HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-2019 Housing and Community Development CommissionHOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION (HCDC)
December 19, 2019
Regular Meeting — 6:30 PM
Senior Center Room 202
28 S. Linn Street
AGENDA:
1. Call to Order
2. Public comment of items not on the agenda
3. Question & Answer Session for FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies (A2A) Applications
FY21 A2A Legacy applications are available online at www.icgov.orq/actionplan. HCDC will
host a question and answer session with applicants. Applicants are encouraged to attend and
answer if provided questions from HCDC in advance. Funding recommendations and staff
rankings will be held at the next meeting on January 16. No action will be taken this meeting.
4. Consider Recommendation of City Steps 2025 draft, Consolidated Plan for 2021-2025
HCDC will consider a recommendation to City Council concerning the draft plan, available
online at www.icqov.org/actionplan. Notice the set -asides identified on page 134-135 of the
draft. Set -asides are funds directly allocated to a specific activity, such as housing
rehabilitation or public services. Set -asides in the current plan (2016-2020) were
established this manner, which will continue in City Steps 2025. Staff will discuss major
changes from the last plan, set -asides, the combination and update of two policies
incorporated into the plan, and the review process.
5. Consider Recommendation of FY21 Application Materials
HCDC will consider a recommendation to City Council concerning the drafts of the FY21
CDBG/HOME and Emerging A2A applications and application guide. These drafts are based
on the City Steps 2025 draft and will be updated and finalized once the plan is approved
following Council action on January 7. FY21 is the first year of the City's new Consolidated
Plan. The ranking sheets removed points for high, medium and low priorities as they are no
longer prioritized as such in the draft plan. Commissioners may revise the guide, applications
and/or rankings sheets at this meeting. HCDC will need to formalize the application materials
at this meeting for staff to prepare for the upcoming allocation period. Note that applications
will still be available online.
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 17, 2019
7. Housing & Community Development Information
8. Adjournment
If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact
Kirk Lehmann at kirk-Iehman n().iowa-citv.ora 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: January 16 / February 20
�► • wtr®���
Applicant Guide CITY OFIOWACITY
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Programs
This guide outlines requirements for applicants seeking Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and/or HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program funds through the City of Iowa City. The CDBG
program helps develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and suitable living
environments, and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. The HOME program helps provide safe and decent affordable housing. Both programs are
funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notes to applicants
1) Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) strongly encourages all applicants
to attend the CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop (see Application Timeline below).
2) First consideration for funding will go to housing (not including Community Housing Development
Organizations [CHDO] operating expenses) and public facility projects of $50,000 or more.
3) The application (and the pro forma for housing applications) must be substantially complete for
HCDC consideration. HCDC will not review any materials submitted by the applicant after the
deadline unless the Commission requests it.
4) Please review the City's Strategic Plan (www.icgov.org/strategicplan) to determine if your project
fits into the identified priorities. If so, please identify in the application.
Pre -Application Timeline
1) Applicant workshop at Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall
2) (Upon Request) Applicant workshop at Emma
Harvat Hall, City Hall
3) Pre -Applications Due
4) HCDC Meeting — Question/Answer with Applicants
5) HCDC Meeting — Recommendations
6) Full Applications Due (Using Awarded Amounts)
January 15, 2020 at 11:00 AM
January 24, 2020 at 11:00 AM
February 1, 2020 at 12 PM
February 20, 2020 at 6:30 PM
March 12, 2020 at 6:30 PM
May 1, 2020 at noon
PART I. Estimated Federal Funding Available
Federal funding has not yet been awarded, so numbers are subject to change. However, the City of Iowa
City expects to have available approximately $1,378,000 in FY21 federal funds (including entitlements
and program income) from HUD. The City has approximately $542,000 available for allocation to
recipients after Council set -asides have been removed for economic development, housing rehabilitation,
CHDO reserve, administration, neighborhood improvements, and Aid to Agencies. Of this amount,
approximately $397,000 must be used for HOME eligible activities, which focus on affordable housing
activities: rehabilitation or new construction of rental housing, tenant based rent assistance, and
homeownership opportunities. The remaining $145,000 may be used for housing or public facilities
projects.
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide
PART II. Application Requirements and Considerations
Applicants should evaluate the following HUD guidelines as well as City policies contained in City Steps
2025 when considering the proposals, funding estimates, and time schedules for achieving their project
goals.
Program Purpose
All proposals must benefit low -moderate income individuals. The specific ways that a project must
accomplish the program's purpose (also called a National Objective) varies by program.
CDBG Funds. At least 51% of those befitting from the program (persons or households) must
have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI) based on household size (see
table below). For programs that benefit individual households, all households must earn less than
80% of the median household income.
Applicants must document that its purpose is being met. CDBG allows households to self -certify
their income with their signature, though a percentage of beneficiaries must also provide source
documentation such as pay stubs or a Social Security statement to verify the household's income.
The City must approve this percentage based on the program and number of beneficiaries -
usually set between two and five percent. This source documentation must be kept in the client's
file and is subject to monitoring when City or HUD staff review the client files.
HOME Funds. All activities undertaken with HOME funds must benefit households below 80%
AMI, and nearly all assisted units must be targeted to households below 60% AMI.
Median household income limits for projects in Iowa City are as follows:
(effective 6/28/2019)
Household Size
Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
30%Median Income
50%Median Income
60%Median Income
80% Median Income
1
$20,100
$33,500
$40,200
$52,850
2
$23,000
$38,300
$45,960
$60,400
3
$25,850
$43,100
$51,720
$67,950
4
$28,700
$47,850
$57,420
$75,500
5
$31,000
$51,700
$62,040
$81,550
6
$33,300
$55,550
$66,660
$87,600
7
$35,600
$59,350
$71,220
$93,650
8
$37,900
$63,200
$75,840
$99,700
CDBG allows its purpose to be satisfied by meeting the following criteria:
a. The activity must be carried out in an area or neighborhood consisting predominantly of low -
moderate income persons, or the activity must involve facilities or services designed for use
by predominantly low -moderate income persons. Demographic information is available at the
Neighborhood & Development Services Department. In some instances, applicants may need
to conduct a survey of the potential beneficiaries to determine income eligibility.
b. Housing that is being improved, as part of a project must be occupied by low -moderate income
households.
C. Job creation or retention as an activity must involve employment of predominantly low and
moderate -income persons.
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide
Eligible Activities
Activities that can be carried out with CDBG funds include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Acquiring real property, demolishing structures and clearing property, and relocation
assistance for residents of property being demolished.
• Rehabilitation or preservation of residential and nonresidential structures, including
weatherization, painting, accessibility improvements, emergency repairs and comprehensive
rehabilitation.
• Construction of public facilities and improvements, such as water and sewer facilities,
infrastructure repairs and installation of curb ramps, construction of neighborhood centers and
installation of accessible playground equipment.
Activities that can be carried out with HOME funds include the following:
• Acquisition of real property (including Homeownership Assistance), payment of "soft" costs
associated with a project, demolition and clearing property, site and infrastructure improve-
ments, and relocation assistance for persons being displaced by a HOME activity.
• Rehabilitation or preservation of residential structures (comprehensive rehabilitation only).
• Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) for a period of up to 24 months.
• New construction of affordable housing units (rental or owner -occupied).
• Operational expenses and Capacity Building for Community Housing Development Organi-
zations (CHDOs) within the limit of 5% of Iowa City's HOME allocation.
The following types of activities that are ineligible include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Public service eligible activities such as operations or salaries.
• Buildings for general conduct of government and expenses required to conduct the regular
responsibilities of local government, e.g. street maintenance, public buildings for
government.
• Political, religious and lobbying activities, income payments, such as rent assistance and
mortgage payments. HOME only: tenant based rent assistance is an allowable activity.
• CDBG only: New housing construction, except for residential facilities providing shelter for
persons with special needs (homeless shelters, convalescent homes, halfway houses, and
group homes).
• Purchase of construction equipment.
NOTE: The purchase or lease of furnishings, equipment, or other personal property (such as vehicles)
needed for an eligible public service will not be considered under this allocation process. However, these
expenses would be eligible under the City's Aid to Agency process. Additional requirements and CDBG
award limitations may apply, please contact Neighborhood Services staff to discuss.
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide
Performance Schedule and Payment
Reimbursements can be made after the contract has been formalized. Expenses incurred before July 1,
2020 or before a contract has been entered may not be reimbursable and may jeopardize all the
CDBG/HOME funds awarded to the project. Disbursements can be made upon receipt of 1) invoices for
labor, materials and services rendered, and 2) signed lien waivers (as appropriate) covering all amounts
to be paid. In some instances, pre -agreement costs may be reimbursed to applicants; however,
Neighborhood Services staff must be contacted prior to making any pre -agreement disbursements to
verify if the cost may be reimbursed. In case of minor cost overruns or requests for additional funding, the
City Manager and staff may approve a contract amendment that is non -substantial. In the case of
substantial changes (as defined in the Citizen Participation Plan) the Housing and Community
Development Commission and City Council must approve the change and an amended agreement is
required.
Budget Considerations
In estimating the amount of the proposal or the project budget, applicants should try to obtain
documentation for the costs and consider the following expenses:
• Appraisals, legal fees, title opinions and surveying costs for property acquisition projects.
• Building permits, engineering or surveying costs, zoning application fees, professional fees,
advertising and bidding costs for rehabilitation and building projects.
• HOME funds are required to be matched at the rate of one match dollar for each four HOME
dollars or 25% of the HOME funds being requested. The City has made a commitment to
match local HOME dollars, however, we also expect applicants for local HOME funds to
contribute to meeting this matching contribution (see HOME regulations for eligible forms of
match).
• The City requests that applicants leverage private funding, volunteers, and in -kind
contributions whenever possible and to include this information on your application. These
contributions are worth points in the ranking sheets and are included in HCDC's evaluation of
your application.
• Construction estimates should be realistic. Funds remaining after the proposed work is
completed will revert to the CDBG line of credit.
• Applicants can apply for grants and/or loans.
• Other project costs such as compliance with HUD regulations (audits, labor standards,
environmental studies, fair housing, etc.) listed in Part III below should also be included.
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide
�r
CITY OF IOWA CITY Points
I.
Goal Priority (max. 10 points)
1
How well has the applicant documented the ability of the project to
0-10 Points
meet a primary goal identified in City Steps 2025?
II.
Leveraging Resources/Budget (max. 35 points)
1
Does the project have realistic cost estimates?
0-5 Points
2
Does the project leverage community partnerships and/or volunteer
0-5 Points
resources?
3
Does the project leverage other financial resources?
Guide:
0-25% = 0-6 pts
26-50% = 7-12 pts
51-75% = 13-19 pts
76-99% = 20-25 pis
Subtotal
III.
Feasibility/Community Impact (max. 40 points)
1
What primary percent of median income persons are targeted?
Guide:
0-30%=20 pts
31-50%=15 pts
51-60%=10 pts
61-80%=2 pts
2
Will the project assist any specific vulnerable populations?
0-5 Points
3
Does the project have a reasonable per-person/unit cost compared to
0-5 Points
other projects of similar scope?
4
Does the project schedule adequately demonstrate the project will be
0-5 Points
completed within the required time period?
5
Does the project provide a long-term solution to the need identified?
0-5 Points
Subtotal
IV
Capacity/History (max. 15 points)
1
Has the applicant demonstrated it can successfully complete projects
0-5 Points
and that the current request is necessary? (i.e. past projects are
substantially complete)
2
Does the organization have the capacity to complete the project based
0-5 Points
on current description of staff?
3
Does the organization's activities and portfolio provide evidence of
ability to undertake the project as described?
Maximum Points: 100
TOTAL:
Bonus: Is public facilities project documented in City Steps 2025?
5 Points
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide
PART III. Housing
Additional Information Requirements. Before an applicant may enter an agreement with the City, the
applicant must submit updated information such as, but not limited to, the project schedule, sources
and uses statement, construction budget (if applicable), and pro forma (if applicable). All other funding
sources must be identified and verification submitted to the City to complete a subsidy layering analysis
when multiple public funding sources are utilized.
Appraised Value at Project Completion. Each housing project, except minor home repairs, funded with
CDBG and/or HOME funds must have an appraised value at project completion that demonstrates
adequate equity to secure any liens.
Site Location. One of the City's goals is to encourage the distribution of housing and residential facilities
(e.g. permanent housing — rental and homeownership, transitional housing, homeless shelters, and
special needs housing) throughout Iowa City. See the Affordable Housing Location Model map below
to view where new City -assisted rental housing may be located. The map is also available at
www.icqov.org/actionplan.
Pro Forma. All final applications will require a completed pro forma that abides by the City's rules for
project underwriting. See Appendix B on pages 12-13 for specific criteria.
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide
PART IV. Compliance with Federal Regulatory Requirements
All CDBG/HOME contracts include requirements imposed by various Federal -sponsoring agencies.
These include procurement standards for labor, materials, supplies and services not only related to the
project but also to the applicant's operation.
• No choice limiting actions may be made prior to receiving environmental clearance from the City
to move forward with a project. These include but are not limited to include signing contracts,
acquisition, demolition, disposition, rehabilitation, repair, new construction, site preparation, and
leasing or any other activities that commit to future activities.
• Procurement standards and subcontracting requirements are set forth in 2 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 200. The following list briefly describes the main points in contracting for
services and purchasing supplies and materials.
• Affirmative efforts shall be made to utilize small and minority -owned businesses or sources of
supplies and services. Conflict of Interest rules will also apply.
• Construction contracts in excess of $2,000 shall comply with the Fair Labor Standards Acts.
Specifically, 1) the Davis -Bacon Act which requires contractors to pay wages to laborers and
mechanics at a rate not less than the minimum wages specified in a wage determination made by
the Secretary of Labor, 2) Copeland Anti -Kick Back Act which prohibits employers from inducing
employees to give up any part of the compensation to which they are otherwise entitled, and 3)
the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act which requires contractors to compute wages
on the basis of a standard work week of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard workweek shall
be permissible if the worker is compensated at a rate of 1'/z times the basic rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in the workweek. No worker shall be required to work in unsanitary,
dangerous or hazardous surroundings.
• Contracts over $10,000 shall contain requirements relating to Equal Employment Opportunity.
• Provisions for termination shall also be included in all contracts.
• Records should be kept for all procurements. Construction projects for more than $250,000 must
utilize the competitive sealed bids (formal advertisement) method of procurement. Procurement
by small purchase procedures shall be utilized for projects $250,000 or less. Contracts under
$10,000 may use the micropurchase method of procurement. Price or rate quotations shall be
obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources under this method.
• Contracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain provisions and conditions that allow for
administrative, contractual or legal remedies in instances in which contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
• Contracts in excess of $100,000 shall meet bonding and Section 3 requirements. Minimum bond
requirements include: bid guarantee equal to 5% of bid price, performance bond for 100% of
contract price and payment bond for 100% of contract price.
• Provisions regarding federal regulations on Non-discrimination, Equal Employment, Affirmative
Marketing and Fair Housing.
• Acquisition, Displacement and Relocation are also contained in the Agreement.
• Lead Based Paint regulations regarding interim controls and abatement may also apply.
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide
PART V. Financial Management, Reporting, and Monitoring
Standards for financial management and record keeping are provided in 2 CFR 200. Local accountants
and agency directors experienced with federal requirements may be helpful resources.
• Each recipient shall have a financial management system that provides effective control over and
accountability for all funds, property, and other assets, must identify the source and application of
funds for federally -sponsored activities, and permit the accurate, complete, and timely disclosure of
financial results in accordance with the reporting requirements of the City and HUD.
• A separate ledger for the CDBG and/or HOME account is strongly recommended.
• Appropriate time distribution records must be kept for employees paid with CDBG funds in addition to
other funds.
• All project -related expenditures must be supported by third party documentation (invoices, contracts,
and purchase orders). Lien waivers are required from all contractors and subcontractors.
• Reductions in project costs or increases in the commitment of other funding, if any, shall be brought
to the immediate attention of staff. The impacts of these changes must be discussed with staff and
appropriate reductions in CDBG and/or HOME funds may be made on a case -by -case basis.
In most cases, a financial audit of the project expenditures will be required. Qualified individuals who are
sufficiently independent of the agency and can produce unbiased opinions and conclusions should
conduct these audits. Audit reports should be submitted within six months of project completion and final
disbursement of funds. Organizations that expect more than $750,000 in federal assistance from all
sources are required to have an audit covering the financial activities of the organization as well as the
project disbursements as set forth in 2 CFR 200.
Neighborhood Services staff will monitor all aspects of the project beginning with pre -agreement activities,
goal setting to project closeout. Any project changes must be approved by the City. Periodically,
Neighborhood Services staff and HCDC members will conduct monitoring visits to review project
progress, financial management, construction contracts, time records related to the project, as well as
client statistics. Staff will attempt to give reasonable notice prior to the site visit.
The City of Iowa City requires quarterly reports and has a standardized reporting form. For rental and
homeownership projects, the applicant must complete project close-out forms and submit to the City upon
project completion. The period of affordability does not begin until the City has been notified and the data
entered into HUD's information and management system. The compliance period will vary depending
upon the regulatory requirements of the CDBG and/or HOME program and the information contained
within the CDBG/HOME application. During the compliance period, Neighborhood Services staff will
request records relating to the stated purpose of the project to see if goals have been carried out, to review
the low and moderate income benefit requirements as established by HUD, and to monitor the financial
status of the organization. All notices and reports should be directed to:
Neighborhood Services
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
For CDBG projects, all records relating to the project should be kept at least four years after the
submission of the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) in which the activity
is reported as complete. The CDBG Agreement should be retained until the end of the compliance period.
For HOME projects, all records shall be maintained as required in 92.508 Recordkeeping depending on
the type of project (rental, homeownership, or tenant -based rental assistance).
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide
Resolution XX-XX, Approved XIX/XX
Appendix A: DRAFT CDBG and HOME Consolidated Policies
The City recognizes the need to utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and/or HOME Investment
Partnership Program (HOME) projects 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 the Housing and
Community Development Commission (HCDC) in investing funds and evaluating a project's status and ability to
proceed, the following policies shall apply to all projects effective July 1, 2020:
I. Investment Policies
a. Economic Development
Economic development projects making application to the CDBG Economic Development Fund will be reviewed
and approved by City staff based on criteria identified in the Applicant Guide. Updates will be provided to the City
Council Economic Development Committee periodically.
Typically, for -profit business projects will receive low -interest loans; whereas, non -profits may be recommended
for forgivable loans or grants. Decisions regarding investment terms for economic development projects will be
made based on the nature of the project including, but not limited to, the risk, potential for growth, the number of
and quality of jobs created for low -moderate income persons, the ability to repay a loan and the amount of other
funding leveraged. Economic development assistance may be used for direct business funding, or for funding
technical assistance for eligible businesses.
b. Housing
Rental Housing. The interest rate for rental housing activities will be zero percent (0%) for non-profit owned
projects and prime rate (determined at the time the CDBG/HOME agreement is executed by the City) minus two
points for for -profit owned projects with an amortization period up to thirty (30) years or the period of affordability,
whichever is less. The City may grant a different interest rate and/or a different repayment option based on the
nature of the project including, but not limited to, the revenue generated, the ability to repay a loan, the type of
housing provided, the beneficiaries, the amount of other funding leveraged and the location of the site.
Homeownership. Each year Iowa City adopts resale/recapture provisions that apply to all HOME assisted
homebuyer projects. The recapture/resale provisions shall be the same for both CDBG and HOME assisted
homebuyer projects. These provisions are set forth in the Annual Action Plan for the year the funds were
allocated to the Subrecipient/Recipient.
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA). All HOME funds provided for TBRA will be in the form of a grant.
C. Public Facilities
Public Facility projects as defined in 24 CFR 570.201(c) may be completed by the City and/or subrecipients.
Governmental entities (i.e. jurisdictions with taxing authority as provided for in Iowa Code) that conduct CDBG-
assisted public facilities projects will receive a grant with a compliance period of five years (60 months). Non-
governmental subrecipients will receive a conditional occupancy loan, which the City shall secure through a lien,
mortgage, or other comparable security against the assisted real property, to only be repaid upon transfer of title,
rental of the property, or termination of services or occupancy as outlined in the applicable CDBG Agreement. If
the subrecipient fully satisfies the terms outlined in the applicable CDBG Agreement, the security instrument will
be released by the City following the successful completion of the compliance period that begins on the date as
listed within the applicable CDBG Agreement. If the real property is leased, the lease shall be for a period that
matches or exceeds the compliance term of the earned grant.
The number of years in the compliance period of a conditional occupancy loan will be calculated by dividing the
total amount of CDBG assistance allocated to a subrecipient in any one City fiscal year for a public facility project
by $10,000, rounded down. The minimum compliance period is five years (60 months). The maximum compliance
period shall be no more than twenty (20) years. For example, $75,000 in CDBG assistance equals a compliance
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 9
term of 7 years or 84 months.
d. Public Service
Public Service projects as defined in 24 CFR 570.201(e) shall receive CDBG assistance in the form of a grant
with a term of not less than one year (12 months).
II. Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects
HCDC recognizes that from time to time, there may be CDBG and/or HOME projects that do not meet the
anticipated schedule for implementation as presented to HCDC. These circumstances may be due to unforeseen
events (e.g. unfunded applications for other financing). The following process helps ensure subrecipients use their
funds in a timely manner.
All CDBG projects carried out by subrecipients will have entered into a formal agreement with the City of
Iowa City for the utilization of funds by September 30 each year. Should a subrecipient fail to meet this
schedule, the project will be reviewed by HCDC to evaluate if extenuating circumstances exist. If
extenuating circumstances exist and it is anticipated the project will proceed, a new timeline will be
established for the project. If circumstances do not warrant an extension of time, HCDC may recommend
the recapture and re -use of the funds to the City Council.
2. All CDBG projects (except applicants for Low Income Housing Tax Credits) carried out by subrecipients
will have expended a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the assistance provided for the proposed project
by March 15 each year. This provides the subrecipient with approximately 255 days following the start of
the fiscal year to reach this threshold for CDBG projects. Should a recipient fail to meet this threshold, the
project will be reviewed by HCDC to evaluate the timeliness of the project and its ability to proceed. If
extenuating circumstances exist, a new timeline for expenditure will be established. If circumstances do
not warrant an extension of time, HCDC may recommend the recapture and reuse of the funds to City
Council.
3. All HOME projects carried out by subrecipients will have entered into a formal agreement with the City of
Iowa City within two years of award (24 months). All HOME funds must be spent within five years. Should
a subrecipient fail to show adequate progress towards meeting the schedule as identified in its application
or the statutory requirements of the HOME program, the project will be reviewed by HCDC. If a HOME
recipient is unsuccessful in obtaining funds identified in the application, HCDC will review the project and
determine its viability without the proposed funds. HCDC may recommend the recapture and reuse of the
funds to City Council.
III. Allocation of Uncommitted Funds
The City may have uncommitted CDBG or HOME funds that become available after the regular funding round
either through windfall income, project cancellation, or additional funds provided by HUD. In most cases, funds
will be retained for the next regular funding round and/or be used for administrative amendments of existing
projects. In the event uncommitted funds exceed $150,000, HCDC may choose to:
1. Provide funding to existing projects that did not receive full funding and/or to projects that submitted
applications but did not receive CDBG/HOME funding, up to their full request; or
2. Hold a special funding round to solicit and fund new proposals.
If funds shall be provided to existing and/or unfunded project, applicants will be notified of the availability of funds
and asked to provide a written request for funds and how they will utilize them for their original request. If new
projects are being considered, HCDC must publish notice of funding availability and proceed with a formal
application process. In all cases the public must be given the opportunity for comment on the proposed use of
funds in accordance with the City's adopted Citizen Participation Plan.
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 10
APPENDIX B: PRO FORMA INSTRUCTIONS
The Full Housing Application, as in the past, requires the developers of rental housing projects to complete and
submit a proforma for the project being proposed. The purpose of this proforma is to demonstrate that the
Project is financially feasible and viable using the least amount of City funding and to help staff to make
informed decisions on the allocation of local HOME and/or CDBG funding.
All applicants for rental housing (including rehabilitation projects) are required to complete the attached
proforma with the full application. This form will provide the needed information in a format that is uniform
among all applicants. The following are instructions for completing this form and some basic "rules of thumb" for
your consideration. This form allows for up to 20 years of information, though only needs to be filled out through
the period of affordability. Additional underwriting is also required prior to signing an agreement for funds.
If you have any questions about the form or need technical assistance, please call Community Development
staff at 319-356-5230. "`Fields shown in "prey" are for number entry when using the excel
spreadsheet"'
Revenues [Income escalates at 2% as calculated in the spreadsheet; consistent with the Fair Market Rent (FMR)
increases for Iowa City]
Line 1 Gross Rent: Is the total amount of rent generated from the housing units, based on proposed
rent levels and expected utility allowance deductions for tenant -paid utilities (proposed rents
may be less than FMRs but cannot exceed FMRs).
Line 2 Other Income: Include laundry income, application or pet fees, and interest income.
Line 3 Tenant Contributions: Include other payments such as rent for parking or storage space.
Line 4 Gross Income: Is the sum of Lines 1 through 3.
Line 5 Vacancy Loss: Line 1 multiplied by 5% (may be increased up to 10% depending on Applicant's
past performance in managing units).
Line 6 Effective Gross Income: Line 4 minus Line 5.
Operating Expenses [Inflation escalator at 3% as calculated in the spreadsheet]
Line 7 Insurance: Estimated insurance expense from an agent or similar property.
Line 8 Maintenance & Structural Repairs: Repairs and replacements are typically 1% of the property's
value, though varies depending on building age, condition, size, and use.
Line 9 Management Fees: May not exceed 10% of Annual Gross Rent, typically 5% to 7%.
Line 10 Misc. Operating Expenses: legal, accounting, advertising, owner -paid utilities, etc.
Sum of Lines 7-10 shall be no less than $3,700/unit; SRO properties in single family
homes shall be considered 0.3 units each
Line 11 Property Tax: Estimate available from City Assessor or Johnson County records.
Line 12 Reserves: Operating reserve no less than $400/unit. If new construction, include a rent -
up reserve for Year 1 of gross monthly rent for all units x 3 months)
Line 13 Total Operating Expenses: Sum of Lines 7 through 12.
Net Operating Income
Line 14 Net Operating Income: Line 6 minus Line 13.
Debt Service [list mortgage payments for principal and interest only]
Line 15 Debt Service for 18' Mortgage.
Line 16 Debt Service for Subordinate Mortgage(s): Total payments for all junior mortgages.
Line 17 Total Debt Service: Sum of Lines 15 and 16 (should not be less than 87% of Line 14).
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 11
Cash Flow Available for Distribution
Line 18 Cash Flow: Line 14 minus Line 17.
Line 18B Equity Investment: Amount of funds being invested in the project by the project developer\
sponsor. This does not include the equity raised through the sale of Low Income Housing Tax Credits as
they are accounted for on Line 33. A minimum contribution of $100 is required.
Cash on Cash Return on Investment [shows return to developer or investors on their equity contribution
before taxes or tax credits are included]
Line 19 Cash on Cash ROL Line 18 divided by equity investment as shown on the application.
Debt Coverage Ratio
Debt Coverage Ratio (DCR): Ratio of estimated net operating income to debt service. Line 14 divided by
line 17. After year 3, OCR shall be no less than 1.20 or over 1.60 during the affordability period.
Encourage 1.20-1.50.
Determining Taxes
Line 20 Cash Flow: Carry over the figure from Line 18.
Line 21 Depreciation Expenses: Annual depreciation of property (27.5 year straight-line schedule).
Line 22 Amortization of Fees: Annual amortization of project fees (15-year straight-line schedule).
Line 23 Principal Payments: Calculate the amount of principal paid on all loans for each year.
Line 24 Reserves: Carry over the figure from Line 12.
Earnings (Loss) Before Taxes
Taxes
Line 25 Earnings Before Tax: Equals (Line 20 minus Lines 21 and 22) plus Lines 23 and 24.
Line 26 Tax Rate: Use 35% tax rate for for -profit organizations and 0% for nonprofits.
Line 27 Taxes Incurred (Saved): Line 25 multiplied by Line 26.
Cash Flow After -Tax
Line 28 Cash Flow: Carry over figure from Line 20.
Line 29 Taxes Incurred (Saved): Carry over figure from Line 27.
Line 30 Cash Flow After-tax: Line 28 minus Line 29.
Total Benefit Analysis
Line 31 Cash Flow After-tax: Carry over figure from Line 30.
Line 32 Rehabilitation Tax Credits: Calculate full value of rehab tax credits.
Line 33 Law Income Housing Tax Credits: Calculate full value of LIHTC annually for each of the 1,� 10
years.
Line 34 Net Sale Proceeds: In year 20, calculate the estimated future market value of the property by
taking the total cost of the project as presented in this application and compound it by 2% for
each year. Place this amount on line 34.
Line 35 Net Cash Flow After-tax: Equals the sum of Lines 31 through 34.
Line 36 Return on Investment: Equals the Net Cash Flow After Tax divided by the Equity Investment.
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 12
City of Iowa City
FY21 Funding Allocation Timeline
Dates Subject to Change
2020
January 7 Council approves new Consolidated Plan
January 10 CDBG / HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies (EA2A) applications are available
January 15 CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop, Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 11:00 AM
January 16 Emerging Aid to Agencies Office Hours, Neighborhood Services in City Hall,
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
January 21 Emerging Aid to Agencies Office Hours, Neighborhood Services in City Hall,
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
January 23 Emerging Aid to Agencies Office Hours, Neighborhood Services in City Hall,
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
January 24 [UPON REQUEST] CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop, Emma Harvat Hall,
City Hall, 11:00 AM
January 31 CDBG/HOME Pre-Apps and EA2A apps due to City of Iowa City by noon
February 20 HCDC meeting: question and answer discussion with applicants. Applicants are
invited to attend
March 2 HCDC ranking forms due to City staff
March 12 HCDC meeting: review of groupings and consensus funding scenario. Make award
recommendation to City Council on CDBG/HOME and A2A Emerging funding.
April 3 30-day comment period begins for draft Annual Action Plan
April 16 HCDC meeting: review Annual Action Plan and recommendation to City Council
April 30 30-day comment period ends for the draft Annual Action Plan
May 1 Full Applications due
May 5 City Council: public meeting for the Annual Action Plan and resolution.
May 15 Annual Action Plan submitted to HUD
July 1 New fiscal year begins
September 15 Execute CDBG and HOME agreements with grant recipients
FY2021 CDBG/HOME Pre -Application
■ Review the Application Guide that follows this application form below.
■ All applicants awarded funds must complete a full application once awarded funds
■ Only one project proposal may be submitted on each application. Use separate
applications for each project proposal. HUD defines a project as a site or sites together
with any building (including a manufactured housing unit) or buildings located on the site(s)
that are under common ownership, management, and financing and are to be assisted
with federal funds as a single undertaking. The project includes all the activities associated
with the site and building. For direct assistance activities, project means assistance to one
or more families.
■ Submit completed applications online at www.icgov.org/actionplan or a PDF version to
kirk-lehmann(allowa-city.org. Emailed applications must receive a confirmation email from
City staff before the application deadline to be considered for funding. Online submittals
are preferred but you may send your application by certified or registered mail; overnight
delivery service e.g., Federal Express; deliver in person and have the application date/time
stamped by a Neighborhood Services representative.
Section 1 - General Information and Protect Need
1. Lead Organization/Agency
DUNS Number
Organization Type
(Mark all that apply)
Name:
Address:
CAGE Code
501(c)3:
Website:
Public:
Application Contact
App. Workshop
Attendance Date:
For Profit:
Name:
Faith -Based:
Title:
CHDO:
Phone:
Did not attend:
Other:
Email:
Is there a secondary applicant: Yes/No
Is applicant (including partners, co -applicants, etc.) currently in compliance with all federal,
state, and local laws, rules and regulations, including CDBG and/or HOME funded projects?
Yes
If "NO" or currently in
litigation, provide the
name of and explain the
basis for the case.
No
2. Project
Project Type
Mark all that ap
Activity Type
Mark all that appil
Name:
Rental Housing
Acquisition
Address:
Owner Housing
Rehabilitation
City
Public Facility
New Construction
State
Zip
CHDO Operations
Direct Assistance
Additional Addresses
Yes
No
Other
I Other
Brief Description (include
purpose, benefits, and
specific activities ofproject)
Note: Projects will need to submit a full application following award of funds
3. Mark goal from City Steps 2025 primarily addressed
by this application
Briefly explain how project will meet
this goal.
Increase affordable rental housing units
Provide Tenant -Based Rental Assistance
Support homebuyer activities
Rehabilitate/improve owner -occupied housing units
Rehabilitate/improve renter -occupied housing units
Serve homeless / reduce homelessness
Provide public services
Improve public facilities
Improve public infrastructure
Support economic and workforce development
Section 2 - Budaet and Resources
Program regulations encourage leveraging non-federal funds and especially private funds for projects. Non-
public funds are especially encouraged. HOME funds require a minimum 25% match. Funding terms including
type of assistance and affordability period are determined upon award; evidence of funding commitments
required with final application. Please attach a scope of work or estimate for any Project that involves
rehabilitation or new construction to demonstrate the cost reasonableness of any proposal.
4. Source of Funds
Category
Amount
Description(s) of Funds
Status*
Requested CDBG/HOME funds
$
Previous Award
$
Other local funds
$
State funds
$
Other federal funds
$
Applicant Funds (Equity)
$
Applicant Loan
$
Other Private Funds
$
Other:
$
Total
$
Non-CDBG/HOME Match
%
S. In -Kind Contributions
Materials
$
Labor
$
Other:
$
Describe community
partnerships or volunteers that
will contribute to project
*Statuses include pending (P), committed (C), received (R), or applied for (A)
6. Use of Funds
Description of Work
Land Acquisition
$
Building Acquisition
$
vSite
Improvements
$
a
Rehabilitation
$
=
Construction
$
Other
$
Professional Fees
$
w
Construction Finance
$
o
U
Permanent Finance
$
Developer Fees
$
u)
Reserves
$
Other
$
Total
$
As noted above, please attach estimate or documentation of how these costs were determined.
Section 3 - Feasibility and Community Impact
7. Anticipated Income Levels of Beneficiaries
(Unduplicated)
Special Populations (If applicable, mark one "presumed
benefit" category if required for assistance)
Households
Persons
0-30% AMI
Domestic Violence Victims
31-50% AMI
Elderly
51-60% AMI
Homeless
61-80% AMI
Persons with Disabilities
Over 80% AMI
Migrant Farm Workers
Total
Persons with AIDS
Basis for
Estimates
Other as defined in 24 CFR 570.208(2)
AMI = Area Median Income, see www.icgov.org/actionplan.
8. Rental Housing
Owner Housing
Number of Units
Proposed Contract Rent
Number of Units
Proposed Sales Price
9. Proposed Project Timetable (include milestones such as rezoning, construction schedule,
applications for other funding, and expected commitment dates.
Date
Milestones
July 1, 2019
Beginning of City Fiscal Year and Project Start Date
10. Describe how the project
will promote the efficient use
of funding over the long-term
(at least for the compliance
eriod):
11. Describe how the project
will provide for affordable
housing or public assistance at
rates or prices lower than
those in the existing market:
12. Describe in what manner
or form the project will proceed
if awarded less than full
funding; if there are several
components, describe how
they will beprioritized:
Section 4 -Capacity and Applicant History
13. CDBG and/or HOME funds received and status of theproject(s) undertaken
Timeframe
Budget
Expended through
Date Project
2019
Completed
July 1. 2015 — June 30, 2016
$
$
July 1. 2016 — June 30, 2017
$
$
July 1. 2017 — June 30, 2018
$
$
July 1. 2018 — June 30, 2019
$
$
July 1. 2019 — June 30, 2020
$
$
Describe your organization's
experience and capacity to
administer the proposed program.
Identify any prior year funds that
remain unspent. If funds remain,
justify this funding request.
14. Describe your organization's
structure, officers, and staff.
15. Describe the education and
experience of the key staff who
will implement the project
(excludes volunteers, board
members and consultants)
16. Describe your organization's
business/operations plan
approach and identify relevant
factors that help verify the
demand for the proposed project.
If another organization provides
the same service, explain why
both projects are needed to
address the need.
17. Describe your organization's
activities and portfolio, including
projects currently underway. For
housing providers/developers,
describe number of units owned/
managed and how number of
homes built/rehabilitated/sold.
18. Describe any identity of
interest (101) relationships with the
applicant and/or project owner, i.e.
General Partner has a financial
interest in the construction
company, etc.
19. Describe how you will
incorporate sustainability
initiatives into your project to help
carry out the City's Climate Action
Plan.
Appendix A: Items Due for Full Application
Description
Required
W-9 Form (Request for Taxpayer ID # & Certification)
Yes
SAM.gov Registration. All subrecipients must register on SAM.gov before a legally
Yes
binding agreement can be signed. Attach your SAM.gov Entity Registration Summary
as evidence that this has been completed.
DUNS # Verification. Go to http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform to look up or create a
Yes
DUNS number. Provide a copy of the email you receive with your confirmed DUNS
number.
Organizational Status. Go to httr)s://sos.iowa.gov/search/business to look up the
Yes
organization applying for funds. Provide a copy of the Business Entity Summary
screen.
Commitment letters. HOME requires evidence of firm commitments before projects
Will be required for
may be signed. Please attach the following for committed funding sources listed in
all sources of funds
Section 2.
before a HOME
agreement is signed
1) Letters of intent from lending institutions for private financing. These must be on the
lending institution's letterhead.
2) Commitment letters from all other sources (i.e. grants, loans, etc.). Each letter must
include the value of the commitment; the interest rate & term; the purpose the funds
can be used for; and any time limitations related to the commitment.
3) Evidence of capital for private equity such as current bank statements showing the
funds
Evidence of Fiscal Capacity
Evidence of fiscal
capacity is required.
- 3 Yrs. Balance Sheets'
Sufficient alternative
- 3 Yrs. Profit & Loss Statements'
financial information
may be accepted.
Evidence of Organizational Capacity. Up to four pages of additional information about
Optional (4 page
the capacity of the organization may be included. Examples of possible evidence may
max.)
be resumes of key staff, additional descriptions of organizational activities, or other
relevant information.
CHDO Certification Checklist. If applying as a CHDO, please request the checklist,
Only if applying for
compile all required attachments and upload as a single PDF.
CHDO set -aside
Scope of work. Include a write up of the work to be completed and include copies of
Only if activities
the cost estimates that are the basis of the uses table .
include rehab. or
new construction
Pro forma. Acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing MUST
Only if project
include completed pro forma once terms for outside funding are known; will help
includes rental
determine how local funds will be provided (Excel format is provided by the City).
acquisition,
Applications without the City's pro forma will not be considered.
rehabilitation, or new
construction
New Submission
Aid to Agencies (Emerging) Application for FY2021
Application Information Project Information
Aid to Agencies provides flexible operational funding for nonprofits. Applications are due Fdday, January 31, 2020 at
noon. This application is for "emerging" agencies, those that have not existed as a legal entity for at least 2 years or
have not received A2A funds in any of the last five years. $_,000 is estimated to be available this year. Each agency is
eligible to apply for up to $15,000. No award will be made for less than $5,000. Please submit one project proposal per
application. Questions can be directed to kirk-lehmann@iowa-city.org (mailto:kirk-lehmann@iowa-city.org) or contact
Neighborhood Services at 319-356-5230. Hard copy applications are available upon request.
Project Name*
Total amount of funds requested*
Applicant Name*
Applicant Organization*
Applicant Address *
Street Address
Address Line 2
City State / Province / Region
Postal / Zip Code Country
Signature*
Sign
littps://www8.inwa-city.org/Farms/SZTEq 1 /2
New submission
Contact Person*
Phone Number*
Email*
Indicate your organizations corporate status*
O Non-profit
O For -profit
Years in business*
Has the applicant received City assistance in the last five years?*
O Yes � No
Is the applicant currently in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations including
any CDBG and/or HOME funded projects?*
(including partners, co -applicants, etc.)
O Yes
O No
O Currently in litigation
Previous Next
Save as Draft
littps://www8.inwa-city.org/Farms/SZTEq 2/2
New submission
Aid to Agencies (Emerging) Application for FY2021
Application Information Project Information
Need/Priority
The City Steps Plan guides funding within the community that benefits low -moderate income persons by
creating jobs, improving housing, and providing services. You can find a copy of City Steps at
www.icgov.org/actionplan (http://www.icgov.org/actionplan).
Brief summary of proposed project*
Limited to 1000 characters
Why this project is needed?*
Limited to 1000 characters
How does it fill a gap in the community?
Limited to 750 characters
How does it address the goals of City Steps 2025 and the City's Climate Action Plan? *
Limited to 750 characters
Additional Documentation
Please submit no more than 7 additional pages
Upload
Resources & Feasibility
Provide a budget breakdown for your specific program. Include only costs directly related to the program. For example,
providing a specific service should include the total estimated costs and available resources, broke out by general
categories such as salaries, materials, office expense, marketing, etc. If required by local and/or federal regulations,
include the cost of an audit. Document costs whenever possible.
https://www8.inwa-city.org/Farms/SZTEq 1 /3
New Submission
Budget Breakdown
Use of Funds
i
Total
Documentation of Costs
Upload
City Funds Other Funds Source of Other Type
Funds
City Funds
$ 0.00
Labor Breakdown
Type Description Hours
V F
Add
Other Funds
$ 0.00
Per Hour Rate Total Cost
$F— $
Status
Total Labor Cost
$ 0.00
If volunteers are used, please describe how these volunteers are utilized for the proposed activity
Limited to 500 characters
All public service projects are required to expend their full award and complete the proposed project by the
end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2021). Will you be able to meet this requirement?*
a Yes 0No
Impact/Benefit to the Community
https://www8.inwa-city.org/Farms/SZTEq 2/3
New Submission
Please indicate the population to be served by the proposed program according to the linked income categories
(www.icgov.org/actionplan). If requesting money for a specific administrative expense (like a staff member's salary),
indicate the population served by your entire agency.
(Please Note: If funded, this information will be used as income targeting for your Agreement).
Income Breakdown
Median Income Number of Persons
0 - 30%
31 - 50%
51 - 80%
Over 80%
Total Persons 0
Percent LMI
Percent Iowa City Residents
Please describe the basis or methodology used to estimate the number of clients to be served (?)
Limited to 250 characters
Previous Next
Submit Save as Draft
https://www8.inwa-city.org/Farms/SZTEq 3/3
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 17, 2019 — 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Matt Drabek, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz,
John McKinstry, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Aguilar, Lyn Dee Kealey
STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly, Darian Nagle-Gamm
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Fixmer-Oraiz called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
UPDATE ON THE IOWA CITY AREA TRANSIT STUDY:
Darian Nagle-Gamm, Transportation Director for the City of Iowa City came forward and acknowledged
there's been some interest from this committee, and a lot of folks in the community over the last year
regarding the upcoming transit study. They have commenced it since last month and are ready to share
what they have been doing thus far.
First Nagle-Gamm introduced the study team. The City of Iowa City is leading the study, and the City of
Coralville and University of Iowa Cambus are joining the study as well. So all three agencies are working
together for a comprehensive review of their systems.
Nelson Nygaard is the consultant team that was awarded the contract, they are highly regarded in the
transportation planning world and are a great group of experts to work with. Also on the team is the public
and Nagle-Gamm talked about how important the public input and public outreach pieces are with this
study. The stakeholder groups are everyone from this committee to advocacy groups, schools, the
University, Kirkwood College, civic organizations, public health stakeholders, economic development
folks, and those involved in sustainability. So there are people from many parts of the community who are
interested in this study.
Nagle-Gamm noted they had worked with City Council to develop a vision prior to going into this study
and they envision transit being a sustainable, reliable, equitable, and safe transportation option for the
community that connects riders to opportunities, whether that's economic, social, or recreational
opportunities, seven days a week. Nagle-Gamm noted the study is are looking closely on how to expand
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 2 of 12
service so there's coverage through the whole week. The City has a lofty goal of doubling ridership in the
next 10 years through policies and investments that seek to expand the levels of service provided and to
eliminate barriers to access. The study will help find out why some people aren't using transit, and what
they can do to help fill those gaps in service. Nagle-Gamm stated the underlying theme in the whole
transit study is how to increase the level of service in such a way that more folks in the City can take
advantage of this service and think of transit first.
Nagle-Gamm noted another thing they are evaluating as new buses are procured is conversion to electric
or other clean fuel vehicles. Electric vehicles are taking off in transit. Even outside of the study, they've
been looking at electric vehicles for the last six or seven months.
A question the City received a lot of is why reimagine public transportation? It's a great question,
especially in Iowa City, because the Iowa City metro area has the 17th highest ridership per capita in the
country. So of all the metro areas, including New York to San Francisco, Iowa City have the 17th highest,
and is doing very well per capita. This is a strong base to build from and there is a long transit tradition
here. Nagle-Gamm noted they can do better, they know they're not meeting everyone's needs. There are
a lot more people that can take advantage of the public transportation system if it worked better for them,
so that is the goal. So first, improve service to meet the needs of a greater number of residents and
visitors. Currently the system doesn't meet the needs of everyone and that's one reason why ridership
has been declining somewhat or remained relatively flat. The slight decline the City has experienced has
been nationwide over the last few years. Next, the City's transit system hasn't been reviewed since the
1980s and since that time the City has grown 50% in population, and most of that growth has been
outward. Thus, there is a point at which routes take longer and service levels start to degrade, so one
must start thinking of changing the whole system. Another goal is to provide a reliable, accessible,
affordable, equitable, high quality transportation option for those without regular access to a vehicle or for
those who want to leave their vehicle at home, which is happening more today. The City needs to provide
good service with a high enough quality that people can choose to leave their cars at home and take
transit instead. To make that choice easier we need to support the local economy by better connecting
people to work, shopping, education and recreational and social opportunities. That is, give people more
real options for getting around town or alternatives to a personal automobile. Nagle-Gamm stated another
reason the City is doing this study with Coralville and the University of Iowa is to better coordinate all
transit partners in the area to become a more interconnected metro area. This is an opportunity for all
transits to all sit down together and figure out how to better connect the systems and make those trips
across a metro area more seamless for people.
Nagle-Gamm next discussed the City's Climate Action Plan and climate action initiatives. Part of what is
behind this transit study is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change,
especially because the City has a growing population. The smartest way to move the most people and to
improve people's mobility in the community is through municipal transit while also keeping up with the
population growth and helping to reduce those greenhouse gas emissions. And finally, is to better
leverage emerging technologies in terms of transportation, there are different fuel technologies, electric,
hydrogen fuel cell, there are ride sharing technologies, and there are all sorts of new and exciting ways
that people can access transportation. This study is trying to figure out haw to leverage those
technologies to help make mobility in this community easier.
Nagle-Gamm noted the next step is how can the City achieve these goals. First, public outreach and
public input are important. This study will be useless without the feedback from the community, what the
community needs to be able to better serve themselves in terms of their daily transit transportation needs.
Or what does it take to get someone out of a car and get them on a public transportation option that might
be more affordable and certainly more sustainable.
In terms of the nuts and bolts, the committee will review all stops, routes, hours of operation schedules,
coverage areas, fares, and even evaluate a zero fare option. Ridership would need to increase to go to a
zero fare system, but that is something the consultants are looking at. Also haw many more buses would
the City need and how many more drivers? If the City found a way to fund a zero fare system, there
would be dramatic increases in ridership. They are also reviewing all transit stop amenities, which is
something they've heard loud and clear from the community, they want more amenities, benches,
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 3 of 12
shelters, etc. They are also looking at improving trip and route planning, arrival information, all the things
one would need to know in order to use transit, because it takes a little work to use transit, and there's a
variety of new tools the City will evaluate to make trip planning easier. Those of course are smartphone
based, so they also must find ways to serve the entire population. Finally they need to figure out how to
use all these emerging technologies to best serve the population.
Eastham asked if Nagle-Gamm could talk about how the consulting firm will evaluate the public input and
findings. Nagle-Gamm said they are not yet done with the full public input process. However, last month
the consultant team was here and surveyed 1000 riders while they were on the bus, partly demographic
information, partly where riders were going and where they came from, all to get a sense for how people
move around the town. They also asked about service levels, like what riders need, what is lacking right
now. The consultant team also collected ridership data with a team of folks here for a whole week to
determine where riders are getting on and getting off, which is a large task. It takes a lot of effort to get
this data and automatic systems that do this aren't great at it and are expensive. They hope to have the
data from the team and public input sessions within the next week and will share it through the City's
channels. They will publish a web based system to show different options for different aspects of a transit
system that people would like to see more or less of if you have $20 to spend. Each option has a price
tag relative to how much it costs in the real world. This information is going to give the City and
consultants a sense of what the greatest priorities are. Some options given are Sunday service, later
evening service, earlier service, more transit stop amenities, more ITS, or intelligent transportation system
or more infrastructure development to make transit easier. So the combination of those data collection
activities and the feedback from the first round of public meetings will help the consultants develop
service scenarios. Then in January, Nagle-Gamm will have scenarios to share with the public and with
everyone here. After that they will get more specific responses from the public, so that is the process.
Eastham asked if they are going to try to figure out if there are parts of the communities that are not
providing input. Nagle-Gamm stated that is one thing they will look at, as soon as they have the survey
data back and the demographic data, they will see who is responding and who they need to do a better
job of reaching out to. Nagle-Gamm noted from the first survey to the first public meeting, there is time to
get out into the community and reach out to those that they don't feel have been represented thus far.
Nkumu asked for more information on the zero fare option and noted he is trying to understand the main
reason for this study, is it to find more revenues or to obtain more riders. Nagle-Gamm stated it is
because they have a goal of doubling ridership over the next 10 years. Nationally and here, transit
ridership has been leveling off. She thinks it's due to a variety of factors and transportation network
companies. Gasoline is inexpensive, we're rebounding from the Great Recession, etc. But for those
reasons, and because the City recognizes that transportation is one of the major contributors to
greenhouse gas emissions, the City needs to plan for the future and create a system that more people
can choose for their daily transportation and give them a real option besides a personal automobile. So
the goal is to increase ridership by providing an option that meets the needs of more people in Iowa City.
Regarding zero fare, Nagle-Gamm stated it is something that communities across the country are starting
to seriously evaluate. Fares don't make up a significant portion of the cost of transit, it's heavily subsidized
because it's a public service and a public good. So the thought in many communities has been if this is a
public service, let's remove a barrier to transit and remove that fare. Nagle-Gamm acknowledged they
don't know at the end of the day what that will look like and how much that will cost but they do know
exactly how many fares and how much money from fares they take in every year. The zero fare option is
something they need to evaluate and see if that's something they could do. The consultant team said that
they would expect ridership to be increase anywhere from 30% or 40% just from zero fare.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted that when evaluating City infrastructure 30 plus years going unexamined is a long
time. Nagle-Gamm concurred noting it has been since the 1980's which is probably fairly standard for
some smaller towns, standard college town. A lot of cities are in the same boat where they are seeing
ridership's decline even if they have the best transit system in the world. All systems across the United
States and really across the globe have been making do the best they can with the resources that they
have. Also questioning if the City is able to put more resources towards transit, what more could they do?
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 4 of 12
McKinstry asked if there is computer modeling that the consultant can do. Nagle-Gamm confirmed they
could. McKinstry noted he lives six blocks north of here, there are more people who walk from that area
than ever before, but about half of them don't live in the neighborhood, they drive in from someplace else
and park in the neighborhood and then walk downtown or to campus or whatever. Some even bicycle,
they drive to town, park, unpack a bicycle off the rack, and off they go. Alter noted that Minneapolis just
created something like a hub for where one can park their car, there are bike racks, there's the a -bike
plugins in a bus shelter. So you have all these different options. Granted, Minneapolis is a larger, but it's
the same kind of situations where the cars come from somewhere, but you're also not adding to more
congestion. McKinstry noted Minneapolis has an extensive bike trail system in the heart of their city.
Nagle-Gamm stated they hope to have many of those similar options in the future too, with the expansion
of bike facilities and the community, the bike share coming on, and adding a thorough evaluation of our
transit system. So the City is, step by step, looking at all of these systems that haven't had as much focus
as traditional automobile transportation has in a long time.
McKinstry noted this intersects with housing, for instance, the more high rises built near downtown, the
more people who can walk and the fewer roads needed to build all the infrastructure to spread the City
out to half acre lots for single family dwellings. He stated it is just so complex. Nagle-Gamm agreed it is
complex and will show the project timeline next. She noted it is going to take the better part of the year to
get through because it is complex, there is a lot of modeling and there is a lot of synthesizing the public's
thoughts and what pieces of service do they need the most and how to lay that out. Nagle-Gamm
admitted that's the reason why this has not been reviewed since the 1980s. She said it was her
understanding this has been attempted internally before and it's nearly impossible while you're actually
running operations. It's taxing when the City is running operations and has a consultant hired for it, but to
try to do all this internally, it's a lot and it's going to take the better part of the year. Going over the rough
timeline of what to expect is the project was kicked off in September, in November they're starting the
public outreach campaign and people will see things come out through the City channels very soon.
Padron asked what it was they kicked off in September and when was the consultant hired. Nagle-Gamm
said they hired the consulting firm in August, in September they came for one week and surveyed the
transit riders on board and collected ridership data over one week. Padron is confused since they have
been talking about this transit study for two years, she thought the data had already been collected.
Nagle-Gamm noted it is a long process, first the Council had to go through a funding process then there
was the process of selecting a consultant firm which includes writing the RFP (request for proposals) and
it takes time to write an RFP to make sure they are getting everything they want to see from a consultant
team. Then it takes a while for the proposals to come back in, they need to be reviewed and evaluated,
an interview process and finally a final selection. Padron asked then if the consultant was just hired in
September 2019 it will be a year of collecting data. Nagle-Gamm confirmed that was correct, last month
the consultant team and the subcontractors were here, they collected 1000 surveys from riders on the
bus and then they collected ridership data because that's the basis for a lot of information that they use to
make route and stop recommendations. Now and through November, the consulting team is working on
the existing conditions analysis, the state of the system today. They are also putting the final touches on
the web survey, which is a design your awn system tool where everyone can weigh in on what relative
aspects of the transit system are most important.
Finally, Nagle-Gamm talked about the public input meetings coming up. Coralville will have one and Iowa
City will have two, one of which will be on campus. So there'll be multiple opportunities for public input
November through December. Then the consultants will synthesize the information they've received from
the public, the City will work with them to develop different service scenarios based on what they've heard
from the community, and they'll do the analysis for Iowa City, including the zero fare analysis. Cambus
already has zero fare. If zero fare is not the direction determined possible, they'll look at other ways to
make it easier for folks to get on the bus, such as mobile fares with a smartphone, or a variety of different
things that are out there. All this background research will be done in January through March and then
they will bring this information back to the public and they will have an opportunity to weigh in on these
service scenarios. From there, the City will take that information and sort of come up with a preferred
scenario. Nagle-Gamm expects to finalize the study around June which will start discussions about an
implementation plan and discussions with Council about different funding options. The City asked the
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 5 of 12
consultant team to do a lot of legwork when it comes to costs for each of the scenarios, because it is
important to know the price tags on each different type of service. Council will have a lot of decisions to
make beginning this summer, and then from that point they can move forward with implementation.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked during summer 2020 when the analysis is done and the recommendations are out,
can Nagle-Gamm talk about how other cities have done this because there will be a host of options so
how quickly can any of this be implemented. Nagle-Gamm replied she researched that herself and found
she had to call other communities who have done this because not many people have done this once in
their careers, let alone multiple times. Houston famously did a complete overhaul of their system and one
thing to expect is new routes. So the routes will likely not be the same as they are today and that involves
a host of things to make that happen. Houston was able to do it quickly, they picked a date, got their
recommendations, looked at their scenarios, and figured out how to swap out all their signs overnight.
She noted other communities have phased improvements in. Additionally because the whole system is
interconnected, the consultant team will have to recommend how to phase that in. Overall she does not
have an exact answer but feels it could take a couple of years.
Fixmer-Oraiz wondered if the consultant or any other contenders in the RFP process gave an idea of
length of time to implementation. Nagle-Gamm stated she has not posed the question to the consultant
directly, most of the research she did was prior to the consultant coming on board, but if she were to
inquire about it she bets they would give a good answer.
Eastham noted this scenario puts the decision making onto Council during the budget approval process,
so assumes the City Manager has a plan on how to do any re -budgeting for 2020 for implementation as
opposed to having to wait another year. Nagle-Gamm acknowledged they know some changes are
coming, they don't know what all they will be, nor have a sense for the price tags yet. There is some
thought being given during this budget cycle so they will be able to make some quick start changes and
are accommodating for that.
Nagle-Gamm next shared information on the public meetings. There are three upcoming in the first round
of public meetings, Coralville Public Library is kicking it off on November 12 in the evening, 6:30pm to
8:30pm. It will not be a formal presentation, more of an open house format, the consulting team wants to
talk one-on-one with people. There'll be an opportunity to fill out the online survey, they will have some
computers there and then also a lot of the information that they've collected through data collection and
public input. The Iowa City session will be at the Public Library, in meeting room A, again 6:30pm to
8:30pm. The final one will be at the Iowa Memorial Union, room 347 on Thursday evening. Then in
January, there will be another round with some service scenarios to respond to. She feels a lot of people
are going to be interested in that meeting, although they want folks to come all and get engaged
throughout the whole process, the more people get engaged, the better the results are going to be.
Nagle-Gamm showed the website where the information is housed about the study. On the website one
could sign up for an email list and receive updates. There's also going to be information on the City's
social media feeds and on the website as the process moves forward. Another way to get involved is
attending the public meetings or by telling people about them, not just people who ride transit every day,
everyone. The goal is to find out what can make it easier for someone to choose transit as an option.
Nagle-Gamm encouraged committee members to tell friends, family and coworkers, about the meetings
and pass the web survey link along noting the more feedback the better the results will be.
Padron asked about the bike sharing. Nagle-Gamm stated the City does not yet have the bike share up
and running. They have a signed contract but again is another process they have worked on for the better
part of the last year and over the last couple years the bike share technology in the bike share world has
changed dramatically which slowed up not only Iowa City but many communities progress in getting bike
share on board. They have not had a kickoff meeting yet, they just heard from the vendors. The vendor is
Gotcha which is a dockless system and means you don't have to park the bikes into a dock at one
specific location, there will be designated locations to park them at. The designated locations will be geo
fenced which means an app will tell the user if they park this bike where it doesn't belong or in an
unauthorized area and there will be some fine levied. The City doesn't have a launch date yet but is
scheduling a meeting, hopefully within the next couple weeks and will know more then. Padron hopes
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 6 of 12
there will be a way to combine the new bus system with the bikes. Nagle-Gamm noted that is one of the
items under review and the study will answer how to potentially integrate bike share with transit. She
stated she had spoken with Cedar Rapids recently and they're on that same mission of trying to integrate
their transit system. The bike share locations will be spatially connected to transit so one can hop off
transit and then onto a bike, it is called micro mobility.
DISCUSS CDBG PROJECTS WITHOUT AGREEMENTS
Lehmann noted next he would update the Commission on CDBG projects without agreements. Currently
Old Brick is the only CDBG project that does not have a written agreement as of September 30. Brianna
Wills, the director of Old Brick, provided an email Lehmann shared with the Commission. Lehmann noted
the Commission awarded Old Brick $36,000, originally it was a little less, but there was more funding than
expected, so they got bumped up to $36,000. It was awarded for the kitchen and accessibility
improvements or whatever would fit into their needs based on what would be allowable from HUD
because staff had concerns about whether it would be an eligible expense and they had not yet heard
from HUD. Since then, HUD replied that accessibility improvements were not allowable without surveying
those using the building. So the City has been communicating with HUD to figure out what could be
eligible. Old Brick hosts nonprofits and meals for the homeless once a week so maybe they can apportion
CDBG with the cost of improvements. The problem is the national objective, it has to principally benefit
low and moderate income persons, and they have a lot of events which makes it nearly impossible to get
the income surveys that are required to prove that is the case.
Lehmann noted this is the first deadline Old Brick has to meet, to keep the possible path forward staff
would recommend keeping funding as they continue to work through it, the next deadline is March 15, by
which if they don't get 50% of their funds spent, they would have to return to HCDC and at that point, the
Commission would decide if it was still a viable project or if you wanted to reallocate the funds.
Lehmann added that Old Brick has gone ahead with the exterior work they needed to do, the storm
drainage, which was their highest priority.
Eastham suggested asking Council if Old Brick could be given City funds for this project. Lehmann noted
that would be a different agenda item.
Lehmann also noted that when talking with the director of Old Brick, their attitude is this would better
serve the people that come through use the facilities so it would be beneficial for the facilities.
Lehman reviewed the application Old Brick submitted, for their projects they had $40,553 requested in
HOME/CDBG which was a mixture of private and CDBG funds and included ADA improvements, kitchen
improvements, stair improvements, and replacing bathrooms to make them ADA accessible. The total
budget was $50,500 as they were expecting $10,000 in private funds.
Padron asked if Lehmann thinks HUD will approve this as an eligible expense. Lehmann replied he feels
they would be able to use part of their funds if it's apportioned by time, he would probably recommend to
them that they step up the amount of lunches they were hosting to increase their ratio of time that they
use the kitchen for an eligible service.
McKinstry recommended the Commission do nothing at this point and see what progress can be made
with HUD and revisit in March as per staffs recommendation. Lehmann feels they will have an answer
before March.
Alter confirmed, noting as a group they still believe that this is important enough that it should be funded
and may have to look for alternative funding through City Council.
Lehmann noted this can become a future agenda item if need be and that would be the time to discuss
possible contingencies.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 7 of 12
AID TO AGENCIES (A2A) QUESTIONS AND FOLLOW UP:
Fixmer-Oraiz opened the conversation up to the Commission to discuss if there as any questions or
issues that jumped out.
Eastham stated he didn't see anything interesting in terms of the amount requested, but two agencies still
have low participation rates by Hispanic and non -white, because of the nature of their service, but he
feels it should be included in decision making.
Padron noted the coalition said they have a few agencies that have not participated with them and
wondered if there were agencies that wanted to participate but were not asked. Lehmann heard Inside
Out expressed they wanted to be more involved but that's the only one that he heard speak up about not
being part of the agency coalition meetings.
McKinstry noted the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship hasn't been involved either.
Lehmann requested a breakdown of their funding request by agency as to how they internally determined
their request but hasn't heard anything.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted this round of applications, perhaps because of conversations with agencies and
because of the coalition, is the best round of applications. There was a lot of succinct descriptions, more
meaningful discussions about funding sources for matching funds. She wanted to go on the record for
saying she appreciates the work that everybody's put into these applications, and also the Commission
for putting in the time.
Eastham noted Horizon and Pathways are two agencies with relatively low Hispanic and non -white
participation. He would like to give them an opportunity to talk more about that. Drabek noted both
agencies specialize in elderly care and disabled persons with disabilities.
Fixmer-Oraiz has a question with the free lunch program, they had some red items for their fund balance
The carryover balance from the previous year and their ending fund balance was also negative.
Lehmann stated he hasn't talked them about it, when he was going through the applications his hunch is
that it was more an error in boxes and misunderstanding possibly as to what the carryover funds meant.
Or maybe they just don't have carryover funds and so they're trying to fit a square peg into a round hale.
It is something the Commission can ask them about it.
Padron noted regarding the two agencies not serving enough diversity, she feels it is unfair to ask them
about diversity when every year they receive no information from the Free Lunch Program on who they
serve, so she doesn't think it can be held against one agency for not serving enough people when
another agency doesn't report at all. Lehmann stated they are trying to quantify some of these things
asking agencies to address it in their narrative. So it is going to be a less subjective measure than for the
ones that provide the data.
Fixmer-Oraiz said they added the question regarding if the agency promotes racial equity and positivity
for marginalized populations within the LGBTQ, immigrants, refugees and those with disabilities. She
stated they specifically added that question because of the Free Lunch Program. They state they do not
discriminate, they serve whoever comes through their door.
Padron asked then what Horizons stated for that question. Lehmann stated "Horizons is committed to
supporting and promoting equity and inclusivity, our services are available to all community members in
need and we do not discriminate. We are resident partners with Nordstrom to provide opportunities for
employees in Nordstrom, recovering from a short-term disability to work at Horizons with adjusted duties
or necessary make adjustments to our services in order to create access to those who may need it. For
example, two of our NTS vehicles are wheelchair accessible. Additionally, a partnership with Habitat
allows us to address the racial wealth divide and housing through assisting refugees, minorities, LGBTQ
individuals, etc. We also partner with Shelter House provide money management services to individuals
experiencing homelessness. In summer 2019 Horizons partnered with a safe, equitable, and thriving
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 8 of 12
grant fund focused on decreasing violence in Cedar Rapids, to provide meals for at -risk youth engaged in
a mural project. Last year some employees of Horizons were able to attend the white privilege
symposium and implicit bias training. Horizons demonstrates its commitment to inclusion, their
involvement in our community celebrations dedicated to supporting diversity like pride and Juneteenth as
well as our participation and support community events like Gathering the Voices of Black Maternal health
event, we continue to shape and plan our work through the Horizons inclusivity committee."
Padron feels that is enough if the statement is enough for the Free Lunch Program.
Fixmer-Oraiz said it's great to have this question to get an understanding of the depth and what resources
an agency has internally and are they training people and what is their commitment, but it's different
because they are tracking it to show the outcome and say, okay, but what institutionally are you doing, to
actually reach people of color? Padron understands but since they don't have the data for every agency
why punish one but not another.
Eastham is not thinking that Horizons or Pathways are not serving the right proportion of people of color,
he just thinks the Commission has some responsibility to ask them in their view why their proportions are
lower than other agencies and if they have some ideas for increasing participation or service programs.
Lehmann noted the new scaring sheet is not going to be perfect and he is already noticing tweaks he
would make for the next one.
Eastham notes the Free Lunch Program has a policy they use, which is not to ask any questions from
guest, would mean they would not know what race or ethnicity people are. That is a policy decision on
their part, and we should make allowances for that policy decision even if it makes it impossible to gather
specific demographic information. For him that distinguishes the Free Lunch Program from other
agencies.
Drabek agrees in the case of the Free Lunch Program, it's incredibly likely that most people served are
very low income. But there may be other agencies that we think may have some chance of serving mostly
higher income populations and could question them.
Alter agrees and notes this serves as a reminder of there may be more that an agency can do, just
because they have a mainly white elderly population, which based on demographics and statistically
speaking in Iowa, does that make sense, and yet, it can be noted that while it's great an agency is serving
that community can they talk about what kind of outreach they've done to reach other people who may be
in need of your service, particularly people of color.
Lehmann will try to relay the intent of the question and see how they respond. His plan is with all the
questions the Commission generates he will send out to the agency a week before the meeting so they
can be prepared.
Eastham stated in his view it extremely important that this Commission talks about race in every element.
So that's why he wants to ask Pathways and Horizons about race.
Alter is curious about some of the requested amounts, because after the conversations last time it was
clear that agencies weren't asking for what they need, just what they thought they could get. She
wonders if those conversations influenced what they're asking for, that they felt now they can be a bit
more honest about what we they need, because for several agencies the amount actually went up. Even
though they sat in that Council meeting and heard it was a onetime deal. Fixmer-Oraiz noted the
Coalition had an estimate of what they thought and she thinks it is reflective in some of these applications
because it is much more than they've seen previously years.
Patron is concerned if when these agencies got together and came up with a budget if they didn't include
Inside Out Reentry Community that's $40,000 more. McKinstry noted that's Inside Out is not a legacy
agency but rather a new agency. Padron would like to know if Inside Out was not invited to the Coalition
or if they just didn't participate because they are not a legacy agency. She thought the Coalition was
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 9 of 12
open to all the agencies. Eastham notes it looks like Inside Out apparently is increasing their staff.
Lehmann noted Inside Out is now part of the legacy agencies because they have received funding in the
past five years. Fixmer-Oraiz understands Padron's concern and can reach out to the Coalition about
their processes as she attends the meetings.
Lehmann noted if any Commissioner has a question on any application, send them to him so he can get
the questions out to the agency a week prior to the next meeting.
Fixmer-Oraiz everybody was assigned to an agency and the expectation is meet with the agency and
build a relationship. Lehmann stated the interest is not just for the liaison to have the relationship. The
liaison will organize tours, but they should be limited to four Commissioners. He suggested getting tours
completed prior to the November meeting. The Commission felt that would not be possible to get them all
done in November so Lehmann suggested as many as possible and so long as they are done by the
January meeting when they make the allocations with a goal of having information to make decisions.
Alter feels it would be an extra metric or criteria. If the visits and the Commission's impressions are to
impact decisions it should be a very transparent clear process. Drabek added it changes the nature of the
visit as well, it would be better to develop a relationship with the agencies to be used for longevity.
Lehmann agreed and said the visits would be spanned throughout the year then. Fixmer-Oraiz noted the
spirit of this was to really be able to have a liaison and build relationships.
McKinstry noted that all Commission members are going to have different kinds of relationships with the
people involved at various agencies and there isn't any way to erase that. He works on Habitat house
and when he looks at those figures he may have biases, but will admit he has biases. Just by living in a
community, we're going to have attachments to or impressions of agencies.
UPDATE ON COUNCIL DIRECTION FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTQ FUNDS:
Lehmann noted the Commission made a recommendation last time about extending it to as many people
as possible. This went to Council in a work session to let them know, and the initial intent was to prep the
MOU, bring it to the Commission for approval, and take it back to Council. Council said the language is
fine and they would adopt or add the intent of the HCDC discussion into the MOU and then just bring it
back to Council. As such, staff drafted an MOU that has in a provision about that and they've added more
reporting requirements to keep track of these things over time where they haven't had as much of that
annual reporting after the fact. So the specific criteria they had put in was potentially given to for viable
projects, providing the most units at the highest levels of affordability.
DISCUSS ANNUAL CITY STEPS 2025 REVIEW PROCESS:
Lehmann noted when they were doing the review process last year this was discussed and because the
City is now updating the five year plan, it presents a chance to think through this. Historically, what we
had done is Kubly or Lehmann would visit one or two community groups that were related to a topic that
had come up. For example last year was racial equity and they met with the Center for Worker Justice
and with the South District. A lot of what they hear isn't directly related to CBDG or HOME funds, most
people just want a good place to live, affordable housing, to be able to get to where they need to, and to
take care of their children. This year they've added in a yearly meeting with agencies to ask report what
they hear on the ground. Lehmann opened it up for other outreach ideas the Commission has.
Eastham stated that trying to figure out what people in the community think about, what they want to
happen in the community, and then including that in a document like City Steps is a perplexing, daunting
undertaking. He thinks however it is one they have to continue to work at. To have a whole meeting here
and have people come and talk about City Steps hasn't worked particularly well. Going over and talking to
groups about City Steps would work better if he had a better way of telling people what City Steps
actually is. Fixmer-Oraiz agreed, it's almost an educational outreach before it's a feedback. They need to
know what it is before they can give concise feedback.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 10 of 12
Lehmann noted historically they've choosen a couple groups a year and go to those groups. Realistically,
outreach takes a lot of time so that's where he was wondering if there may be a way to augment outreach
because one of HCDC duties is to go out and talk about these sorts of things. Would it make sense for
Commissioners to take 15 minutes with groups in which Commissioners are involved and let them know
what's happening, give opportunity for feedback, and then the Commissioner could came back and report
on what they've heard. Lehmann said staff participates in many events that relate to affordable housing,
but usually those are things other people put on and he doesn't want to take over their meetings, so it's
always a balance.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated a couple things come to mind. From a planning perspective, community outreach is
always more intensive and we want to go to the people and make it fun and make it interesting. City
Steps is none of those things. She noted they need to decide what would be a goal and go after that goal,
because from planning methodologies, there's so many ways to approach it that aren't static. Fixmer-
Oraiz thinks looking at a more comprehensive study is the way to go, she is happy to help with that
because she owns a planning company. She would not charge for it as she thinks it is important, not just
the process but what are the goals.
Lehmann noted it sounds like this is something to give some thought to first, possibly tap some people,
bring it back when we've gat a better idea of even where to begin with this.
Padron asked when the City conducted its meetings, who attended and did they collect data. Kubly said
they track demographics, last year when they went to the Center for Worker Justice it is more of a
spontaneous experience. When looking at these timeline reviews, the City is looking at priorities and
throughout the five years, the priorities don't really change much. Generally people saying similar thing
over and over, which suggests the City has found the right goals. However a benefit of these meeting is
to educate people and connect them with things the City offers, or help someone with an issue, so it
tends to have a more personal impact than an impact on the City Steps.
Fixmer-Oraiz said it would be good to get a group together to discuss and look at what City Steps is and
create a strategy moving forward.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 19, 2019:
Padron moved to approve the minutes of September 19, 2019. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and
the motion passed 6-0. (Nkumu absent)
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Lehmann noted the next meeting is scheduled for November 21 at 6:30pm in Senior Center room 202. He
asked if the Commission would prefer a meeting in December, rather than November, to give more time
to read applications. It would be December 19, same room, same time. That meeting would review and
approve the Consolidated Plan, approve the FY21 CDBG and Emerging Agency application forms, and
conduct the question and answer session with agencies. There would also be a monitoring update from
four agencies. The Commission agreed to go with the December 19 meeting.
Next, FY21 Aid to Agencies, the meeting with the City Manager is on October 30 is at 2:00pm at Emma
Harvart Hall.
At the Iowa APA, the City wan an implementation award for the affordable housing action plan, it was an
ambitious plan and was done in two and a half years, which was solid for planning standards.
There is a Crafting Powerful Messages Affordable Housing training on October 22, sponsored by the City
and County and organized by the Affordable Housing Coalition.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 11 of 12
Census 2020 is starting to ramp up, they've already done some outreach and some canvassing and that's
going to continue. We encourage everyone to just let people know it is coming.
Eastham asked if the City is responsible for outreach for the Census. Lehmann said there's a complete
count committee that the City is a part of with different subcommittees, the Census Bureau doesn't do a
lot of outreach honestly, they provide some materials and recruit workers and other than that it's pretty
minimal. The bulk of surveys will be mailed to people in March and the census is for where you live on
April 1. There are a lot of services that rely on an accurate census count and the City wants to be sure to
get an accurate count. In addition to the City, the complete count committee has members from Johnson
County, other cities in the county, as well as some University of Iowa representatives. Lehmann said they
have materials in 12 languages which can be used for outreach now.
Reminder that November 12, 13, and 14 are the outreach meetings for the transit study.
The City is purchasing the second South District house at 2129 Taylor, it's another duplex side by side.
It's in pretty good shape so it will be another affordable acquisition. Kubly said it will be $130,000 for both
sides so they will be able to sell it affordably. The house was vacant so there's no one who lived there
previously. But preference would be for people who live on Taylor or Davis. And then the second
preference is from the broader neighborhood.
Finally, Lehmann noted that Rivertront Crossings is at Planning & Zoning tonight, so based on some
applications that we had for people to live in the rental units, we are recommending an asset cap because
some people have low incomes, but they have high assets. The City wants to make sure that the people
that are getting the units are the people that need them more. Also with complications with LIHTC
funding, because the rents don't exactly line up with HOME, the City is recommending, if there are LIHTC
units that are affordable to the people that live there then that counts as an affordable unit, whether it
meets the HOME definition exactly. In other words, it simplifies the process for LIHTC developers that are
potentially providing affordable units in the area. So two potential changes are going through Council right
now.
ADJOURNMENT:
Alter moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0
(Nkumu absent).
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 12 of 12
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Terms Exp.
7/11
8/15
9/19
10117
12/19
Aguilar, Peggy
6/30/22
X
X
O/E
Alter, Megan
6/30/21
X
X
O/E
X
Drabek, Matt
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
Eastham, Charlie
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook
6/30/22
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
McKinstry, John
6/30/20
X
O/E
X
X
Nkumu, Peter
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
Padron, Maria
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
• Resigned from Commission
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant