Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 16.4 (2026)

Guiding principles — housing — other programs and projects

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In the performance of its duties and implementation of its powers, and in the selection of specific programs and projects to receive its assistance, the authority shall be guided by the following precatory principles:

1. The authority shall not become an owner of real property constituting a project under any program, except on a temporary basis where necessary in order to implement its programs, protect its investments by means of foreclosure or other means, or to facilitate transfer of real property for the use of low or moderate income families.

2. The authority shall strive to function in cooperation with local governmental units and local or regional housing agencies, and in fulfillment of local or regional housing plans, and to that end shall provide technical assistance to local governmental units and local or regional agencies in need of that assistance.

3. When feasible, a local contributing effort may be required of each project assisted by the authority. The local contribution may be provided by local governmental units or by local or regional agencies, public or private. The percentage and type of local contribution shall be determined by the authority, and may include but should not be limited to cash match, land contribution, tax abatement, or ancillary facilities. The authority shall seek to encourage ingenuity and creativity in local effort.

4. The authority shall encourage units of local government and local and regional housing agencies to use federal revenue-sharing funds for programs which increase or improve the supply of adequate housing for low or moderate income families.

5. The authority shall seek to encourage cooperative housing efforts at the local level, both \n Tue Dec 09 22:33:00 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 16 (240, 4) 13 IOWA FINANCE AUTHORITY, §16.4A\n\nwith respect to the cooperation of public bodies with private enterprise and civic groups, and with respect to the formation of regional or multicity units engaged in housing.

6. With respect to programs relating to housing, wherever practicable, the authority shall give preference to the following types of programs:

a. Those which treat housing problems in the context of the total needs of individuals and communities, recognizing that individuals may have other problems and needs closely related to their need for adequate housing, and that the development of isolated housing units without regard for neighborhood and community development tends to create undesirable consequences.

b. Those which promote home ownership by families of low or moderate income, recognizing the need for educational counseling programs in family financial management and home maintenance in order to achieve this goal.

c. Those which involve the rehabilitation and conservation of existing housing units, and the preservation of existing neighborhoods and communities.

d. Those designed to serve elderly families, families which include one or more persons with disabilities, lower income families, or very low income families.

7. The authority shall encourage the protection, restoration, and rehabilitation of historic properties, and the preservation of other properties of special value for architectural or esthetic reasons. [C77, 79, 81, §220.4] C93, §16.4 96 Acts, ch 1129, §113; 2007 Acts, ch 54, §15 – 18; 2014 Acts, ch 1080, §13, 78\n\n PART 3 AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas, 877 N.W.2d 652 (Iowa 2016).
State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas, 877 N.W.2d 652 (Iowa 2016). · cites it 2× “, Criminal Procedure § 16.4(c), at 924 (4th ed. ■ 2015) [hereinafter LaFave] (footnotes omitted).”
John T. Jones Constr. Co. v. Hoot Gen. Constr., 543 F. Supp. 2d 982 (S.D. Iowa 2008). · cites it 2× “Exhibit B expressly provided that it was “[t]o be entered into and made a part of Section 16.4 — Other Special Provisions” of the subcontract, which is what had been done with the subcontract documents on the Springfield project.”
Amended June 22, 2016 State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas (Iowa 2016). · cites it 2× “, Criminal Procedure § 16.4(c), at 924 (4th ed. 2015) [hereinafter LaFave] (footnotes omitted).”
State of Iowa v. Dillon Michael Heiller (Iowa 2026). · cites it 2× “King, Criminal Procedure § 16.4(c), at 579 (2nd ed. 1999) [hereinafter LaFave, Criminal Procedure]; see Liggins, 524 N.”
State of Iowa v. Dillon Michael Heiller (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). “Israel, Criminal Procedure § 16.4(a) (2024) [hereinafter “LaFave”]. But here’s where I part ways with the majority.”
United States v. West, 615 F. Supp. 2d 957 (S.D. Iowa 2009). “84-247 § 16.4). Davenport Municipal Code 10.54.040 (emphasis added).”
— Iowa Code § 16.4(a) — 1 case
State of Iowa v. Dillon Michael Heiller (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). “Israel, Criminal Procedure § 16.4(a) (2024) [hereinafter “LaFave”]. But here’s where I part ways with the majority.”
— Iowa Code § 16.4(c) — 3 cases
State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas, 877 N.W.2d 652 (Iowa 2016). “, Criminal Procedure § 16.4(c), at 924 (4th ed. ■ 2015) [hereinafter LaFave] (footnotes omitted).”
Amended June 22, 2016 State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas (Iowa 2016). “, Criminal Procedure § 16.4(c), at 924 (4th ed. 2015) [hereinafter LaFave] (footnotes omitted).”
State of Iowa v. Dillon Michael Heiller (Iowa 2026). “King, Criminal Procedure § 16.4(c), at 579 (2nd ed. 1999) [hereinafter LaFave, Criminal Procedure]; see Liggins, 524 N.”
— Iowa Code § 16.4(d) — 1 case
State of Iowa v. Dillon Michael Heiller (Iowa 2026). “King, Criminal Procedure § 16.4(c), at 579 (2nd ed. 1999) [hereinafter LaFave, Criminal Procedure]; see Liggins, 524 N.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.