HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember HCDC Packet
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at brianna-
thul@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meeting
Regular: January 20, 2022
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION (HCDC)
November 18, 2021
Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM
Environmental Education Center
2401 Scott Boulevard SE
AGENDA:
1. Call to Order
2. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 21, 2021
3. Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda
Commentators shall address the Commission for no more than 5 minutes. Commissioners shall not
engage in discussion with the public concerning said items.
4. Annual Project Monitoring Presentations
HCDC reviews CDBG/HOME funded projects annually. HCDC will discuss the project to ensure it is
proceeding properly by serving the intended clientele, and that it will be completed on time. This month
will include an update from Habitat for Humanity on FY20 and FY21 CDBG/HOME funded projects.
5. Overview of Aid to Agencies – Legacy Agency Request
Staff will provide an overview of changes to the Aid to Agency process and funding in recent years.
HCDC will discuss when and under what circumstances an amendment to the Consolidated Plan (City
Steps 2025) would be considered to add a Legacy Agency. A request from Center for Worker Justice
to become a Legacy Agency will be on the January HCDC agenda.
6. Review and Consider Recommendation to City Council on Approval of Substantial
Amendment #1 to the FY22 Annual Action Plan
HCDC will review and consider a recommendation to Council to approve Substantial Amendment #1
to the FY22 Annual Action Plan. A copy of the draft amendment is available online at
icgov.org/actionplan.
7. Consider Approval of FY23 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies Application Materials
HCDC will consider approval of the FY23 CDBG/HOME and Emerging A2A applications and
application guide. HCDC will need to formalize the application materials at this meeting for staff to
prepare for the upcoming allocation period. The next application cycle for Legacy Aid to Agencies
funding will begin in fall of 2022 with funding available in FY24.
8. Iowa City Council Meeting Updates
Commissioners volunteer each month to monitor Council meetings. This agenda item provides an
opportunity for brief updates on City Council activity relevant to HCDC business. Commissioners shall
not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items.
9. Housing and Community Development Information
Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items.
10. Adjournment
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021 Meeting Packet Contents
Agenda Item #2
• October 21, 2021 HCDC Draft Meeting Minutes
Agenda Item #5
• Staff Memo – Aid to Agencies Legacy Applicant Process
• List of Current Legacy Agencies (Excerpt from City Steps 2025)
• City Steps 2025 Public Service Priorities
• Summary of Past Funding for Aid to Agencies
Agenda Item #6
• Substantial Amendment #1 Draft
Agenda Item #7
• Staff Memo – FY23 Application Materials
• Previous Scoring Criteria (Excerpt FY22 Applicant Guide)
• FY23 CDBG/HOME Applicant Guide
• FY23 CDBG/HOME Application
• FY23 CDBG/HOME Pro Forma
• FY23 Emerging Aid to Agencies Application
Agenda Item #9
• Staff Memo – South District Form Based Code Affordable Housing Incentives
• Successful Living October Vacancy Report
• Successful Living Email – Roger Goedken, Executive Director
• Successful Living Letter – Roger Goedken, Executive Director
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 2021 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Nasr
Mohammed, Peter Nkumu, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Theresa Lewis
STAFF PRESENT: Erica Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Simon Andrew (The Housing Fellowship), Hailey Behmer (Unlimited
Abilities), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House), Charlie Eastham (Center
for Worker Justice), Simon Fall (Unlimited Abilities), Karen Fox (Center
for Worker Justice), Roger Goedken (Successful Living), Kevin Sanders
(Successful Living)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommends the following CDBG/HOME funding allocations to Council.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEM BER 16, 2021:
Dennis moved to approve the minutes of September 16, 2021, Reedus seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the minutes were approved 7-0.
Agenda Item #2
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 2 of 17
2
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
UNSUCCESSFUL AND DEL AYED PROJECTS POLICY:
Staff requested direction from HCDC in September on the remaining $99,010 in FY21 HOME funds
allocated to Successful Living for the purchase of two additional homes. Staff recommended the
recapture of remaining funds ahead of the FY23 funding round scheduled for winter due to risk factors
detected during monitoring, but the recommendation was not accepted by the commission at that time.
Roger Goedken (Successful Living) provided an update to HCDC at the commission’s request. Goedken
noted when he read the minutes the commission had concerns about a few things. One is the vac ancy
rate or the occupancy of the properties that they have. They have been tracking it and have shown
improvement since May and continue to do so. Their vacancies are down to 10 currently and they are due
to give another report at the end of this month or first of next month and they're on trend to continue to
maintain that improvement. Goedken noted there's always some things in flux, but right now they still
have improvement from the 10 and he thinks they may have a couple tenants that might move out for
certain personal reasons, but the occupancy is continued to improve. Other things that were noted was
getting the period affordability started, which they did do that earlier this month, so that satisfied. With the
property at 1340 Hollywood the rental permit wasn't obtained because they had issues with contractors
and such which delayed things pretty significantly but they have those things rectified and addressed.
They were able to submit and get approval for the rental permit at 1340 Hollywood on the s ixth of
October, so that's satisfied. They also have three residents pending to move in, looking at about
November 1 for that to occur. Goedken believes they’ve satisfied everything that was asked for and then
maybe some.
Drabek doesn’t recall offhand within the vacancy rate was before but it was quite a bit higher than 10%
correct. Goedken replied it’s more than 10% and clarified that they have 10 units open. Goedken said
they have 41 federally funded units so 10 out of that would be around 24%. Drabek recalls it was
hovering in the high 20s low 30s before so it's down.
Drabek noted the commission had discussed the issue of seeking the ability to take voucher recipients.
Goedken stated they’re looking at that and have been in contact with multiple peop le but they haven't
really gotten to the point where they've been able to utilize somebody with a voucher at this point.
Goedken noted it's something they're definitely interested in pursuing. One of the barriers that they've
had throughout COVID is their usual referral sources and the usual sources that would assist with rent
base have dried up or change their approaches so it wasn't utilizable. But in the last couple few months
they've been starting to see a thaw in things and a definite improvement in the referrals that they have.
Alter apologized if this was covered in the last meeting because she was unable to attend but looking
through the notes she wonders if they are having any issues with the vacancies because of staffing.
Goedken replied it is a factor, but it’s not the reason, it’s really been the referrals. Alter asked if they were
able to get more units would that stretch staffing or at what point would they be concerned about the ratio
of staffing to units. Goedken replied with the curren t properties they have, they don't really have any
concerns, they have plans and people hired and trained and are still continuing to do some more hiring
because they want to have more but they have enough coverage for what is required.
Goedken also spoke about was planned for the down payment funds, the $99,010, he had mentioned in
the marketing report he sent in that they could, and have, pursued purchasing houses in the latter half of
the fiscal year, successfully as well. He noted this is a really wa cky housing market and they had looked
at a couple earlier, but they go fast and they go high. He also noted they do have formally till June 30 to
expend those funds so he doesn’t think that there's any major pressure as far as that goes. His intention
would be to pursue seeking houses in December if that would be approved by HCDC.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 3 of 17
3
Reedus noted stated they heard last month from the staff that was present that the changes in funding
coming through PCR had a big impact on their ability to find individuals who have income to move into
those houses, is that going to be an ongoing factor moving forward. Goedken confirmed for that source,
yes. Basically, what happened was last year in July they changed their rules as far as what can qualify for
that housing assistance and in that living source. Goedken has talked to the regional executive director
on more than one occasion but they’re not going to change that specific rule. However Goedken noted
they have found other sources to help with that and it's helped them to grow and think outside the box a
little more.
Drabek asked if the agency will be invited to provide a November report in person or just provide a written
report in the agenda packet. Thul said that is up to the commission.
Goedken asked what detail the commission want moving forward in next month’s report. They do provide
the occupancy report monthly.
Drabek is personally interested is the occupancy and vacancy issue, Goedken noted that’s in the report
that already goes to City monthly.
Dennis asked if the commission wants to see any marketing efforts. Thul stated they would want to know
ahead of the next funding round if there was going to be a discussion about recapturing funds. Drabek
noted if there were discussions about recapturing funds they would want to invite that person and not just
have a written report. He was not planning to have a recapture discussion but they could if they wanted
to.
Reedus would want to know from the City what are the goals in terms of what is full occupancy and a
timeline. Thul stated they can't underwrite a HOME project until the vacancy is at a reasonable rate
meaning 5% to 10% as a benchmark. So staff’s question to the commission is do they want to keep the
funds with Successful Living and allow them time to improve the vacancy rate or do they need to have the
discussion of a potential recapture before the next funding round. That is the direction staff is looking for.
Reedus noted to get to that vacancy rate it would mean eight of the ten open would have to be rented or
occupied, what is the timeline for that and if they didn't meet that when would the City need to recapture
the funds. Thul stated they approve the materials in November and the funding round opens in
December and runs through January.
Vogel thought it was in the spring and they had some time but filling ten units at this time is not going to
be easy to do, especially if they're not taking any vouchers. He feels they would want to have a
discussion at the next meeting and make a decision on whether to recapture with the understanding that
obviously when vacancy rates get better, they can apply for more funding in future funding rounds. If the
City can’t underwrite it then it's pointless to keep funds out there. Vogel stated they do have to have that
discussion in person and have that vote on the agenda for next month to pull those funds and reuse them
in December when they start looking at other candidates who can use those funds in a more imminent
way.
Goedken added that by HUD rules they should have until June 30 to spend these funds, not till the next
funding round, in December. HUD rules do state they have that much time, eight months or so.
Drabek noted essentially they’re looking for a reduction of vacancy from 10 units to 2 or 3 units by next
month.
Thul stated there's nothing to say that they can't leave the funds in that project but it would be with the
understanding that that money would be pending vacancy report improvements to be able to move
forward.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 4 of 17
4
Vogel asked about the HUD rule and is that an issued if the commission recaptures funds. Kubly noted
with HOME funds they have longer than CDBG funds, there's usually a two-year commitment deadline
from HUD but that's waived at the moment. Vogel would like to have it clarified because if it is an issue
where they can't pull those funds due to outstanding requests require on the back can staff report on that
because then there is not need to have that discussion next month. Thul replied the requirement is that
they have a certain period of time to spend the funds she believes four years.
Kubly noted the issue with December is that they want to know ahead of the funding round whether they
have more funds to allocate to other projects, it's not a hard and fast deadline that they need to deal with
next month. It's just if they wanted to recapture those funds and give them out in the next funding round, it
has to be dealt with next month.
Vogel asked if Goedken is saying HUD says the City can’t recapture those funds. Goedken replied what
he is saying is that they are legally allowed until June 30 to spend those funds. As far as trying to
recapture that he doesn’t see an urgency to do it now because there'll be another funding round next year
in April or something like that.
Reedus noted the commission is discussing this project because it is listed and labeled as an
unsuccessful or delayed project so it must be past some deadlines. She requested staff go through the
deadlines again. Thul stated these were FY21 funds and the reason they brought it to the commission as
a part of the Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects policy is that there are a number of risk factors
associated with the projects, vacancy is one and also some of the other issues were listed in the last
packet, like the rental permit delay. That Hollywood house that closed in February, it just got a rental
permit but hasn't been leased up yet. So when staff review projects , they see all those items as risk
factors. For example, that Hickory project that finally leased up was two months shy of having to have
funds repaid to HUD and that becomes a pressure point of trying to move the projects along.
Vogel asked about the funding round in April. Kubly explained that is this funding round, the applications
will go out in December, are due in January, but the commission won't do their recommendations until
probably March. Vogel stated then if they recapture those funds and those funds were available, there's
nothing stopping Successful Living from reapplying for those funds at a point when their occupancies are
back up. Dennis stated they would have to be back in the applicant pool for those with eligibility.
Goedken stated that they utilized HOME funds with a total of 10 houses successfully overall. He
acknowledged it’s been a uniquely challenging last year and a half and they definitely suffered a lot of
ways and occupancy is one of those. Also, the population they often serve is one that has a lot more
transient, their AMI is closer to 15% on average, and that indicates that they're taking some of the harder
cases or persons who are challenged against as far as residency and staying at the one place. They are
not going to see that with an average landlord. He asks the commission to have a little understanding of
discretion as those persons that are in their houses versus the typical landlord. Those are the challenge
they have, because they can bring in 10 people but might lose 3, 4 or 5 in that period too. They had one
last month that had a parole violation, nothing they can do about that, another one went in the hospital
with significant mental health issues. So there's things that are beyond their control to contain. Goedken
stated they have shown solid diligence over the last month plus and satisfied everything that was asked.
He really prefer not to have to recapture the funds and then re-ask for them, that's a large process that is
pretty involved for providers. He stated they have a history of utilizing the funds very well and this
$100,000 is still well put with them.
Dennis asked about when the City would have to send money back to HUD. Thul stated the re are
variables. For example, if they buy a house and they couldn't lease the units, then there's the possibility of
having to repay to HUD for the units if they're still vacant. There's also the possibility of them leasing up
initially and then going vacant, like there's a federally funded project right now that's been vacant for over
a year, so there's a lot of unknowns and variables but typically the City has four years to spend their
whole grant.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 5 of 17
5
Kubly added for this particular project if they weren't able to proceed within the two -year HOME allocation
deadline they’d probably amend the agreement and just go with that one that they've already done. There
are other vacant projects that need to meet specific HOME deadlines, when a organization acquires their
property they have so long to lease up that property and if they don't do it within a certain time the funds
have to be repaid to HUD. So what they’re working on right now is making sure that they're able to lease
those up and not have to trigger those HUD deadlines.
Vogel asked if historically Successful Living has ever had a problem. Kubly states they have never had to
repay, they got very close with the Hickory project. Vogel asked if they keep an escrow account in place
to pay back those funds. Goedken confirmed they have funds. He did also want to highlight that the only
deadline they missed was that six month for the 1340. Hollywood and HUD does allow 18 months total if
needed, and by the end of the month or early next month they’ll have people moving in there. Beyond
that, the only next deadline will be next year sometime.
Dennis stated the commission does need a report in November and then they can make a decision then.
Drabek asked if the decision would be recapture or revisit closer to June 30. Dennis said if they don’t
recapture then that’s the only other option for Successful Living.
Goedken wants to know what the expectation is for the report next month because an occupancy of 95%
is unrealistic for their population, he would ask that they have more flexibility or leniency as far as that
goes. He noted there is progress moving in the right direction and a new agency is going to take a year or
whatever to fill those number rooms as well. Vogel agrees that 95% is a crazy number to try to reach in
Iowa City in the rental market overall right now. He thinks 10% is a reasonable number to achieve and for
the City to expect.
Drabek noted when they're talking about 41 units it gets hard to sort of distinguish 5% or 10%, it’s just a
distinction between two units or four units, he thinks they need to set something a little bit concrete, but to
only have two units vacant by next month is unrealistic.
Vogel asked then what do they consider as a commission a happy movement forward, he is in the
business and to reduce occupancy by 50% would be tough, and to find qualified applicants, but 33% of
the vacancies to be occupied or at least to have a lease in place seems reasonable and he would be
comfortable with that being positive movement forward in a month and at that point he wouldn't feel the
need to push further for recapturing. If they can achieve 33% then it puts them in a position that by the
time next June comes around, theoretically, they’ll be on that right path and moving forward towards
having the project completed.
Drabek agrees and would take seven vacancies as evidence of good progress.
Goedken stated they have two or three very probable tenants’ lines up for the Hollywood p roperty on
November 1. He did note again there might be attrition so that's going to be part of that factor they might
fill six and lose three or something like that.
Mohammed asked how far from the deadline is Successful Living. Thul stated the most re cent one would
be the Hollywood project and that is at six months but now they have a rental permit, and it sounds like
there's potential tenants lined up. However, there's two other acquisition projects in the FY21 project,
there's going to be three homes total. Staff’s question for the commission was should they allow those
remaining two homes to go forward, or should they put the remaining money into something that might
proceed in the more immediate future.
Goedken clarified they would have until June 30 to purchase two houses and have 18 months to occupy
them, but of course they’d like to do it in six months.
Vogel asked about where they get leads for tenants from and stated places like the Shelter House are
seeing increases now that the moratorium is over, so is Successful Living getting leads from them or from
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 6 of 17
6
Veterans Affairs over in Coralville, or where. Goedken stated their funder referral sources are the
Integrated Health Homes which are managed care organizations that oversee all the human service stuff,
and they give most referrals. They get some from the University of Iowa, some from Department of
Corrections, Shelter House goes through the funder sources, they don't come to Successful Living
directly. But to answer the question they’ve seen an increase as far as the amount of referrals.
Vogel asked if most are SSI tenants. Goedken confirmed they are all Medicaid.
Vogel motioned to request a vacancy report from Successful Living ahead of the November
meeting with the understanding that if more than 7 federally funded units remain vacant, the
commission will discuss the recapture of remaining FY21 funds. If 7 or less units remain vacant,
the discussion will be deferred until June of 2022. Seconded by Drabek.
Motion passed 8-0.
DISCUSS FY22 MID-YEAR FUNDING REQUESTS (CDBG/HOME) AND CONSIDER BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL:
Drabek suggested they start by looking at any issues with the scores and rankings and then have a
discussion of funding allocation. He noted he didn’t really see any major differences or ambiguity in
scores from commissioners. They were similar, at least on the individual questions, where he saw major
differences in range were on the questions he didn't expect to have differences in range. Really the only
differences were on the question of does the project leverage other financial resources or what primary
percentage median income persons are targeted. At least by attempt those are supposed to be objective
questions that have the same answer. Drabek noted they talked about looking into rubric revisions in the
future and that might be one area. He thinks where some of the ambiguities came fr om, at least on what
a percentage median income people are targeted is some projects targeted multiple median income
ranges and maybe some of them did an average and some of took the higher and lower. In the area
about leveraging other financial resources, some of the projects leveraged internal resources and some
of the projects applied for but had not yet received funding.
Reedus asked if there is an expectation from the City in terms of what percentage should be leveraged
from elsewhere. She doesn’t think there's a difference if an organization uses its own funds, they could
have some sort of designated funds available for that, or they seek other funding, whether it's fundraising
dollars or grants or something, but is there an expectation of how much. What is the minimum they
should be leveraging other funds because that was a difficult one for her because to compare an agency
like Shelter House they may have the ability to have extra funds to use for leveraging but other
organizations don’t have as much.
Kubly stated in the application guide the City recommends or suggests 25%.
Alter noted this has been a question ever since she’s been on the commission and been up for a
difference of perspective in does a lack of leveraging additional funds do not indicate strength or
weakness, but does it indicate a much more need for the money. There's a lot of different ways to look at
this and the City has recommended on balance and there be more evidence of that shared ways of
obtaining money. Alter noted however, it's always still a question to her about is that the proper way to
look at it because one can argue that those relationships and those ties to places that have additional
funding sources will then perhaps have an advantage over the places that that don't have those
resources. It's both a point of interest and a point of pain.
Vogel agreed with what Alter was talking about, because looking at the Green State and the City Down
payment Assistance, they have all the leverage in the world. The City has tax funds and other sources of
income and the Green State Development are literally working with a bank. So in that case, even though
the leverage was huge, they've absolutely got all this ability to get other assistance, he doesn’t feel that
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 7 of 17
7
makes them a more worthy project in any way, then Shelter House or The Housing Fellowship or
Unlimited Abilities who obviously don't have that kind of pocket available to them and may not have the
same amount of partnership resources. He looked at it as a very object ive score, who has a pocket full of
money to the side that they can borrow, who's got 50% of their project funded from someplace else, but it
was a tough one subjectively because it didn't really speak to the value or worth of the project. He had a
really hard time with the City and Green State. He does have the question of if the people with down
payments, are they getting a loan through Green State as well, if so the Green State obviously has a
vested interest in collecting the interest payments for those 20 and 30 year loans down the road. It’s hard
to believe that even if they didn’t get this down payment assistance that somebody like Green State can't
come up with $50,000 or $75,000 on their own to put towards eight homes at 20-30 year mortgages
making even 7%-8%. So he definitely scored lower on more subjective stuff he could score on because
he was trying to offset that hard 25 they absolutely had for the financial circumstances.
Reedus noted her perspective is if they’re going to say someone organ ization will get a pass because
they'd have a hard time matching then let’s not have it on there, they have to have some rationale for a
score, that's what applicants are expecting. So if it is 25%, and they don't have that 25%, it should be a
zero in that box, that's what applicants are expecting and then the commission has some rationale for the
scoring,
Dennis thinks it's difficult to say that a certain applicant has to meet a certain percentage of leveraging
funds because they have to consider the whole thing, they have to consider the population that they're
serving, the income levels of the of the population that they're serving, how the rents or the mortgages
can be paid and that's really difficult. In her experience, the industry standard is that $1 of public funding
to affordable housing would leverage about $7 of other sources, whether that's other public sources or
private sources. And she would think that all of these applicants have banking relationships.
Vogel agrees but Shelter House isn’t putting their clients in touch with Green State Credit Union to get
loans that they're going to pay for 20-30 years. Dennis is taking about the whole concept, not just Green
State.
Reedus noted that here they’re talking about per the application, they're asking for $100,000, how much
are they asking for from us and what other funding do they have as leverage. If they shouldn't be asking
that then they should not ask it, because what gives them difficulty is the way they're scoring when they
don't understand how they should be scoring, then it skews what might otherwise be a first place
applicant to the third place. There was another question, the primary percent of median income targeted,
for which she created an expanded scale so that if somebody fell in the middle she gave them five points
or even 15 points because she wanted to be fair. She wants to be able to explain to an applicant why she
gave them a particular score.
Alter asserted they are not just throwing darts at the board, and they are adhering to the rubric. She
acknowledges the point that, certainly, for the applicants, they want to have it clear and want to have
rationale for them and that happened to the best of their ability.
Reedus is just suggesting if they want to say it’s okay if an applicant doesn’t have the 25% then they take
that score out, they don't need to have that score to come up with a total. If it does stay in the scoring
rubric than anybody that doesn't have the 25% should get 0 or 1, whatever is the lowest.
Dennis noted however for tonight they already have the scores turned in. Drabek noted in theory, but
they very well could redo them in certain limited ways, it has been done in the past. One of the strange
things here is that there really is no need to redo them, because their scores are very similar. Scores are
almost exactly the average on all five agencies. He was noting a couple of particular ambiguities in the
questions that might explain what little differences they did have, which is just when an ap plicant falls into
multiple median income ranges, how do they adjudicate between those scores, do they give them the
higher score, the lower score, an average.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 8 of 17
8
Reedus thinks as long as they are consistent in the scores and as long as they can justify to an applicant
how they came up with that score, that's fine.
Drabek noted the other ambiguity being what counts as another financial resource, if they just had a brief
description of that it might help a little bit on that question.
Dennis believes staff providing input may have been a factor for not having a wide variation of scores, it
was helpful. She didn't necessarily follow it but did use it as a guide.
Drabek appreciated having the top line number but not the actual breakdown on every question, th at
might have been a bit too much guidance. He would suggest the commission next year does the same
thing, just the big number but not all that breakdown of every question.
Dennis asked as just a point of process, for the City that submits applications an d then the City scores the
application, is the person who submits the application the same person that scores the application. Kubly
confirmed they are scoring themselves, but the commission is making the ultimate recommendation.
Dennis noted however the commission got a memo saying that the commission can't talk to the
applicants, but if the applicant is the City the commission has to talk to the City. Reedus noted she asked
about this at one of the last meetings because reviewing the City application i s a little intimidating in this
process.
Drabek asked if they want talk about the rankings, Shelter House scored the highest, that seems to be
pretty clear, but it is a little bit closer with some of the other applications.
Thul showed the staff recommendations for the funding and noted the commissioner scores as well.
Drabek had one question about the staff recommendation, they can look at this in absolutely dollar
amounts or percentage of requests. But if they start with absolute dollar amounts, t hen there's a pretty
good correlation here between score and recommended allocation, the highest ranking applicant gets the
most absolutely dollar amount and for the most part it goes down from there. Obviously, if they look at it
as percentage of request, it's very different in some ways, almost the opposite. He’d like to hear more
about is the what's going on with the CHDO Reserve, is this is money that could only be used by the
Housing Fellowship. Thul confirmed they are the only ones that can get that money because they’re the
only provider under that definition.
Drabek questioned though why it is important enough that $80,000 of HOME funding goes to the lowest
scoring applicant. Why would it not be a better decision of the commission to take the ran kings very
seriously and award that $80,000 to a couple top scoring applicants. Kubly explained the City wants to
see a successful CHDO Reserve activity so they felt that was even though they had a lower score it was
important to set that project up to be successful. The CHDO is so important to the HOME allocation and
The Housing Fellowship is an experienced agency.
Dennis is wondering why if a Shelter House gets such a high score, why the City would only recommend
half funding of the request. Kubly explained they were looking at it as absolute dollars, rather than
percentage, and just looking at all the applications as well. They did get the highest allocation of all the
requests.
Alter asked if in the past, have there been projects that simply were not funded. Kubly confirmed there
have been. Alter does think that these projects are worthy of funding and that too is part of the logic of
what the City was looking at when they were making recommendations for the dollar amounts. But the
bigger question is the scores are one thing but are they going to fund based on absolute dollar or
percentage of very high scoring projects. Are there guidelines in place or is this where that subjectivity
comes in. For this particular round, these are all worthy proj ects and therefore, to the extent that it's
possible they will fund them in accordance with the scores, proportionally, but everyone will get some
money, whereas in some cases, the projects just don’t get funded. This question circles back to letting
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 9 of 17
9
the applicants know what they can expect. Coming up with scores can be painstakingly work but then at
the end of the day what they want is the money, the funding. Does the commission need to have a
similar conversation about applicants having an understanding of scores and if they are underneath a
certain score, then they are not funded.
Drabek stated they have one good thing that they could use, it would be the capacity history section of
the rubric because if they see low scores there that's really concerning. The problem he has this time is
they gave every application a perfect score on that section, he did not have any reservations at all with
any of the applicants on that section.
Dennis looked at the readiness to proceed, this is only her second meeting and they’ve already
recaptured funds from one project and possibly doing it to another. Shelter House is already past ready,
they have applicants who have identified properties that they're ready to purchase, they have applicants
that propose to acquire properties they have identified and haven't bought for the City because the
duplexes are still occupied. It wasn't clear to her that all of the projects are ready to go and she thinks
that's important.
Vogel stated first he thought staff’s recommendations were great and he understood where staff was
coming from but the minute he saw scores, and the minute he saw the recaptured and the CHDO he was
like The Housing Fellowship is going to get the money and they got the lowest score. They’re getting
$77,000. Unlimited Abilities does great work, but they have had some issues with getting houses, buying
houses and putting people in houses and have vacancy issues as well. And the regarding Iowa City and
Green State, as he mentioned earlier he has a little bit of an issue with the whole giving Green State
money to give down payments to people who are then going to pay them for 30 years. He would rather
see a bigger chunk of that go towards just the City, a lot of City’s down payment systems comes out from
other funding sources, or the general fund, but if they have HOME funding he’d rather see the money
that's in the City of Iowa City and Green State and possibly the Housing Fellowship go towards down
payment assistance from the City of Iowa City, which is not a pr ogram he’s a huge fan of for the record,
but it is a program the City is doing. And then, the Shelter House over and over proves that they can do
big projects, providing massive amounts of support to huge amounts of people, and get it done. He
would allocated $77,000 CHDO, $78,000 to Unlimited Abilities, maybe $50,000 to the City of Iowa City
and Green State, fully funded $100,000 to the City and put the rest to Shelter House. He does feel
Unlimited Abilities should get the $78,000 recapture as it’s for housing.
Reedus stated the Green State is a down payment assistance program, and the City was purchasing
duplexes in the south district also as a down payment assistance, which targets different income levels
and that's a huge difference. Shelter House got a huge score because they're in that lower income range
where Green State and the City lost points in that section a little bit. She also struggles with how they
divide up the pot of money when they have one applicant that does really well but they do have to tak e
into account how they want to target this money, and it's not just the lowest income class, but there is a
medium range. Down payments are hard for working folks to come up with and the beauty of the Green
State program is coming up with money that can assist people in buying homes. Shelter House asked for
$500,000, which was actually the entire pot and she doesn’t disagree with that because they
demonstrated the need, but they can't give the whole pot of money to one organization but the lowest
amount she would want to give them is 50% of the pot of money. Drabek agreed with that.
Drabek suggested they start with things that they could endorse, at least $250,000 to Shelter House and
he was certainly convinced by the City's reasoning for giving the CHDO money, at the very least, to the
Housing Fellowship.
Alter is proposing zero allocation for Unlimited Abilities, Dennis agrees with that. Drabek noted if they are
going to go the route of funding one agency zero, based on a combination of the scores, plus other
considerations, that is the only application that they could really do it because the Housing Fellowship has
to get the CHDO funding
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 10 of 17
10
Reedus acknowledged the Housing Fellowship scored low, however the difference is that they're
proposing to rehab a three to four bedroom home and that's a little bit different niche and there aren’t
many of those in the community so she suggest they try to pull the Housing Fellowship up from the
depths because of that one issue.
Vogel asked if the CDBG funds are available to the non-legacy applicants. Didn’t they do some kind of
mid-year round of funding for smaller non legacy emerging agencies. Kubly replied no, they can only use
so many CDBG dollars for public services.
Drabek asked if there are any applications here that are ineligible for CDBG funds. Thul stated CDBG
cannot be used on construction of rental housing. They’ve gotten around that before by doing a lot
acquisition but since this is already owned by Shelter House that would be not a use of CDBG. So if they
wanted to move the $78,000 recaptured CDBG funds, it could not go to Shelter House but could go to
either of the City down payment projects.
Vogel would rather see that money move forward to the next round, he is just not excited about the whole
down payment assistance programs but if anything he would rather fund the one that's coming straight on
the City coffers than the one that's once again a back end agreement with Green State. But if everyone
else is more comfortable with going ahead and getting rid of that $78,000 this round, he’d rather it go to
the City South District Program and fully fund that $
Alter noted both programs actually have some value as it is down payments going for people who could
be first time homeowners, it’s geared towards unrepresented minorities as potential property owners and
that gap is so huge. This program is attending to a pretty stark statistical and lived experience of too
many black people being turned down for mortgages and this is helping them gain equit y and really
create legacy for families.
Vogel stated he will support this commission if they decide to put that money there, he will vote for it, he
just won’t be the one who made the motion.
Reedus agreed and noted she did score lower because of AMI but because what she heard at one of the
first few meetings is that is that there isn’t enough housing for some of the large families the Housing
Fellowship does fill a need there so she is in support even though they scored low.
Vogel asked what the Housing Fellowship’s current vacancy rate is.
Simon Andrew (The Housing Fellowship) replied it is roughly 10% but that's largely being driven by the
project from last year, their nonprofit entity is closer to 7%.
Nkumu asked staff what the rationale for awarding funding to the Housing Fellowship is when Unlimited
Abilities scored higher than the Housing Fellowship. Kubly explained staff recommended the HCDC
recapture CDBG funds from Unlimited Abilities. The additional funds for the Housing Fellowship is
because they're CHDO and so they're important to the overall HOME allocation and are required to do so
many total projects, and this will allow them to carry that out.
Vogel noted staff did recommend $80,000 from HOME to the Housing Fellowship and $0 to Unlim ited
Abilities. Was that because of the FY21 issues and the accounting issues. Thul noted HOME has a lot
more regulatory requirements so they thought CDBG would be easier for them to administer.
Drabek suggested perhaps they use staff recommendations with the exception that they took the $78,000
CDBG money and distributed it between the two City of Iowa City programs. So there would be $100,000
for the South District Program, $50,000 out of HOME funding and the other $50,000 would be recaptured
CDBG funds. And then $120,000 from HOME for the Green State and $28,000 from the recaptured
CDBG.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 11 of 17
11
Reedus asked if Green State doesn't get all of its money, and the allocate them $100,000 instead of
$150,000 they will still be able to move forward, but what happens if the Iowa City South District project is
not fully funded. Kubly stated they would typically offer $25,000 per unit and so if they could get funding
in increments of $25,000 that would help them with allocations, if they $50,000 they would just do two
units instead of four. She noted they're duplexes so they typically come into two at a time.
Reedus also asked Andrew what happens if the Housing Fellowship got less than requested. Andrew
replied it depends on if the 77 will be paid back or not, the other 80 they are envisioning as a loan they
will pay back and they requested the other half to be forgivable at the end of the period of affordability.
So if the 77 was forgivable, they'd probabl y still move forward with it.
Reedus asked if the Shelter House request for $500,000 goes to their bank loan, and any money they get
will help alleviate that so costs can be spread to the program and have less overhead costs going
forward. So, the question is if the allocation is less than $500,000 isn’t going to prevent the project moving
forward, anything received will apply to lower overhead costs, correct.
Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House) confirmed that, the worst-case scenario is 0% as that produces the
commercial debt for 3.5%. So to reduce that commercial debt is what they're looking at right now. It is a
forgivable loan and reduces the overall loan and that's where that liberates money for the overall
operating costs.
Reedus just wanted to make sure they would not be giving a program difficulty if they reduced allocations.
Drabek noted it seems like they’re trying to balance on one hand respect for the rubric scores and on the
other hand maintaining of the City’s HOME funding and perhaps to visualize a more controversial
proposal for the last $80,000 what if they split it $ 40,000 apiece between the Housing Fellowship and
Shelter House. That would be basically staff scores with two exceptions, one being recaptured CDBG
funds moved from Unlimited Abilities to a split between the two Iowa City programs and the other is that
they fund the Housing Fellowship at $117,000 rather than $157,000.
Dennis doesn’t agree with the $120,000 for Green State and would like to lower that. Reedus suppor ts
lowering that too. Dennis proposes allocating Green State $100,000 and then the other $20,000 to either
go to Shelter House or the Housing Fellowship.
Drabek stated that puts the Housing Fellowship with the CHDO funds plus $40,000 which is about half of
where it was from the city staff recommendation.
Dennis noted the City of Iowa City South District Program asked for $100,000 and would get fully funded.
Drabek noted that seems reasonable in the sense that it's this second highest average score.
Vogel noted he is okay with not allocating anything to Unlimited Abilities, they are more than welcome to
come back in the spring, and hopefully have things cleaned up, and the commission will be happy to
consider a future request.
Kubly requested they adjust the City funding so that the South District is all HOME and the other one is
split between HOME and CDBG recapture funds, it's just a lot more administration of two funding sources
in a project. The commission agreed.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 12 of 17
12
Dennis motioned to recommend the following CDBG/HOME funding allocations to Council.
Seconded by Vogel. Motion passed 8-0.
LEGACY AGENCY REQUEST – AID TO AGENCIES:
Staff received a request from Center for Worker Justice to be included as a Legacy Agency which would
allow them to apply for Aid to Agency funding.
Drabek noted this is something that they’ve speculated on in various ways over the past few years of how
an emerging agency moves into legacy status. Is this agenda item to discuss the request from Center for
Worker Justice or to decide when the commission will discuss it. Kubly replied they could discuss at the
November meeting as staff will need to prepare a substantial amendment but before doing so wanted to
know if the commission even wanted to put that on the agenda.
Reedus asked for a refresh on the rules on emerging agencies. Do they receive funds as an emerging
agency for a specific number of times before they can be considered for legacy agency. Kubly replied not
necessarily, anyone can apply to be a legacy agency just with written requests to staff and then it gets
reviewed by HCDC, but it requires a substantial amendment to the City Steps five -year plan. Therefore,
staff needs to plan ahead and start the public input process ahead of that meeting. Staff needs to be able
to plan for that meeting and do all the necessary paperwork and public notices. The amendment is
needed because they have all the legacy agencies listed in City Seps so if anyone else wanted to apply
to be on that list, it needs to go through that amendment process.
Alter asked if those instructions are posted or documented anywhere. She knows of an agency that has
wondered about this process and they had no idea how to do it. Kubly stated she believes it's briefly
discussed in the City Steps but doesn’t know how much detail is in there. Anytime there are questions
please forward them to staff and they could give them more information.
Drabek would find it helpful for the actual discussion if there is anything to put in the packet as criteria for
legacy status.
Dennis asked if it is required to list the agencies in the City Steps. Kubly replied yes, it's mostly local
funding, but some CDBG funding, but that's the processes, they specifically put it in a Plan so that it
would require the amendment to add additional agencies. Dennis asked if they could put in the City
Steps that the City does support a number of agencies under this with their own money, basically, so if an
agency wanted to become part of that then they wouldn’t have to amend the Plan. Kubly explained when
they did the City Steps Plan they deliberately made it a process to add another agency because of the
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 13 of 17
13
feedback they got when they did the Aid to Agency process, because when they add another agency the
budget stays the same, and then the rest of the agencies get lower allocations.
Vogel explained without that they would have more turmoil as far as how much they can distribute.
Reedus stated as far as she is concerned, if they add agencies to legacy lists then they have to add
funding, she is not going to vote for anything that cuts the pie smaller because that's exactly the hole they
climbed out of a couple years ago.
Vogel stated while he agrees with that, it seems what HCDC does now is very much just housing based
and the Center for Worker Justice is alternative community help. Reedus does not agree with that, they
also support the free medical clinic, which doesn’t have anything to do with housing. Vogel has never
seen an application from them. Alter explained that they put the legacy agencies in the City Steps so
they didn't have to apply and that’s why he hasn’t seen any applications.
Reedus reiterated she will absolutely not support anything that makes the pot smaller, if they are going to
add legacy agencies, then they have to add funding. She does have a question about it requiring a
substantial amendment, does that mean substantial time from staff. Kubly responded not necessarily, it
just means they have to follow the citizen participation plan so there's a 30-day public comment period,
they put notices in the paper, they hold a public meeting at this meeting and at Council. Reedus
suggested than they should have a City process for this if there's other agencies that want to apply.
Otherwise, they could get one of these requests every month. They should set a time of the year when it
is open up and the commission can consider multiple agencies rather than one at a time.
Drabek noted it's very rare to get such a request.
Reedus said there are emerging agencies all over the place and there are a couple of legacy agencies
who haven't gotten funding from the City recently, one hasn’t gotten funding in the last six or seven years.
Maybe they need to moved out of the list. The problem is the pie keeps getting sliced into smaller pieces,
which reduces them the amount of funds but it doesn't reduce the work the agencies have to do, it shifts
the cost barrier to the agency. Reedus suggests they have an annual program, one time per year when
anybody could come forward with an application become a legacy that would be better. Then if they
decided there was reason to add more they could submit a request to Council, in addition to increased
funding at the same time.
Alter noted to be a legacy agency there does have to be a track record of good agency activity, so if all
applications are reviewed at the same time then it becomes almost like a scoring p rocess. She doesn’t
know that they'll be flooded with a lot of them, because emerging agencies, several of them, are ones that
really are simply starting up and don't have a track record of actually being able to become a legacy
agency just yet.
Dennis asked if the Center for Worker Justice is now an emerging agency even though they've been
around for awhile. Drabek explained the definition of emerging agency is just not a legacy agency.
Vogel noted at this point the Center for Worker Justice has applied, they put in a request, the question of
staff is does the commission want to start that 30-day public comment process. The Center for Worker
Justice has put in the request and under the c urrent rules he feels they need to put it on the agenda, start
the public comment, etc.
Nkumu supports Reedus’ idea that they should have a period for allowing emerging agencies that are
interested in becoming legacy to come and apply.
Drabek also supports the idea of pairing admission to legacy agency with requests for more funding for
the pot.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 14 of 17
14
Alter noted they were successful in doing that a couple years ago, by putting forth a recommendation to
Council and were able to present the fact that there had been no increase to the budget over at least a
decade, if not longer. She agrees having more legacy agencies with the same budget isn't helpful.
Reedus agrees they need a partnership with Council because before the commission advocated for the
nonprofit groups and got more money, the City Council didn't know. She had gone to the yearly budget
meetings on the first Saturday of the new year and asked Council why they never gave any of their
discretionary funds to the nonprofits and they simply didn't k now that there was a need. It’s helpful for
them as leaders in our community to know that their funding 50% of what agencies really need in terms of
funding, so it might help the cause and getting more money. She is not opposed to funding more
agencies, but they’ve got to have additional money.
Mohammed stated he would like to see the Center for Worker Justice become a legacy organization.
They have received funding in the past and were there any issues, or what is the status of that funding.
Kubly replied as an emerging agency they received operational funds and it is on a schedule that is paid
out. It's not like a CDBG or HOME project where they'd have to accomplish something and then get
reimbursed for the funding. Staff can try to get the reports f or that project and provide that as they do
have the written request, but this agenda item wasn't intended to be the full discussion about whether
they should become a legacy agency. Staff can provide some history on the Aid to Agencies past couple
years and their request and updates on projects. The Center for Worker Justice also received local funds
for COVID related projects, they did emergency payments for people who need it during COVID.
Reedus is confused about how this process is going to go because the commission has not done this
before. If they say yes to the Center for Worker Justice, do they have more money to allocate, or do they
say no because they don’t have more money. What comes first, do they get a commitment from the City
Council to provide more funding for the pot for legacy agencies if they add more agencies.
Dennis asked if there are two different pots, one for emerging agencies and one for legacy. Kubly
explained there's one pot but 5% of the total funding amount can go to emerging agencies.
Reedus asked what that funding increases by each year. Kubly replied it’s been 3% in recent years. So
Reedus noted they only way they can fund the Center for Worker Justice is to take funding from another
agency.
Dennis feels that the Center for Worker Justice has followed the process as it is stated now and it seems
punishing to not allow this because they've done what they're supposed to do so. She understands they
may not have enough money.
Reedus had a question with regard to the budget, when departments, or this group, were to ask for more
money for the pot, when in the City calendar can they do that to have it considered by City Council. Kubly
explained this request would actually first be eligible, because of the application cycle, to apply next fall.
Right now the City is starting the budget process for FY23 funding, which is next July, so it’s almost two
years out and they would have to make that request with next year's budget.
Vogel noted that City Council could also take a recommendation to approve new legacy agency and say
no, all this commission is doing is making a recommendation.
Drabek stated the Center for Worker Justice requested this and the commission should put it on the
agenda.
Reedus suggests the commission chair and/or vicechair have an initial conversation with the city
manager about adding legacy agencies and increasing the budget by more than the annual increase
percentage. Having the commission communicate to the City about what the agency need is and the
ability to fund it is important for everybody to know.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 15 of 17
15
Drabek and Alter agreed they would initiate a meeting with the City Manger to discuss the budget and
how they can help agencies move from emerging into legacy where there's no t enough money to help
agencies.
Reedus noted it should be that emerging agencies are in that role for a specific specified period of time
and then they can go into the legacy agency status, the difference is just the cut off for emerging
agencies the total dollars is $15,000 and that's the bottom amount of funding for the legacy agency. So
that's the big difference.
The commission agreed to review the request from the Center for Worker Justice in November and also
work with the City Manger’s office to come up with a process to be clearer in the future.
IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UPDATES:
Two Commissioners are assigned each month to monitor Council meetings and this agenda item
provides an opportunity for brief updates on City Council activity relevant to the HCDC business.
Commissioners will not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items.
Reedus stated the meeting this week actually was on the system for the police department. The first
meeting of October was on formed based zoning, which is a different way of zoning that's been proposed
and voted upon by the City Council. Reedus noted this is supposed to have some benefits for affordable
housing but she couldn't discern that in the presentation that was made to City Council but in her limited
Google search activity she thought it might be beneficial for the commission to have a presentation by
staff on the benefits to neighborhoods for housing and such.
Vogel did sit in on the September meeting and there was discussion about the change in Slumberland
space to self-storage, which is kind of a bummer to see more retail disappearing from the south district.
The other question that came up was there was a the council passed that at the vacation and conveyance
for development by Gilbane Developments to develop the entire block which raised a question in his mind
of will this be in the downtown district and therefore not include the required affordable housing
requirement. The developer discussed their affordable housing projects at the meeting on their website
there is an area for affordable housing and the link is blank, and there are zero actual affordable housing
projects showing as completed on the website. So he is just curious if this is just another obviously large
student oriented housing and won't be required to have affordable housing requirements. Kubly
confirmed the project is in Riverfront Crossings and they're required to either provide 10% affordable
housing or pay a fee in lieu.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Thul stated the next meeting is November 18, that meeting will be approval of the FY23 application
materials and they’ll have some project monitoring presentations and then on the calendar they have a
break plan for December.
Thul noted a potential training for board and commissioners was scheduled, so anyone interested in that
can attend via zoom.
Kubly noted they included in the agenda packet the results of recent City public outreach for affordable
housing information sharing which includes outreach that the City conducted for Affordable Relief Act
funding, as well as outreach done as part of the Affordable Housing steering committee efforts.
Reedus asked if there is any timeline yet on when there is going to be decision made for the City’s
allocation or about possible uses. Kubly stated she doesn’t expect that to come to this commission but
there are HOME funds that they've been allocated and they’ll do a competitive round for those funds with
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 16 of 17
16
this commission. Reedus noted under consideration is $1.52 million for nonprofit ag encies. Kubly stated
that's part of the City’s ARA money but they were also allocated about $1.8 million in HOME funds.
ADJOURNMENT:
Reedus moved to adjourn, Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 8 -0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 17 of 17
17
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2021-2022
R = Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 8/19 9/16 10/21
Alter, Megan 6/30/24 X O/E X
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X
Lewis, Thersea 6/30/23 O/E O/E R
Mohammed, Nsar 6/30/23 X X X
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X
Date: November 10, 2021
To: Housing & Community Development Commission
From: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Re: Aid to Agencies Legacy Applicant Process – Guide for Discussion
Legacy and Emerging Agencies Background:
Aid to Agencies (A2A) provides flexible operational funding for nonprofits providing services to
low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents of Iowa City based on funding priorities set in the City’s
Consolidated Plan (City Steps 2025). Funding is split between Legacy Agencies and Emerging
Agencies, where the bulk of the budget is allocated to Legacy Agencies and up to 5% of the
budget can be set aside for Emerging Agencies.
Legacy Agencies are a core group of service providers who are eligible Iowa City Aid to Agency
funding. The list of agencies was approved by HCDC in July 2019 and incorporated into City
Steps 2025. The purpose of limiting the number of Legacy Agencies was to return the A2A
program to its original intent of providing an ongoing stable funding source for human service
agencies serving LMI residents based on the funding priorities set in City Steps 2025. The
priorities as well as agencies allowed to apply will be evaluated with each new Consolidated Plan
(every five years) to address changing priorities or gaps of service in the community.
Applications are accepted from Legacy Agencies every two years through the United Way joint
funding process, which streamlines the request for funding through the City of Iowa City, City of
Coralville, Johnson County, and United Way. Staff and HCDC score the applications for City of
Iowa City funding based on identified priorities, history of funding, outcomes and capacity, and
make funding recommendations to City Council. Legacy Agencies have a minimum funding
amount of $15,000. The application for this funding is extensive and agencies are required to
report quarterly on their progress throughout the year.
Emerging Agency applications are accepted annually by nonprofits who are not Legacy Agencies.
Applicants can request between $5,000 and $15,000 through a shorter application which is
intended to help agencies grow and develop capacity through small projects. This program was
created by HCDC and is relatively new, with the first funds allocated in Fiscal Year 2020.
Questions for Discussion
On November 18, 2021 the HCDC agenda will include a discussion on the process for an
organization to become a Legacy Agency. Staff recently received a request from an agency to
be included as a Legacy Agency in City Steps 2025 so that they would be eligible to apply in the
next funding cycle. This addition would require a substantial amendment to City Steps 2025 which
involves a 30-day public comment period, HCDC recommendation, and City Council approval
prior to being submitted to HUD.
This is the first request we’ve received for an agency to become a Legacy Agency and the process
for inclusion is somewhat unclear. As such, staff would like HCDC to consider when and under
what circumstances they will consider future additions to the Legacy Agencies identified in City
Steps 2025.
Agenda Item 5
November 10, 2021
Page 2
In making this decision, staff requests that HCDC to consider the following questions:
1.Under what circumstances will an agency be considered for Legacy status?
2.When will HCDC review requests for Legacy status?
3.What information should be included in the request?
Timing & Budget Considerations
Applications for Legacy A2A funds are accepted in the early fall for funding that would be available
in July of the following year. A new Legacy Agency would need to be added to City Steps 2025
ahead of this process. An estimated schedule for the upcoming A2A application cycle as well as
an estimate of the city’s budget process timeline is provided below.
Estimated Application & Review Process Timeline:
-Jan 2022: HCDC reviews Legacy request
-Mar/Apr 2022: Substantial Amendment to City Steps 2025 (if Legacy request approved)
-Sept 2022: Legacy A2A applications due through the United Way joint funding process
for a two-year funding cycle.
-Jan 2023: A2A applications reviewed by HCDC; funding recommendation to Council
-April 2023: A2A funding recommendations approved by City Council
-July 2023: Agreements executed, and funding payments begin for FY24 allocations
Estimated FY24 City Budget Timeline:
-Fall 2022: Staff budget proposals due
-January 2023: Council begins budget discussions
-March 2023: City Council approves FY24 A2A budget
-July 2023: FY24 funding available to agencies in accordance with agreements
HCDC must weigh the opportunity to provide funds for an additional agency with the potential to
“water down” or decrease funds available for all other agencies in the future. Due to the timing of
the application process and city budget process, the decision to add a new Legacy Agency to City
Steps 2025 will need to be made well ahead of the City’s FY24 budget approval in order for that
agency to be able to apply for FY24 funds.
Other Considerations
•Are the agency’s proposed services consistent with public service priorities identified in
City Steps 2025?
•Has the agency applied for and received Emerging Agency funds in the past?
•Is the agency providing new or increased services that address the problem/need in the
community?
•Has the agency increased the number of LMI households served?
•Has the agency demonstrated capacity and ability to provide outcome measures?
•How many years has the agency been serving the community?
•Does the agency collaborate with other service providers to reduce costs and utilize
community partnership to further goals?
Attachments
-List of current Legacy Agencies (excerpt from City Steps 2025)
-City Steps 2025 Public Service Priorities
-Summary of past funding for Aid to Agencies
150 |P a g e
In 2019, the City modified its Aid to Agencies (A2A) process in July 2019 with the approval of the Housingand Community Development Commission (HCDC). Based on feedback received during that process,the City sought to return the program to its original intent of providing a stable funding source forhuman service agencies serving LMI residents based on the funding priorities set in the ConsolidatedPlanfor public service agencies. To ensure stability of funding, this plan will identify and limit A2Aapplicants to a core group of service providers as follows:
-4Cs: Community Coordinated Child Care-Arc of Southeast Iowa-Big Brothers Big Sisters of Johnson County-CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank
-Domestic Violence Intervention Program-Free Lunch Program-Hawkeye Area Community Action Program-Horizons, A Family Service Alliance-Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County-Inside Out Reentry Community-Iowa City Free Medical Clinic/Dick Parrott Free Dental Clinic-Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity-Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County-Pathways Adult Day Health Center/Aging Services, Inc.-Prelude Behavioral Services-Rape Victim Advocacy Program-Shelter House-Table to Table-United Action for Youth
Currently, these “Legacy” agencies are funded through City FY21. Beginning with City FY22, the agenciesidentified above will be the only agencies allowed to competitively apply for Legacy Aid to Agenciesfunds, comprised of both local and federal sources. Applications will be for a two -year cycle, andfunding amounts will be based on identified priorities, history of funding,outcomes,and capacity.Thisprocess provides for stable funding for agencies with demonstrated capacity to effectively utilize A2Adollars. The priorities and agencies allowed to apply will be reevaluated with each new ConsolidatedPlan to address changing priorities or gaps of service as identified in the plan.
Agenda Item #5
143 |P a g e
Priority Need
Name PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Priority Level High
Population Extremely Low Income;Low Income;Moderate Income;Large Families;Families with
Children;Elderly Families;Public Housing Residents;Elderly;Frail Elderly;Persons with
Mental Disabilities;Persons with Physical Disabilities;Persons with Developmental
Disabilities;Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions;Chronic Homeless;Individuals;
Families with Children;Persons with Mental Illness;Veterans;Persons with HIV/AIDS;
Victims of Domestic Violence; and Unaccompanied Youth
Geographic
Areas Affected Citywide
Associated Goals 1.Provide public services
2.Assist Community Housing Development Organizations in their regular
operations
Description Having a range of public services is essential to assisting those with lower -incomes.
Activities include but are not limited to childcare, transportation, health/mental health
services, youth activities and programming, elderly activities and programming, assistance
for persons with disabilities, food pantries, services for victims of domestic violence,
services for immigrants and refugees, utility assistance and financial literacy and credit
repair programs.
Basis for Relative
Priority
Stakeholders identified the numerous public service needs through stakeholder workshops
that were advertised and open to the general public. In addition, needs have been
increasing over time while funding has remained stable or declined, requiring agencies to
do more with less and creating a challenging operating environment.
Agenda Item #5
Aid to Agencies Allocations: FY06-FY22
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 # Yrs Funded Avg Min Max
4 Cs $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,850 $5,000 $0 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $20,000 $24,923 $26,119 12 $10,900 $0 $26,119
Arc of SEI $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,163 $5,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $19,938 $20,895 8 $9,250 $0 $20,895
Big Brothers/Big Sisters $34,404 $35,436 $37,000 $37,000 $35,000 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 $29,325 $30,000 $30,000 $25,000 $14,909 $15,000 $25,000 $24,923 $26,119 15 $28,352 $14,909 $37,000
Community Corrections Imp. Assoc.$0 0 $0 $0 $0
Compeer $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $3,313 $0 $0 4 $4,578 $0 $5,000
Consortium for Youth Emp./Youth Works $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 5 $14,800 $14,000 $16,000
CommUnity Crisis Center $38,193 $38,575 $39,730 $40,730 $36,500 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $38,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $39,756 $40,000 $66,000 $69,086 $72,402 15 $45,480 $36,500 $72,402
DVIP $50,141 $50,687 $51,000 $52,000 $52,000 $52,000 $52,000 $50,000 $47,500 $45,000 $45,000 $40,000 $39,756 $40,000 $50,000 $49,846 $52,000 15 $47,873 $39,756 $52,000
Dream Center $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0
Elder Services/Horizons $57,685 $58,839 $59,500 $60,168 $54,055 $54,000 $54,000 $52,000 $48,819 $30,010 $30,000 $25,000 $24,849 $20,000 $40,000 $43,863 $45,968 15 $42,815 $20,000 $60,168
Extend the Dream $0 $0 $5,000 1 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Four Oaks $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 1 $1,000 $0 $1,000
Free Lunch Program $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $5,000 $15,000 $16,000 $15,903 $15,000 $16,000 $17,944 $18,805 11 $11,423 $2,000 $18,805
Free Medical Clinic $6,214 $6,400 $7,000 $7,500 $7,263 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $17,500 $24,923 $26,119 15 $12,514 $7,000 $26,119
Girl Scouts of Eastern IA & Western IL $0 0 $0 $0 $0
HACAP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $0 $15,000 $25,000 $24,923 $26,119 5 $20,608 $0 $26,119
Hillcrest Family Services $0 0 $0 $0 $0
HTFJC $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $23,855 $24,000 11 $15,441 $0 $24,000
ICARE $8,692 $8,953 $9,220 $9,220 $8,950 $8,950 $8,950 $8,950 6 $9,040 $8,950 $9,220
ICCSD Family Resource Centers $0 $10,000 $15,000 $0 2 $12,500 $0 $15,000
Inside Out Reentry $14,909 $15,000 $30,000 $39,877 $41,839 5 $28,325 $14,909 $41,839
Iowa Jobs for America's Graduates (JAG)$0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0
IV Habitat for Humanity $5,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $24,923 $26,119 4 $20,261 $0 $26,119
JC Juvenile Justice Youth Dev. Program $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 1 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500
JC Office of American Red Cross $5,287 $5,340 $5,500 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 6 $5,917 $5,500 $6,000
JC Social Services $6,000 1 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
Junior Achievement of Eastern Iowa $0
Lifeskills $0 0 $0 $0 $0
MYEP $25,299 $20,600 $19,570 $16,000 $14,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $6,000 6 $12,595 $0 $19,570
NAMI $0 0 $0 $0 $0
NCJC $59,220 $60,000 $60,000 $61,000 $55,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $51,000 $50,000 $50,000 $43,700 $43,434 $34,300 $55,000 $54,830 $57,000 15 $53,018 $34,300 $61,000
Pathways $0 $4,879 $4,000 $5,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $25,000 $24,923 $26,119 10 $14,983 $0 $26,119
Prelude (MECCA)$28,038 $28,879 $29,745 $29,000 $27,000 $10,000 $18,950 $16,880 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $16,000 $20,000 $39,877 $41,788 14 $22,082 $10,000 $41,788
RVAP $11,121 $11,232 $11,300 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $10,325 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $20,000 $23,000 $24,923 $26,119 15 $15,372 $10,000 $26,119
Shelter House $16,407 $16,899 $35,000 $35,500 $35,500 $36,500 $36,500 $36,500 $32,525 $45,000 $45,000 $50,000 $49,696 $50,000 $85,000 $84,738 $88,808 15 $49,751 $32,525 $88,808
STAR Program $12,793 $6,147 0 $0 $0 $0
Systems Unlimited $0 0 $0 $0 $0
Table to Table $0 $15,000 $20,000 $30,904 $32,387 4 $24,573 $0 $32,387
UAY $61,213 $63,049 $65,000 $65,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $53,500 $49,000 $39,700 $40,000 $34,788 $27,400 $33,000 $32,898 $34,525 15 $47,654 $27,400 $65,000
Agenda Item #5
Emerging Aid to Agencies Allocations - 2020-2021
FY20 FY21 FY22 # Yrs Funded Avg Min Max
$5,000 $15,000 2 $10,000 $5,000 $15,000
$0 0 $0 $0 $0
Dream Center $10,000 1 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
$9,000 $0 1 $9,000 $0 $9,000
$5,438 1 $5,438 $5,438 $5,438
$0 0 $0 $0 $0
$0 0 $0 $0 $0
$5,000 $0 1 $5,000 $0 $5,000
Sudanese American Community Services $5,000 1 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
$0 $11,300 1 $11,300 $0 $11,300
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
Number of Legacy Agencies Funded 18 18 18 17 15 16 19 17 19 18 13 14 15 17 18 18 18
Number of Legacy Agencies Applied 22 22 21 19 19 16 19 20 21 20 22 23 15 17 18 18 18
Min $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $6,000 $5,000 $1,000 $2,000 $1,850 $5,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,909 $15,000 $16,000 $17,944 $18,805
Max $61,213 $63,049 $65,000 $65,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $53,500 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $49,696 $50,000 $85,000 $84,738 $88,808
Average $24,289 $24,085 $25,393 $27,125 $28,351 $25,997 $21,734 $23,869 $19,932 $22,084 $29,131 $27,050 $25,093 $23,041 $33,083 $36,570 $38,292
Total Legacy Agency Funding $437,207 $433,536 $457,065 $461,118 $425,268 $415,950 $412,950 $405,779 $378,700 $397,510 $378,700 $378,700 $376,400 $391,700 $595,500 $658,262 $689,250
Number of Emerging Agencies Funded 3 2 3
Number of Emerging Agencies Applied 6 4 4
Total Emerging Agency Funding $19,000 $16,738 $30,000
Total A2A Funding $437,207 $433,536 $457,065 $461,118 $425,268 $415,950 $412,950 $405,779 $378,700 $397,510 $378,700 $378,700 $376,400 $391,700 $614,500 $675,000 $719,250
Houses into Homes
Unlimited Abilities
Center for Worker Justice
Johnson Clean Energy District
Successful Living
Grow Johnson County
Little Creations Academy
Corridor Community Action Network
EXHIBIT A
FY22 Annual Action Plan
Substantial Amendment #1
November 12, 2021
Due to a low number of applications received during the regular FY22 funding round, the City of
Iowa City held a mid-year funding round for affordable housing projects which made $656,000 in
federal funds available. Over $1 million dollars in requests for funds were received and
considered by the Housing and Community Development Commission.
The proposed FY22 Annual Action Plan amendment includes the incorporation of funding
recommendations, goals, beneficiaries, and other related adjustments. Funds awarded include
500,000 in regular HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds and $78,000 in
recaptured Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from FY21. Additionally,
78,000 in CHDO reserve funds, initially allocated for rental rehabilitation, are recommended for
redistribution to a rental acquisition project.
The City Council will consider this recommendation on December 14, 2021 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:
http://www.icgov.org/actionplan
Erika Kubly
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319.356.5121
Erika-Kubly@Iowa-City.org
Agenda Item #6
Proposed Amendment
Table 6
FY22 Anticipated Resources
Program Source
of Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 2 Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder of
ConPlan
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocatio
n:
Progra
m
Income:
Prior Year
Resources
Total:
CDBG Federal Acquisition,
Admin and
Planning,
Economic
Development,
Housing, Public
Improvements,
Public Services
731,974 $73,817 $88,451
166,451
894,242
972,242
1,928,000 The expected amount in the
remainder of the Consolidated Plan is
four times the average annual
amount from the past five years,
rounded to the nearest $1,000.
HOME Federal Acquisition,
homebuyer
assistance,
rehab,
construction,
rehab, TBRA
494,351 $76,558 $103,091
177,091
674,000
748,000
1,497,000 The expected amount in the
remainder of the Consolidated Plan is
four times the average annual
allocation from the past five years,
rounded to the nearest $1,000. This
does not reflect new funds
anticipated from the American
Rescue Plan Act.
Table 7
Annual Goals and Objectives
Sort Order Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
1
Increase the
number of
affordable
rental housing
units including
through new
construction
and acquisition
2022 2023 Affordable
Housing
AHLM
Eligible Areas
Citywide
Affordable rental
and owner
housing
0 CDBG
326,000
428,000
HOME
11 Other
2 (Rental Units)
2
Support
homebuyer
activities such as
down payment
and/or closing
cost assistance
2022 2023 Affordable
Housing
AHLM
Eligible Areas
Citywide
Affordable rental
and owner
housing
0 $78,000
CDBG
100,000
150,000
HOME
4
12 Households
Assisted
3
Rehabilitate and
improve owner-
occupied
housing units
2022 2023 Affordable
Housing
Citywide
Housing
Rehab
Targeted
Areas
Preservation of
existing
affordable rental
and owner
housing
235,000
CDBG
40,010
40,000
HOME
20 Owner Units
Rehabbed
4
Rehabilitate and
improve renter-
occupied
housing units
2022 2023 Affordable
Housing
Citywide
Housing
Rehab
Targeted
Areas
Preservation of
existing
affordable rental
and owner
housing
0 CDBG
151,990
74,000
HOME
4
2 Rental Units
Rehabilitated
1 Other (CHDO
Operations)
5 Provide public
services 2022 2023
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Public Services
124,000
CDBG
0 HOME
2,900 People
Assisted
6 Improve public
facilities 2022 2023
Non-Housing
Community
Development
LMI Areas
Citywide Public facility
Improvements
262,242
CDBG
0 HOME
2,862 People
Assisted
3 Public Facilities)
7
Improve public
infrastructure &
address climate
action needs
2021 2025
Non-Housing
Community
Development
LMI Areas
Citywide
Public
Infrastructure
improvements
75,000 CDBG
0 HOME
300 People Assisted
1 Public
Facility/Infrastructure)
8
Support
economic and
workforce
development
2021 2025
Non-Housing
Community
Development
LMI Areas
Citywide
Economic
Development
50,000 CDBG
0 HOME 2 Businesses Assisted
9
Effectively
administer and
plan for the
CDBG, HOME,
and related
programs
2021 2025 Other Citywide Administration
and Planning
148,000
CDBG
56,000
HOME
Other
Table 10.5
FY22 Competitive Housing Project Summary
5 Project Name Other Housing Activities
Target Area Affordable Housing Location Model Eligible Areas, Citywide
Goals Supported Increase the number of affordable rental housing units through new
construction and acquisition; Support homebuyer activities such as
down payment and/or closing cost assistance; Rehabilitate and
improve renter-occupied housing units
Needs Addressed Expansion of affordable rental & owner housing options; Preservation
of existing affordable rental/owner housing
Funding $0 $78,000, CDBG $451,000 $450,000 HOME
Description In accordance with CDBG and HOME rules and regulations, assistance
will be used by the City and provided directly to homeowners,
nonprofits, and for-profits to acquire and/or rehabilitate properties,
correct substandard conditions, make general repairs, improve energy
efficiency, reduce lead paint hazards, and make emergency or
accessibility improvements. May include: acquisition/rehab/resale,
refinance/rehab, demolition/site preparation, new construction, down
payment/closing cost assistance and housing counseling. Housing units
assisted will be single or multi-unit affordable housing to be sold,
rented, or lease/purchased, as allowed by CDBG and HOME
regulations. Beneficiaries of housing activities will be low- and
moderate-income households. Other funding available includes
program income generated by the repayment of loan funds. Funding
will also be utilized for project delivery costs and administration of
housing programs, as allowed by CDBG and HOME regulations.
Target Date 6/30/2022
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The following are expected to benefit from the proposed activities:
Financial assistance for homeowner activities to 4 12 low
income households
Rental acquisition or construction of 11 2 units to benefit 11 2
low income renter households
Those receiving services from The Housing Fellowship (1 other)
Location Description Funding is available citywide. Addresses of activities are unknown.
Planned Activities The following activities are proposed: financial assistance to four 12 low
income homebuyers to facilitate affordable homeownership
opportunities, acquisition or construction activities to create 11 2 rental
units for low income households, operating assistance to The Housing
Fellowship, a local CHDO.
Table 10.6
CHDO Activities Project Summary
6 Project Name CHDO Reserve Activities
Target Area Affordable Housing Location Model Eligible Areas
Goals Supported Rehabilitate and improve renter-occupied housing units
Needs Addressed Preservation of existing affordable rental and owner housing
Funding $78,000 $128,000 HOME
Description In accordance with CDBG and HOME rules and regulations, assistance
will be used by the City and provided directly to CHDOs to acquire
and/or rehabilitate properties, correct substandard conditions, make
general repairs, improve energy efficiency, reduce lead paint hazards,
and make emergency or accessibility improvements. May include:
acquisition/rehab/resale, refinance/rehab, demolition/site preparation,
new construction, down payment/closing cost assistance, housing
counseling, and CHDO operational funding. Housing units assisted will
be single or multi-unit affordable housing to be sold, rented, or
lease/purchased, as allowed by CDBG and HOME regulations.
Beneficiaries of housing activities will be low- and moderate-income
households. Funding will also be utilized for project delivery costs and
administration of housing programs, as allowed by CDBG and HOME
regulations.
Target Date 6/30/2022
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The following are expected to benefit from the proposed activities:
2 rental housing units planned for rehabilitation. Activity will
benefit two low income renter households.
Acquisition of a 3 to 4 bedroom home. Activity will benefit a
low income renter household and is intended to help a larger
family.
Location Description Funding is available citywide. Addresses of activities are unknown.
Planned Activities Planned activities at this time include:
The City will provide funds to a certified CHDO to assist in rehabilitating
two rental units for low income households.
The City will provide funds to a certified CHDO to assist with the
acquisition of a 3-4 bedroom rental home to benefit a larger family in
the community.
Table 12
One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported
Homeless 0 2
Non-Homeless 39 13
Special-Needs 0 4
Total 39 19
Table 13
One Year Goals for the Number of Household Supported Through
Rental Assistance 0
The Production of New Units 0 2
Rehab of Existing Units 24 22
Acquisition of Existing Units 15 1
Total 39 25
Public Comments Received with Staff Response
The 30-day public comment period for the FY22 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment #1
began November 12, 2021 and ends December 14, 2021. The City Council is holding a public
meeting on December 14, 2021.
Comments Received:
TBD.
Staff Response:
N/A
EXHIBIT B
FY22 Substantial Amendment
Date: November 10, 2021
To: Housing & Community Development Commission
From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner
Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Re: FY23 Application Materials
Purpose:
The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) approves application materials
for CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies each November. The packet includes application
materials for the FY23 funding round scheduled to open December 29, 2021. Staff request
approval of the FY23 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies materials.
Overview of the Materials:
The Emerging Aid to Agencies materials remain consistent with FY22 documents, however, staff
proposed adjustments to the FY23 CDBG/HOME documents. The proposed changes include
combining the application and financial verification into one document to reduce paperwork
burden on agencies, as well as several adjustments to the scoring criteria located in the applicant
guide.
The adjustments to the scoring criteria include:
1.Reorganizing the criteria to better align with the existing application structure.
2.Restructuring the questions to provide more clarity for Commissioners. For example,
rather than offering a range on most questions – staff propose providing a specific number
of points for each answer. Descriptions were added where possible to help guide
Commissioners.
3.Adding a reference column to help identify which questions to reference when scoring an
application.
4. Adding new questions that correspond to the existing application. For example, adding
points for the incorporation of sustainability initiatives as well as promotion of racial equity
and inclusivity for marginalized populations.
5.Adjusting the weight of each section for a more even distribution. Each section is now
weighed between 31 to 38 percent. The previous scoring criteria only weighed Agency
Capacity/History at 15 percent of the total score.
6.As all projects must align with City Steps 2025, the alterations include adding it as a staff
review question rather than a question that offers points.
7.Adding a general information question for staff to share any concerns about the agency’s
ability to undertake the project. This question is for reference and does not award points.
8.Offering up to 15 bonus points through 3 questions scored at 5 points each.
Staff also offer to provide Commissioners with scores for questions that are unambiguous such
as calculating leverage (#5) and identifying CHDOs in good standing (#21).
Agenda Item #7
November 10, 2021
Page 2
Conclusion
The purpose of the adjustments described are to help provide guidance where possible, while
also preserving each Commissioner’s ability to score based on an independent review of the
submissions. Staff believe that these adjustments respond to many of the questions raised by the
Commission over the last several months. However, the Commission should consider determining
what the highest score means for applicants. During the last funding round, the largest amount of
funding was recommended to the highest scoring applicant, while no funding was recommended
to the lowest scoring applicant. Prioritizing high scoring proposals is a logical approach and staff
request that the Commission continue this strategy in the future to increase transparency in the
funding process for applicants and the community.
FY22 CDBG/HOME EVALUATION CRITERIA
Points Section I 10.00%
I.Need Priority (max. 10 points)Section II 35.00%
1 How well has the applicant documented the ability of the project to meet
a primary goal identified in City Steps 2025?
0-10 Points
Section III 40.00%
II.Leveraging Resources/Budget (max. 35 points)Section IV 15.00%
1 Does the project have realistic cost estimates?0-5 Points
2 Does the project leverage community partnerships and/or volunteer
resources?
0-5 Points
3 Does the project leverage other financial resources?Guide:
0-25% = 0-6 pts
26-50% = 7-12 pts
51-75% = 13-19 pts
76-99% = 20-25 pts
Subtotal
III.Feasibility/Community Impact (max. 40 points)
1 What primary percent of median income persons are targeted? Guide:
0-30%=20 pts
31-50%=15 pts
51-60%=10 pts
61-80%=2 pts
2 Will the project assist any specific vulnerable populations?0-5 Points
3 Does the project have a reasonable per-person/unit cost compared to
other projects of similar scope?
0-5 Points
4 Does the project schedule adequately demonstrate the project will be
completed within the required time period?
0-5 Points
5 Does the project provide a long-term solution to the need identified?0-5 Points
Subtotal
IV Capacity/History (max. 15 points)
1 Has the applicant demonstrated it can successfully complete projects
and that the current request is necessary? (i.e. past projects are
substantially complete)
0-5 Points
2 Does the organization have the capacity to complete the project based
on current description of staff?
0-5 Points
3 Does the organization’s activities and portfolio provide evidence of ability
to undertake the project as described?
0-5 Points
Subtotal
Bonus: Is public facilities project documented in City Steps 2025?5 Points
Maximum Points: 100 TOTAL:
Section Weight
Agenda Item #7
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 1
Applicant Guide
Iowa City CDBG and HOME Programs
This guide outlines requirements for applicants seeking Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and/or HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program funds through the City of Iowa City. The CDBG
program helps develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and suitable living
environments, and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. The HOME program helps provide safe and decent affordable housing. Both programs are
funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notes to applicants
1)Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) strongly encourages all applicants
to attend the CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop (see Application Timeline below).
2)First consideration for funding will go to housing (not including Community Housing Development
Organizations [CHDO] operating expenses or set aside) and public facility projects of $50,000 or
more.
3)The application must be complete for HCDC consideration. HCDC will not review any materials
submitted by the applicant after the deadline unless requested by HCDC.
4)Please review the City’s Strategic Plan (www.icgov.org/strategicplan) and City Steps 2025
(https://www.icgov.org/actionplan) to determine if your project fits into the identified priorities. If so,
please identify in the application.
Application Timeline
The following is a tentative timeline of the application process. Dates are subject to change. Visit
https://www.icgov.org/actionplan for current information or contact staff at 319-356-5230.
1) Applications open December 29, 2021
2)Virtual Applicant Workshop January 11, 2022 at 11:00 AM
3)(Upon Request) Virtual Applicant Workshop January 14, 2022 at 3:00 PM
4)Applications Due January 31, 2022 at 12 PM
5)HCDC Meeting – Question/Answer with Applicants February 17, 2022 at 6:30 PM
6)HCDC Meeting – Recommendations March 17, 2022 at 6:30 PM
PART I. Estimated Federal Funding Available
Federal funding has not yet been awarded, so numbers will be subject to change. However, the City of
Iowa City expects to have available approximately $1,500,000 in FY23 federal funds (including
entitlements and program income) from HUD (excluding CDBG-CV and HOME-ARP). The City will
approximate the amount of funds available for allocation to recipients after Council set-asides have been
removed for economic development, housing rehabilitation, CHDO reserve, CHDO operating,
administration, neighborhood improvements, and Aid to Agencies.
Agenda Item #7
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 2
PART II. Application Requirements and Considerations
Applicants should evaluate the following HUD guidelines as well as City policies contained in City Steps
2025 when considering the proposals, funding estimates, and time schedules for achieving their project
goals.
Program Purpose
All proposals must benefit low-moderate income individuals. The specific ways that a project must
accomplish the program’s purpose (also called a National Objective) varies by program.
CDBG Funds. At least 51% of those befitting from the program (persons or households) must
have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI) based on household size (see
table below). For programs that benefit individual households, all households must earn less than
80% of the median household income.
Applicants must document that its purpose is being met. CDBG allows households to self-certify
their income with their signature, though a percentage of beneficiaries must also provide source
documentation such as pay stubs or a Social Security statement to verify the household’s income.
The City must approve this percentage based on the program and number of beneficiaries –
usually set between two and five percent. This source documentation must be kept in the client’s
file and is subject to monitoring when City or HUD staff review the client files.
HOME Funds. All activities undertaken with HOME funds must benefit households below 80%
AMI, and nearly all assisted units must be targeted to households below 60% AMI.
Median household income limits for projects in Iowa City are as follows:
CDBG allows its purpose to be satisfied by meeting the following criteria:
a.The activity must be carried out in an area or neighborhood consisting predominantly of low-
moderate income persons, or the activity must involve facilities or services designed for use
by predominantly low-moderate income persons. Demographic information is available at the
Neighborhood & Development Services Department. In some instances, applicants may need
to conduct a survey of the potential beneficiaries to determine income eligibility.
b.Housing that is being improved, as part of a project must be occupied by low-moderate income
households.
c.Job creation or retention as an activity must involve employment of predominantly low and
moderate-income persons.
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 3
Eligible Activities
Activities that can be carried out with CDBG funds include, but are not limited to, the following:
•Acquiring real property, demolishing structures and clearing property, and relocation
assistance for residents of property being demolished.
•Rehabilitation or preservation of residential and nonresidential structures, including
weatherization, painting, accessibility improvements, emergency repairs and comprehensive
rehabilitation.
•Construction of public facilities and improvements, such as water and sewer facilities,
infrastructure repairs and installation of curb ramps, construction of neighborhood centers and
installation of accessible playground equipment.
Activities that can be carried out with HOME funds include the following:
•Acquisition of real property (including Homeownership Assistance), payment of “soft” costs
associated with a project, demolition and clearing property, site and infrastructure improve-
ments, and relocation assistance for persons being displaced by a HOME activity.
•Rehabilitation or preservation of residential structures (comprehensive rehabilitation only).
•Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) for a period of up to 24 months.
•New construction of affordable housing units (rental or owner-occupied).
•Operational expenses and Capacity Building for Community Housing Development Organi-
zations (CHDOs) within the limit of 5% of Iowa City's HOME allocation.
The following types of activities that are ineligible include, but are not limited to, the following:
•Public service eligible activities such as operations or salaries.
•Buildings for general conduct of government and expenses required to conduct the regular
responsibilities of local government, e.g. street maintenance, public buildings for
government.
•Political, religious and lobbying activities, income payments, such as rent assistance and
mortgage payments. HOME only: tenant based rent assistance is an allowable activity.
•CDBG only: New housing construction, except for residential facilities providing shelter for
persons with special needs (homeless shelters, convalescent homes, halfway houses, and
group homes).
•Purchase of construction equipment.
NOTE: The purchase or lease of furnishings, equipment, or other personal property (such as vehicles)
needed for an eligible public service will not be considered under this allocation process. However, these
expenses would be eligible under the City’s Aid to Agency process. Additional requirements and CDBG
award limitations may apply, please contact Neighborhood Services staff to discuss.
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 4
Performance Schedule and Payment
Reimbursements can be made after the contract has been formalized. Expenses incurred before July 1,
2022 or before a contract has been entered may not be reimbursable and may jeopardize all the
CDBG/HOME funds awarded to the project. Disbursements can be made upon receipt of 1) invoices for
labor, materials and services rendered, and 2) signed lien waivers (as appropriate) covering all amounts
to be paid. In some instances, pre-agreement costs may be reimbursed to applicants; however,
Neighborhood Services staff must be contacted prior to making any pre-agreement disbursements to
verify if the cost may be reimbursed. In case of minor cost overruns or requests for additional funding, the
City Manager and staff may approve a contract amendment that is non-substantial. In the case of
substantial changes (as defined in the Citizen Participation Plan) the Housing and Community
Development Commission and City Council must approve the change and an amended agreement is
required.
Budget Considerations
In estimating the amount of the proposal or the project budget, applicants should try to obtain
documentation for the costs and consider the following expenses:
•Appraisals, legal fees, title opinions and surveying costs for property acquisition projects.
•Building permits, engineering or surveying costs, zoning application fees, professional fees,
advertising and bidding costs for rehabilitation and building projects.
•HOME funds are required to be matched at the rate of one match dollar for each four HOME
dollars or 25% of the HOME funds being requested. The City has made a commitment to
match local HOME dollars, however, we also expect applicants for local HOME funds to
contribute to meeting this matching contribution (see HOME regulations for eligible forms of
match).
•The City requests that applicants leverage private funding, volunteers, and in-kind
contributions whenever possible and to include this information on your application. These
contributions are worth points in the ranking sheets and are included in HCDC’s evaluation of
your application.
•Construction estimates should be realistic. Funds remaining after the proposed work is
completed will revert to the CDBG line of credit.
•Applicants can apply for grants and/or loans.
•Other project costs such as compliance with HUD regulations (audits, labor standards,
environmental studies, fair housing, etc.) listed in Part III below should also be included.
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 5
CDBG/HOME Evaluation Criteria
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 6
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 7
PART III. Housing
Additional Information Requirements. Before an applicant may enter an agreement with the City, the
applicant must submit updated information such as the project schedule, sources and uses statement,
construction budget (if applicable), and pro forma (if applicable) to facilitate the underwriting process.
All other funding sources must be identified and verification submitted to the City to complete a subsidy
layering analysis when multiple public funding sources are utilized.
Appraised Value at Project Completion. Each housing project, except minor home repairs, funded with
CDBG and/or HOME funds must have an appraised value at project completion that demonstrates
adequate equity to secure any liens.
Site Location. One of the City’s goals is to encourage the distribution of housing and residential facilities
(e.g. permanent housing – rental and homeownership, transitional housing, homeless shelters, and
special needs housing) throughout Iowa City. See the Affordable Housing Location Model map below
to view where new City-assisted rental housing may be located. The map is typically updated annually
and is available at www.icgov.org/actionplan.
Pro Forma. Projects that include development of rental housing are required to complete a pro forma
that abides by the City’s rules for project underwriting. See Appendix B on pages 11-12 for specific
criteria.
The AHLM map is updated annually. The 2021 update will be posted online at icgov.org/actionplan when
available.
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 8
PART IV. Compliance with Federal Regulatory Requirements
All CDBG/HOME contracts include requirements imposed by various Federal-sponsoring agencies.
These include procurement standards for labor, materials, supplies and services not only related to the
project but also to the applicant's operation.
•No choice limiting actions may be made prior to receiving environmental clearance from the City
to move forward with a project. These include but are not limited to include signing contracts,
acquisition, demolition, disposition, rehabilitation, repair, new construction, site preparation, and
leasing or any other activities that commit to future activities.
•Procurement standards and subcontracting requirements are set forth in 2 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 200. The following list briefly describes the main points in contracting for
services and purchasing supplies and materials.
•Affirmative efforts shall be made to utilize small and minority-owned businesses or sources of
supplies and services. Conflict of Interest rules will also apply.
•Construction contracts in excess of $2,000 shall comply with the Fair Labor Standards Acts.
Specifically, 1) the Davis-Bacon Act which requires contractors to pay wages to laborers and
mechanics at a rate not less than the minimum wages specified in a wage determination made by
the Secretary of Labor, 2) Copeland Anti-Kick Back Act which prohibits employers from inducing
employees to give up any part of the compensation to which they are otherwise entitled, and 3)
the Contract W ork Hours and Safety Standards Act which requires contractors to compute wages
on the basis of a standard work week of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard workweek shall
be permissible if the worker is compensated at a rate of 1½ times the basic rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in the workweek. No worker shall be required to work in unsanitary,
dangerous or hazardous surroundings.
•Contracts over $10,000 shall contain requirements relating to Equal Employment Opportunity.
•Provisions for termination shall also be included in all contracts.
•Records should be kept for all procurements. Construction projects for more than $250,000 must
utilize the competitive sealed bids (formal advertisement) method of procurement. Procurement
by small purchase procedures shall be utilized for projects $250,000 or less. Contracts under
$10,000 may use the micropurchase method of procurement. Price or rate quotations shall be
obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources under this method.
•Contracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain provisions and conditions that allow for
administrative, contractual or legal remedies in instances in which contractors violate or breach
contract terms.
•Contracts in excess of $200,000 shall meet bonding and Section 3 requirements. Minimum bond
requirements include: bid guarantee equal to 5% of bid price, performance bond for 100% of
contract price and payment bond for 100% of contract price.
•Provisions regarding federal regulations on Non-discrimination, Equal Employment, Affirmative
Marketing and Fair Housing.
•Acquisition, Displacement and Relocation are also contained in the Agreement.
•Lead Based Paint regulations regarding interim controls and abatement may also apply.
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 9
PART V. Financial Management, Reporting, and Monitoring
Standards for financial management and record keeping are provided in 2 CFR 200. Local accountants
and agency directors experienced with federal requirements may be helpful resources.
•Each recipient shall have a financial management system that provides effective control over and
accountability for all funds, property, and other assets, must identify the source and application of
funds for federally-sponsored activities, and permit the accurate, complete, and timely disclosure of
financial results in accordance with the reporting requirements of the City and HUD.
•A separate ledger for the CDBG and/or HOME account is strongly recommended.
•Appropriate time distribution records must be kept for employees paid with CDBG funds in addition to
other funds.
•All project-related expenditures must be supported by third party documentation (invoices, contracts,
and purchase orders). Lien waivers are required from all contractors and subcontractors.
•Reductions in project costs or increases in the commitment of other funding, if any, shall be brought
to the immediate attention of staff. The impacts of these changes must be discussed with staff and
appropriate reductions in CDBG and/or HOME funds may be made on a case-by-case basis.
In most cases, a financial audit of the project expenditures will be required. Qualified individuals who are
sufficiently independent of the agency and can produce unbiased opinions and conclusions should
conduct these audits. Audit reports should be submitted within six months of project completion and final
disbursement of funds. Organizations that expect more than $750,000 in federal assistance from all
sources are required to have an audit covering the financial activities of the organization as well as the
project disbursements as set forth in 2 CFR 200.
Neighborhood Services staff will monitor all aspects of the project beginning with pre-agreement activities,
goal setting to project closeout. Any project changes must be approved by the City. Periodically,
Neighborhood Services staff and HCDC members will conduct monitoring visits to review project
progress, financial management, construction contracts, time records related to the project, as well as
client statistics. Staff will attempt to give reasonable notice prior to the site visit.
The City of Iowa City requires quarterly reports and has a standardized reporting form. For rental and
homeownership projects, the applicant must complete project close-out forms and submit to the City upon
project completion. The period of affordability does not begin until the City has been notified and the data
entered into HUD’s information and management system. The compliance period will vary depending
upon the regulatory requirements of the CDBG and/or HOME program and the information contained
within the CDBG/HOME application. During the compliance period, Neighborhood Services staff will
request records relating to the stated purpose of the project to see if goals have been carried out, to review
the low and moderate income benefit requirements as established by HUD, and to monitor the financial
status of the organization. All notices and reports should be directed to:
Neighborhood Services
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
For CDBG projects, all records relating to the project should be kept at least four years after the
submission of the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) in which the activity
is reported as complete. The CDBG Agreement should be retained until the end of the compliance period.
For HOME projects, all records shall be maintained as required in 92.508 Recordkeeping depending on
the type of project (rental, homeownership, or tenant-based rental assistance).
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 10
Appendix A: CDBG and HOME Consolidated Policies
The City recognizes the need to utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and/or HOME Investment
Partnership Program (HOME) projects and other funding as effectively and efficiently as possible to meet the needs
of low-moderate income household for housing, jobs and services within Iowa City. To assist the Housing and
Community Development Commission (HCDC) in investing funds and evaluating a project’s status and ability to
proceed, the following policies shall apply to all projects effective July 1, 2020:
I.Investment Policies
a.Economic Development
Economic development projects making application to the CDBG Economic Development Fund will be reviewed
and approved by City staff based on criteria identified in the Applicant Guide. Updates will be provided to the City
Council Economic Development Committee periodically.
Typically, for-profit business projects will receive low-interest loans; whereas, non-profits may be recommended
for forgivable loans or grants. Decisions regarding investment terms for economic development projects will be
made based on the nature of the project including, but not limited to, the risk, potential for growth, the number of
and quality of jobs created for low-moderate income persons, the ability to repay a loan and the amount of other
funding leveraged. Economic development assistance may be used for direct business funding, or for funding
technical assistance for eligible businesses.
b.Housing
Rental Housing. The interest rate for rental housing activities will be zero percent (0%) for non-profit owned
projects and prime rate (determined at the time the CDBG/HOME agreement is executed by the City) minus two
points for for-profit owned projects with an amortization period up to thirty (30) years or the period of affordability,
whichever is less. The City may grant a different interest rate and/or a different repayment option based on the
nature of the project including, but not limited to, the revenue generated, the ability to repay a loan, the type of
housing provided, the beneficiaries, the amount of other funding leveraged and the location of the site.
Homeownership. Each year Iowa City adopts resale/recapture provisions that apply to all HOME assisted
homebuyer projects. The recapture/resale provisions shall be the same for both CDBG and HOME assisted
homebuyer projects. These provisions are set forth in the Annual Action Plan for the year the funds were
allocated to the Subrecipient/Recipient.
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA). All HOME funds provided for TBRA will be in the form of a grant.
c.Public Facilities
Public Facility projects as defined in 24 CFR 570.201(c) may be completed by the City and/or subrecipients.
Governmental entities (i.e. jurisdictions with taxing authority as provided for in Iowa Code) that conduct CDBG-
assisted public facilities projects will receive a grant with a compliance period of five years (60 months). Non-
governmental subrecipients will receive a conditional occupancy loan, which the City shall secure through a lien,
mortgage, or other comparable security against the assisted real property, to only be repaid upon transfer of title,
rental of the property, or termination of services or occupancy as outlined in the applicable CDBG Agreement. If
the subrecipient fully satisfies the terms outlined in the applicable CDBG Agreement, the security instrument will
be released by the City following the successful completion of the compliance period that begins on the date as
listed within the applicable CDBG Agreement. If the real property is leased, the lease shall be for a period that
matches or exceeds the compliance term of the earned grant.
The number of years in the compliance period of a conditional occupancy loan will be calculated by dividing the
total amount of CDBG assistance allocated to a subrecipient in any one City fiscal year for a public facility project
by $10,000, rounded down. The minimum compliance period is five years (60 months). The maximum compliance
period shall be no more than twenty (20) years. For example, $75,000 in CDBG assistance equals a compliance
term of 7 years or 84 months.
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 11
d.Public Service
Public Service projects as defined in 24 CFR 570.201(e) shall receive CDBG assistance in the form of a grant
with a term of not less than one year (12 months).
II.Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects
HCDC recognizes that from time to time, there may be CDBG and/or HOME projects that do not meet the
anticipated schedule for implementation as presented to HCDC. These circumstances may be due to unforeseen
events (e.g. unfunded applications for other financing). The following process helps ensure subrecipients use their
funds in a timely manner.
1.All CDBG projects carried out by subrecipients will have entered into a formal agreement with the City of
Iowa City for the utilization of funds by September 30 each year. Should a subrecipient fail to meet this
schedule, the project will be reviewed by HCDC to evaluate if extenuating circumstances exist. If
extenuating circumstances exist and it is anticipated the project will proceed, a new timeline will be
established for the project. If circumstances do not warrant an extension of time, HCDC may recommend
the recapture and re-use of the funds to the City Council.
2.All CDBG projects (except applicants for Low Income Housing Tax Credits) carried out by subrecipients
will have expended a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the assistance provided for the proposed project
by March 15 each year. This provides the subrecipient with approximately 255 days following the start of
the fiscal year to reach this threshold for CDBG projects. Should a recipient fail to meet this threshold, the
project will be reviewed by HCDC to evaluate the timeliness of the project and its ability to proceed. If
extenuating circumstances exist, a new timeline for expenditure will be established. If circumstances do
not warrant an extension of time, HCDC may recommend the recapture and reuse of the funds to City
Council.
3.All HOME projects carried out by subrecipients will have entered into a formal agreement with the City of
Iowa City within two years of award (24 months). All HOME funds must be spent within five years. Should
a subrecipient fail to show adequate progress towards meeting the schedule as identified in its application
or the statutory requirements of the HOME program, the project will be reviewed by HCDC. If a HOME
recipient is unsuccessful in obtaining funds identified in the application, HCDC will review the project and
determine its viability without the proposed funds. HCDC may recommend the recapture and reuse of the
funds to City Council.
III.Allocation of Uncommitted Funds
The City may have uncommitted CDBG or HOME funds that become available after the regular funding round
either through windfall income, project cancellation, or additional funds provided by HUD. In most cases, funds
will be retained for the next regular funding round and/or be used for administrative amendments of existing
projects. In the event uncommitted funds exceed $150,000, HCDC may choose to:
1.Provide funding to existing projects that did not receive full funding and/or to projects that submitted
applications but did not receive CDBG/HOME funding, up to their full request; or
2.Hold a special funding round to solicit and fund new proposals.
If funds shall be provided to existing and/or unfunded project, applicants will be notified of the availability of funds
and asked to provide a written request for funds and how they will utilize them for their original request. If new
projects are being considered, HCDC must publish notice of funding availability and proceed with a formal
application process. In all cases the public must be given the opportunity for comment on the proposed use of
funds in accordance with the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan.
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 12
APPENDIX B: PRO FORMA INSTRUCTIONS
Developers of rental housing (including rehabilitation projects) are required to complete the pro forma at the time
of application. The purpose of this pro forma is to demonstrate that the project is financially feasible and viable
using the least amount of City funding, and to help staff and HCDC make informed decisions on the allocation of
HOME and/or CDBG funding. This form will provide the necessary information in a format that is uniform among
all rental housing applicants.
The following are instructions for completing the pro forma and some basic information for reference. The pro
forma template allows for up to 20 years of information, however, it only needs to be filled out through the
project’s period of affordability. Underwriting is required prior to signing an agreement and an updated pro forma
will be required if applicable to ensure information is current for staff review.
Please note, cells shown in grey in the pro forma template indicate fields that should be filled out by the
applicant.
If you h ave any questions about the form or need technical assistance, please call Community Development
staff at 319-356-5230. Staff can also help you determine the period of affordability for the project.
Revenues [Income escalates at 2% as calculated in the spreadsheet; consistent with the Fair Market Rent (FMR)
increases for Iowa City]
Line 1 Gross Rent: Is the total amount of rent generated from the housing units, based on proposed
rent levels and expected utility allowance deductions for tenant-paid utilities (proposed rents
may be less than fair market rent (FMR), but cannot exceed FMR.
Line 2 Other Income: Include laundry income, application or pet fees, and interest income.
Line 3 Tenant Contributions: Include other payments such as rent for parking or storage space.
Line 4 Gross Income: Is the sum of Lines 1 through 3.
Line 5 Vacancy Loss: Line 1 multiplied by 5% (may be increased up to 10% depending on Applicant’s
past performance in managing units).
Line 6 Effective Gross Income: Line 4 minus Line 5.
Operating Expenses [Inflation escalator at 3% as calculated in the spreadsheet]
Line 7 Insurance: Estimated insurance expense from an agent or similar property.
Line 8 Maintenance & Structural Repairs: Repairs and replacements are typically 1% of the property’s
value, though varies depending on building age, condition, size, and use.
Line 9 Management Fees: May not exceed 10% of Annual Gross Rent, typically 5% to 7%.
Line 10 Misc. Operating Expenses: legal, accounting, advertising, owner-paid utilities, etc.
Sum of Lines 7-10 shall be no less than $3,700/unit; SRO properties in single family
homes shall be considered 0.3 units each.
Line 11 Property Tax: Estimate available from City Assessor or Johnson County records.
Line 12 Reserves: Operating reserve no less than $400/unit. If new construction, include a rent-
up reserve for Year 1 of gross monthly rent for all units x 3 months).
Line 13 Total Operating Expenses: Sum of Lines 7 through 12.
Net Operating Income
Line 14 Net Operating Income: Line 6 minus Line 13.
Debt Service [list mortgage payments for principal and interest only]
Line 15 Debt Service for 1st Mortgage.
Line 16 Debt Service for Subordinate Mortgage(s): Total payments for all junior mortgages.
Line 17 Total Debt Service: Sum of Lines 15 and 16 (should not be less than 87% of Line 14).
FY23 Iowa City CDBG and HOME Applicant Guide 13
Cash Flow Available for Distribution
Line 18 Cash Flow: Line 14 minus Line 17.
Line 18B Equity Investment: Amount of funds being invested in the project by the project developer\
sponsor. This does not include the equity raised through the sale of Low Income Housing Tax Credits as
they are accounted for on Line 33. A minimum contribution of $100 is required.
Cash on Cash Return on Investment [shows return to developer or investors on their equity contribution
before taxes or tax credits are included]
Line 19 Cash on Cash ROI: Line 18 divided by equity investment as shown on the application.
Debt Coverage Ratio
Debt Coverage Ratio (DCR): Ratio of estimated net operating income to debt service. Line 14 divided by
line 17. After year 3, DCR shall be no less than 1.20 or over 1.60 during the affordability period.
Encourage 1.20-1.50.
Determining Taxes
Line 20 Cash Flow: Carry over the figure from Line 18.
Line 21 Depreciation Expenses: Annual depreciation of property (27.5 year straight-line schedule).
Line 22 Amortization of Fees: Annual amortization of project fees (15-year straight-line schedule).
Line 23 Principal Payments: Calculate the amount of principal paid on all loans for each year.
Line 24 Reserves: Carry over the figure from Line 12.
Earnings (Loss) Before Taxes
Line 25 Earnings Before Tax: Equals (Line 20 minus Lines 21 and 22) plus Lines 23 and 24.
Taxes
Line 26 Tax Rate: Use 35% tax rate for for-profit organizations and 0% for nonprofits.
Line 27 Taxes Incurred (Saved): Line 25 multiplied by Line 26.
Cash Flow After-Tax
Line 28 Cash Flow: Carry over figure from Line 20.
Line 29 Taxes Incurred (Saved): Carry over figure from Line 27.
Line 30 Cash Flow After-tax: Line 28 minus Line 29.
Total Benefit Analysis
Line 31 Cash Flow After-tax: Carry over figure from Line 30.
Line 32 Rehabilitation Tax Credits: Calculate full value of rehab tax credits.
Line 33 Low Income Housing Tax Credits: Calculate full value of LIHTC annually for each of the 1st 10
years.
Line 34 Net Sale Proceeds: In year 20, calculate the estimated future market value of the property by
taking the total cost of the project as presented in this application and compound it by 2% for
each year. Place this amount on line 34.
Line 35 Net Cash Flow After-tax: Equals the sum of Lines 31 through 34.
Line 36 Return on Investment: Equals the Net Cash Flow After Tax divided by the Equity Investment.
FY2023 CDBG/HOME Application
City of Iowa City
Review the Application Guide that follows this application form below.
Only one project proposal may be submitted on each application. Please use separate
applications for each project proposal. HUD defines a project as a site or sites together
with any building (including a manufactured housing unit) or buildings located on the site(s)
that are under common ownership, management, and financing and are to be assisted
with federal funds as a single undertaking. The project includes all the activities associated
with the site and building. For direct assistance activities (example: downpayment
assistance), project is defined as assistance to one or more families.
Submit completed applications online at www.icgov.org/actionplan or a PDF version to
brianna-thul@iowa-city.org. Emailed applications must receive a confirmation email from
City staff before the application deadline to be considered for funding. Online submittals
are preferred, but you may send your application by certified or registered mail; overnight
delivery service (FedEx, UPS, etc.); or deliver in person if arrangements are made with a
Neighborhood Services representative to ensure receipt. Please call 319-356-5230 to
make drop off arrangements prior to arrival.
Should you have any questions while completing the application contact Neighborhood
Services staff at 319-356-5230 or by email at brianna-thul@iowa-city.org.
Applications are due on Monday, January 31,
2022 by 12pm.
No exceptions will be made for late
applications.
Agenda Item #7
1
Section 1 – General Information and Project Need
1. Lead Organization/Agency DUNS Number Organization Type
(Mark all that apply) Name:
Address: CAGE Code 501(c)3:
Website: Public:
Application Contact App. Workshop
Attendance Date:
For Profit:
Name: Faith-Based:
Title: CHDO:
Phone: Did not attend: Other:
Email:
System for Award Management (SAM)
Registration Expiration Date:
Is there a secondary applicant: Yes/No
Is applicant (including partners, co-applicants, etc.) currently in compliance with all federal,
state, and local laws, rules and regulations, including CDBG and/or HOME funded projects?
Yes If “NO” or currently in
litigation, provide the
name of and explain the
basis for the case. No
2. Project
Project Type
(Mark all that apply) Activity Type
(Mark all that apply)
Name: Rental Housing Acquisition
Address: Owner Housing Rehabilitation
City Public Facility New Construction
State Zip CHDO Operations Direct Assistance
Additional Addresses Yes No Other Other
Brief Description (include
purpose, benefits, and
specific activities of project)
3.Mark goal from City Steps 2025 primarily addressed by this
application
Briefly explain how the
project will meet this goal.
Increase affordable rental housing units
Provide Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
Support homebuyer activities
Rehabilitate/improve owner-occupied housing units
Rehabilitate/improve renter-occupied housing units
Serve homeless / reduce homelessness
Provide public services
Improve public facilities
Improve public infrastructure & address climate action needs
Support economic and workforce development
Provide facilities and services in support of the pandemic
2
4. Will this project prevent, prepare for, or respond to
COVID-19 (coronavirus)?
If yes, briefly explain how the project
will prevent, prepare for, or respond
to COVID-19 (coronavirus).
Yes
No
Note: Project does not need to be related to COVID-19 to be considered for this funding round
Section 2 – Budget and Resources
Program regulations encourage leveraging non-federal funds. Non-public funds are especially encouraged.
HOME funds require a minimum 25% match. Funding terms including type of assistance and affordability
period are determined upon award; evidence of funding commitments is required for project underwriting.
Please attach a scope of work or estimate for any project that involves rehabilitation or new
construction to demonstrate the cost reasonableness of any proposal.
5.Source of Funds
Category Amount Description(s) of Funds Status*
Requested CDBG/HOME funds $
Previous Award $
Other local funds $
State funds $
Other federal funds $
Applicant Funds (Equity) $
Applicant Loan $
Other Private Funds $
Other: $
Total $
Non-CDBG/HOME Match %
In-Kind Contributions
Materials $
Labor $
Other: $
Describe community
partnerships or volunteers
that will contribute to project
*Statuses include pending (P), committed (C), received (R), or applied for (A)
3
6.Use of Funds Description of Work Hard Costs Land Acquisition $
Building Acquisition $
Site Improvements $
Rehabilitation $
Construction $
Other $ Soft Costs Professional Fees $
Construction Finance $
Permanent Finance $
Developer Fees $
Reserves $
Other $
Total $
As noted above, please attach estimate or documentation of how these costs were determined.
4
Section 3 – Feasibility and Community Impact
7.Anticipated Income Levels of
Beneficiaries (Unduplicated)
Special Populations (If applicable, mark one “presumed
benefit” category if required for assistance)
Households Persons
0-30% AMI Domestic Violence Victims
31-50% AMI Elderly
51-60% AMI Homeless
61-80% AMI Persons with Disabilities
Over 80% AMI Migrant Farm Workers
Total Persons with AIDs
Basis for
Estimates
Other as defined in 24 CFR 570.208(2)
AMI = Area Median Income, see www.icgov.org/actionplan.
8. Housing Projects (Required for Housing Projects Only)
Rental Housing Owner Housing
Number of Units Proposed Contract
Rent
Number of Units Proposed Sales Price
$ $
$ $
$ $
10.Proposed Project Timetable (include milestones such as rezoning, construction schedule,
application(s) for other funding, and expected commitment dates.
Date Milestones
July 1, 2022 Beginning of City Fiscal Year and Project Start Date
9.Vacancy and Property Management (Required for Rental Housing Projects Only)
Number of people on the housing waiting list for your organization
Total number of units owned by the organization
Total number of units currently vacant
Total vacancy rate (vacant units divided by total units)
Number of federally funded units vacant (units from previous CDBG/HOME projects
currently in a period of affordability)
Does your organization use a property manager? If yes, please indicate the entity.
5
11.Describe how the project
will promote the efficient use
of funding over the long-term
(at least for the compliance
period):
12.Describe how the project
will provide for affordable
housing or public assistance
at rates or prices lower than
those in the existing market:
13.Describe in what manner
or form the project will
proceed if awarded less than
full funding; if there are
several components, describe
how they will be prioritized:
6
Section 4 - Capacity and Applicant History
14.CDBG and/or HOME funds received and status of the project(s) undertaken
Timeframe Budget Expended through
2020
Date Project
Completed
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 $ $
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 $ $
July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019 $ $
July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020 $ $
July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021 $ $
July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022 $ $
Describe your organization’s
experience and capacity to
administer the proposed program.
Identify any prior year funds that
remain unspent. If funds remain,
justify this funding request.
Do you anticipate receiving
and/or expending over $750,000
in federal funds in a single fiscal
year?
*This includes CDBG, HOME,
and other federal funds such as
ESG.
15.Describe your organization’s
structure, officers, and staff.
16.Describe the education and
experience of the key staff who
will implement the project
(excludes volunteers, board
members and consultants)
17.Describe your organization’s
business/operations plan
approach and identify relevant
factors that help verify the
demand for the proposed project.
If another organization provides
the same service, explain why
both projects are needed to
address the need.
18.Describe your organization’s
activities and portfolio, including
projects currently underway. For
housing providers/developers,
describe number of units owned/
managed and how number of
homes built/rehabilitated/sold.
7
19.Describe any identity of
interest (IOI) relationships with
the applicant and/or project
owner, i.e. General Partner has a
financial interest in the
construction company, etc.
20. Describe how you will
incorporate sustainability
initiatives into your project to help
carry out the City’s Climate Action
Plan.
21.Provide a description of your
primary target population(s).
Explain how your agency
promotes racial equity and
inclusivity for marginalized
populations (including people of
color, LGBTQ,
immigrants/refugees, individuals
with disabilities).
8
Section 5 - Required Documentation
It is recommended that applicants submit as much information as possible with the application to facilitate a full
project evaluation. The table below reflects the minimum requirements for each application. If an award is
granted, additional documentation may be requested prior to entering an agreement with the City.
Description Required
W-9 Form (Request for Taxpayer ID # & Certification)Yes
SAM.gov Registration. All subrecipients must register on SAM.gov before a
legally binding agreement can be signed.
Go to https://sam.gov/content/entity-information to search for your entity.
Attach your SAM.gov Entity Registration Summary as evidence that this has
been completed.
Yes
DUNS Number or Entity Unique Entity ID (UEI). Provide documentation of
your DUNS number or UEI. Please note that by April of 2022, the federal
government will stop using DUNS numbers to uniquely identify entities. At
that point, entities doing business with the federal government will use a
Unique Entity Identifier created in SAM.gov. Agencies already registered in
SAM.gov will be automatically issued a UEI. This transition allows the
government to streamline the entity identification and validation process,
making it easier and less burdensome for entities to do business with the
federal government.
Find your UEI: https://sam.gov/content/entity-information
Attach documentation of your DUNS or UEI.
Yes
Organizational Status. Go to https://sos.iowa.gov/search/business to look
up the organization applying for funds. Provide a copy of the Business
Entity Summary screen.
Yes
Commitment letters. Please attach the following for committed funding
sources listed in Section 2. HOME requires evidence of firm commitments
before project agreements may be signed.
1) Letters of intent from lending institutions for private financing. These must
be on the lending institution’s letterhead.
2) Commitment letters from all other sources (i.e. grants, loans, etc.). Each
letter must include the value of the commitment; the interest rate & term; the
purpose the funds can be used for; and any time limitations related to the
commitment.
3) Evidence of capital for private equity such as current bank statements
showing the funds
Yes
9
Evidence of Fiscal Capacity
-3 Yrs. Balance Sheets
-3 Yrs. Profit & Loss Statements
-Most recent audit if applicable
Evidence of fiscal capacity is required. Sufficient alternative financial
information may be accepted.
Yes
Evidence of Organizational Capacity. Up to four pages of additional
information about the capacity of the organization may be included.
Examples of possible evidence may be resumes of key staff, additional
descriptions of organizational activities, or other relevant information.
If applicable, please include a complete list of board members and their
contact information.
Yes
CHDO Certification Checklist. If applying as a CHDO, please include
evidence of CHDO status.
Please note that a CHDO’s status must be recertified before committing
funds per HOME rules. CHDO applications are due February 14 annually to
allow time for the City to review the submission ahead of the fiscal year and
potential commitment of funds. Additional CHDO recertifications may be
required during the year if any supplementary funds are to be committed.
Yes, if applying for CHDO
reserve funds
Scope of work. Include a write up of the work to be completed and include
copies of the cost estimates that are the basis of the uses table.
Yes, if activity includes
construction or rehab work.
Pro forma. Acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing
project MUST include completed pro forma. Excel format is provided by the
City. Applications for rental housing projects without the City’s pro forma will
not be considered. See applicant guide for proforma instructions.
Yes, if the project includes
rental acquisition,
rehabilitation, or new
construction of rental
housing
Proforma Spread Sheet
Rental Housing Projects
Please enter information into "grey" fields only if you are using excel.
Line Description Symbols YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR6 YR7 YR8 YR9 YR10 YR11 YR12 YR13 YR14 YR15 YR16 YR17 YR18 YR19 YR20 Line Description
Revenues Revenues
1 Gross Rental Income + G. Rent -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 Gross Rental Income
2 Other Income + O. Income -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2 Other Income
3 Tenant Contributions +T. Contrubution -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3 Tenant Contributions
4 Gross Revenues = G. Income -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4 Gross Revenues
5 Vacancy Loss - Vac -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5 Vacancy Loss
(5% Vac. Rate x Gross Income)(5% Vac. Rate x Gross Income)
6 Effective Gross Income = EGI -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6 Effective Gross Income
Operating Expenses Operating Expenses
7 Insurance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7 Insurance
8 Maintenance & Structural Repairs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8 Maintenance & Structural Repairs
9 Management Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9 Management Fees
10 Misc. Operating Expenses -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10 Misc. Operating Expenses
11 Property Tax -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11 Property Taxes
12 Reserves (Operating reserve no less than $400/unit)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12 Reserves
13 Total Operating Expenses - OPR. Expenses -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13 Total Operating Expenses
14 Net Operating Income =NOI -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14 Net Operating Income
15 Debt Service First Mortgage -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15 Debt Service First Mortgage
16 Debt Service Subordinate Mortgage(s)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 16 Debt Service Subordinate Mortgage(s)
17 Total Debt Service -D\S -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 17 Total Debt Service
18 Cash Flow =CF -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18 Cash Flow
18(b) Equity Investment In Project -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18(b) Equity Investment In Project
19 Cash -on- Cash ROI CF #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!19 Cash -on- Cash ROI
Cash Flow divided by Equity Investment in Project Equity Invest.Cash Flow divided by Equity Investment in Project
DCR #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Debt Coverage Ratio
Line YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR6 YR7 YR8 YR9 YR10 YR11 YR12 YR13 YR14 YR15 YR16 YR17 YR18 YR19 YR20 Line Description
Determining Taxes Determining Taxes
20 Cash Flow CF -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 20 Cash Flow
21 Depreciation Expenses - DEPR -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 21 Depreciation Expenses
22 Amortization of Fees -AMORTZ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22 Amortization of Fees
23 Principal Payments +P -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 23 Principal Payments
24 Reserves +RESERVES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24 Reserves
25 Earnings (Loss) Before Taxes =EBTx -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 25 Earnings (Loss) Before Taxes
26 x Tax Rate (35% or 0%)xRATE 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%26 x Tax Rate (35% or 0%)
27 Tax Incurred (Saved)=TAX or (Savings)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 27 Tax Incurred (Saved)
Cash Flow After Tax Cash Flow After Tax
28 Cash Flow CF -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28 Cash Flow
29 Tax Incurred (Tax Saved)- TAX (+SAV)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 29 Tax Incurred (Tax Saved)
30 Cash Flow After Tax =CFATx -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 30 Cash Flow After Tax
Line Total Benefit Analysis Line Total Benefit Analysis
31 Cash Flow After Tax CFATx -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 31 Cash Flow After Tax
32 Rehabilitation Tax Credit +RTC -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 32 Rehabilitation Tax Credit
33 Low Income Housing Tax Credit +LIHTC -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 33 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
34 Net Sale Proceeds +NSP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 34 Net Sale Proceeds
35 Total Benefits After Tax (NCFAT)=NCFATx -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 35 Total Benefits After Tax (NCFAT)
36 Return on Investment ROI #DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!36 Return on Investment
The total of items
#7-10 shall be no
less than
$3,700/unit
Debt Coverage Ratio (after Year 3, shall be no less than 1.20 or
greater than 1.60 during compliance period. Encourage 1.20-1.50.)
Agenda Item #7
FY2023 Aid to Agencies Application
Emerging
Aid to Agencies provides flexible operational funding for nonprofits. Applications are due
Monday, January 31, 2022 at noon. This application is for “emerging” agencies, those that
have not existed as a legal entity for at least 2 years or have not received A2A funds in
any of the last five years. Each agency is eligible to apply for up to $15,000. No award will
be made for less than $5,000. Please submit one project proposal per application.
Questions can be directed to Brianna Thul at brianna-thul@iowa-city.org or to
Neighborhood Services at 319-356-5230. Hard copy applications are available upon
request.
Submit completed applications online at www.icgov.org/actionplan or a PDF version to
brianna-thul@iowa-city.org. Emailed applications must receive a confirmation email from
City staff before the application deadline to be considered for funding. Online submittals
are preferred, but you may send your application by certified or registered mail; overnight
delivery service e.g., FedEx; or deliver in person if arrangements are made with a
Neighborhood Services representative. Please call 319-356-5230 to make drop off
arrangements prior to arrival.
Applications are due on Monday, January 31, 2022 by noon.
No exceptions will be made for late submittals.
Should you have any questions while completing the application contact
Neighborhood Services staff at 319-356-5230 or by email at
brianna-thul@iowa-city.org.
Agenda Item #7
1
Section 1 – General Information
1. Lead Organization/Agency
Name:
Address:
Website:
Application Contact
Name:
Title:
Phone:
Email:
2. Organization/Agency Type
501(c)3:
Public:
For Profit:
Faith-Based:
CHDO:
Other:
Years in Operation:
3.Project
Project Name:
Brief Description:
Total Funds Requested:
4.History
Has your
agency/organization
received City assistance in
the last five years?
Yes
No
If yes, describe
Is the applicant currently in
compliance with all federal,
state and local laws, rules
and regulations including
any CDBG and/or HOME
funded projects? (including
partners, co-applicants,
etc.)
Yes
No
Currently in litigation
Provide comments if needed
Section 2 – Need and Priority
The City Steps Plan guides funding within the community that benefits low-moderate income
persons by creating jobs, improving housing, and providing services. You can find a copy of
City Steps at www.icgov.org/actionplan.
5.Summary of proposed
project:
6.Why is the project
needed?
7.How does the project fill a
gap in the community?
8.How does the project
address the goals of 2021-
2025 CITY STEPS?
9. Describe how you will
incorporate sustainability
initiatives into your project to
help carry out the City’s
Climate Action Plan.
10.Provide a description of
your primary target
population(s). Explain how
your agency promotes racial
equity and inclusivity for
marginalized populations
(including people of color,
LGBTQ, immigrants/refugees,
individuals with disabilities).
Additional documentation: Please submit no more than seven pages.
Section 3 – Resources and Feasibility
Provide a budget breakdown for your specific project. Include only costs directly related to the
project. For example, providing a specific service should include the total estimated costs and
available resources, broke out by general categories such as salaries, materials, office
expense, marketing, etc. If required by local and/or federal regulations, include the cost of an
audit. Document costs whenever possible.
Attach cost documentation.
13.If volunteers are used,
please describe how these
volunteers are utilized for the
proposed activity.
14.All Aid to Agency projects
are required to expend their
full award and complete the
proposed project by the
end of the fiscal year (June
30, 2023). Will you be able to
meet this requirement?
Yes
No
11. Budget
Use of Funds City Funds Other Funds Source of Other Funds Type Status
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
Subtotal $ $
Project Total $
12. Labor
Type Description Hours Per Hour Rate Total Cost
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
Total $
Section 4 – Beneficiaries
15. Anticipated Income Levels of Beneficiaries (Unduplicated)
Households Persons
0-30% AMI
31-50% AMI
51-60% AMI
61-80% AMI
Over 80% AMI
Total
Percent LMI
Percent Iowa City Residents
Please describe the basis or
methodology used to estimate the
number of clients to be served.
AMI = Area Median Income, see www.icgov.org/actionplan.
16. Signature
Name
Title
Signature
Date: November 3, 2021
To: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Re: South District Form Based Code Affordable Housing Incentives
Background
The South District Plan guides the growth and development for a large amount of undeveloped
land. To help manage new development in these areas, the Plan recommends that the City
consider a form-based code to ensure that a true mix of housing at compatible scale can be
achieved. A form-based code can also encourage the development of compact and connected
neighborhoods. The City has worked with Opticos Design since January 2019 to develop a form-
based zoning code for the undeveloped portion of the South District (the study area is shown in
Figure 1).
Figure 1. South District Form-Based Code Study Area
The Zoning Code is one of the City’s primary tools to implement its Comprehensive and District
Plans by providing rules for how land can be used and developed, including what structures can
be built where. A form-based code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built
environment is regulated in Iowa City. While the City’s current Zoning Code provides flexibility for
Agenda Item #9
October 29, 2021
Page 2
new development, it tends to lead to conventional development patterns in greenfield sites with
land uses separated into discrete districts and a limited mix of uses. Unlike conventional, use-
based codes, form-based zoning utilizes the intended physical form and character, rather than
use, as the organizing framework. Form-based codes also regulate elements to create a high-
quality place, not just a good individual building. As such, the terminology reflects the intended
physical form of different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial," it might be
called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a
mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant
walkable urbanism. For this reason, such codes do not regulate by maximum density, which is a
change from the City’s current use-based standards. Form-based codes still regulate use
secondarily, but the range of uses are chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the
intended physical form.
The form-based zoning standards implement the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for context-
specific, walkable development that reflects Iowa City's distinct development patterns and
community character. Although this proposed amendment would only apply to a portion of the
South District, the goal is to apply it to other greenfield sites at the fringe of the community over
time. The intent of the code is to produce neighborhoods that:
•Are safe for pedestrians and encourage walking;
•Will preserve important environmental resources;
•Contain a connected network of streets and paths; and
•Allow for a variety of housing types and price-points.
The following list summarizes the some of the major differences between the City’s current
zoning regulations and the form-based code:
1.Building Type Mix Required: Every block, except in the main street area, requires at least
two different building types. For example, a block could not have all single-family homes.
At least one of the lots must contain a duplex or other building type allowed by the zone.
2.Frontage Type Mix Required: Similar to building types, each block must have a mix of
frontage types (e.g. porch, stoop) to ensure visual variety along the streetscape.
3.Parking Setback: Alleys are not required except along the proposed main street area.
However, parking must be set back from the front façade of the building.
4.Parking Ratios: The required minimum amount of parking has been reduced slightly.
5.Carriage Houses: Carriage houses, sometimes referred to as accessory dwelling units
(ADUs), granny flats or accessory apartments, are allowed with most building types. The
current code only allows ADUs in conjunction with single-family homes.
6.Street Trees: Trees are required to be planted within the public right-of-way.
7.Block Length: Block lengths are shorter depending on the zone to ensure a highly
interconnected network of streets and paths.
8.Design Site Depth and Width: Unlike the current code which includes minimum lot size
requirements, the proposed code includes minimum and maximum depth and width
standards for design sites. The maximum helps to ensure more compact development.
9.Civic Space: A number of different civic space types are defined. Civic spaces are also
identified on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan.
10.Affordable Housing: The code does not include an affordable housing requirement, but it
does include regulatory incentives (e.g. more units, height bonuses, etc.) for affordable
housing that is provided voluntarily. A more detailed summary of these incentives is
provided below.
October 29, 2021
Page 3
Voluntary Affordable Housing Incentives
The form-based code does not include an affordable housing requirement. However, around 50%
of the land within the planning area is located within unincorporated Johnson County and when it
is annexed it will be subject to the City’s affordable housing annexation policy. To help incentivize
the development of additional affordable housing, the code includes regulatory incentives
(Attachment 2) that may be utilized wherever affordable housing is voluntarily provided within a
Form-Based Zone. Affordable housing provided pursuant to the City’s affordable housing
annexation policy or economic development policy (i.e. TIF) may not utilize these incentives.
Incentives include:
•Density Bonus. For building types that allow 4 or more dwelling units, the maximum
number of dwelling units may be increased by 25%.
•Minor Adjustments to “Zone Standards”. One of the following adjustments may be
administratively approved:
o Building type design site depth standards may be adjusted by up to 15’.
o Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to 15%.
o Minimum amount of façade required within the façade zone may be reduced by up
to 20%.
•Minor Adjustments to “Building Type Standards”. One of the following adjustments
may be administratively approved:
o Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted by up to 15%.
o Maximum Building Height may be increased by up to 0.5 stories.
•Additional Minor Adjustments. An additional minor adjustment each to “Zone
Standards” and “Building Type Standards” may be administratively approved where
Affordable Housing units are income restricted to households making 50% of less than the
area median income.
For minor adjustment to be approved the proposed adjustment must fit the characteristics of the
site and the surrounding neighborhood and demonstrate consistency with the intent of the
standard being adjustment and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
Additionally, on-site parking is not required for affordable housing, including voluntary affordable
housing and for affordable housing provided through the annexation policy or a TIF agreement.
General Requirements
Voluntary affordable housing in Form-Based Zones may be accomplished by providing one of the
following:
•Onsite owner-occupied affordable housing; and/or
•Onsite renter-occupied affordable housing.
Such affordable housing must be deed-restricted as affordable housing for low- and moderate-
income occupants for a minimum of 20 years.
Owner Occupied Affordable Housing
In addition to general requirements, owner-occupied affordable housing must satisfy the following:
•Eligible households include those making no more than 80% area median income (AMI).
•Dwelling unit size and quality for affordable units must be similar to market rate units of
the same type, including the number of bedrooms and proportion of unit types.
•Affordable units must be distributed throughout the development to achieve integration of
affordable housing.
•Affordable units must be constructed concurrently with market rate dwellings.
•Ongoing program requirements include restrictions on occupancy and future sales.
October 29, 2021
Page 4
o Affordable owner-occupied housing must be an income-eligible household’s
primary residence and may not be rented out during the term of affordability;
o The City must verify the household’s annual income prior to sale; and
o If sold before the end of the term of affordability, the home must be sold to another
income-eligible household at either the original purchase price or the HUD
homeownership sale price limit, excluding limited sales and improvement costs.
Affordable Rental Housing
In addition to general requirements, affordable rental housing must satisfy the following:
•Eligible households include those making no more than 60% AMI.
•Dwelling unit size and quality for affordable units must be similar to market rate units of
the same type, including the number of bedrooms and proportion of unit types.
•Affordable units must be distributed throughout the development to achieve integration of
affordable housing.
•Affordable units must be constructed concurrently with market rate dwellings.
•Ongoing program requirements include restrictions on rents, occupancy, and reporting:
o Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households at HUD fair
market rents (or LIHTC rent limits if awarded by the Iowa Finance Authority);
o Household income must be verified prior to lease and annually thereafter; and
o The owner must annually verify to the City that it follows these requirements and
provide all necessary documentation.
Attachments
1.Section 10, Affordable Housing Incentives of the Form-Based Code
Article H: Zones and Standards 125
14-2H-10: Affordable Housing Incentives
14-2H-10A Purpose
The purpose of this section is to:
1.Create a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City;
2.Encourage the distribution of affordable housing throughout all areas of the City;
3.Promote the construction of housing that is affordable to the community's workforce;
4.Promote a balanced community that provides housing for people with diverse income levels;
5.To reduce the number of housing cost-burdened households; and
6.Promote household stability and reduce the threat of homelessness.
Final Draft – September 2021
Affordable Housing Incentives
126 Article H: Zones and Standards
14-2H-10B Eligibility and Incentive Provisions
Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in this Title, the provisions of this Section shall apply in all Form-
Based Zones that allow residential uses. Owners that provide Affordable Housing not required pursuant to
the Affordable Housing Annexation Policy or the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Policies may utilize the
following incentives:
1.Parking Reduction. No parking spaces shall be required for Affordable Housing.
2.Density Bonus. For building types that allow 4 or more dwelling units, the maximum number of
dwelling units may be increased by 25% if all additional units are Affordable Housing.
3.Minor Adjustments to certain “Zone Standards” (14-2H-2). One of the following adjustments may be
administratively approved in buildings that contain Affordable Housing units where the proposed
adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is consistent
with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans:
a.Building type design site depth standards may be adjusted by up 15’. This provision may be
combined with reductions for relocation of utility easement or addition of new Civic Space not
shown in the future land use map up to a combined maximum of 25’.
b.Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to 15%.
c.Minimum amount of façade required within the façade zone may be reduced by up to 20%.
4.Minor Adjustments to certain “Building Type Standards” (14-2H-6). One of the following adjustments
may be administratively approved for buildings that contain Affordable Housing units where the
proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is
consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and
District Plans:
a.Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted by up to 15%.
b.Maximum Building Height may be increased by up to 0.5 stories. This bonus allows the Building
Height to exceed the maximum standards for Primary Buildings found in Item 4a (Building Form;
Height) of Section 14-2H-2 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by 5’.
5.Additional Minor Adjustments. An additional minor adjustment each to “Zone Standards” described in
subsection B2c and “Building Type Standards” described in subsection B2d may be administratively
approved where Affordable Housing units are income restricted to households making 50 percent
(50%) or less of the Area Median Income.
Final Draft – September 2021
Affordable Housing Incentives
Article H: Zones and Standards 127
14-2H-10C Definitions
For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply to these terms:
1.AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The collective reference to "owner-occupied affordable housing" and/or
"affordable rental housing", as those terms are defined herein.
2.AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD fair market rent for
the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible
household, or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa
Finance Authority and rented for no more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted
annually, and rented to an income eligible household.
3.INCOME-ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: Except as set forth herein, a household is an income eligible
household for purposes of purchasing an owner-occupied affordable housing dwelling unit if that
household has an annual income equal to or less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median
income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Except as set forth herein, a household is an income
eligible household for leasing affordable rental housing if that household has an annual income equal
to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Households with
greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in assets, excluding Retirement Assets, are not
income eligible households.
4.OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing that is sold at a price no greater than the most
current published housing and urban development (HUD) homeownership sale price limit for existing
and new homes to an income eligible household.
5.RETIREMENT ASSETS: Financial assets whose liquidity is limited or penalized until a person reaches
retirement age, including, but not limited to 401(k)s, IRAs, pension accounts, IPERS, and TIAA-CREF, not
including distribution of or income from the assets.
14-2H-10D General Requirements
1.Methods of Achieving Affordable Housing. Affordable Housing may be provided through one or both
of the following methods:
a.Onsite owner-occupied affordable housing; or
b.Onsite affordable rental housing.
2.Affordable Housing Agreement and Deed Restriction. Upon approval of an affordable housing
incentive, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City establishing which method(s)
it will utilize and detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, including details of the
applicable programming and development requirements. This agreement must be executed prior to
issuance of a building permit for the project receiving the affordable housing incentive. The City
Manager is hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be recorded in the
Office of the Johnson County Recorder at owner's expense. A deed restriction memorializing these
obligations and limitations shall be recorded contemporaneously therewith at the Owner’s cost.
3.Term of Affordability. An Affordable Housing dwelling unit shall remain so for no less than twenty (20)
years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit and recording of the deed
restriction described below.
Final Draft – September 2021
Affordable Housing Incentives
128 Article H: Zones and Standards
4.Remedy. Failure by the owners to verify income in accordance with the provisions and rules of this
Article is a violation of this Article.
14-2H-10E Owner-Occupied Affordable Housing
Owner-occupied affordable housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section 14-2H-10D
and the following requirements:
1.Development Requirements.
a.Dwelling Unit Size and Quality: The affordable housing dwelling unit size shall be at least eighty
percent (80%) of the floor area for the market rate dwelling units of the same type, shall have the
same number of bedrooms, and shall be of similar quality, or as approved by the City Manager or
designee. Where a housing development contains a variety of bedroom counts per dwelling unit,
the percentage of affordable dwelling units with a particular number of bedrooms shall be equal
to the percentage of non-set-aside dwelling units with the same number of bedrooms.
b.Location: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the development to
achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the affordable housing dwelling
units, unless approved by the City Manager or designee.
c.Timing of Construction: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be constructed and issued a
certificate of occupancy concurrently with or prior to the market rate dwelling units in the
development.
2.Program Requirements.
a.Occupancy. An affordable housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the term of affordability,
be occupied by an income eligible household as the household's primary residence.
b.Income Verification. The Owner shall determine annual household income according to the HUD
part 5, section 8 regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended, and verified
by the City prior to close of the sale.
c.Rental Restriction. An owner-occupied affordable housing unit may not be rented, except an
owner may rent or lease a bedroom in the unit.
d.Sale Restrictions. The following sales restrictions apply to all owner-occupied affordable housing,
compliance with which shall be verified by the City Manager, or designee, prior to closing on the
sale.
(1)Approved Purchasers: A seller of an affordable dwelling unit must sell the unit only to an
income-eligible household. Seller shall determine a potential buyer’s annual household
income according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24
CFR 5.609, as amended.
(2)Sale Price: The sale price of any owner-occupied affordable housing dwelling unit shall not
exceed the purchase price paid by the original income-eligible household purchaser or the
HUD homeownership sale price limit, whichever is greater, with the following exceptions:
(a)Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale.
(b)Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the seller to a
licensed real estate agent.
Final Draft – September 2021
Affordable Housing Incentives
Article H: Zones and Standards 129
(c)Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling unit due
to permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller pursuant
to a properly issued building permit.
(d)Special Fees: The seller shall not levy or charge any additional fees or any finder's
fee, nor demand any other monetary consideration other than provided in this
chapter.
14-2H-10F Affordable Rental Housing
Affordable rental housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section 14-2H-10D, the
development requirements for owner-occupied affordable housing set forth in subsection E1 of this
section, and the following:
1.Program Requirements.
a.Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either:
(1)no more than the fair market rents as published by HUD for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro
FMR area, as adjusted annually; or
(2)for projects that have been awarded LIHTC through the Iowa Finance Authority, no more than
the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually.
b.Occupancy. Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households. If a tenant
household is initially deemed an income-eligible household, but is subsequently deemed to no
longer be income-eligible upon annual examination of household income, that tenant household
shall still be considered an income-eligible household until they vacate that unit. However, upon
the vacation of that unit, the subsequent tenant must be an income-eligible household.
c.Income Verification. Owner shall annually verify that the affordable rental housing units are
occupied by income-eligible households. Prior to the commencement of a lease, Owner shall
determine a potential tenant's annual household income according to the HUD part 5, section 8,
regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended. Upon extension or renewal
of a lease, Owner may determine a tenant's annual household income based upon federal
income tax returns for all adults in the household.
d.Owner Verification of Compliance. The owner must annually verify to the City that it is in
compliance with these program requirements, and provide any documentation as deemed
necessary by the City to determine compliance, which may include examination of the documents
used to verify tenant income. Any violation of this requirement may result in immediate
suspension of any rental permit issued for the applicable unit.
14-2H-10G Administrative Rules:
The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish administrative rules deemed necessary to
assure that the purposes of this section are accomplished. A copy of the rules shall be on file with the City
Clerk and available on the City website.
Final Draft – September 2021
Agenda Item #9
From:Roger Goedken
To:Brianna Thul
Cc:Kevin Sanders; Caitlin McGowan
Subject:FW: 10-31-2021 SL Vacancy Report
Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 9:19:39 AM
Attachments:We sent you safe versions of your files.msg
Successful Living Vacancy Monitoring Report 10-31-2021.pdf
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
From: Roger Goedken
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 9:18 AM
To: Brianna Gabel <Brianna-Thul@Iowa-City.org>
Cc: Caitlin McGowan <cmcgowan@icsuccess.org>; Kevin Sanders <ksanders@icsuccess.org>
Subject: 10-31-2021 SL Vacancy Report
Good morning, Brianna,
Attached is the October 2021 vacancy report. We are expecting 1340 Hollywood to have
residents move in starting tomorrow and we do expect all three rooms to be filled, with
two having confirmed rental assistance funding and another yet in-process. Given this,
we have exceeded the HCDC vacancy directive of 7 vacancies, currently at 6 vacancies, at
about a 10% decrease from the previous month. I highlighted the vacancy changes on
the document to identify where the movement is occurring. Let me know if you need
anything further?
Roger Goedken, BA, BS, QPRP
Executive Director
Successful Living
2406 Towncrest Drive
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
http://www.icsuccess.org/
O: (319) 358-6800 x105
F: 319-358-6807
Agenda Item #9
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the
only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead
This electronic message transmission contains information from Successful Living, which may be confidential or privileged. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received
this electronic transmission in error, please delete from your system or notify us by telephone (319)358-6800.
Agenda Item #9