Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC Packet 07-11-2019Agenda Housing & Community Development Commission (HCDC) Thursday, July 11, 2019 6:30 P.M. Senior Center, Room 202 28 S. Linn Street, Iowa City Use the Washington Street entrance or 2nd floor skywalk via Tower Place parking garage 1. Call meeting to order 2. Approval of the June 20, 2019 minutes 3. Public comment of items not on the agenda 4. Recommend to City Council modifications to the Aid to Agencies process and approve FY21 Aid to Agencies forms 5. Review and discuss the South District Home Investment Program 6. Nominate and elect officers 7. Staff/commission comment 8. Adjournment 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: July 3, 2019 To: Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) From: Neighborhood Service Staff Re: July 11, 2019 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. * Indicates Action Item ** Indicates Possible Action Item Item 1. Call Meeting to order Item 2. Approval of the June 20, 2019 minutes* Item 3. Public comment of items not on the agenda Item 4. Recommend to City Council modifications to the Aid to Agencies process and approve FY21 Aid to Agencies forms* City Council approved changes to the A2A process for FY20. However, after HCDC provided their funding recommendation, Council requested that HCDC again revisit the process. This meeting will conclude the multiple discussions on the process for FY21 and beyond. Staff has provided their recommendation and agencies have been invited to share their input through an online survey and to attend the meeting. Item 5. Review and discuss the South District Home Investment Program** HCDC awarded the City $100,000 in HOME funds to purchase, rehabilitate, and sell two duplex properties on Taylor Drive or Davis Street as affordable, owner-occupied homes in the South District (Program). Council subsequently modified the Program, including the addition of $140,000 in local funds for downpayment and other assistance. Following a staff recommendation to Council proposing changes to the Program, Council has asked HCDC to discuss at the request of Commissioners. Item 6. Nominate and elect officers* Per HCDC Bylaws, the Commission nominates and elects a Chair and Vice Chair each July. The Commission will nominate and vote for these two positions at this meeting, to become effective at the next meeting. Item 7: Staff/Commission Comment Item 8: Adjournment* MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2019 – 6:30 PM SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202 MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz, Christine Harms, John McKinstry, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron and Paula Vaughan MEMBERS ABSENT: [Vacant] STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly, Geoff Fruin OTHERS PRESENT: Crissy Canganelli, Marjorie Willow, Christine DeRunk RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends City Council approve the 2019 Fair Housing Choice Study (Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice) with amendments as discussed during the meeting. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Vaughan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 16, 2019 MINUTES: Harms moved to approve the minutes of May 16, 2019. Fixmer-Oraiz seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Nkumu and Padron not present for the vote). PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DISCUSS CITY STEPS 2025, THE CITY OF IOWA CITY’S CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR 2021- 2025, WITH MULLIN & LONERGAN ASSOCIATES: Kubly introduced Marjorie Willow and Christine DeRunk, from Mullin & Lonergan Associates, consultants from Pittsburg to help the City create the five-year Consolidated Plan which outlines the goals and priorities for Federal CDBG and HOME funding. Willow began by giving the Commission an overview of what the consultants had done this week noting the City must go through this process every five years because they receive CDBG and HOME funds and HUD requires this planning process for the City to identify affordable housing and community development needs and to go out into the community for this process. The consultants facilitated seven stakeholder workshops, which were topic based to create a variety of meetings for stakeholders with broad topics like workforce development, housing for those in crisis, healthy homes and healthy neighborhoods, etc. This allowed for discussion to contain many different subtopics. Willow stated each workshop had around 20 stakeholders attending, there were some same faces at the workshops but also new faces at each one. Many organizations showed interest in two or three topics. The consultants will compile the information obtained and present it in a document that will enable the City to identify the priority needs moving forward. This is important because each year of the five years when the City Housing and Community Development Commission June 20, 2019 Page 2 of 10 submits its annual plan to HUD the funding must be consistent with the identified priorities. For example, if affordable housing is a priority, applications for affordable housing must be deemed consistent. Willow noted they also held three public meetings, one at the Broadway Neighborhood Center, one at the Pheasant Ridge Neighborhood Center, and one at City Hall. Willow stated this is the third time they have worked with Iowa City on the five-year plan and noted the needs are similar but the intensity of the needs is greater as is the number of people who need services. The cost of housing increased, and wages have either stagnated or actually declined. She added they have seen this similar trend in many cities across the country, but each community has local nuances. For example, Iowa City’s student rental market impacts the overall housing market tremendously. Willow noted from what she has heard this week, in her opinion the three most significant needs are affordable housing, public transportation, and childcare. Just thinking about the cost of childcare and if it could be provided at a higher level, it could have an empowering economic impact on families with children because then parents could work or go to school fulltime, there are many things that they could do if they had affordable childcare at a higher level, it is a significant need (along with public transportation). And of course, affordable housing is needed, rentals, ownership for single individuals without dependents or disabilities that need affordable housing as well as families, etc. Willow stated they received some valuable information to incorporate into the Consolidated Plan to make the it unique to Iowa City. This Plan will be available for review by the new year so entities applying for funds can see the identified needs and tailor their applications accordingly. Willow also noted there is a survey available for feedback as well through July 19. There is al so another survey just for nonprofit agencies to survey their public facility or capital needs for the next five years for budgeting and planning needs. That survey is also due back to the consultants on July 19. Eastham asked if the Consolidated Plan is limited to just the two sources of funds (CDBG and HOME) for addressing the needs within the City. He noted the Plan can also include local tax funds as well. Willow said it can include those as long as they are funding eligible activities, as an extensi on or supplement to the Community Development Block Grant or HOME activities. Eastham asked if now is when Staff begins to put Plan together and it won’t come back to this Commission until later this year. Lehmann said it will come back to the Commission in November, hopefully in time for the December round of CDBG and HOME funding rounds. Lehmann noted they plan to add in Housing and Community Development programs that the City already funds (e.g. Aid to Agencies) and incorporate into the Plan. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if the consultants saw anything unique to Iowa City not seen in other communities, possible solutions or ideas. Willow noted that in Iowa, the state legislature has prohibited the city from doing things on a local level which is a hindrance, however she noted the City has found creative ways to work around it, which is similar to what Austin, Texas, also does. Because the housing need is so great here and the income limit is so high, it is work to get affordable housing in the area, but she noted having the developer contribute housing is a great solution. In terms of things other Cities do, they often fund code enforcement, use TIFs, or use CDBG to apply for Section 108 loans which is an extension of the CDBG program that allows cities to borrow up to five times the entitlement amount. Some communities use that loan program to increase their ability to make significant differences on projects. Lehmann noted to use the loan program it has to be incorporated into the Consolidated Plan in adv ance. Willow said there is an application process and if it is not in the Consolidated Plan then there would have to be a substantial amendment. Willow noted Iowa City is progressive in the way it tackles affordable housing and the different types of activities it funds. Just last week she was in Bloomington, Indiana, and used Iowa City as an example of success. Eastham noted Iowa City has used its zoning power to increase the development of housing in the Riverfront Crossings area and while most of that housing is not affordable to lower income housing folks the City requires some affordable housing in those developments. Additionally, it allows developers to pay fees-in-lieu and that is a different way of obtaining money to do affordable housing in a stricter legislative environment. Eastham hopes Iowa City will include the affordable housing plan in the Consolidated Plan. He said there has not been a city-wide affordable housing requirement yet, only in Riverfront Crossings. Vaughan asked if the Consultant’s report contains other entities, such as the University, or just the City. Willow said they had a couple University representatives at the stakeholder workshops. For example they Housing and Community Development Commission June 20, 2019 Page 3 of 10 had a nurse from the University who is involved in the Healthy Hom es Grant and another who attended the affordable housing and equity session who works with fair housing. Vaughan asked if there was any direct tie-in to health conditions and research. Lehmann said the Healthy Homes session tied into that as well as walkability and physical activity, among other related topics. Lehmann asked if there was anything the Commission felt needed to be included in the Plan. Padron noted the Commission has heard for a few years childcare should be a priority of the City and she feels we are not doing enough. She would like to see a solution to childcare affordability. Fixmer-Oraiz agreed noting it is the second biggest barrier to economic sustainability. Padron stated it especially affects women. Fixmer-Oraiz added it’s not just for women and families, it is an economic issue and how kids will do in school (early childhood development), and kids are coming into kindergarten already lagging. Additionally, there is also the economic issue of people opting out of the workforce because they cannot afford childcare or don’t have transportation to get their children to the one or two openings for affordable childcare available within the city. Because of how the State administers childcare vouchers, many providers are reluctant to open more affordable spots because they are not getting recouped from the State. Childcare is a problem, just like affordable housing, and is crippling to a community. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if the consultants have seen creative solutions for childcare issues. Willow replied not specific to childcare, there are many barriers to it, such as risking breaking a lease because of caring for neighbor’s children and they also heard it is financially difficult to run a childcare taking only childcare assistance because it is not enough income to pay staff. Willow noted all communities are in the same boat with childcare, it is costly and sadly the people who take care of our most valuable possession are the ones we pay the lowest amount although we depend on them to do such an important job. She knows of no one has figured out a way to make it work financially so it is sustainable. Fixmer-Oraiz noted during WWII, childcare was federally mandated and paid for, so it has been done in the past. It seems all these issues, like childcare and healthcare, should be able to be addressed. McKinstry noted a couple of strategies for increasing the stock of affordable housing that maybe other cities have used and one would be tax abatement. He noticed the tax abatement committee didn’t feel including affordable housing into private developments was a viable option. However hav ing nonprofits own or manage affordable rental units that are rehabilitated and become part of the affordable housing stock is generally less expensive than building new. The other option would be to use manufactured housing, not just mobile home parks, which reduces costs per unit and can be owned by individuals. McKinstry would like to see those items addressed in the five-year plan as something to look at. Willow has not heard of other cities doing either of those two things to increase the affordable housing stock, one thing that is catching more common are community land trusts. A nonprofit organization that acquires land, especially in high cost areas, and the cost of that parcel is removed from the cost of the construction of the total project which makes it more affordable. It also preserves or extends the period of affordability whether it is a 99 year lease or whatever the case might be. There is also the opportunity to make it for commercial uses as well which gives an opportunity for small business owners to be part of a community land trust. Lehmann asked if community land trusts were typi cally publically owned or nonprofits. Willow said they are almost exclusively nonprofits. Eastham said The Housing Fellowship has done community land trusts in the past, but in over 15 years, they stopped because after the 2008 financial crisis Sally Mae and Freddy Mac stopped doing secondary loans for land trusts. If the City adds land trusts in this consolidated plan it must address whether secondary financing is available to homeowners when they decide to sell with land trust provisions. Eastham noted on the childcare issue, he thinks it would be good for this Consolidated Plan to look at whether current zoning regulations interfere with the ability to locate in-home and center-based childcare businesses throughout the community. He is not sure it is a problem but suspects it might be. Lehmann stated what they have heard from people they talked with is it isn’t so much the zoning or home-based business issues as much as issues with leases and ability to have home-based daycares in rental units. Eastham asked if the City can prohibit certain lease regulations that are deterrent to the public good. Lehmann said that would be a City legal issue and does not know. Eastham said someone should speak to the City Attorney then as it is a possible provision to put into the Consolidated Plan. Housing and Community Development Commission June 20, 2019 Page 4 of 10 Fixmer-Oraiz asked if there were any affordable SRO (single room occupancy) units, like Coralville has with the Iowa Lodge. Lehmann asked if she meant like Shelter House owned. Fixmer-Oraiz said it could be private. Lehmann said there are still some but not that many, the zoning code is generally restrictive to group living uses because they are leery of fraternities and dorm -style housing around downtown. Fixmer-Oraiz said it would be interesting to try to do something like that, treat it like the Affordable Housing Location Model and have the ability to locate such housing away from downtown. She feels it would be an option for single people who need affordable housing and sometimes short-term housing. She recognizes it can be hard to keep those units as nice spaces for people. Harms noted that is what the old YMCAs used to provide. Vaughan noted the concept is popular now in areas like San Francisco where housing is expensive. She wonders if people would have an appetite for such housing in this area. Eastham noted that is a case where zoning regulation is possibly prohibiting a possible housing type. Padron stated the consultants did the Plans five and ten years ago and wondered what Iowa City has done well and what needs to be improved. Willow stated the City has not been doing anything wrong, the most important point is that problems have gotten worse, through no fault necessarily of the City, but because the cost of housing increased and incomes either stagnated or went down, the cost of housing is outpacing what people earn. The magnitude of need is greater even from 10 years ago. All those problems could not be resolved because there is simply not enough money to address the issues. Willow noted with the funding sources the City has available from HUD, the City is doing a good job, and Iowa City is unique in that it goes above and beyond by providing funding such as Aid to Agencies and requiring payments in-lieu-of and trying to find financial resources to address those problems fully realizing that what’s coming from the federal government is not enough to address the problems. Willow stated Iowa City is does a good job, there is just not enough funding to address everything. Fixmer-Oraiz asked since the magnitude of the problem is so great and the City is doing a good job with what they have, but there still isn’t enough money to solve the problems, how much worse off will the City be in five years. Willow acknowledged that is a good question with no answer, there are just too many unknowns. Such as when the City did their 2005 Consolidated Plan, they had no way of planning for what happened in 2008 with the flooding. The best laid plans are great, but it is difficult to plan for catastrophic events. She noted most communities are concerned with that, continuing to make progress in critical need areas when a natural disaster or financial downturn happens. Then resources (staff, time, money) are spent on fixing that problem before being able to go back to what was being done on a regular basis. Eastham objects to that statement about not enough funding, that there is adequate funding in the community to remove all the family households who are now paying more than half their income for rents from the situation. He stated the funding is available, yes they would have to increase property taxes to do so, which would be tolerable to most people in this community, the problem is the City doesn’t have the guts to do it. There was a Council meeting where Eric Theisen called the Council members a bunch of cowards and he was right, Councils have been cowards. The City has the means to fix the problems, just like the school district fixed their school facilities problems, the issue is doing it. Eastham doesn’t want to see anything in this Consolidated Plan that talks about needs that are impossible to meet, he will object to that language. This community survived the 2008 flood, the money came from the federal and state government to support the cleanup from that disaster, the flood did not affect affordable housing issues at all. The affordable housing need is measured in terms of percentage of households that are paying more than half their incomes in rent, and that has increased steadily since 2005, but has not gone up dramatically. The City’s needs are not too great that they cannot be resolved. McKinstry noted the ability to tax is limited by the State so they would have to borrow money. Padron noted the City is not doing great and was hoping the consultants would have more ideas or a different response than what they are hearing today. Fixmer-Oraiz agreed and noted it is hard to sit on this Commission because at times it can feel they are not doing enough and they can also only give recommendations to City Council but what they are trying to express is their desire to do what is best for the community. She appreciates what Eastham is saying as she heard just today that in 2008 the City was one of 30 cities across the nation that wasn’t actually impacted by housing economic downturn. This is why so many developers are keen on coming to Iowa City because our market is so strong. Housing and Community Development Commission June 20, 2019 Page 5 of 10 Eastham noted the way to avoid demoting things is the data, to understand what exactly the problem is with housing and childcare and transportation in Iowa City and how to resolve those things. And then make an assessment on whether there is sufficient local money to make up for what the federal and state governments are not doing. REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF 2019 FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY (ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE): Lehmann noted it is a 200 page document but hopes they were able to read the executive summary as well as chapter 5 which notes the impediments and recommended solutions. He added that public comment for this document extends past this meeting so if they have comments later, send them to him and he will incorporate those before getting the document to Council. Lehmann briefly reviewed the presentation he showed at the last meeting. He shared the slide that discusses what the Fair Housing Choice Study is, it is technically part of the City’s method of affirmatively furthering fair housing which includes planning for fair housing needs within the community. Fair housing choice is the idea that everyone should be free from illegal discrimination and is guided by federal, state and local laws, and the local laws are the most comprehensive (race, disability, gender, sex, marital status, familial status, etc.). In Iowa City public assistance as a form of income is also a protective class. The goal is to foster inclusive communities. This document gets updated every five years to try to identify impediments to fair housing choice, identify strategies to combat identified impediments, and to incorporate that into the planning processes for activities they to overcome barriers. Lehmann next reviewed the executive summary. The public input began in October, with 330 contacts with the public through stakeholder and public meetings and a survey. It also looks at quantitative data from the Census, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and other local datasets. In the survey, one thing that really emerged was only 43% of respondents felt they understood their housing rights, only 37% knew where to file fair housing complaints, 26% said they experienced discrimination of some sort since moving to Iowa City but only 3% reported it which shows a gap in knowledge about where to file and why. Many responded they didn’t file because they felt it wouldn’t do any good or they didn’t have the time to deal with it. Many people who responded said public assistance as a source of income was the largest form of discrimination which shows it is still an issue and alerts the City they need to reach out to tenants and landlords. The biggest impediment to fair housing choice identified was lack of affordable housing. Other top impediments were displacement due to rising rents and discrimination by landlords/rental agents. Moving forward in terms of timeline, Lehmann noted they are in the public comment period now. Fixmer-Oraiz asked where the survey talks about City policies that may act as barriers to fair housing choice. Lehmann said he heard that people or agencies didn’t feel the City was always basing funding on the Consolidated Plan, so the City needs to make sure funding follows the priorities identified in City Steps. Additionally, having revamped the Aid to Agencies process factored into some confusion on funding processes. Zoning and housing codes were also identified but are more specifically addressed throughout the plan. No public policy item on the survey passed the threshold of more than half. Padron asked what the timeline was for public comment. Lehmann noted they are in the public comment period now until July 16. Any comments anyone has can be sent to Lehmann and he will compile them and include responses in the appendix of the plan. There will also be a public meeting on July 16. Eastham said there were three public sources of information to draw on in assessing the findings of this Study, is one source better than another. Lehmann feels the public meetings are similar to focus groups, the same type of input, and in-person meetings are better for in-depth of information you will not get from a survey. However both are valuable and he would not weigh one over the other. Lehmann next discussed the general demographics, housing, economic characteristics, noting Iowa City is more diverse, it’s growing, and it’s younger, tends to have less persons with disabilities but tends to have more foreign populations as well. In terms of economic profile there are relatively high incomes paired with low incomes, part of the low income group is a large student body; however not just students Housing and Community Development Commission June 20, 2019 Page 6 of 10 have low incomes. Overall the poverty rate in Iowa City is 28%, if you remove students it is 11.5% which is higher than the state average once students are excluded. The housing profile is notable because Iowa City has a large renter population, focused near the downtown, homeowner vacancy is 1.4% and rental vacancy is 2.7%, but there is a higher overall vacancy rate because many units are not currently for sale or for rent. There is a lot of new development and housing is more expensive which paired with low incomes creates cost burden in the community. Students are most impacted, but persons of color are also impacted. In terms of fair housing enforcement, outreach is the big thing, as noted in the survey many people don’t know or feel comfortable reporting or have the knowledge which are barriers. Therefore, Lehmann noted four major categories of impediments identified that could use improvement. First is housing choice, there needs to be improved housing choices in Iowa City. The second is facilitating access to opportunities, there are some disparities across the City and they need to try to help balance that. Third is increasing education and outreach, as noted from the survey results. And fourth, operational improvements which encompasses several other items that didn’t fit into other strategies. For improving housing choices, staff noted four strategies that would help. First is facilitating a range of housing types, including zoning for diversity of housing and encouraging different types of housing within zones. Second is lowering the cost of housing generally, so beyond needing more multifamily zones or allowing different types of housing in single family zones, this recommends things like perhaps lowering the cost of rental permit fees or other items that may affect protected classes at higher rates. Additionally, looking to keep people in their homes because that is often more cost effective in terms of increasing the diversity of the housing stock and not allowing them to be priced out of their homes. Rehab is another option, to invest in the housing stock to address disproportionate impacts and to keep people in their homes. In addition, having an eye on the student population and seeing if there are alternative living arrangements that could make it more affordable to live in Iowa City as a student. Strategy three is to continue investing in affordable housing, Iowa City funds affordable housing but needs to continue supporting and producing it throughout the community, including affordable housing of high quality. Strategy four is to retrofit housing for equal access, specifically for persons with disabilities. For example, if someone needs to put in a ramp, modifying the zoning code to allow it rather than going before the Board of Adjustment, also providing funding for such needs and trying to think of different ways to improve aging in place and quality of life for persons with disabilities in their homes. For facilitating access to opportunity Lehmann noted the housing that often has the best access can often be more expensive, including downtown Iowa City and areas with transi t routes. A lot of the affordable or available land is on the edge of Iowa City, so there is a need to find high opportunity areas of the City and encourage affordable housing to be developed there. Strategy one is emphasizing variety in areas of opportunities, similar to facilitating a range of housing types, but more focused on areas where affordable housing should be developed such as with access to transit, proximity to jobs, or better access to other opportunities/amenities. Strategy two is community investment. While the City encouraging new affordable housing in certain areas they don’t want to neglect other areas, so a balanced approach is needed to encourage access in areas of opportunity while continuing to invest in the other areas of town (looking at rehab dollars, investing in assets in LMI areas, improving transit, improving services, etc.). Eastham noted in the text regarding strategy two (page 15) it states “Currently Iowa City appears to experience disparate access to opportunity especially when it comes to access to jobs and high performing schools” and Eastham noted any school board member would say there are no low performing schools in the Iowa City Community School District and he agrees and feels that phrase is not accurate. Lehmann noted that was discussed as the plan was developed, that text came up while reviewing a table produced by HUD for the Assessment of Fair Housing which was going to be put into effect and it lists opportunity indicators by race and ethnicity including a school proficiency index (page 132). The table used data based on the levels of 4th grade students and neighborhoods with higher or lower performing elementary schools nearby. Eastham noted it doesn’t show the school district’s evaluation of their schools. Lehmann agreed, he used the table when making that statement, as well as job proximity as an area the City needs improvement in. Eastham noted proximity to jobs is a quantitative measure. Lehmann stated he can modify the sentence about the schools and just say “disparate access to opportunities and community investments”. He continued that transit and development are connected are important to ensuring equal opportunity for access to the community. Beyond transit, also walkability Housing and Community Development Commission June 20, 2019 Page 7 of 10 and bike-ability. McKinstry suggested Lehmann modify the statement to read mobility linkages. Impediment three is education and outreach. The demand side awareness was for tenants, homebuyers, people looking for loans, anyone who uses/needs housing. They need to pay special attention to these populations because they are not often organized and don’t have the education compared to providers. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if it mentions specifically translated materials. Lehmann noted that is strategy four, language access. This comes up frequently, especially with the higher foreign populations Iowa City has. Fixmer-Oraiz asked who the City uses for translation, because the issue with the Arabic right to left thing is basic and that should have been correct. Lehmann said that the consultants provided the materials and he doesn’t know what service they used for translation. Kubly noted that the City usually uses someone The Housing Authority has connections with (Omnilingua). Fixmer-Oraiz noted her work with Johnson County has an agency they use. Lehmann also noted the police department has a list of informal translators that could be used, though he only just became aware of this. Continuing, Lehmann said regulator awareness is also important. Making sure boards and commissions are aware of items and knowing where to refer people to when they have issues or questions. Impediment four is operational improvements, looking at administrative process and regulations that may stop projects or affect protected classes. Also looking at administrative processes outside of Iowa City because they operate in a larger region, so they need to work collaboratively. First to review implemented procedures and regulations, making sure they make sense f or nonprofits and those applying for funding. Second looking at unintended consequences as new things get developed, such as rental caps, etc. Third, improv ing in data collection as local programs have not historically tracked protected characteristics. Finally increasing fair housing enforcement and transparency, trying to better track outcomes for fair housing enforcement, ensure the outcomes are brought to the public, people are aware of tenant and landlord rights, etc. Also want to circumvent some of barriers to reporting fair housing issues and to do some testing for protected characteristics. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if any on-the-ground verification was done. Lehmann said it was most recently done in 2015. They are looking now at the best way to gather information to see if people are being denied for one reason or another. He noted there may be some partnership opportunities. Eastham requested to remove the word transparency in strategy four, it is clear fair housing enforcement is a substantial thing the City needs to do better at as seen in the survey data. He noted there are landlords that are not playing by the rules and refuse tenants with public assistance income and the best way to get them to play by the rules is to sanction them. Alter asked what enforcement looks like, what is the penalty. Lehmann said it is a legal process, a complaint is filed, Human Rights gives landlords an opportunity to respond to the complaint, and then follows through its process. Eastham noted there is a complaint enforcement mechanism, and perhaps Council needs to look at the mechanism to see if it needs to be updated. Harms noted it is the individual or prospective tenant that must file the complaint which is not being done as seen by the survey results. Eastham said relying on complaints for enforcement is a bad idea, they need to do testing. Harms said as someone that went through a landlord/tenant discrimination she did not want to file a complaint in fear of losing her housing. Lehmann said that was heard from stakeholders. Eastham asked if the complaint procedure is a City law or required by State law. Lehmann said there are due process requirements but is not sure at what level the regulations come from. Eastham stated those questions should be asked and addressed in the Fair Housing Choice Study. Fixmer-Oraiz feels the word transparency should be kept in the statement, but perhaps it should read improving fair housing enforcement and transparency. Lehmann stated transparency is important, they want to be able to show it is a fair process and then more will use it. Vaughan asked if there is a safe place for people to go if they file a complaint, is there a person assigned to them to help them through the process. Lehmann said the complaint is filed at the City and the City Housing and Community Development Commission June 20, 2019 Page 8 of 10 investigates. It is illegal for landlords to retaliate against a tenant who has filed a complaint. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if the strategies were prioritized or just listed as one through four. Lehmann said they are not in priority order, if the Commission feels that is important they can do so. Fixmer-Oraiz said after this discussion it seems fair housing enforcement should be listed as priority one if they are prioritized. The process needs to be improved so people feel safe that if they file a complaint they won’t be retaliated against or booted from their homes. Fixmer-Oraiz noted under facilitating access to opportunity it notes access to jobs and transit, is that an area where access to childcare could be added because that is a huge impediment when looking for jobs. Lehmann agreed it would be a great to add, they did hear in some of the Consolidated Plan meetings the lack of daycares in certain areas of the city. Lehmann noted he will add as an opportunity that people should have access to. Lehmann summarized the changes discussed. Facilitate access to opportunity, add with access to job affordable, quality daycare. He will also incorporate childcare needs in chapter five. For impediment four, he will move strategy four to being the first listed and state it as improving fair housing enforcement and transparency, looking at ways to strengthen enforcement and improve the processes. Alter added they should also added improve the ways of outreach and education. McKinstry asked if mobile homes were in these conversations at all. Lehmann said they would be considered on the demand side for awareness. McKinstry noted that renters or owners of mobile homes do not have the same rights as other tenant/landlord situations. Lehmann stated the tenants, homebuyers, people looking for loans, but stated he would add mobile home renters and owners specifically to that statement as well. Fixmer-Oraiz moved to recommends City Council approval of the 2019 Fair Housing Choice Study (Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice) with amendments as discussed during the meeting. Alter seconded the motion. A vote was taken and it passed 8-0. DISCUSS MODIFICATIONS TO THE AID TO AGENCIES PROCESS: Fixmer-Oraiz sent a survey to partner agencies and received eight responses and an email from Becci Reedus (Crisis/Community Center) indicating the Legacy Aid to Agencies are meeting to discuss the survey and process and asked if the Commission would wait to consider the survey responses or make any changes until they hear back from the larger group. Fixmer-Oraiz responded she felt strongly the Commission would agree. Fixmer-Oraiz noted overall responses received thus far are positive, there has been questions on why revamp the system and also to stop using the low, medium, high priority system if it isn’t going to be used. Agencies also stated they felt it was required they attend every meeting and the uncomfortableness of being present when the Commission in deciding allocations. Lehmann said the meetings must be open to the public – but the agencies don’t have to be present. Fixmer-Oraiz said that needs to be made clearer to the agencies somehow. Fixmer-Oraiz continued that Eastham raised the question at a previous meeting if HCDC is the proper body to make these allocation recommendations to Council and the current response from the survey is yes, HCDC is the appropriate body. Padron feels the legacy agencies should be given an allocation every year from the City with a percentage increase every year so they can know and plan accordingly. HCDC could then take care of the newer agencies, etc. Some legacy agencies are planning salaries with these allocations so they need to know the funding will be there. Fixmer-Oraiz said one response was “I believe HCDC is on the right track, but do believe there are far too many COIs (conflicts of interest) throughout the commission members to be 100%”. Housing and Community Development Commission June 20, 2019 Page 9 of 10 Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House) noted the group that is meeting is looking forward to having a more collaborative process and they recognize this commission has heavy lifting to do and goes about it with integrity and compassion. The questions the agencies want to address is how to start the process earlier to get questions answered and to look at it from a need and gaps analysis, impact versus just based on what is available. Eastham feels it is important to ask the agencies what amount they feel is necessary for Aid to Agency budgeting and how to come to an amount on an annual basis. Eastham believes Padron’s suggestion of continuous, reliable funding for some group of agencies is good. Fixmer-Oraiz noted they are trying to move that direction with the two-year funding cycles. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT : Lehmann stated July 18 is the next meeting, agenda items will be welcoming new members, the Aid to Agencies process recommendations, review of the tax exemption policy, and the South District Partnership Program. Let Lehmann know if there are other agenda items needed. The two new members are Matt Drabek and Lyn Dee Hook Kealey. Vaughan and Harms are leaving the Commission, Lehmann shared certificates of appreciation with them. Lehmann also provided the tentative FY20 calendar. Two commissioners noted they could not attend on July 18. The Commission agreed it could be moved forward to July 11. Lehmann stated he will contact the new commissioners to let them know. ADJOURNMENT: Vaughan moved to adjourn. Harms seconded the motion. A vote was taken an the motion passed 8-0 Housing and Community Development Commission June 20, 2019 Page 10 of 10 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record • Resigned from Commission Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant Name Terms Exp. 7/10 9/20 10/11 11/15 12/20 1/17 2/21 3/14 4/18 4/24 5/16 6/20 Alter, Megan 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X Brouse, Mitch 6/30/21 X X X X X X X O/E X X X . Eastham, Charlie 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa 6/30/20 X O/E X X X O/E X X O/E X X X Harms, Christine 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X X X X X Lamkins, Bob 6/30/19 O/E O/E X O/E O/E . . . . . . . McKinstry, John 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 . . . . . . . . X X X X Padron, Maria 6/30/20 X X O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X X Vaughan, Paula 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X 1 Kirk Lehmann From:Crissy Canganelli <crissy@shelterhouseiowa.org> Sent:Tuesday, July 02, 2019 1:31 PM To:Kirk Lehmann; Erika Kubly Subject:FW: correction to Human Rights Commission May 15th Minutes Good Afternoon Kirk and Erika,  I am forwarding the email below  in Tracy’s absence and with the hope that the corrected information will be shared  with the Housing and Community Development Commission.  Thank you,  Crissy Canganelli  Executive Director | Shelter House  From: Crissy Canganelli   Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 8:56 AM  To: Simon‐Andrew@iowa‐city.org; stefanie‐bowers@iowa‐city.org; 'Tracy Hightshoe' <Tracy‐Hightshoe@iowa‐city.org>  Subject: correction to Human Rights Commission May 15th Minutes  Good Morning Simon, Stefanie, and Tracy:  I am writing to provide a correction to information provided to the Human Rights Commission during its May 15, 2019  meeting.  The draft Meeting Minutes which are available to the public indicate that County Supervisor Porter reported  to the Commission that, “Johnson County just gave Shelter House $630,000.”  The Johnson County Board of Supervisors allocated a total of $630,000 to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County  which was made available for affordable housing initiatives over the past fiscal year.  Of the funds awarded to Shelter  House by the HTFJC, $250,000 came from Johnson County.  Funds were awarded as a loan, are repayable to the HTFJC,  and were restricted for a new construction project at 820 Cross Park Avenue.  The Human Rights Commission minutes were included in the June Housing and Community Development Committee  Meeting packet, as such, I request this correction in fact be provided to both the Commission and relevant Iowa City  staff.  I am deeply grateful for the partnership and support of the City of Iowa City in all aspects of Shelter House programming  and would be happy to provide any additional information that would be helpful.  Please do not hesitate to contact me  by phone (319‐338‐5416 x200) or email (crissy@shelterhouseiowa.org).  Crissy Canganelli  Executive Director | Shelter House  Address 429 Southgate Ave, Iowa City, IA 52240  CORRESPONDENCE 2 Phone (319) 338‐5416 ext. 200 | Mobile (319) 530‐8706  Email crissy@shelterhouseiowa.org  Website www.shelterhouseiowa.org      More than a roof and a bed; our mission is to provide safe shelter and help people improve the quality of their lives as  they move beyond homelessness.    Date: July 3, 2019 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner Re: Aid to Agencies Recommendations Introduction: Iowa City has historically funded a portion of the operating costs of local non -profits that serve low income residents through the Aid to Agency (A2A) fund. Last year, the City Council adopted recommendations made by the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) to provide stable funding for existing nonprofits and to also provide new opportunities for developing agencies to receive funds through the A2A allocation process. After this past allocation cycle, Council asked HCDC to review their processes and determine the best way to move forward with funding recommendations. This memo contains staff recommendations to modify the A2A process based on historical precedent and feedback from HCDC and agencies. History/Background: The goal of A2A has historically been to provide a stable source of operational funding for human service agencies serving low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents. Council first began having HCDC recommend A2A allocations in 2010 to align funding recommendations with the priorities set in CITY STEPS, the City’s five -year federally mandated consolidated plan for housing, services and jobs for LMI residents. Prior to that point, a committee of City Council members and staff allocated the funding to a core group of agencies. New applicants typically were not funded; however, this began to change once HCDC started making funding recommendations. On July 17, 2018, City Council adopted policies revising the process based on HCDC input. There were three main changes. First, 5% of A2A funding was set aside for “emerging” agencies, defined as agencies that have not existed as a legal entity for at least two years or have not received A2A in any of the last five years. Second, the remaining funds were available to “Legacy” agencies, defined as those who have existed as a legal entity for at least two years and have received A2A funding in any of the last five years. Allocations to Legacy agencies were awarded over a two year period to provide stability. Finally, HCDC created a goal of providing 70% of funds to High priority agencies, 25% to Medium priorit y agencies and 5% to Low priorities agencies with an intent of spreading funding between priority groups and reduc ing competition to receive a High priority designation. This revised process was first used for the FY20 funding allocation. The City estimated a budget of $355,000 for Legacy agencies and $19,000 for emerging agencies. At their January 17, 2019 meeting, HCDC noted that A2A funds had remained stable over the last several years while needs increased. In addition, more agencies were applying and receiving funds. As such, HCDC recommended that Council fully fund the requests of FY20 Legacy agencies, totaling $625,500, and requested a work session with Council to discuss why they recommended funding over their budget estimate. After meeting together on February 5, 2019, Council agreed to fully fund the Legacy requests for a single year with the condition that HCDC revisit the A2A process to avoid future unexpected budget recommendations. HCDC has had ongoing discussions about how to revise the process at their monthly meetings since April 2019. Because the FY21 Joint Funding Applications will be released on August 1, 2019, changes related to the process must be determined at the July HCDC meeting in order to be incorporated into the next funding cycle. July 3, 2019 Page 2 Staff Recommendation Based on the feedback received, staff recommends A2A return to its original intent of providing a stable funding source for human service agencies serving LMI residents based on the funding priorities set in CITY STEPS for public service agencies. Every five years, the priorities in CITY STEPS are reviewed and a new plan is adopted. City staff is currently working on the new five- year CITY STEPS plan, which will need to be adopted by the City Council and accepted by the federal government by July 1, 2020 . During the new plan development process, staff recommends identifying and limiting A2A applicants to a core group of service providers which meet the established priorities. These identified agencies would then apply on a competitive basis based on identified priorities, history of funding, and capacity. Beginning with FY22, agencies would apply on a two-year cycle. This process would provide stable funding for agencies with demonstrated capacity to effectively utilize A2A dollars. The priorities and agencies allowed to apply would be reevaluated with each new five-year plan to address changing priorities or gaps of service as identified in CITY STEPS. If needed, there would also be a mechanism to modify the number of eligible agencies during the five-year planning period through the federally defined Consolidated Plan amendment process. Because the FY21 Joint Funding App lication process will begin before the adoption of City Steps 2025, staff recommends limiting FY21 A2A applications to those agencies who applied for Legacy funds in FY20. This is consistent with the expectation of a two -year funding cycle when Legacy agencies applied last year. For the remaining fiscal years covered by City Steps 2025 (FY2022 through FY2025), staff recommends that the 2021 -2025 Plan identify a set of 15-20 core agencies to be funded through A2A for public service funding. This will help fo cus funds in a strategic manner and provide the stability desired by agencies. A2A applicants will continue to apply through the United Way Joint Funding process. Every two years, HCDC will review and approve the ranking criteria for evaluation of the pub lic service applicants. With the FY21 allocation cycle, staff will rank applications based on these criteria and make a funding recommendation for HCDC to consider. HCDC can recommend changes to staff’s recommendation. The HCDC recommendat ion would be submitted to City Council for their consideration and adoption. Staff also recommends discontinuing the emerging agencies set-aside due to alternative funding opportunities that are now available. The City has allocated $25,000 in Climate Action Grants and $75,000 in social justice and racial equity grants. These grants are expected to continue, and both have equity components and an emphasis on serving disadvantaged populations. Project-based CDBG/HOME grants are also available for emerging agencies or those who have not received grant funds in the past. These different sources are a good fit for emerging agencies and can help agencies build capacity and establish a track record. As an agency becomes more established and can demonstrate the ability to meet priority needs and grant requirements, they may be eligible to be incorporated into the A2A funding cycle based on their ability to address City Steps 2025 priorities. Proposed Timeline August 1, 2019: FY21 A2A applications are released to agencies that were awarded funds last year through the United Way Joint Funding process. September 12, 2019: FY21 A2A applications due. September 19, 2019 : HCDC receives copies of FY21 A2A applications for review. HCDC will compile questions for agencies regarding their applications ahead of the November meeting. November 21, 2019: HCDC discusses questions for agencies at their November meeting. Staff will compile and send out questions to agencies in preparation for HCDC’s December meeting. July 3, 2019 Page 3 December 19, 2019: Question & Answer session with A2A applicants. Agencies are provided questions in advance and invited to attend HCDC’s December meeting. December 2019: Draft of City Steps 2025 complete. Draft will include updated priorities and identification of core agencies who are eligible for A2A funding for FY22 through FY25. January 16, 2020: Staff provides FY21 A2A funding recommendations to HCDC at their January meeting. HCDC considers modifications and makes an FY21 A2A funding recommendation to Council. April-May 2020: HCDC reviews, considers changes, and recommends City Steps 2025 to Council. Council holds a Public Hearing and considers changes and adoption of City Steps 2025, in addition to HCDC’s FY21 A2A funding recommendation . August 2020: FY22-23 A2A applications are released to eligible agencies identified in City Steps 2025. August 2022: FY24-25 A2A applications are released to eligible agencies identified in City Steps 2025. Summers 2021-2024: Annual timeline review of City Steps 2025 priorities and core agencies who are eligible for A2A funding. If modifications are needed, the Consolidated Plan would be amended in accordance with the Citizen Participation Plan.