Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-2010 Housing & Community Development CommissionAGENDA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET, IOWA CITY THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2010 6:30 P.M. 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the November 10 & 18, 2010 Minutes 3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda 4. Staff/Commission Comment 5. Discussion Regarding FY12 Aid to Agencies Funding Requests • Discuss Aid to Agencies Applications • Develop Aid to Agencies Budget Recommendation to Council 6. Discussion Regarding the formation of a HOME Consortia with Contiguous Municipalities • Provide a Recommendation to City Council 7. Monitoring Reports • FY11 Habitat for Humanity — Land Acquisition (Chappell) • FY07 & 08 Habitat for Humanity — Land Acquisition (Dragoo) • Aid to Agencies - United Action for Youth, Elder Services Inc. (Chappell) 8. Adjournment l,r,® CITY OF IOWA CITY , T4 MEMORANDUM Date: December 10, 2010 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Community Development Staff Fie: December 16, 2010 HCDC Meeting The following is a short description of the December agenda items. If you have any questions about the agenda or if you are unable to attend the meeting, please contact Tracy Hightshoe at 356-5244 or by email at tracy-hightshoe@iowa-city.org. FY12 Aid to Agencies Funding Requests Please see the attached memo. Discussion of HOME Consortiums The Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) formed a sub -committee to review affordable housing needs in their member communities. One strategy was to form a HOME consortium with Iowa City as the lead entity. A HOME consortium may include contiguous municipalities. If HUD approves the consortium, the Iowa City consortium would receive an annual allocation of HOME entitlement funds that could be used to fund HOME eligible affordable housing activities throughout its member communities. The memo regarding HOME consortiums from JCCOG to the JCCOG Urbanized Area Policy Board is attached for your reference. The City of Iowa City annually receives approximately $678,000 in HOME entitlement funds. Depending on the mix of communities in the consortium and based on the 2010 Census numbers, the consortium would be annually allocated between $609,976 to $713,274. The benefit of a consortium allows the municipalities to look at affordable housing as a regional issue. One disadvantage for Iowa City would be a decrease in funds available for Iowa City housing activities. At Thursday's meeting, staff will provide additional details about HOME consortiums and review possible scenarios depending on those municipalities that have expressed an interest to date. HCDC will review the proposed consortium strategy and determine if they will make a recommendation to the City Council. Monitoring reports • FY11 Habitat for Humanity — Land Acquisition (Chappell) Contact Mark Patton at 337.8949 or markpatton22@gmail.com. • FY07 & 08 Habitat for Humanity — Land Acquisition (Dragoo) Contact Mark Patton at 337.8949 or markpatton22@gmail.com. • Aid to Agencies - United Action for Youth, Elder Services Inc. (Chappell) UAY, Contact Jim Swaim at 338.7518 or jimswaim@unitedactionforyouth.org ESI, Contact Mary Wiemann at 338.0515 or mwiemann@elderservicesinc.com MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PRELIMINARY NOVEMBER 10, 2010 — 6:30 PM EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Scott Dragoo, Charlie Drum, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay MEMBERS ABSENT: Rebecca McMurray, Rachel Zimmermann Smith STAFF PRESENT: Steve Long, Tracy Hightshoe, Doug Ongie, David Purdy OTHERS PRESENT: Dion Williams, Ferman Milster, Roger Lusala, Bill Reagan, Keith Johnk, Jaron Varner, Sharon Asari, Mark Patton, Jim Swaim, Charlie Eastham, Steve Noack, Ron Berg, Dr. Therese Kelller, Joyce Eland, Suellen Novotny, Glenn Siders, Steve Gordon, Yolanda Spears, Mike Moran, Jason Havel, Maryann Dennis, Becci Reedus, Sue Freeman, Brian Loring, John Shaw, Sherri Zastrow, Sandy Pickup, Eugene Spaziani, Crissy Caganelli, Ron Schieffer RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Michael McKay at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: None. DISCUSSION REGARDING FYI SPECIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ALLOCATION REQUESTS: • DISCUSS FY11 CDBG APPLICATIONS: McKay thanked the applicants for the time and effort they had put into the application process and for their efforts on behalf of the community. He noted that the applications are for approximately six times more than the available funding, so every application cannot be fully funded. McKay explained the rating and evaluation process the Commission would be using as a guide, emphasizing that the Commission would ultimately use their best judgment in sorting out the allocations. He noted that the City Council would have the ultimate decision as to which HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 2 of 15 applications are funded and in what amounts; the Commission merely makes recommendations to the City Council. McKay stated that the Commission has about $2.6 million to allocate in this special allocation process; in the weeks immediately following, the Commission will begin the process of allocating approximately $1.5 million in regular entitlement funds. McKay said that the Commission would need to make these funding decisions based on the criteria set with the overriding consideration of what is important to the community. McKay noted that the Commission was selected to represent a cross-section of the community, and that it was as such that the City Council valued their opinions and input. He said that in addition to the specific criteria that have been outlined, Commissioners will need to draw on their professional and life experiences within the community to guide their decisions. McKay stated that an applicant had recently contacted the Planning Department in order to get personal contact information for someone on the Commission. McKay said that while such an action was legal it was not, in his opinion, right. McKay suggested that the Commission come up with policy to guide such interactions during allocation periods. McKay proposed that the City formally adopt a policy that states that personal information such as e-mail addresses will not be given out to agencies or individuals that are applying for funds from the City; any member contacted by an applicant wishing to influence that member on allocation decisions must report that to the Chair. Hightshoe said that our legal department had advised that because the Commission is an advisory body rather than a judicial body, the City may be required to provide contact information when requested. She said that the policy issue is more a question of what the Commission wishes to do about such contacts. There are three main options: 1) advise the applicant that the topic can only be discussed in open meeting, 2) discuss the issue with the applicant but then disclose those discussions to the commission or 3) do nothing. Drum said his preference was to have a policy where specific applications were not discussed outside the meetings. He said he did not mind talking in general terms about what the Commission did as a body, but thought the Commission should not be talking about specific applications with the applicant outside of the open meetings. Chappell asked if Legal had an issue with the Commission discussing such a policy when it was not on the agenda. Hightshoe said that a policy or a consensus might pertain only to the specific applications currently before the Commission if it was discussed as a part of this agenda item. She said the Commission would have to discuss the matter as a separate agenda item if it wished to apply a policy across the board. Chappell said that as part of these proceedings, he could certainly agree that discussions on these applications will take place publicly and ex parte contacts will be disclosed. He said that he was not comfortable discussing a more general policy unless it was a separate agenda item. He added that he was uncomfortable with the idea of the Commission taking it upon itself to limit the contact information that the City could provide. He said that such a directive should come from the City, as there are relatively complex public records/information laws at play. Chappell said that he was happy to state for the record that he has no interest in being contacted about these applications outside of the meeting, and will not discuss specific applications if he is contacted. McKay said that the Commission could table the matter for now and bring it up as a later meeting as an agenda item. McKay suggested proceeding with the discussion of applications in the order they appeared in the materials prepared by staff. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 3 of 15 Public Facilities: Hightshoe noted that staff had identified concerns for several applicants and notified the applicants about those issues. Applicants were provided the same memo as commission members. She said the Commission was not required to ask every applicant about every concern identified by staff, nor was it required to ask questions only about concerns identified by staff. The Arc of Southeast Iowa: McKay noted that the correct HUD classification for The Arc is as a handicap center, which adjusts its priority level from high to medium Bill Regan, 2620 Muscatine Avenue, Director of the Arc of Southeast Iowa, said The Arc had three bids for every component of the comprehensive facility project. He said that they also have design and specifications for future bids. Iowa City — Parks/Recreation: McKay suggested that the proposed splash pad is relatively close to the splash pad at Wetherby Park, and asked if it would not be better to have it somewhere else. Mike Moran, 220 South Gilbert Street, Parks Director, said that while the proposed site is close to Wetherby, it does meet CDBG requirements for serving an area of lower -income residents. He said that the new site does not require children in the area near the proposed site to cross Sycamore Street in order to play at a splash pad. He said that there was also the possibility of locating the splash pad at the Chadek property off of Friendship Street, but that it was still a bit of an unknown quantity, whereas Fair Meadows is an established park. Chappell asked if the Commission's recommendations could include conditions on where the splash pad was located and Hightshoe replied that they could. Drum asked Moran how well Wetherby Park's splash pad had been received. Moran said it was very well received and used both by neighbors and members of the larger community. Chappell asked if the City had done the appraisal relatively recently, and Moran replied that it had been within the last six weeks. Moran said that there have been four meetings with the Chadeks regarding their property. The appraisal amounts and the asking price are far apart at the present time, and negotiations are underway to get them closer together. Iowa City — Public Works: McKay asked if there were any questions from the Commission on the sidewalk installation project. Hightshoe said that there was someone present from Engineering to represent the project. Chappell asked how much of the project was funded by the 2011 Capital Improvements plan (CIP). Jason Havel replied that there was CIP funding, but that his understanding was that additional funding was needed for the entire trail section along Highway 1. Drum said that he had noticed that the cost per person had been left off of the application, and Hightshoe said that with an area -benefit such as sidewalks and trails that does not really apply as technically everyone in the census tract benefits. Havel was asked if the side streets included in the project were residential or commercial properties, and he replied that they were primarily residential. Chappell asked if it was fair to ask why sidewalks had not been required to be put in a long time ago. Havel said that it was most likely that at the time the properties were built it was not a City HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 4 of 15 requirement. Hart said it was her understanding that there was some prohibition on CDBG funding for sidewalks and street repairs. Hightshoe said that funding of public infrastructure such as streets sewer and sidewalks can be funded by CDBG so long as it is in a qualifying low - to -moderate income area based on the most recent Census. Chappell asked if there was any idea of what the percentage of renter -occupied versus owner -occupied was for that area. Long estimated that 60% of the homes to be owner -occupied and 40% renter -occupied. Drum said that in his opinion there are a lot of people walking on the street in that area. Community Mental Health: McKay noted that staff had raised a good question in asking how many clients served by the agency have mobility impairments. The applicant said that they did not have the numbers at this point, but would seek to provide them. He noted that if just one person was being denied access to the building due to a disability then the law is being broken. He said that at the very least, it is safe to say that the percentage of clients served that have mobility issues is at least consistent with the general population. He said that while they technically meet the requirements of the ADA currently, their current accommodations are just not functional. The applicant explained that demographic data on mobility impairments is not actually kept by the agency, as it is difficult to catalog: people who are morbidly obese can be considered mobility impaired, as can people who rely on scooters but can walk, or those whose mobility is affected by medications. The applicant said that there is a scheduling issue for people with mobility impairments because only one room in the office can accommodate them. Generally, if there are mobility issues involved, doctors have to meet with clients in the one building that is accessible regardless of where the doctor's actual office is located. The Crisis Center: Becci Reedus, 1121 Gilbert Court, Executive Director, said that the Crisis Center is moving toward a client -choice distribution of their grocery items, a system which will be greatly enhanced by this project. Reedus said that part of the idea behind this system is to allow clients to better accommodate special dietary needs. Reedus said there was only one bid because the project is rather specialized; the other project has four viable bids. Chappell asked if the Crisis Center had a preferred prioritization for its projects. Reedus said that there really was not because they all really need to be done. She said there are two parts to the floor project that are necessary to switch to the client -choice system to remove potential tripping hazards; however, the warehouse area is less critical than the client area. She said that the roof project is unavoidable. McKay asked if the floor was a safety issue, and Reedus said that it could be. Iowa City Free Medical Clinic — Facility Rehab: McKay noted that the City had asked two organizations to apply for this funding round, one of which was the Free Medical Clinic. McKay asked staff if asking someone to apply had any deeper meaning or indication for funding. Hightshoe said that it did not. She said the City is encouraging revitalization of the Towncrest area due to disinvestment and increased vacancy rates in recent years. Hightshoe said that the City hired a consultant to draft a design plan for this area that includes both new construction and facade improvements. The City is also pursuing an Urban Renewal area where improvements must comply with the new design standards for city financial incentives. She said that the architect had picked a couple of existing buildings to demonstrate what the facade could look like under this design plan. Free Medical Clinic was one of the buildings. As there was already a design plan available, staff encouraged Free Medical Clinic to apply. She said that there was no guarantee of funding signified by the applicant being asked to apply. Drum asked if the City's efforts included any funding for revitalization. Hightshoe said there would likely be incentives in the form of Tax HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 5 of 15 Increment Financing (TIF) and other incentives. Some of the incentives would only be available for for -profits (tax paying entities). Chappell asked how firm the plan is at this point. Hightshoe said that City Council has not yet adopted it; it will go through the Planning and Zoning approval process sometime this month. Chappell asked if it was correct that the Commission would not know if City Council was willing to adopt this particular design until after they had voted on allocations. Long said he believed that the Council would know before their vote (the Urban Renewal Plan goes to Council in December). Chappell noted that the City will have some role in the redevelopment in terms of streetscapes, sidewalks and lighting for the area. Chappell asked how committed the City is to doing its part for those common areas of Towncrest. Long said that the City Council had allocated $1 million over a two-year period for improvements to that area. Hightshoe said that the hope is that developer interest in the redevelopment will spur private investments such as the fagade improvements. Long said that beginning next spring and summer public improvements to the area will be more visibly evident. Such improvements might include: realignment of interior streets, lighting, and signage. Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity: McKay said he wanted to make sure he understood this project correctly. He asked if it was correct that Habitat was seeking to build a building in which they would actually build houses and then move them to lots they had acquired in the area. Mark Patton, 2401 Scott Boulevard, spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. He explained that the funding request is for the acquisition of a building in the industrial park, and the expansion of that building by approximately 6,000 square feet. This would allow Habitat to complete construction of houses during the winter months. Patton said that the school district discontinued its Student Build program due to funding cuts, and is currently regrouping to see about ways to reinstate that. He said that Kirkwood is also looking for ways to bring their building program to Iowa City. The new Habitat facility would be the anchor for that program. Chappell asked if the program would be one in which parts of the home would be built and then assembled on the site where the home would actually be located. Patton said that there were two basic ways to do modular homes: 1) assemble the entire home off -site and then move it, or 2) move the pieces of the home and then assemble them on -site. Patton said that single -story structures can be moved fairly easily around the community. He said that the goal is to have construction on a year-round basis. Habitat is also moving toward doing more remodeling, repairs and rehabbing of homes, with the goal of keeping current homeowners in their homes. He said that staff needs to be retrained to build ramps and other things that would accommodate keeping the elderly and disabled in their own homes. Patton said that the facility would serve as a training center as well as an indoor construction facility. Chappell asked if Habitat anticipated providing training opportunities to the homeowners themselves, and Patton said that was part of the plans. He clarified that Habitat would not actually go out and do repair work for a homeowner that was over 80% of the median income. A Commissioner asked if there were bridges in Iowa City that would accommodate moving modular homes from the east side of town to the west side of town. Patton said that they were more concerned about the height and width of bridges when it came to moving homes, but that he had spoken with engineering and he believed that it would be possible to accommodate a move from the east side to the west side in some instances. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 6 of 15 Jaron Varner: Jaron Varner, 3234 Friendship Street, introduced himself as vice-president and CEO of Renaissance Remedial Services. He said the company provides remedial services for at -risk youth. Chappell asked where the company was currently located, and Varner said that the company is currently located in Cedar Rapids and is hoping to locate in the Iowa City area as it receives a lot of referrals from Johnson County. Drum asked if the company would be closing the Cedar Rapids office if it relocated to Iowa City. Varner said he would like to keep both facilities open. McKay asked how many clients they were currently serving. Varner said this was the company's first fiscal year, so it is currently serving about ten clients. Drum asked if they had all been referred by Johnson County and Varner replied that they had been. Chappell asked how Renaissance Remedial Services is organized. Varner said it is a for -profit corporation that accepts Medicaid and Title 19. McKay noted that Renaissance had not submitted any supporting documents from other agencies and asked Varner if he could provide those. Varner said that he had removed those documents at the last minute because he was trying to stay within the page limit requirements, but he would be happy to get those to the Commission. Hightshoe asked if McKay was asking for general letters of support or letters specifying a willingness to partner with Renaissance in the Iowa City location. McKay said he was trying to determine if an unknown entity had the capacity to manage $1.7 million in federal funds, and who would be supporting them and referring clients to them. McKay said he was just looking for understanding as to how this would work. Varner said that CITY STEPS says that community centers and childcare centers are of high priority. He said that the CEO of Kids Inc., a Cedar Rapids -based childcare facility with a number of locations, will basically oversee the construction and staffing of the childcare facility. Varner said that with 5,000 square feet the facility could serve approximately 100 kids; the goal would be to charge about $100 per kid per week for low-income families. Varner noted that a lack of affordable childcare was cited in CITY STEPS as a contributing factor to poverty. McKay said that there are other agencies in the city that are providing these kinds of services already. He asked Varner what makes his agency different, and how will he ensure that services are not simply being duplicated. Varner said that his organization really wants to provide a safe place for after school programming, and for community stewardship and academic leadership. McKay asked what Varner's organization would do differently than Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program (MYEP) or Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County (NCJC). Varner said that his agency actually receives referrals from NCJC. He said that he has no desire to duplicate already existing services; the services they will provide will be ones for which a need in the community has already been demonstrated. He said that he would also prefer to hire individuals with a history in and understanding of the community. Drum asked how the program is currently being funded. Varner said that he is currently putting his own money up as investment, and seeking multiple funding sources through a number of grant applications. Drum asked if the Renaissance Center would be receptive to partial funding. Varner said that they would be overjoyed with any funding amount. He said that he really feels there is a need for these services for at -risk youth, and that CITY STEPS also demonstrates a need for these services. Chappell asked where the $450,000 acquisition fee comes from. Varner said that the figure was based on the asking price of the building. Varner was asked if his agency had partnered HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 7 of 15 with other community agencies before, and he replied that in the past they had partnered with the Iowa City Police Department, United Action for Youth (UAY) and MYEP. He noted that Renaissance had no desire to overshadow existing organizations; rather, the desire is to fill in the gaps in services. Varner was asked if he could provide letters of support from other agencies in the community and he said that he would be happy to provide them. It was noted that taking on a building that had been vacant for four years was a large undertaking. The applicant stated that the location was rather ideal, in that there was good access to parking and it is very accessible by bus. McKay said that he still had some concerns about the viability of the project. He said he would like to see letters from the agencies Varner had mentioned expressing why these services were needed, how these agencies had worked with Renaissance in the past and how they expect to work with them in the future. Varner said he would be happy to provide that documentation. Chappell asked what the $1 million for remodeling was based on, as it seemed like a nice round number. The applicant explained that extensive mold mitigation had to be done on the building and all of the finishes needed to be replaced. The estimate is based on the idea that about $50/square foot would make the building habitable, and an additional $30/ square foot would replace the windows, allow for tuck -pointing and take care of the retaining wall in back of the building. He said that $600,000 was the estimate for getting the building cleaned up and operational, but all of the electrical and mechanical systems need to be replaced as well, which accounts for the other $500,0004600,000. Long noted that the allocation meeting would be taking place eight days from this meeting, so the applicant should submit the letters of support as soon as possible. Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program (MYEP): Roger Lusala, 407 Highland Court, spoke on behalf of MYEP. Chappell asked if MYEP had an understanding with the owner if they could purchase for the appraised price rather than the asking price. Lusala said that the owner was amenable to that plan. Drum said that the last time he was in the building MYEP was doing some serious work on it. He asked Lusala how that was coming along. Lusala said that the outside of the building was completely done and looks great. He said that the outside appearance has revitalized the area as a whole. Drum and Lusala discussed a number of items inside the building that still needed to be completed. McKay asked what the completion of the upstairs of the building would do for the agency in terms of the number of people served. Lusala explained that some space downstairs that should go to services is currently being used as office space. McKay asked if Lusala had specific numbers in terms of employees that could be hired or clients served as a result of these improvements, and Lusala gave a rough estimate. Chappell asked if MYEP paid property taxes on their property. Lusala said that they are to pay property taxes for two years before an exemption can be applied for. Lusala said that they do expect to be fully exempted from property taxes once they become eligible. McKay asked who helped MYEP with their estimates and construction numbers. Lusala said that they have a contractor they have been working with who provided estimates. MECCA: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 8 of 15 Ron Berg, 430 Southgate Avenue, spoke on behalf of MECCA. Chappell asked how MECCA came up with their numbers for the rehab and Berg replied that the numbers were best -guess estimates and that no contractors had submitted bids yet. McKay asked how old the building was and Berg responded that MECCA had moved there in about 1984. Since that time they have replaced the roof, the windows, the siding and the heating and cooling systems in the building. Chappell asked if MECCA had a prioritization of projects in the event that partial funding was awarded. MECCA said that they do surveys with clients about their reactions to the facilities and MECCA's priority list is based partially on that. McKay asked how the improvements would benefit the community in terms of number of clients served or number of people employed by MECCA. Berg said that healthcare reform is going to move the treatment system to one that is driven more by client -choice. He said that the bottom - line is that the building is tired out and needs some work done to it. McKay asked if the carpeting was the original carpeting for the building. Berg said that it was not original; CDBG funding had replaced it several years ago. However, maintenance of carpeting is an issue. McKay asked if the ceilings and walls and lighting were all original and Berg said that they are. Berg was asked how much funding would be needed to update just the waiting room. He said that his understanding is that if the waiting room is remodeled the rest of the building will need to be brought up to fire code, which will involve replacing the sprinkler system, so the cost would be about $175,000. Neighborhood Center of Johnson County (NCJC): Chappell noted that the purchase of the property was not scheduled until August of 2011. Chappell asked where the $375,000 figure came from and the applicant said it was the sale price of the property. Chappell asked if the property had been appraised and the applicant said that it had not been appraised yet, though several of NCJC board members had some expertise in that area and thought the building would appraise for that price. The applicant explained that the current facility primarily serves youth and preschool -aged children. He said that they have been searching for space for adult programming for quite some time. Chappell asked if this project would be possible to do with only partial funding, and the applicant said that he did not think it would be. Reach For Your Potential (RFYP): The applicant clarified that the cost per person was based on serving 100 people. He explained that a large percentage of their funding comes from Medicaid and that recently the agency's income took a hit because of changes in the Medicaid system. The adult daycare is funded by Title 19, and currently the space used for it is being rented. The CDBG funding would give RFYP the opportunity to expand the adult daycare to double its current capacity. Additionally, RFYP has approximately 25 homes in which it provides residential services to individuals. The building improvements would provide space for socialization and recreational activities to RFYP's residential residents as well; this means that around 235 clients would benefit from these improvements. RFYP has been asked by Johnson County to include Brain Injured (BI) individuals to its list of categories it will serve, so filling the new capacity is not expected to be an issue. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 9 of 15 Drum asked how the project could be funded if the full funding request was not granted. The applicant said that a loan would be applied for which would result in about $50,000 a year in additional costs. Drum asked if other agencies in town provided similar services and the applicant replied that Pathways provides adult daycare. Drum noted that the population is aging. McKay asked what partial funding would mean for the whole project. The applicant said that significant changes would result. Successful Living: McKay noted that this was one of the applicants that the City had asked to apply as it is in the Towncrest area that is being looked at for redevelopment. Steve Noack, 2406 Towncrest Drive, spoke on behalf of Successful Living. McKay asked Noack if he liked the design that the consultant had come up with for his building. He said that he had been at the redevelopment meetings and had found some of the designs put forth to be a little bit "out there," but that the final design is a nice blend of some of the proposals. Chappell asked about the budget. Noack said that the budgeting had been tricky and that some of the estimates had looked a little high. Noack said that while Successful Living would like to see the project happen, a lot of it will be depend on the City's interpretation of the final guidelines that are issued for the area. He gave the example of the window height that was recommended. Towncrest windows tend to be set high, but the guidelines called for lower windows; those kinds of changes tend to be quite costly as they require interior as well as exterior treatments. Hightshoe asked what percent of the building Successful Living needed for its operations. Noack said that Successful Living occupies over 75% of the top level, and 50% of the lower level. Hightshoe noted that HCDC could only fund the portions of the building that are actually occupied by Successful Living. Noack said there was a good chance that a larger percentage of the building would be used by their agency in the future. Systems Unlimited: The applicant explained that they are not requesting the full project budget from HCDC; rather, they are asking for funds to purchase the land. He said they would like to have the facility fully functional within three years. Part of the issue is that Systems is growing so fast that the agency has doubled in size in the last three years; he said that there are 38 family therapists working out of building built four years ago that was intended to house 17. Systems has contracts with all of the Iowa City schools as well as the College Green School District. The applicant explained that the only thing that was holding Systems back was a lack of staff and a lack of space. Bricks and mortar projects and facility projects are very difficult to fund within the regular funding streams, he said. McKay questioned their capital campaign due to problems with the last campaign done by the agency. Will this campaign be successful enough to fund a new building on the CDBG purchased lot? The applicant said that there are plans in place for significant marketing strategies that should help increase support. He said that Systems has learned from its past mistakes. Visiting Nurses Association (VNA): HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 10 of 15 Chappell asked if the $500,000 figure was based on the square footage required by VNA and the cost per square foot. Suellen Novotny, 2953 Sierra Court, Executive Director, said that the cost is figured at about $121 per square foot times 5,000 square feet; she said that costs for new construction can range much higher. McKay asked what this project will do for the community in terms of number of people served or employed. The VNA presently provides home care and community services. With the purchase of a new building, the VNA plans to put in four exam rooms, and collaborate with the College of Nursing to see more low-income patients. Novotny said that the recently enacted healthcare reforms could result in more people being enrolled in Medicaid and having problems locating primary care providers. At the end of this year, VNA will have served about 5,600 people. In 2014, scheduled changes to state and federal healthcare programs may result in a larger number of local clients using nurse practitioners for their primary care. HOUSING: Domestic Violence Intervention Project (DVIP): McKay asked Hightshoe to give a run-through of the project. Hightshoe said that the proposed acquisition is for one building that will have multiple uses. Hightshoe said the property would have eight residential apartments and eight commercial spaces with tenants in them. Hightshoe said that CDBG funds can be used for the acquisition of a mixed use building; however, a national objective must be fulfilled to do so. In this case, 51 % of the units would have to be marketed to low-income residents. Hightshoe said that the CDBG funds must be limited to only the residential units. Drum asked about the cost per bedroom. The applicant said that was because the cost of the entire building, including the residential portions, was included in the calculation. She noted that if the agency was able to build their own facility they would be able to shift money that currently goes toward property taxes toward client services. Hightshoe noted that if a CDBG-funded project dislocates a renter, then relocation expenses must be paid by the agency, and need to be factored into the budget. McKay said that he appreciates staff's observation that this project seems to be a shift in focus for DVIP and results in their being responsible for something they might not have managed before. He asked if they were confident in their abilities to enter the world of rentals. The applicant explained that the property is currently being managed by a property manager and it is their intention to retain that property manager. She said they have had some great successes with similar types of projects, but this will be new territory. McKay asked what impact this project would have on employment. The applicant said that one full-time position will be shifted to this project. Isis Investments, LLC: Yolanda Spears, spoke on behalf of Isis Investments. She said that the project will rely not just on CDBG funding, but also with cooperation of lenders, and Section 8 rental assistance. She said the idea is helping families make home ownership and quality rentals affordable. Spears said that Isis is confident that they will be able to help the families that need it. Hightshoe noted that even when teens get Section 8 vouchers, they often have a hard time finding a landlord that will rent to them. Hightshoe clarified that her question for the applicant HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 11 of 15 was whether this rent would be affordable without a Section 8 voucher. Spears said that they do rent to families that do not have Section 8 vouchers, and that they definitely take into account during the interview process whether a family can successfully afford the rent. Spears said that Isis is hoping for loan forgiveness to be an aspect of their program. Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program (MYEP): Lusala said that the goal is to keep the rent as low as possible. He said that they are trying to get a truly accessible, full zero -entry home. He said that the lots in'question are perfectly designed to allow for zero -entry. MBHG, LLC: McKay asked what the applicant had in mind in terms of accessibility. The applicant said that all of the homes are single level homes with zero -step entries, widened doorways and handicap accessible restrooms. Hightshoe noted that the homes are in Saddlebrook. The City recommended 15 homes in this subdivision for the Single Family New Construction Program. Long stated partial funding of this project was a possibility. Shelter House- Rental Housing: Long noted that the new Shelter House had received its Conditional Occupancy Permit. Chrissy Canganelli, 429 Southgate Avenue, said that when the project came before the Commission last year, the budget had been at approximately $400,000. She said that approximately $200,000 in CDBG funds were awarded. Hightshoe explained that rehab on the project had been delayed due to CDBG funding regulations. McKay asked if it was the wisest move to go ahead with a second project when the applicant had not yet progressed very deeply into the first one. Canganelli said they felt confident about the programs they were putting in place and have invaluable partnerships that provide guidance and support. McKay asked if there would be a second set of staff or if the same staff would man both homes. Canganelli said that the same staff would oversee both homes. She said that a .75 staff member would be added to their overall programs. Successful Living: McKay noted that Successful Living seemed to do a good job of offering housing at below the fair market rent. Noack said that the original home was granted to Successful Living which allows them to keep their expenses there very low, though they have also not been able to put much money into the place. Noack said that a lot of clients have little to no income when they first come to Successful Living. He said they are pleased to offer these people a place to live while they transition and until they are able to get hooked up with services. Noack said that Successful Living's main purpose is to provide supportive services to people with mental health issues. Noack said that the rents at the other Successful Living facilities are not quite as low as at this one. He said the house is a tired little house that was tired when Successful Living first got it. The floors are sagging, the heating system is outdated, and there are a number of other issues with the home, Noack said. The Housing Fellowship: Maryann Dennis, 322 East 2nd Street, spoke on behalf of The Housing Fellowship. Drum asked about the ability of the project to proceed with partial funding, and Dennis said that it could. Dennis said that the goal is for the housing to be affordable for residents who are not receiving Section 8. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 12 of 15 United Action for Youth: McKay asked what the difference is between this project and the kind that Isis had proposed. Jim Swaim, Executive Director, said that his agency works with teen parents and the idea behind their project is to provide supportive transitional housing for teen moms that could stay in the program for 18-21 months. Upon completion of the program, the clients would then go on to find permanent housing — something along the lines of what Isis is proposing. He said that each of the teen moms would have a transitional living plan when they entered the program and would receive services for education and employment to steer them in the direction of economic self-sufficiency. Drum asked if this was a life -skills program and the applicant said that each of the teen moms would be assigned a case manager that would do some household management/life-skills training, as well as extensive parenting -skills training. The program has a partnership with Mercy Hospital in which a nurse practitioner provides well -baby and pre -natal care. Swaim explained that no rent is charged at the facility, rather there is a program fee, the bulk of which is refunded to the client upon completion of the program. The applicant was asked how maintenance and utilities were paid for and Swaim replied that those costs were funded by their grant. He did note that the grant under which the program operates does not allow the accumulation of reserves, which is something that he is working on with his Board. Hightshoe asked if a small rent could be charged. Swaim said that it was possible, but that it was something that would involve coordination with the City and investigation into federal guidelines. He said that other transitional programs do charge rent; the program fee of approximately $100 per month that is charged to the client is actually refunded back to them upon completion of the program. McKay asked if the goal was to have six to eight units attached. The applicant said that the number of units depended on what buildings were available for sale and on the ability to staff it. He said a multi -unit facility was desired because of staffing concerns, but also for convenience and the built-in support that the teen moms could provide to one another. He said that they currently have one cluster site on Iowa Avenue, and they would like to get three or four scattered sites elsewhere. He said that they would be happy to wait to select sites until the City Council has determined its revisions to the guidelines for where affordable housing should be located. In regard to partial funding, the applicant said that they probably would not go forward if they did not receive funding for at least four units. Chappell asked if they would ideally like to locate near their other site. Swaim said that was not necessarily the goal; he said that many of the teen moms attend Kirkwood or other east -side schools, and that a number of them have taken advantage of job opportunities on the east side. He said the main thing was ensuring that the moms were able to take advantage of the educational opportunities available to them; something that could be difficult to do from the far west side of town because of transportation issues. Wetherby Condos South LLC: Chappell asked if the proposed affordability period could be extended for this project. The applicant said it could potentially be extended from seven years to eight to ten years, but probably not 15 or 20 years. The applicant said that about $160,000 of home improvements have been made to the property in the last 12 to 18 months, and no lead based paint issues have been found. McKay asked for a brief summary of what the applicant was hoping to accomplish with the project. The applicant said that this is a two pronged program. He said that HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 13 of 15 what they are trying to do is make some significant interior and exterior improvements to the complex to change the reality of what is happening in that neighborhood. He said that the building is a condominium association of roughly 20 to 25 owners. He said that in order to accomplish what they wish to in the area, they need a super -majority of the condo association and have control of 84 units. The first order of business is to gain control of the association so that they can impose what they believe to be the proper rules, regulations, and improvements that need to be done. He said that he anticipates that the increase in fees and assessments that will be imposed once control is secured will result in the majority of the remaining condo owners selling out to them in the future. He said that the ultimate goal is to have 100% ownership; however, as HACAP owns nine units he is not sure that will happen. He said that they have had great success in accomplishing these goals in other condominium associations, and have virtually eliminated police calls to that area. McKay asked what the correlation was between home improvements and decreased crime rates. The applicant said that a super -majority allows strict condo rules that lead to decreased crime. He said that the new police substation has also assisted in reducing crime in the area in the last several weeks. The applicant said that the $1.2 million funding allocation will be used to leverage financing from private lenders; he noted that lenders are less than thrilled to invest in that area of town and the less one has to borrow from them the better. He said that he has pretty much been assured that with a $1.2 million grant from the City he will be able to secure financing for everything outlined in the application. The applicant said that one of the difficulties is that sometimes the CDBG money comes with restrictions that make it so that it is cheaper in the long run just to secure private financing. He said that for this particular project that is not the case, as he does not think private financing can be secured for the entire amount. Chappell said he understood the desire for full control of the homeowners' association; however, he asked if the applicant had attempted to form a coalition of existing homeowners. The applicant said that he has attempted to deal with the current homeowners and they cannot reach agreement. Long asked if the values /assessments have changed over time and the applicant said they have decreased. Hightshoe said that the City advocates good property management regardless of the income range of the tenant. She noted that the applicant is making the argument that great property management can make a difference in a neighborhood. The applicant said that right now interest rates are very good, and that he is looking at long-term investment and maintaining ownership of the property for the long-term. The applicant said he was open to studying the options available from CDBG for financing terms, as he was generally unfamiliar with them. Chappell explained that a deferred payment loan would mean that no payments were made unless and until the property was sold; the more confident the applicant was in the idea that the property would not be sold, the more confident he could be that he would never make a payment. The applicant said that they would wind up with somewhere around $5.8 million in debt on this project and he was not sure they wanted anymore liability hanging over them. ADJOURNMENT: Hightshoe asked that Commissioners submit their ranking sheets and preliminary allocation sheets to her by Monday at noon. Drum moved to adjourn. Hart seconded. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2010 PAGE 14 of 15 The motion was approved 6-0 (McMurray and Zimmermann Smith absent). MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PRELIMINARY NOVEMBER 18, 2010 — 6:30 PM EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Scott Dragoo, Charlie Drum, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay, Rebecca McMurray, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Steve Long, Tracy Hightshoe, Doug Ongie, David Purdy OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Schieffer, Bill Reagan, Roger Lusala, Kim Downes, Suellen Novotny, Henri Harper, Dion Williams, Senator Bob Dvorsky, Stephen Trefz, Mark Patton, Glenn Siders, Beth Ritter Ruback, Sandy Pickup, Brian Loring, Sue Freeman, Steve Noack, Jaron Varner, Eugene Spaziani, Mike Moran, Ron Knoche, Yolanda Spears and Maryann Dennis. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the following FY11 Special Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Allocation Requests: • City of Iowa City, Parks and Recreation — Park Acquisition: $280,000 • Crisis Center — Facility Rehabilitation: $50,000 • Free Medical Clinic — Facility Rehabilitation: $175,000 • Habitat for Humanity — Acquisition: $295,000 • Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - Acquisition: $395,000 • Visiting Nurse Association — Acquisition: $200,000 • Isis Investments LLC — Rental Housing: $230,000 • Shelter House - Rental Rehabilitation: $75,000 • Wetherby Condos South LLC — Rental Housing: $900,000 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairperson Andrew Chappell at 6:30 p.m. Chappell noted that not all Commissioners were present at the time the meeting was called to order, but said that additional attendees were expected. (McKay and Murray expected to arrive shortly.) APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 21, 2010 MINUTES: Zimmermann Smith moved to approve the minutes. Gatlin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion was approved 6-0 (McKay, McMurray absent at time of vote). HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 2 of 15 Hart said that she wasn't able to review the minutes and asked how she could address the issue if she found something "alarming" in them. Chappell suggested that if Hart had concerns she could bring them up during the Staff/Commission comment period at the next meeting; that would put her concerns on the record. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Hightshoe noted that Shelter House has been issued a Certificate of Occupancy for its new facility. She said that Shelter House will be hosting an open house December 2, 2010, from 9:30 to 10:30. All members of the Housing and Community Development Commission are invited. Chappell suggested moving the Monitoring Reports up as the next agenda item. There were no objections. MONITORING REPORTS: DV/P — Facility Rehab. (Zimmermann Smith) Zimmermann Smith said that the handicap accessible ramp surrounding the shelter has been replaced and will be complete once the steel railing has been fabricated and installed. She said that DVIP will be finished with their project once that is done. Free Medical Clinic — Operations $ Facility Rehab. (Zimmermann Smith) Zimmermann Smith said that the HVAC project should be finished by the end of the week. The facility has four new high -efficiency furnaces and two new condenser units for their air conditioning. Zimmermann Smith said that Sandy Pickup, Director of the Free Medical Clinic, had expressed gratitude to the Commission for the funding as it had prevented the staff from freezing all this winter. Pickup also said that the pharmacy is always busy and the facility is lucky to have a pharmacy assistant that is very good with paperwork. Pickup reported that they are awaiting the outcome of the most recent CDBG funding round before proceeding with projects for any remaining funds. FY10 Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County — Facility Rehab. (Dragoo) Dragoo reported that the back porch and deck are complete and looked very nice. He said that it was already getting a lot of use when he saw it. He said that it allows for lockable storage space. DISCUSS HCDC COMMISSION MEMBER CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS DURING THE ALLOCATION PROCESS: Chappell noted that McKay had brought up this issue at the previous HCDC meeting. Chappell said that McKay had originally offered a proposal on limiting such contact, but that Chappell was uncertain if the discussion on the matter had satisfied McKay's concerns or not. Chappell said that what he thinks is most important is that Commission members receive information about HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 3of15 individual applications in public forums. Chappell said that he is not sure that a specific policy is necessary as long as all Commissioners share that understanding. Chappell asked if anyone felt strongly about being able to have ex parte communications with applicants, and no one responded. Chappell suggested that if McKay had more to add on the subject, the agenda item could be returned to after McKay arrived at the meeting. Hightshoe suggested moving on to new business until the other Commissioners arrived. NEW BUSINESS: • DISCUSS AND REVIEW FY12 CDBG/HOME FUNDING PROCESS TIMELINE • REVIEW AND APPROVE FY12 CDBG/HOME APPLICATION MATERIALS Hightshoe said that ideally staff would have gotten the application materials to Commissioners the previous week, but because some of the materials deal with the City Council's policy on site location for affordable housing there was a delay. Hightshoe noted that all allocation amounts were listed as "To Be Determined;" staff anticipates the same entitlement amount as last year, however, because of the various infusions of program income staff does not yet know how much funding will be carried over to FY12. Hightshoe said that updated budget information will be provided to Commissioners as it becomes available. Hightshoe said the Applicant Guide remained nearly the same as the prior year's guide; however, all references to site location have been deleted. The original language encouraged scattered site housing throughout the city. Hightshoe said that City Council will be discussing this issue again in January or February. Hightshoe noted that applicants for FY12 funding will be subject to any City Council policies set regarding site location. Hightshoe stated that the plan is to put all applications online. Applicants will have to submit their applications online to be considered. She said that the City's ITS department is working on the applications. Chappell asked if the supporting materials still had to be delivered or mailed and Hightshoe said that will be changing. Long said that it will become a completely online submission process. This will limit what applicants may submit. Hightshoe said that the Housing Application had been slightly modified. She said that a pro forma was needed for both rental and rental rehab applications and she had added language to clarify that. Additionally, the requirement for Census Tract information and elementary attendance area were removed from question #19, as the City Council policy is as yet undetermined regarding site location of affordable housing. Hightshoe said she was interested in Commissioner input on whether or not the volunteer labor or in -kind contributions should be included in the project budget, as it increased the overall cost of the project. Chappell asked if the change had already been made in Public Facilities and Public Services, and Hightshoe clarified that the change would make the calculation consistent across categories. The volunteer labor question will remain, but it will not be included in the budget that would increase the cost per person or per bedroom. Hightshoe noted that formerly there were five points that were awarded to projects in the areas encouraged by the City Council. She asked what the Commission wished to do with those points and if they wished to redistribute them. Chappell asked if points could just be awarded based on a project's promotion of scattered housing, instead of specifically tying it to the City Council map; the points would be awarded on a scale of 1 to 5. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 4 of 15 Hightshoe said that it was possible to put the application on the December agenda if the Commission had not had sufficient time to review it prior to this meeting. Chappell said that although he would have preferred to have the application prior to the night of the vote, he was comfortable moving forward. Zimmermann Smith moved to approve FY12 CDBG/HOME application materials as edited and per Commission discussions. Drum seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0 (McKay present, McMurray absent at the time of vote). DISCUSSION REGARDING FY11. SPECIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ALLOCATION REQUESTS: • DISCUSS FY11 CDBG APPLICATIONS: (McMurray arrives.) Hightshoe noted that the additional documentation requested of applicants by the Commission was included in Commissioner packets. Those documents include: a revised pro forma from Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program (MYEP), assessment information on the three condos from the Wetherby project, and letters of support for Jaron Varner's application. Chappell asked if the revised pro forma raised any concerns for staff. Hightshoe said the only concern was that the project does not cash flow until year five (revenues do not cover expenses until year five). She said that the concern was whether or not MYEP could make up that operational deficit during those years. McKay noted that the Commission exists to make the best recommendations they can, and that City Council will make the final allocations and decisions. He noted that agencies will also be able to apply for the next round of funding some time after the first of the year. McKay said that it should be noted that the City Council sets funding priorities. He said that each Commissioner should be comfortable stating their reasons why a project should or should not receive funding and remember that changing one's mind based on new information can be a healthy thing. McKay suggested that the Commission first identify projects that had no support or limited support and determine if they can be eliminated from consideration. McKay said that the Commission can then consider the applications that had nearly unanimous support and pencil in earmarks for those projects. After that, the Commission can move to those projects that need more in depth discussion and hashing out before finalizing numbers. He noted that Commissioners do not need to feel tied to their rankings. PUBLIC FACILITIES: Jaron Varner -Acquisition: McKay noted that Varner had been supported only by Gatlin and asked if he cared to comment on the application. Gatlin said that he had set his allocations on Friday with the hopes that he would receive the requested documentation from Varner over the weekend or on Monday at the latest. He said that the fact that Varner had not submitted the documentation until today made him less likely to support the project. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 5 of 15 McKay said that he did not see any letters of recommendation from the local entities the Commission had suggested to Varner. He recommended an allocation of $0. The Commission indicated agreement with that recommendation. City of Iowa City, Public Works — Sidewalk Installation: McKay noted that the sidewalk repair and installation project had no indication of support from the Commission. He asked if there was anyone that had changed their mind from the previous week. Long offered a clarification. He said that the trail that runs along the highway is already in the CIP budget, but the sidewalks that connect Benton Street to the trail are not in the budget. McKay asked if that meant that the trail would get done regardless of HCDC funding. Chappell said that it would get done eventually. Long explained that the sidewalks may not get done. No one indicated that their support had changed. Successful Living- Exterior Rehabilitation: McKay said that his objection to this particular project is that it is a rental property; it is not even owned by the agency requesting funding. He said that he did not know if that was an appropriate objection or if staff had more information on the City's stance on that. Long said that the funding could be in the form of a loan, though only the portion of the property that benefits low-income households could be funded. Chappell noted that staff did ask Successful Living to submit the application, which he assumes they would not have done if it was inappropriate to fund the project. Chappell said that he did not recommend funding. He said it is clear to him that there is a priority from the City Council to have a sort of "model building" in the Towncrest area to showcase redevelopment there. He said that his support went to the other site because that entire building was eligible for renovation whereas this was only partially eligible for funds. He said he recommended full funding for the other project. Zimmermann Smith said she felt like this project was not as far along in the planning stages as the other project in the Towncrest area. Hightshoe said that staff suggested that Successful Living apply for funds to upgrade the northern facade, visible from CVS pharmacy. She said that it was possible for HCDC to fund only the northern facade if they chose to. Chappell asked if there was any opposition to fully funding the Iowa City Free Medical Clinic project. McKay said that he had not done so initially, but that he thought he could be persuaded based on Chappell's rationale. Chappell said that he was reticent himself at the last meeting; he said it was the clear indication from City Council that they are serious and ready to move forward with redevelopment in the area that changed his thinking. Drum said that he did not really understand initially why the City would want HCDC to fund renovations to the fronts of these buildings. He said that he had misread it as something that would be funded with or without CDBG funding. Hightshoe clarified that the Free Medical Clinic would have to come up with money for any facade improvements on its own. Zimmermann Smith said that she would be in favor of leaving the Free Medical Clinic on the table, but that she was not yet comfortable saying that she would fully fund it. She suggested proceeding as planned, and taking Successful Living off the table as no one had funded it. Systems Unlimited - Acquisition: McKay noted that Systems Unlimited had received no Commission support and asked if anyone objected to taking it off the table preliminarily. Chappell noted that he would like the option of revisiting it because depending on how the allocations break out he may want to suggest partial funding of the project. He said that his concern with the Systems application was that it was just for the land acquisition and did not include any plans for how the building would be funded. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 6 of 15 Zimmermann Smith noted that they may not be able to do anything with partial funding. Long noted that if the Commission had partial funding or other questions for the applicants, there were representatives present for each application. McKay said that he believed that question had been asked at the last meeting. Zimmermann Smith said that the application states that they cannot proceed with partial funding. The Commission invited comments from the Systems representative. Dion Williams, 2533 Scott Boulevard, spoke on behalf of Systems Unlimited and said that he believed that their application stated that they would accept partial funding. Williams said that his Board has stated that if they are able to get partial funding from CDBG then they will agree to the land acquisition. He said that they do not require or expect full funding of the acquisition. Drum asked what the decision was exactly. Williams said that Systems is trying to buy the seven acre parcel adjacent to their current site in hope of building a service campus over the next 15 years that delivers multiple services out of multiple buildings. He said their current building was built four years ago and is at capacity, leaving them no room to grow. Drum said that partial funding of the project only takes it to the next decision point and the next Board; Zimmermann Smith said she agrees with that sentiment. McKay asked if the Commission was still funding the project at the zero -level and Chappell said that was fine preliminarily if there was the option of revisiting the matter. MBHG, LLC —Homeownership: McKay said that this project had received $0 funding from all Commissioners and asked if anyone had changed their minds. Chappell said that he did not think it was a bad project, he just did not think it really jumped out at him. General agreement was reached to preliminarily not fund the project. United Action for Youth — Rental Housing: No one had funded this project. Hart said she was curious as to why this project was not supported. Chappell said that this project seemed to him very similar to the project proposed by Isis, but the Isis project seemed more feasible because it was less expensive and Isis has a lot more experience in the rental business. Zimmermann Smith said that the same population was targeted by both projects. Isis Investments LLC — Rental Housing: Drum suggested fully funding Isis. Chappell and Zimmermann Smith said they were comfortable with that. McKay noted that this was the only project with near consensus funding levels, and asked if the Commission would prefer to proceed by working its way down the list systematically. Chappell said he wanted to talk about the Wetherby project because he had a big chunk allocated to it and he would like to discuss it with Commissioners. McKay said that would be fine. Wetherby Condos South LLC — Rental Housing: Chappell said that when he read the application he was initially very indifferent about the project. He said that what bothered him was the idea of giving Southgate $1 million. After he looked at the project more closely and at what Southgate wished to do in the area, and as he listened to the discussions last week and about what Southgate had accomplished in the Cedarwood area, he began to feel more supportive of funding. Chappell said he had recommended funding half of the allocation request, and said he did not know if that would be workable for Southgate. Chappell said that there is a huge private commitment required for this HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 7 of 15 a project, somewhere in the area of $4 to 5 million. He said that if Southgate is half as successful with this project as they were with the former Cedarwood site, he thinks there is a unique opportunity to make a game -changing difference in that area of town. Chappell said that when he reviewed applications he was looking to find things that were unique: things that might not normally be applied for, things that were special opportunities. He said that this application represented a one-time deal to him, something that could provide a chance to make some big changes in an area that really needed them. McMurray said she had allocated $500,000 because she had felt the same way. She said that the whole area needs reinvestment. Drum said that the large commitment of private funding made him think that the addition of CDBG dollars will probably make no difference in whether that project goes ahead or not. Chappell said that he agreed that it might not make a difference with whether or not the project goes ahead, but it will likely make a difference in whether the rents are affordable. Chappell said that if the project moves ahead without any funding then it will move ahead on a scaled - back basis and at a slower rate. Chappell said that the guarantee of affordability was important to him. Hightshoe said that Southgate did apply a few years back in the hopes of moving to homeownership, but was unable to proceed with the project. Staff was asked if there had been any further discussions with Southgate regarding the allocation being in the form of a loan, and Hightshoe said that staff has not been in negotiations with them. Hightshoe said that there were a number of ways to structure the allocation that could be written into the recommendation. Chappell asked if the Commission could do at least a conditional occupancy loan, which he understood to mean that the allocation would be a grant until or unless the property is sold, at which point the funds must be repaid. Chappell said that it sounds as though Southgate intends to add this property to their portfolio and manage it into the foreseeable future, so he did not think that such a structure would be problematic. It was pointed out that the pro forma indicates that there will be an ability to begin repaying the money within a few years. McKay said that his understanding of the prior week's discussions was that a loan would not be possible for Southgate unless the entire allocation request was funded. He asked Glenn Siders of Southgate Development to comment. Siders stated that the allocation request was for $1.2 million. He said that as the allocation amount decreases, so does the likelihood of getting all of the necessary private financing for the project. Siders said that it would be more difficult to get financing with a $1 million allocation as opposed to a $1.2 million allocation, and would become quite difficult with an allocation of $500,000. McKay said this had been his hesitation in funding the project; if the allocation amount was not sufficient for financing then the Commission would have unnecessarily tied up funding that could have been allocated elsewhere. Chappell asked Siders if a funding level of $600,000 would be sufficient to secure financing. Siders said he did not think that would be sufficient. Chappell asked if there were any Commission members that would consider funding at a significantly higher level than $600,000. Zimmermann Smith said that she had funded the project at $900,000. She said that in the past year Southgate has been an increasingly involved corporate citizen in that area, giving the police department space for a substation and helping out the Neighborhood Center. She said they had been investing in a neighborhood that really needs investment and they also pay property taxes in the area. Zimmermann Smith said that she also fully funded the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County (NCJC) project, as she thinks investing in that area of town is a positive step in the right direction. Drum said that he agreed with the idea of investing in that neighborhood, but was concerned that the Commission had a limited amount of money to allocate and $900,000 was a HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 8 of 15 sizable chunk of it. Zimmermann Smith said that she did not think that some of the other projects had the same kind of tax advantages for the city. She said that in a regular funding cycle Southgate would never get that big of a chunk of money, and this special allocation process is the only realistic chance to fund this project at that level. Chappell asked Siders how many units would remain affordable under this project. Siders said that Southgate is indicating that a minimum of 65 units would remain affordable. Chappell said that he felt like a guarantee that 65 of the units would remain affordable was a pretty good indication that the other units would also be close to the affordable range. Siders said that it was possible that more than 65 units would remain affordable; it depended on how many units they were able to acquire. Drum asked what the probability of Southgate acquiring the 48 units was. Siders said that the probability was very good that they could acquire 24 (they currently own 60 in the 108 unit complex) relatively quickly. He said that HACAP owns nine units and he does not believe those would be acquirable in the near future. Hart said that she had had similar thoughts about the project as Zimmermann Smith in that this was probably the only time that HCDC could fund this project. She said that the fact that Southgate can pay property taxes is a bonus, but is in no way a contingency for her. Hart said she could fund as high as $900,000. Chappell said he could as well. McKay said that he was not convinced that was a good idea. Dragoo asked where the numbers on median income came from, and whether the 80% figure was current or if it was projected for after the project's completion. Siders said that he did not know the current income levels of the residerits. Zimmermann Smith asked if the Commission could make a recommendation to City Council that was contingent on the developer and Council sitting down and negotiating payback arrangements. She said she would support that if it would make others more comfortable with the allocation. Chappell said that there is another funding round coming up in two months if nothing can be worked out this round. Gatlin said he would not be able to support $900,000 unless it was in the form of a loan that would be paid back at some point. Drum said that allocating such a large amount of money to this project would make it the main funding priority for this round. Chappell said that there had some discussion about supporting one or two bigger projects if they allowed for innovative funding that could not happen during a normal funding cycle. Zimmermann Smith said that a couple of the applicants had been funded quite well in the last round of funding. McKay said that he supported redevelopment in that area but he was not sure that this much money should be allocated to the project. He said that if the idea was that this project would be a long-term investment in Southgate's investment portfolio then he did not understand the feasibility of the project. He said that he did not know how the rents could be anything but targeted to low -to -moderate income in that area of town, and that CDBG money was not necessarily required to keep those rents low. McKay said that to his mind the goal of the project is not to lock in low rents but to make the project a good investment, which should be a matter for the private sector. Zimmermann Smith said that she thought the application made it clear that Southgate was making a public pledge to improve that area, and asking for public help to do so. McKay said that he just was not convinced that the City should be putting up money to bolster a private investment. Chappell said that there will be a whole lot of money that will be allocated to projects that are not likely to pay taxes and that are not likely to be related to private businesses. He said that he had the same reaction as McKay initially, but that upon consideration he had decided that the cost was worth the gain. He said he just did not see the opportunity coming around again. Chappell noted that there were five Commissioners who would support a preliminary allocation of $900,000 to the project with a conditional occupancy loan or some other payback arrangement. Hart asked if it was correct that this project would go HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 9 of 15 forward with or without an HCDC allocation. Chappell said that his understanding was that in order to gain control of the condominium association and direct that improvements be made Southgate needs to acquire units to have a "super majority." Chappell said that his impression is that Southgate does intend to do something with this project regardless of funding, but that it might be much slower and significantly scaled back and would have no guarantee of affordability. McKay said he just did not understand why the Commission has to allocate these funds to guarantee affordability of these units; the market will dictate that. Zimmermann Smith said that she disagreed; Southgate could go in and spend $5 million of their own money and charge as much as they want for the units. McKay said that it did not sound like that was really an option due to financing limitations. Chappell said that the best way to guarantee affordability is to not rehab the property at all. Hightshoe said that staff had discussed this property earlier in the day and had agreed that good property management was the key to the success of a project like this. She said that she understands the hesitancy to allocate funds to a for -profit development company, but noted that the City really was trying to develop partnerships with public and private, for -profit and not -for - profit entities. She said that there are property managers that do not check rental histories, complete criminal background checks, maintain the property, or have items such as crime addendums in their leases. A good property manager does these things and by ensuring good property management it helps to ensure that large complexes such as this are good places to live. She said that while staff was not making any funding recommendations, they did see that aspect of the project as a bonus for the community. Chappell asked if the Commission could move forward with a preliminary figure of $900,000 supported by five Commissioners, and then return to the subject if anyone changed their mind or wanted to address the matter again. Dragoo asked McKay and Drum how long they believed the area would remain affordable if Southgate went ahead with the project on their own. McKay said that he did not know, but he did know what was going on in the market and what was available and he did not think that Southgate would change the formula for success that they have relied on thus far. McMurray said that she felt like the Commission had held similar discussions last year regarding whether or not Dolphin would remain affordable with or without CDBG funding. She asked if Commissioners felt this was a similar situation. Zimmermann Smith said that she thought it was much different, and Chappell agreed. Zimmermann Smith said that Southgate was a long-time business in the community with a proven track record of success. She said the fact that Southgate is putting up money of its own also makes a difference. Drum said that the private financing is of importance to him. He said that he believed that everyone could agree that all of the projects before the Commission were in some way worthy of funding. Drum said that hearing what staff had to say about the project was useful. Dragoo said that he wants to be sold on the project and the idea of a loan makes it easier to swallow, but that $900,000 is still a lot of money. Zimmermann Smith asked if the Commission could agree to just pencil the figure in and move on with the process, revisiting it as needed; the Commission indicated agreement with that plan. Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County — Acquisition: Gatlin noted that this project had a number of Commissioners that had supported full funding. McMurray said that she had funded it low, but would be happy to fully fund it if the Commission went that direction. Hart said she would be open to increasing her funding allocation. McKay said that he advocated full funding for this project. He said that in many ways the operation had shifted largely to a daycare facility and there were many other adult -related needs that needed to be addressed. He said that having public access to computers to allow people to HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 10 of 15 successfully apply for jobs and increase computer skills is a vital need in that neighborhood. Chappell said that he had not recommended any funding for the project, though he had not had a problem with it. He said that he had simply recommended full funding for other projects and had not had enough to allocate to NCJC, and would be happy to allocate as a consensus wished. The Commission indicated a consensus to fully fund the project. Habitat for Humanity — Acquisition: Chappell said that he was very excited about this project because it seemed to be the most unique and innovative; McMurray and Drum agreed. Hart and Zimmermann Smith indicated that they had been impressed by the level of partnerships within the community that the project had garnered. A consensus to fully fund this project was indicated. City of Iowa City, Parks & Recreation — Park/Splash Pad: Chappell said that he had fully funded this project, but that his support is conditioned upon the splash pad being at a different site. Hightshoe asked if Chappell wanted the splash pad at the Chadek property rather than Fair Meadows. Several Commissioners noted that the Chadek property had not been sold to the City. Chappell said that the idea that a park could be created whole -cloth from the Chadek property and that an additional splash pad could be installed there would be a great opportunity for the City. Chappell said that he was not that supportive of funding the splash pad at the other site as it seemed odd to have two splash pads so close to one another and it would be nice to spread them around. Zimmermann Smith said that she too had fully funded the project but that she also had funded it conditional to the Chadek site. Drum said that the ability to acquire the Chadek property was still uncertain. Chappell said that if the City cannot acquire it then there will be more money next round. Dragoo asked if the Commission really wanted to fund another splash pad after having just funded one. He said there were so many other things they could do with the money, and the splash pad could always be returned to at another time. Chappell said he did want to fund another splash pad; he would like to see as many as four of them in different parts of the city as they are wildly popular. Hart said that she remembered initially thinking that the funding of the first splash pad was a misuse of money, as there were so many other places that money could have gone. She said she would like to wait and see how well funded some of the other projects that serve more dire or basic needs in the community turn out to be before lending support to the splash pad. She said that she would be willing to come back to it and consider funding it later. McKay said that he was also one who leaned toward projects that focused on health, safety, job creation, and supportive services. He said he sees this project as being more on the fringe of filling those needs. Zimmermann Smith said that she agreed but that a lot of the public comments the Commission has received concern recreation and things that families can do together. She said that she felt this was a good opportunity to fund this kind of project. McKay said that was true, but that this was a not a year- round facility. Chappell said he disagreed with McKay because he believed it was a true quality of life issue. He said that the splash pad would not take up the whole park, so the park would be there year-round and public space was still being created in an area that could use it. Chappell said that the City almost never gets the chance to create in -fill parks and that this is a unique opportunity. Chappell said that the impact that recreational opportunities can have on health, safety and welfare cannot be underestimated. Gatlin said that he could be persuaded to fund the splash pad, but then he would not fund Wetherby at all. Gatlin said that spending $1.4 million on Wetherby and a splash pad did not sit well with him at all. He said that he had not funded either of them when he made his HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 11 of 15 allocations. Dragoo said that he understands that the current splash pad is great and is popular, and he understands that Wetherby is going to be a great improvement to the fagade of the area; however, $1.4 million is just too much for him to spend in those two areas. Zimmermann Smith asked if the splash pad was something that could be partially funded. Moran said that the top priority would be the acquisition, and then the splash pad. Chappell asked what percentage of the park would be taken up by the splash pad. Moran said that less than a quarter of the available land would be used for a splash pad. Chappell noted that there would then be some year-round recreation on that site. McMurray pointed out that the Wetherby splash pad had been paid for in part through fundraising. Zimmermann Smith suggested funding the purchase of the Chadek property this round and then Parks and Recreation could come back in another funding cycle to apply for splash pad funding. McKay said that he could support funding the land acquisition. Zimmermann Smith asked if people would be agreeable to penciling in $280,000 for the acquisition of the Chadek property. The Commission indicated a general consensus for doing so. Chappell asked if the City had ever looked into flooding splash pads in the winter and using them for ice skating. Moran said that they had done that in the past but there were safety concerns and operational concerns that prohibited it as a general practice. Arc of Southeast Iowa — Facility Rehabilitation: McKay asked if Dragoo had a particular rationale for his allocation to this project. Dragoo said that he had no particular reason other than trying to help as many people as possible with the money. He said that he would definitely be willing to allocate something to the project. McMurray indicated support for some level of funding. Dragoo asked if this was categorized as a medium or high priority project, and Chappell said that it was a medium priority. Dragoo said that was probably his rationale for his funding level. Chappell said he was in favor of funding the project. Hart said she would like to hear about several other projects before committing to funding for this project. She said she had funded VNA, MECCA, the Crisis Center and Community Mental Health and would like to know what others thoughts on those projects were. Chappell said that funding was getting low enough that if there were projects that people felt strongly about, they should speak up about them now. Shelter House — Rental Rehabilitation: McKay said that he thought the Shelter House rental rehabilitation project should be looked at. Zimmermann Smith said that there seemed to be a consensus to fund that at $75,000. Visiting Nurses Association - Acquisition: McMurray said that she really liked this project. She said that while there was some duplication of the type of services offered by the Free Medical Clinic, there was a need for these services in the community. Zimmermann Smith said that she thought it was a good idea for a project, but she did not feel like the planning for it was at a concrete enough stage to allocate that amount of funding. Chappell said that he had no concerns about the project or the organization; he had simply run out of money. He said that if this project comes back before him he will likely support it. Dragoo said that it is difficult for him to justify the $1.2 million allocated to Wetherby and the Chadek property when there are so many other worthy projects that could be funded. Zimmermann Smith said that the same can be said of any funding cycle; there are always worthy projects left unfunded. Dragoo said that the issue for him was that very few projects had been funded at all. He said that allocating so much money to so few projects just does not sit well with him. McMurray asked Gatlin about his $500,000 allocation to the VNA. Gatlin said that he looked at projects that provided safety, security and services to the community. McKay said that he felt this project was a proactive way of dealing with the waves of uninsured people HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 12 of 15 that are seeking medical attention. He said there are 10,000 uninsured individuals in Johnson County right now and depending on how healthcare reform shakes out there may be more in the near future. McKay asked Novotny if there was a lesser amount that could keep the project alive. Chappell said that his only concern about the project was that there was no site. Zimmermann Smith said she would be willing to fund the project at $200,000-$210,000. McKay said that he would be comfortable with that allocation amount to move the project forward. Novotny said that they are actually negotiating for sites presently. Dragoo said he would like to see that partnership with the University come to fruition. Crisis Center — Facility Rehabilitation and Free Medical Clinic — Facility Rehabilitation: McKay asked if there were any other projects that had not been discussed that Commissioners had strong feelings about. Hart said she would like to discuss the Community Mental Health Center and the Crisis Center, as those were both accessibility issues. She noted that there was always a need for more affordable rental housing so she was glad to see that as a focus this funding round. Zimmermann Smith asked how much money was left if the Free Medical Clinic project was funded. Long said that $50,000 would be left. Dragoo said that he feels strongly about funding the Crisis Center for at least $50,000. Zimmermann Smith asked if anyone felt strongly about not funding the Crisis Center at $50,000, and there were no objections. Chappell asked if a decision on the funding for the Free Medical Clinic had been made yet. Zimmermann Smith she believed a consensus had been reached to fund that at $175,000. Chappell asked Long to quickly recap what had been allocated The allocations were as follows: City of Iowa City, Parks and Recreation — Park Acquisition: $280,000 Crisis Center — Facility Rehabilitation: $50,000 Free Medical Clinic — Facility Rehabilitation: $175,000 Habitat for Humanity — Acquisition: $295,000 Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - Acquisition: $395,000 Visiting Nurse Association — Acquisition: $200,000 ISIS Investments LLC — Rental Housing: $230,000 Shelter House - Rental Rehabilitation: $75,000 Wetherby Condos South LLC — Rental Housing: $900,000 McKay suggested discussions return to Wetherby. Hart asked what would be funded with the money if the Wetherby allocation were reduced or eliminated. Gatlin said that he would fund The Housing Fellowship. Hart said she would also fund The Housing Fellowship, as well as Community Mental Health. McMurray said she would like to see the Visiting Nurse Association and The Housing Fellowship funded. Zimmermann Smith asked for clarification on whether there were limits on the amount of funding that can be allocated to public facilities in a regular funding cycle, because if there were, the Commission might want to focus on public faclities this round. Gatlin asked staff how many projects they honestly felt they could handle. Hightshoe stated the City had a unique opportunity to make a great impact with these funds. Hightshoe stated, in her opinion, fewer projects that make a large impact is a good way to go with a one time funding opportunity. Hightshoe said she does not mind funding fewer applicants because the FY12 funding process comes right on the heels of this process. Zimmermann Smith said that the Commission has HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 13 of 15 seen The Housing Fellowship apply before and will see them apply again, but she did not know if the Wetherby project could realistically be funded at any other time. Dragoo noted that Zimmermann Smith had mentioned the corporate citizenship of Southgate as a motivation for funding them; he said that The Housing Fellowship also had a relationship with the City as a good non-profit citizen and had worked with the City for years. Hightshoe noted that the Public Facilities allocations will move forward in January 2011. However, because the City Council has not yet formulated its site location policy, the Housing projects will have to wait until City Council formalizes its policy. Chappell said that he is supportive of the work The Housing Fellowship does, and that he expects that they will be back in two months with another application and that they will quite likely receive some level of funding for it. Chappell said that he feels Wetherby was a different and unique opportunity, and that was something that weighed heavily on his mind in making his recommendations. He said it is easier for him to make a stretch on Wetherby and the splash pad because this kind of opportunity will not come around again. Zimmermann Smith said she likes the current breakdown of the allocations because there is a big impact made by the projects funded. Gatlin said he cannot support Wetherby if The Housing Fellowship is left unfunded. Drum said he is likewise inclined toward The Housing Fellowship rental project than the Wetherby project. Zimmermann Smith said that the Wetherby project is also a rental project. Gatlin said that he is just more comfortable giving The Housing Fellowship $465,000 than he is giving Wetherby $900,000, even knowing that Wetherby will one day be repaid. Chappell noted that the Wetherby project will also pay taxes. Drum said that he did not want the ability to pay taxes to be a condition of funding. Chappell said he was not looking at that exclusively; he was just noting that there were any number of funded projects that would not be paying any taxes. Zimmermann Smith noted that Isis was the only other tax -paying entity to be funded. Dragoo said that he supported neither Wetherby nor The Housing Fellowship; he had found the total per unit cost to be too high for The Housing Fellowship project. Zimmermann Smith said that this was money that would not be available again and she wanted to see it go for something unique. Chappell said that Wetherby could not be funded at $900,000 in two months when the next funding cycle came around because that would take the whole funding allocation. Zimmermann Smith said that if the City does not invest in the project it will not have any input as to whether or not the units are affordable. Chappell asked if there was a coalition of the willing on the matter. Drum said that The Housing Fellowship cost per bedroom is $49,000 whereas the Wetherby project has a cost of $5,000 per bedroom. Hart said she was persuadable either way. She said that she had liked the Wetherby project as a one-shot deal to do something worthwhile; on the other hand, there are a number of other worthy projects. Dragoo said that he could be persuaded to fund Wetherby, though he preferred to fund Public Facilities. McMurray said she was fine with the current breakdown. Drum said that there appeared to be a majority willing to fund Wetherby at $900,000. McKay said that he could live with it as this did represent a one-time chance, which was what the Commission had hoped to do from the get go. He said there had been good discussion on the matter. McKay said that he did think there would be another opportunity to fund some of the projects in two months. Dragoo asked if they could discuss terms of the Wetherby financing with staff. Hightshoe said that is usually worked out with the assistance of the Legal Department. Long said that if the Commission was comfortable they could suggest terms. Zimmermann Smith said that staff was aware of the Commission's wishes regarding the repayment of the funds. Hightshoe said that HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 2010 PAGE 14 of 15 there will be negotiations with the applicant and then recommended terms will go to the City Council for approval. Long recommended that the Commission provide a justification memo to the City Council regarding the funding recommendations they were making. Zimmermann Smith, Dragoo and Gatlin offered to create the justification memo. Chappell noted that there were no projects he felt unworthy of funding; there simply is never enough money to go around. Zimmermann Smith noted that there were also a few that had received substantial funding in the last round, and would likely receive additional funding in the next one. Chappell moved to accept the funding recommendations per discussions. Zimmermann Smith seconded. The motion carried 8-0. ADJOURNMENT: Dragoo moved to adjourn. Drum seconded. The motion was approved 8-0. To: HCDC members Fr: Linda Severson Human Services Coordinator Re: FY 12 Aid -to -Agencies Funding Recommendations � r WNW CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org At the December 16th meeting, we will be discussing the Aid -to -Agencies Funding requests. This funding typically goes towards operational costs and historically has been ongoing funding from year to year. For FY 11, $425,268 was available to allocate. Two city council members reviewed the applications and recommended $415,950 in allocations to 16 agencies/programs and $9,318 to the contingency fund. The contingency fund is available if an agency has an unexpected expense that has not been budgeted. Examples are the Free Medical Clinic had an unexpected significant increase in their insurance premiums (industry related) and the City approved a request of $1,000 to go towards this expense. This year, the Council approved $1,500 to Shelter House to assist with their expenses related to elimination of bed bugs at their N. Gilbert facility. For FY 12, we received requests from the agencies funded in FY 11 and 5 new requests for a total of $606,570. For FY 12, there is a 1.5% increase ($6,379) in the amount available to allocate. The total available is $431,647. In your packet is a paper copy of the FY 11 agencies and allocations, FY 12 requests, and a column for your recommendations. Please contact me (linda-severson(aD-iowa-city.org or 356-5242) if you have any questions that I could answer before the meeting. S:HUM/FY12applications12.15.10HCDCmemo JCCOG m e m o Date: December 7, 2010 To: JCCOG Urbanized Area Policy Board From: Kristopher Ackerson, Assistant Transportation Planner Linda Severson, Human Services Coordinator Re: Agenda Item 3(c): Update on interest in forming a consortium for Housing and Urban Devel- opment HOME funds In August, the JCCOG Affordable Housing Sub -Committee presented recommendations to the JCCOG Board — the concept of forming a consortium was one of the most popular recommen- dations. In a consortium, local governments that would not otherwise qualify for federal HOME funds can form a consortium with other contiguous municipalities to participate in this program offered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Instead of competing for HOME funds, the consortium would act as a cooperative to leverage federal housing funds. HOME Funds can be used for: Elderly housing Housing rehabilitation Down payment assistance Tenant -based rent assistance Land acquisition (rental or owner occupied) Due to interest in learning more about this opportunity from a number of JCCOG entities, staff met with the following representatives to share information and discuss potential next steps: Louise From, City of University Heights Steve Long, City of Iowa City Tracy Mulcahey and Gerry Kuhl, City of North Liberty Royce Phillips, City of Tiffin Janelle Rettig, Johnson County As the lead agency in a potential consortium, Iowa City Council would need to approve sharing these HOME funds. Based on preliminary estimates, a county -wide consortium could receive approximately $675k per year. If pursued, the funds might be distributed on a per capita basis or on a project application basis (similar to JCCOG Surface Transportation Program funds). In light of the potential funding, the attendees serious consideration and that, if implemented, ensuring affordable housing for residents. The their respective bodies. agreed the concept of a consortium warranted would be a step toward a regional approach to attendees agreed to discuss the concept with JCCOG staff and Iowa City Community Development staff are available to meet with city coun- cils and/or staff, upon request, to discuss this topic. Moving forward, JCCOG will be happy to assist with the consortium application process — pre -application due March 1 and complete ap- plication due June 30. For questions about this item contact Kris Ackerson at 356-5247 or kristopher-ackerson(�iowa- cit .or , or Linda Severson at 356-5242 or linda-severson[a)ia)-city.org. CADocuments and Settings\thightshoe\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK79\20101206_Consortium Update.doc N r U. L CU ti N " c 0 o � � d U ,o E 'a v Q a� c 0 V c O E CD E 64 V d N W N d O o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o LO LO d 0 0 0 0 O o0 cry o O 0 0 0) 0 ClC C ( D O O O NCO , 't 4 NLON In L N N 69 O O' CA M LO to 0) N c 0) M O 0)to C 69 69 Ef) ER 69 E9 Lco V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N a Q O O O O O O O Q Q Q to O O Q 0 0� 0 �y " r, Z �j O Z Z Z fl- 00 a0 Z O o 0 CV �p M D 0) N �N 64 69 69 `N (Al 69 69 69 EA 69 6R 69 EA 69 69 LL c as £ o o � — W c 0 C) L Wcm — C ` c O ,0 V = W t _O v ,� C -O N = 0= d O CD v_, a�N CD CM Nw�U�a� �v 0 d cm om`CL0 yo-i V O d O 3 W i' ,O ca G� t c O O Q ._ m O L) O Ui L U) O 0 W eT U. U. U. = — J '� 2 Z I%F- w