HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-2011 Housing & Community Development Commission
AGENDA
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
410 E. WASHINGTON STREET, IOWA CITY
THURSDAY, APRIL 21,2011
6:30 P.M.
1. Call Meeting to Order
2. Approval of the March 10 and March 17,2011 Minutes
3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda
4. Staff/Commission Comment
5. Discussion Regarding FY12 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Requests
. FY12 CDBG/HOME Budget Recommendation to Council
. Review Financial Terms for Housing Projects
6. Discussion Regarding FY12 Aid to Agency Funding Requests
. FY12 Aid to Agency Budget Recommendation to Council
7. Review of the FY12 Annual Action Plan
. Recommendation to City Council
8. Discussion of FY11 Projects that have not Performed per the
Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy
9. Review of the FY12 Allocation Process
10. Discussion of the Community Development Celebration
11. Monitoring Reports
. Shelter House - Shelter, Rental Housing & Operations (Gatlin)
12. Adjournment
& ~ 1
-~= _....ft
-----....
~~W:!i
~ ~aDl'
~;: -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Housing and Community Development Commission
Community Development Staff
April 18, 2011
April Meeting Packet
Thank you for your time and dedication during the allocation process. Unfortunately, the
federal FY11 (City FY12) budget that the President signed on Friday will mean a 16% cut in
CDBG funds ($115,551) and a 12% cut in HOME funds ($81,359). Due to the cut in funds,
you will need to review your recommendations and make new recommendations. The
following is a short description of the April agenda items.
Discussion Regarding FY12 CDBG and HOME Funding Requests
From the FY12 budget recommendation HCDC made on March 17, an additional $115,551
must be reduced from CDBG eligible activities and $81,359 must be reduced from HOME
eligible activities for a total of $196,910. The recommendation by HCDC will be forwarded to
City Council for their consideration. Additional details and staff suggestions about the
reallocation of funds will be provided at your April 21 meeting.
Discussion Regarding FY12 Aid to Agency Funding Requests
$15,000 must be reduced from the FY12 Aid to Agency budget. The recommendation by
HCDC will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration.
Review of the FY12 Annual Action Plan
At the March 17 meeting, you made your budget recommendations to Council. As you may
know, the budget is only one part of the Annual Action Plan. The Plan and Amendments
include the budget for CDBG & HOME funds, a description of the projects and activities to be
funded and several HUD-required documents. The 30-day public comment period began on
April 1 and runs through May 2. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the
Plan on Tuesday, May 3 and formally approve the Plan that same evening following the public
hearing. Public copies are also available at the Iowa City Public Library, Planning Department,
City Hall and online at www.icgov.org/actionplan.
Discussion of FY11 CDBG Projects that have not Performed per the Unsuccessful or
Delayed Projects Policy
Staff will identify the projects that have not spent at least 50% of their CDBG award by March
15th and provide project updates. The Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy states that
HCDC may recommend the recapture of unspent funds or HCDC may allow the recipient to
retain the funds for the previously approved project.
(Over)
Review of the FY12 Allocation Process
With the FY12 allocation process fresh in your mind, staff is interested in hearing your
suggestions for next year. The commission may decide to appoint a subcommittee for further
review or simply offer suggestions for next year.
Community Development Celebration
We will need to discuss the future of the community development celebration. Comments and
suggestions will be reviewed.
Monitoring Reports
. Shelter House - New Construction, Rental Housing and Operations (Gatlin)
Contact Crissy Canganelli at 338.5416 x102, crissy@shelterhouseiowa.org
If you have any questions about the agenda, or are unable to attend the meeting, please
contact Tracy Hightshoe at 356-5244 or by email at tracv-hiqhtshoe@iowa-citv.orq.
CDBG & HOME Activities, FY2012
Category ActiVity Requ.ested Allotated U nitslHHA$s.isted Source
IV Habitat For Humanity - Owner- occ. Rehab. $ 40,000 $ 40,000 15 CDBG
IV Habitat for Humanity - Homeownership $ 180,000 $ 180,000 4 HOME
The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating $ 40,000 $ 33,900 NA HOME
The Housing Fellowship - Pre Dev. Loan $ 10,500 $ 10,500 8 HOME
Mayor's Youth - Rental Housing $ 99,800 $ 99,800 8 HOME
Housing United Action for Youth - Rental Housing $ 480,000 $ 350,000 3 HOME
Successful Living - Rental Rehab. $ 92,500 $ 52,000 9 CDBG
Systems Unlimited - Rental Rehab. $ 70,000 $ 48,000 4 CDBG
Iowa City Housing Rehabilitation Program $ 123,885 18 CDBG
Iowa City Housing Rehabilitation Program $ 88,139 2 HOME
Total Housing: $ 1,012,800 $ 1,026,224 71
Facilities Assisted
ICCSD Grant Wood Elementary - Utility Install. $ 33,400 $ 33,400 1 CDBG
Neighborhood Centers of JC - Facility Rehab. $ 65,000 $ 42,250 1 CDBG
DVIP - Facility Rehabilitation $ 6,500 $ 6,500 1 CDBG
Public Mayor's Youth - Facility Rehabilitation $ 148,702 $ 27,365 1 CDBG
Facilities Crisis Center - Parking Lot Improvements $ 170,000 $ 25,000 1 CDBG
Arc of Southeast Iowa - Facility Rehab. $ 210,922 $ 67,400 1 CDBG
MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation $ 16,293 $ 16,293 1 CDBG
Old Brick Foundation - Accessibility $ 49,600 $ 15,500 1 CDBG
Total Public Facilities $ 700,417 $ 233,708 8
Persons Served
Neighborhood Centers of JC - Operations $ 32,321 $ 15,000 16 CDBG
Neighborhood Centers - Aid to Agencies $ 33,000 60 CDBG
Crisis Center - Operations $ 11,092 $ 11,092 850 CDBG
Crisis Center - Aid to Agencies $ 40,000 (included) CDBG
Big Brothers Big Sisters - Equipment $ 11,640 $ 5,200 76 CDBG
Public Big Brothers Big Sisters - Aid to Agencies $ 32,000 (inlcuded) CDBG
Services Shelter House - Operations $ 50,000 $ 15,000 630 CDBG
Table to Table - Operations $ 20,000 $ 7,000 1,300 CDBG
Successful Living - Vehicle $ 6,000 $ 6,000 30 CDBG
Emma Goldman Clinic - Equipment $ 50,000 $ 25,000 3,000 CDBG
IC Free Medical Clinic - Operations $ 47,000 $ 15,000 200 CDBG
Total Public Services $ 228,053 $ 204,292 6,162
Entities Assisted
Iowa City Economic Development Fund $ 102,670 3 CDBG
Econ. Dev Total Economic Development $ 102,670 3
HOME Program Administration $ 67,799 NA HOME
Admin. CDBG Program Administration $ 157,438 NA CDBG
Total Administration $ 225,237 NA
Total CDBG
Total HOME
Combined Total
$ 961,993
$ 830,138
$ 1,792,131
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FY12 CDBG/HOME BUDGET RECOMMENDATION
Requested
Amount
$40,000
$180,000
$40,000
$10,500
$99,800
$480,000
$92,500
$70,000
$275,000
$640,000
Housing
IV Habitat for Humanity - Owner-ace. Rehab
IV Habitat for Humanity - Homeownership
The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating
The Housing Fellowship - Pre-Development
Mayor's Youth - Rental Housing
United Action for Youth - Rental Housing
Successful Living - Rental Rehabilitation
Systems Unlimited - Rental Rehabilitation
Shelter House - Rental Housing
Dolphin International LLC - Rental Rehab.
Housing Total'
Public Facilities
ICCSD Grant Wood Elementary - Equipment
Neighborhood Centers of JC - Facility Rehab.
DVIP - Facility Rehabilitation
Mayor's Youth - Property Acq/Fac. Rehab.
Crisis Center of JC - Facility Rehab.
Arc of Southeast Iowa - Facility Rehabilitation
Community Mental Health Center - Access.
MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation
Old Brick Foundation - Facility Rehabilitation
Public Access Television - Facility Rehabilitation
Public Facilities Total
Public Services
Neighborhood Centers of JC - Operations
Crisis Center of Johnson County - Operations
Big Brothers Big Sisters of JC - Equipment
Shelter House - Operations
Table to Table - Operations
United Action for Youth - Equipment
Successful Living - Equipment
DVIP - Equipment
Emma Goldman Clinic - Equipment
Iowa City Free Medical Clinic - Operations
Compeer Program - Operations
Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program - Equipment
MECCA - Equipment
Local Foods Connection - Operations
Systems Unlimited - Equipment
Sudanese American Community Ctr - Oper.
Progressive Education - Operations
Public Services Total
TOTAL
. $87,800 HOME funds unallocated.
Italics - CDBG only eligible housing activities.
$1,927,800
$33,400
$65,000
$6,500
$148,702
$170,000
$210,922
$171,000
$16,293
$49,600
$27,350
$898,767
$32,321
$11,092
$11,640
$50,000
$20,000
$6,900
$6,000
$5,600
$50,000
$47,000
$10,750
$40,000
$6,690
$16,000
$44,650
$50,000
$21,750
$430,393
$3,256,960
HCDC (3/17/11)
Recommendation
$40,000
$180,000
$33,900
$10,500
$99,800
$350,000
$52,000
$48,000
$0
$0
$814 200
$33,400
$42,250
$6,500
$27,365
$25,000
$67,400
$0
$16,293
$15,500
$0
$233.708
$15,000
$11,092
$5,200
$15,000
$7,000
$0
$6,000
$0
$25,000
$15,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$99,292
$1,147,200
U)
....,
C
fa
U
.-
-
Q.
Q.
cC
'"
c
.-
U)
::I
o
::c
N
....
>-
LI.
I
U)
E
a..
cu
I-
-
fa
.-
U
C
fa
C
.-
LI.
~ ro .
..., 0. I/)
'm '0 c I/)
o.c05
~ 'C ~ :p
o.uro
c ...... [J:: !::!
~Q):c!E "0
...J g' 0 -g Q)
I 0 E E ~
0.
cOroQ)v;p
ro c ...... E ;.:.: -
o......:Jo'::!-Eo.
....01j..c I/)
c :J roE
Q)"OhQ)"""
E 0 Vi =.!::: O:i
>-I/)......"Oro....
ro[i.e~-5fi
0. ..c Q) .-
"o>~......Q)~
~>c.e..c......
......:::RQ)....~:J
Q)O"OC U
\I."- 0 .- ro"O c
Q)....~......co
Oro......l9roU
*
C
o
:i:i
la
'a
C
cu
E
E
o
~
It
J9
U)
--B
C C
o la
-.-
..., -
Gc. Q)
.- E ro
-0 I/)
8:u c
~i :3-
.- 'a
U)C <(-0
Ecu zo
... E .. 'C
CU Q) Q)
I- E Q) c..
....0 u..Q)
_~ ......u
~ ~ 'a ~ .~
c.1t .2 t: Q) ~
eJ9i~6Jo
""u)""l90U
en
C
'(ij
:I
o
::c
II-
o
8.
~
I
...
CU
C
~
o
Ii
.c .-
laC.
J::1
CU U
~~
...,
C
.~
a.
c.
c
......
.e
....
19
:0
ro
I
>-
Q)~
ro .-
>c
ro ro
~ E
o :J
_I
o
o ~
C\l."-O
Q)(sOiO
::;......~I/)
....Q)O"O
o.CO Q)
r3~T""'f~
Q) 0 .. 0
ex: >- ~ 0.
.. ..0 c
~Q)Q)tJ
:= ro :s2 c
..ol/)I/)E ~
roC~O VT
'E 0 ':>. ...... Q)
o o.L\I."- Q)
~::JE~ u..
\I."- C 'C 0. 9l
000.~+-l"""
"0 .-...... I/) 0
o .!!l Q) I/) ~ Qj
.- > O'l"O Q) >
0:i2cS....Q)
c.. c.. ..Q \I."- .5 0
c.
.-
J:
~
CU
C
~'Vl
2 ~
E 0
o..c
::c~
......
.e
....
19
:0
ro
I
>-
Q)~
ro .-
> c
ro ro
~ E
o :J
_I
"0
Q)
I/)
o
0.
2
0.
I/)
E
......
Q)
....
..c
.j..J
.~
......
:J
U
C
o
U
"0
Q)
I/)
o
0.
2
0.
I/)
E
......
Q)
....
..c
....
.~
......
:J
U
C
o
U
....~ ....~ ....~
C"O C"O C"O
:JO :JO :JO
O'C O'C O'C
EQ) EQ) EQ)
<( 0. <( 0. <( 0.
..........Q) ..........Q) ..........Q) :::R
CU CU CU 0
roC roC roC 0
O.~ O.~ O.~ iO
...J 0. ...J 0. ...J 0. c
~E ~E ~E ro
cO cO cO 0
roU roU roU
0.\1."- 0.\1."- 0.\1."- "0
:JO :JO :JO Q)
U "0 U "0 U "0 .t:::!
Uc Uc Uc 1:
OQ)___OQ)___OQ)___O
ro......:;ro......:;ro......:;E
c ro Q) c ro Q) c ro Q) ro
o cEO cEo c E ......
:p Q) :p Q) :p Q) ro
.- > I/) .- > I/) .- > I/) Q)
"0 .- E "0 .- E "0 .- E >-
c e'...... c e'...... c e'...... I
8.e.&8.e.&8.e.&~
..:;
I/)
~
Q)
....
c
Cl)
ta
rIl
t::
o
.....
~
"0
~
~
o
()
Cl)
~
.-d
Cl)
3
()
Cl)
rIl
rIl
.....
CJJ
t::
.....
()
~
t::
tP
t)
i3
o
~
~
"0 <Zi
~ Cl)
~5
.~ ~
~~
t) ~
,0 ()
8"0
S ~
.....
d'~
.8 "0
~"O
() Cl)
otP
-.....
~~
~.g
t:: .....
tP"O
S ~
"gtii
rIl 0
('j ()
,01)
~'S
;;> I-<
_0..
--
..... ('j
~ '0
rIl .....
t:: I
o
'.g sg
"0 .8
~ ~
~~
8 ~
Cl)"O
I-< Cl)
a .E
Cl) 8
.....,0
] f3l
() Cl)
~i3
t:: t::
tP 0
~"O
('j Cl)
Ci5 ~
* ,0
~ ~
E ro ro
o ~ ~ ~
<(~ <( 0 ~ ro ~
z~ Z N T""'f ~ ~
~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.... Q) .-
<(z:o~~<(z:o 0:0 0:0 a-o a-o
ro ._ 0 ro -tIr ro -tIr ro 0 0
.. "0 ro ...... .."0 .. "0 .. "0 .. 'C .. 'C
~~~o.~~~~~~~~~~&~~&
u.. \I."- ...... c u.. \I."- Q) u.. \I."- Q) u.. '+- Q) u.. Q) u..
<( 0 <([J:: <([J:: <([J:: Q)[J:: Q)
...... ..oQ) .-...... .-...... .-...... .-...... U .- ...... U
Q)\I."- 1jQ)\I."-....Q)\I."-....Q)\I."-....Q)c....Q)c
0.00 o.OCo.OCo.oCo.roCo.ro
o"O.j..J20"OQ)o"OQ)o"OQ)0~Q)0~
t:Q)oc~Qjo:s2Q)o:s2Q)o:s2QjE:s2Q)'::!-E
>'C ro c >.c.... >.c.... >.c.... > .... >
~ Q) Q)...J0 0 Q) Q) 0 Q) Q) 0 Q) Q) 0 Q) 00 Q) 0
19Oc.. uOc..ZOc..ZOc..ZOUZOU
en
C
:i:i
l!
8.U)
ofg
OC
c!.
::c ><
uw
0.
:.c
I/)
~
o
Qj
u..
O'l
c
'Vi
:J
o
I
Q)
~
...,
C
CU
E
c.
o
l
CU J9
9cc
!~~
""..1-
0.
:.c
I/)
~
..Q
Q)
u..
O'l
c
'Vi
:J
o
I
Q)
..c
I-
-
en
c
'(ij
:I
o
::c
en
c
lift ~
:Ill
o .-
::C5
-0
J9ex:
ClJ')
~e
J:S
- la.........
la J:ll
C _ CU .-
o ....-.... c
.- en ~ ... ::J
..., C -
'(ij .- E J9 0
c~ocex:
lao..cculJ')
~::c~~e
..c
....
:J
o
>-
~
o
>-
ro
:::E
..c
....
:J
~
......
.e
c
o
13
<(
"0
~
c
::J
O'l
c
'>
::J
:J
\l."-
I/)
I/)
Q)
U
U
:J
lJ')
J:S.........
la I/)
J:"O
~~
Q)
- I/)
J9:J
C 0
cu..c
~~
"0
Q)
:t:
E
c
::J
I/)
E
*
>-
lJ')
rn
c
o
:;:;
CO
'"0
C
CD
E
E
o
t)
CD
a::
C)
c
'"0
C
:J
U.
rn
CD
t)
C
CD
C)
<(
o
......
'"0
<(
C'\I
't"""
>-
U.
r:::
o
i
"C
r:::
~808808 08 8 8
Eo.O, 0,0
ON$):!LO~gS::!7i.
() {fi W (fi;; ifi. ~ ~
Q)
D::
N
....
~
U.
...
m
~0888000
Q)0000 8 ~ ~
D:: ~ 0 N' C,O ~' N' a.ri
N {fi ~ C")..- ~ LO LO
.... {fi {fi {fi {fi {fi {fi
~
u.
iii
.a 000000
() 000000
<(<(000.000
ZN '~ON-i'
.... C") LO..- ~ LO LO
~ {fi {fi {fi {fi {fi (fi
u.
~
o
z
w
C)
<(
f!
Q)
...
I/)
en
.21
al
i!
1.. Q) ~
W .s::. ... ._
(l)0Q)1::
.......!o
o al E I/)
~ .~ 0 5
<(alOO
...
r:::
Q)
~ 5
o :t:'
C. r:::
E Q)
w ~
Q)
.s::. ...
... r:::
g Q) U
~ ().E
... 5i ~
.E ... "0 m
! :; .~
5i () ...
o ~ ~
I/) Q) ...
'iij E Q)
.;: 0 "C
o C jjj
I'-.
"t
to
,..:
CV)
"t
~
"t)
ooooooo"t;;: ~
8,8,8885S8~~~
OOONC,O'cOOr-:M Q)
..-..-c'o"-{fiC")c'o{fiV:!-
{fi{fi{fi{fi {fi{fi ~~
(,)
~
~
000 0 0 0 0
00000 LO 0
O,qOLOOO>LO
N..-N"ct500..-
{fi {fi {fi {fi {fi {fi {fi
00000
00008
0.0,000'
N..-N'ct5~
{fi{fi{fi{fi{fi
o 0
LO 0
0> LO
ct5..-
{fi {fi
000
<(<(<(5S8~,<(
ZZZ"ct5ooZ
{fi {fi (fi
0000000
888go~8
ria.ria.riN~oio
~;;~;;{fi~~
<:)
"
II)
cD
<:)
co
~
OOOOOOOOO~
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..- N
O,OOOOLOO,Mari'
OOONcOcOOoiN
..-..-c'o"-{fiC")c'o{fiV
{fi{fi{fi{fi (fi{fi ~
f! ~ €
il Q) Ri 0
~ () ~ ~ () ~
~ ~ ~ Q) 0 ... I/)
t,t. u. 0 > .E r:::
e u ... "C ~ Q) r::: 0
D.iii~ 0 I/):-':t:'
il .s::..~ ... ,g E I/) ~ .2 () ~
~g"C~ ~ "'~I/)~~5i.2
8.3~.=w:i:o<("'.s::..&:;oe;"C ~<f
Q) Q) ~ D::<( ....1/) 0 W ~._ ~ __ ~ ~ ~ "jij
! ! 0 ~ w > ~ ~ ; ~ coo
u.u.J:o::J:E:EZD::D::(I):Jo....
il
I/) ...
U g
v u.
Q)
.0
-
en
Q)
~
0-
Q)
0::
~
Q)
Z
.
'~
c
,Q en
co Q)
(.):E
.Q (;
ro 'C
_0-
o >-
en ro
~~
(.)-0
o Q)
o..'g
Q):::>
.!: ....
::..2
ro-o
~~
x-
Q)rn
co..
_UJ
rol-
:Srn
c>-
,Q I-
coO
(.)-
!i:: >-
- -
go
.!a 5
Q)-o
.... Q)
Q) en
:S ro
, .0
....
Q) Q)
::::.0
~ >-
-0 ro
.... E
~$
ro c
Q) :J
.!: 0
- E
.!: ro
-
'~ .~
co-o
.!: c
- :J
-0-
Q)-O
-0 C
C ro
Q)-
E c
E ~
0&
(.) ,-
Q)-O
....
()
o
()
I
PRELIMINARY
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10,2011 - 6:30 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Andrew Chappell, Cheryl Clamon, Scott Dragoo, Charlie Drum,
Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay, Rebecca
McMurray, Rachel Zimmermann Smith
None
Steve Long, Tracy Hightshoe, David Purdy
Deborah Lyon (Successful Living); Karen Fox (Compeer), Jim
Swaim (UAY), Joan Vanden Berg (Iowa City Schools), Phoebe
Trepp (Shelter House), Ron Berg (MECCA); Scott Hansen (Big
Brothers/Big Sisters); Bill Reagan (Arc of Southeast Iowa); Roger
Lusala, Roberta Eide, Katie Lammers, Kim Darm (Mayor's Youth
Empowerment Program); Laura Dowd (Local Foods Connection);
Sue Freeman (NCJC); Dion Williams (Systems Unlimited), Becci
Reedus, Beth Ritter Ruback (Crisis Center); Roger Goedken,
Joshua Woolums (Progressive Education); Sandy Pickup (Free
Medical Clinic); Mark Patton (Habitat for Humanity); Karen Kubby
(Emma Goldman Clinic); Stephen Trefz (CMHC)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Michael McKay at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 17. 2011 MINUTES:
A typographical error was pointed out by one of the Commissioners.
Chappell moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Zimmermann Smith seconded.
The minutes were approved on an 8-0 vote (McMurray not present at time of vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10,2011
PAGE 2 of 8
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
McKay said that Commissioners should keep in mind that the money available to Public
Services is ten times greater than the usual allotment; something that is not likely to happen
again in the foreseeable future.
McKay noted that funding projects under one category in this funding cycle could have
implications for eligibility for future funding cycles. Hightshoe gave specific scenarios to clarify
the applicability of that statement.
DISCUSSION REGARDING FY12 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) REQUESTS:
. Review Project Rankings
. Discuss Average Allocation Worksheet
McKay explained that tonight's meeting would be a chance for Commissioners to discuss their
initial rankings of projects and the rationale for those rankings. The following week's meeting
would be when the Commission finalized recommendations.
Hart asked staff if there had been clear indication from staff as to how much of the
Commission's allocation was to be for housing. Hightshoe said that there had been some
direction given on the allocation worksheet. $762,000 must be for HOME eligible housing
activities.
HOUSING:
McKay noted that there seemed to be consensus among Commissioners that Dolphin
International LLC should not be funded. The Commission indicated an agreement to set that
application aside and move forward.
McKay noted that Hart had been the only member to allocate money to the Shelter House rental
project. Hart said that she liked the project but suspected there was not adequate support to
fund it.
Hightshoe said that typically if there is a wide range in allocations for a certain project this
meeting would serve as an opportunity for Commissioners to explain their rationale and give
reasons for what they liked or disliked about a project. She said that specific funding
recommendations will not be made until the next meeting.
McKay noted a wide range in the allocations given to MYEP's rental housing project. Gatlin said
that he had heavily funded MYEP in recent funding cycles, and while he felt this was a good
project, he also felt that other projects in the application pool could be more beneficial for the
community. Dragoo said that he had been hoping to support other MYEP applications instead of
this one. Zimmermann Smith said that she had fully funded it because it specifically targeted a
vulnerable population. She said she did not recall allocating anything to MYEP in the special
funding round. Drum said he too was drawn to the population the MYEP project was targeting.
McKay said that his focus had been on the accessible housing aspects of the project.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10,2011
PAGE 3 of 8
McKay noted a wide-range of funding recommendations on the Successful Living rental
rehabilitation project. Zimmermann Smith said that she had funded the project because of the
vulnerable population it serves.
McKay asked Systems Unlimited if they had any reserves that would fund this type of project. A
Systems representative explained that a new regulation had severely limited their ability to
maintain reserves. He explained that the market value for the properties is much greater than
the actual rents charged.
Drum suggested moving to the other end of the scale toward the projects everyone agreed on
for the most part.
PUBLIC FACILITIES:
Zimmermann Smith noted that it looked as though most people had funded the Grant Wood
project. McMurray apologized for not getting her allocation worksheet in in time to be included in
the chart. She said that she did not do a bunch of smaller allocations, as her intent was to give
larger chunks of money out. She said she had funded seven Public Facilities projects. Dragoo
said that he had not had that particular strategy, but had not withheld funding for a particular
reason. Chappell said that this was his highest ranked project and he had made all of his
funding recommendations based primarily on their rankings. Gatlin said that his strategy had
been to fully fund the top three rankings for Public Facilities and Public Services. McMurray
asked why the school district was not paying for the cable at Grant Wood Elementary.
Hightshoe said they are paying for a portion of it. Chappell explained that there are specific
funds targeted toward a school that has some challenges.
McKay noted that the MYEP had quite a range for its property acquisition/facility rehabilitation
project and probably warranted some discussion. Chappell said that his intention was to allocate
money to MYEP for one project. McKay said that his intention was to fund the completion of the
facility rehabilitation and get the computer lab up and running. He said that he did have some
trouble supporting the acquisition of the neighboring property. Chappell noted that the cost for
the two projects McKay had just discussed was actually the reverse of what had been stated.
Hart said one of the things that seemed most critical to her were the infrastructure problems.
Gatlin said that he had fully funded the facility rehabilitation at the Crisis Center as one of his
three funded Public Facilities projects. McKay said that he had thought this project was a high
need, but that he had had some difficulty getting behind improved parking as it had not seemed
as critical to him as some of the other needs. Chappell said that he understood the parking to be
a fairly serious issue and so he had partially funded it. Drum said that there are so many
agencies in that small area that it would be good to get some resolution to the parking problem.
McKay said he had not entirely understood the arrangements that were being made. Drum said
that there were a lot of contingencies involved concerning what adjacent property owners would
be willing to accommodate or agree to. He said that nonetheless he did hope to get some
resolution to the problem. Dragoo said that his mind could be changed in regard to this
application. Hart said she felt the same way.
McKay noted that Dragoo had allocated the highest amount for the Arc project. Dragoo said that
he had passed that application over in the last funding round and he felt like this was a project
he could support. McKay said that his allocation was based on the sprinkler system as an
important safety issue, and the lower-level improvements would allow the agency to use that
level for programming. Drum said he felt the same way, but that he also had wanted to support
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2011
PAGE 4 of 8
the kitchen remodel. He said the agency would get a lot out of the improvements they have
planned. The playground, he believed was something the Commission could wait on.
McKay said he had recommended full funding for the Community Mental Health Center (CMHC)
because it is important for the agency to have full handicap accessibility. He said he did have
some questions as to whether or not it is worth it to put another $170,000 into a structure of that
age and condition. McKay asked if there was anything that could be done on this project with
partial funding. He asked if just improving the ramp itself would be of help. A representative of
the agency said that improving the ramp would be helpful in that it would solve the problem of
the crumbling steps; however, it would not solve the accessibility problems that an elevator
would solve. He said that the ramp is virtually impassable because it was not built to current
standards. Chappell asked if CMHC had a plan in place for how they would do the entire
elevator project if they received only partial funding, and the reply was that there was not a plan
at this time. Hart commented that she saw this as an either/or project, and Dragoo agreed.
Drum said that he believed that the number of people affected by this project had been an
influential factor in his allocation amount.
McKay invited comments on the MECCA project. Drum and Chappell noted that they had fully
funded the project.
McKay said that his thinking on the Old Brick project was that the front door was not as much of
a concern to him as the accessibility issues that arose from the problems with the side doors.
Drum said that he agreed with McKay about the accessibility issues, but noted that the front
doors posed safety risks to those who work in the building. Chappell said that this had been one
of his lowest ranked projects so he had not recommended funding. McKay said that he felt
much the same way about the front doors as he did about the Crisis Center parking lot: he is not
saying they are not important nor do not need to be done, just that there are more pressing and
critical needs. Drum said that he really, really advocates for Commission members to go on the
facilities tours to see the projects and to meet the people who work on behalf of the community.
He said the tours are very educational and very worthwhile.
Zimmermann Smith said she had partially funded PATV in order to fund their retaining wall.
McKay said that to his recollection the retaining wall had not been presented as a safety issue.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
Zimmermann Smith said she had fully funded the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County
(NCJC) as she really liked the project and the community partnerships involved. Dragoo and
Chappell said that they had funded them elsewhere. Clamon said she had come close to full
funding for the same reasons offered by Zimmermann Smith; she said she thought that this was
a really good community project. Zimmermann Smith noted that there were two different
neighborhood centers requesting funding.
Zimmermann Smith said that she had fully funded the Crisis Center because of the critical
nature of their services. Dragoo said they had scored highly on his ranking sheet. McKay noted
that if $11,000 was funding 50% of a salary, then that was a modest request.
McMurray said that she had fully funded the request for tables and chairs made by Big
Brothers/Big Sisters. Drum said that this was the second step in funding the new building:
equipping it. However, he said that he would rather make a bigger funding impact in a different
area and so he had not fully funded the request. Gatlin said that he had not funded the tables
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2011
PAGE 5 of 8
and chairs because the Commission had funded the building itself. McKay said that he partially
funded it because while the tables and chairs are necessary, he felt the money could have a
bigger impact elsewhere.
Chappell said that the Shelter House ranked in his top five, though he is a little concerned about
the shelter's ability to cover operating costs at the new facility in the future. He said that he had
recommended 50% funding. Hart asked if there were general concerns about the shelter's
viability. Chappell said there were not; he said that his comments simply stemmed from the
perception he had based on their request for operating costs. He said that Shelter House had
commented about the astronomical increase in energy costs at the new shelter, and Chappell
said that those kinds of cost increases should have been easily anticipated given the
dramatically increased size of the facility. He said that he hopes that Shelter House has plans in
place for the increased costs of running and maintaining the much larger facility. He noted that
he had no concerns about the organization as a whole. McKay noted that a Shelter House
representative was present for questions if the Commission had any. Hart asked Shelter House
to respond to the concerns that had been brought up. Shelter House very briefly laid out their
plans for maintaining the new facility and creating new income streams. McKay said he had not
allocated anything for Shelter House operating costs. He said that he had had trouble funding it
all, and had been surprised at their surprise about the increased expenses. Drum said that
Shelter House had ranked fairly highly for him and he had partially funded them. Gatlin said that
he had not funded them because he was trying to limit his funding to three projects. McMurray
noted that several Commissioners had made comments suggesting they had limited funding to
one project per entity, and she wondered if anyone cared to comment on why that would be.
Chappell said that in general, if he recommended funding in one category, he tried not to
recommend funding in another category.
Gatlin said that he actually had Table to Table ranked fairly high. He said that he thought the
project was unique, so he had funded it fully. Clamon said she had not been able to afford to
fund the project fully, but did think it was a good program.
Dragoo said he had not funded UA Y, but was willing to be persuaded. McKay said that he was
making assumptions that the equipment would increase the agency's efficiency. Clamon asked
if the equipment request was for four computers, and a UA Y representative said that was
correct. McKay asked how much the six additional software licenses would cost UA Y. The UA Y
representative said that the licenses would cost approximately $1,200. He said that generally
UA Y can get non-profit discounts from Microsoft, but they are not available for this particular
software.
Hart said that she thought that the small, one-time request from Successful Living was a
manageable funding request. Gatlin said that his concern with taking on a number of smaller
projects was the oversight burden that could pose. Hart said that smaller projects sometimes
require smaller oversight. McKay asked Successful Living if they had found a van suitable for
their purposes for $6,900, and Successful Living said that a standard eight-passenger van
would suffice. Zimmermann Smith said she liked this project because it was an economical way
to make big changes in the way they do things with a small amount of money.
Hart said she had partially funded DVIP because she believed that they were at a point where
their computers were near-obsolete.
McKay said that the Emma Goldman Clinic had been a difficult project for him to make a funding
decision on. Chappell said that it had been difficult for him as well. McKay asked if partial
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10,2011
PAGE 6 of 8
funding would work for this project. Karen Kubby said that the agency was going to have to
figure out how to fund the project one way or the other, so partial funding would work. She said
that there is a lot of time involved in the reporting requirements for this funding, so if the
Commission could only fund a couple of thousand dollars, then that much might be spent in staff
time overseeing the reporting requirements. She said that anything less than $5,000 might not
be worthwhile for the clinic. Chappell noted that this was a one-time project. McKay said that he
was open to reconsideration of that project as he had been looking at it as an all-or-nothing
proposition. Chappell said that he was too. Clamon and Drum said that they were glad to know
that partial funding was a possibility.
Clamon said that she felt that the Iowa City Free Medical Clinic request was one that would
make more money than it spends. She said her impression was that costs could ultimately be
reduced by the preventative measures that could be funded by this request. McKay said his
thinking was that these kinds of needs were going to increase. He said that the Free Medical
Clinic is essentially the place of last resort for the uninsured and under-insured facing these
issues.
McKay asked what Hart's thinking was on the Compeer application. She said that she had not
been certain if this was a one-time request or not. Chappell said this project had ranked
somewhere in the middle for him and so he had given it partial funding.
McKay noted that the allocations for the MYEP equipment request had been all over the map.
Chappell said he had not recommended funding because he had fully funded the MYEP rental
housing project. Dragoo said he believed there were several pieces to this project so he had
only recommended partial funding, though he was willing to consider other funding levels.
McKay asked MYEP if they had a line on a $20,000 wheelchair van. Roger Lusala of MYEP
said that they were looking at an unequipped van that would then have to be outfitted for
accessibility.
McKay asked if anyone cared to comment on their MECCA allocation. Drum said his funding
levels wound up being a function of his ranking sheet. He said that rather than fully funding a
few things that he wanted to, he would up partially funding a whole bunch of projects.
Chappell said that Local Food Connections ranked near the top on his ranking sheet. He said it
is a one year project, so they would not be coming back before the Commission next year to ask
for the same funding. Chappell said that the project is an interesting one and would benefit
multiple service agencies. McKay said he thought this was a very soft project and he had
difficulty getting behind it. Hart said that this is a project that will help Local Foods firmly
establish itself in the community.
Drum said that he had supported the Systems Unlimited request because they really need that
van to provide their services.
McKay noted that no Commissioners had allocated funding for the Sudanese American
Community Center project.
Chappell said that he had not wanted to discount the Progressive Education request based
solely on the fact that it was an agency the Commission had not seen before. He said he liked
the idea of partially funding it to see what they can do with a little seed money as a
private/public partnership. Zimmermann Smith said she agreed with Chappell, but she would
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 10,2011
PAGE 7of8
have liked to have seen support from agencies they had worked with in the past. McKay said
that it appeared to him that their services overlapped with those offered by other local providers.
Hightshoe said that Kubby's comments about the reporting requirements were something to
keep in mind. Hightshoe said that if the Commission is going to fund something they need to
make sure the agency has the staff to support the federal requirements. She noted that
Congress has not yet passed its budget, so the allocation amounts are not yet set. Hightshoe
said that City Council would be voting on the allocation recommendations at their May 3 Council
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Zimmermann Smith moved to adjourn.
Chappell seconded.
The motion was approved 9-0.
PRELIMINARY
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2011 - 6:30 PM
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, MEETING ROOM A
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Andrew Chappell, Cheryl Clamon, Charlie Drum, Jarrod Gatlin,
Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay, Rebecca McMurray, Rachel
Zimmermann Smith
Scott Dragoo
. Steve Long, Tracy Hightshoe, Doug Ongie
Deborah Lyon (Successful Living); Phoebe Trepp (Shelter House),
Bill Reagan (Arc of Southeast Iowa); Roger Lusala, Roberta Eide,
Katie Lammers (Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program); Laura
Dowd (Local Foods Connection); Sue Freeman; Dion Williams
(Systems Unlimited), Becci Reedus, Beth Ritter Ruback (Crisis
Center); Roger Goedken, (Progressive Education); Sandy Pickup
(Free Medical Clinic); Karen Kubby (Emma Goldman Clinic);
Karen Fox (Compeer); Bob Anderlik (Table to Table); Brett
Gordon (Old Brick); Mahmoud Siddig (Sudanese American
Community Services, Inc.); Josh Goding (PATV); Brian Leving
(NCJC); Jim Swaim (UAY)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
The Commission voted 8-0 to make the following recommendations to City Council for
the FY12 CDBG/HOME funding:
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FY12 CDBG/HOME BUDGET RECOMMENDATION
Requested HCDC (3/17/11)
Amount Recommendation
$40,000
$180,000
$40,000
$10,500
$99,800
$480,000
$92,500
$70,000
$275,000
$640,000
$1,927,800
Housing
IV Habitat for Humanity - Owner-occ. Rehab
IV Habitat for Humanity - Homeownership
The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating
The Housing Fellowship - Pre-Development
Mayor's Youth - Rental Housing
United Action for Youth - Rental Housing
Successful Living - Rental Rehabilitation
Systems Unlimited - Rental Rehabilitation
Shelter House - Rental Housing
Dolphin International LLC - Rental Rehab.
Housing Tota/*
Public Facilities
ICCSD Grant Wood Elementary - Equipment
Neighborhood Centers of JC - Facility Rehab.
$40,000
$180,000
$33,900
$10,500
$99,800
$350,000
$52,000
$48,000
$0
$0
$814,200
$33,400
$65,000
I $33,400
$42,250
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17,2011
PAGE 2 of 11
DVIP - Facility Rehabilitation
Mayor's Youth - Property Acq/Fac. Rehab.
Crisis Center of JC - Facility Rehab.
Arc of Southeast Iowa - Facility Rehabilitation
Community Mental Health Center - Access.
MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation
Old Brick Foundation - Facility Rehabilitation
Public Access Television - Facility Rehabilitation
Public Facilities Total
Public Services
Neighborhood Centers of JC - Operations
Crisis Center of Johnson County - Operations
Big Brothers Big Sisters of JC - Equipment
Shelter House - Operations
Table to Table - Operations
United Action for Youth - Equipment
Successful Living - Equipment
DVIP - Equipment
Emma Goldman Clinic - Equipment
Iowa City Free Medical Clinic - Operations
Compeer Program - Operations
Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program - Equipment
MECCA - Equipment
Local Foods Connection - Operations
Systems Unlimited - Equipment
Sudanese American Community Ctr - Oper.
Progressive Education - Operations
Public Services Total
TOTAL
* $87,800 HOME funds unallocated.
Italics - CDSG only eligible housing activities.
CALL TO ORDER:
$6,500
$148,702
$170,000
$210,922
$171,000
$16,293
$49,600
$27,350
$898,767
$32,321
$11,092
$11,640
$50,000
$20,000
$6,900
$6,000
$5,600
$50,000
$47,000
$10,750
$40,000
$6,690
$16,000
$44,650
$50,000
$21,750
$430,393
$3,256,960
$6,500
$27,365
$25,000
$67,400
$0
$16,293
$15,500
$0
$233,708
$15,000
$11,092
$5,200
$15,000
$7,000
$0
$6,000
$0
$25,000
$15,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$99,292
$1,147,200
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Michael McKay at 6:30 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
ST AFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
McKay thanked the staff for the amazing amount of work they had put into the allocation
process. He also thanked the Commission for the work they had done.
McKay said that the Commission would reach a consensus this evening about the allocation
amounts and would be forwarding those recommendations to City Council. McKay said that staff
had directed the Commission to consider the items that are considered high priorities by CITY
STEPS prior to considering other projects. McKay asked Hightshoe to clarify the significance of
CDBG-only projects and how that affects the Commission's funding allocations. Hightshoe said
that the order in which the applications are reviewed is a procedural issue outlined in CITY
STEPS. Hightshoe said that high priorities are reviewed first; however, that does not mean that
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17,2011
PAGE 3 of 11
high priority projects must necessarily be funded or fully funded. After consideration of high
priority projects, if funding remains, the commission would then review medium priorities, etc.
Hightshoe said that there is approximately $1,235,000 available to allocate, $762,000 of which
must be allocated to HOME-eligible activities. Hightshoe said that the maximum allocation
amount for Public Services is $100,000; though she noted that it did not all have to be spent on
Public Services. Hightshoe noted that Congress has not passed the final budget yet; however,
the preliminary numbers show that HOME funds should stay about the same as last year
whereas CDBG could have a 10%-15% cut. Hightshoe said that at the end of the meeting, the
Commission would have to decide how they wished to handle any potential cuts to their
allocation amounts and also decide who would be writing the justification memo.
Hightshoe noted that the format of the meeting would simply be that of a conversation amongst
the Commission members unless they had a specific question for an applicant that was present.
DISCUSSION REGARDING FY12 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) REQUESTS:
. Discuss FY12 CDBG/HOME Applications
. Develop FY12 CDBG/HOME Budget Recommendations to Council
McKay recommended that the Commission consider Public Services allocations first. Chappell
said he would rather consider Housing applications first as it is the category that has a specific
spending requirement. Hightshoe said that $762,000 must be spent on Housing activities,
though it was possible to reserve some of those funds for next year's allocations. Chappell said
that decisions that are made with HOME funds will impact how much money is left over for
Public Services. He said that if the Commission chooses to spend more than $762,000 on
Housing, then the full $100,000 might not be available for Public Services. Zimmermann Smith
asked what happens to the other funding categories if the full $762,000 is not spent on housing.
Hightshoe said that there is only $473,000 available for CDBG-eligible activities such as Public
Facilities, Public Service and CDBG Housing-eligible activities. Hightshoe said that if all HOME
funds are not allocated to Housing, they cannot be applied to Public Facilities or Public
Services. Hart asked if there was anyone who had not been planning on allocating the full
$762,000 for Housing activities. Drum said it makes sense to start with the HOME funding
because it is the only category that can affect the others. The Commission indicated agreement
on this approach.
McKay asked the Commission to discuss Habitat for Humanity's $40,000 funding request.
McMurray said that she had basically fully-funded high priority projects. Hightshoe noted that
while the Habitat project is a high priority based on CITY STEPS, it is a CDBG-only project
because it is owner-occupied rehab. Chappell said he would recommend full funding for the
Habitat for Humanity project, The Housing Fellowship CHDO operating costs, and Mayor's
Youth Rental Housing project. Zimmermann Smith said she could agree with that. Gatlin noted
that the entire Commission had funded The Housing Fellowship's Pre-Development project.
Hart asked what the Commission thought about funding the Successful Living Rental Rehab
project. Zimmermann Smith said that she had actually changed her Public Services allocations
to do that because the project is needed and the organization provides a huge service to its
target population. Hart asked for clarification and Gatlin explained that anything that appeared in
italics on the staff chart was a CDBG only activity, so the money had to be pulled from Public
Services or Public Facilities.
Chappell asked if anyone wished to change their position on Shelter House Rental Housing or
Dolphin International. He said that he had supported Dolphin last year, but no progress had
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17,2011
PAGE 4 of 11
been made in the intervening year. He said he loves the Shelter House project but that it had
just been funded in the last round. McMurray said that the only thing that made her want to fund
Dolphin was the fact that there are a lot of potential units that are currently sitting vacant. McKay
said that his issue with that project is that they are not pledging a portion or any of their own
money. Hart said she was fine with the allocations being discussed but asked what the
Commission planned to do with Successful Living and Systems Unlimited. She asked if the plan
was to fund them with money from another category. Zimmermann Smith and McMurray said
that they had both done so. Chappell asked if it was correct that the only HOME-eligible projects
that had not been discussed so far were UAY Rental Housing and Habitat for Humanity Home
Ownership. McMurray said she had fully funded those two projects in order to use up the
remaining funds. Zimmermann Smith noted that all of the money did not have to be "used up",
and that some could be left unallocated. She said that to be honest she had not seen any
Housing projects that had been particularly creative. She said that during the special allocation
cycle she had seen some exciting projects, but these particular applications were not as
innovative as she would have like to see. Saving some of the money for next year's allocation
cycle and seeing if more creative projects were brought forward is always an option,
Zimmermann Smith said. Clam on asked if it was correct that money beneath that $762,000
allocation threshold could be carried over for future funding cycles and Hightshoe said that it
was. McMurray asked how secure that money is, considering the current state of the federal
budget. Hightshoe said that it was secure; the City has two years to commit it. Gatlin asked if it
was correct that holding money back could put some potential projects behind the eight ball
since timing would then be an issue. Hightshoe said that was possible, though it depended on
the amount of money involved. Gatlin said that the present discussions were for something like
$500,000, so it was his recommendation that the allocation discussions continue. He
recommended looking at the average allocations and seeing where that put things. Further
discussions resulted in preliminary allocations that left approximately $87,800 in HOME funds
unallocated. Chappell said that he did not have a problem leaving this money unspent, but he
also did not have a problem allocating to UA Y. He advised leaving the HOME discussions for
now and making the final decision after looking at CDBG projects. Hightshoe noted that the
UA Y pro forma had relied on full funding to achieve cash flow; the project could struggle if it had
to acquire a lot of private debt. Zimmermann Smith said that this was one reason she had
funded it lower. She said she thought it might be a situation where it would be wise to start out
slow and see how things go. Hightshoe noted that a representative from UA Y was present for
questions. Zimmermann Smith asked UA Y what it would do with an allocation that was half of its
requested amount. Jim Swaim, UA Y, said that they would buy fewer units. He said that if the
funding level was of a substantially a lesser amount than what was presently being discussed,
they probably would not go through with the project; however, if the funding was at the level
Commissioners were considering, than they could easily proceed with the project by doing one
or two fewer units.
The Commission agreed to move on and consider Public Facilities.
McKay noted that they seemed to be near-unanimous in their desire to fully-fund the Grant
Wood project. Zimmermann Smith suggested plugging in the average allocations for Systems
Unlimited and Successful Living in order to show that money as reserved for Housing projects.
McMurray suggested fully funding the top three Public Facilities projects, since they are all high
priorities under CITY STEPS. Gatlin suggested giving them 80% of their requests as a starting
point. Zimmermann Smith said that it made sense to put in the average allocation for DVIP and
NCJC. McMurray said she would like to see full funding for those projects. Chappell suggested
starting out by giving NCJC $42,250, which is the cost of funding their priority project. He noted
that that would not mean they could not return to the project and fully fund it, but it would give
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17,2011
PAGE 5 of 11
the Commission a starting point. Hart said that she would like to give at least partial funding for
some of the projects that did not rank as high but still addressed safety issues and facility
access, such as Old Brick, PATV and MECCA. McKay said that the high priorities had to be
considered first. Hart said she was suggesting plugging in the average allocations for the high
priority projects and then seeing what was left. The Commission reached consensus on a
preliminary allocation amount of $6,500 for DVIP.
McKay noted that there was quite a variation in the amounts allocated to the Crisis Center
Rehab. Chappell noted that the priority for the Crisis Center was the parking lot. A preliminary
figure of $25,000 was agreed upon for the Crisis Center. Hightshoe clarified that Community
Mental Health (CMH) could not get an elevator without full funding, but could work to improve
their handicap accessible ramp with a lesser funding amount. Zimmermann Smith said that it
did not seem to her that the ramp was that critical of a project for them. John Shaw, architect for
CMHC, confirmed that the ramp does not necessarily meet code at present, and is the only
means of getting someone in a wheelchair into the facility. Shaw said that in his opinion it would
be unfortunate to put money into the ramp but he did not want to speak for the director as to the
agency's priorities. He said that his impression was that something would have to be done with
the ramp if the elevator was not funded, as the ramp is absolutely crumbling. McKay asked what
the cost to improve the ramp would be. Shaw said he had not calculated that as the elevator
project included the demolition of the ramp. McKay said that he believes CMHC might be going
about this project backwards as a handicap accessible office could be rented for a number of
years for the $170,000 that CMHC was wanting to invest in this facility. Shaw noted that CMHC
would then have to fund staffing for the alternate location. McKay said that he understood that
but that this was a lot of money to put into this particular project. Consensus was reached that
because the elevator is an all or nothing project, no funding would be allocated. Hart noted her
objection to allocating no funding at all.
McKay noted that there was near-consensus on fully funding the MECCA Facility Rehab project.
A consensus was reached to fully fund MECCA preliminarily.
Gatlin suggested moving to the next high priority items, even if they are in Public Services, and
then coming back to finish out Public Facilities and Housing. The Commission indicated
consensus with this course of consideration.
McKay noted a wide range in allocations to the NCJC Operations project. Gatlin said that he
had fully funded this project as it had ranked as his highest priority. He noted that his strategy
had been to fully fund a few projects rather than allocating smaller amounts to many projects.
He said that his focus was on high impact allocations as typically Public Services only has
$10,000 available, and this funding cycle there is $100,000 available. Clamon said she did not
fully fund this because she ran out of money, but she came as close to fully funding it as she
could. Zimmermann Smith said she liked the job-training aspect of this project. McKay
suggested penciling in $15,000 for the project and coming back to it later. Chappell said that he
did not have a problem with that but he wanted to note that all of the positive aspects mentioned
about the NCJC project are also present in the Progressive Education project. He said the
question that was asked of Progressive Education was whether the services it was offering are
duplicative of those already available in the community. Chappell said that the same question
should also be asked of the NCJC project. Zimmermann Smith said that the application
materials submitted by NCJC show that they already have their community partners and
clientele lined up whereas Progressive Education had not shared the same kind of
documentation of support. She said she was certainly open to funding Progressive Education if
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17,2011
PAGE 6 of 11
that kind of support was demonstrated. Hart said that Progressive Education had been a little
short on details.
Zimmermann Smith asked the Crisis Center which they would choose if they had to pick
between funding for Operations or Facility Rehab. A Crisis Center representative said that this
was a difficult choice: for Facilities, the priority is the parking lot so the current $25,000 funding
level is adequate; Operations funding will assist with paying for an additional staff member hired
to handle recent funding and demand increases. Zimmermann Smith said she was comfortable
fully funding the operations expenses and leaving the Facilities allocation at $25,000. Drum said
that the Operations ranked highly for him because it was money used to raise more money.
Consensus was reached to fund the Crisis Center at $25,000 for Facilities and $11,092 for
Operations.
Chappell said that Big Brothers/Big Sisters ranked highest for him in terms of Public Services
projects. He said that what he liked about this was that it is easiest to make an impact with one-
time funding. Chappell said that none of the ongoing funding that the Commission had seen in
this funding cycle really had a concrete plan for how the need would be funded the following
year. He said that he wants to make an impact in Public Services with one-time projects in this
allocation cycle because there is a unique opportunity to fund. Gatlin said he has no problem
funding this equipment request, but he wants to make sure that the Commission fully-funds
wherever possible, as he believes that has a greater impact than partial funding. McKay said
that he funded at around $5,000 because he believed that the bulk of the equipment needs
could be picked up through other fundraising efforts. Chappell said that he agrees with Gatlin
about fully funding wherever possible; however, he also wanted to suggest that if full-funding
was not possible, then funding should be done in a way that allows the agency to fund its
priority projects. A consensus was reached to fund at $5,200 to cover the folding tables, carts
and chairs. Hightshoe noted that applicants are encouraged to list their projects in priority order
on their application.
Chappell noted that four Commissioners had recommended funding for Shelter House
Operations, and that those allocations amounts were between $22,000 and $25,000. He asked
if there was anyone who recommended $0 that would be willing to recommend something for
Shelter House. Chappell said that he had shared his concerns about this application at the last
meeting, and had indicated that he would be much less happy with this application next year if
strides had not been made to meet the expected expenses of the new facility. He said that since
this is the first year, he is comfortable funding at $25,000 or less. Hart said that she would be
interested in looking at projects further down the list before making this decision. She said that
while this project had ranked highly for her, she also realized that rankings are somewhat
arbitrary and that she, like Chappell, is partial to the one-time-ask rather than providing annual
assistance. She asked if it was possible to look at some of the equipment requests first and then
return to the operations requests. Drum said he had no problem with that. Zimmermann Smith
said that she had not allocated to Shelter House but did not have a problem funding them if the
Commission wished to do so. Clamon asked how that jived with Gatlin's full-funding strategy
and he replied that it is actually completely counter to his line of thinking. Clam on said that she
too had allocated zero, but that she could support bridge funding if there was an understanding
that coming back next year and asking for the same kind of money would not be viewed
favorably. Zimmermann Smith asked if there was consensus to preliminarily fund at $25,000,
and there was.
McKay suggested looking at the UA Y Equipment request. Chappell recommended not funding
the UAY Equipment request as the Commission is funding their Housing request at $350,000.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 2011
PAGE 7 of 11
Swaim said that it would be fine to keep the Equipment request funded at zero as he had
recently learned that more federal equipment grants would be coming available in the next 18
months.
Chappell said that he was skeptical that Successful Living could fully fund a van for $6,000.
Hightshoe noted that the request is for $6,000, but the agency was contributing their own funds
to cover the shortfall. A consensus was reached to fully fund the request.
Hart said that she had funded the DVIP computers that were requested. Chappell noted that
there seemed to be a consensus not to fund the request at all. Hart asked how he had come to
the conclusion that there was a consensus to fund. Gatlin explained that six out of the nine
Commissioners had allocated zero funding to the request. Hart said she would like to suggest
that at least partial funding for the computers be granted to DVIP. McMurray asked how much
the computers were. Hart said she thought they were about $3,000. Several Commissioners
indicated a desire not to fund this project and Chappell said that he believed the consensus was
to not fund the project. Hart said she did not believe there was consensus not to fund, but that
they could come back to it later.
Hart said she had partially funded Compeer because her understanding was that this would give
them a jumpstart in being self-sufficient. Chappell noted that there were seven Commissioners
who allocated zero to this request. McKay suggested putting zero down for this project.
McMurray wondered why so many projects that were considered high priorities were being
allocated zero dollars. Chappell explained that the projects were high priorities in terms of being
reviewed first; they were not necessarily the most highly ranked projects. Chappell noted that
the rankings also factor into the funding amounts. Hart said that the rankings may factor in, but
she has never used those rankings as much more than a sorting mechanism and Chappell
cannot assume that everyone is putting the same weight on the rankings. Chappell said they
should probably be used or not used consistently.
Zimmermann Smith noted that the Emma Goldman Clinic and the Free Medical Clinic had been
allocated some level of funding by nearly everyone, so it might be useful to discuss those
applications next. Clamon said that she had not funded the Emma Goldman Clinic because she
had thought it was an all-or-nothing project. McKay said that it looked as though $25,000 was a
popular allocation amount for that request. Hart said she would fund both Emma Goldman and
Free Med, and would also fund Local Foods. She said that she realized Local Foods had not
received across the board funding but that it seemed like there were people who could be
persuaded to at least partially fund Local Foods. McMurray said she would like to see Local
Foods funded as it is a one year project. Drum asked if Local Foods was an educational project.
Chappell said that his understanding was that it was education and increased cooperation with
other non-profits. Drum said that when he compares that request against a van that will take
kids to activities, he has a hard time funding it. He said that he understood the value of the
project but when he compares it with concrete needs he just cannot support it in favor of some
of the other projects before the Commission. Chappell said that it may be more accurate to
compare the project with a replacement van rather than a primary means of transportation as
most of these agencies already have vans. Zimmermann Smith noted that Successful Living
does not have a van at present. Drum said that it was not vans in particular that he felt
outranked Local Foods; it was the concreteness of the van that he was trying to get across.
Zimmermann Smith said that she agreed with Drum; transportation and medical care outrank
the needs met by the Local Foods project in her opinion. McKay agreed. Hart said that she
would disagree because the program is not as nebulous as what Commissioners are making it
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17,2011
PAGE 8 of 11
out to be. She said the program has made a significant impact for people that do not have a lot
to spend on good food choices. Hart said she would like to see at least partial funding.
Gatlin said that if the Commission was now looking at two or three major projects in Public
Services they should keep in mind that there is only about $13,000 left to spend on Public
Services. McKay said that to his mind the Free Medical Clinic has to get some money.
McMurray noted that the Commission is funding their Health Fund, though Zimmermann Smith
explained that they were totally different programs. McMurray said that the Commission has
funded Free Med a great deal in the past. Gatlin noted that the Commission could review the
allocations that have already been set if they wanted to add to the remaining $13,000. Drum
said that the average allocation for Free Med was $17,000. Chappell said that Free Med was his
lowest ranked project and he had allocated $4,000 for diabetic monitoring equipment. McMurray
said she could agree with allocating $4,000 for equipment. Zimmermann Smith asked if it was
possible to do anything with just the equipment. Sandy Pickup of the Free Medical Clinic
explained that someone had to actually see the patient in order for the program to work. Pickup
explained that if $4,000 was allocated, it could not all be spent on equipment as there would be
staff involved in seeing the clients. Zimmermann Smith asked if Free Med's funding from other
sources was in any way contingent on what the Commission chose to allocate. Pickup said it
was not. McKay asked if the salary costs included in the request have anything to do with Free
Med's prescription drug program. Pickup said that the salary funding was to partially cover the
pharmacy assistant, the case manager and the physician. Zimmermann Smith said that she
would give Free Med $18,000 and remove the small Big Brothers/Big Sisters allocation.
McMurray said she would rather reduce the Shelter House allocation. Zimmermann Smith
suggested taking $10,000 from Shelter House and giving Free Med $20,000. Chappell said that
Table to Table had not yet been discussed, though five people had allocated $10,000 to it in
their allocation worksheets. McMurray said that Table to Table was a big priority, and thanked
Chappell for bringing it up. Chappell said that his recollection was that their project was a one
year project. Gatlin said that Table to Table was his second highest ranked project, but the
question ultimately becomes one of where the $10,000 comes from. Chappell said that despite
his admiration for the program, for him the money comes from Free Med because the project
ranked the lowest and it is the same type of request Free Med has to make every year. Gatlin
pointed out that just because a request is repeated from year to year does not mean it is not a
need. Hart said that even though it is a need, the concern is that some of these agencies are
unable to find alternate funding for these programs. Zimmermann Smith said that she had felt
about Table to Table the same way she had felt about Local Foods. She said that though it is a
good project, she did not fund it. Gatlin asked if it would be possible to go with the average
allocation for Table to Table. He said he had had Emma Goldman ranked as his third highest
project because it is a project that will help them increase revenues. Zimmermann Smith noted
that Emma Goldman would have to fundraise beyond anything the Commission allocated. There
was extensive discussion about taking a small amount of money that was currently allocated to
Emma Goldman and the Free Medical Clinic and allocating that to Table to Table. Ultimately,
consensus was reached to fund Table to Table at $7,000, Free Med at $15,000, and Emma
Goldman at $25,000.
The Commission agreed to return to discussions of Public Facilities. Hart said she was under
the impression that funding allocations under Public Services were still up for discussion for
things like DVIP. Zimmermann Smith asked if everyone was comfortable with the allocation
amounts currently set for Public Services and a majority of Commissioners indicated agreement
with the allocation amounts.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17,2011
PAGE 9 of 11
Hightshoe said there was $110,065 left to spend on CDBG eligible activities. Hart asked if it was
the intention not to spend the other $87,800 in Housing. The consensus was to not allocate
these funds at this time.
Chappell recommended that the Commission cover the expenses of the sprinkler system for
Arc, and a number of Commissioners indicated agreement. Zimmermann Smith recommended
increasing the Mayor's Youth project to $99,800. Gatlin said that he would like to do one side
door for Old Brick, but not the front door. Hightshoe said that she did not think the front door
would actually be eligible as it only led to the banquet hall. A consensus was reached to fund
Old Brick at $15,500. Zimmermann Smith suggested giving the remaining balance to Mayor's
Youth. Hart asked if there could be any discussion about the PATV project as the back steps
and the retaining wall present safety issues. Chappell noted that six Commissioners had
allocated zero to P A TV. He also noted that Mayor's Youth had had a lot of funding for their
ground-level rehab, and are getting close to $100,000 for rental new construction this funding
round. Chappell said that if there was desire to spend the rest of the money right now, the Crisis
Center and Arc had ranked highly for him and he would rather see the money go there than just
lumped into Mayor's Youth. Chappell asked if there were still staff concerns about the PATV
application. Hightshoe said there are. She said that because it would be very difficult for PATV
to verify that 51 % of the beneficiaries of their project are low-to-moderate income, they would
have to rely on that part of their project that benefitted Extend the Dream and Extend the Dream
would have to meet and document the low-to-moderate income national objective. A consensus
agreed not to fund PATV. Zimmermann Smith said she was okay with giving Arc more money.
McKay said he could go along with most of the balance going to Mayor's Youth. A consensus
was reached to increase Mayor's Youth and the Arc.
Gatlin asked how much PATV had needed to complete their project. Hart said they had needed
just about the amount she had allocated. Gatlin asked if anyone saw a way to fund this project.
Zimmermann Smith said she was not comfortable funding it given the staff concerns. Hart said
the back steps were directly related to Extend the Dream's egress and they could act as
applicant. Hightshoe noted that there had been compliance issues in the recent past with
Extend the Dream. Chappell said that if Extend the Dream is able to remediate compliance
issues in the future they can apply for future funding. Gatlin suggested that zero might be the
most appropriate allocation amount and a number of Commissioners indicated agreement.
McKay invited a motion.
Zimmermann Smith moved to accept the discussed funding allocations as the
Commission's final recommendations to City Council.
Drum seconded.
The Commission voted 8-0 to approve the motion (Dragoo absent).
Chappell suggested that if the Congressional allocation changes by 10% or less then staff
should adjust the numbers accordingly. If the changes are more than 10%, then the
Commission should meet again.
Zimmermann Smith moved to have staff make adjustments to allocations if the
Congressional allocation to Iowa City changes by 10% or less; if the changes are by
more than 10%, the Commission will reconvene to consider the allocations.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 17,2011
PAGE 10of11
Chappell seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 8-0 (Dragoo absent.)
Hart and Clamon agreed to write the justification memo.
ADJOURNMENT:
Zimmermann Smith moved to adjourn.
Drum seconded.
The motion was approved 8-0 (Dragoo absent).