Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC Packet 09-12-2019HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) September 19, 2019 Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM Meeting Room D Iowa City Public Library 123 S. Linn Street AGENDA: 1. Call to Order 2. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 15, 2019 3. Public comment of items not on the agenda 4. CITY STEPS Review The City annually solicits input about its five-year Consolidated Plan, titled CITY STEPS. Based on agency feedback, HCDC wants to engage agency representatives in this process outside of typical funding cycles. This review provides an opportunity for agencies to share trends, gaps, and needs around the community with HCDC and to discuss plans which guide City funding. This may lead to proposed amendments to the adopted Consolidated Plan. 5. Consider recommendation to City Council on stipulations for the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC) allocating City Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funds Iowa City shares a LIHTC application with the HTFJC. On August 20, 2019, HCDC voted to support City staff’s recommendation that the City provide the HTFJC its LIHTC match funding to allocate, with the caveat that there be an opportunity to further recommend stricter rent and tenant income requirements. At this meeting, HCDC will consider a final recommendation to Council as to possible requirements for its allocation or use by HTFJC. 6. Consider approval of the FY19 Consolidated Annual Performance & Evaluation Report (CAPER) The CAPER is a required document that the City must submit to HUD within 90 days of the plan year end. The report describes federally funded activities undertaken by the City and its partners, and accomplishments for City Fiscal Year 2019 (federal FY18). The CAPER draft is online at www.icgov.org/actionplan for your review and comment. At this meeting, HCDC will consider approving the document for submission to HUD. 7. Aid to Agencies (A2A) Follow Up Updates regarding HCDC’s recommendations regarding the A2A process. 8. Housing & Community Development Information 9. 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. Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meetings Regular: October 17 / November 21 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2019 – 6:30 PM SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Aguilar, Megan Alter, Matt Drabek, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz, Lyn Dee Kealey, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron MEMBERS ABSENT: John McKinstry STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: Ellen McCabe, Sara Barron RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-2 (Fixmer-Oraiz and Drabek dissenting) the Commission recommends to City Council the Tax Exemption Memo dated May 24, 2019 on the condition that the income of beneficiaries be reduced from 60% of the Area Median Income to 40% of the Area Median Income. By a vote of 7-0 (Nkumu absent) the Commission recommends to City Council support for allocating City LIHTC funding to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County, subject to additional discussion with the Housing Trust Fund regarding the parameters of how they would allocate funds with the goal of lowering rents as far as possible for as many households as possible. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Padron called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 11, 2019 MINUTES: Kealey moved to approve the minutes of July 11, 2019. Nkumu seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. (Fixmer-Oraiz and Alter absent) PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. WELCOME NEW HCDC MEMBERS AND INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATION: Lehmann had the new members introduce themselves. Lyn Dee Kealey introduced herself noting she moved back to Iowa City in 2006 and she is a social worker at the University of Iowa Hospitals on the burn trauma unit for 24 years. She is interested in affordable housing and wants to work on the Commission to learn and see what can be provided for the community. Peggy Aguilar moved from Iowa City from Des Moines in 2016, while she was in Des Moines for 13 years she was the director of family services with Habitat for Humanity, so affordable housing has bee n in her Housing and Community Development Commission August 15, 2019 Page 2 of 10 veins for a long time and wants the opportunity to see how she can use her knowledge and skills to help make Iowa City a better place for residents. Matt Drabek moved to Iowa City in 2007 for graduate school, graduated in 2012 and never left. H e is interested in housing, he is a founding board member of a group called The Iowa City Tenants Union and did some similar work for a different group 8 or 9 years ago. Lehmann did a presentation on the role of the Commission. Lehmann works with grants that benefit low and moderate income households for public services, public facilities, etc. He works mostly with nonprofits but also some small development portion of business loans for low and moderate income individuals. They also do the housing rehab out of the Community Development Division and that includes a number of different funding sources, they also do the UniverCity program which purchases home near downtown, do rehabs and sell them. In Neighborhood Services, the umbrella division Lehmann works under, there is the Housing Authority, housing inspections, rental inspections and neighborhood outreach. Important terms: HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development CDBG/HOME: Community Development Block Grant/HOME, the two primary grant programs for the City AMI: Area medium income LMI: Low/moderate income FMR: Fair Market Rent LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County: a nonprofit that allocates affordable housing funds In terms of CDBG it has been around for a long time now and Iowa City has been receiving funds almost since the beginning. The goals of CDBG are providing safe, decent and sanitary housing, a suitable living environment and also expanding economic opportunities. Properties must meet a national objective, which for most cases means it benefits LMI households or individuals. Some funds can be used to eliminate slum and blight and some may be used to meet an urgent need. CDBG can be used for funding public services, facilities, economic development, and it can support housing but cannot develop new affordable housing. So that is where HOME comes in, which is one of the biggest source of federal funds for affordable housing to produce affordable housing. The HOME program has been around since 1990, the City also receives and annual allocation of HOME funds which can be used for construction of new housing, acquisitions, direct assistance to tenants and owners, etc. It has income requirements depending on the size of the project and complexity and type of the project. Both CDBG and HOME, if used to support housing, have fair market rents that the projects have to abide by. To allocate funds every year the City follows the consolidated plan, a five-year plan, that identifies the greatest needs for LMI households in the area, how the City can meet those needs and what are the exact projects to do to meet those needs. The consolidated plan guides CDBG/HOME investment, helps set priorities, and staff is currently working on the new consolidated plan right now and hope to have a draft done by December. Within the 5-year consolidated plan are annual action plans. Each year these plans lay out the specific set of activities that will be funded. At the end of each year the City submits an annual consolidated plan report (CAPER) to show if they are meeting the needs as identified. Other documents of note: Analysis of impediments to fair housing choice - also known as the Fair Housing Choice Study Citizen participation Plan, how the City uses citizen input and how it is reflected in all plans and actions by the City As a general overview, Lehmann noted the City’s fiscal year starts July 1 and the first thing the Commission will be doing in September will be reviewing last year’s activities and outcomes in the CAPER. Next will be the Aid to Agencies funding process, which is how the City allocates public service dollars. Applications are open in August or September and the Commission will make their recommendations to Council in January. The annual CDBG/HOME funding round, for public facilities and affordable housing projects, is paired with an Emerging Aid to Agencies funding round, for newer service Housing and Community Development Commission August 15, 2019 Page 3 of 10 agencies that need help getting off the ground or for those that hadn’t received funding in the past, and applications open in December and the Commission recommends their allocations in March. The Consolidated and Annual Plans must be completed by May. The fiscal year ends June 30. Funding for FY20 will be approximately $659,000 in CDBG and $483,000 in HOME. Those are the primary federal sources of funding, and are the majority of the funding for services and affordable housing. There are also local funds the City uses. The Affordable Housing Fund gets split out for different uses, for FY20 the City allocated $1 million; part of that goes to The Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County, part goes to LIHTC projects that leverage dollars from the State, some will go towards housing security funds (rental deposits and a landlord risk mitigation fund to help people who have had barriers finding housing before), $75,000 goes into an opportunity fund, $75,000 for healt hy homes (bridging health and housing), $50,000 is set aside for emergent situations. Finally there are some funds for land banking for future affordable housing, local Aid to Agencies funds ($555,000), GRIP, the UniverCity program, and The Housing Authority. Lehmann noted this year they will use federal dollars for public services, renovating facilities for nonprofits, neighborhood improvements to parks in LMI areas, housing rehab and other housing programs (acquisitions, buyer assistance, rental rehab), economic development for small business loans and assistance for LMI businesses. Lehmann mentioned income limits that come with federal dollars, and those are used for all the programs depending on how they decide to split them out on any given project and depending on what project outcomes they would like to see. Income limits are based on household size, currently a low income household of four makes $75,000; 30% of the median income is roughly the poverty line. Typically the City prefers to fund lower income households if they can but it depends on the situation. Rent limits are based on fair market rent and currently a fair market rent for a two -bedroom is $902/month and for a three bedroom $1,304/month. HUD also determines modest house prices for home buyer programs, currently the limit is $244,000 for both existing and new homes. Fixmer-Oraiz asked about the opportunity fund. Lehmann stated it is used to fund situations as they arise. There used to be an allocation for land banking; currently the City has around $640,000 in that fund but the opportunities for land are not coming forth so the City is looking for other opportunities to best use those funds as well. Fixmer-Oraiz asked the difference from opportunity fund and emergent funds. Hightshoe explained emergent funds have been used with residents are displaced from their rentals due to new company allocations, etc. (Rose Oaks, Hawkeye Court). Eastham asked what is the greatest need for housing in the community, where do the highest cost burdens lie and with which income groups. Lehmann said there is generally higher cost burden in lower income groups, typically renter families. For example in the less than 30% AMI right now there are 6700 renter households and for less than 50% AMI owner households are around 2000 currently. Eastham asked about the 6700 renter households and what percentage were student households versus nonstudent. Lehmann said that is challenging to figure out, but looking at poverty rates, and you remove students from Iowa City’s population, the poverty rate for Iowa City is approximately what it is for other Iowa cities which is around 11%, so he would guess m ost of the renter households are students. Eastham noted the census bureau classifies by household type which can separate student versus nonstudent households. Lehmann said if they look at rental households by rental type nonfamily (which would generally be students) is 5000 so that is most of the 6700 but there are some of those 5000 that may not be students. Lehmann noted he prefers to use the poverty rate for students for that reason. Nkumu asked what microloans are used for. Lehmann stated those funds can be applied for by LMI businesses, generally it is microenterprises with less than five employees and as long as half those folks are LMI, it qualifies as an LMI microbusiness. Funds help them start a business. Nkumu asked if it was a grant or a loan they have to pay back. Lehmann stated it is a loan they must pay back. Hightshoe noted the loans are through MidwestOne bank, the City just guarantees the funds. Lehmann noted that helps the business establish a commercial line of credit. Nkumu asked what the maximum amount of loan one can apply for. Lehman replied $10,000 for a single loan. Housing and Community Development Commission August 15, 2019 Page 4 of 10 REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE TAX EXEMPTION MEMO DATED MAY 24, 2019: Hightshoe stated in June 2016 Council adopted an action plan for affordable housing which included 15 different strategies to encourage affordable housing. The memo in the Commission packet discussed the 15 steps and progress to this point. One of the steps Council wants the Commission to review is using a tax exemption policy to encourage the development of new affordable housing. A committee was formed to discuss what it would take for a private developer to construct housing where some of it is affordable for up to 10 years, the maximum allowed by State Code. The committee consisted of City employees from legal, finance, city manager’s office, and neighborhood services. From outside the City, there were two developers, an appraiser, a realtor and two lenders. The developers stated for a private developer to do affordable housing they do not want a negotiation process, they want to know the parameters from the get-go. Based on that the committee settled upon a 40% exemption of property taxes for a development for a 10 years. In return, the developers felt that would be a sufficient motivation for them to provide at least 15% of the units in the development as affordable. Affordable was defined as the maximum rent a household at 40% of median income could afford minus the estimated utility allowance for tenant who paid utilities. Based on HUD's income limits effective 6/1/2018 and estimated utility allowances, this would be $805 for a three- bedroom, and $683 for a two- and $578 for a one-bedroom. Drabek asked if the committee did an estimate on what the real rent would be, taking the rent price of $578 plus the 40% tax savings, does that equal the market rental rate. Hightshoe said they did, market rates on new construction rentals are expensive, a one-bedroom in new construction would likely be $900 to $1000 rents. Eastham asked what the difference is between the rent reduction above the market level and the amount of money received as a tax exemption. Hightshoe did not have the analysis with he r, the goal was for the developer to have a 10% rate of return but to do that they would have to forgive 90% of the taxes on the whole development. The developers said they were more worried about vacancy so they just wanted a tax exemption for the amount they were losing in rent. Developers noted there was no tax exemption process that would make this viable for downtown because of the rents they can get in the downtown. Hightshoe noted a developer may request different terms than the ones outlined in the memo, however before granting a tax exemption, the City would consider the capacity of the developer/project manager to administer the program, including income certification of households and annual reporting requirements, the number of affordable units proposed in the development, the household income level targeted and the proposed rents for the affordable units as compared to the market rate units. Alter asked about the concern about placing additional affordable housing units in areas the City's Affordable Housing Location Model (AHLM), so geographically speaking what areas are available for this type of application. Lehmann said generally the south and east parts of town would not be allowed under the AHLM. Hightshoe added that because this tax exemption provides a mix of market and affordable units, the AHLM would not apply. Alter asked how it fits into transportation lines and Hightshoe said it wasn’t a part of the discussion. Eastham suggested the maximum income limit be changed, which is currently 60% of the area median income, and changing that wouldn’t change the financial calculations of the developer, so he suggests 60% is too high. Hightshoe acknowledged the committee discussed 60% being high, however anyone under that amount is also eligible. Sara Barron (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) encourage d the Commission to think about the fact that every time they start an affordable housing program it is dollars allocated to a specific type of housing, in this case new c onstruction. One thing staff pointed out in their most recent memo to Council about the allocation of the affordable housing fund is that new construction is one of the most expensive ways to create affordable housing and existing housing can make more economic sense to be converted into affordability. She stated the Commission can evaluate this proposal and its merits based on cost and who may be eligible but she encourages them to think more broadly about this being an investment of City resources into creating affordable housing for a 10 year period in new construction where it is more Housing and Community Development Commission August 15, 2019 Page 5 of 10 expensive to find units. So it is not just the individual variables of this proposal but how this proposal fits in overall toolkit of making more housing, with better variety, more available to more people in more areas. Fixmer-Oraiz noted the 10 year time frame; why was it set at 10 years? Hightshoe added that is the maximum allowed by State Code, it can be set for less than 10 years but not for more. Padron asked if the rent would stay the same for the 10 years. Hightshoe said it will always be based on HUDs rates so it would probably increase slightly each year. Padron also asked where the 15% amount came from. Hightshoe said the committee discussed and chose to try to match the tax increment finance policy which is at 15%. Additionally the reason they didn’t feel the AHLM should apply is because the committee felt like the whole city should be eligible, so when talking about mixed developments and trying to get every development to have a percentage of affordable housing they liked the 15% but wanted no more than 20% so they could have the mixed income. Also because of the AHLM and the concern about concentrating affordable housing in certain developments is why they wanted this incentive to be city- wide, unless other funds subject to the AHLM should be used as well. Fixmer-Oraiz asked about the annual recertification of the tenants. Hightshoe said the developers would have to do that or they could hire a nonprofit to do it but each year when they issue new leases they would have to verify income of the tenant and make sure the tenant is eligible. If the tenant’s income goes over the threshold, then that unit is no longer considered affordable and the next unit that becomes available the developer has to rent as an affordable unit. Alter noted that doing the income review disincentivizes one from makin g a better income because they must have housing and some stability. Hightshoe said that is standard in all HUD and State programs. She also noted that if the income threshold is 60% but then goes up, it is not considered non-affordable until the income is at 80% so it would need to be a drastic income change. Kealey asked if the tax exemption goes away after 10 years do the units have to remain affordable after the 10 years. Hightshoe confirmed they do not, they can then be rented at any rate after the 10 years. Eastham asked if they had a median income table available and asked what 60% of the median income for a three person household. Lehmann said it would be $51,720 and that a two bedroom unit would be around 16% of income. Eastham would like the Commission to lower the maximum income to at least 50% or 40% of median income. Alter feels this program is a short-term idea, at year 10 that tenant has to move and the problem starts over. She noted it is short-sided in the scope of the long-term problem. Nkumu acknowledged that 10 years does go quickly but feels this solution is better than nothing and what is the alternative if there is not this plan. Hightshoe admitted she struggles with the 10 year problem, it is also the same in the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing requirement, it is only 10 years as well. The catch is developers will not provide affordable housing without the subsidy. Drabek noted the 10 year limit is a limit of public subsidy of private development, it does not apply to any program the City runs such as The Housing Authority. Sara Barron (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) noted other options are to acquire units that have already been built and either they become part of the public housing program or a nonprofit housing provider, so after the 10 years those units would not go away as in this case of new construction with tax exemptions. The tradeoff is if The Housing Fellowship were to buy a building tomorrow that was built 30 years ago and added it to their inventory they would not be interested in raising rents to the market rent. Lehmann noted in the HOME program if it is less than $15,000 it is a five year period of affordability, if it is up to $40,000 it is a 10 year, if more than that it is 15 year and new construction is 20 years. So the way Housing and Community Development Commission August 15, 2019 Page 6 of 10 a lot of affordable housing funders talk about it is the turnover number of units; 10 years is an expected annual 10% of units would turnover every year out of affordability. Eastham agrees it is a handicap approach, but the terms of affordable housing, such as in Riverfront Crossings, can be atrocious. He is more interested in trying to reduce the maximum incom e, 60% of median household incomes are paying 17% of their income for this rent whereas a $30,000 income household would be paying close to 30% of their income. He suggests lowering the 60% down to 40%. Lehmann noted that if it is lowered to 40% then everyone in those units would be cost burdened by definition. Eastham said then to lower the maximum to the cost burden. Hightshoe also noted it has to be easy to explain to a developer, they don’t understand by looking at the income table. Eastham feels a developer would just need to look at what the maximum income is for occupants of these units. Hightshoe also added they looked at affordable homeownership and with the Iowa City market and the housing prices a tax exemption alone would not encourage som ebody to bring it down. It also was not feasible with rehabs, the rehab would have to raise the assessment significantly to adjust for the tax exemption. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if during the conversations within the committee, did the developers appear interested in pursuing this exemption. Hightshoe said the developers thought it would be viable and something to look at if they saw vacancies increase. If approved by Council, there still may never be a single application for a project. Eastham said it would also be prudent for the City to make sure if this subsidy is worth it – what the net loss or gain would be for this tax exemption. Hightshoe said those numbers were looked at and studied for this proposal. Eastham moved to recommend to City Council the Tax Exemption Memo dated May 24, 2019 on the condition that the income of beneficiaries be reduced from 60% of the Area Median Income to 40% of the Area Median Income. Aguilar seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6 -2 (Fixmer-Oraiz and Drabek dissenting). Hightshoe asked the reason for the dissent so it could be documented. Fixmer -Oraiz noted it did not seem like a long enough period for affordable housing to justify the exemption. Drabek agreed. REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON ALLOCATING CITY LIHTC FUNDING TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND OF JOHNSON COUNTY (HTFJC): Hightshoe stated when Council asked staff to develop the 15-step action plan for affordable housing, they requested it be regularly reviewed and updated. Staff went through a comprehensive analysis looking at the plan and made several additional recommendations for Council. Council wanted input regarding both the tax exemption committee and two other items listed in the memo. One was altering the scoring criteria for CDBG/HOME, which the Commission does every year, and staff’s recommendation is to give a higher score to projects that reduce the rent further than just fair market rent because in staff analysis there are areas where rent is lower than fair market rent. In those cases, subsidizing someone for the same unit at the same price the private market is already producing in that neighborhood may not make sense. The second item is regarding the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC). Right now, the City provides 50% of Affordable Housing Fund dollars to HTFJC to allocate. Many LIHTC projects (the fund also reserves 20% for LIHTC projects), are being funded by both the City and HTFJC. A couple years ago the City combined their application process, but some projects are being funded by both and it is difficult when an amendment comes back because it comes to two different parties. As such, staff thinks there may also be efficiency in just having one entity review and to avoid conflicting reviews. Also, if HTFJC administered all the funds, the City could remove them from the Aid to Agencies pot of money and the y wouldn’t be competing with other agencies, instead being funded by a 5% administrative fee to build their capacity and have a reliable source of funds for administrative expenses. If HTFJC took on the LIHTC process, there would be another 5% they could also for administration. Hightshoe also noted if the City funds the same projects as the HTFJC, there is duplication of efforts in monitoring. Housing and Community Development Commission August 15, 2019 Page 7 of 10 Ellen McCabe (The Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County) said they have heard they don’t know what the point system will be for scoring this year and this past year there were no extra points ba sed on where the funds came from, which was a departure from the past. They are waiting for the LIHTC scoring process to be released. Hightshoe said staff recommendation was to have the set aside and administered through HTFJC and if the scoring criteria is released and there is higher scoring for city contribution the City will take back those funds to try to improve the chances of LIHTC developers in our community of getting funded. If it doesn’t matter or HTFJC doesn’t get additional points it made sense just to have one entity review the projects. The HTFJC Board is also made up of people who only review housing projects so they have experience in reviewing housing projects. Padron asked if the Commission could do the same thing with other agencies, just give them direct money every year. Lehmann said what they are recommending for HTFJC is similar to what the federal government does for the City, the City gets funds and are told some amount of it can be used for administrative costs, but the allocation of funds every year is not the same and a certain amount of dollars is never guaranteed. Padron misunderstood and thought this was money that would come away from the Aid to Agencies (A2A) funding and Hightshoe explained HTFJC separately administers hundreds of thousands of dollars for the City but cannot access any for administrative expenses, so they must apply through the A2A process for administrative funds. This will fund them without them applying for administrative funds. Padron asked if there would be more money in the Aid to Agency funds to distribute to others then and Hightshoe confirmed that was correct. Ellen McCabe (The Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County) requested this be considered as a project based fee with the caveat that if this fell apart and the City decided to no longer give funding to HTFJC that they would have five years to apply back and be considered a legacy agency. Hightshoe stated this year the Commission allocated HTFJC $30,000 in A2A and the City would want to make sure they continue to get that $30,000 so if their Affordable Housing Fund contribution was only $25,000, then the City would give HTFJC another $5,000 from Aid to Agencies to make up the difference. Eastham supports this idea and feels it is a good step on staff’s direction. He wants to talk about establishing guidelines that will further lower rents for projects with City funds. On page 23 of the packet, this memo’s recommendation #2 regarding altering preference in scoring criteria, the staff proposes a good thing which is to give a higher preference to CDBG/HOME projects that have rents lower than the HUD maximum rent. However Eastham does not think the standard should be projects lower than HUD maximum rent but rather projects that reach some percentage of the average housing contribution to their rental costs. Eastham reiterated his goal in life is to eliminate housing cost burdens. Ellen McCabe (The Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County) stated she cannot speak for The HTFJC Board of Directors but her instinct would be for the City to give them the money and tell them the parameters, not for them to decide. Eastham said every entity gets money with guidelines att ached to it. McCabe said they would take their normal process and work with the funding they have with a LITHC developer and then follow the guidelines the City has attached to that funding. Eastham stated a sensible rent target for subsidized units, n ew construction or acquisition, is some high percentage of the average rent paid by the housing choice voucher system. That group of people have the lowest incomes and are receiving assistance, their average rent payment is standard, so rents should be set at their level to not put them in a cost burden. Sara Barron (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) asked what happens to the money after it is granted to the developer because part of this is what happens longer term with the money too. How does that money come back into the affordable housing dollars. If the money is a loan it comes back to the City to fund additional housing projects. Ellen McCabe (The Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County) agrees, if the City is giving HTFJC money as a grant or loan. Eastham said to get lower rents is has to be a grant. McCabe noted when HTFJC uses Housing and Community Development Commission August 15, 2019 Page 8 of 10 local government funds, such as when working with Sand land year, that was a loan so that money had to come back. Hightshoe explained to new members that a LIHTC project is a 30 year period of affordability. McCabe added it can be up to 60% AMI as well. Eastham said it can be 60% of AMI but it could also be lower. Fixmer-Oraiz moved to recommend to City Council support for allocating City LIHTC funding to The Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County, subject to additional discussion with the Housing Trust Fund regarding the parameters of how they would allocate funds with the goal of lowering rents as far as possible for as many households as possible. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0 (Nkumu absent). REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF THE FINALIZED 2019 FAIR HOUSING CHOICE STUDY (ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE): Lehmann noted this is just returning to the Commission with changes that were discussed by HCDC, also legal reviewed the document as laid out in in the memo in their packet. This will be presented to Council at the August 20 meeting. Lehmann noted Stephanie from Human Rights was going to present on fair housing enforcement processes but because the recommendation in the plan is to have her do a training for all Boards and Commissions, they decided to wait to combine efforts for that later in the year, especially as a full presentation is expected to take one and a half hours. Lehmann noted McKinstry had brought up during the public comment portion of the discussion mobile home housing and Lehmann added that in the study as an HCDC recommendation. That change specifically is discussed on page 178 of the plan, under education and outreach Strategy 1: Improve Demand-Size Awareness. “The demand side of the housing market includes tenants, homeowners, borrowers, mobile home park residents, and other who need and/or use housing.” Lehmann asked if there were any additional recommendations, and if there were none, then no vote was needed. The Commission indicated no vote was needed. AID TO AGENCIES RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOW UP: Lehmann stated staff (city manager’s office and neighborhood services staff) met with the Agency Impact Coalition (AIC) (Shelter House, Prelude, Neighborhood Center, Free Medical Clinic, United Action for Youth and Domestic Violence Intervention Program) on July 30. Fixmer-Oraiz also attended the meeting. Lehmann said staff was there to listen, find out what the agencies needs were, how they saw budgets potentially as well. DVIP talked about the 29% decrease in A2A funding over the last year and were within $14,000 of losing their federal funding match, Prelude talked about how their A2A amount was stable and they have trouble keeping staff because they can’t increase salaries, free Medical Clinic discussed how the people they help are having more complex issues and other complications that come with increased immigration populations and cultures. Staff then discussed the budget timeline and how it fits into everything and how agencies can be involved. The kickoff for the budget is August 20 at 5pm, and is open to the public (it will be the City Council work session). During September and October staff looks through capital improvement needs, October through November is when departments submit requests, and budget requests are finalized in December. In January the budget is presented to Council and Council adopts it in March. Staff also looked at what current A2A levels would be if A2A funding had increased over time. At 2% (what most city departments base budgets on) the amount would be $304,000 (excluding CDBG and utility funds), if adjusted by the CPI inflation index it would be around $281,000, and if done by changes in taxable valuation it would be $366,000. The City Manager mentioned he didn’t realize A2A had decreased as much as it had over time simply because the City has allocated more funding for public services, just not through the A2A grant. Things like contributions to the Behavioral Access Center, Winter Shelter, etc. The AIC asked to look at funding through what is the need, the City Manager asked what they felt was a fair funding and requested the AIC provide that amount to the City. Housing and Community Development Commission August 15, 2019 Page 9 of 10 Fixmer-Oraiz noted the AIC members encouraged City staff and HCDC members to look at their overall impact on the community as an asset that includes economic multipliers and community health. This was in response to the budget feeling like just another line item, and one that could be easily under‐valued. She added the discussions were positive. Eastham noted the August 20 Council work session meeting will not be discussion, it will just be setting budget priorities. In the packet released for that meeting, the City Manager is going to suggest an increase of 2% from the base of $250,000 for Aid to Agencies which is not necessarily what the AIC group is going to propose. Fixmer-Oraiz acknowledged the City Manager knew he would not have a proposal from AIC in time for the work session but he is asking for it by Labor Day so it is still early on in the process and can be adapted perhaps. Lehmann added the City Manager wanted to call out A2A in this upcoming work session because it was not addressed in the last one. Padron requested HCDC be informed of the proposal from AIC to the City Manager to see if Council’s final budget allocation matches that proposal. Fixmer-Oraiz can reach out to AIC to ask for a copy of their proposal. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Lehmann stated the next meeting of HCDC would be September 19 at 6:30pm, held at the Iowa City Public Library Meeting Room D. At this meeting will be the review of City Steps with nonprofits. It will also be the public meeting for the CAPER and will receive legacy Aid t o Agencies funding applications. Eastham asked for an update on the South District Homeownership program and Habitat for Humanity’s proposal. Lehmann said because the City actually found a property under their previous application the City will move forward this year with that project and will encourage Habitat for Humanity and HCDC to consider looking at the South District Program as part of the competitive process next year. Lehmann noted the City updated its affordable housing programs summary that has been done in the past, FY15 – FY19, he will send it to HCDC as a follow up item. Basically from FY15 – FY19 $9.9 million has gone to assist affordable housing projects and workforce housing projects. 452 units have been affordable and 66 workforce units, 339 renter projects (mostly from Riverfront Crossings) and 204 rehab projects. Eastham asked if the rent amounts were included in the data for these projects. Lehmann has the target income levels not the rent levels. Hightshoe said most are at fair market rent. Lehmann plans to incorporate that data into the CAPER. Lehmann noted the Fair Housing Choice Study is going to Council on August 20 and the Housing Trust Fund turns 15 this year. IFA’s Iowa Housing Conference is in Cedar Rapids this year from September 4 to September 6. It is $270 to attend if anyone is interested. Hightshoe stated Iowa City is hosting the American Planners Housing Conference this year, October 9- 11. The City will do an affordable housing tour. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Fixmer-Oraiz seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0 (Nkumu absent). Housing and Community Development Commission August 15, 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. 7/11 8/15 Aguilar, Peggy 6/30/22 ◼ X Alter, Megan 6/30/21 X X Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 O/E X Eastham, Charlie 6/30/20 X X Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa 6/30/20 X X Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook 6/30/22 O/E X McKinstry, John 6/30/20 X O/E Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 O/E X Padron, Maria 6/30/20 X X Date: September 12, 2019 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner Re: HCDC Feedback: City Low Income House Tax Credit Funds Introduction: At their August 20, 2019 meeting, the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) considered City staff’s recommendation in the Affordable housing Memo to City Council, dated July 29, 2019, of providing City Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) match funding to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC). After discussion, HCDC unanimously recommended this to Council with the caveat that the HTFJC Director discuss allocating these funds with restrictions concerning rent and tenant income with her Board. The Director will report back to HCDC at their next meeting, and HCDC will make a final recommendation to Council as to possible restrictions. Background: Currently HCDC reviews LIHTC applications through a joint funding process with the HTFJC. This change would provide funds for HTFJC to administer as a match for LIHTC projects through their own allocation process, unless the Iowa Finance Authority’s scoring criteria change to provide an advantage for a direct City allocation of funds opposed to a local trust fund for LIHTC projects. Additional background on this item can be found in the attached memo from staff and HCDC minutes. Discussion: The City’s LIHTC allocation is a set-aside of 20% of the amount the City allocates to the Affordable Housing Fund. In FY20, this amounts to $200,000. However, because this reduces duplication of efforts, it should prove a more effective use of funds, and it should make navigating the process simpler for LIHTC developers. Recommendation: HCDC supports this effort as a way to streamline processes to create affordable housing. HCDC voted 7-0 to recommend having HTFJC receive these funds for allocation, with the caveat that the HTFJC Director report back from their board regarding additional restrictions concerning rent and tenant income. This will be considered at HCDC’s next meeting, during which HCDC will make a final recommendation. Date: August 9, 2019 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Tracy Hightshoe, NDS Director Re: Staff Recommendations The City Council directed staff to review the Affordable Housing Action Plan and consider new strategies to improve the availability and affordability of housing in Iowa City. At their August 6, 2019 work session, Council reviewed a memo from staff dated July 29, 2019 and approved all recommendations, except two that relate to the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC). The City Council requests the commission’s input on the following items: 1) Allocating Council’s set-aside for Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC). For FY20, this is $200,000; and 2) Altering the preference and scoring criteria for CDBG/HOME assisted projects to promote housing applications that reduce rents or housing costs for owner-occupied properties that are lower than the HUD maximum limits. HCDC will review CDBG/HOME application materials, including the scoring criteria, this fall as part the CDBG/HOME funding process. This item will be on HCDC’s October agenda for consideration. At the August 6 Council meeting, staff recommended allocating the Council set-aside for LIHTC projects to the HTFJC for the reasons noted below. Council directed staff to solicit input from HCDC on this recommendation. Since making this recommendation, staff learned the upcoming LIHTC Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), which outlines the scoring criteria, is not expected to include a preference for local trust fund dollars. If this is the case, the City would retain these funds for a direct allocation and continue to have HCDC review and make a recommendation. • The LIHTC application process is extremely competitive. In recent years, applicants were awarded points if they received funds from a local housing trust fund but not for allocations from the City. This can make a difference in whether a project is funded. If not funded, the City loses out on millions of dollars for affordable housing from the Iowa Finance Authority. • The process would be more efficient for developers and the City. The City currently allocates funds to the HTFJC for affordable housing and has a direct LIHTC allocation process that is currently in conjunction with the HTFJC. An applicant must apply through two different entities for essentially City funding for the same project. • The Board of the HTFJC has considerable experience reviewing complex housing projects. If the applicant requests additional funds or an amendment to the project, the applicant would go through one entity who would complete a comprehensive review. • The HTFJC is in a unique position to leverage outside funding and attract private partnerships that can extend the impact of the City’s dollars. It is also staff’s hope that the City’s contribution to the HTFJC will help encourage other local governments to contribute so that regional affordable housing solutions can be more effective. The Commission’s recommendation will be placed in the City Council’s August 20 packet in hopes that it will be discussed at their work session. The HTFJC is preparing for their fall LIHTC allocation process. Staff will be present for any questions. DraftNeighborhood Services 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 hone: 319.356.5230 www.icgov.org/commdev September 2019 City of Iowa City Consolidated Annual Performance & Evaluation Report Federal Fiscal Year 2018 (City Fiscal Year 2019) Neighborhood and Development Services CDBG - Community Development Block Grant HOME - HOME Investment Partnerships Funds Draft DraftCity Council of Iowa City, Iowa Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Pauline Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Rockne Cole Susan Mims Mazahir Salih Bruce Teague John Thomas Housing and Community Development Commission Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz, Chair Maria Padron, Vice Chair Peggy Aguilar Megan Alter Matt Drabek Charles Eastham Lyn Dee Kealey John McKinstry Peter Nkumu Neighborhood & Development Services Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner Draft CAPER 1  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  CR‐05 ‐ Goals and Outcomes  Progress the jurisdiction has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its action plan.   91.520(a). This could be an overview that includes major initiatives and highlights that were proposed  and executed throughout the program year.    All Annual Action Plan projects address needs identified in the CITY STEPS 2016‐2020, the 5‐ year Consolidated Plan. Each year, Iowa City staff and the Housing and Community Development  Commission (HCDC) work to meet the goals of CITY STEPS through annual allocations of CDBG and  HOME funds. Most projects are carried out by local organizations in partnership with the City.  Four of the five years covered by CITY STEPS are complete, meaning progress towards goals in the “CITY  STEPS Outcome Tracking” table should be at 80% (see below). Of CITY STEPS’ 11 goals, the City has  completed 4:  1. Improve access to affordable owner housing;  2. Improve quality of affordable rental units;  3. Increase the supply of affordable rental housing; and  4. Strengthen economic development.  Another 3 match expected progress. The remaining 4 goals are below expected progress, though  preliminary numbers suggest 2 will be completed in City FY20. The final goals, "improve/maintain public  infrastructure/amenities" and "remove slum and blight," will likely not be reached. This is due to the City  completing fewer, larger projects, and to changes in priority away from addressing slum and blight with  CDBG dollars.  Per priorities outlined in CITY STEPS, the City allocated Federal Fiscal Year 2018 (City FY19) CDBG/HOME  funds in the following ways:  1) Provide housing opportunities that are decent and affordable.   City of Iowa City: Rehabbing 22 homeowner units and acquiring, rehabilitating, and reselling 4  homeowner units   The Housing Fellowship (THF): Funding for CHDO Operations, acquiring 1 rental unit, and  rehabbing 4 rental units   Habitat for Humanity: Assisting 2 homebuyers acquire units   MYEP: Acquiring 2 properties for 6 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) rental units for persons with  disabilities   Successful Living: Acquiring 3 properties for 10 SRO rental units for persons with disabilities   Prelude: Rehabbing 12 rental units for those with substance abuse issues   Shelter House: Acquiring 1 property for 4 SRO rental units for the chronically homeless  Draft CAPER 2  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  2) Provide a Suitable Living Environment  Public Facilities   Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County (NCJC): siding improvement at their Broadway Center   Arthur Street Healthy Life Center: acquiring and rehabbing a building for a health facility   Villa and Highland Parks: Park improvements for 2 parks in low‐ and moderate‐income (LMI)  neighborhoods.  Public Services   Shelter House: homeless shelter operations   NCJC: Childcare services for LMI households   Domestic Violence Intervention Program: homeless shelter operations for victims of domestic  violence  3) Expand Economic Opportunities  CDBG helps stimulate private sector investment to create jobs with living wages for LMI persons. The  City funded 2 CDBG Economic Development applications in FFY18 and allocated funds to 4Cs to provide  technical assistance to LMI home‐based childcare providers.  The tables below show some accomplishment data, though they are auto‐generated by HUD's  Integrated Dispersement and Information System. The following tables provide data to supplement  and clarify this information:   CITY STEPS Outcome Tracking Through City FY19 (FFY18)   Annual Action Plan Outcome Tracking City FY19 (FFY18)   Activities Completed in City FY19 (FFY18)   Activities Underway in City FY19 (FFY18)  Comparison of the proposed versus actual outcomes for each outcome measure submitted  with the consolidated plan and explain, if applicable, why progress was not made toward  meeting goals and objectives.  91.520(g)  Categories, priority levels, funding sources and amounts, outcomes/objectives, goal outcome indicators,  units of measure, targets, actual outcomes/outputs, and percentage completed for each of the  grantee’s program year goals.  Draft CAPER 3 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018) Goal Category Source / Amount Indicator Unit of Measure Expected Strategic Plan Actual Strategic Plan Percent Complete Expected Program Year Actual Program Year Percent Complete Improve access to affordable owner housing Affordable Housing HOME: $ Homeowner Housing Added Housing Unit 0 0   6 1         16.67% Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers Households Assisted 5 5        100.00%       Improve access to affordable renter housing Affordable Housing Homeless HOME: $ Tenant‐based rental assistance / Rapid Rehousing Households Assisted 50 41         82.00%       Other Other 0 0   1 1        100.00% Improve and maintain public facilities Public and neighborhood facility improvement CDBG: $ Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than LMI Housing Benefit Persons Assisted 0 10746   1500 8326        555.07% CDBG: $ Other Other 8 6         75.00%       Improve quality of affordable rental units Affordable Housing Homeless CDBG: $121034 / HOME: $ Rental units rehabilitated Household Housing Unit 18 56        311.11% 16 54        337.50% Improve the quality of owner housing Affordable Housing CDBG: $ / HOME: $ Homeowner Housing Added Housing Unit 0 0   0 0   Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated Housing Unit 90 84         93.33% 22 18         81.82% Improve/ maintain public infrastructure/ amenities Public and neighborhood facility improvement CDBG: $ Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than LMI Housing Benefit Persons Assisted 1500 85755      5,717.00% 300 0          0.00% Other Other 10 4         40.00%        Draft CAPER 4 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018) Increase the supply of affordable rental housing Affordable Housing HOME: $ Rental units constructed Housing Unit 10 24        240.00% 0 24   Homeowner Housing Added Housing Unit 0 0   0 0   Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated Housing Unit 0 0   0 0   Housing for Homeless added Housing Unit 0 0   0 0   Housing for People with HIV/AIDS added Housing Unit 0 0   0 0   Other Other 10 27        270.00% 18 12         66.67% Planning and administration Program admin CDBG: $ / HOME: $ Other Other 1 0          0.00% 1 0          0.00% Provide public services Non‐Homeless Special Needs CDBG: $ Public service activities other than LMI Housing Benefit Persons Assisted 7600 11258        148.13% 1520 2808        184.74% Homeless Person Overnight Shelter Persons Assisted 0 0   0 0   Overnight/Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing Beds added Beds 0 0   0 0   Other Other 15 12         80.00%       Remove slum and blight Non‐Housing Community Development CDBG: $ Businesses assisted Businesses Assisted 6 4         66.67%       Strengthen economic development Non‐Housing Community Development CDBG: $ Businesses assisted Businesses Assisted 5 19        380.00% 2 2        100.00% Table 1 ‐ Accomplishments – Program Year & Strategic Plan to Date  Draft CAPER 5  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  Assess how the jurisdiction’s use of funds, particularly CDBG, addresses the priorities and  specific objectives identified in the plan, giving special attention to the highest priority  activities identified.  All activities completed this fiscal year are consistent with the priorities, goals and objectives established  in CITY STEPS which are designed to assist LMI residents in need of housing, jobs, and services. The  priorities and associated activities completed this reporting year with CDBG/HOME funds are as follows:  Expand Affordable Housing   Successful Living: rental acquisions on Hollywood and Russell   THF: CHDO operations and rental acquisition on Raleigh   MYEP: rental acquisition on Esther   Habitat: homebuyer assistance on Governor  Preserve Affordable Housing   Bilam Properties: rental rehabilitation at Walden Ridge   Prelude: rental rehabilitation on Southgate   THF: CHDO reserve rental rehabilitation at multiple sites   City: CDBG and HOME Owner‐Occupied Rehabilitation  Housing/Services for Those Experiencing or At Risk of Homelessness   Shelter House: FUSE project on Cross Park  Public Facility Improvements   CommUnity: facility rehab   NCJC: siding improvement  Public Services   Shelter House: public service funding (also under homeless services)   DVIP: public service funding (also under homeless services)      Draft CAPER 6  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  Economic Development   Cell Tech & Repair: start up loan   Iconics Salon: start up loan   4Cs: techical assistance for LMI childcare providers  Planning & Administration   City: HOME/CDBG Admin  While this list includes activities completed this year, ongoing projects also align with these priorities.  They will be reported in subsequent CAPERs in the year when they are completed.  Draft CAPER 7 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)   Draft CAPER 8 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)   Draft CAPER 9 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 10 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)     Draft CAPER 11  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  CR‐10 ‐ Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted  Describe the families assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of families assisted).  91.520(a)    CDBG HOME  White 3,251 32  Black or African American 2,809 69  Asian 68 0  American Indian or American Native 62 0  Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 11 0  Total 6,201 101  Hispanic 836 3  Not Hispanic 5,365 98  Table 2 – Table of assistance to racial and ethnic populations by source of funds     Narrative  As required by HUD, the City of Iowa City and its subrecipients (public and private) follow affirmative  marketing rules. The City’s Affirmative Marketing Plan can be found at www.icgov.org/actionplan. Both  public and private subrecipients of HOME funds are also required to follow the affirmative marketing  requirements in 24 CFR 92.351. City staff reviews these efforts during annual monitoring visits. An  evaluation of these efforts shows that both the City and its subrecipients have met HUD requirements.  Note, the above table is auto‐generated from HUD's Integrated Dispersement and Information System.  The table below further provides data that suplements and clarifies this information, and is used as the  basis for the conclusions drawn.  In addition, the City studies the extent to which Iowa City residents are able to choose housing free from  unlawful discrimination every five years. In FFY18, the City updated its Analysis of Impediments to Fair  Housing Choice which identifies barriers to fair housing and includes strategies to overcome those  barriers. The study was adopted by City Council on August 20, 2019. Over the next five years, the City  will carry out these strategies as part of its mission of affirmatively furthering fair housing choice.  Beneficary data suggests that the City of Iowa City and its subrecipients successfully market to  minorities. According to the 2017 5‐Year American Community Survey estimates, approximately 76% of  Iowa City’s population is non‐Hispanic white, compared to only 40% of CDBG beneficiaries and 61% of  HOME beneficiaries for projects completed in FFY18. Similarly, 6% of Iowa City’s population is Hispanic,  compared to 14% of CDBG beneficiaries in FFY18. However, 0% of HOME beneficiaries were  Hispanic/Latino, an unusual circumstance that does not reflect typical trends. The City and subrecipients  will continue to encourage everyone, especially persons of color, to take advantage of CDBG‐ and  HOME‐assisted public services, public facilities, infrastructure, and housing.  Draft CAPER 12  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)        Draft CAPER 13  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  CR‐15 ‐ Resources and Investments 91.520(a)  Identify the resources made available  Source of Funds Source Resources Made  Available  Amount Expended  During Program Year  CDBG public ‐ federal 787,847 765,965  HOME public ‐ federal 733,979 912,494  Table 3 ‐ Resources Made Available    Narrative  In FFY18 (City FY19), the City received approximately $787,847 in CDBG funds, $733,979 in HOME funds,  and $215,000 in general funds for projects. Of those newly available resources, 97% of new CDBG funds  were expended and 116% of new HOME funds were expended. This begins to spend down a backlog of  past HOME funds, but still leaves additional past funds to be utilized next fiscal year. The general funds  are used exclusively for the City’s General Rehabilitation and Improvement Program (GRIP), of which  98% were expended.  Note that HOME Program Income (PI) funding amounts below match City internal records rather than  IDIS records. This can create discrepancies because PI is often receipted in City records at different times  from when they were processed in IDIS.    Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments  Target Area Planned  Percentage of  Allocation  Actual  Percentage of  Allocation  Narrative Description  Citywide 100 100 All funds were used within the City of Iowa City  Table 4 – Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments    Narrative  All projects funded by CDBG and HOME are located in Iowa City and serve individuals and families living  city‐wide according to their needs, especially public service and public facility projects. However, the  City strives to invest HOME and CDBG funds in areas primarily home to non‐student low‐ and moderate‐ income (LMI) persons, defined as those making less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). This  includes areas that are home to families, the elderly, the disabled, and the homeless.  2011‐2015 LMI Summary Data indicates 59% of Iowa City’s population and 23 block groups are  considered LMI, meaning at least 51% of persons living there are LMI. Several of the City’s LMI census  areas are located downtown and include rental housing stock predominantly occupied by University of  Iowa students. The City first utilizes resources other than CDBG and HOME funds in these areas to  maintain and preserve housing, infrastructure, and public services. This includes UniverCity project  Draft CAPER 14  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  funds that help create a healthy balance of owner occupied and renter households within  downtown/university neighborhoods, tax increment financing, and other program funds. This policy  helps the City use federal funds to create the greatest impact for those who need it most.  Iowa City defines minority concentrations as census tracts where minority persons are at least 10  percentage points greater than in general population. Based on the 2019 Fair Housing Choice Study,  three census tracts meet this criterion: 4, 18.02, and 23. The attached maps display LMI areas and  minority concentrations in Iowa City.  The City’s Housing Rehab Program serves residents citywide as well, distributing resources via individual  projects located anywhere in Iowa City. The set‐aside provides low interest, no‐interest, and forgivable  loans to homeowners to make exterior, emergency and comprehensive repairs to their  homes. However, the City also provides incentives (partial forgiveness of loans) for rehabilitation  projects in targeted neighborhoods with older homes and a higher percentage of LMI residents.  Targeted neighborhoods include the College Green, Northside, Miller Orchard, Towncrest, Twain, and  Grant Wood areas.  The development and acquisition of rental housing is governed by the City’s Affordable Housing  Location Model (AHLM). The model uses three factors – distance to existing subsidized family rental  housing, elementary school poverty, and crime density – to determine where funding for new city‐ assisted rental housing is available. This serves three goals of the City:   Avoiding further burden on neighborhoods and elementary schools that already have issues  related to a concentration of poverty,   Promoting diverse neighborhoods in terms of income levels, and   Incorporating factors important to the Iowa City Community School District in affordable  housing siting as it relates to educational outcomes.  The AHLM, now cited as a best practice, has successfully achieved its objective of guiding where certain  types of assisted rental housing are added. The City does not restrict funding for the location of owner‐ occupied housing, rental rehabilitation, or projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities. The AHLM  Map can be found in the attachments.  In FFY18, these policies directly reflect where funded projects were located.  Draft CAPER 15  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  Leveraging  Explain how federal funds  leveraged additional resources (private, state and local funds),  including a description of how matching requirements were satisfied, as well as how any  publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that were used to address the  needs identified in the plan.  The City actively encourages applicants and subrecipients to obtain other public and private  resources. For activities allocated funds in FFY18, the City of Iowa City and its subrecipients  leveraged CDBG & HOME funds at a rate of over $1.18 in non‐formula funds for every $1 of  formula funds, excluding private funds leveraged for staff due to public service and CHDO  operations activities and other resources from the City. The CDBG program does not have  federal match requirements, however leveraging for the HOME and CDBG programs are based  on activities completed during the reporting period. The calculations for the City’s match  contributions are found in the attachments.  The City actively encourages applicants and subrecipients to obtain other public and private  resources. For activities allocated funds in FFY18, the City of Iowa City and its subrecipients  leveraged CDBG & HOME funds at a rate of over $1.18 in non‐formula funds for every $1 of  formula funds, excluding private funds leveraged for staff due to public service and CHDO  operations activities and other resources from the City. The CDBG program does not have  federal match requirements, however leveraging for the HOME and CDBG programs are based  on activities completed during the reporting period. The calculations for the City’s match  contributions are found in the attachments.    Note that there are slight differences in when HOME program Income was received or applied  from when it was processed in IDIS for FFY18.      Fiscal Year Summary – HOME Match  1. Excess match from prior Federal fiscal year 3,395,167  2. Match contributed during current Federal fiscal year 175,566  3. Total match available for current Federal fiscal year (Line 1 plus Line 2) 3,570,733  4. Match liability for current Federal fiscal year 47,627  5. Excess match carried over to next Federal fiscal year (Line 3 minus Line 4) 3,523,106  Table 5 – Fiscal Year Summary ‐ HOME Match Report      Draft CAPER 16 OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)   Match Contribution for the Federal Fiscal Year Project No. or Other ID Date of Contribution Cash (non‐Federal sources) Foregone Taxes, Fees, Charges Appraised Land/Real Property Required Infrastructure Site Preparation, Construction Materials, Donated labor Bond Financing Total Match 61.13 06/30/2019 0 61,169 0 0 0 0 61,169 63.08 06/30/2019 0 72,357 0 0 0 0 72,357 63.11 ‐ 1311 06/30/2019 0 21,735 0 0 0 0 21,735 63.12 ‐ 2209 06/30/2019 0 20,305 0 0 0 0 20,305 Table 6 – Match Contribution for the Federal Fiscal Year  HOME MBE/WBE report Program Income – Enter the program amounts for the reporting period Balance on hand at begin‐ning of reporting period $ Amount received during reporting period $ Total amount expended during reporting period $ Amount expended for TBRA $ Balance on hand at end of reporting period $ 193,137 153,757 346,894 58,998 0 Table 7 – Program Income   Draft CAPER 17  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  Minority Business Enterprises and Women Business Enterprises – Indicate the number and dollar  value of contracts for HOME projects completed during the reporting period   Total Minority Business Enterprises White Non‐ Hispanic Alaskan  Native or  American  Indian  Asian or  Pacific  Islander  Black Non‐ Hispanic  Hispanic  Contracts  Dollar  Amount 110,637 0 0 0 0 110,637  Number 5 0 0 0 0 5  Sub‐Contracts  Number 0 0 0 0 0 0  Dollar  Amount 0 0 0 0 0 0   Total Women  Business  Enterprises  Male  Contracts  Dollar  Amount 110,637 14,410 96,227  Number 5 1 4  Sub‐Contracts  Number 0 0 0  Dollar  Amount 0 0 0  Table 8 ‐ Minority Business and Women Business Enterprises    Minority Owners of Rental Property – Indicate the number of HOME assisted rental property owners  and the total amount of HOME funds in these rental properties assisted   Total Minority Property Owners White Non‐ Hispanic Alaskan  Native or  American  Indian  Asian or  Pacific  Islander  Black Non‐ Hispanic  Hispanic  Number 3 0 0 1 0 2  Dollar  Amount  303,9 99 0 0 35,000 0 268,999  Table 9 – Minority Owners of Rental Property    Draft CAPER 18  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  Relocation and Real Property Acquisition – Indicate the number of persons displaced, the cost of  relocation payments, the number of parcels acquired, and the cost of acquisition  Parcels Acquired 6 956,836  Businesses Displaced 0 0  Nonprofit Organizations  Displaced 0 0  Households Temporarily  Relocated, not Displaced 0 0  Households  Displaced  Total Minority Property Enterprises White Non‐ Hispanic Alaskan  Native or  American  Indian  Asian or  Pacific  Islander  Black Non‐ Hispanic  Hispanic  Number 0 0 0 0 0 0  Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0  Table 10 – Relocation and Real Property Acquisition          Draft CAPER 19  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  CR‐20 ‐ Affordable Housing 91.520(b)  Evaluation of the jurisdiction's progress in providing affordable housing, including the  number and types of families served, the number of extremely low‐income, low‐income,  moderate‐income, and middle‐income persons served.     One‐Year  Goal  Actual  Number of Homeless households to be provided affordable housing units 4 23  Number of Non‐Homeless households to be provided affordable housing units 45 75  Number of Special‐Needs households to be provided affordable housing units 13 11  Total 62 109  Table 11 – Number of Households     One‐Year  Goal  Actual  Number of households supported through Rental Assistance 0 0  Number of households supported through The Production of New Units 2 24  Number of households supported through Rehab of Existing Units 38 73  Number of households supported through Acquisition of Existing Units 22 12  Total 62 109  Table 12 – Number of Households Supported    Discuss the difference between goals and outcomes and problems encountered in meeting  these goals.  Differences between goals and outcomes can largely be explained by mismatches between the year the  activity originated and the year in which it was completed. Affordable housing goals not met for FFY18  will be met through the following underway activities – including rental assistance, affordable rental and  homeowner units, and assistance for homeless residents – and will provide an additional 72 affordable  units. These activities will be reported in subsequent CAPERs when they are completed.  1. Iowa City Housing Authority TBRA; FY17 HOME; 34 units; 68% complete  2. The Housing Fellowship rental rehab; FY18 and FY19 HOME; 7 units; 69% complete  3. Habitat for Humanity; FY18 and FY19 HOME; 3 units; 78% complete  4. Successful Living Rehabilitation; FY18 HOME; 5 SRO units, 90% complete  5. Successful Living Acquisition; FY19 HOME; 8 SRO units, expecting completion before fall 2019  6. MYEP Acquisition; FY19 HOME; 3 SRO units, expecting completion before fall 2019  7. Shelter House Acquisition; FY19 HOME; 4 SRO units, expecting completion before fall 2019  8. Comprehensive homeowner rehab; FY19 HOME; 4 units; completion expected 2020  9. South District Partnership; FY19 HOME; 4 units; completion expected 2020  Draft CAPER 20  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  Problems encountered during FFY18 include difficulty finding available units within appropriate price  points due to the strength of Iowa City's housing market and rehabilitation needs beyond initial  expected amounts. These have all been largely resolved through patience and amendments to the  Annual Action Plan, and all activities are now back on track.    Discuss how these outcomes will impact future annual action plans.  Based on the projects completed to date and currently programmed with funding, the city is on track to  exceed all strategic plan goals that are related to the provision of affordable housing. Future annual  action plans will continue to implement the goals and priorities outlined in the Consolidated Plan, with  additional public input planned each fall to tweak funding priorities as needed.  Include the number of extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income persons  served by each activity where information on income by family size is required to determine  the eligibility of the activity.  Number  of Households Served CDBG Actual HOME Actual  Extremely Low‐income 51 13  Low‐income 16 2  Moderate‐income 12 3  Total 79 18  Table 13 – Number of Households Served    Narrative Information  Nearly 89% of households served are low‐ and moderate‐income, which is consistent with the  consolidated plan. HOME funds tend to serve a higher proportion of those at the lower end of the  income spectrum. These results demonstrate housing subsidies are being directed to those with highest  need.  Rents for CDBG/HOME assisted projects depend on funding, tenant‐paid utilities, and the number of  bedrooms. For project put into service in FFY18, units had the following rents:   $0‐$599: 11 units (SRO)   $600‐$799: 26 units (1 & 2 BR)   $800‐$999: 15 units (2 & 3 BR)   $1,000‐$1,199: 24 units (3 BR)   $1,200 and more: 14 units (3 & 4 BR)  Housing Rehabilitation staff also works closely on other locally funded owner‐occupied housing  programs through the General Rehabilitation and Improvement Program (GRIP) and the UniverCity  Draft CAPER 21  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  Neighborhood Partnership. Eight homes took part in GRIP and four homes were renovated and sold as  owner‐occupied housing to income qualified homebuyers in FFY18. Additional homes are under  rehabilitation and awaiting rehab. Most UniverCity homes have the following items addressed through  replacement or repair:   Demolition and replacement of bathrooms and kitchens.   Updating the plumbing and electrical systems, including the outlets, fixtures, and wiring.   Installation of high‐efficiency heating and air conditioning systems.   Interior and exterior painting.   Re‐grading of yards to enable proper drainage away from the home and/or structural  improvement.    Draft CAPER 22  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  CR‐25 ‐ Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220(d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c)  Evaluate the jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its specific objectives for reducing and ending  homelessness through:  Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their  individual needs  In light of the limited amount of CDBG and HOME funds available, not all of the area’s homeless needs  can be addressed with CDBG and HOME funds. The City does not receive Emergency Shelter Grant or  HOPWA entitlement funds, so it primarily relies on a variety of community agencies to provide basic  needs assistance and other support, though it does use CDBG, HOME, and local funds towards this end.  In FFY18, the City provided funding for the operation and improvement of public facilities and services  for non‐profit organizations that assist the homeless or near homeless in Iowa City including  CommUnity, Shelter House, Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP), Prelude Behavioral  Services, Hawkeye Area Community Action Program (HACAP), United Action for Youth (UAY), Inside Out,  Free Medical Clinic, and the Free Lunch Program. The City also supports and participates in the Johnson  County Local Homeless Coordinating Board (LHCB), the region’s Continuum of Care organization.  Generally, nonprofit partners conduct direct outreach to homeless individuals, though the Iowa City  Police Department (ICPD) and Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) also have regular contact with those  experiencing homelessness.  The City advocates for human services coordination. The LHCB utilizes standardizing assessment  practices such as the use of the Vulnerability Index ‐ Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI‐ SPDAT). This, in addition to the use of the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), has  allowed agencies to better connect clients with services and assists with inter‐agency referrals. The  LHCB also continues to organize volunteers for the annual Point In Time (PIT) counts, and new efforts for  collaboration between service providers and the City have led to new crisis management and data  driven justice initiatives. ICPD is currently working on a uniform crisis de‐escalation and reporting system  that would also inform service providers regarding certain individuals. The goal is to collect data and  improve the handling of crises to act as a jail diversion program for those experiencing homelessness.     Draft CAPER 23  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons  The City primarily addresses emergency shelter needs in partnership with the Shelter House and  DVIP. Shelter House’s emergency shelter provides daily drop‐in services including laundry, bathrooms  with showers, a training room, a Job Lab to help clients develop skills, research jobs, and complete  applications, a Job Club, and  dedicated outreach offices to assist Shelter House clients and walk‐ins.  Sample services include a weekly Psychological Clinic, Veteran outreach, free legal counsel for  individuals seeking application for Social Security, and spiritual counseling provided by local  clergy. Shelter House also has 14 beds designated for veterans experiencing homelessness where  participants may stay for up to two years as long as they are participating in Case Management. The City  also provides operational funding to DVIP which serves youth and adult victims of domestic abuse. This  includes an emergency shelter available to women, men and youth when staying in their current  situation is no longer safe. It also operates a 24‐hour hotline, housing and financial services, advocacy,  counseling and support groups, education, and other related support for victims of domestic violence.  Iowa City primarily supports transitional housing through HACAP, Successful Living, United Action for  Youth and Prelude Behavioral Services. However, as HUD has shifted funding from transitional housing  supports in favor of a Rapid Rehousing approach, some of these agencies have also shifted towards  traditional affordable housing units with a preferences for homeless residents, or towards permanent  supportive housing. The City is actively working with agencies through this process. In additional to  operational support and other funding, the City also works with local agencies that manage Rapid  Rehousing programs for homeless individuals.    Helping low‐income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely  low‐income individuals and families and those who are:  likely to become homeless after  being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care  facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections  programs and institutions);  and,  receiving assistance from public or private agencies that  address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs  Income and housing affordability are major factors that can lead to homelessness. The City consistently  works with community partners to provide affordable housing and promote economic self‐sufficiency. It  also provides funds to organizations that carry out poverty relief efforts. This is carried out through  several programs currently in place and actions taken that are designed to further the affordable  housing goals set forth in CITY STEPS.  Of the CDBG and HOME dollars spent in FFY18, approximately $1.1 million (66% of funds) supported  affordable housing by increasing the stock of affordable units, assisting households to afford their  homes, improving the quality of housing for low and moderate income households, or supporting  affordable housing providers. Many of these are targeted for extremely low‐income families and those  Draft CAPER 24  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  disabilities, as they more vulnerable and are often more at risk of homelessness. Outside of CDBG and  HOME funds, the City provides local dollars to support affordable housing, including $1.0 million to an  affordable housing fund and $200,000 to the General Rehabilitation and Improvement Program, and it  manages $9.8 million for its Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing programs.  Another 14% of CDBG/HOME funds (approximately $238,000 ) went to organizations directly providing  homelessness supports or to public facilities providing affordable or no‐cost services for primarily low  income families, including shelter diversion activities, food assistance, childcare, and other forms of  education, in addition to direct emergency shelter. These efforts have been mentioned in earlier  sections. The City also provided approximately $354,000 in local dollars to agencies through its Aid to  Agencies and Social Justice/Racial Equity grants.  The final 2% of funds (approximately $29,000) assisted low income individuals start and improve  childcare microenterprises or went directly as loans for low‐ and moderate‐income entreprenuers.  Increasing the income of low income individuals leads towards greater economic self‐sufficiency, which  can help prevent homelessness.  These programs and activities all help low‐income households avoid becoming homeless and provide  valuable services to those in need within Iowa City. In addition, the City coordinates with local service  providers to target services at those most in need, especially extremely low‐income households.  The City seeks to assist those who are at risk of becoming homeless after discharge from institutions and  systems of care by supporting efforts of the LHCB, funding organizations that provide mental health and  disability services to create housing opportunities for persons with disabilities, and working with the  Inside Out program which helps those discharged from corrections institutions to find housing. Specific  initiatives in which the City was a part in includes RentWise, a tenant education class, a landlord risk  mitigation fund, to encourage landlords to accept hard‐to‐house tenants, and a security deposit  program. Johnson County jail diversion also participates in coordinated entry intake with the goal of  getting those serving jail time into housing rather than discharging them on the street.     Draft CAPER 25  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families  with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to  permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that  individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals  and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were  recently homeless from becoming homeless again  The City is committed to assisting individuals establish permanent housing, primarily through  partnerships with local agencies and organizations. This includes funding a cross‐section of projects  within the Continuum of Care. Affordable housing for those most in need, including homeless, near‐ homeless, and non‐homeless persons is a continual focus of the City and local human service  organizations.  Shelter House provides many supportive services for those experiencing homeless, and works closely  with the ICHA to get them into stable housing  situations. Cross Park Place, fully leased up in 2019,  assists chronically homeless individuals and families access affordable housing units. This Permanent  Supportive Housing project is Iowa's first Housing First shelter, meaning it does not impose conditions  on tenants' behavior but instead provides subsidized housing with the ongoing option to participate in  supportive services. Residents primarily work with a housing case manager who assists with  independent living skills, connects them with outside resources, and works with residents to ensure they  uphold requirements of the lease. Additional onsite support includes regular check‐ins with a medical  professional, mental health counselor, and psychiatrist. These kinds of projects consistently  demonstrate enhanced quality of life and reduced service costs to the community. Similarly, veterans  experiencing homelessness have received relief through Shelter House's assistance for veterans and  ICHA’s Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers.  Other agencies focus on more specific populations. UAY assists unaccompanied youth and helps them  transition into more stable living situations. DVIP assists victims of domestic violence through their crisis  with a goal of transitioning them into safe, affordable housing. Habitat for Humanity administers a  program that diverts household furniture such as dressers, beds, etc. from the landfill to be provided  free of charge to families transitioning out of homelessness. MYEP, Successful Living, and others provide  supportive housing for persons with disabilities.   All agencies participating in LHCB actively try to prevent homelessness before individuals and families  are caught in the system through diversion and prevention. This approach emphasizes problem solving  and sharing resources to prevent the loss of housing. The City is also working to identify ways to  transition people already experiencing homelessness towards housing.    Draft CAPER 26  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  CR‐30 ‐ Public Housing 91.220(h); 91.320(j)  Actions taken to address the needs of public housing  The Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) works to improve the quality of life for those around Iowa City,  acting as a community leader on affordable housing and providing information, education, housing  assistance, and partnership opportunities. ICHA is a division of the City of Iowa City established in 1969  to administer housing assistance programs throughout its jurisdiction, including all of Johnson County  and portions of Iowa and Washington Counties.  ICHA assists low‐income families to acquire and maintain affordable housing through rental and  ownership programs. Rental assistance includes 1,215 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) recipients, 83  Veterans' Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers, and 81 Public Housing units. ICHA also administers  Tenant Based Rental Assistance projects when awarded ‐ its most recent was $200,000 awarded in City  FY17. In total, ICHA works with approximately 400 landlords and oversees Housing Assistance Payments  of around $7.8 million. ICHA also paid out more than $300,000 to private contractors for capital  improvements and maintenance of Public Housing Properties in 2018. Homeownership opportunities  also exist under the HCV Homeownership Program. Participation in all programs requires the family be  within federally established income guidelines.  ICHA continues to operate a "best practices" Family Self‐Sufficiency Program (FSS) that helps motivated  families build assets and become economically self‐sufficient. The FSS Program helps remove barriers to  economic self‐sufficiency and connects participants with ICHA‐leveraged resources within the  community. The coordination of services, combined with an escrow savings account, promotes  increased earnings and asset building among families receiving housing assistance. As of May 2019, 177  households participated in the Family Self‐Sufficiency program. Of these, 159 (90%) participants had  escrow savings balances. The average monthly deposit was $285 per month with an average balance of  $4,319. The highest escrow savings account balance was $29,726.    Actions taken to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in  management and participate in homeownership  Since at least 2009, ICHA has continually tried to establish a Resident Advisory Board (RAB) to encourage  public housing residents to become more involved in management of public housing. However, ICHA‐ participating families show little interest in serving on an RAB focusing solely on ICHA programs and  services. Most comments received via 3 separate surveys are beyond the scope, power, and authority of  ICHA to impact, or other City Departments and Community‐Based Agencies are better suited to meet  these concerns. Examples include fixing streets, repairing abandoned homes, empowering  neighborhoods, dealing with perception of City‐wide increase in criminal activity, safety, events,  neighborhood development and clean up, and other similar issues.  Draft CAPER 27  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  As a result, ICHA partners with Neighborhood Services to continue the "Good Neighbors—Strong  Neighborhoods" initiative. The idea is to partner with Neighborhood Associations to develop strategies  that promote the peaceful enjoyment of the neighborhood for all residents. The goal is increased  participation of ICHA clients in activities sponsored by the City's Neighborhood Associations. The City  supports and encourages neighborhood action and provides ideas and resources that can help shape the  future of a neighborhood. ICHA will again survey public housing residents when citizen input is collected  for City Steps 2025, Iowa City’s Consolidated Plan for Housing, Jobs, and Services for Low‐Income  Residents 2021 – 2025, and the ICHA’s 5‐year plan for 2021 – 2025.  ICHA has successfully encouraged its clients to participate in homeownership through its HCV  Homeownership Program. The program allows HCV clients currently utilizing their voucher for rental  assistance, to convert that payment to mortgage assistance. The family secures a mortgage loan from a  private lender, with the lender determining the loan amount. The family may purchase a unit anywhere  in Johnson County. Non‐disabled families may receive mortgage assistance for up to 15 years, and there  is no time limit for disabled families. Forty (40) HCV vouchers have been used to purchase homes since  January 2003. Of these, sixteen (16) are still active. FSS programs have also allowed 59 FSS graduates to  move to homeownership.    Actions taken to provide assistance to troubled PHAs  ICHA has an excellent track record as a PHA, but has continually networked and shared its knowledge  with other PHAs through the National Association of Housing and Rehabilitation Officials.  Draft CAPER 28  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  CR‐35 ‐ Other Actions 91.220(j)‐(k); 91.320(i)‐(j)  Actions taken to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as  barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning  ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the  return on residential investment. 91.220 (j); 91.320 (i)  Affordable housing is a top priority of the City. In 2016, the 15‐step Affordable Housing Action Plan was  adopted to promote affordable housing. This complements the goals set in CITY STEPS and work with  other partners on affordable housing projects. The following summarizes some of the City's efforts.  Housing First Shelter. In 2016, Council amended City Code to enable the Shelter House to proceed with  the Cross Park Place project. This Housing First project provides subsidized Permanent Supportive  Housing with supportive services that does not place conditions on tenants' behavior. Project was  completed in FFY18.  Regulatory changes. The City actively reviews its codes to eliminate barriers to affordable housing. Past  changes included requirements for new city‐funded housing to use universal design features, allowing  smaller lot sizes and attached homes in single family residential zones, and density bonuses for 1‐2  bedroom apartments, among others. However, the City recognizes that regulatory barriers still impact  the affordability of housing. Staff is working to identify additional barriers by reviewing the existing  codes and initiating discussions with the development community and stakeholders on topics including:   Waiving parking requirements for affordable housing units (completed for the Riverfront  Crossings (RFC) district in 2016).   Reviewing changes to the multi‐family design standards.   Eliminate minimum size requirements for PUDs.   Increase allowable bedrooms outside the University Impact Area.   Permit more building types by right.  Affordable Housing Requirement. In 2014, the City adopted form‐based zoning for RFC to allow higher  density development near downtown. In 2016, the City adopted a housing policy in the district so 10%  of residential units must be affordable to renters at 60% AMI or owners at 110% AMI. In 2018, the City  amended the annexation policy for residential developments with a goal that 10% of units annexed  must also be affordable for the same targeted groups. In FFY18, the requirement generated 12 afforable  rental units.  Residential Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Iowa Code allows residential TIF districts if 10% of captured  funds are set‐aside for affordable housing. Other captured funding would assist with providing public  infrastructure. The City entered into such a development agreement on Foster Road in 2018.      Draft CAPER 29  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  Tax Abatement. A six‐member committee and staff began meeting in 2017 to determine the viability  and potential parameters of a tax abatement program that would support affordable housing. The  Housing and Community Development Commission made a recommendation in FFY19, to be considered  by Council.  Additional form‐based codes. The City is investigating a form‐based code for the Alexander Elemenary  neighborhood, currently an LMI Census tract. A consultant has been hired as is currently developing the  code. Completion is expected in FFY20.  Affordable Housing Location model (AHLM). The City adopted the AHLM to prevent further  concentrating affordable housing in neighborhoods with concentrations of poverty. In 2017, Council  exempted the RFC district from the AHLM and expanded areas eligible for City financial assistance for  new affordable rental housing.  Tenant Displacement and Rent Abatement. In 2017, Council began requiring a City‐approved transition  plan and comprehensive and site plan ordinance amendments for site plans that will displace 12+  households that do not require a rezoning. This will better inform residents and the public. The City also  adopted rent abatement for emergency orders when vacation of property is not necessary, in addition  to trying to better educate the public about housing code violations and how to report them.    Actions taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs.  91.220(k); 91.320(j)  The City meets underserved needs in the community through all of its programs. Obstacles to meeting  these needs in Iowa City are primarily related to the affordability of and/or maintenance of the housing  stock. To that end, the City has several programs:  Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation. The City’s Housing Rehab Program provides guidance and financial  assistance to low‐ and moderate‐ income homeowners to maintain and update their homes. The repairs  enable owners to stay in their homes while maintaining the City’s housing stock. Funding comes from  both federal and local sources.  CDBG and HOME fund six specific homeowner rehab activities:   Comprehensive Rehab. Assists homes to meet the City's Housing Code ($3,000‐$24,999 per  project).   Emergency Assistance. Helps correct major housing code violations ($100‐$6,000 per project).   Exterior Repair. Covers the cost of exterior repair to main structures ($1,000‐$15,000 per  project).   Accessibility. Makes homes accessible for owners with disabilities ($1,000‐$16,000 per project).   Manufactured Home Repair. Funds the repair of manufactured housing ($500‐$6,000 per  project).  Draft CAPER 30  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)   Energy Efficiency. Helps purchase high efficiency heating and insulation ($500‐$6,000 per  project).  During FFY18, the City expended about $210,556 to complete 16 CDBG‐funded and 2 HOME‐funded  homeowner rehabilitation projects.  The City’s General Rehab and Improvement Program (GRIP) complements federally‐funded homeowner  rehab by helping to stabilize and revitalize targeted neighborhoods through the broader applicability of  the Housing Rehabilitation and Historic Preservation programs. This program provides low‐interest loans  that are repayable over a 20‐year term, funded City general obligation bonds. Assistance ranges from  $10,000‐$40,000 per project. In FFY18, the City spent $210,046 on GRIP and completed 5 projects.  UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program. UniverCity was created to stabilize neighborhoods near  the University in areas where rental units were increasing but it was single family in character.  Rehabbed homes are sold to income qualified buyers and renovation costs are forgiven over 5 years.  The homes must remain owner‐occupied for up to 30 years. To date, the City purchased 68 homes, 19 of  which were sold to households under 80% median household income and another 47 of which were sold  to households over 80% AMI. The City rehabbed and sold 4 homes in FFY18.  Affordable Housing Fund. The City budgeted $1,000,000 for affordable housing projects in FFY18:   $500,000 to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC) in August 2018. The HTFJC  reports annually to Council to inform them of how they allocated funding.   $250,000 for land banking per the City’s land banking policies. Currently $711,000 is available.  Staff is evaluating sites.   $50,000 for emergent situations, to be shifted to landbanking if not used.   $200,000 for LIHTC support. A total of $200,000 was available in FFY18, to be allocated by the  Housing and Community Development Commission via a competitive request for proposals. All  funds were allocated to Sand Companies, which will create 36 units, including 32 income‐ restricted units.  Leveraging Other Funds. The City is leveraging $2,500,000 in unused ICHA funds to create affordable  housing. In 2015, the City agreed to pay $1,000,000 to purchase 5 units in the Chauncey for affordable  rental units. Completion is expected at the end of 2019. In 2017, Council agreed to purchase six units for  permanent affordable rental housing at Augusta Place for $1,080,000. Some $420,000 remains to  develop or acquire low income replacement housing.     Actions taken to reduce lead‐based paint hazards. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)  The Housing Rehabilitation Office provides code and lead paint inspection services and guidance to  other City departments and sub‐recipients of the CDBG and HOME funds. As such, it continues to  Draft CAPER 31  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  implement all aspects of HUD’s lead‐based paint regulations. In its efforts to reduce lead‐based paint  hazards in all of its CDBG‐ and HOME‐funded rehabilitation projects, they provided outreach on the  dangers, identification, and reduction of lead‐based paint hazards to all program participants.  Rehabilitation and inspection staff members are certified lead inspector/risk assessors and conduct  visual risk assessments and clearance tests on all applicable projects. The City does not own an XRF  device, XRF testing is done by a consultant.  Rehabilitation and inspection specialists continue to receive lead education and training that they pass  on to all contractors, sub‐contractors, and others affiliated or working with the rehabilitation program.  Due to prior City‐sponsored training, the Rehabilitation Program has access to 100+ workers  representing a multitude of different companies that provide services (i.e. electrical, plumbing, painting,  roofing, general contracting, cleaning companies, etc.) in a safe and responsible manner.    Actions taken to reduce the number of poverty‐level families. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)  Activities that a limited clientele to low and moderate‐income persons were undertaken by several  agencies. All agencies documented the household income of its beneficiaries at the time of program  entry through income verifications. All of these helped serve families in poverty.  Public services  1. Shelter House provided accommodations to people experiencing homelessness.  2. Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County provided licensed child care and youth programming  to low income children.  3. Domestic Violence Intervention Program provided shelter services and programs for victims of  domestic violence.  Public facilities  1. The Crisis Center expanded its operations including more office space, accessibility and the  client entry area improvements, an additional cooler, a new repackaging area, and space for  additional pallets of food.  2. Neighborhood Centers replaced its dilapidated siding  to improve the long‐term viability of the  Broadway Neighborhood Center and improve its aesthetics.  The City also provided funds to 4Cs to provide microenterprise daycare providers with technical  assistance to register their operations and help improve their economic security, and directly provided  funds to two low‐income entrepreneurs to start up new businesses.    Actions taken to develop institutional structure. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)  Draft CAPER 32  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  The City of Iowa City has developed a robust institutional structure to address housing and community  development needs within the community.  The City itself is organized under the Council‐Manager form of government. Iowa City citizens elect  seven Iowa City residents to the City Council for overlapping four‐year terms. Four Council Members are  nominated and elected by the eligible electors of the City at large. The other three are District Council  Members, nominated by the eligible electors of their respective districts and elected by the qualified  voters of the City at large. The Council, in turn, selects one of its members to serve as mayor for a two‐ year term. The Mayor presides at the City Council meetings and has one vote on the Council ‐ the same  as the other six members.  The City administers housing and community development programs through the Neighborhood  Services Division – comprised of three subdivisions: Community Development, Housing Inspection, and  the Iowa City Housing Authority. Neighborhood Services coordinates all Consolidated Planning initiatives  of the City, including plan preparation with community participation and management of all activities  funded with CDBG and HOME funds.   The City created a citizen advisory group, the Housing and Community Development Commission  (HCDC), in 1995, to assess Iowa City’s community development needs for housing, jobs and services for  low‐ and moderate‐income (LMI) residents, and to promote public and private efforts to meet such  needs. HCDC leads the CDBG/HOME allocation process to determine what projects will be awarded  funds based on priorities established in CITY STEPS. Each year the City and HCDC reviews applications on  a competitive basis. HCDC also serves as a general advisory committee to Council on policy that similarly  affects LMI individuals. Beginning in FFY19, HCDC will also invite agencies to provide an annual update as  part of its CITY STEPS review process.  Staff also actively engages numerous boards, committees, working groups, and organizations. By  participating in groups such as the Local Homeless Coordinating Board, the Affordable Housing Coalition,  Livable Communities of Johnson County, and the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County, the City  supports in the coordination and communication of those groups. In addition, the City annually  contributes funds to many of those groups, providing further incentive for collaboration. However, the  City encourages agencies to pursue outside funding as indicated in the CITY STEPS. Many of the housing  providers used private mortgages for their activities which provides private partnerships and  coordination as well.    Actions taken to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service  agencies. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)  Because of its institutionional structure, fragmentation and duplication of services in Iowa City is a minor  obstacle. The City also undertakes extensive consultation as part of its consolidated planning efforts,  particularly in association with the Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board (LHCB) planning  Draft CAPER 33  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  process as the Continuum of Care. The LHCB represents over 25 agencies in Iowa City providing services  to the homeless and low‐income persons in Johnson County. The City works closely with the LHCB to  increase coordination between housing providers, health, and service agencies in addressing the needs  of persons that are chronically homeless.  The City also facilitates coordination among its partner agencies that results in a broadly shared  understanding of community needs, collaborative and complementary approaches to addressing needs,  and responsiveness to changes in conditions. Additionally, resources such as Aid to Agencies and City  General Funds available for economic development indicate a real commitment to leveraging all  possible resources to meet needs.  The Iowa City Housing Authority administers housing vouchers awarded by HUD from the Housing  Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. Housing Inspections staff also oversees rental permits which must be  renewed annually or bi‐annually. These roles also provide the City frequent contact with private housing  providers. The City is also trying to be more active about soliciting their ideas for improving the  affordability of housing in Iowa City, as seen through current efforts to engage developers about ways to  improve housing affordability in the community.  Certifications of Consistency  The City supports the efforts of organizations that seek to provide supportive services and outreach or  housing to low‐income, elderly or disabled persons. Upon request, the City will consider issuing a  Certificate of Consistency with the Consolidated Plan (CITY STEPS) for any program benefitting this  clientele and meeting the goals of the Consolidated Plan.    Identify actions taken to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the  jurisdictions analysis of impediments to fair housing choice.  91.520(a)  Over FFY18, the City updated its analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. The following goals and  strategies were developed to overcome barriers as identified in this study:  Improve Housing Choice. One of the primary barriers identified is the lack of housing choices  throughout neighborhoods in Iowa City based on availability and diversity in price points, housing types,  and locations. Ensuring a diversity of affordable housing is available in a range of locations and types  promotes fair housing choice, especially areas that promote access to opportunity. Strategies include  facilitating a range of housing types, lowering the cost of housing, continuing to invest in affordable  housing, and retrofitting housing for equal access.  Facilitate Access to Opportunity. Housing that affords access to opportunities may be cost prohibitive  or non‐existent for persons in certain protected classes, especially for those with lower incomes.  Pursuing a balanced approach can address disparities in access by strategically investing in areas that  Draft CAPER 34  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  lack key opportunity indicators, preserving and developing a variety of housing in high opportunity  areas, and creating effective mobility options. Strategies include emphasizing variety of housing in areas  of opportunity, community investment, and enhancing mobility linkages.  Increase Education and Outreach. Many residents of Iowa City lack of awareness about rights under fair  housing and civil rights laws, presenting a major barrier to fair housing choice. Ensuring access to  information about housing programs, neighborhoods, and fair housing laws will facilitate fair housing  goals. Strategies include improving the awareness of housing consumers, housing suppliers, housing  regulators, and providing meaningful language access.  Improve Operations. Other barriers to fair housing choice include smaller operational and planning  changes that could help affirmatively further fair housing, such as administrative processes and  regulations which can slow down and/or stop projects that would benefit protected classes, a need for  increased regional cooperation in housing, a lack of critical data, and a need to improve the  transparency of fair housing enforcement. Strategies include improving fair housing transparency and  enforcement, reviewing implementing procredures and regulations, improving regional cooperation,  and improving data collection.  The plan was adopted on August 20, 2019. Action will be taken over the next 5‐year to address these  barriers and implement these strategies.   However, actions were still taken in FFY18 to further fair housing in Iowa City, including:   Solicited input through surveys, focus groups, and public meetings to identify barriers to fair  housing choice   Conducted an equity analysis for the South District Partnership Program and ICHA’s housing  programs   Hosted a Housing Affordability and Equity focus group as part of the City Steps  2025 Consolidated Plan update; translated surveys and information into three languages other  than English   Hosted a Government Alliance on Race and Equity training for City staff   Granted $75,000 to 8 organizations for social justice and racial equity initiatives   Placed fair housing ads in Daily Iowan and Daily Iowa Rental Guide   Educate the public about fair housing    Used the AHLM to avoid further concentrated City‐assisted affordable rental housing in areas  with higher concentrations of high free and reduced rate lunches   Monitored subrecipients for compliance with the City’s Affirmative Marketing Plan   Audited housing sites monthy for discriminatory ads  Draft CAPER 35  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  CR‐40 ‐ Monitoring 91.220 and 91.230  Describe the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance  of the plan and used to ensure long‐term compliance with requirements of the programs  involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning  requirements  Organizations are required to provide at least one project update to the Housing and Community  Development Commission (HCDC) during the Fiscal Year in which they were added to the Annual Action  Plan. These reports are made either in‐person or in writing, and they ensure HCDC remains informed  about the progress of the activities to which it allocates funds.  City staff also conduct at least one on‐site monitoring visit for each activity. It is the goal of the City to  conduct the monitoring visit within the same fiscal year the award is made. These visits allow staff to  review the policies and procedures of organizations, ensure finances match project records, review  submittals for consistency, and ensure the project complies with all federal requirements, including  outreach to minority businesses.  Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects  From time‐to‐time, CDBG and/or HOME activities may not meet the anticipated schedule for  implementation as intially presented to HCDC. These circumstances may be due to unforeseen events  (e.g. unfunded applications for other financing), optimistic timelines, or organizational issues.  HCDC recognizes the need to utilize CDBG, HOME, and other funding as effectively and efficiently as  possible to meet the needs of low‐moderate income household for housing, jobs and services within  Iowa City. To assist HCDC in evaluating an activity's status and ability to proceed, the  attached Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy was adopted in 2003. If activities do not show progress,  HCDC may reallocate their funding per the policy.  Initial and Ongoing Reports and Monitoring  The City requires each organization receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to  submit quarterly reports for each activity until the project is completed. The City also requires  organizations to submit a year‐end report for each activity. The quarterly and year‐end reports include  information on the number of clients served, income level, and race/ethnicity. All counts are  unduplicated. If quarterly and year‐end reports do not reconcile, the year‐end report numbers are  utilized for reporting.   For HOME and CDBG housing projects, each organization receiving funds must submit a project  completion report and on‐going annual tenant rental housing reports during their periods of  affordability or as required by agreement. These reports document all units' compliance with all  applicable regulations, including household income and fair market rents. Annual monitoring also  Draft CAPER 36  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  includes a review of each property's insurance and compliance with other HUD requirements, including  those related to affirmatively furthering fair housing and adequately verifying income. For rental  projects, Housing Inspections staff also inspects properties at least every other year to ensure they  comply with local property codes; this is required for them to maintain a valid rental permit.    Citizen Participation Plan 91.105(d); 91.115(d)  Describe the efforts to provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to  comment on performance reports.  Notices regarding the availability of the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report  (CAPER) and the public hearing were published in the Iowa City Press Citizen on September 3, 2019.  Copies of the CAPER were available for public review at the Iowa City Public Library, City Hall, and online  on the City’s Neighborhood and Development Services website (www.icgov.org/actionplan). A public  comment period for longer than the required 15‐day period was held from September 3 to September  19. HCDC then held a public meeting on September 19. No comments were received during the public  comment period.  In addition, HCDC requires CDBG and/or HOME funded project sponsors to attend an HCDC meeting and  provide an update on their progress. The agendas are all posted and disseminated in accordance with  City policy and State law. Meetings are held in accessible locations. The public is welcome to attend.   Draft CAPER 37  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  CR‐45 ‐ CDBG 91.520(c)  Specify the nature of, and reasons for, any changes in the jurisdiction’s program objectives  and indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its  experiences.  The City is looking at modifying its approach for economic development activities, possibly by providing  funds for technical assistance for microenterprises rather than through direct financial assistance. This  will be further explored in FFY19.  Does this Jurisdiction have any open Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI)  grants?  No  [BEDI grantees]  Describe accomplishments and program outcomes during the last year.        Draft CAPER 38  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  CR‐50 ‐ HOME 91.520(d)  Include the results of on‐site inspections of affordable rental housing assisted under the  program to determine compliance with housing codes and other applicable regulations   Please list those projects that should have been inspected on‐site this program year based upon  the schedule in §92.504(d). Indicate which of these were inspected and a summary of issues  that were detected during the inspection. For those that were not inspected, please indicate  the reason and how you will remedy the situation.  The City of Iowa City has an existing inspection program that systemically inspects every rental unit in  the community. The Department of Neighborhood and Development Services (NDS) oversees rental  inspections and insures compliance with all local requirements, including Iowa City’s Housing Code  which establishes the minimum health and safety standards necessary to protect and promote the  welfare of tenants and the public. Local codes are generally stricter than HUD’s Housing Quality  Standards (HQS), the comprehensive program that ensures subsidized housing remains safe.  Inspections are conducted by the Housing Inspection Workgroup, which includes six full‐time inspectors  inspecting nearly 20,000 rental units. The issuance of a valid rental permit depends upon properties  complying with local codes. The following rental unit types are annually inspected through the City’s  regular inspection program:   single family dwellings with four or more bedrooms   duplexes where the unit has four or more bedrooms   multi‐family dwellings with an initial certificate of occupancy before January 1, 1996   fraternity, sorority, and rooming houses   transient housing units   family care units and group homes   public housing units  The following rental unit types are regularly inspected every two years:   single family dwellings with no more than three bedrooms   duplexes where the unit has no more than three bedrooms   multi‐family dwellings with an initial certificate of occupancy after January 1, 1996  Rental inspections are also conducted upon request and complaint. Results of inspections are written  and corrective actions noted in individual property files, stored and maintained by the NDS. The City  actively works with owners, property managers and tenants to ensure conformance.  All HOME‐assisted properties are subject to this inspection cycle and various informal, on‐site  inspections made by Community Development Division staff throughout the year. Tenants receiving a  Housing Choice Voucher or Tenant Based Rental Assistance must also have their units regularly  Draft CAPER 39  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  inspected by the Iowa City Housing Authority at least bi‐annually. These units must meet HQS  requirements.  Two projects in the City’s HOME rental housing portfolio have 25 or more HOME‐assisted units,  Lexington Place and Concorde Terrace. Each has 30 fixed HOME‐assisted rental units. The City also used  HOME funds to assist Regency Heights with 24 of their 37 units. Assisted units are inspected on a  schedule maintained and completed by the City’s Housing Inspection Workgroup in compliance with  HUD property standards and onsite inspection requirements.   Lexington Place, 1229 Shannon Drive. NDS completed 1 HQS inspection for FY19. The rental  permit is valid through January 31, 2020.   Concorde Terrace, 1259 Shannon Drive. NDS systematically inspected all units in FY19.  Two  minor items were cited and corrected within 30 days.   The rental permit is valid through  September 30, 2020   Regency Heights, 1010 Scott Park Road. There are 37 rental units in this project with 24 floating  HOME‐assisted units. HUD and the City require this project to be inspected every other year.  The rental permit for the building is valid through September 30, 2020. NDS systematically  inspected all units in 2019 and no violations were noted.  The following table shows the date each unit was last inspected (and re‐inspected when necessary) for  Calendar Year 2019.    Provide an assessment of the jurisdiction's affirmative marketing actions for HOME units.  92.351(b)  The actions outlined in the following section were undertaken by the City of Iowa City during the  reporting year to affirmatively further fair housing. More information can be found in the Human Rights  Commission’s Annual Report, which will provide specific accomplishments for the program year.  Additionally, the City's adopted Affirmative Marketing Plan can be found in the Consolidated Plan or  online at www.icgov.org/actionplan.   Updated the City’s analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. The plan was adopted on  August 20, 2019. Action will be taken over the next 5‐year to address these barriers and  implement these strategies.    Solicited input through surveys, focus groups, and public meetings to identify barriers to fair  housing choice   Conducted an equity analysis for the South District Partnership Program and ICHA’s housing  program.   Hosted a Housing Affordability and Equity focus group as part of the City Steps  2025 Consolidated Plan update; translated surveys and information into three languages other  Draft CAPER 40  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  than English   Hosted a Government Alliance on Race and Equity training for City staff   Granted $75,000 to 8 organizations for social justice and racial equity initiatives   Placed fair housing ads in Daily Iowan and Daily Iowa Rental Guide   Educate the public about fair housing    Used the AHLM to avoid further concentrated City‐assisted affordable rental housing in areas  with higher concentrations of high free and reduced rate lunches   Monitored subrecipients for compliance with the City’s Affirmative Marketing Plan   Audited housing sites monthy for discriminatory ads    Refer to IDIS reports to describe the amount and use of program income for projects,  including the number of projects and owner and tenant characteristics  The City received $153,757.16 in Program Income (PI) in FFY18, in addition to $193,136.55 in PI from the  previous fiscal year. The City had been holding PI for to allocate the following year, but due to the more  challenging logistics, has decided to return to spending PI first without holding onto it for a year. PI was  used for 11 activities. $18,675.58 was drawn for HOME admin in FFY18. 6 activities benefitted renters, 3  projects benefitted owners.    Describe other actions taken to foster and maintain affordable housing.  91.220(k) (STATES  ONLY: Including the coordination of LIHTC with the development of affordable housing).   91.320(j)  Actions to foster and maintain affordable housing are primarily guided by the City's Affordable Housing  Action Plan. This is detailed in previous sections.           Draft Draft CAPER 41  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  Attachment  FY19 CAPER Cover  Draft CAPER 42  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 43  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)       Draft CAPER 44  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)  FY19 CAPER Attachments ‐ General    Draft CAPER 45  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 46  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 47  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 48  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 49  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 50  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 51  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 52  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 53  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft Draft CAPER 54  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 55  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 56  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 57  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 58  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft Draft CAPER 59  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 60  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 61  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 62  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 63  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 64  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 65  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft Draft CAPER 66  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 67  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 68  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 69  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 70  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 71  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)    Draft CAPER 72  OMB Control No: 2506‐0117 (exp. 06/30/2018)