECTIVE
Z00% 86%
go% 8a%
8o%
70%
6o% 56% 56% 51%c 49%°
50% 42%
40% _
30% 19'°
zo% °'
1 %° ■Agree
0
■Disagree
HCV Program HCV Program Housing HCV Renters Accurate
is important for is more Providers have trouble information
most burdensome should be finding housing would reduce
vulnerable than beneficial permitted to because of assumptions
for housing advertise"No biases about renters
providers Section 8" and increase
housing
provider
participation
POST-FORUM PERSPECTIVE
go% 85% °
7
8o% 9%
70% err%
6o% 56% 55%
50% 8% �.�%
49%
40% _
30% °,
zo%
10% ' •Agree
o% ' 6,Disagree
HCV Program isHCV Program is Housing HCV Renters Accurate
important for more Providers have trouble information
most burdensome should be finding housing would reduce
vulnerable than beneficial permitted to because of assumptions
for housing advertise"No biases about renters
providers Section 8" and increase
housing
provider
participation
6
PRE-FORUM PERSPECTIVE
8o% 739'o
70% - 66%
° 6% 61%
60% -
so% -
4o°/v % 39%
3o°/v z,
■Favor
zo%o
Oppose
10% •
o%
Create an ordinance Require housing Provide more Provide additional
that makes it illegal providers to pay housing options incentives to
to discriminate attention to throughout the housing providers
based on having a practices that community through to participate
HCV create inequality government or
private partnerships
POST-FORUM PERSPECTIVE
8o% 73%
69% 6g%
70% 63%
6o% -
so% -
40%
31% 31%
30%
•Favor
zo%
Oppose
10%
o%
Create an ordinance Require housing Provide more Provide additional
that makes it illegal providers to pay housing options incentives to
to discriminate attention to throughout the housing providers
based on having a practices that community through to participate
HCV create inequality government or
private partnerships
7
IMPACT OF SESSION
When asked the degree to which their opinion about the HCV program changed based on the dialogue
session, 2%indicated "a lot,"21%indicated"some,"34%indicated "very little,"and 43%indicated "not
at all.
The majority of participants(6g%) indicated that they are very or somewhat likely to correct
misinformation about the HCV program after participating in the dialogue session. 44%of participants
who are housing providers indicated thatthey are very likely or somewhat likely to participate in the
HCV program.
6o% - 56%
so%
40% f 36%
33%
31% 31%
30% — — ■Very likely
■Somewhat Likely
20% Not at al l Likely
13%
10%
o%
How likely are you to support the If you are a housing provider,how
HCV program by correcting likely are you to participate in the
misinformation in the community? HCV program
8
PARTICIPANT EVALUATION OF THE DIALOGUE PROCESS
Participants in the final session held in October were asked to complete an evaluation of the full
dialogue process. Participants responded to a series of statements using a scale from 1-4,with 1 being
"strongly disagree"and 4 being"strongly agree."
On average, participants indicated agreement with the following statements:
(--
• The notice,advertisement and/or • Information about the meeting topic,
invitation to participate was clear provided to me before or at the
and welcoming. meeting, helped prepare me to
• The purpose of the meeting was participate more effectively.
clear to me. • There was sufficient opportunity for
• Before the meeting, I believed that me to express my views about what I
our collective views or thought was important.
recommendations would be seriously • There was sufficient opportunity for
considered by policymakers. me to exchange views and learn from
• Participants felt comfortable with others.
each other. • There was sufficient opportunity for
• Participants treated each other me to develop joint views and/or
respectfully. recommendations with others.
• I believe that other participants were • I have a better understanding about
constructive in their comments. the topic as a result of this public
• The agenda and process for the engagement process.
meeting were appropriate for the • I would encourage other residents to
topic and helped make the meeting participate in similar public
productive. engagement processes on this or
• The facilitator(s)provided a safe,fair other appropriate topics.
and well-managed environment for • I would participate in meetings like
participants. this again.
._._.)
,)
9
On average, participants indicated disagreement with the following statements:
• Before the meeting, I believed that • The mix of participants was
my P P
views would be seriously considered appropriate for the topic of the
by policymakers. meeting.
• The participants in the meeting • I changed my thinking about this topic
reflected the diversity of the people as a result of this public engagement
and views of our community process.
• I believe that this meeting will result in • It was clear to me how decision
better decisions on the topic makers will use the results of this
discussed. ` ` meeting.
Comments included the need for more time devoted to the topics and associated materials,as well as a
need for more renter participation.
PERSPECTIVES ON THE HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM
This section of the report summarizes perceptions and opinions about the program discussed as part of
the initial conversation at each of the September dialogue sessions.
IMPORTANCE OF THE PROGRAM
82%of participants responded that it is important to have the HCV program,while 18%indicated it is
not important. The reason given for it not being important was that it should not be the government's
business.
The three most common reasons for stating it is
important were:
i89/0 • need
• prevention (homelessness,overcrowding)
■Yes • community health
■ No
The majority of comments related to the
importance of the program focused on the need
for adjustments to the program. 42%of
comments were related to the desire to further
restrict who is able to access the program. Types
of restrictions suggested included limiting it to
the elderly,disabled, single mothers, local
residents,or those who are employed andjor making assistance temporary. 31%of comments related
to making enhancements to the program, including adding incentives or protections for housing
providers, shortening lease times, strengthening background checks,or enhancing education efforts.
10
14%of comments during this conversation emphasized maintaining individual choice for housing
providers regarding whether or not to participate in the program. The final 13%of comments were
related to perspectives on whether or not the program is furthering self-sufficiency or dependency.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT HAVING A PROGRAM
When asked what the consequences might be if we did not have this program in our community,the
most common statements related to the risk of increased homelessness and the inability to meet the
need for housing in the community. Additional consequences mentioned were:
RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING LIVES
r r ---....
• loss of federal funding • overcrowding
• improved ability to serve local • discrimination
residents • damage to our community reputation
• increased incentive to work • increased misinformation
• increased number of people left • increased crime
behind/lost opportunity • decreased crime
• increased number of housing • increased housing quality
providers • decreased housing quality
•••••-._ _} ---)
A portion of the conversation focused on who plays a role in helping people learn about resources and
opportunities to improve their lives. The most common response was"everyone,"followed by non-
profit organizations and the housing department,and then by a reference to it being a personal
responsibility. The media, churches, business,and education were also mentioned.
When asked what role housing providers play,the most common statements related to providing safe,
affordable housing,following by making referrals, not discriminating,and holding tenants accountable.
When asked what role tenants play,the most common statements related to paying rent,caring for the
property,and demonstrating respect. Other statements included taking personal responsibility,
communicating,welcoming others,and making referrals.
PERSPECTIVES ON SCENARIO #1: SOURCE OF INCOME ORDINANCE
This section of the report summarizes perceptions and opinions discussed at each of the September
dialogue sessions regarding passing a source of income ordinance.
11
REASONS FOR AN ORDINANCE
The most common understanding of the reasons some favor an ordinance was to increase the
availability of rental properties for those using a Housing Choice Voucher. The second most common
understanding was that the ordinance was needed to address concerns related to discrimination,
stereotypes,or fairness. Other suggested reasons for favoring an ordinance were to encourage
lawsuits,expand government control,take away landlord rights,and enable people to avoid self-
sufficiency.
RISKS AN ORDINANCE COULD HELP RENTERS MANAGE
The most common risks participants thought an ordinance could help manage were risks tenants face
related to finding a safe,available unit to rent. Additional comments related to the risk of not finding a
unit near transportation, having to double up,and being treated based on stereotypes or the stigma of
having a HCV. There were several comments suggesting that tenants do not have any risks to manage,
and one comment suggesting an ordinance is a way to avoid the risk of self-sufficiency.
OTHER WAYS TO MANAGE RENTER RISKS
The most common suggestions for managing tenant risks in ways other than through the passage of an
ordinance related to improving the existing HCV program through:
• A UNIFORM INSPECTION PROCESS
• INCENTIVES FOR HOUSING PROVIDERS
• STRONGER ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HOUSING PROVIDERS
• MANDATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
• GUARANTEED FULL RENTAL PAYMENT
Additional suggestions included increasing the number of homeless shelters or letting people move
elsewhere if they cannot find a place to live.
IMPACT OF THIS SCENARIO ON COMMUNITY REPUTATION
Participants did not view this scenario as helping to undo negative perceptions of our community.
Reasons cited for this perspective included:
• discrimination is a matter of perception
• stronger local regulation of the program is what is needed
• the current non-discrimination law is sufficient
• housing providers will find other reasons not to rent to people using a HCV
• the federal government doesn't like cities that do not accept their programs
12
MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THIS SCENARIO
When asked what pieces of this scenario were most important,the top considerations cited by
participants included:
• MAINTAINING LANDLORD FREEDOM OF CHOICE
• MANAGING LITIGATION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH COMPLAINTS
• PROTECTING LANDLORD RIGHTS AND FINANCES
• ENSURING TENANT ACCOUNTABILITY
• LIMITING GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT
`
Additional comments related to the importance of having an ordinance,and the need for an ordinance
to allow land contracts and to not include alimony or child support in the calculation of income for
purposes of an SOI ordinance. There were also two comments that the current non-discrimination
ordinance is sufficient.
OVERALL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ORDINANCE
Participants pointed out two potential risks associated with this scenario:
• THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AN ORDINANCE WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS
AVAILABLE,AND
• AN ORDINANCE COULD WORSEN THE AFFORDABILITY PROBLEM IF LANDLORDS
CHOOSE TO PRICE THEIR UNITS OUTSIDE OF THE HCV MARKET.
PERSPECTIVES ON SCENARIO #2: INCENTIVES AND/OR PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
This section of the report summarizes perceptions and opinions discussed at each of the September
dialogue sessions regarding providing incentives and or program adjustments as a way to encourage
more housing provider participation in the HCV program.
REASONS FOR INCENTIVES AND ADJUSTMENTS
The most common understanding of the reasons some favor incentives was to manage expenses and
damages associated with participating in the program,to expand the number and types of units
available to voucher holders,and to offset the inconvenience of HCV program participation and
inspections. Other suggested reasons for favoring incentives were to shift the risk to government,
maintain housing provider choice,and reduce discrimination. There was one comment suggesting
incentives were being proposed in order to make staff's job easier and another comment suggesting
incentives were being offered to diversify the city. There was one suggestion that incentives and
adjustments are discriminatory.
13
RISKS INCENTIVES AND ADJUSTMENTS COULD HELP HOUSING PROVIDERS MANAGE
The most common risks participants thought incentives and program adjustments could help housing
providers manage were the risks of damage,financial loss,and inconvenience.
OTHER WAYS TO MANAGE HOUSING PROVIDER RISKS
The most common suggestions for managing housing provider risks included:
• CREATING A DAMAGE FUND
• SCREENING RENTERS
• MAINTAINING HOUSING PROVIDER CHOICE
• HOLDING RENTERS ACCOUNTABLE TO PROGRAM RULES
In addition,there was one statement suggesting drug testing for renters,one statement suggesting
renter education,and one statement suggesting a government run housing program.
IMPACT OF THIS SCENARIO ON COMMUNITY REPUTATION
Participants were equally divided on whether or not this scenario might help undo negative perceptions
of our community. Reasons given for thinking this might improve our reputation related to the
likelihood of improved property upkeep,compliance with non-discrimination laws,and expansion of
unit availability. Reasons for thinking this might not help with our reputation included the complexity
of addressing prejudicial attitudes,and dissatisfaction with the inconvenience and federal parameters
of the program.
MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THIS SCENARIO
When asked what pieces of this scenario were most important,the top considerations cited in multiple
comments included:
r
• MAINTAINING HOUSING PROVIDER CHOICE
• NOT REDUCING INSPECTIONS
• WAIVING THE INSPECTION FEE
• PROTECTING HOUSING PROVIDER RIGHTS
• OFFERING A DAMAGE FUND OR OTHERWISE PROTECTING AGAINST FINANCIAL LOSS
The next most important considerations cited in multiple comments included:
• offering tax incentives
• insuring housing provider accountability
• insuring tenant accountability
• offering tenant education
• improving program regulation and oversight
Single comments included:
�4
• not discriminating against housing providers or renters
• providing education for housing providers
• limiting government involvement in housing
• not increasing taxes
• waiving the storm water fee
• using inspection fees to fund damage account
• fixing vacant units
Two comments indicated that none of the incentives or adjustments suggested were acceptable.
OVERALL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH INCENTIVES AND ADJUSTMENTS
Participants pointed out the following potential risks associated with this scenario:
• NOT BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY A FUNDING SOURCE
• ABUSE OF ANY FUND THAT IS ESTABLISHED
• POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE OF RENTERS
• DIVERTING FUNDS THAT COULD BE USED TO HOUSE RENTERS
° J
PERSPECTIVES ON SCENARIO #3: LEAVE EVERYTHING AS IT STANDS
This section of the report summarizes perceptions and opinions discussed at each of the September
dialogue sessions regarding leaving everything as it currently stands,which includes the current culture
of openly advertising "no section 8."
REASONS FOR LEAVING THINGS AS THEY STAND, INCLUDING ADVERTISING "NO
SECTION 8"
The most common understanding of the reasons some think advertising"no section 8,"is acceptable is
because of the perception of the Housing Choice Voucher program and the people who participate in
the program. Related to this is the distinction between earned and unearned benefits,with HCV being
unearned in comparison to veterans or social security benefits. The next most common reasons for
leaving things as they stand include convenience/ability to screen calls and maintaining housing
provider choice.
Single comments included that the current legal protections are sufficient,that there are regulatory
burdens associated with the program,that there is more fraud in the HCV program than with other
kinds of benefits,and that advertising "no Section 8"permits housing providers to find good tenants.
The most common understanding of the reasons some think advertising "no section 8"is not
acceptable is because it is discriminatory or because it is code for race.
15
OPPORTUNITIES THAT MAY BE LOST BY STEREOTYPING HOUSING PROVIDERS AND
RENTERS
The most common understanding of the opportunities that might be lost by assuming that all HCV
tenants are burdens or that all housing providers are prejudiced is the damage thatthis does to our
community,and the potential income that is lost for housing providers.
Single statements included the lost opportunities to increase available units,to reduce vacancy,to
obtain good renters,to support tenants in need,to avoid harm,to increase understanding,and to think
creatively to address the problem.
IMPACT OF THIS SCENARIO ON COMMUNITY REPUTATION
Participants did not view this scenario as helping to undo negative perceptions of our community.
Reasons cited for this perspective included:
• It is a matter of perspective
• There are flaws in the program that need to be addressed
• Existing legal protections are sufficient
• The issues are complex
MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THIS SCENARIO
When asked what pieces of this scenario were most important,the top considerations cited multiple
times included:
• TAKING TIME FOR EDUCATION BEFORE MOVING FORWARD WITH AN ORDINANCE
• MAKING PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
• PROTECTING HOUSING PROVIDER CHOICE
• PROTECTING HOUSING PROVIDER RIGHTS
• RECOGNIZING MARKET FORCES
Single comments about what was most important to participants about this scenario included:
• Relying on tenant screening instead of assumptions
• Showing respect for housing providers
• Making a policy change
• Protecting housing provider income
OVERALL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH LEAVING THINGS AS THEY STAND
Participants pointed out the following potential risks associated with this scenario:
• NOT ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM
• INCREASED CRIME, HOMELESSNESS, OR LIVING IN UNSAFE UNITS
• LOSS OF HOUSING PROVIDERS
• INCREASED SEGREGATION AND REPUTATION AS A CLOSED COMMUNITY
• INABILITY TO LIVE TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY
16
IDEAS FOR MOVING FORWARD
Ideas provided during the October session included the following:
• WAIVE INSPECTION FEES
• CREATE A DAMAGE FUND
• OFFER TAX INCENTIVES
• PERMIT HOUSING PROVIDERS TO DESIGNATE A SUBSET OF ELIGIBLE HCV UNITS
TO LIMIT CONCENTRATION
• PROVIDE HOUSING PROVIDERS EDUCATION ON THE PROGRAM AND ON HOW TO
DEVELOP BUSINESS PLANS TO PROTECT THEIR INVESTMENTS
• PROVIDE RENTERS EDUCATION ON CLEANING AND MAINTAINING THEIR UNIT
AND THE NOISE ORDINANCE
• INSURE THAT THERE ARE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF INSPECTORS AND PROTECT
TENANTS FROM RETALIATION
• SUPPORT RENTERS IN PURSUING SELF-SUFFICIENCY
• SUPPORT RENTER COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT THROUGH COMMUNITY SERVICE,
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, GARBAGE PATROL.
• START A LANDLORD-TENANT ASSOCIATION
---")
Some tables turned in blank sheets and did not offer suggestions. Some sheets that contained
suggestions also contained questions that we have included in the Q&A towards the end of Appendix D.
Dialogue participants who are also part of the working group have submitted ideas and options as well,
which will be included in the final set of options the working group prepares for the City Council.
CONCERNS AND LIMITATIONS
This section summarizes lessons learned and facilitator observations.
While the dialogue was designed to encourage conversations about the complexity of the issues facing
the community, many of the statements recorded were not directly responsive to the questions
participants were asked to discuss. As a result,compiling this report required using some judgment in
deciding which comments were most relevant to the questions being asked,and then coding those
comments into related categories. The full text of commentary is included in Appendix D.
Volunteer scribes were recruited from the community in order to avoid having City staff at the tables in
hopes this would ensure more open conversation. Unfortunately,we did not get sufficient volunteers
and some participants were asked to scribe,which may have limited their ability to make contributions
to the conversation. In addition,one volunteer scribe reported to facilitators after the event that a
17
housing provider had requested that the scribe cross out a statement made by a renter after the
provider obtained renter agreement to the action.
Finally,we noted heavy reliance on individual experiences, beliefs,and/or stories that have been heard
from others and limited discussion of the data that was provided and the concerns that need to be
addressed as a community.While we acknowledge the importance of individual experiences,we also
are aware that stories can take on a life of their own in the absence of data or in direct contradiction to
data, making both important to decision making. There also appeared to be a significant amount of
fear and distrust,which further created an environment where it was difficult to have a conversation
focused on using data as a check on biases and assumptions. These factors made it very difficult to
shift the group away from opposition and towards creating positive alternatives together.
In retrospect, it would have been preferable to have skilled facilitators at each table in order to ensure
that the conversation remained on topic,to redirect the conversation towards solutions and potential
steps forward,and to avoid groupthink and ensure that all perspectives were both solicited and
recorded. In addition, in circumstances where there appears to be deeply held distrust of City staff, it
may be advisable to pay for an outside consultant.
i8
APPENDIX A — SKIT
This is the skitthat was used to help make the issues more concrete and human-centered.
CHARACTERS
Renter A(Kelly): single mom,three kids, has a Housing Choice Voucher,from Cascade and moved
here for better opportunity for kids;is focused on making sure that the property is clean and safe for her
kids
Renter B (Taj): college educated,single,veteran benefits, has a Housing Choice Voucher, moved here
from Milwaukee;is focused on making sure the unit is close enough to walk or bike to work because he
works after bus stops running
Renter C(Nikola): single,disability benefits, has a Housing Choice Voucher, local;is focused on
making sure he will be able to live in the property when his condition progresses to using a wheelchair
Housing Provider#2 (Jerelyn):owns one four-plex and has limited income
Housing Provider#2 (Jerelyn):owns several properties throughout town, many of which are too
expensive fora housing choice voucher holder
Housing Provider#3 (Jerelyn):owns several older properties in high density neighborhoods and does
not live here in town
Housing Provider#4(Jerelyn):owns several units, uses an application process that also protects her
interests,conducts background checks,and gives her tenants a list of rules and expectations.
Housing Provider#5 (Kelly): stops Housing Provider#4 on the street for a short conversation about
housing vouchers and her concerns as a landlord.
SCENE #1 — IN THE COMMUNITY
RENTER A VISITS HOUSING PROVIDER #1
Housing Provider#1(Jerelyn): Good morning! How can I help you?
Renter A(Kelly): I am looking for a unit for myself and my three children and I saw your ad in the paper.
Your property looks really nice, and I want a nice place for my kids.
Housing Provider#1: Sure! I have a two bedroom available in my four-plex. The rent is $750.Will you
be able to afford that?
Renter A: Yes, I work part-time for the school district and I have a housing voucher that will cover the
rest of the cost.
19
Housing Provider#1: Oh, I'm so sorry. I don't accept housing vouchers. I'm sure you're a good tenant,
but I know some people who have been burned by tenants who have trashed their place and they
weren't able to get their money back.
Renter A: Umm...Ok. But what does this have to do with me?
Housing Provider#1:Nothing. Like I said, I'm sure you are a good tenant. I just don't accept housing
vouchers.
Renter A: Ok,thanks for your time.
Renter A proceeds to Coffee Shop and sits down, circling ads in paper
RENTER B VISITS HOUSING PROVIDER #2
Renter B (Taj): Hi. I've been seeing your ads around town and it looks like you have some pretty nice
places out on the west end. I'm looking for a one bedroom for about$Soo or so a month.
Housing Provider#2 (Jerelyn): Well, I have some in that price range downtown. My west end units are
priced quite a bit higher than that,though.
Renter B: I might be able to pay a bit more. I have Veteran's benefits and a housing voucher,and I
know that the housing staff told me that sometimes the more expensive units are still a possibility
because of something called"exception rents"that they have approval for. I'll get in touch with them
and check it out. What do you have available in what price ranges?
Housing Provider#2: Oh, sorry. I'd love to help out a fellow Vet but I didn't know you had a housing
voucher. Ijust can't participate in that program—there are so many regulations and I don't like having
someone look over my shoulder and being told who I can or can't rent to. You understand, right?
Renter B: I guess. Let me know if you change your mind.
Renter B proceeds to Coffee Shop and sits down, circling ads in paper
RENTER C VISITS HOUSING PROVIDER #3
Housing Provider#3(Jerelyn): Hi! Let's go on in and see the one-bedroom that's available. Where ya
from?
Renter C(Nikola): I'm a Dubuquer—born and raised!
Housing Provider#3: Ah. Good stock, huh? I'm not actually from here, but I like this place. I live out of
town and have quite a few properties in some high density areas. Folks can get at each other in close
quarters and I don't have a lot of time or patience for that. Are you a good neighbor? Get along well
with people?
Renter C: Yeah. I haven't had too many problems. So, I need to make sure the cost of your place is
within what I can afford with my disability and housing benefits—what's the rent?
20
Housing Provider: Oh, I don't accept housing benefits. I've heard too many stories about people on the
program causing trouble with neighbors, not keeping stuff clean, noise. I know it's not everyone, but I
just don't have time to deal with the ones who are a problem.
Renter C: Unbelievable.Thanks anyways.
Renter C proceeds to Coffee Shop and sits down, circling ads in paper. The three renters begin to strike up
a conversation in Scene#2.
SCENE #2 — AT THE COFFEE SHOP
Renter A(Kelly): Looks like you guys are trying to find a place,too. Any luck?
RenterB(Taj): Naw. You wouldn't believe what I'm running into. It's like everyone assumes I'm going
to suck as a renter.
Renter C (Nikola): Oh my gosh! I'm having the same experience! One person seemed to think I was
going to be a terrible neighbor,especially once she found out I use a housing voucher.
Renter A: I know, right?! I have two kids and people kept saying stuff like the kids will trash the place
or be noisy,or that I shouldn't worry if the place doesn't look nice as long as it meets the bare safety
minimum. Does everybody hate kids in this place?
Renter B: Oh, I don't know- I imagine people have had some bad experiences and they've just let that
warp their judgment. I just wish they would judge me for me,you know? Go ahead and check my
background and stuff and if I've been a bad tenant,you have every right to hold that against me. But
why is it fair to take away my opportunities based on bad experiences you've had with other people?
That just ain't right.
Renter A: Yeah. I do kinda get that it would be tough to be a landlord,though. One lady told me she
only has a little four-plex and is barely making ends meet. I get why she might be extra cautious about
making sure the person she rents to won't trash the place. I just wish she'd check my references. I've
been renting for years and always get my deposit back.
Renter C: Me,too. And I feel like nobody cares anymore about the struggles people might have. One
person told me they don't want to deal with the regulations and stuff for housing vouchers. Boy, I'm
with the landlord on this one! I don't want to deal with all the crazy rules either! But I don't have a
choice - my disability is getting worse and worse and pretty soon I'll be in a wheelchair. Ijust can't make
ends meet any other way.
Renter B: Tell me about it. I've been killing myself working and trying to get an MBA after getting out
of the service and I'm so close to not needing the voucher any more, but if I can't get a place where I can
keep getting to work, I'm going to end up stuck. I gotta believe there's someone out there willing to
give me a chance,though. I'm heading back out. Nice chatting with the two of you and good luck!
Renter A: Good luck to you,too! It's time for me to get back out there,too, before I have to pick the
kids up from school.
21
Renter C: Yep,we must've just gotten the short end of the stick today. I'm sure we'll find something.
Good luck,all.
SCENE #3 — IN THE COMMUNITY
RENTER C VISITS HOUSING PROVIDER #4
Housing Provider#4(Jerelyn): Hello! I understand interested in our units. Here's some information on
what's available. Do you have any questions for me?
Renter C(Nikola): Yes, I'm wondering about accessibility, prices,the application process,and if you
accept housing vouchers.
Housing Provider 4: Ok. First,yes, I do accept housing vouchers. Lots of people seem to struggle with
rent these days,and I like knowing there is a certain amount of rent I am guaranteed to get each month
from the government. As for accessibility, I have some units that are accessible and others that are in
old buildings and not very accessible. Here's a list of what I have available and the prices and we can
talk more about which one's you would like to visit.
Renter C: And the application process?
Housing Provider 4: Yes. I have a standard process and lease for everyone. As part of the process, I
need you to provide three references,at least two of which must be past landlords. I also will run a
criminal background check through the Police Department. I have a standard set of rules and
expectations that I give to everyone to try to help us all stay on the same page regarding responsibilities
and how things should be handled.
Renter C: Excellent. Let's get started.
Housing Provider#4: Ok! Here's all of the paperwork. Please complete it and return it to me as soon
as you can.
Renter C: Will do! Thanks!
As Housing Provider#4 is leaving, she runs into another housing provider who stops to chat.
Housing Provider#5 stops Housing Provider#4 as she is leaving her interaction with Renter C and they
have the following discussion.
Housing Provider (Kelly): Hi! Haven't seen you in a while. Hey—I just overheard you talking about
accepting housing vouchers and I have a question for you. Don't you worry about damage to your
property? If someone receiving a voucher causes more damage than the deposit will cover,you're out
of luck in recovering, right?
Housing Provider 4(Jerelyn): Well,yes, I've had that happen once or twice. It hasn't happened very
often,though. The Housing Department has some pretty strict rules and it is really not in a tenant's
best interest to cause significant damage if they need to continue receiving assistance. Besides, I've
22
had tenants who do not receive vouchers damage my property and have found myself in the same boat.
A lot of renters these days just don't have a lot of money. I try to manage my risk by being really
thorough with background and reference checks and when that fails, I chalk it up to the price of doing
business.
Housing Provider 5(Kelly): That may work for you, but you do have quite a few more properties than
me. I'm guessing you can sustain more loss.
Housing Provider 4(Jerelyn): To a degree that's probably true. But have you ever had tenants who
have struggled to make rent? I know that I have, and what I like about the voucher program is that I am
guaranteed a certain amount every month even if my tenant is otherwise struggling. That has been an
important consideration for me in balancing the risk. I also do not have to pay an inspection fee when I
rent to someone using a voucher—that's 8o bucks a crack saved.
Housing Provider a(Kelly): Hmm. That's an interesting way to look at it. I don't have time now, but I'd
really need more time to talk and think about this. See you later!
23
::Time
;Houser-
bye
-Hf\'
APPENDIX B — PARTICIPANT HANDOUTS
The documents contained in this appendix were provided to the participants in the dialogue sessions.
Factual Summary for Handouts 1-4
Handout #1: Qualify, Availability, Affordability for Families Earning Less than 51% AMFI
• 6,050 families in Dubuque have household incomes of less than 51%of the Area Median
Family Income. Ex: a family of four with a household income of$33,700 or lower would be
included in the 6,050 families.
• Dubuque has a shortage of 1,975 units that are affordable to families in the lowest income
tier of 0-30%of the HUD Area Median Family Income (a unit is considered affordable if no
more than 30% of the family's income is used for rent). Ex: a family of four with a
household income of$24,300 or lower would fall within the 0-30% HAMFI.
• 2,718 of families earning less than 51% HAMFI are spending more than 30%of their income
on rent. Ex: a person spending less than 30%of their income on housing would have to
work nearly two full-time jobs at the federal minimum wage of$7.25 an hour to afford fair
market rent of$737/month for a 2-bedroom apartment.
• 175 families in our community live in rental units that lack complete plumbing or kitchen
facilities and 69 families live in units that are overcrowded.
Handout#2: The Housing Choice Voucher Program
• One of the ways that government helps families keep their housing affordable is through
the Housing Choice Voucher program funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD).
• The City of Dubuque receives funding through the HUD HCV program and is authorized to
serve a maximum of 1,072 households whose household income is less than 51% of the
AMFI.
• Renters who use Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance must meet eligibility and
screening requirements through the City of Dubuque Housing and Community Development
Department.
• The majority of people on the Housing Choice Voucher program are within one or more of
the groups historically discriminated against (elderly, disabled, single mothers, racial or
ethnic minorities), and nearly half of the participants as of June 2015 had income from
wages
• Approximately 58% of households issued a voucher are able to successfully find and lease a
unit affordable to them within 60 days of receiving a voucher. The top five reasons for the
inability to successfully lease with the voucher included: 1) no suitable unit; 2) medical
issues; 3) price too high; 4) no security deposit; and 5) housing providers not accepting HCV.
24
• A point in time analysis last year indicated that approximately 17% of housing providers in
the community were accepting Housing Choice Vouchers at the time.
Handout #3: Dispersion of Units Affordable to Families Earning Less than 51% AMFI and
Units Occupied by a Housing Choice Voucher Participant
• Units affordable to families earning 0-30%AMFI and families earning up to 50%AMFI are
less dispersed throughout the community than units affordable to people earning more
than 50% AMFI.
• Units occupied by families receiving HCVs are not dispersed throughout the community. In
general, the highest concentrations of units occupied by families using housing choice
vouchers are in the downtown area.
• Under certain circumstances, families receiving an HCV can be approved for an "exception
rent" that allows them to rent a unit slightly above market rate.
Handout#4: Federal Funding Details
• Like most cities across the United States,the City of Dubuque supplements property taxes
with funding received from the state and federal governments. During Fiscal Year 2016, the
City of Dubuque received a total of$18,908, 211.59 in federal funding.
• It is illegal for the City to discriminate based on race, color, or national origin in carrying out
any program or activity that receives federal funding. During fiscal year 2016, the City of
Dubuque received nearly 19 million in federal funds. 5 million of those funds were for
housing related programs. The remaining funds included:
o 8 million for air and bus transportation
o 3.5 million for highways and traffic safety
o 1.5 million for economic and community development
o 211,000 for education
o 196,000 for parks and trails
o 133,000 for health and public safety
25
Handout 1: Unit Quality, Availability and Affordability for Families
Earning < 51% of Area Median Family Income
Number of Households Meeting the Housing Choice Voucher Income Limits Contrasted with Number of
Units Affordable to Those Households
7000
6000
5000
3465
4000
3000
2000
2585
1000
610
0
Households Units
■<30%AMFI ■31°%to 50°%AM F I
Source:2015 Consolidated Plan
AMFI =Area Median Family Income
One of the requirements to be eligible for a Housing Choice Voucher is that the family's income must be
50%of the AMFI or less.
The first column in this chart shows that there are 3,465 families in our community earning between 31-
50%of AMFI (orange band) and 2,585 earning less than 30%AFMI (blue band), or a total of 6,050
families.
The second column shows that there are 610 units affordable for those earning less than 30%AMFI
(blue band) and 4,450 units affordable for those earning between 31-50%AFMI (orange band). Of
course, those earning 30-50%AMFI may also choose to live in the 610 lower cost units. If our goal is to
keep families in affordable housing(meaning housing that does not exceed 30%of their income), then
there is a shortage of 1,975 units for the very lowest earning households in Dubuque.
26
Number of Households Meeting the Housing Choice Voucher Income Limits who are Cost-Burdened
Household Cost Burden
_Hous!::::
earning 0-30%
HAM Housearning 30-50%
HAMFI
Source:2015 Consolidated Plan
This chart shows the number of families earning less than 51% HAMFI and renting units in Dubuque who
are cost-burdened, meaning that they are spending more than 30%of their income on their rental
housing costs.
27
Number of Households Meeting the Housing Choice Voucher Income Limits and Experiencing Additional
Housing Problems
Housing Quality Problems <51% HAMFI
■Lacking complete plumbing or
kitchen
•Severely overcrowded
❑Overcrowded
Source:2015 Consolidated Plan
This chart shows some of the housing problems experienced by renters whose incomes are 50% HAMFI
or less. In Dubuque, there are:
• 175 families living in rental units that lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities,
• 55 families living in rental units that are severely overcrowded, defined as >than 1.51
people per room, and
• 14 families living in rental units that are overcrowded, defined as 1.01-1.5 people per
room.
28
Handout 2: The Housing Choice Voucher Program in Dubuque
Program Overview
What is the Housing Choice Voucher?
The Housing Choice Voucher(HCV) is the federal government's major program to assist families and
individuals in finding decent, safe,and affordable housing in the private sector. Since housing assistance
is provided on behalf of the family or individual,participants are able to find their own housing,
including single-family homes,townhouses and apartments.The City of Dubuque Housing and
Community Development Department has 1,072 vouchers to assist very low-income families and
individuals.
Eligibility, Application, and Waiting List
Eligible applicants are in the very low-income (<50%AMFI) bracket according to the enclosed Eligibility
Guidelines set forth by the federal government. Applicants must also be 18 years of age,and are
screened according to the enclosed City of Dubuque admissions policy to determine final eligibility at
time of voucher issuance. The Housing Choice Voucher waiting list is closed as of April 30, 2015. A
notice will be published on the website at www.cityofdubuque.org/hcv once the waiting list is opened to
receive applications. A lottery system will be used to determine which applicants are placed on the
Housing Choice Voucher waiting list. The City will send written notification of the preliminary
determination of those applicants selected to be placed on the waiting list. The City will also implement
an applicant portal allowing interested individuals/families to apply online.
Notice is mailed to an applicant when his/her name reaches the top of the waiting list.
Voucher Payment Standards
The "voucher payment standard" is the maximum monthly housing assistance payment for the family
(before deducting the total tenant payment by the family). The maximum housing assistance is
generally the lesser of the payment standard minus 30%of the family's monthly adjusted income or the
gross rent for the unit minus 30%of monthly adjusted income
Bedrooms 0 1 2 3 4 5 SRO
VPS $413 $511 $746 $968 $1032 $1187 $309
(effective 12/01/2015)
A family that is issued a housing voucher is responsible for finding a suitable housing unit of the family's
choice where the owner agrees to rent under the program. This unit may include the family's present
residence.
29
Participant Responsibilities
1. The participant and all family members must report in writing any changes in household members
within 30 days of the change occurring. Changes must be accompanied with verification and/or
documentation of the change.
2. The family must report all income from all sources for the entire year on their annual reexamination
forms. Remember income for all household members must be reported
a. Increase in Income:You are required to report all increases in income in writing within 30 days of
the increase. Your portion of the rent payment will increase if the income increase is more than $200
per month. Annual cost of living increases for all Social Security Benefits does not need to be reported.
b. Decrease in Income: Please report any decreases in income in writing,and provide verification of
the decrease (ex: pay stubs) by the 20th of the month in order for it to be effective by the 1st of the next
month. Decreases reported with proper verification between the 20th and end of the month will be
processed and retroactively dated for the 1st of the next month. In this case,you might have to pay
your rent share until the following month when the new payment amount is processed, so please work
with your landlord.
3. The family must notify Housing staff in writing if the family is going to be absent from the unit for
two weeks or longer.Any absences extending beyond 30 consecutive days must have Housing staff
approval in writing prior to the absence. Approval for absences longer than 30 days will be given due to
physician-approved medical causes. However, the tenant cannot be absent from the assisted unit for
more than 180 consecutive calendar days.
4. The family must notify Housing staff within 30 days of the birth,adoption,or court-awarded custody
of a child.
5. The family must request written approval from the Landlord before adding any other person into the
household and must notify Housing staff in writing if any family member moves from the household or
the family is requesting to add any other person into the household. No other person,adult or child,
other than those listed on the lease and Housing application shall live/stay in the unit other than on a
temporary basis without prior written permission by the Landlord and notification to Housing staff. Any
person who is not on your lease who is expected to stay in your unit for more than 15 days in a row or
30 days total within a 12 month period is not considered a guest and must be added to the
household. Exceptions will be made for non-custodial children but you must contact your caseworker
and landlord.
6. Use of the assisted dwelling unit's address by any person other than those approved by the PHA to
live in the assisted housing unit shall be used as evidence that the person is living in the unit as an
unauthorized member resulting in the termination of the participant family.
7. The family must have all utility services including phone and cable that the family is responsible to
pay in the family's own name.The utilities must remain in service at all times.
3o
8. The family will not allow any family member to engage in drug-related criminal activity or violent
criminal activity or other criminal activity that threatens the health, safety or right to peaceful
enjoyment of other residents and persons residing in the immediate vicinity of the premises.
9. No family member can be related to the owner or other interested party of the rental unit.You must
disclose any relationship between the owner's
family and the tenant's family.
10. The family is expected to comply with the lease and the program requirements as listed on the
Voucher form, pay its share of rent on time, maintain the unit in good condition and notify the PHA of
any changes in income or family.
11. Under no circumstances shall an assisted housing unit be used for places of furlough for anyone that
is incarcerated.
12. The assisted housing unit must be the family's (including all members of the household) only
residence.
13. A family may move only once during any twelve month period.
14. Any move or unit change during the initial term (first year) of the lease is prohibited.
15. The family must notify Housing and the landlord in writing before moving to a new unit.
16. Participation in the Assisted Housing program shall be terminated if a participant or any member of
the household has two or more drug-related or violent criminal activity convictions from separate
incidents classified as simple misdemeanor or equivalency within a twelve-month period prior to the
date the Public Housing Authority provides notice to the family.
17. Participation in the Assisted Housing program shall be terminated if a participant or any member of
the household has a drug-related or violent criminal activity conviction classified as serious/aggravated
misdemeanor or equivalency within a three-year period prior to the date the Public Housing Authority
provides notice to the family
18. Participation in the Assisted Housing program shall be terminated if a participant or any member of
the household has a drug-related or violent criminal activity conviction classified as a felony or
equivalency within a seven-year period prior to the date the Public Housing Authority provides notice to
the family
19. Participation in the Section 8 programs shall be terminated if the applicant or any family member
has any criminal activity associated with alcohol abuse that includes evidence that the alcohol abuse
interferes or could interfere with the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by
other residents while under the influence of alcohol.
31
20. Deferred judgments shall constitute a guilty conviction.
32
Participant Statistical Summary Housing Choice Voucher
Effective Date: June 1, 2016
Prepared by: Janet Walker
Date Prepared: 8/12/2016
Number in Household
Household Size Total Families
1 421 48.11%
2 171 19.54%
3 123 14.06%
4 73 8.34%
5 51 5.83%
6 21 2.40%
7 7 0.80%
8 or more 8 0.91%
Total Families: 875 100.00%
Racial Composition of Head of Household
Primary Race (non-Hispanic) Total Families
White 529 60.46%
Black/African American 326 37.26%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 3 0.34%
Asian 4 0.46%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 13 1.49%
Total (Non Hisp)Families: 875 100.00%
Ethnicity Composition of Head of Household
Ethnicity Total Families %
Non-Hispanic 863 98.63%
Hispanic 23 1.37%
Total Families: 875 100.00%
Citizenship Composition of Head of Household
Citizenship Total Members
Ineligible Non-Citizen 0.00%
Eligible Citizen 872 99.66%
Eligible Non-Citizen 3 0.34%
Total Families: 875 100.00%
33
Voucher Participant Income Data June 2015
Source of Income Count of Source of Sum of Annual Income Amount
Income
Elderly 278 12256944.60
• Disabled 169 1233681.36
o Other Non-Wage Sources 4 8204.00
o Other Wage 11 9612.00
o Own Business 1 12.00
o Pension 10 37793.36
o Social Security 94 926878.00
o SSI 48 250702.00
o TANF (formerly AFDC) 1 480.00
• Non-Disabled 109 1023263.24
o Other Non-Wage Sources 3 5343.00
o Other Wage 3 29971.00
o Pension 27 78063.24
o Social Security 76 909886.00
Non-Elderly I 1148 I 8388623.64
• Disabled 612 3859667.00
o Child Support 12 27087.00
o Other Non-Wage Sources 13 17656.00
o Other Wage 76 345899.00
o Own Business 13 5344.00
o Pension 2 7574.00
o Social Security 249 1975811.00
o SSI 228 1411044.00
o TANF(formerly AFDC) 19 69252.00
• Non-Disabled 536 4528956.64
o Annual imputed welfare income 1 1092.00
o Child Support 79 193361.64
o Other Non-Wage Sources 12 22507.00
o Other Wage 265 3375582.00
o Own Business 17 41423.00
o Pension 2 10226.00
o Social Security 18 99803.00
o SSI 46 375624.00
o TANF(formerly AFDC) 85 363674.00
o Unemployment Benefits 11 45664.00
Grand Total 1426 10645568.24
Note: Information above lists all income from all household members not just the head of household.
Some household members have more than one source of income,such as Social Security and Pension,
etc.
34
Time it is Taking Voucher Holders to Enter into a Lease from Date of Voucher Issuance
Cumulative Issuance to Leasing Timing: Percent Leased
deg
■ In 30 Days • In 30 to 60 Days • In 60 to 90 Days • In 90 to 120 Days • in 120 to 150 days
Source:HCV Program FY2015 Leasing Data
Common problems experienced by Housing Choice Voucher participants seeking a rental unit
In 2014,the Housing Department conducted a random survey of HCV participants who requested an
extension of time to find a unit. The chart below shows the top five reasons people were experiencing
difficulty.
VA'�10
•Can't Find Suitable Unit • Medical Issues • Found Unit/Price too High
• Don't Have Security Deposit • Providers Don't Accept HCV
Source:2014 HCV Participant Survey
A point in time analysis by the Housing Department in 2015 indicated that approximately 17%
of housing providers in the community were accepting Housing Choice Vouchers at the time.
35
Handout 3: Dispersion of Units Affordable to Families Earning <51% AMFI and Units Occupied by a
Housing Choice Voucher Recipient
Rental Units Affordable to Families Earning 0-30% AMFI
CPD Maps - % Rental Units Affordable to 30% HAMFI
______i/v.,- -,
\\11
il
L. ilAilteli. ,
Ar Jill .-- 1 i
Ill __::
eiddripliL
ialiall 0
March 2 2C15 1:01.772
0 475 1.5 3n
__ _1 ft,nt.ri_ntBTO_]Fer:En-F'MFI J0.753.08% - 3224% I t ti ti ti ti ti ti '1
AFF_AVAIL 30 R PCT t25 25 stm
I — — — I .•,.o.cr OM 3•4x,••nc..nrnsp •c.a w:.•
1023-32.24% a'e.e.e.,................../...e.
Source:2015 Consolidated Plan
36
Rental Units Affordable to Families Earning 0-50% AMFI
CPD Maps - % Rental Units Affordable to 50% HAMFI
lialk' 1,....„,,,H- l'ir-
,:-.'ll'
•
Iii .
•
i.411.
• _
J �l r
i
,' _ o
3 ,
jimmill~ ..
illirilk 1.-- ilkftiliAllria. . .
March 7_2615 1:61.772
a n75 1.5 3n1
Cverride1 RenlarUnit8To5OPercenI1 MFI 4.51-12.61% _>53.22% I I 1 1 5 ti ti ti 'I
AFF AVAIL 50 R PCT a 125 2.5 51in
12.81-27.14% swarm s.P.M.o.e... "a you, tri
w...
ewq ee.ceCe, I.M.N.
1
s
iMan,1/21'k sari CM. Wong ar. i Tree•. ♦..y..
.4 F 1'.ti27.14.63.22% ••••••••••o...�a.r..e..swm rti m�..,c...e,en
Source:2015 Consolidated Plan
37
Concentrations of Rental Units Occupied by Housing Choice Voucher Participants
r
JlrP'► *� 1111117:1
� r �
H D Ifl' IfJ
illOPP A
ELI
may
6: Il Wm il
KENNEDY ' °d 111:4\
N 1 If,
0 1 to Pio So. ....==i lestov. #& 4
A 117.1.1111P. 11„11' \ 1=1 A ./ ,,4
-4- i sT
... v4 it. Mt& li 1411 4"
-9s. T. .•,
vol„ 440 4*1-.. v st__,1‘,._ Na
k t oshest
1 --T-i.-- is-•- yip% s. s ‘k, , 7
010 N
kp • I ,
1141 IIV-
,_.., I z . Ate A. at. • 0.
aggl.- -or • ili
Aliviti.), .tillOglalp .„.F , motootw0
in_ - tionibm . ,,••,:•stn'
��11 1� .AVE. • I `►.•e et♦ .•♦ o. 4
pEN SY VAN I linal IPI Ia„. tool.41011e000 0 Ai` NE Ait♦ 1
�� `r��r 1 orri � mid' ��'� 10
I licrOtAim.. 00,41.11 watt As•%11‘
111111•--- datinarkiesillanngel
l/VA 1;14 w
11
tmopDODGE , ►
00011 VI) '
. \`sem 41 tir,.
1, ara �
1 it II-11
. A' •
- Ar-
j,Low Densit Hi,h DensitA
H:1 Housing 1Rental l HCVDensi ty2016.mx
�►-* Will'
Date:8/29/2016 ` NORTH
RI ,f---- -
38
Exception Rents and Approved Areas: Census Tracts 8.01, 8.02, 12.01, 12.02, 12.04
Exception Rents: HUD may approve an exception payment standard that is higher than the basic
range for a designated part of the fair market rent area in an effort to deconcentrate Voucher
participants from high poverty areas.
As part of the City of Dubuque's strategy to deconcentrate neighborhoods in poverty, HUD has
approved an exception rents in Census Tracts 8.01,8.02, 12.01, 12.02, 12.04 and 12.05. The Voucher
Payment Standards within the above census tracts will be set at the 110%of the 50th percentile
published Fair Market Rents and will be adjusted on January 1 of each year to maintain the exception
payment standards of the most recent FMR data published.
Bedrooms 0 1 2 3 4
VPS In $507 $609 $816 $1051 $1204
Exception
Rents Areas
(effective 12/11/2015)
*The attached maps are the approved areas for the exception rents.
39
Handout 4: Federal Funding Details
Like most cities across the United States,the City of Dubuque supplements property taxes with funding
received from the state and federal governments. Compliance with civil rights laws is required in order
to be eligible for any federal funds. During Fiscal Year 2016, the City of Dubuque received a total of
$18,908,211.59 in federal funding. The chart below provides a snapshot of those funds and their
budgeted purposes.
Purpose Amount of Federal Funds
EDA Brownfields Assessment $193,411.37
CDBG Caradco/Millwork District $13, 134.00
Police Justice Assistance Grant $16,505.00
Police Meth Hot Spots Grant $2,929.52
Police Narcotics Investigation Grant $28,452.65
Police Domestic Abuse Grant $6,449.02
Police Traffic Services Grant $26,040.10
Community Health Services Grant $2,352.26
National Park Service Grant $33,900
Highways $3,514,715.28
Traffic Safety $7,010.13
Trails $161,737.99
AmeriCorps $210,836.00
Clean Diesel $14,374.63
Continuum of Care Housing $76,531.00
Community Development $696,970.47
Lead Paint Hazard Mitigation $227,664.63
Moderate Income Housing Rehabilitation $81,787.00
Family Self Sufficiency $97,719.00
Housing Choice Voucher Program Administration $569,014.29
Housing Choice Voucher Housing Assistance $3,860,954
Federal Assistance to Firefighters $50,882
Aviation Administration $5,238,098.34
Build America Bonds Subsidy $178,614.72
Public Transit $3,092,171
Economic Development $505,957.19
40
FY 2016 Federal Funding in Millions of Dollars
0.13
0.2—
0.21.
■Air&Bus ■ Highways&Traffic
■ Economic&Community Development - Education
■Parks&Trails ■ Health&Safety
■Housing
During fiscal year 2016,the City of Dubuque received nearly 19 million in federal funds. 5
million of those funds were for housing related programs. The remaining funds included;
• 8 million for air and bus transportation
• 3.5 million for highways and traffic safety
• 1.5 million for economic and community development
• 211,000 for education
• 196,000 for parks and trails
• 133,000 for health and public safety
41
42
APPENDIX C — PARTICIPANT DIALOGUE MATERIALS
The documents contained in this appendix were provided to participants to help guide their
conversations about what is at stake for our community and the pros and cons of three different
scenarios.
43
APPENDIX D — RAW DATA FROM DIALOGUE NOTES
9/13/2016
INITIAL CONVERSATION
Is it important for our country to have the HCV program?Why?
• It is not important to have HCV. It's too much government dictating.
• Yes, should have a HCV program.We all agree on the program and there is a need. Understand
there is poverty and a need for housing for everyone.
• Yes for vets and disabled (mentally and physically) but should be temporary;yes but we should
help the people of Dubuque first; Government programs get too big and tax payer pays;vetting
process stronger
• Yes but only for handicapped and disabled and single mothers. For people who have lost their
job.Temporarily housing only.
• Local elderly or many handicapped individuals get denied housing;there not a priority
• Yes it's important to provide vouchers to the most needy.What we are concerned about is
those not needing vouchers get them,and then don't work.
• No it's not the governments business- local community,faith based and charitable
organizations responsibility;would be more favorable with local control and decision making,
not federal government;who should be running it?;there should be a program but landlords
should decide if they participate; should limit and define need more narrowly; no protections
for landlords/providers
• Yes- mainly disabilities,working individuals whose income does not allow adequate or
affordable housing
What might be the consequences for our community if we did not have a program like this?
• The consequences would be laying off 25%of the police and fire department and garbage
pickup.
• We would lose federal dollars, homelessness,crime increase,fewer people relocating here,and,
possibly, more support for local people/families.
• Don't see as consequences...opportunity for private organizations to help(i.e.churches);more
homeless
• Incentive to go to work
• In my neighborhood out of state housing tenants have lowered my property value by at least
20%location/location next door they have been dealing drugs for over 2 years,the landlord
openly admitted it and police do (nothing)!
• We don't believe the government is the most efficient vehicle for spending these funds and
determining those who need it most.
• Without program: no feds dictating to US, more freedom, more quality properties available;
with the program we have stricter regulation could cause decrease in providers; increase in
profiteers by providing substandard housing;
44
• Loss of federal funding; increase of homelessness
There are a lot of resources and opportunities for community members to better their lives.Who
plays a role in helping people find out about these resources and opportunities?
• If anybody participation in the HCV program doesn't take advantage of the betterment
programs they would be kicked off.
• Lots of resources,churches, schools,everyone should play a role in helping
• Communicating about programs.Who's responsible? City websites, library,word of mouth,
nonprofit organizations
• Church-mission-newspaper
• The housing program does not encourage responsibility or offer benefit to the community
• Anyone who applies for housing vouchers should be given a list of available resources
• Job fairs,community resource fairs, 2-1-1,referrals from other programs
• Community,churches, social media,city,the individual in need would need to seek out the
above
A. What role do housing providers play?
o Provide affordable housing to and body that wants to rent
o Role-as landlords refer them to certain resources for their needs
o Clean, safe place:do I want my kids to live here?Although if you want upscale you have
to pay for it.
o Big role however housing providers should have control over own properties and what
programs we want to participate.
o We should be wanting to provide housing opportunities for all, but with rules and
accountability;we also have a responsibility to make sure all our tenants are not only
safe but also living in a quiet,comfortable community
o To provide safe,quality,clean unites
o If we know what they are in need of we can help direct them to proper resources
B. What role do renters play?
o Rent affordable housing-there is a rental for everybody that wants to rent.
o Communicating with others and landlords
o Consistent pay,good care/respect
o Pay rent, keep place clean; pick up garbage and respect their neighbors
o Tenants should be held responsible for maintaining their spaces and respecting others
living around them
o Responsible for finding resources; productive neighbors;take care of trash;take care of
children
o Be responsible and proactive;take initiative; be respectful to themselves, prop. Owners,
community, neighbors
Miscellaneous:
• 17%of landlords accept vouchers?
• Why the city cut the rent to landlord ex: rent 75o/voucher 140-648 of less on total rent income
45
• Vouchers should be only on initiative
• Process for voucher a little clunky
• If landlord was told to take voucher and property destroyed shouldn't city be liable
• The program will increase crime; so if they the housing tenants don't look for work there more
likely to commit crime.
911312016
SCENARIO 1: PASS A LOCAL "SOURCE OF INCOME" ORDINANCE
Why do you think some groups want to add source of income to the non-discrimination ordinance?
• Encourage law suits; so that government can direct us while we have to pay taxes,fees,etc.
• The idea is to discriminate against landlords and make it much easier for housing tenants
• More rental availability;we are not bias we just want freedom
• Most at our table have had some good experiences with certain housing residents, but we don't
think housing should be mandated by the government.
• Difficulty finding places to live;administrators want to keep jobs and programs; desire to strip
providers of rights;desire to move to different neighborhoods where no openings
• For money,government makes money,guaranteed money-tenant would have more housing
options
• Continue to get handouts without having to look to better their situation long-term
What risks would a source of income non-discrimination ordinance help renters manage?Are there
other ways to manage these risks?
• Takes away incentives of tenants to manage their lives and be self-sufficient. Encourages
renters to participate in programs for their betterment.Volunteer for community needs to build
skill
• It would help them get an apartment easier,and the city or most voucher owners don't care
about our needs.
• Allow better place to live; more options for kids; but then landlords lose their rights
• We would be guaranteed a minimum rent by the government, but we need full rent to pay our
bills.
• Not being able to find housing-or descent place;there are no risks for renters; inspections
should be done more uniformly,fix flaws in existing program
• No risks for tenants. Landlord have all the risk.
• The risk of non-housing-free housing however we believe there are more risk to landlords than
tenant in this scenario
• Gives them the ability to claim decimation by another means
Do you think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment of us?Why or why not?
• No-whose judgment???
• The federal government doesn't like cities that don't accept all their programs.
• I don't care what people think of us. I want character and integrity.
46
• How many are moving into town on waiting list? Question is stacked- loaded question. Some
people who come here may feel that providers are racist; not going to cure racism with voucher
either in perception of Dubuque or providers'perception of renters.
• HUD issue directed to Dubuque- made a focal point of discrimination- not landlords; no we do
not think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment; because HUD isn't regulation the local
program it self-that is an issue the BAD tenants,damage,destruction units-who regulates
that?
• No there are already policies in place to prevent discrimination
What pieces of this scenario are most important to you?Why?
• The right of property owners and freedom of choice to manage their investments.
• Landlords need more rights and supportfrom local police.
• I don't want to be forced; I'm not your parent....take responsibility; don't want to increase
competition.
• That providers have choices;owners should have choices;this opens up liability without
subsidized legal aid.
• Housing providers could incur cost in terms of time and legal fees to defend against complaints
of discrimination.
• Landlord are being discriminated against;extra risk and no recourse for damages to our
investment; increase probability of litigation for unfounded claims.
Miscellaneous:
• Incentives to allow more tenants who are unable to pay full rent to move to Dubuque drives our
quality of life down.Adding more"vouchers"would only make matters worse. More
government control over private business is the problem, not a solution. Landlords should have
the right to choose our tenants.We don't discriminate based on race, sexual orientation,etc. -
why should we be forced to rent to tenants who can't afford full rent?
• An ordinance takes away from hard working landlords and gives it to tenants- who in some
cases choose not to work.
• Alimony- no;child support- no; if bank does not accept alimony,child support why should I?;
default on payment because renter failed to complete paper work;training to take care of
themselves and apartment(Cleanliness,functional)
47
9/13/2016
SCENARIO 2: PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR HOUSING PROVIDERS TO PARTICIPATE
AND/OR MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM
Why do you think some groups want incentives or adjustments to the program?
• Do cover expenses and damages for rental losses
• Only groups that want the ordinance is housing and Human Rights
• First off, limiting inspections is not a good thing, but would create more opportunities for abuse
of tenants; additional incentives to the voucher program might offer more peace of mind, but
where does that money come from?
• More housing available; more money and consistent money for landlords;where is the money
for reimbursement fund coming from?
• Maintain freedom;vouchers users will face less discrimination and better and more options
with incentives;offset work of providers to do HCV; mitigate risks through fund
• To diversify the whole the city and get the housing vouchers filled and make housing jobs easier
to perform
• Potential damage to property(unrecoverable); loss of income while repair are made
• We just want stricter enforcement of the laws that are implemented now- some groups want
just the money-want real incentives we benefit from
• Discriminatory; HCV-no charge; non section 8 so charges
What risks would these incentives help landlords in the Section 8 program manage?Are there
other ways to manage those risks?
• Risk of financial loss. However,we still are losing our freed of selection.Screening is the best
way to manage risk. Landlords do well on their own. Damage pool of money to assist in losses
to landlords.
• Landlords should be able to choose whether to participate or not in HCV program.
• The best way to manage our properties is to let us make the judgment on who to rent to.
Source of Income is not a consideration that should be regulated by the very same government
that is giving incentives (financial).
• Financial cost of repairs; so if you know you have to start on incentive fund then you know there
is a problem;all in all we are not bias we want our rights and freedom
• Losses covered; some prefer yearly inspection,w year will not help with profiteers;tenant
training;drug testing; repercussions for violations,3 strikes and you are out
• The federal government and the city should reimburse landlords for any damages incurred by
tenants who are abusive to property
• Great idea to create fund to reimburse housing. Not reasonable
48
Do you think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment of us?Why or why not?
• With all the business and companies employees it is strange that the list grows.We have
tenants quitting jobs to come to Dubuque to go on Housing.
• The waiting list should be local residents only.
• More than this needs to be done to make Dubuque less prejudiced;taking cash is easier and
more profitable for provider than giving though voucher process
• The federal governments accusation about Dubuque is an insult,that's not acceptable cause
our city has accepted much more housing people
What pieces of this scenario are most import to you?Why?
• Most important to us is the rights of ownership and the right to choose to participate in HCV or
not.
• Landlord property rights. No interference from any form of government.
• Not a good option because it only allows fewer inspections.Where will that financial incentive
come from-the taxes we pay additionally?
• Choice! For providers
• Choice. More inspections not less. Risks involved.
Miscellaneous:
• More people are wanting to be on the system and not working. Should be limited and time
bound.We want our rights. Don't want to be controlled by the government.
• Loses that occurred in past that can't be recovered; no incentive for HVC participant to be
respectable;because there are no consequences;already protected classes and laws covered;
• Use the rules, regulations that are already in place and enforce- more accountability on the bad
renters-quality of renters there is no clear way to manage;leave it the program as an option for
landlords not mandatory;the option will still be there because government is fraught with
unfunded mandates
• All voucher receivers should be oriented into the community
911312016
SCENARIO 3: TAKE NO ACTION
Why do you think some groups think it is acceptable to advertise"no section 8" but not acceptable
to advertise"no veteran benefits"or"no social security benefits"?Why do you think some groups
thing advertise"no section 8" is not acceptable?
• Veteran benefits were earned; social security benefits were earned by disability. Section 8 has
some people with mental disabilities and those are special cases for Section 8. Perhaps we
should address these separately form open HVC. Some are on Section 8 for generations with no
intentions to improve.
• Vets and social security are protected by the existing laws;vets and SS participants earned their
income.
49
• Owners of property's discretion. Section 8 has a lot of rules and regulations attached to it.
Choice! Perceived as entitlement program,different than earned income: SS and veterans.
• Big difference-veterans and social security benefits are earned- section 8 is a handout to some
who choose not to work
• Sorting mechanism eliminating calls;advertising no section 8 not acceptable because of
discrimination? (no...just want good people and tenants)
• The only group that thinks advertising (no section 8) not acceptable is the group trying to
enforce this! Landlords.
• If private landlords(some of them)think they can make more money by building and retaining
additional Section 8 housing,they are already allowed to do so. Landlords should be allowed to
not rent to any group(section 8,veterans, SS)that have government subsidies.
What opportunities might be lost through assuming that all HCV tenants are burdens or that all
landlords are prejudiced?
• This is not what landlords think of as HCV what are a burden.There are good and bad landlords.
• The assumption that all HCV are a burden,and that all landlords are prejudiced is a misleading
stereotype -that is simply not true.
• That is not true. Not all tenants on HCV are a burden and not all landlords are prejudice.
• Opportunity lost when assuming all HCV tenants are a burden. Makes you feel good when you
can help but the cost of bad one outweighs the good; landlords prejudice?Just want our rights.
• The City has created that burden on the community, not the landlords. Landlords are not
prejudice,just want fair opportunities.
• As landlords,we do not assume that all HCV tenants are a burden,and it is unfair for anyone to
likewise assume that all landlords are prejudiced.
Do you think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment of us?Why or why not?
• As with previous answers no see other scenario.
• An HCV program does not address prejudice,those most affected are already protected classes.
• Don't care if others perceive Dubuque as racist; not providers problem to solve;fix the broken
program-don't expand it.
• Dubuque is not prejudice- landlord treat people fairly in housing.
• OMG (outside entities is someone's opinion); we want to see statistics not just opinions
• As the program stands,ALL of the burdens is placed on landlords rather than tenants. Rules are
enforced only for landlords not tenants,creating little incentive for landlords to participate until
enforced on tenants/landlords- "level playing field"the option of Dubuque will not change.
• Other communities should be educated on the fact that we are not discriminating here in
Dubuque. STOP JUDGING!!
What pieces of this scenario are most important to you?Why?
• Landlords be respected as landlords and being able to do their jobs.As with all businesses some
are run better than others.We recommend joining landlord association.
5o
• Choice, my rights for my investment;keep it the same; peace of mind can sleep at night;
tenants do not treat unit as if they owned it.
• Fix what is broken before expanding; choice; city will likely do what they want. Forgone
conclusions despite these dialogues.
• Section 8 tenants that damage property should be held accountable and kicked off program.
• We want our rights
• I am not a landlord to help people, I am in it to make money! Needs to continue to be profitable
or it's not worth doing it.
Miscellaneous:
• Landlords are in the business to make money, not lose money,and to provide housing to those
that can afford it,and to help control the homeless problem,if landlords go out of business in
numbers there will be a significant increase in homelessness.
• The millions of dollars in federal aid we receive come from the states in the first place! Instead
of rented assistance,the government should give incentives to get more educated or get a job
that pays enough to afford full rent.
• Housing Department take responsibility for renters who don not keep up apartments. Did not
work out with landlord;committee to oversee accountability for renters-who receive vouchers.
Help us learn to live together
9/14/16
INITIAL CONVERSATION
Is it important for our country to have the HCV program?Why?
• People who legit need a hand- obligated to help; benefits their stepping stone; serves elderly,
disabled,families and low income;perception of who participates-doesn't always include
disabled,etc.- Dubuque has a bad image of this?; landlords-trashing,don't want to participate
in government program....education needed; cycle leases (month to month, 6 months)
• It is important because there is a need; people can become dependent on program (too
dependent);people have to stay within certain income requirements, may limit/stifle your
opportunity
What might be the consequences for our community if we did not have a program like this?
• Increased homelessness;crowded units; sofa surfers;those on the wait list-what do they do?
• Homelessness increase and few facilities availability
There are a lot of resources and opportunities for community members to better their lives.Who
plays a role in helping people find out about these resources and opportunities?
• Resources to assist in education- partnerships needed for financial etc.; circles initiative;
• Education is important for tenants, like circles initiative
A. What role do housing providers play?
o Provide good, safe housing
o Don't have responsibly to educate
51
B. What role do renters play?
o Try hardest to find information and resources; refer to City housing. How do
newcomers find where to go for this assistance (word of mouth)? How do you find
housing in Dubuque? Nothing systemic resources are there- not easy to find.
Craigslist...more private than management companies.
Miscellaneous:
• There should be incentive to get off program
• Renters should be responsible for own actions/damages; keep eye on kids
• Landlords need to provide expectations for tenants especially with kids
9/1412016
SCENARIO 1: PASS A LOCAL "SOURCE OF INCOME" ORDINANCE
Why do you think some groups want to add source of income to the non-discrimination ordinance?
• Because they feel like they have being discrimination; HCV isn't income, it is a benefit;what
groups are they talking about? Some groups have an agenda for personal gain; some people
want what everybody has; some people don't want to do anything (takers)
• Who are the "some groups"? People can't find housing where they want to live;concern over
"Section 8"is not income? Landlords don't want federal mandate- slippery slope;first
impression
What risks would a source of income non-discrimination ordinance help renters manage?Are there
other ways to manage these risks?
• It would remove stigma of being on program; it would help with stereotyping; if government
has program,they need to manage it- pay people to manage it; discrimination against
landlords because landlords responsible for damages(Cabrini green); housing shortage in
Chicago caused people to seek elsewhere;there is no skin in the game for tenants;education
programs are good if they are mandatory
• Help renters get housing in various sections of town more accessible to areas;vouchers not
always competitive- more money on open market for landlords...but landlords could reduce;
transportation-may be an issue with where one lives and getting to work; sprawl
Do you think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment of us?Why or why not?
• What are the people of Dubuque?
• No
• Look into this- is it prejudice in housing? Or elderly on it foryears...or policy of no section 8 for
anyone?;different perception of"discrimination";can't force diversity.Wait list-who is first?
52
What pieces of this scenario are most important to you?Why?
• Key-can you force people to partner and federal with federal government? Feel it is big
brother;this area works on a handshake; landlords-feel open to more discrimination
complaints; landlords don't want mandates of who they rent to; is this a marketing and
education issue?Tiny slice of section 8 housing and landlords- better understanding of who
uses section 8-what it is.
9/14/2016
SCENARIO 2: PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR HOUSING PROVIDERS TO PARTICIPATE
AND/OR MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM
Why do you think some groups want incentives or adjustments to the program?
• Everyone worried about#3 incentive-damages...if there was a way to address-landlords might
be more open to SE; backing form government; #2 waive inspection fee-that money go into
number 3; landlord shows due diligence of matter; no recourse for landlords-renter trashes and
can't get form renter; major concern:Section 8 trash a place and leave-generalizing-a
reimbursement program would help; make sure they qualify for an apartment- regardless of
Section 8;are renters not able to get apartment due to criminal background or poor living
history?
• If you give more benefits, people will get greedy;personal agenda;their own benefit
What risks would these incentives help landlords in the Section 8 program manage?Are there
other ways to manage those risks?
• Yes government take care of own program;own employees;create more work and increase
rent
Do you think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment of us?Why or why not?
• Fund reimbursement#3 is most important to help with people's perceptions;units
deteriorated:over use and land lords not making repairs/keeping up apartment
• No this statement is discriminatory;discriminates against landlords and citizens of Dubuque;
people crammed into small area; people coming from other states
What pieces of this scenario are most import to you?Why?
• #3 is most important in comfort level for landlords;lead to educating landlords about section 8
• Landlords and people should not be stereotyped and discriminated against
53
9/14/2016
SCENARIO 3: TAKE NO ACTION
Why do you think some groups think it is acceptable to advertise"no section 8" but not acceptable
to advertise"no veteran benefits"or"no social security benefits"?Why do you think some groups
thing advertise"no section 8" is not acceptable?
• To give perception"don't need to worry about section 8 in this area"; it is their right to do
business as they wish; rights being stripped from working class;business person should be able
to advertise/do business;the west side has more "no"signs/advertisements; it is just advertising
• One is income section 8 the other is category; say no section 8-to not waste people's time-not
trying to exclude...people wait to end to realize they have voucher
What opportunities might be lost through assuming that all HCV tenants are burdens or that all
landlords are prejudiced?
• Income for landlords;tenants fall through cracks;there would be less vacancy for landlords if
took HCV
• Good residents/tenants;consistent income; perception that all landlords are prejudiced will
alienate them...will withdraw rentals for fear of being sued
Do you think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment of us?Why or why not?
• If people think landlords are prejudice;they are prejudice; same as previous;discriminatory
against landlords and people.
What pieces of this scenario are most important to you?Why?
• Education element-time for education before moving forward with ordinance. No action is not
the final answer. Look at history of individuals-who is complaining? Not everyone (landlords)
should be penalized.
Miscellaneous:
• Is this a"if it aint broke-don't fix it"or is it broken?Too early to decide if it broken...educate
landlords about who is on section 8;market forces-when tight- everyone has trouble finding
apartments;burden list- is enflaming- housing department needs to go after#2 and #3,and
some not valid; non-discrimination ordinance takes away smokescreen for discrimination....is
section 8 really a discrimination issue? Can't force diversity...; some landlords do"minimum
fixes"- keeps housing unsafe; burden outside developers might be good for the
market/competition
9120/2016
INITIAL CONVERSATION
Is it important for our country to have the HCV program?Why?
• HXC helps increase number of members in community;causes overcrowding and homelessness
if no HCV-families with children being helped-25o children living precariously housed in
Dubuque; money that comes along with HCV program for city for all of city-rich and poor;
54
definite need and demand that Dubuque is not currently;value of program is important but
questions mandating; people/landlords might sell properties if HCV is mandated.
• Help make ends meet when legist needs exists; belief that people aren't deserving of our units;
good landlords who maintain their property are more likely to get good tenants
• Micro(address immediate needs)vs macro(long-term effects); incentives LL v.T
What might be the consequences for our community if we did not have a program like this?
• Homelessness could increase; not a place for homeless men in Dubuque;overcrowding could
increase; image and values of community would be harmed-assumptions about who receives
HCV assistance;could put a lot of families without assistance;without HCV there may be
greater security of discriminatory practices by landlords
• Gives stability to people/families to then look for and sustain a job or enroll kids in school;
housing should be under 3o%which is difficult for many;conflict b/n my property rights and
responsibility to common good
• More homeless
• Homelessness increase;
There are a lot of resources and opportunities for community members to better their lives.Who
plays a role in helping people find out about these resources and opportunities?
• Housing department; community organizations; personal responsibility- look for ways out of
current situation
• Everyone; is concentration of people living poverty due to landlords not taking housing
vouchers?Thin so, but don't know.
A. What role do housing providers play?
o Should be providing safe,affordable, housing regardless of race
B. What role do renters play?
o Take care of property and report it if sub-standard and pay rent on time and be good
neighbors.
Miscellaneous:
• Concerns-timing- how to fill unit quickly when opening;vouchers has long time process
inspections so does not meet landlord goal;timing also issue when reporting renters who do
not keep property;voucher only insure partial payment;went thru eviction process learned not
to accept partial payment because should good faith on landlord/renter; meth lab/police
showed up/landlord not notified/reason privacy; neighbor called police/landlord who leaves out
of town- because 4 xyz 3 car beeps to unlock car to go to work/police came;those with vouchers
want to live in west end not downtown and called "little Chicago"; need to each how to
care/clean too much free so do not take responsibility
• If we have a SOI ordinance, it affects sale and rental of property.The ordinance is more than
just the voucher program. If someone puts in an offer on a property on a FHA loan,there can't
be a land contract.Ask the city about the sale of property and how that is going to affect
property owners with an 501 ordinance in place.There is concern that landlords can't sell
property via a land contract.This is going to affect the retirement income of property
55
owners. According to the attorney, if you have 2 people who want to buy your property, both
FHA and land contract possibilities, as long as there are no discriminatory reasons for choosing
one over the other, it's fine. In other words, if all things are equal with both the offers,and there
is no discriminatory reason for choosing one over the other,then it's fine.Just so I understand:
If there are 2 offers of io grand each,the landlord can choose the land contract if they want to
make money on the interest.They aren't forced to go with the FHA loan?They have to show
that there is discrimination. Landlords say that there are too many requirements even to great
apartments,and updating those things costs a lot of money.Taxes have gone up for many of
the landlords...so the folks have to get their money back somewhere.The biggest issues: If a
renter is turned down for a valid reason,the landlord is guilty until proven innocent,and it costs
the landlord an enormous amount of money to defend themselves.There needs to be
something put in that protects the landlord from being guilty until proven innocent,and they
shouldn't have to pay to defend themselves....or their lawyer fees should be refunded if they
are proven innocent. The landlords feel the vouchers should be an option unless the fed gov't
makes it mandatory. Landlords didn't want to see 110%increase in licensing fees,which gets
passed on to tenants. Bigger cost to inspections....Good landlords will follow the ordinances,
and slumlords will get out of it until they are forced to go to court to fix it.So the good landlords
are going to be penalized in ways that the slumlords won't.—voluntary,and incentives in place.
Incentives:TIFF programs for businesses...can there be some incentives to make it more
acceptable to get into the program.Tax credits,for example.There needs to be more education
between landlords and renters.They need to get together to get on the same page. Linda
doesn't want her property to be put on a list.She's willing to offer vouchers to people who call
and need them, but she doesn't want all of her buildings filled up with section 8 housing.
Landlords want to be able to say when people call that they don't accept section 8 housing, but
supposedly it's illegal. Costs are very high for inspections(if you like a person who has a
voucher).Then that takes a lot of time.There needs to be more inspectors available.The courts
need to respect the agreements between the landlords and tenants.The cost of lawyers and
the time is too high.
Focus on incentives to participate, not demands to participate.The only thing that is not
involved in the ordinance right now is section 8. Disabilities are already in the ordinance.
9/20/2016
SCENARIO 1: PASS A LOCAL "SOURCE OF INCOME" ORDINANCE
Why do you think some groups want to add source of income to the non-discrimination ordinance?
• Stereotypes associated with HCV programs
• Expand the number of people who qualify; matter of fairness
• 1/3 of people with vouchers can't find housing;thus,we should accept so people have a place to
live
What risks would a source of income non-discrimination ordinance help renters manage?Are there
other ways to manage these risks?
• Theoretically provide more housing options
56
• Risk of being homeless; increase number of homeless shelters; risk of not finding place to live
so move out of Dubuque; not finding safe housing; landlords needs to be held accountable for
slum housing;stronger penalties for slum lords;better incentives to improve rental properties
• Families double up in houses because they can't afford/acquire housing;overuse a property.
Do you think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment of us?Why or why not?
• No, LL's will use other ways to deny applicants
• Clarify"legitimate"to know what can be included to render a decision;control this will lead to
rent-control by the government
What pieces of this scenario are most important to you?Why?
• Generally accepted by some at the table;tenant must still provide security deposit,which may
filter out some.
Miscellaneous:
• Every voucher need more enforcement/investigate (working with money under table);two
renters-one with voucher/one without money landlord rents to those individuals with money
renter without voucher files complaint costs me landlord money; social workers who make
remarks about what are you doing with your time; sense of entitlement"attitude""I am
owed!"; process of investigating concern with time,cost,details of process when is enough
"enough"; some individuals keep going/going just like to sue/argue; partial voucher- I am
business cannot afford to lose money every month;everyone goes to west end.
9/20/2016
SCENARIO 2: PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR HOUSING PROVIDERS TO PARTICIPATE
AND/OR MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM
Why do you think some groups want incentives or adjustments to the program?
• Inspector always find something-example concrete replacement on sidewalk;done by
professional/professional work must be
• Accountability of program stakeholders
• To manage risks(perceived and real)of participating in HCV;expand number of landlords who
participate in HCV
• Landlords need:1)Tax incentives:if you accept a voucher,there needs to be an incentive for
landlords to get tax credit.30%reduction (just making it up here); 2) Inspection fees are waived.
(already happening); 3) no storm water fees;4) Whatever it would mean to be innocent until
proven guilty.What is going to be the number that tips the balance?
What risks would these incentives help landlords in the Section 8 program manage?Are there
other ways to manage those risks?
• Good idea- scam for money-they are getting paid
• Reduce potential finical concerns
• Incentive fee:concerns-tax dollars abuse;this would mitigate the risk concern landlords
mention
57
• Financial losses; property damage;inconvenience
Do you think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment of us?Why or why not?
• Great idea- all agree take pictures
• Unlikely
• Might help-in compliance with feds;expansion of HCV landlords would look good in eyes of
feds; if we don't do this we could lose fed funding
What pieces of this scenario are most import to you?Why?
• Add tax incentives for landlords!
• Incentive 1 is a bad idea and opens up to all sorts of neglect of property issues such a mold and
pest infestation-more inspections are needed not less; incentives 2 might be enough to
incentivize landlords.
Miscellaneous:
• Who inspects the inspectors? Do inspectors check their own rental property? Inspectors did not
show twice-what would have happened to landlord did not show; inspection is political;feeling
of being"targeted"by inspectors; if renters/landlords are both happy/doing well/don't bother
us- make 5 years;federally mandated ask Janet to change federal to 5 years; car wax to clean
tub for shine-to mask clear carpet because cleaned so often not problem for inspector because
looked nice;
• The government subsidizes the tenants, so it should also subsidize the landlords; property is my
retirement so I need a R01. I can't afford the risk of unresponsive people;this ordinance may
hurt slumlords because now they are competing with good landlords.Thus,they'll have to
improve services.
• We need to have some examples of cities that have successfully integrated section 8 housing
and have gotten landlords to want to buy into the program.What did they do to be successful?
Are there numbers of people who have quit full time jobs to go into section 8 housing?That is a
concern my table had.Some landlords get the benefits of incentives and some don't. (Millwork
district vs.downtown)There are a lot of units that are vacant.Why is this?We don't need to
build more,we need to bring them up to par.We are trying to fix a problem that isn't out
there...only 5 complaints.There are so few voucher holders that are trying to find houses that
don't have other issues(like criminal records,etc.).Because there aren't that many renters
coming to the meetings like this,is there really a problem?What would happen if the city
turned down HUDs money?The stick that will be needed for compliance is going to have to be
big,and it's going to piss landlords off more.There have to be incentives that are worth it...
912012016
SCENARIO 3: TAKE NO ACTION
Why do you think some groups think it is acceptable to advertise"no section 8" but not acceptable
to advertise"no veteran benefits"or"no social security benefits"?Why do you think some groups
thing advertise"no section 8" is not acceptable?
58
• Section 8 carriers a negative connotation;VA benefits and SS benefits do not; idea that people
do not deserve HCV but od VA and SS benefits; section 8 is coded language/shorthand and for
non-white;advertising no section 8 is not acceptable because discriminatory
What opportunities might be lost through assuming that all HCV tenants are burdens or that all
landlords are prejudiced?
• Generalized language is always harmful; creates barriers to communication; creates us vs them
situation;doesn't allow for nuanced creative thinking
Do you think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment of us?Why or why not?
• No
• Problem is deeper than taking no action allows;taking no action would increase waiting list;
taking no action would portray Dubuque as a closed community; problems with homelessness
and crime would increase; increased housing segregation by race and poverty
What pieces of this scenario are most important to you?Why?
Miscellaneous:
• Landlords should have right to choose!veterans and SS benefits seems easier for people to
keep(less fraud)yearly reviews? More guaranteed for housing; housing voucher change (more
fraud); changes in income/make changes; landlord does not have warning of change; statistics
on chart includes utilities $; utilities in landlord/rental name- how does this affect voucher
program?;water shut off by renter-moved to landlords name because shut off by street; had to
pay renters bill and landlord 3o monthly to get back on; section 8 housing voucher go to rest
bill utilities directly!; low income residents from Dubuque can get vouchers—going to those
people who move here!
• Should consider a meeting with landlords who have property in the low income areas of the city
and see how they have made things work share their insights with the rest of the city's
landlords;education without policy change won't have a significant impact; many HVC people
are good, long-term tenants. Blanket denial removes this possibility.
59
9/22/2016
INITIAL CONVERSATION
Is it important for our country to have the HCV program?Why?
• Housing basic right- government provides in crisis;everyone's benefit- issues-employment,
crime;can see consequences-shortage of vouchers-horrifying conditions; inability of City to
track
What might be the consequences for our community if we did not have a program like this?
• Attracts poor when you have program (fear of draining local resources); people think crime etc.
a consequence of program;consequences of not having program devastating to City;
misinformation if no program (some guarantee with voucher program); people left behind-few
opportunities
There are a lot of resources and opportunities for community members to better their lives.Who
plays a role in helping people find out about these resources and opportunities?
• Community then government(volunteers, nonprofits, media
• Business- market opportunities,education
A. What role do housing providers play?
o Clean, safe, meets, basic needs
B. What role do renters play?
o Respectful,treat property as own;collective role-come together;attract/welcome
others
Miscellaneous:
• Owner/managers are out of town and are remote;it is sad that Dubuque must separate renters
and property owners in these sessions; Dubuque is a great community- it's surprising such a low
percentage of landlords that accept HCV
• How has background checks changed landlords views?
9/22/2016
SCENARIO 1: PASS A LOCAL "SOURCE OF INCOME" ORDINANCE
Why do you think some groups want to add source of income to the non-discrimination ordinance?
• Increase availability to HCV vouchers;comp would raise quality of housing;decrease segregation;
being forced on lenders(some believe) or belief that it helps comply with HUD;other states and
Iowa communities have SOI
What risks would a source of income non-discrimination ordinance help renters manage?Are there
other ways to manage these risks?
• Availability and quality of units (some clients may be in worse shape); prices go up (overtime) but
there is a cap on what people will pay;affordability problem won't be solved
Do you think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment of us?Why or why not?
6o
What pieces of this scenario are most important to you?Why?
Miscellaneous:
9/22/2016
SCENARIO 2: PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR HOUSING PROVIDERS TO PARTICIPATE
AND/OR MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM
Why do you think some groups want incentives or adjustments to the program?
• Provide education programs may be alternative (and renter education/responsibility program);
where do funds come from? HCV and housing programs could be better incentive (equal
application); incentives need to be re-thought-none are sufficient-not appealing;funding
should go to vouchers-not incentive fund
What risks would these incentives help landlords in the Section 8 program manage?Are there
other ways to manage those risks?
Do you think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment of us?Why or why not?
What pieces of this scenario are most import to you?Why?
• None of the incentives are acceptable (disparate impacts); land 2 unacceptable;3 maybe
Miscellaneous:
• Target tax incentives to get landlords to accept HCV in low-property areas; stop making it easy
for others to opt out;don't give money to wrong people
9/22/2016
SCENARIO 3: TAKE NO ACTION
Why do you think some groups think it is acceptable to advertise"no section 8" but not acceptable
to advertise"no veteran benefits"or"no social security benefits"?Why do you think some groups
thing advertise"no section 8" is not acceptable?
• Not taking any action not acceptable- how do we move forward,getting more to participate
and more education on benefits to City;why acceptable to advertise (or not)-discrimination,
some landlords don't advertise most landlords own no more than 4 units
• Something needs to be done; perception of Section 8 recipients are lazy and living off the
government; if landlord doesn't accept HCV they should advertise that-don't waste the renters
time
61
What opportunities might be lost through assuming that all HCV tenants are burdens or that all
landlords are prejudiced?
• Even if passed, not ideal but it is a start
• Build on strong community
Do you think this option is a way to eliminate that judgment of us?Why or why not?
• There are many reasons why people think Dubuque is racist; Dubuque wants to get rid of
stereotypes but voucher/SOI is not way to address issue
What pieces of this scenario are most important to you?Why?
Miscellaneous:
10/412016
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
Q: Is the concentration of race and poverty because of housing providers not accepting HCV?
A: There are several factors including landlords that do not allow Housing Choice Vouchers,
affordability of the units,accessibility to schools,transportation,grocery stores,and employment.
Voucher participants are encouraged to consider several housing choices to locate the best housing for
the family needs and are also encouraged to move out of areas of high-poverty concentrations through
the exception rent- payment standards.
Q: Who is on the waiting list?
A: Average income on waiting list is $9,165/yr as of 911/2016; 16%are elderly and/or disabled; Over half
of the waiting list applicants consist of one and two person households.
Q: How do we know only 17%of housing providers accept HCVs?
A: We did a point in time count where we compared the housing providers currently participating in the
program with the overall number of housing providers on our rental unit license list.
Q: Why did the HCV program cut the amount of rent 1 charge?
A: Landlords set their own rents. The landlord and the tenant negotiate the rent. At the family's
request,the PHA must help the family negotiate the rent to the owner. Sometimes through
negotiation,the landlord may agree to lower the rent to be within the Voucher Payment Standards
allowed and to ensure the unit is affordable for the tenant. This is voluntarily done and no landlord is
forced to lower the rent.
The second factor is"rent reasonableness"-the rent is compared to similar units within the City that are
non-assisted units. If the rent is not reasonable compared to other units,then the landlord will be asked
to reduce the rent to be comparable to other rents.
Q: How many on the waiting list are moving into town?
62
A: Over half of the applicants reside in Iowa;Applicants represent 17 different states; Applicants must
initially use their Voucher within the City of Dubuque if an applicant is applying from outside of the City-
including Iowa applicants.
Q: Who is first on the waiting list?
A: The list is by application date. The oldest application date on the list is April 2013. The list was
closed in April 2015. There are 661 households on the list as of September 1. When we open the list,we
will move to a lottery selection because of the amount of time that has passed since April 2013.
Q: How have background checks changed landlord views?
A: We do not know. The HCV program has always conducted background checks. The change in
required background checks is that they are required of housing providers and conducted through the
PD.
Q: Is this reallyjust a marketing and education need?
A: We try to continually educate regarding the program. For example,the program is 52%elderly and
disabled;amongst program participants who are not elderly or disabled,75%have earned income from
wages; less than 8%of the program participants are on"welfare."
Q: Can HCV participants be drug tested?
A: No.
Q: Are project based vouchers included in the 1073 count?
A: No. As a clarification,"project based vouchers"are privately owned housing units that are not
administered by the City of Dubuque.
Q: What is the AMFI that is being used to determine the 50%and below?1 was able to locate one
as low as $44,600 and one as high as $51,000.
A: The Dubuque Iowa Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has an MFI of$67,400. Based on that and
adjusting for number of persons in the household, HUD determines the "Very Low Income"which is the
5o%range to qualify for the Voucher program.
Median family incomes are determined by HUD through the development of estimates of median
family income for the area. Family refers to the Census definition of a family,which is a household with
one or more other persons living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth,
marriage,or adoption. The definition of family excludes households of unrelated individuals.
The FY 2016 Median Family Income (MFI) estimates,which HUD publishes, uses the 5-year series of
income data from 2009 to 2013.These 5-year aggregations,covering surveys administered in 2009
through 2013, provided income data for most areas of geography. HUD uses Consumer Price Index
(CPI) data to inflate the American Community Survey(ACS)data from annual 2013 to the midpoint of
FY 2016, based on a CPI forecast, published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2016.
63
Separate HUD MFI estimates are calculated for all Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), HUD Metro
FMR Areas,and nonmetropolitan counties.
Q: In "Handout 2: The Housing Choice Voucher Program in Dubuque,"on page 1 sub-titled"Program
Overview,"the data states that as of June 1, 2016, that a maximum of 1,072 Housing Vouchers are
available. In "Handout 2: The Housing Choice Voucher Program in Dubuque,"on page 4 titled"Participant
Statistical Summary Housing Choice Voucher,"the data states that as of June 1, 2016, 875 households
received HCV benefits. Based on those two numbers of 1,072 vouchers and 875 vouchers being used, it
would appear that 197 people/families have vouchers and are unable to find affordable housing or we have
not distributed these vouchers.Am I reading these numbers correctly?
A: There are actually two things to consider here. First the 1,072 Housing Vouchers are the baseline
units that HUD allows. The baseline units are not the number of units we may lease each year. It is
more of a guideline that HUD sets based upon Contracts with the City. On average, we cannot exceed
leasing more throughout a one-year period. The next factor is the Housing Assistance Payments
renewal funding allocation that HUD provides each year. This is probably the most important factor.
The dollar amount allocated to the City of Dubuque for the Housing Assistance Payments(HAP) is not
enough to support all of the 1,072 baseline units. Therefore, how many units are leased are dependent
upon the dollar amount allocated by HUD. The City of Dubuque manages the HAP dollars allocated to
sufficiently lease the maximum number of units possible without getting into a situation where there is
insufficient funding which could result in termination of rental assistance for individuals/families already
receiving assistance. Another factor is the money that is allocated to HUD by Congress each year in
their budget. There have been some years that HUD has had to pro-rate the HAP dollars provided to
Housing Authorities because HUD was not provided with enough funds for all programs nation-wide.
So to answer your question,the baseline unit of 1,072 compared to actual number of households leased
does not mean that 197 households have vouchers. At the time that we had 875 Vouchers that were
leased, we had 131 issued vouchers that were looking for an affordable unit to lease with their Vouchers.
The page in the packet that has"Time it is Taking Voucher Holders to Enter into a Lease from Date of
Voucher Issuance"at the top also gives an indication of how long it will take the 131 issued Vouchers to
locate the unit. We also realize that not all of the 131 Voucher holders will actually lease a unit for
various reasons.
Q: The 1072 is the baseline for our community. Can families bring vouchers to our community from other
communities where they have received vouchers?If so,are those numbers tracked?Also, if so, does that
become part of our maximum allowance?
A: Yes,families may bring vouchers to our community from other communities since it is a federal
program. This process is called Housing Choice Voucher Portability. We do track those numbers within
the number of Vouchers issued each year. The incoming Vouchers may or may not become part of our
maximum allowance. For instance,at this point,we believe that we have enough vouchers currently
issued so that"absorbing"any new Vouchers from another Housing Authority may result in a shortfall
of housing assistance payments. Therefore,we are currently billing the other or the "Initial" Housing
Authority for any incoming Vouchers. However,once we get closer to determining how many of the
Vouchers issued are going to result in a leased unit,we may absorb the Voucher at that later date.
Looking at Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016)we had 13 Vouchers porting into the
City of Dubuque that resulted in a leased unit.
Q: Do you have to live in Dubuque to be on the waiting list?
A: No. Once you receive an HCV from Dubuque,you have to live in Dubuque a minimum of one year.
64
Q: Why wait until there is animosity between affected parties to have this conversation?
A: This conversation has been ongoing for more than two years and there remain a lot of
communication issues, image problems with the program,differences in understanding,distorted
images about both HCV participants and housing providers,and a desire to try to improve the
assistance offered HCV participants beyond simply providing the voucher. The efforts over the past
two years have been an attempt to clear this up.
Q: Are background checks conducted on program participants?
A: Yes—both background and income checks are perFormed by staff. In addition, housing providers
are encouraged to check their own references.
Q: Why were scribes only provided for the renter sessions?
A: They were not. We sought volunteers for all sessions. We had volunteers offer to assist for the two
lunch-time sessions—one of which was a renter session and one of which was a housing provider
session. We did not have anyone who volunteered for the other two sessions.
Q:Does the HCV program pay for the rental deposit for a renter?
A: No.
Q: Is there a minimum rent?
A: No,there is no longer a minimum rent but if a person has no income they must report monthly and
we strongly encourage them to be on the Family Self-Sufficiency program. They must meet with an
FSS coordinator at least once per year, however,we cannot require them to be on FSS.
Q: What would an ordinance look like?
A: Do not have an answer to that because working group has not decided on whether or not to draft an
ordinance. In 2014 the Human Rights Commission submitted a proposal to the City Council but that did
not come through the City Attorney's office.
Q: What is included in the definition of"source of income?"
A: It varies by jurisdiction. The City Attorney has researched and documented what is included in the
various state and local ordinances that exist across the country and provided a chart to the working
group. She also provided the definitions used in various jurisdictions and additional information such as
a pending lawsuit, recent changes in Texas, information on Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, law review
articles,etc.
Q: If Source of Income is put into an ordinance, what does that mean for process?
A: If it is placed in the existing civil rights ordinance,the cases would proceed through the same process
as other discrimination cases. If it were placed in a separate ordinance,the process could differ.
65
Q: If a seller has two offers to purchase a home—one through land contract and one with an FHA loan—
would the 501 ordinance require that the seller accept the FHA offer and decline the land contract?
A: No, not if the seller has a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for choosing the land contract, such
as needing the steady monthly income the land contract would provide.
Q: Why would it be okay to discriminate against someone with an FHA loan but not against someone with
an HCV?
A: If there were an ordinance,the question regarding whether there is or is not discrimination is
decided based upon the reason for refusing the loan or the HCV- in either case,a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason could form the basis for a finding that there was no discrimination.
Q: Would an 501 ordinance require banks to accept all source of income?
A: This would require further legal research.
Q: What is the success rate of the F55 Program?
A: FSS is a program that enables HUD-assisted families to increase their earned income and reduce their
dependency on welfare assistance and rental subsidies.
The Family Self-Sufficiency(FSS) program staff develops local strategies to help voucher families
obtain employment that leads to self-sufficiency. The FSS program also provides access to child care,
transportation,education,job development, household skills training,affirmatively furthering fair
housing,financial and homeownership options. In FYE 2015, 152 households participated in the FSS
program. As of 10/27/2015,the average annual earned income at the start of FSS was$3,040 and the
average earned annual income at FSS graduation is$22,835 (increase of 651%). The FSS graduates that
are still participating in the assisted housing program have increased their earned income from an
average of$9,825 to$25,591. Since FY2012 there have been an average of 145 households
participating in each year. During FY2016 6%of the program participants graduated the program. 91%
of FSS graduates since the beginning of the program are no longer on City of Dubuque Housing
Assistance.
Q: What incentives does HCV give to get off the system?
A: Most incentives are built into the FSS Program. The term of the FSS contract is five years. However,
most graduates successfully complete the contract in less than five years. The FSS contract
incorporates the family's individual training and services plan (ITSP)for the family. The ITSP contains a
series of intermediate and long-term goals and the steps the family needs to take along with the
services and resources needed to achieve those goals. Examples of services that may be needed
include child care,transportation,education,job training,employment counseling,financial literacy,
and homeownership counseling. The final goal is to be economically self-sufficient and to be free of all
cash welfare assistance for at least one year. An interest-bearing escrow account is established for each
participating family. Any increases in the family's share of rent that is a result of increased earned
income results in a credit to the family's escrow account. Once a family graduates from the program,
the escrow along with the interest earned is paid to the family. Several families have gone on to use the
FSS escrow money as a down payment for homeownership.
66
Q: What is the average length of time on the program?
A: Reviewing the graduation data for the FY2o16 FSS Program,those that graduated completed the
FSS Program is about 3 years.
STAY PERIOD CATEGORY
Distribution Of End Participations
By Length Of Stay(%)
HA Moved 1-2 2-5 5-10 10-20 Over 20 Not
In years years years years years Reported
Past
Year
State of IA 26 19 23 i7 i0 2 o
City of Dubuque IAo87 ii i8 32 19 9 6 0
The above chart reviews the length of participation on the program for those that have exited anytime
beginning Septembers, 203.5 through August 31, 2016.
Voucher Program Participant Length of Stay as of June 30, 2016:
Elderly Participants: g'A years
Disabled Participants: 8'A years
Non-Elderly/Non-Disabled Participants: gyears
Q: How can we help tenants be successful?
A: We asked staff in the Housing Department to respond to this question and here is what they
suggested:
1. Help educate the public about true and factual information
2. Landlords: Be consistent and fair: Tenants who are successful often have landlords who are
consistent and fair. If the landlord shows that they care about their property and the
tenant/family living in it,then the tenant/family will be more caring. Build relationships.
3. Landlord Changes: If the property is transferring over to a new landlord,the new landlord
should make an effort to meet the new tenant.A face with a name goes a long way.
4. Landlords: Be reasonably available to the tenant. Example: The landlord's policy was to not
allow tenants to leave a voicemail message,the tenants must text or e-mail only. Some
tenants do not have a cell phone nor a computer and are very isolated—in this example,the
tenant had never met the landlord in person.
5. Briefing/Training of new Voucher Holders: Suggest landlord participates in the briefing/training
(maybe take turns)with a scripted dialog to explain landlord expectations
6. Help to create"How to be a Good Tenant Guide"to include in the briefing/training packet.
7. Housing Department: Perhaps re-introduce FSS and Homeownership opportunities again after
the briefing and after the participant is leased in their first unit. The briefing is so full of
information that the good stuff is easy to put on the back burner while the Voucher Holder is
dealing with the immediate issue of locating a unit. Perhaps do a welcome party to all new
67
Voucher participants. This would allow staff and participants to get to know each other and
start out on a positive relationship.
8. Housing Department: At the briefing, invite a former FSS participant to motivate and inspire &
perhaps tell their story.
9. Request Circles® staff also present at the briefing/training of new Voucher holders.
io. Maintain current statistics on website
11. Briefings contain a Q &A portion to see if the attendees are understanding what is presented.
Perhaps reward correct responses for those that answer correctly and are paying attention-
doesn't have to be anything great just some small giveaway such as a piece of candy or
something.
12. Help welcome and be inclusive. Voucher holders appreciate feeling as if they are part of the
Community and are valued.
Q: Can we limit amount of time someone is on the program without going to school or training or getting
off the program?
A: No. Federal law does not contain time limitations. Additionally,about 1/2 of the assisted households
are occupied by elderly and/or disabled persons.
10/4/2016
IDEAS AND OPTIONS:
• Teach landlords how to put aside money from deposit and monthly rent as a regular business
practice so that they can cover any damages that may occur.
• Do not charge for HCV inspections when there is a change of tenant,even if less than two years
have passed.
• Better education and information to landlords about the HCV program.
• Possibly let landlords with multiple units designate a subset eligible for HCV(limit
concentration)
• Tax incentives for low poverty areas
• Ensure there are enough inspectors
• Damage fund
• Inspection fees waived
• Community service—work to learn or incentive—community involvement
• Volunteer property maintenance
• Protect tenants from retaliation if report safety concerns to housing
• Start a landlord—tenant association
• Can we put housing recipients on a limited number of years without them going to school or
training or getting off the program?
• What is the success rate of the"self-sufficiency program?"
• What incentive does HCV give to get off the program?
• How can we help tenants be successful?
• Improve the success rate of the FSS program
• Establish general housekeeping and maintenance obligations and responsibilities
• It's not broke,don't fix it
• Clean up your own house before bringing to my house
68
• A noise ordinance awareness
• Garbage patrol responsibility
• Education
• If residents are so concerned,where are they?
• When is the rest of the community going to be informed of this?
• Voucher recipients
• 8o%re-prop landlords responded. What percentage of tenants responded and what? How
many tenants turned in survey?
69
Source of Income
Work Session
PRELIMINARY COMMITTEE REPORT & OPTIONS
r..ovEr.,eER z8. -oi
What are the issues ?
Housing Providers: need to be able to maintain property values,
fill vacancies, minimize and recover costs of property damage.
Renters: need equal opportunity to live in safe, sanitary, decent
housing of their choice that they can afford.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: some sources of income
aren ' t readily accepted by all landlords which could make it difficult
for families with children, people with disabilities, or people with
disabilities or most all low income persons who rely on those sources
of income to find housing.
Red Tape: regulations can make it difficult for some landlords to
accept some sources of income.
What are the goals ?
To collect data and study options to determine the best
course of action in Dubuque.
To develop a compromise policy that would affirmatively
further fair housing .
To examine the impact of an Source of Income ordinance.
To examine ways for housing providers to address concerns.
To examine how persons on the Housing Choice Voucher
Program can have a complete range of fair housing choices.
Housing Choice Voucher ( Section 8 )
Major federal program to assist families and individuals find
decent, safe, and affordable housing in the private sector.
Administered and funded by U .S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development ( HUD) .
Since Housing Choice Voucher assistance is paid to housing
providers on behalf of the renters, participants are able to find
their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses
and apartments.
The City of Dubuque has 1 ,072 vouchers to assist very low-
income families and individuals.
Housing Choice Voucher Eligibility
Eligible applicants are at least 18 years old and earn 50% or less
of HUD area median family income ( HAMFI) .
FY2015 Income Limits Summary for Dubuque as set by HUD :
Persons in1,"111111011111•111111110.11k-
Household
30% Income Limi $ 13,900 $ 15,930 $20,090 $24,250 $28,410 $32,570 $36, 730 $40,890
50% Income Limits $23, 100 $26,400 $29, 700 $33,000 $35,650 $38,300 $40,950 $43,600
80% Income Limits $37,000 $42,250 $47,550 $52,800 $57,050 $61 ,250 $65,500 $69, 700
Common Problems finding Voucher Unit
0 Can ' t find suitable unit
Medical issues
4111 Providers don ' t accept
Vouchers
Price too high
■Can't Find Suitable Unit ■Medical Issues •Found Unit/Price too High
■Don't Have Security Deposit •Providers Don't Accept HCV Don ' t have security deposit
Source:2014 HCV Participant Survey
Common Problems finding Voucher Unit
Cumulative Issuance to Leasing Timing: Percent Leased
ii
1 1 7 %
Housing p
Vr
accepting Housing
illtt
Choice Vouchers
■In 30 Days •In 30 to 60 Days •In 60 to 90 Days fl In 90 to 120 Days •In 120:0 150 days
Source:HCV Progra n FY2015 Leasing'cta
Time it is Taking Voucher Holders
to Enter into a Lease
Availability ,Quality , Affordability
Households meeting Voucher Income Limits who are experiencing
Housing Cost Burden = 2,718 and Quality Problems = 244
Household Cost Burden
Housing Quality Problems <51% HAMFI
A 14
or
1020 55 Lacking complete plumbing or
Households earning 0-30%
kitchen
HAMFI
Severely overcrowded
Households earning 30 50%
HAMFI
dill 1698 Overcrowded
1111L;..75
Source;2015 Consolidated Paan Source:2015 Consolidated Pion
Quality , Availability , Affordability
6000 Households meeting HCV Income Limits: 6,050
5000 <50% AMFI Households: 3,465
4000 <30% AMFI Households: 2,585
3000
2000 Units Affordable to <50% AMFI Households: 5,060
loco
Units Affordable to <30% AMFI Households: 610
Households Units
■<30%AMFI ■31%to 50%AMFI
Source:2015 Consolidated Plan
AMFI=Area Median Family Income
1 , 975 units : shortage of housing units affordable to very
lowest income households.
Source of Income Legal Research
Sources of Income
27 27
21 22
11 11 1-2
7 _8—
6 5 6 5
3 2 3 3
I di ikill II 1111
•
Qty J, �S�S o�� `'G, 0, f
`'GO �G, „G), \G, `'G, ,,„ ,, `'G,. 4 cp
P�� P�� ���J SJee S\S,�Q- S\,,Q- ��,�P SJ�P Q�S S\ e
�� S�GJ ,�Q- AkP\O \SPS ?S \. ��� SPS \P� SPS
G ��P \,�\C� • �467. Spy' SP-
O
�� ,p '
•
QJ�
Total of State Laws Total of Proposed Legislation
Total of Local Laws/Ordinances • Grand Total
Summary of Rental SResults
Survey Reach _MIMI=
Number of Respondents
54 Housing Providers
HCV Renters
187 Non-HCV Renters
3
X87 34 Housing Of housing providers who do
Renters Providers not participate in the HCV
using HCV Accepting program, 22% advertise "no
HCV D housing" or "no Section 8"
while 77% do not.
Summary of Rental SResults
_ .
Perspectives on Responsibility �I
Housing Providers and renters agree that the top five most important
characteristics of responsible tenants are:
• paying rent on time
• keeping the unit clean
• keeping the property maintained
• respecting others
• following rules and laws
Housing providers and renters agree that the top five most important
characteristics of responsible landlords are:
• maintaining property
• responding in a timely manner
• communicating with tenants
• following rules and laws
• being respectful to one another
. .
Summary of Rental SResults
-ri
Perspectives on Responsibility
The majority of housing providers and renters agree or strongly agree
that there is a need to support responsible tenants and responsible
landlords.
Top areas of agreement on how to support responsible landlords and
tenants included:
• maintaining property
• communicating
• enforcing rules
• conducting background checks
Summary of Rental SResults
Perspectives on Sal Ordinance & Discrimination
• 31°/o o H renters reporter t at they a\.
experienced a situation where they found a unit
they wanted and could afford but could not rent it
because the housing provider did not accept
vouchers.
• 9% of HCV renters reported experiencing
discrimination when finding a place to live.
• The most common experience related to housing
provides not accepting vouchers, followed by race,
family status, gender, then credit.
Summary of Rental SResults
Perspectives on 501 Ordinance & Discrimination 111
Dubuque should have a SOI Ordinance
go%
So%
70%
Go%
50%
40%
3o%
zo%
20%
0°10 �' ■
Agree/Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree/Strongly
Disagree
■Housing Providers •HCV Renters •Non-HCV Renters
Alternatives suggested by housing
provid-, Alternatives suggested by renters
• Hold tenants accountable • Increase number of affordable units
• Build more low income housing • Advertise units that accept HCV
• Let market determine • Support renter employment,
• Support renter employment volunteerism
Summary of Rental SResults
IMF Perspectives on Risk & Incentives
Housing Provider Experience with Damages,
Unpaid Rent and Recovery
Unpaid Rent Recovery
Unpaid Rent
Damage Recovery
Damage
o% io% 20% 3o% 4o% 5o% 6o% 7o% 8o%
■ Non-HCV Renter I HCV Renter
Would you participate in the HCV program if a damage fund existed?
Yes =369/6 No = 64%
Summary of Rental SResults
Perspectives on Risk & Incentive
Most common reason housi Most common reason housing
providers gave for never providers gave for stopping
participating in the program was participation in the program was
personal choice, followed by damage/collection issues,
damage/collection issues and followed by program
program requirements.: requirements and personal choice.
HCV is fair and dependable way to
pay rent
100 - -
8o
6o
40
20
0 LI
Agree/Strongly Disagree/Strongly Neutral
Agree Disagree
•Housing Providers ■HCV Renters •Non-HCV Renters
Community Dialogues
Four sessions in September:
•Housing Provider
[II: Two marketed to housing providers and two to renters. 014
Tenant
h- 89 individuals attended these sessions; 64 people turned
in demographic information. ■Other
2
LS> Used 3 scenarios based on comments and concerns on
all sides of the issues since conversations began in 2014.
Final session in October to:
1 ) share what was captured during the first four sessions so that renters
and housing providers could hear the perspectives from other groups,
2) answer questions and correct misinformation, and
3) discuss what needs to occur so that all parties can live with the results.
Community Dialogues
82% indicated it is important to have the Housing Choice
Voucher program for:
need
:ycs
•No prevention (homelessness, overcrowding)
community health
18% indicated the Voucher program is not important because it
should not be the government' s business.
6c% 56.5
> 69% of participants: very or somewhat likely to 5.%
correct misinformation about Voucher program. yc% 33% ? 31% 31%
3t:% •Very likely
•<<:ruI whdl I ik.Iy
2cYo Not at all Likely
0 44% of housing providers: very likely or
somewhat likely to participate in Housing
Choice Voucher program. HoI I likely are you to support tie If you area housing participate
i he
ICV program F,v crrrerti�� likely are you tc Participate in the
misinfo'mation iT thecommjnit'y? HCV progra-n
Scenario # 1 : Adopt Ordinance
Reasons for this Scenario:
► Increase availability of rental units accepting vouchers
► Address concerns related to discrimination, stereotypes, or fairness
Most important aspects:
Maintaining landlord freedom of choice
Managing litigation costs associated with complaints
► Protecting landlord rights and finances
Ensuring tenant accountability
Limiting government involvement
U 0 (3) rTN
C Q)
C _C
D a
0 0
(r) r
o
a (4_ (1)L
•
E o
:5 0
C o
_ D
0 - _C)
. 0 >
_ aa
I— 0 >,
a c2 (h =. — >0,
0
c 0 a _C)
:5
< o > o *E
0 (4-
C
v) a
• •
. . 0 0
(1) c CO
w D 0 =
It 0 v-2
o
_ , ,4_ La
Ce ,a) o o
0 7 -c).,, Lo5 (Lb
• _ ...., 7-1 p
. -rm-2
0 c E D >r)
a) 0 D 0 L
C 4- Z C U a
0
o
U
C/)
Scenario # 2 : Incentives/ Adjustments
Reasons for this Scenario:
Encourage more housing providers to participate in Voucher program
Manage expenses, inconvenience and damages associated with
Voucher program
Expand number and types of units available to Voucher holders
Most Important Aspects:
Protecting housing provider choice and rights
Not reducing inspections or waiving the inspection fee
Offering a damage fund or otherwise protecting against financial loss
Scenario # 2 : Incentives / Adjustments
Potential Risks:
Not being able to identify a funding source
Abuse of any fund that is established
Potential for abuse of renters
Diverting funds that could be used to house
renters
Scenario # 3 : Leave As Is
Reasons for this Scenario:
Distinction between earned and unearned benefits, with Housing Choice
Voucher being unearned in comparison to Veterans or Social Security
benefits
Convenience/ability to screen calls and maintaining housing provider
choice
Most Important Aspects:
Taking time for education before moving forward with an ordinance
Making program improvements
Protecting housing provider choice and rights
Recognizing market forces
a
c (I)
a o _
> D
b C3 E
(f) a 0
6 P u
QCD (n„) c (/)
ICD
We) c)
0 0 IC rl C rl
> a E P 0
0 O r 0 0
0 . .
o a 0 C o
w• c - c o
. . y (n o c ) (n E
Y) 2 —
Cat D C 0 -0 0 0
It _ -0 0D r QDU
0 o
} 0 � � O � Q)
0 _ -_ (/)
• _ th 0 c) (L) (A) c) o 0
0 o —
C
0U
Preliminary Options : Overview
► Preliminary options 1 , 2 & 3 range from two extremes:
Maintain status quo
Adopt a Source of Income ordinance
Preliminary options 4, 5, & 6 offer examples of:
educational programs, administrative policies, and
incentives to increase the number of Housing Choice
Voucher housing providers and units
► Preliminary options can be mixed and matched
C/)
n�
W W
a -5 c
o O O
6
(-7-) -(:) a
O 0 .0
Q a
O - L_
I O
O O
E
� O (I) � Q
O
Cci >
4)-
O
If= cr -LD- °
v! O U
z CU ' O
0 0D 4) G)
h O-4- D ( •O
Q) _cU
3CE
O •5 �
.� O
a U 92 _
O O — — o
Q) O O E
U U > U D o3 2 6 —(1)(ccoc4- -= -- c
14EC3 v) 0 ,v) (3) 02 -=
4i -() uo
0 -o .- U .-u) c O
Q) � O � D `r' a (3)
z E O O O O O (1)
U pa12C a — L-
Q O .( O - Ov) L_ E
C
— DC3 g_ L 2
O t45 ° Eli c ° (I)
r 0 *E (I) 5 0
7.47: 0 r 0cDpIL_
CN E 2 2 g .b c c-L_ a a
D Q) O 0 0) Q)
C 4i • 0 0 > D Iv, .cr
0 v) 2 Oma_ O - -- U
O a) D
4i C O .0 .0 U 0 0 0
a E a p 0 ° 0 0 E >
0 0 •� OU p U
0
Si Q 0 .0 U O a ° C
133 C � ` ) O ° aUU
O 0 ii c) 0 r a , ) 1:3 a
—
C a Q) O O) �„O p p D
• — _ •C Q) p .0 Q) 0 0 L O
E 0 E
u E -5 E -ii =
• _ ce) •-. o E D 0 7 0 o -0
1-0 bi L_ L_,_, c) c) o c) a c
O -0 •" U2 .- - CL .c o o
0_
QIt
0
0 -o
0 a0
0 5c
Cj 0 �O •� O
0 = O
E R U
e 4; U LIR Q D
0 u 0 bc1) 0
Ca U O
CD 0 0
0 x
.E .E 0 2 .-
z %., D 0
O 0 0 c)
Z 0 �
c U o
� r
CO � .0 O
Ea :CLp c0O-
0 0E5oD0
e = ... °ea p c C (/)
Si 0 fi0 D 0 O
o
a 466 0 o v a vi
0 .12
� O >
(I)
z, -0 •- 0 E -c c
' z E L U 0 ~ 0 0
0 0 0 OcCOD O
0 O O L >
. _
cii.
o 0C O O 0 -
E a)
2
7_ c) -‘,ti .()
• _ 0 0 02 5 nt s 2 ,_()
2.), Q U (>5 v U --=4) a�
V y
Preliminary Option 4
Adopt and implement a mix of education / outreach programs
to increase participation in Housing Choice Voucher program,
such as:
Voluntary Voucher Provider Participation Pilot.
Housing Provider Education Program on Benefits of Voucher
Participation .
Create City-produced brochure on Renter Responsibilities / Being a
Good Neighbor for all housing providers to distribute to their renters.
Active webpage of Voucher-participating sites and available rental
units.
Collective self-monitoring by City, housing providers, public and select
commissions.
Preliminary Option 5
Adopt and implement a mix of financial incentives to increase
participation in the Housing Choice Voucher program, such as:
[ = Create a Voucher "Damage Recovery Fund" for housing providers
potentially to recover damages, and to make renters accountable for
their damages.
Tax incentives for qualified improvements to Voucher properties.
Extend 50% reduction of City fees for low-income households to include
water and sanitary sewer fees for Voucher units.
Waive or discount license and inspection fees for housing providers
accepting Vouchers.
Provide exceptions to Voucher requirements for housing providers.
Preliminary Option 6
Adopt and implement a mix of financial incentives / policies
for creation of Housing Choice Voucher units throughout the
community, such as:
Foster partnerships with private and non-profit housing developers to
provide Housing Choice Voucher units; e.g ., rent-to-own homes,
adaptive reuse of historic properties, new construction .
Housing tax increment financing (TIF) incentives to build mixed
income housing developments; i.e., that include " market rate" and
" low-income rate" units.
► Support for Low Income, Workforce, and Senior Housing Tax Credit
projects, with emphasis outside areas of concentrated poverty.
Source of Income
Questions ?
Comments ?
Direction for final report ?
Kevin Firnstahl - "Contact Us" inquiry from City of Dubuque website
Page 1 of 1
From: "Citizen Support Center" <dubuqueia@mycusthelp.net>
To: <kfirnsta@cityofdubuque.org>
Date: 11/27/2016 1:56 PM
Subject: "Contact Us" inquiry from City of Dubuque website
Contact Us
Name: Evelyn Nadeau
Address: 663 FENELON PLACE
Ward: 4
Phone: 563-588-0418
Email: enadeaull@gmail.com
City Department: City Council
Message: Dear Dubuque City Council Members, As you meet to discuss whether to exclude source of income as the sole
reason for refusing to rent to someone, I want to let you know that despite the attention that those who oppose this change
have received, there are many of usin Dubuque who support the ban on source of income. There are many reasons that I and
others hope that you will enact this ban. If we want Dubuque to continue to grow and to be a great city for all, we must
ensure that all have an equal opportunity to flourish. As I'm sure you know, right now only about 17% of landlords accept
housing choice vouchers, and of those available units about 63% are in areas of concentrated poverty in our city. This means
that those in need of housing do not have many options, and since one of the purposes of these vouchers is to lift people out
of poverty, we are falling well short of the mark. Whether this is happening because of prejudice, or even racism, I cannot
say, but certainly the appearance of such obstacles to equality are damaging to our city's reputation and ability to thrive,
especially given Dubuque's reputation and history, some of it pretty recent. Beyond appearances, the fact is that the only way
to truly assure that holdover attitudes about race and socioeconomic status are not keeping Dubuque from integrating
affordable housing and creating equal housing opportunities is to rule out source of income as a legal means of disqualifying
an applicant for rental housing. Dubuque needs fairer housing practices, and a ban on source of income would allow housing
programs to do what they were meant to do, which is to help those in need and create equal opportunities for all to progress,
which in turn will lead our city to greater sustainability and success. I plan to attend the upcoming work session and meetings
where the ban will be on the agenda, and if I can be of any help as you discuss this and come to a decision, please do not
hesitate to call upon me. Thank you for your commitment to making Dubuque the best that it can be. Sincerely, Evelyn
Nadeau 663 Fenelon Place enadeaul 1@gmail.com 563-588-0418
Click here to report this email as spam.
file:///C:/Users/kfirnsta/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5 83AE5F8DBQ_DODBQ_PO... 11/28/2016