HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC 07-10-18 Packet
Agenda
Housing & Community Development
Commission (HCDC)
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
6:30 P.M.
City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City
1. Call meeting to order
2. Approval of the June 21, 2018 minutes*
3. Public comment of items not on the agenda
4. Nominate and elect officers*
5. Overview of HCDC purpose, funding sources, and schedule
6. Review and consider final recommendation for the Aid to Agencies process*
7. Recommendation to City Council regarding applications for FY19 Round 2
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Funding – applications
available online at http://www.icgov.org/actionplan*
8. Clarify Review of Affordable Housing Location Model Intent
9. Review Annexation Policy Comprehensive Plan Amendment*
10. Staff/commission comment
11. Adjournment*
* Indicates Action Item
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please
contact Kirk Lehmann at kirk-lehmann@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly
encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Date: June 28, 2018
To: Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC)
From: Neighborhood Service Staff
Re: July 10, 2018 meeting
The following is a short description of the agenda items. If you have any questions about the
agenda, or if you are unable to attend the meeting, please contact Kirk Lehmann at 319-356-
5247 or Kirk-Lehmann@Iowa-City.org.
Item 4: Nominate and Elect Officers
Per HCDC Bylaws, the commission nominates and elects a chair and vice chair in July. The
commission will nominate and vote for these two positions at this meeting.
Item 5: Overview of HCDC purpose, funding sources, and schedule
Because new members are starting, staff will provide a brief overview of the Housing and
Community Development Commission, its funding sources, and the schedule for the
upcoming year.
Item 6: Review and consider final recommendation for the Aid to Agencies process
On June 21, HCDC recommended to City Council general changes to the Aid to Agencies
(A2A) public services allocation process. Some can move forward, including changes to the
reporting requirements, application, determination of priority, and timeframe. However,
other recommendations need more specificity, including set aside amounts (and length of
funding), the percentage of funds dedicated to priorities, ranking criteria, and minimum
funding amounts. Please see the attached recommendation memo for additional information.
Item 7: Recommendation to City Council regarding applications for FY19 Round 2
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Funding – applications
available online at http://www.icgov.org/actionplan
Please be prepared to discuss a recommendation to City Council regarding apportionment of
additional FY19 HOME funds. Staff has provided scoring criteria and individual funding
recommendation sheets for reference at the meeting. Note that scoring criteria are just one
piece of information to aide your decision making.
Item 8: Clarify Review of Affordable Housing Location Model Intent
An HCDC subcommittee reviewed the Affordable Housing Location Model (AHLM) through
the lens of potential racial equity impacts. This discussion is to clarify what kind of an
analysis HCDC wants to undertake before requesting guidance from City Council.
Item 9: Review Annexation Policy Comprehensive Plan Amendment
City Council requested HCDC review an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Annexation
Policy by adding a section pertaining to affordable housing. The resolution, and a proposed
change is in the packet.
Item 10: Staff/Commission Comment
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JUNE 21, 2018 – 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
MEMBERS PRESENT: Syndy Conger, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz, Christine
Harms, Harry Olmstead, Maria Padron Paula Vaughan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Lamkins, John McKinstry
STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly
OTHERS PRESENT: Sara Barron, Geoff Fruin
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends to send the HCDC Aid to Agencies Subcommittee’s
recommendations to City Council for review at their July 3 meeting.
By a vote of 6-0 (Olmstead abstained) the Commission recommends to send a letter to City Council
regarding Jonson County SEATS and City Bus contracts at their July 16 meeting.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Olmstead called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
APPROVAL OF THE MAY 24, 2018 MINUTES:
Eastham moved to approve the minutes of May 24, 2018 with correction. Conger seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE AID TO AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE:
Lehmann began with a brief overview that is outlined in the memo in the packet. He also included the
meeting minutes from the subcommittee’s meetings on June 7 and June 15 and comments received from
agencies. The committee consisted of Fixmer-Oraiz, Padron, Kubly, and Lehmann.
Fixmer-Oraiz said they began by looking at the history of the Aid to Agencies to ensure that the program’s
original purpose and intent are being served. One of the subcommittee’s first recommendations was to
split funding into two pools of money with one predominantly supporting “legacy” agencies, defined as
nonprofits that received Aid to Agencies funding in one of the last five years. As a result, the legacy
agency funding pool would consist of most Aid to Agencies funding. While funding would not be
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 21, 2018
Page 2 of 9
guaranteed for legacy agencies, it would be provided at minimum increments of $15,000 each year over two
years. This would support the goal of providing a more reliable source of funding. To access the legacy pool of funds,
legacy agencies would apply through the United Way Joint Funding Process. HCDC would also receive
regular reports to ensure accountability over the two years, similar to other Joint Process Funders. If an
agency does not perform to a minimum standard, funding could be revoked.
In order to encourage and support new “emerging” agencies, defined as any nonprofits not designated as
legacy, HCDC would also create a smaller pool of funds. These funds would have a smaller funding
minimum, perhaps $5,000, and would be allocated annually to help the development of new
organizations. Emerging agencies should not expect this pool of funds to become permanent, but they
could access legacy funds after being awarded. The application for the emerging pool of funds would
occur separately from the United Way Joint Funding Process, allowing a smaller, customized application
that would be due at the same time as the City’s HOME/CDBG funding round in December. This allows
the funding to be awarded closer to when the agency will receive the funding. Because Emerging
Agencies would submit shorter applications, their timeframe would be shorter overall.
The subcommittee also discussed the process wanting to have more clarity, longer period of review for
HCDC. The proposed timeline is to make review applications and make allocations is expanded from one
month, the current process, to a review process resembling the following:
- September: Receive applications and commissioners would read and rank them for the October
meeting. Staff would compile individual commissioners’ results beforehand.
- October: At their meeting, HCDC would discuss the ranking results and their individual thoughts.
This would likely comprise most of the meeting.
- November: At their meeting, HCDC could discuss lingering issues about applications and would
decide on applicants to call in for further questions. Applicants would receive questions in
advance. This would likely take up a small portion of the meeting.
- December: At their meeting, HCDC would have a Q&A session with invited agencies. Only
agencies invited to speak at the meeting would speak.
- January: At their meeting, HCDC would determine final allocations.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted they reached out to some of the agencies and asked for their feedback on the
process. The responses are included in the packet.
Padron added they also discussed determining priority needs for legacy agencies and noted the
prioritization of agencies into low, medium, and high groupings based on the population served was
developed to ensure funds have the greatest impact and is required by CITY STEPS. The current use of
these categories in the allocation process tends to be ineffective because nearly all agencies attempt to
meet the high priority category. Therefore the subcommittee proposes dedicating a percentage of funding
to High, Medium, and Low priorities to spread funding throughout groups and reduce competition for high-
priority designations. A possible allocation would be 60% of funds to high priority, 25% to medium and
15% to low priorities so they can help everyone. Lehmann added Staff would determine if an agency fell
into the high, medium or low priority category, which would be affirmed by a vote of HCDC.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated another proposal from the subcommittee is to adjust the application, there was a lot
of duplication on the joint application, so wanted to eliminate that. Additionally, much of the application
process appeared subjective and they wanted to create more objectivity. They updated CDBG/HOME
Evaluation Criteria sheet (in the packet) to bring back to HCDC to discuss. Lehmann noted he went
through what allocations would have looked like had they used this new criteria sheet at the last round of
allocations and that has brought up additional questions.
Fixmer-Oraiz also noted they broke out the Impact/Benefit question on the evaluation criteria from being a
broad question to more specific categories. Additionally with the leveraging question it was felt there
needed to be some clarification. Conger agreed, when that question was first added to the evaluation
criteria it was to encourage fundraising, but isn’t sure if the question achieves that goal and if it should
even be part of the evaluation criteria. Olmstead said when that question was first raised he felt it was
important to look at what other financial resources does an agency have. For example there was one
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 21, 2018
Page 3 of 9
agency that was in seven counties and therefore should be able to get money elsewhere. Eastham
stated he was not sure having leveraging ability as part of the scoring criteria is valid and feels it could be
discouraging to smaller agencies and startups. He also noted that larger agencies have to have oth er
funding sources, they could not function on just Iowa City funding.
Olmstead asked about the legacy funding and when would the five years of funding be counted from.
Fixmer-Oraiz said the subcommittee looked at funding this year and then back five ye ars to see what
organizations had consistently received funding. Conger noted if an organization has been around for
five years they are likely also getting funding from other sources. Conger feels the leveraging question
should be removed from the startup and smaller agency applications and Fixmer-Oraiz agreed.
Lehmann noted the evaluation criteria ask if the applicant has documented efforts to secure other
funding, so the question regarding project leveraging may not be needed. Vaughn stated that the
leveraging question could be stated as asking for a list of external funding sources.
Eastham asked for clarification on how the proposal divides up available funding between legacy
agencies and startup agencies. Lehmann said the legacy group is the process that currently is in place,
they would fill out the United Way application, and they would request a $15,000 minimum. The change
is if awarded funds, the funds would be secure for two years. The legacy applicants would still be ranked
based on the evaluation criteria of the application into high, medium and low priority. Fixmer-Oraiz said in
the most recent allocation round HCDC had 27 applicants and funded 17 of them so there will still be
agencies that receive no funding. The biggest change is the schedule of review of the applications, the
idea is to give HCDC more time to review and discuss the applications to be better prepared to move
forward with the allocation process.
Olmstead noted his concern regarding funding the emerging startups is within a year or two they may be
so successful to the community HCDC may want to fund them at a higher level. Lehman said the
subcommittee suggests allocating $15,000 to the emerging startup fund and that $15,000 can be
allocated how HCDC sees best, it does not have to be divided equally amongst applicants.
Padron pointed out that the emerging agencies may not be new agencies, they are just agencies that
have not received City funding in the past five years.
Eastham noted the extra time and work for staff with this new category of agency funding. He stated the
time staff spends administering a $1,000 grant is the same as administering a $25,000 grant. Lehmann
acknowledged that was true and that is why the subcommittee sought to set up a $5,000 minimum.
Geoff Fruin (City Manager) stated the City Council knows HCDC is going through this process and they
want to see what recommendations the Commission makes before it is communicated to the agencies.
Fixmer-Oraiz moved to send the HCDC Aid to Agencies Subcommittee’s recommendations to City
Council for review at their July 3 meeting, Eastham seconded.
Eastham noted that Ron Berg’s email was quite helpful in understanding how the evaluation criteria was
viewed by the agencies.
Vaughn clarified that the recommendation to City Council is for the general concept of review of
applications in two groups, legacy and emerging, but the details such as the evaluation criteria still need
to be vetted out by HCDC. Fixmer-Oraiz agreed.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOCATION MODEL SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE:
Lehmann stated a HCDC subcommittee has begun reviewing the Affordable Housing Location Model.
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 21, 2018
Page 4 of 9
Geoff Fruin (City Manager) stated he appreciates the intent and motivation for HCDC to review the
Affordable Housing Location Model, his concerns are simply ensuring that City Staff (Lehmann and
Kubly) have the time to dedicate to the Council’s top strategic priorities that fall within their work area.
Fruin noted he was hesitant on dedicating staff time on this issue as they just complete d a
comprehensive review of the Affordable Housing Location Model just over a year ago and it took a
considerable amount of time for staff and HCDC. Fruin acknowledged that the changes HCDC is looking
at this time may not require as much time as the last review however he would request before HCDC
goes down this path any further to make sure City Council is comfortable with the direction HCDC is going
so staff and HCDC is not putting a lot of work into something Council is not on board with. Right now with
Lehmann and Kubly being fairly new to staff they have a lot to learn with the day-to-day operations and
this would be a lot to take on and Fruin would share that concern with Council.
Eastham noted in Fruin’s memo to HCDC he points to two items staff will be working on for Council and
the second one is considering modifications to the Affordable Housing Location Model as it stands right
now and asked if that review will include a racially equity impact as that is not a component Eastham has
been able to find in any previous work the Council has requested. Fruin said he cannot speak to what the
review will include as they have not yet discussed it, they just today spent a couple hours in a webinar
with a homebuilders association beginning to learn about the process. He said likely what will happen is
staff time will be used to investigate a range of options for Council to review and receive feedback. With
regards to the specific issue of racial equity analysis Fruin said he would not be opposed to revi ewing
that, but they haven’t gotten that far into the planning to identify the pieces they will review. Eastham
believes the Council should be informed of what HCDC has done so far in noticing a deficit in racially
equity impact in the way the Affordable Housing Location Model is currently constructed. He would like
Council to know that HCDC feels that needs to be reviewed by staff either separately or as part of the
overall Affordable Housing Location Model review. Fruin appreciates that and is in no wa y telling HCDC
how to shape their recommendation but would like a recommendation to go to Council in July so they can
begin to shape staff workloads for the year.
Sara Barron (Executive Director, Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) stated they do not have a
specific recommendation to make about the review of the policy at this time but would ask HCDC view
them as a resource as they are considering both language and potential impact of any policy changes.
They have a number of resources available including some ability to talk about it from the racially equity
standpoint.
Fixmer-Oraiz said they definitely don’t want to duplicate efforts or overburden staff so HCDC would be
willing to work with whatever resources are available.
Conger shared she is mystified as to why a question about analysis leads to or gets interpreted as a
review of the entire Affordable Housing Location Model. She noted if one were to study the effects of the
Affordable Housing Location Model is it impossible to extract any data that would be relevant. Fruin
reiterated he is not taking issue with the reason for the review he is concerned about the staff time
involved. He added each time data is adjusted on the map, a whole new set of data points are created so
it can be time consuming to read all that data and try to get the results correct. Vaughn confirmed as a
member of HCDC at that time it was a lot of staff and commission time involved.
Olmstead suggested a joint subcommittee of HCDC and the Johnson County Affordable Housing
Coalition to look at this further before making any recommendations to Council.
Eastham is open to a joint subcommittee, he also wanted to acknowledge all the work that was done
previously to develop the Affordable Housing Location Model did not include any information on racial
equity impact.
Fixmer-Oraiz is also not opposed to a joint subcommittee however she feels it is clear this should be put
before City Council before heading down that path.
Eastham believes that talking to Council is a good idea and should be done with both staff and HCDC
members present. Fruin said that type of work session could be requested with Council, he questions
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 21, 2018
Page 5 of 9
whether it would be necessary, he thought if HCDC could place a memo into the Council packet for them
to discuss. Eastham asked if Fruin was okay having staff review the Affordable Housing Action Plan as
that is different and Fruin agreed. Eastham asked if part of that review could include the racial equity
impact and Fruin agreed if that is the direction Council wants to go. He added however he would not limit
that to the Model, if they are going to do a racial impact study of affordable housing they should also look
at the 12 steps they have already completed and what is the analysis associated with those areas.
Eastham agrees it would be good for the staff review to encompass the Action Plan areas as well.
Vaughn asked if the point of the analysis is just to look at what the City is doing with their funding or
overall racial equity impact. Eastham replied with City funding. Vaughn asked if that was not in the
application the agencies submit where it asks for a racial breakdown of percent of people they have
served. Eastham acknowledged that and noted some of the numbers in the Action Plan are very useful to
show the effect of City policies on different racial groups but the Action Plan itself isn’t an equity impact
analysis of the City overall housing opportunities.
Padron noted in the last meeting there were two questions raised. First was what was the purpose of the
map and second is if the map accomplished that goal. Are those questions answered? Fruin stated that
was essentially the review staff did last year to make sure the model was meeting its intended purposes
and so they analyzed it against the original goals Council confirmed and found that there were some
changes that could be made and they eliminated some of the criteria that was causing greater areas of
the community to be restricted and those areas shrunk up a bit.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated the Affordable Housing Location Model is about where there can be new affordable
housing built and is the goal to enrich neighborhoods or just looking at placing housing. If would be even
more of an impact if the rehabilitation funds for landlords and where are those funds being applied. For
example, in the south side of Iowa City where there is the densest population of affordable housing is
where rehabilitation funds should be going to upkeep and renovate those homes for that pop ulation rather
than worrying about how the $500,000 is being spread over so many square miles. She added the
Affordable Housing Location Model is only one tool, there is also the City Action Plan with 12 steps, land
banking, etc. that need to be taken into consideration. She agrees a racial equity impact study should be
done, but over a broader spectrum.
Eastham noted that City funding does leverage a huge amount of other outside funding, the biggest
funding source for rental housing is the tax-credit program and a major part of that is getting local funding
in order to qualify. He stated not being able to use City funds in south Iowa City means that area then
also would not qualify for tax-credit funding.
Lehmann gave a report from the subcommittee’s meeting, what they came away with. It included
observations that the language was currently negative, focusing on the “burden” affordable housing
places on the City, and that the language should be changed to a more positive language of opportunity
instead. He said there was also issues with how conflicting policies worked together, for example, if there
is an annexation policy with inclusionary zoning, and land is annexed in areas the Affordable Housing
Location Model does not allow additional new construction of affordable housing, how do those policies
interact. Finally they discussed the racial equity assessment, does the Affordable Housing Location
Model negatively impact minority groups or what affect is it having on racial equity. Lehmann stated the
subcommittee concluded they could change some of the goals of the Affordable Housing Location Model
to reflect and clarify those conversation points. They also discussed the Model’s purpose, impact, etc.
Fixmer-Oraiz said the second question on intersecting policies seemed to be the most critical of
understanding the affect and repercussions. The Affordable Housing Location Model versus the
inclusionary zoning annexation policy shows where the Affordable Housing Location Model is potentially
failing in the South District and how can this be navigated to avoid future issues. In her opinion, that
became the larger issue when looking at this model’s impact.
Olmstead shared his concern about the use of the word minority as that is being discussed along racial
lines, he added that people with disabilities are a minority group and have a difficult time finding
affordable housing especially with their limited incomes so he asks that minority group be defined or
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 21, 2018
Page 6 of 9
clarified when talking to Council. People with disabilities are the largest minority group today in Iowa as
well as the United States.
Eastham stated the Affordable Housing Location Model does not prohibit the use of funding in any part of
the City for housing that is intended for people with disabilities.
Eastham asked if there was a consensus to comply with Fruin’s suggestion to write a memo to City
Council showing an interest in including a racially impact analysis of the Affordable Housing Location
Model and Affordable Housing Action Plan.
Olmstead asked if Lehmann could draft the memo and send it to HCDC for a vote from HCDC before it
goes to Council. Lehmann agreed and would have a memo to present at the July HCDC me eting.
Fixmer-Oraiz thanked Barron for coming to talk to HCDC and asked if perhaps she would be interested in
coming to a future meeting to give a presentation about resources available. Barron agreed and would
be happy to come present at a future meeting.
DISCUSS GUIDELINES FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS:
Lehmann reviewed some of the materials he sent to HCDC and noted the HUD’s view on religious
organizations used to be very strict but that changed in 2005 when they sought to make it fairer, allowing
for religious organizations to complete for funding on equal footing with other nonprofits. Now, HUD
allows faith based organizations to keep religious names, do religious activities, and display religious
signs, but they cannot further their religious activities with HUD funding. There are some complex issues,
for example if a church is doing a secular activity like a food pantry it can be eligible if done in a place
other than the place of worship. If any religious activities are done at functio n, such as a prayer before a
food bank meal, it has to be understood that participation is voluntary. Lehmann noted the City regularly
funds Habitat for Humanity, technically a religious nonprofit, so they are very explicit in all their
applications and materials in stating they do not discriminate against those who are not part of their
religious sect, and that all religious activities are voluntary.
Eastham asked how the City monitors that. Lehmann said the typical monitoring is making sure the
organization has the policies in place (checking application materials, etc.) and other than that they rely
on a complaint basis.
Lehmann added in the HCDC packets examples of what is allowed and not allowed for funding to faith-
based nonprofits.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
JOHNSON COUNTY SEATS AND CITY BUS CONTRACTS:
Olmstead stated he became aware that the cities of Iowa City and Coralville are entering into the contract
negotiations for the SEATS service. He feels there is a need to extend the hours of service of the Iowa
City Transit fixed-route system. If the city buses were to extend their hours of service or add Sunday
services then according to the Urban Disabilities Act paratransit has to follow the same hours. Olmstead
stated he is more concerned about the City buses, and in discussions with Fruin he noted there is a
survey that will be done to establish what the need is. The City hopes to find a company to begin the
survey in the fall and they anticipate it will take up to two years to complete. Olmstead is concerned
about that timeline, he has been visiting other commissions to gather input. He met with the Human
Rights Commission and they see this as social justice issue, he visited with the S enior Center this
afternoon and they are considering this, and he has sent out letters to request support to about 40
different agencies that represent the elderly and senior citizens in our community. Olmstead is asking
everyone, including HCDC, to send a letter of support of the concept of extending the hours of buses
including adding Sunday service. In the 2015 survey that was conducted by the Community
Transportation Committee people indicated they could not take second or third shift jobs due to lack of
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 21, 2018
Page 7 of 9
transportation. Olmstead has heard that certain hotels in Iowa City and Coralville have their
housekeepers spend the nights in the hotel on Saturday and Sunday evenings so they can be at work to
clean rooms on Sunday and Monday mornings.
Fixmer-Oraiz said she met with Darian Nagle-Gamm, the Transportation Director for Iowa City Transit, to
get a sense of where they are with services and what the potential for offering extended or additional
services. Nagle-Gamm said they are going through a comprehensive review process over the next year,
they have a RFQ out now, and will be selecting a firm soon. They will also include a process of public
input. Fixmer-Oraiz thinks it is important for HCDC to discuss this topic as transportation is key to the
effect on affordable housing. Nagle-Gamm also noted the City is currently contracting for commuter bikes
for the City to be in place by the fall. It will start in the downtown area but the hope is for it to grow into
other neighborhoods.
Padron voiced her concern after the meeting with Nagle-Gamm it appears it will take quite some time
before the City adds night and weekend service and it is needed now.
Olmstead acknowledged the time issues, but added when they went through SEATS negotiations two or
three years ago, SEATS asked the City to look at their services and a survey could have been done at
that time, the problem has been an issue for some time and is not getting better, actually worse. He also
noted the transportation director is going to be reviewing and looking at bus routes and seeing if any of
those could be combined to better serve the community.
Olmstead also notes in his letter to Council that due to the bus schedules many people cannot attend th e
City’s festivals, or even fireworks, as there is no service after 6:30pm and none on Sundays. Not only
does it limit participation but revenue for the City at these festivals.
Padron noted the transportation director acknowledged the concerns but noted they have a limited budget
so if they want to add services they will have to remove or reduce another service.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated given the City is doing this RFQ process and wanting to conduct this survey, she
would suggest they create a subcommittee of folks with disabilities or the elderly designated to be part of
the process.
Olmstead realizes this is a cost item, it will cost the City more money to increase their services, however
he suggests some revenue sources could be bus advertising wraps (u sed in Davenport and Des Moines),
his other idea is to charge persons with disabilities that now ride free at certain times be charged a
minimal cost such as 50 cents. To use SEATS for a roundtrip is $4.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted Nagle-Gamm stated the transportation system is highly subsidized so the ideas for
generating revenue are real opportunities.
Lehmann said he as invited Nagle-Gamm to come speak to HCDC and she will come once they have the
RFQ complete and a consultant chosen.
Olmstead noted the Johnson County Supervisors have discussed creating a regional bus system as well
as transportation to Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids and to the Eastern Iowa Airport.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted Nagle-Gamm is a progressive director, she is strategic and willing to think outside the
box so feels reassured as this moves forward what comes in the end will be best for Iowa City.
Eastham moved to send a letter to City Council regarding Jonson County SEATS and City Bus
contracts at their July 16 meeting. Padron seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0
(Olmstead abstained).
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 21, 2018
Page 8 of 9
Lehmann stated the Annual Action Plan has been submitted to HUD.
The Healthy Community symposium is June 22.
Olmstead shared information about houseiowa.org which Habitat for Humanity launched in an effort to
create a universal portal for affordable housing in the State of Iowa.
Lehmann acknowledged this was Olmstead and Congers last meeting, he thanked them for their service
to HCDC.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham moved to adjourn. Conger seconded. Passed 7-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 21, 2018
Page 9 of 9
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record
• Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 8/17 9/21 10/30 11/16 12/18 1/23 2/15 3/15 4/19 5/24 6/21
Conger, Syndy 7/1/18 X X X O/E X X X X X X X
Eastham, Charlie 7/1/20 X X X X X X X X X X X
Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa 7/1/20 X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X
Harms, Christine 7/1/19 X X X X X X X X X X X
Lamkins, Bob 7/1/19 X O/E X O/E X X O/E X O/E X O/E
McKinstry, John 7/1/17 X X X X X X X X X X O/E
Olmstead, Harry 7/1/18 X X O/E X X X X X X X X
Padron, Maria 7/1/20 O/E X X X X X O/E O/E X X X
Vaughan, Paula 7/1/19 X X X O/E X X X X X X X
Updated: 6/28/2018
S:\DEV\HCDC\FY19\1. July\5b FY19 HCDC Calendar.docx
Tentative FY19 HCDC Calendar
Meetings typically held on the 3rd Thursday of each month
Meeting Date Agenda Items
July 10, 2018
(rescheduled)
• Welcome new members
• Officer nomination
• Overview of HCDC/Neighborhood Services
• HOME additional funding round
• Aid to Agency process recommendation
• Affordable Housing Location Map memo
August 16, 2018 Meeting cancelled – Summer break
September 20, 2018 • Public meeting on CAPER
• Approval of FY18 CAPER
• Timeline review of 2016-2020 CITY STEPS
• Receive “Legacy” Aid to Agency funding applications for review
• Introduction to Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing process
October 18, 2018 • Fair Housing presentation by Human Rights
• Review CDBG projects without agreements
• Consolidated Plan amendment (if needed)
• Discuss commissioner ranking of Aid to Agency applications
November 15, 2018 • Update on projects that have not entered into a formal agreement
• Approve FY20 CDBG/HOME application forms
• Continue discussion on Aid to Agency applications
December 20, 2018 • Review Aid to Agency applications; Q & A with invited agencies
January 17, 2019 • Pro forma basics
• Aid to Agency budget recommendations to City Council
February 21, 2019 • Q & A discussion with FY20 CDBG/HOME applicants
March 21, 2019
(May reschedule due to Spring
Break)
• FY20 CDBG/HOME budget recommendation for housing and public facilities
to City Council
• Presentation on Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
April 18, 2019 • Review FY20 Annual Action Plan and recommendation to City Council
• Discuss projects not conforming with Unsuccessful/Delayed projects policy
• Adoption of Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
May 16, 2019 • Annual Action Plan (updates with funding)
• Introduction to 2021-2025 CITY STEPS process
• Discuss summer schedule (possible Summer Break in June)
June 20, 2019 TBD – Summer Break?
Date: July 5, 2018
To: Iowa City City Council
From: Housing and Community Development Commission
Re: Aid to Agencies Recommendations
Introduction:
Following the May 24, 2018 Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC)
meeting, a subcommittee reviewed the Aid to Agencies (A2A) allocation process. Historically, A2A
provided predictable funding for nonprofit agencies . More recently, it has also provided new and
developing agencies flexible funding. The subcommittee developed the following
recommendations which seek to balance both functions of A2A funds, as well as improve the
allocation process. HCDC voted to send the recommendations to City Council for consideration.
History/Background:
Several policies have been developed in the past to prioritize agencies for the funding allocation.
• Legacy Agencies: In the past, agencies who continually receive funding each year were
prioritized in funding allocations. This process provided a consistent source of funding for
these agencies, allowing them to retain staff and anticipate budget amounts year-to-year.
However, it made it difficult for new agencies to benefit from the program.
• Priority Needs: The prioritization of agencies into low, medium, and high based on
population served was developed to ensure funds had the greatest impact and is required
by CITY STEPS. The current use of these categories in the allocation process tends to
be ineffective because nearly all agencies attempt to meet the high priority category.
• Minimum Threshold: A minimum funding threshold of $15,000 is set to allow for funding
of a half -time or quarter position at an agency. The amount of staff time required to
administer each grant and level of community benefit were also considered when the
minimum threshold was implemented.
An HCDC subcommittee solicited feedback from agencies and met June 7 and June 15, 2018 to
identify ways to improve the A2A allocation process. The subcommittee drafted
recommendations, which were reviewed by the full committee on June 21 and July 10. All meeting
minutes and comments received are attached.
Discussion of Solutions:
The subcommittee received comments from multiple A2A recipients, many of which echoed
previously mentioned feedback. The following themes to improve the process were developed:
• Enhance objectivity: Multiple agencies mentioned a desire to increase objectivity in
allocating funds. They were supportive of objective criteria in evaluating applications.
• Avoid duplication of work: HCDC should be careful about how to fund agencies that are
doing the same work because they d on’t want to duplicate services with limited funds.
• More clarity in expectations. Several agencies were confused about the process and
exactly how HCDC chose to allocate funds. Understanding was also lacking on which
agencies got to present to HCDC. Clearer expectations with agencies need to be set.
• Minimum funding: Some saw a minimum funding amount as arbitrary. However, it makes
the review process more manageable for HCDC and provide s greater certainty for staffing.
Based on this feedback, the subcommittee tried to balance stable funding with opportunities for
new agencies. Recommendations primarily focus on sustainable funding for agencies, but they
also provide funds for new agencies. The following summarizes general recommendations:
July 5, 2018
Page 2
“Emerging” Agency Funding. HCDC will set aside $15,000 to “emerging” agencies, defined as
any nonprofits that have not received A2A funds in any of the last five years . These funds will
have a $5,000 funding minimum and will be allocated annually to help new organizations develop.
This source should not be expected to become permanent. Applying will happen separately from
the United Way Joint Funding Process, allowing a smaller, customized application . Applications
will be due at the same time as the City’s HOME/CDBG funding round in December, allowing
funds to be awarded closer to when the agency will receive funds.
“Legacy” Agency Funding. All remaining funding will be available to “legacy” agencies, defined
as nonprofits that received A2A funding in any of the last five years. This funding is not guaranteed
but will provide a minimum of $15,000 each year over two years. Legacy agencies will use the
United Way Joint Funding Process application and will submit regular reports to HCDC to ensure
accountability. If an agency does not perform to a minimum standard, funding will be revoked.
Ranking criteria will be used to make the funding process more transparent and to provide
information to HCDC beyond an agency’s priority level. The criteria will hopefully make the
allocation of funds more objectively. The criteria can be seen on the attached sheet.
HCDC will dedicate __ percent of funds to High priorities and __ percent to Medium and Low
priorities to spread funding throughout groups and reduce competition for high-priority
designations. Staff will recommend an agency’s priority level in advance based on its central
mission, and HCDC will approve. __ points will be needed as a minimum for consideration to
ensure agencies are deserving of funds. If a ‘tier’ does not have appropriate application in terms
of minimum number of points, the funds will be reallocated as decided by HCDC.
Legacy applications should speak for themselves. However, agencies will be invited to attend
meetings, though will only be expected to speak upon request by HCDC. Full public comment will
be reserved for City Council when the Annual Action Plan is adopted. To provide adequate time
to review applications, the funding timeline will be extended from one month to the following:
• September: Receive applications, which HCDC will review and score for the October
meeting. Staff will compile individual commissioners’ results beforehand.
• October: At their meeting, HCDC will discuss the results and their individual thoughts.
This will likely comprise most of the meeting.
• November: At their meeting, HCDC may discuss lingering issues about applications and
will decide on applicants to invite for further clarification. Applicants will receive any
questions in advance. This will likely take up a small portion of the meeting.
• December: At their meeting, HCDC will have a Q&A session with invited agencies. Only
agencies invited to speak at the meeting will speak.
• January: At their meeting, HCDC will determine final allocations.
Finally, HCDC will reduce Iowa City’s portion of the Joint Funding applicat ion to reduce burden
for agencies while continuing to provide adequate information to HCDC. Potential changes
include cutting the “Aid to Agencies Priorities” question (HCDC will determine agencies’ priority
categories) and eliminating repetition, such as changing Iowa City’s questions to “if different from
Johnson County”. If additional answers are desired, questions will instead be asked in meetings.
Financial Impact:
These recommendations will have no fiscal impact on the City, but they will likely require
increased staff time to implement these activities. This is especially true of extending the process
over multiple months. For agencies, fiscal impacts will mostly be that funding is more evenly
distributed around agencies with clearer expectations as to how the money is allocated.
Recommendation:
HCDC recommends that City Council consider and approve these changes to the Aid to Agency
process. Once Council completes its review, staff will send a memo to applicants summarizing
changes made to the A2A process and the rationale. The memo will help set expectations,
including about who is invited to speak, when, and what responses may need to be prepared.
INFORMAL MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AID TO AGENCY SUBCOMMITTEE
JUNE 7, 2018 – 12:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz, Maria Padron
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Erika Kubly, Kirk Lehmann,
REVIEW ISSUES/PURPOSE OF SUBCOMMITTEE:
Originally administered by one staff person, and made final allocations with two committee members
- Difficult for new agencies to get funded
- Provided a stable source of funding
Staff and priorities changed over time
- Led to “legacy” nonprofits like elder services getting large cuts in their budget
- Complaints and an attempt by agencies to fit into the high priority categories
Over the past two years, new agencies began to be funded
- Minimum threshold of funding was increased to from $5,000 to $15,000
- Led to increased competition for “legacy” nonprofits which have continued to receive funding
cuts
DISCUSSION:
Question: What is purpose of Aid to Agencies? How do we provide stable funding to historic agencies
and allow opportunity for new agency?
Ideas: Focus on sustainable funding but provide small amount for new agencies. To achieve this, we
would break funding into two amounts:
1. “Legacy” Agency Funding. Most of the money would be dedicated to “legacy” nonprofits (i.e.
nonprofits that received Aid to Agencies funding in the last five years). This funding source
would not be guaranteed, but it would be a minimum of $15,000 allocated for two years. The
application would come through the United Way Joint Funding Process, and HCDC would receive
the same regular report as other Joint Process Funders. If the agency does not perform to some
minimum standard, funding could be revoked.
2. “Emerging” Agency Funding. A small portion of the funds (maybe $15,000?) would be dedicated
to “emerging” nonprofits (i.e. any other nonprofits not included in the “legacy” category). This
funding source would allow a smaller funding minimum of $5,000 allocated for one year to help
new organizations develop. The application for this process would be separate from the United
Way Joint Funding Process, allowing a smaller, customized application that would be due in
tandem with the City’s HOME/CDBG funding round in December. This also allows the funding to
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 24, 2018
Page 2 of 2
be awarded in closer proximity to when the agency will receive the funding. The expectation
would be that this will not be a permanent source of funding.
Question: How can we change Process? How do we give HCDC enough time to seriously review funding
applications?
Ideas: Instead of the typical one-month review process, staff would provide HCDC the applications as
soon as they are available. Overall, the process would become something approximating the following:
- September: Receive applications, which commissioners would be expected to read and rank for
the October meeting. Individual results would be sent to staff beforehand to compile.
- October: At the HCDC meeting, the commission would discuss the ranking results and allow an
opportunity for commissioners to talk about their rankings in advance of allocating funds. This
would be expected to take up most of the meeting.
- November: At the HCDC meeting, commissioners would have time for additional discussion on
lingering issues with applications and would decide on which applicants should be called in for
further question (a short list). This would be expected to take up a small portion of the meeting.
- December: At the HCDC meeting, commissioners would have a Q&A session with agencies. Only
agencies invited to speak at the meeting would speak.
- January: At the HCDC meeting, final allocations would be determined.
Agencies would be invited to attend meetings starting in November, though would not be expected to
speak unless invited to. Full public comment would be reserved for City Council when the Annual Action
Plan is adopted (May). This intensive process would only be for legacy agencies.
FOR NEXT MEETING:
Discuss Ranking Criteria: Adding ranking sheets to the process would provide a greater understanding of
the agency than their CITY STEPS priority as HCDC makes allocations, and it makes the process more
transparent. Staff would determine an agency’s central mission in advance, with approval from HCDC.
Discuss Application: The Joint Funding application is long, but adding a section on best practices (or to
the Q&A with agencies) could be a good opportunity to understand the agencies. Ideally, HCDC could
also pare down Iowa City’s current application components to make it less burdensome for agencies.
Discuss Any Further Comments
INFORMAL MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AID TO AGENCY SUBCOMMITTEE
JUNE 14, 2018 – 12:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz, Maria Padron
STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Kirk Lehmann
REVIEW COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION:
What the subcommittee noticed from the comments:
• Avoid duplication of work: HCDC should be careful about how to fund agencies that are doing
the same work. Don’t want to only duplicate services with limited funds.
• Enhance objectivity: Multiple agencies mentioned a desire to increase objectivity in allocating
funds. This includes avoiding consideration of factors that may be personal considerations or
factors unrelated to the CITYSTEPS priorities. They seemed like they would be supportive of
ranking applications as discussed last week, and it ties well into many recommendations that the
subcommittee is developing.
• Minimum funding: Some saw minimum funding amounts as arbitrary. However, it also made
the review process more manageable for HCDC and provided greater certainty for agency
staffing. This comment should be somewhat addressed through tiering funding with differing
minimum funding requirements. Regardless, flexible funding is especially valuable for agencies.
• More clarity in expectations. Several agencies were confused about the process. When HCDC
completes its review, staff should send out memo to review changes to the A2A process and
reasons for those changes. For example, the memo should clarify that the $15,000 minimum for
“legacy” agencies was chosen as enough to fund a part-time salary, while the $5,000 minimum
for “emerging” applicants is to cover some project costs, like office supplies.
• Equal opportunity to comment: Some agencies didn’t understand who got to present to HCDC
when. Others felt left out. The memo should also set expectations about who is invited to speak
and when. Applications are still expected to stand on their own. However, having the process
over multiple meetings would also allow HCDC to send preset/custom questions to applicants so
responses could be prepared, though not all applicants will be invited to speak.
In terms of best practices, it may also help to better train HCDC members on the general purpose of the
commission, where their funding comes from, and how the allocation process works in the larger
context of the City.
OTHER DISCUSSIONS:
Ranking criteria is being based on past processes that HCDC followed (see attached FY10 example); first
should be checked to see how it would have affected last year’s allocation:
• Need/Priority category:
o To take out subjectivity, focus on clear yes or no point amounts (keep high, medium,
low as what you give for different priority groups)
o Maybe incorporate need vs. provided services to decide priority?
• Resources and Feasibility
o Should leveraging financial resources stay as a ranking criterium?
o Ask whole HCDC about Documented funding efforts
o Ask about “volunteer/in-kind services” rather than “leveraging human resources.” May
also be beneficial to measure it in number of volunteer hours/$ of in-kind goods/service
• Impact/Benefit
o Add points to targeting services to high-priority groups such as minority households,
children under 12, or persons with disabilities
o Include points regarding impact/benefit or scale of work (like people served per dollar)
o Questions about will the project be sustained will be asked for Emerging Agencies, but
may not be applicable for Legacy Agencies (also potentially structure Emerging Agency
funding as for a specific project but Legacy Agency funding as flex funding once ‘proven’)
• Capacity/History
o Make Application Workshop attendance mandatory and drop criterium 3
o Increase criterium 2 to 5 points for yes
Changes to the joint funding application to reduce burden:
• Cut FY19 Aid to Agencies Prioritie s section. Staff will recommend and HCDC will determine the
main focus of the agency; HCDC will assign a “priority” category accordingly.
• Modify duplicative language. Change Iowa City-specific questions to “if different from County,
expound here.” For example, Question 4 on the application would read “If different from your
answer for Johnson County, provide a description of services that will be provided with the Iowa
City funding requested. Specific information is required, not a general agency description.”
Break out funding by dedicating a percentage of funding to High, Medium, and Low priorities:
• Would spread funding and reduce competition for “High” designation
• Maria suggested breaking out along High (60% of funding), Med (25%), and Low categories
(15%)
• A minimum number of points would need to be achieved to be considered for funding; if a ‘tier’
does not have appropriate points, the funds would be reallocated as decided by HCDC
RECOMMENDATIONS:
See staff memo.
General Information
1. Project Name and Address: 2637 Blazing Star, Iowa City, IA 52240
2. Type of Project (check one): xxx Homeownership Rental* Tenant Based Rent Asst.
Rehabilitation* Other
*Rental and Rental Rehabilitation projects require the completion of rental housing pro forma
3. Lead Applicant Name: Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
Applicant Address: 2401 Scott Blvd. SE, Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person, Title: Heath Brewer, Executive Director
Phone Number: (319) 519-6122
Fax Number: NA
E-mail Address: heath@iowavalleyhabitat.org
DUNS Number (must obtain if funded): 123204880
4. Secondary Applicant (if applicable):
Applicant Address:
Contact Person, Title:
Phone Number:
Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
5. Type of Applicant (check one):
Community Housing Development Organization xxx Private non-profit organization
Private for-profit, individual or partnership applicant Public Organization
6. Amount of HOME Funds Requested: $40,000
7. Did you attend an Applicant Workshop? No
xxx Yes, attended on January 4, 2018
8. Provide a brief, one paragraph description of the proposed project:
The project is new construction of a single-family home in an established development in Iowa City.
The buyer of the property will be under 60% AMI upon acceptance into the Habitat for Humanity
program and no higher than 80% AMI upon purchase of the developed property. The home will be
located near a park, school, trails, and public transportation. The home will be designed using
Universal Design Standards with zero entry and handicapped accessible hallways, doors, bathrooms,
etc.
Section 1 – Need/Priority
9. Please specify the one or two most applicable priority need(s) this application addresses, as
shown in the 2016-2020 CITY STEPS Plan, and explain how this project will meet this/those
need(s).
Need addressed – NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205
According to the data in the City Steps plan, there are two racial/ethnic groups in the area that
experience severe housing problems at a disproportionate level that this opportunity can serve:
Asian households earning 30-50% AMI and Hispanic households earning 30-50% AMI. Of the three
problems HUD refers to for this category, overcrowding and cost-burdened, are the two our partners
experience the most. This project will have a capacity to serve up to 8 people while eliminating any
concern of overcrowding. The qualified applicant will also be guaranteed a home mortgage with
payments (tax and insurance included) under 30% of gross income.
Need addressed – NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205
Of the three categories: Housing needs, Severe housing needs, and Cost burden, this project will
one of the identified categories with the exception of Black households earning 80-100% AMI and
Hispanic households earning 80-100% AMI, which is due to their higher level of earning. Iowa Valley
Habitat for Humanity serves income levels under 80% AMI.
Our program has a history of serving the Black and Hispanic population under 80% AMI and this
project will serve a Black, Hispanic or Asian applicant under 80% AMI.
This new single-family home will be a zero-entry, universally designed home with added features for
energy efficiency. The mortgage will be structured with Iowa Valley Habitat not receiving any interest
payments on their mortgage. The qualified applicant will pay no more than 30% of their gross
income on mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance. The home buyer will gain equity in the home
allowing for the opportunity of wealth building opportunities. The project is located near schools,
public transportation, shopping, and recreation.
Section 2 – Leveraging Resources/Budget
10. Provide the requested loan terms and affordability period:
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate
Loan
Amortization
(Years)
Affordability
Period
(Years)
Yearly
Payment
Terms
Requested*
$40,000 0% NA 15 years
recapture, 20
years
affordability
0
*Financing terms will be based on project feasibility and the ability to repay the loan. Terms approved by City
Council may be different than what is requested.
11a. Please complete the table below showing the types and amounts of funding being
requested for the proposed project. Please check the appropriate box if the funding
source is committed. If not a loan, leave loan terms blank. If not committed, please
indicate when the applicant will apply for funds in Question 15.
Funding Source & Type: Amount Int. rate
Amortization
Term Committed?
Iowa City HOME Funding
(public)
$40,000 0% 15 years
recapture,
silent,
forgivable
15
years
Yes xxx No
State of Iowa HOME or
CDBG (public)
$ Yes No
IFA – Low Income
Housing Tax Credits
(public)
$ Yes No
Bank Loan (private) $60,000 4% 9
months
Yes xxx No
Applicant Contribution of
Equity (private)
$55,000 xxx Yes No
Other Public Resources
(please list)
$ Yes No
Other Private Resources
(please list)
Donated goods and
services
$20,000 Yes xxx No
Total $175,000
11b. Please provide the uses of funds for the project.
Uses of Funds (if applicable)
Cost
estimate
received?
y/n Amount
Name of entity providing
cost estimate
Acquisition:
Building Acquisition $
Land Acquisition $ 40,000 Skogman Realty
Site Improvements $ 2,000 MMS
Construction / Rehabilitation $ 111,000 IVHFH, bids
Professional Fees $
Construction Finance $ 2,000 Hills Bank
Permanent Finance $
Developer Fee / Overhead $
Reserves $
Other (please specify): Donated
goods and services
$ 20,000 Bea Day, Century
Roofing, etc.
$
Total (Must equal total in 11a) $ 175,000
Amount of Private Funds $ 135,000 (a)
Amount of Public Funds $ 40,000 (b)
Total Project Funding $ 175,000 (c) a + b
Number of bedrooms or persons served 4 bedrooms (d)
Total Cost Per bedroom or person served $ 43,750 (e) c d
11c. What percentage of the proposed budget will be made up of private funds? 77%
12. Describe any community partnerships or volunteers that will contribute to the project.
IVHFH will leverage partnerships with several area businesses and groups. The homebuyers
will receive HUD certified financial counseling and homeowner preparation from Horizons
Family Service Alliance. Hills Bank will provide a low interest Line of Credit for project costs.
80% of the vendors used on the project will donate a portion of their goods and services, most
notably, Bea Day Plumbers will donate up to $15,000 of labor and materials for the project.
13. Describe any identity of interest (IOI) relationships with the applicant and/or project owner,
i.e. General Partner has a financial interest in the construction company, etc.
NONE
14. Program regulations require a minimum 25% match for HOME funding. Describe how your
organization or the proposed project will help the City of Iowa City meet this match
requirement for local HOME funds.
IVHFH will use $55,000 cash up front. All legal fees and much of the site prep fees are donated
by area businesses. The project will utilize $20,000 in donated goods and services as well as over
3500 donated labor hours.
Local HOME funds requested: $_40,000 x .25 = $10,000 Local Match
Section 3 – Feasibility/Need for Subsidy
15. Briefly outline the proposed timetable for the commitment and expenditure of the funding
being requested (include other project factors such as rezoning, construction schedule, or
application(s) for other funding). If applicant plans to apply for funds not committed to the
project yet, include the anticipated date for application. If funded, this schedule will be
used for any project agreement for the use of HOME funding.
Date: Description of Activity:
July 1, 2018 Beginning of City Fiscal Year
Jun 29,
2018
Application
Oct. 1, 2018 Approval of application
Nov. 30,
2018
Completion of SHPO, market analysis, title opinion, appraisal, etc.
March 2019 Foundation installation and construction start
July 2019 Project completion
17. To help promote the efficient use of federal, state, and local funding, please describe how
the project will maintain long-term (in excess of CDBG/HOME program requirements) or
permanent affordability or public assistance; and describe how the project will provide for
affordable housing or public assistance at rates or prices lower than those in the existing
market.
The project will have a forgivable/silent mortgage with a recapture agreement based on a 15-year
forgiveness period. The mortgage will have a 0% interest component that makes our program much
more affordable. Also, our ability to leverage grants and local partnerships make our home purchase
price approximately 25% lower than market rate.
The deed for the property will also have a 20-year owner occupancy stipulation restriction.
18. In what manner or form will the project proceed if it is awarded less than full funding? If
there are several components, how will they be prioritized?
If funding is not obtained to purchase this lot, the purchase will be delayed until funds are raised
to appropriately develop this property. A delay in funding could result in IVHFH missing an
opportunity to purchase one of the most affordable lots remaining in the community. Funding,
such as this, has been instrumental in our organization’s efforts to build homeownership of
affordable units in this community. Many times the purchase price of lots can make a project cost
prohibitive.
Section 4 – Impact/Benefit to the Community
19. Please indicate the number of persons that will be served by the proposed project by
income category. (The information in this table will be used as income targeting for the
CDBG/HOME Agreement).
Housing
0 - 30% median income _______ households (a)
31 – 50% median income _______ households (b)
51 – 60% median income ____1___ households (c)
61 - 80% median income _______ households (d)
Over 80% median income _______ households (e)
Total ___1____ households (f)
Percent LMI __1_____ (a+b+c+d) ÷ f
Section 5 – Capacity/History of the Applicant
20. Please list amount of CDBG and/or HOME funds received within the last four City fiscal
years and the status of the project(s) undertaken.
Fiscal Year Funds Recv’d
Budgeted
Amount
Amount Expended
(as of December 31)
Date Project
Completed
July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015 $ $
July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 $70,000 $70,000 Oct/Nov. 2016
July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 $ $
July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 $80,000 $80,000 1) July 2018
2) June
2019
*Six months remaining in FY18 at time of this application.
21. Is the applicant (including partners, co-applicants, etc.) currently in compliance with all
federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations, including any CDBG and/or HOME
funded projects?
xxx Yes No
If “NO” or a matter is currently in litigation please provide the name of the case and explain the basis
for the case.
22. Please describe the education and experience of the key staff who will be implementing
the project. Staff does not include volunteers, board members and consultants. If utilized,
please identify what role a consultant will play in the development of this project.
The Executive Director has a management degree and over 10 years of project management
experience. Our Business Manager has been with the organization for over 10 years and has
great experience with CDBG/HOME funding. IVHFH has two construction managers with over 30
years construction experience. We partner with Hawkeye Title and Settlement and Hills Bank to
structure and service our mortgages. We retain Clifton Larson Allen, a CPA firm, to complete an
annual financial audit.
23. Please describe your organization’s structure, officers, and staff.
We have many full-time staff that include: Executive Director, Business Manager, Development
Director, Volunteer Coordinator, Construction Manager (2).
Our board consists of 20 local professionals; 4 bankers, 1 attorney, 2 City Staff, 4 realtors, 1 builder,
2 architects, 1 engineer, 1 retired finance professional, 1 retired teacher, and 3 business
professionals.
President – Jesse Bulman, Architect, Neumann Monson
Vice President – Niki Prom, Commercial Lender, MidwestOne Bank
Secretary – Stefanie Bowers, City of Iowa City
Treasurer – Dan Cummins, Alcoa (retired)
24. Please provide a summary of your organization’s portfolio. Include how many rental units
you own/manage, how many homes you have built/rehabilitated/sold and what projects are
in the pipeline.
We have financed and built over 110 homes in 25 years of operation. We have
rehabilitated/remodeled 12 homes and built over 25 handicapped ramps. We currently operate a
repair program that will serve over 20 homeowners in 2018 with repairs ranging from small to critical.
We plan to build 6 homes in 2018, while performing major improvements to 4 more. All of our
homeowners pay full property taxes upon purchase of home
25. Please identify the relevant market factors that will assist the City in verifying the demand
for the proposed housing based on the City of Iowa City HOME Market Analysis Policy for
New Rental Construction, Rental Rehab. & Acquisition of Existing Homes (rental), or New
Owner-Occupied Home Construction & Acquisition of Existing Homes (owner-occupied). If
the project is large or complicated, the City may require a Market Analysis to support the
project before entering a legally binding agreement for funds. This policy is not applicable
to projects requesting funds for tenant based rental assistance, homeowner rehabilitation,
downpayment assistance and CHDO operating expenses.
From 2000-2012 rent increased 4.4% pushing the percentage of cost burdened renters to 55%
(pp. 22, para 2). Rental increases will not stop. As a homeownership program, we hope to combat
the rising, variable rates of rentals.
Our organization sells affordable housing well below the area median cost of homes. The homes
are purchased at appraised value; however, the homeowner only pays the actual cost to build the
home. Any difference between cost and appraisal is written as a second silent/forgivable
mortgage requiring the homeowner to occupy the home for no less than 7 years. From year 8-14
the value of that mortgage is forgiven at 1/7 of the value. At year 15, the 2nd mortgage goes away
and the homeowner is left with valuable equity.
More importantly, a homeowner with income between 30
General Information
1. Project Name and Address: 2645 Blazing Star, Iowa City, IA 52240
2. Type of Project (check one): xxx Homeownership Rental* Tenant Based Rent Asst.
Rehabilitation* Other
*Rental and Rental Rehabilitation projects require the completion of rental housing pro forma
3. Lead Applicant Name: Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
Applicant Address: 2401 Scott Blvd. SE, Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person, Title: Heath Brewer, Executive Director
Phone Number: (319) 519-6122
Fax Number: NA
E-mail Address: heath@iowavalleyhabitat.org
DUNS Number (must obtain if funded): 123204880
4. Secondary Applicant (if applicable):
Applicant Address:
Contact Person, Title:
Phone Number:
Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
5. Type of Applicant (check one):
Community Housing Development Organization xxx Private non-profit organization
Private for-profit, individual or partnership applicant Public Organization
6. Amount of HOME Funds Requested: $40,000
7. Did you attend an Applicant Workshop? No
xxx Yes, attended on January 4, 2018
8. Provide a brief, one paragraph description of the proposed project:
The project is new construction of a single-family home in an established development in Iowa City.
The buyer of the property will be under 60% AMI upon acceptance into the Habitat for Humanity
program and no higher than 80% AMI upon purchase of the developed property. The home will be
located near a park, school, trails, and public transportation. The home will be designed using
Universal Design Standards with zero entry and handicapped accessible hallways, doors, bathrooms,
etc.
Section 1 – Need/Priority
9. Please specify the one or two most applicable priority need(s) this application addresses, as
shown in the 2016-2020 CITY STEPS Plan, and explain how this project will meet this/those
need(s).
Need addressed – NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205
According to the data in the City Steps plan, there are two racial/ethnic groups in the area that
experience severe housing problems at a disproportionate level that this opportunity can serve:
Asian households earning 30-50% AMI and Hispanic households earning 30-50% AMI. Of the three
problems HUD refers to for this category, overcrowding and cost-burdened, are the two our partners
experience the most. This project will have a capacity to serve up to 8 people while eliminating any
concern of overcrowding. The qualified applicant will also be guaranteed a home mortgage with
payments (tax and insurance included) under 30% of gross income.
Need addressed – NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205
Of the three categories: Housing needs, Severe housing needs, and Cost burden, this project will
one of the identified categories with the exception of Black households earning 80-100% AMI and
Hispanic households earning 80-100% AMI, which is due to their higher level of earning. Iowa Valley
Habitat for Humanity serves income levels under 80% AMI.
Our program has a history of serving the Black and Hispanic population under 80% AMI and this
project will serve a Black, Hispanic or Asian applicant under 80% AMI.
This new single-family home will be a zero-entry, universally designed home with added features for
energy efficiency. The mortgage will be structured with Iowa Valley Habitat not receiving any interest
payments on their mortgage. The qualified applicant will pay no more than 30% of their gross
income on mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance. The home buyer will gain equity in the home
allowing for the opportunity of wealth building opportunities. The project is located near schools,
public transportation, shopping, and recreation.
Section 2 – Leveraging Resources/Budget
10. Provide the requested loan terms and affordability period:
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate
Loan
Amortization
(Years)
Affordability
Period
(Years)
Yearly
Payment
Terms
Requested*
$40,000 0% NA 15 years
recapture, 20
years
affordability
0
*Financing terms will be based on project feasibility and the ability to repay the loan. Terms approved by City
Council may be different than what is requested.
11a. Please complete the table below showing the types and amounts of funding being
requested for the proposed project. Please check the appropriate box if the funding
source is committed. If not a loan, leave loan terms blank. If not committed, please
indicate when the applicant will apply for funds in Question 15.
Funding Source & Type: Amount Int. rate
Amortization
Term Committed?
Iowa City HOME Funding
(public)
$40,000 0% 15 years
recapture,
silent,
forgivable
15
years
Yes xxx No
State of Iowa HOME or
CDBG (public)
$ Yes No
IFA – Low Income
Housing Tax Credits
(public)
$ Yes No
Bank Loan (private) $60,000 4% 9
months
Yes xxx No
Applicant Contribution of
Equity (private)
$55,000 xxx Yes No
Other Public Resources
(please list)
$ Yes No
Other Private Resources
(please list)
Donated goods and
services
$20,000 Yes xxx No
Total $175,000
11b. Please provide the uses of funds for the project.
Uses of Funds (if applicable)
Cost
estimate
received?
y/n Amount
Name of entity providing
cost estimate
Acquisition:
Building Acquisition $
Land Acquisition $ 40,000 Skogman Realty
Site Improvements $ 2,000 MMS
Construction / Rehabilitation $ 111,000 IVHFH, bids
Professional Fees $
Construction Finance $ 2,000 Hills Bank
Permanent Finance $
Developer Fee / Overhead $
Reserves $
Other (please specify): Donated
goods and services
$ 20,000 Bea Day, Century
Roofing, etc.
$
Total (Must equal total in 11a) $ 175,000
Amount of Private Funds $ 135,000 (a)
Amount of Public Funds $ 40,000 (b)
Total Project Funding $ 175,000 (c) a + b
Number of bedrooms or persons served 4 bedrooms (d)
Total Cost Per bedroom or person served $ 43,750 (e) c d
11c. What percentage of the proposed budget will be made up of private funds? 77%
12. Describe any community partnerships or volunteers that will contribute to the project.
IVHFH will leverage partnerships with several area businesses and groups. The homebuyers
will receive HUD certified financial counseling and homeowner preparation from Horizons
Family Service Alliance. Hills Bank will provide a low interest Line of Credit for project costs.
80% of the vendors used on the project will donate a portion of their goods and services, most
notably, Bea Day Plumbers will donate up to $15,000 of labor and materials for the project.
13. Describe any identity of interest (IOI) relationships with the applicant and/or project owner,
i.e. General Partner has a financial interest in the construction company, etc.
NONE
14. Program regulations require a minimum 25% match for HOME funding. Describe how your
organization or the proposed project will help the City of Iowa City meet this match
requirement for local HOME funds.
IVHFH will use $55,000 cash up front. All legal fees and much of the site prep fees are donated
by area businesses. The project will utilize $20,000 in donated goods and services as well as over
3500 donated labor hours.
Local HOME funds requested: $_40,000 x .25 = $10,000 Local Match
Section 3 – Feasibility/Need for Subsidy
15. Briefly outline the proposed timetable for the commitment and expenditure of the funding
being requested (include other project factors such as rezoning, construction schedule, or
application(s) for other funding). If applicant plans to apply for funds not committed to the
project yet, include the anticipated date for application. If funded, this schedule will be
used for any project agreement for the use of HOME funding.
Date: Description of Activity:
July 1, 2018 Beginning of City Fiscal Year
Jun 29,
2018
Application
Oct. 1, 2018 Approval of application
Nov. 30,
2018
Completion of SHPO, market analysis, title opinion, appraisal, etc.
March 2019 Foundation installation and construction start
July 2019 Project completion
17. To help promote the efficient use of federal, state, and local funding, please describe how
the project will maintain long-term (in excess of CDBG/HOME program requirements) or
permanent affordability or public assistance; and describe how the project will provide for
affordable housing or public assistance at rates or prices lower than those in the existing
market.
The project will have a forgivable/silent mortgage with a recapture agreement based on a 15-year
forgiveness period. The mortgage will have a 0% interest component that makes our program much
more affordable. Also, our ability to leverage grants and local partnerships make our home purchase
price approximately 25% lower than market rate.
The deed for the property will also have a 20-year owner occupancy stipulation restriction.
18. In what manner or form will the project proceed if it is awarded less than full funding? If
there are several components, how will they be prioritized?
If funding is not obtained to purchase this lot, the purchase will be delayed until funds are raised
to appropriately develop this property. A delay in funding could result in IVHFH missing an
opportunity to purchase one of the most affordable lots remaining in the community. Funding,
such as this, has been instrumental in our organization’s efforts to build homeownership of
affordable units in this community. Many times the purchase price of lots can make a project cost
prohibitive.
Section 4 – Impact/Benefit to the Community
19. Please indicate the number of persons that will be served by the proposed project by
income category. (The information in this table will be used as income targeting for the
CDBG/HOME Agreement).
Housing
0 - 30% median income _______ households (a)
31 – 50% median income _______ households (b)
51 – 60% median income ____1___ households (c)
61 - 80% median income _______ households (d)
Over 80% median income _______ households (e)
Total ___1____ households (f)
Percent LMI __1_____ (a+b+c+d) ÷ f
Section 5 – Capacity/History of the Applicant
20. Please list amount of CDBG and/or HOME funds received within the last four City fiscal
years and the status of the project(s) undertaken.
Fiscal Year Funds Recv’d
Budgeted
Amount
Amount Expended
(as of December 31)
Date Project
Completed
July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015 $ $
July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 $70,000 $70,000 Oct/Nov. 2016
July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 $ $
July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 $80,000 $80,000 1) July 2018
2) June
2019
*Six months remaining in FY18 at time of this application.
21. Is the applicant (including partners, co-applicants, etc.) currently in compliance with all
federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations, including any CDBG and/or HOME
funded projects?
xxx Yes No
If “NO” or a matter is currently in litigation please provide the name of the case and explain the basis
for the case.
22. Please describe the education and experience of the key staff who will be implementing
the project. Staff does not include volunteers, board members and consultants. If utilized,
please identify what role a consultant will play in the development of this project.
The Executive Director has a management degree and over 10 years of project management
experience. Our Business Manager has been with the organization for over 10 years and has
great experience with CDBG/HOME funding. IVHFH has two construction managers with over 30
years construction experience. We partner with Hawkeye Title and Settlement and Hills Bank to
structure and service our mortgages. We retain Clifton Larson Allen, a CPA firm, to complete an
annual financial audit.
23. Please describe your organization’s structure, officers, and staff.
We have many full-time staff that include: Executive Director, Business Manager, Development
Director, Volunteer Coordinator, Construction Manager (2).
Our board consists of 20 local professionals; 4 bankers, 1 attorney, 2 City Staff, 4 realtors, 1 builder,
2 architects, 1 engineer, 1 retired finance professional, 1 retired teacher, and 3 business
professionals.
President – Jesse Bulman, Architect, Neumann Monson
Vice President – Niki Prom, Commercial Lender, MidwestOne Bank
Secretary – Stefanie Bowers, City of Iowa City
Treasurer – Dan Cummins, Alcoa (retired)
24. Please provide a summary of your organization’s portfolio. Include how many rental units
you own/manage, how many homes you have built/rehabilitated/sold and what projects are
in the pipeline.
We have financed and built over 110 homes in 25 years of operation. We have
rehabilitated/remodeled 12 homes and built over 25 handicapped ramps. We currently operate a
repair program that will serve over 20 homeowners in 2018 with repairs ranging from small to critical.
We plan to build 6 homes in 2018, while performing major improvements to 4 more. All of our
homeowners pay full property taxes upon purchase of home
25. Please identify the relevant market factors that will assist the City in verifying the demand
for the proposed housing based on the City of Iowa City HOME Market Analysis Policy for
New Rental Construction, Rental Rehab. & Acquisition of Existing Homes (rental), or New
Owner-Occupied Home Construction & Acquisition of Existing Homes (owner-occupied). If
the project is large or complicated, the City may require a Market Analysis to support the
project before entering a legally binding agreement for funds. This policy is not applicable
to projects requesting funds for tenant based rental assistance, homeowner rehabilitation,
downpayment assistance and CHDO operating expenses.
From 2000-2012 rent increased 4.4% pushing the percentage of cost burdened renters to 55%
(pp. 22, para 2). Rental increases will not stop. As a homeownership program, we hope to combat
the rising, variable rates of rentals.
Our organization sells affordable housing well below the area median cost of homes. The homes
are purchased at appraised value; however, the homeowner only pays the actual cost to build the
home. Any difference between cost and appraisal is written as a second silent/forgivable
mortgage requiring the homeowner to occupy the home for no less than 7 years. From year 8-14
the value of that mortgage is forgiven at 1/7 of the value. At year 15, the 2nd mortgage goes away
and the homeowner is left with valuable equity.
More importantly, a homeowner with income between 30
General Information
1. Project Name and Address:
2. Type of Project (check one): Homeownership X Rental* Tenant Based Rent Asst.
Rehabilitation* Other
*Rental and Rental Rehabilitation projects require the completion of rental housing pro forma
3. Lead Applicant Name: Kari Wilken
Applicant Address: 407 Highland Ct.
Contact Person, Title: Director of HR & Support Services
Phone Number: 319-341-0060 x7017
Fax Number: 888-883-1235
E-mail Address: k.wilken@myep.us
DUNS Number (must obtain if funded): 011402877
4. Secondary Applicant (if applicable):
Applicant Address:
Contact Person, Title:
Phone Number:
Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
5. Type of Applicant (check one):
Community Housing Development Organization X Private non-profit organization
Private for-profit, individual or partnership applicant Public Organization
6. Amount of HOME Funds Requested: $80,000
7. Did you attend an Applicant Workshop? No *Have attended past workshops
Yes, attended on January 4, 2018
8. Provide a brief, one paragraph description of the proposed project:
Our proposed project consists of purchasing a lot in Iowa City to build a fully accessible home on.
We continually have referrals for people in need of accessible housing. All $80,000 will be used for
the purchase of the lot. We will begin building the house as soon as possible but no later than within
twelve months of lot purchase. The home will then be rented to low-income clients with intellectual
and physical disabilities through our Supported Community Living Program.
Section 1 – Need/Priority
9. Please specify the one or two most applicable priority need(s) this application addresses, as
shown in the 2016-2020 CITY STEPS Plan, and explain how this project will meet this/those
need(s).
Expanding Affordable Rental and Owner Housing Opportunities For Low-Income and Persons With
Disabilities.
The home purchased, with the help of these funds, will provide a decent housing opportunity for
individuals with disabilities who do not have other reasonable options especially those in need of
fully accessible housing.
Section 2 – Leveraging Resources/Budget
10. Provide the requested loan terms and affordability period:
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate
Loan
Amortization
(Years)
Affordability
Period
(Years)
Yearly
Payment
Terms
Requested*
$80,000 0% 20 5 $0
*Financing terms will be based on project feasibility and the ability to repay the loan. Terms approved by City
Council may be different than what is requested.
11a. Please complete the table below showing the types and amounts of funding being
requested for the proposed project. Please check the appropriate box if the funding
source is committed. If not a loan, leave loan terms blank. If not committed, please
indicate when the applicant will apply for funds in Question 15.
Funding Source & Type: Amount Int. rate
Amortization
Term Committed?
Iowa City HOME Funding
(public)
$80,000 20yrs Yes XNo
State of Iowa HOME or
CDBG (public)
$ Yes No
IFA – Low Income
Housing Tax Credits
(public)
$ Yes No
Bank Loan (private) $20,000 XYes No
Applicant Contribution of
Equity (private)
$ Yes No
Other Public Resources
(please list)
$ Yes No
Other Private Resources
(please list)
$ Yes No
Total $100,000
11b. Please provide the uses of funds for the project.
Uses of Funds (if applicable)
Cost
estimate
received?
y/n Amount
Name of entity providing
cost estimate
Acquisition:
Building Acquisition $
Land Acquisition $80,000
Site Improvements $
Construction / Rehabilitation $
Professional Fees $
Construction Finance $
Permanent Finance $
Developer Fee / Overhead $
Reserves $
Other (please specify): $
$
Total (Must equal total in 11a) $80,000
Amount of Private Funds $ 20,000 (a)
Amount of Public Funds $ 80,000 (b)
Total Project Funding $ 100,000 (c) a + b
Number of bedrooms or persons served 3 (d)
Total Cost Per bedroom or person served $33,333 (e) c d
11c. What percentage of the proposed budget will be made up of private funds? 25%
12. Describe any community partnerships or volunteers that will contribute to the project.
N/A
13. Describe any identity of interest (IOI) relationships with the applicant and/or project owner,
i.e. General Partner has a financial interest in the construction company, etc.
N/A
14. Program regulations require a minimum 25% match for HOME funding. Describe how your
organization or the proposed project will help the City of Iowa City meet this match
requirement for local HOME funds.
We will meet this matching requirement with the land purchase. However, once the home is built
on the land we will far exceed this requirement if the entire project is considered.
Local HOME funds requested: $80,000 x .25 = $20,000
Section 3 – Feasibility/Need for Subsidy
15. Briefly outline the proposed timetable for the commitment and expenditure of the funding
being requested (include other project factors such as rezoning, construction schedule, or
application(s) for other funding). If applicant plans to apply for funds not committed to the
project yet, include the anticipated date for application. If funded, this schedule will be
used for any project agreement for the use of HOME funding.
Date: Description of Activity:
July 1, 2019 Beginning of City Fiscal Year and Project Start Date
Sept. 1 Begin looking for lots with realtor
17. To help promote the efficient use of federal, state, and local funding, please describe how
the project will maintain long-term (in excess of CDBG/HOME program requirements) or
permanent affordability or public assistance; and describe how the project will provide for
affordable housing or public assistance at rates or prices lower than those in the existing
market.
With a fixed rate loan for the project we are able to minimize the need of regular rent increases
which serves to minimize cost increases to the tenants over time. This home, once built, will operate
within our Residential Supported Community Living Program where basic maintenance and upkeep
is built into our annual budget. The first step is procurement of a lot to build on.
We typically charge $410 per month, per tenant. This is $1,230 per month for the whole unit.
Comparable single family homes in Iowa City regularly rent for $1,500+ and do not include the
utilities, lawn care, snow removal, and internet we provide at our units.
18. In what manner or form will the project proceed if it is awarded less than full funding? If
there are several components, how will they be prioritized?
If we receive less than full funding we will still try to move forward. The amount we receive may impact
the level we need to involve a bank. If we get close to the requested amount we would do our best
to contribute that difference.
Section 4 – Impact/Benefit to the Community
19. Please indicate the number of persons that will be served by the proposed project by
income category. (The information in this table will be used as income targeting for the
CDBG/HOME Agreement).
Housing
0 - 30% median income __3_____ households (a)
31 – 50% median income _______ households (b)
51 – 60% median income _______ households (c)
61 - 80% median income _______ households (d)
Over 80% median income _______ households (e)
Total __3_____ households (f)
Percent LMI __100%___ (a+b+c+d) ÷ f
Section 5 – Capacity/History of the Applicant
20. Please list amount of CDBG and/or HOME funds received within the last four City fiscal
years and the status of the project(s) undertaken.
Fiscal Year Funds Recv’d
Budgeted
Amount
Amount Expended
(as of December 31)
Date Project
Completed
July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015 $ $
July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 $60,000 $60,000 12/03/2015
July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 $50,000 $50,000 06/06/2017
July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 $50,000 $0 Closing 2/1/18
*Six months remaining in FY18 at time of this application.
21. Is the applicant (including partners, co-applicants, etc.) currently in compliance with all
federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations, including any CDBG and/or HOME
funded projects?
Yes X No
If “NO” or a matter is currently in litigation please provide the name of the case and explain the basis
for the case.
22. Please describe the education and experience of the key staff who will be implementing
the project. Staff does not include volunteers, board members and consultants. If utilized,
please identify what role a consultant will play in the development of this project.
We have successfully implemented several projects using CDBG funds. The Director of HR &
Support Services, Kari Wilken, will work with our realtor to identify and purchase a suitable
property. We currently operate two fully accessible sites that were built with the assistance of
CDBG funding. We are well-versed in the planning of the project from beginning to end. Once
the lot is purchased and eventually the home is built, it will be managed through our well-
established Residential Program.
23. Please describe your organization’s structure, officers, and staff.
24. Please provide a summary of your organization’s portfolio. Include how many rental units
you own/manage, how many homes you have built/rehabilitated/sold and what projects are
in the pipeline.
The MYEP Residential Program currently operates 16 homes. We own 11 of these homes and rent
5 from area landlords.
25. Please identify the relevant market factors that will assist the City in verifying the demand
for the proposed housing based on the City of Iowa City HOME Market Analysis Policy for
New Rental Construction, Rental Rehab. & Acquisition of Existing Homes (rental), or New
Owner-Occupied Home Construction & Acquisition of Existing Homes (owner-occupied). If
the project is large or complicated, the City may require a Market Analysis to support the
project before entering a legally binding agreement for funds. This policy is not applicable
to projects requesting funds for tenant based rental assistance, homeowner rehabilitation,
downpayment assistance and CHDO operating expenses.
Our services are needed and desired as evidenced by the number of referrals we receive and the
waiting list we keep. Our waiting list for accessible housing continues to grow. We receive referrals
and service inquiries on a weekly basis on behalf of people seeking our Residential Services. Also,
in order to live in a home that is operated by MYEP one must have an intellectual or developmental
disability and be approved by the State of Iowa for funding of Supported Community Living
Residential Services. Nearly all of our clients, due to their disability and the funding they receive, fall
in the 0-30% of median income level.
Proforma Spread Sheet Rental Housing ProjectsPlease enter information into "grey" fields only if you are using excel.LineDescriptionSymbolsYR1YR2YR3YR4YR5YR6YR7YR8YR9YR10Revenues1 Gross Rental Income+ G. Rent 14,400.00$ 14,688.00$ 14,981.76$ 15,281.40$ 15,587.02$ 15,898.76$ 16,216.74$ 16,541.07$ 16,871.90$ 17,209.33$ 2 Other Income + O. Income -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3 Tenant Contributions+T. Contrubution -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4 Gross Revenues= G. Income 14,400.00$ 14,688.00$ 14,981.76$ 15,281.40$ 15,587.02$ 15,898.76$ 16,216.74$ 16,541.07$ 16,871.90$ 17,209.33$ 5 Vacancy Loss- Vac 720.00$ 734.40$ 749.09$ 764.07$ 779.35$ 794.94$ 810.84$ 827.05$ 843.59$ 860.47$ (5% Vac. Rate x Gross Income)6Effective Gross Income= EGI 13,680.00$ 13,953.60$ 14,232.67$ 14,517.33$ 14,807.67$ 15,103.83$ 15,405.90$ 15,714.02$ 16,028.30$ 16,348.87$ Operating Expenses7 Insurance700.00$ 721.00$ 742.63$ 764.91$ 787.86$ 811.49$ 835.84$ 860.91$ 886.74$ 913.34$ 8 Maintenance & Structural Repairs750.00$ 772.50$ 795.68$ 819.55$ 844.13$ 869.46$ 895.54$ 922.41$ 950.08$ 978.58$ 9 Management Fees-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10 Misc. Operating Expenses1,350.00$ 1,390.50$ 1,432.22$ 1,475.18$ 1,519.44$ 1,565.02$ 1,611.97$ 1,660.33$ 1,710.14$ 1,761.44$ 11 Property Tax-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12Reserves (Operating reserve no less than $350/unit)787.50$ 811.13$ 835.46$ 860.52$ 886.34$ 912.93$ 940.32$ 968.53$ 997.58$ 1,027.51$ 13 Total Operating Expenses- OPR. Expenses 3,587.50$ 3,695.13$ 3,805.98$ 3,920.16$ 4,037.76$ 4,158.90$ 4,283.66$ 4,412.17$ 4,544.54$ 4,680.87$ 14Net Operating Income=NOI 10,092.50$ 10,258.48$ 10,426.69$ 10,597.17$ 10,769.91$ 10,944.93$ 11,122.24$ 11,301.85$ 11,483.76$ 11,667.99$ 15 Debt Service First Mortgage8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 16 Debt Service Subordinate Mortgage(s)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 17 Total Debt Service-D\S 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 18Cash Flow =CF 1,692.50$ 1,858.48$ 2,026.69$ 2,197.17$ 2,369.91$ 2,544.93$ 2,722.24$ 2,901.85$ 3,083.76$ 3,267.99$ 18(b) Equity Investment In Project-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 19Cash -on- Cash ROICF#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Cash Flow divided by Equity Investmentt in ProjectEquity Invest.Debt Coverage Ratio (after Year 3, shall be no less than 1.20 DCR 1.201488095 1.221247024 1.241273006 1.261567539 1.282132035 1.302967815 1.324076105 1.345458029 1.367114603 1.389046731during compliance period. Encourage 1.20-1.50.) The total of items #7-10 shall be no less than $2,850/unit
YR11YR12YR13YR14YR15YR16YR17YR18YR19YR20LineDescriptionRevenues17,553.52$ 17,904.59$ 18,262.68$ 18,627.94$ 19,000.49$ 19,380.50$ 19,768.11$ 20,163.48$ 20,566.75$ 20,978.08$ 1Gross Rental Income-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2Other Income -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3Tenant Contributions17,553.52$ 17,904.59$ 18,262.68$ 18,627.94$ 19,000.49$ 19,380.50$ 19,768.11$ 20,163.48$ 20,566.75$ 20,978.08$ 4 Gross Revenues877.68$ 895.23$ 913.13$ 931.40$ 950.02$ 969.03$ 988.41$ 1,008.17$ 1,028.34$ 1,048.90$ 5 Vacancy Loss(5% Vac. Rate x Gross Income)16,675.84$ 17,009.36$ 17,349.55$ 17,696.54$ 18,050.47$ 18,411.48$ 18,779.71$ 19,155.30$ 19,538.41$ 19,929.18$ 6Effective Gross IncomeOperating Expenses940.74$ 968.96$ 998.03$ 1,027.97$ 1,058.81$ 1,090.58$ 1,123.29$ 1,156.99$ 1,191.70$ 1,227.45$ 7 Insurance1,007.94$ 1,038.18$ 1,069.32$ 1,101.40$ 1,134.44$ 1,168.48$ 1,203.53$ 1,239.64$ 1,276.82$ 1,315.13$ 8 Maintenance & Structural Repairs-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9 Management Fees1,814.29$ 1,868.72$ 1,924.78$ 1,982.52$ 2,042.00$ 2,103.26$ 2,166.35$ 2,231.34$ 2,298.28$ 2,367.23$ 10 Misc. Operating Expenses-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11 Property Taxes1,058.33$ 1,090.08$ 1,122.79$ 1,156.47$ 1,191.16$ 1,226.90$ 1,263.71$ 1,301.62$ 1,340.67$ 1,380.89$ 12 Reserves4,821.30$ 4,965.94$ 5,114.92$ 5,268.36$ 5,426.42$ 5,589.21$ 5,756.88$ 5,929.59$ 6,107.48$ 6,290.70$ 13 Total Operating Expenses11,854.54$ 12,043.42$ 12,234.63$ 12,428.17$ 12,624.05$ 12,822.27$ 13,022.82$ 13,225.71$ 13,430.93$ 13,638.47$ 14Net Operating Income8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 15 Debt Service First Mortgage-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 16 Debt Service Subordinate Mortgage(s)8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 17 Total Debt Service3,454.54$ 3,643.42$ 3,834.63$ 4,028.17$ 4,224.05$ 4,422.27$ 4,622.82$ 4,825.71$ 5,030.93$ 5,238.47$ 18Cash Flow -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18(b) Equity Investment In Project#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!19Cash -on- Cash ROICash Flow divided by Equity Investmentt in Project1.411255197 1.433740658 1.456503639 1.479544525 1.502863552 1.526460805 1.550336202 1.574489492 1.598920245 1.623627842Debt Coverage Ratio
LineYR1YR2YR3YR4YR5YR6YR7YR8YR9YR10Determining Taxes20 Cash FlowCF 1,692.50$ 1,858.48$ 2,026.69$ 2,197.17$ 2,369.91$ 2,544.93$ 2,722.24$ 2,901.85$ 3,083.76$ 3,267.99$ 21 Depreciation Expenses- DEPR 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 22 Amortization of Fees-AMORTZ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 23 Principal Payments+P 5,500.00$ 5,665.00$ 5,834.95$ 6,010.00$ 6,190.30$ 6,376.01$ 6,567.29$ 6,764.31$ 6,967.24$ 7,176.25$ 24 Reserves+RESERVES 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 25 Earnings (Loss) Before Taxes=EBTx (1,395.00)$ (1,064.03)$ (725.86)$ (380.33)$ (27.29)$ 333.44$ 702.03$ 1,078.65$ 1,463.50$ 1,856.75$ 26 x Tax Rate (35% or 0%)xRATE 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%27 Tax Incurred (Saved)=TAX or (Savings) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cash Flow After Tax28 Cash FlowCF 1,692.50$ 1,858.48$ 2,026.69$ 2,197.17$ 2,369.91$ 2,544.93$ 2,722.24$ 2,901.85$ 3,083.76$ 3,267.99$ 29 Tax Incurred (Tax Saved)- TAX (+SAV) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 30 Cash Flow After Tax=CFATx 1,692.50$ 1,858.48$ 2,026.69$ 2,197.17$ 2,369.91$ 2,544.93$ 2,722.24$ 2,901.85$ 3,083.76$ 3,267.99$ LineTotal Benefit Analysis31 Cash Flow After TaxCFATx 1,692.50$ 1,858.48$ 2,026.69$ 2,197.17$ 2,369.91$ 2,544.93$ 2,722.24$ 2,901.85$ 3,083.76$ 3,267.99$ 32 Rehabilitation Tax Credit+RTC -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 33 Low Income Housing Tax Credit+LIHTC -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 34 Net Sale Proceeds+NSP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 35 Total Benefits After Tax (NCFAT)=NCFATx 1,692.50$ 1,858.48$ 2,026.69$ 2,197.17$ 2,369.91$ 2,544.93$ 2,722.24$ 2,901.85$ 3,083.76$ 3,267.99$ 36 Return on InvestmentROI #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
YR11YR12YR13YR14YR15YR16YR17YR18YR19YR20LineDescriptionDetermining Taxes3,454.54$ 3,643.42$ 3,834.63$ 4,028.17$ 4,224.05$ 4,422.27$ 4,622.82$ 4,825.71$ 5,030.93$ 5,238.47$ 20 Cash Flow9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 9,375.00$ 21 Depreciation Expenses-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22 Amortization of Fees7,391.54$ 7,613.29$ 7,841.68$ 8,076.94$ 8,319.24$ 8,568.82$ 8,825.89$ 9,090.66$ 9,363.38$ 9,644.28$ 23 Principal Payments787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 787.50$ 24 Reserves2,258.58$ 2,669.21$ 3,088.82$ 3,517.61$ 3,955.80$ 4,403.59$ 4,861.21$ 5,328.87$ 5,806.81$ 6,295.26$ 25 Earnings (Loss) Before Taxes0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%26 x Tax Rate (35% or 0%)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 27 Tax Incurred (Saved)Cash Flow After Tax3,454.54$ 3,643.42$ 3,834.63$ 4,028.17$ 4,224.05$ 4,422.27$ 4,622.82$ 4,825.71$ 5,030.93$ 5,238.47$ 28 Cash Flow-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 29 Tax Incurred (Tax Saved)3,454.54$ 3,643.42$ 3,834.63$ 4,028.17$ 4,224.05$ 4,422.27$ 4,622.82$ 4,825.71$ 5,030.93$ 5,238.47$ 30 Cash Flow After TaxLineTotal Benefit Analysis3,454.54$ 3,643.42$ 3,834.63$ 4,028.17$ 4,224.05$ 4,422.27$ 4,622.82$ 4,825.71$ 5,030.93$ 5,238.47$ 31 Cash Flow After Tax-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 32 Rehabilitation Tax Credit-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 33 Low Income Housing Tax Credit-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 34 Net Sale Proceeds3,454.54$ 3,643.42$ 3,834.63$ 4,028.17$ 4,224.05$ 4,422.27$ 4,622.82$ 4,825.71$ 5,030.93$ 5,238.47$ 35 Total Benefits After Tax (NCFAT)#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!36 Return on Investment
2
General Information
1. Project Name and Address: Fairweather Lodge Permanent Supportive Housing
Address yet to be determined
2. Type of Project (check one): Homeownership Rental* Tenant Based Rent Asst.
Rehabilitation* Other
*Rental and Rental Rehabilitation projects require the completion of rental housing pro forma
3. Lead Applicant Name: Shelter House
Applicant Address: 429 Southgate Avenue, Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person, Title: Crissy Canganelli, Executive Director
Phone Number: 319-338-5416 ext 200
Fax Number: 319-358-7132
E-mail Address: crissy@shelterhouseiowa.org
DUNS Number (must obtain if funded): 827151770
4. Secondary Applicant (if applicable):
Applicant Address:
Contact Person, Title:
Phone Number:
Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
5. Type of Applicant (check one):
Community Housing Development Organization Private non-profit organization
Private for-profit, individual or partnership applicant Public Organization
6. Amount of HOME Funds Requested: $185,000
7. Did you attend an Applicant Workshop? No
Yes, attended on January 4, 2018
8. Provide a brief, one paragraph description of the proposed project:
Shelter House is requesting funds to purchase a fourth home to be utilized as Permanent
Supportive Housing (PSH) employing the Fairweather Lodge model. All three of the existing
Lodge homes are at full occupancy and the program wait list for eligible individuals has persisted
at an average of 12 adults. The Fairweather Lodge is an evidence based PSH Program. The
3
Shelter House Fairweather Lodge began in 2011 and continues today as a demonstration
program for the state of Iowa. It is a recovery focused, peer driven PSH program for adults
experiencing homelessness diagnosed with a serious persistent mental illness, many of whom
have a co-occurring disorder (COD). The model combines embedded health and mental health
services, and daily living and peer support with supported employment in a cooperative living
environment and is predicated on the belief that people who live and work together, and have
significant control over their lives, can overcome homelessness and recover from their mental
illnesses. Research and experience have shown that many people fail in individual housing
placements because of social isolation and lack of consistent service support in addition to
affordability problems. In contrast, the Lodge experience has shown that a self-governing group
living with built-in peer support provides functional control of mental illness symptoms and
combats homelessness by creating housing conditions that tenants trust. At the same time, the
cooperative living model ensures housing affordability (rent is controlled at no more than 30% of
income) and a model that is easily integrated into existing neighborhoods. The Fairweather
Lodge Program produces benefits for both the individual Lodge members and our community at-
large. Program outcomes include reduced hospitalization, increased housing stability, increased
employment, increased financial independence, increased social network and community
involvement and reduced criminal justice system involvement. Locally, Lodge participants have
demonstrated a 79% decrease in hospitalizations, 90% decrease in emergency room visits and
psychiatric and inpatient treatment stays, and a 99.9% decrease in nights incarcerated.
Section 1 – Need/Priority
9. Please specify the one or two most applicable priority need(s) this application addresses, as
shown in the 2016-2020 CITY STEPS Plan, and explain how this project will meet this/those
need(s).
The project proposal directly responds to the following two High Priority Needs as indicated in the
2016 – 2020 CITY STEPS Priority Needs Summary Chart on pages 96 and 97:
1. Expanding Affordable Rental and Owner Housing Opportunities
2. Housing and Related Services for the Homeless and Those at Risk of Homelessness
The Fairweather Lodge combines and links permanent, affordable housing (tenants have the legal
right to remain in the unit as long as they wish, as defined by the terms of a renewable lease
agreement and pay no more than 30% of income for housing) with flexible, voluntary support
services designed to help tenants stay housed and address health issues while building the
necessary skills to live as independently as possible. It is a Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)
intervention. PSH is an evidence-based housing intervention prioritized for individuals with complex
health and behavioral health issues and has been proven to significantly reduce returns to jail and
homelessness, reliance on emergency health services, and improves overall quality of life. The
cooperative living model works well to contain overall housing costs.
Johnson County (a) sits astride the intersection of two major interstate highway systems (a
gravitational pull for the homeless), and (b) contains three major hospitals, each with a psychiatric
inpatient unit (a disproportionate number of mentally ill persons settle here). The proposed housing
intervention provides a non-traditional housing option in a housing market that resists high-density,
multi-family, affordable dwellings for the low-income population. It lends itself well to a scattered-site
approach, blending well into existing residential neighborhoods.
Fairweather Lodge housing opportunities are targeted for individuals experiencing homelessness
with a diagnosed serious mental illness (diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, serious
depression, etc…). Overwhelmingly, individuals within this cohort of the homeless population are or
have been criminal justice system involved, have poor credit and rental histories (if they exist at all),
and limited income (as SSI/SSDI are often the only income sources). These challenges combined
make it virtually impossible to access existing housing and services in our community and
4
necessitates a different approach—Permanent Supportive Housing. For many years Shelter House
staff could do nothing more than witness a heartbreaking cycle experienced by many of these
individuals who are among our most vulnerable clients. When we were successful in helping them
get back on their medications, back to work and move from shelter to their own housing, over time
living independently would turn into isolation. Many would begin to decompensate, failing to take
their medications, would stop showing up for work, and eventually losing their housing only to return
to homelessness. The Fairweather Lodge Program provides the tools, resources, and supports
necessary for these same individuals to entirely turn this trajectory around. This has been
evidenced in our community and across the nation as thousands of individuals with serious mental
illness have reclaimed their lives as happy and healthy members of their communities.
The Lodge model is holistic. The different program components work in combination to develop and
nurture the dimensions of our individual lives essential to achieving and maintaining health. The
Shelter House Lodge program provides:
o Permanent Supportive Housing via three single-family houses located in Iowa City and
Coralville. Each house has six private bedrooms and a shared kitchen, living room,
bathroom, and outdoor space. Lodge Members pay rent, determine their own group
house rules, and share in the daily house chores and costs of food and basic living
supplies. Lodge Members are able to maintain this housing permanently.
o Supported Employment is available to all Lodge participants via Fresh Starts janitorial
services—a Shelter House owned and operated business. Each Lodge participant
begins employment the first day in the program and earns a competitive wage. Lodge
staff provides supervision and mental health support on each jobsite.
o Daily Medication Support is provided by the Lodge Coordinator who assists with ordering
and reconciling medications for Lodge participants. The Lodge program further
regularizes medication management incorporating med group as a part of daily life.
Participants lead, record and verify medications taken as a group with the support of their
peers. Some Lodge members take over 15 medications per day. The structured peer-
driven approach works to regularize and streamline med management and prevents
gaps in prescription coverage which otherwise frequently occur.
o Access to Psychiatric Care and Counseling Support provided by specialized community
volunteers and Lodge staff. Shelter House has contracted with the University of Iowa
Hospitals and Clinics and Iowa City VA Health Care System for an on-call psychiatrist
who is the primary psychiatrist for all Lodge members. The Lodge psychiatrist is
embedded, maintains regularly scheduled hours, assists with medication adjustments
and responds to crisis calls as needed. Additionally, Lodge staff work closely with a
faculty member from the University of Iowa Counseling Psychology program who
supervises several PhD students working with Lodge members. These specialized
students provide one-on-one and group support each week and on-going counseling to
Lodge Members.
o Supported Community Living (SCL) person-centered services designed to support and
encourage individuals with mental illness, brain injuries, and developmental disabilities to
live as independently as possible in their own homes. Staff is available to provide
individualized services at times that are convenient to the person served with the goal of
maintain independent living and health while increasing involvement in the community.
o Peer Support and Accountability is one of the more unique components of the Lodge and
essential to the success of the program overall. Lodge clients work extensively on
communication skills that foster a supportive environment necessary to living in a
cooperative setting. Staff involvement is limited and used only when necessary; Lodge
Members are supported as they make decisions and choices that affect their lives and
the program. Lodge Members provide support to one another through daily medication
groups, pool income to make purchases, develop and uphold house rules, provide
emotional support and advice, and address conflict in a constructive manner.
5
Section 2 – Leveraging Resources/Budget
10. Provide the requested loan terms and affordability period:
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate
Loan
Amortization
(Years)
Affordability
Period
(Years)
Yearly
Payment
Terms
Requested*
$185,000 0% 20 35 $9250
*Financing terms will be based on project feasibility and the ability to repay the loan. Terms approved by City
Council may be different than what is requested.
11a. Please complete the table below showing the types and amounts of funding being
requested for the proposed project. Please check the appropriate box if the funding
source is committed. If not a loan, leave loan terms blank. If not committed, please
indicate when the applicant will apply for funds in Question 15.
Funding Source & Type: Amount Int. rate
Amortization
Term Committed?
Iowa City HOME Funding
(public)
$185,000 0% 20 yrs Loan Yes No
State of Iowa HOME or
CDBG (public)
$ Yes No
IFA – Low Income
Housing Tax Credits
$ Yes No
Bank Loan (private) $ Yes No
Other Private Resources
Private Fundraising $72,850 Yes No
Total $257,850
11b. Please provide the uses of funds for the project.
Uses of Funds (if applicable)
Cost estimate
received? Amount
Name of entity providing
cost estimate
Acquisition:
Building Acquisition y $255,000 Urban Acres
Land Acquisition $
Site Improvements $
Construction / Rehabilitation $
Professional Fees $2,850
Construction Finance $
Permanent Finance $
6
Uses of Funds (if applicable)
Cost estimate
received? Amount
Name of entity providing
cost estimate
Developer Fee / Overhead $
Reserves $
Other (please specify): $
$
Total (Must equal total in 11a) $257,850
Amount of Private Funds $ 72,850 (a)
Amount of Public Funds $185,000 (b)
Total Project Funding $257,850 (c) a + b
Number of bedrooms or persons served 6 (d)
Total Cost Per bedroom or person served $ 42,975 (e) c d
11c. What percentage of the proposed budget will be made up of private funds? 28.25%
12. Describe any community partnerships or volunteers that will contribute to the project.
Fairweather Lodge programming requires substantial community involvement and volunteer
support. Community volunteers lead weekly groups ranging in subject matter from art to
gardening. Specialized volunteers from the University of Iowa’s PhD program in Counseling
Psychology and the College of Nursing share in both daily and weekly counseling, workshops and
clinics (facilitated group discussions range from Self -Empowerment and Stress Management to
Illness Management and Recovery). Psychiatric services are embedded in the Lodge in
partnership with both the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and the VA Health Care System
and are an in-kind contribution to Shelter House. The Supported Employment component of the
program brings forth yet another partnership dimension in so much as area not-for-profits and the
City of Iowa City contract for janitorial services with Fresh Starts and in-so-doing ensure
supported employment for Lodge members.
13. Describe any identity of interest (IOI) relationships with the applicant and/or project owner,
i.e. General Partner has a financial interest in the construction company, etc.
Not Applicable
14. Program regulations require a minimum 25% match for HOME funding. Describe how your
organization or the proposed project will help the City of Iowa City meet this match
requirement for local HOME funds.
Shelter House intends to raise private funds to meet the project goal through grant writing and
fundraising activities.
Local HOME funds requested: $185,000 x .25 = $46,250 Local Match
7
Section 3 – Feasibility/Need for Subsidy
15. Briefly outline the proposed timetable for the commitment and expenditure of the funding
being requested (include other project factors such as rezoning, construction schedule, or
application(s) for other funding). If applicant plans to apply for funds not committed to the
project yet, include the anticipated date for application. If funded, this schedule will be
used for any project agreement for the use of HOME funding.
Date: Description of Activity:
July 2018 HOME funding committed
Aug-Dec 2018 Fundraising for balance of project
February 2019 Property Acquired and closing
March 2019 Move-in of Lodge Tenants
June 2019 Full Occupancy
17. To help promote the efficient use of federal, state, and local funding, please describe how
the project will maintain long-term (in excess of CDBG/HOME program requirements) or
permanent affordability or public assistance; and describe how the project will provide for
affordable housing or public assistance at rates or prices lower than those in the existing
market.
The Fairweather Lodge is a recovery focused, peer driven Permanent Supportive Housing Program
for adults experiencing homelessness diagnosed with a serious persistent mental illness, many of
whom have a co-occurring disorder (COD). Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) combines and
links permanent, affordable housing (tenants have the legal right to remain in the unit as long as
they wish, as defined by the terms of a renewable lease agreement and pay no more than 30% of
their income on housing) with flexible, voluntary support services designed to help tenants stay
housed and address health issues while building the necessary skills to live as independently as
possible.
PSH is an evidence-based housing intervention prioritized for individuals with complex health and
behavioral health issues and has been proven to significantly reduce returns to jail and
homelessness, reliance on emergency health services, and improves overall quality of life. In so
doing, cost savings are realized across multiple systems and in both the public (local, state, and
federal) and private sectors. Shelter House is committed to maintaining and expanding Permanent
Supportive Housing opportunities for this vulnerable population and gives full assurance that rents
will remain affordable through the requisite affordability period and forward through the life of the
Lodge home.
18. In what manner or form will the project proceed if it is awarded less than full funding? If
there are several components, how will they be prioritized?
If awarded less than full funding, Shelter House will increase the fundraising goal and strive to
raise the balance of funds necessary to acquire a fourth Lodge home. As a result, the time frame
to raise the balance of funds may ultimately be extended.
8
Section 4 – Impact/Benefit to the Community
19. Please indicate the number of persons that will be served by the proposed project by
income category. (The information in this table will be used as income targeting for the
CDBG/HOME Agreement).
Housing
0 - 30% median income ___6____ households (a)
31 – 50% median income _______ households (b)
51 – 60% median income _______ households (c)
61 - 80% median income _______ households (d)
Over 80% median income _______ households (e)
Total __6_____ households (f)
Percent LMI ___100%__ (a+b+c+d) ÷ f
Section 5 – Capacity/History of the Applicant
20. Please list amount of CDBG and/or HOME funds received within the last four City fiscal
years and the status of the project(s) undertaken.
Fiscal Year Funds Recv’d
Budgeted
Amount
Amount Expended
(as of December 31)
Date Project
Completed
July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015 $ $
July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 $ $
July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 $25,000 $25,000 Land acquired
October, 2016
July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 $ $
*Six months remaining in FY18 at time of this application.
21. Is the applicant (including partners, co-applicants, etc.) currently in compliance with all
federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations, including any CDBG and/or HOME
funded projects?
Yes No
If “NO” or a matter is currently in litigation please provide the name of the case and explain the basis
for the case.
9
22. Please describe the education and experience of the key staff who will be implementing
the project. Staff does not include volunteers, board members and consultants. If utilized,
please identify what role a consultant will play in the development of this project.
Crissy Canganelli has served as the Executive Director of Shelter House since 1998 and is the
project lead. Crissy has a Bachelor’s in Economics and Masters in Urban and Regional Planning
both from the University of Iowa. She is Chair of the Local Homeless Coordinating Board, a
founding and current board member of the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County, and serves on
the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition and Executive Committee of the Johnson
County System of Care. She also serves on the Governor appointed Iowa Council on
Homelessness as the Chair of the Policy and Planning Committee. With the support of the
Shelter House Board of Directors, Crissy lead Shelter House through the campaign to build the
shelter facility located at 429 Southgate (a six-year project that was litigated all the way to the
Iowa Supreme Court). She has further lead the organization through both the growth and change
necessary to develop and sustain a continuum of services intended to help men, women, and
their families obtain and maintain employment, housing, and health benefits for which they qualify
all with the intention of moving beyond homelessness. In her role as both the Executive Director
of Shelter House and Chair of the LHCB she has worked to build partnerships and collaborations
across both the public and private sectors throughout our community.
Mark Sertterh, Shelter House Associate Executive Director, has been with the organization since
the spring of 2011. Mark has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Iowa and has
worked in the mental health and housing fields for over 20 years. Mark provides oversight and
direction for all Shelter House programming and has led the work to reorient all aspects of the
agency to conform to a Rapid Rehousing and Housing First approach. Mark is the lead tasked
with development and implementation of Coordinated Entry for Johnson and Washington
Counties and serves on the Mayors Youth and HACAP Board of Directors, the Local Homeless
Coordinating Board of Johnson County and Coordinated Entry and Policy and Planning
Committees of the Iowa Council on Homelessness.
Erin Sullivan has been with Shelter House since the fall of 2010. She has a Bachelor of Arts
degree from the University of Iowa with a major in Psychology. As the Shelter House Mental
Health Recovery Manager, Erin has worked to create and implement the Lodge Program
including recruitment of specialized volunteers, and building relationships with other community
agencies and stakeholders. She works closely with the University of Iowa Counseling Psychology
program, College of Nursing and the Iowa City VA to secure needed services related to mental
health, counseling, and medications. She has also been the liaison between the Lodge Program
and the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics to secure and maintain psychiatric care for all
Lodge participants. Erin supervises the Lodge staff, Fresh Starts staff, SCL staff, and Peer
Support Specialist(s). She manages the program budgets and is working in conjunction with
others on the Shelter House team to increase Lodge income through stable janitorial contracts
and Medicaid billable services. She continues to focus on building stronger Lodge households in
terms of peer support and various aspects of recovery such as community engagement and
medication management.
23. Please describe your organization’s structure, officers, and staff.
Shelter House is governed by a 15 member Board of Directors. The Board meets monthly and
reviews financial and program reports on a monthly basis. The Executive Director reports directly to
the Board. Internally, Shelter House is structured according to the following service areas: 1)
Emergency Shelter and Drop-In Services, 2) Food Services, 3) Housing and Employment
Stabilization Services (Rapid Rehousing), 3) Mental Health Recovery (Fairweather Lodge
Permanent Supportive Housing, Supported Community Living, and Fresh Starts Janitorial Services
Supported Employment), 4) Housing First Permanent Supportive Housing (Cross Park Place). Each
area is led by a respective manager who in turn supervises a team of direct service providers
(shelter coordinators, case managers, and Supported Community Living providers). The
10
management team reports to the Associate Executive Director. The Associate Executive Director,
Development Director and Finance Director report to the Executive Director.
24. Please provide a summary of your organization’s portfolio. Include how many rental units
you own/manage, how many homes you have built/rehabilitated/sold and what projects are
in the pipeline.
Shelter House has provided emergency shelter and therefore managed a shelter facility since 1983.
From 1983 to 2010 we operated out of a single family home on the Northside of Iowa City (331
North Gilbert Street). In November of 2010 we moved to a new shelter facility on Southgate Avenue.
The Southgate Avenue facility is a two-story building with more than 14,000 square feet, owned and
managed by Shelter House through which we provide emergency shelter and services for hundreds
of men, women, and children each year. In 2011 Shelter House moved into the arena of Permanent
Supportive Housing. We now own and manage three homes (two in Iowa City and one in Coralville)
through which we provide Permanent Supportive Housing using the Fairweather Lodge model for up
to 18 adults (six adults per home) each with a diagnosis of a serious mental illness (schizophrenia,
bipolar disorder, serious depression, etc.. .). As of April of this year, construction is underway on a
new Permanent Supportive Housing project (Cross Park Place) that will utilize a Housing First
approach. Cross Park Place will be a two-story building with over 14,000 square feet comprised of
24 one-bedroom apartments, onsite offices, clinic and congregate areas. The housing opportunities
will be targeted for chronically homeless individuals who demonstrate high cross-system service
utilization. Shelter House has been responsible for multiple rehab projects on the rental properties
that we own and before that the original shelter facility and only two new construction projects (the
Southgate Avenue facility in 2010 and Cross Park Place in 2018).
25. Please identify the relevant market factors that will assist the City in verifying the demand
for the proposed housing based on the City of Iowa City HOME Market Analysis Policy for
New Rental Construction, Rental Rehab. & Acquisition of Existing Homes (rental), or New
Owner-Occupied Home Construction & Acquisition of Existing Homes (owner-occupied). If
the project is large or complicated, the City may require a Market Analysis to support the
project before entering a legally binding agreement for funds. This policy is not applicable
to projects requesting funds for tenant based rental assistance, homeowner rehabilitation,
downpayment assistance and CHDO operating expenses.
If funded, this proposal would allow for the development of six additional units of Permanent
Supportive Housing using the Fairweather Lodge model. Housing opportunities are targeted for
adults experiencing homelessness diagnosed with a serious persistent mental illness, many of
whom have a co-occurring disorder (COD). The Fairweather Lodge is recovery focused, peer
driven program in which men and women live and work in community. While each Lodge member
has their own private bedroom all other areas of the home are shared living spaces. Data is not
available on vacancy rates for SRO type units and even so this is not strictly SRO as voluntary
services are embedded within the home and work environments (therein permanent supportive
housing).
Average rental costs on the open market are persistently high and well out of reach for low
income individuals and families let alone those with very low income (at or below 30%AMI).
Whereas this alone demonstrates the need for additional affordable housing to be developed it is
the nature of the intended service population that must also be taken into consideration. Shelter
House has over thirty years of experience in working with men, women, and children experiencing
homelessness in our community. We are able to help the majority of those within the general
homeless population to transition to housing within the existing market each year—although they
are more often than not severely cost burdened. In contrast, the housing model proposed in this
submission is intended for the vulnerable and harder-to-house within the overall homeless
population—those with serious persistent mental illness who almost without exception have
criminal records, bad credit histories, poor rental histories (if they exist at all), and limited income
(as SSI/SSDI are often the only income sources). These challenges combined make it virtually
11
impossible to access existing housing and services in our community and requires us to develop
and intentional opportunities.
All three of the existing Lodge homes are at full occupancy. Shelter House maintains a waiting
list for eligible individuals and this waiting list has persisted at an average of 12 adults. This is a
specialized model for individuals who are committed to their mental health recovery and have
identified that living and working in community are integral to their maintenance of recovery. For
these reasons, Cross Park Place would not be an optimal housing placement.
Proforma Spread Sheet
Rental Housing Projects
Please enter information into "grey" fields only if you are using excel.
Line Description Symbols YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR6 YR7 YR8 YR9 YR10
Revenues
1 Gross Rental Income + G. Rent 29,808.00$ 30,404.16$ 31,012.24$ 31,632.49$ 32,265.14$ 32,910.44$ 33,568.65$ 34,240.02$ 34,924.82$ 35,623.32$
2 Other Income + O. Income -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
3 Tenant Contributions +T. Contrubution -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
4 Gross Revenues = G. Income 29,808.00$ 30,404.16$ 31,012.24$ 31,632.49$ 32,265.14$ 32,910.44$ 33,568.65$ 34,240.02$ 34,924.82$ 35,623.32$
5 Vacancy Loss - Vac 1,490.40$ 1,520.21$ 1,550.61$ 1,581.62$ 1,613.26$ 1,645.52$ 1,678.43$ 1,712.00$ 1,746.24$ 1,781.17$
(5% Vac. Rate x Gross Income)
6 Effective Gross Income = EGI 28,317.60$ 28,883.95$ 29,461.63$ 30,050.86$ 30,651.88$ 31,264.92$ 31,890.22$ 32,528.02$ 33,178.58$ 33,842.15$
Operating Expenses
7 Insurance 2,950.00$ 3,038.50$ 3,129.66$ 3,223.54$ 3,320.25$ 3,419.86$ 3,522.45$ 3,628.13$ 3,736.97$ 3,849.08$
8 Maintenance & Structural Repairs 3,250.00$ 3,347.50$ 3,447.93$ 3,551.36$ 3,657.90$ 3,767.64$ 3,880.67$ 3,997.09$ 4,117.00$ 4,240.51$
9 Management Fees 2,085.00$ 2,147.55$ 2,211.98$ 2,278.34$ 2,346.69$ 2,417.09$ 2,489.60$ 2,564.29$ 2,641.22$ 2,720.45$
10 Misc. Operating Expenses 3,950.00$ 4,068.50$ 4,190.56$ 4,316.27$ 4,445.76$ 4,579.13$ 4,716.51$ 4,858.00$ 5,003.74$ 5,153.85$
11 Property Tax 3,380.00$ 1,690.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
12 Reserves (Operating reserve no less than $350/unit)2,100.00$ 2,163.00$ 2,227.89$ 2,294.73$ 2,363.57$ 2,434.48$ 2,507.51$ 2,582.74$ 2,660.22$ 2,740.02$
13 Total Operating Expenses - OPR. Expenses 17,715.00$ 16,455.05$ 15,208.00$ 15,664.24$ 16,134.17$ 16,618.19$ 17,116.74$ 17,630.24$ 18,159.15$ 18,703.92$
14 Net Operating Income =NOI 10,602.60$ 12,428.90$ 14,253.63$ 14,386.62$ 14,517.71$ 14,646.72$ 14,773.48$ 14,897.78$ 15,019.43$ 15,138.23$
15 Debt Service First Mortgage 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$
16 Debt Service Subordinate Mortgage(s)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
17 Total Debt Service -D\S 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$
18 Cash Flow =CF 1,352.60$ 3,178.90$ 5,003.63$ 5,136.62$ 5,267.71$ 5,396.72$ 5,523.48$ 5,647.78$ 5,769.43$ 5,888.23$
18(b)Equity Investment In Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
19 Cash -on- Cash ROI CF #DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!
Cash Flow divided by Equity Investmentt in Project Equity Invest.
Debt Coverage Ratio (after Year 3, shall be no less than 1.20 DCR 1.146227027 1.343665081 1.540932923 1.555310499 1.569482394 1.583429697 1.597132676 1.610570746 1.62372244 1.636565376
during compliance period. Encourage 1.20-1.50.)
The total of items
#7-10 shall be no
less than
$2,850/unit
Line YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR6 YR7 YR8 YR9 YR10
Determining Taxes
20 Cash Flow CF 1,352.60$ 3,178.90$ 5,003.63$ 5,136.62$ 5,267.71$ 5,396.72$ 5,523.48$ 5,647.78$ 5,769.43$ 5,888.23$
21 Depreciation Expenses - DEPR -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
22 Amortization of Fees -AMORTZ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
23 Principal Payments +P -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
24 Reserves +RESERVES 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$
25 Earnings (Loss) Before Taxes =EBTx 3,452.60$ 5,278.90$ 7,103.63$ 7,236.62$ 7,367.71$ 7,496.72$ 7,623.48$ 7,747.78$ 7,869.43$ 7,988.23$
26 x Tax Rate (35% or 0%)xRATE 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
27 Tax Incurred (Saved)=TAX or (Savings)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Cash Flow After Tax
28 Cash Flow CF 1,352.60$ 3,178.90$ 5,003.63$ 5,136.62$ 5,267.71$ 5,396.72$ 5,523.48$ 5,647.78$ 5,769.43$ 5,888.23$
29 Tax Incurred (Tax Saved)- TAX (+SAV)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
30 Cash Flow After Tax =CFATx 1,352.60$ 3,178.90$ 5,003.63$ 5,136.62$ 5,267.71$ 5,396.72$ 5,523.48$ 5,647.78$ 5,769.43$ 5,888.23$
Line Total Benefit Analysis
31 Cash Flow After Tax CFATx 1,352.60$ 3,178.90$ 5,003.63$ 5,136.62$ 5,267.71$ 5,396.72$ 5,523.48$ 5,647.78$ 5,769.43$ 5,888.23$
32 Rehabilitation Tax Credit +RTC -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
33 Low Income Housing Tax Credit +LIHTC -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
34 Net Sale Proceeds +NSP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
35 Total Benefits After Tax (NCFAT)=NCFATx 1,352.60$ 3,178.90$ 5,003.63$ 5,136.62$ 5,267.71$ 5,396.72$ 5,523.48$ 5,647.78$ 5,769.43$ 5,888.23$
36 Return on Investment ROI #DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!
YR11 YR12 YR13 YR14 YR15 YR16 YR17 YR18 YR19 YR20 Line Description
Revenues
36,335.79$ 37,062.50$ 37,803.75$ 38,559.83$ 39,331.02$ 40,117.64$ 40,920.00$ 41,738.40$ 42,573.16$ 43,424.63$ 1 Gross Rental Income
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2 Other Income
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3 Tenant Contributions
36,335.79$ 37,062.50$ 37,803.75$ 38,559.83$ 39,331.02$ 40,117.64$ 40,920.00$ 41,738.40$ 42,573.16$ 43,424.63$ 4 Gross Revenues
1,816.79$ 1,853.13$ 1,890.19$ 1,927.99$ 1,966.55$ 2,005.88$ 2,046.00$ 2,086.92$ 2,128.66$ 2,171.23$ 5 Vacancy Loss
(5% Vac. Rate x Gross Income)
34,519.00$ 35,209.38$ 35,913.56$ 36,631.84$ 37,364.47$ 38,111.76$ 38,874.00$ 39,651.48$ 40,444.51$ 41,253.40$ 6 Effective Gross Income
Operating Expenses
3,964.55$ 4,083.49$ 4,205.99$ 4,332.17$ 4,462.14$ 4,596.00$ 4,733.88$ 4,875.90$ 5,022.18$ 5,172.84$ 7 Insurance
4,367.73$ 4,498.76$ 4,633.72$ 4,772.73$ 4,915.92$ 5,063.39$ 5,215.30$ 5,371.75$ 5,532.91$ 5,698.89$ 8 Maintenance & Structural Repairs
2,802.07$ 2,886.13$ 2,972.71$ 3,061.89$ 3,153.75$ 3,248.36$ 3,345.81$ 3,446.19$ 3,549.57$ 3,656.06$ 9 Management Fees
5,308.47$ 5,467.72$ 5,631.76$ 5,800.71$ 5,974.73$ 6,153.97$ 6,338.59$ 6,528.75$ 6,724.61$ 6,926.35$ 10 Misc. Operating Expenses
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11 Property Taxes
2,822.22$ 2,906.89$ 2,994.10$ 3,083.92$ 3,176.44$ 3,271.73$ 3,369.88$ 3,470.98$ 3,575.11$ 3,682.36$ 12 Reserves
19,265.04$ 19,842.99$ 20,438.28$ 21,051.43$ 21,682.97$ 22,333.46$ 23,003.47$ 23,693.57$ 24,404.38$ 25,136.51$ 13 Total Operating Expenses
15,253.96$ 15,366.38$ 15,475.28$ 15,580.40$ 15,681.50$ 15,778.30$ 15,870.53$ 15,957.91$ 16,040.13$ 16,116.89$ 14 Net Operating Income
9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 15 Debt Service First Mortgage
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 16 Debt Service Subordinate Mortgage(s)
9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 9,250.00$ 17 Total Debt Service
6,003.96$ 6,116.38$ 6,225.28$ 6,330.40$ 6,431.50$ 6,528.30$ 6,620.53$ 6,707.91$ 6,790.13$ 6,866.89$ 18 Cash Flow
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18(b)Equity Investment In Project
#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!19 Cash -on- Cash ROI
Cash Flow divided by Equity Investmentt in Project
1.649076226 1.661230679 1.673003409 1.684368036 1.695297094 1.705761983 1.715732938 1.725178984 1.734067893 1.742366139 Debt Coverage Ratio
YR11 YR12 YR13 YR14 YR15 YR16 YR17 YR18 YR19 YR20 Line Description
Determining Taxes
6,003.96$ 6,116.38$ 6,225.28$ 6,330.40$ 6,431.50$ 6,528.30$ 6,620.53$ 6,707.91$ 6,790.13$ 6,866.89$ 20 Cash Flow
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 21 Depreciation Expenses
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22 Amortization of Fees
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 23 Principal Payments
2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$ 24 Reserves
8,103.96$ 8,216.38$ 8,325.28$ 8,430.40$ 8,531.50$ 8,628.30$ 8,720.53$ 8,807.91$ 8,890.13$ 8,966.89$ 25 Earnings (Loss) Before Taxes
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%26 x Tax Rate (35% or 0%)
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 27 Tax Incurred (Saved)
Cash Flow After Tax
6,003.96$ 6,116.38$ 6,225.28$ 6,330.40$ 6,431.50$ 6,528.30$ 6,620.53$ 6,707.91$ 6,790.13$ 6,866.89$ 28 Cash Flow
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 29 Tax Incurred (Tax Saved)
6,003.96$ 6,116.38$ 6,225.28$ 6,330.40$ 6,431.50$ 6,528.30$ 6,620.53$ 6,707.91$ 6,790.13$ 6,866.89$ 30 Cash Flow After Tax
Line Total Benefit Analysis
6,003.96$ 6,116.38$ 6,225.28$ 6,330.40$ 6,431.50$ 6,528.30$ 6,620.53$ 6,707.91$ 6,790.13$ 6,866.89$ 31 Cash Flow After Tax
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 32 Rehabilitation Tax Credit
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 33 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 34 Net Sale Proceeds
6,003.96$ 6,116.38$ 6,225.28$ 6,330.40$ 6,431.50$ 6,528.30$ 6,620.53$ 6,707.91$ 6,790.13$ 6,866.89$ 35 Total Benefits After Tax (NCFAT)
#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!36 Return on Investment
Prepared by: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington St, Iowa City, IA; 319-356-5240 (CPA18-00001)
Resolution No. ______________
A resolution amending the C omprehensive plan, Annexation Policy, to
add a section pertaining to afforda ble housing.
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan contains policies regarding annexation of land into the city;
and
W hereas, the Comprehensive Plan contains a goal of providing a mix of housing types within
each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.)
and people of all incomes, and
Whereas, the Affordable Housing Action Plan includes a recommendation that consideration
be given to an annexation policy that provides for affordable housing contributions, an d
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan pertaining to affordable housing and has recommended approval.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update, Annexation Policy, is hereby amended to include the
following:
If the annexation is for residential development that will result in the creation of ten
(10) or more new housing units, the development will support the City’s goal of
creating and maintaining the supply of affordable housing. Such support shall be
based on providing affordable units equal to 10% of the total units in the annexed
area with an assurance of long term affordability, preferably for a term of not le ss
than 20 years. Income targets shall be consistent with the City’s existing program
requirements. How the development provides such support will vary depending
on the particular circumstances of the annexation, and may include, but is not
limited to, transfer of lots/units to the City or an affordable housing provider; fee -
in-lieu paid to the City’s affordable housing fund; and/or participation in a state or
federal housing program. In determining the most desirable option consideration
shall be given to the interest of both the City and the Iowa City Community School
District in not exacerbating the burdens on neighborhoods and elementary schools
experiencing challenges related to concentrations of poverty. An agreement
committing the Owner/Developer to the affordable housing obligation, shall be
required prior to annexation, and shall be further memorialized, if necessary, in a
conditional zoning agreement.
Passed and approved this _________ day of _____________________, 20__.
________________________________________
Mayor:
Approved by:
Attest:___________________________ ________________________
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk City Attorney's Office
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:Jim Throgmorton
Sent:Thursday, July 05, 2018 11:29 AM
To:Tracy Hightshoe
Cc:Geoff Fruin; Kirk Lehmann
Subject:RE: Annexation Policy
Hi Tracy.
I suggested they following sentence:
In determining the most desirable option, preference shall be weighted toward options that help achieve better socio‐
economic balance among Iowa City neighborhoods and among schools in the Iowa City Community School District.
Mayor Jim Throgmorton
Iowa City City Council, At‐Large
________________________________________
From: Tracy Hightshoe
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 10:35 AM
To: Jim Throgmorton
Cc: Geoff Fruin; Kirk Lehmann
Subject: Annexation Policy
Hello,
We were hoping to send the sentence that you suggested at the last Council meeting to HCDC for review in regards to
the annexation policy and affordable housing goals. I didn’t get all the sentence written down at the meeting. Can you
email me what you suggested? We will include this and have HCDC review it at their July 10 meeting.
Thanks!
[cid:image001.png@01D3DBAC.A91A0930]
RAGBRAI Iowa City
Tracy Hightshoe
NDS Director | City of Iowa City
319‐356‐5244
410 E Washington St | Iowa City, IA
www.icgov.org<http://www.icgov.org/>
[cid:image002.png@01D3DBAC.A91A0930]<https://www.facebook.com/IowaCityRAGBRAI/>[cid:image003.png@01D3D
BAC.A91A0930]<https://twitter.com/RAGBRAI_IC>[cid:image004.png@01D3DBAC.A91A0930]<https://www.instagram.c
om/ragbrai_ic/>