Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative Strategic Plan:

Transcription

1 Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative Strategic Plan: Outline A. Goal of the CSHCDC Strategic Planning Process B. Existing Conditions i. Original mission of the CSHCDC ii. Successes to date iii. Function iv. Strengths v. Weaknesses C. Environmental Scan D Strategic Plan i. Vision Statement ii. Goals iii. Strategies E. Resources i. Funding ii. External Stakeholders F. Metrics G. Conclusion Appendix A List of Stakeholder Interviews Appendix B List of Municipal Interviews A. Goal of the CSHCDC Strategic Planning Process The Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative (CSHCDC) has been in existence for five years. Since that time, the housing market has changed and new issues have arisen. The goal of the strategic planning process is to reflect on the Collaborative s progress, reassess the state of the housing market, evaluate the structure and long-term sustainability of the Collaborative, and determine what the Collaborative wants to accomplish in the next 3-5 years. Below is a list of questions that we hope to answer through this process: 1. Reflect on CSHCDC s progress a. Reassess state of the housing market b. How has the housing market changed since 2008? c. What is the current state of the housing market subregionally/regionally? d. How will the priorities of the Collaborative change given the present and forward-looking economic climate and housing market? 2. Determine what CSHCDC s vision for the next 3-5 year period and what does CSHCDC wants to accomplish moving forward a. What are the metrics for success? b. What are goals/scope of accomplishments given current economic and housing climates? 1

2 c. What are the roles of external partners, MPC, and MMC moving forward and how do they support these goals and aspirations? 3. Evaluate the structure and long-term sustainability of the CSHCDC a. What about the Collaborative s structure has worked well? What hasn t? b. What is the ideal structure for the Collaborative? c. What does financial sustainability mean for the Collaborative? d. What steps can be taken to make the Collaborative more financially sustainable? In order to answer these questions, staff from the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC), Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) and CSHCDC interviewed a number of stakeholders including: active member municipalities, inactive member municipalities, staff from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Cook County, DePaul s Institute for Housing Studies (IHS), BRicK Partners, the South Suburban Land Bank and Development Authority (SSLBDA), and Regional Housing Partnership (RHP) members (see appendix for more detail). We also examined data trends to determine how the housing market in the south suburbs has changed over the years. This report provides a summary of our findings and a plan for the future direction of the Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative. B. Existing Conditions i. Original mission of the CSHCDC The Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative (CSHCDC) formed in 2008 in response to a growing awareness of the need for a more coordinated response to the subregion s housing crisis. The southern suburbs were disproportionally hard hit by foreclosures. In 2010, the Southland had 51 foreclosure filings per 1,000 mortgageable properties, exceeding rates seen in the region as a whole and the City of Chicago itself. (Chicago City and Regional Foreclosure Activity 2010) Coupled with shrinking municipal budgets and low staff capacity, the Southland was forced to rethink its approach to neighborhood stabilization and revitalization. With assistance from the Regional Homeownership Preservation Initiative (RHOPI) and partners such as the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC) and Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC), the Southland was able to secure funding from The Chicago Community Trust and Grand Victoria Foundation to hire a shared staff person to work to address housing challenges on behalf of multiple communities. Collaboration was not new to southland municipalities, as many had been involved in collective economic development and legislative efforts through the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association (SSMMA). Housing challenges, however, had traditionally been dealt with on a town-by-town basis. Working collaboratively through a shared staff person based at SSMMA would allow member municipalities to leverage more funding and the needed expertise to address foreclosure and vacant property issues. ii. Successes to date: Over the last 5 years, the CSHCDC has experienced many successes, including leveraging a significant amount of funding to support its projects. Listed below are some highlights of the high level CSHCDC successes to date: 2

3 Twenty one communities collectively submitted an NSP 1 application, resulting in almost $9 million in funding from Cook County. Unfortunately, the County ended up parceling out the award to 11 individual municipalities and excluding the Collaborative from the process. However, the fact that communities were able to come together and submit a collective application was a clear early win for the CSHCDC. In 2010, SSMMA was awarded a $2.4 Million HUD Challenge Grant. Part of the award helped the CSHCDC to seed the South Suburban Land Bank and Development Authority (SSLBDA) and the TOD Loan Fund. Six South Suburban Communities were awarded $6.6 Million from the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) to purchase and rehab or demolish vacant or abandoned homes and to upgarde water-sewer lines and roads in the vicinty of the targeted housing projects. The award was the result of a joint application submitted to DCEO by the CSHCDC. CSHCDC has been the recipient of free staff assistance from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) through its Local Technical Assistance (LTA) Program. Projects have included the Homes for a Changing Region housing policy plan and the development of a Housing Investment Tool. CSHCDC was part of a successful team application to the Illinois Attorney General s Office for National Foreclosure Settlement Funding. The funding award of $335,536 will be used to work with a team of partners to help the southern suburbs address the presence of investor-owned small multifamily and singlefamily rental properties in the area and increase subregional code enforcement capacity. By no means is this list exhaustive, but it clearly shows that the CSHCDC has had great success attracting funding to the Southland to initiate new policies and programs. iii. Function: CSHCDC members and stakeholders were asked to identify what they believe the function of the Collaborative to be. Responses included: To identify trends, policy changes, and resources that will impact the south suburbs Be a housing thought leader; educate municipalities on best practices and connect the south suburbs with regional entities Coordinate and bring together the south suburbs to address housing and economic development Provide education and added capacity to low-resource towns Mobilize regional organizations to meet municipalities needs Create a platform for municipalities to: Apply for funding and co-manage grants Share ideas and best practices Attract new development Discuss challenges and take joint action to address them Overall, interviewees see the CSHCDC as an entity that stays up-to-date on the latest housing policy innovations and trends, while connecting its members to other 3

4 organizations that can help address shared municipal challenges. Interviewees have also seen CSHCDC as an entity that attracts funding and new development opportunities for its member communities. iv. Strengths: Interviewees identified a number of strengths of CSHCDC. Overall, members and stakeholders see the CSHCDC as an important organization and subregional effort that should be commended for its success to date, including attracting funding to its member communities, providing a platform for municipalities to brainstorm and analyze solutions to common housing challenges and connecting the Southland to regional organizations that can provide expertise and resources. Noted strengths of the CSHCDC included: Opens up new funding channels and supports joint applications for state and federal resources Secures philanthropic, County, State, and federal resources to think through policy challenges Creates opportunities for information sharing and collaboration between municipalities and potential local and regional partners Vehicle for innovation, such as the GIS Consortium and the South Suburban Land Bank Authority (SSLBDA) Strong alignment of vision and values between CSHCDC and SSMMA, SSLBDA, and TOD Fund Local and regional credibility with strong municipal buy-in Cook County views the CSHCDC as a reliable representative of the region and a worthy investment South Suburban Mayors and Managers (SSMMA) staff are well-respected and connected in the communities they work in; their understanding of local policies and practices is critical to the Collaborative success Overall, members and stakeholders can see the value in the CSHCDC and would like it to continue to operate moving forward. v. Weaknesses: Despite it strengths, interviewees identified a number of areas of improvement for the CSHCDC. Overall, member municipalities and stakeholders recognize that there are a limited number of staff at CSHCDC and SSMMA, and that staff capacity needs to be added in a few specific areas. Over the last 5 years, the MMC and MPC have provided a substantial amount of assistance to the CSHCDC when applying for both philanthropic and capital grant programs. In order for the CSHCDC to be sustainable in the long-term, its fundraising and grant management capacity needs to be strengthened. In addition, both members and stakeholders recognized that the CSHCDC needs to clearly define its role and specific responsibilities related to other organizations in the Southland, such as the SSLBDA and TOD Loan Fund. Other areas for improvement included: Need active involvement across Collaborative towns to yield greatest benefits; specifically, a large portion of the 23 Collaborative municipalties do not attend 4

5 the monthly meetings and participate in projects, which reduces the effectiveness of the organization overall Need a clearer communications and marketing strategy to attract developers, realtors and investors Uncertain buy-in from some state and federal agencies (i.e. grants often do not allow Collaborative entities to apply) Collaborative could benefit from additional capacity to manage its data projects, including the Atlas tool and GIS Consortium, and it was suggested that CSHCDC engage data expert organizations when embarking on data projects moving forward. Collaborative needs additional organization capacity and technical expertise relating to: Implementation of coordinated programs Administration and management of large grants Development and rehab of homes The input received through the strategic planning process was taken into consideration when crafting the goals and strategies for the CSHCDC moving forward. C. Environmental Scan An important part of the strategic planning process is identifying how the housing market has changed since the Collaborative s inception five years ago. The team looked at a number of indicators to understand which issues should be focused on moving forward. Many of the findings below speak to the strained housing market and slow economic recovery that still exists throughout the Southland. Housing values in much of the subregion are still well below 2000 levels, and a large percentage of lowand moderate-income households are housing cost burdened, paying over 30% of their income toward monthly owner costs/gross rent. Foreclosures and long-term vacancy have also been persistent challenges, although filings have decreased significantly in the last year which is a positive sign. However, with property values slow to rebound, investor owners have entered into housing markets throughout the south suburbs and many member municipalities are concerned that they are showing little interest in making positive, long-term investments in these communities. Overall, the data shows that many of the issues that the Collaborative came together to originally address are still present today. This is not to say that the Collaborative has not had success in its efforts; simply put, the resources available to address these issues have not been nearly enough to make a sizeable impact on the crisis. Moving forward, the CSHCDC should continue to focus on developing and implementing collaborative strategies that the results of the foreclosure crisis and the increased presence of investor owners in the subregion. The graphs below show data that was examined through the strategic planning process in order to determine the health of the housing market in the southern suburbs. 5

6 Median Household Income Median Household Income by Tenure $90,000 $80,000 $80,514 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $60,560 $62,366 $51,637 $34,044 $34,927 All Households Owner Occupied Renter Occupied $20,000 $10,000 $0 SSMMA Geography MSA (Chicago, Joliet, Naperville) Source: 2012 ACS 5-Year Estimates Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers Using the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville MSA as a point of comparison, median household income by tenure illustrates the financial health of home owners and renters. Data shows that homeowners across the Southland have significantly lower incomes than those around the region. The fact that homeownership in the south suburbs is attainable for households with a wider range of incomes could be an indication of low housing values. Southland renters, on the other hand, have similar incomes to the rest of the region. 6

7 % of Households Paying 30% or More of Income Toward Monthly Owner Costs/Gross Rent % 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Housing Cost Burden Rental Households Owner Households Household Income Source: 2012 ACS 5-year Estimates Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers Households that are housing cost burdened are defined as those paying 30% or more of their income toward monthly owner costs/gross rent. This spending includes both housing (rent or mortgage) and housing-related costs, such as property taxes, insurance, and utilities. Housing cost burden is greatest amongst low- and moderateincome households but prevalent across all income levels. Housing cost burden is greater for renters making less than $35,000, and greater for homeowners making more than $35,000. 7

8 % of Total Housing Units 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Assisted Housing Units 128,136 3,176,288 10, ,471 SSMMA MSA Geography Housing Units Receiving No Assistance Assisted Housing Units Source: HUD PD&R and American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Includes the following HUD programs: Public Housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, Mod Rehab, Section NC/SR, Section 236, Multi-family Other, and LIHTC Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers The number of assisted housing units speaks to the investment by the federal government in creating affordable housing options for moderate- and low-income households. Subsidized housing is a sizeable share of the total affordable housing stock in our region. The percentage of assisted housing units as a total of all housing units for both SSMMA and the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville MSA is just above 7%. 8

9 % Household Income Toward Housing and Transportation Costs 60.00% Housing and Transportation Costs 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% RMI 80% RMI 10.00% 0.00% H&T H&T Own H&T Rent Housing and Transportation Costs Source: HUD Location Affordability Index Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers Regional Median Income (RMI): Household Size= 2.7, Income $60,574 RMI refers to full Chicago-Naperville-Joliet IL, IN, WI metro area (including portions of Wisconsin and Indiana). Transportation costs often make up a considerable portion of household expenditures, and have added a new dynamic to affordability in our region. Some households that are not housing cost burdened are now finding their monthly budgets stretched thin due to high transportation costs. Both renters and home owners at RMI are spending well above 45% of their income toward housing and transportation costs, highlighting the need for affordable housing and public transit options in the Southland. Housing and transportation costs as a percentage of household income are significantly higher for homeowners than for renters. 9

10 % Change in Housing Values 80 % Change in Housing Values Since 2000 (Seasonally Adjusted) Orland Park/ Tinley Park Oak Forest/ Midlothian Calumet City/ Harvey Chicago Heights/ Matteson Year (Quarter 4) Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies Geography: South suburban subregion Housing values in the Southland are beginning to show some signs of recovery, but housing values in two out of four south suburban submarkets are significantly below 2000 levels. Low housing values will make it harder for the Southland to attract new investment to its communities. It s also likely that many homeowners are underwater on their mortgage. In comparison, housing values in Cook County are beginning to rebound, and most areas have experienced nominal price appreciation since Single-family home prices increased 20% from the first quarter of 2000 compared to the fourth quarter of However, struggling submarkets like those found in the graph above illustrate why it has been so difficult for housing prices in Cook County to fully recover. Source: 10

11 # of Foreclosure Filings 8000 Total Residential Foreclosure Filings Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers Foreclosure filings peaked in 2010 and remained elevated through In 2013, filings took a large dip and for the first time in 6 years and dropped below 2006 levels. DePaul s Institute for Housing Studies (IHS) notes that new foreclosure filing activity decreased significantly between 2012 and 2013 in all markets, not just the south suburbs. This can be seen as positive sign that homeowners are facing less economic hardship than they did previously. However, a 2013 market conditions report released by IHS points out that despite recent declines in new foreclosure filings, persistent and high levels of foreclosure activity have left certain areas weak and significantly foreclosure distressed. One of the significantly foreclosure-distressed areas includes municipalities in south Cook County. Source: Cook County as a whole follows a similar trend to that of the Southland. After reaching a peak of over 48,000 residential foreclosure filings in 2010, and with filings remaining at about 40,000 in 2011 and 2012, the County saw a dramatic drop in 2013 to fewer than 24,000 filings. Even though these trends are promising for Cook County and the Southland, South Cook has had the largest number of foreclosure filings per year of any region in suburban Cook County since Source: IHS Data Portal Year 11

12 Percent of Addresses Vacant 24+ Mo. Long Term Vacancies in South Cook 4.50% 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% Year (1st Quarter) Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies Geography: South Cook Properties in the Southland vacant for longer than 24 months peaked in 2013 and declined slightly in 2014, although the 2014 rate is still higher than it was in Both South Cook and Cook County show a steady increase in the long-term vacancy rate starting in 2010, which begins to level off between 2013 and Comparison data for Cook County shows long-term vacancy rates below those of South Cook. In the first quarters of 2013 and 2014, Cook County s long-term vacancy rate was 2.5%, up from a low of 1.7% in the first quarter of Although foreclosure filings have recently decreased in the south suburbs, municipalities are still struggling with vacant property issues. Source: IHS Data Portal 12

13 Business Buyers in Total Sales (Percent) Business Buyers of All Residential Sales 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Year Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers Business buyers as a percentage of all residential sales in the Southland has been climbing since 2010, and is over 20 percentage points higher than it was in In 2013, 29.2% of all residential sales were made by business buyers. All of suburban Cook County and the City of Chicago have seen increases in the percentage of residential properties sold to business buyers between 2012 and In 2013, 19.2% of all residential properties in Cook County were sold to business buyers, an increase of over 11% since IHS points out that business buyers represent a range of investor types from small mom-and-pop investors to large Wall Street-traded equity funds. These large institutional investors are often purchasing lower-value and foreclosure-distressed single family properties to convert to rental housing the next graph examines this property type in greater detail (source: housing-market-conditions-report/). South suburban municipalities have expressed concern about whether investors will be good community partners and maintain quality rental properties. 13

14 Business Buyers in Total Sales (Percent) Business Buyers of Single Family Homes 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Year Source: DePaul University Institute for Housing Studies Geography: South Suburban Mayors and Managers Investor-Owners Business buyer sales in the Southland have steadily increased since 2006, making up over 31% of all single-family home sales in ,300 single-family homes in Cook County were bought in 2013 by the institutional investor Blackstone, the leading purchaser of homes in the County and one of the world s largest private equity firms. The latest data from IHS shows that 19.8% of single-family homes in Cook County sold in 2013 went to business buyers. However, acquisitions have slowed over the last year. Purchases of single-family homes in Cook County by the largest investors in the first quarter of 2014 were down 63% compared to the same time in Source: In conclusion, a review of these data shows that there is still a need for collaborative action in the Southland to address the issues that the municipalities came together to address in the first place. In addition to reducing the impact of foreclosures and vacant property, the CSHCDC will want to focus on making sure new investment benefits local communities and that current residents have access to a variety of housing options appropriate for their income level. While foreclosure activity may be declining, vacant property challenges have increased and should addressed moving forward. The next section of the report addresses these issues in greater detail. 14

15 D Strategic Plan The section below outlines the vision and goals of the CSHCDC and the strategies that will be needed to reach that vision. i. Vision statement: By 2020, the Chicago Southland will be a stable, thriving region that is pursuing housing investment and revitalization strategies that support subregional economic development activities and ensure that limited public and private capital is being deployed strategically to advance local and regional goals. In order to achieve this vision, the Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative will build its member municipalities capacity to address pressing housing and community development challenges related to neighborhood stabilization, foreclosure and vacant property issues, while supporting larger SSMMA economic development activities. ii. Goals: From this vision, the following goals have been developed for the Collaborative: 1. Identify shared housing challenges through tracking relevant data trends 2. Propose interjurisdictional initiatives and/or policy innovations to address these housing challenges; designing and pursuing implementation strategies 3. Convene member municipalities, developers and the local and regional nonprofit community to develop and support these subregional housing strategies 4. Serve as a single-point of entry for government agencies and private actors related to housing issues 5. Educate member municipalities on lessons learned from the Collaborative s activities and best practices from around the region and nation 6. Pursue funding to sustain the Collaborative s operations and implement its programs; increase internal grant management capacity iii. Strategies In order to achieve the vision and goals, CSHCDC needs to pursue a number of strategies. Many of these strategies are a continuation of work that has already started. CSHCDC has made great strides in the last 5 years and it should continue with a specific focus on housing strategies that support broader economic development efforts of the SSMMA. The Collaborative should implement housing programs and policies that support transit-oriented development (TOD), job access and growth, neighborhood stabilization and subregional economic development priorities. It will be important to continue to pursue activities related to foreclosures and vacant property. The following implementation activities were identified through the strategic planning process: 1. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) a. Convene the Loan Fund and Consortium team that consists of Enterprise Community Partners, Chicago Community Loan Fund, MPC, and Center 15

16 for Neighborhood Technology to continue identify policy challenges and potential developments on a biweekly basis. b. Identify potential TOD sites for redevelopment, undertake site analysis to identify potential challenges, engage municipal staff and leadership, and work with Enterprise Community Partners to outreach to housing developers interested in developing these sites. c. For developers that approach the TOD fund for capital on their own accord, the Collaborative will utilize SSMMA s Housing Investment Tool to confirm that the development meets local and regional goals around location efficiency. d. Continue educating and promoting transit-friendly housing and retail development as a redevelopment model to municipalities and developers across the region and with key government leaders who set policy and funding priorities; ideally the Southland TOD Loan Fund is a revolving fund that has its own momentum. e. Enterprise Community Partners will undertake site development work in Blue Island, Richton Park and Olympia Fields that will further this activity and goal. Meets Goals: 3, 4 2. Housing Plus a. The Housing 'Plus' Model, A Live, Learn, Earn Initiative is an effort to create affordable and workforce housing that is close to transit, retail, recreation, health care, day care, and government services. The model aims to create opportunities for education, job training and entrepreneurial activities, anchoring interdisciplinary community and economic development for the specific property and for the Chicago Southland more broadly. The broader Live, Learn, Earn Initiative will also facilitate access to workforce development, and a range of social and health care services. The Housing Plus developments will provide the community entrepreneurs with access to the manufacturing "fab labs," via a welldesigned building and training program. b. Work to secure planning funds to build a Housing Plus pilot team, with the goal of creating a replicable model for municipalities and subregional collaborations. c. Build a partnership with developers, employers, local service providers, educational institutions and others to further the Housing Plus model. d. Educate member municipalities about the Housing Plus model and encourage them to utilize this model in their own communities. Assist municipalities in raising funds for Housing Plus developments. Meets Goals: 2, 5 3. Attracting Investment a. Develop a marketing plan for the south suburbs that highlights the area s livability, transit access, and other amenities; a robust marketing plan will help reshape the negative public image of the south suburbs and will help with outreach to potential homeowners, families, and others interested in living, developing, or opening businesses in the Southland. 16

17 i. The Collaborative should revisit the marketing plan created for the CSHCDC by Jason Sherman and determine which recommendations can be implemented. Seek funding for those activities that need financial support. ii. Hold a roundtable event/collaborative meeting to allow municipalities to share their existing strategies around marketing; include realtors and possibly local businesses and Chambers of Commerce in the discussion. iii. Continue to coordinate marketing activities with NHS. b. Work with municipalities to standarize their development approval processes and share theses processes with developers. Use lessons learned from the Regional Transportation Authority and Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning s local technical assistance and share widely with Collaborative municipalities. Continue to promote CSHCDC as the first point of entry in the region and a partner that is familiar with local development goals. c. Attract development partners that will build market rate housing in the south suburbs. Meets Goals: 3, 4, 6 4. Data a. Improve the SSMMA s Atlas GIS system so that regional and municipal governments are able to regularly use the database for their planning and development and work b. Work with DePaul s Institute for Housing Studies (IHS) and other MMC AGfunded partners to create a intermunicipal database that tracks property conditions and landlord behavior. Determine if/how this database will be integrated with Atlas. c. Consult with DePaul Institute for Housing Studies, Woodstock Institute, and other regional actors to ensure that the Atlas GIS system and any other data implementation projects are following best practices and aligned with other data efforts taking place around the greater Chicago area. Meets Goal: 1 5. Vacant land a. Continue to partner with and support the South Suburban Land Bank and Development Authority by: i. Assisting the SSLBDA in identifying and pursuing grants to acquire and rehab vacant buildings (e.g. gathering information from municipalities, assisting with writing, etc.). ii. Provide the SSLBDA with property analysis information from GIS Atlas in order to assist in developing priorities for redevelopment areas. b. Work with the numerous National Foreclosure Settlement grantees in the Southland to ensure coordination between grantees and with local municipalities; help grantees focus and direct their housing counseling and rehabiltiation funding to targeted communities and priority areas across the Southland to achieve greater impact. Meets Goals: 2, 4 17

18 6. Employer-engagement a. Once Spanish Coalition for Housing is officially the Southland s EAH counselor, the Collaborative can work with MPC to establish an employer outreach strategy and determine a list of potential employers. b. Make introductions and invite employers to the outreach and education events; distribute invitation materials (letters, s, flyers) to local employers. c. Assist MPC with planning and hosting an annual outreach event (i.e. breakfast) or one-on-one meetings with communities and their key employers. Meets Goals: 2 7. Homeownership a. Serve as the liason between Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) and the SSLBDA and Cook County Land Bank Authority in order to connect potential homeowners to recently rehabilitated homes. b. Continue to facilitate the relationship between municipalities and NHS by communicating local municipal goals to NHS and coordinating outreach activities. Meets Goals: 2, 3 8. Rental Housing Quality a. Work with MMC AG-funded partners, including MPC and the Center for Community Progress (CCP), to develop strategies to ensure that existing investor landlords are maintaining high quality rental properties and being a positive community partner. Meets Goals: 1, 2, 5 9. Municipal Capacity a. Work with MMC AG-funded partners to create a pilot program that aims to increase municipal code enforcement capacity. Once pilot is up and running, share best practices and lessons learned with other SSMMA municipalities and assist in guiding other municipalities that may want to participate in similar efforts. b. Bring in experts to discuss issues of interest with member municipalities and hold trainings to increase local knowledge of how to address housing challenges (e.g. vacant property panel) c. Consider creating a buddy system or pool of volunteers for Collaborative members that pairs higher capacity municipalities with lower capacity municipalities and allows for municipalities to share lessons learned and assist with areas of need. Meets Goals: 2, Sustainability a. CSHCDC currently operates through indirect financial and office support from SSMMA, philanthropic grants that are raised and managed by the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus and Metropolitan Planning Council, and 18

19 funding from government awards like the HUD Challenge Grant and the National Foreclosure Settlement Award. Over the past 5 years, key philanthropic funders have included: The Chicago Community Trust, Grand Victoria Foundation, the Field Foundation and JP Morgan Chase Foundation. It is likely the Collaborative will always need to rely on some level of foundation support. However, as these funders begin to reduce and/or cut off their support, the Collaborative will need to explore other funding solutions moving forward. i. Explore integrating an additional fee into the SSMMA municipal due structure to raise revenues for housing and community development programs. ii. Pursue funding opportunities through local and national banks, including Bank of America, Wells Fargo and local community banks. iii. Consider having a special membership level for Collaborative communities that want to voluntarily contribute funds and provide extra acknowledgement for those communities in communication materials. b. Historically, the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus has served as fiscal agent to the Housing Collaborative and played a large role in fundraising efforts. The Caucus will continue to serve this role for existing grants and any other grants that are pursued in collaboration with the West Cook County Housing Collaborative. However, any new sources of funds, particularly fundraising efforts that involve municipal dues should be managed by SSMMA. i. The goal should be that SSMMA will manage all Collaborative grants internally in three years. ii. There needs to be continued discussion moving forward about how to increase SSMMA s capacity to attract and manage grants in order for this transition to be successful. This discussion lies somewhat outside the scope of this strategic planning process but will be important to its success. MMC and MPC remain committed to assisting SSMMA in resolving this issue. Meets Goal: Structure a. Currently, SSMMA municipalities may join the CSHCDC by passing a resolution which appoints a staff member to serve on the Housing Collaborative Committee. The CSHCDC Committee meets monthly with the Housing Coordinator leading the agenda. Moving forward, more time and resources should be spent to better engage elected officials in the activities of the Collaborative to ensure ongoing buy-in. i. Over the last year, a Mayor has started serving as the liason between the Housing Collaborative and the SSMMA Executive Committee. This structure should remain the same moving forward. ii. The Collaborative could also consider having an annual meeting with mayors to update them on activities and get their feedback on new initiatives to pursue. There is a possibility this meeting could 19

20 serve as a small fundraiser for the Collaborative and other parters could be invited. Staff will need to consider the amount of work involved before making a commitment to this activity. b. The Collaborative should make an effort to increase both non-member and member municipalities participation in meetings and activities. c. CSHCDC staff are housed at SSMMA and currently include the Housing Coordinator and a Planner. Additional staff capacity will likely be needed moving forward in order to increase the Collaborative s capacity to attract and manage grants and conduct effective communications. The CSHCDC will need to work closely with SSMMA on this staffing issue moving forward. Meets Goal: 5, Communication a. The CSHCDC website should be revamped to be more user-friendly, and a more robust communications plan should be set in motion as a quality control measure for Collaborative communications materials. b. The Collaborative will need to build its staff capacity to manage its marketing and communications materials moving forward. Meets Goals: 4, 5 E. Resources i. Funding The CSHCDC has primarily relied on philanthropic funding to support the staffing needed for its day to day operations, which include a Housing Coordinator position (i.e. Deputy Executive Director of Housing at SSMMA) and a supporting Planner position. Major CSHCDC funders have included The Chicago Community Trust, Grand Victoria Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation and the Field Foundation. In addition, the CSHCDC has attracted government grants to support its staff, including grants from Cook County, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. Current philanthropic funding is listed below: Chicago Community Trust (expires July 2015) - $5,460 JP Morgan Chase Foundation (expires November 2015) - $22,500 IL Attorney General National Foreclosure Settlement Funds (expires February 2016) - $127,844 Of this funding, $68,158 is available for the Housing Coordinator position. The CCT and Chase grants broadly support development activities that relate to strategy 1 on transitoriented development. Both grants can also support any additional projects/implementation activities that result from this plan. The IL AG Grant provides funding for a code enforcement pilot project that supports strategies 4, 8 and 9. 20

21 SSMMA manages additional government grants that are available to support a portion of the Coordinator and Planner positions over the coming year. An additional IL Attorney General Grant awarded to the SSLBDA has funding set aside for funding for CSHCDC staff to assist with strategy 5 around vacant land. Although there does not appear an immediate gap in funding to staff the Collaborative, it is likely that there will be a gap once the grants listed above begin to expire. SSMMA staff will need to work closely with the MMC (as fiscal agent to philanthropic grants) to monitor the program budget and determine when new funding will need to be raised. Additional funding may be needed in order to staff up to execute some of the strategies listed in this plan. ii. External Stakeholders Forging relationships with external stakeholders has allowed CSHCDC to bring additional resources, knowledge and expertise to the south suburbs. External stakeholders have also relied on CSHCDC, viewing the Collaborative is as a central point of contact for south suburban municipalities and an expert on local priorities and goals. The CSHCDC should continue to engage with the following partners moving forward as it advances it vision and goals: 1. Community and Nonprofit Organizations a. DePaul Institute for Housing Studies (IHS) i. The IHS data portal can serve as an important resource in data collection efforts for metrics related to foreclosure, renter and ownership patterns, and other key housing and economic development indicators and trends. ii. IHS is in a position to answer important policy questions that inform and can help direct the Collaborative s work. b. National Housing Services of Chicago (NHS) i. Through homeownership counseling and foreclosure prevention training, NHS can aid the Collaborative s efforts in working with residents across the south suburbs to stem the tide of foreclosures. ii. NHS can also assist the Collaborative and SSLBDA in getting qualified homeowners into rehabbed homes. c. The following nonprofit organizations can help with education and implementation of housing best practices and strategies around the region: Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI), the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and Community and Economic Development Association (CEDA). d. The Regional Housing Partnership (RHP) is going through its own strategic planning process this year. CSHCDC should remain involved in any relevant activities that come out of this process. 2. Regional and State Governments a. Cook County and CMAP i. The Collaborative should continue to act as an intermediary in guiding future funding and programs sponsored by the County and CMAP. b. Illinois Housing Development Authority i. The Collaborative should continue to advocate that funding programs coming out of IHDA be interjurisdictional in their 21

22 appproach and allow for multiples communities to submit one application. 3. Realtors, developers and investors a. The Collaborative should continue its recent efforts to partner with Realtor organizations and encourage local realtor representatives to attend Collaborative meetings. b. CSHCDC should engage both developers so that they better understand the potential housing and redevelopment opportunities in the south suburbs 4. Banks a. Along with the SSLBDA, attend meetings and build relationships with banks and financial instiutitons to raise funding that supports community and economic development initiatives. Aside from the stakeholders listed above, the MMC and MPC should continue to play a technical assistance role in advancing CSHCDC s workplan, but the role of both organizations should be more focused moving forward. MMC and MPC will to develop the Collaborative s annual workplan activities and ensure that those activities are aligned with this strategic plan. The MMC will continue to remain involved in activities that are of interest to its broader membership. Currently, those activities include those funded through the AG grant, including increasing code enforcement capacity through intermunicipal service sharing, landlord incentives and data sharing. MPC is interested in engaging the development community to support the South Suburban Community Development Loan Fund and South Suburban Land Bank Authority as they pursue the objectives of the Sustainable Communities Challenge grant. MPC plans to continue meeting biweekly with SSMMA and the TOD partners to advance these goals. Additionally, MPC is part of the code enforcement team and will support the Collaborative s efforts to improve housing quality in single-family rental properties. Both organizations will continue to play a role in connecting the Collaborative to larger policy audiences. F. Metrics Establishing metrics for success to evaluate the Collaborative over the next 5 years is an important component in understanding the reach, effectiveness and impact that the Collaborative is having on its member communities. The metrics will be used to engage CSHCDC stakeholders and funders in a deeper conversation about the value add of working through a collaborative model. Below are metrics for success developed to evaluate fundraising and financial sustainability, community revitilization and recovery, and municipal participation and engagement: 1. Fundraising and financial sustainability a. Grants applied for b. Grants approved for c. New contacts made d. New requests made e. Other funding sources established 22

23 2. Revitalization and recovery a. Number of newly constructed homes b. Number of rehabbed homes c. Number of demolished homes d. Value of real estate e. Total residential foreclosure filings f. Percent of properties vacant for longer than 24 months 3. Municipal participation and engagement a. Meeting attendance b. How often are municipalities connecting with Collaborative and taking advantage of resources that it has to offer? c. On what and how often is Collaborative sharing best practices? G. Conclusion Overall, the Strategic Plan shows the value of the CSHCDC and reiterates the importance of its past activities and initiatives. The Environmental Scan clearly shows a need for municipalities in the southern suburbs to continue their efforts to collaborate on creating new policies and programs to address their collective housing challenges. The Collaborative should continue to pursue activities that address foreclosure and vacant property issues while also connecting its housing initiatives to the broader economic development goals of SSMMA. In order for the Collaborative to be successful, however, the issue of sustainable funding and organizational and staff capacity must be addressed. The Chicago Southland Housing and Community Development Collaborative has been featured in national and regional publications for its innovation; continuing to raise awareness and implement new policies and strategies should be balanced with the pressing need to create a stable institution committed to housing in the Southland. 23

24 Appendix A: List of Stakeholder Interviews Name Russ Rydin Andrew Williams Clark Bob Dean Kendra Smith Jonathan Burch Geoff Smith Dominic Tocci Jane Hornstein Robin Snyderman Ed Paesel Adam Gross Stacie Young Becca Goldstein John Gerut Katie Buitrago Spencer Cowan Organization South Suburban Land Bank Authority Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning DePaul s Institute for Housing Studies Cook County, Bureau of Economic Development Cook County, Bureau of Economic Development BRicK, LLC South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association Business People for the Public Interest (BPI) Preservation Compact Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago IFF Woodstock Institute Woodstock Institute Appendix B: List of Municipal Interviews Name Gary Gerdes Regan Stockstell David Mekarski Mark Miller Nicholas Crite Ernestine Beck-Fulgham Hildy Kingma Mayor John Ostenburg Gary Holcomb Karen Kreis Ryan Franklin Pat Mahon Kristi DeLaurentis Organization City of Oak Forest Village of Richton Park Village of Olympia Fields City of Blue Island City of Blue Island Village of Robbins Village of Park Forest Village of Park Forest Village of Sauk Village Village of Midlothian Village of Matteson Village of South Holland Village of Lansing 24