The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-11-06 Bd Comm minutesItem Number: 4.a. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November 6, 2023 Airport Commission: August 10 Attachments: Airport Commission: August 10 MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION August 10, 2023 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Warren Bishop, Judy Pfohl, Chris Lawrence, Hellecktra Orozco, Members Absent: Ryan Story Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Jennifer Schwickerath, Others Present: Matt Wolford, Carl Byers, Via Zoom: Carolyn Sponza, Ron Roetzel, Jenne Brownlee, Jeff King, Charles Morley, Ron Roetzel, Ryan Anderson, Renee Barnes RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None DETERMINE QUORUM A quorum was determined at 6:00 pm and Orozco called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Pfohl moved to accept the minutes of July 13, 2023, seconded by Lawrence. Motion carried 4-0 (Story Absent) PUBLIC COMMENT -None ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION I ACTION a. Hangar A Mural Project — Tharp noted that Jenna Brownlee was online for the meeting. He stated that after the fundraising round and coordinating with the donors that contributed to the level of proposing aircraft to be included, Brownlee had gone back and revised the concept artwork and had a couple of versions for the Commission to see and decide which was the final design. Members viewed the concepts and discussed details. Tharp noted the specific aircraft that were included for the donors in the designs. Members discussed preferences of the designs. Lawrence asked about the making sure the text on the aircraft all face the proper direction. Brownlee said she'd be able to do that. Members also requested that the aircraft that were currently featured in black and white imagery be in color. Members asked more questions regarding the details in the artwork to which Brownlee responded. Members chose by consensus, concept 1, the timeline concept as the final piece. Tharp noted that Brownlee anticipated beginning work after the Labor Day holiday and it would take 3-4 weeks to complete. b. Airport Construction Projects: 1. FAA grant projects Airport Commission August 10, 2023 Page 2of 5 1. Runway 25 Threshold Relocation — Tharp stated they are continuing to work with the contractor to complete this project. Painters were expected to be out to complete that work on the week of the 21s' but they might be trying to push that out another week. Tharp noted that it appeared to be 2 daytime closures to complete the work. 2. Runway 12130 Displaced Threshold/Relocation — Tharp noted this was on the calendar for 2024. 3. Terminal Area Study— Tharp noted that he had met with the team earlier in the week and they were going to go through a lot of the same into tonight. Sponza describe what they've been doing since the last meeting and noted that they were going to talk about several design options and building program and then some landscaping options. Sponza described the need for additional space needs in the building. Sponza noted that if they were to do an addition to meet the space needs that addition should be around 2000 square feet. King presented each of the options related to the scenarios. Members asked about how the impacts of the existing building in a remodel impacted the considerations which Sponza and Byers answers. Members asked about how these options would be impacted by funding. Tharp noted that the funding for a remodel or for new construction is the same. Members continued to discuss options for space and layouts and what preferences looked like. Tharp noted that they were scheduling an open house that would have the same information for public comment on August 171h. Lawrence asked the funding and how likely it might be that a complete rebuild would be more favorable to the funding application as opposed to a remodel and that the Commission should be open to the possibility of needed to do a complete rebuild. Tharp noted that they would plan for some time to talk about the funding process and the guidelines at the next meeting. Wolford asked about at what point during a remodel do you trigger a need for code updates to existing buildings noting the option that connected the terminal building to the FBO shop. Lawrence asked about was being asked of the Commission. Tharp noted they were looking for input on terms of where the team was in terms of these projections. If there was a more favored direction in terms of if there's a renovation what is the unique items that should be preserved. Anderson then walked through some of the options for landscaping giving descriptions of alternate layouts and the options regarding landscaping and parking. Members discussed their preferences and details of the landscaping options. 4. Solar Power Project — Tharp noted that he put to the two layouts in the packet to confirm them. Tharp stated that CMT was putting together the information for the environmental review based on the two layouts. Tharp noted that doing everything they were looking at nearly a $1 million project. Tharp stated that because of that and the funding from the infrastructure law timeline the project would be completed in 2 phases. Tharp stated they were planning to bid this Airport Commission August 10, 2023 P2go 3 of 5 fall for phase one which would cover the airport lighting for construction hopefully next year, and then the following phase would occur in the fall of 2025 with completion in 2026. ii. Iowa DOT grant projects 1. FY23 Program — a. Terminal Building Improvements — Tharp noted that that they struggled with getting bids for the terminal work but they did have someone that submitted info. b. Wayfinding/Signage- 2. FY24 Program— Tharp noted the Iowa DOT Commission approved the FY24 program at their meeting but they didn't have any recommended projects involved. iii. Airport/Locally Funded Projects —Tharp noted they didn't have any purely locally funded projects planned. iv. Future Projects — none c. Airport "Operations" i. Budget —Tharp noted they made it about a month before their first big issue. Tharp noted that the reel on the dispenser was broken and it appeared that the motor was burned out. ii. Management — 1. Fuel Flowage Fees — Tharp noted they had discussed the fuel flowage fee increase last month and that they had a resolution in the packet to amend the FBO agreement with Jet Air. Tharp noted the agreement would take effect September 18'. a. Consider a resolution #A23-16 amending FBO Agreement — Lawrence moved the resolution, seconded by Pfohl. Motion carried 4-0 (Story absent) 2. T-hangar Rates 2023.2024 — Tharp stated that this was also the time of year that they discussed the annual t-hangar rates. Tharp noted that with the fuel flowage discussion he was recommending the hangar rates remain the same for the next year. a. Consider a motion setting rates for the 2023-2024 term — Lawrence moved to leave the rates the same, seconded by Orozco. Motion carried 3-0 (Story absent, Bishop recused) iii. Events — Tharp noted that the next big events were the autocross and pancake breakfast. Pfohl asked about needing any type of fencing for the autocross event. Tharp noted they've been looking at it and that the corn was tall enough to conceal it 1. Autocross — Aug 27, Oct 1. 2. Pancake Breakfast —August 27 3. Climate Fast Film Night— Sept 21 d. FBO / Flight Training Reports — i. Jet Air — Wolford noted that for maintenance it was mostly mowing. He stated that there was a retirement and birthday party planned for Harrel Timmons in Galesburg on September 23. e. Commission Members' Reports —none Staff Report — Tharp stated that August 23-251h he'd be at the FAA Central Region conference in Kansas City. Airport Commission August 10, 2023 Page 4 of 5 SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING — Members set the next meeting for September 14. ADJOURN Bishop moved to adjourn, seconded by Lawrence. Motion carried 5-0 . Meeting adjourned at 8:06pm 10t51 zr�73 CHAIRPERSO DATE Airport Commission August 10, 2023 Page 5 of 5 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2022-2023 TERM g000 OOt0 Os-1 to OCO d iv O Oaa Ornd` O Orno O O i o W EXP N N W N O N 00 N WN W WNAME IN) W W co W W-r' WD Warren 06/30126 Bishop O/S X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Scott Clair 06/30/23 XIS X X X O/E X X X X X DIE O/E X/E O/E NM Christopher 06130125 OIS X O/E X X X X DIE X OIE X X X X X Lawrence Hellecktra 06/30/24 XIS X OIE X X X X X X/E 01E DIE O/E X X X Orozco Judy Pfohl 06130/26 XIS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Ryan Story 06/30/27 Not A Member X Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time X/S = Present for subcommittee meeting O/S = Absent, not a member of the subcommittee Item Number: 4.b. I i CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November 6, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission: September 14 Attachments: Historic Preservation Commission: September 14 MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 —5:30 PM —FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Nicole Villanueva, Noah Stork, Margaret Beck, Deanna Thomann, Carl Brown, Jordan Sellergren, Andrew Lewis, Christina Welu-Reynolds, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: David Villanueva, Sharon DeGraw CALL TO ORDER: Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA None. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: HPC23-0049: 813 Rundell Street — Dearborn Street Conservation District (roof alteration at screened porch): Bristow began the staff report noting this is on the edge of the Dearborn Street Conservation District and is a contributing building. It is a brick house with a front -facing gable and lap siding. In the front entryway is a California window and recessed entry. This project is about the roof so Bristow showed an aerial image showing the roof line, noting it is a ranch house with a main hip roof and a gable roof on the front. This project is about the screened porch which was on the back and originally built as part of the house. It has an effectively flat roof with a very low slope and it's been causing deterioration from water. The project is to replace the flat roof with another gable roof and it would be at the same slope as all the other roofs on the house. Bristow showed an image of the south side of the screen porch noting the eave line for the screen porch actually steps down a little bit and there's a fascia board around the top of the wall so another part of the project is to raise that to match the rest of the house. Bristow stated in the guidelines regarding additions they talk about continuing the horizontal lines on the house so they determined that they would go ahead and raise it. Bristow noted the guidelines that are associated with this project are from section 4.7 Mass and Roof Lines. With this project they will be preserving the historic trim such as crown molding, skirt and frieze boards. Replacing with wood to match is the recommendation and what they propose to do. Also preserving the original roof pitches and spans is required but the proposed project does not do that so there is an exception in this section available to all properties in all districts: minor changes to the roof pitch to address drainage can be done on a case -by -case basis. The Commission would approve that as an exception to the guidelines because it was necessary here in order to solve a drainage issue. Otherwise, the roof itself that they propose fits in with the guidelines to match roof pitches and roof HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 2 of 12 types and things like that. Since this house has a hip roof as the main roof, the decision could be made to make this new porch roof be a hip roof but because of the fact that the front facing projection is a gable roof that was the recommendation by staff to make the screen porch have a gable roof as well. The new roof will have asphalt shingles to match the gable in the front with the lap siding and raising the eave and soffit to match the main house. This project will also replace the battens and the screens on the screen porch. Staffs recommended motion is to approve the project as presented in the application through the use of an exception to the guidelines. Stork noted that that fascia board was going to line up with the roof line but they didn't have to do that because the whole project's an exception or because they can match the existing conditions so they could leave it where it is. Bristow confirmed they could do that but because they're changing the roof anyway it would then follow the guidelines and match. They could go in either direction with that particular detail either raising the part to match the frieze board or maintaining it where it is. MOTION Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 813 Rundell Street, as presented in the application through the use of an exception to the guidelines. Thomann second. A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 9-0. HPC23-0050: 320 East Colieqe Street — Local Historic Landmark (signage Bristow began the staff report nothing this is a local Historic Landmark in the Iowa City Downtown Historic District and reminded everyone the Downtown Historic District is only a National Register Historic District (not requiring review of projects) so they're reviewing this project because it's also a local landmark. The property is the Trinity Episcopal Church on the corner of College and Gilbert Streets. The church was built in the 1870s and has had several projects such as sign projects, roofing projects and there was a big project that replaced the foundation. The current project is to replace the sign, it is a modern wood sign, and the Commission doesn't have any specific guidelines about signs in the handbook. Therefore, they review signs against the Secretary of Interior standards. If this building was a downtown business, then they would review it against the Iowa City Downtown District sign guidelines but those also follow the Secretary of Interior standards. Bristow stated they will discuss not only the sign design but the material as well. There is a section of the guidelines about wood. The Guidelines would recommend substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood and that substitute material must be durable except paint and be approved by the Commission. The guidelines disallow substituting a material that does not retain the appearance, function and paintability of wood. For the Secretary of Interior Standards, the basic standards related to this project say exterior alterations shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property but the existing sign is not a historic sign. The sign will be placed in the yard near where the existing sign is so there won't be any historic materials that will be damaged. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property. Bristow stated one of the things that they would look at for a monument sign is whether or not that sign speaks to or works with the architecture and so that would satisfy standard nine. Standard 10 is adjacent new construction or related work shall be undertaken in a matter that if removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the historical property would be unimpaired. Again, given the location and installation that would be satisfied. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 3 of 12 Bristow showed the site plan for the church building noting the main historic portion and the more recent addition and the historic Parish Hall. She noted that to meet the zoning code and the sign permit application it has to be set back 30 feet on each direction from the corner and that it's a certain height. She showed an image of the proposed design for the new sign noting it'll have posts similar to the existing ones and then there will be a board that is suspended with several things that Trinity already has on their signage. The application was submitted to make the sign board itself out of HDU, which is a high -density urethane, and her research took her to at least two main web pages that talked about the fact that it's has become an industry standard for carved signs because they're not going to deteriorate in the weather, are paintable and it can be worked like wood. Bristow showed an image the applicant submitted and also a statement that this sign uses the same material that's being installed in a historic district in Washington DC right outside of National Park Service buildings. Given the research staff would agree that at least for a monument sign that the HDU material would be an appropriate material to approve. The Commission can just approve it for this project then or if interested in approving it for all signs like this as an appropriate Commission approved material they can also make a motion and vote on that. Staff recommends approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the project of 320 East College Street as presented in the application. Welu-Reynolds asked that on the current sign the piece painted right now looks like it's a high gloss paint. Bristow noted they are going to paint it red and so it is possible that they would use a high gloss paint. MOTION: Brown moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 320 East College Street, as presented in the application. Stork second. Welu-Reynolds asked how many applications the City gets for signs. Bristow replied about two or three a year, with monument signs it's going to be churches, maybe a random business, or the Greek houses, there's not going to be a lot of monument signs. A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 9-0. Request Comment on a Proposal at 431 South Summit Street: Villanueva recused herself from this discussion Bristow noted this house is in the Summit Street Historic District. She showed an image of the front of the house stating this house was an Italianate house originally and was remodeled in the 1930s by a local architect after a fire. It's also pretty obvious that the rear portion of this house was an addition at some point in time. She stated this type of Italianate house is noted by the front proportion and the rhythm of windows, it could have a wide eave overhang that probably would have had an internal gutter in it and it would have had brackets. Bristow showed other examples of Italianate houses, including one at 618 East Davenport is a local landmark and happens to have a Gable front roof. The house at 431 South Summit Street has a really low-pitched hip roof. The overall project is to add an addition to the back of the house and during design review of the project it became apparent that one guideline wasn't being met and it's a guideline that impacts the location of the addition. So, prior to having the architect work on any design revisions that might be HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14.2023 Page 4 of 12 needed staff wanted to come to the Commission to determine whether or not the Commission is likely to approve an exception to the guidelines to allow the project to happen. The Commission won't be making a motion or voting on this, it is really just to get a feel from the Commission to determine whether or not it it's likely to be approved one way or the other. Currently the house has a dining room and a kitchen in the rear of the house and part of the applicant's reason for wanting to put the addition behind that is because they want to keep the historic dining room as it has built-ins and a plaster cartouche in the ceiling. However, the kitchen is very small with numerous doors that make one end of the kitchen not really usable. The guidelines in question is section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint which states that unique setback guidelines exist for Summit Street and on this street the rear wall of the primary structure, the house, must not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street. The purpose of that restriction is it preserves the openness of rear yards and then it refers to section 8.1 of the Neighborhood District Guidelines which state on Summit Street only the rear wall of the primary structures must not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street. Unlike section 5.1, the Neighborhood District Guidelines are not written as recommendations and there is not a specific documented exception to this guideline. Bristow noted they have a few ways that exceptions happen with the guidelines, one they're documented, for example the previous case regarding the roof that basically said if there's drainage issues the Commission can decide. For this section no documented exception exists but the Commission can apply exceptions of the guidelines through an uncommon situation. The Commission has used that for instance because the guidelines actually disallow attached garages on Summit Street and they've approved an attached garage because of the fact that the lot was too small to add a garage that was not attached to the house, so an exception was made to the guidelines in that case to use an exception to the guidelines. Since the applicant knew about the situation, as part of the application they submitted some measurements from a screenshot from the Johnson County property information viewer. Bristow noted they use that viewer every day to measure from one place to another, and she noted two things: one is the shapes seen are roof outlines so if somebody has a 24-inch soffit this is showing that whole size of the roof not the walls so they do need to take that into consideration. Second, there are other things such as making sure that the beginning and ending of measurement lines aligns properly with what you are measuring. The applicant also provided distances of just the backyards which is also useful. Even so, Bristow went through and measured the entire street for accurate measurements. When going through on each property she noted two measurements, what was the eave overhang and tried to come up with how far these rear walls are from the front street. She also looked at additions and when additions were done and came up with the table that was included in the agenda packet. Bristow pointed out 304 South Summit on the corner of Burlington Street and Summit Street extends past 125 feet, but that was also a historic situation it was either the house was built that way or they added on to it basically before 1942. The house at 624 Summit Street was actually just built really far back on the lot and set back a lot further than everybody else. Overall, she found out of the 43 properties 14 did not follow that guideline. Of those, six happened before 1942, another three had some kind of addition in the 1950s to 1970s, two were reviewed by the Commission in the 1980s or 1990s and that was before they had guidelines. Finally, three of them were reviewed more recently and Bristow reviewed those. The first is 409 South Summit and they had a historic sleeping porch that somebody had added and extended out prior to the 1970s and their project was enclosing the area below it. The Commission didn't talk about that set back in regard to this project, but it did not extend further than the existing building. The second is at 519 South Summit where they had an existing addition and the project added an addition. The Commission had felt strongly that this improved the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 5 of 12 appearance of the back of this house and that it would only project four and a half feet into that 125-foot setback. The third is 330 South Summit and this was a project where it was adding on to the back of the house a one-story bedroom/bath for the owner to age in place and then she wanted a porch that matched the front porch. In this particular instance they determined that this house had the biggest lot in that area and that even after this addition they would still have twice as much open space as anyone nearby so it was approved. At this point Bristow stated staff would not recommend approving an addition that extended past the 125 feet partly because staff doesn't find an uncommon situation or a limitation to apply an exception to the guidelines, and also because they feel that there's an opportunity to put an addition on another portion of the house instead. Effectively they could take the dining room space and move it outwards, they would have to replace some of the materials in there and it would retain the exterior window on both the north and west sides and then the extra space could be added to expand the kitchen. Staff would recommend that this would at least allow an addition and better follow the guidelines. Staff requests comments from the Commission if the Commission would consider the use of an exception to the guidelines for an addition to 431 South Summit to extend past the setback limitation on Summit Street. Bristow also wanted to note the house is only one foot from that limit right now so to entirely meet the guidelines they have one foot. The City has regularly allowed properties to go to 126 so it is feasible to add something of a foot or two. Another option is would the Commission consider the use of an exception for an addition that extends past the setback limitations less than the proposed 13 feet and if so what distance could it extend. The Commission has a role here of providing comment whether they think that there's an exception that is warranted to allow them to put the addition entirely behind the house and it is a 14-foot addition so that's where the 13-foot dimension comes from. Wagner noted 138 feet back is where they would be if they approved the entire addition. He asked what the square footage is roughly of the kitchen addition. Bristow believes it would be 14x18 but with what staff would suggest it would only be slightly smaller, just off the side, not the back. Stork noted however that suggestion basically destroys the dining room. Bristow clarified the recommendation is saying put the addition on the south side of the house, however that works out. Beck would definitely consider the addition going behind the house because it does preserve the dining room. She asked how far the front of the house is from the front of the street. Bristow replied from one of the dimensions that they provided they have 54 feet and it's aligned with the house next door. Beck noted the addition would go 13 feet back and they still have quite a bit of space in the backyard before it hits their garage, it's also in the back of the house so it would not be seen from the road, it preserves the dining room, the stairs and things like that. Wagner stated this just this looks like a very modern kitchen to him and the way it juts out that two feet four inches is sort of contrary to what they usually say about an addition that it sets back in a foot well and if they're sitting in their dining room and look out the window they'll see the corner of the house. Brown stated it's set back from the main part of the house but not that kitchen area. Bristow stated they have noted that as one of the recommendations in staff review to be revised. In the mass and roof line section there is a guideline that requires that they retain the corners of the building so that one can always tell the extent of the original building, it also solves some major roof issues. She stated whether or not it is set in from that corner is not actually what they're concerned with right now. Brown stated his sense is they're being asked to think about if they would be open to an exception and his mind goes to what would be the reason for that exception and he doesn't think they have a reason right now for an exception. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 6 of 12 Sellergren agrees and would say that this is opening floodgates for no limitations on making exceptions after this because there's no necessary reason for this to happen besides wanting to have an addition. She noted they can't not make exceptions, and this is the oldest historic district in the City so if they don't draw the line here there's no line and the district guidelines are clear. Brown stated if there were a reason for the exception, such as they've talked about with other auxiliary units, and it could possibly happen but if there were some reason they could narrow the definition of what that exception is maybe but he doesn't see a reason for the exception other than their kitchen's really small and this is a better place to put it. Sellergren doesn't think they're necessarily going to need to destroy the dining room, they can save some of those pieces and build them in if they do extend to the south. She noted if they allow this anybody can come in here and cite this as a precedent and it doesn't end at that point. Thomann stated there is a precedent already through other properties. Wagner noted both of those are corner lots. Sellergren noted since she's been on the Commission this is the second major exception, they've made to the guidelines to accommodate a Commissioner's work on their home and she personally doesn't think it politically looks great. To approve a major addition like this that contradicts guidelines for a Commissioner she is personally not comfortable with that. Brown stated he thinks they do have to be flexible with the guidelines and possibly revisit this particular guideline and decide is 125 really what they want. He does think 13 feet past the 125 guideline is too far and they have to say there's no reason for an exception. ' Lewis noted there are other houses expanded that far and no one seems to have any concern, yes those were there before the guideline but still no one's complaining that it messes with the aesthetic of Summit Street. In addition it's on the back of the house and there's been a lot of discussion about things that happen on the back of the house that they seem to care about a little bit less than the things that happen in the front of the house. Welu-Reynolds would also like to know where the 125 feet number originated from. Additionally, whether the house is owned by a Commissioner or by Joe Schmoe is not the issue, they are trying to preserve that dining room. Sellergren noted there's also something to be said for buying a home in a historic district, the oldest historic district in the town, and this is a luxury addition so to' her it's very clear it's not an option unless they revisit the entire neighborhood or have to be prepared for an influx of requests like this. Stork stated this is a more unique guideline for this Commission and they don't normally see this backyard -type preservation guideline. It's not so much a structure guideline it is more of a way of life. Bristow stated she is sure the applicant believes saving the dining room is the reason for needing the exception. The 125 feet likely came from the fact that most the houses tend to be that depth and when coming up with that guideline they probably looked at what the length of general houses are and what they tend to be set back at and used some math. They likely don't have documentation about why the guidelines were set up in certain ways, but she does know that it was part of the 2004 guidelines. She noted one major project that came up since she's been here regarding how far a house projected HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 7 of 12 into the rear yard was in 2015 at 610 Ronalds Street where the house was pretty small and a developer bought it and he wanted to take it down claiming that it was structurally unsound and irretrievable, their engineer said that the typical historic construction was structurally sound but that it was irretrievable because of cat urine. As with any demolition the Commission has to look at the house but then also review the design of the replacement house. They were going to replace it with a basic gable front house that was two stories plus attic and it was aligned with the front facades but it was extending further back than all of the neighbors. This was an issue because in the neighborhoods where there is a rhythm of streets and alleys, being able to look across the backyards was part of that neighborhood and so they suggested to the owner and architect that they limit the size of the building. The project was not approved because of the length of the house extending into the rear yard and that is the just the only example she can really think of where they really were looking at what was happening in the space of the rear yards. Welu-Reynolds noted if the diagram was lined up so that they could get a better sense of how things fit in the yard comparatively it would be helpful. She had never even thought about site lines in the back yards until now. Bristow did note on the map it shows the house next to it as shorter and then two of the longer ones on either side. Site line may be less of an issue unless the neighbors really want to see 419 South Summit. Bristow noted it sounds like everyone has a lot of different opinions and they're not all saying yes absolutely nor all saying no way. Perhaps they need to just poll each Commissioner because there are costs here that will affect the applicant. It won't be as formal as a certificate of appropriateness vote just a quick statement to gauge. Wagner agrees about setting a precedent if they allow it but also doesn't like the way it's it looks, it looks like a kitchen addition slapped on the back that doesn't belong with the house. He would say go with what staff recommends as an addition with the dining room and say okay to adding five feet to the back of the house to make it all bigger. That would look better and more in line with a lot of the other homes in that area. He noted that there's this idea about the dining room and one of those two built-ins in the corners, those are from the 1930s or 1940s, but they can get oak flooring or maple flooring and put it on a diagonal to make the new dining room look like the old dining room and make the rest of the house look like it's part of the house. In his estimation this addition does not work with that house and they can still make the kitchen bigger. Stork appreciates the fact that this meets the values of the Commission to keep the original structure and it's a shame to care more about the outside than the inside. The application does seem to go along with the values it just doesn't meet this one rule and that one rule just doesn't seem to apply in a way that to him makes sense. Sellergren asked: does the kitchen have to be that large, could it be a longer, narrower kitchen and still be an efficient space. Bristow stated the guidelines are for additions are really clear and start with a paragraph that says figure out what addition will work with the exterior of the house then figure out what the interior does. One shouldn't just work out an interior design they like and then make it fit, they should always have a design that works on the exterior first. She reiterated the first question is the Commission okay with a 13 feet addition and the second question is would they be okay with anything less. Wagner would be willing to entertain an exception based on what is the average of those properties that go past the 125 feet. Go down the whole block and obtain the average, if the average over the limit extension is eight feet then as a Commission they can say they are willing to make that exception HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 8 of 12 because that's the average. He stated set back averages are a thing that they do in general in non - historic district zonings. Brown asked about creating an exception and Bristow explained they would pick from the three types of exceptions, those being a documented exception from the past, an uncommon scenario or no applicable guideline existing. The Commission can apply an exception but they have to state the reason for it. Brown is open to considering an exception of the 13 feet past the 125 feet. Beck stated she is really torn between it being a super clear rule and 125 just being such an arbitrary number. Beck stated she doesn't feel like they're being frivolous or opening floodgates. This is a historical addition to a historical house that will have to meet all guidelines. Beck added because the fact that there is an older neighbor who got to do it because it was before 1950 makes it feel okay. Stork stated if the guidelines are there to give everybody this nice, wonderful backyard he looks at the size of this house and that lot and is not sure that's restricting the rear yard on this house. Lewis asked does it actually preserve the openness of a rear yard, and who decides that Sellergren asked if the architect was aware of the guidelines and was this misjudged. She acknowledges one of her hesitations is always not to make them spend more money or do more work but maybe more work needs to be done in this case. Bristow stated the architect measured from the property line instead and not the way it says from front street. Sellergren would like to see an alternative design but is open to the possibility of an exception. Brown is open to an exception, just not to the 13 feet because he doesn't see a justification for the 13 feet. Sellergren wants an alternative design, Stork is open to an exception, Welu-Reynolds is open to an exception, Wagner is open and basing it on an average of those properties that are over the 125 feet. Beck is open to an exception to lineup with a pre-1945 immediate neighbor. Lewis is open to an exception, Thomann is not, but likes Wagner's idea to find a way to provide a limitation. She noted there has to be a reason for preserving the dining room but that's interior uncommon it's got to be something uncommon for the exterior. She doesn't feel this is setting a precedent because they review every house individually. Brown noted the homeowner has to present a reason for the exception correct and the Commission is to figure out which of the three exceptions the reason fits in and then vote on whether they approve that reason for the exception. David Villanueva (431 South Summit Street) stated in retrospect upon making the application he notes he failed to fully describe the full intent behind how they arrived at the design. The overall layout of the current house has a very small kitchen, it's seven feet by eight feet, so functionally that's New York City standards and not Midwest. He stated that's probably why when they first bought the home it had been on the market for six months because not many people want to live with that small of a kitchen. When they initially took a look at redoing the kitchen in terms of cost, they didn't want to build walls or have to move out, and they wanted to try and keep the charm of the house without impacting as much of the design as possible. They did look at just maybe tearing down some walls and trying to reconfigure things but ran into issues. Part of the reason why just simply bumping out that southern dining room wall, which seems like it's eight feet however they have take into account the fact they would still have to set it back from that southern den wall by the eave height, which is at least probably six inches maybe more, maybe less, and therefore ending up at about seven feet of space which they could potentially work with but one of the things they tried to address in the design is functionally. The kitchen is half that size and they cannot touch the staircase, at least not without unlimited funds, as well HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 9 of 12 as the rear entryway to the house. The current kitchen layout is not only too small but has a bottleneck that creates barriers to open many things and it's also the primary pathway to two of the main places in the house. Villanueva noted when they tried to address the staircase the first issue is leading into the basement it's a 24-inch-wide space with 67 inches of headroom and it's an old basement and not going to have modern tread heights. So part of the redesign tried to incorporate a reworking of that basement entry and to try to funnel the rear entryway away from that choke point and try to create a little bit more open space in the kitchen. When they tried to incorporate all those things into the current space it was simply impossible, then when they tried to just bump out a couple feet one way or the other there was a concern to minimize disturbing the overall feel as one of the goals originally had been to minimize disturbance to the dining room because it is so beautiful and to bump out a couple of feet would have to completely eliminate that dining room or at least move it and the built-ins and things like that and they would still be very limited in the actual functional space they would gain. That is why their architect ended up deciding trying to extend in the rear. He acknowledges they all accept this design could use some work and it wasn't meant to be the final design. A problem they run into is they do have one of the narrow lots on the street and have 60 feet total. The house is limited in terms of extending north and they can't extend south so they're really left with no space to work with other than extending in the rear yard. They wanted to bring this to the Commission because they did review guidelines and the reason they included the average rear setbacks is to show they believe that they would not be violating the inherent nature or intent of what the guidelines were meant to preserve which is a spacious rear yard. By his very rough calculations approximately 134 feet is the average on Summit Street including all the houses on the western side of Summit Street (which is where their house is). The average rear yards on the eastern side of Summit Street tend to be much less. Villaneuva stated they believe 13 feet will still maintain a pretty spacious yard. The biggest reason they wanted to bring this to the Commission is to find out if this would be a project worth pursuing, without some rear set back modifications, the quantity of which they would leave up to the Commission and work with the architect to see if there's something they could do that would also incorporate maybe the southern side as well. However, if they are not allowed to violate that that rear setback at all they would have to put in a ton of work and the kitchen probably still wouldn't function nor would it be a project worth pursuing. His bigger sadness is ultimately this house by any modern standards does not function to what most people would want or expect on Summit Street. Most of the houses on Summit Street that have those amenities sell really quickly and the fact that their house took six months to sell shows that. Villaneuva wants to make this a home that people see as worth preserving not only today but for generations to come but if they don't make this house worth living in for families today then he worries what it would do for the future because they are very limited and he doesn't see those limitations necessarily changing anytime soon. Welu-Reynolds asked if they weren't able to redo the kitchen are they thinking they'll move. Villaneuva stated they don't have kids currently but if they did it would be impossible. Of course the past generations obviously did it but he doesn't believe they would want to. Welu-Reynolds asked if these houses on South Summit and Brown Street and other historic neighborhoods shouldn't just be for somebody who has a wheelbarrow full of money in the sense of having to be so wealthy to afford these places to preserve them. Allowing this keeps a family in this house who wants to stay in this house, there is a big picture to historic preservation about getting people to raise their kids in these neighborhoods. She is not saying to willy-nilly allow anything but that's not what's happening here, they have an architect and people who are invested in this neighborhood, whether the owner is on the Commission or not has nothing to do with it, this is exactly who they want to see buying these houses and living in these neighborhoods and she thinks they have some justification for looking at a 13, 12, 14 or whatever addition on the back of this house because they do have the other two properties on each side, one's 145 and one's 137 so that's a 141 average and this is going to be 138 so she is totally open to an exception because this is exactly what the future HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 10 of 12 is going to look like as they need people to fix up these old houses and yet they shouldn't have to be so wealthy that they'll never be able to afford a house on this street, especially potentially young families. Sellergren stated she would still like to see another design. Villaneuva stated he doesn't think they'd be able to see another design if there was an ultimate consensus that there's no give on the rear set back because it's not worth doing another design. He thinks what they're hearing is that there may be potentially some give and with that in mind they could potentially approach the architect again and say what is the best, most concise plan, but again that's why they wanted to approach the Commission regarding the setback because without an understanding of where they stand further steps may or may not be worthwhile. The Commissioners agreed they are all open to an exception and Villanueva stated he has enough information to help them move forward. (Wagner left the meeting} REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Due to time and length of meeting, these items were not discussed. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 10, 2023: MOTION Thomann moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's August 10, 2023, meeting, as written. Beck seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Wagner was not present). COMMISSION DISCUSSION Bristow gave an update on the Historic Preservation Awards. She will be assigning people who are going to present and also working on writing the scripts. Commissioners have been helping with the writing. The ceremony is Thursday September 28th at the Highlander, there will be cookies and juice at 5:00 with the presentation at 5:30. There will be a cash bar open right outside the area for milling around and drinking afterwards. fBrown left the meeting) Bristow stated regarding the Planning and Zoning items she didn't pull any slides together and also have not entirely read the memo but if there are questions, she can get answers or they can ask the questions directly to the senior planners Anne Russett, Parker Walsh and Kirk Lehmann, they're all interested in answering any questions. The memo talked about where they are in the process of the ability to have accessory dwelling units more widely and they are having an open house to discuss that. Sharon DeGraw (Iowa City) stated she is a former Commissioner and member of the North Side Neighborhood and the Friends of Historic Preservation and one of the things that is of great concern to them is a proposal for neighborhood stabilization for the RNS-12 zone and it deals with infill development of single-family homes and duplexes. What they're asking for is for the height of those new structures to have a 27 feet tall height limit. She stated it's good to take into consideration the way that height is measured, 27 feet should sound not tall enough, but they measure from eaves to the apex and divide that height in half. Walking around the North Side neighborhood one may see houses that HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 Page 11 of 12 look taller than 27 feet but it is really the first story, second story and then half of what that full top level is. DeGraw stated they walked around and measured every house in the North Side Neighborhood and could not find any structures that were single-family homes or duplexes that exceeded 27 feet. So, the conversation might be okay when talking about the North Side neighborhood but what about the other areas that have RNS-12. DeGraw stated they are starting to make contact with people in the College Hill area and the long-term residents that they've spoken to like the idea because it's all for neighborhood stabilization because a developer could come in and build something new in a non - historic district and currently have the ability to go up to 35 feet, and might be able to go a little taller than that perhaps in some of neighborhoods. A developer could remove a small cottage say and go up to 35 feet tall and do significantly bumping out in the back in neighborhoods where there are more modest structures and so some of the long-term residents and even newer residents who bought into a certain kind of neighborhood are realizing that there could be major redevelopment. 27 feet will not prevent redevelopment it just scales down what can be done when there is an RNS-12 lot that is right against a historic or conservation district. In terms of redevelopment it would be nice for a new structure to be similar to the neighboring homes and have the same proportions of height, density or scale and mass. She acknowledged there's sometimes the viewpoint that it's your land and it's legal to build what you want so they are thinking of how they can mitigate situations where things would be built out of scale and height. Sellergren asked does historic preservation has oversight over what can be built in many of these neighborhoods. Bristow stated yes, but there could be a property that's right next door where the boundary is. Sellergren noted then modifying the Planning and Zoning proposal would be to protect those situations. Bristow acknowledged there was a case where a house was built or proposed right next to a district and that house was tall and so the neighborhood came back with the idea of reducing the 35-foot maximum that currently exists to a 27 foot. DeGraw stated in that situation the design proposed was ultimately turned down through the Board of Adjustment because it had a three -car garage on the ground floor level, no basement and the living quarters were on the first floor and the second floor causing it to get so tall compared to other single- family home buildings. She noted for the bulk of the zoning code amendments that would be made people that are living in the close -in neighborhoods, some of them are historic neighborhoods, are liking the idea if Council could suggest pull out the University Impact area for now if they want to go forward in passing the zoning code changes because there are so many variables that have to deal with development and intensity of wanting to build up those close -in neighborhoods that it could transform neighborhood stabilization. Bristow stated any further questions or concerns can be directed to the Planning and Zoning staff ADJOURNMENT: Thomann moved to adjourn the meeting. Weu-Reynolds seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Brown and Wagner absent). The meeting was adjourned at 7:23 pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2022-2023 NAME TERM EXP. 9/8 10/13 11/10 1/12 2/9 3/22 4/13 5111 618 7/13 8/10 9/14 BECK, 6/30/24 X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X MARGARET BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X O/E X X — -- — BROWN, 6/30/23 X X X O/E O/E X X O/E X X O/E X CARL LARSON, 6/30/24 O/E O KEVIN SELLERGREN, 6/30/22 X X X X X O/E X X O/E X X X JORDAN STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X THOMANN, 6130/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X DEANNA VILL,4NUEVA, /30/25 O/E O/E X X X X X X X X X X NICOLE WAGNER, 6/30/23 O/E X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X FRANK WELD- 6/30/25 X O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E X X REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA LEWIS, ANDREW X X X KEY; X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused --- = Not a member Item Number: 4.c. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November 6, 2023 Housing & Community Development Commission: September 21 Attachments: Housing & Community Development Commission: September 21 MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 — 6:30 PM FORMAL MEETING THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Karol Krotz, Kiran Patel, James Pierce, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Maryann Dennis, Michael Eckhardt (resigned 9121), Jennifer Haylett STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Carter, Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul OTHERS PRESENT: Zaden Issah (University of Iowa USG) CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Beining called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 21, 2023: Reedus moved to approve the minutes of September 21, 2023. Patel seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the minutes were approved 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY tICHAI OVERVIEW: Carter began with a general overview stating they have 1575 Housing Choice Voucher Program vouchers, otherwise known as Section 8. Specialty vouchers are earmarked for populations with higher barriers such as people with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness, veterans experiencing homelessness. Carter explained they administer those largely in conjunction with Shelter House and the Coordinated Entry System, then the rest of the vouchers they administer within the Housing Authority. She noted they also have a public housing program in which they own and manage the units and rent is capped at 30% of the tenant's income. There are 86 public housing units in Iowa City and the Housing Authority also manages 16 affordable units that aren't funded through the Public and Indian Housing or specifically HCVP, but they do keep those affordable through partnerships with the Housing Fellowship and some IFA funding. Krotz asked if the 30% of the client income is 30% of their gross income. Carter replied it is the adjusted gross income so there are deductions. For example, if somebody has medical expenses that are more than 3% of their annual income or somebody is elderly or disabled, the cost of their Medicare Medicaid insurance is deducted as are childcare deductions. There is a myriad of different deductions. Krotz asked about the affordable housing the City owns that is not affiliated with Section 8, are there guidelines to what affordability means for those or is there a range for rent? Carter explained they have to stay under fair market rent. The payment centers are based on some percentage of fair market rent and they have to be within a range. Housing and Community Development Commission September 21, 2023 Page 2 of 15 Krotz noted fair market rent is very high and is more than some people make with their social security disability and SSI. Carter agreed that the cost of housing is high here and so HUD reflects that with the fair market rents and the City is able to assist people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford a rental here. Carter stated those are the two large programs, they also have a Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program, which helps clients in the Section 8 program build an escrow savings account. They have had a lot of success in that program with people exiting the program to homeownership. That ties into the other program, a small homeownership program where they can use Section 8 vouchers for homeownership payments. They have also had people starting businesses and going off assistance completely through FSS. There are 164 clients in that program right now. Regarding waitlists, Carter stated the City has just completed updating the waiting list. A year ago, they had a waiting list of 29,000 people for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. They updated and sent letters to everybody on the list and made sure they were still interested in the program, hadn't moved, and had basic eligibility. After that update, as of this morning, there are 8,825 people (households) on the waiting lists so while less that's still a really significant waiting list. Right now, they're serving people who applied in July 2019 so over a four year waitlist and she doesn't see that need decreasing anytime soon. For the Public Housing Program they haven't done an update letter in quite some time so that waiting list has almost 13,000 people on it. Vogel asked regarding the waitlist, do people that have existing vouchers, like families with existing vouchers from outside of this jurisdiction, whether it's Linn County or out of state or Des Moines, do they have preference on the waitlist versus new applications of families within Johnson County? Carter replied, if a person has a voucher somewhere else they canport it into the Iowa City Housing Authority. Federally, it's required that a Housing Authority accepts any imported voucher from anywhere in the United States. It is up to the City whether they absorb that voucher or bill the other Housing Authority. If they want Iowa City to absorb the voucher, Iowa City would just give one of Iowa City's vouchers instead of sending a bill every month. So they continue to have voucher and do not go back onto a waiting list. Carter did note that on the waiting list there are preference categories. Preference category number one is for anybody fleeing a federally declared disaster area, and that's very rare. Preference category two is where they pull all of the applicants from the entire client pool who's elderly, disabled, or has minor children living or working within the jurisdiction (which is Johnson, Iowa, and Washington County north of Highway 92). Vogel asked how Iowa City generally handles those outside transfers or imported vouchers. Carter replied they generally absorb them because if they are billing another housing authority, they are putting the federal compliance in the hands of another housing authority and they have to submit HUD paperwork on a monthly basis and don't want to be out of compliance. So far this year they've gotten 17 for requests for transfer vouchers so they don't get a lot. Vogel asked about porting these vouchers, if Iowa City has a finite amount of vouchers, will it then will kick somebody else off the program to absorb this new voucher? Carter explained it doesn't kick somebody off the program. Iowa City would only absorb them if they had an open voucher. If they were at the point where they had no open vouchers, they would have to just bill the other housing authority for the sake of keeping all the vouchers that Iowa City has. However, they do have about 200 vouchers a year turnover, whether somebody moves or is no longer eligible, or in the best -case scenario they're making enough money where they no longer need the assistance, or people who pass away. Vogel asked if then in that case the imported voucher would take precedence over anyone that's on the waitlist. Carter replied no because it's not a waitlist voucher yet. Reedus stated they can also probably assume that person porting in had gone through the waitlist in another community. She asked what the options for folks on the waitlist are during interim of time, how Housing and Community Development Commission September 21, 2023 Page 3 of 15 can they afford housing while they're waiting for a voucher because they're obviously low income. Carter acknowledged that a difficult situation and there's not a great answer to that. Krotz noted when she was on the waitlist the only groceries that she got for herself were beans and rice and ate beans and rice for almost every meal for a couple years. Reedus stated she is looking for the nonprofits, transitional housing, homeless shelters, Rapid Rehousing to help. Also things like the food pantries and such are providing some assistance. Krotz stated she was illiterate with all the social service agency possibilities so that could have been helpful, but almost her entire almost Social Security check went to rent. Reedus acknowledged that's unfortunate. Regarding food, there they had a Hunger Project Hunger Action task force, seven or eight years ago now, and there's a website Johnson County with literally everything listed related to getting a meal or getting grocery assistance, so they've done a good job trying to get the information out. She noted the nonprofits are filling a gap and therefore this Commission should take a look at funding priorities and making sure that they have enough support going to the kinds of agencies that are providing that interim housing assistance, because four years is a long time for a family to survive if they can't afford the basics like shelter. Krotz stated what would have been very helpful to her because she had never participated in any financial assistance programs before for any reason and it was foreign territory, so in addition to just not really understanding anything it was difficult for her to access information on where to go. She has always thought it would be nice if there was one very well-known place that had information for everything, and it was kept current and complete. She is not sure that anyone's doing that but that would be very helpful. Reedus noted that nonprofits and the services and the benefits that people can get are so vast, they almost need a yellow pages directory for all of it. She stated there's enough partnership and cooperation among the agencies that they will send people to different places. Reedus asked about the vacancy policy of someone leaving their home for more than four weeks, and it was changed to up to two months. How well has that gone, has it caused a lot of vacancies because there was a concern out in the community that people who get public vouchers should utilize it all the time and that it would increase the vacancy if people wouldn't be there. Carter confirmed the policy did change so they can be absent from the unit for up to 60 days without prior approval, however they are not hearing about it when they're gone for that long and really don't have a lot of interaction about it at all. She believes in the past year it's come up one time that someone has been absent for longer than the 60 days. Additionally, they haven't had any complaints from landlords. Beining wondered if they were able to track any kind of increase in the waitlist since that policy was implemented. Carter doesn't think so, the waitlist has been growing pretty steady essentially since 2020 and they can all make the presumption of what happened in 2020. The absent/vacancy travel policy was enacted at the end of 2021, beginning of 2022, so it likely didn't have any effect on the waitlist. Krotz noted she was happy to hear they hadn't had complaints from landlords, especially people not paying their rent while they're gone. Carter stated in reference back to the idea of a yellow books of sorts for services, Johnson County Social Services does a guidebook and that's pretty phenomenal, and they have a staff person dedicated keeping that updated. Carter also shared, relevant to the waitlist, it was interesting to know in the last 12 months 38% of the people they pulled from the waitlist to give vouchers to were literally homeless at the time, so at Shelter House, DVIP or sleeping and living someplace not meant for human habitation. Unfortunately, if in the last year, 38% of those they placed were homeless, that is probably a pretty good reflection of what the rest of the list looks like and right now.. Again, they do have those preference categories, the P2 category which are anybody elderly, disabled, or with minor children working or living in the jurisdiction and that portion of the voucher recipients is 1126. The remainder of the recipients, which is 92 people as Housing and Community Development Commission September 21, 2023 Page 4 of 15 of this morning, are P3 people who are not elderly, disabled, nor with children in the jurisdiction, and preference categories, four, five, and six are all people outside of the jurisdiction. Patel asked if they have any idea the number of people that just never apply because they would assume that they would never get it. Kubly replied they don't specifically have that data, but they do have data on cost burden in the County and that's pretty high, the cost burden from renters. Thul noted on the City website there's a tab under Community Development for other plans and documents and there's several housing studies there that would have that information. Carter noted they do have people apply that are say 59 right now, not disabled, don't have minor children, but three years from now they'll be 62 and be in that preference category. Pierce noted it was mentioned that the waitlist from the last time it was updated was something like 29,000 and now it's between 8000 and 9000. Do they have any sense of how all those people have transitioned off of that waitlist, did people move away, or are they no longer eligible, etc? Carter replied in the P2 category they lost about 800 because they did not reply to the two letters and an email if they had one. Some did respond that they had passed away and some who didn't respond either moved or they're just not interested. Many of those were people on the list from outside of the community, many outside of the State. A lot of those came back in return mail, 3/ of those that were removed, came back as undeliverable. Krotz asked how they calculate the amount of assistance that people are able to receive. And if folks in Washington County, north of Highway 92, are calculated the same way as for somebody in Iowa City or somebody in Lone Tree? Carter replied, the method to calculate their adjusted gross income is the same anywhere in the United States. Their income limits, like the area median income that qualify somebody for the programming, is different in different counties. Washington County is lower than Johnson County, so yes the thresholds of which someone is eligible for the programming is different and the fair market rent or payment standards are different in different communities. So while the method to calculate adjusted gross income is the same everywhere, the rent amounts and the income limits are different based on the area. Vogel stated for example, someone can theoretically be not eligible in Washington County, moved to Johnson County become eligible because of the higher cost of living in the area. Vogel asked about fraud. He stated it happens occasionally where they find people who are hiding income or are on the program they where they shouldn't and have other sources of income coming in. He asked if those cases are investigated internally or does the State come and investigate those. Carter replied the State can come and investigate, historically, the Housing Authority has utilized them to investigate those but it depends on how much of the fraud they're looking at. They have utilized a federal system, HUD mandates they utilize this federal system, to verify income so if it's earned income it's going to show up if they're using their Social Security Number. Of course, there are instances of earned income, maybe cash, that they don't see on that system so in the past they have utilized the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals to do those. They haven't had one of those in quite some time, thankfully. She noted it's not a rampant issue in this community. If someone has either been found not reporting income or misreporting income, they're entitled federally to enter into a repayment agreement to repay the additional rent that was paid on their behalf. Krotz asked how they find out if somebody's getting cash under the table for something. Carter acknowledged that cash under the table is one that often goes unnoticed for quite some time, because it doesn't go through a federal income reporting system. A lot of times, honestly, they end up reporting it, and sometimes they find out from the landlord. Carter also noted last year, right under 60% of the clients on HCVP were elderly or disabled and are not working jobs, they're relying on fixed incomes of pensions and Social Security and VA benefits and those are all verified through the federal verification system. Vogel asked about earnings, do they base off earned income or Social Security, and if child support is included and considered an actual income even though it's not a guarantee income? Carter confirmed it was. Housing and Community Development Commission September 21, 2023 Page 5 of 15 Vogel noted Carter was nice enough to come to their apartment association meeting a couple months ago and speak as their monthly Lunch and Learn speaker. He thinks federally HUD looks at Iowa and says, on, well Iowa's average rent is $400 for a two bedroom and obviously that is not the fact in Iowa City, Ames and Cedar Falls. You can likely still find a $400 apartment in Keota but who wants to live in Keota? He asked her to explain how that process works because Iowa City has been able to increase those levels recently and it has been a boon for a lot of the four- and five -bedroom families that they've been able to help in the last six months that they wouldn't have been able to help before. Carter acknowledged that was nice to hear that because that was their intention. The fair market rent is a number based on American Community Survey data that they decide this is what the rent in each community costs and what is the fair rent in the community. Then Housing Authorities have the choice to go between 90% to 110% of that fair market rent and HUD has some calculation about how Iowa City gets funded between that 90% and 110%. However, Iowa City is still at a point where HUD funding for what we're spending out so that's good. Iowa City did move up the payment standard because what they were seeing is those threes, fours, and fives were very difficult to find a house to lease up in. The payment standard had been at 93% so they increased it pretty significantly to 108% which gave a little wiggle room. It helped astronomically and people are being able to lease up quickly. Krotz asked about the data and Carter replied it is ultimately from census data from the Census Bureau and they send out a random survey to a group of households and ask about income, expenses, etc. Krotz is guessing that a lot of the really low-income people who have so many other pressures about living every day and paying for rent and paying for groceries and stuff likely don't take the time to fill out a census form. Patel noted also they would miss the ghost tenants who don't want to report to the federal government that there are more people living in the place than the landlord approved. Pierce stated hopefully people are filling it out but agrees that the problem is probably larger in places like Iowa City where people are moving super frequently, who are low income, they're not going to be caught in that extensive survey. Vogel noted one of the things they used to be able to do was if there was a rate difference, they could get somebody moved in for the first month, or even two months for a lower rent and then after that 60-day period just get that automatic increase. Unfortunately, they have been informed that's not allowed anymore. Carter stated that is based on a federal regulation. She did state on the flip of that, what happens then is that family is paying significantly more than 30% of their income to rent. Krotz agreed noting its real scary when a landlord raises the rent by $100 a month and someone has to try and make that work with the requirements of the Housing Choice Voucher. Vogel stated on an annual basis if on the lease renewal the rent goes up, the landlord does have to give 60 days notice to housing, and then they can readjust on an annual basis what the HCVP portion is as well as the tenant portion. So, in that case, the tenant doesn't eat the full increase and luckily this last year, because of the new increases, most tenants didn't see an increase on their end at all. Vogel noted the staff does an incredible amount of work and he doesn't know how they get any of it done just because the pure amount of paperwork involved is mind boggling with the whole bureaucratic process. There is a reason why a lot of landlords do not want to participate. But luckily, they're blessed in Iowa City, Johnson County and parts north of Washington that they are lucky enough to have Iowa City because in Jackson County, Missouri, where he worked before it was not this kind of streamlined process. Vogel has heard from friends up in Cedar Falls and Des Moines who do not have the same kind of relationship with the private landlords as Iowa City does, so he appreciates her coming tonight for sure. Carter noted they are actively looking for ways to make the process easier and coming and speaking with the tenants at that lunch was so helpful, she got some feedback during that meeting that she thinks for next summer during moving season is going to make things a lot simpler for a lot of landlords. Housing and Community Development Commission September 21, 2023 Page 6 of 15 Kubly asked Carter to talk briefly about when they'll see with the next Administrative Plan and what they're looking at moving forward with the Housing Authority. Carter noted every public housing authority has a document, an Administrative Plan, and Iowa City's hasn't been fully updated in a while. HUD produces between 20 and 30 notices of new regulations or regulatory changes a year so there is a lot of updating needed in that document. She has spent a lot of time in the last year updating that document and believes they're on the homestretch to getting it in front of everyone look at some of the changes. The changes will include consolidating some of those preference categories, like if they have preference categories that they've never pulled a client from, it just seems like administrative work to have them, they could put them all together. So overall it is just simplifying some things, clarifying some internal policies to make things easier and simpler to support tenants in their housing, and landlords in providing that housing. Carter noted when they're talking about the numbers on the waitlist, and what it looks like, and how they should be prioritizing how they use these vouchers - that's a really important discussion and we should be making sure they're putting vouchers in the hands of the people who need it the very most. Housing is health care and the rate of death or serious disability due to homelessness is incredibly high. She welcomes the discussion about how they can use those limited resources most ethically to make sure people aren't experiencing those negative mental and physical health effects as a result. Vogel asked if they ever see HUD developing a deposit program for HCVP qualified households, because he still sees that as a primary hurdle. He acknowledged right now the Housing Authority does not provide any funds towards security deposits. Reedus stated however the City does have some programs for that, CommUnity has one. Vogel agreed noting they are lucky to be in Iowa City because of the fact that Shelter House, Veterans Affairs and a handful of other organizations do have deposit programs. However, when those monies get returned to the tenant after move -out, they don't get returned back to Shelter House, so those monies aren't available for re -use. Vogel noted he's not an owner, he's just a property manager, but probably 10% of deposits are literally paper checks, he has a folder in his desk of paper checks and after a year those monies just revert to the owner. A lot of people just assume they aren't going to get their deposit back, or don't have to worry about it, because they didn't pay it because it came from Shelter House or whatever, they just kind of forget about it. Obviously, his clients sure don't mind getting that money a year later, but it is a lot of times tax funds, CDBG funds, HOME funds that have flowed into Shelter House. So he's just curious if they've ever had that conversation at a regional or national level. Carter said she has been having that conversation her entire career and she has worked in affordable housing for 18 years in one way or another. Hypothetically, they could use administrative funding for deposits, that's also how they pay staff, so that's a dangerous area to pull money from. She thinks HUD is getting closer to realizing this and they're certainly looking at programming that partners housing authorities with community partners like Shelter House or HACAP a lot more. The last 5, 6, 7 years have demonstrated that greatly with the number of new vouchers they've received in partnership with Shelter House or the Coordinated Entry Process so never say never. She stated it's similar to asked about HUD-VASH vouchers, from her previous position she knows that they've taken a lot of HUD-VASH vouchers in units, which are vouchers for veterans experiencing homeless and instead of funding a deposit with HUD-VASH, the federal government created SSVF, which is what HACAP uses to house veterans. Reedus noted they've probably explored this before, but with the security deposit programs that Shelter House and Community has, why can't there be any kind of caveat that they have to return the money? Vogel replied the State law trumps everything and the laws state the deposit must get returned to the responsible party of the lease. Carter added programmatically once they start talking about federal program income the staff time it would take would require a full-time person to process and then would have spent more on the staff time than on funds they would have gotten back. Reedus stated that's exactly the issue with nonprofits trying to administer that kind of thing, they don't have the staffing time and the capability to do anything like that nor enforce those type of things so it's difficult for them. Housing and Community Development Commission September 21, 2023 Page 7 of 15 Carter stated all of their housing program assistants have approximately 300 clients each, so they are busy and pretty much pushed to the max of what the federal funding is for administrative time. She noted they do have a lower staff to client ratio than almost any other Housing Authority in Iowa. Reedus requested having a conversation in the future about the housing gap for people that are on the waitlist and still waiting for housing. AID TO AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE AND PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE CHANGES TO LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES PROCESS: This discussion regarding possible changes to the Legacy Aid to Agencies process was requested by Commissioner Reedus. Reedus stated that since the last Commission meeting there was a meeting with the Agency Impact Coalition which comprises agencies that would receive money from the Aid to Agencies process with the City and possibly some agencies that didn't. She stated there were a number of areas that they discussed and had send out the information to the agencies ahead of time so that they were prepared with the information that they wanted to give for feedback. Reedus did acknowledge it wasn't as lively as discussion as she had anticipated and that was surprising to them all. However, the information that they got back was about enough for them to digest and be able to work on. One of the areas of discussion was the size of the application and she is working on reducing or making some modifications to the application that she'll first present to the subcommittee and then bring forward to the Commission. She noted they are not huge modifications, because some of the information is good. It is important that those people, such as the Commissioners, who are reading the applications and making the decisions, still get the information, but not as a part of the active application. There was some feedback on scoring, which Reedus thinks they can address through some more education because it appeared to be a misunderstanding of the scoring, how to interpret it, and how to make changes as an agency on the application because of the scoring. Some feedback on the outcomes was really good, which was a point of hers and one of the bigger things that she wanted to change with the application content. One of the other things they talked about was taking a look at the review of the applications. They want some feedback from the Commission on having an internal working review group for the applications, rather than having all of the Commissioners reviewing them, as they've done in the past. The review would be still working with the City staff because their first review and analysis and subsequent recommendation and scoring is very helpful. Additionally, they'd have somebody from City Council, which would hopefully be good to have input before recommendations are made. Then once the review team has reviewed the applications and scored them and recommended funding - that would come to the Commission, at which point they would have discussion. Then the Commission would makea final recommendation to City Council for funding. Reedus requested feedback from other Commissioners. This new process wouldn't entail HOME or any of the public housing projects, just the Aid to Agencies, which is an every other year process. So they would need to set up an internal working group. Beining thinks it's a good idea and stated he has noticed, from his time on the Commission, that there's differences in expertise. He has feels that there may be an opportunity for those with the expertise to really take the bull by the horns. Krotz stated she doesn't like that idea and wasn't in the discussions on all of that. She didn't have any way of finding out when the subcommittee meeting was as she doesn't have a computer right now and has been homebound for a while. For her, a big thing is just the lack of communication. Reedus asked if Krotz was at the last Commission meeting in July because they stated the date of the meeting. Krotz admitted she is not good at getting her things turned in, but does think that as a Commission they come here with the expectation that they're going to have these things to do and she's not so sure that once everything has gone through this other smaller committee, that once it comes back to the Commission, there might not be enough time for the Commission to really digest it and make any make any suggestions or have anything changed. Secondly, it just feels like the Commission as a whole would be rubber stamping something. Housing and Community Development Commission September 21, 2023 Page 8 of 15 Reedus noted that not every Commissioner gets their scores in on time, which has been problematic but everybody's getting the information to read. Patel was new on the Commission at the last scoring session and therefore chose not to score but still had access to read them the applications. Reedus stated that wouldn't change, the Commissioners would still have access to everything even if they're not scoring, they still have access to everything and can be a part of the discussion. She noted even while there's only been a couple of Commissioners that are coming up with questions for the agencies, everybody has an opportunity to listen to the questions and to hear the responses from the agencies. Reedus is in favor of it because it will bring the conversation down to a smaller group with a little bit more expertise, but there's also some non -expertise, and the Commission can decide how many people they want on that smaller group, probably a couple or three the most. This way if someone doesn't have time to get their scores in, it's not a big deal because all they really have to do is read the applications and then weigh in on the discussion. They would still be a vital part of that discussion. If someone doesn't like the review groups recommendation for scoring, that's where they would enter in their opinion. Beining asked if this new process would be the review committee dictating the scoring in its entirety but would give the entire Commission recommendations, and asked if the Commissioners would still have the opportunity to formally vote on it. Reedus replied yes, the smaller work group would do the work of reading the applications, coming up with questions, getting additional information that they need, and then scoring the applications and then submitting that information to the Commission so that the Commission is making the final recommendation. She noted it's not really that different than what happened this last time - all Commissioners weren't able to provide scores. A smaller group really provided scores. The Commission would still have the opportunity to be a part of the question -and -answer session, so it's not a lot different. It just means that everyone won't have to score the applications basically. Vogel agreed with Krotz and even though it's what they've been doing already, the small group of people who are comfortable with the information make the scores. His issue is, as volunteers on the Commission, the purpose of the Commission is to have multiple voices and multiple thought processes and multiple inputs primarily from people may not have the knowledge of the of how the sausage is made. He thinks by limiting that and having just two or three folks be the ones that do the work and create the questions, they're taking away the opportunity for that bright -light question from out of left field. Taking away that opportunity during that process for someone who is brand new to ask new questions that may have not been asked before. He gets more education out of people asking questions he didn't think to ask because he didn't know that organization. No offense to staff, because yes getting the scores in can make their life difficult and he cannot promise he won't continue his long-standing tradition of waiting to the last minute, but in the end, the purpose of a Commission like this is to have as many voices and eyes on a subject as possible. Reedus stated speaking for herself, although she knows she's not the only Commissioner that feels this way, it's a little frustrating when things are presented the night of the meeting or the day of the meeting and she doesn't have time to review because someone doesn't submit their scores until the day of. It's not just staff that are inconvenienced, she also doesn't then have time to go through that information right before the meeting. Vogel stated he is the exact opposite, he is absolutely the guy that sets aside three hours of his afternoon on the day of the meeting to just look over everything. He knows that's just not a possibility for everyone and he did do better last time than the previous one year so he's getting incrementally better. But again, he just thinks it's really important for everybody to have a voice because that's why everybody is giving up three years to be here. Krotz suggested maybe they should look for ways to help get everybody's scores in and everybody's participation rather than changing the whole thing. They should look for ways to improve what they've got and help all the Commissioners feel like they've volunteered for something meaningful and that they're somehow contributing something meaningful in their own way. Housing and Community Development Commission September 21, 2023 Page 9 of 15 On the other stuff, Vogel doesn't hate the idea of a City Council liaison being involved in some way whether that is just being in the room on score discussion night but perhaps not a part of the discussion. That way when staff goes to present the recommendations, at least one person on Council already has a general knowledge and understanding. Krotz agrees with that and thinks he made a valid point in terms of the Council member being here and absorbing everything that's gone into the discussion. Reedus stated the subcommittee hasn't really discussed that. This is more about developing a small review group. Pierce stated he has not been through the process yet, but he's been part of organizations where they've done a similar thing to this and used smaller working groups to deal with the more granular issues and then they bring recommendations to the larger body. He did acknowledge he was looking forward to the scoring personally, but maybe it's his role then to be part of a smaller group. He noted this is one issue where he's going to teeter on the fence and see both sides. He's inclined to say this is one of the things that intrigued him about the Commission over other ones - they help score and determine recommendations for funding agencies and that sounds like a really cool thing that he would want to contribute with. Reedus stated it's a fun process, but it can get complicated because of the application itself and its joint funding. There are portions that they love. One of the first questions they asked was should they split it up and all entities (Iowa City, United Way, Johnson County and Coralville) have separate applications. The subcommittee did not want that. They all like the one application. However, as they get into the questions, the one application is what's creating most of the problems because the outcomes oftentimes don't even match what they're funding for because so many agencies have different outcomes. With four different funding sources, they could be asking four different things and some of their outcomes are going to be relevant to Iowa City and some of them aren't. If they can fix some parts of the application and staff can change some of the scoring, she thinks that's going to make a huge difference. Reedus also noted she had a discussion with Nikki Ross, who is from Table to Table, and she stated that they do four quarterly reports if they if they're awarded funding. The quarterly reports are only two questions shorter than the application so, in essence, they're doing the application four times a year and perhaps that's the other thing that they can reduce. Vogel noted in the minutes from the meeting, there was a comment that is hard for agencies when the Commission asks a question and the agency just has to sit back and sometimes hear the Commission talk about things that are wrong. Whether its misunderstood or a number has been misrepresented. The agencies feel like there's no chance to respond after that in a useful way, so is there a way to allow post - conversation before the final numbers and voting on recommendations? Reedus agrees if the agency representative is here and hearing what the Commission is discussing and feeling that something is wrong, maybe they could have time to speak to correct or explain something. Thul stated anyone can come make a public comment at an HCDC meeting. Thul's interpretation is that part of the frustration from the agencies is that they feel like funding decisions are being made with that information. Thul continued that it's really important to take advantage of the Q&A time because it's such a good opportunity to clear up those misconceptions with the agencies. Reedus asked if they can invite the agencies to listen while the Commission discusses the scores or is it too late? If the agency feels that the Commission didn't get some information right, they could submit something to the Commission that goes into the public record and is added to the agenda to be discussed at the final meeting where they are recommending scores. Kubly stated that again the agencies can do that anytime. They can provide public comment or communication to the Commission anytime and they can also go to Council when they are discussing the recommendations and say, hey, this is what happened with my agency and I feel it's unfair. Housing and Community Development Commission September 21, 2023 Page 10 of 15 Vogel noted perhaps at the end of the meeting where applications are being discussed there could be an announcement to the agencies that if they've heard anything during that meeting that they feel needs to be addressed, please put it in writing and get it to staff and they will make sure the Commission clarifies it. Reedus stated another issue that came up during the feedback was the scoring. Her interpretation of the comment is that by using 100-point scale, if they get low, there's no way to dig out of it. She thinks exactly opposite. If they change it to a 10-point scale score and they get a one or a zero on a section, there'd be no way they'd get aid. She asked staff if the agencies get feedback for their score and it's available but not automatically sent out. She thinks they need to educate the agencies that they can contact staff and if they got a 57 they can find out exactly where they scored low. They might have scored high in some categories and low in others and staff can give feedback in terms of how the Commission rated that. That could also happen before the final decision is made and again if they feel that the Commission has made a mistake in the scoring because of the information being used, they could give corrected information before final decisions. Thul commented that they do occasionally have people call and ask what they could have done to improve their applications. Kubly stated that if agencies have questions about Commission scores, and staff don't have the scores ahead of time, that's where the problem comes in as they're not able to look at the scores and see how they're being rated. Reedus agreed and summarized that she seems to be hearing that the majority of the Commissioners don't want the smaller review group and she is also hearing that some of the other problems that they're having, that the agency had difficulty with, could be alleviated greatly by Commissioners being diligent and getting their scores in on time. Next steps for this subcommittee is Reedus redoing the application. There's going to be some issues for future discussion and one of those is funding priorities. Everybody is a high priority, but not every issue is a high priority and they need to figure out how to do a better job on that. Vogel noted there was a discussion on one of those pages about someone who brought up units of service or how they determine scores and last year when he did his scores. There were a handful of them that, when he saw other's scores, he was surprised that people had scored higher. Part of it was because, well they do a lot but they were only helping two families, and so on. That whole "how many families are they helping" - they need to know how they are going to score those. An agency could get 95s across the board except for these little areas where, compared to these other places, that are serving 300 families and they were only serving two families. So it would be nice to have some way to determine not just by how many families are being served, but the time, the effort, and the outcomes. Reedus agreed they need to collect the data in a different way. It's the same thing with a food pantry - they might have 5,500 families registered but of those 5,500 families, some use it more frequently than others. So they shouldn't ask how many people are being served, maybe they should be asking how many meals they provided. That's also another area of getting the financials and the data, making sure to get accurate data. Her other issue was with the financials. There's a lot of confusion on whether they're asking for completed financials or projected budgets. So some organizations are giving completed financials and others are giving budgets and those don't make any sense. Again, there's just a lot of problems with how the applications are put together. She is going to come up with an application that is going to be better, not everything will be fixed, there are still some problems and she'll give staff a laundry list of the issues she thinks in the future they should take a look at. Good discussion. CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE & EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) AND UPDATE ON CITY PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS: Thul introduced the report and explained that the CAPER is an annual report to HUD that says what has been accomplished in the last fiscal year. The City's fiscal year runs from July to June. CAPER stands for the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, and this report is specifically looking at the 10 Housing and Community Development Commission September 21, 2023 Page 11 of 15 federal CDBG and HOME Funds. Thul continued that the City has other local initiatives and many things going on outside of the federal funds, but the main part of the report is the federal funds and what the City does with those dollars. The report is an assessment of the progress made towards achieving the goals and those goals and priorities are identified in City Steps. So the activities that HCDC just approved in the Annual Action Plan - next year around this time, they'll be looking at the progress that agencies have made on those activities. Thul stated the report is due to HUD within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year. The City uses a federal database called IDIS to submit the report which limits the formatting. Thul explained that staff supply tables in Appendix A and encouraged commissioners to check them out if they haven't already. The next slide shows impact from our federally funded dollars. The last fiscal year has been very busy. Agencies that the City works with have completed quite a few projects. Things were kind of stalled for a while after the pandemic, but things are moving again. Thul highlighted accomplishments listed in the report including completion of three neighborhood improvement projects completed in low to moderate income areas of Iowa City. Seven low to moderate income buyers were provided with down payment assistance. Nine units of affordable rental housing were acquired or constructed, and a piece of that funded the 501 Project completed by Shelter House. The figures count the two HOME assisted units of housing, but as a greater part of that project there was 36 units of permanent supportive housing provided to the community. Almost 2,000 people assisted with public service funding, 37 businesses provided with technical assistance, and that funding comes from the economic development portion of the funding. Two rental units and 19 owner occupied units were rehabbed, and then 1,500 individuals were assisted through public facility improvements. Thul highlighted a project photo of Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County's Pheasant Ridge Center where they repaved the parking lot where they serve low to moderate income families to provide childcare. Other highlights - over 2.3 million dollars of CDBG and HOME funds were spent in FY23; the highest amount of spending in a single fiscal year in the last decade. It's been very busy. Subrecipients have completed in a lot of projects. The City also passed the timeliness test in May and 100% of the CDBG-CV funds were expended by the end of this year, and that includes funds from the State and from HUD directly. Construction and rehab activities were back in full swing. There were a lot of hiccups during the pandemic, just with supply chains and finding people who could complete the work. Also partnering with Green State Credit Union to develop a down payment assistance program that's been going really well. Thul highlighted project photos from Inside Out Reentry and The Housing Fellowship and moved on to challenges in FY23 noting that these feed into what Carter was saying earlier. Staff capacity to administer all the existing programs and then also taking on new programs like HOME -ARP and ARPA funds. Meeting HUD timeliness standards is a challenge when projects are delayed. Training and compliance for new HUD requirements. It adds a lot of complexity to projects, and it takes a lot of more staff time, and also time of subrecipients and contractors. Developing and updating policies and procedures. Again, similar to what Carter was saying, new regulations that come through require updates to all of the policies which takes staff time. HOME -ARP allocation plan delays. HCDC saw an amendment in July as staff are trying to get the plan in order for HUD. As Kubly said in July, HOME -ARP is a completely new program so they are still learning it. Lastly expansion of efforts to meet the needs of the community while providing the same level of services for existing programs. Overall, there is a lot going on at the City right now. Kubly provided updates on programs administered directly by the City. These programs are federally funded. Starting with the South District Program —the City purchases property and resell it as owner occupied housing in the South District. The City provides up to $25,000 in down payment assistance through the federal funds. The City has sold 5 units to date and have one property available - 2129 Taylor 11 Housing and Community Development Commission September 21, 2023 Page 12 of 15 and are working on additional units on Sandusky that they're excited about because they're larger units, one is three bedrooms and the other is four bedrooms. Those will be ready in November. When they rehab the properties they focus on sustainability and affordability. Some have solar panels and other sustainability updates. All of the buyers have been under 50% of the area median income. Kubly continued that the City currently owns seven additional duplexes in the neighborhood, eight were bought at the same time in 2021. Some of them are occupied and when the tenants move out voluntarily, the City will move forward with rehabbing. Kubly moved on to the City's Green State Program that will also now include Hills Bank. The City provides up to $15,000 for eligible home buyers by in low-income census tracts of Iowa City, which is a large portion of Iowa City. They have had five closings with this program. They started working with Green State the first year and now have expanded to working with Hills Bank. They also have a dedicated part- time staff member now that works on this program which has been really helpful. The program has been going well. Next was the City's Neighborhood Improvement Program. Staff discussed this a little bit at the July meeting. The current project to improve curb ramp accessibility is what they're working on in the next two weeks and $75,000 is set aside for the program each year. With regards to CDBG and HOME rehab, Kubly stated that the City has a long standing City administered owner -occupied rehab program. They do a combination of grants and loans depending on the owner's financial situation. They also can serve mobile homeowners in some situations. Assistance can be used for emergency repairs, accessibility improvements, aging in place, energy efficiency, exterior, and comprehensive updates. With this program they serve about 20 households annually. Reedus asked what the program is called. Kubly responded that it is the City's Housing Rehab Program. Next was economic development. Kubly shared that CDBG economic development funds are used to provide assistance for nonprofits who provide technical assistance to low income and micro enterprises. Those are small businesses that are made up of 5 or fewer employees, and one of those employees owns the business. Currently, the City is funding 4C's to support in -home childcare providers. 4Cs also serves the immigrant and refugee populations. It's a really good program that not only helps the low- income business owners, but they're also working on the childcare crisis in the community. Kubly moved on to highlights from local funding. $615,000 of general funds went to 21 agencies through Aid to Agencies, this excludes CDBG public service funds, which is another $124,000. This is important operational funding for agencies, it's flexible and they can use it for staffing and it's really important to help them leverage other funding that they receive as needed to accomplish their goals. GRIP is part of the City's housing rehab programs. It's an extension of the federal funds and the owners can go up to 110% of the area median income and they can qualify for low interest loans. GRIP served seven homeowners in FY23 and it's another tool used to help maintain the City's existing housing stock. Security deposit program was discussed a bit earlier. It is $70,000 provided to the program administered by Community and they served 77 households under 50% AMI. Healthy Homes served 73 households. A large portion of that was spent on radon mitigations efforts through The Housing Fellowship. Lastly every year the City gives $700,000 to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County to allocate out to agencies that are creating housing. $200,000 of that is for LIHTC. Kubly moved to the next slide which highlights ARPA funding. The City received 18 million dollars in American Rescue Plan Act funds and there are a lot of really good projects going on. About 10 million has been allocated to date. 12 Housing and Community Development Commission September21, 2023 Page 13 of 15 Krotz asked about the remaining funds available. Kubly responded that it is categorized for how Council wants to spend it, but they don't have specific projects yet for all categories. Reedus confirmed that ARPA funds do not come through HCDC and Kubly confirmed that those go directly through Council. Thul explained next steps, after looking at this plan staff would be asking for a recommendation for approval. It's due to HUD next week, so they would be submitting it by the deadline. HUD then has 45 days to review the plan and then they will send approval. Patel asked about the remaining South District unit for sale. Kubly responded that it's a duplex unit with three bedrooms. Pierce had a follow-up question about the City's Green State downpayment assistance program. Is there any idea about a success rate metric to it yet or any idea of people who are getting into home ownership that might be falling into foreclosure. Kubly explained that the program is fairly new and if someone had a foreclosure the City would get notified because they have lien on the property itself. There have been no foreclosures so far and hopefully it doesn't happen at all. Krotz was excited to read about the South District Program and noted that it sounds like there are some good things happening there. Vogel moved to approve the CAPER as presented. Seconded by Reedus. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 STAFF & COMMISSION UPDATES: Thul noted they had a recent appointment to the Commission Tuesday but then then Michael Eckhardt resigned earlier today so they will be back to having a vacancy. If anyone knows of someone who might want to apply tell them to apply online or to contact Thul. Shelter House was supposed to come in October and present on street outreach and that's going to be moved to November at the request of Shelter House. While they are here maybe they can touch on some of the topics mentioned earlier about how people on the waiting list are managing. They might have some insight on that topic. There's a flyer in the packet for the community police review board community forum on October 3 if anyone's interested in participating in that. Kubly noted also in the packet was the NDS annual report. If anyone is wondering how they're spending the money and where the affordable housing fund going, where CDBG and HOME funds are going, that is all detailed in the appendix. Reedus mentioned the recent Council discussions about ADUs - accesory dwelling units. She has read some of the criticisms and questions how it will affect affordable housing in the future. She is wondering if somewhere down the line when staff is ready, or whoever, would speak to us about that, and might give a presentation on that also. Krotz thinks that's a valid concern, she wasn't able to make either open house where they were presenting their plans, but Reedus made a valid point on how might this affect affordable housing and are there any limitations or restrictions on who and how much rent to charge. Is it open for them using them as Airbnb's or is it to make up for the lack of housing already in Iowa City. Kubly state they can talk to the planning staff and see if they have any resources to provide or if they'd be willing to come to a future meeting. 13 Housing and Community Development Commission September21, 2023 Page 14 of 15 Vogel stated that the State has specifically told municipalities that they cannot put restrictions on short term rentals so he thinks what they are going to see is people doing AUD and utilizing them as Airbnbs. Reedus stated it might be an unpopular thing but as a homeowner, it doesn't contribute to community. Having a lot of rentals that move in, move out. She lived there three years before anybody said hello, because she lives around renters who moved in and moved out, so there are problems with it, too. She is interested in seeing what the concept of tiny houses is because that can have a big impact on things that are important like homeownership and affordable housing at the same time. l�UaL�111N;h51�YiF Reedus moved to adjourn, Vogel seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. m Housing and Community Development Commission September 21, 2023 Page 15 of 15 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record 2022-2023 Name Terms Exp. 9/15 10/20 11/17 1/19 2116 3130 4120 5118 7/20 9121 Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 O/E X X X O/E X X O/E X X Dennis, Maryann 6/30/25 O/E X X X X X O/E X X O/E Haylett, Jennifer 6/30125 X O/E O/E X X O/E X O/E Krotz, Karol 6/30/24 X X X X O/E X X X X X Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X X X X X X Vogel, Kyle 6/30/26 X X X O/E X X O/E X X X Eckhardt, Michael 6/30/25 — X X X X X X O/E O/E Patel, Kiran 6/30/26 — — — -- O/E X X X X X Pierce, James 6/30/2026 — — — — — X X Subramanian, Saranya 06/30/2025 — — — - — — • Resigned from Commission Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused — = Vacant 15 Item Number: 4.d. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November 6, 2023 Human Rights Commission: September 26 Attachments: Human Rights Commission: September 26 Approved Minutes Human Rights Commission September 26, 2023 Emma J. Harvat Hall Commissioners present: Jahnavi Pandya, Doug Kollasch, Kelsey Paul Shantz, Bijou Maliabo, Ahmed Ismail, Roger Lusala, Mark Pries. Commissioners absent: Sylvia Jons. Staff present: Stefanie Bowers, Sergeant Kevin Bailey. Recommendation to City Council: No. Meeting called to order: 5:30 PM. Native American Land Acknowledgement: Maliabo read the Land Acknowledgement. Approval of meeting minutes of August 22, 2023: Ismail moved, and Maliabo seconded. Motion passed 7- 0. Correspondence: The Commission received correspondence from Annie Tucker. It was an inquiry that asks for the Commission to consider showing films that highlight systemic inequity. Tucker also provided an article entitled, "Ten Lessons We Learned about Truth and Reconciliation" by the Truth Telling Project. Updates on Outreach and Engagement by the Police Department: Sergeant Bailey, spoke on the recent events the Department has participated in, including but not limited to, National Night Out, Welcome Festival, Community Violence Intervention Committee, and the Climate Fest. Tre Hall was recently hired as a Community Outreach Specialist. Racial Equity and Social Justice Grant: Grant informational sessions will be held on November 8 and 15. Staff will send out an Outlook Invite to see who is available on the selected dates. Commissioners will continue to have conversations with their respective organization and arrange a time to deliver the checks. Staff will assist in providing the checks. Jons will create a template that others can use when having conversations with organizations. Pries has delivered the check to Houses into Homes. Ismail will be delivering the check to the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County later this week. Checks to still be delivered: AI-Iman Center (Maliabo), Community (Maliabo), Center for Worker Justice (Kollasch), Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County (Ismail), Great Plains Action Society (Dons, Paul Shantz), Wright House of Fashion (Lusala), Natural Talent Music (Pandya). Commission Committees: Breaking Bread —AII members have been busy working on community programs but will meet up soon to discuss work plans. Reciprocal Relationships — Committee recently lost a member who resigned. Other members have been unable to arrange a time to meet. Building Bridges —The committee was able to meet and are working on aligning their efforts with the Commission's strategic Plan and Better Together 2023. Partnerships with Recreation Department: a. Mental Health Celebration — October 14, RAL Social Hall (Maliabo, Pandya) — Has not met. b. Indigenous Peoples Day— October 9, RAL Social Hall (Paul Shantz,lons) — Planning an event in collaboration with Great Plains Action Society for October 9 at Terry Trueblood Lodge. c. All Around the World — November 18, RAL Social Hall (Lusala, Maliabo,lons) — Has been some email correspondence that has initiated conversations. Human Rights Award Breakfast Ceremony: Lusala and Kollasch will MC the event. Announcements of commissioners: Paul Shantz's husband recently was sworn in at a Citizenship Ceremony. Pries has attended numerous events in the past month including a few meetings of the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Pandya recently started a new mental health position. Lusala as part of his new position spoke on trainings on secondary trauma. Announcements of staff: The HRC celebrated its 60" anniversary on August 20. There is a program planned for September 13 featuring Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for HUD Demetria McCain and a commemorative video that will be released the first week of September. Adjourned: 6:21 PM. The meeting can be viewed at https //citvchannel4.com/video.html?series=Local%20Government. N N O T a+ N ao N tp N a a a a a a a �n 7 eu a a d d a a a 0. 0. a a Q a a N N d 0 X a o 0 0 o c o n W m R L N E � I Item Number: 4.e. I i CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November 6, 2023 Library Board of Trustees: September 28 Attachments: Library Board of Trustees: September 28 Iowa City Public Library Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes September 28, 2023 2°a Floor - Boardroom Regular Meeting - 5:00 PM FINAL Tom Rocklin - President Lucy Santos Green Robin Paetzold DJ Johnk - Vice President Joseph Massa John Raeburn Hannah Shultz -Secretary Claire Matthews Dan Stevenson Members Present: Joseph Massa, Claire Matthews, Robin Paetzold, Tom Rocklin, Dan Stevenson. Members Absent: DJ Johnk, John Raeburn, Lucy Santos Green, Hannah Shultz. Staff Present: Sam Helmick, Anne Mangano, Jen Miller, Brent Palmer, Jason Paulios, Angie Pilkington, Katie Roche. Guests Present: David Neuberger III. Call Meeting to Order. Rocklin called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. A quorum was present. Approval of September 28, 2023 Board Meeting Agenda. Stevenson made a motion to approve the September 28, 2023 Board Meeting Agenda. Matthews seconded. Motion passed 5f0. Public Discussion. None. Items to be Discussed. Budget Discussion. Rocklin shared that Carman would be absent and Mangano was at the meeting in his place. Mangano said the library is preparing the FY25 budget. City Finance staff held a budget kickoff meeting which provided a timeline of the budgeting process and detailed instructions on submitting budget requests in Munis, the financial software. The City of Iowa City shared the FY25 budget will look very similar to the FY24 budget. Paetzold asked if the allocations would be similar. Mangano replied yes and staff are monitoring budget forecasts, there is a lot of pressure on the City with inflation and changes to property tax reform. Matthews said news statements made the budget seem far more dire. Mangano said we will see, in the long term there will be changes. Mangano shared staff are working on a funding report for the next fiscal year which will be available at the October Board meeting. In November, Library Leadership will meet with City Management Staff and the Finance Team to review budget requests. In January, Carman will present the budget to City Council. Paetzold asked when the library will have conversations with Johnson County. Paetzold was notified about this in the past as the county representative on the Board. Mangano took note of this. Mangano said the packet includes the FY23 at a glance report which shows finances that came in and out in FY23. If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contactlen Miller, Iowa City Public Library, at 379-887-6003 orjennifer-miller@icptorg. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Policy Review:808 Art Advisory Committee. Paulios said there were no policy changes except capitalization and lettering in the document. Matthews asked if the six members appointed to the committee were library staff. Paulios said the committee consists of community members and Candice Smith, a Librarian on staff. Paulios said committee members could be artists, art teachers, students, university faculty, etc. and shared that Smith is a nonvoting member. Smith will formally make committee nominations to the Board as necessary during a regular Library Board of Trustees meeting. Trustees would then vote on nominations. Committee members serve three-year terms and meet once a year. Massa made a motion to approve the proposed changes to policy 808 Art Advisory Committee. Matthews seconded. Motion passed 510. Policy Review:810 Discussion Rooms. Paulios said the policy title was changed from Discussion Room to Study Room in an attempt to merge terminology with policy. Matthews agreed it matched common nomenclature. Matthews made a motion to approve the proposed changes to policy 810 Discussion Rooms. Massa and Stevenson seconded simultaneously. Motion passed 5/0. Staff Reports. Director's Report. Mangano shared Carman is doing well and should return to work in a few weeks. Mangano said there will be a Board of Trustees Recognition event on Tuesday, October 24th at the Eastside Recycling Center. Mangano said next month an updated photo of the Library Board will be taken at the October meeting. Mangano gave a heads up that the Leadership Team is currently in conversation with legal about ADA policies and the agenda may get updated for next month. Paetzold asked about threatening messages the library received and wondered if there was any follow up, or if the police were investigating further. Mangano said ICPL hasn't received a recent update but in the last communication with police they were following protocols. Paetzold asked if this was part of the national attacks happening on libraries. Mangano replied that Library staff don't know. Massa asked if the police knew if the threat was from a local source or somewhere else. Mangano said the person in the chat disclosed they were out of state but we don't know. Matthews asked if the reference chat was open again. Mangano said yes. Matthews was amazed at the press received from bomb threats. Departmental Reports: Adult Services. Paulios shared interviews are being conducted for the open Teen Intern position. The Teen Room has reduced hours in response to a few incidents. Paulios said it has been nice for regulars to have some oversight in the Teen Room. Community & Access Services. Helmick shared Yvonne Jiang, who developed the fall and summer editions of The Window, has been promoted to Graphic Designer. Helmick hopes to hire a Graphic Intern soon to replace Jiang. Rocklin asked how many hours the Graphic Designer works. Helmick replied 25 hours per week and the position supports ICPL, the ICPL Friends Foundation, and partnerships with the City of Iowa City. Matthews shared excitement about the new branding page and said ICPL is the hub for partnerships in our community. Pilkington invited Library Trustees to see the new electric book bike after the meeting. Development Report. Roche shared the final version of the new Friends Foundation website is ready and hopes it will go live by the end of the next day. Roche wrote over 25 pages of content for the website that provides information on supporting the library. Roche tackled this feat before the end of her first year as Development Director and is excited to show it off. Miscellaneous: News Articles. None. President's Report. Rocklin shared he participated in an intercultural development opportunity and found it useful. Mangano shared Coordinators also participated in this consultation. Announcements from Members. None. I f you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contactlen Miller, Iowa City Public Library, at 379-887-6003 orjennifer-miller@icpLorg. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Committee Reports. None. Communications. None. Consent Agenda. Paetzold made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Matthews seconded. Motion passed 5/0. Set Agenda Order for October Meeting. Rocklin said the next meeting will include a budget report, first quarter statistics and finances, policy review 804 Free Materials Distribution, and department reports. Rocklin gave a reminder that the Homecoming parade is on October 6. Helmick shared the new electric bicycle, Bookmobile, and the Book Cart Drill Team will be there. Helmick invited Trustees to participate in the parade. Matthews noted the Board Recognition event and October meeting will be in the same week. Rocklin reminded Trustees to look ahead at upcoming library policies due for review. Adjournment. Rocklin adjourned the meeting at 5:21 pm. Respectfully submitted, ten Miller If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contactlen Miller, Iowa City Public Library, at 379-887-6003 orjennifer-miller@icpl.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Board of Commissions: ICPL Board of Trustees ATTENDANCE RECORD Name Term Expiration 11/17/2022 22/15/2022 1/16/2023 2/23/2024 3/6/2023 3/23/2023 4/27/2023 5/25/2023 6/22/2023 7/27/2023 8/24/2023 8/28/2023 9/28/2023 10/26/2023 Johnk, DJ 6/30/2025 X X X X X X X X X X X X OE X Kirsch, 6/30/2023 X X X X X X X X X TE TE TE TE TE Carol Massa, 6/30/2027 X X X X X X X X X X X x Joseph Matthews, 6/30/2023 OE X X X X Of X X X OE X OE X X Claire ld, 6/30/2023 X X X X X X X X X TE X OE X X Robin Robin Raeburn, 6/30/2027 X X X OE X X X X X X X X OE X John Rocklin, 6/30/2025 X X X X X X X OE X X X X X X Tom Santos Green, 6/30/2029 CIE X X OE X Luc Shultz, 6/30/2025 X X X X X X X X OE X X X OE X Hannah Stevenson, 1 6/30/2027 X OE X X X X X OE X OE X X % X Daniel KEY: X PRESENT O ABSENT OE EXCUSED ABSENT NM NO MEETING HELD R RESIGNED TE Term Expired Item Number: 4.f. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November 6, 2023 Senior Center Commission: September 21 Attachments: Senior Center Commission: September 21 Approved Minutes September21, 2023 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION September 21, 2023 Assembly Room, Iowa City Senior Center Members Present: Lee McKnight, Warren Paris, Jay Gilchrist, Nancy Ostrognai, Susan Mellecker, Tasha Lard, Angela McConville Members Absent: None Staff Present: Kristin Kromray, LaTasha DeLoach Others Present: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Gilchrist at 4:00 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE August 17, 2023, MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the August 17, 2023. Motion carried on a vote of 5 in favor, 0 against and 2 abstentions. Gilchrist/McKnight PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: DeLoach gave an update on the Original Mature Groovers (formerly Elders of Color group) upcoming programs. They include a partnership with the City's Human Rights office on a presentation on affirmative action and a Black Iowan Diaspora Gala that will occur in February as well as a 70's dance party in May. Other upcoming activities at the Senior Center include a new watercolor class, participation in the One Iowa LGBTO health and wellness conference. The Friends of the Senior Center fundraiser, Pickleball Jamboree is this Sunday at the Green State Fieldhouse. There will be clinics, tournaments, games, and a raffle. Approved Minutes September 21, 2023 McConville noted the Senior Center programs that are occurring in North Liberty that include caregiving support group, practical planning for end of life, and death cafe. Gilchrist reported how beneficial the Honoring Your Wishes advanced care planning service is. Gilchrist noted the Coffee and Conversations meeting this Friday as well as the Climate Fest presentation highlighting the Defeat the Heat results. Ostrognai expressed appreciation over how busy the Senior Center has been lately. DeLoach reported the pre -bid meeting for the building exterior project will be occurring soon. A temporary sign will be installed at the Washington St entrance. Staff is looking into ways to make the Washington St loading zone safer for passenger drop off. There is some new lighting on the first floor and ground floor. The resistance training room has been painted. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: McConville volunteered to take point on a presentation for the Board of Supervisors. She asked if anyone else would be willing to assist her. Mellecker asked if the 2022 location survey was on the City website. Staff stated they would add it to the website and share with Commissioners. McConville noted the DEI workshops she has been attending through the City's human rights office. Ostrognai requested the City owned lot across the street from the Senior Center be added to the next agenda. McConville brought up the VNA presentation for a future meeting, as well as a presentation from the City's climate action office. Meeting Adjourned. Approved Minutes September 21, 2023 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record 10/20/22 11/17/22 12/15/22 1/19/23 2/16/23 3/16/23 4/20/23 5/18/23 6/15/23 7/20/23 8/17/23 9/21/23 Name Term Expires Jeannie Beckman 12/31/22 O/E NM NM — — -- — — -- — -- -- Jay 12/31/25 — — - NM NM O/E NM O/E X X X X Gilchrist Douglas 12/31/24 O/E - — — — Korty Tasha 12/31/24 X NM NM NM NM X NM X O X O X Lard Angela 12/31/24 X NM NM NM NM X NM X X X O/E X McConville Lee 12/31/24 _ — — — X NM O/E X X X X McKnight Susan 12/31/23 NM NM X NM X X X O/E X Mellecker Nancy 12/31/23 - X OE X X X Ostrognai Karen 12/31/23 X — — — — — — — Page Warren 12/31/25 — NM NM O NM X X X X X Paris Paula 12/31/22 X NM NM — - — — — — — Vaughan Linda 12/31/23 X NM -- -- - Vogel F7 Key: X =Present 0 =Absent O/E=Absent/Excused NM =No meeting -- = Not a member