housing policy and governance - metropolitan planning … · prehensive plan or zoning code, but...

LOCAL HOUSING STRATEGIES IN ACTION

M E T R O P O L I T A N M A Y O R S C A U C U S

C H I C A G O M E T R O P O L I S 2 0 2 0

M E T R O P O L I T A N P L A N N I N G C O U N C I L

Home Grown

HO

ME GROW

N

LOCA

LH

O

USING STRAT EGIES

INA

CTI

ON

Home GrownLocal Housing Strategies in Action

Best Practices from the Metropolitan Chicago Region

Thank you for using Home-Grown: Local Housing Strategies in Action. This collection — compiled bythe Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, Chicago Metropolis 2020, and Metropolitan Planning Council —describes a number of housing “best practices” implemented by local governments around theChicago metropolitan region. The intent is to show local policymakers and practitioners how theirpeers are addressing housing issues, and spark ideas for replicating or improving upon theseapproaches to address their own local housing challenges. This collection demonstrates that excit-ing, innovative, local efforts are contributing to a quality, diverse housing stock that meets the needsof a variety of residents in our region.

Each summary focuses on how a program, policy or development came about, how it works, why ithas been successful, and how it is financed. While many of the best practices address affordablehousing issues, other topics, such as fair housing and accessibility, are included in the booklet.Where applicable, we include information on how the public was involved in the process, and what“lessons” the community learned, including what local leaders would do differently in hindsight.Each document also includes information for the people responsible for the initiative, and users areencouraged to contact them for further information.

This publication is a “living” resource and, to that end, the partners will update the binder periodically with new summaries of the best practices that are working in our region. If you wouldlike to suggest a local housing development, policy, or program to be included in future editions,please contact Beth Dever with the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (312/201-4507;[email protected]), Nancy Firfer with Chicago Metropolis 2020 (312/332-2020;[email protected]), or Josh Ellis with the Metropolitan Planning Council (312/863-6045;[email protected]). Home Grown summaries also are available for download at www.mayorscaucus.org, www.chicagometropolis2020.org, and www.metroplanning.org.

We are pleased to present you with a compilation that reflects the range of housing strategies beingpracticed in the Chicago metropolitan area. We hope these best practices help you identify viablesolutions for achieving a range of housing options in your own community, ultimately contributingto a healthy, balanced housing stock. The Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, Chicago Metropolis 2020,and Metropolitan Planning Council are all available to help you think through these options andcustomize them to meet your community’s unique needs, market and challenges.

HO

ME GROW

N

LOC

AL

HO

USING STRAT EGIES

INA

CTI

ON

Index

I. Housing Policy and Governancea. Setting Local and Regional Goals • Metropolitan Mayors Caucus Housing Endorsement Criteria • Bolingbrook Fair Housing Ordinance • Oak Park Diversity Statement • DuPage Homeownership Center and DuPage Housing Action

Coalitionb. Accessibility • Bolingbrook Accessibility/Visitability

Requirementsc. Housing Commission/Committee • Highland Park Housing Commission • Lake Forest Housing Trust Fund Boardd. Inclusionary Zoning • Highland Park Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance • Lake Forest Inclusionary Housing Ordinance • Chicago Affordable Requirements Ordinance • City of St. Charles Inclusionary Zoning Ordinancee. Landlord/Tenant Relations • Evanston Landlord/Tenant Ordinance • Oak Park Landlord/Tenant Ordinancef. Affordable Housing and Smart Growth • Arlington Heights’ Multifamily Affordable

Housing Policy • Kane County Road Improvement Impact Fee Ordinance and

Smart Growth Criteria • Plainfi eld Small Lots and Density Bonuses

II. Housing Developmenta. HomeTown Aurora, Aurorab. Mallinkrodt in the Park, Wilmettec. Pacesetter, Riverdaled. Sunset Woods, Highland Parke. Timber Court, Arlington Heightsf. Woodstock Commons, Woodstockg. Victory Centre, Bartletth. Block Build, Elgini. Thomas Place, Glenviewj. Laurel Court, Highland Parkk. Donald W. Kent Residence, Northlakel. Legacy Square, Park Forestm. Riverwalk, Rolling Meadowsn. First Street, St. Charles

Home Grown: Local Housing Strategies in Action is organized into four sections: Housing Policy and Governance, Housing Development, Housing Program, and Financing. Each section has a number of Best Practices from around the Chicago region that are grouped by type and color-coded for your convenience. Below is an index of all of the strategies since 2006.

III. Housing Programa. Homeowner Assistance • Chicago Homeownership Preservation Initiative • Employer-Assisted Housing • Loyola University Chicago University-

Assisted Housing Programb. Housing Preservation and Rehabilitation • Chicago Troubled Buildings Initiative • Chicago Historic Bungalow Initiative • Round Lake Beach Housing Acquisition and

Rehabilitation Program • Tinley Park Architectural Enhancement Program • Joliet Local Homestead Program • Naperville and Community Firstc. Building Inspections and Code Enforcement • Country Club Hills Building Inspections Program • Mount Prospect Inspection Programd. Streamlining Housing Development • Elgin Expedited Permitting Process • Highland Park Fee Waivere. Property Management • Schaumburg Crime Free Multi-Housing Program

IV. Financinga. Community Land Trust • Chicago Community Land Trust • Highland Park Illinois Community Land Trustb. Demolition Tax • Evanston Affordable Housing Demolition Tax • Highland Park Demolition Tax • Lake Forest Demolition Taxc. Housing Trust Fund • Chicago Low-Income Housing Trust Fund • Highland Park Affordable Housing Trust Fundd. Rehabilitation Finance • Elgin Home Rehabilitation Grants • Evanston Multifamily RehabilitationLoan Program • Evanston One & Two Family Rehabilitation

Loan Program • Oak Park Single Family RehabilitationGrants/Loans Program • Oak Park Housing Bondse. Bond Cap Financing • Bond Cap Programs through IHDA or Private

Brokers

HOUSING POLICY AND GOVERNANCE

Setting Local and Regional Goals

Metropolitan Mayors CaucusHousing Endorsement CriteriaRegionwide

The Housing Endorsement Criteria have been adopted by a number of localcouncils of governments and individual communities in the Chicago region.

Policy Background

The Metropolitan Mayors Caucus’ HousingEndorsement Criteria (listed below) validate thework of municipalities and local housing commis-sions to increase the availability of and access toquality housing choices, and puts this work in aregional context. Once adopted, the criteria set standards for local affordable housing policy reviewprocesses, planning efforts, and development proposals to help communities achieve these regional goals.

The Housing Endorsement Criteria have beenadopted by a number of local councils of govern-ments and individual communities in the Chicagoregion. For example, the Village of ArlingtonHeights adopted them in 2002 and has since usedthe Criteria to guide development practices, leadingto the approval in 2005 of the mixed-incomeTimber Court Condominiums.

How It Works

The criteria can be adopted by a city council or vil-lage board. Once adopted, a community may thengauge housing-related policies against them, askdevelopers to demonstrate how their proposals meetthem, and even give preference to those proposalsthat do meet one or more of them. The HousingEndorsement Criteria are not meant to replace orsupersede the goals identified in a community’s com-prehensive plan or zoning code, but rather reflectwhat many communities have identified as theirvision. The criteria are not mutually exclusive; a pro-posed development could meet one or all of them.

The Housing Endorsement Criteria are as follows:

LOCATION

Infill development and redevelopment withinexisting cities and towns, as well as new conser-

vation developments, will receive preference. Inorder to maximize compatibility with public tran-sit and minimize auto use, housing within onemile of major transit service, a job hub, or towncenter provides a future market for transit. Theproject may be within two miles of a rail transitstation if provisions are made to provide ongo-ing shuttle service to future residents. Major tran-sit service is defined as a bus or rail stop withpeak period wait times of no more than 30 min-utes. Major transit service also includes funded,but not yet built, fixed rail stations.

LAND USE

New developments that aim to clus-ter housing in an efficient manner,in context with the surroundingcommunity, to preserve naturalresources and open space will be

GoalIncorporate Housing Endorsement Criteriato support local housing efforts and pro-mote principles of housing valued bymayors and communities across theChicago region.

TargetChicago-region municipalities.

SuccessAdopted by a number of local councils ofgovernments and individual communities.

Lessons LearnedAdopting the Housing EndorsementCriteria can demonstrate a community’scommitment to these principles and provide key support on developmentdecisions.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

given priority attention. Higher densities andmixed uses are particularly appropriate nearMetra and CTA stations to reduce the growth oftraffic congestion on local and regional roads.

ATTAINABILITY

Mixed-income housing developments, whichinclude units accessible to moderate-incomeworking families and to households with lowerincomes, along with market-rate units in thesame complex, will be given preference.Developments that help balance affordability lev-els within communities, while assuring consistentquality and design, will receive strong support.

DESIGN

New developments that stress quality design andconstruction to help ensure their long-term con-tribution to the improvement of the neighbor-hood will be given preference. The proposedbuildings will fit their setting, complementingand enhancing the existing neighborhood, andpromoting a sense of community, pedestrian-friendly design, and the other principles of goodvillage design. Proposals will address transit useand access and, where appropriate, the potentialfor mixed use.

MANAGEMENT

The management and maintenance of develop-ments are as critical as the initial design and con-struction to meeting the goal of enhancing com-munities. Therefore, the capacity of the develop-ment team to successfully address long-termneeds, as evidenced by its track record in selling,leasing and managing development properties,and its history with neighborhood and/or tenantrelations, will also be considered.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Beth Dever, Housing Director, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus

312/201-4507

[email protected]

www.mayorscaucus.org As of October 2006



Bolingbrook Fair Housing OrdinanceWill and DuPage counties

The goal of Bolingbrook’s Fair Housing Ordinance is to ensure all currentand potential residents have an equal opportunity to obtain quality housing within the village.

Policy Background

The Village of Bolingbrook’s Fair HousingOrdinance was first adopted in 1974 as a non-dis-crimination ordinance addressing concerns of racialsteering and rejection of protected classes of peoplein housing and real estate practices. The goal ofBolingbrook’s Fair Housing Ordinance is to ensureall current and potential residents have an equalopportunity to obtain quality housing within the vil-lage. To reinforce this ordinance, the village hasassigned staff to process complaints and provideeducation and outreach to local property owners.Thanks in part to the Fair Housing Ordinance, thevillage boasts a diverse community and neighbor-hoods. The 2000 Census reports that Bolingbrook’spopulation was about 20 percent African American,13 percent Latino, 65 percent white, and 12 percentother races.

How It Works

The village’s primary method of ensuring compli-ance with the Fair Housing Ordinance and maintain-ing positive relations and healthy communicationwith the community is a landlord training course.The course educates property owners on fair hous-ing rules and regulations and property management.The course is not mandatory for landlords, yet thevillage provides the incentive of a free rental inspection for attendees. The village normallycharges $65 - $125, depending on building type, forthese inspections.

The ordinance follows state and federal guidelinesand identifies race, color, creed, sex, familial status,marital status, age, mental or physical handicap, ances-try, unfavorable discharge from military service, andnational origin as protected classes. Since 1974,

GoalLocally enforce state and federal fairhousing laws and provide direct supportfor current and potential village residents.

TargetAll protected classes and local propertyowners.

FinancingThere are no direct costs associated withthis ordinance; however, there are mini-mal staff costs associated with adminis-tering the landlord training sessions.

SuccessBolingbrook boasts a diverse communitywhere 65 percent of the residents arewhite, 20 percent are African American,13 percent are Latino, and 12 percentare other races.

Lessons LearnedReinforcing fair housing laws locally andeducating property owners on those lawsreduces discrimination and supports adiverse community.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Bolingbrook’s Fair Housing Ordinance has beenrevisited five times to comply with these requirements.

Any person wishing to express a complaint mustcontact the village administrator, at which point thecomplaint process begins. The village does not pro-vide legal counsel and handles each complaint on acase-by-case basis. The village acts as a local sourcefor assistance and information to anyone expressinga complaint related to fair housing practices. If thevillage has jurisdiction to address the complaint, itthen seeks to resolve the situation. This mightinclude assessing a fee or penalty to a propertyowner. For other disputes, the village staff recom-mends other state or local departments or organiza-tions that can assist the resident in a resolution.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Nicole Knapp, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Village of Bolingbrook

630/226-8400

[email protected]

www.bolingbrook.com As of October 2006



Oak Park Diversity StatementCook County

The diversity statement, as part of a comprehensive approach to equal opportunity and fair housing, highlights that the village’s commitment toequality is not just because it is the law, but because it is right and desirable.

Policy Background

All newly elected Village of Oak Park board mem-bers take an oath to cultivate diversity within thecommunity. This oath, in the form of a DiversityStatement (cited on the reverse page), makes it veryclear that diversity considerations will affect all poli-cy decisions in the community are a bedrock of vil-lage policy.

The idea for the diversity statement was brought tothe Village Board by a grassroots movement led byinterested citizens. The board passed the statementin 1976, to establish Oak Park as an accessible com-munity with a stated commitment to diversity andequal opportunity.

The diversity statement, as part of a comprehensiveapproach to equal opportunity and fair housing,highlights that the village’s commitment to equalityis not just because it is the law, but because it isright and desirable. The statement encourages par-ticipation from all citizens, regardless of race, gen-der, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, reli-gion, economic status, or political affiliation.

GoalRecognize the value of diversity andguide policy and decision-making to preserve and enhance an equitable community.

TargetPolicymakers and citizens.

FinancingNo cost associated with this policy.

SuccessBy clearly establishing the village’s intentand commitment to this policy, it fostersmutual accountability between policy-makers and citizens to these goals andcreates a benchmark by which decisionsare judged.

Lessons LearnedHaving an explicit policy regarding diversi-ty can lead to a commitment to otherinclusive steps, such as Oak Park’sHousing Bonds program and Landlord-Tenant ordinance.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Oak Park Diversity Statement

Adopted by President and Board ofTrustees April 7, 2003

The people of Oak Park choose this communi-ty, not just as a place to live, but as a way oflife. Oak Park has committed itself to equality not onlybecause it is legal, but because it is right; not only becauseequality is ethical, but because it is desirable for us and forour children. Ours is a dynamic community that encour-ages the contributions of all citizens, regardless of race,gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, reli-gion, economic status, political affiliation, or any of theother distinguishing characteristics that all too often dividepeople in society.

Oak Park’s proud traditions of citizen involvement andaccessible local government challenge us to show others howsuch a community can embrace change while still respectingand preserving the best of the past. Creating a mutuallyrespectful, multi-cultural environment does not happen onits own; it must be intentional. Our goal is for people ofwidely differing backgrounds to do more than live next toone another.

Through interaction, we believe we can reconcile the appar-ent paradox of appreciating and even celebrating our dif-ferences while at the same time developing consensus on ashared vision for the future.

Oak Park recognizes that a free, open and inclusive com-munity is achieved through full and broad participation ofall its citizens. We believe the best decisions are madewhen everyone is represented in decision-making and poweris shared collectively.

Oak Park is uniquely equipped to accomplish these objec-tives because we affirm all people as members of thehuman family. We reject the notion of race as a barrierdividing us and we reject prejudicial behavior towards anygroup of people. We believe residency in this Villageshould be open to anyone interested in sharing our benefitsand responsibilities.

To achieve our goals, the Village of OakPark must continue to support the Board’sfair housing philosophy that has allowed

us to live side-by-side and activelyseek to foster unity in our com-munity. We believe that mutualunderstanding among individu-als of diverse backgrounds can

best be attained with an attitude of reciprocal good willand increased association.

The Village of Oak Park commits itself to a futureensuring equal access. Full participation in the Village’sinstitutions and programs, and equality of opportunity inall Village operating policies. The success of this endeavorprepares us to live and work in the twenty-first century.

It is our intention that such principles will be a basis forpolicy and decision-making in Oak Park. ThePresident and Board of Trustees of the Village of OakPark reaffirm their dedication and commitment to theseprecepts.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Cynthia Breunlin, Housing Programs Manager, Village of Oak Park

708/358-5411

[email protected]

www.oak-park.us As of October 2006


Setting Localand RegionalGoals

Policy Background

In March 2006, the DuPage HomeownershipCenter (DHOC) and the DuPage Housing ActionCoalition (DHAC) convened a symposium of 160builders, developers, lenders, government officials,and other community leaders. This symposium,Homeownership: Benchmark for a Vital Community,was designed to spark ideas and action that wouldenlist new supporters and increase and preserve thesupply of affordable housing in DuPage County,with a focus on homeownership opportunities.

The two organizations that convened the HousingSymposium have a long history of working on hous-ing issues in DuPage County. Created in 1991,DHOC offers housing counseling services to low-income families in DuPage County to help themmove closer to homeownership, including educa-tion, counseling, and special mortgage financingprograms. DHAC was founded in 2001 and is abroad based network of individuals and organiza-tions that advocate for fair and affordable housingin DuPage County. Both organizations have thedemonstrated ability to attract a wide array of localstakeholders.

How It Works

At the March 2006 symposium, chaired by DebraOlson of the DuPage County Board, attendeesexamined the barriers to creating and preservingaffordable housing in DuPage County. The sympo-sium resulted in four community task forces – Landand Zoning, chaired by Phil Passon of KingslandProperties and Paul Colgan of Colgan PublicAffairs; Government Engagement, chaired byWheaton City Councilwoman Liz Corry; EmployerEngagement, chaired by DuPage CountyCommissioner Debra Olson; and Perceptions ofAffordable Housing, chaired by William Carroll,president of Benedictine University. These taskforces worked throughout 2006 on their respectiveissues and reconvened in November 2006 at a sec-

ond symposium to report on their findings and cre-ate recommendations.

The Perceptions of Affordable Housing task force pro-posed a grassroots education campaign on the mythsand perceptions about affordable housing. A keypiece of this included a viewing of “WelcomeHome: Housing Our Community,” a short videoproduced by the Metropolitan Planning Counciland Metropolitan Mayors Caucus to spark construc-tive dialogue about how best to create or preservehomes affordable to those who live and work in acommunity. The Employer Engagement task forceconducted three focus groups with employers andemployment and labor organizations to gauge cur-rent awareness of and attitudes toward affordablehousing. This task force subsequently created anEmployer Work Blueprint to educate employers onthe need for affordable housing in order to engagebusinesses as advocates for and investors in the cre-ation of workforce housing opportuni-ties. The Government Engagementtask force’s 10 recommendationsincluded establishing a DuPageCounty technical assistance coordi-

DuPage Homeownership Center and DuPage Housing Action Coalition Homeownership: Benchmark for a Vital CommunityDuPage County

GoalTo encourage private-sector developmentof affordable housing in DuPage County.

TargetDuPage County residents, governmentofficials, housing professionals, and business leaders.

Funding SourcesThe first symposium was highly cost-effective – the entire symposium costunder $1,000, and was funded by localbanks, nonprofits and businesses.

SuccessOver 160 people participated in the firstsymposium and its related task forces andwork groups.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

New

for

2007

nating entity, developing a Purchase/Rehabilitationprogram, adopting local inclusionary housing ordi-nances, and setting up local community housingtrust funds. The Land and Zoning task force’s eightrecommendations included establishing mixed den-sity overlay zoning districts, giving subdivisions withworkforce housing units priority and streamlinedapproval through a Workforce Housing ombuds-man, and restrictions on resale coupled with proper-ty management and maintenance regulations.

At the second sympo-sium in November2006, the groupformed a new set ofworking groups toimplement these rec-ommendations:American Institute of

Architecture DesignCharrettes; Overlay Districts; CommunityOutreach; Government Advocacy; and TechnicalAssistance Bank. The groups will continue to meeton a regular basis and reconvene in November 2007to report on their progress. A steering committeeprovides guidance, coordination and oversight tothe working groups.

One concrete result of the symposium’s recommen-dations was a design charrette held in Wood Dale inApril 2007. This charrette, which included localofficials and community members, focused on theredevelopment of a shopping center and an adjacentresidential neighborhood. It resulted in one possibleplan to include mixed-income housing, new com-mercial space, and increased open space for recre-ation. Wood Dale has recently commissioned a TaxIncrement Financing feasibility study to exploreimplementing this plan.

Additional outcomes from the symposium include:• Two major employers, with input from the

Employer Engagement task force, are now explor-ing the possibility of establishing employer-assistedhousing programs.

• The Overlay District working group recommend-ed that overlay zoning be created for unincorpo-rated districts in DuPage County. In particular,this group is working on a model town homeproject in unincorporated Glen Ellyn. CHADHomes, a for-profit subsidiary of the CommunityHousing Association of DuPage, owns the land,while Kingsland Properties is the developer. Bothare involved in the working groups and the largertask forces.

• The Government Advocacy working group pro-posed creating an e-mail alert system to mobilizesupport for proposed affordable housing develop-ments.

• The Community Outreach working group devel-oped a presentation about the need for affordablehousing to educate individuals and employers andprompt substantive discussions on the topicthroughout the county.

Public Involvement

The symposium successfully broadened communityengagement around the topic of affordable housing.It enabled communities and stakeholders to getinvolved in expanding housing options that meetthe needs of a changing DuPage County populationthrough initiatives that work for the unique marketand political dynamics of the county. The sympo-sium was open to the general public and advertisedon various organizations’ Web sites as well asthrough word of mouth. DHOC and DHAC sentout invitations through their networks, includingthe banking community, advocacy groups, andsocial service organizations.

2007 Updates by Elana Berenson

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Dru Bergman, DuPage Homeownership Center

630/260-2502

[email protected]

www.dhoc.org

Mary Ellen Durbin, DuPage Housing Action Coalition

630/682-5402

[email protected]

www.peoplesrc.org As of July 2007


AccessibilityBolingbrook Accessibility/Visitability RequirementsWill and DuPage counties

Policy Background

Since 2003, the Village of Bolingbrook has requiredevery new residential single-family development tobe “visitable” by people in wheelchairs, expandingaccess to those living with disabilities. Through itsbuilding code, the village has outlined severalrequirements for new construction to ensure thatphysically challenged individuals can enter andmaneuver in these homes.

The local chapter of the Coalition of Citizens withDisabilities in Illinois was instrumental in the pas-sage of the accessibility ordinance. In late 1998,Mayor Roger Claar, village staff, and members ofBolingbrook’s disabled community met to discussaccessibility issues. Village staff then conducted asurvey of all single-family homebuilders who wereactive in Bolingbrook to determine the approximatecost of incorporating certain “visitability” featuresinto the construction of a new home. The surveydetermined the additional features would increasethe cost of construction by about 1.5 percent.

In 1999, village staff then drafted amendments tothe building code and alerted builders to thechanges in advance of public hearings. There wassome initial resistance from developers and contrac-tors regarding the additional costs of includingthese features in their homes. However, the villagedemonstrated that developers had been incorporat-ing the features in all of their homes voluntarily forfour years, and that the benefit to disabled peopleoutweighed the cost to the developer.

How It Works

In 2003, Bolingbrook passed an ordinance to codifythe village’s voluntary “visitability” criteria, whichrequire:• A no-step entrance leading from the driveway to

an entrance with a minimum 32-inch clear opening.• One accessible bathroom on the same level as theno-step entrance.• At least one shower in the home with reinforcedbeams to allow for the installation of grab rails ifnecessary at a later date.• Exterior doorways at least 36 inches wide andinterior doors with a minimum 32-inch clear opening.• Corridors and passageways 42 inches wide on thesame level as the no-step entrance.• Electrical wall outlets placed no morethan 15 inches above finished flooring.• Wall switches controlling light fixtures

GoalImprove access to new single-familyhomes for people with disabilities.

TargetDevelopers and disabled individuals withwheelchairs.

FinancingAccessibility improvements are privatelyfinanced by the developer.

SuccessThrough a detailed information gatheringand public review process, the villagewas able to make recommendationswith which the development communitywas willing to voluntarily comply.

Lessons LearnedBy conducting appropriate outreach toall affected stakeholders, the village wasable to create a policy that was accept-able to all parties.

Through its building code, the village has outlined several requirements fornew construction to ensure that physically challenged individuals can enterand maneuver in these homes.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Bruce Keller, Interim Grants Coordinator, Village of Bolingbrook

630/226-8567

[email protected]

www.bolingbrook.com

and fans placed 48 inches (maximum) above fin-ished flooring.

Public Involvement

Local developers, the Home Builders Association ofGreater Chicago, and members of Bolingbrook’sdisabled community testified at a June 1999 PlanCommission meeting. The CommunityDevelopment Department held two open meetingswhere builders, architects, members of the disabled

community, and village staff further discussed thelanguage, resulting in a more comprehensive code.This new draft was presented to members of thePlan Commission during a workshop in August1999. A final draft of the building code text amendments was produced later that month andpresented to the Plan Commission during aSeptember meeting.

Although approved by the Plan Commission in1999, the building code amendments were not yetlaw. Therefore, the Village of BolingbrookExecutive Department encouraged builders to vol-untarily comply with the visitability code in theinterim, which they did for the next four years. In2003, the mayor and village staff began the processof making the amendments law and held anotherseries of public meetings and “open houses” forthe public to view accessible homes. Tours of thehomes, combined with advocacy from TheCoalition of Citizens with Disabilities and thedevelopers’ record of voluntary compliance, led tothe passage of the ordinance in June 2003.

As of October 2006


Housing CommissionHighland ParkHousing CommissionLake County

The Highland Park Housing Commission has served as the driving forcebehind many of the city’s workforce housing initiatives, including the development of its Community Land Trust, Housing Trust Fund, andInclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Policy Background

Highland Park is often credited as one of theregional leaders on affordable housing policy. Manyof the city’s successes are the result of years ofdeliberate work to build understanding and capacityaround workforce housing issues. In the 1970s, inresponse to strong grassroots efforts led by theLeague of Women Voters and some local business-es, Highland Park’s Human Relations Commissionstudied the city’s local housing market and need forlow and moderate-income households. This led tothe 1973 creation of the Highland Park HousingCommission, which was given the authority toacquire and build housing. This commission hasserved as the driving force behind many of thecity’s workforce housing initiatives, including devel-opment of its Community Land Trust and HousingTrust Fund and adoption of its InclusionaryHousing policy.

In 1970, the Highland Park Human RelationsCommission submitted a report to the mayor andCity Council that illustrated the need for low andmoderate-income housing in the city. It found therewas a serious shortage of housing affordable tofamilies and individuals in these income groups. Asa result, both the public and private sectors werehaving trouble finding, hiring and retaining employ-ees. In addition, many low-income families and fam-ilies on fixed incomes who had lived in HighlandPark all of their lives were unable to remain in thecommunity due to rising costs.

The Human Relations Commission recommendedthe following:

• The City Council appoint a broad-based task forceto determine how much low and moderate-income

housing was required and where it should be locat-ed, as well as what, if any, changes should be madeto existing ordinances.

• Pending the task force’s final report and recom-mendations, the city implement a pilot project thatwould generate at least 50 homes for low and mod-erate-income households. (At the time, there was anestimated need for over 200 homes afford-able to low-income families in the area,and 275 homes affordable to familieswith moderate incomes.)

GoalTo encourage and engage in the develop-ment of low and moderate-income housing.

TargetLow and moderate-income residents andlocal employees.

FinancingNone provided.

SuccessSince the Housing Commission was cre-ated in 1973, 224 homes have beendeveloped and another 11 are in thepipeline. Numerous policies and pro-grams have been enacted, includinginclusionary zoning, a community landtrust, and a housing trust fund.

Lessons LearnedHaving a local body dedicated to housingissues helps a community craft policiesthat specifically respond to area housingneeds.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Betsy Lassar, Housing Planner, City of Highland Park

847/926-1852

[email protected]

www.cityhpil.com

• Encourage the task force to scatter affordabledevelopments throughout Highland Park in order toavoid school overcrowding and concentrations ofpoverty.

As a result of these recommendations, theHighland Park Housing Commission was estab-lished by ordinance to “encourage, promote andengage in the development of low and moderate-rent housing projects, and … to relieve the shortageof decent, safe and sanitary dwellings.”

How It Works

The Housing Commission has the authority toacquire and dispose of improved or unimprovedproperty, remove unsanitary or substandard condi-tions, construct and operate housing, regulate themaintenance of affordable buildings, and borrow,expend, loan, and repay monies for the purposeslisted above.

Today, the Commission operates rental housing infour affordable developments, maintains a waitinglist for condominium units in an affordable seniordevelopment, and works closely with the HighlandPark Illinois Community Land Trust, which offersaffordable homeownership opportunities. TheCommission also assembles land and generates rev-enue to develop affordable senior and family hous-

ing, administers the city’s Housing Trust Fund toprovide financial resources for affordable housingactivities, oversees the city’s Inclusionary HousingProgram and other housing initiatives, and makesrecommendations to the City Council on policymatters and programs related to affordable housing.

Through three separate nonprofit corporations,Peers Housing Association, Walnut HousingAssociation, and Ravinia Housing Association, theHousing Commission operates three Section 8affordable housing rental buildings utilizing federalfunds. The Commission, through a separate non-profit corporation, Sunset Woods Association, initi-ated a public-private partnership to develop anaffordable condominium development for seniorson behalf of the Commission. A private manage-ment firm, Metroplex, Inc., manages these homes.

The Commission has 10 members, one of whom isa non-voting ex-officio representative of the CityCouncil. The other nine members are all HighlandPark residents appointed by the mayor for terms ofthree years, who may be reappointed to a secondconsecutive three-year term. No Commission member may serve for more than two full consecutive terms. Each member also serves on theBoard of Directors for each of the four nonprofitcorporations.

As of October 2006


Housing CommissionLake Forest Ad Hoc HousingCommittee/Housing Trust Fund BoardLake County

Policy Background

City officials in Lake Forest realized that escalatingproperty values were threatening the diversity of thecommunity’s housing stock. In 2003, the averagesale price of a home in Lake Forest was over $1million, an 11 percent increase from the previousyear and a 65.5 percent increase from 1994. Inresponse to this concern, the city created an AdHoc Housing Committee in August 2003, as a tem-porary entity to address affordable housing issuesand draft an Affordable Housing Plan. This planrecommended several means to create affordableopportunities in the city, including implementationof a teardown tax and inclusionary housing policyto leverage private market activity.

The inclusionary zoning ordinance, approved in2005, requires the City Council to appoint a stand-ing committee, now known as the Housing TrustFund Board, to “coordinate and plan for possibleaffordable housing projects within the communityand administer an Affordable Housing Trust Fund”within one year (by December 2006). Along withpassage of this ordinance and demolition tax, bothof which generate funds toward affordable housingrelated efforts, the city established an AffordableHousing Trust Fund in September 2006. TheHousing Trust Fund Board will continue the goalsof the Ad Hoc Housing Committee by providingfinancial resources to address the housing needs oflow to moderate-income individuals and familieswithin the city. The three Housing Trust FundBoard members are appointed by the mayor, withthe consent of the City Council, and have demon-strated interest, knowledge and expertise in hous-ing-related issues.

GoalTo promote stable, diverse and affordableneighborhoods within the city of LakeForest.

TargetLow and moderate-income householdsand employees working in Lake Forest.

FinancingNo direct funding.

SuccessThe Ad Hoc Housing Committee wassuccessful in creating the AffordableHousing Plan, which became the impetusfor the city’s inclusionary zoning policyand demolition tax. Most recently, the cityestablished a Housing Trust Fund andstanding Housing Trust Fund Board.

Lessons LearnedHaving a housing commission dedicatedto the consideration of housing issuesprovides a venue for public discoursewithin the city and a resource for accom-plishing community goals.

Largely as a result of its housing committee’s Affordable Housing Plan, LakeForest has adopted several key ordinances that will soon create new housingopportunities for families of moderate means.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Peter Coutant, Senior Planner, City of Lake Forest

847/615-4292

[email protected]

www.cityoflakeforest.com

How It Works

The Ad Hoc Housing Committee, comprised offour members of the City Council, including themayor, began with the following agenda:• Prioritize those persons eligible for affordablehousing and evaluate the associated demand.• Define and determine the types of housing con-sistent with the public health, safety, character, andenvironment of the city.• Inventory city property for possible use foraffordable housing.• Coordinate with local college and hospital cam-puses to determine the viability of affordable hous-ing on those sites.

Between August 2003 and March 2005, the commit-tee held 15 public meetings to discuss affordabilityissues. In March 2005, the committee presented itsAffordable Housing Plan to the City Council, whichadopted it later that month. Largely as a result ofthis plan, the city immediately adopted several keyordinances that will soon create new housingopportunities for families of moderate means inLake Forest. The Ad Hoc Housing Committee wasdissolved in the summer of 2006, when the citybegan to develop the Housing Trust Fund ordi-nance and associated board to take its place.

As of October 2006


Inclusionary ZoningHighland Park Inclusionary Zoning OrdinanceLake County

Policy Background

The first of its kind in the Chicago region, theHighland Park Inclusionary Zoning ordinancerequires developments of over five units to includeaffordably priced homes. Stemming from the city’sMaster Plan process and a key component of itsAffordable Housing Plan, the Inclusionary HousingOrdinance was approved by the City Council inAugust 2003.

How It Works

The policy requires that developers of buildingswith five residential units or more provide 20 per-cent of the total units for sale or rent at affordablerates to income-qualified households. Examples ofbuildings covered by the ordinance include:• New construction.• Renovation or reconstruction of existing multi-family housing that increases the number of resi-dential units in the building.• A change in the use of an existing building fromnon-residential to residential.• Conversion of a rental property to a condominium.

The developer may make a cash payment in-lieu ofconstructing some or all of the affordable homesonly if the covered development is a single-family,detached development that has no more than 19units. The per-unit in-lieu fee amount is determinedby the City Council, set forth in the city’s annual feeresolution, and assessed only once to the developer.All revenue from the in-lieu fee is transferred to thecity’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

The inclusionary zoning ordinance provides for feewaivers and a density bonus to offset the cost of

developer compliance with the ordinance. Thefees that are waived are applicable only tothe affordable homes and include feesfor applications, building permits, planreviews, inspections, sewer and water

GoalTo address affordable housing needs inHighland Park.

TargetHomeowners earning at or below 120percent of area median income (AMI),with a focus on families earning below80 percent AMI; renters earning at orbelow 120 percent of AMI, with a focuson households earning both 80 percentand 50 percent of AMI.

FinancingThe ordinance provides for fee waiversand a density bonus to offset the cost ofcompliance with the ordinance. There isno direct funding attached to the policy.

SuccessThe creation of 11 affordable units withinthe city in three separate developmentsover the first two years.

Lessons LearnedWhile an inclusionary housing policy doesprovide predictability for the city anddevelopment community, there is an ini-tial adjustment period during whichdevelopers and city staff are learningtogether how to make the program work.

The Highland Park Inclusionary Zoning ordinance has allowed HighlandPark to pursue affordable housing development that would have otherwisebeen extremely difficult to create. As of the summer of 2005, there werethree such developments in the pipeline. When complete, these develop-ments will generate 11 new affordable homes.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site


847/926-1852

[email protected]

www.cityhpil.com

tap-ons, demolition permits, the demolition tax, andsuch other development fees and costs that may beimposed by the city. To the extent there are impactfees attributable to the affordable homes, those arepaid from funds in the Affordable Housing TrustFund.

The affordable homes are made available to familiesor individuals making up to 120 percent of areamedian income (AMI) ($90,480 for a family of fourin 2006). In for-sale developments, at least one andno less than 50 percent of the affordable units mustgo to families or individuals making no more than80 percent of AMI ($59,600 for a family of four in2006). All other affordable for-sale homes are avail-able to anyone earning up to 120 percent of AMI.Within each income tier, pricing requirements areimposed to ensure a range of affordability. In rentalproperties, at least one-third of the affordablehomes must go to those with incomes less than 50percent of AMI ($37,700 for a family of four in2006), one-third to those at 51 to 80 percent AMI,and no more than one-third to those making 80 to120 percent AMI. For-sale homes are kept afford-able by attaching deed restrictions in perpetuity orfor as long as legally allowed. The deed restrictionsinclude a resale formula designed to ensure a fair-market return on the investment to the owner andthat the homes will be resold at an affordable rateto an income-qualified buyer. Apartments are keptaffordable for 25 years.

Affordable homes must be dispersed throughoutthe development, visually compatible and built con-currently with market-rate units. External buildingmaterials must be the same as market-rate units.Internal fixtures and finishes do not need to be thesame, except for energy efficiency improvements.

Public Involvement

To establish the Highland Park Inclusionary ZoningOrdinance, the Plan Commission held public hear-ings at its regular meetings in February, March andApril of 2003, to gather public input regarding theordinance. The Plan Commission approved the nec-essary amendment to the zoning code to establishthe Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance at its April 2003meeting. In addition to the Plan Commission meet-ings, the city held several meetings with key stake-holders.

Most of the concerns raised at these meetings camefrom the development and realtor communities.Developers did not know how the policy would beimplemented and feared that inclusionary zoningwould raise their costs of working in HighlandPark. Discussions with the development communityprovided valuable input into how the city could bestcraft the policy. The Illinois Association of Realtorswas unclear about the general goals of the policy, aswell as who would bear the cost of enactment. Theassociation was concerned the cost would be bornesolely by the development community. HighlandPark officials met with them to clear up any mis-conceptions and provide them with accurate infor-mation. Several members of the public testified infavor of the inclusionary zoning ordinance duringthe public approval process.

This ordinance has allowed the city to pursueaffordable housing development that would haveotherwise been extremely difficult to create. As ofthe summer of 2005, there were three such devel-opments in the pipeline. When complete, thesedevelopments will generate 11 new affordablehomes within the city of Highland Park.

As of October 2006


Inclusionary ZoningLake Forest Inclusionary Housing OrdinanceLake County

Policy Background

For over a decade, Lake Forest has experienced asteady loss of affordability in its housing market. In2003, the average sale price of a home in the cityexceeded $1 million. As an extension of theAffordable Housing Plan adopted by its CityCouncil in March 2005, the Lake Forest PlanCommission proposed an inclusionary housingordinance to require developers of new residentialdevelopments and conversion properties to provideaffordable homes along with homes at marketprices. The ordinance passed the City Council inDecember 2005.

How It Works

The policy requires at least 15 percent of the totalnumber of homes in a covered development ofover five units to be affordable. Covered develop-ments include:• New residential construction or new mixed-useconstruction with a residential component.• Developments consisting of over 50 percentreconstruction of the total square footage of anexisting multifamily residential structure that willincrease the number of units.• A development that changes the use of an existingstructure from non-residential to residential.• Conversion of rental homes to condominiumhomes.

The ordinance provides for fee waivers for inspec-tion, sewer and water tap-on, building permit, appli-cation, plan review, demolition permit, impact, andall other development fees imposed by the city asthey apply to the affordable units. In addition, cov-ered properties are eligible for density bonuses.

Developers may propose, and the City Council mayapprove, alternatives to the inclusion of affordablehousing on the site of the covered development.

GoalTo attract, encourage and promote afford-able housing within the city and extendaffordable housing opportunities to sen-iors and other Lake Forest residents.

TargetSeniors and other Lake Forest familiesearning 120 percent or below AMI,($90,480) for home ownership and 80percent or below AMI ($59,600) forrental homes.

FinancingThe ordinance provides for fee waiversand a density bonus to off-set the cost ofcompliance with the ordinance. There isno direct funding attached to the policy.

SuccessPassed December 2005 (as of July 1,2006) two developments in the pipelinethat could create 20 to 35 new afford-able homes.

Lessons LearnedThe city worked with regional nonprofits,with expertise in regional and nationalbest practices, to help develop the policy.A deliberate, incremental policy develop-ment process minimized public opposi-tion and resulted in successful imple-mentation of the ordinance.

The policy requires at least 15 percent of the total number of homes in acovered development of over five units to be affordable.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site As of October 2006


847/615-4292

[email protected]

www.cityoflakeforest.com


Inclusionary ZoningChicago AffordableRequirements OrdinanceCook County

Policy Background

In May 2007, the City of Chicago revised itsAffordable Requirements Ordinance (ARO) in orderto better increase the city’s housing affordability bylinking market rate development and the construc-tion of new workforce homes. Developers will nowbe required to make affordable 10 percent of all newhousing that is either built in a planned develop-ment or on city-owned land, involves financial assis-tance from the city, or that requires density bonusesor other zoning variances.

Given dwindling federal resources for affordablehousing, the ARO was revised to provide morehousing priced below market level. The City ofChicago has a stated commitment to create pro-grams and policies that capitalize on the healthymarket to generate resources without discouragingdevelopment. The 2007 ordinance revision blendselements of the original ARO, passed in 2003, andthe 2005 Downtown Density Bonus (DDB), whichhave both effectively generated new housing oppor-tunities without requiring an infusion of municipalfunds.

How It Works

The revised ordinance, which is similar to an inclu-sionary zoning ordinance, incorporates both theoriginal 2003 ARO and the 2005 DDB. The formerrequires developers receiving either financial assis-tance from the city or discounted purchases of cityland to provide a certain percentage of affordablehousing units: 20 percent and 10 percent respective-ly. It applies only to developments with 10 or moreunits. The latter requires developers to pay into anaffordable housing fund or build affordable homesin exchange for increasing density beyond what theunderlying zoning would allow.

In addition to requiring 10 percent of the homes innew developments built on any land purchasedfrom the city be affordable, the new ARO activatesthe 10 percent requirement if a developer requestsany density increases or zoning variances, or requests

to change an area’s zoning from non-residential toresidential. All new downtown planned develop-ments must include 10 percent affordability as well.Resulting housing opportunities must either remainaffordable for 30 years or be placed in the ChicagoCommunity Land Trust, where they will remainaffordable in perpetuity. Developers also have a pay-ment in lieu option; they must provide the requiredaffordable housing or pay $100,000 per unit.

According to the ordinance, for-sale homes mustserve households at or below 100 percent AreaMedian Income ($75,400 for a family of four in2007). Apartments must serve households at orbelow 60 percent AMI. In 2006, 415 affordablehomes were built under the original ARO program.The city estimates that within a few years of therevision, as many as 1,000 new affordable homes, ora comparable number of payments in lieu, may begenerated. In return for flexibility with densityallowances and zoning changes, the city will spurnew affordable housing constructionwithout increasing municipal financialinvolvement. The city is also confi-dent there will be no dampeningeffect on economic activity or devel-

GoalTo provide more affordable and work-force housing to Chicago residents.

TargetDevelopers and low and moderate-income families.

Lessons LearnedThe city’s approach has been to incrementally expand Chicago’s housingpolicies. This ensures the city’s policiestap market activity without slowing privatedevelopment or causing negative economic effects.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

New

for

2007


opment, but rather that the revision will producemore quality housing options for working individu-als and families.

In 2002, the city established the ChicagoPartnership for Affordable Neighborhoods program,through which a developer voluntarily providesaffordable units within a market rate developmentand the city offers additional purchase subsidiesavailable to buyers with incomes less than 80 per-cent AMI. Since then, the City of Chicago has con-tinually created new policies that leverage private

developments to createmore affordablehousing. The newARO is the latestinitiative designedto create moreopportunity without negativelyaffecting the market.

Public Involvement

The 2007 revision of the Affordable RequirementsOrdinance resulted from negotiations between theMayor’s office, the city’s zoning and housing com-mittees, and an active group of advocates includingseveral aldermen, most notably 4th Ward AldermanToni Preckwinkle, and nonprofit groups such as theChicago Rehab Network (CRN), MetropolitanPlanning Council, Home Builders Association ofGreater Chicago, and Business and ProfessionalPeople for the Public Interest. The negotiationprocess included several public meetings, which pro-vided opportunity for residents to comment on theproposed revisions. Additionally, CRN has createdan online tracking system, ARO Watch, to updatethe public on potential developments that would besubject to the ARO.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Marti Wiles, Department of Housing, City of Chicago

312/742-0467

[email protected]

www.egov.cityofchicago.org As of July 2007

GoalTo address the decreasing supply of housing for moderate-income workers, and provide more aff ord-able housing options for families wishing to live and work in St. Charles.

TargetSt. Charles families earning 80% or below AMI ($60,300 for family of four in 2009) for homeown-ership, and between 50% and 60% AMI ($37,700-$44,940) for rental properties.

FinancingTh e ordinance provides fee waivers for aff ordable homes and a density bonus to make construction fi nancially viable for developers. SuccessFirst Street, a new large-scale development in down-town St. Charles, became the fi rst development to incorporate aff ordable homes. Th e city negotiated its aff ordable set aside with the developer on a voluntary basis in 2007, prior to the passage of the inclusionary zoning ordinance. All of First Street’s 16 aff ordable apartments have been rented. Another development, Delnor Woods, includes four aff ordable rental units.


Inclusionary Zoning

City of St. Charles Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance

St. Charles, Kane County

Policy BackgroundDue to its strong housing market and desirable loca-tion, St. Charles has experienced a loss in aff ordability over the past several years. If this trend continues, moderate-income families may eventually be priced out of the community. In 2008, to provide more aff ordable housing options for working families, the city adopted an inclusionary zoning ordinance. Along with legislation establishing a housing trust fund, this ordinance will provide more options for families to work and live in St. Charles.

Th e ordinance is part of the city’s housing action plan, developed with the assistance of the Metropolitan Plan-ning Council, to identify strategies and programs that will preserve and create diverse housing options for city residents. Th e St. Charles Inclusionary Zoning ordinance is one part of the city’s larger plan to increase and pre-serve aff ordable housing in the city, which includes other initiatives like employer-assisted housing, preserving and upgrading the existing aff ordable housing stock, and leveraging federal, state and local resources. One of the city’s major goals was to ensure this new ordi-nance could function eff ectively within St. Charles’ hous-ing market. Th e city worked closely with S.B. Friedman and Co., a real estate consultant, to ensure that develop-ers, instead of opting to pay in-lieu fees into the housing trust fund, would be more likely to build the aff ordable homes. S.B. Friedman evaluated bottom-line expendi-tures and profi ts, which helped the city establish cost off sets like a density bonus and municipal fee waivers. Th ese off sets help to lessen the impact on a developer’s overall profi tability.

How It WorksSt. Charles is one of several local communities to adopt inclusionary zoning (also, Highland Park, Lake For-est, Evanston, and Chicago), yet the city took a unique approach to its legislation. Unlike most communities, which require developers to set aside a fl at percentage of homes as aff ordable for any qualifi ed development, St.

St. Charles took a unique approach to its inclusionary zoning legislation, and created a tiered system that requires developments of diff erent sizes to incorporate a diff erent percentage of aff ordable homes.

New

fo

r 2010


Inclusionary Zoning

City of St. Charles Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance


Contact Matthew O’Rourke, AICP, Planner, Comm. Development Dept., City of St. CharlesPhone 630.762.6924Email [email protected]

Charles created a “tiered” system. It requires developments of diff erent sizes to incorporate a diff erent percentage of aff ordable homes. Five percent of developments with one to ten homes are required to be aff ordable, while this percent-age is increased to 10 percent for developments with 11-50 homes, and 15 percent for developments with more than 50 homes.

Th e ordinance applies to all new residential developments, including conversions that add units to a property. Families who earn between 50 and 60 percent, or $37,700 to $45,240 for a family of four in 2009, of the Chicago region’s Area Median Income (AMI) qualify for aff ordable rental homes and apartments, and those earning 80 percent of AMI, ($60,300 for a family of four in 2009) or less qualify for for-sale developments. Rental and sale prices are determined by the family’s ability to pay housing costs, which can be up to 30 percent of income.

For aff ordable homes required but not built on site, devel-opers must pay in-lieu fees. Th e City Council sets these fees on an annual basis, although the in-lieu fees have remained at the rate set for 2007-2008 ($140,000 per unit) for the past two years. Developers may pay in-lieu fees in full for small

developments (1-10 homes), but larger developments must follow more stringent guidelines. For medium developments (11-50 homes), the City Council accepts in-lieu fees for no more than 50 percent of the required aff ordable homes for the site, so developers must con-struct at least half of the required aff ordable homes. For large developments (50 or more homes), developers must construct all of the required aff ordable homes, or need special approval from the City Council and housing commission to pay in-lieu fees. Even if they receive this special approval, developers still need to construct at least 50 percent of the required aff ordable homes.

Public InvolvementTh e city’s outreach eff ort is one of the greatest triumphs of its inclusionary zoning planning process. Beyond the housing commission’s numerous open meetings, the commission met with various stakeholders to get feed-back on the ordinance’s potential eff ects. Th ese stake-holders included school and park district representatives, developers, and real estate professionals. Th e ordinance also was discussed at many City Council and Plan Com-mission meetings, both of which are open to the public.

New

fo

r 2010

2010 Updates by Elizabeth Frantz and Aleece Smith


Landlord/Tenant Relations

Evanston Landlord/Tenant OrdinanceCook County

The Evanston Landlord/Tenant Ordinance has enabled the city to maintainhousing options within the community and foster positive relations betweenlandlords and tenants.

Policy Background

Evanston officials wanted to maintain a quality supplyof rental housing in the city, as well as ensure therights of both tenants and landlords were understoodand upheld. Consequently, in 1975, the city establishedthe Landlord/Tenant Ordinance to educate both part-ners of their individual obligations. The ordinance wascreated and presented to the City Council by theTenants Organization, a local tenant advocacy group.

How It Works

The Landlord/Tenant Ordinance addresses suchissues as the required components of a lease, securi-ty deposit procedures, dwelling unit requirements formaintenance and upkeep, lead disclosure require-ments, rent payment default procedures, and proper-ty abandonment procedures. The city also providesassistance when necessary, to resolve issues as theyarise. The Evanston Dept. of Human Relations hasa human relations specialist staff position dedicatedto this task.

The ordinance has enabled the city to maintainhousing options within the community and fosterpositive relations between landlords and tenants.The city handles roughly 2,500-3,000 complaintseach year. Although tenants file the majority ofcomplaints, landlords also come to city staff withconcerns.

If a party wishes to seek formal resolution to anissue, it may file a civil suit. Not everyone, however,has the resources to do this, so the city is currentlyconsidering creating an enforcement mechanism topenalize a breach of Evanston’s Fair HousingOrdinance.

GoalTo make clear the rights and responsibili-ties of landlords and tenants.

TargetAll landlords and tenants of rental properties in Evanston.

FinancingNo financing attached.

Success2,500 to 3,000 complaints addressedeach year.

Lessons LearnedHaving a city landlord/tenant ordinance isvery useful, but an enforcement mecha-nism is needed and should be includedin the initial legislation.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Public Involvement

The Evanston Landlord/Tenant Ordinance was ini-tiated in large part by the Tenants Organization.While local landlords originally opposed the imple-mentation of the ordinance, there was enough com-munity support to pass it. Current communitydynamics in Evanston have changed. More recently,the City Council has made efforts to place enforce-ment mechanisms in the ordinance, such as finesfor noncompliance, but has faced landlord opposi-tion and little tenant support.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Paula Haynes, Director, Evanston Department of Human Relations Department

847/866-2920

[email protected]

www.cityofevanston.org As of October 2006


Landlord/Tenant Relations

Oak Park Landlord/Tenant OrdinanceCook County

Policy Background

In the 1960s, many conflicts arose between land-lords and tenants in Oak Park because there were nocommon rules regarding their respective responsibil-ities. With half of the village’s population living inmultifamily rental buildings, there was an obviousneed for a supportive system to resolvelandlord/tenant disputes and maintain positive rela-tionships between the village, its property owners,and its renters. A multi-jurisdictional committeecomprised of landlords, tenants and realtors wasformed to address the issue. Working with OakPark’s Community Relations Department, the com-mittee drafted the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance,which was passed by the Village Board in 1968, inconjunction with the village’s Fair HousingOrdinance. Updated and amended several timessince, the ordinance has proven very useful to thevillage and its residents.

How It Works

Each year, Oak Park holds a tenant seminar, adver-tised throughout the community, where tenantsreceive a booklet outlining the ordinance. Bookletsare also available in a variety of municipal buildings.In addition, mandatory annual meetings are heldwith all Oak Park landlords to update them onrecent city ordinances. Landlords are encouraged tocommunicate this information to tenants, whichleads to improved relationships and communication.

An underlying goal of the Landlord/TenantOrdinance was to resolve conflicts over code viola-tions before resorting to the judicial system. Sincethe ordinance was adopted, the village has experi-enced improved landlord-tenant relations and fewercourt appearances related to code violation disputes.

Since the ordinance was adopted, Oak Park has experienced improved landlord-tenant relations and fewer court appearances related to code violation disputes.

GoalEducate landlords and tenants on theirrights and responsibilities.

TargetLandlords and tenants of rental buildings.

FinancingNo financing attached.

SuccessCourt appearances have decreased sinceadoption in 1968.

Lessons LearnedEducation can address many of the common landlord-tenant conflicts thatarise before court involvement becomesnecessary.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Public Involvement

Concerned Oak Park citizens brought the issue ofcreating a landlord/tenant ordinance to the village.Public hearings were held to discuss the implemen-tation of the ordinance, as well as hear and respondto feedback from the community.

Landlords were initially skeptical because theythought the ordinance would increase their respon-sibilities and costs. Prior to its enactment, landlordswere being taken to court frequently, at a great costto the city, due to violations of tenant rights. Themulti-jurisdictional group came together to discussthese concerns, resolve differences, and help forman effective ordinance that would successfully sup-port a diverse community. Conflict resolution at thelocal level was a selling point to all parties involvedduring the planning process.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site


708/358-5411

[email protected]

www.oak-park.us

GoalTo promote aff ordable homeownership and rental op-portunities, especially in Planned Unit Developments (PUDs).

Target Low and moderate-income families at or below 80% AMI for the Chicago region ($60,300 for a family of four in 2009).

FinancingNo costs associated with this policy.

SuccessTh e Timber Court Condominiums development was the fi rst larger-scale application to this policy. Of the development’s three proposed buildings, the fi rst two were completed in 2008, and contain eight one-bedroom and six two-bedroom aff ordable units. Aft er the third building is built, in which the developer has planned four one-bedroom and three two-bedroom aff ordable units, Timber Court will have 21 aff ordable units (20% of the total development).

Lessons Learned Th e aff ordable two-bedroom condominiums at Timber Court sold quickly, while it was much more diffi cult to fi nd interested eligible homebuyers for the aff ordable one-bedroom condominiums. Th erefore, in the future, the Village will ask that all aff ordable hous-ing units have at least two bedrooms.


Affordable Housing and Smart Growth

Arlington Heights’ Multifamily Affordable Housing Policy

Arlington Heights, Cook County

Since Arlington Heights established its Housing Com-mission in the 1970s, access to aff ordable housing has been one of the Village Board’s top goals. In 1998, to encourage aff ordable housing construction, the board enacted the Aff ordable Multifamily Housing Policy, which states:

It is the policy of the Village of Arlington Heights to promote adequate housing for all the communi-ty’s people; to create and/or maintain sound viable neighborhoods; to meet the needs for housing by increasing the number of housing units for low and moderate income families and individuals; and to expand housing opportunities for all mem-bers of the community.

To implement this policy, which is intended to promote both aff ordable homeownership and rental opportuni-ties, the Village Board amended the application devel-opers of multifamily residential housing must submit to the Arlington Heights Plan Commission, to include a description of how they intend to address the vil-lage’s goal to promote aff ordable housing. As in many other parts of the Chicago region, since 2000, it has become considerably more expensive to live in Arlington Heights, as the village has experienced an increase in both new construction and condominium conversions. Its policy elevates the importance of aff ordable hous-ing in the decision-making process for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), making the village more directly involved. It also encourages developers to include aff ord-able homes in their developments.

How It WorksAll Plan Commission applications for multifamily residential PUDs must include an assessment of the development’s aff ordability, details about the inclusion of aff ordable homes, and an additional explanation of how the developer will respond to the village’s policy. Developers are required to submit this information for both new PUDs and amendments to existing PUDs. Th e policy states aff ordable homes must be dispersed among the market rate units, should have the same exterior and

interior appearance, and should not diff er in terms of fi nishes or internal mechanical systems, unless otherwise approved.

While the policy is not a mandate, it does help the vil-lage take aff ordable housing into consideration when reviewing a PUD. Th e number of aff ordable homes recommended by the village is dependent on zoning, site planning, and other site-specifi c considerations.

Arlington Heights establishes high expectations for affordable units in new devel-opments with a policy requiring developers to explain how their projects will ad-dress village affordable housing goals.

New

fo

r 2010


Affordable Housing and Smart Growth

Arlington Heights’ Multifamily Affordable Housing Policy


Th e village does provide guidelines for an acceptable percentage of aff ordable homes within diff erent sized developments. Arlington Heights recommends that 12 percent of homes within developments of 11-50 units be aff ordable, 15 percent of developments with 51-100 units, and 20 percent in developments with more than 101 units.

Buyers are eligible to purchase aff ordable homes in Ar-lington Heights if their annual household incomes are at or below 80 percent of area median income (AMI) for the Chicago region ($60,300 for a family of four in 2009). Prices are set so buyers spend no more than 30 percent of their gross annual incomes on housing costs, which include principal and interest (on an adjusted average 30-year fi xed rate mortgage), association dues, taxes, and insurance. Th e appropriate number of occu-

Contact Nora Boyer, Housing Planner, Village of Arlington HeightsPhone 847.368.5214Email [email protected] As of February 2010

pants for a unit is defi ned as one more than the number of bedrooms, and prices are set based on this standard. For instance, the price of a two-bedroom home is set to be aff ordable for a three-person household.

To support this policy and its overall aff ordable housing goals, the Village of Arlington Heights has put in place several tools to support developments that include an aff ordable component. Th e village provides its own fi -nancial assistance to purchasers, maintains a waiting list of ready and qualifi ed buyers, and has developed several legal documents and measures to maintain aff ordability permanently, including provisions of the Declaration of Condominium, Development Agreement, and Buyer’s Occupancy and Resale Restriction Agreement signed by the homeowners.

New

fo

r 2010



Affordable Housing andSmart Growth

Road Improvement Impact FeeOrdinance and Smart Growth CriteriaKane County

Policy Background

In an effort to encourage sensible growth, KaneCounty has reduced or removed impact fees on newdevelopments that are designed to reduce the use ofautomobiles. The revised Road ImprovementImpact Fee Ordinance was passed in 2007, as partof Kane County’s Comprehensive RoadImprovement Plan (CRIP). The intent of the dis-count program is to encourage new development tomeet the county’s Smart Growth Criteria, which areaimed at reducing road trips and, therefore, theneed for new road construction.

Kane County Smart Growth Criteria:• Mixed land uses• Compact building design• A range of housing opportunities and choices• Walkable neighborhoods• Distinctive, attractive communities with a strong

sense of place• Preservation of open space, farmland, natural

beauty, and critical environmental areas• Development directed toward existing communities• A variety of transportation choices• Predictable, fair, and cost effective development

decisions • Community and stakeholder collaboration in

development decisions

Road impact fees, which are required to be paid bythe builders of every new housing development, canfund the construction of infrastructure that needs tobe expanded because of new development.Developments that include trip reduction measures– building mixed-use developments, developing inclose proximity to public transit, or incorporatingdensity and walkability – reduce strains on infra-structure. The Kane County Impact Fee DiscountProgram acknowledges that land use decisionsimpact the need for transportation infrastructure.The program offers up to a 70 percent discount fordevelopers who include these trip reduction meas-ures in their developments.

An affordable housing exemption to the roadimpact fee ordinance aims to attract new affordableand mixed-income developments. For each afford-able home built (or a designated percentage of thehomes in a multi-family housing development), thedeveloper is exempt from paying the RoadImprovement Impact Fee that would have beenassessed for a comparable market-rate unit. TheCounty Engineer is responsible for monitoring theaffordability of apartments, which must meet theminimum affordability requirements set by theIllinois Housing Development Authority for a peri-od of 10 years. If the affordable homes or develop-ment fails to meet the affordability requirements inany year, the previously exempted impact fee mustbe paid in full by the owner. Affordable for-sale housing, while still qualifying forthe same exemption, is monitored byindividual Kane County municipali- H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

GoalTo promote orderly development thatincludes affordable housing, trip reduc-tion measures, and other sensible growthgoals.

TargetDevelopers, planners, and the communityof Kane County.

Lessons LearnedBy holding hearings open to the public,meeting with municipal officials, and con-ducting countywide outreach, KaneCounty was able to generate support forthe impact fee ordinance and its discountprogram. The discount program makesthe connection between land use andtransportation needs, by acknowledgingthat appropriate development candecrease trip generation and ease theburden on the road infrastructure.

New

for

2007


ties, which determine the length of time homesmust remain affordable and designated number ofaffordable homes required, such as 10 percent of thetotal development.

How It Works

Road impact fees are assessed based on the proposedbuilding’s predominant use. Fees can be reduced orwaived for developments meeting the sensiblegrowth features listed below, but there are no penal-ties for not meeting these goals. All new develop-ments must pay the impact fee unless they are eligi-ble for a discount. An impact fee schedule is inplace, which ensures a gradual increase over a five-year period. For example, a single-family detachedhome built in 2007 would be assessed just over$1,500, and over time the fee would rise to $3,100.The current CRIP is in place until 2011, at whichtime a new plan will need to be adopted and theimpact fee adjusted accordingly.

To receive the minimum 40 percent discount on theimpact fees, the proposed development must meetall four of the following criteria:• All entrances must be located within a half-mile

walking distance of an existing or committedPACE fixed route bus service, within one-milewalking distance of an existing or committedMETRA commuter rail station, or within a half-mile walking distance of other transit service.

• It must have a residential component and at leastfour different land uses and trip generators such asparks, community centers, libraries, or schools, orbe within one-quarter mile walking distance of aresidential zoning district and at least four of theland use/trip generators. Alternatively, the propos-al can be within one-half mile walking distance ofa residential zoning district and at least six of theland use/trip generators.

• It must have an average residential density of atleast seven units per acre or an average non-resi-dential or mixed-use floor area ratio of at least 0.5.

• It must adhere to a maximum block perimeterwithin the new development of 2,200 feet andensure the main or public entrance to the buildingis directly accessible from the public sidewalkalong the street, with no parking allowed in frontof the building.

Developments that offer even greater density or arelocated on infill sites are eligible for additional dis-counts adding up to 70 percent of the standardimpact fees.

Public Involvement

The Road Improvement Impact Fee Ordinancewent through the standard public review and com-ment period process required by the enabling statelegislation, which included public hearings. Thesehearings focused on land-use consumption withinKane County to ensure future plans were as efficientand effective as possible. County staff met individu-ally with many municipalities to discuss the pro-gram and established an Impact Fee AdvisoryCommittee to determine land use assumptions anddevelopment of the CRIP. This committee contin-ues to monitor and evaluate the CRIP and feeimplementation, make annual progress reports, andadvise any necessary updates. Despite initial appre-hension and concern about its application in thecounty’s faster growing communities, the ordinancehas been positively received, particularly the poten-tial discounts for meeting smart growth goals.

Information about the Road Improvement ImpactFee Ordinance and all related documentation isavailable atwww.co.kane.il.us/dot/roadimpact/index.asp.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Kai Tarum, Dir. of Planning & Special Projects, Kane Co. Development Dept.

630/232-3428

[email protected]

www.countyofkane.org As of July 2007


Affordable Housing andSmart Growth

Plainfield Smaller Lots and Density BonusesWill County

Policy Background

The Village of Plainfield has experienced tremen-dous residential growth in recent years, as the com-munity’s population has grown from 13,038 in2000 to approximately 36,000 in 2007. Villageelected officials and planning staff have adopted aseries of plans and programs to guide growth, whileprotecting environmental and historic resources,promoting sensible growth techniques, and encour-aging a full range of housing options to meet theneeds of all segments of the community. The heartof the village’s efforts is the density bonus programthat was adopted in 2005 as part of the village’sResidential Design Guidelines for Annexations andPlanned Unit Developments.

Plainfield enacted a moratorium on residentialannexations in 2004. This gave village staff time toupdate codes and ordinances, as well as create newregulations to foster sensible growth and preservehistoric identity and community character. Thisincluded updating Plainfield’s comprehensive plan,adopting the new Residential Design Guidelines in2005, and completing an update of the zoning codein 2006.

The density bonus program awards an increase inresidential density above the base level established inthe comprehensive plan for developments that meetone or more of the 15 village objectives. Theseinclude the provision of affordable housing (10 per-cent bonus), historic preservation (5 percent), andenhanced land-planning and architectural elements(bonuses ranging from 5 to 15 percent). An envi-ronmental category provides for clustering of homeson smaller lots to achieve a greater percent of openspace for environmental protection and restoration,while the traditional neighborhood developmentcategory allows for smaller lots with homes servedby alleys.

The new zoning code also introduced two new dis-tricts – the Conservation Design and TraditionalNeighborhood Development (TND) zoning dis-

tricts, which allow smaller lots and cluster develop-ments.

How It Works

In Plainfield, permitted residential density for agiven parcel is determined by the parcel’s land-usedesignation in the comprehensive plan. The planhas a series of residential land-use categories thatcorrespond to various housing types – single-familydetached homes, townhomes and condominiums,apartments, and mixed-use developments. Each cat-egory has a range of appropriate densities. The lowdensity classification is 1.4 to two homes per acre,the medium density classification is 2.1to three units per acre, and the villageresidential classification is four to sixunits per acre. Prior to the 2005comprehensive plan update, develop-

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

GoalTo establish development regulations thatencourage affordable and attainablehousing, sensible growth, conservationdesign, historic preservation, and landplanning and architecture that preserveunique community identity and character.

TargetAll developers.

FinancingThis program has supported four devel-opments that meet community goals atlittle cost to the community.

SuccessFour developments have implementedthe village’s design guidelines, creating atotal of 3,500 homes that meetPlainfield’s sensible growth principles.The projects are in various stages ofapproval and construction, with somehomes already built and occupied.

New

for

2007

ments could be proposedat any density within therange and reviewed on acase-by-case basis, with-out a formal rationale orspecific criteria to justifythe proposed density.The updated compre-hensive plan requires allprojects to start at thebase density (the bottomof the range) and then implement one or more poli-cy objectives in order to achieve a higher densitywithin the permitted range. There is a maximumbonus of 50 percent, and the density is restricted tothe upper limit of the range for the given land-usedesignation.

Village staff believes the density bonus program (aswell as the new zoning districts) will facilitate accessto housing for all residents. By providing a bonusfor projects that incorporate affordable housing, theprogram provides economic relief in the form of anincreased number of homes allowed. The programalso allows for design flexibility, such as a decreasein the minimum lot size for conservation design andTND projects, which will help put housing costswithin reach of more people. The design guidelinespromote a range of housing types – including apart-ments, townhomes, duplexes, and detached single-family homes of various sizes – that extend acrossthe spectrum of home prices. The bonus programshould also reduce the cost to develop individualhomes (and, staff hopes, reduce the home’s purchaseprice) by spreading fixed development costs such asland acquisition, design and permitting, and con-struction of infrastructure over a greater number ofhomes.

The new TND zoning district reduces lot size to aminimum 6,000 square feet, allows for a mix ofhousing types within the district, narrows roadwidths, and produces an overall reduction of pave-ment. The Conservation Design zoning district

encourages clusteredhomes that provideshared open space andprotect existing environ-mental resources. Bothdistricts incorporatedevelopment standardsto accompany the lot sizeflexibility as well as toexemplify the village’s

commitment to sensiblegrowth and the widespread availability and attain-ability of housing.

Plainfield has approved four residential develop-ments that met the Residential Design Guidelinesand received a density bonus. The most significantexample is Grande Park South, which, at 1,113acres, is the largest development ever proposed inPlainfield. It will have lot sizes ranging from 6,400square feet to 40,000 square feet, as well as a varietyof housing types (single-family detached, duplex,townhome and condominium). Grande Park Southwill also implement state of the art conservationdesign techniques under the guidance of RandallArendt, a nationally known author and land plannerwho is an expert in conservation design land plan-ning practices. The current development proposalsets aside approximately 481 acres, or 43 percent ofthe total project area, as open space. Bioswales, filterstrips, and rain gardens are all part of the develop-ment’s stormwater management process (instead ofthe traditional curb and gutter). Storm sewers arebeing built to cleanse stormwater runoff, encouragegroundwater infiltration, and slow the rate of runoffinto streams. Cluster development and TND arealso being incorporated.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Michael S. Garrigan, AICP, Village Planner, Village of Plainfield

815/439-2824

[email protected]

www.plainfield-il.org As of July 2007

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Timber Court Tandem Realty


The Development

Timber Court is a 108-unit condominium develop-ment located in Arlington Heights, just east of Route53 and Dundee Road. When completed, TimberCourt will provide Arlington Heights and the neigh-boring area with 21 affordable homes (20 percent ofthe total development), bringing much-needed diver-sity to the current housing stock. The affordablecondominiums will be priced for households at orbelow 80 percent of area median income ($59,000for a family of four in 2006), and will remain afford-able in perpetuity through a deed restriction. Theremaining one-bedroom condominiums will bepriced from the low $200s and the remaining two-bedroom condominiums in the mid $200s.There will be no design or material differentiationbetween market-rate and affordable homes. The pro-posed site is surrounded by an assortment of uses,including office and commercial space, and multi-family and single-family homes. The location isaccessible to transportation, three miles north of theArlington Heights Metra station and near threemajor highways.

Creating Affordability

The village required the affordability component ofthe development as part of its planned unit devel-opment entitlement process. Tandem Realty wasgranted a density bonus of 28 homes to createaffordability within the development, as well asother zoning variations, including changing commercially zoned land to residential, an increasein building height, and a lot area and setback minimum reduction.

Public Involvement

Strong leadership was key to overcoming communi-ty opposition, which mainly centered on the devel-

oper's request for an increase in density. The villageheld three grueling late-night meetings. Tandemworked closely with the community and village,appearing at the public hearings and working withvillage staff, to implement the necessary changes toimprove the plan. Arlington Heights’ decision toapprove the development was based on the fact thatTimber Court complies with village efforts toincrease housing affordability and support sensiblegrowth and innovative community development anddesign. In addition, Northwest CommunityHospital, a major area employer, voicedsupport for the development, citingtheir employees’ need for more nearby

When completed in 2008, Timber Court will provide Arlington Heights andthe neighboring area with 21 affordable homes (20 percent of the totaldevelopment), bringing much-needed diversity to the current housing stock.

TargetFamilies with a range of incomes,including low to moderate. For theaffordable homes, preference will begiven to seniors, residents and employees of Arlington Heights.

Development InformationType: CondominiumTotal Units: 108Total Affordable Units: 21Affordable Price Points:• 1-bedroom: $132,800• 2-bedroom: $143,900

Funding Sources• Private financing• $100,000 grant from village for road

improvements

Lessons LearnedEssential to have policies in place so village officials, the public, and developers know what is expected.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Nora Boyer, Housing Planner, Village of Arlington Heights

847/358-5000

[email protected]

www.vah.com

workforce housing like the product Tandem Realtywas proposing.

Arlington Heights has long demonstrated its greatleadership on the issue of workforce housing,including adopting the Metropolitan MayorsCaucus' Housing Endorsement Criteria in 2002.These Criteria support economic development andsustainability, increased housing options, qualitydesign, and housing construction near transit andemployment. Tandem Realty was one of the firstdevelopers to submit a proposal of this size thatmeets the village's new criteria.

Lessons Learned

The Timber Court experience proved invaluable tothe village even though re-zoning took time to ironout internally, and creating truly affordable pricepoints took some research and negotiations. Whilethis process took significant time, the public wasmeaningfully involved, and village staff was able tocreate a whole new skill set and have a better under-standing of the process for creating a mixed-income development. Arlington Heights approvedplans for Timber Court in May 2005. Constructionis currently awaiting building permits and is expect-ed to be completed in 2008.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

As of October 2006

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

HomeTown AuroraBigelow Homes

AuroraDuPage, Kane, Kendall and Will counties

HomeTown Aurora aims to create a sense of community, provide housingoptions, and build the local tax base.

The Development

When Bigelow Homes designed HomeTownAurora, the developer wanted to re-create a small,pre-World War II, Midwestern town, with culturaland economic sustainability and diversity.HomeTown Aurora is a 1,288-unit developmentthat includes single-family detached, single-familyattached, and loft-style homes. Of the total, 1,000homes are now built and around 600 are affordableto families earning below 80 percent of the areamedian income ($59,600 for a family of four in2006). Half of the homes are two-bedroom, 40 per-cent are three-bedroom, and the rest are four-bed-room. HomeTown Aurora is located on the eastside of the city, in an area targeted for residentialgrowth. The development aims to create a sense ofcommunity, enhance the environment, providehousing options, and build the local tax base.

Because of its compact design, assessed valuation is$396,258 per acre, more than twice that of othernew subdivisions in the area. Furthermore, due tonarrower streets, there is much less public street permillion dollar of assessed valuation. When complet-ed, HomeTown Aurora’s town center will createmore than 150 jobs. Because of its mixed-use com-pact design, the development preserved 273 acresof open space.


HomeTown Aurora includes diverse housing typesthat appeal to a wide range of demographic andeconomic segments of the market. The develop-ment has eight pedestrian-friendly, compact, traffic-calmed neighborhoods, with a commercially viableand socially appealing town center. HomeTownAurora demonstrates that it is possible to developnew neighborhoods that offer varied housing

options and have less impact on the natural environment, less traffic, and less need for municipal services.

This award-winning development balances commonopen space with smaller private lots, allowing for arange of housing types and price points. The homesappeal to singles, empty-nesters, and young coupleswithout children, as well as families. Most (76 per-cent) of the residents do not have children, creatingless of a demand on local schools. HomeTown’saffordability is strictly a result of the variety ofhousing products it offers and its more compact,energy-efficient design. There are no subsidies orlong-term pricing restrictions associatedwith these homes.

TargetIndividuals and families with a range ofsizes and incomes.

Development InformationType: Single-family detached,

single-family attached & loftTotal Units: 1,288Total Affordable Units: 600Price Points:• Range from $150,000-$300,000

Funding Sources• Standard Federal HousingAdministration (FHA) Loan

Lessons LearnedProviding varied housing options withina compact design allows for an eco-nomically diverse community that con-tributes financially to the schools andmunicipalities around it.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Perry Bigelow, CEO, Bigelow Homes

630/631-7000

[email protected]

www.bigelowhomes.com

Public Involvement

One of the challenges in building HomeTown wasthat this model of development does not fit withtraditional city codes and zoning practices. Many ofthe aspects that contributed to HomeTown’s afford-ability and sustainability (i.e. narrow streets andsmaller lot size) required extensive negotiationsbetween Bigelow Homes and city representatives.This entitlement process took two years to com-plete. Now that HomeTown is up and running, withhundreds of homes built and the town center com-pleted, the City of Aurora just recently approved anextension of the development.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

As of October 2006

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Sunset WoodsBrinshore Development, LLC, and Housing Opportunity Development Corporation

Highland Park, Lake County

Sunset Woods provides a combination of affordable rental and for-sale housing for seniors in Highland Park.

The Development

Sunset Woods is a three-story, 60-unit, 100 percentaffordable senior housing development in HighlandPark. Opened in 2000, this high-quality developmentwas made possible through a city land donation andfee waivers (impact, permit and hook-up fees). Thebuilding provides many amenities, including exerciseand laundry rooms on every floor and a medicalscreening room for residents. The building over-looks historic 38-acre Sunset Woods Park, which hasbeen a part of Highland Park since 1920. The parkis accessible to disabled persons and incorporatesamenities such as an outdoor ice skating rink, tenniscourts, picnic areas, and walking paths.


Sunset Woods has 48 for-sale condominiums and 12rental apartments that are owned by the City ofHighland Park Housing Commission through theSunset Woods Association. The apartments are man-aged by the Housing Opportunity DevelopmentCorporation, a private, nonprofit housing organiza-tion. Of the 12 apartments, five are available tohouseholds with incomes at or below 60 percentarea median income (AMI) ($45,240 for a family offour in 2006) and seven are available to householdsat or below 80 percent AMI ($59,600 for a family offour in 2006). Ten of the 12 residents receiveSection 8 assistance.

Eighteen of the condominiums have been sold topeople at 80 percent AMI, while the remaining havebeen sold to people between 80 and 120 percentAMI ($90,480 for a family of four in 2006). All ofthe condominiums utilize deed restrictions to remainaffordable for 40 years.

TargetLow and moderate-income seniors.

Development InformationType: Ownership and rental mixed-income senior housingTotal Units: 60Total Affordable Units: 60For-sale: 48Rental: 12Affordable For-Sale Prices:• 1-bedroom: $119,000 - $129,000• 2-bedroom: $149,500 - $169,500Affordable Rents:• 1-bedroom: all Section 8• 2-bedroom: Approx. $700 per month

Funding Sources• Land donation: $1.8 million• Lake County HOME funds: $240,000• Federal Home Loan Bank: $60,000• illinois Affordable Housing Trust Fund:

$750,000 • Private Financing: $7.1 millionTotal Cost: $10.1 million

Lessons LearnedThe negotiations and approvals processwas lengthy: 1.5 years. The keys to thesuccess of this development were theland donation and fee waiver by the city.The City of Highland Park learned a lotfrom the process, including the need tomake eligibility requirements stricter byimposing limitations on assets in additionto income requirements. The city alsohopes to spend less time negotiating onfuture proposals.

Contact

Phone

Contact

Phone

Web site

David Brint, CEO, Brinshore Development

847/562-9410

Lee Smith, Senior Planner, City of Highland Park

847/432-0867

www.cityhpil.com

Resale prices of the condominiums are restricted tothe lesser of the following:

• The fair market value of the unit at the time ofsale as determined by an appraiser approved bythe Housing Commission, taking into account anyuse or occupancy restrictions that may be bindingon the home; or

• The original purchase price at the time the sellerpurchased the unit, increased by an amount equalto the lesser of (1) 3 percent for each year afterthe seller’s original closing date; or (2) inflation,measured by the Consumer Price Index, for theperiod of time that the owner resided in the unit.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

As of October 2006

sible to disabled persons. Phase I is comprised of90 townhomes and two mixed-use buildings, whichwill have a total of 40 two-bedroom apartments,both affordable and market-rate, and approximatelyfive commercial spaces.

The three subsequent redevelopment phases willinclude both rental and homeownership opportuni-ties, and will be entirely new construction. Eachphase will create approximately 125 homes. Thesplit of housing options is anticipated to be approx-imately 60 percent ownership and 40 percent rental.

Public Involvement

The development team has demonstrated its com-mitment to gaining community support throughout

the process and has had positive experiences withmost Pacesetter residents. Holsten Development,Turnstone Development, and the Village ofRiverdale held a community meeting to present theredevelopment plans to residents. The partners willhold future community meetings throughout thesubsequent phases.

Financing

To date, Holsten has received a myriad of fundingcommitments, including the Illinois HousingDevelopment Authority Housing Trust Fund andLow-Income Housing Tax Credits, ChicagoCommunity Loan Fund, Fannie Mae, Illinois CleanEnergy Community Foundation, U.S. Sen. RichardDurbin (D-Ill.) and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), and the Ill. Dept. of Commerce and EconomicOpportunity. Additional anticipated financingsources include Cook County, Federal Home LoanBank, TIF, historic tax credit equity, and other pri-vate municipal funding sources.

Lessons Learned

The complexity of the Pacesetter redevelopmentrequired expertise, financial backing, technical sup-port, and resources village staff did not have.Pairing with the Urban Land Institute-Chicago,Campaign for Sensible Growth, and MetropolitanPlanning Council allowed the village to developpartnerships with organizations that could provideaccess to a variety of resources.

PacesetterHolsten Real Estate Development Corporation, TurnstoneDevelopment, & the Village of Riverdale

Riverdale, Cook County

The Development

Pacesetter is a privately owned 397-unit townhomedevelopment located in Riverdale. Pacesetter was builtin the early 1960s to accommodate workers in thenearby steel plants. As that industry declined, theneighborhood began to deteriorate. In the 1990s, thevillage decided to redevelop Pacesetter because thehousing was aging and dilapidated and social prob-lems within the development were escalating.Overcrowding, crime, absentee landlords, high stu-dent mobility rates in the local school (70-90 percent),lack of open space, and lack of homeownership werea few of the problems negatively effecting the qualityof life for Pacesetter residents.

Village staff sought assistance from the Urban LandInstitute-Chicago and Campaign for Sensible Growth.These organizations held a two-day TechnicalAssistance Panel (TAP) in 2003. The TAP met todevelop recommendations to address whether thedevelopment should remain residential or be convert-ed to industrial use, what financial tools were availableto acquire property and rehabilitate the neighborhood,and how a redevelopment could enhance the stabilityof the local school district. Following the two-daypanel and quarterly follow-up sessions, the villagepartnered with Holsten Real Estate DevelopmentCorporation to redevelop Pacesetter. Since then,Holsten and its nonprofit partner, TurnstoneDevelopment, have been working with a broker toacquire the properties, which are primarily individuallyowned. As residents are relocated, the developers willfollow the Uniform Relocation Act, a requirement ofthe federal funding they are receiving. Thus far, nearlyall of the property owners and residents in the firstphase have been willing to sell and relocate.


Lowe Avenue was selected as the first of four phas-es of the Pacesetter redevelopment. Most propertieswill be rehabilitated, and all will be rental and acces-

TargetPacesetter residents and individuals andfamilies with a range of household sizesand income levels.

Development InformationType: Single and multifamily HomesTotal Units: 130 in Phase I; approximate-ly 500 for all four phases.Total Affordable Units: 106 in Phase IAffordable Rents:• 2-bedroom: $700-879 /mo. (net)• 3-bedroom: $800-974/mo. (net)Market-Rate Price Points:• 2-bedroom: $970 /mo. (net)

Funding Sources• Acquisition loan from Ill. HousingDevelopment Authority• $1 million acquisition loan from

Chicago Community Loan Fund• $200,000 pre-development loan from

Fannie Mae• Grants from Chase and Richard H.

Driehaus Foundation• $375,000 in federal funding from U.S.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.)and$400,000 from U.S. Sen. RichardDurbin (D-Ill.)

• Private equity from Low-IncomeHousing Tax Credits ($1.35 mil)

• $375,000 from the Ill. Dept. ofCommerce and Economic Opportunity(DCEO)

Lessons LearnedLocal leadership from Mayor ZenoviaEvans and staff, and the partnerships thevillage fostered with regional entitieswere crucial to the success of this redevelopment effort.

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Andrea Klopfenstein, Project Manager, Holsten Real Estate Development Corp.

312/337-5339

[email protected]

www.holstenchicago.com

Kathy McDonough, Executive Director, Turnstone Development

312/542-4650

[email protected]

www.turnstonedev.org

Janice Morrissy, Dir. of Community and Economic Development, Riverdale

708/841-2125

[email protected]

www.villageofriverdale.org

Partnerships with a number of Chicago-area organizations providedRiverdale access to a variety of critical resources.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

As of October 2006

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Mallinckrodt in the Park The Pickus Companies

Wilmette, Cook County

Residents approved a referendum authorizing the Park District to acquire theland at a cost of $1 million per acre in the spring of 2002, and later cam-paigned for a plan that would provide for senior housing in the community.

The Development

Mallinckrodt in the Park is an adaptive reuse of anold university building on 17 acres of land inWilmette. The building is being converted into a senior condominium development that will have 81units, 12 of which will be affordable at price pointsof $159,900 for one-bedroom condominiums and$199,900 for two-bedroom condominiums.Mallinckrodt’s five-story, 180,000 sq. ft. ItalianRenaissance structure has been a celebrated fixtureon the Wilmette landscape since 1918. Originally aconvent, Mallinckrodt was later part of LoyolaUniversity.

Loyola University’s Board of Trustees decided torelocate its operations in September 2001. The following spring, voters approved a referendum forthe Wilmette Park District to purchase the 17-acresite, which occupies a prime location on RidgeRoad. The village retained Hasbrouck PetersonZimoch Sirirattumrong of Chicago, an architecturaland planning firm, to conduct a feasibility study todetermine the Mallinckrodt building’s potential foradaptive reuse. The village changed its zoning codeto include “adaptive reuse senior housing” as a special use and received approval from the ZoningBoard of Appeals to allow the development to goforward.

The Park District purchased the property for $20million in October 2002, and subsequently issued aRequest for Proposals (RFP) to interested real estatedevelopers. Wilmette residents wanted to conservethe structure and provide affordable homes for sen-iors. As a result, the Pickus Companies and OcculusDevelopment were ultimately chosen to developMallinckrodt in the Park.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Contact

Phone

Kara Breems, Planner, Village of Wilmette

847/853-7522

[email protected]

www.wilmette.com

Mike Paluga, Project Manager, The Pickus Companies

847/681-8811 x244


To qualify for an affordable condominium inMallinckrodt in the Park, the annual income of aone-person household must be at or below $52,833and a two-person household must be at or below$60,333 (based on the 2004 Area Median Income inthe Chicago region). The annual rate of increase invalue of the affordable homes will be held at threepercent as a requirement of a deed restrictionattached to the property. The condominiums will beresold to applicants on a waiting list. The communi-ty was surprised to learn that there was a strongmarket for affordability in the village. Out of 91applications for 12 affordable condominiums, halfwere from Wilmette.

Public Involvement

In early January 2001, aware of Loyola’s intentionsto relocate the school residents presented petitionswith nearly 5,400 signatures to the Board of ParkCommissioners requesting the community be giventhe right to vote on whether the Park Districtshould purchase the historic building and its openland that. The signatures represented nearly one-third of the community's 18,000 registered voters.Residents approved a referendum authorizing thePark District to acquire the land at a cost of $1 mil-lion per acre in the spring of 2002. Primarily focus-ing on the green space aspect of the property, thePark District did not have a plan for the building

itself when the referendum passed. Village residentscampaigned for a plan that would provide for seniorhousing in the community. There was a public hear-ing held in December 2002 to hear comments fromthe residents regarding the project. The largestopposition to the Pickus Companies and OcculusDevelopment proposal was to their plans to clearthe front of the property to allow for constructionof an underground parking garage. Once the publicunderstood the developers’ intentions to replant thearea once the garage was in place, they droppedtheir opposition. The developers purchased thebuilding, 3.5 acres of the total site, from the ParkDistrict for $3.5 million.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

TargetWilmette’s senior population.

Development Information Type: Multifamily ownershipTotal Units: 81Total Affordable: 12Affordable Price Points:• 1-bedroom: $159,900• 2-bedroom: $199,900Market Rate Price Points:Upper $300,000s to $1.4 million.

Funding SourcesNo public funding.

SuccessPreserving the building saved the ParkDistrict $5 million in demolition costs. Inaddition, this adaptive reuse of theMallinckrodt school building created anew source of tax revenue for thecommunity with no additional demandon schools.

Lessons Learned Preserving buildings rather than demol-ishing them can maintain valuable com-munity assets, as well as save money.Community groups working together foraffordable housing can succeed even if itdoes not seem to be a popular cause.

As of October 2006

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Woodstock CommonsThe Pickus Companies

Woodstock, McHenry County

Woodstock Commons is a newly constructed, 170-unit multifamily rentalhousing development built in 2005. It provides 153 affordable and 17 market-rate rental homes.

The Development

Woodstock Commons, in the City of Woodstock, islocated on the corner of Castle Road and CobbleStone Way, one block east of Route 47, and south ofRoute 14. Currently, the development provides 153affordable and 17 market-rate rental homes. These170 homes were constructed within eight buildings,and include one, two and three-bedroom homesdesigned for families. As of 2006, WoodstockCommons has an additional 100 dwelling units avail-able for permitting, and the developer, PickusCompanies, has begun planning for an extension ofthe development. Pickus constructed the first phasein just 10 months and leased it in seven, largely dueto a strict city timeline. The development includessuch luxury amenities as a pond, lighted exercisepath, children’s playground, tennis court, pool, club-house, and responsive, onsite management.


As the development is federally financed, familiesliving in the affordable homes earn at or below 50percent of the area median income, which rangesbetween $31,680 for a single-person household to$45,240 for a family of four. Through Low-IncomeHousing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) and a U.S. Dept. ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD) FirstMortgage, 90 percent of the homes in WoodstockCommons will be affordably priced for 31 years.

In addition to providing much need below-marketpriced rental homes for the area, Pickus Companiesdonated park and open space land. The site is con-veniently located near several retail and industrialsites, effectively linking residents to local job oppor-tunities. Woodstock is serviced by the Metra UnionPacific Northwest Line, which is just five minutesaway from the site.

TargetA range of incomes, predominately50% of AMI or below.

Development InformationType: Multifamily rentalTotal Units: 170Total Affordable Units: 153Affordable Rents:• 1-bedroom: $475-$815/mo.• 2-bedroom: $573-$910/mo.• 3-bedroom: $659-$990/mo.

Funding Sources• Low Income Housing Tax Credits -

$13.1 million • HUD First Mortgage

Lessons Learned While this development’s success,both financially and politically, waslargely due to the fact that much ofthe infrastructure and municipal zoningwas in place prior to PickusCompanies’ involvement, strongdesign, good onsite management, andproximity to employment havedemonstrated the value of the devel-opment to the community.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

James Kastner, Director of Community Development, Village of Woodstock

815/338-4305

[email protected]

www.woodstock-il.com

Public Involvement

The site was originally being used for crop produc-tion and zoned for multifamily development. PickusCompanies purchased the property after the initialreview process was completed. Another developerdrafted the original development plans, which calledfor owner-occupied market rate condominiums.Because of this, affordability was not an issue in the

approval process, which was overseen by the city’sPlan Commission. The city had already granted theprevious owner all necessary zoning approvals priorto Pickus’ purchase of the site. Therefore, Pickus’rental concept, with financing from LIHTC andHUD, was not subject to a community process, asPickus was allowed to develop by right.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Jeffry Pickus, President of Business Development, The Pickus Companies

847/681-8811

[email protected]

www.pickus.com

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

As of October 2006

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Victory Centre North West Housing Partnershipand Pathway Senior LivingBartlett, DuPage County

The Development

Victory Centre is located in the Village of Bartlett atthe intersection of West Bartlett Road and Route59. A full Continuum of Care campus, VictoryCentre is made up of two buildings, a SupportiveLiving Facility (SLF) with 104 apartments, and abuilding for independent senior living with another104 apartments. In 1999, the North West HousingPartnership (NWHP), a nonprofit organization spe-cializing in developing senior housing in the Northand West suburbs of Chicago, acquired the sitefrom a Bartlett resident. NWHP’s goal was to builda campus that could provide for all senior needs,which led them to partner with the for-profitPathway Senior Living, a senior housing developerthat had the SLF license required to provide thenecessary senior services.

The SLF building has 40 one-bedroom and 64 stu-dio apartments, with six different floor plans tochoose from, ranging from 385 to 621 square feet.The independent living building contains 94 one-bedroom and 10 two-bedroom apartments, rangingfrom 632 to 928 square feet. Each SLF apartmenthas a kitchenette with refrigerator, microwave andsink, while the independent living apartments havea fully furnished kitchen. The SLF building has afull-service dining room serving three meals a day, afull-time nursing staff, library, outdoor patio, andmany common areas. The independent apartmentbuilding offers amenities such as an exercise room, abeauty salon, library, and shared common space.


All 104 apartments in the SLF building and 83apartments in the independent living building areaffordable, made possible through the Illinois Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programadministered by the Illinois Housing DevelopmentAuthority (IHDA). The tax credit was created at thefederal level in 1986 to support the constructionand rehabilitation of apartments priced at rents low-income families can afford. These tax credits, which

are allocated by states, give investors a 10-year feder-al income tax benefit in exchange for immediatecash infusions to create affordable apart-ments. Victory Centre receivedapproximately $535,000 in LIHTC.Victory Centre residents must beincome eligible, which is set at 60

TargetSeniors who require either supportiveservices or want independent living in asenior environment.

Development InformationType: SLF studio and one-bedroomapartments, independent living one andtwo-bedroom apartmentsTotal Units: 208Total Affordable: 187 at 60% AMISLF rental rate: $3,642-4,650Independent Affordable rental rate: • $540-790 for one bedroom• $790-860 for two bedroomIndependent Market rental rate: • $825 for one bedroom• $970 for two bedroom

Funding SourcesLand donation: $1.0 millionIHDA Tax Credits: $1,525,451IHDA AMBAC First Mortgage Program:$4.6 millionIHDA Trust Fund Loan: $2.75 millionFederal Home Loan Bank: $1,331,000IHDA Risk Share Loan: $10.3 millionIHDA Home Loan: $3.0 million

SuccessNWHP’s partnership with PathwaySenior Living enabled them to build anattractive environment for the seniorpopulation, as well as access a range offinancial options. Residents are able tofind the type of apartment that fits theirneeds at the present and, if necessary,eventually make the transition to sup-portive living.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

New

for

2007

percent Area Median Income (AMI), or $31,680annually for an individual or $36,180 for a two-per-son household in 2007. The SLF apartments,depending on their size, cost between $3,642 and$4,650 a month, which includes rent and all servic-es for private-pay individuals. As residents age andspend down their assets, any remaining income istransferred directly to Victory Centre in order topay for rent and services. Each resident keeps $90per month of his or her income and the rest is givento Victory Centre to cover rent and services. TheDept. of Health and Family Services reimbursesVictory Centre up to $1,904 per month, per resident.

The affordable one-bedroom independent apart-ment rents range between $540-790 per month andthe affordable two-bedroom apartment rents rangefrom $790-860 per month. The market rate one-

bedrooms are $825 and thetwo-bedrooms are $970 (asof July 2007).

Financing

NWHP acquired the landwith the help of a $600,000no-interest loan from anNWHP board member.Pathway Senior Living pro-vided the remaining$400,000. NWHP received a$989,480 tax credit awardfrom IHDA for the inde-pendent senior apartments.NWHP also secured anAMBAC Program first mort-gage for $4.6 million.AMBAC is a risk-sharingprogram that is just one ofmany taxable debt programs

that IHDA offers. VictoryCentre also received an Illinois Affordable HousingTrust Fund Loan of $2.75 million and a FederalHome Loan Bank Affordable Housing Programgrant in the amount of $581,000 for the construc-tion financing. NWHP and Pathway Senior Livingsecured additional funding for the SLF portion ofVictory Centre, including LIHTC, $10.3 millionfrom the IHDA Risk Share Loan, an IHDA HomeLoan of $3 million, and $750,000 from the FederalHome Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program.

The SLF opened in December 2006 and the inde-pendent apartments opened in May 2007. The con-struction cost for the two buildings totaled $30 mil-lion: $12 million for the independent apartmentsand $18 million for the SLF’s construction.


Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Contact

Phone

Holly Fraccaro, Executive Director, North West Housing Partnership

847/348-3024 x223

[email protected]

www.nwhp.net

David Dickinson, Executive Director, Victory Centre

630/540-3011 As of July 2007

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Block BuildHabitat for Humanity ofNorthern Fox ValleyElgin, Kane County

The Development

Habitat for Humanity (HFH) of Northern FoxValley won the U.S. Housing and UrbanDevelopment Secretary’s Award for Excellence in2006 for its Block Build project in the city of Elgin.With the assistance of Judson College’s Dept. ofArchitecture and Tinaglia Architects, this develop-ment strengthened an existing neighborhood withwell-designed homes for low and moderate-incomefamilies. Families began occupying the homes inDecember 2005.

Block Build, located at the corner of Steel andOwasco Streets, consists of five single-family, three-bedroom, for-sale homes. The site, purchased fromthe city, was chosen because it was available at anaffordable price and could accommodate construc-tion of multiple homes on the same block. Each lotis roughly 8,700 square feet, and each home isbetween 1,400 and 1,500 square feet. The homesare targeted to low and moderate-income and first-time buyers, particularly families with children.

The Block Build homes have a historic, bungalow-style design that complements the character of sur-rounding properties. This was done, in part,through photographic documentation of localhomes by architecture students from JudsonCollege. In order to reduce initial and ongoingcosts, the homes are constructed of durable andcost-efficient materials such as vinyl siding andflooring, asphalt shingles, and laminate countertops.To keep within the traditional style of homes in theElgin community, garages are located in the rear ofthe property and each home has a large front porch.The design caters to families with children byincluding such features as a clear line of sight fromthe kitchen to the backyard. One of the homes has abedroom on the first floor adjacent to a full bath-room to accommodate a disabled family member.


Reducing construction costs is one method ofensuring affordability. HFH lowered Block Build’sconstruction costs through a number of methods. Itrecruited volunteers and sponsors to help with con-struction of four of the five homes. The HFHmodel also requires future homeowners to con-tribute up to 500 hours of their own labor anddemonstrate their ability to make required mortgagepayments. The fifth home was constructed by thenationally recognized homebuilder Town andCountry Homes, which donated materialsand labor. Each home had an organi-

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

TargetLow and moderate-income families.

Development InformationType: Single-family ownershipTotal Units: 5Total Affordable: 5Price Range: $116,000 to $140,000

Funding SourcesPublic and Private funding.

SuccessThe project leveraged a partnershipbetween public and private-sectorgroups.

Lessons LearnedConstruction concentrated in one areamade it easier to involve the public andobtain financial support. It also had ahigh visual impact on the street and sur-rounding community. Partnering with alocal college can be a way to lowerdesign costs.

New

for

2007

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Barbara Beckman, Executive Director, Habitat for Humanity, Northern Fox Valley

847/836-1432

[email protected]

www.hfhnfv.org

zational sponsor such as the Lions Club, which pro-vided funding and construction help. In addition,several financial sponsors, including BerstedFoundation, Centex Homes-Illinois Division, EFSFoundation, Lincoln Financial Group, andMotorola, provided funding for the development.The local electrical union volunteered electricallabor for two of the homes, and Conestoga-Rovers& Associates, a Chicago engineering firm, donateddesign services for the sewer extension for all of theproperties. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates alsohelped HFH with the EPA permit application andoversaw installation of the sewers. Finally, the prop-erty owner who sold HFH the land accepted install-ment payments in order to make the purchase feasi-ble for the organization.

The homes were initially priced between $116,000and $140,000. Each was sold to a low or moderate-income family earning 35-60 percent of AreaMedian Income ($42,240 or below for a family offour in 2007). Homebuyers are also eligible for no-interest financing with 20 to 30-year mortgagesfrom HFH. The mortgage payments amount to nomore than 30 percent of the buyer’s annual income.HFH manages the resale prices for the homesthrough a shared equity program with the buyers.During the first three years of occupancy, if a home-owner sells, HFH purchases the home and the

homeowner recovers what he or she paidin principal while occupying the home.If the homeowner sells between thefourth and 13th year, he or she keeps aproportion of the net sales proceeds (10percent of net proceeds multiplied byyears of occupancy). After 13 years, thehomeowner can sell the house and keepthe total equity of the home.

The Block Build project meets the goalsoutlined in the City of Elgin’s Compre-hensive Plan and Kane County’s 2030Land Resource Management Plan. Bothplans contain strategies to create a range

of high-quality housing options at differ-ent income levels to meet the needs of a diversepopulation. Block Build allows middle or low-income residents to be closer to the areas where theywork. By providing options other than market ratehousing, the city can promote diversity among itsresidents.

Public Involvement

Block Build’s success lies in the partnership betweenthe public and private sectors. The architecturaldesign assistance from the Judson College studentsand overwhelming amount of volunteer labor andfundraising support from individuals and local busi-nesses helped make this project possible.

Habitat for Humanity of Northern Fox Valleybuilds between four and six homes each year. Theyare often scattered across a community. Block Buildwas an exception because the construction was con-centrated in one area, making it easier for people toget involved in the construction and obtain finan-cial support, as well as having a high visual impacton the street and community. Habitat for Humanityworks in communities throughout the region, soany community can work with the organization tobuild more homes for the residents of their owncommunities.


As of July 2007

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Thomas PlaceThomas Place L.L.C., Glenview Elderly ProgramNorth, and Turnstone DevelopmentGlenview, Cook County

The Development

In 1995, as the Village of Glenview began drawingup plans for the Glen, a mixed-use developmentbuilt on a former military base, it prioritized easingthe community’s shortage of affordable senior hous-ing in its redevelopment efforts. The result isThomas Place, a mixed-income senior apartmentbuilding located in the Glen. Thomas Place has 144homes, of which 108 are affordable, and is an inde-pendent living community for seniors 55 and older.The five-acre development has 44 one-bedroom and100 two-bedroom apartments. The one-bedroomapartments are 925 square feet and the two-bedroomapartments are 1,200 square feet.

Each home in Thomas Place comes with an under-ground parking space, washer and dryer, dishwasher,microwave, walk-in closets, and a patio or balcony.The building has an exercise room, arts and craftsroom, billiards room, library, a television room withfree computer service, and a common dining area.

Part of the Glen Master Development, ThomasPlace is adjacent to the Glenview Park District golfcourse and conveniently located within walking dis-tance of the Glen’s shopping, dining, and entertain-ment amenities. It is also accessible by bus and com-muter rail. Thomas Place had its grand opening inNovember 2006, and is currently at full occupancywith a long waiting list.

The U.S. Dept. of Defense closed the GlenviewNaval Air Station in 1993. At the time, the base’sfootprint occupied 15 percent of the village. TheVillage of Glenview itself was the master developerof the site. A redevelopment Team refined the com-munity’s reuse plan, developed a master plan anddesign guidelines to reflect the goals of the plan, andprepared Requests For Qualification (RFQ) followedby Requests For Proposals (RFP) to sell subdividedparcels. Senior affordable housing was identified as agoal and the village requested the development ofsenior housing when it prepared the RFQs andRFPs.

TargetSeniors with a range of incomes.

Development InformationType: One- and two-bedroom apartmentsTotal Units: 144Total Affordable Units: 108Price Points:One-bedroom market-rate: $993One-bedroom affordable: $538-821Two-bedroom market-rate: $1,242Two-bedroom affordable: $643-982

Funding Sources• Land donation: $1.8 million• HOME funds: $240,000• Federal Home Loan Bank: $60,000• Illinois Affordable Housing Trust Fund:

$750,000 • Private Financing: $7.1 millionTotal Cost: $10 million

SuccessThomas Place opened in November2006, is currently fully occupied, and hasan extensive waiting list.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

New

for

2007

Contact

Phone

Email

Thomas F. Monico, Thomas & Thomas Associates Inc.

847/998-4764

[email protected]

Thomas Place L.L.C., Glenview Elderly ProgramNorth (GEPN), and Turnstone Development (CookCounty Housing Development Corp.) established apartnership to accomplish the development. GEPN,a nonprofit organization serving seniors, respondedto the RFQ. The village approved the proposal andprovided GEPN, at no cost, a parcel of land onwhich to build, significantly reducing the futurecost of the development. The Village of Glenviewalso provided a fourth mortgage of $1.4 million duein 20 years to help finish the development.


Of the 144 apartments, 108 (75 percent) are desig-nated as affordable housing for seniors. Of theaffordable units, 20 percent are designated for indi-viduals earning 40 percent Area Median Income(AMI) or less, 30 percent are for people at 50 per-cent of the AMI, and 25 percent are reserved forindividuals at 60 percent AMI. The other 25 per-cent, or 36 apartments, are rented at market rates.

In 2007, the one-bedroom affordable apartmentsrented for $538 to $821 per month, and the marketrate one-bedrooms rented for $993 per month.Rents for the two-bedroom affordable apartmentsrange from $643 to $982 per month, while themarket-rate two-bedrooms are $1,242 per month.


As of July 2007

Laurel CourtFulton Developers, L.L.C.

Highland Park, Lake County

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

The Development

Laurel Court is a 15-unit townhome developmentat 843-855 Laurel Avenue in Highland Park.Developed by Fulton Developers L.L.C. ofDeerfield, Ill., Laurel Court is the first developmentto include affordable homes per a requirement ofthe city’s inclusionary housing program. (SeeHighland Park Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.)

Two of the 15 split-level townhomes are affordable,meeting the ordinance’s affordability requirement,and were offered to income-qualified buyersthrough the Highland Park Illinois CommunityLand Trust. (See Highland Park Illinois CommunityLand Trust.) The market-rate homes range from$500,000 to $1,000,000; the affordable homes willsell for $164,478 for the three-bedroom home and$275,527 for the four-bedroom home.


Highland Park’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,which requires 20 percent of all new residentialdevelopments to be affordable, enables the commu-nity to create housing opportunities for people witha range of income levels. In return, developersreceive incentives from the city, including feewaivers and a density bonus, which allows the devel-oper to build additional homes on the same piece ofland, and offsets the cost of constructing therequired affordable homes. The bonus for LaurelCourt allowed the developer to build a 13th mar-ket-rate townhome, one above what the zoningwould normally allow.

The Highland Park Illinois Community Land Trustwill identify and pre-qualify income-eligible buyers.If these buyers eventually want to sell, the LandTrust will make sure that these homes are passed toanother income-qualified buyer from a waiting listof eligible candidates. Highland Park has anAffordable Unit Declaration, which means thesehomes remain affordable permanently, one at 80percent ($59,600 for a family of four in 2007) and

the other at 120 percent ($90,480 for a family offour in 2007) Area Median Income.

Laurel Court required no municipal funds for devel-opment. The city’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinancerequires that market-rate developments of five ormore units include affordable units.

TargetLow and moderate-income buyers, witha preference for households who workand live in Highland Park.

Development InformationType: TownhomesTotal Units: 15 unitsTotal Affordable: 2 unitsMarket Rate Price Points: Range from$500,000-$1,000,000Affordable Unit Price Points: Three-bed-room: $164,478Four-bedroom: $275,527

New

for

2007


Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Mary Cele Smith, Development Department, City of Highland Park

847/926-1852

[email protected]

www.cityhpil.com As of July 2007

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Donald W. Kent ResidenceCatholic Charities of theArchdiocese of ChicagoNorthlake, Cook County

The Development

Northlake city officials partnered with CatholicCharities to build the Donald W. Kent Residence inrecognition of the need for affordable senior livingoptions in their community, as well as the opportu-nity to revitalize the neighborhood along WolfRoad. Named after the former longtime head ofCatholic Charities, this affordable senior housingdevelopment, located at 100 South Wolf Road, con-tains 72 one-bedroom apartments. All of the apart-ments are designated for low-income seniors whoare 62 years old or older and able to maintain anindependent lifestyle. Apartments range in size from525 to 540 square feet and are equipped with a fullkitchen and private bath.

In 2001, Northlake Mayor Jeffrey Sherwinapproached Catholic Charities to discuss how theymight collaborate to provide more affordable hous-ing in the city. The city spent two years acquiringthe one acre of land needed for the development.The city used bond proceeds to buy the land, whichwas in a Tax Increment Financing district. Thebonds will be paid off in full in 2020. Northlakecreated a Special Residence Zoning Ordinance in2003, which enabled Catholic Charities to build thesenior apartments. Catholic Charities received allthe necessary funding by December 2005 and con-struction began in February 2006. The developmentwas completed in May 2007 and residents beganoccupying apartments in June 2007.


The development was made possible through fund-ing from several sources. Catholic Charities received$8.9 million in grants from the U.S. Dept. ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD), a$750,000 grant from Federal Home Loan Bank,and a $140,000 grant from the Illinois Dept. ofCommerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO).The DCEO grant supported efficiency improve-ments such as increased insulation, better windows,and energy-saving appliances.

The Donald W. Kent Residence is rent-subsidizedand will remain so for 40 years. The rent subsidy isprovided by HUD, and is a Project RentalAssistance Contract that is tied to the unit itself.Resident income eligibility is 50 percent AreaMedian Income, which is $26,400 for a one-personhousehold and $30,150 for a two-person householdin 2007. Tenants pay 30 percent of their incomes astheir portion of the rent, which is $600 per month.

Part of the land lease agreement between Northlake,HUD, and Catholic Charities gives Northlake resi-dents preference for this housing. Because the cityacquired the land, the construction costs werereduced, increasing overall affordability.The city continues to own the landand Catholic Charities has a 75-yearlease on the property.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

TargetLow-income seniors.

Development Information Type: One-bedroom apartmentsTotal Units: 72Total Affordable Units: 72Rents: $600 per month

Funding SourcesHUD: $8.9 millionDCEO: $140,000Federal Home Loan Bank: $750,000

SuccessThe Donald W. Kent Residence is at fulloccupancy and has helped to rejuvenatethe neighborhood.

Lessons Learned Proactive municipal leadership can suc-cessfully address a community’s housingand revitalization needs. The city was anessential partner in the success of thisdevelopment.

New

for

2007

Public Involvement

The Northlake City Council saw a need to revitalizethis area of the city, and understood that a newhigh-quality affordable development such as theDonald W. Kent Residence would positively affectthe neighborhood. They acquired the land andvoted unanimously to create the Special ResidencesZoning Ordinance, which enabled the project tomove forward. Members of the community werevery supportive of the development.


Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

William D’Arcy, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago

312/655-7490

[email protected]

www.catholiccharities.net As of July 2007

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Legacy Square Bigelow Homes

Park Forest, Cook County

The Development

After building several successful communitiesthroughout the Chicago region, Bigelow Homes isworking with the Village of Park Forest to redesignits downtown area into combined retail and housingspace. The new community, Legacy Square, is adja-cent to the village center. There are 68 homes, 63 ofwhich are new single-family homes; the other fivewere part of an earlier, incomplete development.Legacy Square includes two-bedroom, three-bed-room, and four-bedroom homes to date, with addi-tional development still underway. When finished,Legacy Square will reflect the village’s commitmentto its downtown, and demonstrate how a diversehousing stock serving a diverse population can rein-vigorate a community.

In 2003, Park Forest invited the Urban LandInstitute-Chicago and Campaign for SensibleGrowth to conduct a Technical Assistance Panel(TAP). The panel’s experts – from real estate devel-opment, commercial market development, finance,and planning – recommended revitalization strate-gies for the village center, a formerly vibrant mallthat was suffering from high turnover and vacancy.The TAP suggested Park Forest earmark some of theunderutilized mall land for residential development,consolidate commercial space, and increase the con-sumer base for current and future business. LegacySquare is a key component of these efforts.

All Legacy Square homes have energy efficient fea-tures such as water-saving showerheads and insulat-ed foundations that will reduce long-term costs.Other features include luxury carpets, laminatedkitchen countertops, and superior appliances. Thehomes also have two-car attached garages. LegacySquare’s three live/work homes each have 500square feet of work space on the first floor with atwo-bedroom home above. The workspace is suit-able for offices, small retail, or artist studios and gal-leries. There are four homes with attached accessorydwelling units – self-contained homes above thegarage – that are ideal for extended family or as an

attached apartment. Legacy Square is compact andthere are extra sidewalks throughout the neighbor-hood. Each lot is approximately 30 x 90 square feetand most homes share a common wall with theneighboring home (but are otherwise detached).Bigelow Homes is hoping to build an additional 70homes across the street which would include morelive/work homes, and add more foot traffic and lifeto downtown Park Forest.


Bigelow Homes is able to sell the homes atan affordable price because of the var-ied types of homes and range ofsizes. Bigelow Homes has pre-designed models and plans for

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

GoalsContinue to develop and revitalize thedowntown area of the Village of ParkForest.

TargetAn array of area residents, includingsingles, seniors, families, and smallbusiness owners with varied incomes.

Development InformationType: Single-family homes, live/workunitsTotal Units: 68Price Points: $153,383 to $194,477,accessory units are an additional$48,000

FinancingA Tax Increment Financing district inthe downtown area abated $1 millionof the total development costs.

Lessons Learned Park Forest’s strong partnership withthe developer has contributed to thesuccess of its downtown revitalization.

New

for

2007

homes that fit the lot sizes of the Legacy Squaredevelopment. Having these plans prepared reducedBigelow’s construction costs.

Prices rangefrom $153,383for 1,162 squarefeet to $194,477for 1,732 squarefeet. An accessoryunit is an addi-tional $48,000.While there areno price restric-tions for this

development, six of the 30 homes already sold wentto families meeting the low-income guidelines set bythe U.S. Dept. of Housing and UrbanDevelopment. The “Frontier Model” in the LegacySquare development has a beginning cost of$160,000 for a single-family home. Bigelow Homeshas a financing model that provides buyers withaffordable financing options. For example, a familycan purchase one of the Frontier Model homes for$1,079 per month and approximately $2,500 inclosing costs. There is also the opportunity to own aquick delivery home – a pre-developed model withno upgrades – which only requires a $500 downpayment. In addition, Bigelow Homes offers lowinterest rates in partnership with area banks forqualified buyers, enabling low-income families theopportunity for homeownership.

Financing

The Village of Park Forest sold the land to BigelowHomes for $742,000, the amount the village spentto buy the land back from the previous land

developer’sinvestors. Thisaverages out to$11,778 per lot.Incremental taxrevenue generat-ed by physicalimprovementsand develop-ments within theTax IncrementalFinancing (TIF)district will beoffered to thedeveloper todefray the cost ofdevelopment:Bigelow Homeswill receive $1million in reimbursements over the course of a 10-year period, beginning in 2008. For each lot, therewill be a reimbursement of $9,000. Another$433,000 will go toward other necessary construc-tion or for site plans that Bigelow Homes is puttingin place.

Public Involvement

The village, through its Dept. of Planning andEconomic Development, has provided financial sup-port, recruited retailers to the downtown, andworked to beautify community buildings, such asthe Village Hall and Cultural Arts Building. ParkForest’s downtown improvements will continue withadditional homes, increased marketing and retailretention efforts, and the restoration of severalunderutilized properties to the tax rolls.


Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Hildy Kingma, Dir. of Economic Development & Planning, Village of Park Forest

708/283-5622

[email protected]

www.villageofparkforest.com

Jamie Bigelow, President, Bigelow Homes

630/631-0718

[email protected]

www.bigelowhomes.com As of July 2007

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

RiverwalkCity of Rolling Meadows andWellington PartnersRolling Meadows, Cook County

The Development

As a part of its downtown redevelopment and beau-tification efforts, the City of Rolling Meadows part-nered with the developer Wellington Partners toconstruct Riverwalk, a 154-unit, four-building,mixed-use development located along Kirchoff Roadin downtown Rolling Meadows. The $40 millionRiverwalk incorporates senior housing, condomini-ums, and commercial space, thus fostering newretail and making it possible for current residentsand businesses in the community to remain in the area.

The first floors of the two buildings front KirchoffRoad and contain a total of 28,000 square feet allot-ted for commercial and office use, leaving the sec-ond and third floors for senior condominium resi-dences. The rear buildings are reserved for addition-al condominiums, with a mix of one and two-bed-room condominiums. There are a total of 50 one-bedroom and 94 two-bedroom homes. The one-bedroom condominiums start at $159,000, whilethe two-bedroom condominiums are priced at$300,000.

Thirty of the Riverwalk homes are affordably pricedfor buyers who meet income and residency guide-lines. Each home includes granite counter tops,high-quality appliances, a private washer and dryer,central air conditioning, a balcony or porch, andone guaranteed underground parking space. Someof the price-restricted homes will be in one of theresidential buildings. Others will be scatteredthroughout the development using equity vouchers.The equity investment reduces the resident’s initialequity commitment and makes the home affordable.

Rolling Meadows ensured that previous retail ten-ants were able to stay in the new development byrequiring phased construction. Retailers did nothave to relocate during the building process andwere able to move to their new spaces as the newbuildings became ready. The city also worked withthe developer to implement a graduated lease cost

GoalsRolling Meadows senior population.

Development InformationType: one and two-bedroom condominiumsTotal Units: 154Total Affordable Units: 30Equity Partnership: $30,000 for eachresident purchasing an affordable unitPrice Points: $159,000-$300,000

Funding SourcesTax Increment Financing (TIF); the Cityof Rolling Meadows donated the landto the developer. In exchange, thedeveloper gave the city $900,000 incredits (30 homes x $30,000).

Lessons Learned In order to revitalize its downtown,Rolling Meadows is focusing on creat-ing opportunities for new families andindividuals to move into RollingMeadows. Developing senior housingcan open up new homes for families.This type of strategy is particularlyeffective when paired with policies tohelp those families afford homeownership.

SuccessThe equity partnership created byRolling Meadows is an example of asuccessful public-private initiative. Thecity and developer partnered to pro-vide more affordable housing to thecommunity.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

New

for

2007

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Tom Melena, City Manager, Rolling Meadows

847/394-8500

[email protected]

www.ci.rolling-meadows.il.us

increase so that current retail tenants retail were notoverburdened at the beginning of the move, andcould work up to the new rents required of themafter a number of years. New commercial tenantsare brought in at the full-market rents.


Riverwalk exemplifies Rolling Meadows’ commit-ment to enhancing the community through a mixof uses and affordability. Elderly residents in the 30affordable homes (20 percent of the 154 units) mustearn 80 percent of the Area Median Income or less,which is approximately $47,700 per year (in 2007)for a family of two.

Each of the elderly residents is benefiting from a$30,000 equity investment in their home by theCity of Rolling Meadows. In the future, owners ofthe affordable homes will be allowed to sell theirhomes at market prices. At the time of sale, the citywill reclaim about 15 percent of the total equity andwill use the proceeds to support another qualifiedsenior buyer. If a profit is made, the city will get itsprorated share; if there is a loss, the city will acceptthe loss.

The funding for the city’s equity contributionscomes from the developer, Wellington Homes,which received the land for free from the city inexchange for providing $900,000 in credits thatwere then converted to the equity vouchers for

moderate-income seniors. One of the benefits of thecity’s investment program is it allows seniors to buysome of the larger condominiums in the develop-ment that would not otherwise be available to them.


As of July 2007

TargetTo create a new mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly down-town for St. Charles’ residents.

Development InformationType: Retail, Offi ce/Commercial, ResidentialRetail Space: approx. 136,500 sq. ft .Offi ce/Commercial Space: approx. 115,000 sq. ft .Total Residential Units: 79 condos and 16 apartmentsTotal Aff ordable Units: 16

Funding SourcesTax Increment Financing (TIF); private fi nancing; $67 million invested by developers; federal grant, in conjunction with METRA, to fund the parking deck.

SuccessAs such a large-scale project, First Street required a massive amount of coordination between vari-ous interests and stakeholders. Staff from six city departments now work on the project, and help to coordinate the interests and assistance of six consult-ing fi rms, four architects, three state agencies, three federal agencies, and fi ve landowners with 20 parcels of land in the project area. Also, public outreach is crucial, not only to get input on the initial plans, but to inform residents about development and construc-tion progress. Lessons LearnedTh e city established a public commission to provide input on the designs for First Street’s open spaces (two plazas and a riverwalk). Because the city established the commission aft er all architectural and engineering specifi cations had been fi nalized and approved, it was diffi cult for the committee to work within physical and budgetary limitations for these spaces. It would have been valuable to have had this input on the open spaces at the front end of the design process.

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

First Street First Street, L.L.C.


The DevelopmentLocated in St. Charles, Ill., First Street is a mixed-use, mixed-income development that has created a new, pedestrian-oriented downtown district for the city. Th e project will help to preserve the area’s historical and small-town qualities, develop underutilized land, maintain diverse retail options, capitalize on its magnifi -cent waterfront location along the Fox River, and eventu-ally spur further, long-term development in downtown St. Charles.

Th e City of St. Charles saw an opportunity to build a more vibrant downtown district that would attract resi-dents and visitors. In 2000, the city adopted the Down-town Strategy Plan, which outlined long-term goals and identifi ed First Street as the largest area suitable for additional investment and development. In accordance with these larger goals, in 2002, the city, in consulta-tion with the First Street Task Force and community members, adopted the First Street Guidelines to direct development over the next several years. Part of the area was designated within a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district in March 2002. Once funding was in place, the project got underway in May 2006 and is expected to be complete by mid-2012.

Creating a new mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly downtown for St. Charles, Ill.

New

fo

r 2010

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

First Street First Street, L.L.C.


Th e First Street Redevelopment Project is located on 7.42 acres, and includes fi ve city blocks in the heart of down-town St. Charles. Th e First Street Redevelopment Area is bounded by Main Street on the north, the Fox River on the east, Mount St. Mary’s Park on the south, and Second Street (Route 31) on the west. When the development is complete, it will include approximately 136,500 sq. ft . of retail space (including a new Blue Goose supermarket), approximately 115,000 sq. ft . of offi ce or commercial space, 79 condos, and 16 apartments — the latter which are aff ordable for-sale and rental units. Th e development plan also includes two public garages, street parking, and surface parking lots (943 spaces in total).

Improvements include pedestrian-oriented streetscape features such as wider sidewalks, crosswalks, planters, and greenery, and well as improved electric, water and sewer facilities. First Street also comprises a number of public spaces, including a two-level riverwalk along the Fox River, and two larger plazas. River Terrace Plaza leads to the riverwalk, and First Street Place is intended to function as a gathering place for various activities, from farmer’s markets to festivals to musical events. Because First Street is located in the St. Charles Historic District, the city and developers worked with the Histor-ic Preservation Commission to ensure the new buildings would complement the existing architecture. Th e project has spurred signifi cant environmental improvements to the area, including better fl oodplain management and water quality for the Fox River, brownfi eld renewal ben-efi ts (for the site that previously carried heavy industry), and better air quality through reduced vehicle trips.

Creating AffordabilityFirst Street, L.L.C., incorporated aff ordable homes into the First Street Development even prior to the 2008 passage of St. Charles’ Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Th e city negotiated First Street’s aff ordable set aside with the developer on a voluntary basis in 2007. Th e develop-ment has 16 aff ordable apartments, all of which were leased by October 2008. First Street’s aff ordable housing

component has served as a model for how to incorpo-rate aff ordable housing under the inclusionary zoning ordinance.

FinancingJointly fi nanced by public and private ventures, the proj-ect is expected to exceed $105 million, with developers investing $67 million. Th e establishment of a TIF district was very signifi cant and helped to spur initial develop-ment activities and fi nance the project overall. Th e First Street TIF district provided funding for land acquisition, demolition, infrastructure installation, a public plaza, a parking structure, environment site assessment, and other soft costs.

St. Charles also entered into an agreement where METRA would apply to the Federal Transit Adminis-tration (with funds from SAFETEA-LU) to fi nance the parking deck, with the understanding it was part of an intermodal commuter hub. METRA will reimburse the city $3,753,347 upon completion of the project over four years.

Public InvolvementSt. Charles sought public input on the creation of both the Downtown Strategy Plan in 2000, and the First Street Guidelines in 2002. A public workshop in June 2002, in which participants worked in small groups to provide feedback on First Street’s initial plans, greatly contrib-uted to the overall vision for the development articulated in the First Street Guidelines.

Th e city has also kept the public updated on the project’s development and construction. Anyone can subscribe to First Street e-news, which is sent out weekly. Th e city also posts weekly updates on its web site, maintains a hotline to take questions, and provides a detailed progress report in every city newsletter. Th ese eff orts not only inform the public about the development, but excite and engage residents as well.

Contact Rita Tungare, Community Development PlannerPhone 630.443.3676Email [email protected] As of February 2010

New

fo

r 2010


HOUSING PROGRAM

Homeowner Assistance

Program Background

In 2003, the City of Chicago Dept. of Housingpartnered with Neighborhood Housing Services ofChicago (NHS), a nonprofit organization, and over20 financial institutions to launch theHomeownership Preservation Initiative (HOPI).The program was initiated in response to a 91 per-cent rise in the number of foreclosures between1993 and 2002. HOPI proactively prevents foreclo-sures by providing homeowners with access tofinancial counseling and assistance during times ofneed. To ensure broad outreach, the city has part-nered with faith-based organizations, expanded mar-keting on cable television and radio, and conductedtargeted mailings to encourage more homeowners toutilize these services before their financial situationsbecome harder to address.

How It Works

HOPI uses the “Every Minute Counts” campaignto reach out to homeowners at risk of losing theirhomes. The campaign encourages Chicago residentsto call 311, the city’s non-emergency hotline, at thefirst sign of mortgage delinquency. Callers areimmediately connected to a credit counselingresource center for a free telephone counseling ses-sion. NHS also provides counseling at their localoffices for people in severe foreclosure situations.

The phone and one-on-one counseling sessionsinclude the following services:• An in-depth assessment of the homeowner’s finan-cial situation and an individual action plan.• Communication between the homeowner andmortgage company and, where appropriate,advocacy for a repayment plan, loan modification, orother strategy that will help the homeowner avoidforeclosure.

GoalPrevent foreclosures and help families tostay in their homes.

TargetHomeowners at risk for foreclosure.

FinancingCity of Chicago, Neighborhood HousingServices and funds from participating pri-vate lenders.

SuccessHOPI has prevented foreclosures for 1,300families and educated 4,328 people.

Lessons LearnedCounseling is more likely to prevent fore-closure when homeowners seek timelyassistance.

The Chicago Homeownership Preservation Initiative proactively preventsforeclosures by providing homeowners with access to financial counselingand assistance during times of need.

Chicago Homeownership Preservation InitiativeCook County

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

• Referrals to local resources, including job training,tax assistance, emergency grants, and foreclosureprevention classes.

When foreclosure cannot be avoided, HOPI lenderpartners donate or discount foreclosed properties tocommunity partners to be rehabbed or resold asaffordable housing.

Contact

Phone

Web site

Christie Rivera, Coordinator of Special Projects, City of Chicago Department of Housing

312/742-1063

www.cityofchicago.org/Housing As of October 2006

HOUSING PROGRAM

Homeowner AssistanceEmployer-Assisted Housing

Illinois

Program Background

Employer-assisted housing (EAH) enables employersto help their workers buy or rent homes close towork, which promotes bottom-line savings andworkforce stability to the employer while improvingworker productivity by reducing commute time andenhancing the overall quality of life of a workingfamily. In Illinois, EAH has been successfully uti-lized by over 65 businesses, hospitals, universities,school districts and municipalities.

The success and growth of EAH in Illinois has beenspurred by the pioneering work of the MetropolitanPlanning Council (MPC) which has created a coali-tion of nonprofit counseling partners, the RegionalEmployer-Assisted Collaboration for Housing, orREACH, to serve the needs of businesses andorganizations wishing to offer EAH programs.REACH counseling partners provide employeeswith credit counseling, home purchase assistance,and access to a myriad of other supportive financingproducts.

The Illinois Housing Development Authority(IHDA) contributes financial support by matchingemployer contributions of up to $5,000 per eligibleemployee and through a state-created DonationsTax Credit program, which offers a 50 percent taxcredit for every dollar an employer invests in anEAH program

MPC initiated the REACH model in 2000, whenSystem Sensor (now a division of Honeywell), alocal manufacturer of smoke detectors and relatedalarm products, piloted the REACH model byoffering $5,000 in grants for downpayment costs inan effort to reduce employee turnover and subse-quent recruitment and training costs. Since then,System Sensor has assisted over 70 employees, andthe firm has more than recouped its EAH invest-ment through better employee retention, increasedproductivity, and administrative cost savings.

How It Works

The most common benefit offered by employers isdownpayment or closing cost assistance to enablequalifying low and moderate-income workers topurchase a home near work upon completion ofhomebuyer counseling and education. Though thisis the standard model, EAH can be tailored to meetvarious employer and municipal needs, and can beutilized for supply side housing development effortsas well.

For example, the Village of Riverdale, in an effort toend a cycle of disinvestment, adopted EAH in 2003to encourage people already working in the commu-nity to live there as well. Riverdale partnered withthe Regional Development Corporation, alocal nonprofit organization withexperience in homeownership coun-seling and home rehabilitation, to

GoalTo help workers in Illinois live closer totheir jobs.

TargetLow and middle-income workers.

FinancingState tax credits (which are not a cost),employer contribution, employee invest-ment. Additionally, REACH partners lever-age various other resources, such as theFederal Home Loan Bank AffordableHousing Program.

SuccessSince EAH was introduced in Illinois, 65employers have begun offering the bene-fit, resulting in over 1,300 employeesreceiving assistance through theiremployers to purchase or rent a homenear work.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

New

for

2007

offer EAH to its 150 municipal employees. TheRiverdale EAH program offers $5,000 towarddownpayment and closing costs, and eligibleemployees may also access up to $5,000 of statematching funds. Riverdaleencourages local employersto offer EAH benefits, andsince 2003, two large areaemployers have done so. Todate, eight individuals orfamilies have bought homesin Riverdale, and 44 havereceived counseling. Byattracting new owners,Riverdale is bolstering itstax base and encouraginginvestment.

In another case, after con-ducting an internal housingneeds assessment thatrevealed municipal employ-ees were adversely affectedby rising housing prices, theCity of St. Charles createdan EAH program to providedownpayment assistance toits own staff. Since 2001,the city has assisted eighthomebuyers with downpay-ment assistance. By support-ing its own employees, St. Charles is strengtheningitself from within, reducing turnover, and serving asa model for other local employers.

Mayor Richard M. Daley and the City of Chicagohave aggressively encouraged public and privateemployers to start EAH programs. The ChicagoPublic School’s EAH program has helped over 400

teachers purchase homes, and Chicago’s city collegesnow offer EAH to all full-time employees who arefirst-time homebuyers. The University of Chicago’sEAH program supports preservation of affordable

rental housing inChicago’s south sideneighborhoods. RushUniversity MedicalCenter, Mercy andBethany Hospitals,and the City ofChicago’s Police andFire Departments alsooffer assistance to theiremployees. In total,almost 30 employersin Chicago offer EAH.

Lessons Learned

Local governments canoffer EAH to theirown workers, as wellas invite employers tolearn about and imple-ment this innovativestrategy. EAH is anincentive for recruitingand retaining workers,it helps low and mod-

erate-income individualsand families live near work, and strengthens alltypes of communities, from those seeking reinvest-ment to those where affordable homes are few andfar between. EAH is cost effective, has almostimmediate tangible results, and is a proven success.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Lillie Jernigan, Consultant, Metropolitan Planning Council

312/863-6005

[email protected]

www.metroplanning.org As of July 2007

A Sampling of Participating Employersin the Chicago Region:Allstate Corporation, Vernon HillsFirst Midwest Bank, statewideBank of America, statewideIllinois Institute of Technology, ChicagoCharter One Bank, statewideMacArthur FoundationChase, regionwideMB Financial BankChicago Public SchoolsMercy Hospital, ChicagoCity Colleges of ChicagoMetropolitan Planning Council, ChicagoCity of EvanstonNorthwest Community Healthcare, Arlington HeightsCity of North ChicagoRush University Medical Center, ChicagoCity of PeoriaSinai Health Systems, ChicagoCity of Rock IslandSystem Sensor (a subsidiary of Honeywell), St. CharlesCity of St. CharlesUniversity of ChicagoDraper and Kramer, Chicago RegionVillage of Riverdale


GoalHelp employees buy homes closer to work and in-crease access to homeownership, while also support-ing the university’s local communities.

TargetLoyola University Chicago faculty and staff members who want to purchase a home near the CTA’s Red Line.

FinancingLoyola funds the loan program and homeownership counseling, and receives tax credits from the state for making these investments.

SuccessAs of January 2010, 90 Loyola employees have applied for the program, and 26 have purchased homes.

Lessons LearnedPrior to implementing the program, Loyola spent a great deal of time surveying its staff . All decision mak-ers at Loyola’s campuses participated, at some point, in the program’s design process. Engaging these decision makers helped them take ownership of the program,

HOUSING PROGRAM


Loyola University Chicago University-Assisted Housing Program

City of Chicago, Cook County

Policy BackgroundLaunched in March 2008, Loyola’s University Assisted Housing (UAH) program provides fi nancial assistance for employees to purchase homes. Working in partner-ship with the Metropolitan Planning Council, Loyola created a program through which faculty and staff can receive forgivable loans to use toward closing costs or downpayment. Like other employer-assisted housing (EAH) programs, Loyola’s increases access to homeown-ership and aff ordability and encourages employees to live closer to work. EAH programs, like Loyola’s, also improve workforce stability, and the university benefi ts from increased employee engagement and reduced turnover.

Loyola’s program is unique in that it supports improved work-life balance for employees, fosters increased involvement in campus life, promotes public transit use, and spurs investment in the Chicago neighborhoods surrounding Loyola campuses. To be eligible for the program, employees must purchase homes in neighbor-hoods adjacent to the CTA’s Red Line. Th e program encourages employees to buy homes near the Red Line so they can conveniently use public transit to get to and from work. As Jennifer Clark, Loyola’s director of com-munity relations, put it, “We want faculty and staff to be a part of our environmental goals and recognize they don’t need a car to work here.”

How It WorksEach year, the UAH program provides up to 25 eligible employees with a fi ve-year forgivable loan. Th e program is open to both faculty and staff members. Participants must be in “good standing,” and have worked full-time for Loyola for at least one year. Loyola works with the Rogers Park Community Development Corporation (CDC) to provide pre-purchase homeownership coun-seling for program participants, which has been proven to help people avoid foreclosure. UAH participants must complete the three-hour Home Buyer Education and Counseling course, as well as a housing access plan with Rogers Park CDC. In addition, participants must qualify for mortgage fi nancing and be able to pay at least $1,000, or one percent of the home’s purchase price (whichever amount is greater), from their savings.

Employees can purchase homes in any neighborhood between the Howard Street and Roosevelt Road stops on the CTA’s Red Line, including Rogers Park, Edgewater, Uptown, Lake View, Lincoln Park, the Near North Side, and the Loop. Employees who purchase homes in Edge-water and Rogers Park, the two neighborhoods closest to Loyola’s main campus, receive higher loan amounts.

Th e UAH loan amount is determined by the employee’s income level and location of the purchased property. Employees who make at or below 120 percent Area Median Income (AMI) — $89,900 for a family of four in 2009 — can receive a loan for $7,500 to live near the Red Line, and $10,000 to live in Rogers Park or Edgewater. Employees who make more than 120 percent AMI can receive $5,000 to live near the Red Line, and $7,500 to live in Rogers Park or Edgewater.Th e loan period is fi ve years, during which the loan-

Loyola University Chicago developed a unique employer–assisted housing program that benefi ts its employees and promotes public transit.

New

fo

r 2010

HOUSING PROGRAM


Loyola University Chicago University-Assisted Housing Program


Contact Danielle Hanson, UAH Program CoordinatorPhone 312.915.7510Email [email protected] site www.luc.edu/hr

holder must remain employed by the university, main-tain property ownership, occupy the property as his or her principle residence, and not refi nance the property. If the employee follows all of these stipulations, the loan

is forgiven aft er the fi ft h year. If the loan-holder does not meet these terms, the loan must be repaid immediately on a prorated basis.

Loyola University, Chicago: EAH Target Areas

New

fo

r 2010


HOUSING PROGRAM

Housing Preservation and Rehabilitation

Chicago Troubled Buildings InitiativeCook County

Program Background

Troubled buildings, whether vacant or occupied,damage neighborhoods, depress property values,and harbor crime. Irresponsible management putstenants’ health and safety at risk and, leftunchecked, may trigger a cycle of neighborhooddisinvestment and deterioration. Yet these samebuildings, if turned around, can have a revitalizingeffect on the surrounding community.

In 2003, the City of Chicago departments ofHousing, Buildings, Law, Administrative Hearings,Police, Water, Planning, Streets and Sanitation, andHuman Services, along with a nonprofit partner,Community Investment Corporation (CIC), devel-oped the Troubled Buildings Initiative (TBI). TBIworks proactively to stem the deterioration and lossof viable housing through targeted enforcementefforts and direct intervention with building owners.TBI effectively mobilizes the resources and expert-ise of eight city departments and CIC to ensure thatstructures are made safe and habitable, and helpowners obtain financing to rehabilitate problembuildings.

How It Works

TBI coordinates the response of city agencies toaddress conditions in select buildings that pose athreat to the community. The process begins whena building is referred to the program by a citydepartments, alderman, community developmentorganization, or concerned citizens.

Once the city receives the referral, the Dept. ofBuildings inspects the property, and if applicable,writes up code violations. If the city finds viola-tions, the case is referred to the Dept. of Law forprosecution.

TBI monitors buildings in the program before, dur-ing and after prosecution. When owners fail tobring their properties into compliance, the city usesa variety of strategies to create a change in owner-ship, including court-appointed receivers, transfer-ring city liens to CIC for foreclosure, negotiatingwith lenders for the sale of delinquent notes forforeclosure, and purchasing the buildingfor back taxes. In the event TBI is suc-cessful in removing a poor manager,

The Troubled Buildings Initiative works proactively to stem the deteriorationand loss of viable housing through targeted enforcement efforts and directintervention with building owners.

GoalIncrease tenant comfort and safety anddecrease neighborhood blight by savingproperties that are falling into disrepair.

TargetProperty managers and owners.

FinancingCity of Chicago and the nonprofitCommunity Investment Corporation(CIC). Each fiscal year, the program isallocated $1 million in Community BlockGrant funds and $1 million in corporatefunds.

SuccessAs of the end of April 2006, 1,183 unitshave been recovered, 1,107 units areunder rehabilitation, and 686 units areunder court-ordered receivership.

Lessons LearnedThe initiative requires significant invest-ments of time and resources to handleongoing tracking of properties, interde-partmental coordination, and strategicinterventions.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

Web site

Angie Marks, Deputy Commissioner, City of Chicago Department of Housing

312/742-0469

www.cityofchicago.org/housing

city and CIC staff continue to monitor the newbuilding owners to ensure they address code viola-tions. In cases where the building is foreclosed andCIC is the successful bidder, CIC’s goal is to rede-velop the property and create affordable housing inthe building — in most cases rental, but also somefor sale.

Building on the success of these efforts, in 2006,the city expanded the program to include vacantbuildings. The goal for the expanded initiative is toreduce the number of deteriorated, unsafe andunderutilized vacant and open buildings in Chicagoby at least 75 percent in one year. This will beachieved by a collaborative effort involving thePolice, Buildings, Law, and Housing departments to:• Secure the buildings according to municipal code,making them inaccessible to the public and off-lim-its to criminal activity; and• Rehabilitate, demolish, forfeit, or sell at least halfof the buildings.

As of October 2006

Before After

PH

OTO

:CO

MM

UN

ITYIN

VESTMEN

TCO

RPO

RATIO

N

HOUSING PROGRAM


Chicago Historic Chicago Bungalow Initiative Cook County

The bungalow program allows homeowners to mix and match incentives,which has helped many on fixed incomes to make necessary repairs to theirhomes.

Program Background

Launched by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley inSeptember 2000, the Historic Chicago BungalowInitiative is designed to foster an appreciation ofthe Chicago Bungalow as a distinctive housing type,encourage rehabilitation of Chicago bungalows, andassist bungalow owners with adapting their homesto current need. In turn, the program helps tostrengthen Chicago bungalow neighborhoods.

Chicago has approximately 80,000 bungalows, near-ly one-third of the city’s single-family housingstock. These homes were built between 1910 and1940 and are characterized as one and a half storybuildings, usually made of brick, with generous win-dows and a roofline perpendicular to the street.

How It Works

The Historic Chicago Bungalow Association(HCBA) is the nonprofit organization that adminis-ters the initiative. It offers a variety of financialresources, from grants to loans, and technicalresources, including how-to seminars, resourceguides, and pattern drawings, to assist bungalowowners with home repairs. Each bungalow thatreceives benefits through the program must first becertified by HCBA.

Grant programs include the following:• A matching grant of up to $1,000 is available tohomeowners of HCBA-certified bungalows for therestoration or replacement of approved windowsand doors.• A matching grant of up to $2,000 is available tohomeowners of HCBA-certified bungalows forupgrading or adding furnaces, a/c systems, solarthermal systems, water heaters, insulation, and waterconservation systems.

• A $500 voucher for purchase of an energy-effi-cient appliance may be available to any purchaser ofa HCBA-certified bungalow or any owner whospends at least $5,000 on a rehabilitation project ona certified bungalow.• Grants to owners of HCBA-certified bungalowswho have restricted incomes, determined by theIllinois Housing Development Authority, maybe available for code-compliant rehabilita-tion work. The grant size is $3,000 forhomeowners with incomes between 50percent to 80 percent of the Area

GoalPreserve Chicago’s historic bungalows.

TargetChicago historic bungalow owners andbuyers.

FinancingCity of Chicago ($800,000 annually),Illinois Housing Development Authority($750,000 bi-annually), Illinois CleanEnergy Community Foundation ($5 mil-lion over five years), and ChicagoArchitecture Foundation.

SuccessHCBI has helped over 6,000 homeown-ers purchase, restore and modernizebungalows.

Lessons LearnedThis program addresses several issueswith one comprehensive program: pre-serving aging housing stock, preservingthe design integrity of these historichomes, and creating energy and excite-ment about improving neighborhoods.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Bill Povalla, Assistant Commissioner, City of Chicago Department of Housing

312/742.0345

[email protected]

www.chicagobungalow.org

Median Income ($37,700 to $59,700 for a family offour in 2006) and $5,000 for homeowners withincomes less than 50 percent AMI.

To qualify for home improvement grants, improve-ments must be consistent with bungalow designguidelines to preserve the integrity of the bungalow.The bungalow program allows homeowners to mixand match incentives, which has helped many onfixed incomes make necessary repairs to theirhomes.

As of October 2006

HOUSING PROGRAM

Housing Preservationand Rehabilitation

Round Lake Beach Housing Acquisition and Rehabilitation ProgramLake County

The Village of Round Lake Beach developed the Housing Acquisition andRehabilitation Program (HARP) to acquire, rehabilitate and sell vacant prop-erties at affordable prices.

Program Background

Responding to concerns from residents about thegrowing number of blighted vacant properties andlimited amount of affordable housing options, theVillage of Round Lake Beach developed theHousing Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program(HARP) to acquire, rehabilitate and sell vacantproperties at affordable prices. The village workedout program details through a series of meetingswith representatives of the Northwest SuburbanBoard of Realtors. HARP was implemented as partof a five-pronged plan created by the village in2002 to address residents’ concerns.

How It Works

The Round Lake Beach Village Board is involved inevery step of the HARP program. The board firsthas to pass a resolution to purchase each home andlater to authorize the expenditure of funds for ren-ovation. The board must also authorize the sale ofthe home. The board reviews expenditures, closingcosts, loan interest rates, sale price, and net profit,all of which is assembled by the village administra-tor.

There are six important components to Round LakeBeach’s HARP program:

DATABASEThe village created a database of vacant properties,flagging those that fit the category of substandardforeclosures for which the private market hadshown no interest. The database is continuallyupdated by village building inspectors to reflect newforeclosures and new village acquisitions. All of thehomes acquired must be vacant, and the village pri-oritizes acquisition opportunities. Those whoserehabilitation will bring the most benefit to the vil-lage or a given neighborhood, such as fixing asevere blight on a block, go to the top of the list.

INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALSA banker, real estate agent, and general contractorwork with village staff to help maintain the data-base and handle sales.

MARKET ANALYSISThe village works with a general contrac-tor to develop a market analysis ofpotential acquisitions. This includes thephysical condition, minimum market

GoalRevitalize vacant, blighted property andprovide quality affordable homes.

TargetBlighted vacant property.

FinancingThe village received a $500,000 line ofcredit from First State Bank. Lake Countyalso provides grants to cover the differ-ence between acquisition and rehabilita-tion costs and the resale value. Since2002, the village has spent an average of$260,000 per year.

SuccessOf the 100 homes identified in the initialdatabase as properties that could beacquired and rehabilitated, the villagesuccessfully completed 11 homesbetween 2002 and 2005.

Lessons Learnedn Community efforts to keep track of andrehab troubled properties can improvenot just those homes but the propertieson the streets around them.n Partner with groups such as the countyor local nonprofits to bring in additionalresources.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Mayor Richard H. Hill, Village of Round Lake Beach

847/546-2351

[email protected]

www.villageofroundlakebeach.com

value after renovation, amount of six months’ inter-est (the typical timeframe from purchase to sale),and closing costs. At the suggestion of the VillageBoard, Round Lake Beach is also working toincrease the typical lot size of these redevelopedproperties to a maximum of 80 feet instead of theexisting 40-foot lots in the older areas. In caseswhere there are two 40-foot lots next to each other,the village will purchase both and consolidate them.The move to consolidate the smaller lots respondsto overcrowding problems. Planning practices in the1920s (before the village was incorporated in 1937)have led to overcrowding in the oldest part of thevillage. In this area, there are as many as five housesper acre.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCESIf the cost of a house, including the purchase andrehabilitation, is going to exceed the minimumassessed resale value, the village can apply for agrant of $15,000 per house ($105,000 total availableannually from Lake County). The HARP program isfinanced with Community Development BlockGrant (CDBG) and HOME funds, as well asresources from the Lake County AffordableHousing Commission. The village may also drawmoney from its revolving loan fund (RLF). Somehouses, even with the affordable price requirement,sell for more than the purchase price and renova-tion costs. Money above the loan amount feeds theRLF, which is used only for HARP program reha-bilitation efforts.

PACINGA line of credit from First State Bank dictates thenumber of HARP projects the village administers atany one time. Typically, the village works on threehomes at once so that one property is waiting to beacquired, one is being renovated, and a third is onthe market to be sold. In 2005, the village reported

an average purchase price of the properties of$105,360, with an average sale price, after rehabilita-tion, of $135,218.

AFFORDABILITYHomes in the program are deed-restricted and mustremain affordable for five years. Information andcounseling on the availability of low-cost loans andgrants for eligible homeowners are provided tohome buyers through this program.

The definition of affordability is based upon grantspecifications from either the U.S. Dept. ofHousing and Urban Development (80% of AreaMedian Income: $59,600 for a family of four in2006) or the Lake County Affordable HousingTrust Fund (100% of Area Median Income:approximately $74,500 for a family of four in 2006),depending upon the grant type used.

In 2005, Round Lake Beach established a partner-ship with the Affordable Housing Corporation ofLake County at the urging of Lake County officials.As a nonprofit organization, the AffordableHousing Corporation lends additional resources andcapacity to the HARP program to allow the villageto rehabilitate six homes per year, up from three.

As of October 2006

HOUSING PROGRAM


Tinley ParkArchitectural Enhancement ProgramCook and Will counties

Program Background

Tinley Park’s Parkside subdivision consists of WorldWar II housing: small single-family homes coveredentirely by vinyl siding. The village began to notice amajor increase in families with school-aged childrenin the community and realized Parkside’s growingfamilies wanted or needed to move into largerhomes, but did not necessarily want to leave theirneighborhood. As newly constructed homes in areassurrounding Parkside were selling in excess of$350,000, the Village Board wanted to give Parksideresidents options for affordable expansion withintheir neighborhood.

As a result, the village developed the ArchitecturalEnhancement Program to bring in architects to cre-ate basic designs for expanding the housing types inthis subdivision and sell these designs below cost tothe residents. Because the village has taken the initia-tive to have basic plans drawn, the homeowners payonly $475 per plan as opposed to $2,500, the stan-dard price in 2005.

How It Works

The village distributed a request for proposals to areaarchitects in February 2005. Anderson Architects andAssociates, a local firm, was chosen that April. Thevillage then met with area residents to discuss thepossible plans. Residents provided input to the archi-tects, who then drew up preliminary plans and pre-sented them to residents. The Village Board set abudget for the program and worked with an attorneyto ensure the village’s legal ownership of the plansand authority to sell them to homeowners.

As newly constructed homes in areas surrounding the Parkside neighbor-hood were selling in excess of $350,000, the Village Board wanted to giveParkside residents options for affordable expansion within their communities.

GoalProvide residents with low-cost, convenientways to expand their property while pre-serving the existing housing stock in the vil-lage.

TargetResidents in the Parkside subdivision.

Financing• Fifteen local financial institutions providebelow-rate loans to those residents usingthe program.• The Village Board approved a one-timeallocation of $35,000 from the capitalexpenditures fund for the purchase of thearchitectural plans for all four homes types.

SuccessAs of February 2006, the village hasreceived 12 applications and four residentshave met with the architects to move for-ward with renovations.

Lessons LearnedMinimize the time to inform residentsabout the program. If information hadbeen distributed to the residents earlier,expansions could have begun in the fall of2005 rather than spring of 2006.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

David Samuelson, Planning Director, Village of Tinley Park

708/444-5100

[email protected]

www.tinleypark.org

The fact that the homes in Parkside fall into fourbasic design types contributes to the success ofTinley Park’s Architectural Enhancement Program.Although the architectural plans have been drawn foreach type of home, plan variations are available.

After the village approves a resident’s application(roughly a two-week process), the architect meetswith the family in their home to develop a cus-tomized plan based upon the interior conditions ofthe home. The drawing of the individual plans cantake six or more weeks. Residents must live in theParkside subdivision and be in compliance with all vil-lage codes identified by the Fire and Public Worksdepartments to be eligible for purchasing architecturalenhancement plans.

As of October 2006

Rendering of one of the four architectural typesdeveloped for the Tinley Park ArchitecturalEnhancement Program.

HOUSING PROGRAM

Housing Preservation andRehabilitation

JolietLocal Homestead Program Will County

Program Background

The Local Homestead program in Joliet provideshomeownership opportunities to moderate and low-income individuals and families through a two-stepprocess. First, the city builds new homes or rehabili-tates existing ones. Then, it provides financial assis-tance to buyers of those homes. This program isfocused on Joliet’s East Side, which is the historiccore of the city but has suffered from disinvestmentsince the loss of key industries in the 1970s and1980s.

This program was originally administered by theU.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) under its 312 program, a first-time home-buyer purchase program offering below market rateloans. Over time, communities began to assumeresponsibility for the program. In Joliet, the 312program evolved into the Local Homestead pro-gram, initially focused on rehabilitation of city-owned properties, and has since expanded toinclude construction on vacant city-owned land aswell.

The Local Homestead program has been a veryimportant component in spurring propertyimprovements in Joliet’s East Side neighborhoods.The city has already begun targeted investmentefforts, rehabbing and building multiple adjacentproperties to maximize the program’s impact onoverall neighborhood redevelopment activity. Twoexamples are along Richards and Union streetswhere the city built 14 affordable single-familyhomes in 2001 and 2003.

How It Works

Joliet’s Local Homestead program provides financialassistance to families and individuals via a secondmortgage and downpayment/closing cost assistancefor purchase of a Homestead home. The assistanceis provided through Illinois Housing DevelopmentAuthority (IHDA) funds and includes some cityfunds, and is administered by the Local Homesteadprogram. The newly built or rehabilitated homes all

meet or exceed the quality standards of city buildingcodes. The down-payment or closing cost assistanceis provided to qualified purchasers in the form of aforgivable loan over a five or ten-year period, whichaccrues no interest. The loan must be paid back at apro-rated amount if the borrower sells the housewithin the five or ten-year term.

Once the city builds or rehabilitates a property, it isoffered to first-time homebuyers participating in theLocal Homestead program. The homes are con-structed or improved by development partners whoare awarded a contract by the city through a biddingprocess run by the City of Joliet PurchasingDepartment. Bidders on the properties are awardedcontracts to do the repairs or new construction, butthe city retains ownership and then sells the hometo a qualified purchaser once the work iscompleted. Each family or individualmust complete a six-hour seminarthat demonstrates how to be a goodneighbor and teaches participants

GoalTo provide housing opportunities for lowand moderate-income families and toimprove property in the city of Joliet.

TargetLow and moderate-income families.

Financing• IHDA Second Mortgage Program-

$35,000 or $40,000• IHDA Downpayment Assistance

Program-$3,000 or $5,000• IHDA HOME Funds -$18,000

SuccessAs of 2006, over $9 million has beenallocated to the Local HomesteadProgram, assisting more than 100 lowand moderate-income families.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

New

for

2007

about property and building code compliance,budgeting, and credit maintenance.

To be eligible, participants must be 18 or older,first-time homebuyers (or three years removed fromhome-ownership), and must provide a $2,500 downpayment payable at the time of closing. The indi-vidual or family must also be able to demonstratethe ability to repay the loan through proof of twoyears of stable employment. The applicant must bea U.S. citizen or registered alien and two yearsremoved from Chapter 13 or 7 bankruptcy. Incomeguidelines are 80 percent or below Area MedianIncome, which is $59,600 in 2007 for a family offour.

Financing

Local Homestead homes are purchased by individu-als or families with the help of IHDA. The borrow-er is required to put a down payment on the home,with funds from their own savings. IHDA providesa forgivable loan in the form of downpayment orclosing cost assistance for up to $3,000 for low-income homebuyers and $5,000 for very low-income homebuyers. IHDA also provides a secondmortgage – a standard 30-year balloon mortgagewith no interest rate – of up to $35,000 for low-income households and $40,000 for very low-income households. The homeowner is also expect-

ed to pay the real estate tax on the home and main-tain adequate homeowner’s insurance. Each home-buyer is also eligible for $18,000 in IHDA’s HOMEFunds. With the attractive financing terms of thisprogram, a participating household would typicallypay more in rent than the cost of owning a LocalHomestead home.

In the past, the Local Homestead Program receivedits entire funding from the HUD-fundedCommunity Development Block Grant (CDBG)program. However, because of inconsistent federalfunding, the city has incorporated more layeredfinancing. Since 1996, the city has contributed anaverage of $140,000 annually to the program,which has leveraged approximately $771,300 peryear from the state and private financial institutions.

Public Involvement

The Local Homestead program is advertisedthroughout Joliet. The city sends brochures torenters and publishes information in theNeighborhood Newsletter. Many people hear aboutthis opportunity through word of mouth. Areabanks typically hold the first mortgage on thehomes for the new homebuyers and promote theprogram to help their customers secure the addi-tional assistance. Local lenders also vie for the one-year construction loan on the properties.

Throughout Joliet’s East Side, community responsehas been very positive. Neighbors of new or rehabil-itated Homestead homes often become more inter-ested in fixing up their own properties, creating adomino effect of neighborhood improvement.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Lois E. Goldman, Housing Finance Specialist, City of Joliet

815/724-4100

[email protected]

www.cityofjoliet.info

Alfredo Melesio, City of Joliet

815/724-4100

[email protected]

www.cityofjoliet.info As of July 2007


HOUSING PROGRAM

Housing Preservation andRehabilitation

NapervilleCommunity First

DuPage County

Program Background

In an effort to manage teardowns and preserve localcharacter, the City of Naperville has worked withCommunity First, an organization of Napervillehomeowners, to develop a set of guidelines to man-age redevelopment in the community.

In 1999, sensing the impact of teardowns onNaperville neighborhoods, Mayor A. George Pradelcreated a taskforce to address the trend. While theTeardown Taskforce deliberated options,Community First, an organization that formed inresponse to the city’s teardown phenomenon, askedthe city to consider utilizing neighborhood designguidelines rather than a series of numeric formulas.The city consented, and Community First createdthe influential Workbook for SuccessfulRedevelopment: An Idea and Resource Guide forBuilding in Established Neighborhoods. The organiza-tion met twice a month for nine months to createthe workbook and published the first edition in2002.

The workbook demonstrates how to integrate a newhome into the context of the neighborhood, block,adjacent homes, and particular site. This visualguide provides an implementation plan for home-owners and developers, and contains information onworking within existing municipal codes.Community First uses advisory guidelines to simul-taneously promote creativity and sensibility in homedesign.

The city has worked with Community First to edu-cate residents, builders, and architects about sensi-tive infill design, as well as utilize the group as asounding board when considering the adoption ofsubsequent city regulations. The partnershipbetween Naperville and Community First has result-ed in design-based regulations that effectively pre-serve community character, without hindering newconstruction or rehabilitation. Naperville workswith Community First through a Memorandum ofUnderstanding to encourage the workbook’s use at

the inception of rebuilding, remodeling, or newconstruction projects located in the city.

How It Works

Community First and the City of Napervilleencourage developers to use the workbook beforebeginning any rebuilding, remodeling, or new con-struction projects in the city. Although the guide-lines are not mandatory, evidence suggests thatstrong community involvement and positive rein-forcement are successfully guiding the redevelop-ment of Naperville neighborhoods. The city haspurchased 300 workbooks to be distributed tobuilders, architects and residents during the conceptmeetings held before the city issues a building per-mit. The workbook is a central part of the city’sTool Kit for Successful Redevelopment, created bythe city to clarify the building process, aswell as emphasize the conceptsadvanced by Community First. H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

GoalTo educate and influence members ofthe community, developers, architects,and builders about how to build in estab-lished neighborhoods.

TargetCommunity members, local governmentleaders, builders, developers, architects,and homeowners.

SuccessThe workbook is now being used byNaperville’s planning department toencourage new single-family develop-ment and redevelopment projects inestablished neighborhoods to fit theexisting character of the community.

New

for

2007

Homes built according to workbook guidelinesincorporate unique characteristics of their neighbor-hood and block. Builders more thoughtfully reflectrelationships between new and existing homes. Newhomes are not visually or stylistically out-of-placeand complement the surrounding environment,rather than contrast it.

Financing

Community First was initially funded throughboard members’ personal funds and donations. Agraphic design artist on the Community First boarddonated her talent and time to create the logo anddid all the layout and artwork for the workbook.Subsequently, Naperville assisted the organizationby purchasing 300 workbooks. Minute Man Press, alocal printer, gave Community First a reduced pricefor printing 2,000 workbooks. Today, the organiza-tion relies on the sale of the workbook to coverexpenses. The workbook is sold at Anderson’sBookshop, located in downtown Naperville andDowners Grove, and can be ordered by phone at800-728-0708 or 630-355-2665.

Public Involvement

Community First educates homeowners, developers,and local officials through large presentations to res-idents and the building community, and fostersneighborhood participation through small groupmeetings. Community First has also created“Community Choice Awards,” which are given toexemplary new and remodeled homes that comple-ment their surrounding neighborhood. The awardsprogram raises community awareness and gives resi-dents an opportunity to voice their opinions aboutdevelopment in their neighborhoods.

For Naperville residents, the workbook can beapplied to current and future home-building deci-sions. Community First encourages residents tohold meetings to review the workbook and developa strategy to apply the workbook principles. By tak-ing responsibility for home-building choices, peopleare becoming more involved in the developmentand design process.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Community First Inc.

630/375-7231

[email protected]

www.communityfirstinc.org

Allison Laff, Director of Planning, City of Naperville

630/420-6107

[email protected]

www.naperville.il.us As of July 2007


HOUSING PROGRAM

Building Inspections and Code Enforcement

This unique building inspection program has maximized the use of cityresources, improved compliance with local ordinances, strengthened relationsbetween residents and emergency responders, and improved emergencyresponse times.

Program Background

Country Club Hills firefighters have joined the city’sbuilding inspectors to monitor compliance withlocal building codes. As part of the contract negoti-ated by Mayor Dwight Welch and union representa-tives, firefighters walk the neighborhoods from 8:00a.m. to noon, Monday through Friday, to inspectcommercial and residential property to ensure itcomplies with city codes. This allows firefighters tobecome more familiar with city neighborhoods,which can improve their response to an emergency.In turn, the small city is able to maximize itsresources and the community benefits by having ahigh-quality building stock.

How It Works

Firefighters use an inspection form that lists codeitems and includes a section where the inspectorcan mark: paint, repair, replace, or remove. Theaverage time allowed for compliance with cited vio-lations is 30 to 45 days. Property owners cited forhigh priority violations, such as garbage in the yardor graffiti on structures, have 24 hours to correctthe problem. The City of Country Club Hills hasbeen able to implement this unique programbecause it is a home rule community.

Financing

Firefighters are paid their regular salary for provid-ing this service to the community as part of theircontractual agreement with the city. There is noexplicit cost to the city for the administration offirefighter code enforcement duties.

Country Club Hills Building Inspections ProgramCook County

GoalAchieve compliance with building codesfrom homeowners and landlords;improve response time by emergencypersonnel because of familiarity withneighborhoods.

TargetAll property in Country Club Hills.

FinancingNo direct financing required.

SuccessHas improved compliance with local ordi-nances, strengthened relations betweenresidents and emergency responders,and improved emergency responsetimes.

Lessons LearnedTapping into other city employeesallowed the community to expand itsoversight of property maintenance with-out increasing costs. In addition, the fire-fighters gained a better knowledge of thecity and its neighborhoods and residents.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Henrietta Turner, City Manager, City of Country Club Hills

708/206-2656

[email protected]

www.countryclubhills.org As of October 2006

HOUSING PROGRAM

Building Inspections and Code Enforcement

Mount ProspectInspection ProgramCook County

Systematizing inspections and providing a landlord-tenant ordinance ensuresthat all parties are prepared to participate in the code enforcement process.

Program Background

In the 1990s, to address the rising costs of policeand emergency services, largely due to the high levelof calls from an area of the village with a large con-centration of multi-unit dwellings, Mount Prospectcreated an inspection program for multi-familyproperties.

The village established a Housing Committee todevelop the inspection ordinance. This committeewas active as part of a larger committee, called“Visions,” which was charged with updating theproperty maintenance code with input from resi-dents and property owners, as well as implementingthis inspection program.

The Village Board was initially reluctant to adopt aninspection ordinance because board members wereconcerned that it could diminish the affordablehousing options in the village. The Board was alsoconcerned about community opposition, resultingfrom a lawsuit that was filed against the village overits landlord-tenant ordinance adopted over 20 yearsearlier. To address these concerns, the VisionsCommittee demonstrated that rental housing wasbeing provided at market rates, yet at substandardlevels. The Committee produced a video and photo-graphs of the existing conditions, and took boardmembers on ride-along inspections of the proper-ties to show the disparities in the quality of housingand rents being charged. As a result, the inspectionordinance was developed with input from bothlandlords and the Housing Committee.

Adopting the inspection ordinance led to:• Clearer and more stringent village codes.• Increased penalties for noncompliance.• Increased support from the village attorney’soffice.• Increased access to legal information and rights

education for tenants (Mount Prospect’s Dept. ofHuman Rights and schools distribute educationalmaterials and administer seminars for tenants).• Increased communication within localgovernment departments.

GoalEnsure better property maintenance andthe safety and health of residents ofrental buildings and surrounding neigh-borhoods.

TargetMulti-family housing structures.

FinancingAnnual licensing fees ($31 per unit) total-ing roughly $175,000 per year.

Success• 50% reduction of crime in the worstareas of the community within the firsttwo years of the inspection program. • Upon implementation, village officialsnoted a significant drop-off in the num-ber of code violations.• Racial and ethnic diversity, as well asdiversity within the village’s housing stock,has increased.

Lessons LearnedSystematizing inspections and providing alandlord-tenant ordinance ensures that allparties are prepared to participate in thecode enforcement process. Coupled witha landlord-tenant ordinance, this allowsthe village, property owners and man-agers, and tenants to avoid problems thatcan be expensive to resolve.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Bob Roels, Environmental Health Manager, Village of Mount Prospect

847/870-5668

[email protected]

www.mountprospect.org

How It Works

Twenty percent of Mount Prospect’s housing stockis rental, and the majority of these buildings containsix or fewer apartments. The village employs twofull-time inspectors who perform all inspections.The village created a checklist for property inspec-tions to ensure that inspectors conduct consistentevaluations and allow property owners and man-agers to prepare for the inspections. Inspections ofthe exterior of licensed apartment buildings are per-formed annually. Building interiors are inspected ona five-year rotation cycle, as well as on a complaintbasis to investigate and resolve landlord-tenant con-cerns. Interior inspections are performed while ten-ants are residing in the units, although the landlordsmay contact village staff and notify them of avacancy so the village can dispatch an inspector toexamine the empty unit. Single-family homes areinspected on a complaint basis. The village issues a30-day notification to landlords of planned visits bya building inspector. Landlords are required to pro-vide written notification of interior inspections totheir tenants at least 48 hours in advance of theinspection date.

If a code violation is cited during an inspection, theinspector will indicate the violations, required reme-dies, and a compliance deadline (generally 30 days).An incentive clause within the inspection ordinanceallows property owners to forego or reduce the fre-quency of interior inspections if there is evidenceduring routine inspections that the property is beingwell maintained. This incentive clause allows the vil-lage to stop interior inspections on buildings offewer than 20 homes or inspect only five percent ofthe apartments in buildings with over 20 homes, ifprior inspections have demonstrated a good mainte-nance track record.

Financing

The village collects licensing fees ($31 per unit)totaling roughly $175,000 per year, which was origi-nally used to hire two additional inspectors, a socialworker, and several police officers. Today, due torising costs, the revenue is used solely for theinspection program.

Public Involvement

Preceding the inspection ordinance, the Village ofMount Prospect adopted a landlord-tenant ordi-nance in the 1980s. Modeled after the City ofEvanston’s ordinance, Mount Prospect’s landlord-tenant ordinance articulates the rights of landlordsand tenants and informs both parties of the vil-lage’s regulation authority. The village requires land-lords and property owners to provide a copy ofthese regulations to tenants with their lease. Thisprocess ensures all parties are educated regardingtheir rights and responsibilities.

In the 1990s, the village considered the creation ofa special taxing district to help offset the high-costof emergency services. The property owners withinthe proposed district strongly opposed the propos-al, so village staff began working with them todevelop common solutions and ways to reducecrime in the neighborhood. As staff found thatmany properties were being poorly maintained, theybegan a partnership with property owners thatresulted in the creation of the inspection ordinance.

Mount Prospect’s inspection program is successfullypromoted primarily through word of mouth. Astenants begin to see the improved living standardsof their neighbors, they become aware of the serv-ices that are available to them through the villageand they call to report substandard conditions with-in their buildings.

As of October 2006

HOUSING PROGRAM

Streamlining theDevelopment Process

Elgin Expedited Permitting ProcessKane County

Developed by city officials as an internal standard of performance, thisexpedited permitting policy simplifies the construction process for resi-dents and developers. For larger-scale developments, this can translate intosignificant cost savings, potentially allowing for price reductions on thefinal residential or commercial product.

Program BackgroundFor contractors, the costs associated with gettinglocal planning and zoning approvals can be signifi-cant, mainly due to the time it takes to get them.The City of Elgin has minimized these costsbecause its permitting process takes an average ofjust two weeks from standard review to code admin-istration review. Developed by city officials as aninternal standard of performance, this expeditedpermitting policy makes it easier for residents anddevelopers to schedule contractors and constructionwork. For larger-scale developments, this can trans-late into significant cost savings, potentially allowingfor price reductions on the final residential or com-mercial product.

How It WorksTwo city staff serve at the permit counter to reviewand approve proposals immediately. Examples ofover-the-counter approvals include fence and swim-ming pool construction, driveway resurfacing, andfence erection. The plan approval process is extend-ed past the two-week standard when a certificate ofappropriateness is required and the plan must bereviewed by the city’s Design Review Committee,which meets twice each month. Plans requiringadditional review include those for properties thatare located within one of the city’s two historic dis-tricts, or ones needing rezoning or Planned UnitDevelopment approval. Going before the city’s PlanCommission and City Council takes an average of90 days.

GoalExpedite and simplify the permittingprocess.

TargetProperty owners and contractors.

FinancingNo additional cost associated with thispolicy.

SuccessCity permitting takes an average of onlytwo weeks.

Lessons LearnedStreamlining local permitting can be animportant component of a municipality’saffordable housing agenda and attractive-ness for private development. By provid-ing predictability, the city can leveragecosts savings as a way to negotiate addi-tional affordable homes.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Sarosh Saher, Urban Design & Preservation Specialist, City of Elgin

847/931-5943

[email protected]

www.cityofelgin.org As of October 2006

HOUSING PROGRAM

Streamlining theDevelopment Process

Highland Park Fee WaiverLake County

Program Background

In the city of Highland Park, fee waivers are inte-gral to a comprehensive approach to affordablehousing development. As a component of its inclu-sionary housing policy adopted in 2003, HighlandPark waives fees for developers who are buildinghousing at affordable prices for families earningbetween 50 and 120 percent of Area MedianIncome ($37,700-$90,480 for a family of four in2006). Fee waivers, which mitigate developer costs,can be structured in a number of different ways. InHighland Park, the city forgoes the revenue fromsuch building fees as those for applications, buildingpermits, plan reviews, sewer and water, and thedemolition tax. In addition, the city offers develop-ers a density bonus at a ratio of one additional mar-ket-rate unit for each affordable unit.

As part of the inclusionary housing ordinance,development impact fees are waived on a case-by-case basis. However, as a practical matter, theimpact fees attributable to affordable units are rou-tinely waived by the City Council, and are paid byfunds from the city’s Housing Trust Fund. Thedemolition tax and development-related fees attrib-utable to affordable homes are automaticallywaived. Details regarding impact fees and other feewaivers are included in the development agreementfor each inclusionary development.

How It Works

In order to receive a fee waiver, 20 percent of thetotal number of homes within a development mustbe affordable. This includes:• New residential or mixed-use construction.• Renovation of an existing multi-family building thatincreases the number of homes in that building.• Any construction that will change the use of anexisting non-residential building into a residentialbuilding.

GoalSupport the development of affordablehomes by waiving fees as a financial incen-tive to housing developers.

TargetLow and moderate-income families, by pro-viding cost savings to multifamily housingdevelopers.

FinancingFees are waived to help developers offsetthe cost of providing affordable units.Impact and development fees attributableto affordable units are routinely waived.Fees for market-rate units are waived on acase-by-case basis.

SuccessAs part of an inclusionary housing policy,this process was formalized after input fromdevelopers, ensuring these waivers are inline with the costs of building affordablehomes.

Lessons LearnedEngage developers when crafting a feewaiver policy to ensure the amount makessense financially.

Highland Park forgoes building fee revenues in exchange for affordablehomes.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site


847/926-1852

[email protected]

www.cityhpil.com

• Conversion of apartments into condominiums.

Developers have the choice of either providingaffordable homes within these developments ormaking a payment in-lieu of such provision. Adeveloper who has chosen not to provide afford-able homes within his or her development will notreceive the fee waiver.

Public InvolvementThe fee waiver policy in Highland Park underwentthe same public hearing process as the inclusionaryzoning ordinance, as the two were linked. Thisprocess included:

PHASE IFollowing public hearings and communityforums, the Highland Park Plan Commission rec-ommended the adoption of an inclusionaryhousing policy in the city’s Housing Plan.

PHASE IIA joint subcommittee of the Housing and Plancommissions developed the recommendations.Both commissions considered the recommenda-tions at open meetings and recommendedapproval to the City Council. In addition, citystaff held meetings with other stakeholders, suchas realtors and developers.

PHASE IIIThe City Council considered and approved therecommendations.

Highland Park’s fee waiver policy is relatively new.As of summer 2005, there were no finished devel-opments, although the city had three in the pipeline.For this reason, it is too early to determine the trueimpact waiving fees has had for Highland Park. Thecity does not have a set policy regarding which feeswill be waived in all cases; instead it determines thison a case-by-case basis.

As of October 2006

HOUSING PROGRAM

Property ManagementSchaumburgCrime Free Multi-Housing Program

Program Background

Running a multi-family development is much likerunning a city; conflict resolution, communitybuilding, and crime prevention can be complextasks. However, there are simple ways for communi-ties to become more directly involved in their resi-dential properties. In 1999, the Village ofSchaumburg initiated the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program (CFMHP), adapted from Mesa,Ariz., where the concept was first created. Initiallyestablished as a voluntary educational program forSchaumburg property owners, CFMHP becamemandatory in March 2003, as a component of thevillage’s revised Residential Rental Ordinance.

How It Works

CFMHP requires property owners, managers, leas-ing staff, maintenance personnel, and others in themanagement team to attend an eight-hour trainingprogram. Police officers are encouraged to attendthe training to understand the civil nature of rentalcommunities, and establish a rapport with managersof rental properties. The training is held at theSchaumburg Police Department and taught byattorneys, police, and fire personnel. Guest speakersfrequently attend to address specific topics relatingto rental properties. This police-sponsored programis easy to implement and effective at reducing crimi-nal activity in rental properties.

The Crime Free Multi-Housing Program addressesthese topics:• Understanding Crime Prevention• Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

(C.P.T.E.D.) Concepts• The Application Process• Common Sense Self-Defense• Community Rules/Leases• Apartment Communities/Not Complexes• Active Property Management• Combating Crime Problems• Police: To Serve and Protect• Partnership with Fire Department• Dealing with Non-Compliance

Typically, the program is taught during a single day,but there are also opportunities for Saturday orevening sessions. From March 2003 until May2007, the Schaumburg Police Department provided80 CFMHP seminars which were attended by over1,100 property owners or managers. In the first fiveyears of CFMHP in Schaumburg, there has been a12 percent overall reduction of police calls to rentalproperties. In one apartment community, two yearsafter implementing the ordinance, there was a 52percent reduction in police calls and the propertymanager maintained a 94 percent occu-pancy rate. The costs of CFMHP,employment of a full-time policeofficer to run the program and$5,000 additional dollars per yearfor all other expenses, are factored

GoalImprove safety in rental properties,improve communication and trust betweenlandlords and tenants, enhance the qualityof life in the community, empower com-munity leaders/managers, enhance man-agement skills, and provide avenues ofsupport for property managers.

TargetProperty Managers and Owners.

FinancingPart of the Schaumburg Police DepartmentAnnual Budget.• Employs a full-time police officer to run

the Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program.• $5,000 per year for all other costs associ-

ated with the program.

SuccessThe first five years of the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program have seen a 12 percentreduction of police calls in rental units.

Lessons LearnedSharing of knowledge and establishing trustbetween law enforcement and propertymanagers contributed to the program’ssuccess.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Cook County

New

for

2007

Officer Karen McCartney, Schaumburg Police Department

847/348-7320

[email protected]

www.ci.schaumburg.il.us

into the Police Department’s annu-al budget.

CFMHP was the brainchild ofSchaumburg police officer JohnNebl, who felt the police depart-ment should be a liaison betweenproperty owners and their resi-dents. Police often responded todisputes between landlords andtenants that were beyond thepurview of police intervention;training has reduced these calls.Instead of returning repeatedly tothe same few properties, the policedepartment has been able to trainproperty owners with no prior expe-rience in conflict-management howto reduce or keep crime out of theirproperties.

CFMHP has also led to several otherinitiatives. To improve communica-tion between property owners andlaw enforcement, police officers com-plete Rental Incident Cards whenresponding to a call or concern at arental property. The CFMHP officerforwards the card, which contains asummary report, to the propertyowners to alert them of nuisance sit-uations and police visits to theirproperty. It also provides the neces-sary records to help justify a lease ter-mination for individuals associatedwith recurring incidents, minimizingfuture conflicts.

In 2003, Schaumburg required that aCrime-Free/Drug-Free Addendum beused with leases; the lease addendumis a civil agreement between theproperty management and resident,and must be signed by the tenant

before a lease is provided. Thisaddendum states that if renters,their family, friends, or guestsengage in criminal or illegal drugactivity, the landlord has the rightto negate or revoke the lease.

In order to hold landlords account-able for their properties, the villageestablished a definition of“Nuisance Property” within itsRental Housing Ordinance, whichgives the Village Manager leewayto suspend or revoke a propertyowner’s rights to lease or rent prop-erties if they do not maintain ade-quate property or safety condi-tions. The village can fine land-lords daily for failure to make nec-essary repairs.

One continuing challenge regard-ing this program is that there is nota standardized lease inSchaumburg, so every propertymanager’s lease is unique. Similarly,the Crime-Free/Drug-FreeAddendum does not have standardlanguage. Property owners caneither use HUD samples from theseminar or draft their own adden-dum with similar language.

Public Involvement

Some landlords were initially resist-ant to the idea of required semi-nars, feeling that it was an unfairrequirement. However, many prop-erty owners were happy they hadattended once it was over. They feltit gave them new information andhelped them know how to dealwith difficult or problematic tenants.

As of July 2007

Several citiesthroughout Illinoishave implementedCFMHP. These other Illinoiscommunities are:• Aurora• Rolling Meadows• Palatine• Wheeling• Elgin• Rockford• Normal• Round Lake Park• Hainesville• Round Lake Beach• Mt. Prospect• Rosemont• Northlake• Naperville• Carpentersville• Oak Forest

Non-home rule communi-ties wishing to implement asimilar initiative should consult with their attorney toensure that their specificprogram is allowed.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site


GoalTo provide long-term aff ordability protection for af-fordable units created through city programs.

TargetLow-to-moderate income families. Each city housing program has diff erent income requirements, but most serve families that earn 100% area median income (AMI) or less (about $75,900 for a family of four in 2009).

SuccessAs of October 2009, CCLT had 45 deed restricted units, 5 contracts pending and has educated 506 pro-spective buyers about the program.

Lessons LearnedDue to Chicago’s large size and high number of condo units, the CCLT’s quasi-government structure and Deed Covenant mechanism work best to preserve aff ordability. Other cities with CLT programs have set up separate nonprofi ts, use diff erent contractual mod-els to take land ownership, or support local nonprofi ts to run the program, and these might work best for smaller-sized cities.

FINANCING

Chicago Community Land Trust (CCLT)



Policy BackgroundDue to its strong housing market and desirable location, in 2006, the City of Chicago established the Chicago Community Land Trust (CCLT) as a tool to preserve the long-term aff ordability of homes created through city programs. Chicago is the largest city in the U.S. to establish a municipal, citywide community land trust, but more and more municipalities are implementing this model to use housing resources more effi ciently, includ-ing Washington, D.C.; Irvine, Calif.; Flagstaff , Ariz.; and Highland Park, Ill.. CCLT is a nonprofi t corporation, and is staff ed by the city’s Department of Community Devel-opment (formerly Dept. of Housing). It has a board of directors, and its members are appointed by the mayor and approved by the City Council.

In 2004, with a technical assistance grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Development (HUD), the city’s Department of Housing (DOH) began exploring the creation of a community land trust for Chicago. DOH worked with consultants from Burlington Associ-ates, as well as a larger advisory council, to determine the best way to create one. DOH also reached out to stakeholders across the city, and invited nonprofi t de-velopers, housing counseling agencies, lenders, foun-dations, planners, attorneys, and government offi cials to participate in the advisory council. Aft er weighing several options, they decided to establish a citywide land trust, and utilize the deed covenant as their main tool to preserve long-term aff ordability.

In exchange for up-front subsidies that make these homes aff ordable, homeowners must agree to resell their CCLT properties only to other low or moderate-income families at an aff ordable rate. Th is initiative not only pro-vides a permanent pool of aff ordable homes, but helps to sustain mixed-income communities and protects residents from foreclosure.

How It WorksTh rough various city programs, individuals and fami-lies can buy homes at aff ordable rates. Th ese programs include requiring inclusionary zoning measures (Aff ord-able Requirements Ordinance), selling vacant properties

to developers to build aff ordable housing (New Homes for Chicago and City Lots for City Living), and providing fee waivers to reduce purchase prices to aff ordable levels (Chicago Partnerships for Aff ordable Neighborhoods), and other programs. If a unit is built under a city home-ownership program, it will be considered for inclusion in the CCLT. In general, units are placed in the CCLT if the aff ordable price is at least $25,000 below market value. Th e initial homebuyer signs a deed covenant with the CCLT when purchasing the home. It is a 99-year agree-ment that mandates if the home is sold, it must be resold to another income-qualifi ed buyer at an aff ordable rate. CCLT homeowners receive pre-purchase homeowner-

Chicago Community Land Trust (CCLT) provides long-term aff ordability protection for aff ordable units created through city programs.

New

fo

r 2010

FINANCING


Chicago Community Land Trust


ship counseling, CCLT training, and post-purchase support. Th ey pay a $25 monthly administrative fee, and must maintain the home as their primary residence. To protect the viability of both the homeowner and the home, the CCLT must approve any refi nancing or construction on the home that requires a permit. Due to the long-term aff ordability requirement, property taxes are assessed based on the aff ordable resale price rather than market value. Th is creates greater stability for low and moderate-income homeowners, and is one of the program’s major benefi ts.

If the homeowner wishes to sell the property, he or she must inform CCLT, which has the fi rst option to purchase the home and fi nd another income-qualifi ed buyer. Th e seller will receive the maximum resale price, as calculated in the deed covenant, which equals the ini-tial investment (fi rst mortgage and down payment) and a share of the market appreciation. Th e original subsidies and remaining market equity stay with the home to keep it aff ordable for the next buyer. If CCLT does not pur-chase the home, the homeowner must sell it to another income-qualifi ed buyer at or below the maximum resale price.

Contact Teresa Lambarry, Outreach Director, Chicago Dept. of Community DevelopmentPhone 312.744.5086 Email [email protected] As of February 2010

New

fo

r 2010


In 2009, CCLT closed on three affordable in this building located at 4150 N. Kenmore.

FINANCING

Community Land TrustHighland Park Community Land TrustLake County

Background

The Highland Park Community Land Trust (HPI-CLT) is a private nonprofit organization that wascreated by, but is now independent of, the City ofHighland Park. As a key recommendation in thecity’s Affordable Housing Plan, the land trust wasestablished to own land and maintain long-termaffordability on that land. After the AffordableHousing Plan was adopted in January 2001, theHousing Commission prepared a strategy for creat-ing a land trust. The Highland Park City Counciladopted a resolution approving this strategy andappointing a Community Land Trust Task Force,consisting of members of the public, to developmore detailed recommendations. The Council estab-lished the land trust through a resolution adoptingthe Task Force recommendation in March 2001. TheHPICLT was fully operational by March 2003.

Initially, a pilot land trust program acquired andsold three housing units (two single-family and onecondominium). Since its formal establishment in2003, the land trust has built a successful, well-designed six-unit townhome development for fami-lies in late 2004, and has been acquiring single-fami-ly properties to redevelop and sell at below-marketrates to income-qualified buyers. The land trust hascompleted a total of nine homes (six townhomes,two single-family, and one condominium), and iscurrently acquiring three scattered-site units.

How It Works

Properties are acquired through market purchaseand land donations. The land trust retains the titleto the land while selling homes on it at below-mar-ket value. The land is leased at a nominal cost toincome-qualified buyers, who must earn at or below115 percent of area median income (AMI) (approx-imately $86,710 in 2006), although priority is givento those earning at or below 80 percent AMI

(approximately $59,600 in 2006 for a family offour). Future affordability is maintainedthrough a ground lease, which requireshomes on the land to be either soldback to the land trust or to anotherincome-qualified buyer. The resale

GoalBuild and preserve housing that is and willcontinue to be affordable to low and mod-erate-income families.

TargetHouseholds earning at or below 115% AMI($86,710 for a family of four in 2006), withpriority given to those at or below 80% AMI($59,600 for a family of four in 2006).

FinancingAnnual amount depends on current privatedevelopment activity. Development fundingis provided on an annual basis. Sources typ-ically include: • Lake County• Federal Home Loan Bank• Illinois Housing Development AuthorityOperations funding sources typically include:• Highland Park Affordable Housing Trust Fund

• Donations and grants

Success3 units completed through pilot program(precursor to the land trust); 9 units completed since 2003.

Lessons LearnedBeing able to control the land and futuresales of affordable units allows Highland Parkto ensure that homes created by the landtrust remain affordable for the long term.

The Highland Park Illinois Community Land Trust retains the land whileselling homes at below-market value. The land is leased at a nominal cost toincome-qualified buyers.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Mary Ellen Tamasy, Executive Director, Highland Park Illinois Community Land Trust

847/681-8746

[email protected]

www.hpiclt.org

amount is determined by a formula (right) that pro-vides a fair return on investment to the seller, butalso ensures the property remains affordable tofuture purchasers.

Highland Park seniors who are looking to sell theirproperty within the city are encouraged to sell to theland trust. The trust will purchase the property at anegotiated price, up to five percent over theappraised value. This five percent figure is not a guar-antee, but rather an internal control for the acquisi-tion of the property. As an additional incentive forsenior citizens to sell to the land trust, they willreceive preference on the waiting lists for propertiescreated through the work of the land trust at theHighland Park Housing Commission.

To maintain a strong working relationship with thecity, three of the nine land trust board members areappointed by the Highland Park mayor, at least oneis a member of the Housing Commission, andanother is a member of the City Council.

Financing

Start-up costs for the land trust were funded withresources from the Highland Park AffordableHousing Trust Fund. The trust fund and land trustwere created together to provide financial supportfor affordable housing activities that address theneeds of low and moderate-income individuals andfamilies. As a private organization, the land trust

now raises its own funds, as well as receives fundingfrom the trust fund by application. For develop-ment purposes, the land trust receives money fromtraditional sources such as Lake County, the FederalHome Loan Bank, and Illinois HousingDevelopment Authority. Operating costs are cov-ered with resources from the trust fund, privatedonations, individuals, banks, and foundations.

The land trust layers financing for development.Given its small staff size, the annual operating budg-et of the land trust has been roughly $150,000. Thedevelopment budget is contingent upon the types ofdevelopments with which the land trust is involved.The total estimated cost for the three-unit scatteredsite acquisition and rehabilitation project it is cur-rently working on is $1,053,000, including acquisi-tion, rehabilitation, and soft costs such as insurance,utilities, and legal fees.

Highland Park’s Community Land Trust received$70,000 from the City of Highland Park in the firstyear and $100,000 in its second year for operationexpenses. For development expenses, the land trustreceived a grant for $335,000 from the city for itssix-unit town home development, and $270,100 forits three-unit scattered site acquisition.

Resale FormulaCurrent Appraised Value $510,000

- Initial Appraised Value $300,000

= Market Value Appreciation $210,000

x by Home Owner’s Investment Ratio 60%

= Equals $126,000

x by shared appreciation factor 15%

= Home Buyer Share of Market Value Appreciation $18,900

Home Owner’s Purchase Price $180,000+ Home Buyer Share of Market Value Appreciation $18,900+ Structural and Mechanical Improvements Credit $4,800

= Formula Resale Price $203,700

Note: The Purchase Option Price is the lesser of the Formula Price andthe Current Appraised Value.

As of October 2006

FINANCING

Demolition TaxEvanston Affordable Housing Demolition TaxCook County

Background

Since 2000, Evanston has experienced a loss ofaffordability with a significant increase in homespriced at or above $1 million. In October 2002,Evanston’s Housing Commission created anInclusionary Zoning Task Force to study the gapbetween the supply of and demand for affordablehousing in the city, as well as ways to address thegap. Participants included members of the Housing,Planning, and Human Relations commissions, twoaldermen, private and nonprofit developers, andaffordable housing advocates.

Based on the efforts of the Task Force, theHousing Commission made three recommenda-tions:

• Through an inclusionary zoning ordinance,encourage private sector investment and develop-ment activity that will support affordable housing.

• Apply the inclusionary zoning ordinance tocondo conversions.

• Implement a demolition tax to create a dedicat-ed source of revenue to fund affordable housinginitiatives within the city.

An ordinance creating an Affordable HousingDemolition Tax was presented to the Planning andDevelopment Committee as a first step in imple-menting the Housing Commission’s recommenda-tions. Data on residential demolitions and replace-ment housing indicated that low or moderatelypriced homes were being demolished and replacedwith higher priced housing well beyond the reach oflow and moderate-income buyers. While Evanstonhas not yet adopted an inclusionary zoning policy,in April 2006 the Evanston City Council adoptedthe demolition tax.

GoalTo preserve and expand affordablehousing for low and moderate-incomeworkers while maintaining and preserv-ing the city’s cultural and economicdiversity.

TargetResidential demolitions.

Financing$10,000 fee on demolition of single-family structures and the greater of$3,000 per unit or $10,000 total formulti-family properties.

SuccessAn average of six permits issued eachyear since 1998. Tax generates an estimated $60,000 annually.

Lessons LearnedTechnical assistance from a regionalnonprofit organization was a key to thesuccessful passage of the ordinance. BPIprovided continuous aid to city staff. Itsinvolvement included drafting policy,making recommendations to addresspublic concerns, and participating inpublic meetings to help the city communicate the goals of the ordinance.

Revenue raised from this tax will be distributed evenly between the afford-able housing demolition tax fund and inclusionary housing trust fund for thecreation, preservation, maintenance, and improvement of affordable housingwithin the city.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Donna Spicuzza, Housing Planner, City of Evanston

847/866-2928

[email protected]

www.cityofevanston.org

How It Works

The demolition tax assesses a residential structuredemolition fee of $10,000 per building or $3,000per unit, whichever is greater. Revenue raised fromthis tax will be distributed evenly between theaffordable housing demolition tax fund and inclu-sionary housing trust fund for the creation, preser-vation, maintenance, and improvement of afford-able housing within the city. At least 50 percent ofthe revenue will be used exclusively to assist house-holds whose incomes are at or below 80 percent ofarea median income ($59,600 annually for a familyof four in 2006). The following are exempt fromthe tax:• If applicants enter into an agreement with the cityto provide affordable housing.• If the Evanston Community DevelopmentDirector determines the replacement structure willbe affordable.• If the demolition is ordered by the city.

Owner-occupants who demolish their homes inorder to construct replacement houses for theirown use have two options regarding payment ofthe tax. An owner may apply to defer the tax ifhe/she has been the occupant for three consecutiveyears. In this case, a lien for the tax amount will berecorded against the property. If the owner sells thereplacement house prior to the expiration of threeyears from issuance of the certificate of occupancy,the deferred tax, plus interest, is due. If the personremains an occupant of the replacement house forthree years, the lien is released and no tax is due.Alternatively, an owner may pay the tax at the timethe demolition permit is issued and later apply for amonetary stability incentive equal to the amount ofthe tax if the person remained the owner and occu-pant of the replacement house for three consecu-tive years after issuance of the certificate of occu-pancy.

Public Involvement

The Affordable Housing Demolition Tax ordinancereceived some public opposition and generateddebate among council members because it initiallyrequired owner-occupants who might continue tooccupy the property to pay the tax up front. Peoplewere also concerned about equal protection ifowner-occupants were allowed to defer paymentbut sold the replacement housing without meetingthe three-year requirement.

Business and Professional People for the PublicInterest (BPI) provided pro bono assistance to helpresolve this and other issues. BPI drafted an initialsample ordinance, participated in public meetings tocommunicate the intent of the ordinance to thepublic, gave continuous feedback to city staff onrevisions, and offered alternatives for the collectionof this fee. Ultimately, the City of Evanston adopt-ed a BPI recommendation, which is known as the“stability incentive.” This gives homeowners eligiblefor reimbursement of the tax the option of payingthe tax up front or taking a lien on the property.

As of October 2006

FINANCING

Demolition TaxHighland Park Demolition TaxLake County

Background

The goal of Highland Park’s “teardown” tax is tomitigate the loss of affordable homes from demoli-tion by taxing this activity and allocating the rev-enue to the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund,which is used to help finance various workforcehousing initiatives in the city.

In 2001, when the Affordable Housing Trust Fundwas proposed, the City of Highland Park FinanceCommittee worked with the city’s HousingCommission to develop a way to financially supportthe fund. Several options were considered, includingexisting revenue sources. However, utilizing thesefunds would have required siphoning money fromother programs or increasing existing taxes. As theHousing Trust Fund was a new entity, the financecommittee felt it would be best to create a newsource of revenue in the form of a demolition tax.The city was sensitive to keeping the tax highenough to be a sufficient revenue generator, but lowenough that it would not deter private development.The tax concept was presented to the City Councilduring an annual budget forum in February 2002.The demolition tax was formally adopted in May2002 by the same ordinance that created theHighland Park Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

How It Works

The demolition tax applies to all residential demoli-tions administered by the city’s Building Division.Demolition, defined as the removal or destruction of50 percent or more of the structure, is measured bya removal of any combination of interior and/orexterior elements. The tax is $10,000 for a single-family home and $3,000 per unit or $10,000,whichever is more, for multi-unit buildings. The taxis paid by the owner before the city issues a demoli-tion permit.

The demolition tax can be waived under some cir-cumstances:• When the permit applicant has entered into anagreement with the Housing Commission to pro-vide affordable housing in the new structure;• When the applicant has owned the property for atleast five years prior to the demolition andcovenants to own the property for the next fiveyears;• When the demolition is necessary due to a naturaldisaster; or• If the property owner is low or moderate-incomeand qualifies for a medical exception.

GoalTo help fund the city’s AffordableHousing Trust Fund.


Financing$10,000 per single-family home and$3,000 per unit or $10,000, whicheveris greater, for multifamily properties.

SuccessRaised a total of $2,640,000 for theHousing Trust Fund since May 2002.

Lessons LearnedIn a strong market, demolition fees donot hinder development.

The goal of Highland Park’s “teardown” tax is to mitigate the loss of afford-able homes from demolition. To date, the city had raised $2.6 million for theHousing Trust Fund.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site


847/926-1852

[email protected]

www.cityhpil.com

DEMOLITION TAX REVENUETo date the city has raised $2,640,000 for theHousing Trust Fund through the demolition tax.Based on the continued increase in residentialdemolitions in Highland Park, the tax does notappear to be a significant deterrent to develop-ment. While this tax has created an ongoingsource of revenue, there will come a time whenit will no longer be sufficient as the sole contrib-utor to the Housing Trust Fund, and the city willneed to find supplemental sources.

Number of Teardowns2002 58 (May-Dec. 2002) = $580,000 in revenue

2003 61 = $610,000 in revenue

2004 71 = $710,000 in revenue

2005 At least 74 = approximately $740,000 in revenue

As of October 2006

FINANCING

Demolition Tax

Background

In the city of Lake Forest, many demolished resi-dential properties were being replaced by larger,more expensive homes, increasing housing costs andchanging the character of the city. As a result, inFebruary 2006, Lake Forest enacted a demolitiontax, as recommended in the city’s comprehensiveaffordable housing plan, to offset costs the cityincurs from the demolition of residential property— including the loss of affordable housing in thecommunity, interruptions of traffic flows in residen-tial areas, increased debris, impacts on the characterof the community, and unanticipated stress on pub-lic infrastructure. This tax applies only to residentialdemolitions and is defined as the removal of 50 per-cent or more of the structure.

How It Works

The tax is $10,000 per single-family and two-unitbuilding and $5,000 per unit, but not less than$10,000, in all other demolished buildings. The tax ispaid before the city issues the demolition permit.The City of Lake Forest issues roughly 20 to 25demolition permits annually. Half of the revenuefrom the tax will be distributed to the city’s generalfund and half will be allocated to an AffordableHousing Trust Fund to finance affordable housinginitiatives.

Full or partial waiver of the fee is considered when:• The applicant and city enter into an agreementrelating to the creation of additional affordablehomes through the demolition and rebuildingprocess.• The applicant is the record title-holder on theproperty for at least three years prior to and follow-ing the demolition. In this instance, the applicantmust pay the tax and notify the city of his/her

GoalTo offset costs incurred by the city,including the loss of entry-level housing.


Financing$10,000 per single-family home and$5,000 per unit for multi-family proper-ties, or no less than $10,000.

SuccessPassed in February 2006. Has thepotential of raising as much as$250,000 per year for the city.

Lake Forest enacted a demolition tax to offset costs the city incurs from thedemolition of residential property, including the loss of affordable housingin the community.

Lake Forest Demolition TaxLake County

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

intent to seek a rebate. After the three-year post-permit period, the applicant may apply for therebate.• Demolition becomes necessary due to factorsbeyond the owner’s control and reasonable ability toremedy provided the damage is not caused by theowner, any employee of the owner, or a third partyin privity with the owner.

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site


847/615-4292

[email protected]

www.cityoflakeforest.com As of October 2006

FINANCING

Housing Trust FundChicago Low-Income Housing Trust FundCook County

Background

The Chicago Low-Income Housing Trust Fund is anonprofit organization incorporated in 1990 to man-age rental assistance programs to meet the perma-nent housing needs of Chicago’s poorest residents.Managed by a mayoral-appointed board of directorscomprised of individuals representing city govern-ment, nonprofit organizations, and private corpora-tions, the trust fund provides grants to buildingowners and developers who agree to reduce rents toaccommodate very low-income households.

The trust fund is known for its simple design andefficient operation. In 2005, two full-time City ofChicago Department of Housing employees man-aged contracts totaling $7.5 million and providinghousing assistance to more than 2,000 households.The program was the model for the state RentalHousing Support Program, created by legislation in2005, which is expected to generate as much as $34million annually to provide affordable rental housingfor more than 5,500 families statewide.

How It Works

The Chicago Low-Income Housing Trust Fundoperates three different programs. It is best knownfor the Rental Subsidy Program, which receives amajority of the Trust Fund’s resources and coversthe difference between the rent that low-income ten-ants can afford to pay and reasonable, market-basedrent. Rents are reduced for a specified number ofunits in a building so they may be affordable to ten-ants with annual household incomes not exceeding30 percent of the area median income ($22,600 for afamily of four in 2006). Half of the assisted units are

GoalTo provide affordable rental housing tolow-income residents.

TargetHouseholds below 30 percent of AMI($22,600 in 2006), including specialpopulations such as homeless familiesand individuals and seniors.

FinancingCity provides $7.5 million in corporatefunds annually for this program. Statefunds will add another $11 million tothis program.

SuccessFund provides 2,000 families withaffordable housing. Praised for its effi-ciency; only two staff members areneeded to run the program.

Lessons LearnedFund requires landlords to sign annualcontracts. In turn, the program distrib-utes funds to landlords in advance on aquarterly basis. This assures residentsthat reductions in their rental costs willremain stable.

Managed by a mayoral-appointed board of directors comprised of individ-uals representing city government, nonprofit organizations, and privatecorporations, the trust fund provides grants to building owners and devel-opers who agree to reduce rents to accommodate very low-income house-holds.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

Web site

Ellen Sahli, Mayor's Liaison on Homelessness and Supportive Housing,

City of Chicago Department of Housing

312/742-0594

www.cityofchicago.org/Housing

targeted to households earning no more than 15percent of the area median income ($11,310 for afamily of four in 2006). The Supportive Housingand Affordable Rents for Chicago programs alsoprovide rental assistance, and in some cases, sup-portive services, to a similar low-income population.

As of October 2006

FINANCING

Housing Trust FundHighland Park Affordable Housing Trust FundLake County

Background

The Highland Park Affordable Housing Trust Fundwas created in May 2002 to provide financial sup-port for affordable housing activities that addressthe needs of low and moderate-income individualsand families. The Housing Trust Fund was one ofthe recommendations in Highland Park’s affordablehousing plan passed in January 2001. The fund wasestablished to address a growing concern that hous-ing market trends, including rising land and housingcosts and the loss of affordable units, were threat-ening Highland Park’s diversity, changing the community’s character, and severely limiting hous-ing options for those living and working in thecommunity.

How It Works

For a residential development to qualify for fundingfrom the Housing Trust Fund, at least 20 percent ofthe units must be affordable to households whoseincomes do not exceed 100 percent of the areamedian income (AMI). Of this 20 percent, furtheraffordability requirements include:

RENTAL: Of the affordable apartments, 80 percent ofthem must be affordable to those with incomesunder 80 percent of AMI ($59,600 for a familyof four in 2006), and 20 percent of them mustbe priced for families with incomes below 50percent of AMI ($37,700 for a family of four in2006). These homes must remain affordable for25 years.

GoalSupport affordable housing activities anddevelopment.

TargetDevelopers, owners or operators ofhousing developments, and units of gov-ernment.

FinancingInitial grant of $1 million. Currently fund-ed by demolition tax, fee-in-lieu rev-enues, and donations from privatesources.

SuccessTo date, funds have been used for a six-unit townhome development and athree-unit scattered-site acquisition pro-gram. Funds have also been used formany other city housing initiatives,including the Highland Park IllinoisCommunity Land Trust.

Lessons LearnedTrust fund has had a significant impacton the ability to leverage other publicand private funding for city's affordablehousing initiatives.

The fund was established to address a growing concern that housing markettrends, including rising land and housing costs and the loss of affordableunits, were threatening Highland Park’s diversity, changing the community’scharacter, and severely limiting housing options for those living and workingin the community.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site


847/926-1852

[email protected]

www.cityhpil.com

FOR-SALE: Of the affordable homes, at least 75 percent ofthem must be affordable to those with incomesbelow 80 percent of AMI. These units mustremain permanently affordable through anappropriate legal mechanism such as a deedrestriction or ground lease for as long as “legallypermissible.” There is no set number of years.

Money from the Housing Trust Fund is madeavailable to developers, owners or operators ofhousing developments, as well as units of gov-ernment for development activities.

Developments that provide affordable homes pur-suant to the city’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinanceare not eligible for funding from the Housing TrustFund except to the extent that the affordable hous-ing component of such development exceeds theminimum requirements of the ordinance. Forexample, developers may qualify for assistance ifthey provide 30 percent of the apartments for fami-lies at or below 50 percent AMI instead of therequired 20 percent in a rental development.

Activities eligible for grants from the fund include:housing production, rental assistance, weatheriza-tion, emergency repairs, homeownership assistance,

preservation of existing housing, housing-relatedsupport services such as ownership and financialcounseling, capacity grants for nonprofits workingto advance affordable housing initiatives, and anyother activity the Housing Commission determinesto address the city’s affordable housing needs. Thecurrent emphasis is on using trust fund monies toincrease the supply of affordable housing.

The Housing Trust Fund has helped financeTemple Avenue Town Homes and the HighlandPark Illinois Community Land Trust scattered-siteacquisition program. Funds have also been used fora moderate-income rehabilitation program.

Financing

Initially, the Trust Fund was granted $1 million inseed money from the Highland Park HousingCommission. These funds were obtained throughthe refinancing of a Section 8 development ownedby the city. The major source of ongoing revenuefor this program is the city’s demolition fee($10,000 per single-family demolition constituting atleast 50% of structural demolition or $3,000 perunit, whichever is more).

Dedicated sources of public revenue for theHousing Trust Fund:• Demolition fee revenue: ($10,000 per structure or$3,000 per unit, whichever is more).

• Number of teardowns:2002: 58 (May-Dec. 2002)= $580,000 in

revenue)2003: 61=$610,000 in revenue2004: 71=$710,000 in revenue2005: at least 74=approximately $740,000

in revenue.• In-lieu fees: Any payments made in-lieu of thebuilding of affordable homes as required by thecity’s inclusionary zoning ordinance.

As of October 2006

FINANCING

Rehabilitation FinanceElgin Home Rehabilitation GrantsKane County

Background

Many municipalities looking to create or preserve adiverse range of housing opportunities have discov-ered it is much harder to build new housing than itis to preserve what they already have. Understandingthis, the City of Elgin has developed two homerehabilitation grant programs, “50/50” and“75/25,” to assist current residents, both ownersand renters, to rehabilitate their properties in thecity’s historic districts. Elgin’s 75/25 programspecifically targets low and moderate-income house-holds. These grants are intended to encourage resi-dents to restore and maintain the original featuresof their homes, ultimately preserving the characterof these historic neighborhoods, while assistingfamilies who otherwise could not afford theseimprovements.

How It Works

The City of Elgin finances the 50/50 and 75/25grants with revenues from the riverboat casino. Itallocates $100,000 annually for both programs,awarding up to $10,000 per property. The grant pro-grams are available for properties in Elgin’s threehistoric districts. There is no ownership requirementto be eligible for the 50/50 grant; both homeownersand renters may apply for these funds. The 75/25grant, by contrast, is available to low and moderate-income homeowners, and applicants must occupytheir dwellings to be eligible.

Applicants are awarded points based on the numberof criteria the project meets. Elgin awards morepoints if more than one property on the same blockapplies for a grant. The Elgin HeritageCommission, a group of citizens appointed by theCity Council, reviews each proposal. The 50/50grant is primarily used for “visual benefit” projects.

Ideal proposals include plans to remove aluminumsiding, restore historic features, and build newporches in keeping with the original design of thestructure. Proposals for the 75/25 grant focus onmaintenance-based work. Generally, residents whoapply for funds under the 75/25 grant programlearn of the program while dealing with city codeviolation maintenance issues. Proposals from low-income families receive more weight in theevaluation process than do proposalsfrom moderate-income families.Proposals for both types of grants areaccepted each year beginning January 1.

GoalPreserve and rehabilitate properties inElgin’s Historic District.

TargetThe 50/50 program targets all residentsof the three historic districts. The 75/25program targets low to moderate-income households.

Financing$100,000 per year from riverboat casinorevenues.

Success237 grants since inception of these pro-grams at a total cost of $4.25 million.

Lessons LearnedWork with an experienced nonprofit part-ner to leverage additional financialresources for qualified participants.

These grants are intended to encourage residents to restore and maintain theoriginal features of their homes, ultimately preserving the character of thesehistoric neighborhoods, while assisting families who otherwise could notafford these improvements.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Sarosh Saher, Urban Design & Preservation Specialist, City of Elgin

847/931-5943

[email protected]

www.cityofelgin.org

Applicants for both grant typesmust provide a minimum of twocontractor estimates for thework. Applicants can apply forup to two grants in any five-yearperiod. The exterior of the homeis inspected before grantapprovals, and any exterior codeviolations noted at that timemust be corrected within thescope of the proposed project.A final inspection is performed on the buildingexterior at the time of completion, before the finaldisbursement of funds. These inspections areintended to document all exterior code violationsprior to the rehabilitation project and ensure all vio-lations are corrected during the rehabilitationprocess. Should the inspectors find any outstandingviolations, the homeowner receives up to 75 percentof the total grant money until all violations havebeen corrected.

Elgin commits to a two-week approval process forall grant proposals. The applicant has 18 months tocomplete the work that has been approved,although extensions are available by application.Grants are supplied only after the work is completed.

The City of Elgin works with NeighborhoodHousing Services (NHS), a nonprofit organizationwith local operations, to administer the grants. NHSprovides bridge loans to property owners to helpcover their portion of the grant. NHS distributesthe bridge loan to the property owner. Once theproject is complete, the contractor receives full pay-ment from NHS. The City of Elgin then reimburs-es NHS for the amount of the grant.

The grant programs have been very successful. The50/50 grant was implemented in 1995 as part ofthe Elgin’s five-year plan and was renewed in 2000.The 75/25 grant was implemented as part of thecity’s 1998 five-year plan, and is revised and

renewed in a similar fashion as the50/50 grant – annual review withpossible renewal every sixth year.The 75/25 program was renewedin 2003. Since the inception of thegrant programs, the city has distrib-uted a total of 237 grants at a totalcost of $4.25 million.

Much of Elgin’s historic districtrevitalization can be attributed to

these grants, restoring homes one at a time. Studiesconducted within the city comparing the propertyvalues of homes located within the historic districtsto those located just outside those districts indicatethe property values of restored homes within thehistoric districts have increased at a higher rate thanfor homes outside the district. Prior to the pro-gram’s implementation, homes in the historic dis-trict were distressed and devalued. While values ofparticipating restored homes have increased by asmuch as 100 percent in some instances, they stillremain attainable to many working families.

As of October 2006

FINANCING

Rehabilitation FinanceEvanston Multifamily Rehabilitation Loan ProgramCook County

Background

The goal of Evanston’s multifamily rehab loan pro-gram is to encourage the revitalization, preservationand stabilization of Evanston neighborhoods, andconserve and rehabilitate housing for low-incomehouseholds. The loans address the need for low-cost financing for the upkeep and maintenance ofmultifamily rental property so that apartments canremain safe and affordable.

The program was developed in 1974, when the fed-eral Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) program was created. The city held aseries of public hearings to address how to allocateCDBG money, resulting in the creation of this loan.

How It Works

Landlords with two or more apartments and 51 per-cent of tenants earning at or below 80 percent ofarea median income (AMI) ($59,600 for a family offour in 2006) are eligible to apply for multifamilyrehabilitation loans. The interest rate on these loansis one-half of the 30-year Treasury Bond, adjustedmonthly, and amortized over 20 years. The loan distribution is capped at $20,000 per rehabbedapartment.

A city rehabilitation specialist works closely witheach property owner from the beginning of theproject through its completion, including assessingwhat work needs to be performed and helping getbids to do the work. Before the city makes any pay-ments to the contractor, the rehabilitation specialistinspects the work to ensure it was done properly.Projects that qualify for loans include rectifyingcode and health-related violations, and structuraland energy conservation improvements. Luxuryitems such as the installation of air conditioningand room additions do not qualify.

GoalPreserve Evanston’s affordable multifam-ily rental housing stock.

TargetMultifamily rental properties with morethan half of the tenants earning below80 percent AMI ($59,600).

FinancingIn 2005, the city allocated $100,000from federal CDBG dollars. The programcap is $20,000 per development.

SuccessRehabilitates approximately12 homesper year.

Lessons LearnedProvides an affordable means of financ-ing improvements to the city’s housingstock and enhances the quality of life forarea residents.

These rehabilitation loans address the need for low-cost financing for theupkeep and maintenance of multifamily rental property so that apartmentscan remain safe and affordable.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Stan Janusz, Assistant Director of Housing Rehabilitation

and Property Standards, City of Evanston

847/866-2929

[email protected]

www.cityofevanston.org As of October 2006

FINANCING

Rehabilitation FinanceEvanston One & Two Family Rehabilitation Loan ProgramCook County

Background

In order to preserve the quality of its housing stockand help low and moderate-income families main-tain their homes, the City of Evanston developedthe One and Two-Family Rehabilitation LoanProgram. Following a series of public meetings, thecity created this comprehensive revolving loan usingits Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)funds. In 2005, Evanston committed $100,000 fromits CDBG allocation for the program and expectedto provide loans for 16 one and two-family rehabili-tation projects. To date, the city has met thedemand for these loans.

How It Works

The City of Evanston provides revolving rehabilita-tion loans at zero percent interest for owner-occu-pied buildings, including single-family homes andcondominiums. These loans are available to house-holds earning at or below 80 percent of the areamedian income (AMI) ($59,600 for a family of fourin 2006), and are provided through several specificprograms:• Deferred Title Transfer Loan• Amortizing Loan• Condominium Assistance• Demolition Program • Energy Rehabilitation• Abandoned/Boarded-up Building Loan• Garage Demolition• Self-Help Exterior Paint• Diseased/Damaged Tree Removal

A city rehabilitation specialist works closely with eachhomeowner to assess what work needs to be per-formed and then helps the homeowner solicit bids todo the work. Before the city makes any payments tothe contractor, the rehabilitation specialist inspectsthe work to ensure it was done properly. Projects thatqualify for assistance include landscaping, structural

improvements, energy conservation, and thoseaddressing code and health-related violations. Luxuryitems such as the installation of air conditioning androom additions do not qualify. If the borrower'sincome is at or below 50 percent AMI, single-familyloans are title-transfer loans, which require no inter-est and no payments until the transfer of title. Loansare amortized for up to 20 years. In order to qualify,the applicant must have clear title and oweno back taxes. Additionally, the appli-cant’s after-rehabilitation propertyvalue must not exceed the city’smedian single-family home value asdetermined periodically by the city.

GoalPreserve quality housing stock and helplow and moderate-income families main-tain their homes.

TargetOne and two-family homes and condomini-ums owned by households earning nomore than 80 percent area median income($59,600).

FinancingAs of 2005, $100,000 allocated annuallyfrom CDBG funds.

SuccessRehabilitates approximately 15 homesannually.

Lessons LearnedDemand for the program is such that thecity recently raised all program caps. Mostnotably, one and two-family rehab pro-gram increased from $30,000 to$50,000 and condominium assistanceprogram increased from $7,500 to$20,000 per applicant.

The City of Evanston provides revolving rehabilitation loans at zero percentinterest to homeowners earning at or below 80 percent of the area medianincome.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

Stan Janusz, Assistant Director of Housing Rehabilitation and

Property Standards, City of Evanston

847/866-2929

[email protected]

www.cityofevanston.org

2006 program capsSingle-family, owner-occupied $50,000 per project rehab loan

Two-unit, owner-occupied loan $50,000 per project

Condominium $20,000 per unit

Demolition Program $15,000 per project

Emergency Rehabilitation $10,000 per projectAssistance

Garage Demolition $8,000 per project

Diseased/damaged tree removal $6,000 per project

Abandoned/Boarded-up Building $50,000 per project

Self-Help Exterior Paint Grant $400 for one andProgram two-unit buildings

As of October 2006

FINANCING

Rehabilitation FinanceOak Park Single Family RehabilitationGrants/Loans ProgramCook County

Background

The Oak Park single-family rehabilitation programwas developed to serve low and very low-incomehomeowners within the village. This program allowsqualified residents to maintain their homes at safeand desirable standards while preserving the vil-lage’s housing stock. It disbursed over $2 millionbetween 1997 and 2004, with an average allocationof $24,380 per year. The single-family rehabilitationgrants/loans program includes the following initia-tives:• 4% Amortization Loan• Deferred Payment Loan• Emergency Loan• Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME)

Loan• Lead Abatement Grant

How It Works

To be eligible for the loans, the property must be anowner-occupied building with one to four units,located within the village of Oak Park. Applicantsmust hold the title to the property and qualify underincome restrictions to receive aid.

4 PERCENT AMORTIZATION LOANSLoans with a 4 percent interest rate are awardedto qualified individuals in amounts up to $40,000for one unit, $60,000 for two units, $80,000 forthree units, and $100,000 for four units, for up to20 terms. While the program is called the single-family rehabilitation program, funds from thisprogram can be used to cover buildings with two,three and four units, as well as condominiumbuildings. Loan amounts depend upon the costof the necessary work, as well as the owner’sability to repay the loan. All work must be per-formed by a general contractor chosen by thehomeowner and village through a competitivebidding process.

DEFERRED PAYMENTThe deferred payment loan is a no-interest loanthat has the same denominations and distribu-tions as the four percent loans described above.The loan is repayable either after 20 years orwhen the property title is transferred. The loan isplaced as a junior mortgage against the propertyand a service fee is added to the total and includ-ed in the mortgage.

EMERGENCY LOANSEmergency loans are no-interest loansdistributed in amounts up to $5,000for correction of single emergenciesand code violations such as replacing

GoalTo assist homeowners with the mainte-nance of their homes to ensure safetyand an adequate standard of living incompliance with village housing andbuilding codes.

TargetLow and very low-income homeownersin Oak Park.

FinancingCDBG and HOME funds.

SuccessHas allowed seniors, low, and very low-income people to stay in their homes.

Lessons LearnedCosts can be very high, which has slowedproduction so that fewer properties arebeing rehabbed. In 2001, lead abatementcosts began to rise. Because lead paintabatement costs are high, the program iscurrently being revised.

This program allows qualified residents to maintain their homes at safe anddesirable standards while preserving the village’s housing stock.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site


708/358-5411

[email protected]

www.oak-park.us

a furnace. The loan is repayable after 10 years orafter the title on the property is transferred. Justas with the deferred payment loan, the emer-gency loan amount is assessed a 10 percent feeand added as a junior mortgage on the property.

Financing

The single-family rehabilitation grants/loans pro-gram is financed with federal CommunityDevelopment Block Grant (CDBG) and HOMEfunds.

Between 1997 and 2004Type of Loan/Grant Amount Participants

4% Amortization Loan $198,200 10

Deferred Payment $552,565 24

Emergency Loan $32,000 7

HOME Loan $1,094,474 36

Lead Abatement $873,395 11

Totals $2,750,634 88

As of October 2006

FINANCING

Rehabilitation FinanceOak Park Housing BondsCook County

Background

During the 1970s, much of Oak Park’s housingstock was comprised of aging multifamily buildings.A group of owners and managers of these build-ings began meeting with village officials to discusswhat could be done to properly maintain and repairthem, and keep many of them affordable to OakPark’s multi-racial, multi-ethnic population. Out ofthese meetings came a creative plan to establish avillage-sponsored grant and loan program specifical-ly aimed at improving deteriorating multifamilyproperties. The village subsequently initiated ahousing bonds program that provides grants andloans to rehabilitate small (two to four unit) proper-ties, improve security systems, and renovate orreplace building garages.

The grant and loan programs allow the village toaddress a broad array of issues, including deteriorat-ing housing, perceived safety issues with agingbuildings, and blight. Using private market financing(in the form of general obligation bonds) toaddress these issues gives the village flexibility toimplement more creative programs and policiesthan would be possible under standard governmentloan programs.

How It Works

MULTI-UNIT BUILDING REHABILITATIONUnder the village’s Diversity Assurance Program,owners of multifamily properties (four or moreunits) can receive matching grants of up to$2,000 per unit ($1 of village money for every $2contributed by the property owner) for rehabili-tation purposes, as well as below market interestloans of up to $50,000 to finance major propertyrehabilitation. As a condition of receiving thesefunds, building owners sign a Marketing Services

Agreement to list vacancies through the OakPark Regional Housing Center, which promotesracial diversity within the village’s rental housingstock. If a building involved in the grant pro-gram is sold within five years after the grant ismade, the entire grant plus interest must berepaid to the village.

Between 1997 and 2004, Oak Park allo-cated close to $5 million to theDiversity Assurance Program, almost90 percent of all of its expenditures

GoalTo maintain the quality of an aginghousing stock and assure compliancewith village goals for racial diversity.

TargetResidential property owners in Oak Park.

FinancingGeneral obligation bonds.

SuccessBetween 1997 and 2004, 18 percent ofall multifamily buildings in the villageparticipated in the Diversity AssuranceProgram, the most popular bond-financed program.

Lessons LearnedUsing local bonding power provides amunicipality with the flexibility to effec-tively address unique local housingissues.

The grant and loan programs allow the village to address a broad array ofissues. Using private market financing in the form of General ObligationBonds gives the village flexibility to implement more creative programs andpolicies.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site


708/358-5411

[email protected]

www.oak-park.us

for housing programs during this time.

SECURITY IMPROVEMENT GRANTSOwners of buildings with two or more apart-ments can receive matching grants to improve avariety of security systems, including intercoms,lighting, locks, fencing, windows, and burglar/firealarms. The village will provide $1 for every $4spent, up to $200 per unit or $8,000 per proper-ty, for security enhancements that address viola-tions cited by police inspectors. The matchincreases to $4 for every $10 spent, up to $400per unit or $16,000 per building, if all violationscited by police inspectors are corrected. Tobecome involved in the grant program, the totalcost of the project must be at least $1,000. Inrecent years, expenditures for this program haveaveraged almost $60,000 per year.

GARAGE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT PROGRAMOwners of one-to-four unit buildings can receivevillage grants to repair or replace garages. Inrecent years, expenditures for this program haveaveraged $90,000 per year.

Financing

Oak Park’s loan programs provide loans with anaverage maturity of 15 years, which are fully amor-tized. Building owners receive a repayment bookletas they would for a loan from any other lendinginstitution. Repayment begins 10 months after thedistribution of funds, which typically occurs afterrehabilitation work is completed. The village hasrefinanced bonds to obtain lower interest rates overtime. It uses recycled loan and interest payments,along with some revenue from parking lot fees andparking violation fines, to service the interest pay-ment on the bonds.

Only two village officials are needed to administerthe program. By making the program locally based,the village can set its own rules and regulations andavoid some of the constraints and onerous regula-tions typically associated with federal programs.

As of October 2006

FINANCING

Bond Cap FinancingBond Cap Programs throughIHDA or Private BrokersStatewide

Background

Communities can help potential first-time home-buyers with limited incomes purchase homes byceding their bond cap to an organization such as theIllinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA) ora private broker to establish and manage a downpayment assistance program.

Ceding bond cap is cost-effective because the fundsalready exist and must be utilized within a certaintime frame. Each state is authorized to issue tax-exempt bonds in an amount of $85 per capita.Home rule communities receive their state bond capdirectly, non-home rule communities receive theirportion through a state agency. If the communityfails to use its bond cap by May 1st of each year, thestate reclaims it. Therefore, a community will benefit from applying these funds toward buildingmore homes and providing more opportunities toits residents.

By issuing tax-exempt bonds, the community canprovide home loans and assistance to individualsand families who meet certain income and purchaseprice requirements set by the U.S. Dept. of Housingand Urban Development (HUD). Typically, appli-cants must be first-time homebuyers, which isdefined as not having owned a house in the lastthree years, and must meet mortgage requirements.These programs require the new homes to be thepurchasers’ primary residences. These loans are notavailable for refinancing. Bond cap money may alsobe ceded for multi-family or rental housing develop-ments. Homes not designated for first-time home-ownership may be built with bond cap funds, butonly in target areas defined by the Internal RevenueService (listings available on the IHDA Web site).

How It Works

IHDA’S PROGRAM FOR HOME RULE COMMUNITIES:When a community cedes its bond cap, IHDAworks with the municipality to create a program tomeet its needs. Communities can choose from threedistinct programs: • IHDA offers a 30-year fixed mortgage at approxi-

mately three-quarter percent below market rates.Applicants receive low interest rates with optionsfor closing cost assistance.

• IHDA’s HELP Program provides buyers with agrant of 4.25 percent of the price of the home –three percent in cash to be applied to the downpayment and 1.25 percent to be used towardsclosing costs.

• IHDA’s Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)Program provides applicants a dollar-for-dollarreduction in federal income taxes, which is equalto 20 percent of the mortgage interest paid.Applicants also receive the standard income taxdeduction that is available when pur-chasing a home. An MCC can becombined with any type of mort-gage loan.

GoalTo promote homeownership opportunities.

TargetLow and moderate-income individuals andfamilies.

FinancingBond Volume Cap Financing.

SuccessDuPage County has used this model toassist over 60 families since it began working with IDHA in 2005. The City ofJoliet has helped approximately 700 familiespurchase new homes since 2002.

H

OME GROWNLO

CA

LH

OU

SING STRATEGIES IN

ACTIO

N

New

for

2007

IHDA’S PROGRAM FOR NON-HOME RULECOMMUNITIES:When a non-home rule community would like toparticipate in IHDA’s bond cap program, it isrequired to apply to the Illinois Bureau of Budget toaccess a bond cap allocation. IHDA can assist thecommunity with this application process. Non-home rule communities can choose from two of thethree programs available to home rule communities,but not the MCC Program. Once a communityreceives its bond cap allocation, it enters into anintergovernmental agreement with IHDA to create aprogram.

DuPage County worked with IHDA to create aworkforce housing program that layered fundsthrough its 30-year, standard, fixed-rate mortgageprogram. This IHDA program was combined withfunds from Harris Bank’s 4 percent loan program,support from local DuPage County HOME funds,and IHDA Trust Funds. DuPage County had $15million ceded to IHDA. The average loan amountwas $180,000. The first phase of this programhelped approximately 60 families purchase homes.

PRIVATE BROKER PROGRAM:A community can cede bond cap money to a privatebroker. For example, the City of Joliet has contract-ed with Stern Brothers & Associates to administerthe Assist program, which is a multi-jurisdictionalloan pool. The Assist program, like the IHDA pro-gram, helps low and moderate-income first-timehome-buyers through closing cost and downpay-ment assistance. It offers individuals and families aFederal Housing Administration loan, VeteransAffairs loan, or conventional 30-year, fixed-ratemortgage. Interest rates are determined at bondclosing, but are lower than with a conventionalloan. In addition to these loan types, the Assist pro-gram offers a 4.25 percent cash gift to further defraycosts. There are income and purchase price limitsthat must also be met. A qualifying individual orfamily must contact a participating lender.

Joliet has been ceding a portion of its bond capfunds to the Assist program since 2002. From 2000to 2006, 664 families received loans, ranging from$98,589 in 2000 to $146,980 in 2006. FromJanuary to April of 2007, 72 loans had been madeto first-time homebuyers.

Contact

Phone

Web site

Contact

Phone

E-mail

Web site

James Haller, Director of Community & Economic Development, City of Joliet

815/724-4040

www.cityofjoliet.org

Roger Morsch, Director of Business and Product Development, IHDA

312/836-5230

[email protected]

www.idha.org As of July 2007


Th e Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, Chicago Metropolis 2020, andMetropolitan Planning Council are deeply grateful to the followingfor their support of this publication:

Lead SponsorHarris Family Foundation

FundersFannie Mae FoundationIllinois Housing CouncilMcCormick Tribune FoundationTh e Chicago Community TrustTh e John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FoundationWashington Mutual

AuthorsElana Berenson, Chicago Metropolis 2020Elizabeth Frantz, Metropolitan Planning CouncilTonya Mann, Chicago Metropolis 2020 Aleece Smith, Metropolitan Planning Council

Project ManagersBeth Dever, Metropolitan Mayors CaucusNancy Firfer, Chicago Metropolis 2020King Harris, Chicago Metropolis 2020Joanna Trotter, Metropolitan Planning CouncilJosh Ellis, Metropolitan Planning Council

Chicago Metropolis 202030 West Monroe Street18th FloorChicago, Illinois 60603312.332.2020Fax 312.332.2626www.chicagometropolis2020.org

Metropolitan Mayors Caucus177 North State StreetSuite 500Chicago, Illinois 60601312.201.4507Fax: 312.553.4355www.mayorscaucus.org

Metropolitan Planning Council140 South Dearborn StreetSuite 1400Chicago, Illinois 60603312.922.5616Fax: 312.922.5619www.metroplanning.org

housing policy and governance - metropolitan planning … · prehensive plan or zoning code, but...

Documents