HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-05 ResolutionItem Number: 6.a.
�r
1P -
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.iogov.org
May 5, 2020
Motion approving the appointment of Ryan Longenecker as the City Council
Liaison and Anna Van Heukelom as the Alternate City Council Liaison from
the University of Iowa Student Government (UISG) to the City Council until
May 1, 2021.
/_1ir_T61:ILTA I=11L1M13
Description
Ryan Longenecker: New Deputy City Liaison
Kellie Fruehling
From: Longenecker, Ryan J <ryan-Longenecker@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 3:03 PM
To: Council
Cc: Kellie Fruehling
Subject: New Deputy City Liaison
AI
RIl K
Dear Council,
I am writing to let you know that the transition to the next UI Student Government administration has begun, and as I
transition into my new role as City Liaison in the next few days, a new Deputy City Liaison has been appointed. Her name
is Anna Van Heukelom. She is excited to get to work and meet you all soon!
Thank you,
Ryan Longenecker
Ryan Longenecker he/him/his
BA Political Science & Economics — University of Iowa '23
Ik'UISGDeputy City Liaison — USG
, (563) 349-9215
Item Number: 6.b.
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
��.:. -dry
in � at
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution authorizing an agreement between the City of Iowa City and the
Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City to be effective July 1, 2020
through June 30, 2025.
Prepared By: Karen Jennings, Human Resources Administrator
Reviewed By: Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: Wage and insurance terms are expected to fall within future budget
parameters
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Resolution
Police Collective Bargaining Agreement
Executive Summary:
The current Police Union collective bargaining agreement expires June 30, 2020. The City
participated in collective bargaining with the Police Union in accordance with Chapter 20 of the
Iowa Code. A voluntary tentative agreement was reached on February 4, 2020. The tentative
agreement was ratified by the union and approved by City Council.
Background /Analysis:
The Police Union agreement was voluntarily settled for a term of five years. Negotiated wage
adjustments provide for a 2% across the board increase (ATB) in July 2020, 2% ATB in January
2021, 3% in July 2021, 3.5% in July 2022, 3% in July 2023, and 3.5% in July 2024 and a
provision allowing the Chief to hire certified officers up to and including step 3 of the wage scale.
The insurance terms maintain the plan design in FY21 and then provide for increased deductibles
and out of pocket maximums in both FY22 and FY23. Employee premium contribution will be
10% of the premium for coverage selected for FY21-FY22, 11 % of premium for FY23-FY24, and
12% of premium selected for FY25.
The agreement establishes a sick leave conversion option starting in FY22 permitting employees
with an accrued sick leave balance of at least 1000 hours to convert up to 500 hours of sick leave
to pay at the rate of 4 hours leave to 1 hour pay. It also allows conversion of excess balance over
1000 hours (not to exceed 440 hours) at a rate of 4 hours leave to 1 hour pay upon retirement.
The collective bargaining agreement also includes implementation of the City's Family and
Parental Leave policy for police bargaining unit members in addition to modification of the contract
provisions related to uniforms, scheduling of over time, accrual of comp time for contracted event
over time assignments, monthly target ammunition allotments, and the inclusion of current side
letters as contract exhibits.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution
Police Collective Bargaining Agreement
Prepared by: Karen Jennings, Human Resources Administrator, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5025
Resolution No. 20-106
Resolution authorizing agreement between the City of Iowa City and the
Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City to be effective July 1,
2020 through June 30, 2025
Whereas, the City of Iowa City (hereinafter the City), and the Police Labor Relations
Organization of Iowa City (hereinafter the Union), through their designated bargaining
representatives have negotiated a collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter the Agreement)
to be effective July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2025, a copy of which Agreement is attached to
this resolution and by this reference made a part hereof; and
Whereas, the City desires to approve the Agreement, finding that it will promote efficient
municipal operations, thereby providing residents of the community with municipal services.
Now, Therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that:
1. The above -referenced Agreement between the City and the Union is hereby approved
by the City.
2. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk to attest, the
Agreement.
Passed and approved this 5th day of May
Mayor
Attest:,
Clty Clerk
It was moved by Taylor and seconded by
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes
Nays:
2020
fgedbyJZ_
1 ,
City Attorney's Office
(Eric Goers — 04/24/2020)
Salih
the Resolution be
Absent:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
CONTRACT BETWEEN
CITY OF IOWA CITY
_► 1
THE POLICE LABOR RELATIONS ORGANIZATION OF IOWA CITY
JULY 1, 2020
TO
JUNE 30, 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A M -r1 nl r
nnf-r
Preamble...............................................................................................................................
1
ArticleI -- Recognition...........................................................................................................
2
Article 11 -- Management Rights.............................................................................................
2
Article I I I -- Check Off............................................................................................................
2
Article IV -- Union Business Agents.......................................................................................
3
ArticleV -- Union Meetings....................................................................................................
3
ArticleVI -- Bulletin Boards....................................................................................................
3
ArticleVII -- Seniority.............................................................................................................
4
Article VIII -- Daily and Weekly Hours of Work......................................................................
4
Article IX -- Overtime-Standby...............................................................................................
6
ArticleX -- Holidays...............................................................................................................
7
ArticleXI -- Vacations............................................................................................................
8
ArticleXI I -- Sick Leave.........................................................................................................
8
ArticleXIII -- Special Leaves.................................................................................................
9
ArticleXIV -- Lay-Offs............................................................................................................
12
ArticleXV -- Training.............................................................................................................
12
Article XVI -- Personnel Transactions - Rules.......................................................................
12
Article XVI I -- Watch Transfers..............................................................................................
13
ArticleXVIII -- Insurance........................................................................................................
13
ArticleXIX -- Equipment........................................................................................................
14
Article XX -- Weapons and Special Equipment.....................................................................
14
Article XXI -- Adequate Facilities...........................................................................................
15
ArticleXXII -- Uniforms..........................................................................................................
15
Article XXIII -- Duty Outside the City......................................................................................
15
Article XXIV -- Supplemental Employment............................................................................
16
Article XXV -- Position Classification.....................................................................................
16
Article XXVI -- Grievance Procedure.....................................................................................
16
Article XXVI I -- Effective Period.............................................................................................
19
Article XXVIII -- Compensation..............................................................................................
19
Article XXIX -- Public Emergency..........................................................................................
20
Article XXX -- General Conditions.........................................................................................
20
Article XXXI — Family and Parental Leave.............................................................................
21
PREAMBLE
THIS AGREEMENT is executed by the CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, called "City," and the
POLICE LABOR RELATIONS ORGANIZATION OF IOWA CITY called "Union."
The City and the Union agree that the provisions of this Agreement shall apply to all
officers covered by the Agreement without discrimination.
That parties specifically agree to the following Articles:
K
ARTICLE I
RECOGNITION
Section 1. The City recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for all
employees within the classification set forth in Section 2 of this Article.
Section 2. The bargaining unit covered by this Agreement shall include all Iowa City police
officers and does not include the Police Chief, Captains, Lieutenants, Sergeants, and any other
individuals who are or may become confidential, administrative, supervisory, or less than half-time
employees or those excluded by Chapter 20, Code of Iowa.
Section 3. The City and the Union will negotiate only through authorized representatives
and there will be no private agreements between officers and supervisors contrary to the terms in
this Agreement.
Section 4. The City agrees that it will not sponsor or promote, financially or otherwise, any
other group or labor organization, for the purpose of undermining the Union; nor will it interfere
with, restrain, coerce, or discriminate against any of its employees in connection with their
membership in the Union.
ARTICLE II
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
Section 1. Except as limited by the provisions of this Agreement, nothing herein shall be
construed to restrict, limit, or impair the rights, powers, and the authority of the City under the laws
of the State of Iowa and the City's ordinance. These rights, powers and authority include, but are
not limited to, the following:
a. To direct the work of its employees.
b. To hire, promote, demote, transfer, assign and retain officers within the Iowa City
Police Department.
C. To suspend or discharge officers for proper cause.
d. To maintain the efficiency of governmental operations.
e. To relieve officers from duties because of lack of work or for other legitimate
reasons.
f. To determine and implement methods, means, assignments in personnel by which
its operations are to be conducted and to develop and enforce rules of work and
safety standards.
g. To take such actions as may be necessary to carry out its mission.
h. To initiate, prepare, certify and administer its budget.
i. To exercise all powers and duties granted to it by law.
ARTICLE /it
CHECK OFF
Section 1. If permitted by law, the City agrees to deduct Union membership fees and dues
in a specific dollar amount once each month from the pay of those employees who individually
authorize in writing that such deductions be made. Authorizations delivered to the City ten (10)
days prior to the first day of a month shall become effective on the first day of the succeeding
month. Any change in check off shall be authorized by the individual.
3
Section 2. Check off moneys will be deducted from the first pay check of each month, and
shall be remitted, together with an itemized statement, to the Union Treasurer within the ten (10)
days after the deductions have been made.
Section 3. The City will not deduct dues beginning the first of the month after which the
officer is no longer a part of the bargaining unit. An officer may voluntarily cancel or revoke
authorization for check off upon ten (10) days written notice to the City. The City shall promptly
forward a copy of such notice to the Union.
Section 4. The City will not be liable for damages arising by virtue of mistakes in
connection with funds collected under the provisions of this Article.
ARTICLE IV
UNION BUSINESS AGENTS
Section 1. The Union shall have the right to designate agents, not to exceed two (2)
persons at any one time, who shall have access to City facilities during regular working hours for
the purpose of investigating and administering matters relating to this Agreement.
Section 2. The Union shall notify, in writing, the City Manager and Chief of Police after
making such designation which notification shall contain the name of the party or parties thus
designated, and the purpose of such investigation. Any such investigation or administration shall
be conducted so as not to interfere with routine City business, and any such agent shall comply
with City safety and security regulations.
ARTICLE V
UNION MEETINGS
Section 1. Officers may use City facilities when available for the purpose of holding
scheduled Union meetings.
Section 2. With the permission of the Chief of Police, officers on duty may be permitted to
attend any Union meeting.
ARTICLE VI
BULLETIN BOARDS
Section 1. The City shall provide a bulletin board to be located in the Police Department to
enable the Union and officers to post notices. A posted notice shall not contain any political
endorsement or any libelous material and no political notice shall be posted urging support of any
specific cause or candidate.
Section 2. Without the express permission of the Chief of Police, no posting will be
permitted in any place in the Police Department other than on the bulletin board.
C!
ARTICLE Vll
SENIORITY
Section 1. Seniority shall mean the status, priority, or precedence obtained as a result of
continuous length of service as an Iowa City police officer. Seniority shall commence on the date
of employment as an Iowa City police officer and shall become applicable immediately following
completion of the probationary period.
Section 2. The City in cooperation with the Union shall maintain and keep posted on the
bulletin board referred to in Article VI, a list of officers who have attained seniority and shall keep
said list current. The list shall be prepared with the senior officer's name appearing at the top of
the classification.
Section 3. An officer shall lose seniority rights upon:
a. Resignation.
b. Discharge for just cause.
C. Absence from work for a period of three (3) consecutive scheduled working days
without notifying the City or without good excuse.
d. Giving a false reason for leave of absence.
e. Failing to report for work within fifteen (15) days after notice from the City (by
United States Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested to last known address)
notifying him/her to report for work following lay-off.
Section 4. Seniority shall accrue during all special leaves, disabilities, sickness, vacation or
other periods of time unless there is a specific provision to the contrary in this Agreement. In the
event that more than one individual has the same seniority date the order of seniority will be
determined by lot.
Section 5. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, seniority shall be the
controlling factor to be considered in making determinations for vacations, leave schedule, lay off,
and recall. However, the City's affirmative action commitment will prevail for lay off and recall
where required by Federal or State law.
Section 6. Officers with five (5) or more years of seniority shall be entitled to hash marks
on their uniform sleeves, with one hash mark representing five (5) years of service.
ARTICLE Vlll
DAILYAND WEEKLY HOURS OF WORK
Section 1. Work Week
a. The work week for officers who are not working a continuous watch shall usually
consist of five (5) consecutive eight (8) hour days commencing on a day agreed
upon by the officer and his/her supervisor. The work week may be changed to
meet changing departmental needs, with the agreement of the affected employee.
b. The work week for all other officers shall commence on a date to be arranged
between the Union and the City and thereafter shall continue on the following
schedule:
(1) Four (4) consecutive days consisting of three (3) eight (8) hour days
followed by a ten and one quarter (10 '/4) hour day on the fourth day (or
other day in the rotation as agreed upon by the Union and the Chief)
5
followed by two (2) days off.
(2) A repetition of the above schedule.
(3) The daily schedule outlined above may be amended by increasing the
number of hours per day and/or reducing the number of work days per
week upon agreement of the union and the police chief.
C. Days off shall be defined as beginning with the end of the last regularly scheduled
working day and ending at the start of the next regularly scheduled working day as
set forth in the schedule in Section 1.
For example:
(1)For an officer assigned to the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. watch, days off shall commence
at 3:00 p.m. on the last regularly scheduled working day and end at 7:00 a.m. on the next
regularly scheduled working day.
(2)For the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. watch, days off commence at 11 p.m. on the last
regularly scheduled working day and end at 3 p.m. on the next scheduled working day.
(3)For the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. watch, days off commence at 7 a.m. on the last
regularly scheduled working day and end at 11 p.m. on the next scheduled working day.
Section 2. Work Day. A work day shall consist of eight (8) consecutive hours with the
officer reporting fifteen (15) minutes prior to the commencement thereof and staying, if requested
to do so, fifteen (15) minutes after such work period.
Section 3. Rest Periods. To the greatest extent possible, each officer shall be granted two
(2) fifteen (15) minute rest periods during each work day. The first rest period to occur between
the second and third hour, and the second rest period to occur between the fifth and sixth hour.
The rest periods set forth herein may be varied upon mutual agreement of the officer and his/her
supervisor.
Section 4. Lunch Period. To the greatest extent possible, each officer shall be granted a
lunch period of not less than thirty (30) minutes during each work day between the third and sixth
hour thereof unless otherwise mutually agreed between the officer and his/her supervisor.
Section 5. Notification. To the greatest extent possible, an officer shall be notified
twenty-four (24) hours in advance if he/she is required to work on a day off.
Section 6. Straight Time Pay. Straight time pay (sometimes herein referred to as regular
pay or regular wage) shall mean the base hourly rate paid for the regular working day and working
week. In implementing negotiated across-the-board salary increases, the base hourly rate shall be
multiplied by any negotiated percentage increase, rounded in accordance with mathematical
standards, to obtain the new base hourly rate. Base hourly rate multiplied by two thousand eighty
(2080) equals annual salary.
M
ARTICLE /X
OVERTIME - STANDBY
Section 1. Overtime. With the exception of Section 8 of this Article, overtime is work
performed by an officer in excess of an assigned duty day, forty (40) hours a week, or minimal
call-in time as hereinafter defined. All overtime work shall be the subject of a written instrument
specifying the overtime thereof and each officer shall receive a copy of any such instrument after
the same has been approved or disapproved by the City. Authorization by the watch commander
is required for overtime work.
Section 2. Overtime will be compensated at the rate of one and one-half (1'/2) times the
base hourly rate of the officer. Overtime may not be obtained from two sources for the same time.
Section 3. An officer who has left work and is recalled with less than twenty-four (24) hours
prior notice shall receive credit for a minimum of two (2) hours of overtime.
Section 4. Overtime Eaualization.
a. Scheduled overtime shall be assigned to officers considering seniority, the type of
work required, the ability of the individual officer and his/her desire to perform the
overtime service.
b. Occasions involving unexpected/non-scheduled overtime, the on -duty supervisor is
required to follow these steps to fill the unexpected/non-scheduled overtime:
1. On -duty personnel according to seniority.
2. Call-in based on incoming/outgoing watch personnel according to seniority.
3. If Step 1 and step 2 are exhausted, the on -duty supervisor may call an officer
on his/her day off to cover the unexpected/non-scheduled overtime. Officer on
accrued leave or pre -scheduled vacation/comp time may not be forced in to
cover unexpected/non-scheduled overtime except by order of the Chief of
Police or designee.
C. "Contracted events" are instances where the Iowa City Police Department is called
upon to provide public safety for events where the costs are reimbursed to the City.
The Chief or designee shall provide as much advanced notice as practical via City
email to officers stating what the event is and the number of officers needed. If the
need for officers is not achieved by volunteering officers, the language of Article IX,
Section 4, subsection b of this contract shall be used to determine coverage. If an
officer is forced under the contract language, that officer shall be permitted to
convert the overtime paid for contract services to accumulated overtime (comp
time) according to the language in Section 7 (Accumulated Overtime).
d. The parties agree that the above overtime equalization provisions or any other
provisions of this contract shall not be construed to mean that overtime is
voluntary. Employees requested to work overtime are required to do so.
Section 5. Overtime Rest Period. If an officer is required to work two (2) or more hours
immediately following and beyond his/her normal work day, he/she shall receive either:
a. A rest period of at least one-half ('/2) hour immediately following his/her normal
work day, or
b. One additional one-half ('/2) hour of paid compensation at the overtime rate as the
officer and his/her supervisor may determine.
Section 6. Stand-by Time. The parties realize that it may be necessary or desirable for the
City to require officers to be available on a stand-by status where they may be called to duty upon
short notice. The City shall advise such officer at the earliest possible date of any such required
stand-by service, and the officer shall receive one hour of compensation at straight time for each
VA
eight (8) hours of stand-by time.
Section 7. Accumulated Overtime. Overtime accumulation for time off shall not exceed fifty
(50) hours in any one fiscal year and any excess in accumulation over fifty (50) hours shall be
paid. Any overtime accumulated at the end of the fiscal year shall be paid. However, accumulated
overtime may be carried over from one fiscal year to the next, to be used as time off only, and
must be used by September 1.
Section 8. Court Time. The greater of two (2) hours or actual time spent will be credited to
an officer when, in obedience to a subpoena or direction by proper authority, appears for the
federal government, the State of Iowa, or a political subdivision, or in a private litigation when not
a party to the litigation and when such appearances arise from the performance of his/her duties,
obligations, or activities as a police officer. Overtime earned as defined in this section will be
compensated at the appropriate overtime rate.
ARTICLE X
HOLIDAYS
Section 1. The following days shall be paid holidays for officers: New Year's Day (January
1); Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (third Monday in January); Washington's Birthday (third Monday in
February); Memorial Day (last Monday in May); Independence Day (July 4); Labor Day (first
Monday in September); Veteran's Day (November 11); Thanksgiving Day (fourth Thursday in
November); the Friday after Thanksgiving; Christmas Day (December 25); and one personal
leave day.
Section 2. In addition, there shall be granted to officers who do not work a continuous
watch the day before or after Christmas, or the day before or after New Year's Day as an
additional holiday. The City Manager may direct that officers observe a particular day for this
holiday but if the Manager fails to make such designation by December 15 of the calendar year in
question, the officer may select a particular day between December 17 and January 6 subject to
the approval of his/her supervisor. Such officers will be allowed to take the day preceding or
following a holiday as designated by the City Manager if the holiday falls on the officer's day off.
Section 3. Police officers on a continuous watch shall receive ninety-six (96) hours of
holiday credit on July 1 annually. Any continuous watch officer who begins work after July 1 of any
year will receive credit for the remaining holiday dates until the following July 1. If an officer
separates after July 1 of any year, those holiday dates which have been credited but which have
not as yet occurred will be deducted for the purpose of considering separation pay.
e.g., Officer A receives credit for ninety-six (96) hours of holiday time on July 1.
The officer terminates on November 1 and HAS NOT USED ANY holiday hours.
He/she would be paid sixteen (16) hours of holiday pay (Independence Day and
Labor Day).
e.g., Officer B receives ninety-six (96) hours of holiday credit on July 1. Officer B
terminates November 1 and HAS USED forty (40) holiday hours. Only two (2)
holidays (Independence Day and Labor Day) have occurred prior to termination,
therefore twenty-four (24) hours (40 used less 16 occurring) would be deducted
from the last week's wages.
If an officer works a full watch on a holiday, four (4) hours of additional holiday credit will be given
during the pay period in which the holiday occurs. If an officer works more or less than a full watch
on a holiday, the premium pay will be prorated to the nearest whole hour based on time worked.
n
Section 4. For the purpose of this Article, the holiday begins at 11:00 p.m. on the day
preceding the holiday date and continues for a period of twenty-four (24) hours thereafter. The
watch starting time controls holiday designation. For continuous watch officers, a holiday shall be
observed on the day it occurs. For non -continuous watch officers, a holiday which occurs on
Sunday will be observed on the following Monday. One which falls on Saturday will be observed
the preceding Friday.
ARTICLE XI
VACATIONS
Section 1. Vacations shall be earned and accumulated by pay period according to the
following schedule:
Length of Service
0-5 years
5 years and one day -10 years
10 years and one day -15 years
15 years and one day -20 years
20 years plus
Days Earned Per Month
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
The maximum annual carryover from one year to another shall be two hundred twenty-four
(224) hours. The maximum number of hours eligible for payment upon separation shall be one
hundred ninety-two (192) hours.
Section 2. The process for granting vacation time shall be as follows: Vacation leave may
be requested beginning in December for the following calendar year. Vacation leave will be
approved by the officer's supervisor on or before February 1 of each year. Officers will be granted
vacation leave, in increments of one day or more, in order of seniority. After February 1, vacation
leave requests will be approved in the order they are received. In the event that two requests are
received at the same time, seniority shall prevail.
ARTICLE Xll
SICK LEAVE
Section 1. Accumulation. Officers shall be granted one (1) day of sick leave for each
month, and shall have the right to accumulate unused sick leave up to a maximum of 1440 hours
(180 days). Sick leave shall not be granted for an officer having a leave without pay. Any officer
granted a paid leave shall continue to earn sick leave.
Upon termination of employment other than for cause, the City shall pay for all
accumulated sick leave on the basis of one-half ('/2) of the officer's then current hourly base
salary, provided, however the dollar amount of the payment may be up to but shall not exceed the
amount that an officer would have been due if he/she had terminated on June 28, 1985. Officers
hired on or after June 29, 1985, are not eligible for payment under the provisions of this
paragraph.
Effective July 1, 2021, an employee with sick leave accrued in excess of and including
1000 hours may elect to convert up to 500 hours of sick leave to pay at the rate of 4 hours sick
leave to 1 hour of pay. If an employee elects to participate in this program, he/she must submit in
writing to Human Resources the intent to convert sick leave to pay by June 1St, and the payment
shall be made in the last payroll of the fiscal year.
In addition to the above, if an employee elects to enter into a bona -fide retirement, the
employee may convert any additional sick leave over 1000 hours (not to exceed 440 hours) at the
rate of 4 hours of sick leave to 1 hour of pay. The employee must elect in writing to take
advantage of this program and the payment shall be made on the date of their final paycheck. As
an example, if an employee retires with 1250 hours of sick leave accrued, the employee will be
9
eligible to receive 187.50 hours of pay.
Section 2. Use of Sick Leave.
a. After completion of the initial probationary period, a day of accumulated sick leave
shall be used for each day an officer is sick and off work during a work week, or if
less than a day, on an hour -to -hour basis. A doctor's statement regarding the
nature of the illness and recovery therefrom may be required. A supervisor may
request an individual examination, if it is deemed in the best interest of the city and
the employee. Said examination shall be at the City's expense and the City will
have the right to designate the doctor. Reasonable notification by the supervisor of
the need for a doctor's statement will be given in order to allow time to comply.
b. In addition to sickness of an officer, sick leave may be used for:
(1) Duty connected disability.
(2) Serious illness or hospital confinement of a spouse, domestic partner as
recognized by City policy, or child, or critical illness of the officer's mother, father, mother-in-law,
father-in-law, including mother or father of a domestic partner, brother, sister, or grandparents,
pregnancy related illness or recovery of an officer's spouse, as well as any other relatives or
members of the immediate household of the officer up to a maximum of forty (40) hours per
occurrence.
(3) Health maintenance needs, e.g., doctor or dentist appointments. The officer
will make every attempt to schedule such appointments in off-duty hours.
Section 3. Notification. An officer shall notify his/her supervisor or a supervisor on duty on
the watch immediately preceding his/hers, as soon as reasonably possible, of any sickness or
illness which will cause him/her to miss work and unless such notification is given within one (1)
hour after the beginning of the work day, the absence will not be charged to sick leave, but may
be charged to other accumulated leaves or to leave without pay. Employees who become sick on
duty shall notify the watch supervisor before leaving duty.
Section 4. In the event an officer is injured or disabled on the job requiring time from work,
no deductions shall be made from the officer's accumulated sick leave unless such officer requires
more than two (2) working days in which to recuperate and return to work.
ARTICLE Xlll
SPECIAL LEAVES
Section 1. On -the -Job Iniury. Upon application the City may, in addition to any other leave,
grant a leave of absence with pay in the event of an injury or illness of an officer while on duty
provided the following conditions exist:
a. That the injury or illness is determined compensable by the Iowa City Temporary
Disability Review Board (the Board) and
b. The medical advisor of the Board determines that time off from work is required.
If the above provisions are applicable, leave with pay will be granted during the remaining
time on the watch when the injury occurs and for a period of two (2) days thereafter if authorized
by the Board.
If the injured or disabled officer requires more than two (2) days in which to recuperate and
return to work, any additional absence will be charged to sick leave or if sick leave is exhausted,
10
to leave of absence with pay until a temporary disability pension is granted by the Board after
which determination the sick leave and any other leaves used for such purpose shall be restored.
In the case of apparent on-the-job injury, the Police Chief, with approval from the City
Manager, may waive conditions a. and b. above and approve a leave of absence with pay prior to
a determination of compensability by the Board. However, in the event that the injury or illness in
question is subsequently determined to be non -compensable by the Board, the officer shall
reimburse the City for the leave advanced, using current accrued leave, then future accrued
leave, then final pay.
Section 2. Funerals. An officer will be granted up to three (3) days per occurrence with no
loss of compensation nor loss of accrual from sick, annual, nor compensatory time to attend the
funeral of his/her spouse, domestic partner as recognized by City policy, children, mother, father,
grandparents, stepparents, sister, or brother.
An officer will be granted one (1) day per occurrence with no loss of compensation nor
loss of accrual from sick, annual, or compensatory time to attend the funeral of his/her
mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandparents -in-law, aunt or uncle, brother-in-law, sister-in-law,
permanent member of the immediate household, or for a military funeral in which such officer
participates in the ceremony. In such cases, he/she may be granted up to two (2) additional days
for travel, if necessary, as determined by his/he supervisor. In-law relationships referred to herein
shall include such relationships through a domestic partner as recognized by City policy.
If additional time is needed, an officer shall be permitted to use up to three (3) days per
occurrence of his/her accumulated sick leave with the approval of his/her supervisor.
Section 3. Leave of Absence Without Pay. A leave of absence without pay is a
predetermined amount of time off from work, which has been recommended by the Chief of Police
and approved by the City Manager. Generally, such leave shall not exceed twelve (12) months.
Upon termination of any such leave of absence, the officer shall return to work in the same step or
capacity as when he/she left and will receive compensation on the same basis as if he/she had
continued to work at his/her regular position without leave, provided that during such period, no
officer shall earn sick, vacation, or other leave.
In the event an officer fails to return to work at the end of any such leave, he/she shall be
deemed to have voluntarily resigned or, if applicable, voluntarily retired on the last day of work
prior to such leave. During a leave of absence without pay, the officer:
a. Cannot pay retirement contributions if the leave exceeds one (1) month in duration.
b. Shall not receive any other job benefits during the period of absence.
C. Must use all accumulated vacation and compensatory leaves to which he/she is
entitled prior to the time that the leave without pay commences.
d. Shall not accrue seniority during leaves exceeding thirty (30) days.
e. Must pay prorated health, dental and life insurance premiums falling due during
any month the employee is not on the payroll, if coverage is desired, as follows:
For any calendar month during which the employee is on unpaid leave not
exceeding ten working days and insurance coverage is desired, the City will
pay the cost of the insurance premiums for Medical, Dental and Life
insurance.
2. For any calendar month during which the employee is on unpaid leave in
excess of ten working days and insurance coverage is desired, the
11
employee must pay 1/12 of the insurance premium for each working day
beyond ten working days that the employee is on unpaid leave of absence.
The remainder of the premium will be paid for by the City.
3. The employee may choose which insurance coverages, if any, are to be
retained during the unpaid leave of absence.
4. Payment for insurance coverages desired by the employee may be deducted
from current or future pay due to the employee. Failure to return from an
unpaid leave where insurance coverage was desired will result in the City
billing the individual for costs which would otherwise have been deducted from
the employee's pay.
The Chief of Police may make exceptions to the above conditions (a. through d.) for
leaves not exceeding ten (10) working days.
Section 4. Jury Duty. Any officer summoned for jury duty shall receive regular standard
time pay during any period of jury service and shall earn and be entitled to all benefits as if on duty
without charge against sick or vacation leave. The City shall receive the pay earned from such
jury service but the officer shall receive allowance for mileage and expenses unless furnished by
the City. An officer who is summoned for jury duty but is not selected to serve on the jury and is
discharged with an hour or more remaining on his/her watch shall return to work.
Time spent on jury service by officers whose daily duty hours are other than when court is
in session may be credited against the officer's daily duty hours to the extent determined by the
Police Chief.
Section 5. Witness Fees. An officer shall be granted leave with pay when required to be
absent from work for the purpose of testifying in court or appearing in response to any legal
summons which falls under the provisions of Article IX, Section 8, of this agreement, and the City
shall receive the witness fees except the witness fees paid to an officer for off duty (unpaid)
periods which belong to said officer.
Section 6. Military Leave. Officers belonging to or called by any branch of the Armed
Forces of the United States shall, when ordered to active service, be entitled to a leave of
absence for such period of time that the member serves in such capacity and until discharged
therefrom. The City shall comply with applicable law in regard to military leave.
Officers subject to the foregoing shall, upon re -instatement to City employment, retain their
original employment date for the purpose of determining seniority and eligibility for salary
advancement just as though such time spent in service of the United States had been spent in
regular employment with the City.
Section 7. Voting Time. An officer shall be permitted to vote during the work day in any
national, state, or local election if it is not reasonably possible to vote during off hours, and no
charge shall be made for time spent for such purpose.
Section 8. Pregnancy Leave. A pregnant officer shall be entitled to a leave of absence
without pay if she is physically incapacitated as a result of pregnancy or related cause at the
exhaustion of other accumulated leaves. All officers requiring such leave shall notify the Chief of
Police or designee prior to the anticipated date of birth and shall substantiate their condition by a
doctor's statement. Officers may work during pregnancy if health permits.
Those granted leave under this Section shall present a doctor's statement as to pregnancy
and recovery therefrom and within fourteen (14) days following birth, miscarriage, or abortion, the
officer shall advise the City of the date by which the officer will return to work. Unless the officer
returns to work by such date, or any other date by reason of extension granted by the City, the
officer will be considered to have voluntarily resigned or retired.
12
ARTICLE XIV
LAY-OFFS
Section 1. Lay-offs shall mean the situation in which the City is forced to relieve officers
from duty because of lack of funds or pursuant to Chapter 400, Section 28, of the current Code of
Iowa.
Section 2. Officers separated because of lay-off will be given formal written notice at least
two (2) weeks in advance of the separation date or two (2) weeks of regular base pay in lieu of
such notice.
ARTICLE XV
TRAINING
Section 1. To the greatest extent possible, an officer shall receive or have the opportunity
to attend training programs, and for such purpose each officer shall be treated in a fair manner.
Section 2. The City may require attendance of an officer at any location for the purpose of
training on the basis of a normal duty day assignment. The City will, in addition to paying the cost
of the program, pay for meals, lodging, the expense of transportation, tuition, and the necessary
books and supplies.
Section 3. No officer will be required to participate in any training program while on
vacation or sick leave and cannot be required to participate in any such program on a day off
unless the City pays said officer one hundred fifty percent (150%) of his/her hourly base pay.
However, the police chief may assign an alternate day off in lieu of overtime pay for training with
the consent of the affected officer. This section shall not be applicable to officers in probationary
status.
Section 4. In the event an officer is not performing his/her duties satisfactorily, the City
may require such officer to complete a special training course as recommended by the City in an
effort to assist said officer to achieve satisfactory performance of his/her duties. Any such
requirement shall be at the expense of the City upon approval by the Chief of Police.
Section 5. Upon approval of the Chief of Police, an officer shall be entitled to attend a
non -required training program. Time spent in training shall not be charged against an officer's
overtime, days off, sick or vacation leave, provided said program is job related as determined by
the Chief of Police.
Section 6. This Article shall not be applicable to training programs attended by an officer
on a voluntary basis when not on duty.
Section 7. The City shall post and maintain on the bulletin board referred to in Article VI a
schedule of City approved training programs, including the details thereof such as starting date,
duration, location, etc. An officer may attend any such offered course or program at his/her own
expense with the approval of the Chief of Police which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
ARTICLE XVI
PERSONNEL TRANSACTIONS -RULES
Section 1. An officer will be given copies of all documents placed in his/her personnel file
within ten (10) days of the time any such document is placed therein. No document will be
13
considered for the purpose of evaluation, promotion or discipline of an officer unless such
document has been placed in the personnel file.
Section 2. The City will promulgate departmental rules and regulations and provide each
officer with a copy thereof. Upon promulgation of said rules and regulations, all prior rules,
regulations, directives, and general orders, except as specifically noted in writing, will be
cancelled.
Section 3. Minor infractions shall be removed from an officer's file within a period of one
(1) year after the filing of the documentation and action taken, and thereafter shall not be
considered for any purpose whatever.
ARTICLE XVII
WATCH TRANSFERS
Section 1. In the event that an officer having seniority desires to transfer to a different
watch, he/she shall make application to the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police will not
unreasonably withhold permission to transfer after considering the ability and experience of the
officer, the nature and type of work to be performed on the watch, and the need for personnel
having certain qualifications on said watch.
No officer shall be permitted more than one (1) transfer during any one (1) calendar year.
In the event an application for transfer is filed because of an emergency, the Chief of
Police will give special consideration to the facts and circumstances related thereto.
Subject to the foregoing, officers may trade watches provided that the Chief of Police
approves any such transfer.
Section 2. No officer who is transferred shall lose any days off, sick or vacation leave by
virtue of such transfer unless mutually agreed by the officer and the City.
Section 3. The employer agrees to provide to each affected officer written reasons for and
reasonable notice of involuntary watch transfers with due regard for seniority. To the greatest
extent possible, such notice shall precede the effective date of transfer by fourteen (14) days.
ARTICLE XVIII
INSURANCE
Section 1. The City shall maintain for each officer and eligible dependents the medical
insurance policy now in existence or its equivalent in coverage. Employees who elect to obtain
coverage will pay a portion of the monthly premium (prorated for part-time employees) toward the
cost of such coverage, as follows: 10% of the premium of the coverage selected in FY21 and
FY22; 11 % of the premium of the coverage selected in FY23 and FY24; and 12% of the premium
of the coverage selected in FY25. The parties agree to actively pursue incentives and/or
alternatives to the existing health care plan and pledge their mutual cooperation to achieve this
end. However, no such programs will be implemented except upon mutual agreement by the City
and the Union.
Section 2. The City shall provide, at no cost to the officer, single coverage dental
insurance for each officer.
Section 3. The City shall provide, at no cost to the officer, a policy insuring the life of said
officer in an amount equal to his/her annual salary. Any fraction of $1,000 in annual salary shall be
rounded off to the next higher thousand.
14
ARTICLE XIX
EQUIPMENT
Section 1. Officers shall not be required to operate motor vehicles if the operation thereof
is hazardous or unsafe to the officer or the public. The City will comply with all of the safety
requirements of the City, state, and federal laws.
Section 2. Any officer operating a motor vehicle shall, at some period during or
immediately following the work day, report any defect noticed by him/her in said vehicle to the
watch commander. Section 3. All other equipment furnished by the City shall be maintained by
the City in good working condition and in accordance with all applicable safety standards.
Section 4. The City will furnish required motor vehicles and other required equipment.
Section 5. An officer who is required to operate a motorcycle or to perform walking patrol
in inclement weather will be provided with adequate protective clothing as reasonably determined
by the Chief.
Section 6. To the greatest extent possible, officers shall properly use the equipment
furnished by the City.
Section 7. Equipment issued by the City shall be returned to the City at such time as the
employment of an officer is terminated. Nonexpendable items not returned will be paid for by the
officer.
Section 8. The City shall provide appropriate regulation equipment in accordance with
applicable safety regulations.
Section 9. Each officer on duty, regardless of assignment or proximity to other officers,
shall be provided with a proper functioning portable two-way radio capable of transmitting and
receiving on radio frequencies assigned to the Iowa City Police Department. In addition, officers
assigned to walking, traffic control, or any other assignment which creates difficulty in hearing
radio transmissions shall be provided with a remote speaker/microphone attachment to the
portable radio unit enabling the officer to hear radio transmissions without removing the portable
radio from its belt carrier.
ARTICLE XX
WEAPONS AND SPECIAL EQUIPMENT
Section 1. Service ammunition for regulation weapons shall be provided by the City.
Section 2. The City shall provide at least fifty (50) rounds of target ammunition monthly for
each officer required to carry a weapon to enable the officer to maintain efficiency with the
weapon. The Chief of Police shall prescribe the use to be made of such ammunition.
Section 3. In lieu of the fifty (50) pistol rounds of target ammunition issued monthly, the
City shall, upon request, provide forty (40) rifle rounds of target ammunition monthly for each
officer designated as a Patrol Rifle Operator (PRO). The Chief of Police shall prescribe the use to
be made of such ammunition.
Section 3. The City will furnish a bullet-proof vest for each officer and will replace them as
necessary.
15
ARTICLE XXI
ADEQUATE FACILITIES
Section 1. The City shall provide adequate locker and other facilities separately for male
and female officers.
ARTICLE XXII
UNIFORMS
Section 1. The City shall provide each officer with uniforms used in the performance of the
duties of police officers (original issue - new equipment).
a. One (1) winter and one (1) summer regulation hat.
b. Three (3) regulation ties.
C. Two (2) winter and three (3) summer regulation shirts.
d. Three(3) pairs of regulation trousers or cargo pocket trousers.
e. One (1) winter and one (1) summer regulation jacket.
f. One (1) raincoat, reversible, consisting of a black side and a reverse side of a
reflective International Orange.
g. Two (2) regulation hat covers.
h. Two (2) pairs of regulation winter gloves.
i. One (1) regulation pants belt.
j. One bullet -resistant outer vest carrier and necessary equipment attachments
Section 2. Plain clothes officers shall receive a clothing allowance of seven hundred
($700.00) per year of assignment. Employees shall receive for cleaning of uniforms or plain
clothes officer's clothing and/or shoes and/or boots related to employment the amount of one
hundred and seventy five ($175.00).
Permanent employees shall receive the $175 cleaning and/or shoe/boot allowance on the
first paycheck in July.
Plain clothes officers shall receive one-half of the annual clothing allowance ($350.00) on
the first paycheck in July and one-half ($350.00) of the annual clothing allowance on the first
paycheck in January.
Section 3. The expenses of standard tailoring for proper fit upon issue shall be paid for by
the City.
Section 4. Replacement:
a. Clothing damaged in the line of duty shall be ordered within seven (7) days of
receipt of the report of loss or damage.
b. All uniforms shall be replaced by the City as needed upon the determination of the
Chief of Police. In order to receive replacements, the items to be replaced must be
surrendered to the designated supervisor. This clothing shall be ordered within
seven (7) days of receipt by the designated supervisor.
ARTICLE XXIII
DUTY OUTSIDE THE CITY
Section 1. In the event the City directs any officer to perform duties outside the corporate
limits of the City of Iowa City, such officer shall receive every benefit, right, and privilege to which
B
he/she would have been entitled had said duties been performed within the corporate limits of
Iowa City, Iowa. In addition, an officer shall be entitled to such benefits, rights, and privileges if
engaged in "hot pursuit" of an offender outside the corporate limits of Iowa City, Iowa.
ARTICLE XXIV
SUPPLEMENTAL EMPLOYMENT
Section 1. Officers shall be permitted to augment their income by other employment
provided that said other employment does not conflict with the duty hours of the officer or with the
satisfactory or impartial performance of duties as a police officer for the City of Iowa City.
Section 2. The officer agrees to notify the City in advance of the name, address, and
telephone number of any employer, and if the supplemental employment is related to or along the
lines of police work, to notify the City of the work schedule, compensation, and specific duties in
addition to the above information.
ARTICLE XXV
POSITION CLASSIFICATION
Section 1. For salary purposes, there shall be no distinction between patrol officers,
detectives, juvenile officers, or other positions not having civil service certification.
Section 2. In the event that any officer is designated in a higher job classification on a
temporary basis for more than one complete duty day, said officer shall receive his/her own pay
plus an additional sixty cents ($.60) per hour during such temporary assignment.
ARTICLE XXVI
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Section 1. Definition - General Rules
a. The word "grievance" wherever used in this Agreement shall mean any difference
between the City and the Union or any officer with regard to the interpretation,
application, or violation of any of the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
b. An officer will not be required to be represented by a Union steward at any
grievance hearing. A steward shall have the right to be present for the purpose of
ascertaining whether or not the issue involved has any application to the Union
generally or to other officers who have not filed a grievance.
The Union shall have the right to designate four (4) stewards and four (4)
alternate stewards for the purpose of representing officers in the investigation and
presentation of grievances.
The Union shall give written notice to the City Manager and Chief of Police
the names and address of stewards and alternate stewards for the purpose of
representing officers. Not more than a total of ten (10) hours per month paid time
may be used by the stewards in the resolution of employee grievances. No more
than one steward shall represent a grievant at any one grievance hearing.
Grievance procedures occurring on duty time will be scheduled so as not to
interfere with assigned police work. Permission to process grievances will not be
unreasonably denied.
C. An officer shall use this grievance procedure, except where otherwise provided by
17
law, for the resolution and determination of disputes which arise under the terms
and conditions of this Agreement. If an officer proceeds beyond Step 3 of Section 2
of this Article XXVI in connection with any grievance, such action shall constitute
an election by said officer to proceed under the terms of this Agreement and shall
be a waiver of any other remedy available except as specifically provided by law.
d. The grievance procedure shall be available to any officer who is not awarded an
increase in salary advancement to which the officer would be entitled by virtue of
time in grade.
e. Unless a grievance is appealed as hereinafter provided, it shall have no further
validity or effect. If a response to a grievance is not received within the time
limitation hereinafter provided the grievant may proceed to the next step in the
grievance procedure except the time limitation referred to in this Article may be
extended by agreement of the parties.
Unless otherwise specifically agreed by the Union and the City, each grievance will
be separately heard and determined.
g. Steps of the grievance procedure may be waived by mutual consent of the parties.
h. The word "day" as used in this Article shall mean working day and shall exclude
Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
Section 2. Procedure. A grievance that may arise shall be processed and settled in the
following manner:
a. Step 1. The grievance shall be presented orally for discussion between the officer
involved, the steward, and the appropriate City supervisor within five (5) working
days after knowledge of the event giving rise to the grievance. The supervisor shall
either adjust the grievance or deliver his/her answer to the aggrieved officer and
steward within five (5) working days after such Step 1 conference. In the event no
response is received from the supervisor within said five (5) day period, the
grievance shall be processed pursuant to Step 2.
b. Step 2. If such grievance is not resolved by Step 1, the aggrieved officer or his/her
steward shall, within five (5) working days following completion of Step 1, present
three (3) written copies of such grievance signed by the aggrieved person, one of
which shall be filed with the Union, and two (2) copies with the Chief of Police, or
his/her designated representative who shall, within a period of five (5) working
days investigate and document the grievance and issue a decision in writing
thereon. The grievance shall contain a statement from the officer specifying the
name of the Grievant and of the Steward (if applicable), the substance of the
grievance and the specific provision(s) of this agreement allegedly violated by the
employer, and what relief or remedy is desired, but such statement shall not bar
any rights of the officer or limit the remedy to which he/she is entitled. The Union
shall be furnished with a copy of such decision at the time it is issued.
C. Step 3. A grievance not adjusted at Step 2 may be submitted by the grievant or the
Union to the City Manager or his/her designee within fifteen (15) days of receipt of
the Chief's Step 2 response if no meeting is scheduled. The City Manager will
investigate and respond to the grievant within ten (10) working days and meet
personally with the grievant and steward if such a meeting is requested in writing.
d. Arbitration. A grievance not adjusted at Step 3 may be submitted to a neutral third
party for binding arbitration. A request for arbitration must be submitted in writing
and signed by the grievant within fifteen (15) working days following receipt of the
City Manager's Step 3 response. Copies of any such request will be furnished to
the City and to the Union.
Except as otherwise provided, the cost of arbitration shall be divided equally
between the parties. Each party shall bear the cost of preparing and presenting its
own case and either party desiring a record of the proceedings shall pay for the
record and make a copy available without charge to the arbitrator. The cost of a
certified court reporter, if requested by the arbitrator, shall be divided between the
parties. If an officer insists upon arbitration against the advice and consent of the
Union, said member shall be responsible for that portion of the costs which would
otherwise be paid by the Union.
The arbitration proceeding shall be conducted by an arbitrator to be
selected by the City and the grievant within seven (7) working days (excluding
Saturday and Sunday) after notice has been given. If the parties fail to select an
arbitrator, a request shall be made to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service to provide a panel of five (5) prospective arbitrators who are members of
the National Academy of Arbitrators (NAA). Both the City and the grievant shall
have the right to strike two names from the panel. The party requesting arbitration
shall strike the first name; the other party shall then strike one (1) name. The
process will be repeated and the remaining person shall be the arbitrator.
The decision of the arbitrator shall be issued within thirty (30) days after
conclusion of the hearing and shall be final and binding upon the parties.
The arbitrator shall have the power to interpret, apply, and enforce this
written Contract but shall have no power to add to, subtract from, or modify the
terms thereof.
The rules of evidence and the nature of conduct required during the
arbitration hearing shall be in accordance with all state and federal legislation, rules
and regulations applicable.
Arbitration hearings shall be open to the public unless the parties otherwise
mutually agree.
Section 3. Administrative Conferences.
a. The conference group shall consist of no more than ten (10) people, five (5) of
whom shall be appointed by the City and five (5) of whom shall be appointed by
the Union. At least two (2) representatives from each party will attend any meeting.
b. The purpose of the conference shall be to provide a forum for the discussion of
issues of interest to both parties. No conference resolution or recommendation will
be contrary to the terms of this agreement. The City will release from duty not more
than two (2) officers for not more than two (2) hours for time spent in conference.
C. A conference shall be held no more than once every sixty (60) days unless the
parties mutually agree otherwise. These meetings shall be held in City facilities, if
available.
d. All health and safety matters and equipment shall be a proper topic for
consideration at administrative conference. A representative of the Union and the
City shall exchange agendas for items for consideration at least three (3) days in
advance.
19
ARTICLE XXVII
EFFECTIVE PERIOD
Section 1. This Agreement shall be effective July 1, 2020, and shall continue through June
30, 2025. Thereafter, this Agreement shall continue from year to year unless written notice to
change or modify it is served by either party prior to September 15 of the year preceding the
expiration date of this Agreement or any extension thereof.
ARTICLE XXVIII
COMPENSATION
Section 1. The effective date of compensation and benefits adjustments applicable to any
fiscal year will be the first day of the pay period which begins between the dates of June 24 and
July 7 inclusive.
Section 2. Commencing the effective date of the compensation period as defined in
Section 1 of this Article, the City shall increase the pay of all officers by two percent (2%) effective
June 28, 2020: by two percent (2%) effective December 27, 2020; by three percent (3%) effective
June 27, 2021; by three and five tenths percent (3.5%) effective June 26, 2022; by three percent
(3%) effective June 25, 2023; and by three and five tenths (3.5%) effective July 7, 2024.
(A copy of the Police Pay Plan is attached as "Attachment A" to this agreement.)
Officers will receive step increases in pay according to the following schedule:
Step 1. Upon appointment.
Step 2. Twelve months from date of appointment.
Step 3. Eighteen months from date of appointment.
Step 4. Thirty-six months from date of appointment.
Step 5. Fifty-four months from date of appointment.
Step 6. One Hundred Twenty months from date of appointment*
*Effective December 25, 2011
The Chief may offer employment to a certified officer up to and including Step 3. An
employee hired above the Entry Step shall not move to the next step until such time as he/she
has fulfilled the years of service for that step. As an example, an employee hired at Step 3 shall
serve 36 months in that step before moving to Step 4.
20
Section 3. Longevity Pay. Permanent employees who have completed the required
number of years of continuous service with the City by December 1 shall receive longevity pay on
the last paycheck in November in accordance with this schedule:
YEARS COMPLETED
ON DECEMBER 1
5 years
10 years
15 years
20 years
25 years
This payment will be pro -rated on the
terminate before December 1 in any fiscal year.
will reimburse the City on the same pro -ration.
AMOUNT
$475.00
$800.00
$950.00
$1100.00
$1350.00
basis of monthly segments for members who
Any employee who terminates after December 1
Section 4. Watch Differential. Officers working the 3 to 11 watch on a regular basis will
receive thirty (30) cents per hour on top of their normal wage for all hours worked from 3 p.m. to
11 p.m. Officers working the 11 to 7 watch on a regular basis will receive forty-five (45) cents per
hour on top of the normal wage for hours worked from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Officers working overtime will continue to receive watch differential at the same rate as
their normal duty hours.
Section 5. Special Duty Pay. Officers who are assigned to and performing K-9 duty on a
regular basis shall be paid for one-half hour per day as kennel time at the applicable overtime
rate.
Officers designated as Field Training Officers (FTO) when assigned to actively performing
the duties of FTO, shall receive, in addition to any other compensation to which they are entitled,
10% of their hourly pay for each hour of FTO duty.
ARTICLE XXIX
PUBLIC EMERGENCY
Section 1. The provisions of this Agreement may be suspended by the City Council during
the period of a declared public emergency.
ARTICLE XXX
GENERAL CONDITIONS
Section 1. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of Iowa.
Section 2. Whenever the context of this Agreement permits, the masculine gender
includes the feminine or masculine, the singular number includes the plural, and reference to any
party includes its agents, officials, and employees.
Section 3. Non-discrimination. Both parties affirm that the provisions of this Agreement
shall be applicable to all officers regardless of race, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital
status, national origin, religion, sex, age or sexual orientation.
Section 4. Waiver. This Agreement supersedes and cancels all previous agreements
between the City and the Union and constitutes the entire agreement between the parties.
21
Section 5. Anticipated Changes. The City shall give the Union as much advance notice as
possible of any major change of working conditions.
Section 6. Pre -Tax. Employees covered by this agreement shall be allowed to participate
in the Section 125 Pre -Tax Advantage Program as established by the City. At a minimum, said
program will allow for pre-tax payment of health insurance co -payments to the extent allowed by
Federal and State law.
Section 7. Parking. No fewer than ten (10) parking places in the Chauncey Swan Parking
Garage will be held in the names of police bargaining unit members, provided that fees are paid
according to City procedures for the ten places. Bargaining unit members shall pay parking fees
for permits in the amount equal to that charged to other City employees who park in the Chauncey
Swan Parking Garage. The City will assume no increase in responsibility in administering the use
of parking permits as a result of this Contract and any dispute over the use of the ten permits must
be handled by the Union representative. Police department members may individually hold
parking permits in accordance with City procedures.
Section 8. The City shall make an electronic version of the collective bargaining
agreement available to all bargaining unit members in lieu of distributing paper copies.
ARTICLE XXXI
FAMILY AND PARENTAL LEAVE
Bargaining unit members are eligible for paid leave benefits established by the City's Family and
Parental Leave Policy. For the purpose of administering the provisions of this policy including
leave and benefit amounts, limitations, and use of other leaves, a week will be defined as forty
(40) hours.
CITY OF IOWA CITY POLICE LABOR RELATIONS
ORGANIZATION OF IOWA CITY
BY:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Date:
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
Date
BY:
PRESIDENT
BY:
Date:
Attachment A
POLICE OFFICER PAY PLAN (40-01)
Fiscal Years 2021-2025
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
6/28/20
$
24.42
$
25.01
$
30.07
$
32.93
$
35.41
$
38.44
$
1,953.60
$
2,000.80
$
2,405.60
$
2,634.40
$
2,832.80
$
3,075.20
(2% ATB)
$
50,793.60
$
52,020.80
$
62,545.60
$
68,494.40
$
73,652.80
$
79,955.20
12/27/20
$
24.91
$
25.51
$
30.67
$
33.59
$
36.12
$
39.21
$
1,992.80
$
2,040.80
$
2,453.60
$
2,687.20
$
2,889.60
$
3,136.80
(2% ATB)
$
51,812.80
$
53,060.80
$
63,793.60
$
69,867.20
$
75,129.60
$
81,556.80
6/27/21
$
25.66
$
26.28
$
31.59
$
34.60
$
37.20
$
40.39
$
2,052.80
$
2,102.40
$
2,527.20
$
2,768.00
$
2,976.00
$
3,231.20
(3% ATB)
$
53,372.80
$
54,662.40
$
65,707.20
$
71,968.00
$
77,376.00
$
84,011.20
6/26/22
$
26.56
$
27.20
$
32.70
$
35.81
$
38.50
$
41.80
$
2,124.80
$
2,176.00
$
2,616.00
$
2,864.80
$
3,080.00
$
3,344.00
(3.5% ATB)
$
55,244.80
$
56,576.00
$
68,016.00
$
74,484.80
$
80,080.00
$
86,944.00
6/25/23
$
27.36
$
28.02
$
33.68
$
36.88
$
39.66
$
43.05
$
2,188.80
$
2,241.60
$
2,694.40
$
2,950.40
$
3,172.80
$
3,444.00
(3% ATB)
$
56,908.80
$
58,281.60
$
70,054.40
$
76,710.40
$
82,492.80
$
89,544.00
7/7/24
$
28.32
$
29.00
$
34.86
$
38.17
$
41.05
$
44.56
$
2,265.60
$
2,320.00
$
2,788.80
$
3,053.60
$
3,284.00
$
3,564.80
(3.5% ATB)
$
58,905.60
$
60,320.00
$
72,508.80
$
79,393.60
$
85,384.00
$
92,684.80
SIDE LETTER OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF IOWA CITY
AND.
POLICE LABOR RELATIOIIS ORGANIZATION OF IOWA CITY
PLRO-IC
MARCH 27, 1984
The parties agree
health insurance
modified by mutual
that Jt is their intent
coverage• provisions take
agreement of the parties:
a. Mandatory Outpatient Surgery
that the following additions to the
effect from April- 1, 1984, until
Procedures designated by the Iowa Foundation and suitable to be performed on
an outpatient basis must be performed on an outpatient basis to - be fully
covered by the health insurance. Extenuating circumstances which would make
In-patient surgery medically necessary' will be reviewed, by Blue Cross/Blue
Shield if requested by the physician. Designated surgeries which are not
performed on an outpatient basis, and without prior approval by .Blue
Cross/Blue'Shield, will be paid only at a rate of 50% of charges.
b.• Maternity Length of Stay Incentive
Following admission into the hospital for childbirth, if length of stay for
the mother -for childbirth is two days or less, as certified by the hospital
bill, presented to the Human Relations Department, the employee will receive
a check for $100 (minus necessary withholding).
c. Overcharge Incentive
Employees will receive 25% of the correction of an overcharge or overpayment
when the overcharge/overpayment is initiated and successfully resolved -by the
employee. (Withholding must be made on all payments to employees.) Maximum
payment to employees is $500 (pre -withholding). Documentation of the em-
ployee -initiated 'corrections should be submitted to the Human Relations
Department when the correction is accomplished. Gross' overcharges resulting
from computer error or -similar problems will not be eligible for payment
(e.g. received $100 worth of servic)as, billed, for $100,000).
Outpatient Treatment of Substance Abuse
This option would make available, but not mandatory, payment for outpatient
treatment of substance abuse. - Employees wishing' to utilize insurance
coverage for purposes of substance abuse treatment must submit to evaluation
by a substance abuse treatment agency selected by the City prion to treat-
ment.
;jKY,9KK_L2W_A CIT JA
By CITY AN By.
Date: -70, Date:
POLICE LABOR RELATIONS
ORGANIZATION OF IOWA CITY
OF IOWA CITY
CIVIC CENTER 410 E, WASHINGTON ST, IOWA CV, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000
April 18, 1985
Mr. Michael Goldberg, President
Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City
Iowa City Police Department
410 E, Washington Street
Iowa'h ty, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Goldberg;
Attached please find copies of brochures describing coverage under the
"Iowa 500" Two Day Deductible health insurance plan and coverage under
the Delta Dental Plan II dental insurance plan. These are, the insurance
plans which were agreed to by the City. and PLRO-IC for our FY86-87
Collective Bargaining Agreement, and referred to in Article XVIII,
Section 1 and Section 2 of that agreement.,
It is understood and agreed that benefit coverages are based on usual,
customary, and reasonable rates. Disputes regarding specific claims
shall be addressed to the insurance company and not subject to the
grievance procedure of the Collective Bargaining -Agreement.
Sincerely, -
Dale E. Helling
Assistant City Manager
bj3/9
Michael E. Goldber
President, PLRO-IC
W
IOWA 500
IOWA 500 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
IOWA 500 coverage combines basic Blue Cross hospital, Blue Shield physician and Major Medical
coverages into a single program using deductibles and co -payments. And after the deductible and co-
payment have been satisfied, the dollar coverage and number of hospital days are unlimited except for
Nervous and Mental admissions.
In short, the Subscriber shares in the costs of the medically necessary hospital, medical and surgical
services provided. However, the Subscriber's share never exceeds the out of pocket maximum per year
for covered services, regardless of the number of family members.
IOWA 500 plan benefits encourage medical self -maintenance practices by paying for 90% of the covered
Usual, Customary and Reasonable charges for:
• One routine annual physical examination in a doctor's office or clinic
• Home and office calls needed to diagnose or treat a medical condition
• Immunizations required by a Subscriber or any person in a Subscriber's family
The idea behind IOWA 500 coverage? To encourage continuing medical self -maintenance and help
reduce the length and number of unnecessary hospital stays. These efforts, of course, can help keep
health care costs — and rates — in line.
THE IOWA 500 Plan Covers These Extensive Services:
HOSPITAL CARE 90/10
Inpatient
• Semi -private room and board
• Necessary services and supplies
• Operating rooms, intensive care, coronary and burn care units
• Delivery room for normal delivery, Caesarean section, miscarriage or admission for false labor
• Necessary laboratory and x-ray services
Outpatient
• Surgery
• Diagnostic, x-ray and laboratory services
• Accident care
HOME HEALTH CARE 90/10
• Services provided by a Registered Nurse
• Services prescribed by a physician
23
PHYSICIAN SERVICES 90/10
• Home and office visits
• One routine annual physical exam
• Pre -natal and post -natal care in physician's office
• Immunizations
• Hospital visits and nursing facility visits
NERVOUS AND MENTAL 90/10
Outpatient - 90/10
SKILLED NURSING FACILITY 90/10
• Unlimited Room and Board
• Services and Supplies
THE IOWA 500 PLAN COVERS THESE OTHER SERVICES:
These other services are subject to a contract deductible per calendar year
• Prescriptions
• Anesthetics
• Blood plasma
• Casts
• Crutches
• Durable medical equipment
• Other supplies when ordered by a physician
Nursing Services
• Private -duty nursing services
Ambulance
• Air
• Ground
DEDUCTIBLES AND CO -PAYMENT
• Hospital — The Subscriber is responsible for the first two days of semi -private room and board.
Per Hospital Admission.
• Physician — The Subscriber pays 10% of the physician's Usual, Customary and Reasonable
charges including office calls. IOWA 500 coverage pays the remaining 90%.
• Other Supplies/Services — The Subscriber first pays the deductible per contract per calendar year
for the medical supplies and services. These may include prescription drugs, services of a
Registered Nurse, ambulance services, home health care and braces.
When the Subscriber's expenditures for hospital, physician, and/or other services reach the out of
pocket maximum per year, IOWA 500 pays 100% of all remaining charges. If the Subscriber's
expenditures for hospital, physician, and/or other services do not reach the out of pocket maximum,
the Subscriber pays 10% of all remaining charges up to a total maximum expenditure of the annual
out of pocket maximum.
M!
CARRYOVER OF DEDUCTIBLE
Expenses for covered services incurred during the months of October, November and December and
which are used to satisfy that year's deductible can be used toward satisfying the next calendar year's
deductible.
Hospital Physician Other
Services Services Covered
Services
1 or 2 day deductible 90%/10% Single deductible:
$700 (eff. 1/1/20)
$750 (eff. 1/1/22)
$800 (eff. 1/1/23)
Family deductible:
$950 (eff. 1/1/20)
$1200 (eff. 1/1/22)
$1600 (eff. 1/1/23)
90%/10%
until out of pocket maximum
Out of Pocket Maximum:
Single OPM:
$1200 (eff. 1/1/20)
$1250 (eff. 1/1/22)
$1300 (eff. 1/1/23)
Family OPM:
$2000 (eff. 1/1/20)
$2250 (eff. 1/1/22)
$2600 (eff. 1/1/23)
IOWA 500 PAYS
100% of
Covered Services
Summary of Benefit:
DELTA DENTAL COVERAGE
Delta Dental Plan of low$ coverage not only provides a variety of
benefits but also encourages timely and effective- dental maintenance.
More than 80% of the dentists in Iowa participate in the Delta Dental
program. Doha Dental payment is based on Usual, Customary and
Reasonable allowances, subject to deductible and copayment provi-
sions of the program,
Your Delta Dental program includes a "medical necessity' provision
which ensures coverage for dental services provided within generally
accepted dental practices.
Like Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa, the Delta Dental Plan
receives claims dlrectiyfrom participating dentists. And we pay them
directly for, you. That eliminates claims -handling chores•for you and
your employees — and saves valuable time and money.
To provide a program to meet your company's needs, Delta Dental
Plan benefits are available with deductibles, copayments and maxi-
mum payment allowances for covered services.
These benefits are combined to meet your needs:,
Preverrtive Maintenance benefit includes:
• Routine checkups at six-month intervals including bitewing x-rays at
12 -month intervals,
• Teeth cleaning' once every six months.
• Topical fluoride applications as prescribed but no more than once
every six months.
Full -mouth x-rays once in any three-year interval unless special
need is demonstrated,
Routine Restorative benefit provides ongoing care including: .
• Regular cavity fillings.
• Oral surgery (including pre- and post-operative care).
• Emergency treatment for relief of pain.
Major Restorative benefit covers:
e High-cost fillings,
• Cast restorations,
• Root canal fillings,
• Non-surgical treatment for gum diseases,
Delta Dental Plan
FF -0112 A Nil7M of kwm
Delta Dental Plan of Iowa
RATE QUOTATION
PLAN II
Program Benefits
0 Preventive Maintenance
0 Routine Restorative
0 Major Restorative
O Dental Prosthetics
❑ Periodontics
❑ Orthodontics
❑Dependents to age
❑ Full-time students
O Adults
Program Maximums
Single $ 500 per year
D.ductible
SinglolFarilly
(Annual)
Fa I $' 500 per member, per year
Lifetime benefit maximum on Orthodontics $
Program Rates*
Single $ _ per month
Family $ _ _ per month
Copayment
50 %
50 %
These rates guaranteed for • 12 months beginning on 7-1-85
if purchased by 7-1-85 (date(
(date)
'Rates quoted here are based upon census information provided and acquiring and matntaining
It. i_f
a minimum enroffineA I
of w% of total eligible employees for the duration of the contract,
Date
This is a general des4iption of coverage. h is not a statement of contract, Actual
coverage is subjeh to the terms and conditions specified in the contract itself
and enrollment regulations in force when the contract becomes affective.
M41 11344 iM Delta Dental Pian
of Iowa -
0
f
Letter of Agreement
City of Iowa City
and
Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City
August 20, 2019
Vision Insurance Plan
The parties hereby agree that employees covered by the Police Labor Relations
Organization collective bargaining agreement will be allowed to participate in a group
vision Insurance plan as established by the City with 100% of the premiums for selected
coverage paid by the employee,
For the City
Geo ruin
City Manager
Date
For PLRO-IC
s/2 2/11
Date
Letter of Agreement
Regarding Work Schedule Change
Police Labor Relations Organization
And
City of Iowa City
August 9, 2018
The Neighborhood Response and Neighborhood Response/Downtown Liaison Officer
assignments were created to provide support to rental housing inspection programs and
respond to neighborhood issues and disputes and to provide additional support and
patrol in the downtown area during peak times of calls for service. To enable the
officers in these assignments to provide adequate coverage, it has been determined
that the needs of the department and community would be best served by an
alternative work schedule. The revised schedule will:
• Allow for coverage with reduced overtime during peak days/times of calls for
service that are related to this assignment L
Provide consistent service and redundancy to assigned areas and tasks
Provide a schedule that serves the needs of the Downtown District and
Neighborhood Inspection Services who partially fund these positions.
Therefore, the parties hereby agree that the alternative schedule for the Neighborhood
Response Officer and Neighborhood Response/Downtown Liaison Officer shall be as
follows:
(1) Work Week.
a. Four (4) consecutive 10 -hour days, Wednesday through Saturday for
four (4) consecutive weeks followed by four (4) 10 -hour days,
Monday through Thursday.
b. A repetition of the above schedule.
(2) Work Day.
a. A work day shall consist of ten (10) consecutive hours with the officer
reporting fifteen (15) minutes prior to the commencement thereof
and staying, if requested to do so, fifteen (15) minutes after such
work period.
b. Hours of work shall generally be 6:OOpm-4:OOam, with some flexibility
for meetings and events outside of those hours.
Either party (the PLRO-IC and the City of Iowa City — not the individual officers in these
duty assignments) may rescind this Letter of Agreement at any time before June 30,
2019, with thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party, as represented by
the PLRO-IC President and the ICPD Chief of Police. In the event of rescission, duty
hours will revert to five consecutive 8 -hour days, as it was before this Letter of
Agreement. If neither party exercises said option, the changes contained herein shall
become permanent on July 1, 2019. All other contract provisions remain in effect.
For the PLRO-IC:
l yU l t-1. sajiw , "61—
President
Date: Da 0
S�Gnl+E,O g�J:
2p
tllem'8�¢. A�7' l►4R 4 E
For the City of Iowa City: _
City M ager
Date: t)/ J 11r r
Memorandum of Agreement
City of Iowa City
and
Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City
January 10, 2018
In an effort to clarify compensation and reimbursement issues related to training, the
parties agree to the following guiding principles:
• Both parties agree that training is an important part of being an effective officer,
and that training benefits both the City, in enhancing officer performance, and
the officers, in preventing injuries and promoting professionalism and respect
for the officers and agency.
• Recognizing the mutually beneficial nature of training, the parties wish to
improve consistency in work hour reporting and administrative efficiency
through application of broadened, general rules, governed by reasonableness.
• Lunch breaks are paid for officers working a normal duty shift, because they can,
and frequently are, called out of their lunch break to respond to a call for
service.
• It is the common hope of the parties that training days can be scheduled so as
to include 8 hours of compensable time, to provide officers with full paychecks.
Any training day that concludes with less than the on -duty officers' regularly
scheduled hours will require those officers to report to the watch commander
for other assigned duties or to be released for the day. Officers working
overtime will be compensated for time worked, including compensable travel.
• In-service trainings under the sole control of the department, including but not
limited to firearms, SRT, etc., will generally be scheduled no longer than eight
(8) hours, inclusive of a paid meal break of not less than thirty (30) minutes.
• None of these clarifications should be read to bring the City out of compliance
with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), or other federal,
state, or local rules governing employment.
With these guiding principles in mind, the parties agree as follows:
1. Hours of trainine. Officers will be compensated for 8 hours for a full, 8 -hour
training day, inclusive of a scheduled lunch break. No compensation in excess of
8 hours will be payable until actual time worked exceeds 8 hours and then
additional compensation will be payable only for actual time worked in excess of
8 hours. Lunch breaks of 30 minutes or greater which the officer is free to spend
as they choose will not be considered time worked. Time worked includes
training time and compensable travel time.
O
Examples:
a. Officer attending 8am-4pm training day which includes a 1 hour lunch break
would be compensated for 8 hours.
b. Officer attending 8am-5pm training day which includes a 1 hour lunch break
would be compensated for 8 hours.
c. Officer attending 8am-5pm training day which includes a 30 -minute lunch
break would be compensated for 8.5 hours with the .5 being paid at the
overtime rate (unless the officer is on their 10.25 -hour day).
d. Officer attending 8am-4pm training which includes a 1 hour lunch break and
requires 30 minutes of travel each way would be compensated for 8 hours.
2. Meals and transportation. Article XV, Section 2 language regarding payment of
meals and the cost of transportation will not be applicable to ICPD department
trainings conducted in Johnson County. Mileage will not be payable to any
officer who chooses to drive their own vehicle to a local training (counties
adjacent to Johnson County) unless the officer has requested, in writing to the
Chief or Chief's designee at least 72 hours in advance, department
transportation to and from the training, and the request is denied.
3. Out of county overnight training. The FLSA requires compensation be paid for
officers traveling during their normal working hours, and for drivers, whether or
not they are driving during their normal working hours. The FLSA does not
require payment for passengers outside their normal working hours.
Notwithstanding that fact, officers attending overnight training outside of
Johnson County approved and/or required by the City will be compensated for
actual time spent traveling, whether they are driving or passengers. Passengers
will be compensated for travel time not to exceed their assigned duty day hours
or 8 hours if traveling on a non -duty day. Drivers will be compensated for all
hours driven as required by FLSA. Compensable travel time will encompass the
time required to drive from the ICPD to the training location, regardless of where
the officer's commute begins. Officers traveling by means other than passenger
vehicle (air, train, etc.) will be compensated for travel time not to exceed their
normal duty day hours, or 8 hours if traveling on a non -duty day.
Out of countv same-day training. Officers attending same-day training will be
paid for all time spent traveling, regardless of their normal working hours, or
whether they are driving or passengers. Compensable travel time will encompass
the time required to drive from the ICPD to the training location, regardless of
where the officer's commute begins.
5. ILEA Basic Academy. Officers attending the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy
Basic Training Program, or comparable basic academy program, will be paid
overtime consistent with the FLSA threshold of 86 hours per 14 -day period only.
06
- Lunches will not be paid if officers are free to spend their lunch break as they
wish. Travel time outside of the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. will not be
compensated, as that is considered commute time by the FLSA. A City vehicle
will be made available for travel to and from the academy upon e-mail request
to the Chief or Chief's designee at least 72 hours in advance. Mileage will not be
payable to any officer who chooses to drive their own vehicle unless their
request for a City vehicle has been denied.
6. Service on boards and commissions. Time spent serving on boards and
commissions may be compensated on a case-by-case basis. Should an officer
wish to be compensated for time spent attending meetings of boards or
commissions on which they serve, the officer should discuss the service with the
Chief or Chief's designee and obtain prior approval. Determinations will be
made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances, including the
value of the officer representing the City on the board or commission, the time
required for the service, and the operational needs of the City.
For the City of Iowa City:
For the Police Labor Relations Organization:
Date Date
Memorandum of Agreement
City of Iowa City
and
Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City
September 2, 2015
As a result of the recent implementation of an electronic timekeeping system, the
parties agree to amend Article IX, Section 1 by adding the sentence, "Records contained
in an electronic timekeeping system shall satisfy the "written instrument' requirement
of this section so long as the system is authorized by the City of Iowa City and the
records are accessible by employees."
For the City
For Police Labor Relations Organization
To Markus David Schwindt
ity Manager President, PLRO-IC
-3 is— N -071-1s'
Date Date
Letter of Agreement
Regarding FLSA Comp Time
Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City
and
City of Iowa City
November 20, 2012
All FLSA overtime will be paid in the form of wages.
If an officer wishes to be compensated for FLSA overtime hours in the form of compensatory time in
lieu of wages, the officer will be required to agree that the use of those compensatory time hours
will require the Chief's pre -approval and any dispute regarding the use of such compensatory time
will be subject to the grievance procedure established in the collective bargaining agreement only.
For the PLRO-IC:
—tvyd t
Preis
Date: I J—Zq —1Z,
For the City of Iowa City:
City anager
Date: /2 —/7— / C,
Letter of Agreement
Regarding Vacation Leave
Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City
And
City of Iowa City
December 6, 2012
Article XI, Section 2 of the collective bargaining agreement shall be changed to the following:
The process for granting vacation time shall be as follows: Vacation leave may be requested
beginning in Dece "^ between November 1 and December 10 for January, February, and
March of the following calendar year. Vacation leave for January, February, and March will be
approved by the officer's supervisor before Pelawary December 20'each yea . Vacation
leave for April through December may be requested until February 1 of the same year.
Vacation leave for April through December will be approved by the officer's supervisor before
February 15. Officers will be granted vacation leave, in increments of one day or more, in order
of seniority. After February 15, vacation leave requests will be approved in the order they are
received. In the event that two requests are received at the same time, seniority shall prevail.
For the PLRO-IC:
For the City of Iowa City:
President Manager
/z -o& -0
Date
/6� -/a -/z-
Date
Memorandum of Agreement
City of Iowa City
and
Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City
January 19, 2012
The parties herein agree that the floating holiday for continuous shift officers will be
observed on December 24`h each year.
For the City
Markus
City Manager
2,!�--/Z -
Date
For Police Labor Relations Organization
'&j44t
David Schwindt
President, PLRO-IC
Dl- 1q-1Z-
Date
q-lZDate
Memorandum of Agreement
City of Iowa City
and
Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City
June 22, 2010
The parties herein agree to the following:
The January 8, 2010 Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Iowa City and the
Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City clarifying the disbursement of clothing
allowance to officers assigned to positions in the Investigations Division is to be
extended for the FY11 contract year.
As a result, the cash payment will be disbursed in the first paycheck in January 2011.
Officers assigned to Investigations in July but rotated out of that assignment in January
2011 will receive one-half (1/2) of the annual payment. Officers who are assigned to
Investigations in 2010 and maintain that position in 2011 will receive the full annual
�- payment. Officers who begin their assignment in the Investigations Division in January
2011 will receive one-half (1/2) of the annual payment.
For the City For Police Labor Relations Organization
t
Dale E. Hellin Mike Smithey
Interim City an e Vice -President, PLRO-IC
C52i t� �b
Dat
Date
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
January 8, 2010
WHEREAS, theCityof Iowa City and the Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City
(PLRO-IC) have reached a mutual agreement:
IT IS THEREFORE AGREED as follows:
The City of Iowa City and the PLRO-IC signed a MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT on May
29, 2009. That agreement changed the method by which the clothing allowance would be
disbursed to officers assigned to positions within the Investigations division. This agreement
created an issue unforeseen by the PLRO-IC at the time of the May 29, 2009 agreement.
For FY2010 the cash payment will be disbursed in the first paycheck in January, 2010. Officers
who were assigned to the Investigations, but rotated out of that assignment in January 2010 will
receive one-half (1/2) of the annual payment. Officers who were assigned to the Investigation in
2009 and maintain that position in 2010 will receive the fall annual payment. Officers who
begin their assignment in the Investigations division in January 2010 will receive one-half (1/2)
of the annual payment. The parties thus agree.
Date
�� 1
vid J. Schwmdt
President, Police Labor Relations
Organization
a-_og-1
Date
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
May 29, 2009
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City and the Police Labor Relations Organization of
Iowa City (PLRO-IC) have reached a mutual agreement;
IT IS THEREFORE AGREED as follows:
The PLRO-IC proposed and received a cash payment for the clothing allowance
beginning with the FY2010 contract. This clothing allowance is disbursed to
officers assigned to positions within the Investigations division. The cash
payment was agreed to be disbursed on the first paycheck in July beginning in
July 2009. Because officers are initially assigned to an Investigations position in
January the cash payment would be better implemented on the first paycheck in
January 2010. The parties thus agree.
Dale E. Helling
Interim City Man ger
Date
David J. Schwindt
President, Police Labor Relations
Organization of Iowa City
06—G7.
Date
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen concerning the proper interpretation of certain
provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Iowa City and the
Police Labor Relations Organization, and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to resolve the dispute amicably and without the expense
of formal arbitration procedures,
The parties hereby enter into the following settlement agreement:
1 • An officer who is assigned to the day watch and who is required to appear in
court on a day scheduled as a whole day of paid leave (vacation, holiday or comp time) shall
be compensated according to the provisions of Article IX, Section 8 of the CBA if actual time
worked is two hours or less. If actual time worked exceeds two hours, he/she shall be
compensated at the straight time rate for actual time worked, and the officer's leave usage
for that day will be reduced by the actual time worked.
2. This agreement shall apply to the grievance filed by Joel Myers and shall be
similarly adjusted for Ralph Cox and shall otherwise apply prospectively only to situations
arising after the date of this agreement.
3. The pending grievance of Myers is withdrawn.
Dated this —LL—X
day of ) V r , 1993.
City of Iowa City, Iowa
By:
mgrlassticourt.agt
Police Labor Relations Organization
By:
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
October 2, 1990
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City and the Police Labor Relations Organization of Iowa City have
had a dispute concerning the proper interpretation of certain provisions of their collective
bargaining agreement, specifically Article XVII, Section 3; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to resolve their dispute by mutual agreement and without the
necessity of arbitration;
IT IS THEREFORE AGREED as follows:
The phrase "due regard for seniority" in Article XVII, Section 3, shall be interpreted to have the
same meaning as in Article XVII, Section 1, that is, the decision to make involuntary transfers
shall be based on seniority provided, however, the Chief may make a transfer decision based on
one or more of the following criteria:
a. The ability and experience of the officer(s),
b. The nature and type of work to be performed on the watch,
C. The need for personnel having certain qualifications on said watch,
when necessitated by departmental needs as determined by the Chief.
Dale E. Helling
Assistant City Ma ager
RUG 2 31991
Date
✓�/ 44�
Kevin O. Prestegard
President, Police Labor Relations
Organization of Iowa City
RVG 2 31991
Date
Item Number: 6.c.
AL CITY OF IOWA CITY
=�c�-
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution adopting the Iowa City Housing Authority's 5 -Year Plan for Fiscal
Years 2020-2024 and the Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2020.
Prepared By: Steven J. Rackis, Housing Administrator
Reviewed By: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director
Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Fiscal Impact: No impact.
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission:
On April 16, 2020, the Housing and Community Development Commission
(HCDC) recommended by a vote of 7-0 that City Council adopt the 5 -Year
Plan for Fiscal Years 2020-2024 and the Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2020.
Attachments: ICHA 5 -Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2020-2024 and the Annual Plan for Fiscal
Year 2020
Resolution
Executive Summary:
The Iowa City Housing Authority is required to submit a 5 -Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2020-2024
and an Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2020 to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). Before submittal to HUD, the City Council must review and approve these
plans. The Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) administers the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)
and Veterans Supportive Services (VASH) for Johnson County and portions of Iowa and
Washington Counties. In addition, the Iowa City Housing Authority manages 81 Public Housing
units in Iowa City.
Background /Analysis:
There are a total of 1,355 vouchers in our jurisdiction available, including 60 "Mainstream
Vouchers" which were awarded in 2019 in partnership with Shelter House to serve persons
experiencing homelessness with a disabling condition. ICHA's total voucher utilization for
Calendar Year (CY) 2019 was 100.9%. The average public housing occupancy for FY 2019 was
90% or eight vacancies. Highlights of the plan include the following:
The top five participant Heads -of -Household characteristics in the Housing Authority's rental
assistance programs are:
• Disabled and/or Elderly (57%)
• Households without minors (55%)
• Working Families (49%)
• One-person households (49%)
• White Households (49%)
• Diversity of participants is increasing due to an influx of North African, Middle Eastern and
Congolese families.
In comparison with 71 other Housing Authorities in the State of Iowa, ICHA participants have the
following characteristics (data from 10/1 /19-1/31/20):
• ICHA participants have higher average annual incomes - $15,878 vs. $13,279;
• The ICHA assists more working families — 49% vs. 32%;
• The ICHA assists fewer families receiving welfare — 4% vs. 17%;
• ICHA participants pay a higher average monthly amount of the contract rent - $376 vs. $310.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
5 -Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2020-2024 & Annual Report for FY20
Resolution
5 -Year PHA Plan U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development OMB No. 2577-0226
Office of Public and Indian Housing Expires: 02/29/2016
(for All PHAs)
Purpose, The 5 -Year and Annual PHA Plans provide a ready source for interested parties to locate basic PHA policies, rules, and requirements
concerning the FHA's operations, programs, and services, and intorms HUD, tamilies served by the PHA, and members of the public of the
PHA's mission, goals and objectives for serving the needs of low- income, very low- income, and extremely low- income families
Applicability. Form HUD -50075-5Y is to be completed once every 5 PHA fiscal years by all PHAs.
Page 1 of 3 form HUD -50075-5Y (12/2014)
t
A.1
PHA Name: Iowa City Housing Authority PHA Code: IA022
PHA Plan for Fiscal Year Beginning: (MM/YYYY): 07/2020
PHA Plan Submission Type: ® 5 -Year Plan Submission ❑ Revised 5 -Year Plan Submission
Availability of Information. In addition to the items listed in this form, PHAs must have the elements listed below readily available to the public.
A PHA must identify the specific location(s) where the proposed PHA Plan, PHA Plan Elements, and all information relevant to the public hearing
and proposed PHA Plan are available for inspection by the public, Additionally, the PHA must provide information on how the public may
reasonably obtain additional information on the PHA policies contained in the standard Annual Plan, but excluded from their streamlined
submissions. At a minimum, PHAs must post PHA Plans, including updates, at each Asset Management Project (AMP) and main office or central
office of the PHA, PHAs are strongly encouraged to post complete PHA Plans on their official websites. PHAs are also encouraged to provide
each resident council a copy of their PHA Plans.
❑ PHA Consortia: (Check box if su itting a Joint PHA Plan and complete table below)
Participating PHAs
PHA
Program(s) in the
Program(s) not in the
No. of Units in Each Program
Code
Consortia
Consortia
PH
HCV
Lead PHA:
Page 1 of 3 form HUD -50075-5Y (12/2014)
Page 2 of 3 form HUD-50075-SY (12/2014)
E a
B
5 Year Plan l t ,� z �S
Regiined fgn all PHAs eomptew►g � �'Qim , �
4 a
A e b
� S
Mission. State the PHA's mission for serving the needs of low- income, very low- income, and extremely low- income families in the PHA's
B.1
jurisdiction for the next five years.
To improve the quality of life, the Iowa City Housing Authority acts as a community leader for affordable
housing, family self-sufficiency (FSS), and homeownership opportunities. We provide information and
education, houising assistance and public/private partnership opportunities.
Goals and Objectives. Identify the PHA's quantifiable goals and objectives that will enable the PHA to serve the needs of low- income, very low-
132
income, and extremely low- income families for the next five years.
CHA will maximize HCVP, VASH, and Mainstream voucher budget authority and voucher utilization and
lease -up rates for Public Housing to meet SEMAP and PHAS goals and objectives. ICHA continues to
operate a voluntary FSS program.
Progress Report. Include a report on the progress the PHA has made in meeting the goals and objectives described in the previous 5 -Year Plan.
B.3
Converted tenant -based vouchers to project -based vouchers and created a Targeted Preference to
collaborate with local agencies participating in the Continuum of Care/Coordinated Entry service delivery
system to promote the development of permanent Supportive Housing options and ensure prioritization of
placement for individuals/households demonstrating highest need, provide See enclosed City Council
Action report dated 10/2/2018 and HUD Notification of Mainstream voucher award dated 11/14/2019.
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Goals. Provide a statement of the PHA's goals, activities objectives, policies, or programs that will
BA
enable the PHA to serve the needs of child and adult victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
Except where special consideration is needed for the project -based voucher program, the PHA will follow
VAWA policies as outlined in Notice PIH 2017-08.
Significant Amendment or Modification. Provide a statement on the criteria used for determining a significant amendment or modification to the
B.5
5 -Year Plan.
The Iowa City Housing Authority definition of "Significant Amendment and Substantial
deviation/Modification" is: A federal statutory or regulatory change is made effective and, in the
opinion of the Authority, has either substantial programmatic or financial effects on the programs
administered by the Authority, or creates substantial obligations or administrative burdens beyond
the programs under administration at the start of the Plan year.
Resident Advisory Board (RAB) Comments.
B.6
(a) Did the RAB(s) provide comments to the 5 -Year PHA Plan?
Y N
IM Im
(b) If yes, comments must be submitted by the PHA as an attachment to the 5 -Year PHA Plan. PHAs must also include a narrative describing their
analysis of the RAB recommendations and the decisions made on these recommendations.
See enclosed RAB timeline.
B.7
Certification by State or Local Officials.
Form HUD 50077 -SL Certification by State or Local Officials of'PHA Plans Consistency with the Consolidated Plan , must be submitted by the
PHA as an electronic attachment to the PHA Plan,
Page 2 of 3 form HUD-50075-SY (12/2014)
Annual Report — 2020
A R.-
vsinEUT H0RITY
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City - Iowa - 52240 -1826
To improve quality of life, the Iowa City Housing Authority acts as a
community leader for affordable housing, family self-sufficiency, and
homeownership opportunities.
Date: May 5, 2020
Annual Report — 2020
Table of Contents
Staff
Executive Summary
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program
Public Housing Program
Family Characteristics
Family Characteristics and Working Families
Public Housing Waiting List
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Waiting List
Promoting Family Self -Sufficiency (FSS) & Homeownership
Funding for Calendar Year 2019
Housing Authority Funding Sources Summary
Partnerships and Community Collaborations
Page 2
Pages
3
4-5
6
7
8
8-9
10
12-15
16
17-18
19
Staff
Housing Program Assistant
Housing Program Assistant
Housing Program Assistant
Housing Program Assistant
Housing Program Assistant
Office Manager
Family Self -Sufficiency (FSS)
Coordinator
Public Housing/Homeownership
Coordinator
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)
Program Coordinator
Housing Administrator
Intake/Customer Service Clerk
Intake/Customer Service Clerk
Annual Report — 2020
Robin Butler
Denise Kinnison
Carri Fox-Rummelhart
Diana Huff
Emily Droll
Jennifer Gosch
Mary Abboud
Pat MacKay
Heidi Wolf
Steven J. Rackis
Georgia Black
Jamie Shetler
Page 3
Annual Report — 2020
Executive Summary
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), Veterans Supportive Services
(VASH) & Public Housing Program Highlights:
• The top 5 participant Heads -of -Household characteristics in the Housing
Authority's rental assistance programs are: Disabled and/or Elderly (57%);
Households without minors (55%), Working Families (49%), One-person
households (49%) and White Households (49%).
• Total voucher utilization for Calendar Year (CY) 2019 = 98.3%.
• Average Public Housing occupancy for FY 2019 = 90% or 8 vacancies.
• Achieved "High Performance" status for the HCV program for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2019.
• Awarded 60 "Mainstream Vouchers" to extend partnership with Shelter
House to serve persons experiencing homelessness with a disabling condi-
tion.
• Total available vouchers = 1,355
• Diversity of participants is increasing due to an influx of North African,
Middle Eastern and Congolese families.
Comparing the Iowa City Housing Authority to the other 71 Housing
Authorities in the State of Iowa. Effective dates included: October I,
2019—January 31, 2020:
• ICHA participants have higher average annual incomes - $15,878 vs.
$13,279;
• The ICHA assists more working families – 49% vs. 32%;
The ICHA assists fewer families receiving welfare – 4% vs. 17%;
• ICHA participants pay a higher average monthly amount of the contract
rent - $376 vs. $310.
Cross Park Place: The Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) is partnering with
Shelter House by providing ongoing financial assistance to Cross Park Place,
converting 24 of the ICHA's 1,215 tenant -based vouchers to project -based
vouchers (PBV). Attaching PBVs) to Cross Park Place residents enables service
providers to work more efficiently with residents and improve access to ser-
vices. Cross Park Place has maintained a 100% lease -up rate, with only 3 of the
24 units turning over since January 2019.
Tenant -Based Rental Assistance (TBRA), Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Housing Assis-
tance Payments (HAP) Renewals: The Appropriations Act includes $21.502 billion
for HAP renewals. This is the same amount as the Senate bill, $102 million more
than the House bill, and $1.189 billion more than the FY 2019 enacted budg-
et. At this time, NAHRO estimates that this represents 99.2 percent proration
for voucher renewals, though this may change as additional information becomes
available.
Page 4
Annual Report — 2020
HUD-VASH: The Appropriations Act allocates $40 million for new HUD-VASH
vouchers. HUD will make the funding available to PHAs that partner with eligi-
ble United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers or oth-
er entities based on geographical need, PHA administrative performance, and
other factors specified by HUD.
Ongoing Administrative Fees: The Appropriations Act allocates $1.947 billion for
ongoing administrative fees. This amount is $10 million less than the Senate bill
(though there is an additional $10 million in the additional administrative fees
category; see below), $91 million more than the FY 2019 enacted budget and
$52 million more than the amount allocated in the House bill. At this time,
NAHRO believes that this represents an 81 percent proration of eligible formu-
la allocation.
Section 811 Mainstream Vouchers: The Appropriations Act provides $229 million
for the renewal of Section 811 mainstream vouchers. This amount includes ad-
ministrative fees for these vouchers. Nonetheless, administrative fees funded
under this account are subject to the same administrative fee proration of other
housing choice vouchers.
Public Housing Operating Fund: The 2020 Appropriations Act provides $4.549
billion to support the operation and management of public housing. This is $104
million less than FY 2019 funding, $107 million less than the Senate bill and $204
million less than the House bill. The most likely reason for this funding decline is
due to changes to the overall formula eligibility for the Operating Fund in light of
more up to date 2020 numbers and the exclusion of public housing units that
were repositioned from the program in 2019.
The 2020 Appropriations Act recognizes the challenges of operating a calendar
year program with fiscal year appropriations; as a result, the Act continues to
extend the period of availability of Operating Funds from one year to two years.
Public Housing Capital Fund: The 2020 Appropriations Act provides about $2.870
billion for the Capital Fund, $95 million more than FY 2019 funding, and $15
million more than the Senate and the House bills. Funding for the Capital Fund
still remains lower than the $3.4 billion annual accrual baseline established by
HUD's 2010 Capital Needs Assessment.
Calendar Year 1010 Capital Improvement Funds: The Capital Improvement funds
are earmarked for general maintenance and repair of the Public Housing units.
As necessary, these funds will also be used to upgrade structures, interiors,
HVAC systems, and appliances
Page 5
Annual Report — 2020
Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) is fund-
ed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De-
velopment (HUD) with the intent of increasing afforda-
ble housing choices for elderly, persons with disabilities. eIj 41.
& low-income working families. Participants with a=hP=
HCV voucher choose and lease safe, decent, and af-
fordable privately owned rental housing. Total number
of available HCV, Veterans' Affairs Supportive Housing
(VASH) vouchers and Mainstream Vouchers = 1,355.
HCV Economic Impact: For Calendar Year 2019 (CY19), the Housing Choice
Voucher program paid approximately $8.3 million in Housing Assistance Payments
(HAP) to landlords/owners of rental properties in Johnson County. The vouchers in
use, as of 3/13/2020, in Iowa City (899) represents 4.5% of the total number of rental
units (19,656) in the City of Iowa City.
Following is the Johnson County breakdown by city. Overall voucher utilization in
Johnson County shows sixty-five percent (65%) were households without minor chil-
dren.
Voucher Utiliza-
tion by City As
of 3/13/2020
(total = 1,211)
% of Total
Total Population Johnson County Total Vouchers % Total Voucher Households % Total Vouch -
Incorporated By City Utilization without Minors ers By City
Population
Iowa City
67,8621 50.00%1 899 10.7% 638
10.9%
Coralville
18,901 13.90% 223 11.5% 110
19.3%
North Liberty
18,228 13.40% 116 4.1% 52
44.8%
Solon
2,031 1.50% 10 .001% 10
100.00%
Oxford
801 0.60% 6 0.004% 6
100%
Tiffin
1941 1.40% 8 0.006% 21
25.0%
Lone Tree
1,300 0.96% 2 0.001% 21
100%
Hills
103 0.52% 3 0.002% 1
33.3%
Johnson County
Total Population
135,136 Johnson County 114,558
Incorporated
% of Johnson County Population Living in Incorporated areas = 84%
* Source: U.S. Decennial Census 2010 and North Liberty Special Census 2015.
41 VASH Vouchers (3% of total vouchers) are being utilized in the Cedar Rapids Metropolitan Area.
2 H(VP Vouchers (<I% of total voucher) are being utilized in Washington, County; 2 HCV Voucher (<I% of total
vouchers) is being utilized in Iowa County.
Page 6
Annual Report — 2020
Public Housing
Public housing was established to provide
affordable, decent and safe rental housing for
eligible low-income families, elderly persons,
and persons with disabilities. The U.S. Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) distributes federal subsidies to the
Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA), which
owns and manages the housing.
The eighty-one (81) Public Housing units are low-density and constructed to
conform and blend into the existing neighborhood architecture. The 81 Public
Housing units represent half (1/2) of I% of the total number of rental units in
the City of Iowa City.
Public Housing Economic Impact for the City of Iowa City:
• Total CY19 rental income from Public Housing properties = $290,521
• Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) paid to the Johnson County Assessor for
the Public Housing properties in CY19 = $27,777.90
• In CY19, the Housing Authority paid $324,814 to private sector Iowa City
contractors for the capital improvement, general maintenance and repair of
the Public Housing properties.
Public Housing
Units by Iowa
City Planning
Districts
Total by
Location
Total
Occupied
4/9/2020
Occupied Units
No Minors
Occupied Units w/
Minors (includes non -
school a ed minors
Northeast
5
5
1
4
Central
7
6
0
6
Southeast
33
31
13
18
Southwest
3
2
0
3
South
34
29
4
25
TOTAL
81
74
18
56
On 3/13/2020, 3 units were offline due to HUD approved modernization..
Page 7
Annual Report — 2020
Family Characteristics
ICHA Participant Characteristics. Definition of Participant (participant
family): A person or family that has been admitted to the Iowa City Housing
Authority's HCV, VASH or Public Housing program and is currently receiving
housing assistance.
Head of Household (HOH) Characteristics. Total Families = 1,384 as
reported to HUD: October I, 2019 — January 31, 2020 (multiple cat-
egory reporting eliminated — like characteristics will equal 100%) ;
• Disabled and/or Elderly HOH
= 762 (57%)
• Households without Children
= 736 (55%)
• Working Households
= 664 (49%)
• One Person Household
= 664 (49%)
• White HOH
= 664 (49%)
• Black/African American HOH
= 650 (48%)
• Households with Children
= 619 (46%)
• Disabled HOH
= 509 (38%)
• Female HOH with Children
= 483 (36%)
• Elderly & Disabled HOH
= 179 (13%)
• Elderly HOH
= 74 (6%)
• Hispanic HOH
= 68 (5%)
• All Other Races HOH
= 41 (3%)
Income Sources: Total Families = 1,384 as reported to HUD: October
I, 2019 — January 31, 2020 (All Family Members: Many Families Have
Multiple Sources of Income):
• Social Security (SS)/Supplemental Security (SSI) = 59%
• Employment = 49%
• Family Investment Program (FIP/Welfare) = 4%
• With any Other Income = 12%
• No Income = 6%
* Child Support, Self -Employment, Unemployment Insurance, Other Non -Wage Sources.
March 13, 2020 point -in -time count:
Only ten (10) of the total 1,271 assisted households are reporting FIP as the sole
source of household income. This equals <1% of all currently assisted house-
holds.
Page 8
Annual Report — 2020
Family Characteristics (continued)
Length of Participation as reported to HUD: 1,384 as reported to HUD:
October I, 2019 — January 31, 2020.
• Less than I year
= 258 (19%)
• 1 to 5 years
= 432 (32%)
• 5 to 10 years
= 309 (23%)
• 10 to 20 years
= 278 (21 %)
• Over 20 years
= 74 (5%)
Residence prior to admission — Currently Assisted:
Based on the residence identified on the preliminary
application and/or prior residence for port -ins. Residency preference does
not apply to HUD/VASH. (ICHA jurisdiction is Johnson County, Iowa
County, & Washington County North of HWY 92):
• ICHA Jurisdiction = I,1 140 (82%)
• All Other State of Iowa Counties = 120(9%)
• State of Illinois = 83 (6%)
• All Other States = 45 (3%)
Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) information 2018-2019;
Total Enrollment & Free/Reduced (F/R) Lunch:
• Total ICCSD Enrollment K-12 = 13,990@
• Total ICCSD Eligible for F/R (38.9% of total) = 5,442
• Total ICHA (All Programs) Minors K-12 * = 1,038
• Total ICHA (All Programs) K-12 Eligible F/R = 1,004
@ Source: Page 21 of the ICCSD Enrollment, Demographics & Class Size Report, October 2018.
* Total may include children enrolled in the Clear Creek Amana School District, or children who have re-
ceived scholarships to attend Reginal.
Examples of Participants' Places of Employment:
Aramark Food Service, Best Friends Veterinary Care LLC, Blue Sky Satellite Service, Caring
Hands & More LLC, Check & Go, Crisis Center, Deadwood Tavern, Dept. of Veterans Affairs,
Destiny Cruises & Tours Inc. (Owner), Dial Silvercrest Corp, Durham School Services, EPC
Inc, Faith Academy, Handicare, Happy Trails Daycare, HD Supply Management Inc, Hy -Vee,
Innovative Software Engineering Inc., ICCSD, John Roffman Construction, Legacy Pointe Assist-
ed Living, Loparex, Lucky's Market, Mass Markets, Mercy Hospital, Mid -Prairie Community
School District, Self -Employed (cleaning services, private child care), Plank Family Dental Cen-
ter, Reach for Your Potential, Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Staff Management, STS Transporta-
tion Inc., Systems Unlimited, Team Staffing, University of Iowa, Vangent, WalMart, West Liber-
ty Foods, Whirlpool Corporation, Wig & Pen East.
Page 9
Annual Report — 2020
Public Housing Waiting List March 13, 2020
Applicant (applicant family): A person or family that has applied for admission to
the Iowa City Housing Authority's Public Housing program but is not yet a participant.
Elif ibility for housing programs is not established until applicants reach the top of the waiting
list and their Preliminary Application for Assistance is processed.
The Iowa City Housing Authority's jurisdiction is Johnson County, Iowa; Iowa County,
Iowa; and, Washington County, Iowa, North of Highway 92. The general applicant
pool from which the Housing Authority draws to determine program eligibility are
elderly, disabled, and families with children under the age of 18 who are residents
(have a legal domicile) or are employed, in our jurisdiction (Johnson County, Iowa
County, and Washington County N of HWY 92).
When vacancies exist, the Housing Authority draws applicants from this pool by date
and time of application and only those applications of families who qualify for the bed-
room size of the available Public Housing units. The eligibility determination process
includes verification of residency, family composition, eligibility status, and a national
criminal background check conducted through the Iowa Department of Criminal In-
vestigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Public Housing Waiting List
Elderly, disabled, and families with children under the
age of 18 who are residents (have a legal domicile) or
are employed, in our jurisdiction.
Number of
Applicants % of Applicants
by Head -of- by Head -of -
Household Household
627 *
100%
Elderly
109
17%
Disabled
331
-53%
Families w/minor Children
267
43%
White Head of Household
288
46%
Black/African American Head of Household
280
45%
Multiple races or none reported
49
8%
All Other Races Head of Household
18
<1%
Hispanic Head of Household
43
7%
* An additional 9,793 applicants are on the list in lower preference categories knead-ur-
Household totals do not add up to 100% because individuals can be counted in multiple
categories):
Page 10
Annual Report — 2020
HCV Waiting List March 13, 2020
The HCV waiting list shares the majority of the characteristics described in the Public
Housing section. There is a great deal of duplication as the majority of applicants apply
to both lists. For HCV applications, bedroom size is not taken into consideration.
When vouchers are available, the Housing Authority draws applications, by date &
time of application, from the applicant pool that contains elderly, disabled, and families
with children under the age of 18 who are residents (have a legal domicile) or are
employed, in our jurisdiction (Johnson County, Iowa County, and Washington County
N of HWY 92).
The eligibility determination process includes verification of residency, family composi-
tion, eligibility status, and a national criminal background check conducted through the
Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List
Elderly, disabled, and families with children under the
age of 18 who are residents (have a legal domicile) or
are employed, in our jurisdiction.
Number of
Applicants
by Head -of-
Household
% of Appli-
cants by
Head -of -
Household
1,472 *
100%
Elderly
197
13%
Disabled
679
46%
Families w/minor Children
810
55%
White Head of Household
660
45%
Black/African American Head of Household
687
47%
Multiple races or none reported
78
5%
All Other Races Head of Household
37
3%
Hispanic Head of Household
98
7%
* An additional 24,127 applicants are on the list in lower preference categories (Head -
of -Household totals do not add up to 100% because individuals can be counted in multi-
ple categories):
Page I I
Annual Report — 2020
Promoting Self -Sufficiency & Homeownership
The lack of safe, decent, and affordable housing
undermines quality education, public health, and
economic growth. Affordable housing is a contrib-
uting factor to stabilizing families. Stable families are
better equipped to take advantage of educational
opportunities. With opportunities for and access to
advanced education and training, families increase
their employability. Sustainable employment offers
opportunities to attain self-sufficiency. Economic self
-sufficiency leads to a better society and strengthens
the "sense of community."
Through our Self -Sufficiency programs, the Housing Authority is helping low
income families bridge the economic gap by building assets, improving employ-
ment opportunities, and transitioning from renters of units to owners of homes.
The Family Self -Sufficiency (FSS) Program: Promotes self-sufficiency
and asset development by providing supportive services to participants to in-
crease their employability, to increase the number of employed participants, and
to encourage increased savings through an escrow savings program.
Current FSS Enrollment Data (5/6/2019):
• Total FSS participants
= 240
• Participants with an escrow savings account
= 220(92%)
• Average monthly escrow savings deposit
(participants with an escrow balance)
= $340
• Average escrow savings account balance
(participants with an escrow balance)
= $5,178
• Highest escrow savings account balance
= $44,161.17
Workshop Accreditations:
• "Money Smart": Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Page 12
Annual Report — 2020
Promoting Self -Sufficiency & Homeownership
(continued)
F55 Program Coordinating Committee:
The FSS Program Coordinating Committee has been replaced with three (3)
already existing wider -reaching networks that have lessened the duplication of
effort in leveraging community resources to promote self-sufficiency among FSS
program participants.
The FSS coordinator has joined the Community Reentry Network of Johnson
County Area which includes representatives from educational institutions, em-
ployment services, government agencies, housing agencies, neighborhood cen-
ters, labor programs and family services. Participating entities:
• Center for Worker Justice.
• Goodwill of the Heartland.
• Inside Out.
• Iowa City Housing Authority.
• Iowa Department of Corrections, 6th Judicial District.
• Iowa Works.
• Jane Boyd Community House.
• Kirkwood Community College.
• Labor Ready.
• Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County.
• Shelter House.
• Teamsters Local 238.
The Iowa City Housing Authority is also a partner in the Workforce Innovation
& Opportunity Act (WIOA) one-stop career center service delivery system.
WIOA reinforces the partnerships and strategies necessary for one -stops to
provide job seekers and workers with the high-quality career services, educa-
tion and training, and supportive services they need to get good jobs and stay
employed, and to help businesses find skilled workers and access other sup-
ports, including education and training for their current workforce. Participating
entities:
• Kirkwood Community College.
• Iowa Workforce Development.
• Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation.
• Iowa Department for the Blind
• Experience Works.
• AARP.
Page 13
Annual Report — 2020
Promoting Self -Sufficiency & Homeownership
(continued)
• Denison Job Corps.
• Ottumwa Job Corps.
• Proteus.
• Hawkeye Community Action Agency.
• Cedar Rapids Housing Authority.
• Iowa City Housing Authority.
Interagency Case Management Sub -Committee of the Local Homeless Coordi-
nating Board. This group meets to ensure coordination of services provided to
families, improve collaboration of services, identify unmet needs, and seek solu-
tions. Participating entities:
City of Iowa City.
• Domestic Violence Intervention Program.
• Hawkeye Community Action Program (HACA)
• Iowa City Community School District.
• Iowa City Housing Authority.
• Iowa Legal Aid.
• Johnson County Social Services.
• Prelude Behavioral Services.
• Salvation Army.
• Shelter House.
• United Action for Youth.
Homeownership Programs:
FSS Homeownership: Through our FSS program, many families have used
their escrow savings accounts and private mortgages to attain homeownership
independent of the Housing Authority programs. Fifty-nine (59) FSS graduates
have moved to homeownership.
HCV Homeownership Program: Eligible participants have the option of
purchasing a home with their HCV assistance rather than renting.
• Forty-two (42) HCV Vouchers have been used to purchase homes since
January 2003; Fourteen (14) HCV Vouchers are currently active.
Tenant -to -Ownership Program (TOP): The Tenant -to -Ownership Pro-
gram is funded by HUD. The TOP program offered opportunities for low to
very low-income families to purchase single-family homes owned by the Housing
Authority.
Page 14
Annual Report — 2020
Promoting Self -Sufficiency & Homeownership
(continued)
• Twenty-six (26) homes have been sold and ten (10) resold since May
1998.
Affordable Dream Home Ownership Program (ADHOP): The Afforda-
ble Dream Home Ownership Program is operated, managed and funded solely
by the ICHA. It offers opportunities for income eligible families to purchase
newly constructed homes, newer homes, or resale of homes purchased through
the TOP/ADHOP programs.
• Sixteen (16) homes (10 "Universal Design" homes) were built and sold
since May 1999.
Down Payment Assistance Program — Grant Award $187,500: Funded
with Fiscal Year 2009 HOME funds. First-time homebuyers with a household
income of less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) may be eligible for a
forgivable loan for down payment assistance. At the date of this publication:
• 20 families purchased homes (total funds expended) = $187,500
• Families with household income 60-80% of AMI = I I
• Families with household income <60% of AMI = 9
UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership: The UniverCity Neighborhood
Partnership is an effort by the City of Iowa City focusing on neighborhoods
located near the University campus that retain a single-family character and a
demand for single-family housing, but that also have a large renter population.
From May 2011 to May 2015, the Iowa City Housing Authority provided
$102,276 in down payment assistance to sixteen (16) families purchasing a Uni-
verCity home.
In FY2014, the ICHA allocated $170,000 to the UniverCity Neighborhood Part-
nership for the rehabilitation of homes purchased by the City of Iowa City. In FY
2015, an additional $20,000 was allocated for rehabilitation of homes. From June
2014 to September 2015, ICHA funds in the amount of $165,164.25 were used
for the rehabilitation of eight (8) homes purchased by the City of Iowa City.
Page 15
Annual Report — 2020
Housing Authority Capitol Fund Grants
HUD provides funds to the ICHA to improve the physical condition, upgrade
the management and operation and carry out other activities for Public Housing
developments. These funds are primarily used for general maintenance and re-
pair of the Public Housing units. As necessary, these funds will also be used to
upgrade structures, interiors, HVAC systems and appliances. Capital Funds are
calculated and allocated by an established formula.
Affordable Dream Homeownership Program (ADHOP)
On September 3, 1993, the ICHA entered into a Section 5(h) Agreement with
HUD. The purpose of this program is to create affordable home ownership oppor-
tunities throughout Iowa City. This agreement authorizes the ICHA to sell Public
Housing units and use the sales proceeds to construct or purchase homes for reha-
bilitation to continue the cycle. To ensure affordability, the ICHA provides a sec-
ond mortgage for the homeowners.
Broadway Sales Proceeds
ICHA received approval from HUD for the sale of 18 units at 1926/1946 Broadway
Street, Iowa City, Iowa. Per the approved plan submitted to HUD, the sales pro-
ceeds were to be used for the development of 18 low-density scattered site re-
placement units that would be more efficiently and effectively operated as lower
income housing. There is no other permissible use of these funds per the agree-
ment.
Public Housing Tenant Security Deposits
The ICHA holds security deposits until tenants vacate units. At that time, the ten-
ants receive a full or partial refund depending on such factors as remaining rental or
other charges outstanding and reimbursement of damage repairs. Tenant security
deposit cash is not available to ICHA for any other use.
Page 18
Annual Report — 2020
Partnerships and Community Collaborations
• University of Iowa School of Social Work.
• Women's Resource and Action Center (WRAC).
• Montessori School.
• Goodwill of the Heartland.
• Habitat for Humanity.
• Iowa Women's Foundation.
• Iowa City Junior Service League.
• Shelter House.
• Iowa State University (ISU) Extension.
• Iowa City Area Association of Realtors.
• Hawkeye Area Community Action Program (HACAP).
• Foster Grandparents Program.
• The Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC).
• City of Iowa City Parks & Recreation.
• City of Iowa City Neighborhood Services.
• Iowa City Public Library.
• Iowa City Human Rights Commission.
• Domestic Violence Intervention Project (DVIP).
• Johnson County Department of Public Health.
• Horizons Community Credit Counseling.
• Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board.
• Cross Park Place.
• Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act (WIOA) Partners.
• Veterans' Administration.
• Kirkwood Community College.
• Reentry Network of Johnson County.
• Crisis Center.
• ABBE Center for Community Mental Health.
• Iowa City Community School District.
• Community Transportation Committee.
Page 19
Annual Report — 2020
We provide:
• Information and education,
• Housing assistance,
• Public and private partnership opportunities.
Phone: (3 19) 356-5400
FAX: (3 19) 356-5459
Web: www.icgov.org/icha
Page 20
Item Number: 6.a.
r CITY OF IOWA CITY
all
7k ::VIII
COUNCILACT N IREPORT�
October 2, 2018
Resolution adopting the Iowa City Housing Authority Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP)
Administrative Plan,
Prepared By: Steven J. Rackis, Housing Administrator, Iowa City Housing Authority
Reviewed By: Tracy Hightshoe, Director, Neighborhood and Development Services.
Erika Kubly, Coordinator, Neighborhood Services.
Fiscal Impact: No impact
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: Housing and Community Development Commission reviewed and recommended approval by
unanimous vote at their September 20, 2018 meeting.
Attachments: Resolution
Executive Summary:
The purpose of the HCVP Administrative Plan is to:
• Establish policies for issues not covered under Federal regulations for the HCVP and Family Self -Sufficiency (FSS) programs
administered bythe ICHA.
• The provisions of this Administrative Plan govem administration of the HCVP and FSS programs administered by the ICHA.
Background /Analysis:
The need for affordable housing in Johnson County, Iowa, is well-documented, as is the lack of resources to develop "brick and mortar"
solutions to meet our county's affordable housing demand. Absent "brick and mortar" development, affordable housing providers need
to maximize existing resources to make housing affordable for very low-income, extremely low-income, and homeless
individuals/households with a disabling condition. To this end, the ICHA proposes using up to 5% of our authorized tenant -based
vouchers for project -based voucher (PBV) assistance (approximately 61 out of 1215 total vouchers).
Therefore, the ICHA proposes the following significant amendments to Chapter 5.2.2 Preferences and creating a project -based
voucher program by adding Chapter 17. The entire HCVP Administrative Plan, with the proposed changes, can be found at the ICHA
website www.icgov.org/icha under Housing Authority documents.
Significant amendment 1: Chapter 5.2.2 Targeted Preferences:
Replace individuals referred by Housing First FUSE with individuals referred by Shelter House for HUD funded Permanent
Supportive Housing (e.g., Fairweather Lodge, Cross Park Place).
Significant Amendment 2: Adding Chapter 17 creating a project -based voucher (PBV) program:
The ICHA manages the Federally -funded HCVP. These vouchers are "tenant -based," meaning families can use them to rent any
private apartment that meets program guidelines. PBV vouchers, in contrast, are attached to a specific unit whose landlord contracts
with the local public housing agency to rent the unit to low-income families. Families in both programs contribute 30 percent of their
income for rent and utilities; the voucher pays the difference between the tenant contribution and the unit's total rent and utility costs.
Benefits of the Iowa City Housing Authority's PBV program:
Provide supportive services to voucher tenants. Some tenants, like the chronically homeless, elderly, and people with
disabilities, might need additional services to maintain stable housing and their health. Attaching PBVs to a number of units in the
same property can enable service providers to work more efficiently with residents and improve access to services. PBVs are
particularly well suited to create permanent supportive housing.
Help families secure units where it may be hard to use vouchers. Living in lower -poverty neighborhoods can benefit both
voucher holders and their children, but families with vouchers may be unfamiliar with such neighborhoods or have difficulty finding
willing landlords, or their voucher may not pay the market rent in these neighborhoods. In neighbortroods with low vacancy rates,
stiff competition for available units exacerbates these problems. PBVs lower manv of those barriers by creatino dedicated units
for low-income families.
Goals of the Iowa City Housing Authority's PBV program:
1. Collaborate with local agencies participating in the Continuum of Care/Coordinated Entry service delivery system to promote the
development of Permanent Supportive Housing options and ensure prioritization of placement for individuals/households
demonstrating highest need.
2. Provide incentives to affordable housing developers to build scattered site housing for extremely low-income and very low-income
families on City assisted properties.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINOTON, DC 20410.M
OFFICE OF "LIC AND INDIAN HOUSINO
November 14, 2019
IA022
CITY OF IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY
ATTN: STEVEN RACKIS
410 E. WASHINGTON ST,
IOWA CITY, IA 52240-0000
Dear Executive Director:
I am pleased to notify you that your public housing agency (PHA) will be awarded funds from the
Mainstream Voucher Program Fiscal Year 2019 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) (FR -6300-N-43), This
letter provides the specific details of the award and information concerning the disbursement of the funds,
The following table identifies the funding obligated for your agency's awards:
Term
Budget
Authority
Number of Units
12
$391,621
60
Please contact your Financial Analyst at the Financial Management Center (FMC) by December 6, 2019 to
select the effective date when your PHA may begin leasing these vouchers. The effective date may be as early as
November 1, 2019 and no later than July 1, 2020, If you do not contact your Financial Analyst by December 6,
2019 your effective date will default to January 1, 2020,
It is very important that you select a realistic effective date when your PHA will be ready to lease the
awarded vouchers. If this is your first Mainstream Voucher allocation, your agency may consider delaying the
effective date to allow time to update your waiting list and finalize your partnerships, Utilizing all of your
awarded funding or vouchers within one year of the effective date will help ensure your PHA is eligible for full
renewal and prevent any potential recapture of funding, As stated in the NOFA, HUD may recapture funding if
the PHA does not maintain at least an 80% utilization rate, however, the goal is always 100% utilization of
awarded funds or units,
Please remember, as with the regular voucher program, the awarded budget authority and number of units
both serve as a cap. Your agency may only lease until you have reached the lower of your budget authority or
number of units allocated, This means some PHAs will lease all of their awarded units and still have money left
over, or vice versa, If you have money left but you have leased all the awarded units, this extra funding will go
into your agency's Mainstream HAP reserves, If you are on track to spend all of the awarded funding but still
have units left, stop leasing before you run out of money and send an email to MainstreamVouchers@hud,gov for
additional guidance,
The FMC will provide your agency with an amended Annual Contributions Contract that reflects the
obligation of funds and monthly disbursements will be scheduled. Initially, the first three months of
disbursements will be made, Each disbursement will equal 1/12th of your award amount. Thereafter, monthly
disbursements will be scheduled based on monthly expenses reported in the Voucher Management System
(VMS), If you have not leased any vouchers by month three, you will not receive additional disbursements until
VMS data show you are paying HAP, If at any time such disbursements are not sufficient to cover your monthly
expenses, your agency should contact your Financial Analyst at the Financial Management Center,
www,hud.gov espanol.hud,gov
Your agency must follow all Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program requirements when administering
the Mainstream Voucher Program, including the regulations at 24 CFR part 982, and the requirements in the
respective NOFA. This award is not an endorsement of your entire application and your PHA is required to
follow relevant statutes, regulations, and HUD guidance even if you provided information in your application that
conflicts with program policies
To ensure that Mainstream families are recorded properly, you must record MS5 on line 2n of the form
HUD -50058 (Family Report). Remember to accurately record families who are homeless at admission on line 4c
of the HUD -50058. Mainstream vouchers and corresponding Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) expenses must
be accurately reported in the Voucher Management System (VMS). The Mainstream Voucher Program is
reported separately in FASS-PH under the CFDA code 14,879.
Additional information regarding the Mainstream Voucher Program can be found at:
1-,l„tns://NVNvy,ht ov �r T m of 'i a iblic ludian [!OILS lug" r) J 1,11msh n in n
Please contact MainstreamVouchers@hud.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely
p�jON
ili l Dentate L Bostowhe
Danielle elle L Bastarach Ro eNIamalleLBashirsdoc wflt
Reas�rc I am aRproying thin document
Danielle Bastarache
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Public Housing and Voucher Programs
Timeline and Analysis of the Housing Authority's efforts to create a Resident Advisory
Board (RAB)
March 2009
In March 2009, The Housing Authority surveyed all active Public Housing tenants and Family
Self -Sufficiency (FSS) program participants (211 families) to determine interest in serving on a
Resident Advisory Board (RAB). Twenty-six (26) families responded.
May 2009
In May 2009, The Housing Authority sent the 26 RAB interest survey respondents a copy of the
survey used to collect citizen input for CITY STEPS Iowa City's Consolidated Plan for Housing,
Jobs, and Services for Low -Income Residents 2010 — 2015. Eight (8) families responded.
October 2010
In June 2008, the Iowa City Housing Authority's Public Housing unit located at 608 Eastmoor,
Iowa City, Iowa, was severely damaged by flooding. It was located in the 500 -year flood -plain.
Due to the City of Iowa City's intent to purchase all properties located the 100- and 500 -year flood -
plains, the Housing Authority submitted a Demolition/Disposition application to the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD requires RAB input/comment for
Demolition/Disposition applications. The 26 respondents to the Housing Authority's March 2009
RAB Interest Survey were contacted to submit input/comments — none responded.
December 2014
In December 2014, The Housing Authority surveyed all active Public Housing tenants (75
families) to determine interest in serving on a Resident Advisory Board (RAB). Seven (7) families
responded; three (3) stating an interest; four (4) stating no interest.
June 2019
The Iowa City Housing Authority sent a letter and schedule inviting Public Housing tenants and
HCVP participants residing in Iowa City (does not include shared housing) to attend one or all of
the three (3) Public Meetings schedule as part of the development of the City Steps 2025
Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Report. Five -hundred and thirty-one (53 1) letters were sent
via US Mail; and, fifty-six (56) participants were contacted via e-mail.
Analysis of the recommendations submitted by Resident Advisory Board (RAB) and the
decisions made on these recommendations.
There appears to be very little interest in Housing Authority participating families in serving on a
RAB focusing on solely on Housing Authority programs and services. The majority of comments
received via 3 separate survey instruments are beyond the scope, power, and authority of the Iowa
City Housing Authority to impact these concerns, or other City Departments and Community
Based Agencies are better suited to meet these concerns. Examples include fixing streets, repairing
abandoned homes, empowering neighborhoods, dealing with perception of City-wide increase in
criminal activity, Safety, events, neighborhood development & clean up etc.
The Iowa City Housing Authority and the City of Iowa City Neighborhood Services will continue
the initiative we launched in 2008; "Good Neighbors—Strong Neighborhoods". The idea is to
partner with Neighborhood Associations to develop strategies to promote the peaceful enjoyment
of the neighborhood for all residents. Our goal is the increased participation of Housing Authority
clients in the activities sponsored by the City of Iowa City Neighborhood Associations.
Through the Office of Neighborhood Services, the City of Iowa City supports and encourages
neighborhood action and provides ideas and resources that can help shape the future of a
neighborhood. The City coordinates with the Neighborhood Associations to work through their
short and long-term needs that best serve the interests of the neighborhood within the goals of the
larger community. The City of Iowa City also provides financial and technical assistance in the
printing and mailing of newsletters and meeting notices.
We will repeat the survey process in partnership with the City of Iowa City Housing and
Community Development Commission when citizen input is collected for CITY STEPS Iowa
City's Consolidated Plan for Housing, Jobs, and Services for Low -Income Residents 2021 – 2025
and the Iowa City Housing Authority 5 -year plan for 2021 – 2025.
w
W
q
o
0
N
�
n
3
�
w
w
s
�
M
o
0
b
•y
�
y
69
--I
r
}Q1
40
kn
'b
M
N
o
h
69
it
W
C)
0
�
N
h
1
3
�
o �
kn
w
�
�
o
�
o
a ®
r
�
�
h
o
'^
3
�
d
z
b
�
U
p
0
o
O
U
A
a
44
a
C
w
H
O
U
�y
q
'n
W
o0
—
n
.fir
69
00
o
V
QNi
69
0
0
p
G
N
b9
0
6
O
C
69
0
0
O
O
�
69
0
0
O
O
M
6A
0
0
O
O
N
b9
Q
a
U
3
b
GL
y
A
Y
d
OV
°
b
5
cd
C
N
b
E
p,
p
Q
ai
y
q
U
c
�
a
�
v
o
3
A
op
c
a
o
O
w
N
�
0
U
v
c
n
rn
CO
�i
W
W5
c
p
d
o
o
a
v
�,.,
aCi
a
�
y
�
C
'C
•G
-Cq
on
�o
se
Y'
w�
� 3
C
•R
o
•�
o
.�
ai
a
.�
a
o
api
rn
d
t
y
p
N
O
M
O
V
O
h
O
b
O
l
U
00
0
0
0
N
N
h
n
O
O
h
i
x
0
w
H
O
U
�
0
0
0
o
y
C
N
W
.s
ss
00
sA
A
cr
a
0
'0 6a
o
u o
�
o
U
43
o
w
°°g
'
a
O
0
a
'G
a
O
O
]
N
b
u
�
C
•�
00
O
u
O
X
�
a
U
W
y
p
p
A
v,
o
q
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
N
N
h
n
O
O
h
i
x
0
w
9
O
U
w
h
d
O
O
Cl
Oo
C)
O
0
0
o
Vl
O
oo
�
�•
W
b9
b9
69
69
69
6A
69
a
0
•0. v
w
vp 6n
N
N
�
u O
N
�
� A
� 3 �
4
a
N U
�
❑
O
U
� rTr
ti
A
a
q
'C
0
'C
u
d
N
�
Q
O
c
"
a
3
a
a
CD
W
.SC
o
oho
oho
°
o
O
Nto
G
to
o
v
C
3
ami
ol
�
h
u
cl
p
U
O
�
G
�
�
�
fir,
y�
�
d
a0,
�
• �
O
•�
U
�
U
b
q
p
w
w
p
O
b
A
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
o
+�
�
d
y
O
O
O
O
O
v^
06
O
O
O
W
69
6M9
�
bM9
6N9
6q
a
O
a
d
a°o
ea
U
0
0
q
0
c
a
El
k
n
Hr
�
d
w
G7
a
3
a
a
a
a
°
a
0
a
U
�
0
pq
O
V
O
a°
3
y
V
w
H
p
o
)
A
38
z
"
�
°
U
.N
41
p
a
o
40
g
a
�
N
N
M
a
3
°
CD
OJJ
O
P•�
w
Y
m
U
h
O
d
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
�
O
H
W
ss
v�
sA
Fsi
O
ds
�
r
bs
rA
a
0
�p
�b
b�
� a
y
�
u �
pOp
� a
�
�
w
O
m
bo a
U
W N b
cl
S4 ❑
N
p
v U
Q
O
o
a
.
C
G
3
A
1.
7
0
N
O
o
C
v
b
C
A
G1
N
It
w
_
6
o
lo
x
a
o
G
d43
o
to
o
3
G
co
l
�
yy
y
L4
T
x
T O
00
T
C
>
p
T
O
p
G
o
q
w
y
3
o'
o.
a
a
p
A
U
U
U .0
U
(=
U
U
R�
cd
t
•�
o
C
o
vi
0
N
0
00
0
0
0
0
w
3
b
Q
A
Q
A
A
Q
Qi
�n
0
A4
b
w
U
0
0
N
C
N
h
O
O
h
i
x
0
w
y
O
U
.b
o
h
GTa
ss
a
d
e°ro
U
0
0
0
H
A
a
C7
N
O
N
N
Cd
i.
3
y
d
d
�
Vi
V
a
y
h
Lr
•a
wo
°
0o
w
d
o
api
o
a
3
0
0
N
C
N
h
O
O
h
i
x
0
w
y
O
U
d
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
C�
Vl
O
O
W
Dq
N
69
69
N
6A
M
b9
N
6A
N
b9
a
0
�b
y
�
y
•O
O O
q �
U
G�
3 F
0
LH
O
d�
V
•
O'
A
aCi
O .
R
..
o
�x�
v
co
c
�
wol
�
� .� �
mpg
;,
•
�
y
a
n
m
w
q
o
�
o
N
�
'd
•�
o
�
v
U
O
0
V
C
O
d
7
y
w
w
o
0
^
c
3
G
q
bb
0.
3 m
3
q
d
CC
c7
00
q
•�
�
N
U
O
� q
O
•�
C
�
En
o
ro
o
oW
G
bL
y
O
U
o
0
0
0
py
0
0
0 0
0
�
wp
0
a.
0
a
a
a
c• �
�
�
i>
U
U
U
U
U Fn
U
O
H
.+
N
r
Q\
N
O
CD
'Q
H
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
a
It
U
h
U
PO
o
0
0
0
0
0
ed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CD
0
o
v
fsl
avGq
s�s�
s
s3
Ecq
09
va
a
d
.rl
U
o
�
ti
3
U
0
b
.�
W4
y
N
0
y
N
U
N
•a
�
N
q
N
�
y
09
0
.0
°
❑U
CD
x
q
d
o
v
7
o^
145
w
v
o
o
w
H
1r
6�
�
4•
N
�
O
964
w
o
i.i
y
o u
o
o
o—I
40.
¢.
a•a
a�
a
a
o
A
U U
U
U°
o
A
A
Q
A
Q
A
U
H
O
U
po
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0
0
O
N
69
cry
69
NCq
6A
nl
69
°°
69
W
69
b9
a
U
0
3
�
a
U
W
CL
C
C
C
a
N
u
Q
n
bbh
V
V
N
C
C
�
a
O
U
c
y
a
a
°
9
�
O
N
•0.
q
o0
0^
-.
d
o
x
�
o
N
bb
th
bo
"1i
O
F
Q
p
bq
Q
Cq
q
> o
�
b
¢
A
a
Q
o
•a
.o
•�
Z
Ci.
ti
U
c�
o
a
cn
0
7,
O
U
v
F
o
a•p
T
o
w
0
a
�
<
U
cG
G
o-„
w
°
O
wbb
O
w
O
w
O
°
a
O
.E'.
0 °
O
O
CL
U
U
U
018
0
o Qen
o vq
CO
O
a
0
q
Cj
U
V a
U
U
C
�
VO
i•�
C
�'
O
O
p
O
O
I.
y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Orqp
O
W
b9
6N9
G
69
blq
a
0
�b
b
3
RA
%!
ti
v
3
8 o
>
v
v
A
rig
c
3
3
a�'
U
U
C
N
P.
W
d
o
U
U
o
�
�
C
'F'
�
W •�
U
'�
0
p
F
V]
�
a0.
�
•'�
y
a
z
�
T
0o
Qi
a
ism
A
'
w
�
)
Z
a
U
y
o
0
09
U
o
w
0
0 0
A
v
U
U a
U
Ua
w
o
ci
a
a
cq
o
Q
A
A
0
0
h
O
O
H
�
W
6H
d
0
3
0
0
a
u
A
R
i.
u
d
N
O
N
y
y
d
L.
3
z
w
o
U
a
�
a
"
o
c
40.
y
a
q
A
a
�
C40
d
a
3
Prepared by: Steven J. Rackis, ICHA Administrator 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-887-
6065
Resolution No. 20-107
Resolution adopting the Iowa City Housing Authority's 5 -Year
Plan for Fiscal Years 2020-2024 and the Annual Plan for Fiscal
Year 2020.
Whereas, the City Council of the City of Iowa City functions as the Iowa City Housing Authority and
the Department of Housing and Urban Development requires adoption of an updated 5 -Year and
Annual Plan; and,
Whereas, the Iowa City Housing Authority is required to update the 5 -Year and Annual Plan under
the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 ("QHWRA"); and,
Whereas, the 5 -Year Plan describes the agency's mission and the long-term plan for achieving
that mission over the subsequent five years;
Whereas, the Annual Plan provides details about the Housing Authority's current programs and
the resident population served, as well as the its strategy for addressing the housing needs of
currently assisted families and the larger community;
Whereas, the Annual Plan also serves as the annual application for grants to support
improvements to public housing buildings (Capital Fund Program);
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that
The Iowa City Housing Authority's 5 -Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2020-2024 and Annual Plan
for Fiscal Year 2020 are approved.
2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify appropriate copies of this
resolution together with any necessary certification as may be required by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
Passed and approved this 5th day of May 2020
Ma
fZvd by
Attest: RJL�W
Cit Clerk City Attorney's Office
(Sue Dulek — 04/27/2020)
Resolution No. 20-107
Page
It was moved by Taylor and seconded by salih the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS:
ABSENT:
X
Bergus
x
Mims
x
Salih
%
Taylor
%
Teague
%
Thomas
%
Weiner
Item Number: 6.d.
�, CITY OF IOWA CITY
-�"�'�� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution Adopting Amended By -Laws for the Iowa City Public Art Advisory
Committee.
Prepared By: Marcia Bollinger, Public Art Program Coordinator
Reviewed By: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director
Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Fiscal Impact: No Impact
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: Public Art Advisory Committee; City Council Rules Committee
Attachments: Letter from the Chairperson of the Public Art Advisory Committee
Bylaws with changes red -lined
Rules Committee minutes
Resolution
Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee By -Laws, Amended
Executive Summary:
The City Council reviewed and adopted an Iowa City Public Art Strategic Plan 2020-2025 on
November 4, 2019. One goal of the plan included the evaluation of the structure, size, practices
and accessibility of the Public Art Advisory Committee. As a result of that evaluation, the
committee recommends adoption of amended by-laws to increase the membership from seven
(7) to nine (9) members; at least three (3) shall be art or design professionals and two (2)
members shall be ex -officio and represent staff from each of the Departments of Public Works
and Parks and Recreation. The Iowa City Rules Committee reviewed this amendment on April 27,
2020 and recommend approval.
Background /Analysis:
The Iowa City Public Art Strategic Plan 2020-2025 includes 5 Goals and Strategies to create a
more sustainable and diverse Public Art Program.
Goal 1: Review the existing Public Art Program. Adjust its policies, priorities and practices to
better reflect our dynamic community. Devise creative ways to deliver a wide range of art opportunities
—from performance art to permanent installations, participatory programs, and more to stimulate a
vibrant public art environment that will enrich us all.
Goal 2: Expand opportunities to use public art to enliven and enhance areas throughout Iowa City
to ensure that everyone in the community has a chance enjoy it.
Goal 3: Secure and manage funding to ensure an ongoing vibrant, sustainable Public Art Program
as well as ensure the care and maintenance of existing public art assets.
Goal 4: Collaborate with municipal, civic, nonprofit, and private sector organizations to
create opportunities for public art.
Goal 5: Build awareness and promote understanding about public art and the benefits of the arts
in general.
Goal 1 includes an action step to evaluate the structure, size, practices and accessibility of the
Public Art Advisory Committee. I n order to provide for a broader and larger representation on the
committee, particularly at -large neighborhood representation, the Public Art Advisory Committee
approved amended by-laws increasing the membership of the committee from seven (7) to nine
(9) members, at least three (3) shall be art or design professionals and two (2) members shall be
ex -officio and represent staff from each of the Departments of Public Works and Parks and
Recreation at their December 5, 2019 meeting.
The City Council would continue to appoint all non -ex -officio members of the Public Art advisory
Committee to three-year terms — five (5) appointments occurring for terms starting January 1 and
two (2) for terms starting July 1. Staggering terms will decrease the multiple new members
beginning terms simultaneously.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Letter from the Chairperson of the Public Art Advisory Committee
Bylaws with changes red -lined
Rules Committee minutes
Resolution
I owa City Public Art Advisory Committee By -Laws, Amended
Dear Mayor and Iowa City City Council members:
On November 4, 2019, the Public Art Advisory Committee (PARC) presented the Iowa City
Public Art Strategic Plan to the City Council for review and adoption. Since that time, the
committee has been focusing efforts on Goal 1 to review and update existing policies and
procedures of the Public Art programs and evaluate the structure and practices of the PARC. As
a result of this process, the committee has:
• developed the working document Iowa City Public Art Management Plan which outline
procedures, practices and policies to effectively administer the Public Art Program that
aligns with the adopted Public Art Strategic Plan; and
• evaluated the structure, accessibility and practices of the Public Art Advisory Committee
resulting in the meeting time changed from 3:30 PM to 5:30 PM on the first Thursday of
the month and a recommendation that the size of the committee be increased from 7 to
9 members to allow for a more diverse and robust membership
• determined priorities for use of the current Fiscal Year 2020 funding of $50,000 including
a larger entranceway art installation, matching grants for projects by local artist, a
community/youth engagement project (Longfellow Pedestrian Tunnel) and a set aside for
maintenance and smaller projects.
At the May 5, 2020 City Council meeting, the City Council will be asked to a adopt the amended
by-laws for the PAACincreasing the membership from 7 to 9 members. The Public Art
Management Plan is published on the Iowa City Public Art website www.icgov.org/publicart for
your information and review.
The PAAC and I appreciate your time and consideration of this request.
Best,
MI
Vero Rose Smith
Chairperson, Public Art Advisory Committee
� r
put
April 28, 2020'`III
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Iowa City City Council
410 E Washington Street
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
(3 19) 356 -Soon
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
Dear Mayor and Iowa City City Council members:
On November 4, 2019, the Public Art Advisory Committee (PARC) presented the Iowa City
Public Art Strategic Plan to the City Council for review and adoption. Since that time, the
committee has been focusing efforts on Goal 1 to review and update existing policies and
procedures of the Public Art programs and evaluate the structure and practices of the PARC. As
a result of this process, the committee has:
• developed the working document Iowa City Public Art Management Plan which outline
procedures, practices and policies to effectively administer the Public Art Program that
aligns with the adopted Public Art Strategic Plan; and
• evaluated the structure, accessibility and practices of the Public Art Advisory Committee
resulting in the meeting time changed from 3:30 PM to 5:30 PM on the first Thursday of
the month and a recommendation that the size of the committee be increased from 7 to
9 members to allow for a more diverse and robust membership
• determined priorities for use of the current Fiscal Year 2020 funding of $50,000 including
a larger entranceway art installation, matching grants for projects by local artist, a
community/youth engagement project (Longfellow Pedestrian Tunnel) and a set aside for
maintenance and smaller projects.
At the May 5, 2020 City Council meeting, the City Council will be asked to a adopt the amended
by-laws for the PAACincreasing the membership from 7 to 9 members. The Public Art
Management Plan is published on the Iowa City Public Art website www.icgov.org/publicart for
your information and review.
The PAAC and I appreciate your time and consideration of this request.
Best,
MI
Vero Rose Smith
Chairperson, Public Art Advisory Committee
BY-LAWS
Public Art Advisory Committee
ARTICLE I. AUTHORITY
The Public Art Advisory Committee shall have that authority as established by Resolution
97-326 passed by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa and through the adoption of
these by-laws stated herein.
ARTICLE II. PURPOSE
The purpose of the by-laws stated herein is to provide for the administration of a public
art program by establishing a Public Art Advisory Committee to develop the Iowa City
Public Art Program and to administer said program.
ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP
Section 1. Qualifications. The Public Art Advisory Committee shall consist of nine
L9) members, #+v&4-5seven 7) of whom shall be appointed by the City Council. Of the
4 eseven appointees, at least terve (2three 3) shall be art or design professionals. T4e
PeMaiRiRg t ITwo 2) members shall be P -*-ex officio and shall be one (1) staff
representative from each of the Departments of Public Works and Parks & Recreation.
All appointed members of the Committee shall be qualified electors of the City of Iowa
City, Iowa.
Section 2. Compensation. Members shall serve without compensation.
Section 3. Orientation for New Members. Prior to the first regular meeting following their
appointment, new members shall be given an orientation briefing by the City staff and
the Committee as is deemed appropriate.
Section 4. Absences. Three consecutive unexplained absences of a Committee member
from regular meetings may result in a recommendation to the City Council from the
Committee to discharge said member and appoint a new Committee member.
Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy among the appointees on the Committee because
of death, resignation, long-term illness, disqualification or removal shall be filled by the
City Council after at least 30 days public notice of the vacancy. Any vacancy of an ex -
k'
officio member shall be filled by the appropriate agency within 30 days.
Section 6. Terms. Appointed members shall be appointed for terms of three years, with
five (5)terms expiring on January 1- and two (2) terms expiring July 1.. No more than
one-third of the terms may expire in any one year. If a position becomes vacant by
reason of resignation or otherwise, and results in an unexpired term of six months or
less, the City Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that the
appointee shall continue in the position not only through the unexpired term, but also
through a subsequent regular term. Ex -officio members shall serve for a term of one
year; such terms shall be renewable, at the discretion of the appropriate agency.
Section 7. Resignation. Resignations shall be submitted in writing to the Mayor with a
copy to the City ManageF, Direr*e-F of Planning and Gernm nity DevelepmentManager's Office, and
Chairperson of the Public Art Advisory Committee at least 60 days prior to the date of
intended departure.
ARTICLE IV. OFFICERS
Section 1. Number. The officers of this Committee shall be a Chairperson and a A4ee-Vice
Chairperson, each of whom shall be elected by a majority vote of all members of the
Committee from those Committee members appointed by the City Council.
Section 2. Election and Term of Office. Officers of the Committee shall be elected
annually at the first regular meeting in February each year; if the election of officers
shall not be held at such meeting, such election shall be held as soon thereafter as is
convenient.
Section 3. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal,
disqualification, or other cause shall be filled by the Committee for the unexpired portion
of the term, except as provided in Article III, Section 6, above.
Section 4. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall,- when present, preside at all meetings,
appoint committees, call special meetings and in general perform all duties incident to
the office of the Chairperson, and such other duties as may be prescribed by the
members from time to time.
Section 5. Vice -Chairperson. In the absence of the Chairperson, or in the event of death,
inability or refusal to act, the Vice -Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson
and when so acting, shall have all powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the
Chairperson.
ARTICLE V. MEETINGS
Section 1. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of this Committee shall be held monthly.
5
Section 2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the members may be called by the
Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson or Vice -Chairperson at the request of
three or more members of the Committee.
Section 3. Place of Meetings. Regular meetings shall be in a place serviced by public
trpnonnrfofinn on,' accessible to persons with disabilities.
Section 4. Notice of Meetings. Notice of regular and special meetings shall be
required
Meetings may be called upon notice not less than twenty-four (24 hours before the
meeting.
Section 5. Quorum. A majority of all the members of the Committee shall constitute a
quorum at any meeting.
Section 6. Proxies. There shall be no vote by proxy.
Section 7. Public Discussion. Time shall be made available during all regular meetings
for open public discussion.
Section 8. Motions. Motions may be made or seconded by any member of the Committee
except the Chairperson.
Section 9. Conflict of Interest. A member who believes they have a conflict of interest on
a matter about to come before the Committee shall state the reason for the conflict of
interest, leave the room before the discussion begins, and return after the vote. If there is
a question of whether or not a conflict exists, the City Attorney or City Attorney's designee
will decide. All questions should be referred to the City Attorney or designee. Decisions of
the City Attorney or designee are binding.
Section 10. Voting. A majority (but not less than 4fi[yej votes cast at any meeting
at which a quorum is present shall be decisive of any motion or election. Upon request of
any Committee member, voting will be by roll call and will be recorded by "ayes" and "nays".
Every member of the Committee, including the Chairperson, is required to cast a vote
upon each motion. A member who abstains shall state the reason for abstention.
Section 11. Roberts Rules of Order. Except as otherwise provided herein, Roberts Rules
of Order as amended shall be used where applicable.
ARTICLE VI. POWERS AND DUTIES
The Public Art Advisory Committee possesses the following powers, all being subject to
final approval by the City Council:
Section 1. To develop by-laws and procedures for the Iowa City Public Art Program.
E
Section 2. To determine theplaee location of public art and the type of art to be used
in a specific project.
Section 3. To review proposals funded with other than Pubic Art Program funds for both
permanent and temporary art installations on/in City owned property.
Section 4. To commission artists or to purchase art works, as appropriate.
Section 45. To accept or reject gifts and loans of art.
Section 6. Seetien S. I o provide and oversee funding to local artist to host art exhibits or
exaeriences in Iowa Citv.
Section 7 To develop policies and procedures for the maintenance and disposition of
public art.
Section 8. To determine and oversee expenditures of the Public Art Program
budget.
Section . To develop a Public Art Plan for the City of Iowa City.
Section 10.. To develop and maintain an inventory of public art.
ARTICLE VII. CONDUCT OF COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Section 1. Agenda. The Chairperson, or a designated representative, together with the
staff assistant, shall prepare an agenda for all regular Committee meetings. Agendas are
to be posted at least 24 hours before the meeting and shall be sent to Committee members
and the media prior to regular meetings. Copies will be available to the public at the meeting.
Section 2. Minutes. Minutes of all meetings are to be prepared, reviewed by the
Chairperson, and distributed to the Committee and City Council Members. Specific
recommendations requiring Council action are to be set off from the main body of the
minutes and appropriately identified.
Section 3. Review Policy. The Committee shall review all policies and programs of the
City, relating to the Committee's duties as stated herein, and iakesmake such
recommendations to the City Council as are deemed appropriate.
Section 4. Annual Report. An annual report detailing the activities of the Committee shall
be prepared by the Chairperson, approved by the Committee and submitted to the City
Council at the end of each calendar year.
ARTICLE VIII. SUBCOMMITIEES
The subcommittees of this Committee including composition, duties, and terms shall be
1
designated by the Chairperson in consultation with the Committee.
ARTICLE IX. AMENDMENTS
These by-laws may be altered, amended or repealed, and new by-laws adopted by an
affirmative vote of not less than feu*five 5' members of the Committee at any regular
meeting or at any special meeting called for that purpose. Amendments shall be approved
by the City Council to become effective.
E
ELECTRONIC
CITY COUNCIL RULES COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
April 27, 2020
4:00 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or
impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of council members, staff and
the public presented by COVID-19
Committee Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Salih, Council member Taylor
Staff Members Present: City Clerk Fruehling, Assistant City Attorney Dulek
Review by-law changes:
Public Art Advisory Committee
Dulek stated why the Committee was seeking to increases the number of members from 7
to 9.
Taylor inquired if there would be an issue with the ending term dates being different
within the Committee. Fruehling indicated there shouldn't be any problems with the
current process.
Salih and Taylor noted the other revisions such as place of meeting, voting majority, and
powers & duties.
The Rules Committee recommended approval of the by-laws as presented.
Meeting adjourned 4:14 PM
Prepared by Marcia Bollinger, Public Art Coordinator, 410 E Washington St. Iowa City IA 52240 (319)
356-5237
RESOLUTION NO. 20-108
Resolution Adopting Amended By -Laws for the Iowa City Public Art
Advisory Committee
Whereas, the Iowa City City Council established the Iowa City Public Art Program in September 1997
with the goal of creating a program that enhanced public spaces, promoted Iowa City's reputation as a
cultural center and built Iowa City's image as a vital place to live and work; and
Whereas, the Public Art Advisory Committee was established to oversee the Iowa City Public Art
Program and by-laws were adopted in July 1998 by Resolution 98-243 and amended February 1999 by
Resolution 99-56; and
Whereas, the City Council reviewed and adopted an Iowa City Public Art Strategic Plan 2020-2025 on
November 4, 2019 by Resolution 19-269 which developed Goals and Strategies to create a more
sustainable and diverse Public Art Program; and
Whereas, Goal 1 included an action step to evaluate the structure, size, practices and accessibility of the
Public Art Advisory Committee; and
Whereas, the Public Art Advisory Committee approved and recommended adoption of amended by-
laws which included increasing the membership of the committee from seven (7) to nine (9) members,
at least three (3) shall be art or design professionals and two (2) members shall be ex -officio and
represent staff from each of the Departments of Public Works and Parks and Recreation and expanding
its scope; and
Whereas, the Iowa City Rules Committee reviewed the amended by-laws at an April 27, 2020 meeting
and recommend approval to the City Council.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Iowa City City Council hereby adopts the amended by-laws for
the Public Art Advisory Committee attached hereto.
Passed and Approved this 5th of May 2020
Maytrf U
Attest:
City Jerk
Approve W7x/,
City Attorney's Office
(Sue Dulek - 04/29/2020)
Resolution No. 20 -
Page 2
It was moved by Taylor and seconded by Salih the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS:
ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
Approved by PAAC 4-20-2020
BY-LAWS
Public Art Advisory Committee
ARTICLE I. AUTHORITY
The Public Art Advisory Committee shall have that authority as established by Resolution
97-326 passed by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa and through the adoption of
these by-laws stated herein.
ARTICLE II. PURPOSE
The purpose of the by-laws stated herein is to provide for the administration of a public
art program by establishing a Public Art Advisory Committee to develop the Iowa City
Public Art Program and to administer said program.
ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP
Section 1. Qualifications. The Public Art Advisory Committee shall consist of nine (9)
members, seven (7) of whom shall be appointed by the City Council. Of the seven
appointees, at least three (3) shall be art or design professionals. Two (2) members
shall be ex officio and shall be one (1) staff representative from each of the Departments
of Public Works and Parks & Recreation. All appointed members of the Committee shall
be qualified electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Section 2. Compensation. Members shall serve without compensation.
Section 3. Orientation for New Members. Prior to the first regular meeting following their
appointment, new members shall be given an orientation briefing by the City staff and
the Committee as is deemed appropriate.
Section 4. Absences. Three consecutive unexplained absences of a Committee member
from regular meetings may result in a recommendation to the City Council from the
Committee to discharge said member and appoint a new Committee member.
Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy among the appointees on the Committee because
of death, resignation, long-term illness, disqualification or removal shall be filled by the
City Council after at least 30 days public notice of the vacancy. Any vacancy of an ex -
officio member shall be filled by the appropriate agency within 30 days.
Section 6. Terms. Appointed members shall be appointed for terms of three years, with
five (5)terms expiring on January 1 and two (2) terms expiring July 1.. No more than
one-third of the terms may expire in any one year. If a position becomes vacant by
reason of resignation or otherwise, and results in an unexpired term of six months or
Approved by PAAC 4-20-2020
less, the City Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that the
appointee shall continue in the position not only through the unexpired term, but also
through a subsequent regular term. Ex -officio members shall serve for a term of one
year; such terms shall be renewable, at the discretion of the appropriate agency.
Section 7. Resignation. Resignations shall be submitted in writing to the Mayor with a
copy to the City Manager's Office, and Chairperson of the Public Art Advisory Committee
at least 60 days prior to the date of intended departure.
ARTICLE IV. OFFICERS
Section 1. Number. The officers of this Committee shall be a Chairperson and a Vice
Chairperson, each of whom shall be elected by a majority vote of all members of the
Committee from those Committee members appointed by the City Council.
Section 2. Election and Term of Office. Officers of the Committee shall be elected
annually at the first regular meeting in February each year; if the election of officers
shall not be held at such meeting, such election shall be held as soon thereafter as is
convenient.
Section 3. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal,
disqualification, or other cause shall be filled by the Committee for the unexpired portion
of the term, except as provided in Article III, Section 6, above.
Section 4. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall when present, preside at all meetings,
appoint committees, call special meetings and in general perform all duties incident to
the office of the Chairperson, and such other duties as may be prescribed by the
members from time to time.
Section 5. Vice -Chairperson. In the absence of the Chairperson, or in the event of death,
inability or refusal to act, the Vice -Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson
and when so acting, shall have all powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the
Chairperson.
ARTICLE V. MEETINGS
Section 1. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of this Committee shall be held monthly.
Section 2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the members may be called by the
Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson or Vice -Chairperson at the request of
three or more members of the Committee.
Section 3. Place of Meetings. Regular meetings shall be in a place serviced by public
transportation and accessible to persons with disabilities.
Approved by PAAC 4-20-2020
Section 4. Notice of Meetings. Notice of regular and special meetings shall be required.
Meetings maybe called upon notice not less than twenty-four(24) hours before the meeting.
Section 5. Quorum. A majority of all the members of the Committee shall constitute a
quorum at any meeting.
Section 6. Proxies. There shall be no vote by proxy.
Section 7. Public Discussion. Time shall be made available during all regular meetings
for open public discussion.
Section 8. Motions. Motions may be made or seconded by any member of the Committee
except the Chairperson.
Section 9. Conflict of Interest. A member who believes they have a conflict of interest on
a matter about to come before the Committee shall state the reason for the conflict of
interest, leave the room before the discussion begins, and return after the vote. If there is
a question of whether or not a conflict exists, the City Attorney or City Attorney's designee
will decide. All questions should be referred to the City Attorney or designee. Decisions of
the City Attorney or designee are binding.
Section 10. Voting. A majority of (but not less than five) votes cast at any meeting at which
a quorum is present shall be decisive of any motion or election. Upon request of any
Committee member, voting will be by roll call and will be recorded by "ayes" and "nays".
Every member of the Committee, including the Chairperson, is required to cast a vote
upon each motion. A member who abstains shall state the reason for abstention.
Section 11. Roberts Rules of Order. Except as otherwise provided herein, Roberts Rules
of Order as amended shall be used where applicable.
ARTICLE VI. POWERS AND DUTIES
The Public Art Advisory Committee possesses the following powers, all being subject to
final approval by the City Council:
Section 1. To develop by-laws and procedures for the Iowa City Public Art Program.
Section 2. To determine the location of public art and the type of art to be used in a specific
project.
Section 3. To review proposals funded with other than Pubic Art Program funds for both
permanent and temporary art installations on/in City owned property.
Section 4. To commission artists or to purchase art works, as appropriate.
Section 5. To accept or reject gifts and loans of art.
Approved by PAAC 4-20-2020
Section 6. To provide and oversee funding to local artist to host art exhibits or experiences
in Iowa City.
Section 7. To develop policies and procedures for the maintenance and disposition of
public art.
Section 8. To determine and oversee expenditures of the Public Art Program budget.
Section 9. To develop a Public Art Plan for the City of Iowa City.
Section 10.. To develop and maintain an inventory of public art.
ARTICLE VII. CONDUCT OF COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Section 1. Agenda. The Chairperson, or a designated representative, together with the
staff assistant, shall prepare an agenda for all regular Committee meetings. Agendas are
to be posted at least 24 hours before the meeting and shall be sent to Committee members
and the media priorto regular meetings. Copies will be available to the public at the meeting.
Section 2. Minutes. Minutes of all meetings are to be prepared, reviewed by the
Chairperson, and distributed to the Committee and City Council Members. Specific
recommendations requiring Council action are to be set off from the main body of the
minutes and appropriately identified.
Section 3. Review Policy. The Committee shall review all policies and programs of the
City, relating to the Committee's duties as stated herein, and make such recommendations
to the City Council as are deemed appropriate.
Section 4. Annual Report. An annual report detailing the activities of the Committee shall
be prepared by the Chairperson, approved by the Committee and submitted to the City
Council at the end of each calendar year.
ARTICLE VIII. SUBCOMMITIEES
The subcommittees of this Committee including composition, duties, and terms shall be
designated by the Chairperson in consultation with the Committee.
ARTICLE IX. AMENDMENTS
These by-laws may be altered, amended or repealed, and new by-laws adopted by an
affirmative vote of not less than five (5) members of the Committee at any regular meeting
or at any special meeting called for that purpose. Amendments shall be approved by the
City Council to become effective.
Item Number: 6.e.
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
��.:. -dry
in � at
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution awarding contract and authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City
Clerk to attest a contract for construction of the Iowa Avenue Bridge Repair
Project.
Prepared By: Josh Slattery, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer
Ron Knoche, Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: $128,025.00, available in the Annual Bridge Maintenance & Repair Fund
#S3910
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Resolution
Executive Summary:
This project involves repairing all expansion joints, including edge repair and spall repair along the
joints, on the Iowa Avenue bridge between Riverside Drive and Madison Street.
The engineer's estimate of cost for construction was $100,000, and two (2) bids were submitted
for the April 29, 2020 letting:
Company
Minturn, Inc.
Hawkeye Paving Corp
C ity
Brooklyn, IA
Bettendorf, IA
Bid Amount
$128,025.00
Non -Responsive
Because only one responsive bid was received, and the bid amount was more than 25% over the
engineer's estimate of cost for construction, the City's Purchasing Policy states:
"...the recommendation to Council will be to reject it unless the City Engineer determines that
accepting the bid would be the most prudent course of action, and it is approved by the City
Manager."
City staff has reviewed the results of the bid, two addenda issued during the bid period and
engineer's estimate of cost for construction with the project consultant, and concluded the bid
amount is reasonable based on the scope of work. Based on this analysis, it is not anticipated
rebidding the project would result in substantial cost savings for the City. The City Engineer and
City Manager recommend awarding the contract for the Iowa Avenue Bridge Repair Project to
Minturn, Inc. of Brooklyn, Iowa. It is anticipated construction will be completed by in the fall of
2020.
Background /Analysis:
The 2015 Biennial Bridge Inspection Program identified the need to replace the expansion joints
on the Iowa Avenue Bridge over the Iowa River. The City of Iowa City retained THP Limited for
consulting services to prepare construction documents for these expansion joint improvements.
THP performed site inspections and developed a construction documents that were incorporated
into the Parking Garage Maintenance Program and Bridge Repair 2016 Project as a bid alternate.
The only bid received at that time was $139,652.77, but the alternate was not selected for award.
The City of Iowa City then contracted with THP to produce standalone construction documents to
re -bid the bridge expansion joint repairs.
Plans, Specifications, Form of Agreement and Estimate of Cost for the Iowa Avenue Bridge
Repair Project were approved at the April 7, 2020 Council Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution
Prepared by: Josh Slattery, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356-5149
Resolution No. 20-109
Resolution awarding contract and authorizing the Mayor to sign
and the City Clerk to attest a contract for construction of the
Iowa Avenue Bridge Repair Project
Whereas, Minturn, Inc. of Brooklyn, Iowa, has submitted the lowest responsible bid of $128,025
for construction of the above-named project; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Annual Bridge Maintenance and Repair
account # S3910; and
Whereas, the City Engineer and City Manager are authorized to execute change orders according
to the City's Purchasing Policy as they may become necessary in the construction of the above-
named project.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
The contract for the construction of the above-named project is hereby awarded to
Mintum, Inc., subject to the condition that awardee secure adequate performance and
payment bond, insurance certificates, and contract compliance program statements.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the contract for
construction of the above-named project, subject to the condition that awardee secure
adequate performance and payment bond, insurance certificates, and contract compliance
program statements.
Passed and approved this 5th day of May _,2020
Mayor
A r ed by /
Attest:
City C erk Cify Attorney's Office - 04/30/2020
It was moved by Taylor and seconded by Saiih the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes:
_X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nays:
Absent:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
&.e
Item Number: 6.f.
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
in � at
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution awarding contract and authorizing the City Engineer to sign a
contract for construction of the Prentiss Street Bridge Replacement Project
(B ROS -3715(663)--8J-52).
Prepared By: Melissa Clow, Special Projects Administrator
Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer
Ron Knoche, Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: $1,398,708.11, available in the Prentiss Street Bridge Replacement account
#S3935
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Resolution
Executive Summary:
I IW, P.C. of Dubuque, IA designed the Prentiss Street Bridge Replacement Project to remove
the existing triple corrugated metal pipe culverts and replace with new reinforced concrete box
culverts at the intersection of Prentiss and Linn Streets. The Project Manual and Estimate of Cost
were approved at the March 3, 2020 City Council Meeting. The engineer's estimate of cost for
construction was $1,370,000. Two addenda were issued during the bidding to provide minor
clarifications and to respond to questions from contractors. Four (4) bids were submitted to the
Iowa Department of Transportation prior to the deadline on April 21, 2020.
Bidder Name
City
Total Bid Amount
Portzen Construction, Inc.
Dubuque, IA
1,398,708.11
Iowa Bridge & Culvert, L.C.
Washington, IA
1,711,265.50
Vieth Construction Corporation
Cedar Falls, IA
1,789,506.35
Boomerang Corporation
Anamosa, IA
1,930,910.98
Staff recommends awarding the construction contract for the Prentiss Street Bridge Replacement
Project (BROS-3715(663)--8J-52)to Portzen Construction, Inc. of Dubuque, Iowa.
Background /Analysis:
The 2015 Biennial Bridge Inspection Program reported that the Prentiss Street Bridge over
Ralston Creek is suffering from bulging and severe corrosion of the corrugated metal pipe
culverts, damaged and undermined inlet and headwall, and cracked street pavement. Recent
pavement replacement in the area uncovered significant voiding under the pavement, further
emphasizing the need for the project. The bridge is limited to a 20 -ton weight embargo due to its
current condition. In addition, the existing storm sewer along Prentiss Street, from Ralston Creek
to S. Dubuque Street is undersized and has a history of surcharging during large rain events.
The City contracted with IIW, P.C. of Dubuque, IA in May, 2018 for consulting services. The
project was bid through the I DOT, and construction administration and inspection will be
performed by the City of Iowa City. The project is expected to be completed in Fall 2020.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution
Prepared by: Melissa Clow, Special Projects Administrator, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)3565413
Resolution No. 20-110
Resolution awarding contract and authorizing the City Engineer to
sign a contract for construction of the Prentiss Street Bridge
Replacement Project (BROS-3715(663)--8J-52).
Whereas, Portzen Construction, Inc. of Dubuque, IA has submitted the lowest responsible bid of
$1,398,708.11 for construction of the above-named project; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Prentiss Street Bridge account # 3935; and
Whereas, the City Engineer and City Manager are authorized to execute change orders according
to the City's Purchasing Policy as they may become necessary in the construction of the above-
named project.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
The contract for the construction of the above-named project is hereby awarded to Portzen
Construction, Inc., subject to the condition that awardee secure adequate bond and
insurance certificates.
2. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to sign the contract for construction of the above-
named project and the Contractor's Bond, subject to the condition that awardee secure
adequate bond and insurance certificates.
Passed and approved this 5th day of May 2020
Mayor
Attest:
City Jerk
It was moved by Taylor and seconded by
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes:
Nays:
r e by 1 ,
.() IL
City Attorney's Office - 04/29/2020
Salih
Absent:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
the Resolution be
S
Item Number: 6.g.
I �, CITY OF IOWA CITY
-�"'�� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution accepting the work for the 2019 Summer Sidewalk Repair
Project.
Prepared By:
Kim Sandberg, Program Assistant
Reviewed By:
Jason Havel, City Engineer
Ron Knoche, Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact:
None
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:
Engineer's Report
Resolution
Executive Summary:
The 2019 Summer Sidewalk Repair Project was let as a Competitive Quotation project and has
been completed by Quality Construction Services of Eldridge, Iowa, in substantial accordance
with the plans and specifications. The Engineer's Report and Performance and Payment bonds
are on file with the City Engineer.
• Project Estimated Cost: $ 74,000.00
• Project Bid Received: $ 73,735.00
• Project Actual Cost: $ 73,266.84
Background /Analysis:
This annual project included the removal and replacement of deficient sidewalk squares as part of
the City's Sidewalk Inspection Program.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Engineer's Report
Resolution
I r i
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 - 1826
(319) 356 - 5000
(319) 356 - 5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
ENGINEER'S REPORT
April 28, 2020
City Council
Iowa City, Iowa
Re: 2019 Summer Sidewalk Repair project
Dear City Council:
hereby certify that the 2019 Summer Sidewalk Repair Project has been completed by Quality
Construction Services of Eldridge, Iowa in substantial accordance with the plans and
specifications completed by the City of Iowa City.
The project was bid as a unit price contract and the final contract price is $73,266.84.
There was a total of one (1) change or extra work orders for the project:
1. Use epoxy coated rebar when pinning to existing walk $ 545.30
Total
$ 545.30
I recommend that the above -referenced improvements be accepted by the City of Iowa City.
Sincerely,
.'CL12
Jason Havel
City Engineer
Prepared by: Kim Sandberg, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5139
Resolution No. 20-111
Resolution accepting the work for the 2019 Summer Sidewalk
Repair Project
Whereas, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the 2019
Summer Sidewalk Repair Project, as included in a contract between the City of Iowa City and
Quality Construction Services of Eldridge, Iowa, dated July 1, 2019, be accepted; and
Whereas, the Engineer's Report and the performance and payment bond have been filed in the City
Engineer's office; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in account # 22710220; and
Whereas, the final contract price is $73,266.84.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said
improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Passed and approved this 5th day of May , 2020
Mayor
Attest:
City Jerk
It was moved by Taylor and seconded by
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes:
Nays:
A7:b /
City Attorney's Office — 04/30/2020
Salih
Absent:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
the Resolution be
Item Number: 6.h.
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
��.:.
-4
in � at
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution approving the final contract price for the 2016 Washington Street
Streetscape Project — Clinton Street to Linn Street.
Prepared By:
Scott Sovers, Asst. City Engineer
Reviewed By:
Jason Havel, City Engineer
Ron Knoche, Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact:
None
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:
Engineer's Report
Resolution
Executive Summary:
This item corrects the final contract price for the 2016 Washington Streetscape Project.
Background /Analysis:
After this project was accepted at the August 6, 2019 council meeting, it was brought to the City's
attention there were a few outstanding extra work items. These generally included the following:
• Addition of temporary business wayfinding signage.
• Adjustments to the proposed intersection traffic control as required to replace the partially
constructed traffic signals with all -way stop control at the Washington Street & Dubuque
Street and Washington Street & Linn Street Intersections.
• Increased the sizes of telecommunication handholes to provide additional space for fiber
splice cases.
This work was approved by the City, but not reflected in the previous contract amount, resulting in
underpayment to the contract in the amount of $67,093.57. With the addition of these items, the
final contract price is $4,284,122.25.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Engineer's Report
Resolution
ENGINEER'S REPORT
April 29, 2020
City Clerk
Iowa City, Iowa
Re: Washington Streetscape Project
Dear City Clerk:
�r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 - 1826
(319) 356 - 5000
(319) 356 - 5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
I hereby certify that the construction of the Washington Streetscape Project has been completed
by Portzen Construction, Inc. of Dubuque, IA in substantial accordance with the plans and
specifications prepared by Genus Landscape Architects.
The project was bid as a unit price contract and the final contract price is $ 4,284,122.25.
There were six (6) change or extra work orders for the project as described below:
Change Order Description
1. Changed water main pipe type and removed vault hatch at
112 Washington Street.
2. Abandonment of vaults at 107 and 129 Washington Street
3. Increased size of water service to 119 Washington Street
and installed a new power service to the Washington Street
and Clinton Street traffic signal.
4. Added wayfinding kiosks, storm sewer intakes (Washington
and Linn Street Intersection) and electrical conduits.
5. Litter receptacles (supply only).
6. Added temporary business signs and modified the
intersection traffic control.
TOTAL
Net Contract Change
$20,982.78
($119,996.85)
$10,698.65
$197,621.31
($2,499.49)
$67,093.57
$ 173,899.97
I recommend that the above -referenced improvements be accepted by the City of Iowa City.
Sincerely,
Jason Havel, P.E.
City Engineer
Prepared by: Scott Sovers, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5142
Resolution No. 20-112
Resolution approving the final contract price for the 2016 Washington
Street Streetscape Project — Clinton Street to Linn Street.
Whereas, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the
Washington Street Streetscape Project - Clinton Street to Linn Street, as included in a contract
between the City of Iowa City and Portzen Construction Inc. of Dubuque, Iowa, dated March 11,
2016, be accepted; and
Whereas, the Engineer's Report has been filed in the City Clerk's office; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Washington Street Reconstruction account #
S3938; and
Whereas, this work was accepted by Resolution No. 19-204 but the final contract price was
inaccurately stated therein; and
Whereas, the final contract price is $4,284,122.25; and
Whereas, this resolution is to correct the final contract amount.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The final contract price of $4,284,122.25 is approved.
Passed and approved this 5th day of
Attest:
Ci Clerk
May , 2020.
Ma or
Ap ved by
City Attorney's Office - 04/30/2020
It was moved by Taylor and seconded by Salih the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes:
i1
Nays:
Absent:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
Item Number: 7.a.
AL CITY OF IOWA CITY
=�c�-
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution setting public hearing on amending the FY2020 Operating
Budget.
Prepared By: Jacklyn Fleagle, Budget & Compliance Officer
Reviewed By: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director
Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager
Fiscal Impact: FY2020 budget revisions funded through new revenues or available fund
balance
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: List of Amendments
Notice of Public Hearing
Resolution
Executive Summary:
The Finance Department requests the City Council set a public hearing for consideration of
amending the fiscal year 2020 annual budget on May 19, 2020. This is the third budget
amendment for fiscal year 2020.
Background /Analysis:
Budget amendments are submitted to the Finance Department and reviewed for approval by the
Finance Director and City Manager. A formal recommendation for a budget amendment is then
prepared for City Council approval.
The State of Iowa allows cities to amend the annual operating budget for supplemental
appropriation authority. These changes may include new or revised revenue and expenditure
projections, transfers between funds, and capital improvement plan changes. I ncreased
expenditures must utilize available fund balance or additional revenue sources, as the State does
not allow amendments to increase property taxes. According to the City's financial policies,
amendments to operating budgets will be made only in the following situations:
• emergency situations
• transfer from contingency
• expenditures with offsetting revenues or fund balance
• carry-over of prior year budget authority for expenses that had not been paid as of the end of
the fiscal year.
This proposed budget amendment increases overall revenues and transfers -in by $6,369,462, as
shown on Line 15 of the attached notice (see Revenues & Other Financing Sources, lines 1-15).
The majority of the revenues being amended are for Transfers In (line 14) with an additional
$5,346,041 for a debt service transfer for the Parking Fund lease -purchase early call.
Intergovernmental revenue (line 9) is being amended by $482,964 for new Federal grants in
response to the COVI D-19 pandemic. Other City Taxes (line 6) are being amended by $292,897
for changes to the Hotel/Motel tax.
The section entitled Expenditures & Other Financial Uses (lines 16-28) provides for an increase in
appropriations of $13,349,846. The majority of the increase in appropriations is related to
Transfers Out (line 27) for $5,432,601. Business Type/Enterprise expenditures (line 25) have
been increased by $6,981,325, primarily for the early call and debt service payment on the
Parking Fund lease -purchase. The next largest increase in appropriations is for the Community
and Economic Development program (line 20) and totals $756,946. The increase in this program
primarily reflects the purchase of another UniverCity home and the expenditures for an additional
CDBG grant related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The third largest program amendment is for
Public Safety (line 16). This program is being increased by $88,562 and is primarily made up of
additional expenditures related to the receipt of a Department of Justice COVID-19 grant. The
Public Works program (line 17) has increased $75,000 primarily due to an increase for salt
expenditures due to the large amount of snow and ice events this past winter.
The net budgeted result to fund balances is a decrease of $6,980,384 (line 29).
The Notice of Public Hearing for the third budget amendment of fiscal year 2020 is attached to
this memo along with a detailed list of the individual amendments.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
List of Amendments
Notice of Public Hearing
Resolution
Program
Fund Org Object Project Description Amount Line Other Notes
7505 75750905 473010 Landfill scale replacement 100,000.00 25 Into CIP - L3340
Scale replacement at the Landfill
2200 22710335 463110 Salt 75,000.00 17
Salt purchase after another snowy and icy winter
1000
10610220
471010
UniverCity Land Acquisition
150,000.00
20
1000
10610220
472010
UniverCity Land Acquisition
60,000.00
20
1000
10610220
392100
UniverCity Land Acquisition
(150,000.00)
13
Purchase of an additional UniverCity property
1000
10210510
313300
Hotel/Motel Tax
(55,724.00)
6
1000
10310710
313300
Hotel/Motel Tax
(70,000.00)
6
1000
10410310
313300
Hotel/Motel Tax
(105,874.00)
6
1000
10520264
313300
Hotel/Motel Tax
(27,862.00)
6
1000
10520542
313300
Hotel/Motel Tax
(33,437.00)
6
1000
10210510
448020
IC/Coralville CVB
55,724.00
20
Updates
to the Hotel/Motel Tax
1000
10310710
490160
Hilton Garden Inn
70,000.00
27
2603
26310137
393910
Hilton Garden Inn
(70,000.00)
14
2603
26310137
448070
Hilton Garden Inn
70,000.00
20
Updates
to the Hotel/Motel Tax
7100
71810145
490060
Early call of Harrison St Lease
4,910,045.33
27
7102
71810170
490060
Early call of Harrison St Lease
435,996.00
27
7101
71810185
393310
Early call of Harrison St Lease
(5,346,041.33)
14
7101
71810185
480100
Early call of Harrison St Lease
6,846,041.33
25
Potential
early call of the Parking lease -purchase agreement
7600
76850110
369900
Service charges for simulator
(11,000.00)
12
7600
76850110
473020
Flight Simulator
15,013.00
25
7600
76850110
455230
Website development
15,000.00
25
Previously unbudgeted airport expenditures and donations.
1000
10310400
490160
Low income discount transfers
7,000.00
27
7200
72720110
393190
Low income discount transfers
(1,500.00)
14
7300
73730110
393190
Low income discount transfers
(1,500.00)
14
7400
74740110
393190
Low income discount transfers
(2,800.00)
14
7700
77770110
393190
Low income discount transfers
(1,200.00)
14
Increase
in donations to the low-income discount program.
1000
10610620
490160
Hist. Survey Grant
9,560.00
27
2300
23610299
393910 037
Hist. Survey Grant
(4,100.00)
14
2300
23610299
393910 038
Hist. Survey Grant
(3,350.00)
14
2300
23610299
393910 039
Hist. Survey Grant
(2,110.00)
14
Transfers
for State Historic Grants
8300
83310510
476130 906
Software
56,064.00
x
1000
10520420
413000 906
Temporary Employees
15,412.11
19
2500
25490190
449340 906
Moving & Relocation Expenses
10,800.00
20
8300
83310510
455120 906
Misc Computer Hardware
9,865.25
x
1000
10450110
469190 906
Minor Equipment
6,020.00
16
7200
72720122
469210 906
First Aid/Safety Supplies
5,270.70
25
1000
10410310
469210 906
First Aid/Safety Supplies
5,000.00
16
1000
10450110
464020 906
Uniform Clothing
5,000.00
16
Unbudgeted COVID related expenditures
3100 31410930 331100 Police Grant
3100 31410930 474420 Police Grant
New DOJ COVID grant
2100 21610320 331100 CDBG Covid funds
2100 21610320 448010 CDBG Covid funds
2100 21610320 448060 CDBG Covid funds
Additional CDBG funds in response to COVID
-72,542.00 9
72,542.00 16
-410,422.00 9
205,211.00 20
205,211.00 20
7,046,313.39
State Form Program Lines
Other City Taxes (292,897.00)
Licenses and Permits
Use of Money & Property
Intergovernmental (482,964.00)
Charges for Services
Miscellaneous (11,000.00)
Other Financing Sources (150,000.00)
Transfers In (5,432,601.33)
Public Safety 88,562.00
Public Works 75,000.00
Health & Social Services -
Culture & Recreation 15,412.11
Community & Economic Development 756,946.00
General Government -
Debt Service
Capital Projects
Business-Type/Enterprise 6,981,325.03
Transfers Out 5,432,601.33
Internal Service (not budgeted) 65,929.25
7,046,313.39
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
27
X
Internal Service (not budgeted) (65,929.25)
Excess Revenues & Other Financing Sources under
Expenditures/Transfers Out 6,980,384.14 29
Jun -19 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Form 653.C1 AMENDMENT OF FY2019-2020 CITY BUDGET
The City Council of Iowa City in JOHNSON County, Iowa
will meet at 410 E Washington St, City Hall
at 7:00 pm on 5/19/2020
(hour) (Date)
,for the purpose of amending the current budget of the city for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020
by changing estimates of revenue and expenditure appropriations in the following functions for the reasons given.
Additional detail is available at the city clerk's office showing revenues and expenditures by fund type and by activity.
Explanation of increases or decreases in revenue estimates, appropriations, or available cash:
Amendments include revenue for Federal grants related to the COVID-19 pandemic, changes to Hotel/Motel tax,
and transfers for debt service payments. Amendments also include new expenditures related to the COVID-19
pandemic, an early call for the Parking lease -purchase agreement, an UniverCity acquisition, and a landfill scale
replacement. Additional detail is on file and available from the Iowa City Finance Department.
There will be no increase in tax levies to be paid in the current fiscal year named above related to the proposed
budget amendment. Any increase in expenditures set out above will be met from the increased non -property tax
revenues and cash balances not budgeted or considered in this current budget.
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
City Clerk/ Finance Officer Name
Total Budget
as certified
or last amended
Current
Amendment
Total Budget
after Current
Amendment
Revenues & Other Financing Sources
Taxes Levied on Property
1
60,296,653
60,296,653
Less: Uncollected Property Taxes -Levy Year
2
0
0
Net Current Property Taxes
3
60,296,653
0
60,296,653
Delinquent Property Taxes
4
0
0
TIF Revenues
5
3,450,835
3,450,835
Other City Taxes
6
2,759,321
292,897
3,052,218
Licenses & Permits
7
2,073,060
2,073,060
Use of Money and Property
8
3,504,655
3,504,655
Intergovernmental
9
46,626,936
482,964
47,109,900
Charges for Services
10
46,634,658
46,634,658
Special Assessments
11
810
810
Miscellaneous
12
2,815,284
11,000
2,826,284
Other Financing Sources
13
14,148,672
150,000
14,298,672
Transfers In
14
65,151,039
5,432,601
70,583,640
Total Revenues and Other Sources
15
247,461,923
6,369,462
253,831,385
Expenditures & Other Financing Uses
Public Safety
16
26,751,348
88,562
26,839,910
Public Works
17
10,714,557
75,000
10,789,557
Health and Social Services
18
531,500
531,500
Culture and Recreation
19
16,088,200
15,412
16,103,612
Community and Economic Development
20
12,047,162
756,946
12,804,108
General Government
21
10,596,325
10,596,325
Debt Service
22
13,048,333
13,048,333
Capital Projects
23
64,420,852
64,420,852
Total Government Activities Expenditures
24
154,198,277
935,920
155,134,197
Business Type / Enterprises
25
73,613,844
6,981,325
80,595,169
Total Gov Activities & Business Expenditures
26
227,812,121
7,917,245
235,729,366
Transfers Out
27
65,151,039
5,432,601
70,583,640
Total Expenditures/Transfers Out
28
292,963,160
13,349,846
306,313,006
Excess Revenues & Other Sources Over
(Under) Expenditures/Transfers Out Fiscal Year
29
-45,501,237
-6,980,384
-52,481,621
Beginning Fund Balance July 1
30
182,770,0511
i
182,770,051
Ending Fund Balance June 30
31
137,268,814
-6,980,3841
130,288,430
Explanation of increases or decreases in revenue estimates, appropriations, or available cash:
Amendments include revenue for Federal grants related to the COVID-19 pandemic, changes to Hotel/Motel tax,
and transfers for debt service payments. Amendments also include new expenditures related to the COVID-19
pandemic, an early call for the Parking lease -purchase agreement, an UniverCity acquisition, and a landfill scale
replacement. Additional detail is on file and available from the Iowa City Finance Department.
There will be no increase in tax levies to be paid in the current fiscal year named above related to the proposed
budget amendment. Any increase in expenditures set out above will be met from the increased non -property tax
revenues and cash balances not budgeted or considered in this current budget.
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
City Clerk/ Finance Officer Name
Prepared by: Jacklyn Fleagle, Budget & Compliance Officer, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356-5053
Resolution No. 20-113
Resolution setting public hearing on amending the
FY2020 Operating Budget.
Be it resolved by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, that a public hearing will be held in City Hall,
Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m., May 19, 2020, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of
the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk, to permit any citizen to be heard for or
against the proposed amendment to the FY2020 Operating Budget.
City Hall is currently closed to the public because of the coronavirus. If City Hall remains closed
to the public, the meeting will be an electronic meeting using the Zoom Meetings Platform. For
information on how to participate in the electronic meeting, see www.icaov.org/councildocs or
telephone the City Clerk at 319/356-5043.
The City Clerk is hereby directed to give notice of said public hearing and time and place thereof by
publication in the Iowa City Press -Citizen, a newspaper of general circulation in Iowa City, not less
than ten (10) days and not more than twenty (20) days before the time set for such hearing.
Passed and approved this 5th day of May 20 20.
Mayor
A r ed by
Attest+'L :'
Ity Clerk City Attorney's Office — 04/30/2020
It was moved by Taylor and seconded by Salih the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes:
Nays: Absent:
x
Bergus
Mims
x
Salih
x
Taylor
x
Teague
x
Thomas
x
Weiner
Item Number: 13.
AL CITY OF IOWA CITY
=�c�-
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution directing sale of $12,145,000 (subject to adjustment per terms of
offering) General Obligation Bond, Series 2020.
Prepared By: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director
Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: Adopted as part of the FY2020 Revised Budget and the 2020-2024 Capital
Improvement Program
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
196TOZ rffil► /G1
Attachments: Resolution
Executive Summary:
The City will receive bids on May 5, 2020 for the Series 2020, Tax -Exempt General Obligation
Bonds. The City Council will receive a summary of those bids that night and then consider
approval of the lowest bid.
Background /Analysis:
The City issues bonds every spring to fund the current year's capital improvement projects listed
in the Five -Year Capital Improvement Program. The City Council adopted the 2020 capital
improvement program on March 24, 2020.
The 2020 projects funded from general obligation bonds total $11,972,340. With issuance costs
and contingencies, the total funding requirements from the 2020 general obligation bonds is
$12,145,000. This amount is subject to change depending on the bids received.
Bids will be received by the City and Speer Financial at 11:00am on May 5, 2020. The results of
the sale will be summarized, and the bidder of the lowest interest rate will be recommended to be
awarded the sale.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution
Speer Financial, Inc.
INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL ADVISORS
KEVIN DANIEL RAPHALIATA
MCCANNA FORBES MCKENZIE
Chairman President Senior VP
The Honorable Bruce Teague, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mayor Teague and Council Members:
MAGGIE ANTHONY LARRY
BURGER MICELI BURGER
Senior VP Senior VP Vice Presid;C11!
May 5, 2020
Is
ESTABLISHED 1954
MARK
JERETINA
Y'rce President
Late Handouts Distributed
S—S-za
(Date)
Bids were received today for the $12,145,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020. There were
three bids received, which are listed at the bottom of this letter.
Upon examination, it is our opinion that the bid of Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, is the best bid received, and it is further our opinion that the bid is favorable to the City and
should be accepted. We therefore recommend that the Bonds be awarded to that bidder at a price of
$13,012,384.65, being at a true interest rate of 1.5589°/x.
True
Account Managers Interest Rate
Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin ................................. 1.5589%
Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Chicago, Illinois ..................................... 1.6413%
JP Morgan Securities, New York, New York ................................................... 1.6554%
Respectfully submitted,
SPEER FINANCIAL, INC.
Maggie Burger, Sr. Vice President
MB/mr
Enclosures
SUITE 4100 -ONE NORTH LASALLE STREET • CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 • (312) 346-3700 • FAX (3`2'13146-8803
SUITE 608 • 531 COMMERCIAL STREET • WATERLOO, IOWA 50701 • (319) 291-2077 • FAX (319)1-'9!-86-28
CREDIT OPINION
29 April 2020
Contacts
Daniel Simpson +1.312.706.9965
AVP -Analyst
dansimpson@moodys com
Coley J Anderson +1.312.706.9961
AVP -Analyst
coley.anderson@moodys.com
CLIENT SERVICES
Americas
Asia Pacific
Japan
EMEA
1-212-553-1653
85Z-3551-3077
81-3-5408-4100
44-20-7772-5454
Iowa City (City of) IA
Update to credit analysis
Summary
Iowa City, IA's (Aaa stable) credit profile benefits from a sound economic base that is
anchored by the University of Iowa (Aa1 stable) and its associated University of Iowa
Hospitals & Clinics (Aa2 stable), which has helped fuel recent growth and development
throughout the city We regard the coronavirus outbreak as a social risk under our ESG
framework, given the substantial implications for public health and safety. We do not see
any material immediate credit risks for the City of Iowa City, IA. While the city is contending
with the developing impacts of reduced economic activity, the city's very strong liquidity will
position it well to manage through the current environment_ The city also benefits from a
favorable revenue composition as its operating budget is not reliant on sales taxes, a revenue
source that faces the most immediate pressure from slowed economic activity. However, the
situation surrounding coronavirus is rapidly evolving and the longer term impact will depend
on both the severity and duration of the crisis. If our view of the credit quality of Iowa City,
Iowa changes, we will update the rating and/or outlook at that time. The city's primary credit
challenge is its elevated leverage associated with capital borrowing to support a growing
population and participation in two statewide cost-sharing retirement plans.
Credit strengths
Local economy benefits from the presence of the University of Iowa
>, Very strong liquidity and operating reserves
Strong financial management and adequate revenue raising flexibility
Credit challenges
Pension burden is above average
Elevated fixed costs somewhat mitigated by rapid debt retirement
Rating outlook
The stable outlook reflects our expectations that the city's financial position will remain
sound. The city's strong liquidity and budget management will help it mitigate the impacts of
slowed economic activity because of the coronavirus outbreak.
Factors that could lead to an upgrade
Not applicable
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Factors that could lead to a downgrade
n Significant and sustained reduction in operating reserves or liquidity
Growth in pension or debt burdens
Key indicators
Exhibit 1
Iowa City (City of) IA 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Economy/Tax Base
Total Full Value ($000) $5,352,972 $5,497,112 $5,910,241 $6,136,059 $6,860,334
Population 71,832 72,385 73,415 74,566 74,566
Full Value Per Capita $74,521 $75,943 $80,505 $82,290 $92,004
Median Family Income (% of US Median) 113.8% 114.8% 116.7% 111.6% 111.6%
Finances
Operating Revenue ($000) $68,881 $67,634 $71,394 $72,133 $76,788
Fund Balance ($000) $57,241 $62,247 $68,571 $74,974 $81,438
Cash Balance ($000) $57,061 $58,561 $52,271 $48,812 $51,879
Fund Balance as a % of Revenues 83.1% 92.0% 96.0% 103.9% 106.1%
Cash Balance as a % of Revenues 82.8% 86.6% 73.2% 67.7% 67.6%
Debt/Pensions
Net Direct Debt ($000) $62,206 $58,086 $67,056 $67,156 $67,611
3 -Year Average of Moody's ANPL ($000) $117,448 $118,863 $134,133 $145,514 $158,821
Net Direct Debt/ Full Value (%) 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0%
Net Direct Debt / Operating Revenues (x) 0.9x 0.9x 0.9x 0.9x 0.9x
Moody's - adjusted Net Pension Liability (3 -yr average) to Full Value (%) 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.49% 2.3%
Moody's - adjusted Net Pension Liability (3 -yr average) to Revenues (x) 1.7x 1.8x 1.9x 2.Ox 2.1x
Operating revenue includes general, debt service and employee benefit funds. Tax base data is displayed on a tax year basis, while financial data is displayed on a fiscal year basis.
Source. City's audited financial statements, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., U.S. Census Bureau
Profile
Iowa City is a large city that serves as the county seat of Johnson County. The city's population is currently estimated at 74,566
residents. The city provides public safety (police and fire), public works, recreation and other general government services. The city's
major business -type activities include sewer, sanitation, water, parking, transit and stormwater.
Detailed credit considerations
Economy and tax base: institutional presence provides tax base stability
The city's primary economic strength is its ties to the University of Iowa and its associated University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, which
is the only academic medical center in Iowa (Aaa stable). As such, the local economy is anchored by public sector employment and less
concentrated in leisure and hospitality, auto manufacturing and the transportation sectors, the industries hardest hit by the coronavirus
outbreak. The University of Iowa and the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics are the city's largest employers, with over 19,600 and
10,400 staff, respectively.
The city's $6.9 billion tax base grew at a compound annual growth rate of 7% over the last five years, which Includes a notable 12%
Increase In 2019 because of a reassessment The recent growth Is largely attributable to new residential and commercial property
driven by a steady flow of new residents Taxpayer concentration is modest with the top 10 taxpayers accounting 6% of current taxable
value.
This publication dues not announce a credit rating action For any credit istings referenced in this pubbaition, please see she ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on
www.moodys corn for the most updated credit satin.- aciion information and rating history
2 29 April 2020 Iowa City (City of) IA: Update to reedit analysis
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Median family income, 112% of the national median, is low for Aaa rated cities but is deflated because of a significant college student
population.
Financial operations and reserves: very strong liquidity supported by prudent management
The city's financial position is very strong and will help the city to offset the likely slower revenue growth associated with the recent
slow down in economic activity. As of fiscal 2019, the city's general, employee benefits, debt service and internal service funds had a
combined available fund balance of $77 million, equal to a very strong 106% of annual operating revenue. Most reserves ($68 million)
are held in the general fund providing the most flexibility as to use For fiscal 2020, management estimates a general fund deficit of
$1.8 million, largely due to a $1.4 million of expenditures carried forward from the prior fiscal year. For fiscal 2021, the city adopted
budget calls for a general fund surplus of $2 million, net of $2.2 million in transfers for one-time initiatives and capital projects.
Property taxes are the city's primary revenue source, accounting for more than 80% of annual operating revenue. While the city fully
uses its $8.10 per $1,000 general levy, it maintains $3.2 million of untapped capacity. Additionally, the city is not currently using the
fully available 5% franchise fee on electric and gas bills, which would generate up to $4.0 million if fully tapped. Collectively, the city's
available revenue raising flexibility amounts to nearly 10% of annual operating revenue.
LIQUIDITY
Liquidity is very strong and will provide a buffer against unplanned expenditures or revenue declines Cash across the city's mayor
operating funds totaled $52 million, or 69% of fiscal 2019 operating revenue Governmental fund cash totaled $130 million, or a very
strong 150% of governmental fund revenue.
Debt, pensions and OPEB: heightened leverage because of capital borrowing and participation in state retirement plans
The city's overall leverage will remain somewhat above average for the Aaa rating category. Inclusive of the Series 2020 bonds, net
direct debt is 1.2% of full value and 1.0x fiscal 2019 operating revenue. While officials report additional GO borrowing plans, leverage
will not increase significantly because of rapid amortization of outstanding principal. Debt service expenditure totaled $13.7 million, or
18% of fiscal 2019 operating revenue.
Moody's three-year average adjusted net pension liability (ANPL) for the city totals $154 million, or 2.Ox fiscal 2019 operating
revenue and 2.2% of full value. Net of self-supporting contributions from the city's water, sewer and stormwater enterprises, the city's
contribution to its two statewide pension plans totaled $5.3 million or 7% of fiscal 2019 operating revenue.
The city's retiree healthcare (OPEB) burden is modest. The city's Moody's adjusted net OPEB liability (adjusted NOL), based on a
3.5%discount rate, totaled a modest $8.9 million as of fiscal 2019, representing less than 0.1x fiscal 2019 operating revenue.
Fixed costs associated with the city's debt service and retirement contributions are above average and consumed approximately 25%
of fiscal 2019 operating revenue. The relatively high fixed costs are largely because of the city's rapid principal payout (all GO debt
is scheduled to mature within 10 years). Additionally, the city benefits from unlimited levies for debt service and employee benefits,
which help mitigate the risk of heightened fixed costs.
DEBT STRUCTURE
All of the city's debt is fixed rate and long term. Amortization is rapid with 100% of principal to retire within the next 10 years
DEBT -RELATED DERIVATIVES
The city does not have any debt -related derivative agreements.
PENSIONS AND OPEB
The city participates in two defined benefit multi-employer cost sharing plans, the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS)
and Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa (MFPRSI). On an annual basis, each plan establishes local government
retirement contributions as a share of payroll based on actuarial requirements. The city has routinely made its full statutory
contributions to the plans.
IPERS and MFPRSI contributions were 96% and 113% of tread water in fiscal 2019. Despite making contributions below tread water
the plan level net pension liability for IPERS fell approximately 9% from fiscal 2018 to 2019 because of pension asset performance
3 29 April 2020 Iowa City (City of) IA: Update to credit analysis
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
exceeding the plan's assumed investment return. Because of a 12 -month balance sheet reporting lag, the reduction in the plan's
unfunded liabilities in 2019 will not be reflected in local government balance sheets until fiscal 2020.
The city manages a single -employer health benefit plan which provides medical/prescription drug benefits for employees, retirees and
their spouses. Retirees under 65 pay the same premium as actives employees, resulting in an implicit rate subsidy.
ESG considerations
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Environmental factors will have a limited impact on the city's credit profile. Data from Moody's affiliate Four Twenty Seven indicate
that the Johnson County has relatively high exposure to heat stress compared to counties nationally. Rising temperatures could affect
the region's agricultural production over the long-term, but we expect near term challenges will be mitigated by the strength and
diversity of local economy.
SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Social factors are a consideration for the city. Resident incomes are above the state and national figures. The city's population growth
has been strong over the last few decades and the city's median age is below the state and national figures largely because of the
presence of the University of Iowa. We regard the coronavirus outbreak as a social risk under our ESG framework, given the substantial
implications for public health and safety. The city is working with local, state and federal partners to keep the community informed
about the coronavirus. The city maintains a website that informs residents of the latest news about the coronavirus outbreak.
GOVERNANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Iowa City's management team is considered strong, as demonstrated by its long-term commitment to maintaining very healthy
reserves and formal financial and debt policies. Management has a formal policy to maintain an Unreserved general fund balance of
no less than 25% of annual expenditures, with a ceiling of 35%. Any reserves in excess of the 35% threshold are transferred to the
city's emergency fund, which is intended to support early retirement of debt, disaster mitigation or other unforeseen emergencies.
Management also maintains a five year capital improvement program for capital planning.
Iowa cities have an Institutional Framework score of "Aaa," which is very strong. Even with property tax caps on general and emergency
levies, cities have strong revenue -raising flexibility because of various additional levies, including an unlimited levy for employee
benefits. Unpredictable revenue fluctuations tend to be minor given the stability of the sector's primary revenue source, which
are property taxes. Expenditures mostly consist of personnel costs, which are highly predictable. Iowa's public employee collective
bargaining law limits the scope of bargaining to base wages for non-public safety employees. Across the sector, fixed costs are generally
elevated and driven mainly by debt.
4 29 April 2020 Iowa City (City of) IA: Update to credit analysis
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
Rating methodology and scorecard factors
The US Local Government General Obligation Debt methodology includes a scorecard, a tool providing a composite score of a local
government's credit profile based on the weighted factors we consider most important, universal and measurable, as well as possible
notching factors dependent on individual credit strengths and weaknesses. Its purpose is not to determine the final rating, but rather to
provide a standard platform from which to analyze and compare local government credits.
Exhibit 2
Scorecard Factors
EconomyfTax Base (30%) l'I
Tax Base Size: Full Value (in 000s)
Full Value Per Capita
Median Family Income (% of US Median)
Notching Factors:lel
Institutional Presence
Finances (30%)
Fund Balance as a % of Revenues
Measure
Score
Aaa
Cash Balance as a % of Revenues
$6,860,334
Aa
$92,004
Aa
111.6%
Aa
Institutional Framework
Up
106.1% Aaa
5 -Year Dollar Change in Fund Balance as % of Revenues
35.2%
Aaa
Cash Balance as a % of Revenues
67.6%
Aaa
5 -Year Dollar Change in Cash Balance as % of Revenues
31.9%
Aaa
Management (20%)
Institutional Framework
Aaa
Aaa
Operating History: 5 -Year Average of Operating Revenues / Operating Expenditures (x)
1.1x
Aaa
Debt and Pensions (20%)
Net Direct Debt/ Full Value (%)
1.2%
Aa
Net Direct Debt/ Operating Revenues (x)
1.0x
A
3 -Year Average of Moody's Adjusted Net Pension Liability / Full Value (%)
2.3%
A
3 -Year Average of Moody's Adjusted Net Pension Liability / Operating Revenues (x)
2.1x
A
Scorecard -Indicated Outcome
Aaa
Assigned Rating
Aaa
[11 Economy measures are based on data from the most recent year available.
[21 Notching Factors are specifically defined in the US Local Government General Obligation Debt methodolo
[31 Standardized adjustments are outlined in the GO Methodology Scorecard Inputs publication.
Source: US Census Bureau, Moody's Investors Service
Endnotes
1 Employer contributions that tread water equal the sum of current year service cost and interest on reported net pension liabilities at the start of the year,
using reported assumptions. If plan assumptions are met exactly, contributions equal to the tread water indicator will prevent the reported net pension
liabilities from growing.
5 29 April 2020 Iowa City (City of) IA- Update to credit analysis
IMOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
CO 2020 Moody's Corporation, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Moody's Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, "MOODY'S"). All rights reserved
CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. AND/OR ITS CREDIT RATINGS AFFILIATES ARE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE
CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT -LIKE SECURITIES, AND MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S
(COLLECTIVELY, "PUBLICATIONS") MAY INCLUDE SUCH CURRENT OPINIONS. MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY
NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT OR IMPAIRMENT, SEE
MOODY'S RATING SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ADDRESSED BY MOODY'S
INVESTORS SERVICE CREDIT RATINGS CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR
PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS, NON-CREDIT ASSESSMENTS ("ASSESSMENTS"), AND OTHER OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS
OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL -BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR
COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S ANALYTICS, INC. AND/UR 11S AIFILIATES, MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO
NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT
AND DO NO] PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS 1"0 PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PART ICULAR SECURITIES. MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMEN FS, OTHER OPINIONS AND
PUBLICATIONS DO NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR MOODY'S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS AND
OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLISHES ITS PUBLICATIONS WITI! THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WI FH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY
AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.
MOODY'S CREDIT RAI INGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS, AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT IN fENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND Il WOULD BE RECKLESS
AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY'S CREDIT RAFINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS OR PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT
DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR, FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY
LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT:.IMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCI I INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER
TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY
FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER; BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT
MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY ANY PERSONAS A BENCHMARK AS THAT TERM IS
DEFINED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES AND MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT COULD RESULT IN THEM BEING CONSIDERED A BENCHMARK
All Information contained herein is obtained by MOODY'S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as wet!
as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided'AS IS" without warranty of ony kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it
uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third -pony sources However,
MOODY'S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing its Publicat om
10 the extent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its directors, officers, ernplovees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim habihty to any person or entityfor any,
indirect, special, consequential, or in( dental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any
such information, even if MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or
damages, including but not limited to (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage ansmg where the relevant financial instrument s not the subject of a
particular credit rating assigned by MOODY'S
To the extent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its directors, officers, employees agents, representatives, licensors arid suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory
losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that. for the
avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the pert of, or any centurgericy within or beyond the control of; MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents,
representatives, licensors of suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information
NO WARRANTY, EXPRES OR IMPLIED, AS 101 HE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILI IY OR TITNESS FOR ANY PARI ICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY CRFDII
RATING, ASSLSSMENT, UI HER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY'S IN ANY I -ORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER
Moody's Investors Service, Inc, a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Corpoiation ("MCO"), hereby discloses that most Issuers of debt securities (including
corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody's Investors Service, Inc have, prior to assignment of ony credit rating.
agreed to pay to Moody's Investors Service, Inc for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by It fees ranging from $1,000 to approximately 52,700,000 MCO and Moody's
investors Service also maintain policies and procedures to address the independem e of Moody's Investors Service credit ratings and credit rating processes Infurrnation regarding
certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold credit ratings from Moody's Investors Seance and have also publicly
reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, Is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading "Investor Relations — Corporate Governance—
Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy "
Additional terms for Australia only Any publication into Australia of this document Is pursuant to the Australian financial Services License of MOODY'S affiliate, Moody's Investors
Service Pty Lurnted ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody's Analyfics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 363569 (as applicable) This document Is untended
to be provided only to "wholesale clients"Nithm the meaning of section 7616 of the Corporations Act 2001 By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you
represent to MOODY'S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a "wholesale client." and that neither you nor the entity YOU represent will directly or
indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to "retail clients" within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001 MOODY'S credit rating is an opinion as to
the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the Issuer, not on tha equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that Is available to retail investors
Additional term; for Japan only Moody's Japan K K ("MJKK") Is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Group Japan G -K., which Is wholly-owned by Moody's
Overseas Holdings Inc, a whoily-owned subsidiary of MCO Moody's SF Japan K,K ("MSFJ") Is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally
Recognized Statistical Rating Organization ("NRSRO"). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Nen-NRSRO Credit Ratings Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an
entity that is not a IJRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not, qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S laws. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered
with the japan Financial Services Agency and then registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No 2 and 3 respectively.
MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most Issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred
stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable') have, prior tc assignment of any credit rating, agreed Yo pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for credit ratings opinions and services
rendered by It Pecs ranging from JPY125,000 to approximately JPY250,000,000.
IgJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements.
REPORT NUMBER 1225626
29 April 2020 Iowa City (City of) IA: Update to credit analysis
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE U.S. PUBLIC FINANCE
CLIENT SERVICES
Americas
1-212-SS3-1653
Asia Pacific
852-3551-3077
Japan
81-3-5408-4100
E M E A
44-20-7772-5454
MOODY'S
INVESTORS SERVICE
29 April 2020 Iowa City (City of) IA: Update to credit analysis
Speer Financial, Inc.
INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL ADVISORS • ESTABLISHED 1954
SUITE 608 • 531 COMMERCIAL STREET • WATERLOO, IOWA 50701 • (319) 291-2077 • FAX (319) 291-8628
Investment Rating:
Moody's Investors Service ... Aaa
$12,145,000
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Johnson County, Iowa
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020
Date of Sale: May 5, 2020
Average Life: 4.082 Years
(Based on TIC)
True
Bidders* Price Maturities Rates Interest**
Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. 107.141% 2021-2026 5.000% 1.5589%
Milwaukee, Wisconsin $13,012,384.65 2027-2030 2.000% $805,315
In association with:
C.L. King & Associates WMBE
Edward Jones
Dougherty & Company, LLC
Fidelity Capital Markets
Loop Capital Markets
Crews & Associates, Inc.
Davenport & Co., L.L.C.
Vining -Sparks IBG, Limited Partnership
Duncan -Williams, Inc.
Bernardi Securities, Inc.
Oppenheimer & Co.
SumRidge Partners
Northland Securities, Inc.
Country Chub Bank.
Wintrust Investments, LLC
D.A. Davidson & Co.
Sierra Pacific Securities
Midland Securities
FMS Bonds Inc.
Commerce Bank, N.A.
First Kentucky Securities Corp.
Isaak Bond Investments, Inc.
First Southern LLC
Multi -Bank Securities Inc.
Dinosaur Securities
First Bankers' Banc Securities, Inc.
Mountainside Securities LLC
*Syndicate information is provided by the underwriter. The information contained in this report is the most current available.
**The true interest rate reflects the time value of money where dollars spent in early years have a greater weight than dollars spent in later years.
Speer Financial, Inc.
INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL ADVISORS
Page 2
UBS Financial Services
Morgan Stanley
FI -TN Financial
JP Morgan Securities 110.858% 2021-2026 5.000% 1.6554%
New York, New York $13,463,822.10 2027-2030 4.000% $891,078
Estrada Hinjosa & Company
Academy Securities
*Syndicate information is provided by the underwriter. The information contained in this report is the most current available.
**The true interest rate reflects the time value ofmoney where dollars spent in early years have a greater weight than dollars spent in later years.
True
Bidders* Price
Maturities
Rates
Interest"
Raymond James & Associates, Inc. 109.608%
2021-2027
5.000%
1.6413%
Chicago, Illinois $13,312,004.40
2028
4.000%
$869,096
2029
3.000%
2030
2.000%
UBS Financial Services
Morgan Stanley
FI -TN Financial
JP Morgan Securities 110.858% 2021-2026 5.000% 1.6554%
New York, New York $13,463,822.10 2027-2030 4.000% $891,078
Estrada Hinjosa & Company
Academy Securities
*Syndicate information is provided by the underwriter. The information contained in this report is the most current available.
**The true interest rate reflects the time value ofmoney where dollars spent in early years have a greater weight than dollars spent in later years.
Speer Financial, Inc.
City of Iowa City, Iowa
$12,145,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020
*** FINAL ***
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal
Coupon
Interest
Total P+I
Fiscal Total
06/01/2020
12/01/2020
-
256,225.00
256,225.00
06/01/2021 3,600,000.00
5.000%
256,225.00
3,856,225.00
4,112,450.00
12/01/2021
-
166,225.00
166,225.00
-
06/01/2022 1,800,000.00
5.000%
166,225.00
1,966,225.00
2,132,450.00
12/01/2022
-
121,225.00
121,225.00
06/01/2023 1,200,000.00
5.000%
121,225.00
1,321,225.00
1,442,450.00
12/01/2023
-
91,225.00
91,225.00
-
06/01/2024 805,000.00
5.000%
91,225.00
896,225.00
987,450.00
12/01/2024
-
71,100.00
71,100.00
06/01/2025 790,000.00
5.000%
71,100.00
861,100.00
932,200.00
12/01/2025 -
-
51,350.00
51,350.00
-
Call 06/01/2026 790,000.00
5.000%
51,350.00
841,350.00
892,700.00
12/01/2026 -
-
31,600.00
31,600.00
-
06/01/2027 790,000.00
2.000%
31,600.00
821,600.00
853,200.00
12/01/2027 -
-
23,700.00
23,700.00
-
06/01/2028 790,000.00
2.000%
23,700.00
813,700.00
837,400.00
12/01/2028 -
-
15,800.00
15,800.00
-
06/01/2029 790,000.00
2.000%
15,800.00
805,800.00
821,600.00
12/01/2029 -
-
7,900.00
7,900.00
06/01/2030 790,000.00
2.000%
7,900.00
797,900.00
805,800.00
Total $12,145,000.00
- $1,672,700.00
$13,817,700.00
-
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars
$49,570.00
Average Life
4.082 Years
Average Coupon
3.3744200%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)
1.6246023%
True Interest Cost (TIC)
1.5589081%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes
1.4134999%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)
1.7065083%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost
1.4054580%
Weighted Average Maturity
4.062 Years
20 Iowa City 12.145 GO No I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 5/ 5/2020 1 11:59 AM
Speer Financial, Inc.
Registered Municipal Advisor
-41'�)
Late Handouts Distributed
ITEMS TO INCLUDE ON AGENDA
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
(Date)
$12,145,000* (Subject to Adjustment per Terms of Offering) General Obligation Bonds, Series
2020
Receipt of bids.
Resolution directing sale.
NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE
CHAPTER 21 AND THE LOCAL RULES OF THE CITY.
May 5, 2020
The Finance Director of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, or his designee, met via
electronic means at 11:00 A.M., on the above date, to access electronic bids and to refer the sale
of the Bonds to the best and most favorable bidder for cash, subject to approval by the City
Council at 7:00 P.M. on the above date.
The following persons were present:
Dennis Bockenstedt, Jacklyn Fleagle, Maggie Burger, John
Murphey
-1-
This being the time and place for the opening of bids for the sale of $12,145,000*
(Subject to Adjustment per Terms of Offering) General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020, the
meeting was opened for the receipt of bids for the Bonds. The following actions were taken:
Electronic bids received were accessed and announced as follows:
Name & Address of Bidders:
(Attach List of Bidders)
Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Raymond James & Assoc., Inc., Chicago, Illinois
JP Morgan Securities New York, New York
2. The best bid was determined to be as follows:
Name & Address of Bidder: Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
True Interest Rate (as -bid): 1.5589%
Net Interest Cost (as -bid): $805,315.35
In consultation with Speer Financial, the City's Municipal Advisor, the City considered
the adjustment of the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds and each scheduled maturity
thereof in accordance with the Terms of Offering and the following actions were taken:
Final Par Amount as adjusted: $—_12 145,000.00
Purchase Price as adjusted: $ 13 012 384.65
All bids were then referred to the Council for action.
-2-
May 5, 2020
The City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, met via electronic means, an in-
person meeting being impossible or impractical to the COVID-19 pandemic, at 7:00 P.M., on the
above date. There were present Mayor Teague, in the chair, and the following named Council
Members:
Absent:
Vacant:
-3-
Council Member introduced the following Resolution entitled
"RESOLUTION DIRECTING SALE OF $12,145,000* (SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT PER
TERMS OF OFFERING) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020," and moved its
adoption. Council Member seconded the motion to adopt. The roll
was called and the vote was,
AYES:
NAYS:
Whereupon, the Mayor declared the following Resolution duly adopted:
RESOLUTION DIRECTING SALE OF $12,145,000* (SUBJECT
TO ADJUSTMENT PER TERMS OF OFFERING) GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020
WHEREAS, bids have been received for the Bonds described as follows and the best bid
received (with permitted adjustments, if any) is determined to be the following:
$12,145,000* (SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT PER TERMS OF
OFFERING) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020
Bidder:
The terms of award:
of
Final Par Amount as adjusted: $ 12 145 000.00
Purchase Price as adjusted: $ 13,012,384.65
True Interest Rate: 1.5589%
Net Interest Cost: $805,315.35
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF IOWA CITY, STATE OF IOWA:
Section 1. That the bid for the Bonds as above set out is hereby determined to be the best
and most favorable bid received and, the Bonds are hereby awarded as described above.
Section 2. That the statement of information for Bond bidders and the form of contract
for the sale of the Bonds are hereby approved and the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute
the same on behalf of the City.
Section 3. That the notice of the sale of the Bonds heretofore given and all acts of the
Clerk done in furtherance of the sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and approved.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 5th day of May, 2020.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
-5-
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF IOWA )
) SS
COUNTY OF JOHNSON )
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, do hereby certify
that attached is a true and complete copy of the portion of the records of the City showing
proceedings of the Council, and the same is a true and complete copy of the action taken by the
Council with respect to the matter at the meeting held on the date indicated in the attachment,
which proceedings remain in full force and effect, and have not been amended or rescinded in
any way; that meeting and all action thereat was duly and publicly held in accordance with a
notice of meeting and tentative agenda, a copy of which was timely served on each member of
the Council and posted on a bulletin board or other prominent place easily accessible to the
public and clearly designated for that purpose at the principal office of the Council pursuant to
the local rules of the Council and the provisions of Chapter 21, Code of Iowa, upon reasonable
advance notice to the public and media at least twenty-four hours prior to the commencement of
the meeting as required by law and with members of the public present in attendance; I further
certify that the individuals named therein were on the date thereof duly and lawfully possessed of
their respective City offices as indicated therein, that no Council vacancy existed except as may
be stated in the proceedings, and that no controversy or litigation is pending, prayed or
threatened involving the incorporation, organization, existence or boundaries of the City or the
right of the individuals named therein as officers to their respective positions.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Council hereto affixed this day of
, 2020.
City Clerk, City of Iowa City, State of Iowa
(SEAL)
01714140-1\10714-135
►3.
ITEMS TO INCLUDE ON AGENDA
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
$12,145,000* (Subject to Adjustment per Terms of Offering) General Obligation Bonds, Series
2020
Receipt of bids.
Resolution directing sale.
NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE
CHAPTER 21 AND THE LOCAL RULES OF THE CITY.
May 5, 2020
The Finance Director of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, or his designee, met via
electronic means at 11:00 A.M., on the above date, to access electronic bids and to refer the sale
of the Bonds to the best and most favorable bidder for cash, subject to approval by the City
Council at 7:00 P.M. on the above date.
The following persons were present:
Dennis Bockenstedt, Jacklyn Fleagle, Maggie Burger, John
Murphey
-1-
This being the time and place for the opening of bids for the sale of $12,145,000*
(Subject to Adjustment per Terms of Offering) General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020, the
meeting was opened for the receipt of bids for the Bonds. The following actions were taken:
1. Electronic bids received were accessed and announced as follows:
Name & Address of Bidders:
(Attach List of Bidders)
Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Raymond James & Assoc., Inc., Chicago, Illinois
JP Morgan Securities New York, New York
2. The best bid was determined to be as follows:
Name & Address of Bidder: Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
True Interest Rate (as -bid): 1.5589%
Net Interest Cost (as -bid): $805,315.35
In consultation with Speer Financial, the City's Municipal Advisor, the City considered
the adjustment of the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds and each scheduled maturity
thereof in accordance with the Terms of Offering and the following actions were taken:
Final Par Amount as adjusted: $ 12,145,000.00
Purchase Price as adjusted: $ 13,012,384.65
All bids were then referred to the Council for action.
-2-
May 5, 2020
The City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, met via electronic means, an in-
person meeting being impossible or impractical to the COVID-19 pandemic, at 7:00 P.M., on the
above date. There were present Mayor Teague, in the chair, and the following named Council
Members:
Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner
Absent: None
Vacant: None
-3-
Council Member Thomas introduced the following Resolution entitled 'RESOLUTION
DIRECTING SALE OF $12,145,000* (SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT PER TERMS OF
OFFERING) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020," and moved its adoption.
Council Member Weiner seconded the motion to adopt. The roll was called and the vote was,
AYES: Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner
VOTAW N --
Whereupon, the Mayor declared the following Resolution duly adopted:
Resolution No. 20-114
RESOLUTION DIRECTING SALE OF $12,145,000* (SUBJECT
TO ADJUSTMENT PER TERMS OF OFFERING) GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020
WHEREAS, bids have been received for the Bonds described as follows and the best bid
received (with permitted adjustments, if any) is determined to be the following:
$12,145,000* (SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT PER TERMS OF
OFFERING) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020
Bidder: Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
The terms of award:
Final Par Amount as adjusted: $ 12 145 000.00
Purchase Price as adjusted: $ 13,012,384.65
True Interest Rate: 1.5589%
Net Interest Cost: $805,315.35
M
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF IOWA CITY, STATE OF IOWA:
Section 1. That the bid for the Bonds as above set out is hereby determined to be the best
and most favorable bid received and, the Bonds are hereby awarded as described above.
Section 2. That the statement of information for Bond bidders and the form of contract
for the sale of the Bonds are hereby approved and the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute
the same on behalf of the City.
Section 3. That the notice of the sale of the Bonds heretofore given and all acts of the
Clerk done in furtherance of the sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and approved.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 5`h day of May, 2020.
ATTEST:
City derk
Ma
-5-
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF IOWA )
) SS
COUNTY OF JOHNSON )
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, do hereby certify
that attached is a true and complete copy of the portion of the records of the City showing
proceedings of the Council, and the same is a true and complete copy of the action taken by the
Council with respect to the matter at the meeting held on the date indicated in the attachment,
which proceedings remain in full force and effect, and have not been amended or rescinded in
any way; that meeting and all action thereat was duly and publicly held in accordance with a
notice of meeting and tentative agenda, a copy of which was timely served on each member of
the Council and posted on a bulletin board or other prominent place easily accessible to the
public and clearly designated for that purpose at the principal office of the Council pursuant to
the local rules of the Council and the provisions of Chapter 21, Code of Iowa, upon reasonable
advance notice to the public and media at least twenty-four hours prior to the commencement of
the meeting as required by law and with members of the public present in attendance; I further
certify that the individuals named therein were on the date thereof duly and lawfully possessed of
their respective City offices as indicated therein, that no Council vacancy existed except as may
be stated in the proceedings, and that no controversy or litigation is pending, prayed or
threatened involving the incorporation, organization, existence or boundaries of the City or the
right of the individuals named therein as officers to their respective positions.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Council ereto affixed thi day f ay, 2020.
Cityity CCl rk, City of Iowa ity, State of low
(SEAL)
01714140-1\10714-135
$12,145,000 '
City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020
Best AON Bidder: Best AON TIC:
Robert Baird 1.558908 %
Coupon
5.000%
5.000%
5.000%
5.000%
5.000%
5.000%
2.000%
2.000%
2.000%
2.000%
SpeerAuction Interest Cost Calculations
for informational purposes onl
Serial/
Principal
Sinker/
Due Amount '
Term
Jun 1, 2021 $3,600,000
Serial
Jun 1, 2022 $1,800,000
Serial
Jun 1, 2023 $1,200,000
Serial
Jun 1, 2024 $805,000
Serial
Jun 1, 2025 $790,000
Serial
Jun 1, 2026 $790,000
Serial
Jun 1, 2027 $790,000
Serial
Jun 1, 2028 $790,000
Serial
Jun 1, 2029 $790,000
Serial
Jun 1, 2030 $790,000
Serial
Purchase Price: $13,012,384.65
Spread: None Entered
Time Submitted: May 5, 2020 at
11:55:23 AM EDT
Coupon
5.000%
5.000%
5.000%
5.000%
5.000%
5.000%
2.000%
2.000%
2.000%
2.000%
SpeerAuction Interest Cost Calculations
for informational purposes onl
ue Size
$12 145,000
Toss Interest
$1,672,700.00
lus Discount/(Less Premium)
867 384.65
otal Interest Cost
$805,315.35
rue Interest Rate
1.558908%
otsl Bond Years
49 570.00
vera a Life
4.082 Years
FSrm: Robert Baird
'Preliminary, subject to change
The foregoing bid as submitted or as revised post sale, if appropriate, was accepted and the
Securities sold by action of this Board, and receipt is hereby acknowledged of the good faith
Deposit, if any, which is being held in accordance with the terms of the annexed Official Notice
of Sale.
Signature:
Title: Mayor
$1:
20:
ITEMS TO INCLUDE ON AGENDA
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
Bonds, Series
i3.
May 5, 2020
The Finance Director of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, or his designee, met via
electro is means at 11:00 A.M., on the above date, to access electr nic bids and to refer the sale
of the B ds to the best and most favorable bidder for cash, subj t to approval by the City
Council at :00 P.M. on the above date.
The following persons were present:
- 1 -
This being the time and place for the opening of bids for the sale of $12,145,000*
t to Adjustment per Terms of Offering) General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020, the
was opened for the receipt of bids for the Bonds. The following actjons were taken:
1. Vectronic bids received were accessed and announced as
Name & Address of Bidders:
(Attach List
2. The best bid was determined to be as
Name & Address of Bidder:
True Interest Rate (as -bid):
Net Interest Cost (as -bid):
In consultation with Speer
the adjustment of the aggregate
thereof in accordance with the lei
Final Par Amount
Purchase Price
the City's Municipal Advisor, the City considered
)unt of the Bonds and each scheduled maturity
ging and the following actions were taken:
All bids were then relfred to the Council for action.
-2-
May 5, 2020
�Ihe City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, met via electronic means, an in-
person eeting being impossible or impractical to the COVID-19 pandemic, at 7:00 P.M., on the
above da . There were present Mayor in the chair, and the following named
Council hers: )
Absent:
Vacant:
***A***
GLIB
Council Member introduced the following Resolution entitled
"RESOLUTION DIRECTING SALE OF $12,145,000* (SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT PER
TE OF OFFERING) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 202 and moved its
adoption. Council Member seconded the mQtiion adopt. The roll
was called d the vote was,
I:\
NAYS:
Whereupon, the Mayor
RESOLUTION DIRECI;j
TO ADJUSTMENT PER
OBLIGATION BONDS)
Resolution duly adopted:
,E OF $12,145,000* (SUBJECT
OF OFFERING) GENERAL
2020
WHEREAS, bids have been y6ceived f the Bonds described as follows and the best bid
received (with permitted adjustor s, if any) is Nermined to be the following:
$12,145,000) (SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT PER TERMS OF
OFFERING NERAL OBLIGATIOIJ BONDS, SERIES 2020
Bidder:
of
The terms of award:
Final Par Am/unt as adjusted: $
Purchase Price as adjusted: $
True Infrest Rate: %
Net Interest Cost: $
-4-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF IOWA CITY, STATE OF IOWA:
Sec on 1. That the bid for the Bonds as above set out is hereby determined to be the best
and most fav able bid received and, the Bonds are hereby awarded as described above.
Section 2. at the statement of information for Bond bidders and the fo of contract
for the sale of the B ds are hereby approved and the Mayor and Clerk are au orized to execute
the same on behalf of e City.
Section 3.That the otice of the sale of the Bonds heretofore en and all acts of the
Clerk done in furtherance o e sale of the Bonds are hereby ratifie and approved.
PASSED AND APPRO D this 5h day of May, 2020
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-5-
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF IOWA
) SS
COUNTY OF
I, the and 'gned City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, State of wa, do hereby certify
that attached is a tru and complete copy of the portion of the records f the City showing
proceedings of the Co cil, and the same is a true and complete co of the action taken by the
Council with respect to a matter at the meeting held on the dat dicated in the attachment,
which proceedings remain ' full force and effect, and have n een amended or rescinded in
any way; that meeting and action thereat was duly and p licly held in accordance with a
notice of meeting and tentativ genda, a copy of which timely served on each member of
the Council and posted on a bulfbtin board or other pro ent place easily accessible to the
public and clearly designated for t purpose at the cipal office of the Council pursuant to
the local rules of the Council and th rovlsions of apter 21, Code of Iowa, upon reasonable
advance notice to the public and medi at least enty-four hours prior to the commencement of
the meeting as required by law and with em of the public present in attendance; I further
certify that the individuals named therein w on the date thereof duly and lawfully possessed of
their respective City offices as indicated n, that no Council vacancy existed except as may
be stated in the proceedings, and that no ntroversy or litigation is pending, prayed or
threatened involving the incorporation rganizat on, existence or boundaries of the City or the
right of the individuals named they ' as officers tb their respective positions.
WITNESS my hand and a seal of the CounciJ\hereto affixed this day of
, 2020.
City Clerk,N City of Iowa City, State of Iowa
(SEAL)
01714140-1\10714-135
Item Number: 14.
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
��.:.
-4
in � at
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution adopting Iowa City's FY21 Annual Action Plan which is a sub -part
of Iowa City's 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan (City Steps 2025).
Prepared By: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Reviewed By: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: Iowa City has been allocated $697,678 in CDBG and $511,786 in HOME
funds for FY21 which will be used in conjunction with program income and
uncommitted or returned funds. The Annual Action Plan was completed by a
consultant for a total of $4,485 as part of the contract for City Steps 2025
which will be paid through federal administrative funds.
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: The Housing and Community Development Commission
recommended approval by a vote of 7-0 at their April 16, 2020 meeting.
Attachments: 2-20-2020 HCDC Minutes
3-3-2020 Staff Memo to HCDC
3-12-2020 HCDC Minutes
Resolution
Appendix B - CDBG & HOME allocation
Executive Summary:
The City receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment
Partnerships Program (HOME) funds annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). To receive these funds, the City must submit an Annual Action Plan,
describing the projects and activities proposed for funding. The complete draft FY21 Annual
Action Plan is available at www.icgov.org/actionplan (pl80-217 of City Steps 2025) and a
summary of the funded activities is attached to the resolution as Appendix B.
A public meeting and resolution considering approval of the FY21 Annual Action Plan, which formally
allocates the City's CDBG and HOME funds, will be held at the City Council meeting on May 5, 2020.
Background /Analysis:
The City estimates it will have more than $1.4 million in CDBG and HOME funds available for
eligible projects or entities that provide housing, jobs and/or services to low- and moderate -
income residents. Both CDBG and HOME funding increased about 6% from FY20 with FY21
allocations at $697,678 for CDBG and $522,786 for HOME.
Applications for competitive CDBG and HOME funds were received at the end of January.
HCDC held a question/answer session with applicants on February 20th and formulated funding
recommendations on March 12th. Minutes for both meetings are attached.
Staff has expressed concerns about two project applications which are outlined in the attached
staff memo to HCDC dated March 3, 2020. The first concern is related to the federal CDBG
"reversion of assets" provision which states that if the funding recipient moves to another
location or discontinues providing services within five years after project completion, CDBG funds
must be repaid when grant funding exceeds $25,000 with non-federal funds.
The City has recently funded $109,000 in facility improvements for Little Creations Academy and
HCDC has recommended an additional $78,000 in FY21 for a total investment of $187,000.
While staff supports Little Creations Academy's mission and believes they can successfully
complete this project, the mortgage securing the CDBG funds is with the building's owner, the
church, not the childcare entity. If Little Creations Academy stops providing services or moves for
any reason, it would be difficult to recapture the invested CDBG funds and the City would be
required to repay HUD the $187,000 with non-federal funds. The City has had a CDBG assisted
childcare close within that 5 -year period subject to the reversion of assets. In that situation the
mortgage securing the funds was on the building that housed the childcare center, a different
building then the affiliated church.
The second staff concern was related to the application from Unlimited Abilities. This agency has
no prior experience using federal CDBG and HOME funding and has had compliance issues with
rental properties in the past. Staff again supports their mission but has concerns about their
capacity to comply with HOME regulations for the duration of the period of affordability, which
would be 15 years based on HCDC's funding recommendation of $60,000. If the units do not
maintain affordability and all other federal requirements for this term, funds would need to be
repaid to HUD and would not be available for reuse for affordable housing in the community.
Based on the HCDC recommendations, the Annual Action Plan was drafted by Mullin and
Lonergan Associates as part of the City Steps 2025 consulting contract. HCDC reviewed and
recommended approval of the draft at their April 16, 2020 meeting. The draft plan was made
available for public comment on April 3, 2020. At the time of this submittal the City received no
comments. The Annual Action Plan is due to HUD by May 15, 2020.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2-20-2020 HCDC Minutes
3-3-2020 Staff Memo to HCDC
3-12-2020 HCDC Minutes
Resolution
Appendix B
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2020 — 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
FINAL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Aguilar, Megan Alter, Matt Drabek, Charlie Eastham, Lyn Dee
Kealey, John McKinstry, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron
MEMBERS ABSENT: V Fixmer-Oraiz
STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly
OTHERS PRESENT: Jake Kundert, Susan Craig, Ally Hanten, Simon Andrew, Michelle Heinz,
Shirley Tramble, Whitney Stevenson, Lucy Barker, Jason Barker, Ron
Berg, Barbara Vinograde, Becci Reedus, Heath Brewer, Roger Goedken,
Ashley Gillett, Carla Phelps, Missie Forbes, Ronda Lipsius, Delaney
Dixon, Daleta Thurness, Michelle Cole, Lindsay Glenn, Chelsey Markle,
Michelle Lloyd, Brian Loring, Christi Regan, Tony Smith, Mark Sertterh,
Nicki Ross, Amanda Bloomer, Adam Robinson, Sara Barron
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 8-0 HCDC recommends to City Council the following FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies budget
totaling $650,000 and preserving $25,000 for Emerging Aid to Agencies:
CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank
$68,220
Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic
$24,611
4 C's Community Coord. Child Care
$24,610
Neighborhood Centers of JC
$54,142
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
$49,220
Shelter House
$83,674
Prelude Behavioral Services
$39,376
Big Brothers / Big Sisters
$24,610
Rape Victim Advocacy Program
$24,610
United Action for Youth
$32,485
Pathways Adult Day Health Center
$24,610
Inside Out Reentry Community
$39,376
HACAP
$24,610
Table to Table
$30,516
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
$24,610
Arc of Southeast Iowa
$19,688
Free Lunch Program
$17,719
Horizons, A Family Service Alliance
$43,313
Total Request:
$650,000
By a vote of 8-0 HCDC recommends to City Council that the City continue to support the 12
recommendations in the Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Report, with the additional
recommendation that the City assist with developing an acquisition plan to transition a private
manufactured housing park into a resident -owned cooperative to prepare for future possible acquisitions.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 2 of 18
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Padron called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Anthony Smith (Little Creations Academy) wanted to comment on the application process. He has an
issue with the ranking criteria that looks at how much of a project's budget is CDBG or HOME compared
to the amount the agency has brought in. He believes there are agencies that want to be funded but may
not receive funds if this is their only resource to do a project because of the point system. They don't have
an equal chance to get CDBG funding. Smith asked the Commission to consider changing the ranking
system so agencies that can't get funding from other resources could still be funded with CDBG.
PRESENTATION ABOUT THE CENSUS 2020:
Susan Craig (Complete Count Census Committee) introduced herself and noted that the committee is
composed of representatives from Iowa City, Johnson County, North Liberty, Coralville and several
nonprofits. Lehmann is also on this committee. The committee is charged to work with people who they
may have a hard time reaching with the census. Craig showed a video that talked about the census.
From the video: the 2020 Census is written in the constitution and data is used for services such as fire
stations, schools, and clinics. Where there are more people there are more needs for public services.
That's why the Census is used by the government to make funding decisions each year. It's also used by
nonprofits to inform services, by businesses to create jobs, and even by students for school projects.
Understanding how the population changes helps us shape communities across the country for the
better. How does the 2020 Census affect representation? There are 435 seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Those get distributed to the 50 states by population and an accurate census response
helps decide that. How can a person take the 2020 census? In March 2020 everyone in the country will
receive invitation to answer a simple questionnaire and there are three ways to respond; (1) to complete it
online, (2) to call by phone, (3) to send in by mail. For those that do not respond a census taker from the
community will follow up. Is your 2020 census data safe? After sending your census response, your
personal information is kept safe. By law, it can't be shared with any other government agency, law
enforcement or landlord. So take your 2020 census with peace of mind.
Craig next emphasized a couple of things. Number one is how important the census is particularly to the
people in this room who need funding for a lot of good causes. Craig stated for every person that Iowa
does not count in the census, that's $28,000 they won't get from the federal government over the span of
10 years. If we do not count 1/101" of 1 % of the population of Iowa, over 10 years, we will lose $90 million,
$9 million a year. And the federal funds are so important to keeping the support services at the level that
they are in Johnson County.
Craig encouraged everyone to please take their census, encourage everyone they know to take the
census. Regarding the timeline, between March 12 and March 20 people will get an invitation in the mail
and it can be completed online or by calling the telephone number provided. If someone hasn't responded
by March 26, between the 26th and April 3, they will receive a reminder. If someone has not responded
by April 8, that next week, they will be sent another reminder that includes the paper questionnaire. A final
reminder will be sent between April 20 and April 27 and on May 1, enumerators start knocking on doors. If
you know of anyone who is looking for a part time job in Johnson County, the pay scale is going to be $21
an hour, go to 2020census.gov and apply.
Lehmann added that people who do not speak English can take the census over the phone in over 40
languages. There are also materials in different languages for a broad reach across the communities.
Alter asked if there was a one-page brochure that outlines the non -English-speaking opportunities for
enumerators needed for different languages. Lehmann confirmed there was a large need, but wasn't
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 3 of 18
aware of such resources. Generally the City looks for Arabic, Spanish and French speakers because
those are the largest foreign language populations. Mandarin is also a large population in Iowa City
Craig reiterated everyone should fill out the census, she acknowledged there is a lot of fear these days
associated with giving the government information. She confirmed there is no citizenship question on the
census and that no one will ask for that kind of information. So, there is no worry and it is totally
confidential for 72 years, after 72 years, the National Archives releases census form information.
DISCUSS FY21 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES (A2A) FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Lehmann noted Social Justice Racial Equity Grant awards came out and those were in the Commission
packets. He stated Aid to Agencies budget was $675,000 for this year and that up to 5% of that can fund
Emerging agencies, but that is up to the discretion of HCDC for recommendation. Staff recommends
increasing Emerging funds slightly up to $25,000 then having $650,000 be for Legacy. Staff also provided
scores and recommended funding as was discussed so the Commission can find requests sorted by staff
score and alphabetically. Staff determined funding by providing full funding for everything above a score
of 75, below that took off $1,000, and lower scoring agencies had more funds reduced to account for the
percentage of the requested budget that was fulfilled and also total dollar amounts as well.
Alter asked about the demarcation line of 75, can Lehmann talk about what brought staff to that decision.
Lehmann stated it was based on a relatively simple gradient from full funding to less than full funding, and
they chose 75 because it fulfilled that need. It isn't a magic number.
Padron noted if the Commission follows that, then they only have 4% to the emerging agencies. If they
move the 75 up to 80 as a cutoff score then they would have more for emerging agencies. Lehmann
confirmed that is correct and noted the maximum for Emerging agencies at 5% of the budget is $33,750.
Padron would like to discuss scores because she has questions and thinks it is not perfect. She is most
concerned with Shelter House because according to the priorities shelter is number one but it scored low.
Eastham stated Shelter House received a score of 87.5 and staff is recommending full funding. Lehmann
said they scored it in the top quarter. Padron feels that score is low and in the persons to benefit category
it only scored two points and in equity scored 2.5. Lehmann acknowledged as they went through the
scoring they saw tweaks that are needed, especially equity needs to be reconfigured, it currently is based
on the percentage of nonwhite, Hispanic and persons with disabilities served. Lehmann stated it was not
calibrated properly when set up, and they realize that now. Others such as community need are written
where the full score of 15 is was almost impossible to get, so 5 was pretty much taken off the score of
everyone right off the bat and that's something else that needs to change in the next iteration. He
acknowledged it's not a perfect scoring system.
Eastham sees an easy recommended change to each agency from the Staff's recommendations which
would be to reduce the amount requested by each of these 18 agencies by about $570 a piece and that
would bring almost everyone up to what they requested. His concerns are with Table to Table and the
Free Lunch Program, food insecurity programs, he would prefer to have them at what they actually
requested. He looked at the Horizons application request carefully and personally doesn't see the
rationale for reducing their request by 10 plus percent. Eastham would ask the Commission again to just
reduce every request by about $570 which would bring the total to $650,000 and is a very small reduction
for each agency. He is not concerned about the scoring differences.
Alter stated one of her concerns is the applicants know that there's a scoring system and they're trying to
fill out the applications as best they can to obtain the highest score believing that that's how they're going
to get their money. If that is true, the Commission needs to make sure they're doing things in the best way
possible to give out funding. She is concerned about saying they need to tweak a score in order to justify
a funding decision. As they talk about modifying rankings, or how scores are applied, it needs to be made
clear to everybody what the criteria are, either they're going by staff recommendations and by a score or
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 4 of 18
they need to clearly state to everyone this is the guidelines for the Commission to make final decisions in
conversation so that it's not a matter of this is what the score is end of story.
Padron apologized if she wasn't clear, she is not trying to tweak the score so that Shelter House scored
higher she was just concerned that the equity points were not clear and are not fair to every agency.
McKinstry noticed that agencies conferred with one another this year before making requests and they all
kind of agreed, in some way shape or form, about the amount of requests, which is new and hasn't
happened before and he thinks it is a good thing. He respects the joint effort to give some scoring that's
objective because may have been too subjective before, making recommendations was not as much on
information and more based on how they felt that evening or something. He would like to weigh the joint
agency recommendations together as being important, because who understands their relationships with
each other and their own needs better than the people who were sitting around that table. McKinstry
stated that no objective criteria are ever going to be perfect but they can't just throw them out the window.
Alter agrees and feels it is just to make sure that there's a clear understanding among the group, staff and
the agencies that these scores are not in stone and there is going to be discussion and yet, they want this
to be sort of a strong fundamental baseline so that there is that objective criteria as best as possible.
McKinstry stated that what Eastman suggested is closer to weighing the agency requests that were made
jointly. Staff isn't far off from that, but it does significantly cut some agencies and $500 is important.
Eastham noted these are staff scores are not his scores so if they averaged all nine of them together,
they probably would come up with a noticeable different score ranking for the for these agencies. He
recommends lowering staff recommendations by $572.22 per agency.
Padron questioned taking the same amount from each agency noting it is not the same taking $500 from
the Free Lunch Program when they are only asking for $16,000 and taking $500 from Comm Unity which
is asking for $69,000. Eastham agreed and said if they want to pay a lot of attention to percent changes
than yes that is true, however in his experience he would not object to a reduction of $570 for any of
these requested amounts. He is open to hearing other suggestions or proposals as well.
Padron suggested a percentage from each agency.
Drabek said it would be roughly 1 % for each agency. Lehmann calculated what it would be per agency at
a 1.56% reduction. Kubly noted from a staff perspective it would be great for the allocations be rounded at
least to the nearest dollar. Padron noted if they used 1.5% for agency they would reach the $650,000.
McKinstry asked if there were a greater difference between the requests, the total of the requests and the
total allocation by the Council, he would be more inclined to put more emphasis on the scores. But
because he feels it's close, he would not object to a percentage reduction like this.
Drabek agreed his initial preference would be for that system of an equal percentage but questioned if
there are any problems that would cause. Lehmann pointed out that those agencies that requested more
money will now have a larger reduction and a lot of those are higher scoring agencies. But at the end of
the day it's the Commission's decision.
Padron opened the discussion for comment from anybody in the public.
Mark Sertterh (Shelter House) stated he doesn't object to the scores or the percentage reduction but
questioned if the scores don't have any weight on the final recommendations. Eastham stated the scores
are close enough together that there's not a significant difference between scores and that these are staff
scores and not Commissioner's scores. Sertterh is asking for clarification for moving forward in the next
couple of years and if scores of 65 and 93 are close enough. He is not disagreeing with the amounts, just
questioning the scores.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 5 of 18
Alter reiterated this is what she was trying to say that moving forward they need to make sure there is
some clarity about the significance of the scores. There is a larger question of how are scores being used
so everybody understands.
Eastham suggested in the future to compare Commissioner average scores and staff scores to be sure.
McKinstry also noted if there's a bigger discrepancy between what the requests are and what money they
have to allocate and if they had to cut significant amounts, percentage wise, they would be looking more
carefully at the scores to decide where the cuts would have to be. But since it's closer this year, and
because they have the agency's conferring with one another to begin with, he is confident with this.
Becci Reedus (CommUnity Crisis Center/Food Bank) stated she agrees that this looks good and doesn't
think it matters a whole lot and 1 % is probably an equitable way and everybody can suffer a little bit.
However she writes grants toward a target and it feels like every time they come here they don't know the
target, it moves a little bit. It worked out fine this year but what would have happened if $300,000 more
had been asked for and the Commission started moving things around based on percentages and things
like that. Do scores matter, do you want to get rid of the scores, do the scores not work. She feels those
things need to be decided before the Commission starts distributing money. Again, this year it all worked
out but it could be different if agencies requested $300,000 more. She noted the agencies and coalition
are willing to help in any way they can but encourages that they communicate the way in which the
scores can be met, if its staff recommendation, if it's a Commission recommendation, ahead of time.
McKinstry noted they had a better conversation this past year between agencies and the City and the
Commission and the key is to continue the conversation and keep the channels of communication open,
starting a little earlier in the year in terms of budgeting to have that conversation, and trusting the process,
not necessarily just the scores on the objective side of things, but the process of you telling us next year if
the scoring system doesn't make any sense, or whatever.
Alter noted it sounds like some of it is in the interim, before the Commission scores again next year, that
they make decisions about how this works, and then communicate to the agencies in conversation. This
year they ran into having a conversation at the same time as having to allocate money or make decisions
and that's highly problematic. She feels they have moved forward in productive ways since that time, but
now it comes to being able to clearly say what are the expectations to reach certain scores and it's
something that they can work on over the course of the year.
Reedus noted this happened last year too, the scores didn't matter because the funding started at the low
priority, moved up to middle and high priority, so it didn't matter. There was a scoring sheet attached to
the application but they could have written a quicker application because it really didn't matter. Reedus
noted she will always strive to try and give the best information, give all the information they can and
maybe they can go through some of the recommendations and read them and give feedback.
Lehmann noted that staff and the Commission has gone through robust processes so far and when they
make decisions, they have to be willing to stand by the process they've made, which happens sometimes
but not all the time. So, as the Commission makes decisions through any new process, as they have
conversations, there has to be a will to follow through with the decisions they make. From the staff
perspective that's important; the Commission can write a perfect policy and Council can adopt it, but if the
Commission doesn't follow that policy 100%, then there is no point. He agrees with Reedus and Alter, that
a lot of what they want is predictability because as an agency without predictability it's impossible to plan.
McKinstry asked if the agencies would be getting together again in the coming year and making a joint
recommendation. Reedus confirmed they will, they have meetings scheduled and are going to have
regular meeting scheduled so they can put it on the agenda.
Brian Loring (Neighborhood Centers) wanted to thank the Commission because he knows last year was a
big deal, they left the room in January having a conversation about scarcity and feeling pitted against one
another and this Commission actually went ahead and made a bold request to Council that probably
wasn't easy to do. He just wanted to say thank you to the Commission for doing that.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 6 of 18
Alter moved to recommend the following FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies budget to City Council
totaling $650,000 and preserving $25,000 for Emerging Aid to Agencies:
CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank
$68,220
Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic
$24,611
4 C's Community Coord. Child Care
$24,610
Neighborhood Centers of JC
$54,142
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
$49,220
Shelter House
$83,674
Prelude Behavioral Services
$39,376
Big Brothers / Big Sisters
$24,610
Rape Victim Advocacy Program
$24,610
United Action for Youth
$32,485
Pathways Adult Day Health Center
$24,610
Inside Out Rentry Community
$39,376
HACAP
$24,610
Table to Table
$30,516
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
$24,610
Arc of Southeast Iowa
$19,688
Free Lunch Program
$17,719
Horizons, A Family Service Alliance
$43,313
Total Request:
$650,000
Aguilar seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
QUESTION/ANSWER SESSION FOR FY21 APPLICATIONS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME), AND EMERGING A2A
PROGRAMS.
Lehmann noted for CDBG/Home currently they have $448,000 HOME and around $94,000 CDBG for
next year. They received $653,767 in competitive CDBG and HOME funding requests. Staff prepared
ranking sheets and shared the allocations from the past three years. They also received the funding
amount from HUD, so for the upcoming fiscal year, in total, there are $697,678 in CDBG and $511,786 in
HOME which is slightly higher than they expected. Lehmann feels they might be able to bump up the
CDBG amount but the HOME that they had initially planned on was actually an aggressive amount so the
$448,000 is the same. Potentially HCDC could go up to $105,000 in CDBG for the competitive allocation.
Staff scored points based on the ranking sheet for CDBG/HOME as they did for Aid to Agencies, though
HCDC is must still do its own rankings as well. Staff's ranking sheet and a staff report for each applicant
and criteria were included in the packet which explains how staff scored applications. Lehmann stated
they may notice that there are duplicative applications and the reason staff had them submit multiple
applications this year was that in situations where there are multiples of one kind of activity with separate
funding sources, such as multiple acquisitions, breaking them into individual projects makes it easier for
the Commission to make funding decisions. Or example, Successful Living needs $48,000 to buy a
house, Habitat needs $30,000 for a house, and while that was known in the past, staff wanted that split
out more clearly. Lehmann stated the Commission will also notice that where there are duplicative
applications, they score differently because the timing is off on them by a little bit. For example with the
South District applications one project would be completed earlier, so the later one lost some points for
that. Lehmann included the rationale behind all of this and noted the Commission may not use the same
rationale as they go through their ranking process it's just a method to try and prioritize funds.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 7 of 18
Lehmann also asked while the Commission is making allocations next month to consider projects of more
than $50,000 first and then go into the rankings or however it is decided. This meeting is to ask any
questions of staff or the agencies to help make ranking and funding decisions.
Alter asked for clarification on the sheet Lehmann distributed, CHDO is listed for $24,000 and then under
Little Creations it said a minimum of $30,000, is that because it is the minimum project size for public
facilities. Lehmann confirmed the minimum project size for public facilities is $30,000 and the cap is set
higher to make sure the projects are making a more substantial difference.
Eastham noted he reviewed the Little Creations Academy application and stated his scoring will be
significantly higher than the staff scoring, he will score them in the 80s or so. One big difference is how he
assesses the project differently than staff for project leveraging of other financial resources. The applicant
notes money from the church that hosts the site and money from First Presbyterian Church in prior years,
which doesn't necessarily reduce the cost of this project. However, it is an indication of other financial
resources that are supporting the daycare center. This is a daycare center for low income families and
there's no other source of income to operate or capitalize the daycare center rather than public sources or
daycare fees and daycare fees for low income families can't be increased to increase leverage because
the idea is to have low fees. He also believes staff scored low in the terms of project completion and
capacity and he will score higher because the applicant is in the process of completing the previous
allocation. Eastham reiterated this is a center that's targeting very low-income childcare for very low-
income families and is something the Commission needs to support.
Lehmann commented briefly to the point regarding leverage, that's been a discussion before and he
based his scoring off what percentage was funds and to go to Smith's point at the beginning of the
meeting that may be something the Commission wants to explore next funding cycle. Eastman noted
leveraging as for this project, this center, is a much different than leveraging for some of the group home
projects, or some of the other applications too, it's just a different financial picture.
Alter noted that when she first came onto the Commission she questioned if it is a good thing that they're
able to bring in more money and yet then doesn't that send a certain message of if they can bring in
money from other funding resources, then why aren't they. Why should the Commission give them more
money when there may be agencies that can't bring in any money? It's a larger question about need and
allocation. There are many sides, there are the ways in which this is beneficial, as well as the ways that
maybe on a project by project basis and we have to understand the context of the agency, and what their
resources truly are balanced against their need. Alter would appreciate having more of a discussion about
that particular area because it's never been completely clear to her how it works.
Padron noted that with emerging agencies fundraising takes so much time and effort and these are small
agencies and sometimes they don't have the capacity to have a staff person write grants or go out and
fundraise. It is different for the legacy agencies, they have staff and more resources. The agencies could
note that don't receive money from other sources but may have volunteers that are donating hours and
reaching out to the community and consider other thing other than money.
Lehmann noted that some of this discussion should be brought up as they are looking at next year's
application process. For tonight, while the agencies are here, were there any questions the Commission
had on the applications. They could discuss agency by agency or Commissioner by Commissioner.
Padron suggested agency by agency and any Commissioner can speak up.
Eastham stated for group home applications, Successful Living and United Abilities are both supporting
group homes trying to expand their operation. He would like to ask them if they would comment a little bit
more about what the need they see now for additional group home rooms or group home beds.
Shirley Tramble (Unlimited Abilities) founded Unlimited Abilities about two and a half years ago to help
individuals with chronic mental illnesses. She had been doing this work about 15 years and has seen a
growing need in the services that they provide. She acknowledged on the online application they score
low and feels the scoring should be looked at more thoroughly because they don't have the experience
handling City funds, but as a new agency how do you get the experience if you never get a chance?
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 8 of 18
Unlimited Abilities has so much to offer in the community. Right now every home they have they lease
and take all the risk if there's damages. They will do great things for the community because within
almost three years of being in Johnson County, they've served almost 90 clients, and that's not even
counting their outreach clients, just the clients that are staying in the group home.
Lehmann asked in terms of need, how has Tramble seen the transition to the managed care
organizations affecting them, because he noticed some recent projects have had issues filling units, and
doesn't know if that's a demand issue where there aren't enough clients or a MCO transition issue where
there's no longer the funds to pay for it. Perhaps someone from Successful Living could speak to that.
Roger Goedken (Successful Living) noted that its more due to lack of staffing, they have seen an
increase in demand for services for the mentally ill population.
Tramble added she really loves what she does and would appreciate some support so she can continue
doing what she loves to do.
Eastham commented that from Unlimited Abilities application, their income targeting is good, less than
30% of AMI but looking at the leveraging question, staff scored fairly low on that because of the relative
low amount or nonfederal funds. His question are there other funds that the agency could apply for and
receive, or does she think they are not going to be able to receive any additional money from other
sources. Tramble stated they will not receive any additional funding because they're a newer agency, just
been in business two full years, and it's hard within the first couple years as a nonprofit to get funding
because everything is allocated to the agencies who've been established for a while.
Lehmann asked if Unlimited Abilities had Day Hab funding. Tramble replied they do not use Day Hab
funding now without but hope in the future, probably 2021, starting a Day Hab program because she is
seeing a big need for that currently they are just doing residential and community.
Michelle Lloyd (Systems Unlimited) stated the reason they asked for money was to build a fully accessible
house. The people with intellectual disabilities are aging and that's something that's different because as
a lot of you know not too long -ago people with intellectual disabilities didn't get to the age where they
needed accessible housing. However, now they are seeing they need to have more accessible housing
and in this town especially, it's really hard to find something to buy that is fully accessible.
Lehmann asked if they have land already. Lloyd confirmed they did. Lehmann asked in terms of moving
forward, could she talk about what it would look like if they weren't awarded full funding, how would they
approach construction, did they have a plan prior to applying for these funds, etc. Lloyd replied that they
didn't have a lot of discussion about it until they started filling out the grant but any funds that they didn't
get from the City they would probably do a mortgage for which would be a construction loan.
Carla Phelps (Successful Living) spoke about the need for additional people, they always have a long
waiting list. She noted it's a hard population sometimes to capture because when someone is chronically
mentally ill without any resources and often unmedicated it is hard to keep track of where these folks are
and they have to have experienced people doing it and their waiting list is around 20 people. The
homeless, whether they're homeless or they're in and out of the emergency department or in and out of
the shelter or wherever they happen to be, they never go away really. They have talked it over and feel
that a lot of it is due to the closure of the facilities around Iowa. There are very sick people out there.
Eastman next asked to hear comments from Pastor Smith about the Little Creations application.
Anthony Smith (Little Creations Academy) stated they originally made this request because their center is
in need of renovation in the kitchen because they serve hot meals to the children and the equipment that
they are currently using is an electric stove with no hood. Additionally the range they have can't handle
the capacity of what they do on a daily basis so they need to upgrade their equipment to commercial
equipment. With the current funds that they had received, they were able to purchase a commercial
freezer and a commercial refrigerator. They still need a range, hood and a commercial dishwasher that
also does sterilization because in daycare they have to have some sort of sterilization.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 9 of 18
Lehmann asked if that kitchen is exclusively used for the childcare or is it also used for church functions
as well. Smith stated every now and then they do use it but because the daycare has expanded the way
it has it has limited the ability to use the lower level of the church now. Lehmann stated they will have to
keep track of the amount that the kitchen is used for the daycare versus the church, because they can't
use federal funds on religious uses, they need to apportion it by time. So there is a chance that the ratio
of federal and nonfederal funds might have to change from what's in the application, if it's 8% of the time,
then it's about right. But if it's more than 8% of the time federal funds couldn't be used as much. Smith
said they use that kitchen every day for eight hours a day, Monday through Friday. The church would only
use it on a on an event basis, which could be once every six months or something like that, not a lot.
Lehmann said they will just have to document that if awarded funds, but it shouldn't be a problem when
the church uses it. Smith also noted there is a second refrigerator and that is designated for the church
with water and juices dedicated for church purpose.
Padron noted the total amount that the Commission has right now for the emerging agencies is $25,000
and Little Creations Academy is requesting $78,000. Lehmann clarified they are requesting that amount
of CDBG funds. Padron still wondered if Little Creations did not get fully funded would they still be able to
do some of the work they want to do. Smith responded that yes they could do some of the work but
would not be able to finish the project. Lehmann noted that Little Creations has a good scope of work laid
out as to what the work would cost in their application.
Smith added that on the previous project they had some difficulties with a general contractor, and they
are no longer using that general contractor but that is why they had such a delay to finish the project.
Smith noted that most of the contractors they reached out to would not work with them but they finally
found a contractor that they believe would do the work expeditiously. He wanted to make sure the
Commission was aware of this since that's part of the points and didn't want to get hacked for that too.
Padron moved on to questions for the applications for emerging agencies. Lehmann noted there are five
applications for emerging agencies. There is $25,000 in the budget and $49,288 in requests. He stated
they received two applications from Successful Living that total more than the $15,000 maximum awards,
and the minimum award amount is $5,000.
Lehmann briefly described each application. Grow Johnson County is requesting $10,000 for its FY21
season and they were funded last year. Houses into Homes is doing an inventory management project for
just over $5,400. Successful Living has a snow and mow application for $9,200 and a software
application for $13, 350 and Unlimited Abilities as an operations application for $11,300.
Eastham asked if the Houses to Homes could talk about if there's been any change in what they're seeing
for need for applications since they submitted the application.
Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes) commented on if they have seen a change in need in the one month
since they submitted their application and in February, they've had 20 referrals or requests. Two of those
were repeats from different agencies, but the need does not seem to have changed.
Eastham asked for an estimate of what dollar amount is for furniture that they're supplying to people or if
they have tried to calculate that. L. Barker stated that is hard to calculate, for example there is no market
for used mattresses. Even if they tried to figure it out on the cost of new mattresses it could vary
depending on if they are from McGregor's or Costco. The thinnest twin mattress somebody has
purchased for them was $200 just for a mattress and the bed frames are in the hundred -dollar range.
They also bought the ones that fold out into a platform so there is no need for a box spring and those
were $60 to $90 depending on the size.
Jason Barker (Houses into Homes) stated they tried to calculate what they do by going online and to do
mass estimates of material they've diverted from the landfill. There are apps that will estimate the weight
of a sofa, chairs, tables, box springs and everything. Barker stated those numbers are so high he
hesitated to put them in a grant application, it was over 70 tons.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 10 of 18
Padron asked if they applied for the climate action grant. Barker stated they did apply for that grant last
year, it's not up yet this year, but they will apply again this year as well. Lehmann noted that application
just opened on February 14.
Eastham asked if there were restrictions on the use of that money and does it adversely affect how they
can use it.
Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes) stated the application they turned in this year for the emerging aid to
agencies was the second step in the grant that they got from the Climate Action Plan last year, which was
optimizing efficiency. So they used those funds for an inventory software and Pad and other things like
crates and bags that they use to empty the homes and then bring back and reuse.
Padron asked about the grant because there are other agencies that will not be able to apply for the
climate action grant and don't have that option.
Eastham stated that any agency that's furnishing homes could apply for that grant because all of them are
diverting. Lehmann noted that possibly agencies could apply and stated some agencies such as Habitat
have used it to do energy efficiency improvements. A lot of housing agencies have used it in that
capacity, but not as much diverting from the landfill as much as it was energy efficiency, electrification or
switching to an air system that's way more efficient.
JOHNSON COUNTY MOBILE HOME TASK FORCE REPORT DISCUSSION:
Lehmann sent the Commission the link to the Mobile Home Task Force report. The Task Force was a mix
of elected officials, mobile home park residents and a couple advocates led by the Affordable Housing
Coalition. Lehmann also shared with the Commissioners staff comments on the recommendations, talking
about some of the challenges of different ones and some that the City's already doing. Council wanted
the Commission to talk about the report and provide them with any recommendations that HCDC had
about the report. Lehmann will begin by going through the staff comments and then have Sara Barron
from the Affordable Housing Coalition talk.
Lehmann noted there are 12 recommendations total in the Mobile Home Task Force report. The first
recommendation is to make rental assistance and/or relocation assistance available to residents harmed
by unexpected sharp rent increases. Currently the City has an affordable housing fund that can be used
for emergent situations, it's around $50,000 currently, it has been used in the past for similar things and it
generally follows URA standards which includes advisory services, moving expense payments, and
housing assistance up to $7,200. Lehmann noted there are a couple other programs that may assist in
such a circumstance like the security deposit program, which should be off the ground shortly, Johnson
County general assistance, and things such as rapid rehousing if they become literally homeless,
however, that emergent situation amount is not a lot, obviously, if someone is looking at $7,200 of lost
rent payments that presents a challenge. Lehmann also noted there are some challenges with budgeting,
especially as these things can't really be expected, so they can't fit into an annual budgeting process, but
in the past City Council has provided funds to support relocation efforts.
Alter noted this situation is not exactly the same as of being flooded out and yet, this would be an
emergency situation for a large number of people so wouldn't the funds allocated for emergencies be
available? Lehmann stated that is the same funds he is talking about, the emergent funds.
Sara Barron (Affordable Housing Coalition) noted that the recommendations were made to all the
municipalities within Johnson County, they went to Johnson County, Iowa City, Coralville, and North
Liberty primarily. In this case there are not any mobile homes located within Iowa City limits that have
been impacted by the unexpected sharp rent increases. There are two right outside of Iowa City limits
that are owned by out of state investment groups that have threaten the stability of those neighborhoods,
the others are in Coralville and North Liberty. Barron stated this recommendation is for the other
municipalities to look at Iowa City's model. Iowa City budgets annually for unexpected emergencies that
threaten the stability of people's housing at a large scale. Barron met with the Johnson County Board of
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 11 of 18
Supervisors about creating a line item for housing emergencies in their next budget process. She added
this is a more of a medium-term solution for some municipalities, however, it is worth remembering that
the emergency is being faced now. She feels it is still worthwhile to look and see if there are some funds
that can be available right now and maybe it's pooled across many municipalities or go to a private
institution that would want to do a charitable one time donation with the support of the local municipality.
Lehmann added the City is doing many of these things, so the audience of this report is often not the City.
McKinstry noted the City can require the people who want to do the rezoning and eliminate this housing
to make a contribution toward relocation. Lehmann confirmed and that will be discussed in point four.
Lehmann moved on to the next recommendation which is to partner with local banking institutions to back
loans to owner occupants of manufactured housing. The City currently provides grants to owner
occupants of manufactured housing to rehab properties, since FY18 they've done 20 mobile home repair
projects. Some of the challenges for the City is because they use federal funds, they must have the title
the property to participate and then also be a legal resident, which can be a challenge. Additionally, those
funds can only be used in Iowa City. When an applicant doesn't meet those criteria for some reason or
another the City directs people to ECICOG or to Habitat for assistance because they do have other rehab
programs, but those sources of funds are limited.
Barron added the Mobile Home Task Force has reconvened now to address some of the things outside of
the municipal lens that they started with, some of the other wraparound issues and some knitting together
other resources and services, including social services, legal services, etc. She added they renamed
themselves the Manufactured Housing Task Force because one thing that came to light during this
process is referring to them as mobile homes is not helpful because they can't be moved for the most
part. Barron noted the Manufactured Housing Task Force is looking at working with some private lenders
and they may look for municipal investment or at least some kind of backing for more secured loans or
grants. That would be a bigger pool that would be available to more people, not just in numbers of people,
but also in categories of people. Habitat has done a tremendous job with their Helping Hands program of
working in manufactured housing and they would like to do more with more resources. Barron noted one
problem in the past has been difficulty finding folks who would work on manufactured housing, because of
the specialized characteristics particularly in the older units, they're not built in the same way that a stick
built house would be. Now they have the partners lined up to do the work so it's more a matter of finding
the funding and making sure that families know about the resources especially for critical repairs, like
holes in a roof, holes in a floor, windows that are broken or missing, those kinds of things.
Lehmann stated recommendation three is establishing urban renewal districts through tax increment
financing, which can help mobile home communities purchase. He noted it is challenging with an urban
renewal district because it assumes two things; one, that there's a willing seller, if you have that great;
two, you have to rely on an increase in value to provide the funds. The second point was the challenge
the City saw because if we're looking to preserve existing homes and rents, there may not be an
increment, so that may not work in the context of what the Manufactured Housing Task Force is trying to
do. Lehmann stated also in extra jurisdictional circumstances, counties can also do urban renewal
districts so there isn't a need for the City to do extra -jurisdictional TIF districts if the County is on board.
He also noted those efforts have to be led by motivated manufactured housing folks, because in a
resident cooperative model, they're going to be carrying that on to the future. Lehmann noted although it's
tertiary to this recommendation, one can do urban renewal districts in one area and use some funds in a
different area, such as is happening at Foster Road right now and that might be an opportunity to try and,
leverage funds in a different sort of way.
Barron stated one thing they were looking at is how to create a municipal investment without going before
the voters for a bond or something and urban renewal districts are one way to generate significant money
without going through a borrowing scheme or putting it before voters. She also noted lots of manufactured
housing communities are on the edges of existing communities so it depends on how large the boundary
would be drawn for the urban renewal district. There are some areas where future development could be
tied to the existing neighborhoods. Also, in continued discussions with the folks who do resident owned
communities, they're good at pulling together resources to finance the purchase of the manufactured
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 12 of 18
housing, the hardest part is finding willing sellers. The Manufactured Housing Task Force wants to be
prepared if the opportunity comes up, so they don't have to then scramble to find the resources.
Drabek asked if this is a proposal to establish an urban renewal district or is it a proposal for resident
cooperatives, which one is the core, it seems like the residential cooperatives is in fact the core of the
ideas and the rural urban renewal district is if there's some better method than you'd prefer the better
method. Barron confirmed that was correct. Drabek noted it's maybe worth stressing with this one, that if
something like this went well, and there was some way to have residential cooperatives in the medium or
long term that would make recommendations one and two almost totally unnecessary. Residential
cooperatives are not going to manifest themselves, or mass raise their own rent.
Lehmann moved on to recommendations four and five noting they are similar, one with zoning and one
with annexation and doing conditional zoning as part of that. As the report notes, the City currently has
zoning protections in place but is willing to participate in review to find additional protections that might be
available. It can be a double-edged sword because if you're trying to implement new parks and you have
to rezone it, then you run into the difficulty of opposition in the rezoning process. As staff talked about this
internally, when they first read the report, and they're not sure which direction that leads, they think it's
good for the existing ones, but it may be bad for future ones. For recommendation five similarly that
protection is generally in place. Upon annexation, the City requires upgrades to infrastructure that
matches a City scale, which can improve living conditions, but the City can phase in tax rates based on
State law and that can be used as a hook to get landlords more willing to maybe think about other things
such as more affordable rents over the long term. There have also been some more recent talks with
mobile home parks about coming into the City and the City has tried to bring up that affordability side of
things. However, the infrastructure issues sunk those annexations.
Barron agreed and stated the Task Force is continuing to talk with local governments about this, as she
earlier stated she was just talking to the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday and now has talked to Josh
Boussard, who's their planning and zoning person, he's going to help convene a meeting of Iowa City,
Coralville, North Liberty and Johnson County planning and zoning folks to comb through those zones that
are specifically for mobile home parks and look at best practices. Barron also said it is important to note
that one of the weapons that has been used against manufactured housing residents is the threat of
redevelopment. In other words, if you make this too much of a problem, we'll just take the whole thing
down and put up a new pretty building here instead. Barron reiterated it's important to have strong zoning
that protects their rights as much as possible, and to reaffirm the commitment to preserving those
neighborhoods. The new owners can't just decide to put something else up on the space because they'd
have to go before planning and zoning and the city council's before that change could be made.
Barron also stressed in the second paragraph that says, "looking at the zoning that might allow some of
the current lot lines, lease lines to be turned into owned property". They are talking about very initial
stages of a hybrid model where someone who owns maybe a manufactured housing community that has
200 lots, what would it look like for them to take even 50 of those and convert them to owned land under
an owned structure. If that is not allowed under current zoning regulations, that might be an example of
something that could be added in that would strengthen longer term protections and stability overall.
McKinstry stated if the most affordable private market rate housing are manufactured homes and there
continues to be a problem with the affordability of housing slipping away faster than wages are going up,
the prices of houses are going up faster than wages, then we have to make it make sense that we have
to make more room in the way we zone things for locating a variety of types of manufactured housing and
we're talking about high quality manufactured housing that meet normal regular zoning building
requirements. They'd be safe, they'd be energy efficient, and all that sort of thing. He mentioned the
Forest View development because of the experience that hopefully will be positive in the long run, when
people actually in the future get to own some of those properties themselves, the land underneath them
as well as the building on top of it. He does not see this problem going away and that it's going to be
more and more prevalent. McKinstry also noted that Habitat across the country is going in the direction to
be building manufactured housing units, more like modular housing, and not just things built on a
foundation. McKinstry thinks the task force hopefully would want to see is not always just rezoning but as
new land is annexed or redeveloped in large measure, and some of this has to do with the types of
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 13 of 18
housing that are allowed under the form -based code. There can be a half a block or a whole block in the
midst of other types of housing and other forms of housing, where it could be carved up into smaller lots
and have 20 houses instead of 10 on that block and have them be modular manufactured housing units.
Barron said if you look at an example like Forest View and a huge NIMBY concern of the Forest View
redevelopment that was expressed was the size of the lots. In manufactured housing communities, the
way they're zoned, the lots can be smaller than in areas that are zoned for single family homes, etc.
Some view that as a detriment to the neighborhood, but when thought about through the lens of
affordability and envisioning different types of communities with shared resources, they could offer a
counter vision that is a great step for thinking forward for the future.
Lehmann noted that the draft South District Plan proposes cottage court concepts that's a similar.
Lehmann moved on to recommendation six, which states to be specific about manufacturer housing as a
housing type when drafting plans, reports, etc. The City is trying to do that, they made changes in City
Steps. In terms of being specific about manufactured housing and programs, again one of the challenges
is a lot of manufactured housing is outside of the City, which can be confusing when they have Iowa City
addresses, they come to the City and we have to refer them elsewhere. There isn't really an answer to
that other than education and hopefully get resources and other jurisdictions as well.
Barron agreed noting it's tricky because Iowa City has federal money that they're allowed to allocate that
the cities of Coralville and North Liberty do not. The resources look different, although Iowa City also
contributes a significant amount of money from its general fund allocations, not just the pass-through
money from CDBG and HOME. The conversation now is to extend this to Coralville and North Liberty.
When she spoke with the Board of Supervisors about putting in money, one of the things they said was
they'd like to look at the rural areas outside of the incorporated cities. Barron suggested a match so that
it's not just one municipality funding these things and everyone is doing it more collaboratively.
Lehmann stated recommendation seven is committing to a regular review of manufactured housing
communities and their data. Generally, the City thinks it is important but it makes more sense at a higher
level like the task force, because there's so much outside of the City. So perhaps the task force or
Affordable Housing Coalition could maintain it, or maybe the County.
Barron added one thing which is to say that Len Sandler also identified a source at the State where you
can pull the number of units disaggregated by housing type, including manufactured housing, and also by
the age of the housing broken into groups. So if that's not a resource we're in the practice of looking at
frequently it'd be worth pulling that data and reviewing it every so often to get that reminder of what the
housing stock looks like for all of our housing, not just for manufactured housing.
Lehmann said he has pulled similar data, not for the manufactured housing specifically but for the age of
housing by housing type. Some time he would like to start doing more regular housing assessments that
aren't just part of the ConPlan, but other priorities take precedent.
Lehmann stated the next two recommendations are quick at least which is issuing a joint statement with
Johnson County elected bodies, staff believes City Council be willing to do it, especially in partnership
with others. Staff thinks that it would be especially important to have those partners in a joint statement
because Johnson County and Iowa City are often loud about those sorts of things at the State level.
Recommendation number nine is not investing in funds from private equity that generate returns for
investors using predatory manufacturing housing community management practices. The City is willing to
review its local investments, doesn't think that it's going to have any private equity because generally the
City looks at more stable sorts of conservative investment mechanisms. Pension investments are
managed at the State level.
Barron noted that if as customers of the State investment practices, they had growing interest in divesting
from those things, and to continue to think about the investment practices for the City and State employee
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 14 of 18
pension program. That might be a longer-term thing, but it's not something to lose sight of because our
retirement money could be being used right now to make these purchases.
Aguilar asked about number eight regarding the public joint statement among elected, particularly
because of what happened in Des Moines with the bipartisan bill not getting out of committee and was
wondering if there's been discussion already about issuing some kind of a statement about that. Barron
said they are going to issue a statement and also, they finally have come around to the fact that it's going
to take the form of proclamations. She reiterated the feedback she has gotten from both Johnson County
and Iowa City is, if we want this addressed at a State level, they might not be our best public allies. The
City of Coralville's lobbyists did register in favor of the protections when the bills were first introduced.
Johnson County and Iowa City have it on their legislative priorities. The Urban County Coalition
Association has it on their legislative priorities in person, they're talking to people when they're doing their
lobbying efforts, but they don't necessarily want to hang that red flag on it in the current political climate.
Lehmann stated recommendation 10 is to connect people with organizations, which is residents forming
cooperatives, it's got to be a resident lead transition, but the City can support it. The City has the
Opportunity Fund, which is part of the Affordable Housing Fund with $75,000 for FY21. While the
manufactured housing communities are good at getting money, a lot of these are valued at millions of
dollars so City staff is worried about the capacity and affordability to find the funds to pull this together.
Eastham noted this is the most important recommendation the Task Force, the only way to avoid rent
increases. Lehmann stated the City supports it. Eastman stated supports but timidly and he is looking for
a much more vigorous support by the City Manager. The amount of money is considerable, but
investment firms are finding ways to put that much money together to buy these parks and raise the rents,
so then the City could lead and guide and help a group of residents to do the same thing.
Barron stated her expertise is not discussing financial products but her understanding from talking to the
woman that is affiliated with ROC USA, a technical assistance provider, is that what you're looking for
contributions is more filling a gap and they are actually a CDFI and they put together financing packages
they do alone that's funded by a modest increase in the lot rent and most of the money is paid back over
time through that increase depending on the amount of infrastructure improvements associated with
buying the park and preparing it for the residents to manage. Because there is some amount of money
that's not usually covered by that they would be looking for other partners to provide those resources.
The Manufactured Housing Task Force is not asking Iowa City to give them the $8 million to buy a park
but to assist with helping fill some financing gaps.
Eastham stated the City could run a scenario through in a matter of a few months to determine feasibility
and what finance would actually look like and he is going to urge the Commission to recommend the
Council to do exactly that scenario and develop an acquisition plan that is ready in the event of an
annexation or an attempt by an outside firm to buy one of the parks within the city limits,
Lastly, Lehmann noted with recommendations 11 and 12 the City supports them, so feels like there's not
a whole lot else there to discuss. As previously mentioned, that bill has been tabled in legislature for this
year so the City will continue to actively support it at the state level.
Barron noted it's worth saying it has a bit of time for tweaks before the funnel closes so they could yank
the rent justification. Eastham stated the personal stuff is not going to prevent rent increases, the only
way to prevent rent increases is acquisition. Barron stated it is possible that they could still see a bill
move forward that, for example, simply prohibits no -cause eviction. It won't be the full comprehensive bill
that's proposed. She explained if others were not aware with the mobile home park legislation, there was
a bill introduced in both the House and the Senate to offer a range of protections largely shaped from the
recommendations referred to in the report, and even going a little further in some cases than what was
expected to be included in a bill. Barron noted there was bipartisan support.
McKinstry asked when the deadline for something to get through the funnel. Barron replied it has to
make it through the funnel by Friday, tomorrow. Eastham stated that legislature is not going to support
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 15 of 18
any new legislation that limits rent increases, they're not going to do that. Barron stated they're worried
that it would open the doors to rent justification and other housing types.
Eastham reiterated the only way to prevent rent increases is local acquisition. McKinstry agreed in the in
the current climate he certainly think that's true too.
Lehmann stated those were the staff comments on the different recommendations, generally a lot of them
the City's working towards or supporting. There are different recommendations there or tweaks on
recommendations that could also be beneficial as staff noted.
Drabek stated to do numbers three and ten successfully they would need an acquisition plan or urban
renewal plan.
Eastham said he would drop recommendation three, it's a financing mechanism and it's probably not
going to work well anyway. They have the potential funding financing partner and in ROC, USA, if not
money, they have the technical expertise to put together a plan.
Alter stated this is being prepared and given the priorities about affordable housing this is such a no
brainer to be prepared for this kind of situation since Iowa is such a target.
Barron stated that this same model they are proposing for manufactured housing communities, ROC,
USA is technical assistance providers also are offering this model for multifamily buildings, helping them
become resident cooperatives too. Given the current real estate market in Johnson County where the
vacancy rates are going up and more multifamily properties coming up for sale, beginning to understand
some of these different financing mechanisms in more detail might create other opportunities beyond
manufactured housing for resident acquisition or nonprofit acquisition. There are many different types of
ownership models that protect affordable housing from the private markets.
Eastham stated the City could do an acquisitions scenario by taking the park in North Liberty as a model,
you know what the cost was, you know what the lot rents are, you know what the numbers of units are,
and it's not that hard to develop a plan that would say given this situation or a similar situation this is how
it could go and do that in consultation with the hands on people at ROC, USA. Eastham stated they need
to avoid the Rose Oak situation where this Council was playing catch up and never caught up.
Kubly asked if this is something that the task force could provide the City for reaction or to see how they
could fill those gaps, or how can the City partner with the task force on something like this.
Barron stated they have already had one video conference with the technical assistance provider for folks
who were able to hop on and they maybe had 10 people just for that initial learning. To answer Kubly's
question, there are two potential ways to go. One is to offer a similar training opportunity for folks who are
interested in learning more about the financing structure and the second would be to do all the work
offline and then just say here's the budget. Barron can see benefits to both, depending on who wants to
be involved in the proposal. If they're talking about moving toward resident owned communities, it's
important to start involving residents and owners in this conversation now as well, it doesn't do any good
to have this conversation those stakeholders are not involved.
Barron stated the question for how to proceed is who they want to have involved in more serious
contemplation of what this model would look like and then go from there. Do we just look at numbers dryly
or do we want to look at the whole process?
McKinstry said it makes sense then that all the municipalities, including the county, could benefit from
having a very concrete scenario to show this is how it could be done.
Lehmann noted they are getting in the weeds, this more of a down the road conversation and HCDC
should focus now on what they recommend to Council.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 16 of 18
Barron wanted to add one more thing before a recommendation is made noting she had the interesting
experience of going to all the different elected bodies and sharing these recommendations with them as
12 recommendations for action. The response then from the elected bodies is "it's a shame we can't do
anything about this". What that feedback means to her is that it's difficult for any individual municipality to
wrap its arms around these 12 recommendations and say "yes, we can take action on this tomorrow" and
part of that is because a lot of these are just mitigating recommendations, they can't stop or reverse the
harm that's already been caused, it's just putting more tools in the toolbox. She noted that eminent
domain was a consideration that didn't make it into the final report, but some cities and other places in the
country have used their eminent domain powers to say this is our land now and we'll pay for it.
Drabek asked if the reason eminent domain is not in the recommendations is because state legislature
will probably remove the power to use it. Lehmann said it is already removed for economic development,
there would need to be a very specific purpose to use it, and he doesn't think it would pass the courts.
Barron stated just fully embracing all of the recommendations to the best of their ability, like Iowa City has
shown interest in doing is doing something and when all of the communities in Johnson County take
those same steps, the power of that multiplies. Alter agreed stating if the different vectors are concrete
about this and then here's also a proclamation, that symbolism or words can be a layered effect and that
can be some momentum.
Barron agreed and said people being willing to put some dollars behind it probably takes the most arm
twisting, but it is also the one that's going to make the most immediate difference, so think about your
recommendations in terms of what do you want to see the City invest in this.
McKinstry moved to recommend to City Council that the City continue to support the 12
recommendations in this report, with the additional recommendation that the City assist with
developing an acquisition plan to transition a private manufactured housing park into a resident -
owned cooperative to prepare for future possible acquisitions. Alter seconded the motion, a vote
was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
Eastham feels this motion should give Council a chance to direct the staff to work on this and to follow up
to Kubly's working with the Coalition and elements from the Board of Supervisors would be a helpful
approach. Kubly asked if Eastham has already run the scenario. Eastham has not but he has talked to
this a couple of supervisors about the general concept of transitioning to residential communities but not
terribly specifically.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 19.2019:
Aguilar moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 2019. Kealey seconded the motion. A vote was
taken, and the motion passed 8-0.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Lehmann noted the next meeting will be not the third Thursday due to spring break, it will be on March 12.
The agenda will include monitoring updates from non -applicants, CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to
Agenccies budget recommendations, and discuss community development week activities. Prior to that
meeting, preferably by March 2, please give recommendations to Lehmann for the ranking sheet and also
at that time the budget scoring if that is done.
Lehmann stated now that they have Aid to Agency recommendations, they can start scheduling tours. He
will send out a signup sheet where there'll be a couple slots a month. Commissioners can then reconvene
with their agencies about what the best time is and then pass it back through Lehmann. McKinstry noted
some of the Commissioner terms end at the end of June. Lehmann said he will take that into
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 17 of 18
consideration and they can start doing the meetings and reiterating it's really just an opportunity for the
agencies to show the Commissioners what they do and to open up lines of communication.
Lehmann noted the FY21 applications for Climate Action Grants are open through March 3 with $50,000
available. The annual monitoring of rental projects is well underway, he's hoping to get a rental outcome
report out of this at the end of it and hopefully be able to share that with the Commission in the future.
Finally, Lehmann wanted to alert the Commission that the Council had asked about an emergency policy
and the Commission was going to talk about it at the last meeting. However, upon Council request, staff
developed a policy in the interim and Council approved. Lehmann handed out the Emergency Funding
Policy. It's based off HUD and Iowa Economic Development Authority requirements. This policy would
come into play with requests for funding outside of regular funding cycles. Some of the criteria are the
emergency must: alleviate existing conditions posing a serious and immediate threat to health, safety and
welfare; be the result of unforeseeable or unavoidable circumstances or events of relatively recent origin;
have no known alternatives or actions that are more feasible than the proposed project; and certify that
other funds aren't available. So that's what staff would look at during the review process and staff would
respond within five business days. It is a quick turnaround if it's within the City's budget authority, if not
then the City Manager would request Council for support.
ADJOURNMENT:
Drabek moved to adjourn. Alter seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 8-0
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 18 of 18
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Terms Exp.
7/11
8/15
9/19
10/17
12/19
2/20
---
= Vacant
Aguilar, Peggy
6/30/22
■
X
X
O/E
X
X
Alter, Megan
6/30/21
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Drabek, Matt
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
Eastham, Charlie
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fixmer-Oraiz, V
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook
6/30/22
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
McKinstry, John
6/30/20
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Nkumu, Peter
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
Padron, Maria
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
• Resigned from Commission
Key:
X
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
—m -m-4
1 r t
~
�401�,~ A*
Date: March 3, 2020
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
To: Housing and Community Development Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner
Re: Staff Concerns Regarding the FY21 Competitive CDBG/HOME Round
Introduction:
The City received public facility and housing pre -applications from seven applicants totaling
$653,767 in requested CDBG/HOME funds by the January 31, 2020 deadline. These were
provided to HCDC to review, rank, and provide a funding recommendation. For FY21, the City
has $553,000 in available funds, $105,000 CDBG and $448,000 HOME.
Concerns:
Upon staff review of the applications, two concerns arose regarding applicant capacity and risk of
either repayment to the CDBG program with non-federal funds by the City or the loss of federal
funds for eligible projects within the community. This memo details these concerns.
Concern 1: Under the CDBG program, public facility applicants receiving more than $25,000 must
meet a national objective, i.e., serve low- and moderate -income persons through an eligible
activity, at the funded site for five years after project completion. Should the recipient move or
stop providing the required services in those five years, invested CDBG funds must be repaid to
the CDBG program with non-federal funds under a federal provision called "reversion of assets."
In FY18, the City provided $73,000 in CDBG funds to Little Creations Academy (LCA), which was
substantially amended to $109,000 after cost overruns. This project is not yet closed due to
complications with contractors. Staff believes LCA can successfully complete the project but is
concerned that if allocated an additional $78,160, the City is liable to repay $187,160 with non-
federal funds should the childcare center cease operations at this site within five years.
While staff strongly supports the mission of LCA, the agency is relatively new and there is always
a risk that services could stop within that 5 -year timeframe. Since its initial CDBG award, LCA has
had a staff member open a competing childcare center with several of LCA's enrolled children.
Childcare centers also close for various other reasons. In the past, the City has also had a CDBG-
funded, church -affiliated childcare center close within the five-year window. In that case, the
center was in a different building than the church, and the City had a mortgage on the building to
secure the funds upon sale. For LCA, the childcare center is in the same building as the church,
and it would be difficult to secure these funds if the childcare center were to close for any reason.
Concern 2: For housing projects, HOME funds require an affordability period of 5 to 15 years
depending on the amount of HOME funds awarded per unit. While most applicants have
experience using HOME funds and managing HOME properties, Unlimited Abilities (UA) is a new
agency, has no experience with CDBG or HOME funding, and has had compliance issues with
its rental units in the recent past. Staff again supports the mission of UA but has concerns that
funding it creates risks if the agency does not comply with HOME regulations for the required
period of affordability. HOME recipients unable to comply with program requirements typically sell
their property on the private market, and HOME funds are repaid to the HOME program. This
means they no longer assist projects in our community. Unlike program income or loan
March 6, 2020
Page 2
repayments that return to the City's line of credit for reuse in the community, HUD can take these
funds back to the federal line of credit, not to Iowa City. The City strives to build the capacity of
HOME applicants before providing funds to ensure that they can meet their commitments for the
entire affordability period once funded.
Recommendation:
To avoid or minimize staff concerns, the following actions are recommended:
1. If HCDC recommends funding LCA and/or UA, restrict funding to CDBG funds not to
exceed $25,000; and
2. If necessary, re -open CDBG/HOME applications for FY21 to allow additional applicants to
submit eligible projects.
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 12, 2020 — 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
FINAL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Matt Drabek, Charlie Eastham, V Fixmer-Oraiz, Lyn Dee
Kealey, John McKinstry
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Aguilar, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron
STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann
OTHERS PRESENT: Shirley Tramble, Ryan Holst, Elias Ortiz, Roger Goedken, Carla Phelps,
Ashley Gillette, Anthony Smith, Simon Andrew, Whitney Stevenson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 5-1 (McKinstry opposed) HCDC recommends the following FY21 Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Program budget to City Council totaling $448,000 HOME and $105,000
CDBG:
Project
CDBG
HOME
Successful Living Acquisition #1
$0
$48,000
Successful Living Acquisition #2
$0
$48,000
Successful Living Acquisition #3
$0
$48,000
The Housing Fellowship CHDO Ops
$0
$20,000
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #1
$0
$30,000
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #3
$27,000
$0
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #2
$0
$0
Systems Unlimited New Construction
$0
$100,000
City South District #2
$0
$50,000
City South District #1
$0
$44,000
Unlimited Abilities Acquisition
$0
$60,000
Little Creations Public Facility
$78,000
$0
Total Allocation:
$105,000
$448,000
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 2 of 14
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC recommends to City Council the following FY21 Emerging Aid to Agencies budget
to City Council totaling $16,738 and dividing the remaining $8,262 among Legacy Aid to Agencies
applicants (totaling $459 per agency):
Grow Johnson County - FY21 Season
$0
Houses into Homes - Inventory Mgt
$5,438
Successful Living - Snow/Mow
$0
Successful Living - Software
$0
Unlimited Abilities - Operations
$11,300
Total Allocation:
$16,738
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Fixmer-Oraiz called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Anthony Smith (Pastor, Little Creations Academy) came forward with a couple of questions. First, he was
wondering how the agencies are picked for the coalition, it sounds like that happened and he was not
privy to how the agencies were picked.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated the Agency Impact Coalition was not form by HCDC, it was self -formed and would
direct questions regarding the coalition to Becci Reedus, Crisis Center/Food Bank or Nicki Ross, Table to
Table.
Smith's follow-up question then is if the coalition is self -formed why it has any impact or any kind of
authority at this meeting or before this board?
Fixmer-Oraiz wouldn't say it necessarily has authority, the coalition is a gathering of executive directors
that have long standing experience with dealing with the Housing Community Development Commission
items and wouldn't say that they have a seat at the table.
Lehmann reminded everyone that for public comment they're actually not supposed to have
conversations, but topics can be put that on the agenda for the next meeting.
Smith also stated other thing he was concerned about was the scoring and if there has been some
consensus or how that's going to be taken care of and is there an avenue for suggestions on how it might
make it a little bit more fair for other agencies to be involved in this. He understands he is just asking the
question, it's not a dialogue, per perhaps something to put on your meeting agenda.
Lehmann made a general public comment that typically they look at those things (such as scoring criteria)
in leading up to the December meeting, so November is typically when the scoring is discussed. Just as a
general comment to the Commission in case you're curious for background.
MONITORING REPORTS:
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS OF JOHNSON COUNTY: Lehmann reported they use the assistance for
their early childhood program up to five years, included childcare for 136 infants, toddlers and
preschoolers. They had some youth development where over 800 school aged children participated in
before and after school programs at the schools. And then family development, they also provide support
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 3 of 14
to families and then some community development where they respond to issues that affect the entire
neighborhood. They included a list of things that they did, a snapshot of outcomes which included 91 %
improved or maintained healthy family functioning problem solving communication, 51 out of 58 which is
88% improved or maintain social supports, 88% increase their connection to concrete supports, 60%
improved nurturing attachment between parent and child, and 57% increase knowledge of child
development. He shared the the report with the Commission and if they have questions, they can always
bring them up at the next meeting or or ask for follow up.
4CS: Lehmann read from their report that during the last half of 2019, they've provided over 100
consultations to 23 home-based programs. They work with these providers on a number of things from
registration to additional trainings for DHS approval, to talk about safe sleep practices, and early learning
activities. These are new providers, childcare providers, so addressing how to market their business so
that families can find them is part of the conversation as well. They work hard to get them in the food
program, which partially reimburses them for healthy meals and snacks they serve to children they take
care of. They're struggling with landlords that are limiting the number of children that they can have,
despite the fact that they are monitored by 4C's and by any number of agencies. 4C's is pleased that
their program continues to grow. They have six who are currently going through the registration process,
and it's been a lot of word of mouth activity. Most of the providers are providing infant care and it doesn't
say how many children that they're providing care for, but they assisted 23 home-based programs this
year.
SHELTER HOUSE: In FY19 they were allocated Home Funds of $94,000 with a loan from the Housing
Trust Fund of Johnson County to acquire a property at Wakefield Court to be used at Fair Weather Lodge
which is a communal living supportive housing environment for folks that had experienced homelessness.
They just bought the house, they have five SRO units and they're seeing if they can add another bedroom
possibly, but they're not proceeding at the current time. They're waiting due to some rehab delays to fill
the units but otherwise the property is purchased, and they are working on the property.
For Aid to Agencies for FY20 they have served 674 unique individuals currently in emergency shelter, 99
of whom were children, 47 are non -school aged. That has also been an average of 11 people using
overflow and sleeping in the lobby of the Southgate Avenue shelter as the facility is running capacity for
the standing 70 beds. The winter shelter has maintained a nightly average capacity of 27.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM: Ryan Holst (DVIP) reported their project was to
repair two of their parking lots that were crumbling and needed to be replaced, that has been finished.
They finished with the fence right after that, there were some hiccups on that but that had been resolved.
The fences are up and working very well, stopping through traffic, making it a lot safer. Finally, they are
now finishing up the part of the project of renovating the youth room. They are basically done with that but
are waiting on one cabinet door to be brought back. They had an issue with a manufacturing default on
one of the cabinet doors, and once that is in they'll be completely finished with the project.
DISCUSS FY21 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME PROGRAM
FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Lehmann started by showing the average by points provided by each Commissioner, he also included the
individual Commissioners' rankings. Lehmann also provided a memo regarding some concerns that staff
had under the CDBG program. Most of it is tied to either applicant capacity or risk of repayment of CDBG
funds. In CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant Program, there is a required five-year period
which is called reversion of assets period. If, for whatever reason a project does not meet its need as
shown in the application for five years, then that money gets pulled out of the project. So typically that
would come by whatever the asset is for example if you helped someone buy a property, that property
would get liquidated or it would be sold off to someone else and the City would get its money back and
the City would pay HUD back. That's the typical process. In this case, Staff's concern is tied to Little
Creations Academy because we provided $109,000 last year, the project is close to being closed, but it's
not quite there yet, they still need a couple reports from Little Creations. Staff is a little concerned about if
another $78,000 is provided to Little Creations Academy then that means that the City is at risk for
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 4 of 14
$187,000 with non-federal funds should the agency close. The concern is that the childcare provider
space is provided by a church and there's a number of reasons why churches close or why childcares
close and in this case the childcare is located in the church building and poses a bit more of a risk
because it is difficult to get that kind of equity back out should Little Creations close within five years. Staff
just wanted the Commission to be aware of that, it doesn't mean that they can't fund it, it just means that
that's a concern to be aware of as you're making your funding decisions this year and the City needs to
be aware it is their funds they will lose should it close.
Staff's second concern is that with HOME funds, there's a similar affordability period of 5 to 15 years. It is
often described as CDBG being you're dating the person so it's a shorter -term thing and HOME is more of
a marriage where you're together for 5 to 15 years. HOME funds have a lot more requirements that are
tied to it over the long-term funding period. In this case, Unlimited Abilities as a new agency doesn't have
experience with HOME or CDBG funds and staff is a little concerned about using Home funds with
Unlimited Abilities. Again, if they don't meet their requirement over the period either they'll be forced to
sell the property, which would go back to HUD, or if something else happened then the City would be on
the hook for that money. Lehmann noted that staff did just want to put out a recommendation that if
looking at Unlimited Abilities and Little Creations, that reversion of assets only applies for over $25,000 so
they would recommend funding $25,000 as the maximum amount for those and then possibly reopening
an application round for CDBG/Home applicants if it's necessary. That's a staff recommendation again,
HCDC can recommend what it likes, and Council can recommend what it likes, but staff needs HCDC and
Council to be aware of those risks that come with those properties.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted that Unlimited Abilities, the acquisition is ranked pretty low but wants to understand
the staff concern. Lehmann stated the concern is specifically with HOME funds, and to some extent with
CDBG funds, but honestly, the reversion of assets is more of a challenge for Little Creations then
Unlimited Abilities because they're purchasing a new building so that reversion of assets should be able
to be recouped. In the case of Little Creations, the church may still exist, and no assets would be gained
even if the church sold. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if more of the concern with Unlimited Abilities was because
they had never done a project with the City before. Lehmann stated the other factors as to why Unlimited
Abilities ranked lower was because of the way that the ranking is set up. Leverage is a large part of that,
and Unlimited Abilities lost 19 points from that alone, which is a pretty big hit for the application. It did lose
points on capacity in history, it only had 4 out of 15, mostly because it didn't have experience with
CDBG/HOME funds in the past. Those are really where it lost most of its points in the application. That
staff memo was a different point on what it looks like when you have to reclaim funds.
McKinstry asked about the Little Creations application, in the chart it says a minimum of $30,000 and staff
recommended a maximum of $25,000. Lehmann stated the Consolidated Plan has a minimum written of
$30,000 for public facilities and he had written that without thinking about reversions of assets, he based
it off past public facilities projects where it used to be $50,000 minimum to get a public facilities project.
Lehmann wanted to lower it because they had applications like Old Brick where it was $36,000 so he
thought $30,000 was fair. In this case, he would recommend as they're approving the Annual Action Plan
to also amend the Consolidated Plan to be $25,000 because that allows for reversion of assets.
Lehmann said the Commission could recommend $25,000 and also recommend a substantial
amendment to the Consolidated Plan.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked why there needed to be a minimum stated. Lehmann said there had been a time
period where they were doing $5,000 projects, and they'd have 12 projects to administer. As staff
decreased in the community development department that did not become feasible, similar to what
happened with Aid to Agencies with the $15,000 minimum. HCDC could propose a different minimum
project amount, another rationale behind having a minimum was that instead of doing a project every
year, do one project every five years and have it cover a bunch of stuff. There are tradeoffs.
Eastham noted that one of the advantages of having recommendations from the staff is they give him
something to ignore. He doesn't find that reversion of assets argument at all persuasive. It's the same
risk that any applicant or any application presents to the City and he doesn't see any alarming risks from
either Little Creations or Unlimited Abilities in terms of not being able to go ahead with the projects over
the required time periods to avoid reversion. He noted the staff memo actually doesn't talk at all about
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 5 of 14
the benefits for these projects and Little Creations presents a huge benefit to the community for a low-
cost childcare. Unlimited Abilities also presents a huge benefit to the community for group housing for the
folks that their mission is to serve. The staff of Unlimited Abilities has the same abilities and qualifications
as a staff of any other of these organizations. He is not at all concerned about the things that the staff
raised in their memo. Eastham did note he thinks it's important to support newer groups, they pose a
benefit to the communities that they're serving as well as to the general community by opening up a new
organization with new staff that can expand the overall ability to provide housing and childcare for the
community. He will be sticking with his recommendations, both in terms of scoring and with
recommended allocations.
Alter stated one of the things that she is noticing from the conversation as well as having gone through
the applications is that there seems to be almost like a paradox here that on the one hand, we want larger
projects and certainly there's need and there are the funds for it, but on the flip side, there's possibility of
risk, which she is attributing primarily, though there are other things outlined here too, to the fact that both
agencies in this case are fairly new. She also noted for instance that in the application for Little Creations
it does note in two places about past projects having been substantially delayed, but she also noticed that
there was one for Habitat that also talked about delays, but obviously the strength of that application was
different than Little Creations. So taking those two things into account along with what staff has been
describing, in conversation as well as in the memo, it seems like there's an inherent contradiction here
that the place to get larger funds that really are desperately needed in the community by different
agencies, this is the resource for the funding, and yet there's this hesitancy, at least from staffs part, to
perhaps go all in on that because of the possibility of that 5 year or 15 year possibility of the agency going
under.
Lehmann stated from the staff perspective, when it comes to compliance, local funds are the best to fund
starting agencies hands down, it's the right option because the City controls what most of the rules are
and can work within those rules to ensure that newer agencies have the flexibility to grow and to learn. In
the case of federal funds there is a lot more monitoring, if things are not done properly then funds can get
recalled, which can be challenging if funds are spent. In terms of difficulty, generally CDBG is easier to
manage than HOME. HOME in 2013 had a substantial rule change and that's made it a lot more
challenging, and they're even just learning as they do the monitoring with existing agencies, a lot of those
changes in 2013 are not necessarily there. If HUD comes to monitor, and they find us out of compliance,
there's a chance that they could recall those funds. It's a balancing act between saying we want to foster
new agencies, but we want to ensure that they are able to spend the funds without the fear of having it
recalled at some point over the compliance period.
Eastham stated if they all had that perspective then The Housing Fellowship would never gotten started
Drabek noted one question he has for staff is he understands the risk, he doesn't understand how risky
the risk is. He understands Lehmann can't give anything close to a hard number, but for him it would
make a big difference to whether there was a 1 % chance of the funds getting recalled versus a 25%
chance of the funds getting recalled.
Lehmann stated in the case of Unlimited Abilities he has never worked with that agency and they're both
new agencies so it's hard to say, he can't give a risk amount, what he can say is that CDBG funds are
less risky to use. In the case of Little Creations, they've shown a great dedication to providing low cost
childcare, that's a great thing for low income people. But, like he said, the City would probably be less risk
averse if it hadn't happened once already in a church providing childcare situation. If someone moved
who was the champion for that to a different location or retired or anything like that, you never quite know
what happens. Lehmann reiterated he can't give any kind of risk analysis, but what staff wants to do is
make sure that you are aware that there is a risk, and then go ahead and make your recommendation
and either ignore it or make your best guess on saying you think it's going to stick it out for those five
years.
Eastham asked if the City could attach a lien to the building of the church building itself. Lehmann
confirmed the City would have a lien, but churches eventually sell their buildings and do something else.
Eastham noted the City's pretty heavily involved in taking long term commitments for housing. Eastham
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 6 of 14
also stated for the benefit of the Commission, he just doesn't think this is a real issue for them to
consider.
Eastham stated he does have a question about the City's South District Program. The application
indicates or some other source indicates that the staff has received 11 applications for the four units that
are currently in the program and he wonders what the racial makeup of those applicants is and where are
they living. Lehmann believes at least the two that are moving forward right now are South District
residents from Taylor Drive and are currently neighbors, so they're excited to continue being neighbors.
Lehmann noted he is not as involved with that program and does not have those numbers with him but
thought that was stated in the application. Eastham noted the number of applicants was in the application
but there was no demographic breakdown or the residency of the applicants. Lehmann said the program
is targeted towards neighbors staying in the neighborhood. He added that the expected incomes is
based off of the applicants that they currently have but obviously with one applicant at 61 to 80 and one at
31 to 50 it's not a full breakout but he believes that's representative of what they've got in applications.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked with the figures that they have today what is the average. Lehmann stated three
households are under 30%, five are 30 to 53 or 60 to 80 but he doesn't have the racial makeup.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated with the average of everything recommended, and then the expected, there's a
tiny wiggle room there and is curious where they're at with everything now that there is an average and
given the conversation she is curious if people have thoughts on anything that they want to move or
change.
McKinstry suggested to see everybody who asked for funds get some this time because of the needs that
are out there. He does take seriously all the hard work they put in on the scoring system and trying to
make the scoring system actually mean something so that when agency executives are searching for
what their next objective is they can count on if they really score high because they really push to do
those things they be rewarded. He also thinks it's very important to help out new agencies but is more
interested in the services that people actually get in the end, the people who are in need. Therefore, he
would like to see Little Creations and Unlimited Abilities get some funding but would recommend that
everything above those on the list, due to their scores, be fully funded and that they look at what remains
that isn't allocated by fully funding all those of above the bottom two and then they discussed more in
more depth the final two and that they use the HOME funds everywhere they can above the bottom two in
the ranking. If they use up all the HOME funds first and then have the CDBG funds left over for the
bottom two because there is more local flexibility and because they have more recoverability if there is a
problem.
Eastham stated he looked at the projects and what they actually accomplish. He is really pleased with the
group home projects of Successful Living, Systems Unlimited and Unlimited Abilities. They also have
though four units for the City South district and three Habitat down payment assistance projects for a total
of seven homeowner projects, which, in his mind are useful but not totally essential things for them to be
doing. Eastham agrees with McKinstry and feels maybe they're going in the same direction, but he could
certainly remove funding for one of the South district projects and one Habitat down payment assistance
project and to bring the Little Creations and Unlimited Abilities up closer to their to their application
request. He added one of the things he used in scoring Unlimited Abilities and Little Creations was the
leveraging question and the difficulty he has with the way that that leveraging question is being utilized is
that they're looking for leveraging for funds outside of the HOME and CDBG things. For him the
leveraging question should be looking for funds that are other public funds that are available to the project
or to the applications, rather than private because all the private funds are coming from the homebuyers.
Lehmann noted it is mostly like mortgages, basically the down payment.
Eastham stated he is giving credit for leveraging for money that's coming in from people that are
benefiting from project so did his points for leveraging for both Unlimited Abilities and Little Creations to
consider that balancing.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 7 of 14
Lehmann noted the agreement on funding at least the top group homes and then further discussion, all
agreed.
Drabek stated he also agreed with McKinstry's general principle of using the HOME funds first for the
higher ranks. All other Commissioners agreed.
Lehmann said by doing that it that would leave $74,000 of CDBG currently open.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked him to calculate the Unlimited Abilities and Little Creations amounts.
Drabek noted Eastham wanted to take money from that third Habitat request and then move it to Little
Creations or Unlimited Abilities. Eastham agreed noting that still give two Habitat down payment projects
funded.
Lehmann noted if they do that it would leave $27,000 which could be used for Habitat.
Alter noted she may be in the minority here with the South District, she realizes that one of them is funded
but was very taken by a discussion or presentation by Habitat a couple of years ago about the impact
because it was at that time a low priority and hadn't gotten a whole lot of consensus about getting
funding. The explanation that they provided us was about the sort of the ripple effect of impact on
homeownership and legacy and bolstering up of neighborhoods. South District, particularly on Taylor and
Davis, as Eastham has long fought and been an avid advocate for, really allowing the neighborhood to
actually have the potential for home ownership is crucial in the long term but in particular right now
because there's actually a lot of violent interaction there. She feels there are multiple ways in which the
neighborhood can be strengthened and that don't necessarily have to rely on police action. She is not
saying if one is to buy a home they don't have to call the police but that there needs to be other props in
place to help strengthen that neighborhood. She thinks that both projects should go through and she
realizes it's about risk because this is a new project, but the flip side is that they saw what was done with
the one set of units, it's really tremendous. She noted there seems to be consensus on funding at least
one she wanted to put that out there to fund both. They have done away with priority rankings and her
fear is that something that's really looking forward towards future stability and strength is going to always
get pushed down in favor of a more critical need, but both are tremendously important.
McKinstry noted he is in agreement and thinks homeownership has a stabilizing effect on whole
generations of families in whole neighborhoods and it extends further than just the family that lives within
the walls. As he already stated he'd rather see the Habitat and South District things fully funded.
McKinstry also noted for many years he was pastor of a congregation that had childcare, it was a
HeadStart program, and a lot of federal funding helped. They shared the kitchen, the dishwasher, the
range so he understands and is in great sympathy with the need for Little Creations to be funded.
Eastham stated he is not inclined to overlook group home support, or down payment assistance or home
ownership, his argument is that Council has funds that they can put into homeownership both in the
South District and Habitat projects beyond the CDBG and HOME amounts. If Council was persuaded
that the South District homeownership project or Habitat's down payment assistance project is a great
boom to the community they have available money in other parts of the City budget to put into those
efforts.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted the Commission has gone to City Council several times now requesting additional
funds. She agrees the City South District is a very strong component because they need neighborhood
stabilization in that district, which also shows in the scoring. She agrees there are other funding but is
just not sure who's going to take up that mantle at this juncture.
Drabek discussed the scenario with the numbers shown as everything fully funded and use the remaining
CDBG and allocate it towards the two organizations left.
Fixmer-Oraiz questioned is if those two organizations are not fully funded will they still be able to move
forward with their projects. Lehmann stated for Unlimited Abilities they could perhaps purchase one
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 8 of 14
home instead of two and Little Creations would just buy whatever they could with the allocation they
receive.
Alter stated that Unlimited Abilities said in their application they could purchase a home for $75,000 and
she sounded pretty confident that there was some way that that was going to work. Therefore, Alter's
recommendation is to fund one home.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted that Systems Unlimited is such a great organization and they're asking for $100,000.
They also have a fairly robust ability to leverage funds from what she recalls so what if they funded them
at most but not all, somewhere in the range of $74,000 or $75,000 and then that would free up other
funds for the other organizations. Lehmann stated already bought the lot, their project budget is
$478,000, the lot purchase is $65,000, engineering and design and then home construction for $375,000.
Fixmer-Oraiz said they're asking for $100,000 which would be spread throughout those specifics and if it
were somewhere in the vicinity of $75,000 then they would be able to get a lot purchased plus have a bit
extra.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked is there anything the Commission needed to know from any of the organizations.
Lehmann noted there has been some of the more recent projects delayed a little bit so that FY20
Successful Living acquisitions have gone forward smoothly, Successful Living's rehab has been a little
slower, Habitat's FY20 has switched to a down payment assistance model, so we're not as involved in the
construction so he doesn't know where those projects are as much. With South District, the challenge
they've had, especially since they've been looking in the area and prioritizing lower income folks, it's hard
to get them qualified with a mortgage and because it's a new program, working with lenders, get them to
understand what the down payment assistance situation looks like, and what's getting forgiven and what
the costs are is challenging. With Systems Unlimited the City doesn't have an active project with them,
The Housing Fellowship has a bunch of properties, they're pretty well known, and they have a good
compliance. Little Creations has been, especially with the new contractor on that last part of the contract
went pretty smooth. Lehmann wanted to reiterate he is not worried about the project getting done or
anything, he has no problems with that. He noted it's been an unfortunate situation where they've been
delayed this time so now they're just waiting on reports from Little Creations to submit that and they can
close that out. Lehmann noted those were just general thoughts, no real concerns.
Drabek asked without discussing any specific number here he thinks that the general principle of what is
suggested is good. He stated it rewards the higher scoring applicants, it gives money to every agency, it
appropriately balances the CDBG versus HOME funds.
Lehmann noted one additional thing that might be of interest to the Commission is with the new
Consolidated Plan, they are de-obligating old funds that don't get spent on economic development within
two years. They have been trying to push childcare as their economic development activity but will likely
have funds that will be de-obligated in CDBG, which could then be reallocated and could retroactively
fund an agency more. It is not a promise, and the Commission could also do a funding round it would just
depend on how HCDC wanted to approach that based on the policies that are in the Consolidated Plan.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked when that would be. Lehmann stated it would be July 1 unless projects come
through right at the end over the next three months, he believes that it would be around $60,000.
Eastham wants to understand what the boost in proposed allocations are again, Lehmann stated the
proposed allocations right now are full funding for Successful Living's three acquisitions, Housing
Fellowship CHDO, Habitat's three purchases or down payment assistance, Systems Unlimited new
construction and then the City's South District program projects. Then for Unlimited Abilities acquisition
would be $75,000 and Little Creations would be $24,000 and the Commission would have to amend the
Consolidated Plan with a smaller amount. Eastman stated he would not approve only $24,000 for Little
Creations as it doesn't make any sense to him. He said they could move one of the Habitat down
payment assistance proposals and increase the Little Creation amount.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 9 of 14
Drabek noted there is one very small change that would eliminate the necessity of asking for an
amendment to the Consolidated Plan and that would be moving $6,000 in CDBG funds from City South
District to Little Creations. That would bring the amount to $30,000.
Eastham noted that $30,000 still below the average allocation of $40,000. He also stated affordable
childcare is a major need in the community and one which there is substantial efforts being conducted by
a number of groups in the community to address.
Lehmann noted with the Little Creations project the hood is $28,000 roughly by itself, then there's
electrical, plumbing, gas range for $3,000, three parts sink for $1,600, commercial dishwasher for around
$9,000 and a number of site preparation stuff and then some of the developer oversight stuff.
Drabek noted then the allocation of $30.000 would be roughly the amount of the hood budget. Or
Lehmann noted the dishwasher, sink, range and plumbing.
Fixmer-Oraiz also noted to keep in mind that in July there may be another $60,000 that could be
reallocated. Lehmann confirmed that is what they're anticipating.
Eastham noted that $60,000 could also use for down payment assistance on one of the other
homeownership projects. Lehmann acknowledge it could be for any unfunded project or to fully fund a
project or a competitive round could be opened. Eastham suggested reducing the number of home
ownership projects. Lehmann stated that would require shifting HOME to Unlimited Abilities and then
moving Unlimited Abilities CDBG down and he stated that blending funding is challenging and best to fully
fund with one source of funds as they've had issues in the past. Lehmann stated they're trying to make it
easier, but it's not easy and even experienced agencies do not always comply properly, and he would
recommend against doing it.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked what if they fully fund Little Creations, she agrees with Eastham and has actually
spent quite amount of time on the Johnson County Child Care Coalition and childcare is a serious need in
the community for many reasons, so is there a way to just take one of Habitat's down payment assistance
and move it over to Little Creations.
Lehmann stated if they wanted to go this route he would recommend on down payment for Habitat under
CDBG and one under HOME.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if the Commission could ask a question of Unlimited Abilities since they are in the
audience. She asked if this was to go through and they get half of the funding now and half of the funding
later, is that an issue in terms of timing, given the project that they have.
Shirley Trample (Unlimited Abilities) replied she doesn't think it would be.
Lehmann state he would also propose if they were to do that, they still swap out the HOME for CDBG and
Habitat can be funded with CDBG.
Alter moved to recommend the following FY21 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
HOME Program budget to City Council totaling $448,000 HOME and $105,000 CDBG:
Project
CDBG
HOME
Successful Living Acquisition #1
$0
48,000
Successful Living Acquisition #2
$0
48,000
Successful Living Acquisition #3
$0
48,000
The Housing Fellowship CHDO Ops
$0
20,000
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #1
$0
30,000
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #3
$27,000
0
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 10 of 14
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #2
$0
0
Systems Unlimited New Construction
$0
100,000
City South District #2
$0
50,000
City South District #1
$0
44,000
Unlimited Abilities Acquisition
$0
60,000
Little Creations Public Facility
$78,000
0
Total Allocation:
$105,000
5448,000
Eastham seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (McKinstry opposed).
DISCUSS FY21 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES (EA2A) FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER
BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Lehmann noted the budget for EA2A is $25,000 and he showed the averages. He noted that Successful
Living snow/mow is below the $5,000 minimum. Otherwise, if they funded everything, it would all hit that
$5,000 minimum. Lehmann noted all requests are above the minimum and noted that two Successful
Livings requests are technically over the maximum.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked it agencies could put in multiple applications. Lehmann said the guidance that they
have so far is that there's a minimum and there's a maximum, but they haven't talked about multiple
applications. CDBG/HOME agencies got guidance to put in one application for every property that they
want to purchase with the idea that it would be easier to allocate funds.
Eastham noted the Successful Living snow removal thing just failed to excite him so he moved the $2,250
down to Unlimited Abilities.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated that for people who have access or accessibility problems, not having clear
sidewalks, entryways, and driveways is an issue. It is also a strain on their staff who's having to go
around to all of these properties, so she thought it was actually a good investment. Lehmann noted that
Successful Living is typically chronic mental disabilities, but it does include physical disabilities as well.
Alter stated she was trying to look at this through the lens of why emerging aid to agencies was its own
separate allocation pot and the purpose of having the emerging aid to agency was really to try and fund
organizations that were trying to emerge and getting off of their feet. Which is also the question she had
about Grow Johnson County, haven't they previously been funded. They always have great application,
and it's certainly a worthy cause but at what point are they emerging anymore. Similarly, Successful
Living is the same. It's not that she doesn't think it's worthy and people do need to get around, but rather
to reflect on why we had the categories separated. And in that case, Houses into Homes definitely
qualifies and Unlimited Abilities as well.
Eastham stated an option would be to fund Unlimited Abilities and Houses and Homes as genuine
emerging aid and then devote the remainder back to the other HOME/CDBG projects. Other
Commissioners agreed to that.
Alter also stated it's incumbent upon the Commission to be a little bit clearer on the application as to what
emerging aid category is and what that means. They need a clarification statement on the application so
they don't waste people's time. She apologizes to those organizations that it really was a failure of the
Commission.
Eastham is proposing to fund Unlimited Abilities and Houses and Homes and have the remaining $8,262
go the legacy agency projects and be divided equally per agency.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 11 of 14
Eastham moved to recommend the following FY21 Emerging Aid to Agencies budget to City
Council totaling $16,738 and dividing the remaining $8,262 among Legacy Aid to Agencies
applicants (totaling $459 per agency):
Grow Johnson County - FY21 Season
$0
Houses into Homes - Inventory Mgt
$5,438
Successful Living - Snow/Mow
$0
Successful Living - Software
$0
Unlimited Abilities - Operations
$11,300
Total Allocation:
$16,738
Alter seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
DISCUSS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK ACTIVITIES:
Lehmann noted Community Development week is held annually, it's a time to celebrate the projects that
are funded by CDBG and HOME and it's a way to get out the word so the Commission can see what's
happening. Last year they did those tours of the agencies but are now doing that now on a more
personalized basis. There has also in the past been things where the Commission has decided to put on
an event or awards, a celebration, it is up to the Commission if that is something that they want to take
on. If the Commission is interested in doing that, they can create a subcommittee or discuss. Probably
the easiest thing to do is to create a subcommittee and organize something that way.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if there was an interested in creating a subcommittee to come up with some ideas
that people want to do, however she acknowledged #Coronavirus. They probably don't want to devote
scads of time into something that ultimately may not happen.
Lehmann suggested doing something like posters or social media. Fixmer-Oraiz noted she has kicked
around this idea of communities of care and could really fit in something like what Lehmann was saying of
posters. She had originally envisioned it as letters of care and it would be basically love letters to our
partner organizations. However she is not sure if letters fall under spreading coronavirus. They could do
emails of care. She came up with that idea while she was sitting in the meeting with the City and with the
Agency Impact Coalition, it was very tense but then there was this moment of hey, we're people, and
we're really trying to do good work. She just thought there's an opportunity there to tell that story in a way
that's actually recognizing the work that our care providers provide do is really from a loving place.
Lehman suggested as Commissioners, they have their meetings with each agency and how about after
those meetings they write letters thanking them for the work that they do.
Alter asked if the audience is just those agencies. Fixmer-Oraiz stated she was trying to get the public to
write the letters but obviously it's easier if we just do it because it actually will get done. It was also a way
for the City to potentially be a drop off point for the City to receive the letters to them and showing it is full
circle of the City and the agencies working together in the eye of the public. Fixmer-Oraiz wondered if
there could be something on the City website where people could just write a quick note.
Consensus to agree to develop a subcommittee to flesh out ideas.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked since they are not promoting large group gatherings at this point, can they potentially
move to another week. Lehmann stated it is a nationally recognized week, but they can have a local
community development week.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 12 of 14
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: FEBRUARY 20,2020:
Eastham moved to approve the minutes of February 20, 2020. Kealey seconded and a vote was taken
and the motion passed 6-0.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Lehmann noted the next meeting will be on April 16 at 6:30pm in Senior Center room 202. Agenda will
be monitoring updates on Little Creations, Successful Living and The Housing Fellowship, they will
discuss projects not conforming with the unsuccessful delayed projects policy, which at this point he
believes is only Old Brick and they've actually gotten word from the HUD rep and are moving ahead so
very excited about that. They will also review of the FY21 Annual Action Plan and then review of the
Citizen Participation Plan update. One thing that staff has been doing is going through the Citizen
Participation Plan and will put it as an appendix to the Consolidated Plan as well. They will also consider
amendments to the Consolidated Plan, such as the public facilities amount, if that's something the
Commission wants to pursue. He asked it there anything else to add to the agenda.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked to discuss the method of the meeting on April 16 as she doesn't think they should
meet in person. Lehmann said the City has not yet had consideration for Commission's or Committees
meeting virtually but imagines that will change relatively soon. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if they could us Skype
or Zoom. Lehmann said they can do digital meetings so long as it is on any open meeting software like
Skype or Zoom. He noted there's some additional rules that come with that but for the most part it's going
to be the same they just have to make sure that they're posting all the information so that everyone can
participate.
Eastham added at some point, he'd like to talk about the Agency Impact Coalition but would not
necessarily want to do that at an electronic meeting and rather do it in person.
Lehmann noted that there is not an HCDC meeting scheduled in June, April will likely be an online
meeting, May could as well. They need to have the April meeting but in May they don't necessarily need
to meet however that could mean the next meeting would be July.
Lehmann also wanted to pass on information from Shelter House, currently the guidance from HUD as to
how to deal with the outbreak within a shelter situation versus other situations has not been terribly useful
up to this point and so Shelter House is looking for any ideas, right now the City is trying to work through
this but it's a challenging situation.
Lehmann also noted the City is also trying to figure out how to use public facilities right now, the model is
mostly a disaster recovery situation, but this is different than relocating someone from a floodplain, or
flood impacted area.
Eastham assumes Shelter House has looked at the Department of Public Health and the State
Department. Lehmann confirmed they have and there is some guidance out of LA County that's better
than HUDs but I mean, it's very different place by place and the shelters are a challenging situation.
Shelter House is also looking for donations of sanitary supplies because obviously they're going through a
lot of those and it's out at a lot of places.
McKinstry pointed out that the Meals on Wheels people have already made sure that all of their clients
have seven days of their normal support services food on hand which was really cool but they don't know
where the money for that is going to come from for sure but they went ahead and did it, even though it
wasn't in their budget. He stated it was good they looked at the emergency funding last month, because
he is sure there's going to be some requests for reimbursement from some of the agencies who are really
getting ahead of things and spending money they don't have in order to try to avoid some cataclysm with
their clientele.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 13 of 14
Lehmann noted in terms of agency liaison meetings, McKinstry is done with his visits, Fixmer-Oraiz has
April and May, does Eastham want June and July to get them done. Fixmer-Oraiz said she may have to
push back her visits due to COVID-19. Lehmann agreed and suggested they delay until June and just
plan on starting in June.
Final announcements, Lehmann has accepted a different position at the City of Iowa City and will be
transitioning to the long-range planner position. He will work closely with his successor to make sure that
things transition smoothly and will actually be transitioning March 24. The position is open right now till
March 25 if you know of anyone who would be interested in applying for a community development
planner position.
ADJOURNMENT:
Alter moved to adjourn. Kealey seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 6-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 14 of 14
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Terms Exp.
7/11
8/15
9/19
10/17
12/19
2/20
3/12
Aguilar, Peggy
6/30/22
■
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
Alter, Megan
6/30/21
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Drabek, Matt
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Eastham, Charlie
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fixmer-Oraiz, V
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook
6/30/22
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
McKinstry, John
6/30/20
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Nkumu, Peter
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
Padron, Maria
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
• Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
STAFF PRESENTATION TO FOLLOW:
1 r I
C04;qui h
CITY OF lOVVA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826
(319) 356-5000
(3I9) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
FY21 Annual Action Plan
FY21 HUD Allocation:
� r �
°'09M. N
�-.�®ANO
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY20
FY21
Chane
% Change
CDBG
$658740
$697,678
$39,238
5.9%
HOME
$482,816
$511786
$39,970
6.0%
Historic CDBG/HOME Funding
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
■CDBG ■HOME
Za `
-4
®I CQ 1
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Historic CDBG/HOME Funding*
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
FH
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
■CDBG ■HOME
Za
-4
®I�m
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COVID-19 Funding
• Iowa City has been allocated $410,422 in CDBG-CV funds
CITY OF IOWA CITY
• Incorporated language into FY21 Annual Action Plan to fund related
projects
• Added a goal to "provide facilities and services in support of the
pandemic response"
FY21 Annual Action Plan: Funded Activities
Economic Development Economic Development Set-aside $ 50,000 NA 2
CDBG Administration $150,000 NA NA
Administration & Planning HOME Administration NA $ 60,000 NA
Total $735,000 $675,000 3,174
1 r 1
.®r7
;1 III M
w �
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Persons /
CDBG
HOME
Households
Project
Planned activities
Award
Award
Assisted
Aid to Agencies - Shelter House
$
15,000
NA
700
Public Service Activities
Aid to Agencies - DVIP
$
50,000
NA
600
Aid to Agencies - NC1C
$
55,000
NA
1,500
Public Facility Activities
Little Creations Academy
$
78,000
NA
22
Childcare Center Kitchen Rehab
Neighborhood and
Neighborhood Improvements Projects:
$
75,000
NA
300
Area Benefits
Green Infrastructure
Housing Rehabilitation
Comprehensive Rehabilitation
$
-
$ 90,000
4
Program
Owner -Occupied Rehabilitation
$235,000
$ -
18
Successful Living Rental Acquisitions
$
-
$144,000
15
Unlimited Abilities Rental Acquisition
$
-
$ 60,000
3
Competitive Housing
Systems Unlimited Rental Construction
$
-
$100,000
4
Activities
IC South District Ownership Program
$
-
$ 94,000
4
Habitat Down Payment Assistance
$
27,000
$ 30,000
2
The Housing Fellowship CHDO Ops
NA
$ 20,000
NA
Economic Development Economic Development Set-aside $ 50,000 NA 2
CDBG Administration $150,000 NA NA
Administration & Planning HOME Administration NA $ 60,000 NA
Total $735,000 $675,000 3,174
1 r 1
.®r7
;1 III M
w �
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF PRESENTATION CONCLUDED
� r
rrM as � h
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Strect
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
www. icgov. o rg
A
Prepared by: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230
RESOLUTION NO. 20-115
Resolution adopting Iowa City's FY21 Annual Action Plan which is a sub-
part of Iowa City's 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan (City Steps 2025)
Whereas, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to prepare and submit the FY21 Annual Action Plan as part of the City's 2021-
2025 Consolidated Plan (City Steps 2025) to plan the use of federal funds to assist lower
income residents with housing, jobs, public facilities, and public services; and
Whereas, the Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission has held a series of
meetings regarding the use of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds for City of Iowa City FY21; and
Whereas, the City has disseminated information, solicited public input, and held a public
meeting on the FY21 Annual Action Plan; and
Whereas, the FY21 Annual Action Plan contains the allocation of CDBG and HOME funds
attached hereto as Appendix B; and
Whereas, the Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission has recommended
that Appendix B be approved; and
Whereas, adoption of the FY21 Annual Action Plan will make Iowa City eligible for federal and
state funds administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
Whereas, the City Council finds that the public interest will be served by the adoption of the
FY21 Annual Action Plan and submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The City of Iowa City FY21 Annual Action Plan containing the allocation of CDBG and
HOME funds attached hereto as Appendix B is hereby approved and adopted.
2. The City Manager is hereby designated as the Chief Executive Officer and authorized to
act on behalf of the City of Iowa City in connection with the FY21 Annual Action Plan.
3. The City Manager of Iowa City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the City of
Iowa City FY21 Annual Action Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and is further authorized and directed to provide all the necessary
certifications or documents required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Resolution No. 20-115
Page 2
4. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, terminate, or amend CDBG and
HOME Agreements executed in connection with the allocation of public funds with sub -
recipients, Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), or other legal
entities.
Passed and approved this 5`" day of May 2020.
Attest:
City Jerk
(Sue Dulek — 04/29/2020)
Resolution No.
Page 3
It was moved by Salih and seconded by Thomas the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
NAYS: ABSENT:
%
Bergus
%
Mims
x
Salih
x
Taylor
%
Teague
x
Thomas
x
Weiner
Appendix B
FY21
Neighborhood and Neighborhood Improvements Projects:
$ 75,000 NA 300
Area Benefits Green Infrastructure
Housing Rehabilitation
Comprehensive Rehabilitation
$ -
CDBG
HOME
Households
Project
Planned activities
$ 235,000
Award
Award
Assisted
Aid to Agencies - Shelter House
$
15,000
NA
700
Public Service Activities
Aid to Agencies - DVIP
$
50,000
NA
600
Systems Unlimited Rental Construction
Aid to Agencies - NCJC
$
55,000
NA
1,500
$ -
Little Creations Academy
$
78,000
NA
22
Public Facility Activities
$
30,000
2
The Housing Fellowship CHDO Ops
NA
Childcare Center Kitchen Rehab
20,000
NA
CHDO Reserve Activities
TBD
Neighborhood and Neighborhood Improvements Projects:
$ 75,000 NA 300
Area Benefits Green Infrastructure
Housing Rehabilitation
Comprehensive Rehabilitation
$ -
$
90,000
4
Program
Owner -Occupied Rehabilitation
$ 235,000
$
-
18
Successful Living Rental Acquisitions
$ -
$144,000
15
Unlimited Abilities Rental Acquisition
$ -
$
60,000
3
Competitive Housing
Systems Unlimited Rental Construction
$ -
$100,000
4
Activities
IC South District Ownership Program
$ -
$
94,000
4
Habitat Down Payment Assistance
$ 27,000
$
30,000
2
The Housing Fellowship CHDO Ops
NA
$
20,000
NA
CHDO Reserve Activities
TBD
$ -
$
77,000
TBD
Economic Development
Economic Development Set-aside
$ 50,000
NA
2
CDBG Administration
$150,000
NA
NA
Administration & Planning
HOME Administration
NA
$
60,000
NA
Total
$735,000
$675,000
3,174
Item Number: 15.
AL CITY OF IOWA CITY
=�c�-
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution allocating human services Aid to Agencies funding for the Fiscal
Year 2020, July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021.
Prepared By: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Reviewed By: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director
Fiscal Impact: $675,000 for FY21; $655,000 from the General Fund and $120,000 from
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: The Housing and Community Development Commission
recommended approval of Legacy agency allocations by a vote of 8-0 at the
February 20, 2020 and Emerging agency allocations by a vote of 6-0 at the
March 12, 2020 meeting.
Attachments: 2-20-2020 HCDC Minutes
3-12-2020 HCDC Minutes
Resolution
Exhibit A -funding recommendations
Executive Summary:
The City annually budgets financial aid to human service agencies serving Iowa City residents.
For FY21, the City anticipated a budget of $458,000 for the Aid to Agencies program. On January
21, 2020, City Council held a joint work session with the Housing and Community Development
Commission (HCDC), after which the budget was increased to $675,000. At their February 20
meeting, HCDC made a recommendation to Council for $650,000 for Legacy agencies. HCDC
then made recommendations for Emerging agencies for $16,738 and increased Legacy agency
funding to $658,262 at their March 12, 2020 meeting.
Background /Analysis:
Iowa City provides funding for operating costs of local nonprofits serving low income residents
through its Aid to Agencies program. City Council directed HCDC to review and formulate a
funding recommendation for this Aid to Agencies program. The program provides funding to both
Legacy agencies, as identified in City Steps 2025, and Emerging agencies, which tends to be
less established agencies.
Legacy agencies submit applications under the United Way Joint Funding process, through which
Johnson County human service agencies request funding from the United Way, Johnson County,
and the Cities of Iowa City and Coralville on a single application. Emerging agencies submit
shorter applications directly to the City of I owa City.
Following their joint meeting with Council, HCDC developed an initial funding recommendation to
forward to City Council for Legacy agencies on February 20, 2020. HCDC revised this funding
decision and developed a funding recommendation for Emerging agencies on March 12, 2020.
The funding recommendations are attached as Exhibit A to the resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2-20-2020 HCDC Minutes
3-12-2020 HCDC Minutes
Resolution
Exhibit A
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2020 — 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
FINAL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Aguilar, Megan Alter, Matt Drabek, Charlie Eastham, Lyn Dee
Kealey, John McKinstry, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron
MEMBERS ABSENT: V Fixmer-Oraiz
STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly
OTHERS PRESENT: Jake Kundert, Susan Craig, Ally Hanten, Simon Andrew, Michelle Heinz,
Shirley Tramble, Whitney Stevenson, Lucy Barker, Jason Barker, Ron
Berg, Barbara Vinograde, Becci Reedus, Heath Brewer, Roger Goedken,
Ashley Gillett, Carla Phelps, Missie Forbes, Ronda Lipsius, Delaney
Dixon, Daleta Thurness, Michelle Cole, Lindsay Glenn, Chelsey Markle,
Michelle Lloyd, Brian Loring, Christi Regan, Tony Smith, Mark Sertterh,
Nicki Ross, Amanda Bloomer, Adam Robinson, Sara Barron
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 8-0 HCDC recommends to City Council the following FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies budget
totaling $650,000 and preserving $25,000 for Emerging Aid to Agencies:
CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank
$68,220
Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic
$24,611
4 C's Community Coord. Child Care
$24,610
Neighborhood Centers of JC
$54,142
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
$49,220
Shelter House
$83,674
Prelude Behavioral Services
$39,376
Big Brothers / Big Sisters
$24,610
Rape Victim Advocacy Program
$24,610
United Action for Youth
$32,485
Pathways Adult Day Health Center
$24,610
Inside Out Reentry Community
$39,376
HACAP
$24,610
Table to Table
$30,516
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
$24,610
Arc of Southeast Iowa
$19,688
Free Lunch Program
$17,719
Horizons, A Family Service Alliance
$43,313
Total Request:
$650,000
By a vote of 8-0 HCDC recommends to City Council that the City continue to support the 12
recommendations in the Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Report, with the additional
recommendation that the City assist with developing an acquisition plan to transition a private
manufactured housing park into a resident -owned cooperative to prepare for future possible acquisitions.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 2 of 18
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Padron called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Anthony Smith (Little Creations Academy) wanted to comment on the application process. He has an
issue with the ranking criteria that looks at how much of a project's budget is CDBG or HOME compared
to the amount the agency has brought in. He believes there are agencies that want to be funded but may
not receive funds if this is their only resource to do a project because of the point system. They don't have
an equal chance to get CDBG funding. Smith asked the Commission to consider changing the ranking
system so agencies that can't get funding from other resources could still be funded with CDBG.
PRESENTATION ABOUT THE CENSUS 2020:
Susan Craig (Complete Count Census Committee) introduced herself and noted that the committee is
composed of representatives from Iowa City, Johnson County, North Liberty, Coralville and several
nonprofits. Lehmann is also on this committee. The committee is charged to work with people who they
may have a hard time reaching with the census. Craig showed a video that talked about the census.
From the video: the 2020 Census is written in the constitution and data is used for services such as fire
stations, schools, and clinics. Where there are more people there are more needs for public services.
That's why the Census is used by the government to make funding decisions each year. It's also used by
nonprofits to inform services, by businesses to create jobs, and even by students for school projects.
Understanding how the population changes helps us shape communities across the country for the
better. How does the 2020 Census affect representation? There are 435 seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Those get distributed to the 50 states by population and an accurate census response
helps decide that. How can a person take the 2020 census? In March 2020 everyone in the country will
receive invitation to answer a simple questionnaire and there are three ways to respond; (1) to complete it
online, (2) to call by phone, (3) to send in by mail. For those that do not respond a census taker from the
community will follow up. Is your 2020 census data safe? After sending your census response, your
personal information is kept safe. By law, it can't be shared with any other government agency, law
enforcement or landlord. So take your 2020 census with peace of mind.
Craig next emphasized a couple of things. Number one is how important the census is particularly to the
people in this room who need funding for a lot of good causes. Craig stated for every person that Iowa
does not count in the census, that's $28,000 they won't get from the federal government over the span of
10 years. If we do not count 1/101" of 1 % of the population of Iowa, over 10 years, we will lose $90 million,
$9 million a year. And the federal funds are so important to keeping the support services at the level that
they are in Johnson County.
Craig encouraged everyone to please take their census, encourage everyone they know to take the
census. Regarding the timeline, between March 12 and March 20 people will get an invitation in the mail
and it can be completed online or by calling the telephone number provided. If someone hasn't responded
by March 26, between the 26th and April 3, they will receive a reminder. If someone has not responded
by April 8, that next week, they will be sent another reminder that includes the paper questionnaire. A final
reminder will be sent between April 20 and April 27 and on May 1, enumerators start knocking on doors. If
you know of anyone who is looking for a part time job in Johnson County, the pay scale is going to be $21
an hour, go to 2020census.gov and apply.
Lehmann added that people who do not speak English can take the census over the phone in over 40
languages. There are also materials in different languages for a broad reach across the communities.
Alter asked if there was a one-page brochure that outlines the non -English-speaking opportunities for
enumerators needed for different languages. Lehmann confirmed there was a large need, but wasn't
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 3 of 18
aware of such resources. Generally the City looks for Arabic, Spanish and French speakers because
those are the largest foreign language populations. Mandarin is also a large population in Iowa City
Craig reiterated everyone should fill out the census, she acknowledged there is a lot of fear these days
associated with giving the government information. She confirmed there is no citizenship question on the
census and that no one will ask for that kind of information. So, there is no worry and it is totally
confidential for 72 years, after 72 years, the National Archives releases census form information.
DISCUSS FY21 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES (A2A) FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Lehmann noted Social Justice Racial Equity Grant awards came out and those were in the Commission
packets. He stated Aid to Agencies budget was $675,000 for this year and that up to 5% of that can fund
Emerging agencies, but that is up to the discretion of HCDC for recommendation. Staff recommends
increasing Emerging funds slightly up to $25,000 then having $650,000 be for Legacy. Staff also provided
scores and recommended funding as was discussed so the Commission can find requests sorted by staff
score and alphabetically. Staff determined funding by providing full funding for everything above a score
of 75, below that took off $1,000, and lower scoring agencies had more funds reduced to account for the
percentage of the requested budget that was fulfilled and also total dollar amounts as well.
Alter asked about the demarcation line of 75, can Lehmann talk about what brought staff to that decision.
Lehmann stated it was based on a relatively simple gradient from full funding to less than full funding, and
they chose 75 because it fulfilled that need. It isn't a magic number.
Padron noted if the Commission follows that, then they only have 4% to the emerging agencies. If they
move the 75 up to 80 as a cutoff score then they would have more for emerging agencies. Lehmann
confirmed that is correct and noted the maximum for Emerging agencies at 5% of the budget is $33,750.
Padron would like to discuss scores because she has questions and thinks it is not perfect. She is most
concerned with Shelter House because according to the priorities shelter is number one but it scored low.
Eastham stated Shelter House received a score of 87.5 and staff is recommending full funding. Lehmann
said they scored it in the top quarter. Padron feels that score is low and in the persons to benefit category
it only scored two points and in equity scored 2.5. Lehmann acknowledged as they went through the
scoring they saw tweaks that are needed, especially equity needs to be reconfigured, it currently is based
on the percentage of nonwhite, Hispanic and persons with disabilities served. Lehmann stated it was not
calibrated properly when set up, and they realize that now. Others such as community need are written
where the full score of 15 is was almost impossible to get, so 5 was pretty much taken off the score of
everyone right off the bat and that's something else that needs to change in the next iteration. He
acknowledged it's not a perfect scoring system.
Eastham sees an easy recommended change to each agency from the Staff's recommendations which
would be to reduce the amount requested by each of these 18 agencies by about $570 a piece and that
would bring almost everyone up to what they requested. His concerns are with Table to Table and the
Free Lunch Program, food insecurity programs, he would prefer to have them at what they actually
requested. He looked at the Horizons application request carefully and personally doesn't see the
rationale for reducing their request by 10 plus percent. Eastham would ask the Commission again to just
reduce every request by about $570 which would bring the total to $650,000 and is a very small reduction
for each agency. He is not concerned about the scoring differences.
Alter stated one of her concerns is the applicants know that there's a scoring system and they're trying to
fill out the applications as best they can to obtain the highest score believing that that's how they're going
to get their money. If that is true, the Commission needs to make sure they're doing things in the best way
possible to give out funding. She is concerned about saying they need to tweak a score in order to justify
a funding decision. As they talk about modifying rankings, or how scores are applied, it needs to be made
clear to everybody what the criteria are, either they're going by staff recommendations and by a score or
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 4 of 18
they need to clearly state to everyone this is the guidelines for the Commission to make final decisions in
conversation so that it's not a matter of this is what the score is end of story.
Padron apologized if she wasn't clear, she is not trying to tweak the score so that Shelter House scored
higher she was just concerned that the equity points were not clear and are not fair to every agency.
McKinstry noticed that agencies conferred with one another this year before making requests and they all
kind of agreed, in some way shape or form, about the amount of requests, which is new and hasn't
happened before and he thinks it is a good thing. He respects the joint effort to give some scoring that's
objective because may have been too subjective before, making recommendations was not as much on
information and more based on how they felt that evening or something. He would like to weigh the joint
agency recommendations together as being important, because who understands their relationships with
each other and their own needs better than the people who were sitting around that table. McKinstry
stated that no objective criteria are ever going to be perfect but they can't just throw them out the window.
Alter agrees and feels it is just to make sure that there's a clear understanding among the group, staff and
the agencies that these scores are not in stone and there is going to be discussion and yet, they want this
to be sort of a strong fundamental baseline so that there is that objective criteria as best as possible.
McKinstry stated that what Eastman suggested is closer to weighing the agency requests that were made
jointly. Staff isn't far off from that, but it does significantly cut some agencies and $500 is important.
Eastham noted these are staff scores are not his scores so if they averaged all nine of them together,
they probably would come up with a noticeable different score ranking for the for these agencies. He
recommends lowering staff recommendations by $572.22 per agency.
Padron questioned taking the same amount from each agency noting it is not the same taking $500 from
the Free Lunch Program when they are only asking for $16,000 and taking $500 from Comm Unity which
is asking for $69,000. Eastham agreed and said if they want to pay a lot of attention to percent changes
than yes that is true, however in his experience he would not object to a reduction of $570 for any of
these requested amounts. He is open to hearing other suggestions or proposals as well.
Padron suggested a percentage from each agency.
Drabek said it would be roughly 1 % for each agency. Lehmann calculated what it would be per agency at
a 1.56% reduction. Kubly noted from a staff perspective it would be great for the allocations be rounded at
least to the nearest dollar. Padron noted if they used 1.5% for agency they would reach the $650,000.
McKinstry asked if there were a greater difference between the requests, the total of the requests and the
total allocation by the Council, he would be more inclined to put more emphasis on the scores. But
because he feels it's close, he would not object to a percentage reduction like this.
Drabek agreed his initial preference would be for that system of an equal percentage but questioned if
there are any problems that would cause. Lehmann pointed out that those agencies that requested more
money will now have a larger reduction and a lot of those are higher scoring agencies. But at the end of
the day it's the Commission's decision.
Padron opened the discussion for comment from anybody in the public.
Mark Sertterh (Shelter House) stated he doesn't object to the scores or the percentage reduction but
questioned if the scores don't have any weight on the final recommendations. Eastham stated the scores
are close enough together that there's not a significant difference between scores and that these are staff
scores and not Commissioner's scores. Sertterh is asking for clarification for moving forward in the next
couple of years and if scores of 65 and 93 are close enough. He is not disagreeing with the amounts, just
questioning the scores.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 5 of 18
Alter reiterated this is what she was trying to say that moving forward they need to make sure there is
some clarity about the significance of the scores. There is a larger question of how are scores being used
so everybody understands.
Eastham suggested in the future to compare Commissioner average scores and staff scores to be sure.
McKinstry also noted if there's a bigger discrepancy between what the requests are and what money they
have to allocate and if they had to cut significant amounts, percentage wise, they would be looking more
carefully at the scores to decide where the cuts would have to be. But since it's closer this year, and
because they have the agency's conferring with one another to begin with, he is confident with this.
Becci Reedus (CommUnity Crisis Center/Food Bank) stated she agrees that this looks good and doesn't
think it matters a whole lot and 1 % is probably an equitable way and everybody can suffer a little bit.
However she writes grants toward a target and it feels like every time they come here they don't know the
target, it moves a little bit. It worked out fine this year but what would have happened if $300,000 more
had been asked for and the Commission started moving things around based on percentages and things
like that. Do scores matter, do you want to get rid of the scores, do the scores not work. She feels those
things need to be decided before the Commission starts distributing money. Again, this year it all worked
out but it could be different if agencies requested $300,000 more. She noted the agencies and coalition
are willing to help in any way they can but encourages that they communicate the way in which the
scores can be met, if its staff recommendation, if it's a Commission recommendation, ahead of time.
McKinstry noted they had a better conversation this past year between agencies and the City and the
Commission and the key is to continue the conversation and keep the channels of communication open,
starting a little earlier in the year in terms of budgeting to have that conversation, and trusting the process,
not necessarily just the scores on the objective side of things, but the process of you telling us next year if
the scoring system doesn't make any sense, or whatever.
Alter noted it sounds like some of it is in the interim, before the Commission scores again next year, that
they make decisions about how this works, and then communicate to the agencies in conversation. This
year they ran into having a conversation at the same time as having to allocate money or make decisions
and that's highly problematic. She feels they have moved forward in productive ways since that time, but
now it comes to being able to clearly say what are the expectations to reach certain scores and it's
something that they can work on over the course of the year.
Reedus noted this happened last year too, the scores didn't matter because the funding started at the low
priority, moved up to middle and high priority, so it didn't matter. There was a scoring sheet attached to
the application but they could have written a quicker application because it really didn't matter. Reedus
noted she will always strive to try and give the best information, give all the information they can and
maybe they can go through some of the recommendations and read them and give feedback.
Lehmann noted that staff and the Commission has gone through robust processes so far and when they
make decisions, they have to be willing to stand by the process they've made, which happens sometimes
but not all the time. So, as the Commission makes decisions through any new process, as they have
conversations, there has to be a will to follow through with the decisions they make. From the staff
perspective that's important; the Commission can write a perfect policy and Council can adopt it, but if the
Commission doesn't follow that policy 100%, then there is no point. He agrees with Reedus and Alter, that
a lot of what they want is predictability because as an agency without predictability it's impossible to plan.
McKinstry asked if the agencies would be getting together again in the coming year and making a joint
recommendation. Reedus confirmed they will, they have meetings scheduled and are going to have
regular meeting scheduled so they can put it on the agenda.
Brian Loring (Neighborhood Centers) wanted to thank the Commission because he knows last year was a
big deal, they left the room in January having a conversation about scarcity and feeling pitted against one
another and this Commission actually went ahead and made a bold request to Council that probably
wasn't easy to do. He just wanted to say thank you to the Commission for doing that.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 6 of 18
Alter moved to recommend the following FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies budget to City Council
totaling $650,000 and preserving $25,000 for Emerging Aid to Agencies:
CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank
$68,220
Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic
$24,611
4 C's Community Coord. Child Care
$24,610
Neighborhood Centers of JC
$54,142
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
$49,220
Shelter House
$83,674
Prelude Behavioral Services
$39,376
Big Brothers / Big Sisters
$24,610
Rape Victim Advocacy Program
$24,610
United Action for Youth
$32,485
Pathways Adult Day Health Center
$24,610
Inside Out Rentry Community
$39,376
HACAP
$24,610
Table to Table
$30,516
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
$24,610
Arc of Southeast Iowa
$19,688
Free Lunch Program
$17,719
Horizons, A Family Service Alliance
$43,313
Total Request:
$650,000
Aguilar seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
QUESTION/ANSWER SESSION FOR FY21 APPLICATIONS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME), AND EMERGING A2A
PROGRAMS.
Lehmann noted for CDBG/Home currently they have $448,000 HOME and around $94,000 CDBG for
next year. They received $653,767 in competitive CDBG and HOME funding requests. Staff prepared
ranking sheets and shared the allocations from the past three years. They also received the funding
amount from HUD, so for the upcoming fiscal year, in total, there are $697,678 in CDBG and $511,786 in
HOME which is slightly higher than they expected. Lehmann feels they might be able to bump up the
CDBG amount but the HOME that they had initially planned on was actually an aggressive amount so the
$448,000 is the same. Potentially HCDC could go up to $105,000 in CDBG for the competitive allocation.
Staff scored points based on the ranking sheet for CDBG/HOME as they did for Aid to Agencies, though
HCDC is must still do its own rankings as well. Staff's ranking sheet and a staff report for each applicant
and criteria were included in the packet which explains how staff scored applications. Lehmann stated
they may notice that there are duplicative applications and the reason staff had them submit multiple
applications this year was that in situations where there are multiples of one kind of activity with separate
funding sources, such as multiple acquisitions, breaking them into individual projects makes it easier for
the Commission to make funding decisions. Or example, Successful Living needs $48,000 to buy a
house, Habitat needs $30,000 for a house, and while that was known in the past, staff wanted that split
out more clearly. Lehmann stated the Commission will also notice that where there are duplicative
applications, they score differently because the timing is off on them by a little bit. For example with the
South District applications one project would be completed earlier, so the later one lost some points for
that. Lehmann included the rationale behind all of this and noted the Commission may not use the same
rationale as they go through their ranking process it's just a method to try and prioritize funds.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 7 of 18
Lehmann also asked while the Commission is making allocations next month to consider projects of more
than $50,000 first and then go into the rankings or however it is decided. This meeting is to ask any
questions of staff or the agencies to help make ranking and funding decisions.
Alter asked for clarification on the sheet Lehmann distributed, CHDO is listed for $24,000 and then under
Little Creations it said a minimum of $30,000, is that because it is the minimum project size for public
facilities. Lehmann confirmed the minimum project size for public facilities is $30,000 and the cap is set
higher to make sure the projects are making a more substantial difference.
Eastham noted he reviewed the Little Creations Academy application and stated his scoring will be
significantly higher than the staff scoring, he will score them in the 80s or so. One big difference is how he
assesses the project differently than staff for project leveraging of other financial resources. The applicant
notes money from the church that hosts the site and money from First Presbyterian Church in prior years,
which doesn't necessarily reduce the cost of this project. However, it is an indication of other financial
resources that are supporting the daycare center. This is a daycare center for low income families and
there's no other source of income to operate or capitalize the daycare center rather than public sources or
daycare fees and daycare fees for low income families can't be increased to increase leverage because
the idea is to have low fees. He also believes staff scored low in the terms of project completion and
capacity and he will score higher because the applicant is in the process of completing the previous
allocation. Eastham reiterated this is a center that's targeting very low-income childcare for very low-
income families and is something the Commission needs to support.
Lehmann commented briefly to the point regarding leverage, that's been a discussion before and he
based his scoring off what percentage was funds and to go to Smith's point at the beginning of the
meeting that may be something the Commission wants to explore next funding cycle. Eastman noted
leveraging as for this project, this center, is a much different than leveraging for some of the group home
projects, or some of the other applications too, it's just a different financial picture.
Alter noted that when she first came onto the Commission she questioned if it is a good thing that they're
able to bring in more money and yet then doesn't that send a certain message of if they can bring in
money from other funding resources, then why aren't they. Why should the Commission give them more
money when there may be agencies that can't bring in any money? It's a larger question about need and
allocation. There are many sides, there are the ways in which this is beneficial, as well as the ways that
maybe on a project by project basis and we have to understand the context of the agency, and what their
resources truly are balanced against their need. Alter would appreciate having more of a discussion about
that particular area because it's never been completely clear to her how it works.
Padron noted that with emerging agencies fundraising takes so much time and effort and these are small
agencies and sometimes they don't have the capacity to have a staff person write grants or go out and
fundraise. It is different for the legacy agencies, they have staff and more resources. The agencies could
note that don't receive money from other sources but may have volunteers that are donating hours and
reaching out to the community and consider other thing other than money.
Lehmann noted that some of this discussion should be brought up as they are looking at next year's
application process. For tonight, while the agencies are here, were there any questions the Commission
had on the applications. They could discuss agency by agency or Commissioner by Commissioner.
Padron suggested agency by agency and any Commissioner can speak up.
Eastham stated for group home applications, Successful Living and United Abilities are both supporting
group homes trying to expand their operation. He would like to ask them if they would comment a little bit
more about what the need they see now for additional group home rooms or group home beds.
Shirley Tramble (Unlimited Abilities) founded Unlimited Abilities about two and a half years ago to help
individuals with chronic mental illnesses. She had been doing this work about 15 years and has seen a
growing need in the services that they provide. She acknowledged on the online application they score
low and feels the scoring should be looked at more thoroughly because they don't have the experience
handling City funds, but as a new agency how do you get the experience if you never get a chance?
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 8 of 18
Unlimited Abilities has so much to offer in the community. Right now every home they have they lease
and take all the risk if there's damages. They will do great things for the community because within
almost three years of being in Johnson County, they've served almost 90 clients, and that's not even
counting their outreach clients, just the clients that are staying in the group home.
Lehmann asked in terms of need, how has Tramble seen the transition to the managed care
organizations affecting them, because he noticed some recent projects have had issues filling units, and
doesn't know if that's a demand issue where there aren't enough clients or a MCO transition issue where
there's no longer the funds to pay for it. Perhaps someone from Successful Living could speak to that.
Roger Goedken (Successful Living) noted that its more due to lack of staffing, they have seen an
increase in demand for services for the mentally ill population.
Tramble added she really loves what she does and would appreciate some support so she can continue
doing what she loves to do.
Eastham commented that from Unlimited Abilities application, their income targeting is good, less than
30% of AMI but looking at the leveraging question, staff scored fairly low on that because of the relative
low amount or nonfederal funds. His question are there other funds that the agency could apply for and
receive, or does she think they are not going to be able to receive any additional money from other
sources. Tramble stated they will not receive any additional funding because they're a newer agency, just
been in business two full years, and it's hard within the first couple years as a nonprofit to get funding
because everything is allocated to the agencies who've been established for a while.
Lehmann asked if Unlimited Abilities had Day Hab funding. Tramble replied they do not use Day Hab
funding now without but hope in the future, probably 2021, starting a Day Hab program because she is
seeing a big need for that currently they are just doing residential and community.
Michelle Lloyd (Systems Unlimited) stated the reason they asked for money was to build a fully accessible
house. The people with intellectual disabilities are aging and that's something that's different because as
a lot of you know not too long -ago people with intellectual disabilities didn't get to the age where they
needed accessible housing. However, now they are seeing they need to have more accessible housing
and in this town especially, it's really hard to find something to buy that is fully accessible.
Lehmann asked if they have land already. Lloyd confirmed they did. Lehmann asked in terms of moving
forward, could she talk about what it would look like if they weren't awarded full funding, how would they
approach construction, did they have a plan prior to applying for these funds, etc. Lloyd replied that they
didn't have a lot of discussion about it until they started filling out the grant but any funds that they didn't
get from the City they would probably do a mortgage for which would be a construction loan.
Carla Phelps (Successful Living) spoke about the need for additional people, they always have a long
waiting list. She noted it's a hard population sometimes to capture because when someone is chronically
mentally ill without any resources and often unmedicated it is hard to keep track of where these folks are
and they have to have experienced people doing it and their waiting list is around 20 people. The
homeless, whether they're homeless or they're in and out of the emergency department or in and out of
the shelter or wherever they happen to be, they never go away really. They have talked it over and feel
that a lot of it is due to the closure of the facilities around Iowa. There are very sick people out there.
Eastman next asked to hear comments from Pastor Smith about the Little Creations application.
Anthony Smith (Little Creations Academy) stated they originally made this request because their center is
in need of renovation in the kitchen because they serve hot meals to the children and the equipment that
they are currently using is an electric stove with no hood. Additionally the range they have can't handle
the capacity of what they do on a daily basis so they need to upgrade their equipment to commercial
equipment. With the current funds that they had received, they were able to purchase a commercial
freezer and a commercial refrigerator. They still need a range, hood and a commercial dishwasher that
also does sterilization because in daycare they have to have some sort of sterilization.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 9 of 18
Lehmann asked if that kitchen is exclusively used for the childcare or is it also used for church functions
as well. Smith stated every now and then they do use it but because the daycare has expanded the way
it has it has limited the ability to use the lower level of the church now. Lehmann stated they will have to
keep track of the amount that the kitchen is used for the daycare versus the church, because they can't
use federal funds on religious uses, they need to apportion it by time. So there is a chance that the ratio
of federal and nonfederal funds might have to change from what's in the application, if it's 8% of the time,
then it's about right. But if it's more than 8% of the time federal funds couldn't be used as much. Smith
said they use that kitchen every day for eight hours a day, Monday through Friday. The church would only
use it on a on an event basis, which could be once every six months or something like that, not a lot.
Lehmann said they will just have to document that if awarded funds, but it shouldn't be a problem when
the church uses it. Smith also noted there is a second refrigerator and that is designated for the church
with water and juices dedicated for church purpose.
Padron noted the total amount that the Commission has right now for the emerging agencies is $25,000
and Little Creations Academy is requesting $78,000. Lehmann clarified they are requesting that amount
of CDBG funds. Padron still wondered if Little Creations did not get fully funded would they still be able to
do some of the work they want to do. Smith responded that yes they could do some of the work but
would not be able to finish the project. Lehmann noted that Little Creations has a good scope of work laid
out as to what the work would cost in their application.
Smith added that on the previous project they had some difficulties with a general contractor, and they
are no longer using that general contractor but that is why they had such a delay to finish the project.
Smith noted that most of the contractors they reached out to would not work with them but they finally
found a contractor that they believe would do the work expeditiously. He wanted to make sure the
Commission was aware of this since that's part of the points and didn't want to get hacked for that too.
Padron moved on to questions for the applications for emerging agencies. Lehmann noted there are five
applications for emerging agencies. There is $25,000 in the budget and $49,288 in requests. He stated
they received two applications from Successful Living that total more than the $15,000 maximum awards,
and the minimum award amount is $5,000.
Lehmann briefly described each application. Grow Johnson County is requesting $10,000 for its FY21
season and they were funded last year. Houses into Homes is doing an inventory management project for
just over $5,400. Successful Living has a snow and mow application for $9,200 and a software
application for $13, 350 and Unlimited Abilities as an operations application for $11,300.
Eastham asked if the Houses to Homes could talk about if there's been any change in what they're seeing
for need for applications since they submitted the application.
Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes) commented on if they have seen a change in need in the one month
since they submitted their application and in February, they've had 20 referrals or requests. Two of those
were repeats from different agencies, but the need does not seem to have changed.
Eastham asked for an estimate of what dollar amount is for furniture that they're supplying to people or if
they have tried to calculate that. L. Barker stated that is hard to calculate, for example there is no market
for used mattresses. Even if they tried to figure it out on the cost of new mattresses it could vary
depending on if they are from McGregor's or Costco. The thinnest twin mattress somebody has
purchased for them was $200 just for a mattress and the bed frames are in the hundred -dollar range.
They also bought the ones that fold out into a platform so there is no need for a box spring and those
were $60 to $90 depending on the size.
Jason Barker (Houses into Homes) stated they tried to calculate what they do by going online and to do
mass estimates of material they've diverted from the landfill. There are apps that will estimate the weight
of a sofa, chairs, tables, box springs and everything. Barker stated those numbers are so high he
hesitated to put them in a grant application, it was over 70 tons.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 10 of 18
Padron asked if they applied for the climate action grant. Barker stated they did apply for that grant last
year, it's not up yet this year, but they will apply again this year as well. Lehmann noted that application
just opened on February 14.
Eastham asked if there were restrictions on the use of that money and does it adversely affect how they
can use it.
Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes) stated the application they turned in this year for the emerging aid to
agencies was the second step in the grant that they got from the Climate Action Plan last year, which was
optimizing efficiency. So they used those funds for an inventory software and Pad and other things like
crates and bags that they use to empty the homes and then bring back and reuse.
Padron asked about the grant because there are other agencies that will not be able to apply for the
climate action grant and don't have that option.
Eastham stated that any agency that's furnishing homes could apply for that grant because all of them are
diverting. Lehmann noted that possibly agencies could apply and stated some agencies such as Habitat
have used it to do energy efficiency improvements. A lot of housing agencies have used it in that
capacity, but not as much diverting from the landfill as much as it was energy efficiency, electrification or
switching to an air system that's way more efficient.
JOHNSON COUNTY MOBILE HOME TASK FORCE REPORT DISCUSSION:
Lehmann sent the Commission the link to the Mobile Home Task Force report. The Task Force was a mix
of elected officials, mobile home park residents and a couple advocates led by the Affordable Housing
Coalition. Lehmann also shared with the Commissioners staff comments on the recommendations, talking
about some of the challenges of different ones and some that the City's already doing. Council wanted
the Commission to talk about the report and provide them with any recommendations that HCDC had
about the report. Lehmann will begin by going through the staff comments and then have Sara Barron
from the Affordable Housing Coalition talk.
Lehmann noted there are 12 recommendations total in the Mobile Home Task Force report. The first
recommendation is to make rental assistance and/or relocation assistance available to residents harmed
by unexpected sharp rent increases. Currently the City has an affordable housing fund that can be used
for emergent situations, it's around $50,000 currently, it has been used in the past for similar things and it
generally follows URA standards which includes advisory services, moving expense payments, and
housing assistance up to $7,200. Lehmann noted there are a couple other programs that may assist in
such a circumstance like the security deposit program, which should be off the ground shortly, Johnson
County general assistance, and things such as rapid rehousing if they become literally homeless,
however, that emergent situation amount is not a lot, obviously, if someone is looking at $7,200 of lost
rent payments that presents a challenge. Lehmann also noted there are some challenges with budgeting,
especially as these things can't really be expected, so they can't fit into an annual budgeting process, but
in the past City Council has provided funds to support relocation efforts.
Alter noted this situation is not exactly the same as of being flooded out and yet, this would be an
emergency situation for a large number of people so wouldn't the funds allocated for emergencies be
available? Lehmann stated that is the same funds he is talking about, the emergent funds.
Sara Barron (Affordable Housing Coalition) noted that the recommendations were made to all the
municipalities within Johnson County, they went to Johnson County, Iowa City, Coralville, and North
Liberty primarily. In this case there are not any mobile homes located within Iowa City limits that have
been impacted by the unexpected sharp rent increases. There are two right outside of Iowa City limits
that are owned by out of state investment groups that have threaten the stability of those neighborhoods,
the others are in Coralville and North Liberty. Barron stated this recommendation is for the other
municipalities to look at Iowa City's model. Iowa City budgets annually for unexpected emergencies that
threaten the stability of people's housing at a large scale. Barron met with the Johnson County Board of
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 11 of 18
Supervisors about creating a line item for housing emergencies in their next budget process. She added
this is a more of a medium-term solution for some municipalities, however, it is worth remembering that
the emergency is being faced now. She feels it is still worthwhile to look and see if there are some funds
that can be available right now and maybe it's pooled across many municipalities or go to a private
institution that would want to do a charitable one time donation with the support of the local municipality.
Lehmann added the City is doing many of these things, so the audience of this report is often not the City.
McKinstry noted the City can require the people who want to do the rezoning and eliminate this housing
to make a contribution toward relocation. Lehmann confirmed and that will be discussed in point four.
Lehmann moved on to the next recommendation which is to partner with local banking institutions to back
loans to owner occupants of manufactured housing. The City currently provides grants to owner
occupants of manufactured housing to rehab properties, since FY18 they've done 20 mobile home repair
projects. Some of the challenges for the City is because they use federal funds, they must have the title
the property to participate and then also be a legal resident, which can be a challenge. Additionally, those
funds can only be used in Iowa City. When an applicant doesn't meet those criteria for some reason or
another the City directs people to ECICOG or to Habitat for assistance because they do have other rehab
programs, but those sources of funds are limited.
Barron added the Mobile Home Task Force has reconvened now to address some of the things outside of
the municipal lens that they started with, some of the other wraparound issues and some knitting together
other resources and services, including social services, legal services, etc. She added they renamed
themselves the Manufactured Housing Task Force because one thing that came to light during this
process is referring to them as mobile homes is not helpful because they can't be moved for the most
part. Barron noted the Manufactured Housing Task Force is looking at working with some private lenders
and they may look for municipal investment or at least some kind of backing for more secured loans or
grants. That would be a bigger pool that would be available to more people, not just in numbers of people,
but also in categories of people. Habitat has done a tremendous job with their Helping Hands program of
working in manufactured housing and they would like to do more with more resources. Barron noted one
problem in the past has been difficulty finding folks who would work on manufactured housing, because of
the specialized characteristics particularly in the older units, they're not built in the same way that a stick
built house would be. Now they have the partners lined up to do the work so it's more a matter of finding
the funding and making sure that families know about the resources especially for critical repairs, like
holes in a roof, holes in a floor, windows that are broken or missing, those kinds of things.
Lehmann stated recommendation three is establishing urban renewal districts through tax increment
financing, which can help mobile home communities purchase. He noted it is challenging with an urban
renewal district because it assumes two things; one, that there's a willing seller, if you have that great;
two, you have to rely on an increase in value to provide the funds. The second point was the challenge
the City saw because if we're looking to preserve existing homes and rents, there may not be an
increment, so that may not work in the context of what the Manufactured Housing Task Force is trying to
do. Lehmann stated also in extra jurisdictional circumstances, counties can also do urban renewal
districts so there isn't a need for the City to do extra -jurisdictional TIF districts if the County is on board.
He also noted those efforts have to be led by motivated manufactured housing folks, because in a
resident cooperative model, they're going to be carrying that on to the future. Lehmann noted although it's
tertiary to this recommendation, one can do urban renewal districts in one area and use some funds in a
different area, such as is happening at Foster Road right now and that might be an opportunity to try and,
leverage funds in a different sort of way.
Barron stated one thing they were looking at is how to create a municipal investment without going before
the voters for a bond or something and urban renewal districts are one way to generate significant money
without going through a borrowing scheme or putting it before voters. She also noted lots of manufactured
housing communities are on the edges of existing communities so it depends on how large the boundary
would be drawn for the urban renewal district. There are some areas where future development could be
tied to the existing neighborhoods. Also, in continued discussions with the folks who do resident owned
communities, they're good at pulling together resources to finance the purchase of the manufactured
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 12 of 18
housing, the hardest part is finding willing sellers. The Manufactured Housing Task Force wants to be
prepared if the opportunity comes up, so they don't have to then scramble to find the resources.
Drabek asked if this is a proposal to establish an urban renewal district or is it a proposal for resident
cooperatives, which one is the core, it seems like the residential cooperatives is in fact the core of the
ideas and the rural urban renewal district is if there's some better method than you'd prefer the better
method. Barron confirmed that was correct. Drabek noted it's maybe worth stressing with this one, that if
something like this went well, and there was some way to have residential cooperatives in the medium or
long term that would make recommendations one and two almost totally unnecessary. Residential
cooperatives are not going to manifest themselves, or mass raise their own rent.
Lehmann moved on to recommendations four and five noting they are similar, one with zoning and one
with annexation and doing conditional zoning as part of that. As the report notes, the City currently has
zoning protections in place but is willing to participate in review to find additional protections that might be
available. It can be a double-edged sword because if you're trying to implement new parks and you have
to rezone it, then you run into the difficulty of opposition in the rezoning process. As staff talked about this
internally, when they first read the report, and they're not sure which direction that leads, they think it's
good for the existing ones, but it may be bad for future ones. For recommendation five similarly that
protection is generally in place. Upon annexation, the City requires upgrades to infrastructure that
matches a City scale, which can improve living conditions, but the City can phase in tax rates based on
State law and that can be used as a hook to get landlords more willing to maybe think about other things
such as more affordable rents over the long term. There have also been some more recent talks with
mobile home parks about coming into the City and the City has tried to bring up that affordability side of
things. However, the infrastructure issues sunk those annexations.
Barron agreed and stated the Task Force is continuing to talk with local governments about this, as she
earlier stated she was just talking to the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday and now has talked to Josh
Boussard, who's their planning and zoning person, he's going to help convene a meeting of Iowa City,
Coralville, North Liberty and Johnson County planning and zoning folks to comb through those zones that
are specifically for mobile home parks and look at best practices. Barron also said it is important to note
that one of the weapons that has been used against manufactured housing residents is the threat of
redevelopment. In other words, if you make this too much of a problem, we'll just take the whole thing
down and put up a new pretty building here instead. Barron reiterated it's important to have strong zoning
that protects their rights as much as possible, and to reaffirm the commitment to preserving those
neighborhoods. The new owners can't just decide to put something else up on the space because they'd
have to go before planning and zoning and the city council's before that change could be made.
Barron also stressed in the second paragraph that says, "looking at the zoning that might allow some of
the current lot lines, lease lines to be turned into owned property". They are talking about very initial
stages of a hybrid model where someone who owns maybe a manufactured housing community that has
200 lots, what would it look like for them to take even 50 of those and convert them to owned land under
an owned structure. If that is not allowed under current zoning regulations, that might be an example of
something that could be added in that would strengthen longer term protections and stability overall.
McKinstry stated if the most affordable private market rate housing are manufactured homes and there
continues to be a problem with the affordability of housing slipping away faster than wages are going up,
the prices of houses are going up faster than wages, then we have to make it make sense that we have
to make more room in the way we zone things for locating a variety of types of manufactured housing and
we're talking about high quality manufactured housing that meet normal regular zoning building
requirements. They'd be safe, they'd be energy efficient, and all that sort of thing. He mentioned the
Forest View development because of the experience that hopefully will be positive in the long run, when
people actually in the future get to own some of those properties themselves, the land underneath them
as well as the building on top of it. He does not see this problem going away and that it's going to be
more and more prevalent. McKinstry also noted that Habitat across the country is going in the direction to
be building manufactured housing units, more like modular housing, and not just things built on a
foundation. McKinstry thinks the task force hopefully would want to see is not always just rezoning but as
new land is annexed or redeveloped in large measure, and some of this has to do with the types of
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 13 of 18
housing that are allowed under the form -based code. There can be a half a block or a whole block in the
midst of other types of housing and other forms of housing, where it could be carved up into smaller lots
and have 20 houses instead of 10 on that block and have them be modular manufactured housing units.
Barron said if you look at an example like Forest View and a huge NIMBY concern of the Forest View
redevelopment that was expressed was the size of the lots. In manufactured housing communities, the
way they're zoned, the lots can be smaller than in areas that are zoned for single family homes, etc.
Some view that as a detriment to the neighborhood, but when thought about through the lens of
affordability and envisioning different types of communities with shared resources, they could offer a
counter vision that is a great step for thinking forward for the future.
Lehmann noted that the draft South District Plan proposes cottage court concepts that's a similar.
Lehmann moved on to recommendation six, which states to be specific about manufacturer housing as a
housing type when drafting plans, reports, etc. The City is trying to do that, they made changes in City
Steps. In terms of being specific about manufactured housing and programs, again one of the challenges
is a lot of manufactured housing is outside of the City, which can be confusing when they have Iowa City
addresses, they come to the City and we have to refer them elsewhere. There isn't really an answer to
that other than education and hopefully get resources and other jurisdictions as well.
Barron agreed noting it's tricky because Iowa City has federal money that they're allowed to allocate that
the cities of Coralville and North Liberty do not. The resources look different, although Iowa City also
contributes a significant amount of money from its general fund allocations, not just the pass-through
money from CDBG and HOME. The conversation now is to extend this to Coralville and North Liberty.
When she spoke with the Board of Supervisors about putting in money, one of the things they said was
they'd like to look at the rural areas outside of the incorporated cities. Barron suggested a match so that
it's not just one municipality funding these things and everyone is doing it more collaboratively.
Lehmann stated recommendation seven is committing to a regular review of manufactured housing
communities and their data. Generally, the City thinks it is important but it makes more sense at a higher
level like the task force, because there's so much outside of the City. So perhaps the task force or
Affordable Housing Coalition could maintain it, or maybe the County.
Barron added one thing which is to say that Len Sandler also identified a source at the State where you
can pull the number of units disaggregated by housing type, including manufactured housing, and also by
the age of the housing broken into groups. So if that's not a resource we're in the practice of looking at
frequently it'd be worth pulling that data and reviewing it every so often to get that reminder of what the
housing stock looks like for all of our housing, not just for manufactured housing.
Lehmann said he has pulled similar data, not for the manufactured housing specifically but for the age of
housing by housing type. Some time he would like to start doing more regular housing assessments that
aren't just part of the ConPlan, but other priorities take precedent.
Lehmann stated the next two recommendations are quick at least which is issuing a joint statement with
Johnson County elected bodies, staff believes City Council be willing to do it, especially in partnership
with others. Staff thinks that it would be especially important to have those partners in a joint statement
because Johnson County and Iowa City are often loud about those sorts of things at the State level.
Recommendation number nine is not investing in funds from private equity that generate returns for
investors using predatory manufacturing housing community management practices. The City is willing to
review its local investments, doesn't think that it's going to have any private equity because generally the
City looks at more stable sorts of conservative investment mechanisms. Pension investments are
managed at the State level.
Barron noted that if as customers of the State investment practices, they had growing interest in divesting
from those things, and to continue to think about the investment practices for the City and State employee
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 14 of 18
pension program. That might be a longer-term thing, but it's not something to lose sight of because our
retirement money could be being used right now to make these purchases.
Aguilar asked about number eight regarding the public joint statement among elected, particularly
because of what happened in Des Moines with the bipartisan bill not getting out of committee and was
wondering if there's been discussion already about issuing some kind of a statement about that. Barron
said they are going to issue a statement and also, they finally have come around to the fact that it's going
to take the form of proclamations. She reiterated the feedback she has gotten from both Johnson County
and Iowa City is, if we want this addressed at a State level, they might not be our best public allies. The
City of Coralville's lobbyists did register in favor of the protections when the bills were first introduced.
Johnson County and Iowa City have it on their legislative priorities. The Urban County Coalition
Association has it on their legislative priorities in person, they're talking to people when they're doing their
lobbying efforts, but they don't necessarily want to hang that red flag on it in the current political climate.
Lehmann stated recommendation 10 is to connect people with organizations, which is residents forming
cooperatives, it's got to be a resident lead transition, but the City can support it. The City has the
Opportunity Fund, which is part of the Affordable Housing Fund with $75,000 for FY21. While the
manufactured housing communities are good at getting money, a lot of these are valued at millions of
dollars so City staff is worried about the capacity and affordability to find the funds to pull this together.
Eastham noted this is the most important recommendation the Task Force, the only way to avoid rent
increases. Lehmann stated the City supports it. Eastman stated supports but timidly and he is looking for
a much more vigorous support by the City Manager. The amount of money is considerable, but
investment firms are finding ways to put that much money together to buy these parks and raise the rents,
so then the City could lead and guide and help a group of residents to do the same thing.
Barron stated her expertise is not discussing financial products but her understanding from talking to the
woman that is affiliated with ROC USA, a technical assistance provider, is that what you're looking for
contributions is more filling a gap and they are actually a CDFI and they put together financing packages
they do alone that's funded by a modest increase in the lot rent and most of the money is paid back over
time through that increase depending on the amount of infrastructure improvements associated with
buying the park and preparing it for the residents to manage. Because there is some amount of money
that's not usually covered by that they would be looking for other partners to provide those resources.
The Manufactured Housing Task Force is not asking Iowa City to give them the $8 million to buy a park
but to assist with helping fill some financing gaps.
Eastham stated the City could run a scenario through in a matter of a few months to determine feasibility
and what finance would actually look like and he is going to urge the Commission to recommend the
Council to do exactly that scenario and develop an acquisition plan that is ready in the event of an
annexation or an attempt by an outside firm to buy one of the parks within the city limits,
Lastly, Lehmann noted with recommendations 11 and 12 the City supports them, so feels like there's not
a whole lot else there to discuss. As previously mentioned, that bill has been tabled in legislature for this
year so the City will continue to actively support it at the state level.
Barron noted it's worth saying it has a bit of time for tweaks before the funnel closes so they could yank
the rent justification. Eastham stated the personal stuff is not going to prevent rent increases, the only
way to prevent rent increases is acquisition. Barron stated it is possible that they could still see a bill
move forward that, for example, simply prohibits no -cause eviction. It won't be the full comprehensive bill
that's proposed. She explained if others were not aware with the mobile home park legislation, there was
a bill introduced in both the House and the Senate to offer a range of protections largely shaped from the
recommendations referred to in the report, and even going a little further in some cases than what was
expected to be included in a bill. Barron noted there was bipartisan support.
McKinstry asked when the deadline for something to get through the funnel. Barron replied it has to
make it through the funnel by Friday, tomorrow. Eastham stated that legislature is not going to support
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 15 of 18
any new legislation that limits rent increases, they're not going to do that. Barron stated they're worried
that it would open the doors to rent justification and other housing types.
Eastham reiterated the only way to prevent rent increases is local acquisition. McKinstry agreed in the in
the current climate he certainly think that's true too.
Lehmann stated those were the staff comments on the different recommendations, generally a lot of them
the City's working towards or supporting. There are different recommendations there or tweaks on
recommendations that could also be beneficial as staff noted.
Drabek stated to do numbers three and ten successfully they would need an acquisition plan or urban
renewal plan.
Eastham said he would drop recommendation three, it's a financing mechanism and it's probably not
going to work well anyway. They have the potential funding financing partner and in ROC, USA, if not
money, they have the technical expertise to put together a plan.
Alter stated this is being prepared and given the priorities about affordable housing this is such a no
brainer to be prepared for this kind of situation since Iowa is such a target.
Barron stated that this same model they are proposing for manufactured housing communities, ROC,
USA is technical assistance providers also are offering this model for multifamily buildings, helping them
become resident cooperatives too. Given the current real estate market in Johnson County where the
vacancy rates are going up and more multifamily properties coming up for sale, beginning to understand
some of these different financing mechanisms in more detail might create other opportunities beyond
manufactured housing for resident acquisition or nonprofit acquisition. There are many different types of
ownership models that protect affordable housing from the private markets.
Eastham stated the City could do an acquisitions scenario by taking the park in North Liberty as a model,
you know what the cost was, you know what the lot rents are, you know what the numbers of units are,
and it's not that hard to develop a plan that would say given this situation or a similar situation this is how
it could go and do that in consultation with the hands on people at ROC, USA. Eastham stated they need
to avoid the Rose Oak situation where this Council was playing catch up and never caught up.
Kubly asked if this is something that the task force could provide the City for reaction or to see how they
could fill those gaps, or how can the City partner with the task force on something like this.
Barron stated they have already had one video conference with the technical assistance provider for folks
who were able to hop on and they maybe had 10 people just for that initial learning. To answer Kubly's
question, there are two potential ways to go. One is to offer a similar training opportunity for folks who are
interested in learning more about the financing structure and the second would be to do all the work
offline and then just say here's the budget. Barron can see benefits to both, depending on who wants to
be involved in the proposal. If they're talking about moving toward resident owned communities, it's
important to start involving residents and owners in this conversation now as well, it doesn't do any good
to have this conversation those stakeholders are not involved.
Barron stated the question for how to proceed is who they want to have involved in more serious
contemplation of what this model would look like and then go from there. Do we just look at numbers dryly
or do we want to look at the whole process?
McKinstry said it makes sense then that all the municipalities, including the county, could benefit from
having a very concrete scenario to show this is how it could be done.
Lehmann noted they are getting in the weeds, this more of a down the road conversation and HCDC
should focus now on what they recommend to Council.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 16 of 18
Barron wanted to add one more thing before a recommendation is made noting she had the interesting
experience of going to all the different elected bodies and sharing these recommendations with them as
12 recommendations for action. The response then from the elected bodies is "it's a shame we can't do
anything about this". What that feedback means to her is that it's difficult for any individual municipality to
wrap its arms around these 12 recommendations and say "yes, we can take action on this tomorrow" and
part of that is because a lot of these are just mitigating recommendations, they can't stop or reverse the
harm that's already been caused, it's just putting more tools in the toolbox. She noted that eminent
domain was a consideration that didn't make it into the final report, but some cities and other places in the
country have used their eminent domain powers to say this is our land now and we'll pay for it.
Drabek asked if the reason eminent domain is not in the recommendations is because state legislature
will probably remove the power to use it. Lehmann said it is already removed for economic development,
there would need to be a very specific purpose to use it, and he doesn't think it would pass the courts.
Barron stated just fully embracing all of the recommendations to the best of their ability, like Iowa City has
shown interest in doing is doing something and when all of the communities in Johnson County take
those same steps, the power of that multiplies. Alter agreed stating if the different vectors are concrete
about this and then here's also a proclamation, that symbolism or words can be a layered effect and that
can be some momentum.
Barron agreed and said people being willing to put some dollars behind it probably takes the most arm
twisting, but it is also the one that's going to make the most immediate difference, so think about your
recommendations in terms of what do you want to see the City invest in this.
McKinstry moved to recommend to City Council that the City continue to support the 12
recommendations in this report, with the additional recommendation that the City assist with
developing an acquisition plan to transition a private manufactured housing park into a resident -
owned cooperative to prepare for future possible acquisitions. Alter seconded the motion, a vote
was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
Eastham feels this motion should give Council a chance to direct the staff to work on this and to follow up
to Kubly's working with the Coalition and elements from the Board of Supervisors would be a helpful
approach. Kubly asked if Eastham has already run the scenario. Eastham has not but he has talked to
this a couple of supervisors about the general concept of transitioning to residential communities but not
terribly specifically.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 19.2019:
Aguilar moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 2019. Kealey seconded the motion. A vote was
taken, and the motion passed 8-0.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Lehmann noted the next meeting will be not the third Thursday due to spring break, it will be on March 12.
The agenda will include monitoring updates from non -applicants, CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to
Agenccies budget recommendations, and discuss community development week activities. Prior to that
meeting, preferably by March 2, please give recommendations to Lehmann for the ranking sheet and also
at that time the budget scoring if that is done.
Lehmann stated now that they have Aid to Agency recommendations, they can start scheduling tours. He
will send out a signup sheet where there'll be a couple slots a month. Commissioners can then reconvene
with their agencies about what the best time is and then pass it back through Lehmann. McKinstry noted
some of the Commissioner terms end at the end of June. Lehmann said he will take that into
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 17 of 18
consideration and they can start doing the meetings and reiterating it's really just an opportunity for the
agencies to show the Commissioners what they do and to open up lines of communication.
Lehmann noted the FY21 applications for Climate Action Grants are open through March 3 with $50,000
available. The annual monitoring of rental projects is well underway, he's hoping to get a rental outcome
report out of this at the end of it and hopefully be able to share that with the Commission in the future.
Finally, Lehmann wanted to alert the Commission that the Council had asked about an emergency policy
and the Commission was going to talk about it at the last meeting. However, upon Council request, staff
developed a policy in the interim and Council approved. Lehmann handed out the Emergency Funding
Policy. It's based off HUD and Iowa Economic Development Authority requirements. This policy would
come into play with requests for funding outside of regular funding cycles. Some of the criteria are the
emergency must: alleviate existing conditions posing a serious and immediate threat to health, safety and
welfare; be the result of unforeseeable or unavoidable circumstances or events of relatively recent origin;
have no known alternatives or actions that are more feasible than the proposed project; and certify that
other funds aren't available. So that's what staff would look at during the review process and staff would
respond within five business days. It is a quick turnaround if it's within the City's budget authority, if not
then the City Manager would request Council for support.
ADJOURNMENT:
Drabek moved to adjourn. Alter seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 8-0
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 18 of 18
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Terms Exp.
7/11
8/15
9/19
10/17
12/19
2/20
---
= Vacant
Aguilar, Peggy
6/30/22
■
X
X
O/E
X
X
Alter, Megan
6/30/21
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Drabek, Matt
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
Eastham, Charlie
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fixmer-Oraiz, V
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook
6/30/22
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
McKinstry, John
6/30/20
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Nkumu, Peter
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
Padron, Maria
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
• Resigned from Commission
Key:
X
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 12, 2020 — 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
FINAL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Matt Drabek, Charlie Eastham, V Fixmer-Oraiz, Lyn Dee
Kealey, John McKinstry
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Aguilar, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron
STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann
OTHERS PRESENT: Shirley Tramble, Ryan Holst, Elias Ortiz, Roger Goedken, Carla Phelps,
Ashley Gillette, Anthony Smith, Simon Andrew, Whitney Stevenson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 5-1 (McKinstry opposed) HCDC recommends the following FY21 Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Program budget to City Council totaling $448,000 HOME and $105,000
CDBG:
Project
CDBG
HOME
Successful Living Acquisition #1
$0
$48,000
Successful Living Acquisition #2
$0
$48,000
Successful Living Acquisition #3
$0
$48,000
The Housing Fellowship CHDO Ops
$0
$20,000
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #1
$0
$30,000
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #3
$27,000
$0
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #2
$0
$0
Systems Unlimited New Construction
$0
$100,000
City South District #2
$0
$50,000
City South District #1
$0
$44,000
Unlimited Abilities Acquisition
$0
$60,000
Little Creations Public Facility
$78,000
$0
Total Allocation:
$105,000
$448,000
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 2 of 14
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC recommends to City Council the following FY21 Emerging Aid to Agencies budget
to City Council totaling $16,738 and dividing the remaining $8,262 among Legacy Aid to Agencies
applicants (totaling $459 per agency):
Grow Johnson County - FY21 Season
$0
Houses into Homes - Inventory Mgt
$5,438
Successful Living - Snow/Mow
$0
Successful Living - Software
$0
Unlimited Abilities - Operations
$11,300
Total Allocation:
$16,738
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Fixmer-Oraiz called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Anthony Smith (Pastor, Little Creations Academy) came forward with a couple of questions. First, he was
wondering how the agencies are picked for the coalition, it sounds like that happened and he was not
privy to how the agencies were picked.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated the Agency Impact Coalition was not form by HCDC, it was self -formed and would
direct questions regarding the coalition to Becci Reedus, Crisis Center/Food Bank or Nicki Ross, Table to
Table.
Smith's follow-up question then is if the coalition is self -formed why it has any impact or any kind of
authority at this meeting or before this board?
Fixmer-Oraiz wouldn't say it necessarily has authority, the coalition is a gathering of executive directors
that have long standing experience with dealing with the Housing Community Development Commission
items and wouldn't say that they have a seat at the table.
Lehmann reminded everyone that for public comment they're actually not supposed to have
conversations, but topics can be put that on the agenda for the next meeting.
Smith also stated other thing he was concerned about was the scoring and if there has been some
consensus or how that's going to be taken care of and is there an avenue for suggestions on how it might
make it a little bit more fair for other agencies to be involved in this. He understands he is just asking the
question, it's not a dialogue, per perhaps something to put on your meeting agenda.
Lehmann made a general public comment that typically they look at those things (such as scoring criteria)
in leading up to the December meeting, so November is typically when the scoring is discussed. Just as a
general comment to the Commission in case you're curious for background.
MONITORING REPORTS:
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS OF JOHNSON COUNTY: Lehmann reported they use the assistance for
their early childhood program up to five years, included childcare for 136 infants, toddlers and
preschoolers. They had some youth development where over 800 school aged children participated in
before and after school programs at the schools. And then family development, they also provide support
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 3 of 14
to families and then some community development where they respond to issues that affect the entire
neighborhood. They included a list of things that they did, a snapshot of outcomes which included 91 %
improved or maintained healthy family functioning problem solving communication, 51 out of 58 which is
88% improved or maintain social supports, 88% increase their connection to concrete supports, 60%
improved nurturing attachment between parent and child, and 57% increase knowledge of child
development. He shared the the report with the Commission and if they have questions, they can always
bring them up at the next meeting or or ask for follow up.
4CS: Lehmann read from their report that during the last half of 2019, they've provided over 100
consultations to 23 home-based programs. They work with these providers on a number of things from
registration to additional trainings for DHS approval, to talk about safe sleep practices, and early learning
activities. These are new providers, childcare providers, so addressing how to market their business so
that families can find them is part of the conversation as well. They work hard to get them in the food
program, which partially reimburses them for healthy meals and snacks they serve to children they take
care of. They're struggling with landlords that are limiting the number of children that they can have,
despite the fact that they are monitored by 4C's and by any number of agencies. 4C's is pleased that
their program continues to grow. They have six who are currently going through the registration process,
and it's been a lot of word of mouth activity. Most of the providers are providing infant care and it doesn't
say how many children that they're providing care for, but they assisted 23 home-based programs this
year.
SHELTER HOUSE: In FY19 they were allocated Home Funds of $94,000 with a loan from the Housing
Trust Fund of Johnson County to acquire a property at Wakefield Court to be used at Fair Weather Lodge
which is a communal living supportive housing environment for folks that had experienced homelessness.
They just bought the house, they have five SRO units and they're seeing if they can add another bedroom
possibly, but they're not proceeding at the current time. They're waiting due to some rehab delays to fill
the units but otherwise the property is purchased, and they are working on the property.
For Aid to Agencies for FY20 they have served 674 unique individuals currently in emergency shelter, 99
of whom were children, 47 are non -school aged. That has also been an average of 11 people using
overflow and sleeping in the lobby of the Southgate Avenue shelter as the facility is running capacity for
the standing 70 beds. The winter shelter has maintained a nightly average capacity of 27.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM: Ryan Holst (DVIP) reported their project was to
repair two of their parking lots that were crumbling and needed to be replaced, that has been finished.
They finished with the fence right after that, there were some hiccups on that but that had been resolved.
The fences are up and working very well, stopping through traffic, making it a lot safer. Finally, they are
now finishing up the part of the project of renovating the youth room. They are basically done with that but
are waiting on one cabinet door to be brought back. They had an issue with a manufacturing default on
one of the cabinet doors, and once that is in they'll be completely finished with the project.
DISCUSS FY21 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME PROGRAM
FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Lehmann started by showing the average by points provided by each Commissioner, he also included the
individual Commissioners' rankings. Lehmann also provided a memo regarding some concerns that staff
had under the CDBG program. Most of it is tied to either applicant capacity or risk of repayment of CDBG
funds. In CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant Program, there is a required five-year period
which is called reversion of assets period. If, for whatever reason a project does not meet its need as
shown in the application for five years, then that money gets pulled out of the project. So typically that
would come by whatever the asset is for example if you helped someone buy a property, that property
would get liquidated or it would be sold off to someone else and the City would get its money back and
the City would pay HUD back. That's the typical process. In this case, Staff's concern is tied to Little
Creations Academy because we provided $109,000 last year, the project is close to being closed, but it's
not quite there yet, they still need a couple reports from Little Creations. Staff is a little concerned about if
another $78,000 is provided to Little Creations Academy then that means that the City is at risk for
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 4 of 14
$187,000 with non-federal funds should the agency close. The concern is that the childcare provider
space is provided by a church and there's a number of reasons why churches close or why childcares
close and in this case the childcare is located in the church building and poses a bit more of a risk
because it is difficult to get that kind of equity back out should Little Creations close within five years. Staff
just wanted the Commission to be aware of that, it doesn't mean that they can't fund it, it just means that
that's a concern to be aware of as you're making your funding decisions this year and the City needs to
be aware it is their funds they will lose should it close.
Staff's second concern is that with HOME funds, there's a similar affordability period of 5 to 15 years. It is
often described as CDBG being you're dating the person so it's a shorter -term thing and HOME is more of
a marriage where you're together for 5 to 15 years. HOME funds have a lot more requirements that are
tied to it over the long-term funding period. In this case, Unlimited Abilities as a new agency doesn't have
experience with HOME or CDBG funds and staff is a little concerned about using Home funds with
Unlimited Abilities. Again, if they don't meet their requirement over the period either they'll be forced to
sell the property, which would go back to HUD, or if something else happened then the City would be on
the hook for that money. Lehmann noted that staff did just want to put out a recommendation that if
looking at Unlimited Abilities and Little Creations, that reversion of assets only applies for over $25,000 so
they would recommend funding $25,000 as the maximum amount for those and then possibly reopening
an application round for CDBG/Home applicants if it's necessary. That's a staff recommendation again,
HCDC can recommend what it likes, and Council can recommend what it likes, but staff needs HCDC and
Council to be aware of those risks that come with those properties.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted that Unlimited Abilities, the acquisition is ranked pretty low but wants to understand
the staff concern. Lehmann stated the concern is specifically with HOME funds, and to some extent with
CDBG funds, but honestly, the reversion of assets is more of a challenge for Little Creations then
Unlimited Abilities because they're purchasing a new building so that reversion of assets should be able
to be recouped. In the case of Little Creations, the church may still exist, and no assets would be gained
even if the church sold. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if more of the concern with Unlimited Abilities was because
they had never done a project with the City before. Lehmann stated the other factors as to why Unlimited
Abilities ranked lower was because of the way that the ranking is set up. Leverage is a large part of that,
and Unlimited Abilities lost 19 points from that alone, which is a pretty big hit for the application. It did lose
points on capacity in history, it only had 4 out of 15, mostly because it didn't have experience with
CDBG/HOME funds in the past. Those are really where it lost most of its points in the application. That
staff memo was a different point on what it looks like when you have to reclaim funds.
McKinstry asked about the Little Creations application, in the chart it says a minimum of $30,000 and staff
recommended a maximum of $25,000. Lehmann stated the Consolidated Plan has a minimum written of
$30,000 for public facilities and he had written that without thinking about reversions of assets, he based
it off past public facilities projects where it used to be $50,000 minimum to get a public facilities project.
Lehmann wanted to lower it because they had applications like Old Brick where it was $36,000 so he
thought $30,000 was fair. In this case, he would recommend as they're approving the Annual Action Plan
to also amend the Consolidated Plan to be $25,000 because that allows for reversion of assets.
Lehmann said the Commission could recommend $25,000 and also recommend a substantial
amendment to the Consolidated Plan.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked why there needed to be a minimum stated. Lehmann said there had been a time
period where they were doing $5,000 projects, and they'd have 12 projects to administer. As staff
decreased in the community development department that did not become feasible, similar to what
happened with Aid to Agencies with the $15,000 minimum. HCDC could propose a different minimum
project amount, another rationale behind having a minimum was that instead of doing a project every
year, do one project every five years and have it cover a bunch of stuff. There are tradeoffs.
Eastham noted that one of the advantages of having recommendations from the staff is they give him
something to ignore. He doesn't find that reversion of assets argument at all persuasive. It's the same
risk that any applicant or any application presents to the City and he doesn't see any alarming risks from
either Little Creations or Unlimited Abilities in terms of not being able to go ahead with the projects over
the required time periods to avoid reversion. He noted the staff memo actually doesn't talk at all about
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 5 of 14
the benefits for these projects and Little Creations presents a huge benefit to the community for a low-
cost childcare. Unlimited Abilities also presents a huge benefit to the community for group housing for the
folks that their mission is to serve. The staff of Unlimited Abilities has the same abilities and qualifications
as a staff of any other of these organizations. He is not at all concerned about the things that the staff
raised in their memo. Eastham did note he thinks it's important to support newer groups, they pose a
benefit to the communities that they're serving as well as to the general community by opening up a new
organization with new staff that can expand the overall ability to provide housing and childcare for the
community. He will be sticking with his recommendations, both in terms of scoring and with
recommended allocations.
Alter stated one of the things that she is noticing from the conversation as well as having gone through
the applications is that there seems to be almost like a paradox here that on the one hand, we want larger
projects and certainly there's need and there are the funds for it, but on the flip side, there's possibility of
risk, which she is attributing primarily, though there are other things outlined here too, to the fact that both
agencies in this case are fairly new. She also noted for instance that in the application for Little Creations
it does note in two places about past projects having been substantially delayed, but she also noticed that
there was one for Habitat that also talked about delays, but obviously the strength of that application was
different than Little Creations. So taking those two things into account along with what staff has been
describing, in conversation as well as in the memo, it seems like there's an inherent contradiction here
that the place to get larger funds that really are desperately needed in the community by different
agencies, this is the resource for the funding, and yet there's this hesitancy, at least from staffs part, to
perhaps go all in on that because of the possibility of that 5 year or 15 year possibility of the agency going
under.
Lehmann stated from the staff perspective, when it comes to compliance, local funds are the best to fund
starting agencies hands down, it's the right option because the City controls what most of the rules are
and can work within those rules to ensure that newer agencies have the flexibility to grow and to learn. In
the case of federal funds there is a lot more monitoring, if things are not done properly then funds can get
recalled, which can be challenging if funds are spent. In terms of difficulty, generally CDBG is easier to
manage than HOME. HOME in 2013 had a substantial rule change and that's made it a lot more
challenging, and they're even just learning as they do the monitoring with existing agencies, a lot of those
changes in 2013 are not necessarily there. If HUD comes to monitor, and they find us out of compliance,
there's a chance that they could recall those funds. It's a balancing act between saying we want to foster
new agencies, but we want to ensure that they are able to spend the funds without the fear of having it
recalled at some point over the compliance period.
Eastham stated if they all had that perspective then The Housing Fellowship would never gotten started
Drabek noted one question he has for staff is he understands the risk, he doesn't understand how risky
the risk is. He understands Lehmann can't give anything close to a hard number, but for him it would
make a big difference to whether there was a 1 % chance of the funds getting recalled versus a 25%
chance of the funds getting recalled.
Lehmann stated in the case of Unlimited Abilities he has never worked with that agency and they're both
new agencies so it's hard to say, he can't give a risk amount, what he can say is that CDBG funds are
less risky to use. In the case of Little Creations, they've shown a great dedication to providing low cost
childcare, that's a great thing for low income people. But, like he said, the City would probably be less risk
averse if it hadn't happened once already in a church providing childcare situation. If someone moved
who was the champion for that to a different location or retired or anything like that, you never quite know
what happens. Lehmann reiterated he can't give any kind of risk analysis, but what staff wants to do is
make sure that you are aware that there is a risk, and then go ahead and make your recommendation
and either ignore it or make your best guess on saying you think it's going to stick it out for those five
years.
Eastham asked if the City could attach a lien to the building of the church building itself. Lehmann
confirmed the City would have a lien, but churches eventually sell their buildings and do something else.
Eastham noted the City's pretty heavily involved in taking long term commitments for housing. Eastham
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 6 of 14
also stated for the benefit of the Commission, he just doesn't think this is a real issue for them to
consider.
Eastham stated he does have a question about the City's South District Program. The application
indicates or some other source indicates that the staff has received 11 applications for the four units that
are currently in the program and he wonders what the racial makeup of those applicants is and where are
they living. Lehmann believes at least the two that are moving forward right now are South District
residents from Taylor Drive and are currently neighbors, so they're excited to continue being neighbors.
Lehmann noted he is not as involved with that program and does not have those numbers with him but
thought that was stated in the application. Eastham noted the number of applicants was in the application
but there was no demographic breakdown or the residency of the applicants. Lehmann said the program
is targeted towards neighbors staying in the neighborhood. He added that the expected incomes is
based off of the applicants that they currently have but obviously with one applicant at 61 to 80 and one at
31 to 50 it's not a full breakout but he believes that's representative of what they've got in applications.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked with the figures that they have today what is the average. Lehmann stated three
households are under 30%, five are 30 to 53 or 60 to 80 but he doesn't have the racial makeup.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated with the average of everything recommended, and then the expected, there's a
tiny wiggle room there and is curious where they're at with everything now that there is an average and
given the conversation she is curious if people have thoughts on anything that they want to move or
change.
McKinstry suggested to see everybody who asked for funds get some this time because of the needs that
are out there. He does take seriously all the hard work they put in on the scoring system and trying to
make the scoring system actually mean something so that when agency executives are searching for
what their next objective is they can count on if they really score high because they really push to do
those things they be rewarded. He also thinks it's very important to help out new agencies but is more
interested in the services that people actually get in the end, the people who are in need. Therefore, he
would like to see Little Creations and Unlimited Abilities get some funding but would recommend that
everything above those on the list, due to their scores, be fully funded and that they look at what remains
that isn't allocated by fully funding all those of above the bottom two and then they discussed more in
more depth the final two and that they use the HOME funds everywhere they can above the bottom two in
the ranking. If they use up all the HOME funds first and then have the CDBG funds left over for the
bottom two because there is more local flexibility and because they have more recoverability if there is a
problem.
Eastham stated he looked at the projects and what they actually accomplish. He is really pleased with the
group home projects of Successful Living, Systems Unlimited and Unlimited Abilities. They also have
though four units for the City South district and three Habitat down payment assistance projects for a total
of seven homeowner projects, which, in his mind are useful but not totally essential things for them to be
doing. Eastham agrees with McKinstry and feels maybe they're going in the same direction, but he could
certainly remove funding for one of the South district projects and one Habitat down payment assistance
project and to bring the Little Creations and Unlimited Abilities up closer to their to their application
request. He added one of the things he used in scoring Unlimited Abilities and Little Creations was the
leveraging question and the difficulty he has with the way that that leveraging question is being utilized is
that they're looking for leveraging for funds outside of the HOME and CDBG things. For him the
leveraging question should be looking for funds that are other public funds that are available to the project
or to the applications, rather than private because all the private funds are coming from the homebuyers.
Lehmann noted it is mostly like mortgages, basically the down payment.
Eastham stated he is giving credit for leveraging for money that's coming in from people that are
benefiting from project so did his points for leveraging for both Unlimited Abilities and Little Creations to
consider that balancing.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 7 of 14
Lehmann noted the agreement on funding at least the top group homes and then further discussion, all
agreed.
Drabek stated he also agreed with McKinstry's general principle of using the HOME funds first for the
higher ranks. All other Commissioners agreed.
Lehmann said by doing that it that would leave $74,000 of CDBG currently open.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked him to calculate the Unlimited Abilities and Little Creations amounts.
Drabek noted Eastham wanted to take money from that third Habitat request and then move it to Little
Creations or Unlimited Abilities. Eastham agreed noting that still give two Habitat down payment projects
funded.
Lehmann noted if they do that it would leave $27,000 which could be used for Habitat.
Alter noted she may be in the minority here with the South District, she realizes that one of them is funded
but was very taken by a discussion or presentation by Habitat a couple of years ago about the impact
because it was at that time a low priority and hadn't gotten a whole lot of consensus about getting
funding. The explanation that they provided us was about the sort of the ripple effect of impact on
homeownership and legacy and bolstering up of neighborhoods. South District, particularly on Taylor and
Davis, as Eastham has long fought and been an avid advocate for, really allowing the neighborhood to
actually have the potential for home ownership is crucial in the long term but in particular right now
because there's actually a lot of violent interaction there. She feels there are multiple ways in which the
neighborhood can be strengthened and that don't necessarily have to rely on police action. She is not
saying if one is to buy a home they don't have to call the police but that there needs to be other props in
place to help strengthen that neighborhood. She thinks that both projects should go through and she
realizes it's about risk because this is a new project, but the flip side is that they saw what was done with
the one set of units, it's really tremendous. She noted there seems to be consensus on funding at least
one she wanted to put that out there to fund both. They have done away with priority rankings and her
fear is that something that's really looking forward towards future stability and strength is going to always
get pushed down in favor of a more critical need, but both are tremendously important.
McKinstry noted he is in agreement and thinks homeownership has a stabilizing effect on whole
generations of families in whole neighborhoods and it extends further than just the family that lives within
the walls. As he already stated he'd rather see the Habitat and South District things fully funded.
McKinstry also noted for many years he was pastor of a congregation that had childcare, it was a
HeadStart program, and a lot of federal funding helped. They shared the kitchen, the dishwasher, the
range so he understands and is in great sympathy with the need for Little Creations to be funded.
Eastham stated he is not inclined to overlook group home support, or down payment assistance or home
ownership, his argument is that Council has funds that they can put into homeownership both in the
South District and Habitat projects beyond the CDBG and HOME amounts. If Council was persuaded
that the South District homeownership project or Habitat's down payment assistance project is a great
boom to the community they have available money in other parts of the City budget to put into those
efforts.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted the Commission has gone to City Council several times now requesting additional
funds. She agrees the City South District is a very strong component because they need neighborhood
stabilization in that district, which also shows in the scoring. She agrees there are other funding but is
just not sure who's going to take up that mantle at this juncture.
Drabek discussed the scenario with the numbers shown as everything fully funded and use the remaining
CDBG and allocate it towards the two organizations left.
Fixmer-Oraiz questioned is if those two organizations are not fully funded will they still be able to move
forward with their projects. Lehmann stated for Unlimited Abilities they could perhaps purchase one
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 8 of 14
home instead of two and Little Creations would just buy whatever they could with the allocation they
receive.
Alter stated that Unlimited Abilities said in their application they could purchase a home for $75,000 and
she sounded pretty confident that there was some way that that was going to work. Therefore, Alter's
recommendation is to fund one home.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted that Systems Unlimited is such a great organization and they're asking for $100,000.
They also have a fairly robust ability to leverage funds from what she recalls so what if they funded them
at most but not all, somewhere in the range of $74,000 or $75,000 and then that would free up other
funds for the other organizations. Lehmann stated already bought the lot, their project budget is
$478,000, the lot purchase is $65,000, engineering and design and then home construction for $375,000.
Fixmer-Oraiz said they're asking for $100,000 which would be spread throughout those specifics and if it
were somewhere in the vicinity of $75,000 then they would be able to get a lot purchased plus have a bit
extra.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked is there anything the Commission needed to know from any of the organizations.
Lehmann noted there has been some of the more recent projects delayed a little bit so that FY20
Successful Living acquisitions have gone forward smoothly, Successful Living's rehab has been a little
slower, Habitat's FY20 has switched to a down payment assistance model, so we're not as involved in the
construction so he doesn't know where those projects are as much. With South District, the challenge
they've had, especially since they've been looking in the area and prioritizing lower income folks, it's hard
to get them qualified with a mortgage and because it's a new program, working with lenders, get them to
understand what the down payment assistance situation looks like, and what's getting forgiven and what
the costs are is challenging. With Systems Unlimited the City doesn't have an active project with them,
The Housing Fellowship has a bunch of properties, they're pretty well known, and they have a good
compliance. Little Creations has been, especially with the new contractor on that last part of the contract
went pretty smooth. Lehmann wanted to reiterate he is not worried about the project getting done or
anything, he has no problems with that. He noted it's been an unfortunate situation where they've been
delayed this time so now they're just waiting on reports from Little Creations to submit that and they can
close that out. Lehmann noted those were just general thoughts, no real concerns.
Drabek asked without discussing any specific number here he thinks that the general principle of what is
suggested is good. He stated it rewards the higher scoring applicants, it gives money to every agency, it
appropriately balances the CDBG versus HOME funds.
Lehmann noted one additional thing that might be of interest to the Commission is with the new
Consolidated Plan, they are de-obligating old funds that don't get spent on economic development within
two years. They have been trying to push childcare as their economic development activity but will likely
have funds that will be de-obligated in CDBG, which could then be reallocated and could retroactively
fund an agency more. It is not a promise, and the Commission could also do a funding round it would just
depend on how HCDC wanted to approach that based on the policies that are in the Consolidated Plan.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked when that would be. Lehmann stated it would be July 1 unless projects come
through right at the end over the next three months, he believes that it would be around $60,000.
Eastham wants to understand what the boost in proposed allocations are again, Lehmann stated the
proposed allocations right now are full funding for Successful Living's three acquisitions, Housing
Fellowship CHDO, Habitat's three purchases or down payment assistance, Systems Unlimited new
construction and then the City's South District program projects. Then for Unlimited Abilities acquisition
would be $75,000 and Little Creations would be $24,000 and the Commission would have to amend the
Consolidated Plan with a smaller amount. Eastman stated he would not approve only $24,000 for Little
Creations as it doesn't make any sense to him. He said they could move one of the Habitat down
payment assistance proposals and increase the Little Creation amount.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 9 of 14
Drabek noted there is one very small change that would eliminate the necessity of asking for an
amendment to the Consolidated Plan and that would be moving $6,000 in CDBG funds from City South
District to Little Creations. That would bring the amount to $30,000.
Eastham noted that $30,000 still below the average allocation of $40,000. He also stated affordable
childcare is a major need in the community and one which there is substantial efforts being conducted by
a number of groups in the community to address.
Lehmann noted with the Little Creations project the hood is $28,000 roughly by itself, then there's
electrical, plumbing, gas range for $3,000, three parts sink for $1,600, commercial dishwasher for around
$9,000 and a number of site preparation stuff and then some of the developer oversight stuff.
Drabek noted then the allocation of $30.000 would be roughly the amount of the hood budget. Or
Lehmann noted the dishwasher, sink, range and plumbing.
Fixmer-Oraiz also noted to keep in mind that in July there may be another $60,000 that could be
reallocated. Lehmann confirmed that is what they're anticipating.
Eastham noted that $60,000 could also use for down payment assistance on one of the other
homeownership projects. Lehmann acknowledge it could be for any unfunded project or to fully fund a
project or a competitive round could be opened. Eastham suggested reducing the number of home
ownership projects. Lehmann stated that would require shifting HOME to Unlimited Abilities and then
moving Unlimited Abilities CDBG down and he stated that blending funding is challenging and best to fully
fund with one source of funds as they've had issues in the past. Lehmann stated they're trying to make it
easier, but it's not easy and even experienced agencies do not always comply properly, and he would
recommend against doing it.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked what if they fully fund Little Creations, she agrees with Eastham and has actually
spent quite amount of time on the Johnson County Child Care Coalition and childcare is a serious need in
the community for many reasons, so is there a way to just take one of Habitat's down payment assistance
and move it over to Little Creations.
Lehmann stated if they wanted to go this route he would recommend on down payment for Habitat under
CDBG and one under HOME.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if the Commission could ask a question of Unlimited Abilities since they are in the
audience. She asked if this was to go through and they get half of the funding now and half of the funding
later, is that an issue in terms of timing, given the project that they have.
Shirley Trample (Unlimited Abilities) replied she doesn't think it would be.
Lehmann state he would also propose if they were to do that, they still swap out the HOME for CDBG and
Habitat can be funded with CDBG.
Alter moved to recommend the following FY21 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
HOME Program budget to City Council totaling $448,000 HOME and $105,000 CDBG:
Project
CDBG
HOME
Successful Living Acquisition #1
$0
48,000
Successful Living Acquisition #2
$0
48,000
Successful Living Acquisition #3
$0
48,000
The Housing Fellowship CHDO Ops
$0
20,000
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #1
$0
30,000
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #3
$27,000
0
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 10 of 14
Habitat Down Payment Assistance #2
$0
0
Systems Unlimited New Construction
$0
100,000
City South District #2
$0
50,000
City South District #1
$0
44,000
Unlimited Abilities Acquisition
$0
60,000
Little Creations Public Facility
$78,000
0
Total Allocation:
$105,000
5448,000
Eastham seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (McKinstry opposed).
DISCUSS FY21 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES (EA2A) FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER
BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Lehmann noted the budget for EA2A is $25,000 and he showed the averages. He noted that Successful
Living snow/mow is below the $5,000 minimum. Otherwise, if they funded everything, it would all hit that
$5,000 minimum. Lehmann noted all requests are above the minimum and noted that two Successful
Livings requests are technically over the maximum.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked it agencies could put in multiple applications. Lehmann said the guidance that they
have so far is that there's a minimum and there's a maximum, but they haven't talked about multiple
applications. CDBG/HOME agencies got guidance to put in one application for every property that they
want to purchase with the idea that it would be easier to allocate funds.
Eastham noted the Successful Living snow removal thing just failed to excite him so he moved the $2,250
down to Unlimited Abilities.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated that for people who have access or accessibility problems, not having clear
sidewalks, entryways, and driveways is an issue. It is also a strain on their staff who's having to go
around to all of these properties, so she thought it was actually a good investment. Lehmann noted that
Successful Living is typically chronic mental disabilities, but it does include physical disabilities as well.
Alter stated she was trying to look at this through the lens of why emerging aid to agencies was its own
separate allocation pot and the purpose of having the emerging aid to agency was really to try and fund
organizations that were trying to emerge and getting off of their feet. Which is also the question she had
about Grow Johnson County, haven't they previously been funded. They always have great application,
and it's certainly a worthy cause but at what point are they emerging anymore. Similarly, Successful
Living is the same. It's not that she doesn't think it's worthy and people do need to get around, but rather
to reflect on why we had the categories separated. And in that case, Houses into Homes definitely
qualifies and Unlimited Abilities as well.
Eastham stated an option would be to fund Unlimited Abilities and Houses and Homes as genuine
emerging aid and then devote the remainder back to the other HOME/CDBG projects. Other
Commissioners agreed to that.
Alter also stated it's incumbent upon the Commission to be a little bit clearer on the application as to what
emerging aid category is and what that means. They need a clarification statement on the application so
they don't waste people's time. She apologizes to those organizations that it really was a failure of the
Commission.
Eastham is proposing to fund Unlimited Abilities and Houses and Homes and have the remaining $8,262
go the legacy agency projects and be divided equally per agency.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 11 of 14
Eastham moved to recommend the following FY21 Emerging Aid to Agencies budget to City
Council totaling $16,738 and dividing the remaining $8,262 among Legacy Aid to Agencies
applicants (totaling $459 per agency):
Grow Johnson County - FY21 Season
$0
Houses into Homes - Inventory Mgt
$5,438
Successful Living - Snow/Mow
$0
Successful Living - Software
$0
Unlimited Abilities - Operations
$11,300
Total Allocation:
$16,738
Alter seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
DISCUSS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK ACTIVITIES:
Lehmann noted Community Development week is held annually, it's a time to celebrate the projects that
are funded by CDBG and HOME and it's a way to get out the word so the Commission can see what's
happening. Last year they did those tours of the agencies but are now doing that now on a more
personalized basis. There has also in the past been things where the Commission has decided to put on
an event or awards, a celebration, it is up to the Commission if that is something that they want to take
on. If the Commission is interested in doing that, they can create a subcommittee or discuss. Probably
the easiest thing to do is to create a subcommittee and organize something that way.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if there was an interested in creating a subcommittee to come up with some ideas
that people want to do, however she acknowledged #Coronavirus. They probably don't want to devote
scads of time into something that ultimately may not happen.
Lehmann suggested doing something like posters or social media. Fixmer-Oraiz noted she has kicked
around this idea of communities of care and could really fit in something like what Lehmann was saying of
posters. She had originally envisioned it as letters of care and it would be basically love letters to our
partner organizations. However she is not sure if letters fall under spreading coronavirus. They could do
emails of care. She came up with that idea while she was sitting in the meeting with the City and with the
Agency Impact Coalition, it was very tense but then there was this moment of hey, we're people, and
we're really trying to do good work. She just thought there's an opportunity there to tell that story in a way
that's actually recognizing the work that our care providers provide do is really from a loving place.
Lehman suggested as Commissioners, they have their meetings with each agency and how about after
those meetings they write letters thanking them for the work that they do.
Alter asked if the audience is just those agencies. Fixmer-Oraiz stated she was trying to get the public to
write the letters but obviously it's easier if we just do it because it actually will get done. It was also a way
for the City to potentially be a drop off point for the City to receive the letters to them and showing it is full
circle of the City and the agencies working together in the eye of the public. Fixmer-Oraiz wondered if
there could be something on the City website where people could just write a quick note.
Consensus to agree to develop a subcommittee to flesh out ideas.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked since they are not promoting large group gatherings at this point, can they potentially
move to another week. Lehmann stated it is a nationally recognized week, but they can have a local
community development week.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 12 of 14
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: FEBRUARY 20,2020:
Eastham moved to approve the minutes of February 20, 2020. Kealey seconded and a vote was taken
and the motion passed 6-0.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Lehmann noted the next meeting will be on April 16 at 6:30pm in Senior Center room 202. Agenda will
be monitoring updates on Little Creations, Successful Living and The Housing Fellowship, they will
discuss projects not conforming with the unsuccessful delayed projects policy, which at this point he
believes is only Old Brick and they've actually gotten word from the HUD rep and are moving ahead so
very excited about that. They will also review of the FY21 Annual Action Plan and then review of the
Citizen Participation Plan update. One thing that staff has been doing is going through the Citizen
Participation Plan and will put it as an appendix to the Consolidated Plan as well. They will also consider
amendments to the Consolidated Plan, such as the public facilities amount, if that's something the
Commission wants to pursue. He asked it there anything else to add to the agenda.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked to discuss the method of the meeting on April 16 as she doesn't think they should
meet in person. Lehmann said the City has not yet had consideration for Commission's or Committees
meeting virtually but imagines that will change relatively soon. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if they could us Skype
or Zoom. Lehmann said they can do digital meetings so long as it is on any open meeting software like
Skype or Zoom. He noted there's some additional rules that come with that but for the most part it's going
to be the same they just have to make sure that they're posting all the information so that everyone can
participate.
Eastham added at some point, he'd like to talk about the Agency Impact Coalition but would not
necessarily want to do that at an electronic meeting and rather do it in person.
Lehmann noted that there is not an HCDC meeting scheduled in June, April will likely be an online
meeting, May could as well. They need to have the April meeting but in May they don't necessarily need
to meet however that could mean the next meeting would be July.
Lehmann also wanted to pass on information from Shelter House, currently the guidance from HUD as to
how to deal with the outbreak within a shelter situation versus other situations has not been terribly useful
up to this point and so Shelter House is looking for any ideas, right now the City is trying to work through
this but it's a challenging situation.
Lehmann also noted the City is also trying to figure out how to use public facilities right now, the model is
mostly a disaster recovery situation, but this is different than relocating someone from a floodplain, or
flood impacted area.
Eastham assumes Shelter House has looked at the Department of Public Health and the State
Department. Lehmann confirmed they have and there is some guidance out of LA County that's better
than HUDs but I mean, it's very different place by place and the shelters are a challenging situation.
Shelter House is also looking for donations of sanitary supplies because obviously they're going through a
lot of those and it's out at a lot of places.
McKinstry pointed out that the Meals on Wheels people have already made sure that all of their clients
have seven days of their normal support services food on hand which was really cool but they don't know
where the money for that is going to come from for sure but they went ahead and did it, even though it
wasn't in their budget. He stated it was good they looked at the emergency funding last month, because
he is sure there's going to be some requests for reimbursement from some of the agencies who are really
getting ahead of things and spending money they don't have in order to try to avoid some cataclysm with
their clientele.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 13 of 14
Lehmann noted in terms of agency liaison meetings, McKinstry is done with his visits, Fixmer-Oraiz has
April and May, does Eastham want June and July to get them done. Fixmer-Oraiz said she may have to
push back her visits due to COVID-19. Lehmann agreed and suggested they delay until June and just
plan on starting in June.
Final announcements, Lehmann has accepted a different position at the City of Iowa City and will be
transitioning to the long-range planner position. He will work closely with his successor to make sure that
things transition smoothly and will actually be transitioning March 24. The position is open right now till
March 25 if you know of anyone who would be interested in applying for a community development
planner position.
ADJOURNMENT:
Alter moved to adjourn. Kealey seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 6-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 12, 2020
Page 14 of 14
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Terms Exp.
7/11
8/15
9/19
10/17
12/19
2/20
3/12
Aguilar, Peggy
6/30/22
■
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
Alter, Megan
6/30/21
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Drabek, Matt
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Eastham, Charlie
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fixmer-Oraiz, V
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook
6/30/22
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
McKinstry, John
6/30/20
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Nkumu, Peter
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
Padron, Maria
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
• Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
STAFF PRESENTATION TO FOLLOW:
1 r I
C04;qui h
CITY OF lOVVA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826
(319) 356-5000
(3I9) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies
FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies Funding Recommendations
Agency
FY20
Allocation
Request
FY21
Allocation
4 C's Community Coord. Child Care
$20,000
$25,000
$24,923
Arc of Southeast Iowa
$20,000
$20,000
$19,938
Big Brothers / Big Sisters
$25,000
$25,000
$24,923
Crisis Center of Johnson County
$66,000
$69,300
$69,086
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
$50,000
$50,000
$49,846
Free Lunch Program
$16,000
$18,000
$17,944
HACAP
$25,000
$25,000
$24,923
Horizons, A Family Service Alliance
$40,000
$44,000
$43,863
Inside Out Rentry Community
$30,000
$40,000
$39,877
Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic
$17,500
$25,000
$24,923
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
$25,000
$25,000
$24,923
Neighborhood Centers of JC
$55,000
$55,000
$54,830
Pathways Adult Day Health Center
$25,000
$25,000
$24,923
Prelude Behavioral Services
$20,000
$40,000
$39,877
Rape Victim Advocacy Program
$23,000
$25,000
$24,923
Shelter House
$85,000
$85,000
$84,738
Table to Table
$20,000
$31,000
$30,904
United Action for Youth
$33,000
$33,000
$32,898
Total Request:
$595,500
$660,300
$658,262
!1 t -4
!r r'Il 4
®ISM
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY21 Emerging Aid to Agencies
FY21 Emerging Aid to Agencies Funding Recommendations
Agency
FY20
Allocation
FY21
Request Allocation
Grow Johnson County - FY21 Season
$9,000
$10,000
$0
Houses into Homes - Inventory Management
$0
$5,438
$5,438
Successful Living - Snow/Mow
$5,000
$9200
$0
Successful Living - Software
$13,350
$0
Unlimited Abilities - Operations
$0
$11,300
$11,300
Total Request:
$14,000
$49,288
$16,738
it y.
Tj
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF PRESENTATION CONCLUDED
� r
rrM as � h
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Strect
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
www. icgov. o rg
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Neighborhood Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5230
Resolution No. 20-116
Resolution allocating human services Aid to Agencies funding for Fiscal Year
2021, July 1, 2020 — June 30, 2021.
Whereas, the City of Iowa City budgeted for aid to local human services agencies; and
Whereas, the Housing and Community Development Commission recommended initial allocations of
Legacy Aid to Agencies funding amongst human services agencies at its February 20, 2020 meeting;
and
Whereas, the Housing and Community Development Commission revised the funding recommendation
for Legacy Aid to Agencies and recommended allocations of Emerging Aid to Agencies funding amongst
human services agencies at its March 12, 2020 meeting; and
Whereas, the amount of aid proposed to be allocated, $675,000, is budgeted as Aid to Human Service
Agencies in the FY21 Budget.
Now, therefore, be it resolved the by City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The funding recommendations, Exhibit A, from the Housing and Community Development
Commission are hereby adopted.
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute agreements for Aid to Agencies with the
organizations identified in Exhibit A.
Passed and approved this 5th day of May , 2020.
3%c� I ----
Mayor
Attest:
ity Clerk
p ro ed by
City Attorney's Office
(Sue Dulek — 04/29/2020)
Resolution No.
Page 3
20-116
It was moved by Thomas and seconded by
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
NAYS: ABSENT:
x
Bergus
x Mims
x
Salih
x
Taylor
x
Teague
x
Thomas
x
Weiner
Salih
the
Exhibit A:
FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies Funding Recommendations
Agency
FY20
Allocation
FY21
Request Allocation
4 C's Community Coord. Child Care
$20,000
$25,000
$24,923
Arc of Southeast Iowa
$20,000
$20,000
$19,938
Big Brothers / Big Sisters
$25,000
$25,000
$24,923
Crisis Center of Johnson County
$66,000
$69,300
$69,086
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
$50,000
$50,000
$49,846
Free Lunch Program
$16,000
$18,000
$17,944
HACAP
$25,000
$25,000
$24,923
Horizons, A Family Service Alliance
$40,000
$44,000
$43,863
Inside Out Rentry Community
$30,000
$40,000
$39,877
Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic
$17,500
$25,000
$24,923
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
$25,000
$25,000
$24,923
Neighborhood Centers of JC
$55,000
$55,000
$54,830
Pathways Adult Day Health Center
$25,000
$25,000
$24,923
Prelude Behavioral Services
$20,000
$40,000
$39,877
Rape Victim Advocacy Program
$23,000
$25,000
$24,923
Shelter House
$85,000
$85,000
$84,738
Table to Table
$20,000
$31,000
$30,904
United Action for Youth
$33,000
$33,000
$32,898
Total Request:
$595,500
$660,300
$658,262
FY21 Emerging Aid to Agencies Funding Recommendations
Agency
FY20
Allocation
FY21
Request Allocation
Grow Johnson County - FY21 Season
$9,000
$10,000
$0
Houses into Homes - Inventory Management
$0
$5,438
$5,438
Successful Living - Snow/Mow
$5,000
$9,200
$0
Successful Living - Software
$13,350
$0
Unlimited Abilities - Operations
$0
$11,300
$11,300
Total Request:
$14,000
$49,288
$16,738
Item Number: 16.
AL CITY OF IOWA CITY
=�c�-
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution approving amendment #2 to Iowa City's 2016-2020 Consolidated
Plan (City Steps) and amendment # 1 to Iowa City's FY20 Annual Action
Plan.
Prepared By: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Reviewed By: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director
Fiscal Impact: Iowa City has been awarded $410,422 in CDBG-CV funds through the
federal CARES Act.
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: The Housing and Community Development Commission
recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 8-0 on April 16,
2020.
Attachments: CITY STEPS 2016-2020 Amendment #2
FY20 Annual Action Plan Amendment #1
Resolution
Executive Summary:
In light of the continued severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, Iowa City is interested in
making available CDBG funding to program eligible projects and activities. The City proposes
amendments to the 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan (known as CITY STEPS) and the FY20
Annual Action Plan to expand the use of CDBG funds for activities the City may wish to pursue
including public services, public facilities, economic development, and planning/administrative
activities that could enhance our community's response to the impact of the pandemic. The
amendment places a high priority on providing facilities and services in support of a coordinated
pandemic response.
Background /Analysis:
The City of Iowa City proposes an amendment to the Consolidated Plan (known as, CITY
STEPS) to add "COVI D-19 Response" as a high priority need which would address provision of
facilities and services in support of a community response to the pandemic. By identifying this
priority need in the Consolidated Plan, the City can add project activities to the FY20 Annual
Action Plan and direct available funding to this use.
The original FY20 Annual Action Plan allocates $113,000 in CDBG funds to public service
activities, $156,000 for public facility activities, and $50,000 for economic development activities.
The City will receive an additional $410,422 in an emergency CDBG allocation (CDBG-CV), to
address our pandemic needs. Due to program income and unallocated funds, it is expected that
the City will also have additional funding to support our pandemic response.
Typically, public service activities are limited to 15% of the City's total grant allocation ($113,000);
however, HUD has waived the 15% public service cap for the FY20 and FY21 program years
(Federal Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020) to address urgent needs created by the COVID-19
outbreak. Activities under this category might include health services, subsistence payments,
housing assistance, and funding for agency staff to implement these activities.
Staff recommends that out of the $410,422, $246,000 is allocated for direct relief to households
impacted by COVI D-19. Staff has had preliminary discussions with CommUnity Crisis Services
and Food Bank to administer these funds. CommUnity was contacted as they are currently
administering the City's security deposit program, area residents are familiar with their services,
they have a history of administering similar emergency needs programs and have a history of
receiving and successfully administering CDBG funds.
CDBG allows up to three months of emergency payments made on behalf of an individual or
family for rent, mortgage and/or utilities. The City will work with CommUnity Crisis Services to
finalize the program if Council approves the use of funds. The plan will address if undocumented
residents will be eligible for these funds. Staff is seeking guidance from HUD about their
eligibility. If HUD issues guidance that undocumented residents are not eligible, the City may
allocate the funds remaining in the City's Affordable Housing Fund — Opportunity Fund for those
not eligible for CDBG-CV funds due to federal restrictions. There is $60,000 available in the
Opportunity Fund.
Staff recommends that $164,422 be allocated to non-profit agencies to address needs resulting
from COVI D-19. Applications would be accepted over a two to three-week period and staff would
allocate based on HUD's guidance in terms of eligibility and eligible uses of the funds. Funding
decisions would be made by the City Manager, with a recommendation by NDS staff, to expedite
getting the funds to the agencies in need. Applications would be limited to those needs that
address homeless services, child care services, mental health services and food banks (includes
food cost and distribution) impacted by the COVI D-19 outbreak.
The City has made a $7,000 commitment to Table to Table to replace a refrigerated truck that
broke down prematurely and is impacting their ability to distribute food to area agencies in need. If
they are not eligible for CDBG-CV funds, the City will locate another source of funds to cover the
expense.
Based on Council's approval, staff will begin implementation so that once HUD provides the funds
and needed guidance, the City can get the funds out as expeditiously as possible. City Council
consideration on May 5, 2020 completes the 30 -day public comment period. After City Council
approval, the amendments will be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for their review and approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
CITY STEPS 2016-2020 Amendment #2
FY20 Annual Action Plan Amendment #1
Resolution
Appendix B
2016-2020 CITY STEPS Amendment #2
In light of the increasing severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, Iowa City is interested in making
available CDBG funding to program eligible projects and activities. While the level of severity in
the community is not fully known at this time, the number of confirmed cases is expected to
rise as testing becomes more readily available. To assist in providing public facilities (new,
expanded, retrofitted, etc.), special economic development assistance to businesses, public
services and/or planning (in some limited cases) that could enhance our community's response
to the impact of the pandemic, the community will place a high priority on providing facilities
and services in support of a coordinated pandemic response.
The City of Iowa City proposes an amendment to the 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan (known as,
CITY STEPS) to expand the use of CDBG funds for public services, public facilities, economic
development, and planning/administrative activities related to a community response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Due to program income and unallocated funds, it is expected that an
additional $190,578 in current funds are available to fund these activities in FY20. In addition,
the City will receive $410,422 in an emergency CDBG allocation which will also support these
efforts. Aside from administration costs, remaining funds will be allocated to public service
activities as that is expected to be of the greatest use to agencies during the pandemic.
SP -25 Priority Needs - 91,215(a)(2)
Priority Needs Summary
Priority Need Name
PriorityPopulation
Goals Addressing
Level
COVID-19
High
Extremely Low -Income
Provide facilities and services in
Response
Low -Income
support of pandemic response
Moderate -Income
Homeless
SP -45 Goals Summary — 91,215(a)(4)
Goals Summary Information
Goal Descriptions
12
Goal Name
Provide facilities and services in support of the pandemic response
Goal
Description
Provide facilities and services in support of the pandemic response
FY2O Annual Action Plan
Substantial Amendment #1
May 5, 2020
In light of the increasing severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, Iowa City is interested in making
available CDBG funding to program eligible projects and activities. While the level of severity in
the community is not fully known at this time, the number of confirmed cases is expected to
rise as testing becomes more readily available. To assist in providing public facilities (new,
expanded, retrofitted, etc.), special economic development assistance to businesses, public
services and/or planning (in some limited cases) that could enhance our community's response
to the impact of the pandemic, the community will place a high priority on providing facilities
and services in support of a coordinated pandemic response.
The proposed FY20 Annual Action Plan amendment has expanded language for public services,
public facilities, economic development, and planning/administrative activities to allow
available funds to be used for community response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The FY20
Annual Action Plan allocates $113,000 in CDBG funds to public service activities, $156,000 for
public facility activities, and $50,000 for economic development activities. Due to program
income and unallocated funds, it is expected that an additional $190,578 is available to fund
these activities in FY20. In addition, the City will receive $410,422 in an emergency CDBG
allocation which will also support these efforts. Aside from funds for administration, remaining
funds are being allocated to public service activities as that is expected to be of the greatest use
to agencies during the pandemic.
Typically, public service activities are limited to 15% of the City's total grant allocation
($113,000). However, it is expected that HUD will waive the 15% public service cap for the FY20
and FY21 program years (Federal Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020) to address urgent needs created
by the COVID-19 outbreak. Activities under this category might include health services,
subsistence payments, housing assistance, and funding for agency staff to implement these
activities. The proposed amendment is detailed on the following page.
The City Council will consider this recommendation on May 5, 2020 following a 30 -day public
comment period and an amendment will be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) subject to City Council approval.
Jurisdiction: City of Iowa City, Iowa
Contact Person
Jurisdiction Web Address:
Erika Kubly
http://www.icgov.org/actionplan
Neighborhood Services Coordinator
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319.356.5121
Erika-Kubly@Iowa-City.org
Proposed Amendment
AP -20 Annual Goals and Objectives
Goals Summary Information
Sort
Order
Goal Name
Start
Year
End
Year
Category
Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed
Funding
Goal Outcome
Indicator
Provide facilities
2020
2020
Other
Other
$601,000
TBD
and services in
CDBG
11
support of the
Citywide
pandemic
response
Goal Descriptions
Goal Name Provide facilities and services in support of pandemic response.
10
Goal Description Provide facilities and services in support of pandemic response.
2
AP -38 Project Summary Information
Project Summary Information
1
Project Name
Public Service Activities
Target Area
Citywide
Goals Supported
Provide public services
Provide facilities and services in support of the pandemic response
Needs Addressed
Provision of public services
Housing and services to the homeless and those at -risk of homelessness
Provide facilities and services in support of the pandemic response
Funding
CDBG: $632,000
Description
Funding for a variety of public service activities and public facility
improvements serving low- and moderate -income (LMI) clientele including:
advocacy, case management, referrals, service coordination, education,
counseling, and legal assistance and funding for the staff to implement these
activities, as well as public facilities serving income eligible residents.
Target Date
6/30/2020
Estimate the
Public Service activities are expected to serve on average 3,300 beneficiaries
number and type of
this year.
families that will
benefit from the
proposed activities
Location Description
Public Service activities are available citywide to LMI individuals.
Planned Activities
Funding for a variety of public service activities serving low to moderate
income clientele has been proposed for this year, including:
• Homeless and Transitional Housing: Provides shelter and transitional
housing for homeless adults and families. Services also include
advocacy, case management, referrals, service coordination, meal
sites, and funding for the staff to implement these activities.
• Domestic Violence Services: Advocacy shelter aids and houses
survivors of domestic violence. Shelter staff provides crisis line,
advocacy, and assistance to survivors in obtaining safe shelter, food,
clothing, medical attention, and basic needs. Program provides
counseling, referrals, and legal assistance. Also provides community
and prevention education programs to individuals age 3 to 18.
• Neighborhood Center Services: Provides resources to LMI residents at
neighborhood centers that include computer access, daycare, hang-
out, and English language classes.
• COVID-19 Response: Funding for public services to address the urgent
needs created by the COVID-19 outbreak, including but not limited to
direct substance payments, housing assistance, health services, or
other public services.
2
Project Name
Public Facility Activities
Target Area
Citywide
Goals Supported
Improve and maintain public facilities
Provide facilities and services in support of the pandemic response
Needs Addressed
Public facility improvements
Provide facilities and services in support of the pandemic response
Funding
CDBG: $156,000
Description
Funding for a variety of public facility improvements addressing slum
and blight or serving LMI clientele or addressing including: childcare,
food banks, healthcare, special needs, as well as other public facilities
serving income eligible residents. Funding may also be used to support
a community response to the COVID-19 pandemic including a variety
of public facility activities including, but not limited to health facilities,
temporary housing facilities, or other public facilities for LMI clientele
and those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
Target Date
6/30/2020
Estimate the number and
Public Facility activities are expected to serve 470 beneficiaries this
type of families that will
year.
benefit from the
proposed activities
Location Description
Public facility activities are available citywide to predominantly LMI
individuals, in addition to limited use for prevention of slum and blight.
Planned Activities
Funding for a variety of public facilities activities serving LMI clientele
and addressing issues of slum and blight has been proposed for this
year, including:
• Shelter Facilities: Funding for improvements at the Domestic
Violence Intervention Program shelter for survivors of
domestic violence.
• Community Facilities: Funding to provide ADA and other
improvements to the historic Old Brick building, which acts as
a nonprofit incubator, community event venue, and facility to
provide regular lunches, primarily for those experiencing
homelessness.
• COVID-19 Response: Funding for public facilities to address
the urgent needs created by the COVID-19 outbreak, including
but not limited to health care facilities or other public facility
improvements.
6
Project Name
Economic Development
Target Area
Citywide
Goals Supported
Strengthen economic development
Provide facilities and services in support of the pandemic response
Needs Addressed
Economic Development
Provide facilities and services in support of the pandemic response
Funding
CDBG: $50,000
Description
Funding to facilitate the creation and expansion of businesses and create
new employment opportunities for LMI people. Small business loan
program will address the impact of credit access and reduction of capital
for business startups or expansion. Funding may also be used to support
he community response to the COVID-19 pandemic including a variety of
economic development activities including but not limited to loans, loan
guarantees, grants, and technical assistance to businesses to alleviate the
impact of the outbreak.
Target Date
6/30/2020
Estimate the
An estimated two businesses will be assisted, with at least one new job
number and type of
created or retained per $20,000 in assistance through Economic
families that will
Development CDBG Funds.
benefit from the
proposed activities
Location
Funding is available citywide. The exact addresses of projects will not be
Description
known until applications have been received, processed and funds
awarded.
Planned Activities
Planned activities at this time include:
• Provide business loans and/or grants to microenterprises primarily
owned by low-income entrepreneurs or businesses that create
jobs of which 51% are made available to LMI persons; and/or
• Technical assistance to microenterprises primarily owned by low-
income entrepreneurs with an emphasis on increasing the
childcare capacity within Iowa City.
• Business loans, grants, and/or technical assistance for businesses
impacted by COVID-19.
7
Project Name
Administration & Planning
Target Area
City-wide
Goals Supported
Planning and administration
Provide facilities and services in support of the pandemic response
Needs Addressed
Planning & Administration
Provide facilities and services in support of the pandemic response
Funding
CDBG: $, ^ C� 243,000
HOME: $54,000
Description
Coordinates, administers, and monitors the City's CDBG and HOME
programs; prepares reports and plans required by HUD, prepares
environmental and historic preservation studies per HUD regulations.
Administrative fund may also be used for eligible expenses to assist in
the City's COVID-19 outbreak response efforts.
Target Date
6/30/2020
Estimate the number
HUD does not require the reporting of beneficiary data for planning
and type of families
and administration activities. It should be noted, however, that the
that will benefit from
housing, public facility, economic development, and public service
the proposed activities
activities that are undertaken with CDBG and HOME funds served more
than 10,000 individuals, households, and businesses in City FY18.
Without the planning and administration funds available to carry out
required planning, environmental, monitoring and oversight activities,
none of these activities would be able to receive CDBG and HOME
funds and none of the beneficiaries would be able to be served.
Location Description
Planning and Administration activities will be undertaken by City staff
at Iowa City City Hall.
Planned Activities
Funds will be used to coordinate, administer, and monitor the CDBG
and HOME programs; prepare reports and plans required by HUD; to
prepare Section 106 and environmental reviews and historic
preservation studies; and to coordinate and provide funding for City
staff to address the urgent needs created by the COVID-19 outbreak.
Appendix B
FY20
Homeowner/Rental
Comprehensive rehabilitation
$ 235,000
$ 90,000
22
Housing Rehabilitation
Persons /
MYEP - Rental New Construction
$ -
$186,000
Households /
Habitat - Homebuyer Assistance
$ -
$ 53,000
2
HOME
Facilities
Project
Planned activities
CDBG Award
Award
Assisted
5
Shelter House - A2A
$
8,000
NA
700
$ -
Domestic Violence Intervention Program - A2A
$
50,000
NA
600
Public Service Activities
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - A2A
$
55,000
NA
2,000
COVID-19 Response
$
519,000
NA
TBD
DVIP - Shelter Repair
$
120,000
NA
340
Public Facility Activities
Old Brick - ADA Improvements
$
36,000
NA
130
Neighborhood and
Neighborhood Improvements Set Aside
$
75,000
NA
300
Area Benefits
Homeowner/Rental
Comprehensive rehabilitation
$ 235,000
$ 90,000
22
Housing Rehabilitation
MYEP - Rental New Construction
$ -
$186,000
6
Habitat - Homebuyer Assistance
$ -
$ 53,000
2
Successful Living - Rental Acquisition
$ -
$173,000
12
Other Housing Activities
Successful Living - Rental Rehabilitation
$ -
$ 62,000
5
THF - Rental Rehabilitation
$ -
$ 74,000
2
THF - CHDO Operating
$ -
$ 22,000
NA
Economic Development Economic Development Set-aside $ 50,000 NA 2
Administration & Planning CDBG Administration $ 227,000 NA NA
HOME Administration NA $ 54,000 NA
Total $ 1,375,000 $ 714,000 4,121
Public Comments Received with Staff Response
The 30 -day public comment period for the FY20 Annual Action Plan Amendment #1 starts April
4, 2020 and ends May 5, 2020. The City Council is holding a public meeting on May 5, 2020.
Comments Received:
None to date
Staff Response:
N/A
►to -
Prepared by: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230
RESOLUTION NO. 20-11
Resolution approving amendment #2 to Iowa City's 2016-2020
Consolidated Plan (City Steps) and amendment # 1 to Iowa City's FY20
Annual Action Plan
Whereas, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to prepare and submit a Consolidated Plan for the coordinated use of federal,
state and local funds to assist lower income residents with housing, jobs, and services; and
Whereas, Amendment #2 to the Consolidated Plan (City Steps) adds COVID-19 response as a
high priority need with a goal of providing facilities and services in support of a pandemic
response;and
Whereas, HUD requires the City of Iowa City, Iowa to prepare and submit an Annual Action
Plan as part of the City's 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan (City Steps) to plan the use of federal
funds to assist lower income residents with housing, jobs, public facilities, and public services;
and
Whereas, Amendment #1 to the FY20 Annual Action Plan adds a goal of provision of public
facilities and services in support of the pandemic response and incorporates said goal into
public services, public facilities, economic development, and administrative and planning
activities; and
Whereas, the City has disseminated information, solicited public input, and held a public
meeting on amendments to Iowa City's 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan and the FY20 Annual
Action Plan; and
Whereas, the Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission has held a meeting
and recommended amendments to Iowa City's 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan and Iowa City's
FY20 Annual Action Plan to fund activities to aid in the community response to COVID-19; and
Whereas, the City of Iowa City has been allocated $410,422 in CDBG-CV funds through the
federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act; and
Whereas, the amended FY20 Annual Action Plan contains the updated allocation of CDBG and
HOME funds attached hereto as Appendix B; and
Whereas, the City Council finds that the public interest will be served by the approval of
amendments to Iowa City's Consolidated Plan for 2016-2020 and Iowa City's FY20 Annual
Action Plan and submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Now, Therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. Amendment #2 to the City of Iowa City 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan (City Steps) is
hereby approved and adopted.
Resolution No. 20-117
Page 2
Substantial Amendment #1 to the City of Iowa City FY20 Annual Action Plan, attached
hereto as Appendix B, is hereby approved and adopted.
3. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to submit to HUD all necessary
certifications or documents related to the submission of amendments to Iowa City's
2016-2020 Consolidated Plan and FY20 Annual Action Plan.
Passed and approved this 51" day of May, 2020.
Attest:
City Clerk
1-�
&�� / /
Mayor
.`
City Attorney's Office
(Sue Dulek — 04/29/2020)
Resolution No.
Page a
20-117
It was moved by Salih and seconded by Thomas the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS:
ABSENT:
%
Bergus
x
Mims
x
Salih
%
Taylor
%
Teague
x
Thomas
x
Weiner
Appendix B
FY20
Homeowner/Rental
Housing Rehabilitation
Comprehensive rehabilitation
$
235,000 $ 90,000
22
Households /
MYEP - Rental New Construction
$
- $186,000
6
HOME
Facilities
Project
Planned activitles
CDBG Award
Award
Assisted
$
Shelter House - A2A
$
8,000
NA
700
- $ 62,000
Domestic Violence Intervention Program - A2A
$
50,000
NA
600
Public Service Activities
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County - A2A
$
55,000
NA
2,000
COVID-19 Response
$
519,000
NA
TBD
DVIP - Shelter Repair
$
120,000
NA
340
Public Facility Activities
Old Brick - ADA Improvements
$
36,000
NA
130
Neighborhood and
Neighborhood Improvements Set Aside
$
75,000
NA
300
Area Benefits
Homeowner/Rental
Housing Rehabilitation
Comprehensive rehabilitation
$
235,000 $ 90,000
22
MYEP - Rental New Construction
$
- $186,000
6
Habitat - Homebuyer Assistance
$
- $ 53,000
2
Successful Living - Rental Acquisition
$
- $173,000
12
Other Housing Activities
Successful Living - Rental Rehabilitation
$
- $ 62,000
5
THF -Rental Rehabilitation
$
- $ 74,000
2
THF - CHDOOperating
$
- $ 22,000
NA
Economic Development Economic Development Set-aside S 50,000 NA 2
Administration & Planning CDBG Administration $ 227,000 NA NA
HOME Administration NA $ 54,000 NA
Total $ 1,375,000 $714,000 4,121
Item Number: 17.
�, CITY OF IOWA CITY
-�"�'�� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 5, 2020
Resolution approving the Citizen Participation Plan and Amendment #1 to
Iowa City Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 (City Steps 2025).
Prepared By: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Reviewed By: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director
Fiscal Impact: No Impact
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: The Housing and Community Development Commission
recommended approval by a vote of 7-0 at their April 16, 2020 meeting.
Attachments: Resolution
Executive Summary:
City Steps 2025 was adopted by City Council on January 7, 2020 prior to the competitive
allocation of FY21 CDBG/HOME funds. The Citizen Participation Plan has been updated to be
included as part of the Consolidated Plan. Amendments are also proposed to fund activities to aid
in the community response to COVI D-19 and to amend the minimum amount for a public facility
project from $30,000 to $25,000 in response to staff concerns about the CDBG reversion of
assets federal provision.
City Steps 2025 as amended including the draft Citizen Participation Plan update (p1-14) can be
found at www.icgov.org/actionplan.
Background /Analysis:
Iowa City's Citizen Participation Plan sets forth the policies and procedures for public participation
and seeks to help residents participate in the development and amendments to the Consolidated
Plan, Annual Action Plan, Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER),
fair housing plans, as well as the Citizen Participation Plan. While the updated plan has been
restructured and reformatted to read more clearly, the content is largely the same. Some
language has been added to the description of administrative and substantial amendments to
clarify the two types. With this amendment the Citizen Participation Plan will become part of the
City Steps 2025 document and will take effect on July 1, 2020.
The second update under the amendment to City Steps 2025 is the addition of language
identifying provision of facilities and services in support of the pandemic response as a priority
need. This will allow funding of such activities in future fiscal years beginning with the FY21
Annual Action Plan (effective July 1, 2020).
The third change with this amendment is a reduction of the minimum public facility project amount
from $30,000 to $25,000. Because of the substantial amount of administrative work associated
with a CDBG public facility project, staff implements a minimum project amount and first
consideration for funding is given to projects over $50,000. With the recent funding allocation,
concerns arose regarding the CDBG reversion of assets federal provision which is applicable to
projects over $25,000. Under this provision an agency must repay CDBG funds if they move to a
different allocation or do not continue providing services for a minimum of five years. By reducing
the minimum amount to $25,000, agencies with less experience can be funded for smaller
projects without creating substantial risk for the city to repay funds. This will also help build
capacity for less experienced agencies.
A 30 -day public comment period for the Citizen Participation Plan and Amendment #1 to City
Steps 2025 began on April 3, 2020 and will end on May 5, 2020 with a public meeting and City
Council consideration of the amendments.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution
)I.
Prepared by: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230
Resolution No. 20-118
Resolution approving the Citizen Participation Plan and Amendment #1 to
Iowa City Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 (City Steps 2025).
Whereas, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to prepare and submit a Consolidated Plan every five years to plan the use of
federal funds to assist lower income residents with housing, jobs, public facilities, and public
services; and
Whereas, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of Iowa City adopted the Iowa City Consolidated
Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025, known as City Steps 2025, in Resolution 20-11; and
Whereas, HUD also requires the City of Iowa City, Iowa to prepare and submit a Citizen
Participation Plan to meet HUD's basic requirements for resident participation in preparing the
Consolidated Plan (City Steps 2025), Annual Action Plan, any substantial amendments and the
Performance Report; in accordance with Section 104(a) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, codified at 42 U.S.C. Section 5304(a), and 24 CFR Part 91.105; and
Whereas, the Citizen Participation Plan has been updated to include clarifying language and to
provide that it be incorporated in the Iowa City Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025
(entitled City Steps 2025); and
Whereas, said Citizen Participation Plan replaces the plan adopted by City Council on September
19, 2017 in Resolution No. 17-296; and
Whereas, Amendment #1 to the Consolidated Plan identifies the provision of facilities and
services in support of the pandemic response as a priority need, reduces the minimum public
facility project amount to $25,000, and incorporates the updated Citizen Participation Plan; and
Whereas, the City has disseminated information, solicited public input, and held a public
meeting on the Citizen Participation Plan and Amendment #1 to the Consolidated Plan; and
Whereas, on April 16, 2020, the Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission
recommended approval of the Citizen Participation Plan and Amendment #1 to the
Consolidated Plan; and
Whereas, the City Council finds that the public interest will be served by the approval of the
Citizen Participation Plan and Amendment #1 to the Consolidated Plan and submission to the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The updated Citizen Participation Plan is hereby approved and adopted, to be
incorporated into the Iowa City Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 (entitled
City Steps 2025).
Resolution No. 20-118
Page 2
2. City Council Resolution No. 17-296 is rescinded.
3. Amendment #1 to the Iowa City Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 (entitled
City Steps 2025) is hereby approved and adopted.
4. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to submit to HUD all necessary
certifications or documents related to the submission of the Citizen Participation Plan
and Amendment #1 to the Iowa City Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025
(entitled City Steps 2025).
5. The City Manager is hereby designated as the Chief Executive Officer and authorized to
act on behalf of the City of Iowa City in connection with the Citizen Participation Plan.
Passed and approved this 51' day of May, 2020.
Attest:
40ty Clerk
City Attorney's Office
(Sue Dulek — 04/30/2020)
Resolution No. 20-118
Page 3
It was moved by Salih and seconded by Bergus
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS:
ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
11 IM,