HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-21 ResolutionItem Number: 4.b.
J une 21, 2022
Resol u tion to issu e Cigarette Permits (see attached )
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Cigarette Resolution
4,6
Prepared by:City Clerk's Office,410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, [A 52240(319)356-5043
Resolution Number: 22-157
Resolution to Issue Cigarette Permits
Whereas, the following firms and persons have made an application and paid the taxes
required by law for the sale of cigarettes, tobacco, nicotine and vapor products.
Now, Therefore, be it Resolved by The City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, That: the
applications be granted and the City Clerk is hereby directed to issue a permit to the
following named persons and firms to sell cigarettes, tobacco, nicotine and vapor
products:
see attached:
Passed and approved this 21st day of June , 20 97
Ma
5\4144-j— 4-4k.C64.°1—'
Approved by
•
Attest: Q! r"r+d ' ,, ►fU( o.+��
ity Clerk City Attorneys Office
It was moved by
Weiner and seconded by Bergus the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
Alter
Bergus
X Harmsen
Taylor
Teague
X
X Thomas
Weiner
Business Name Physical Address
ALMOST PARADISE VAPE SHOP 355 5. LINN ST.
AL-SALAM INTERNATIONAL FOODS 787 MORMON TREK BLVD.
CASEY'S GENERAL STORE#2761 204 N DUBUQUE STREET
CASEY'S GENERAL STORE#2781 1410 WILLOW CREEK DRIVE
CASEY'S GENERAL STORE#3322 1904 BROADWAY ST
CASEY'S GENERAL STORE#3858 370 SCOTT CT
CENTRAL IOWA VAPORS OF IOWA CITY 1745 BOYRUM ST.
CHATHAM OAKS RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY 4515 MELROSE AVE.
CITY LIQUOR 425 S. Gilbert St.
DEADWOOD 6 S DUBUQUE ST
DELI MART#1 525 HWY 1 W
DELI MART#2 1920 LOWER MUSCATINE ROAD
DELI MART#3 2410 MORMON TREK BLVD
DELI MART#5 206 E BENTON STREET
DOLLAR GENERAL STORE#8137 41 HIGHWAY 1 WEST
EL PASO THE MEXICAN STORE 610 HOLLYWOOD BLVD
EVERGREEN SMOKE SHOP 1661 S. FIRST AVE.
FAREWAY STORES#034 2765 COMMERCE DRIVE
FAREWAY STORES#950 2530 WESTWINDS DRIVE
GM Mart 2601 Highway 6 E.
GOPUFF 1907 Stevens Dr.
HARTIG DRUG#10 701 MORMON TREK BLVD
HAWKEYE LIQUOR &TOBACCO 601 HOLLYWOOD BLVD
HAWKEYE SMOKE AND LIQUOR 108 E. College St.
H-BAR 220 S.VAN BUREN ST.
HY-VEE DRUGSTORE 310 N FIRST AVE
HY-VEE FOOD STORE#1 1720 WATERFRONT DR
HY-VEE FOOD STORE#2 812 S 1ST AVENUE
HY-VEE FOOD STORE#3 1201 N DODGE ST
HY-VEE GAS#1 260 STEVENS DRIVE
HY-VEE GAS#3 1125 NORTH DODGE ST.
IOWA CITY BP 2875 Commerce Dr.
IOWA CITY FAST BREAK 2580 NAPLES AVENUE
J &S EXPRESS 2221 ROCHESTER AVE.
JOE'S PLACE 116 IOWA AVENUE
JOHN'S GROCERY INC 401 E MARKET ST
KIRKWOOD LIQUOR&TOBACCO 300 KIRKWOOD AVE.
KUM &GO#3502 2303 MUSCATINE
KUM &GO#3504 1310 GILBERT ST.
KUM &GO#422 731 S RIVERSIDE DR
KUM &GO#51 323 E BURLINGTON STREET
KUM &GO#52 25 W BURLINGTON STREET
KUM &GO#53 955 MORMON TREK BLVD
KWIK STAR#1142 1907 KEOKUK ST.
L& M MIGHTY SHOP INC 504 E BURLINGTON ST
LIQUOR DOWNTOWN 315 5. GILBERT ST.
NORTH DODGE AMOCO 2153 ACT CIRCLE
NORTH DODGE EXPRESS 2790 N DODGE STREET
RJ'Z EXPRESS 2 ESCORT LANE
SMOKIN'JOE'S#18 1902 BROADWAY SUITE 1
SOUTHSIDE LIQUOR &TOBACCO 1921 Keokuk St.
THE CLUB CAR 122 WRIGHT ST
THE KONNEXION 106 S LINN STREET
TOBACCO OUTLET PLUS#537 923 S RIVERSIDE DRIVE
UISIC 208 N. Linn St.
URBAN FUEL EXPRESS 2580 MOSS RIDGE RD.
WALGREENS#5077 2214 MUSCATINE AVENUE
WALMART#1721 919 HIGHWAY 1 WEST
Item Number: 5.b.
J une 21, 2022
Resol u tion auth orizing the procu remen t of Uniforms an d F acility Services
Prod u cts for th e City of Iowa City.
Prepared B y:T heresa Vanatter, Procurement Coordinator
Reviewed By:Nicole Davies, F inance Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Eric Goers, City Attorney
F iscal I mpact:F unds for this purchase are available in the operating budgets of the P ublic
Works, Transportation S ervices, F ire, and Parks and Recreation
departments.
Recommendations:Staff:
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Resolution
Executive S ummary:
On April 18, 2022 a Request f or P roposal was released via the C ity of I owa City bidding software
I on Wave. Proposals were due by 2:30 p.m. on May 9, 2022. The City received three proposals
from Phelps Uniform Specialists I nc, A ramark Uniform S ervices, and C I T Y L aundering Co. F ive
representatives f rom various C ity divisions reviewed and scored the proposal. After careful
consideration, they recommended C I T Y L aundering Co. for award of Request for P roposal 22-22
Uniform and F acility Service Product, Rental and L aundering S ervices for the City of I owa City.
Background / Analysis:
Services for this contract will include uniform and facility services product rental and laundering
services. Products included in this service include uniforms, rugs, towels, rags, mop heads,
sheets, and cloth roll towels. C I T Y L aundering C o.’s prices have been determined to be fair and
reasonable.
Over the course of this three-year contract, the C ity expects to expend
approximately $302,130.00 for this project in uniform and facility services product rental and
laundering services. F unds are available through the operating budgets of the P ublic Works,
Transportation S ervices, F ire, and P arks and Recreation departments under various account
numbers.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Resolution
Prepared by: Theresa Vanatter, Procurement Coordinator, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA
52240 (319) 356-5075
Resolution No. 22-158
Resolution authorizing the procurement of Uniforms and Facility Services
Products for the City of Iowa City.
Whereas, a Request for Proposal was released to solicit Uniform and Facility Service Product,
Rental and Laundering Services for the City of Iowa City; and
Whereas, three responsive proposals were received for these services; and
Whereas, the evaluation committee has selected CITY Laundering Co; and
Whereas, the city's purchasing policy requires City Council to approve purchases for Goods and
Services over$150,000; and
Whereas, the City expects to expend approximately $302,130.00 for the procurement of Uniform
and Facility Service Product, Rental and Laundering Services for a period of three years; and
Whereas, funds for this purchase are available in the operating budgets of the Public Works,
Transportation services, Parks and Recreation Departments, and Fire departments; and
Whereas, approval of this purchase is in the public interest.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The proposed procurement as described is approved.
2. The City Manager is authorized to sign the agreement with the vendor and take whatever
steps are necessary to effectuate future purchases including any amendments or renewals of
said agreement.
Passed and approved this 21st day of June , 20 22 .
M 514141 iLe" 44
Approved by
Attest: w.A; _
Ci Clerk City Attorney' Office—06/10/2022
Resolution No. 22-158
Page 2
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the Resolution
be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Alter
X Bergus
x Harmsen
I____ Taylor
x Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 5.c.
J une 21, 2022
Resol u tion auth orizing the procu remen t of on e (1) n ew Pain t Stripin g Truck.
Prepared B y:Dan Striegel, Equipment S uperintendent
Reviewed By:Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$196,540.08; funds are available accounts #22710324 and #81710520
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Resolution
Executive S ummary:
At the J une 21, 2022 C ity Council meeting, consideration will be given to a resolution authorizing
the procurement, for replacement and upgrade, of one (1) paint striping truck. Truck will include an
E Z L iner model T S -A L 120 Truck Mounted Striping Machine with I suzu NP R-HD chassis.
Sourcewell Cooperative contract 080521-E Z L will be utilized for the procurement of the turn-key
paint striping truck from E Z L iner in Orange City, I A . P rice of the new truck with contract discount
is $196,540.08 as per E Z L iner proposal dated May 11, 2022. Our current striping machine #316,
2017 E Z L iner A L -120E Z , will be sold when the new machine is placed in service. E stimated
delivery is 4 months from time of order.
F unding for this purchase is available in fiscal year 2023 in accounts #22710324 and #81710520.
Background / Analysis:
T he S treets D ivision currently has a slide-in paint striping machine that is mounted on a flatbed
pickup during striping season. W ith the addition of many new bike lanes within the City, we cannot
paint the bike lanes safely with the machine that we have now. T he new paint machine will allow
staff to paint on both sides of the machine which is what is required when painting the bike lanes.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Resolution
Prepared by: Dan Striegel, Equipment Superintendent, 1200 S. Riverside Drive, Iowa City, IA 52246(319)356-5197
Resolution No. 22-159
Resolution authorizing the procurement of one (1 ) new Paint
Striping Truck
Whereas, the Streets Division's current paint striping machine is budgeted for replacement in Fiscal
Year 2023; and
Whereas, Sourcewell Cooperative contract 080521-EZL will be utilized for the procurement of the
Paint Striping Truck; and
Whereas, the total purchase price of the Paint Striping Truck with contract discount is$196,540.08;
and
Whereas, the City's purchasing policy requires City Council to approve purchases for Goods and
Services over$150,000.00; and
Whereas, funds for this purchase are available in the Street Striping account #22710324 and
Equipment Replacement account#81710520 and;
Whereas, approval of this procurement is in the public interest.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The proposed procurement as described above is approved.
2. The City Manager is authorized to take the steps necessary to effectuate the purchase including
any amendments or change orders.
Passed and approved this 21st day of June , 2022
Approved by
Attest: k._L
City lerk City Attorney's ffice— 06/14/2022
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Alter
X Bergus
x Harmsen
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 6.a.
J une 21, 2022
Motion setting a p u b l ic h earing for Ju l y 12 to con sider an ord inan ce
amen d ing Titl e 14, Z onin g of the Iowa City Cod e to clarify cod e l anguag e
related to h istoric preservation . (R E Z 22-0009)
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
staff memo
Date: June 15, 2022
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ22-0009) related to historic preservation
Introduction
The Iowa City Zoning Code (Title 14) is subject to alteration and clarification as situations and
circumstances change throughout the City. The proposed ordinance addresses a few issues that
have come to light with various aspects of code language and how the code is applied.
Specifically, this code clean-up amendment serves to clarify language and expectations
throughout the code relating to historic preservation. A summary of the proposed changes is
provided in the attached memo to the Historic Preservation Commission [Attachment 1].
Background
Since the proposed changes are related to historic preservation regulations, staff provided the
proposed amendments to the State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO) Certified Local
Government (CLG) Coordinator for review and comment. SHPO’s CLG coordinator noted no
concerns with the proposed changes [see correspondence included in Attachment 1].
Staff also presented the proposed amendments to the Historic Preservation Commission. At their
meeting on June 9, the Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments and
requested that an up-to-date list of historic landmarks be added to the website. Staff will ensure
a listing is updated annually during the historic preservation mailings to property owners.
Next Steps
Pending recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council must hold a
public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Zoning Code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to address
code clean-up items relating to historic preservation.
Attachments
1. Memo to the Historic Preservation Commission, dated June 9, 2022
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Date: June 9, 2022
To: Historic Preservation Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner & Emani Brinkman, Planning Intern
Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ22-0009) related to historic preservation
Introduction
The Iowa City Zoning Code (Title 14) is subject to alteration and clarification as situations and
circumstances change throughout the City. The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) addresses a
few issues that have come to light with various aspects of code la nguage and how the code is
applied. This code clean-up amendment serves to clarify language and expectations throughout
the code relating to historic preservation.
Background
Staff maintains a list of amendments that need to be made to the Zoning Code based on
discussions between City staff. The amendments proposed in this memo are minor in nature and
provide clarification to those who depend on this document to make and understand important
City-wide decisions.
While the changes are minor, the Historic Preservation Commission is reviewing them to make
recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council on preservation
issues per their mission codified in Section 14-7A-3 of the City Code. The State Historic
Preservation Office’s Certified Local Government Coordinator, Allison Archambo, has reviewed
the proposed amendments and noted no concerns with the changes. Her correspondence is
included as Attachment 2.
Proposed Amendments
The proposed code amendments and reasoning for each is detailed below.
1) Clarify Historic Preservation Exception Applicability (14-2A-7B, 14-2B-8A, and 14-
2C-11A)
Summary of Change: The code allows the Board of Adjustment to grant a special
exception to waive or modify dimensional or site development standards or approval
criteria in residential and commercial zones that would the prevent use or occupancy of a
property designated as an Iowa City landmark or registered in the National Register of
Historic Places. This provides substantial flexibility for historic properties, including
flexibility from standards relating to setbacks, height, parking areas, screening,
landscaping, and use-specific approval criteria, among other requirements. The code also
allows such properties to be adaptively reused in such a way not typically allowed in these
zones, including as community service, specialized education facility, or hospitality -
oriented retail uses. In both cases, the Board must find that the modification helps preserve
the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property, and a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission is required, in addition to
April 20, 2022
Page 2
requiring that several other general approval criteria are met. The proposed amendment
would clarify that this includes properties located in a Local Historic District.
Justification: Staff recommends the proposed amendment to clarify that properties in a
Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone will be regulated consistently with properties
individually zoned as Historic Landmarks for the purposes of qualifying for the flexibility
offered by this special exception. This is consistent with staff’s current interpretation of this
provision but provides more straight-forward language.
2) Remove List of Local Landmarks, Historic Districts, and Conservation Districts (14-
3B-1D and 14-3B-2D)
Summary of Change: The code currently lists properties that are designated as Local
Historic Districts, Local Historic Landmarks, and Conservation Districts. The proposed
amendment would remove the sections listing these districts and properties.
Justification: City Council currently designates Local Historic Districts and Landmarks by
rezoning them Historic District Overlay (OHD). Similarly, Local Conservation Districts are
rezoned Conservation District Overlay (OCD). Staff also maintains a list of Local Historic
Districts and Landmarks, and Local Conservation Districts, which is kept up-to-date and
is available to the public. The Zoning Code lists districts and landmarks as well, but these
codified lists are irregularly updated and are redundant with the rezoning ordinances
passed by Council when a property is designated. As such, staff recommends removing
the codified lists from the zoning code and relying instead on the ordinances passed by
Council and staff’s lists which are regularly maintained.
3) Add Abbreviation to Conservation Overlay Zones (14-3B-2)
Summary of Change: The code establishes the Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone
to designate Local Conservation Districts within the City but does not list the abbreviation
used on the zoning map. The proposed amendment adds the abbreviation for
Conservation District Overlays (OCD) into the code.
Justification: Specifying that the OCD abbreviation is used for Conservation District
Overlay zones connects the designation on the zoning map with the zone it represents.
4) Clarify Historic Preservation Commission Procedures (14-8E-1)
Summary of Change: After receipt of an application for Historic Landmark designation or
following initiation of a proposal to designate a Local Historic or Conservation district, the
Historic Preservation Commission holds a public hearing on the proposal. The Zoning
Code requires that public notice be mailed, though the current requirements have been a
source of confusion and complaint. The code also requires that the designation of all Local
Historic Districts, Local Conservation Districts, and Local Historic Landmarks be submitted
to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), even when the SHPO will not review it.
The proposed amendment makes two changes. First, it clarifies the public notice mailing
procedures by delineating exactly how the list of property owners will be generated and
mailed. This revision will mean notices are mailed to the owner and any contract purchaser
of record using their last known address listed in the records of the County Auditor not
more than 14 days before the mailing. Second, it revises the submittal requirements such
that proposals shall only be sent to the SHPO for projects on which SHPO will provide
comment. These include proposals regarding Local Historic Districts but exclude
proposals regarding Local Conservation Districts and/or Local Historic Landmarks.
April 20, 2022
Page 3
Justification: Revising public notice mailing procedures will more clearly codify the process
staff will follow. Revising the SHPO submittal requirements will help align City policy with
SHPO policy, which will streamline submittals and prevent unnecessary work.
Next Steps
Pending recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council
must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Zoning Code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to address
code clean-up items relating to historic preservation.
Attachments
1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments
2. Correspondence with Allison Archambo (Certified Local Government Coordinator, State
Historic Preservation Office)
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Attachment 1
Page 1
Draft Zoning Code Text
Underlined text is suggested new language. Strike-through notation indicates language to be
deleted.
Amend 14-2A-7B as follows:
1. The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any
dimensional or site development standards listed in this article or in chapter 5 of this title
or any approval criteria listed in chapter 4, article B of this title that would prevent use or
occupancy of a property located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) designated as an
Iowa City landmark or registered on the national register of historic places. In addition to
the general special exception approval criteria set forth in chapter 4, article B of this title,
the following approval criteria must be met:
a. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural
attributes of the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric
Ppreservation Ccommission.
2. The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to allow a property
located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) designated as an Iowa City landmark or
registered on the national register of historic places to be adapted and reused as a
community service use, specialized educational facility, or hospitality oriented retail use.
In addition to the general special exception approval criteria listed in chapter 4, ar ticle B
of this title, the applicant must also meet the following criteria in order for the Bboard to
grant this exception:
a. The exception is necessary to preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural
attributes of the property.
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric
Ppreservation Ccommission.
Amend 14-2B-8A as follows:
1. The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any
dimensional or site development standards listed in this article or in chapter 5 of this title
or any approval criteria listed in chapter 4, article B of this title that would prevent use or
occupancy of a property located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) designated as an
Iowa City landmark or registered on the national register of historic places. In addition to
the general special exception approval criteria set forth in chapter 4, article B of this title,
the following approval criteria must be met:
a. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural
attributes of the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric
Ppreservation Ccommission.
2. The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to allow a property
located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) designated as an Iowa City landmark or
registered on the national register of historic places to be adapted and reused as a
community service use, specialized educational facility, or hospitality oriented retail use.
In addition to the general special exception approval criteria listed in chapter 4, article B
of this title, the applicant must also meet the following criteria in order for the Bboard to
grant this exception:
a. The exception will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of
the property;
b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric
Ppreservation Ccommission.
Attachment 1
Page 2
Amend 14-2C-11 as follows:
A. Historic Preservation Exception: The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special
exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this
article or in chapter 5 of this title or any approval criteria listed in chapter 4, article B of this
title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property located in a Historic District
Overlay (OHD) designated as an Iowa City landmark or registered on the National
Register of Historic Places. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria
set forth in chapter 4, article B of this title, the following approval criteria must be met:
1. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural
attributes of the property.
2. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric
Ppreservation Ccommission.
Strike 14-3B-1D “Designated Resources” within a Historic District Overlay Zone
Amend 14-3B-2 as follows:
A. Purpose: The conservation district overlay (OCD) zone is used to designate
conservation districts. The purpose of this overlay zone is to:
1. Conserve the unique characteristics of older neighborhoods and resources,
including their architectural, historical and aesthetic qualities;
2. Provide for design review of new construction or alteration of existing resources to
assure compatibility with the existing character of older neighborhoods and preserve the
historic integrity of the resource;
3. Encourage the retention, rehabilitation and appropriate maintena nce of existing
buildings, structures and sites in older neighborhoods;
4. Stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods; and
5. Protect the environmental setting of historic landmarks and historic districts through
the designation of conservation districts adjacent to historic landmarks and historic
districts.
Strike 14-3B-2D “Designated Resources” within a Conservation District Overlay Zone
Amend 14-8E-1C as follows:
1. Upon receipt of an application for historic landmark designation or following
initiation of a proposal to designate a historic or conservation district, the historic
preservation commission will hold a public hearing on the proposal.
2. The historic preservation commission will give notice of the time, date, place and
subject matter of such public hearing at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing. Such
notice must be served by ordinary mail addressed to each property owner of land
included in such proposed district at the property owner's last known address. If
the address of any property owner is unknown, such notice must be served by
ordinary mail addressed to "owner" at the street address of the property in
question. Such notice shall be sent by ordinary mail, not less than seven (7) days
before the date the hearing is held, to the owner and any contract purchaser of
record of each property or property interest at the owner’s and contract purchaser’s
last known address as shown in the records of the County Auditor not more than
fourteen (14) days prior to the date of mailing. A change in ownership of any such
property which is not reflected in the records of the County Auditor during the
period those records are searched as above provided shall not affect the validity of
the notice or any condemnation proceeding commenced on the basis of such
Attachment 1
Page 3
notice. An affidavit of mailing will be filed with the city clerk setting forth the date that
notice was mailed and the names and addresses of all property owners notified pursuant
to this subsection.
3. Following the public hearing, the historic preservation commission will consider a
motion recommending approval of the proposed district or historic landmark.
4. Upon approval of the motion, the historic preservation commission will submit an
application to rezone the proposed area to historic district overlay or conservation district
overlay, whichever is applicable. For properties proposed as local historic landmarks , an
application for a historic district overlay rezoning must be submitted.
Amend 14-8E-1D as follows:
D. State Historic Preservation Office Review: Following the public hearing before the
historic preservation commission, any the proposal regarding a local historic district
will be submitted to the state historic preservation office (SHPO) for review and
recommendations. The city will make any recommendations made by SHPO the state
historic preservation office available to the public for viewing during normal business
hours at a city government place of public access. Any proposals regarding
conservation districts and/or local historic landmarks need not be submitted to
SHPO.
Amend 14-8E-1E as follows:
5. If the planning and zoning commission alters the area of the proposed district as
approved by the historic preservation commission, the planning and zoning commission
must submit a description of the altered proposed area or the petition describing the area
to the state historic preservation office where required and the historic preservation
commission for review and recommendations concerning the altered proposed district.
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:Anne Russett
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 9:22 AM
To:Kirk Lehmann; Jessica Bristow
Subject:FW: Draft Ordinance for SHPO Review
FYI. See below from CLG coordinator.
From: Archambo, Allison <allison.archambo@iowa.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 2:22 PM
To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re: Draft Ordinance for SHPO Review
Hi Anne,
Thank you for submitting the ordinance changes to our office for review. I see no concern with making these changes to
the ordinance. Please proceed.
Thank you,
Allison
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 8:45 AM Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Allison –
Thanks for speaking with me last Friday about some code amendments City staff is considering. I have attached a draft
for your review and comment. You can access Title 14 Zoning here, if needed:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/iowacityia/latest/iowacity_ia/0-0-0-19281.
I also wanted to summarize our changes and justification for the changes:
Amend 14-2A-7B, 14-2B-8A, and 14-2C-11A related to Historic Preservation Exceptions
Justification: The code allows the Board of Adjustment to grant a special exception to waive or modify
dimensional or site developments in residential and commercial zones that would prevent the use or occupancy
of a property designated as an Iowa City Landmark or listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The
proposed amendment would clarify that this includes properties located in a Local Historic District. For the
change we are recommending changing “designated as an Iowa City Landmark” to “located in a Historic District
Overlay (OHD)”. This amendment is for clarification purposes and will ensure that the code aligns with how this
2
section has been implemented over the years. Furthermore, the provision already applies to properties listed in
the NRHP. This amendment results in no change in terms of code implementation and interpretation.
Strike 14-3B-1D “Designated Resources” and 14-3B-2D “Designated Resources”
Justification: City Council designates Local Historic Districts and Landmarks by listing them in 14-3B-1D and rezoning them Historic
District Overlay (OHD). Local Conservation Districts are listed in 14-3B-2D and rezoned Conservation District Overlay (OCD).
However, the codified lists are irregularly updated and are redundant with the rezoning ordinances passed by Council when a
property is designated. City staff keeps a list of local districts and landmarks that we would like to be able to update
administratively (as opposed to processing a text amendment). Lastly, based on conversations with the City Attorney’s Office they
are concerned that if the codified list is not properly maintained it could result in challenges.
Amend 14-3B-2 as follows:
A. Purpose: The conservation district overlay (OCD) zone is used to designate conservation districts. The
purpose of this overlay zone is to:
1. Conserve the unique characteristics of older neighborhoods and resources, including their architectural,
historical and aesthetic qualities;
2. Provide for design review of new construction or alteration of existing resources to assure compatibility
with the existing character of older neighborhoods and preserve the historic integrity of the resource;
3. Encourage the retention, rehabilitation and appropriate maintenance of existing buildings, structures and
sites in older neighborhoods;
4. Stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods; and
5. Protect the environmental setting of historic landmarks and historic districts through the designation of
conservation districts adjacent to historic landmarks and historic districts.
Justification: Specifying that the OCD abbreviation is used for Conservation District Overlay zones connects the designation on the
zoning map with the zone it represents.
Amend 14-8E-1C as follows:
1. Upon receipt of an application for historic landmark designation or following initiation of a proposal to
designate a historic or conservation district, the historic preservation commission will hold a public hearing on the
proposal.
2. The historic preservation commission will give notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of such
public hearing at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing. Such notice must be served by ordinary mail
3
addressed to each property owner of land included in such proposed district at the property owner's last
known address. If the address of any property owner is unknown, such notice must be served by
ordinary mail addressed to "owner" at the street address of the property in question. Such notice shall
be sent by ordinary mail, not less than seven (7) days before the date the hearing is held, to the owner
and any contract purchaser of record of each property or property interest at the owner’s and contract
purchaser’s last known address as shown in the records of the County Auditor not more than fourteen
(14) days prior to the date of mailing. A change in ownership of any such property which is not reflected
in the records of the County Auditor during the period those records are searched as above provided
shall not affect the validity of the notice or any condemnation proceeding commenced on the basis of
such notice. An affidavit of mailing will be filed with the city clerk setting forth the date that notice was mailed
and the names and addresses of all property owners notified pursuant to this subsection.
3. Following the public hearing, the historic preservation commission will consider a motion recommending
approval of the proposed district or historic landmark.
4. Upon approval of the motion, the historic preservation commission will submit an application to rezone
the proposed area to historic district overlay or conservation district overlay, whichever is applicable. For
properties proposed as local historic landmarks, an application for a historic district overlay rezoning must be
submitted.
Justification: The Zoning Code requires that public notice be mailed, though the current requirements have been a source of
confusion and complaint. Revising public notice mailing procedures will more clearly codify the process staff will follow.
Amend 14-8E-1D as follows:
D. State Historic Preservation Office Review: Following the public hearing before the historic preservation
commission, any the proposal regarding a local historic district will be submitted to the state historic
preservation office (SHPO) for review and recommendations. The city will make any recommendations made by
SHPO the state historic preservation office available to the public for viewing during normal business hours at
a city government place of public access. Any proposals regarding conservation districts and/or local
historic landmarks need not be submitted to SHPO.
Justification: The code also requires that the designation of all Local Historic Districts, Local Conservation Districts, and Local
Historic Landmarks be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), even when the SHPO will not review it. Revising
the SHPO submittal requirements will help align City policy with SHPO policy, which will streamline submittals and prevent
unnecessary work.
Amend 14-8E-1E as follows:
5. If the planning and zoning commission alters the area of the proposed district as approved by the historic
preservation commission, the planning and zoning commission must submit a description of the altered
proposed area or the petition describing the area to the state historic preservation office where required and the
historic preservation commission for review and recommendations concerning the altered proposed district.
4
Justification: Continuation of the item immediately above.
Please let me know if you have any questions. We will await your comments before moving this forward to the Historic
Preservation Commission and then Planning & Zoning and City Council.
Thanks, Anne
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
She/Her/Hers
p: 319-356-5251
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
--
Allison Archambo
CLG Coordinator
Allison.Archambo@iowa.gov | 515.281.6826 | iowaculture.gov
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
Iowa Arts Council | Produce Iowa | State Historical Society of Iowa
Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs
Item Number: 10.
J une 21, 2022
Resol u tion approvin g plan s, sp ecification s, and estimate of cost for the
constru ction of th e Highway 6 Trail (from F airmead ows Boulevard to Hein z
Road ) Project, estab l ishin g amount of b id security to accompan y each b id,
d irectin g City Cl erk to post n otice to b idders, and fixin g time an d place for
receipt of b ids.
Prepared B y:J oe Welter, S r. Civil E ngineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$660,000 available in the Hwy 6 Trail – Fairmeadows to Heinz P roject,
Account #R4376
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:L ocation Map
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T he project corridor is along the south right-of-way of Highway 6 between Fairmeadows B oulevard
and Heinz Road. This project generally includes: approximately 0.8 miles of ten-foot wide multi-
use paved trail, storm sewer improvements, signalization at intersections, seeding, and
sidewalk/transit connections. T his project also received Transportation A lternatives P rogram
(TA P ) funding from the I owa Department of Transportation (D O T ) which will be reimbursed
through Surface Transportation Block Grant (S T B G) funds. .
Background / Analysis:
The Project includes approximately 0.8 miles of ten-foot wide multi-use trail, improvements to the
project corridor ’s storm water drainage systems (including new storm sewer), A mericans with
Disabilities Act (A D A) compliant curb ramps at its intersections with roadways and facility
entrances, connections between the new trail and local sidewalks and transit facilities (bus stops),
and signalization at the trail’s intersections with roadways. T he proposed trail segment has been
identified as a priority for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, and is a prioritized in-fill section.
This project addresses a gap in the C ity’s side path network due to the high speeds and volume
of vehicular traf f ic on Highway 6. A reas disturbed by construction will be restored with pavement
or seeding.
The estimated cost of construction for the project as $660,000.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
L ocation Map
Resolution
6 HEINZ RDLAKESIDE DR
NEVADA AVEMIAMI DRL E H A RV E WESTERN RDUNION RDHOLLYWOOD BLVD
B O R D E A U X INDUSTRIAL PARK RDM A R S E L L I E S ASTER AVECAL IFORNI A AV E
REGAL LNAMBER LNARIZONA AVE
WH ISPERING MEADOW DR WHISPERING PRAIRIE AVELOWER MUSCATINE RD
CHARTRES Highway 6 Trail - Fairmeadows to Heinz
I � ,
Prepared by:Joe Welter,Engineering Division,410 East Washington street,Iowa City,Iowa 52240,(319)356-5144
Resolution No. 22-160
Resolution approving plans, specifications, and estimate of cost
for the construction of the Highway 6 Trail (from Fairmeadows
Boulevard to Heinz Road) Project, establishing amount of bid
security to accompany each bid, directing City Clerk to post notice
to bidders, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids.
Whereas, notice of public hearing on the plans, specifications, and estimate of cost for the above-
named project was published as required by law, and the hearing thereon held; and
Whereas, this project will be bid by the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT); and
Whereas, bids will be accepted on July 19, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. by the DOT, Office of Contracts in
Ames, Iowa; and
Whereas, the City Engineer or designee intends to post notice of the project on the website owned
and maintained by the City of Iowa City; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Hwy 6 Trail — Fairmeadows to Heinz Account
#R4376.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that:
1. The plans, specifications, and estimate of cost for the above-named project are hereby
approved.
2. The amount of bid security to accompany each bid for the construction of the above-named
project shall be in the form and amount prescribed in the bidding proposal.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post notice as required in Section 26.3,
not less than 13 days and not more than 45 days before the date of the bid letting, which
may be satisfied by timely posting notice on the Construction Update Network, operated by
the Master Builder of Iowa, and the Iowa League of Cities website.
4. Bids for the above-named project are to be received by the DOT, Office of Contracts, 800
Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa, before 10:00 a.m. on the 19'h day of July, 2022. Thereafter, the
bids will be opened and announced by the DOT, and thereupon referred to the City Council
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa for action upon said bids at its next regular meeting, to be held
at the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa, at 6:00 p.m. on the 2nd day of August,
2022, or at a special meeting called for that purpose.
Resolution No. 22-160
Page 2
Passed and approved this 91 Gr day of Jute , 2022
May
Approved by/IP
...
Attest: i `IA
'
City Jerk City Attorney' Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen-06/15/2022)
It was moved by Alter and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Alter
Bergus
x Harmsen
x Taylor
x Teague
X Thomas
x Weiner
Item Number: 11.
J une 21, 2022
Resol u tion auth orizing conveyan ce of Lot 3 and a p ortion of O u tlot B in Iowa
City In d u strial Campus Iowa to Interstate Rail road , L L C.
Prepared B y:Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Reviewed By:Susan Dulek, F irst Ass't. City Attorney
F iscal I mpact:T he purchase agreement is for a price of $1,500,000 The City is responsible
for the associated brokerage fees.
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Resolution
Purchase A greement
Executive S ummary:
T he I owa City I ndustrial Campus is a shovel-ready parcel f or industrial use located on 420th
Street, which the C ity has been marketing since 2008. City staf f has negotiated a purchase
agreement, contingent on C ity Council approval, for the sale of L ot 3 (approximately 24.7 acres)
and the east 50 feet of Outlot B to I owa I nterstate Railroad, L L C for $1,500,000.
Background / Analysis:
L ot 3 of the I owa C ity I ndustrial Campus (approximately 24.7 acres) is located on 420th S treet
and is adjacent to I owa I nterstate R ailroad main tracks and the connecting rail spur that the City
installed in the years following its 2008 purchase of the larger industrial campus. T he City has
marketed the property since 2008. To date, the C ity has sold one other lot in the larger campus,
which is an 11.2 acre lot that was sold to A lexander L umber in 2018.
I owa I nterstate Railroad has expressed interest in constructing a transload facility on L ot 3 and the
City has negotiated a purchase agreement subject to C ity Council approval. T he agreement is for
a price of $1,500,000 and includes a small portion of Outlot B that encompasses the rail spur off
the main line tracks.
I owa I nterstate R ailroad intends to construct a transload f acility that will f acilitate the transf er of
goods and commodities between modes of transportation. A 2016 S tate Department of
Transportation F reight Transportation Network Optimization S trategy report highlighted the need
for transloading f acilities to support I owa businesses and relieve truck congestion from the
I nterstate and highway systems. S taf f believes the transloading f acility represents a key
investment in our industrial sector that will help I owa City support existing local businesses, as well
as attract new industry to the community. As such, staff recommends Council approval of the
purchase agreement.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
resolution
purchase agreement
Prepared by:Susan Dulek, Asst. City Atty., 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5030
Resolution No. 22-161
Resolution authorizing conveyance of Lot 3 and a portion of Outlot B
in Iowa City Industrial Campus Iowa to Interstate Railroad, LLC.
Whereas, Iowa City Industrial Campus is a shovel-ready parcel for industrial use located on
420th Street, which the City has been marketing since 2008; and
Whereas, City staff has negotiated the attached purchase agreement, contingent on City
Council approval, for the sale of Lot 3 (approximately 24.7 acres) and the east 50 feet of Outlot
B to Iowa Interstate Railroad, LLC for$1,500,000; and
Whereas, following the public hearing on the proposed conveyance, the City Council finds that
the conveyance is in the public interest.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The attached purchase agreement with Iowa Interstate Railroad, LLC is approved, and
upon the direction of the City Attorney, the Mayor and the City Clerk are authorized to
execute a warranty deed conveying the City's interest in Lot 3 and east 50 feet of Outlot B
in Iowa City Industrial Campus.
2. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to deliver said warranty deed and to carry out any
actions necessary to consummate the conveyance required by law.
Passed and approved this 21st day of June , 2022.
s--
aDAA4A___
M
Approved by�
Attest: ,( L 1.k.tc( 1.i
Ci Clerk City Attorney ce
(Sue Dulek—06/14/2022)
Resolution No. 22-161
Page 2
It was moved by Tay1nr- and seconded by Weiner
the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Alter
X Bergus
x Harmsen
Taylor
x Teague
x
x Thomas
x Weiner
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD, LLC/CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
THIS REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), dated as of the date
Buyer executes this Agreement (the "Effective Date"),is made and entered into by and between Buyer and
Seller(each a"Party"and collectively the"Parties").
1. Basic Information. All capitalized terms used in this Agreement shall have the meanings specified
in the Basic Information, unless otherwise defined herein.
"Buyer" means Iowa Interstate Railroad, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
"Seller"means City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation.
"Purchase Price" means ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($1,500,000.00).
"Inspection Period" means a period expiring at 5:00 p.m. (Central Timc) one hundred days (100)
days after the later to occur of the Effective Date or the date of which all of Seller's Deliveries have been
delivered to Buyer pursuant to Section 5.
"Closing Date"means the date mutually acceptable to the parties occurring after the (i) Inspection
Period or(ii) Buyer's waiver of Buyer's contingencies in Section 6.
"Property"means the real property located in the City of Iowa City,Johnson County,State of Iowa
(the "State"), which property commonly described as 4748 420th Street, Lot #3 and that portion of Outlot
B encumbered by the 100' Railroad Spur Easement, as shown on the corrected final plat of Iowa City
Industrial Campus,Iowa City,Iowa,recorded in Book 63,Page 42 of the Johnson County,Iowa Recorder's
Office, together with (i) all improvements, structures and fixtures now constructed with respect to and
situated on such real property; (ii) all and singular the rights and appurtenances pertaining to such real
property,subject to any easements of record for public utilities; (iii) any and all water, water rights, oil, gas
or minerals lying within or that are appurtenant to such real property and any rights with respect thereto;
(v) any and all leases and security deposits with respect to such real property; (vi)all tangible and intangible
personal property owned by Seller and used in connection with such real property; (vii)all warranties or
guaranties with respect to any portion of such real property; and (viii) all licenses and permits related to
such real property.
Buyer at its sole cost shall prepare all necessary documents and receive City approval for a revised
final plat covering the portion of Outlot B currently encumbered by the 100' Railroad Spur
Easement.
Lot#3 is subject to a farm lease with Phil Prybil. Seller shall attempt to negotiate a termination of
said farm lease with the tenant effective on or before the Closing Date,and if Seller is unsuccessful in such
negotiation, Seller shall provide the tenant with a written termination notice pursuant to Section 562.6 of
the Iowa Code terminating said farm lease effective March I,2023 and provide Buyer a copy of said notice.
2. Purchase and Sale. In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
Buyer agrees to purchase and acquire from Seller, and Seller agrees to sell and convey to Buyer, the
Property. Seller hereby approves Buyer's intended use of the Property as a transloading or intermodal
facility or any use consistent with its zoning as of the date of this Agreement.
3. Purchase Price. Buyer agrees to pay and Seller agrees to accept payment of the Purchase Price on
the Closing Date, plus or minus proration, by transfer of good funds delivered to Seller. The Purchase
Price shall be adjusted upon the consummation of the purchase and sale transaction contemplated herein
(the"Closing") by proration made in accordance with this Agreement.
4. Evidence of Title and Abstract. Seller shall obtain an abstract of title to the Real Estate continued
through the Effective Date of and deliver it to Buyer for examination. It shall show merchantable title in
Seller's name in conformity with this Agreement, Iowa law, and Title Standards of the Iowa State Bar
Association. The abstract shall become the property of the Buyer when the purchase price is paid in full.
Seller shall pay the costs of any additional abstracting and title work due to any act or omission of Seller.
If,at the time of Closing Date there remain unresolved title objections, the parties agree to escrow from the
sale proceeds a sufficient amount to protect the Buyer's interests until said objections are corrected,
allowing a reasonable time for the corrections of said objections.
5. Seller's Deliveries. Within ten (10) business days after the Effective Date, Seller shall deliver or
cause to be delivered to Buyer any leases, unrecorded casements, or contracts affecting the Property that
will be in effect at the time of the Closing Date("Seller's Deliveries").
6. Inspection Period.
(a) The obligation of Buyer to close the transaction contemplated hereby is subject to Buyer's
satisfaction with and approval of, in Buyer's sole and absolute discretion, Seller's Deliveries and
everything, matter, or item related to the Property or Buyer's purchase thereof, including title and survey
matters. Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for its disapproval or dissatisfaction with
any of the foregoing, or for any other reason, in Buyer's sole and absolute discretion, upon the delivery of
written notice thereof to Seller given within ten(10) business days after expiration of the Inspection Period.
If Buyer terminates this Agreement pursuant to its rights hereunder and upon any such termination neither
Party shall have any further obligation hereunder. Nothing in this Section 6(a) shall limit Buyer's rights
under Sections 6(d) or 6(c).
(b) Buyer shall, at Buyer's option and expense. obtain a current survey of the Property (the
"Survey"). If the Survey shows any encroachment on the Property or improvements or if any of the
improvements encroach on the lands of others, such encroachments shall be treated as a title defect.
(c) Seller had previously sold,along with Lot#2, a portion of the real property under the 100'
Railroad Spur Easement adjacent to Lot #2, to Alexander Lumber. Specifically, Alexander Lumber had
purchased a width of 50' of the 100' Railroad Spur Easement measuring from the boundary line of Lot#2
to track center line. Buyer's offer pursuant to this Agreement is subject to its purchase of that portion of
the 100' Railroad Spur Easement sold by the City to Alexander Lumber. Should R. P. Lumber Co., Inc.
(Alexander Lumber's successor),or its successor,be unwilling to sell this section of the 100' Railroad Spur
Easement upon terms and conditions acceptable to Buyer, Buyer may cancel this Agreement at no penalty
to it. Alternatively, Buyer may engage the Seller to renegotiate the Purchase Price reflected in this
Agreement.
(d) If Buyer, at its option, gives to Seller within five(5) business days after the expiration of
the Inspection Period, one or more written notices of any dissatisfaction of any title or survey matter with
respect to the Property, Seller shall take action necessary to cure, correct, or otherwise satisfy or perform
the matters noted. Nothing in this Section 6(d) shall limit Buyer's rights under Section 6(a) or 6(c).
7. Affirmative Covenants of Seller. Seller agrees as follows:
(a) From and after the Effective Date, Seller shall not, without the prior written consent of
Buyer, enter into any transaction with respect to or affecting any part of the Property, or create or permit
the creation of any new title exception affecting any part of the Property, enter into any lease, mortgage,
casement, construction contract or other contract affecting any part of the Property or the development
thereof, alter or improve the Property, or commit or suffer any waste to the Property.
(b) Seller shall permit Buyer access to the Property prior to the Closing Date to conduct such
inspections and tests as Buyer shall require. During the Inspection Period, Buyer shall be permitted to enter
the Property to perform surveys, inspections, investigations and tests, including, without limitation,
topographical, geotechnical, structural and environmental tests in Buyer's discretion to determine the
physical condition, suitability and feasibility of the Property in coordination with the Seller so Seller may
be present. If Buyer determines, in its discretion,that the Property is not appropriate for Buyer's intended
use, Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 6(a). Seller acknowledges
that, prior to the expiration of the Inspection Period, Buyer has limited access to, but no ownership or
control of, any portion of the Property, and Buyer's access during the Inspection Period shall not cause
Buyer to be considered an owner or operator of Property for purposes of environmental laws.
8. Representations and Warranties of Seller. To induce Buyer to execute, deliver and perform this
Agreement, Seller hereby represents and warrants to Buyer on and as of the Effective Date and on and as
of the Closing Date as follows: (a) Seller is the sole owner of the Property, title is vested in Seller and
Seller has goad and marketable title to the Property free and clear of liens,security interests,encumbrances,
occupancy agreements, options, rights of first refusal and restrictions of every kind and description except
for any liens related to indebtedness for borrowed money that Seller will cause to be discharged at or prior
to the Closing; (b)them arc no claims, causes of action or litigation or administrative proceedings pending
or, to Seller's knowledge, threatened with respect to the ownership or operation of the Property, including,
without limitation, disputes of tenants, employees, government authorities, environmental groups, prior
owners, utilities, contractors, adjoining landowners or suppliers of goods and services; and (c) Seller has
no knowledge of any substance, chemical or waste on or affecting the Property that is identified as
hazardous, toxic or dangerous in any applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. Seller has no
knowledge that the Property has been used at any time as waste dump site nor has it been used to store
hazardous waste or materials that cause a present or future hazard to the groundwater or the environment,
and to the best knowledge of and belief of Seller, the Property is substantially free of all latent and non-
apparent hazards and characteristics which would impair the use of the Property for Buyer as contemplated
herein. Seller shall notify Buyer if any of Seller's representations and warranties under this Agreement are
or become untrue immediately upon Seller's discovery thereof.
9. Conditions to Closing.
(a) Buyer's obligation to complete the Closing contemplated herein is conditioned upon each
of the following: (i)all representations and warranties of Seller shall be true and correct in all material
respects as of the Closing; (ii) Seller shall have observed and performed all of Seller's covenants and
obligations under this Agreement as and when required herein; and (iii) Seller shall have executed and
delivered all documents and instruments required by this Agreement as of the Closing.
(b) Seller's obligation to complete the Closing contemplated herein is conditioned upon Buyer
having delivered (i)the Purchase Price in the form called for herein and (ii) the documents required to be
executed and delivered by Buyer at the Closing.
10. Closing and Possession.
(a) At Closing, Seller shall execute and deliver(i)a Warranty Deed conveying the Property to
the Buyer free and clear of liens and encumbrances;(ii)a certification of Seller's non-foreign status pursuant
to Section 1445 of Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, of the United States of America (the
"Code"); (iii) such other releases, terminations, affidavits, bills of sale, assignments and conveyance
documents as Buyer may require to consummate the sale of the Property; (v) evidence of Seller's authority
to consummate the transactions herein; and(vi)the closing statement(the"Closing Statement").
(b) Neither Party will be required to be present in person at the Closing if such Party has
delivered all of the items it is required to deliver at the Closing on or before the Closing.
11. Prorations.
(a) Buyer shall receive a credit against the Purchase Price for the amount of current real estate
and personal property taxes levied against the Property that are unpaid as of the Closing Date and that are
allocable to the period prior to and including the Closing Date(based on the actual number of days elapsed
in a year over the total number of days in such year), the amount of such credit to be determined on the
basis of the current tax bills for the Property or, if the same arc not available on the day of the Closing, the
most recent ascertainable assessed value and tax rate,with the Parties agreeing to re-prorate said taxes upon
the receipt of the actual tax bills for the Property. Seller shall be responsible for paying the real estate taxes
for all periods prior to the tax year in which the Closing occurs out of Seller's own funds and Seller shall
provide evidence of the payment thereof at or prior to the Closing Date.
(b) Other items customarily adjusted upon the sale of a property similar to the Property shall
be adjusted by the Parties. Seller and Buyer shall diligently attempt to determine the exact amounts of
prorations and adjustments prior to or at the Closing; provided however, that the Parties acknowledge that
exact amounts may not be available at the Closing and agree to re-prorate such items following the Closing
based upon final bills or statements.
(c) Special Assessments. Seller shall pay all special assessments which are a lien on the
Property as of the Closing.
12. Expenses.
(a) Buyer shall pay for (i) all costs of Buyer's inspection of the Property, except as expressly
set forth in Section 12W); (ii) the costs of the Survey, if obtained; (iii) the cost of recording the Deed; (iv)
any and all transfer taxes, deed stamps or other taxes due in connection with the sale or conveyance of the
Property contemplated herein; and (v) the fees and expenses of Buyer's counsel.
(b) Seller shall pay for (i) the fees and expenses of Seller's counsel; and (ii) the costs of
recording and/or filing any releases relating to any liens against Seller's interest in the Property.
13. Brokerage. The Listing and Selling Agents/Brokers are agents of the parties hereto as outlined
below,and their fiduciary duties of loyalty and faithfulness are owned to the party they represent; however,
they must treat the other party with honesty and fairness. Seller is represented by Jeff Edburg/Lepic
lCroeger, Realtors. Seller hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the other harmless from and against
any and all claims, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, judgments, settlements and expenses
(including, without limitation, attorneys' fees) that the other may sustain or incur by reason of its breach of
the foregoing representation and warranty. The provisions of this Section 13 shall survive the Closing or
termination of this Agreement.
14. Casualty or Condemnation. If, prior to the Closing, any of the improvements on the Property are
destroyed or damaged, or if any part of the Property is subject to a condemnation proceeding, Seller shall
promptly notify Buyer thereof and Buyer shall have the option, exercisable by delivery of written notice to
Seller within fifteen(15) days after Buyer receives such notice, to terminate this Agreement. If Buyer does
not elect to terminate this Agreement as provided above, Seller shall, at the Closing, (a) assign or pay to
Buyer all insurance or condemnation proceeds collected or claimed and the amount of any deductible or
co-insurance applicable to damage or destruction, or (b) reduce the Purchase Price by an amount equal to
the cost to repair or to replace the portion of the Property damaged or destroyed, which amount is subject
to the approval of Buyer. In connection with any such assignment under subsection (a) above, Seller shall
cause Seller's insurance carrier to acknowledge such assignment and agree to pay to Buyer any proceeds
of such insurance. Seller shall not settle any such proceedings without Buyer's consent,and Seller shall, at
the Closing, assign or pay to Buyer all condemnation awards collected or claimed relative to such taking.
15. Default.
If Buyer or Seller defaults in the performance of its obligations hereunder and the other Party is not
then in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder, at the Non-Defaulting Party's
discretion it may terminate this Agreement by the delivery of notice thereof to the other Party.
16. Survival. All representations, warranties, covenants, agreements and obligations of the Parties
shall,notwithstanding any investigation made by either Party, survive the Closing and the same shall inure
to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the Parties.
17. Notices. Seller and Buyer may send notices hereunder on behalf of their respective clients, such
notices to have the same force and effect as notices delivered hereunder by the Parties. Any notice required
or permitted to be given hereunder by one Party to the other shall be in writing and shall be effective (i)
when delivered in person; (ii) when sent by fax to the fax number specified below and receipt of delivery
confirmation; (iii) if delivered by courier, one (1) day after being deposited with a reputable overnight
courier such as FedEx or UPS; (iv) e-mail with notices consisting of a PDF attachment; or(v) if delivered
by mail,two (2) days after being deposited with the United States Postal Service,postage prepaid, certified
mail, return receipt requested, at the addresses set forth below (either Party may change its address for
notice by delivering written notice to the other Party in accordance with the terms hereof):
Notices to Buyer:
Iowa Interstate Railroad, LLC
5900 6th St. S.W.
Cedar Rapids, IA 52404
Atm: Chief Legal Officer
(email: obhouck@iaisrr.com)
Notices to Seller:
City of Iowa City, Iowa
City Attorney
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
(email: egocrsrtiowa-citv.org)
18. Miscellaneous. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Parties with respect
to the subject matter hereof, and all prior negotiations and oral or written communications or agreements
between the Parties concerning the subject matter hereof are superseded hereby. This Agreement may not
be amended, modified or discharged nor may any of its terms be waived except by an instrument in writing
signed by the Party to be bound thereby. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts
and by facsimile, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one
and the same instrument. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. Seller or Buyer may not assign its
rights or delegate its obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other Party. This
Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa without
regard to its conflicts of laws rules. If any term,covenant or condition of this Agreement,or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance,shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable,the remainder of this
Agreement, or the application of such term, covenant or condition to persons or circumstances other than
those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant and
condition of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. The
prevailing Party in any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall be paid its legal fees and expenses by
the non-prevailing Party, whether or not litigation is instituted. If the date for performance of any act
hereunder, or if the date of expiration of any time period hereunder, falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal
holiday observed in the State,then the time for performance thereof, or the date of expiration thereof, shall
be deemed extended to the next successive business day. "Business day" means any day other than a
Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday observed in the State.
19. City Council Approval. This Agreement is subject to approval by the City Council of Iowa City as
required by Section 364.7 of the Code of Iowa.
[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank: signatures follow on next page]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,this Agreement is executed as of the date set forth below.
BUYER: SELLER:
IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD,LLC, City of Iowa City,Iowa
a Delaware limited liability company a municipal corporation
•
Joscpi}.Parsons Geoff Ruin
President/CEO City Manager
Date: -\v't- 1).. ,2022 Date: -5c/tic Z"' ,2022
(Date must be completed) (Date must be completed)
[THIS DOCUMENT IS A NON-BINDING PROPOSAL ONLY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE
EXECUTED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD AND THE CITY OF IOWA CITY.
IOWA.AGREE UPON THE DEFINITIVE TERMS OF SAME.]
Item Number: 12.
J une 21, 2022
Resol u tion adop tin g Iowa City's F Y23 Annual Action Plan wh ich is a su b -p art
of Iowa City's 2021-2025 Con solid ated Plan (City Steps 2025).
Prepared B y:Erika Kubly, Neighborhood S ervices Coordinator
Reviewed By:Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development S ervices Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:I owa City has been allocated $730,874 in C D B G and $524,922 in HO ME
funds for F Y23 which will be used in conjunction with program income and
uncommitted or returned funds.
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: The Housing and Community Development Commission
recommended approval of the F Y23 A nnual A ction Plan by a vote of 6-0 at
their May 19, 2022 meeting.
Attachments:HC D C Minutes 2-17-22, 3-24-22, 5-19-22 (draft)
Resolution
Appendix B
Executive S ummary:
T he City receives Community Development Block Grant (C D B G) and HO ME I nvestment
Partnerships Program (HO ME) funds annually f rom the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). To receive these f unds, the C ity must submit an Annual Action Plan,
describing the projects and activities proposed for f unding. T he complete draft F Y23 A nnual
Action Plan is available at www.icgov.org/actionplan and a summary of the funded activities is
attached to the resolution as Appendix B.
A public meeting and resolution considering approval of the F Y23 Annual A ction Plan, which
formally allocates the City's C D B G and HO ME funds, will be held at the City Council meeting on
J une 21, 2022.
Background / Analysis:
T he C ity estimates it will have approximately $1,963,000 in C D B G and HO ME funds available for
eligible projects or entities that provide housing, jobs and/ or services to low- and moderate-
income residents. W hile C D B G funding decreased about $1,500 from F Y22 to F Y23, HO ME
funding increased by about $30,000.
Applications f or competitive C D B G and HO ME funds were received at the end of J anuary.
HC D C held a question/answer session with applicants on F ebruary 17th and formulated funding
recommendations on March 24th. Minutes for both meetings are attached.
T hrough the F Y23 competitive f unding round, I owa City received applications from four agencies
for C D B G and HO ME funding. T he Housing F ellowship and I nside Out R eentry have been
recommended f or HO ME funding to complete rental acquisition projects for af f ordable housing.
C D B G funding is recommended f or a facility improvement project at F ree Medical Clinic and new
construction of a shelter for D V I P.
T he draft F Y23 Annual Action P lan was made available for public comment on May 20, 2022.
HC D C reviewed and recommended approval of the draft at their May 19, 2022 meeting. A t the
time of this submittal the City has not received any comments. T he A nnual A ction P lan is due to
HUD by J uly 12, 2022.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
HC D C Minutes 2.17.22
HC D C Minutes 3.24.22
HC D C Minutes 5.19.22 (draft)
Resolution
Appendix B
MINUTES FINAL
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 17, 2022 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Nasr Mohammed, Becci
Reedus
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Nkumu, Kyle Vogel
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Erica Kubly, Steve Rackis Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Badereldin Ahmed, Ismail Alnoun (Mount Mercy University), Simon
Andrew (The Housing Fellowship), Lata D’Mello (Monsoon Asians and
Pacific Islanders in Solidarity), Charlie Eastham (Center for Worker
Justice), Khalid Farah, Fatima, Kristie Fortmann-Doser (DVIP), Michelle
Heinz (Inside Out Reentry), Hariz Mohamedein, Ashlee Hopkins (DVIP),
Hallsae Mohammad, Mohamed Mohamed, Jane Murphy, Mazahir Salih
(Center for Worker Justice), Fatherahman Siddig, Abu Tahir, Barbara
Vinograde (Free Medical Clinic) (via Zoom), There were two public
comments submitted via phone through Mazahir Salih (Anthony Smith
with New Creations International Church and Ayman Sharif with A & W
Sustainable Planning).
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 3-2 (Dennis and Beining dissenting) the Commission recommends Council revise Section
2.3(H) of the ICHA Administrative Plan to extend absences from 30 to 60 days to allow participants
flexibility for vacations without requiring permission in advance.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JANUARY 20, 2022:
Reedus moved to approve the minutes of January 20, 2022, Dennis seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the minutes were approved 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DISCUSS REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY (ICHA)
ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL:
Hightshoe explained that in early February staff received a request from the Center for Worker Justice
regarding the Housing Authority policy regarding extended absences for those in the housing vouc her
program. In the current policy, under the administrative plan, there's a policy called absence from unit
policy that allows tenants to be gone for 30 days. Hightshoe noted many of the Commissioners are
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 2 of 16
2
familiar with the Housing Choice Voucher program as it's a program where based on income the City will
pay for percentage, could be all or a portion, of someone's rent. Tenants have to qualify and so in the
policy it states if someone is gone for more than 30 days unless it is a reason typically beyond someone's
control (such as a prolonged medical care hospitalization or a death in the family) they risk losing their
voucher. Staff had a conversation with the Center for Worker Justice and some of the immigrant
community and they maintain that in some families 30 days is hard to do especially for immigrants who
have to travel overseas to see their families and then have to have the decision of whether they stay
extended periods and risk losing their voucher. The Center for Worker Justice requests that t he City
amend the policy and basically either move that 30 days up to 60 days or add a reason that visiting family
outside the United States once a year be an allowable reason for over 30 days. Hightshoe noted the
federal regulations allow the Housing Authority to allow someone to be gone for up to 180 days if the
reason is something like an incarceration or for placement in a nursing home. However, over the 180, the
voucher is terminated no matter what. Housing authorities are allowed to choose a smaller period of time
as what they consider brief absences, and a lot of housing authorities use that 30 -day benchmark with
exceptions for those unforeseen circumstances. The Center for Worker Justice’s request is allowed by
federal grant, the City can extend that period but it comes with a trade-off and that's why staff wanted to
have this go to HCDC to make a recommendation to Council. The City has 27,000 applications on the
housing choice voucher waiting list and of those 1300 meet the preference criteria. The current wait list
for those 1300 families is well over three years, in calendar year 2021 98 households requested a level
more than 30 days to travel overseas and the average amount of assistance that the City pays is about
$556 so based on 98 households the Housing Authority pays about $54,000 for each month where the
unit was not occupied by a member of the household. Therefore, the City has to balance the needs of the
entire program and of those waiting on the waiting list to those who need to travel for various reasons.
She acknowledged staff totally understands reasons that families, especially immigrant families who have
to travel for a long ways, want extended absences but they're trying to balance that with the needs of the
entire program so therefore the Housing Authority believes the current policy to be fair but if HCDC might
want to recommend to Council that the Housing Authority amend the policy, then staff recommends the
Center for Worker Justice recommendation to go up to 60 days. Council discussed this request and
wanted to refer it to HCDC and are asking for a recommendation by March 1st, their next meeting.
Drabek asked how many of the 98 requests were granted and how many were denied. Hightshoe
believes they were all granted. Rackis noted the data that they compiled was actually families that had
requested to travel who are still active participants in the program and the 98 was the number requested
in 2021, which was the biggest year, but the number of requests from 2019 coming f orward is 121
requests which were granted.
Drabek asked as far as the two options that the Center for Worker Justice laid out in the letter are either
the blanket permission for visiting immediate family or going to 60 days, staff has clearly expressed a
preference for the going to 60 days but as he read that letter his first thought was to prefer the other
option though hearing staff give some compelling reasons not to he found himself wondering about that
idea of immediate family and who would count as immediate family under that policy so is now favoring
the 60 day option as it eliminates making judgments about who is family. Hightshoe agreed, staff does
not want to have to get into justifying who travels, how long they travel, when they travel and wh o all
counts because then they're not being fair to everyone. Staff would rather just have the longer period and
basically say anything of over and above that longer period has to be due to some unforeseen
circumstance. She noted again, once they start getting into three, four, five months that means they're
paying rent on a unit that's not being occupied and also not occupied by somebody else who needs it.
Reedus asked in terms of how they make the decision about an emergency request, if a father, mother or
somebody in the family gets sick and they want to make a trip to go see them or help with health care that
would be granted in the emergency request and could be for a longer period of time correct. Hightshoe
confirmed that yes, it has to be approved and could be up to 90 days. The request here is just for a
normal visiting trip which can take much longer for people who live outside of the country.
Dennis asked if the recommendation that the Commission is supposed to provide to Council whether or
not the 60 days is for voucher holders who are traveling outside of the United States or is it for any
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 3 of 16
3
voucher holder. Hightshoe stated staff would prefer any voucher holder, so they do not have to
administer different rules for different people.
Drabek also asked if Council is asking the Commission to recommend approval of one of these two
options or can the Commission choose neither and suggest another option such as the 120 days.
Hightshoe stated Council is looking to the Commission to decide whether they feel that the current policy
needs to be modified and if yes, then what is the recommendation to modify it to and that's the
recommendation that goes to Council.
Reedus is in favor of modifying this noting she would refer to this policy as something left behind and it's
one that needs to be updated with the changing world. She comes from a background of human
resources, and this is not new with people needing extended time away from work it doesn't fit into the
three weeks’ time off and in the world today with people living outside the country that they were born or a
far distance away from family this would help. She does realize that during this time they don't want
these apartments empty and the City paying rent but the cost to the City being $54,000 compared to the
whole City budget is a drop in the bucket so she is going to be in favor of modifying the policy.
Dennis noted she has a history of property management and while she doesn’t remember the exact
number of days but if a unit is vacant for a certain number of days the landlord protector insurance that
the owner of the home carries will not cover a claim so she would want to check on that. Additionally, if
this commission recommends modifying the policy she would not approve the 60 days, she is not going to
approve a change to the Housing Authority's administrative plan. She feels it's reasonable for families to
get approval for longer out of country travel, the 98 households that requested it were approved and the
27,000 plus households waiting a seemingly long time for assistance may think the request of change
isn't equitable to them.
Beining agrees with a previous comment and what he had noticed in her time in HUD housing is that they
had a lot of people on that three-year wait list and moving from 30 days to 60 days may take resources
away. However, he would like to see the second portion regarding allowing the visitation of the family out
of country to be a reason to go past those 30 days approved.
Mohammad noted as an immigrant he knows the importance of visiting friends and family overseas and
they usually don't do it every year for obvious reasons, it's very expensive to travel to Africa for example,
for a small family the cost is probably over $10,000 and they cannot afford to do that every year, so they
do that every other year or every three years. He acknowledged there are various reasons to have
frequent visits for example they need to preserve their customs, their values and their traditions and to
pass them to the second generation so traveling is very important as an immigrant, but it is also very
difficult. Extra time is needed to travel as well because for example, the closest airport is in Chicago, and
it takes four hours to get there, from there they board a plane for 14 hours for a different destination and
then from there they go to their home country and most have to take a bus to their final destination so the
process of traveling overseas takes about two days and then they need like three days to switc h their
biological hour because it's different time zoning and then when coming back they have to repeat the
process so they need probably a week just for traveling and that is the reason he supports the two
months motion. Mohammad asks everyone on the Commission to join him in supporting the motion.
Drabek wanted to hear more about this idea of if a person is gone for two months that the City is paying
for unoccupied space, it makes a certain amount of sense but at the same time as long as the intention is
to return it really seems like that person is still housed by the City. There are all kinds of reasons people
leave their unit, there are 24 hours in a day and they work for eight of them so the unit is not utilized for
those eight hours but they're going to come back at the end of that day so if a person goes out of the
country for two months but they're intending to come back and return to the unit, the unit is still housing
them and if they come back and they don't have the voucher anymore then that’s another person in the
community who needs housing. He is not sold on the idea that it's costing the City some amount of
money.
Hightshoe states that it’s not about the cost of the money, it's basically those 1300 folks that are in
precarious housing situations and call daily to find out where they are on the waiting list. She noted it’s
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 4 of 16
4
about 16 families that could be pulled off the waiting list for a year. She also asked that the Commission
does recommend a time frame because otherwise they could go up to six months and the City is paying
for rent for someone who's only there half the year. She feels the 60 days would fit most requests and
then continue the policy about absences beyond control.
Rackis noted from the Housing Authority perspective they prefer objective criteria and the best example
he can give as to why they use objective criteria is just this past week he received an email from a
gentleman who's 61, just moved to the area for the university hospitals, he has cancer and is undergoing
chemotherapy. In his email he stated that he may not be alive in three years when his name comes up
on the wait list and Rackis had to tell him that because the preference category is elderly families,
disabled families and families with children under the age of 18 who live or work in the jurisdiction, then
it's date and time of application, they couldn’t use most in need criteria to move this gentlema n to the top
of the list. There are families on the waitlist who are homeless with kids in the car. The Housing Authority
has to have objective criteria because they don't want to be making determinations of is the applicant with
a liver transplant receiving chemo most in need, or the family with children living in their car. So, it's
better to have a preference category, date and time of application. That is also why if the Commission
supports a 30 to 60 day leave that is criteria that is objective and better for the Housing Authority to
follow.
Mazahir Salih (Executive Director, Center for Work Justice) wanted to respond to some of the comments
that has been made about the policy. She noted normally they see federal policies stronger than local
policy and the federal policy states not more than 100 consecutive calendar days but the City policy is 30
days. A family may be absent for a period of less than 30 calendar days without notifying the Housing
Authority unless the absence will interfere with a scheduled annual recertification or annual unit
inspection in which case the family must call and make appropriate arrangements. If an absent will be for
30 calendar days or more the family must notify the Housing Authority in writing 14 calendar days in
advance and show written notice of absence example, vacations, and if they don't have that the City will
reject the application. Salih stated taking a vacation to care for a family member and they saying family
member, HUD did not say how household member, but the City says household. Salih considers her
mom in the family but they saying household here means the household will live on that system unit. HUD
states vacation clearly and Iowa City Housing Authority say hospitalization, death of the household or
illness of the household, or any another reason, the mean necessity by Iowa City Housing Authority. So if
the federal rule said not more than 80 days, but you can do it for vacation, the City should also at least
put vacation there. In a recent application that has been filed to the City of Iowa City the applicant stated
he is traveling because he has not traveled for the past three years and his mother and my father are
sick, they are over 80 years of age, and them being sick he has to go and care for them. His wife does
not drive, so if they said somebody has to be in the unit and he stayed at the unit, his wife cannot do the
job over there. This gentleman’s application has been denied. The mother and father are ill and they can
prove it, they can get documentation from the hospital, but the request has been denied.
Salih also noted even for the people who have family in this country, but not in Iowa, this is really
something good for the people that they have. If they have family around they could the n vacation to
Mexico or something like that, but spend time with family. For example she is from Sudan and when they
go to Sudan the only airport is in the capital, her husband is from East Sudan, and her mother from North
Sudan so when she goes there she likes to visit her side of the family, so her kids can know her mom and
her cousins. It takes us a long time to drive around. As Commissioner Mohammad mentioned just travel
to the home country can take 24 hours or more. And once there, they spend a week just driving around
the country to visit all the family. She believes this policy needs to be changed so they can make
immigrants in the community feel welcome.
Salih ask Rackis when this policy was created. Rackis replied the current plan was approved by Council
in 2003. The plan language that exists right now in the plan is the same language. He believes it was
probably in the administrative plan when the Housing Choice Voucher Program was created. There used
to be a certificate program, there's been several different tenant based rental assistance programs, but
the Housing Choice Voucher Program was created in the late 80s, so that's been in the plan probably
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 5 of 16
5
ever since they've had the Housing Choice Voucher Program. He is not sure when the federal
regulations was last updated.
Salih acknowledged then this was created over 20 years ago and the community today does not look like
20 years ago, there are more immigrants and whoever created this policy in the past did not know how
many immigrants would be here. The policy was likely created thinking about people in America, no one
needed 60 days to visit Virginia, Miami or Chicago. And to be honest how do they know even the people
who are from this country may go for vacation and if they add all the vaca tions some take, it will be more
than 60 days, it’s just that they aren’t consecutive. Many people will be out of their assisted unit more
than 60 days, but just not consecutive. Salih called the manager at Pheasant Ridge today, which is
governed by HUD, and he said their policy was two months because he knows those people and knows
this is important for them, most of his tenants are immigrant. So if a project governed by HUD can do it,
the City can do it too. Salih acknowledged there is a waiting list, s he knows of people living in their car
right now because they are homeless, they know there are many in this community suffering but they
cannot prioritize anyone on the waiting list so she doesn’t think they can use this as an argument for this.
The City spends a lot of money to make people feel welcome, so please spend this money and make
people feel welcome and change this policy to 60 days without having to request an absence. Having to
ask permission is not easy for immigrants, they don't know how to do it, they don't know how to write in
English, or maybe they don't know the policy. The rejection from the Housing Authority just comes as “we
regret that we deny your application” and if they need to travel for more than 30 days they need to state
why, like for hospitalization and all the things that they have in their current policy, it makes people
confused. Salih urges this change so people don’t have to go through this. She also noted when the
whole household leaves, 98% of the time the father always come back before the 60 days, because of his
job, they don't want to lose it. Like when her husband goes they visit his family first and then her kids and
her stay on and her husband comes back. Please make those people feel welcome.
Lata D’Mello (Monsoon Asians and Pacific Islanders in Solidarity) is an advocate and works with victims
of domestic violence, sexual assault in Asian and Pacific Islander communities, but marginalized
communities as well. The work they do is addressing the needs of the comm unity, not just serving them
for their cases involving gender-based violence. One of the things that she hears is that unfortunately the
racism that's embedded in how we issue our comments or our policies. If they say something like, oh, it
happened in 2003, without looking at the history of what happened, post 911 is the policies that came up,
post 911. If you say well, there are so many people waiting for housing so we will just shuffle people
around, some people will still be on the streets, and we are okay with that. That's a huge problem. D’Mello
encourages them to all think about what racism really means, what softer or nice racism means. What it
means when it comes to becoming a stain policy, becomes a stain on the Iowa City character and that
really reflects on everyone. It's not like people are going off and it’s the City who has to pay, it's not the
City paying, it's taxpayer money, everyone is paying into that and it's people who are committed to
assisting people. Iowa City claims to be so progressive, so City Council really needs to take that
seriously. As Ms. Salih stated, people might be traveling for a week somewhere, coming back, and going
again, spending a whole lot of time away which might amount to six months and the City is still paying for
the assistance. D'Mello asked the Commission to please consider this, this is what housing justice
should be, people should be allowed the freedom to come and go when they want to, to have this space
to consider a home and not say we’ll talk about housing justice or social justice in Iowa without
considering this. There are a whole lot of people who have come here and have made this their home
and it's important not to neglect the others who are not housed too, but to think about what housing would
mean in a city like Iowa City, not to deny housing development, that really is important, affordable housing
that goes beyond HUD.
Jane Murphy (43-year resident of Iowa City) wanted to simply state here tonight she stands in support of
the 60-day travel.
Fatima is as a daughter with immigrant parents, they moved to the States when she was three years old
in 1999. In 2013 was the first time she went Sudan for two months with her whole entire family. At that
time the family was on Section Eight housing. In 20 15 they went a second time for her graduation gift
and stayed there for two months. The third time that was in 2019 for a cousin's wedding and they airport
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 6 of 16
6
shut down so they had to stay longer for her cousin's wedding. Regarding the cost of $54,000 costs f or
the entire program, or per unit cost of $556, the question comes down to is this burden worth it to the City.
The reasons she personally thinks it is because families that are on Section Eight housing tend not to be
able to afford the traveling as it costs about $1,200 per ticket depending on the season, so if a family of
five travels they are paying like $6000 just for travel and they still need spending money over there, so it
is actually expensive. Families spend three, four or five years saving the money to be able to go to
whatever country they're from and be able to afford that kind of vacation. They also have to think about
their bills here because the water doesn't stop, rent doesn't stop, etc. Her whole life living in the States
her family was able to travel three times. She can now afford to travel more because of her work and
does go more often but her mom and siblings have not been to the Sudan since 2019. Also these families
don't all go traveling together especially when the kids get older, because the moms now can go travel
and leave them here and the father can go travel and come back here. But it's really important for the
kid’s development to go back home, it's really hard growing up, sometimes they are Sudanese and
sometimes they are American. There's an identity crisis that every immigrant kid that goes through and
it's really important for development that they go and they learn about their culture. They need a sense of
belonging and it's really important for the development. Lastly, as Iowa City truly is intending to do a
better together for 2030 and integrating all immigrant communities, this is a one sign to show one can go
spend 60 days in their home country and come back and are still welcome here. Fatima also asked how
many of the people on the waiting lists will also be affected by this policy change and how many of those
people are actually immigrants that do travel back home that would need those 60 days.
Ismail Alnoun (Mount Mercy University) stated he is here to support the 60 days as most people here
have mentioned the 60 days for travel is the minimum time needed to travel oversees. He also wants to
point out most people will not travel every year, maybe every two years. He has had a friend that have
had their request rejected, he doesn’t know if there's like specific rules to follow either in the request to be
accepted, most do not know exactly what the rule says, it just says to write a letter but they don’t know
what to write. Therefore, he is supporting the 60 days.
Salih translated for Badereldin Ahmed and he stated he is the household member and the only one
working and paying for his family but they haven't gone to the Sudan for seven years, he has with applied
to go now after seven years to leave the country and they denied his request. The reason he did not go
for the seven years is because he didn’t have money and was just saving during this time. His father and
mother are over seventy years old and he needs to see them. He noted the City said they had a lot of
requests in 2020 for vacations. Rackis confirmed in the memo 98 families made requests in 2019, 2020,
and 2021. Most of the requests were in 2021 due to COVID-19 effect. Ahmed noted a lot people request
to travel in 2021 because 2020 was COVID-19 and nobody traveled 2020, some of them they didn't even
travel in 2019. So that is why it was such a high number, but that doesn't mean it's going to be like this
always. If they compare this year they will see is way less than 2021 because most of the peop le who
went last year, most of them are not going to leave this year. He also noted as someone said earlier
regarding the cost when the people leave and how terminating them from Section Eight because they
were staying there more than 30 days will just ad d more to the waitlist because they will then become
homeless. It also takes time to fill out the Section Eight application, sometimes more than two months,
and by that time they are here they are not solving the problem.
Drabek agreed, they are simply shifting around who's getting the voucher and there's still another case of
a person who needs housing.
Ahmed added he came here when his kids was really young and they have been here for seven years
and have never seen their grandmother. He and his wife are from different regions of Sudan and when
they go they have to of course visit both sides and that takes long. He feels it is not fair that they have not
seen their family for like seven years and they can lose their Section Eight because they want to go for
more than 30 days.
Charlie Eastham (Center for Worker Justice Board of Directors and ICCSD School Board) had a couple of
points. One in terms of funding that's been mentioned here, it hasn’t been mentioned that the participants
in the program continue to pay their share of the rent while they're traveling or while they're absent. So, if
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 7 of 16
7
the voucher assistance for the 98 participants totaled the City paying $54,000 or so those participants
also paid close to $30,000 in rent from their own pockets. That is something that should definitely factor
into the deliberations tonight. The other thing is that the federal government actually provides 180 days of
absence from a rental subsidized unit under the regulations and HCV program. As a school board
member he pays attention to what all the regulators that are involved in district programs have to say, and
he would say, as a member of this community, the Commission should pay attention to what all the
regulators have to say too. The federal government's giving people permission to be gone up to 180 days
so they should be very careful in local decision making, if they’re deciding to reduce that number. In
closing he wants to be clear that they're looking at a cultural considerations here that were not before us
20 years ago, and this is an opportunity to be clear that this housing program is intended for the suppor t
of families and that's how it should be administered. Eastman believes at the least they should adopt a
60-day modification of absence period, as well as potentially considering a longer period.
Anthony Smith (Pastor of New Creations International Church) wanted to speak about the extension of
the time period people can be out of housing. One of the issues he sees is it becomes a moral issue to
him because no person should have to ask permission to leave the country and then worry about having
their housing in jeopardy. That is just punishing people because of their poverty. Others don’t have to ask
to leave or ask permission to leave their homes. They need to look at the integrity and understand
people's dignity and make this a moral issue that no one should have to ask if they can leave the country
and worry about losing their homes.
Khalid Farah stated he is here to voice his support for people who are looking for two months instead of
one. He invites them all to visit his family in Sudan and to see themselves how their parents to meet their
kids and if they saw that, they would give them this time.
Ayman Sharif (A & W Sustainable Planning) is a resident of Iowa City and would like to speak here
regarding the issue of the absence of Section Eight. This issue is important, and he urges the Council to
consider the absence time of 30 days and extend that because the families benefiting from the housing
are also the same people who benefit from having the trip outside or the absence more than 30 days.
This is because of so many facts, including that those people are still having connections with their
country of origin, which is often very far away, and they spend a lot of time collecting and saving money to
do this trip far away and it doesn't make sense for them to return within the period of 30 days. He asks the
Commission to reconsider this period of time into a more suitable period of time that can accommodate
the very important needs of this group of people who are using Section Eight service.
Salih asked also if in the rules they use the term family instead of household, saying to visit immediate
family because when they say a household that means somebody has to be sick from the household that
they live here or somebody died from the household that live here.
Reedus made a recommendation that they change the rule and that Council adopt the revision of the
policy which is 20 years old and a policy that's been left behind, it should have been changed. She agrees
with what everybody said so it's clearly time to change this policy. Her recommendation is to move it from
the 30 day to a 60 day time period that people can be gone for vacation.
Drabek asked if they want to only make a motion on the time period, or should they look at the immediate
family language as well because it's more targeted and it addresses the problem more effectively but he
doesn’t want staff to have to figure out what is immediate family and what is not.
Rackis noted the HUD policy states the cities can define what brief is, right now the Housing Authority has
defined it as 30 days. Then it's also if the entire household is out of the unit , so that's what they're talking
about with household. In terms of a parent, a grandparent that, yes, is certainly a rationale for why the
entire family to be out of the assisted household for 30 or 60 days, to visit a parent or grandparent who is
ill. W hat they mean by household is who's in the assisted household, whether all are going to be gone, or
just a portion.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 8 of 16
8
Drabek understands but in the original letter Ms. Salih laid out two possible routes for changing the
administrative plan, one was the change from 30 to 60 days and the other was changing it so that visiting
an immediate family member is a reason to go more than 30 days. Drabek doesn’t think they are going to
be able to decide on that basis as it doesn’t give objective criteria and staff wil l have to spend too much
time deciding the merits of individual cases, so he is more supportive of the 30 days to 60 days.
Reedus doesn’t want to make a bunch of rules with this, as someone commented, it’s a poverty issue,
they shouldn’t have layers of regulations. They need to make it easy enough for City staff to monitor it or
to approve it, or to whatever they have to do. Basically, it's a request or notification to housing authority
stating a household will be gone 45 days and the dates they are traveling, as simple as that. She doesn’t
understand why they have to get into what kind of family member they're going to go visit.
Dennis asked if the current policy is that the entire household can leave for 30 days and they don't have
to say where they are going or why. Rackis stated if it is for 30 days or more they do need to notify the
City in order to maintain compliance with HUD regulations, and to know when they will be back so they
can document. Dennis wants to know however if they have to give a reason of caring for a family
member or if they can just be gone on vacation. Rackis confirmed if under the current policy and
someone wants to be gone more than 30 days, they City does ask why. If the policy changes to 60 days,
then a household could be gone for up to 60 days without stating the purpose of the travel.
Reedus motioned to recommend that Council revise Section 2.3(H) of the ICHA Administrative
Plan to extend absences from 30 to 60 days to allow participants flexibility for vacations with out
requiring permission in advance. Seconded by Mohammed.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-2 (Dennis and Beining dissenting)
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION FOR FY23 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME) APPLICANTS:
Dennis noted a couple applicants are applying for public facilities and there are $500,000 available for
public facilities correct. Thul confirmed CDBG could be public facilities or housing projects. The
estimates right now are $500,000 of CBDG funds and $450,000 of HOME but the City has not received
the actual funding allocation yet.
Drabek noted the first application is DVIP.
Reedus noted DVIP is not eligible for HOME correct, Thul confirmed that is correct. Reedus noted DVIP
is asking for $750,000 which exceeds what is available from CDBG.
Kristie Fortmann-Doser (Executive Director, DVIP) and Ashlee Hopkins (Development Coordinator, DVIP)
came forward to answer questions.
Dennis asked if they have a site picked out. Fortmann-Doser replied they do, in the application it talks
about the site that they've already purchased, they purchased it in 2015 or 2016 and have been paying on
the property.
Reedus noted when reading the staff summary she had a question about the funds leveraged and if her
memory serves her correctly, DVIP has 80% of funds leverage. That means of the total cost of the
project much of those funds are not committed yet and that’s a concern she has be quite honest. In a $6
million project they've got about $100,000 committed.
Hopkins stated they have $830,000 committed and another $900,000 committed in individual requests
and in grant requests.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 9 of 16
9
Reedus stated however, in the application they listed around $3.3 million that they would be seeking in
donations from the community. Fortmann-Doser noted that is correct, they are currently in the silent
phase of the capital campaign and are doing very well based so far, but they do know that it's going to be
about a 10-to-12-month capital campaign with a target date of breaking ground in the fall of 2022.
Reedus noted she has done capital campaigns before and $3.5 million is a huge amount of money to for
a nonprofit to raise an Iowa City without some sort of government grants and things like that. Reedus is
really concerned about failure and if they can't raise that much money. Even raising a million dollars in
the community is not easy so what is their backup plan should they not raise $1 million or $2 million
because she wants to make sure that whatever money is approved through here isn’t lost because this
project fails.
Dennis asked if they're allocated CDBG funds for this, how long do they have from when they would be
awarded, which would be in July. Thul replied the timeline policy states the funds are to be spent in that
fiscal year, so by the end of June.
Reedus acknowledges they have the fiscal year to spend the CDBG money but overall wit h the whole
project what if they fail because $3.5 million is a lot of money to raise in the community and nonprofits get
the leftovers, there's not a lot of foundation money, there's not a lot of corporate money, so what is the
backup plan.
Fortmann-Doser stated they've been working on this for an extended period of time, for about the last
eight years, and have been working on this strategically. They have relied heavily on professionals within
the state of Iowa to assist in evaluating whether or not this was a project that could be completed, and
whether or not the resources existed. The company that they worked with, Eden+, is out of Des Moines,
and this is what they do, they evaluated DVIP resources, they evaluated the community, they evaluated
the potential fundraising and supported this project and said they should be able to succeed without
difficulty. Fortmann-Doser also noted where they are right now, four months in, and what they have on
the table, they're expecting to be at $2 million with the grants and the asks that they have out in the silent
phase.
Reedus acknowledged that is truly commendable. She also acknowledged she has been very vocal about
the problem with the lack of available capital money for nonprofits unless they get a HUD grant or
something, it's very difficult to raise money.
Fortmann-Doser noted they are working on grants in addition to the $4 million because the project is a $6
million project. Reedus acknowledged all the good they have done, but still has the question of if the
project falls short significantly does it mean the project may not be completed because they don't have
the money. Fortmann-Doser replied in terms of their options, they do have options related to mortgage,
and could certainly go that route. They can look at extending their process for how long it will take to pay
it out. There isn't any question that the building that they're in right now cannot sustain at the level that it is
currently so if all else fails, they would have to do renovations to t hat building at minimum to be able to
maintain the current services that they have. They know that that's not enough and do believe they have
the community support to back them up. Fortmann-Doser is happy to share the research Eden+ did for
them, they were actually surprised at the level of support that they were able to ferret out. They were
surprised at the level of volunteer support that was coming through in just their research. Fortmann -Doser
is not trying to gloss over the question, she is just trying to say they've done due diligence and have really
worked at this for the last eight years to make sure that they are in a position to do it. They have
collateral, they have a property that is worth itself, quite literally, and they have the resources an d support
in the community. Are they going to rely on grants for this as well, absolutely, there's no question, but she
wouldn't move forward if she didn't believe she had the right team to do it, the professional experience to
match it and move forward and the resources in the community to do it. Fortmann-Doser also noted while
the bulk of their fundraising is going to happen in Johnson County, they do serve eight counties so their
fundraising is happening in a much broader context than just the community of Johnson County. They
are working with some statewide and multi-statewide corporations.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 10 of 16
10
Dennis stated she has a lot of respect for DVIP and knows they been hit over the last several years with
some really serious funding losses, but have been around for a long time, Dennis was around when the
current building was built. Dennis’s question is the City only has $500,000 to allocate so can DVIP fill the
gap to get to the $750,000 requested.
Fortmann-Doser replied they know that when they ask for a portion that the likelihood that they're going to
get the whole amount that they asked in any gran t application is not always based in reality. Reality is that
you all are going to evaluate the efficacy of a project, you're going to evaluate the capacity of the project
recipients, and you're going to evaluate your risk, and you only have a pool of mone y to work with.
Fortmann-Doser states they ask for what they want and what they feel is going to be the most helpful for
the project. If she gets $400,000 from the City, that means she is going to find another resource for the
rest and find a way to fill that hole.
Mohammad asked if they are willing to defer the project for certain period of time if they cannot raise the
money. Fortmann-Doser replied that it is something that they can look at but because of the support they
have not only in terms of expectations around the goals for fundraising, they do also have support
through the banking system and mortgage possibilities. They have many things to consider when putting
a project together and one of the things they consider is how to use the funding they get, what's the best
way to use that money in that moment acknowledging they're going to have restrictions on some of it
based on grants, such as this, or with the donations and the support that they get from the community. It
really is about structuring the timing for that support, so could it be pushed back a little bit, yes, does she
believe that's going to happen, no.
Reedus noted in the grant application North Liberty had committed $25,000, are there any other
commitments from local governments. Fortmann-Doser cannot release that information in a public
fashion but can say they aware of at least one similar donation that is potentially going to be voted on.
Reedus is interested in the residential numbers because they do operate eight counties so sh e is
interested in taking a look at maybe the past couple years what the numbers have been. She also has
some questions about their capacity to expand or to double. Fortmann-Doser stated part of their strategic
planning process in getting to this point was expanding their development team and development options
within the organization. As Dennis noted, they have had recent cuts, for example they have a particular
grant that they get monies from for Victims of Crime, it's called the Victims of Crime Act, and it has a limit
that was put on it many decades ago and it's been slowly dwindling, and the federal government hasn't
dealt with it. So there was an automatic cut over the last four years. In the last two years, those cuts did
happen but because of the work they've done, around engagement within the community, and
engagement within all eight counties, they sustained those cuts without any changes to services and
have actually expanded.
Next application is the Free Medical Clinic.
Reedus noted this looks like it is in three phases and it will be $340,000 for all phases and they are
asking for support for phase two and $75,000.
Barbara Vinograde (Free Medical Clinic) confirmed that is correct. Vinograde noted the Free Clinic's last
CDBG project was in 2012. While this is a three phased larger project, to take place over the next several
years, they will be working with a contractor and she is confident that it can be completed successfully. In
addition, one of the Clinic's Board members is the former Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity and
brings valued experience and expertise to this project. She sent in a copy of the estimated budgeted
costs for phase one, most of the labor and supplies are being donated so it's a very low cost. At this time,
she does not have a written estimate for phase three, she is working on that right now, with what exactly
they're going to do in the lower level, the plan is to move the ophthalmology clinic downstairs, the physical
therapy clinics downstairs and have one administrative office downstairs. They will also provide diabetic
education downstairs. The architect knows that they want to be below $200,000. She applied for this
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 11 of 16
11
phase as a project on its own and because the request was for $75,000, she did not think she needed
more than one bid. She contacted Hodge Construction, as the Clinic has successfully worked with them
in the past but has not signed a contract with Hodge Construction and can and will ask for at least two
additional bids as required. She now understands that the project falls under small purchase procedures.
They will comply with Davis Bacon rules. Another question was how many of their patients are Iowa City
residents, and consistently it is between 55% and 60% of clinic patients are from Iowa City. As an
example, in FY22 they served 1222 patients and of those 703 were Iowa City residents. The final
question was whether they could document the private funds they've raised already. She can say that
they did a fundraiser last year, to kick off the lower-level project, and set a goal of $50,000 in honor of
their 50th year of operation. They met this goal through contributions from 112 donors. These funds will
be utilized specifically for the lower-level project. As far as the additional monies that are needed for
phase three, she will be applying for ARPA funding for the third phase from both Iowa City and Johnson
County.
Vinograde also wanted to clarify they are looking at this as a three-phase project, which will take place
over three years, each phase is independent of the other. At the same time, each phase will build on the
previous one and will progressively increase accessible space for patient care on the lower level. In
phase one, when it's completed it will provide the means for them to have all their supplies in one area.
Currently, clinic supplies are stored in four rooms downstairs on the lower level. Completion of phase one
will immediately open up more space for services such as patient consultations, patient education and
physical therapy, but only for patients who are able to use our stairs that lead downstairs.
Phase two will provide patient parking and this is the funding they're applying to CDBG for. Phase two
will provide a patient parking area and a wide, safe new entryway on the east side of the lower level. This
will provide the means for patients who cannot use the stairs to receive patient services. Finally, phase
three will allow staff and volunteers to provide more comprehensive services as sinks, new lighting and
doors will be installed, and improvements will be made in air circulation and to the bathroom.
Drabek moved on to the next application, Inside Out Reentry. He had a question on risk assessment and
feels on the cover sheet 4-10 might be a misleadingly wide range for that moderate risk category. Really
the reason that Inside Out Reentry ended up here was because it is a first-time application and then the
scope and the size of the project and that was that was five points. But had they added a couple of extra
things to that like a fiduciary or capital issue that would have been three points and felt like an entire new
universe of risks to him. He is wondering if there's should be a 4-7 versus 8-10 or maybe be in a different
category.
Reedus noted her issues was in the funds leveraged, it’s more like a funds that they hope to leverage.
She looks at what money they've got committed so far versus the total cost of the project and what the
likelihood is that they're going to be able to raise the funds and if not then what's the backup plan.
Drabek raised the risk assessment issues because Inside Out was in the moderate risk category and also
an organization that scored a nine or a ten on that rubric what would be in that same category and they
could be very different.
Reedus has a couple of funding questions, one is they referenced a quasi-endowment and what is that
and what funds make up that entity.
Michelle Heinz (Inside Out Reentry) stated they are an organization that was basically founded by a
church and when the church closed, they were gifted a quasi-endowment through the Community
Foundation, and they have some funds committed from that for this project.
Reedus asked if they have any private dollars going into this, have they done any kind of fundraising in
addition to the endowment. Heinz stated they also have the grant/slash forgivable loan from the Housing
Trust Fund in Johnson County and that's committed. They are still in the phase of a capital fundraising
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 12 of 16
12
and securing more funds from private donors. Since they've done this application, they have received
another smaller gift about $7500. They are very actively in that phase of securing more funds.
Dennis asked if in talking about private funding, is she talking at all about any kind of bank loan. Heinz
replied yes, they have also spoke with their financial institution about a potential mortgage if they aren't
able to raise the funds required.
Dennis asked how big of a property are they are looking for. Heinz replied a four -to-six-bedroom house.
Dennis asked if this new for Inside Out Reentry to become like a landlord. Heinz confirmed this project is
very new to them and they haven't done this yet. Dennis wondered then what is their capacity to have
maintenance done, tenant section, leases, property management and all that. Heinz acknowledged they
haven't had direct experience with that previously, they have administered for a few years with the
Housing Trust Fund Johnson County rental assistance, so they have a lot of familiarity with reviewing the
financial income limits for folks to see if they're eligible for receiving the pass-through grant funding. Heinz
acknowledged there was a question about their staffing levels and they have very recently just secured
funding to increase one of their staffing positions from part time to a full time. Hopefully increasing that
staffing will gain them some capacity to be able to take on some of these larger projects.
Reedus asked once they would receive funds, what are the reporting responsibilities, overseeing ongoing
responsibilities, because that's where at least one of the agencies in that memo got into trouble was in
their ability, or lack thereof, to submit reports or at least work with the City on the reporting piece. What
would Inside Out have to do. Thul stated there's quite a bit of monitoring that goes into a project. For
instance, halfway through a project, they'll do monitoring to check financial records and those kinds of
things. Once the house is acquired, it’s required that the property is leased up within six months and
Inside Out would have to fill out a report that says who's occupying each unit, and that gets sent to HUD.
And then following that each year, for all federally assisted units, anyone who gets federal funding has to
report to the City on an annual basis. So for the period of affordability, they would be reporting at least
annually on their tenants.
Reedus acknowledged that and wondered with this being a new project and expansion for Inside Out, do
they have the capacity to meet all that. Heinz feels pretty confidently that they do, especially since they're
going to be doing some reporting for their other credit funder. They will also welcome conversations on
how they could do it as accurately and efficiently as possible.
Reedus noted her last question is this part of a strategic plan. Heinz confirmed it has been part of their
plan for years now and prior to doing this they did a lot of touring of other reentry houses are that are
available across the state and learned from them to try to figure out what will work, obviously Iowa City is
quite a bit different than a lot of these other communities, but yes, this has been a lon g-term goal.
Dennis asked how hard it is to find permanent housing for their customers. Heinz acknowledged it is
incredibly difficult and it's actually gotten worse recently, just being able to find housing. A lot of landlords
have been unwilling to rent to people and that puts them in a really tenuous situation. So their real focus
with this population, particularly folks that are coming directly out of incarceration, is to really try to
interrupt that pathway, where a lot of times right when they're released they're going to homelessness.
Being able to get out and know they have a rental and a landlord that they can use as a reference to find
housing afterwards.
Dennis noted she had the experience to go to the round table thing where you get a package, and it gives
a scenario of being a convicted murderer and trying to do all these things. She just went back to jail it was
just too hard.
Reedus also acknowledged that from working in HR, you'd be surprised how few companies do it right, in
terms of looking at past criminal behavior and it's unfortunate, because it's hard to climb out of that hole
when they keep taking the steps away.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 13 of 16
13
Mohammad had a question about project affordability and the rent being $500, he is not sure the people
who are coming from the jail have the money. Heinz agreed and noted that is something they're figuring
out how that will work but it will likely be some sort of grace period before their paying rent. Mohammad
also asked how they expect these people to get along because they are from different backgrounds and
ages. Heinz noted that's been a big conversation, they actually looked at some facilities where people
bunked together and that was something they decided they weren't going to do. Folks are going to each
have their own individual space. After long periods of incarceration and being in close quarters with
others having one’s own private room where they can lock the door and no one can enter is really
important. So people will have that individual bedroom space. There will be staff checking in on the
property regularly to see how folks are doing. Some of the programmatic aspects of the property as well
is helping folks with some of that peer component stuff, building some social skills, conflict management,
etc. They want folks to get together and really form a community and they've seen some really successful
examples of this.
Beining was under the understanding that the City Code didn’t allow more than three unrelated occupants
in a single family. Drabek thinks that was gone, the City did for some time have that regulation but it’s
gone.
Drabek moved to the final applicant, The Housing Fellowship.
Reedus stated she didn’t have many questions for The Housing Fellowship except same question they
asked almost every single time, this for two houses with larger bedroom size, which is something they’ve
talked about in the past. So, if they get less funding from the City, it's possible they might only do one or
what would be their plan.
Simon Andrew (The Housing Fellowship) stated if they get less than the full request, they have looked at
getting one house instead of two, and just prorate it, he noted this is basically the same application they
submitted last time around except for two houses instead of one. Their ma in interest is the amount that is
forgettable, at the end of the day, that's really what makes the difference for them, the more debt they
take on for that property is more that has to be reflected in the rent that we charge for that property. So in
order to keep it at the $950 that they're projecting for these does require that it doesn't have the debt load
that typically would be on a rental property like that. But then after that, they're just looking at size of the
house, location or whatever and trying to find a house that's less expensive on the market. Therefore,
that may result in a two to three-bedroom house rather than three to four-bedrooms. The biggest thing
they're seeing in applicants right now is larger families, so they are trying to serve them, they do have
vacancies in one- and two-bedroom units but that is not enough space for larger families.
Mohammad acknowledged the issue is the bigger houses, three to five bedrooms, in Iowa City, are hard
to find. He notes in the application they're utilizing 27% for CDBG funds, if they get less funding how they
will overcome that. Andrew replied if they get less than full funding for this year, they can explore using
their line of credit or a private bank loan to try and fill that gap. In most cases, they do have enough cash
on hand to fill that gap so he doesn’t expect they're going to take out a private loan for the home. Again if
they have to take out a separate interest bearing loan to complete the acquisition then that just gets
reflected in the rent.
Reedus asked again what the funding was the Commission will have to allocate. Thul reiterated ther e is
$500,000 of CDBG and $450,000 of HOME estimated. Thul also confirmed that DVIP and The Free
Medical Clinic are not eligible for HOME funds.
Drabek stated at next month's meeting they will make the funding decisions.
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION FOR FY23 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES (EA2A)
APPLICANTS:
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 14 of 16
14
Drabek noted this agenda item has been deferred and Thul sent an email out to the Commission as to
why it was deferred but to note, Drabek is on the board of directors of one of the agencies and since t hey
only have five people here and he would have to recuse himself so that would not leave a quorum. This
item will be put on next month's agenda.
Reedus would like to communicate to City Council that of her reaction to them thinking it wasn't a big deal
and this Commission can operate with the members that they have but as with this meeting they can't do
some business. So she would like to urge Council that they appoint some new members.
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.
Drabek noted that the majority of Council updates were already included in item #4 and shared that
Council deferred the HCDC appointments again at their February 15 meeting. Reedus will review the
March meetings.
STAFF UPDATES:
Thul noted the next meeting is March 24, staff’s goal is to get the Commission staff recommendations for
CDBG and HOME but need to know when the Commission might be able to get their score sheets to staff
for them to put them together. Thul suggests staff get their recommendations to the Commission by
February 28 and the Commission submit their score sheets to staff by March 11. The Commission
agreed that seemed reasonable.
Thul also asked if for the Emerging Aid to Agencies the decision was just to invite them to the next
meeting. Drabek confirmed that is what they should do.
Reedus questioned why the agenda item for The Housing Authority just came up at the last minute and
she is just wondering why came up in such an urgent way and why it had to be addressed so quickly.
Kubly stated the requests for that policy change came from the Center for Worker Justice, it didn’t come
from staff, and the urgency was that people are planning their travel right now for the summer so they're
interested in the policy changing quickly so people could plan ahead for the summer. Therefore, Council
felt that urgency and wanted to act.
Dennis noted Steve Rackis mentioned that the administrative plan was written in 2003, but doesn't the
Council approve the Housing Authority Administrative Plan every year. Kubly stated they do have an
annual plan that's approved every year, but the administrative plan only goes to Council when they have
a substantial change.
Reedus stated again, adding in that agenda item at the last minutes disrupted everything, if they had the
Emerging Agencies agenda item the meeting would be over 3 hours long. She just wishes it came to
them in a timelier manner because even there was a letter that came out late today and she didn’t have
time to before the meeting so that is far from ideal. She is sympathetic and wants to make those kinds of
changes as they should but doesn’t think they should be changing everything at the last minute just to
accommodate something that could have been done a little bit more systematic manner. She
understands the request came from Council but why couldn’t it wait a month, the agenda was already set.
Kubly noted the question raised earlier regarding the three unrelated people for occupancy changed in
January 2018 from the State legislation.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 15 of 16
15
Reedus had a question about that report staff sent out, which she thought was very helpful, about the two
agencies and why those monies have to be sent back, is that because of the length of time which they
were awarded. Kubly replied no, it’s because they're in default of the agreement and didn't complete the
project as proposed. The money doesn't go back to Iowa City it goes back to HUD.
Dennis noted that the memo gives the Commission some good information about what decisions they
make and if people are allocated money for projects, and they don't have the capacity to complete them,
it really behooves them to make sure they are making really good funding decisions, so they don’t lose
money going back to HUD. Kubly confirms that staff is also looking to how they can look at maybe doing
some monitoring on the front end of projects rather tha n just in the middle or close out so before they fully
commit those funds. Additionally, they are looking at other things they can do at orientation for new sub
recipients.
ADJOURNMENT:
Reedus moved to adjourn, Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 17, 2022
Page 16 of 16
16
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2021-2022
Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 8/19 9/16 10/21 11/18 1/20 2/17
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X X X X
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X X X X
Vacancy 6/30/23
Mohammed, Nsar 6/30/23 X X X O/E X X
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X X O/E O/E
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X X X O/E
Vacancy
MINUTES FINAL
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 24, 2022 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Nasr Mohammed, Peter
Nkumu, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Erica Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes), Tashundra Gathright (The Housing
Fellowship), Michelle Heinz (Inside Out Reentry), Ashlee Hopkins
(DVIP), Jaimie Nguyen (Healthy Kids School Clinic), Thuy Nguyen (Optic
Origin), Marguerite Oetting (Healthy Kids School Clinic), Barbara
Vinograde (Free Medical Clinic) via Zoom.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 (Drabek recused) the Comm ission recommends the following EA2A allocations to
Council with the understanding that staff will verify that the funds awarded are appropriate to the
percentage of Iowa City residents served.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends the following CDBG/HOME funding allocations:
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 2 of 12
2
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: FEBRUARY 17, 2022:
Reedus moved to approve the minutes of February 17, 2022, Dennis seconded the motion. A vote wa s
taken and the minutes were approved 7-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION FOR FY23 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES (EA2A)
APPLICANTS:
Drabek recused himself from the discussion due to conflict of interest.
Beining opened the discussion for commissioners to ask questions of the applicants.
Reedus has questions for NAMI but there was no one from the organization present. Kubly stated the
Commission would need to make their decision based on the information that they have available.
Reedus noted Houses into Home is asking for $8,625 and is that to contract for a position or is it part of a
part time/full time position.
Lucy Barker (Houses Into Homes) stated the funding is to increase hours for one of t heir part time staff.
This person is one of the operations associates who does the pickups and actually volunteered
throughout the pandemic doing pickups and would be taking over the logistics and this would be an
efficient use of staff as she's already trained and knows the whole area.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 3 of 12
3
Reedus stated she appreciated that on the application they showed the cost to families to purchase items
at a consignment or resale but the concern she has is she didn't see funding from any other entities or the
communities, only from Iowa City yet 68% of the clientele is from Iowa City so the other 32% is in other
communities in Johnson County and there's no matching funds to take care of it other 32%.
Barker stated their budget is almost $200,000 of recurring and ongoing donations and corporate
sponsors.
Reedus stated she wanted to see in the application that the total project costs $12,000, 68% of the total
clients served are from Iowa City so then no more than 68% of this project funding should come from
Iowa City. Reedus suggested adjusting the application and budget to reflect total project costs total
contributions because on this application they are showing 100% of the project costs are going to be paid
for by Iowa City, yet a third of the program is going to be serving people outside of Iowa City.
Thul stated the Commission could recommend a partial funding
Dennis stated they are voting on funding tonight so there is not time for the organiza tion to resubmit a
different budget.
Reedus stated she had the same issue with NAMI so in the future, she would encourage all agencies to
seek funding from other entities when a project is going to be serving people outside of Iowa City and the
application needs to show that additional funding in that budget breakdown.
Barker noted some of the funds they've had are from North Liberty, they haven't had the opportunity to
apply with Coralville but they're supporting the volunteer coordinators which is another part of the staff
that Iowa City has not supported yet.
Reedus asked about why they hadn’t had an opportunity to apply to Coralville. Barker confirmed they
haven’t because it’s on the two-year joint funding application, and during the pandemic they move their
funds toward only the Community Foundation funding so the social services funding round hasn't come
up with them. Dennis suggested they go to the Coralville Council and apply for funding outside of the
cycle, it might worth it try.
Nkumu asked staff if it is a requirement for the organization to be located in Iowa City to be funded. Kubly
stated they determined this this agency is eligible for this funding based on who they're serving and it’s
okay that their headquarters is in Coralville. Nkumu recalled last year they had one organization submit a
letter to correct their address, because they wrote on the application that they are located in Coralville.
Kubly stated they used past information they had from this agency to confirm that they work in Iowa City.
Houses into Homes has been funded before.
Dennis stated because these funds are operational funds it's hard to actually break it all down to which
city or entity is paying which portion of the salary for a person and therefore that pers on can only work
with Iowa City families, because it is operational funding.
Reedus agrees and reiterated that is why is important to show on the budget how much they are
requesting from Iowa City, and how much of the operations budget is from another entity, like Coralville or
North Liberty.
Vogel asked how much money is available for this round of Aid to Emerging Agencies. Thul stated the
estimate was $33,600.
Dennis asked if they chose to fully fund the maximum 5% to the Emerging Agencies does it take away
funding from the legacy agencies. Kubly replied it is the same pot of money so it can affect the amount
left for legacy agencies.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 4 of 12
4
Vogel asked what the planned hourly rate for the intake manager is at Houses into Homes. Barker
replied it is $15 an hour plus the employer labor costs. Vogel noted a part-time employee at $15 per
hour, with taxes and all the labor costs, the total labor payroll costs will be somewhere in the $10,000
range so in theory they are asking for only a portion of their true labor costs to be covered by Iowa City.
Vogel added there has been previous discussions regarding this because even with legacy agencies, it is
hard to always quantify who they are serving, the Shelter House takes people in from all over and they
are not asked to break down how many of their residents are from Iowa City. It is difficult to predetermine
ahead of time who are the people that any of these funds are going to help or where they are from. The
goal would be just to establish who are the legitimate qualified agencies asking for aid. It's almost
impossible for any of these agencies to go down and pinpoint that the money from certain areas is only
used for people from that area.
Reedus agrees but noted that agencies that have been applying for years already know how to do this
and most organizations provide that information. Also, when those organizations report to the City, they
sign a contract stating if they get some CDBG funds they have target numbers that they have to hit in
terms of services provided. The reason why she brought this up to Houses Into HOME, and will bring it
up to NAMI, is to help the organization and make sure when they are applying for funding, they give all
the information on where the other funds are coming from if they are serving multiple municipalities, it
helps in the decision making. Reedus also stated she does believe that Iowa City money should benefit
Iowa City residents so that's something she is going to be watching for sitting on this Commission.
Dennis agreed and noted there are reporting requirements the organization has to break down and the
City monitors that.
Beining moved onto the next applicant, NAMI.
Reedus stated her issue is the same with NAMI in that when they filled out the budget breakdown that's in
the packet, in the narrative, the resources and feasibility, the funds toward the project, that last line of
$1,500 actually should go into other funds because they're asking for $10,000 but they put funds for the
project in the wrong line, so they have City funds at $11,500 down there. Reedus pointed out however,
even then, they are at 75% Iowa City residents so technically that $1,500 is not sufficient matching funds
for this project.
Beining moved onto the final applicant, Healthy Kids School Based Clinics.
Reedus first made a statement on observation of this expansion into providing the services for this
minority population is part of their whole budget and their whole budget is what was attached so the
expenditures for FY22 would be $169,000.
Marguerite Oetting (Medical Director, Healthy Kids School Clinic) replied the budget submitted was their
whole operating budget and what they have to spend for the whole year. They serve Johnson County,
Iowa City, Coralville. She then tried to specifically focus on just Iowa City and to provide as much
information on how many patient families they serve in Iowa City, which is about 70%, so it would take up
a lot of their operating budget.
Reedus acknowledged they did have a number of other funding sources listed so that percentage thing
isn't an issue, what she is asking is are they looking for money for their operations budget and the project
of providing all of these medical, dental and mental health services which are all part of the total $169,000
budget. Oetting confirmed that is correct. They currently see immigrants and refugees but their numbers
are increasing rapidly and they need to be able to expand services.
Reedus noted they show that already they’ve exceeded the revenue proj ection, the budget expenses
listed are $169,000 but total revenue is $176,000 so they have already met budget projections. Are they
projecting that they’re going to have additional expenses above and beyond. Oetting confirmed they are
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 5 of 12
5
and added they had one issue this year, they lost a clinic coordinator early in the fiscal year and were not
able to replace that person otherwise there would be much bigger expenses for the year. Next year
expenses will go up because they will be hiring the replacement person in April or May and then paying
the salary for three coordinators instead of two. This year’s budget was artificially low because they were
down one salary for most of the year.
Reedus asked if they receive revenue from the Iowa City School District or the Iowa City School
Foundation. Oetting replied that Healthy Kids is a collaboration, it lives within the school district and is a
program within the school district, but they raise all of their own funding, they get no cash for the
operating budget from the school district. The school district does provide all of the space and they've
done the renovation on all of our clinics, and they allow the employees to be school district employees so
that they can get better benefits than a small nonprofit could provide. The University of Iowa Hospitals
provides all the provider time, so the three physicians that work in the clinic are all paid by the University
of Iowa, so that's their contribution, and all of the funds that they have are raised within the commu nity.
Reedus noted their budget is cash accounting and it doesn't show in kind services, so they aren’t really
recording the physicians from the University of Iowa time. Oetting noted she is a University of Iowa
employee and so is the family medicine doctor, so their salaries are paid by The University of Iowa and
part of their assignment for the University of Iowa is to cover the Healthy Kids clinic. The second
pediatrician is a volunteer, she is a colleague from the University, but she volunteers so th at would be in
kind. Additionally, part of Oetting’s time as medical director is also donated so she works at the school
clinic more hours than she is paid for by the University. Reedus suggested they show that in -kind
contribution in their budget because it shows a true value of an organization's worth. Oetting agreed they
can do that in the future.
Reedus’ other question was if they have relationships with Guide Link or any other partnership with a
mental health service because mental health care was something they noted in terms of services.
Oetting replied their mental health services are provided in two ways. One is that there is a child
psychiatrist from the University of Iowa who comes to the schools once a week, her services are slightly
different as she's under their umbrella but she actually bills the child's insurance if they are insured and
for the uninsured children the school district gets billed because they have some grants that will cover
mental health care for the uninsured. Two, counseling Services are done in collaboration for the most part
with the counseling services that are available within the school district, all the Iowa City Schools have
mental health services in the school so they refer their kids to those services, unless the family prefers
something else. Some of families prefer to have counseling in their native language and if that's available,
which it is for Spanish, they use a couple of counselors within the community, and then they pay cash for
their services.
That was all the questions the Commissioners had for the applicants so they moved onto the next agenda
item of the recommendations to City Council.
DISCUSS FY23 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES (EA2A) FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER
BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Drabek recused himself from the discussion due to conflict of interest.
Kubly first wanted to clarify the question earlier regarding the full amount available to allocate, it is
$36,600 which is 5% of the Aid to Agency budget for the year. So the Commission could fully fund the
three Emerging Agency applications, or they could do less and put more money back into the pot for the
legacy agencies.
Vogel moved to recommend fully funding all three projects as requested. Dennis seconded the
motion.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 6 of 12
6
Reedus noted she does support that motion; except she would want some sort of reconciliation on the
budget to show that both Houses Into Homes and NAMI need to provide adequate other funds to justify
the percentage of Iowa City residents that they serve. Kubly confirmed Reedus is asking that staff just
justify that the amount of funding that Iowa City is giving them is appropriate for the number of residents
they are serving. Reedus agreed, if the organization is adjusting their program a little bit she trusts staff
to be able to handle all that.
Reedus moved to amend the motion to recommend the following EA2A allocations to Council with
the understanding that staff will verify that the funds awarded are appropriate to the percentage of
Iowa City residents served. Motion amendment seconded by Dennis.
A vote was taken and the amendment passed 5-1 (Drabek recused and Vogel dissenting).
Regarding the motion to recommend fully funding all three projects as requested, with the
amendment A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Drabek recused himself).
DISCUSS FY23 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Drabek rejoined the meeting.
Drabek noted there was quite a bit of information in the agenda packet, there is the staff
recommendation, a tabulation of the average scores as well as the range and the median and there is a
breakdown of the range for each question. He stated when he is looking through these, he begins by
looking for outliers, and compare that to the amount of funding that they have. He will also see if there's
any application that has an outstanding average score or has a score that's low enough that they really
want to raise questions about whether to fund it at all. Drabek acknowledged he can definitively say that
he found neither of those things and what he saw were four applications with an amazingly similar
average score, in fact, only separated the largest from the smallest by 25. The range of scores of
individual applications is bigger than the difference in average between applications. While he didn't find
any outliers, he did find some differences in individual questions but thinks perhaps those were error s as
there is a scoring range of 30 on Roman numeral two, question four, but there are only 20 points for the
question that can't possibly be. Thul agreed with that observation and noted staff can look at the
instructions again for next time to make sure the instructions are clear for commissioners.
Reedus noted with the HOME funds they will have some unspent money even if they fully fund the two
projects that are eligible. Kubly confirmed that was correct and noted the unspent balance will go into a
fund and once they get a certain amount in unallocated HOME funds, they will hold a mid-year funding
round. Otherwise, if it's less than that, they would just push that to the next funding round.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 7 of 12
7
Drabek noted they do have some restrictions in terms of which pot of money they can use for which
application. They cannot use HOME funds for DVIP or the Free Medical Clinic. The other two applicants
can receive funds from either pot of funds. When he went through the applications and did his scoring he
noted that his recommendations aligned with the staff recommendations. It struck him that the biggest
question is DVIP has the top score so do they want to try to make the entire $500,000 award to them or
do they want to give $75,000 to the Free Medical Clinic and he was in favor of giving the $75,000 to the
Free Medical Clinic.
Reedus agreed she would want to give the $75,000 to the Free Medical Clinic, DVIP wasn’t her top score,
it was the Free Medical Clinic. DVIP asked for $700,000 and the City can't fund that muc h, and they
understand that they're not going to get full funding. So she would propose $425,000 for DVIP and
$75,000 for the Free Medical Clinic.
Dennis agreed with that recommendation noting over the past few years when agencies come in for
CDBG money to do renovations to their office or their clinic and when the Commission doesn't fund them
fully, invariably, they come back the next year. Sometimes it takes multiple years to do exactly what they
want and she thinks the Free Medical Clinic, just the fact that it's going to be accessible to do that
downstairs and get it all better organized is very valuable.
Reedus also noted $425,000 to a capital project is a big award and over the past 10 years a lot of
nonprofits have not been able to squeak above $200,000. Also she feels like the Free Medical Clinic is
doing a lot on a little and they serve a lot of people so she wants to give them full funding.
Drabek agrees with that division of funding allocation for CDBG. He next moved onto discussion of the
HOME funding applications, he feels is a straightforward decision to give full awards to both applicants.
Dennis agrees with that but does think that Inside Out Reentry is getting into a new territory for them,
which typically she would say for them to partner with another agency that does the rental part, however,
with this particular agency because of who they s erve it does makes sense for them to venture into
acquiring a rental property.
Reedus agrees and does have some concerns about the age of the organization, she doesn’t have any
issues with how it's managed and all of that but does worry that it's a pretty good chunk that they're taking
on, it’s a new/added service so she is a little worried about what that does to operations costs, but she
also acknowledged they have done a good job over the past years, she has looked at their 990s and
they've done a good job managing their finances and got money put aside. Overall, it's a well ran
organization.
Dennis acknowledged there was a community group that's been working on this issue for many years
before they even really incorporated.
Vogel had a question on the other $320,000 in the application for The Housing Fellowship the description
of funds is a 0% 15 year amortization, are they paying back $160,000 of that over 15 years. It says
$160,000 applied for requests to CDBG/HOME funds, 0% 15-year amortization is requested from CDBG/
HOME funds and $160,000 forgivable after affordability period applied for. Is that $160,000 part of the
$320,000 a loan that they repay over 15 years. Thul explained that a lot of the HOME funds are issued in
the form of a loan and that's what comes back to the City as program income so when they do the annual
budget they roll that into recoup money.
Vogel stated he is perfectly happy with staff recommendations.
Dennis motioned to recommend the following CDBG/HOME funding allocations to Council.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 8 of 12
8
Seconded by Reedus.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
DISCUSS NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK:
Kubly stated National Community Development Week is April 11 - 15th, it is done annually as an
opportunity to recognize the CDBG and HOME grants that Iowa City receives as a community and are
encouraged to reach out to the federal representatives and let them know how the money is used and
why it's important for Iowa City to keep receiving the CDBG and HOME money. One thing the y typically
do every year is a Council proclamation, so at the April 4 Council meeting they plan to do a Housing and
Community Development Week proclamation. Typically, a member of HCDC, usually the chair but could
be someone else, accept that proclamation and speak to how the funds are used. Kubly also noted if
there are any other ideas about how to participate in community development week, they're open to that.
Last year, they did the proclamation and then some social media posts about projects that they've done.
Reedus noted in the past they used to have some sort of event at one of the funded entities and those I
were really nice because it helped people understand how that money was being put to work in the
community. That might not be possible now with COVID and the fear of the next variant, but maybe again
sometime in the future. Dennis noted those bigger events in her experience usually happened when
there's a national primary and the representatives from federally elected officials show up and HU D
shows up.
Kubly stated another thing that they've done in the past, a few years ago, was did a tour of new projects,
so that is something they could do again in future years, they would get a little bus from the City and drive
around and see some of the new projects funded from CDBG and HOME.
Reedus thinks that would be a great thing to do in future years. She noted at the beginning of the
pandemic, in 2020, the mayor had created some videos of various agencies throughout the City and
maybe they could do something like that with some of the funded projects in the community.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 9 of 12
9
Kubly said they can reach out to the communications department and see if they can help put some
videos together highlighting the Shelter House, The Housing Fellowship and others.
Reedus noted the Shelter House is significant because with their 501 project they will have significantly if
not closed that gap between the type of individual that needs that service and the service. There probably
aren’t many communities in the United States can boast something like that, it's an outstanding
accomplishment. The Housing Fellowship is also a great one to showcase as people can relate to some
of the topics and issues about getting families into homes permanently.
Dennis asked if they would have to have this presentation done by the Council meeting on April 5.
Reedus feels if they could try to get it done by mid-April that would be fine. Kubly stated it will depend on
the workload of the staff, but she will reach out them tomorrow or next week. Kubly did add there is
already a Shelter House video that was released this week that's really good that she will share it with the
Commission, maybe they use that footage and staff can just focus on The Housing Fellowship.
Vogel noted it would also be nice to give some highlights of some of the emerging agencies who've done
massive amount of works with much smaller awards, so it would be nice to shine a spotlight on some of
them as well.
Dennis agreed noting she was very impressed with the collaboration of Healthy Kids and the Uni versity, a
volunteer pediatrician, and the school district providing them with renovated space. It was nice to learn
about that.
Vogel also noted with Houses Into Homes, they have teams of 10-15-20 different high school kids every
week that are showing up unloading trucks, loading trucks, delivering to the houses. It is very impressive
to see high schoolers putting in the time for organizations. So it would be good to highlight these
organizations.
Kubly will reach out to the communications department to put together a video together for social media.
Drabek will be at the April 5 Council meeting to do the proclamation.
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 watched both the work session and Council meeting online, first they did pass the changes to the
Section VIII, second at the meeting this week they discussed the Forest View redevelopment. The City
reached a unique and interesting type of proposal mix a few years ago with the owners and the residents
to redevelop that housing area. However, because of a number of factors it never happened, and it's not
going to happen, so they're looking at relocating some of these families. Reedus does wonder whether or
not any of this will come to the Housing Commission. The other thing of importance is Council still has
not voted on the two open position on the Commission.
Vogel asked is the delay that they don't have people who've applied or is the delay that they just haven't
gotten around to doing it. Reedus’s understanding was that they've had some people apply, there has
been lack of qualified applicants.
Kubly stated regarding the Forest View situation, Council has not requested the Commission be involved
in anything, the discussion was at the work session, and they had a thoughtful discussion that ended up
with some questions for staff. So staff is looking at different considerations, different kinds of options and
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 10 of 12
10
different ways to make sure that the relocation assistance meets the ARPA funding requirements and
things like that, and how to how to do it fairly.
Reedus noted they talked about the relocation assistance being somewhere around $15,000 and also
talked about an income guideline for families like $41,000 or something like that, which also may be
under consideration because as Councilor Harmsen pointed out $40,000 as income per family is not a lot
so it'd be interesting to see if they raise those limits a little bit to help with some of the residents. The other
issue was where's the money going to come from, whether or not some of the funding can come from
some of the available ARPA funds or someplace else from the City budget.
Kubly stated the intention is that this will be paid with for from ARPA money, so staff is looking into how to
make it work within those guidelines.
Reedus will volunteer to watch the next meetings as well. Drabek will be present at the April 5 meeting.
DISCUSS PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES:
Drabek noted Council had a discussion around public comments at the March 1 meeting and they made a
decision not to impose a municipal infraction or fine for repeated violations of comment guidelines. He
noted there have been a variety of discussions of public comments with different public agencies, but the
Council did address it at the March 1 meeting.
Drabek noted it's rare for this Commission to get requests for public comments but there was a request at
the last meeting, and they’ve never really had a chance as a Commission to talk about what they want
public comment sessions to look like or any sort of guidelines. Basically, the only thing they have on
paper right now is agenda item number three, which is on every agenda. So there are some guidelines
for public comments of items not on the agenda but they don't have any guidelines or any way of handling
public comments for items that are on the agenda. Drabek asked staff for guidance and the answer
which came from the City Attorney was that public comments for items that are on the agenda are at the
chair’s discretion. However, he feels this Commission usually has a goal to have a collaborative
commission where they can operate on consensus. They don't always reach consensus, but at least
make some attempt to do it. Therefore, having the chair bang the gavel and run the public comment
session is sort of at odds with that. The other reason it's at odds is the chairs don't stick around forever
and they shouldn’t want to reinvent the wheel every time there is a new chair. So what Drabek wanted to
do with this agenda item is take input and discussion over what public comment sessions s hould look like,
should there be a time limit should we, should they be germane and on topic, are there any other sorts of
things that the chair should be thinking about as the chair for public comment.
Vogel feels it has to be germane and on topic becaus e it would be on that agenda item so if someone just
went off on a random rant the chair would have to put a stop to it.
Vogel also asked if there a differentiation between public comment from one of the organizations
requesting aid versus a member of the public. They often had people come up and give presentations
and those can last five to seven minutes long, but would they want to sit through a five to seven minute
rant from the public. So, that's the tough question on time limits is, if they set a time limit, they got to give
it to everybody.
Reedus does think it's different, during City Council meetings they do have presentations that last longer
than public comment. She notes in some years agencies have been asked to limit presentations to two or
three minutes but if it were a complex issue, they might ask an organization to make a presentation and
then have some interaction so that's entirely different. She also noted at some Council meetings some of
the public commenters just get up and waste time. So is the chair willing to say, excuse me, but you've
talked long enough or is it easier to have a policy that asks public commenters to limit their comments to
three minutes or five minutes. They could then also make some allowances for those indi viduals who
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 11 of 12
11
need some assistance in interpretation, whether it's sign language or an interpreter. She thinks it would
be easier to have a set time rule because to have the chair cut someone off is a lot more confrontational.
Dennis stated she has often heard at Council meetings, especially during planning and zoning items, that
the mayor will say if there's somebody who would like to say something different or new that they haven't
heard before. She thinks that's reasonable also, because a lot of times, especially with planning and
zoning if the neighbors are against a project, they all just say the same thing over and over again. She
does agree however to have public comment on the agenda items, but to invite them up and ask them to
keep their comments to three or five minutes.
Drabek agrees with Dennis, to have a public comment session but to announce the time limit before it
starts. Also, just from a perspective of improving and getting high quality comments and helping people
make their arguments, if they have an argument they can't make in five minutes they should have thought
about it more beforehand and narrowed it down a little bit. Anything that's worth saying can be said in five
minutes.
Drabek noted moving forward for each agenda item they should routinely asked for public comment.
Reedus asked if external people watching this can be patch in to make comments as City Council does,
it’s an accommodation type thing. Thul stated they have been doing it upon request but noted they do not
have IT support at night like Council does so it's hard to guarantee that everything will work perfectly.
Vogel noted this isn't something needs a vote, it's something to help the chair, to create the policy, but
when the next year comes around, if that chairs not comfortable with the policy, that chair can always
bring it back to this commission.
Drabek also note from his point of view, he is willing to let people say almost whatever they want,
whenever they want. If it seemed like a session was going to go for four hours, he would ask if someone
had anything new to say, or a different argument or a different perspective.
STAFF UPDATES:
Thul noted the next meeting will be April 21 and at that meeting staff will bring the draft of the action plan
with the funding recommendations in it, the public comment for that is going to start around April 1, and
that will end May 3 when it goes to City Council for final approval.
Thul noted a few things from the agenda packet. The fair housing training is going to be offered in April.
April is Fair Housing Month. The City is accepting applications for the climate action grants. There's a
flyer for the community police review board community forum on April 20.
ADJOURNMENT:
Reedus moved to adjourn, Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7 -0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 12 of 12
12
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2021-2022
Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 8/19 9/16 10/21 11/18 1/20 2/17 3/24
Vacancy 6/30/24
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X X X X X
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X X X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X X X X X
Vacancy 6/30/23
Mohammed, Nsar 6/30/23 X X X O/E X X X
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X X O/E O/E X
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X X X O/E X
Vacancy
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MAY 19, 2022 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Drabek, Karol Krotz, Elizabeth Marilla-Kapp, Nasr Mohammed,
Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Peter Nkumu,
STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House),
Trevor Conrad (MODUS), Charlie Eastham (CWJ), Karen Fox (CWJ),
Ashlee Hopkins (DVIP), Brian Loring (NCJC)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC recommends approval of the FY23 Annual Action Plan to Council.
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC recommends approval of the proposed Substantial Amendment to City Steps
2025 to Council.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS:
Marilla-Kapp introduced herself and noted she is mobile crisis responder at Community and what brings
her here is how often she sees the intersection between housing and mental health crises and she does a
lot of direct service so it's just pulling her to think about systems change in addition to suppor ting people
when it becomes an emergency.
Krotz introduced herself and stated she is here on the Commission because of her interest in low-income
housing and from personal experience has seen this section of the population that don't meet the ability to
pay fair market rent and fall way below way below poverty lines and sometimes it feels like they aren't
welcome in Iowa City. She is hoping at some point in her tenure they can discuss ways that the City
might be able to help people with housing needs beca use there are a lot of people that this affects.
AORTA MEETING FACILITATION:
This item was included in the agenda packet and the two new Commissioners should have received it in
their training. Drabek noted they should go back and take another look at it at some point but the idea
was to try to do what they can to bring out all the different voices of the members of the Commission and
think about what is the strength of HCDC what does it add to the City government that other facets do
not. HCDC has a unique reach into lots of different communities in Iowa City and this is to create a space
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 2 of 9
2
at the meeting where everyone can each bring their own perspectives and those guidelines are some
things to help.
Reedus would like to address how commissioners can get agenda items on the agenda because right
now the chair and the vice chair are setting the agenda but earlier in the year when the bylaws were in
the packet she had asked about them and noted she’d like to review them as a future agenda item.
Drabek noted the typical process is to let the chair know of any items and the chair will talk about it with
staff. Staff meets quarterly with the chair and vice chair so commissioners can bring items to the chair or
vice chair and they can bring it to staff to put it on the agenda.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 24, 2022:
Reedus moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 2022, Vogel seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and the minutes were approved 6-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
UNSUCCESSFUL AND DEL AYED PROJECTS UPDATES:
Neighborhood Center of Johnson County - FY22 Public Facility Improvements ($37,242 CDBG)
Brian Loring (Executive Director, Neighborhood Center of Johnson County) gave a quick update to say
they conducted their first project meeting with the contractor on May 4th for putting a new roof on the
Broadway Center and so the trajectory for completion is probably the end of the month or maybe the first
week of June. Bids are open for the repavement of the parking lot at the Pheasant Ridge Center and
that closes on May 27th. Loring did note things have been a little bit challenging in terms of finding
contractors but he thinks they will probably get a bid and hopefully that would be completed this summer.
Reedus asked is there any concern from staff with the agency's response in terms of HUD when a project
is delayed the concern for the money having to be repaid.
Kubly noted for these projects they haven't spent any money yet so they wouldn't have to be repaid, the
timeliness letter is a checkpoint that HUD gives cities and it's really for all of the CDBG projects at once
so if several projects are behind the City is not going to meet the HUD checkpoint because they haven't
spent enough money for these projects. Knowing they're moving forward staff is not concerned about
them being able to complete it within the next couple months and therefore aren’t recomme nding
recapture of these projects funds tonight. Staff did include that letter just so the Commissioners could get
an idea that when all the projects are behind for different reasons, not always at the fault of the agencies,
that can get the City in trouble with the HUD timeliness.
Reedus asked what's a total dollar amount for the two projects. Thul replied the Shelter House project
was $225,000 and both Neighborhood Centers totaled a little more than $37,000.
Drabek asked if the Commission decides to or recommends recapture then of course they would have to
take a vote but if they don't recommend recapture no vote is required for this item. Thul confirmed that is
correct, these are just updates, no action is required of the Commission. Kubly added the reason staff is
bringing these forward tonight is because they haven't spent 50 percent of their project allocation by a
certain time so that's what triggers their the checkpoint.
Shelter House - FY22 Public Facility Improvements ($225,000 CDBG).
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 3 of 9
3
Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House) introduced Trevor Conrad (MODUS) who is the expert on the HVAC
project. Conrad noted the construction industry has been difficult the past year and a half with staffing
challenges and everything but they're committed to getting this done and his goal is by the end of the
month to have documents ready to go, bid in June and they can start that project. Conrad acknowledged
the project is a challenge because of some of the compromises and design decisions they made with the
initial building 10 years ago and a lot of the issues they're running into is just phasing and how to keep
this building functional and occupiable for the tenants while this construction is going to happen so those
are just the problems and issues that they were running into. Conrad believes they have got that
resolved and again are shooting for the end of the month have documents prepared and ready to go and
then to bid in June. They’ve already had to do part of it as the water heaters in the building completely
failed a few weeks ago so as an emergency they had to get that done so they phased that part of the
project out.
Canganelli noted they used private dollars from the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County to pay for that
component as they didn't have any hot water.
Reedus asked once they get the bids back how long does it take to complete the project. Conrad replied
it really depends on availability of things, right now everything is unavailable as school work is about to
get started and the schools suck up a lot of material and equipment that's out there. He would like it to be
done towards the end of the year but they’ll have to see. They are in constant communication with
different vendors and contractors to see what's going on because it is a challenge right now trying to get
materials and long lead times of up to 32 weeks whereas prior to all the things that have happened it
would have been 8 to 12 weeks.
Mohammad noted he sees a lot of construction now going on at the Shelter House, is this project for the
new building or for the old building. Conrad stated it's for the existing building. Canganelli stated the new
building is just getting completed and they’re looking at potentially having occupancy around June 10th
Marilla-Kapp asked if they are planning to reduce the bed spaces for any length of time during the project.
Conrad noted the overall building is not going to change so but there will be phasing so components will
have to be taken out and there may not be heating and cooling for that particular area for a matter of
days, maybe hours, but overall nothing will change but there will be temporary inconveniences here and
there as they have to shut off things and replace them. Cangenelli stated they are hoping they can hit a
sweet spot where they won't need heating or cooling for certain periods of time like in early fall or late fall
but otherwise they do have the ability to go back into the winter shelter space and utilize that space to
provide any additional beds if they do have to shut down any areas. Conrad added they should be
available to avoid a lot of the heat of the summer at this point and get into that late summer/early fall
when it's starting to cool down again.
Vogel is personally not concerned that either of these projects are not going to be able to get the projects
done and expend the monies so he has no interest at all in recapture.
PROJECT MONITORING UPDATES:
Shelter House. Canganelli reported Shelter House received $78,800 for FY22 through Aid to Agencies,
$15,000 of which was resourced through CDBG funds and they dedicated those funds for the emergency
shelter which has a budget of a little over a million dollars. For the first three quarters of FY22 they have
sheltered 593 unique (unduplicated) individuals and in a typical year they'll have about 25,000 shelter
nights provided. 14% of the individuals served were children, 10% were veterans, and they had 51% self -
reporting at least one or more disabling conditions. All operations are ongoing with emergency shelter,
they are back at full capacity and has been for quite some time. Canganelli noted they have had some
recent very significant challenges, as previously mentioned they lost all hot water capacity for a number of
weeks and the HVAC system is in need of replacing, which should happen soon. Staffing continues to be
a real challenge, specifically second and third shifts, finding people who are interested in doing the work,
are willing to show up and follow through, they have increased pay rates and benefits, so they feel they
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 4 of 9
4
are very competitive for those positions. Things are starting to get a little better but been pretty heavy
especially as they're opening up another facility and that has t o be staffed 24/7.
Reedus noted it's a double-edged sword for agencies, on one hand it’s good to see the pay rates go up
and the better benefits but on the other hand a lot of contracts don't raise those rates. She asked about
the rate increase. Canganelli replied pre-Covid it was $11/hour for the frontline evening overnight shift
and now it is $15/hour.
Reedus noted it’s great that agencies are increasing the their pay and their benefits to become more
competitive but where is that money's going to come from so this Commission needs to be verbal and
proactive with the Council in terms of the pot of money that gets handed out to agencies, whether it's
emerging agencies or the legacy agencies, that's a huge concern that she has. Canganelli noted in the
short term they've been able to resource that through additional Covid related federal funds but long term
that's additional fundraising. She added it's a curiosity that they are providing an essential service a public
service and there's widespread understanding that they prevent people even through emergency shelter
from being in jail, from being in emergency rooms, from facing death, but they are supported as a charity
as opposed to other public services and facilities that are funded almost entirely, and this would include
Guide Link Center, through public funds.
Reedus agreed there should be a discussion about separating those activities out and is concerned about
how they're going to get through legacy agency funding again next year as they're still going to be
struggling with the same issues that they've had before in terms of the pot of money and will have new
legacy agencies which will be vying for money. She has a lot of concerns that they haven't really even
decided how they can address some of these issues.
Marilla-Kapp asked if these agencies funds are restricted to things like facilities or can those funds go
straight to staffing costs. Kubly replied they're operational funds so they're flexible and agencies can use
them how they see fit.
Mohammad thanked Shelter House for serving the community, those are incredible numbers and the face
of the City would be very ugly without the Shelter House services. He asked what the biggest challenge is
facing them right now. Canganelli replied the biggest challenges is continuing to grow and ensure that
they have trained, competent and fairly compensated staff, they're passionate but being able to retain
those employees and ensure that they are maintaining a safe work environment and living environment
for clients and for tenants weighs on them pretty heavily. They've got really good programming are
recognized statewide as a leader for the work that they're doing and are showing the impact in all of the
areas that HUD requires. The numbers within the population that they're serving is increasing, the
number of people who have systemic health issues, not just one disabling condition but multiple,
substance abuse, people are using poly substances in combination with serious mental illness and the
challenges of working with those individuals in congregate environments is challenging. When they get
them into housing it’s super exciting to see it all working.
Marilla-Kapp asked is staffing the biggest obstacle to running the low barriers year -round. Canganelli
stated all shelter is low barrier, the entire organization is low barrier, there's really little to no difference
between what is understood as the winter shelter and the 429 24/7 – 365 shelter, it's just additional
capacity and tends to really focus more on folks that just don't want to come into the other shelter and
don't want to be around families, so they see single adults in that winter shelter. Canganelli explained
that wasn't always the case, it used to be that there was a differential between, and that low barrier has
definitely increased the challenge and the need to make sure that they're preparing and supporting staff in
ways that they know how to work and engage with the individuals safely and supporting. They have
committed to housing first in low barrier, other systems and other entities with which they intersect and
with which clients and tenants they need to work, they haven't made those changes and they haven't
come closer so they have barriers and they have limitations and that's the next real big work they have
ahead.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 5 of 9
5
Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Ashlee Hopkins (Development Coordinator) reported these
funds go towards their shelter services and hotline. DVIP provides emergency shelter 24/7 - 365 and in
their shelter they house the hotline and provide housing assistance, safety planning, help with protective
orders and counseling for victims of abuse, human trafficking and harassment. DVIP does serve eight
counties, the shelter is here in Iowa City and the majority of the people that they help are in Iowa City.
They also do educational pieces within the community on relationships and how to help a friend. Most of
the people that seek their services hear about it through word of mouth and many call the hotline first so
it's always important to get that number out there. The hotline person is in the shelter, it's a full -time
position and in the last six months they've had 601 hotline calls taken. The hotline calls are a myriad of
questions from victim survivors, friends, families, and co-workers about how they can get help. In the
shelter they've served 85 people, 49 women, 1 male and 35 children in the last six months, with the
average stay being 40 days. Hopkins stated the funds received have always gone towards their shelter
services.
Krotz noted Hopkins mentioned that DVIP serves eight counties but did she have a rough estimate on
what percentage of the clients are from Iowa City. Hopkins replied about half are from Iowa City, in FY21
they served over 2,000 victim survivors in eight counties and 1100 were from Iowa City, about 1500 from
Johnson County.
Krotz asked what other counties they serve. Hopkins replied, Iowa, Washington, Cedar, Henry, Des
Moines, Van Buren and Lee Counties as well as Johnson County.
Mohammad asked if they are able to shelter of all the clients that seek their help. Hopkins replied yes
and explained as far as sheltering they do have to come up with different ways of supporting clients with
emergency shelter because their shelter is full 365 days a year, so they are finding hotel stays that are
temporary and then potentially working them into the shelter or looking at permanent housing solutions or
options. Since they serve eight counties it can also mean a bus ticket to families s omewhere else.
Sometimes it's just connecting someone with resources in the communities and a lot of safety planning
but emergency shelter is the number one request.
Reedus asked what are some concerns that they have coming forward. Hopkins stated this fiscal year
they are facing a 15% to 22% federal cut through VOCA funding, next fiscal year will there's been a
VOCA fix enacted that will reallocate those funds into the VOCA fund and so by next fiscal year they’ll be
back at where they were but that is going to be a challenge for them this year. Therefore, they’ve already
been trying to diversify their funding for the last several years to have more individual donors and to get
away from the state and federal funding but are still at about a 60/40 split on that so that is a huge
challenge.
Reedus asked about staffing. Hopkins replied they are having similar issues as the Shelter House is
having, she can't speak necessarily to the pay rate as she is just the development coordinator but could
note they are having some turnover issues and a lot of it is definitely burnout from Covid and just the
extra stress that the advocates went through and also the tremendous effects of Covid on those that they
serve. They saw a 25% increase in hotline calls in the last couple of years because of Covid and an
increase in those that they serve. Just in Johnson County it was a 300 person increase in those seeking
services and people reaching out for help.
Krotz asked if they have a core of volunteers who can assist when they are a little short on staff. Hopkins
acknowledged they do utilize volunteers and are talking about potentially having some more direct service
volunteer options. During Covid they were limiting the interaction in the shelter and with the clients to
very minimal interaction with outside public so volunteers were helping sort donations and things like that,
but the board of directors were discussing more volunteers doing direct service. Hopkins noted it does
take quite a bit of training to do direct service and a commitment of two year for a volunteer to do that, but
it is something being talked about.
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 6 of 9
6
Thul did their monitoring visit and while she can't speak to the project in specific detail she does know
their funding is on track to be spent and meet their accomplishment target by the end of the fiscal year.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF FY23
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN:
Thul stated the Annual Action Plan is basically a piece of the City’s Consolidated Plan and says what
they're going to do for the next fiscal year. The fiscal year starts July 1 and runs through June 30. This is
a document that contains the recommendations that HCDC just made recently and it's a long document.
Thul gave the preface that the format of this report is what is required by HUD in the federal database so
staff doesn't have a lot of flexibility in editing it or trying to make it more user friendly. Staff has tried to
make changes where they can and include extra tables that maybe make the information a little bit
clearer. The most interesting part of this for this Commission is probably append ix B, that's where HCDC
funding recommendations are. The public comment for this plan starts tomorrow and it will run through
June 21. The next step after the public comment period will be the plan going to Council for approval and
then submitted to HUD for approval. Once the plan is approved staff will then process the grant
agreements.
Drabek noted some of the things in the Action Plan are of course very promissory which is probably
because they're going to be decided later but he did want to ask about the section where the City owned
certain properties that may be used for affordable housing, one was on Muscatine and the other on
Ronald’s. Kubly replied there's a HUD question that they ask if there's any City property that's available
for affordable housing and the City just lists essentially what they own that could be developed and those
are two of the properties that the City has actually had for a little while. The Muscatine one is more suited
for economic development, more like a commercial property, and the Ronald's one had a dilapidated
structure on it and was demolished last week. Kubly is unsure of the plans but the City may be partnering
with another agency for housing.
Vogel asked if there was a final presentation of the steering committee's affordable housing plan. Kubly
replied there is a draft of the report and it has gone to Council but Council hasn't discussed it yet. Vogel is
interested in the section 12 AP75 where they're talking about tools to remove barriers to affordable
housing such as building codes, fees, charges, growth limitations, policies affecting the return on
residential investment, and he is curious if there's actually any action planned or proposed to address
some of those things directly. He noted sometimes it seems the City acts against its own interests, it
makes comments about increasing affordable housing and making rental properties more affordable but
the turnaround of that is $30,000 between properties last year for radon testing and radon mitigation for
what ended up being only a 1% of all properties actually had any radon issues. Switching rental permits
from every two years to every year for four units or less so instead of properties having an expensive
$300 every two years now that's $300 every year and from a residential investment side that gets passed
on through higher rents. He will be curious to see what that committee came up with for ideas to
somehow counteract what seems to be shooting ourselves in the foot a lot which is making these claims
that the City wants more affordable housing but they haven't seen the security deposit program that's
been talked about for years, they haven't seen the affordable housing, there was discussion at one time
for a maintenance pool of money for damages for HCV tenants or HCV properties, but none of it has
come to fruition.
Kubly noted they do have a security deposit program that's administered by Community which helps.
Vogel agreed they do help pay double deposits in some cases but it's not always available to e verybody.
They've had a lot of times where Shelter House can only pay two months’ worth of rent and that's just not
enough for people to get back on their feet and get an income started before HCV takes shape or may
there's only so many emergency housing vouchers because there's a limited amount of vouchers and
how many people are sitting out there on the waiting list. He is just curious if there's any intent to start
putting some of these monies into a more direct rent relief programs at the local level because at some
point the Iowa Finance Authority thing is going to disappear, they're already making it harder and harder
for tenants to get rent relief. So he is just curious if there's been any discussion from the housing plan for
more direct action.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 7 of 9
7
Thul noted she doesn't know all the ins and outs of the plans yet but knows it was just finalized in the last
month the draft plan just went to Council very recently so she can keep the Commission apprised of those
discussions.
Reedus asked why this affordable housing plan doesn’t comes to this Commission before it goes to
Council. Kubly explained the committee had representation from HCDC as part of that group (Peter
Nkumu was the representative) and the plan incorporated a lot of different affordable hou sing issues such
as land use issues and it didn't go to Planning & Zoning, there was just representatives from different
commissions on the committee. Council could bring different issues to HCDC once they have discussed
the draft report – the decision to bring things to HCDC is up to Council. Reedus agrees Vogel brought up
some good points.
Reedus noted this annual plan is a one-year document that is part of the bigger five-year comprehensive
plan so a lot of it was pretty routine reading but wanted to reiterated that if they’re going to make any real
changes in the way in which they fund legacy agencies, she believes the City should be contracting for
some services and some agencies can be treated a little bit differently because of the kinds of services
that are provided. This Commission needs to take some real time to explore that kind of thing and she
doesn’t want her three years on this Commission to be spent just coming to Thursday meetings and hand
stamping things, she wants to make some positive changes to the way in which the legacy funding is
allocated.
Thul made a quick note that the majority of this plan deals with federal funding and only a slice of that can
use for public services but the Commission will be diving into the legacy agency stuff coming up in the
next few months.
Reedus thanked staff for that but stated in Geoff Fruin's plan, 21 points for restructuring, there's still
money in there for a community needs assessment and that would give the Commission a
comprehensive look at the types of services that we do need in the community and she would like to see
HCDC involved with that in some way whether it's a liaison type of role or something.
Vogel motioned to recommend approval of the FY23 Annual Action Plan to Council. Seconded by
Reedus. Passed 6-0.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO CITY STEPS 2025, THE CITY’S CONSOLIDATED PLAN:
Thul noted this is a formality that starts the official amendment process. HCDC will make the
recommendation, it will go to Council for final approval. HCDC has already made their agency decisions
and had those discussions, however to inform the two new members - the Commission had a discussion
as to whether and how to add agencies to the legacy agency list and approved the adding of three
agencies and this is making it official by sending this along as a substantial amendment to the
Consolidated Plan which is called City Steps.
Drabek motioned to recommend approval of the proposed Substant ial Amendment to City Steps
2025 to Council. Seconded by Marilla-Kapp. Passed 6-0.
IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UPDATES:
Drabek noted he appeared about a month ago at a Council meeting to accept the mayoral proclamation
for National Community Development week.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 8 of 9
8
Reedus stated in the second meeting last month she noted Council did finalized the Forest View
relocation which doesn't really have anything to do with HCDC but is noteworthy to highlight. Also at that
meeting Council appointed Marilla-Kapp and Krotz to fill long-awaited vacancies in the Commission.
Marilla-Kapp volunteered for the June meetings.
STAFF UPDATES:
Thul noted staff would like to have the Commission’s feedback on an upcoming item so there will need to
be a meeting in June, likely June 23 but she will send out an attendance survey to see if they can get a
quorum.
Three more people were appointed last night to the Commission, Mar yann Dennis was reappointed;
Zachary Slocum and Jennifer Haylett were also appointment so the Commission will be back up to nine
on July 1.
Thul noted staff put a handout in the agenda packed of a quick guide that might help during meeting
discussions regarding so many acronyms and other things with federal funding. If there are other things
the Commission can think of that might be helpful for new commissioners definitely let staff know.
Kubly stated regarding the timeliness letter for CDBG funds they City can only have one and a half times
the current allocation in the HUD account. When they do a project the City funds it and then draws from
HUD and they reimburse the City, that's how that works. Ideally with CDBG they get the money for the
program year and they'd spend it all within one year, but as seen from the delayed projects report that
that doesn't always work out. The City has certain procedures in place to spend the money within the
year but for certain projects like the rehab program if they don't spend the set -aside within the year it gets
lumped back into the pool for the next allocation. Certain categories can only be spent within the year,
like the public services that are funded by CDBG they have to be spent within the fiscal year, as well as
admin which is like the staff salary fund, but when they get several projects that are delayed for whatever
reason they get this letter that they need to have less than one and a half times the allocation in the
account. The City received this letter in April that they had to spe nd down $168,000 and they were able
to that thanks to Thul hounding people and getting their invoices in and getting their projects done. The
consequences of not spending the money in a timely fashion is HUD can start reducing the yearly
allocations which they really don't want.
Reedus wants to get a review of the bylaws on the future agenda because there are certain requirements
of individuals, experience requirements on the Commission, but there's no requirement that anybody
have a non-profit background and so she suspects the bylaws were probably last approved before Aid to
Agencies became a function of this group and she thinks that there should be a requirement on HCDC for
somebody to have a background in nonprofit management administration.
ADJOURNMENT:
Reedus moved to adjourn, Vogel seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6 -0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 9 of 9
9
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2021-2022
Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 8/19 9/16 10/21 11/18 1/20 2/17 3/24 5/18
Alter, Megan 6/30/24 X O/E X X * * * *
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X X X X X O/E
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X X X X X O/E
Krotz, Karol 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
Lewis, Thersea * 6/30/23 O/E O/E O/E * * * * * *
Marilla-Kapp, Elizabeth 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
Mohammed, Nsar 6/30/23 X X X O/E X X X X
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X X O/E O/E X O/E
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X X X O/E X X
Prepared by:Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5230
Resolution No. 22-162
Resolution adopting Iowa City's FY23 Annual Action Plan which is a sub-
part of Iowa City's 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan (City Steps 2025)
Whereas, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) requires the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to prepare and submit the FY23 Annual Action Plan as part of the City's 2021-
2025 Consolidated Plan (City Steps 2025) to plan the use of federal funds to assist lower
income residents with housing,jobs, public facilities, and public services; and
Whereas, the Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission has held a series of
meetings regarding the use of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds for City of Iowa City FY23; and
Whereas, the City has disseminated information, solicited public input, and held a public
meeting on the FY23 Annual Action Plan; and
Whereas, the FY23 Annual Action Plan contains the allocation of CDBG and HOME funds
attached hereto as Appendix B; and
Whereas, the Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission has recommended
that Appendix B be approved; and
Whereas, adoption of the FY23 Annual Action Plan will make Iowa City eligible for federal and
state funds administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
Whereas, the City Council finds that the public interest will be served by the adoption of the
FY23 Annual Action Plan and submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Now, Therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The City of Iowa City FY23 Annual Action Plan, containing the allocation of CDBG and
HOME funds attached hereto as Appendix B, is hereby approved and adopted.
2. The City Manager is hereby designated as the Chief Executive Officer and authorized to
act on behalf of the City of Iowa City in connection with the FY23 Annual Action Plan.
3. The City Manager of Iowa City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the City of
Iowa City FY23 Annual Action Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and is further authorized and directed to provide all the necessary
certifications or documents required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
RES. No. 22-162
Page 2
4. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, terminate, or amend CDBG and
HOME Agreements executed in connection with the allocation of public funds with sub-
recipients, Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), or other legal
entities.
Passed and approved this 21st day of June 2022.
rcS\axe.A..-. I fit:kr-
Mayor
•
Attest: L _:e
City Clerk i City Attorney' Office
(Sue Dulek- 06/14/2022)
Resolution No. 22-167
Page _ 3
It was moved by Ti,„„P and seconded by Alter
the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Alter
X Bergus
X Harmsen
x Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Appendix B
FY23
I
CDBG HOME Persons/ Households /I
Project Planned activities Award Award Facilities Assisted
Aid to Agencies - Shelter House $ 15,000 NA 700
Public Service Activities Aid to Agencies - DVIP $ 52,000 NA 600
Aid to Agencies - NCJC $ 57,000 NA 1,500
Public Facility Activities DVIP - Shelter New Construction $ 425,000 NA 700
Free Medical Clinic - Facility Improvements $ 75,000 NA 1,200
Neighborhood and Neighborhood Improvement Program $ 75,000 NA 300
Area Benefits
Homeowner/Rental Housing Comprehensive Rehabilitation $ 282,000 $ 90,000 22
Rehabilitation
The Housing Fellowship CHDO Operations $ - $ 26,000 NA
Other Housing Activities Inside Out Reentry- Rental Acquisition $ - $ 100,000 4
The Housing Fellowship - Rental Acquisition $ - $ 320,000 2
CHDO Reserve Activities CHDO Reserve Activities NA $ 176,000 1
Economic Development Economic Development Program $ 50,000 NA 2
Administration & Planning CDBG Administration $ 160,000 NA NA
HOME Administration NA $ 60,000 NA
Total $ 1,191,000 $ 772,000 5,031
Item Number: 13.
J une 21, 2022
Resol u tion allocating h u man services Aid to Ag encies fundin g for F iscal Year
2023, July 1, 2022 - Ju n e 30, 2023.
Prepared B y:Erika Kubly, Neighborhood S ervices Coordinator
Reviewed By:Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development S ervices Director
F iscal I mpact:$739,058 in F Y23: $615,058 from the General Fund and $124,000 from
Community Development Block Grant funds.
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: The Housing and Community Development Commission
recommended funding for Emerging A gencies on March 24, 2022.
Attachments:HC D C Minutes 3.24.22
Resolution
Exhibit A
Executive S ummary:
T he City annually budgets financial aid to human service agencies serving I owa City residents.
F Y23 is an application carryover year for L egacy A gency awards so recipients will receive
renewed f unding allocations that are prorated based on the F Y23 budget. HC D C reviewed and
formulated a funding recommendation for Emerging A gencies at their March 24, 2022 meeting.
Background / Analysis:
I owa City provides f unding f or operating costs of local nonprofits serving low-income residents
through its A id to A gencies (A 2A) program. HC D C reviews and f ormulates a funding
recommendation for the A2A program after each application round. T he program provides funding
to both L egacy Agencies, as identified in City Steps 2025, and Emerging Agencies, which tend to
be less established agencies or agencies that have not received regular funding in the past.
L egacy A gencies submit applications through the United Way J oint F unding process, in which
J ohnson County human services agencies request f unding from United Way, J ohnson County,
and the C ities of I owa C ity and Coralville on a single application. I owa C ity applications have
recently shif ted to a two-year cycle beginning with implementation of City Steps 2025. F Y23 is the
second year of the current two-year cycle, therefore F Y22 L egacy Agency f unding allocations are
to be renewed at prorated amounts based on the F Y23 budget. Emerging A gencies submit
shorter applications directly to the City on an annual basis.
Applications were due at the end of January and the City received three submissions. Funding
distributions for Legacy Agencies have been updated based on the FY23 budget. Up to 5% of the A2A
budget is set-aside for Emerging Agencies. If those funds are not fully allocated, the remaining dollars
get added to the Legacy Agency funds. In F Y23, HCDC has recommended $33,625 to Emerging
Agencies, which is a total of 4.6% of the F Y23 A2A budget.
HCDC held a question and answer session with Emerging Agencies at their March 24, 2022 meeting
and recommended funding each of the three Emerging Agency applicants for a total of $33,625.
Minutes for that meeting are attached along with the F Y23 Emerging Agency funding recommendations
and Legacy Agency funding distributions. Staff will enter into agreements with agencies after the start
of the new fiscal year. Legacy Agencies receive four quarterly payments and report on outcomes and
accomplishments at the end of each quarter. Emerging Agencies receive two payments and provide
two reports throughout the year.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
HC D C Minutes 3.24.22
Resolution
Exhibit A - F unding Recommendations
MINUTES FINAL
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MARCH 24, 2022 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Nasr Mohammed, Peter
Nkumu, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Erica Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes), Tashundra Gathright (The Housing
Fellowship), Michelle Heinz (Inside Out Reentry), Ashlee Hopkins
(DVIP), Jaimie Nguyen (Healthy Kids School Clinic), Thuy Nguyen (Optic
Origin), Marguerite Oetting (Healthy Kids School Clinic), Barbara
Vinograde (Free Medical Clinic) via Zoom.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 (Drabek recused) the Comm ission recommends the following EA2A allocations to
Council with the understanding that staff will verify that the funds awarded are appropriate to the
percentage of Iowa City residents served.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends the following CDBG/HOME funding allocations:
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 2 of 12
2
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: FEBRUARY 17, 2022:
Reedus moved to approve the minutes of February 17, 2022, Dennis seconded the motion. A vote wa s
taken and the minutes were approved 7-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION FOR FY23 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES (EA2A)
APPLICANTS:
Drabek recused himself from the discussion due to conflict of interest.
Beining opened the discussion for commissioners to ask questions of the applicants.
Reedus has questions for NAMI but there was no one from the organization present. Kubly stated the
Commission would need to make their decision based on the information that they have available.
Reedus noted Houses into Home is asking for $8,625 and is that to contract for a position or is it part of a
part time/full time position.
Lucy Barker (Houses Into Homes) stated the funding is to increase hours for one of t heir part time staff.
This person is one of the operations associates who does the pickups and actually volunteered
throughout the pandemic doing pickups and would be taking over the logistics and this would be an
efficient use of staff as she's already trained and knows the whole area.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 3 of 12
3
Reedus stated she appreciated that on the application they showed the cost to families to purchase items
at a consignment or resale but the concern she has is she didn't see funding from any other entities or the
communities, only from Iowa City yet 68% of the clientele is from Iowa City so the other 32% is in other
communities in Johnson County and there's no matching funds to take care of it other 32%.
Barker stated their budget is almost $200,000 of recurring and ongoing donations and corporate
sponsors.
Reedus stated she wanted to see in the application that the total project costs $12,000, 68% of the total
clients served are from Iowa City so then no more than 68% of this project funding should come from
Iowa City. Reedus suggested adjusting the application and budget to reflect total project costs total
contributions because on this application they are showing 100% of the project costs are going to be paid
for by Iowa City, yet a third of the program is going to be serving people outside of Iowa City.
Thul stated the Commission could recommend a partial funding
Dennis stated they are voting on funding tonight so there is not time for the organiza tion to resubmit a
different budget.
Reedus stated she had the same issue with NAMI so in the future, she would encourage all agencies to
seek funding from other entities when a project is going to be serving people outside of Iowa City and the
application needs to show that additional funding in that budget breakdown.
Barker noted some of the funds they've had are from North Liberty, they haven't had the opportunity to
apply with Coralville but they're supporting the volunteer coordinators which is another part of the staff
that Iowa City has not supported yet.
Reedus asked about why they hadn’t had an opportunity to apply to Coralville. Barker confirmed they
haven’t because it’s on the two-year joint funding application, and during the pandemic they move their
funds toward only the Community Foundation funding so the social services funding round hasn't come
up with them. Dennis suggested they go to the Coralville Council and apply for funding outside of the
cycle, it might worth it try.
Nkumu asked staff if it is a requirement for the organization to be located in Iowa City to be funded. Kubly
stated they determined this this agency is eligible for this funding based on who they're serving and it’s
okay that their headquarters is in Coralville. Nkumu recalled last year they had one organization submit a
letter to correct their address, because they wrote on the application that they are located in Coralville.
Kubly stated they used past information they had from this agency to confirm that they work in Iowa City.
Houses into Homes has been funded before.
Dennis stated because these funds are operational funds it's hard to actually break it all down to which
city or entity is paying which portion of the salary for a person and therefore that pers on can only work
with Iowa City families, because it is operational funding.
Reedus agrees and reiterated that is why is important to show on the budget how much they are
requesting from Iowa City, and how much of the operations budget is from another entity, like Coralville or
North Liberty.
Vogel asked how much money is available for this round of Aid to Emerging Agencies. Thul stated the
estimate was $33,600.
Dennis asked if they chose to fully fund the maximum 5% to the Emerging Agencies does it take away
funding from the legacy agencies. Kubly replied it is the same pot of money so it can affect the amount
left for legacy agencies.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 4 of 12
4
Vogel asked what the planned hourly rate for the intake manager is at Houses into Homes. Barker
replied it is $15 an hour plus the employer labor costs. Vogel noted a part-time employee at $15 per
hour, with taxes and all the labor costs, the total labor payroll costs will be somewhere in the $10,000
range so in theory they are asking for only a portion of their true labor costs to be covered by Iowa City.
Vogel added there has been previous discussions regarding this because even with legacy agencies, it is
hard to always quantify who they are serving, the Shelter House takes people in from all over and they
are not asked to break down how many of their residents are from Iowa City. It is difficult to predetermine
ahead of time who are the people that any of these funds are going to help or where they are from. The
goal would be just to establish who are the legitimate qualified agencies asking for aid. It's almost
impossible for any of these agencies to go down and pinpoint that the money from certain areas is only
used for people from that area.
Reedus agrees but noted that agencies that have been applying for years already know how to do this
and most organizations provide that information. Also, when those organizations report to the City, they
sign a contract stating if they get some CDBG funds they have target numbers that they have to hit in
terms of services provided. The reason why she brought this up to Houses Into HOME, and will bring it
up to NAMI, is to help the organization and make sure when they are applying for funding, they give all
the information on where the other funds are coming from if they are serving multiple municipalities, it
helps in the decision making. Reedus also stated she does believe that Iowa City money should benefit
Iowa City residents so that's something she is going to be watching for sitting on this Commission.
Dennis agreed and noted there are reporting requirements the organization has to break down and the
City monitors that.
Beining moved onto the next applicant, NAMI.
Reedus stated her issue is the same with NAMI in that when they filled out the budget breakdown that's in
the packet, in the narrative, the resources and feasibility, the funds toward the project, that last line of
$1,500 actually should go into other funds because they're asking for $10,000 but they put funds for the
project in the wrong line, so they have City funds at $11,500 down there. Reedus pointed out however,
even then, they are at 75% Iowa City residents so technically that $1,500 is not sufficient matching funds
for this project.
Beining moved onto the final applicant, Healthy Kids School Based Clinics.
Reedus first made a statement on observation of this expansion into providing the services for this
minority population is part of their whole budget and their whole budget is what was attached so the
expenditures for FY22 would be $169,000.
Marguerite Oetting (Medical Director, Healthy Kids School Clinic) replied the budget submitted was their
whole operating budget and what they have to spend for the whole year. They serve Johnson County,
Iowa City, Coralville. She then tried to specifically focus on just Iowa City and to provide as much
information on how many patient families they serve in Iowa City, which is about 70%, so it would take up
a lot of their operating budget.
Reedus acknowledged they did have a number of other funding sources listed so that percentage thing
isn't an issue, what she is asking is are they looking for money for their operations budget and the project
of providing all of these medical, dental and mental health services which are all part of the total $169,000
budget. Oetting confirmed that is correct. They currently see immigrants and refugees but their numbers
are increasing rapidly and they need to be able to expand services.
Reedus noted they show that already they’ve exceeded the revenue proj ection, the budget expenses
listed are $169,000 but total revenue is $176,000 so they have already met budget projections. Are they
projecting that they’re going to have additional expenses above and beyond. Oetting confirmed they are
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 5 of 12
5
and added they had one issue this year, they lost a clinic coordinator early in the fiscal year and were not
able to replace that person otherwise there would be much bigger expenses for the year. Next year
expenses will go up because they will be hiring the replacement person in April or May and then paying
the salary for three coordinators instead of two. This year’s budget was artificially low because they were
down one salary for most of the year.
Reedus asked if they receive revenue from the Iowa City School District or the Iowa City School
Foundation. Oetting replied that Healthy Kids is a collaboration, it lives within the school district and is a
program within the school district, but they raise all of their own funding, they get no cash for the
operating budget from the school district. The school district does provide all of the space and they've
done the renovation on all of our clinics, and they allow the employees to be school district employees so
that they can get better benefits than a small nonprofit could provide. The University of Iowa Hospitals
provides all the provider time, so the three physicians that work in the clinic are all paid by the University
of Iowa, so that's their contribution, and all of the funds that they have are raised within the commu nity.
Reedus noted their budget is cash accounting and it doesn't show in kind services, so they aren’t really
recording the physicians from the University of Iowa time. Oetting noted she is a University of Iowa
employee and so is the family medicine doctor, so their salaries are paid by The University of Iowa and
part of their assignment for the University of Iowa is to cover the Healthy Kids clinic. The second
pediatrician is a volunteer, she is a colleague from the University, but she volunteers so th at would be in
kind. Additionally, part of Oetting’s time as medical director is also donated so she works at the school
clinic more hours than she is paid for by the University. Reedus suggested they show that in -kind
contribution in their budget because it shows a true value of an organization's worth. Oetting agreed they
can do that in the future.
Reedus’ other question was if they have relationships with Guide Link or any other partnership with a
mental health service because mental health care was something they noted in terms of services.
Oetting replied their mental health services are provided in two ways. One is that there is a child
psychiatrist from the University of Iowa who comes to the schools once a week, her services are slightly
different as she's under their umbrella but she actually bills the child's insurance if they are insured and
for the uninsured children the school district gets billed because they have some grants that will cover
mental health care for the uninsured. Two, counseling Services are done in collaboration for the most part
with the counseling services that are available within the school district, all the Iowa City Schools have
mental health services in the school so they refer their kids to those services, unless the family prefers
something else. Some of families prefer to have counseling in their native language and if that's available,
which it is for Spanish, they use a couple of counselors within the community, and then they pay cash for
their services.
That was all the questions the Commissioners had for the applicants so they moved onto the next agenda
item of the recommendations to City Council.
DISCUSS FY23 EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES (EA2A) FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER
BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Drabek recused himself from the discussion due to conflict of interest.
Kubly first wanted to clarify the question earlier regarding the full amount available to allocate, it is
$36,600 which is 5% of the Aid to Agency budget for the year. So the Commission could fully fund the
three Emerging Agency applications, or they could do less and put more money back into the pot for the
legacy agencies.
Vogel moved to recommend fully funding all three projects as requested. Dennis seconded the
motion.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 6 of 12
6
Reedus noted she does support that motion; except she would want some sort of reconciliation on the
budget to show that both Houses Into Homes and NAMI need to provide adequate other funds to justify
the percentage of Iowa City residents that they serve. Kubly confirmed Reedus is asking that staff just
justify that the amount of funding that Iowa City is giving them is appropriate for the number of residents
they are serving. Reedus agreed, if the organization is adjusting their program a little bit she trusts staff
to be able to handle all that.
Reedus moved to amend the motion to recommend the following EA2A allocations to Council with
the understanding that staff will verify that the funds awarded are appropriate to the percentage of
Iowa City residents served. Motion amendment seconded by Dennis.
A vote was taken and the amendment passed 5-1 (Drabek recused and Vogel dissenting).
Regarding the motion to recommend fully funding all three projects as requested, with the
amendment A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Drabek recused himself).
DISCUSS FY23 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Drabek rejoined the meeting.
Drabek noted there was quite a bit of information in the agenda packet, there is the staff
recommendation, a tabulation of the average scores as well as the range and the median and there is a
breakdown of the range for each question. He stated when he is looking through these, he begins by
looking for outliers, and compare that to the amount of funding that they have. He will also see if there's
any application that has an outstanding average score or has a score that's low enough that they really
want to raise questions about whether to fund it at all. Drabek acknowledged he can definitively say that
he found neither of those things and what he saw were four applications with an amazingly similar
average score, in fact, only separated the largest from the smallest by 25. The range of scores of
individual applications is bigger than the difference in average between applications. While he didn't find
any outliers, he did find some differences in individual questions but thinks perhaps those were error s as
there is a scoring range of 30 on Roman numeral two, question four, but there are only 20 points for the
question that can't possibly be. Thul agreed with that observation and noted staff can look at the
instructions again for next time to make sure the instructions are clear for commissioners.
Reedus noted with the HOME funds they will have some unspent money even if they fully fund the two
projects that are eligible. Kubly confirmed that was correct and noted the unspent balance will go into a
fund and once they get a certain amount in unallocated HOME funds, they will hold a mid-year funding
round. Otherwise, if it's less than that, they would just push that to the next funding round.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 7 of 12
7
Drabek noted they do have some restrictions in terms of which pot of money they can use for which
application. They cannot use HOME funds for DVIP or the Free Medical Clinic. The other two applicants
can receive funds from either pot of funds. When he went through the applications and did his scoring he
noted that his recommendations aligned with the staff recommendations. It struck him that the biggest
question is DVIP has the top score so do they want to try to make the entire $500,000 award to them or
do they want to give $75,000 to the Free Medical Clinic and he was in favor of giving the $75,000 to the
Free Medical Clinic.
Reedus agreed she would want to give the $75,000 to the Free Medical Clinic, DVIP wasn’t her top score,
it was the Free Medical Clinic. DVIP asked for $700,000 and the City can't fund that muc h, and they
understand that they're not going to get full funding. So she would propose $425,000 for DVIP and
$75,000 for the Free Medical Clinic.
Dennis agreed with that recommendation noting over the past few years when agencies come in for
CDBG money to do renovations to their office or their clinic and when the Commission doesn't fund them
fully, invariably, they come back the next year. Sometimes it takes multiple years to do exactly what they
want and she thinks the Free Medical Clinic, just the fact that it's going to be accessible to do that
downstairs and get it all better organized is very valuable.
Reedus also noted $425,000 to a capital project is a big award and over the past 10 years a lot of
nonprofits have not been able to squeak above $200,000. Also she feels like the Free Medical Clinic is
doing a lot on a little and they serve a lot of people so she wants to give them full funding.
Drabek agrees with that division of funding allocation for CDBG. He next moved onto discussion of the
HOME funding applications, he feels is a straightforward decision to give full awards to both applicants.
Dennis agrees with that but does think that Inside Out Reentry is getting into a new territory for them,
which typically she would say for them to partner with another agency that does the rental part, however,
with this particular agency because of who they s erve it does makes sense for them to venture into
acquiring a rental property.
Reedus agrees and does have some concerns about the age of the organization, she doesn’t have any
issues with how it's managed and all of that but does worry that it's a pretty good chunk that they're taking
on, it’s a new/added service so she is a little worried about what that does to operations costs, but she
also acknowledged they have done a good job over the past years, she has looked at their 990s and
they've done a good job managing their finances and got money put aside. Overall, it's a well ran
organization.
Dennis acknowledged there was a community group that's been working on this issue for many years
before they even really incorporated.
Vogel had a question on the other $320,000 in the application for The Housing Fellowship the description
of funds is a 0% 15 year amortization, are they paying back $160,000 of that over 15 years. It says
$160,000 applied for requests to CDBG/HOME funds, 0% 15-year amortization is requested from CDBG/
HOME funds and $160,000 forgivable after affordability period applied for. Is that $160,000 part of the
$320,000 a loan that they repay over 15 years. Thul explained that a lot of the HOME funds are issued in
the form of a loan and that's what comes back to the City as program income so when they do the annual
budget they roll that into recoup money.
Vogel stated he is perfectly happy with staff recommendations.
Dennis motioned to recommend the following CDBG/HOME funding allocations to Council.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 8 of 12
8
Seconded by Reedus.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
DISCUSS NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK:
Kubly stated National Community Development Week is April 11 - 15th, it is done annually as an
opportunity to recognize the CDBG and HOME grants that Iowa City receives as a community and are
encouraged to reach out to the federal representatives and let them know how the money is used and
why it's important for Iowa City to keep receiving the CDBG and HOME money. One thing the y typically
do every year is a Council proclamation, so at the April 4 Council meeting they plan to do a Housing and
Community Development Week proclamation. Typically, a member of HCDC, usually the chair but could
be someone else, accept that proclamation and speak to how the funds are used. Kubly also noted if
there are any other ideas about how to participate in community development week, they're open to that.
Last year, they did the proclamation and then some social media posts about projects that they've done.
Reedus noted in the past they used to have some sort of event at one of the funded entities and those I
were really nice because it helped people understand how that money was being put to work in the
community. That might not be possible now with COVID and the fear of the next variant, but maybe again
sometime in the future. Dennis noted those bigger events in her experience usually happened when
there's a national primary and the representatives from federally elected officials show up and HU D
shows up.
Kubly stated another thing that they've done in the past, a few years ago, was did a tour of new projects,
so that is something they could do again in future years, they would get a little bus from the City and drive
around and see some of the new projects funded from CDBG and HOME.
Reedus thinks that would be a great thing to do in future years. She noted at the beginning of the
pandemic, in 2020, the mayor had created some videos of various agencies throughout the City and
maybe they could do something like that with some of the funded projects in the community.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 9 of 12
9
Kubly said they can reach out to the communications department and see if they can help put some
videos together highlighting the Shelter House, The Housing Fellowship and others.
Reedus noted the Shelter House is significant because with their 501 project they will have significantly if
not closed that gap between the type of individual that needs that service and the service. There probably
aren’t many communities in the United States can boast something like that, it's an outstanding
accomplishment. The Housing Fellowship is also a great one to showcase as people can relate to some
of the topics and issues about getting families into homes permanently.
Dennis asked if they would have to have this presentation done by the Council meeting on April 5.
Reedus feels if they could try to get it done by mid-April that would be fine. Kubly stated it will depend on
the workload of the staff, but she will reach out them tomorrow or next week. Kubly did add there is
already a Shelter House video that was released this week that's really good that she will share it with the
Commission, maybe they use that footage and staff can just focus on The Housing Fellowship.
Vogel noted it would also be nice to give some highlights of some of the emerging agencies who've done
massive amount of works with much smaller awards, so it would be nice to shine a spotlight on some of
them as well.
Dennis agreed noting she was very impressed with the collaboration of Healthy Kids and the Uni versity, a
volunteer pediatrician, and the school district providing them with renovated space. It was nice to learn
about that.
Vogel also noted with Houses Into Homes, they have teams of 10-15-20 different high school kids every
week that are showing up unloading trucks, loading trucks, delivering to the houses. It is very impressive
to see high schoolers putting in the time for organizations. So it would be good to highlight these
organizations.
Kubly will reach out to the communications department to put together a video together for social media.
Drabek will be at the April 5 Council meeting to do the proclamation.
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 watched both the work session and Council meeting online, first they did pass the changes to the
Section VIII, second at the meeting this week they discussed the Forest View redevelopment. The City
reached a unique and interesting type of proposal mix a few years ago with the owners and the residents
to redevelop that housing area. However, because of a number of factors it never happened, and it's not
going to happen, so they're looking at relocating some of these families. Reedus does wonder whether or
not any of this will come to the Housing Commission. The other thing of importance is Council still has
not voted on the two open position on the Commission.
Vogel asked is the delay that they don't have people who've applied or is the delay that they just haven't
gotten around to doing it. Reedus’s understanding was that they've had some people apply, there has
been lack of qualified applicants.
Kubly stated regarding the Forest View situation, Council has not requested the Commission be involved
in anything, the discussion was at the work session, and they had a thoughtful discussion that ended up
with some questions for staff. So staff is looking at different considerations, different kinds of options and
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 10 of 12
10
different ways to make sure that the relocation assistance meets the ARPA funding requirements and
things like that, and how to how to do it fairly.
Reedus noted they talked about the relocation assistance being somewhere around $15,000 and also
talked about an income guideline for families like $41,000 or something like that, which also may be
under consideration because as Councilor Harmsen pointed out $40,000 as income per family is not a lot
so it'd be interesting to see if they raise those limits a little bit to help with some of the residents. The other
issue was where's the money going to come from, whether or not some of the funding can come from
some of the available ARPA funds or someplace else from the City budget.
Kubly stated the intention is that this will be paid with for from ARPA money, so staff is looking into how to
make it work within those guidelines.
Reedus will volunteer to watch the next meetings as well. Drabek will be present at the April 5 meeting.
DISCUSS PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES:
Drabek noted Council had a discussion around public comments at the March 1 meeting and they made a
decision not to impose a municipal infraction or fine for repeated violations of comment guidelines. He
noted there have been a variety of discussions of public comments with different public agencies, but the
Council did address it at the March 1 meeting.
Drabek noted it's rare for this Commission to get requests for public comments but there was a request at
the last meeting, and they’ve never really had a chance as a Commission to talk about what they want
public comment sessions to look like or any sort of guidelines. Basically, the only thing they have on
paper right now is agenda item number three, which is on every agenda. So there are some guidelines
for public comments of items not on the agenda but they don't have any guidelines or any way of handling
public comments for items that are on the agenda. Drabek asked staff for guidance and the answer
which came from the City Attorney was that public comments for items that are on the agenda are at the
chair’s discretion. However, he feels this Commission usually has a goal to have a collaborative
commission where they can operate on consensus. They don't always reach consensus, but at least
make some attempt to do it. Therefore, having the chair bang the gavel and run the public comment
session is sort of at odds with that. The other reason it's at odds is the chairs don't stick around forever
and they shouldn’t want to reinvent the wheel every time there is a new chair. So what Drabek wanted to
do with this agenda item is take input and discussion over what public comment sessions s hould look like,
should there be a time limit should we, should they be germane and on topic, are there any other sorts of
things that the chair should be thinking about as the chair for public comment.
Vogel feels it has to be germane and on topic becaus e it would be on that agenda item so if someone just
went off on a random rant the chair would have to put a stop to it.
Vogel also asked if there a differentiation between public comment from one of the organizations
requesting aid versus a member of the public. They often had people come up and give presentations
and those can last five to seven minutes long, but would they want to sit through a five to seven minute
rant from the public. So, that's the tough question on time limits is, if they set a time limit, they got to give
it to everybody.
Reedus does think it's different, during City Council meetings they do have presentations that last longer
than public comment. She notes in some years agencies have been asked to limit presentations to two or
three minutes but if it were a complex issue, they might ask an organization to make a presentation and
then have some interaction so that's entirely different. She also noted at some Council meetings some of
the public commenters just get up and waste time. So is the chair willing to say, excuse me, but you've
talked long enough or is it easier to have a policy that asks public commenters to limit their comments to
three minutes or five minutes. They could then also make some allowances for those indi viduals who
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 11 of 12
11
need some assistance in interpretation, whether it's sign language or an interpreter. She thinks it would
be easier to have a set time rule because to have the chair cut someone off is a lot more confrontational.
Dennis stated she has often heard at Council meetings, especially during planning and zoning items, that
the mayor will say if there's somebody who would like to say something different or new that they haven't
heard before. She thinks that's reasonable also, because a lot of times, especially with planning and
zoning if the neighbors are against a project, they all just say the same thing over and over again. She
does agree however to have public comment on the agenda items, but to invite them up and ask them to
keep their comments to three or five minutes.
Drabek agrees with Dennis, to have a public comment session but to announce the time limit before it
starts. Also, just from a perspective of improving and getting high quality comments and helping people
make their arguments, if they have an argument they can't make in five minutes they should have thought
about it more beforehand and narrowed it down a little bit. Anything that's worth saying can be said in five
minutes.
Drabek noted moving forward for each agenda item they should routinely asked for public comment.
Reedus asked if external people watching this can be patch in to make comments as City Council does,
it’s an accommodation type thing. Thul stated they have been doing it upon request but noted they do not
have IT support at night like Council does so it's hard to guarantee that everything will work perfectly.
Vogel noted this isn't something needs a vote, it's something to help the chair, to create the policy, but
when the next year comes around, if that chairs not comfortable with the policy, that chair can always
bring it back to this commission.
Drabek also note from his point of view, he is willing to let people say almost whatever they want,
whenever they want. If it seemed like a session was going to go for four hours, he would ask if someone
had anything new to say, or a different argument or a different perspective.
STAFF UPDATES:
Thul noted the next meeting will be April 21 and at that meeting staff will bring the draft of the action plan
with the funding recommendations in it, the public comment for that is going to start around April 1, and
that will end May 3 when it goes to City Council for final approval.
Thul noted a few things from the agenda packet. The fair housing training is going to be offered in April.
April is Fair Housing Month. The City is accepting applications for the climate action grants. There's a
flyer for the community police review board community forum on April 20.
ADJOURNMENT:
Reedus moved to adjourn, Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7 -0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
March 24, 2022
Page 12 of 12
12
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2021-2022
Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 8/19 9/16 10/21 11/18 1/20 2/17 3/24
Vacancy 6/30/24
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X X X X X
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X X X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X X X X X
Vacancy 6/30/23
Mohammed, Nsar 6/30/23 X X X O/E X X X
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X X O/E O/E X
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X X X O/E X
Vacancy
,7
Prepared by: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5230
Resolution No. 22-163
Resolution allocating human services Aid to Agencies funding for Fiscal Year
2023, July 1 , 2022 — June 30, 2023.
Whereas, the City of Iowa City budgeted for aid to local human services agencies; and
Whereas, assistance to human services agencies who serve low-income residents of the Iowa City is
considered a benefit to the community as a whole; and
Whereas, the amount of aid proposed to be allocated, $739,058, is budgeted as Aid to Human Service
Agencies ($615,058) and Community Development Block Grant funds ($124,000) in the FY23 Budget;
and
Whereas, FY22 Legacy Agency funding allocations are renewed for FY23 based on a two-year funding
cycle in accordance with City Steps 2025; and
Whereas, the Housing and Community Development Commission recommended FY23 allocations of
Emerging Aid to Agencies funding at its March 24, 2022 meeting; and
Whereas, the funds allocated herein are for a public purpose.
Now, Therefore, be it resolved the by City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The funding recommendations, Exhibit A, are hereby adopted.
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute agreements for Aid to Agencies with the
organizations identified in Exhibit A.
Passed and approved this 21st day of June , 2022.
M
Approved by
•
Attest: %
Ci y Clerk � -
1 City Attorney' Office
J (Sue Dulek— 06/15/2022)
Resolution No. 22-164
Page 2
It was moved by Weinar and seconded by Bergus
the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Alter
X Bergus
X Harmsen
X Taylor
x Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Exhibit A:
FY23 Legacy Aid to Agencies Funding Allocation
Agency FY23 Allocation
4Cs Community Coordinated Child Care $26,709
Arc of Southeast Iowa $21,367
Big Brothers/Big Sisters $26,709
Crisis Center of Johnson County $74,037
Domestic Violence Intervention Program $53,418
Free Lunch Program $47,007
HACAP $19,230
Horizons,A Family Service Alliance $26,709
Inside Out Reentry $26,709
Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic $42,734
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity $26,709
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County $58,759
Pathways Adult Day Health Center $26,709
Prelude Behavioral Services $42,734
Rape Victim Advocacy Program $26,709
Shelter House $90,810
Table to Table $33,119
United Action for Youth $35,256
Total: $705,433
FY23 Emerging Aid to Agencies Funding Recommendations
Agency/Project Request Allocation
Houses into Homes $8,625 $8,625
Support for parttime staff to organize pick-up of furniture donations
National Alliance on Mental Illness(NAMI)Johnson County $10,000 $10,000
Outreach to Latinx and African American communities in Iowa City
Healthy Kids School-Based Clinics
Free medical services to children without access to affordable $15,000 $15,000
healthcare(no insurance, ineligible for insurance or underinsured)
Total: $33,625 $33,625
Item Number: 14.
J une 21, 2022
Resol u tion approvin g Amendmen t #2 to the Iowa City Con solid ated Plan for
F iscal Years 2021-2025 (City Step s 2025).
Prepared B y:Erika Kubly, Neighborhood S ervices Coordinator
Reviewed By:Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development S ervices Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:No I mpact
Recommendations:Staff:
Commission: The Housing and Community Development Commission
recommended this amendment by a vote of 6-0 at their May 19, 2022
meeting.
Attachments:Staff Memo to HC D C 11.10.21
Excerpt from City S teps 2025 - Current L egacy Agencies
City Steps 2025 public service priorities
Summary of past funding for A 2A
HC D C Minutes: October 21, 2021; November 18, 2021; May 19, 2022 (draft)
Resolution
Exhibit A
Executive S ummary:
City Steps 2025 is the City's five-year consolidated plan which outlines the priorities and
strategies to assist the C ity and its partners in meeting community needs for low- and moderate-
income resident ranging from affordable housing to child care to job creation. The plan was
adopted by C ity C ouncil on J anuary 7, 2020 and includes a list of 19 L egacy A gencies who are
eligible to apply f or A id to Agency funding. HC D C has recommended that three additional
agencies be added to this list to be eligible for future Aid to Agency L egacy funds.
Background / Analysis:
Aid to Agencies (A 2A) provides f lexible operational f unding for nonprofits providing services to
low- and moderate-income (L MI ) residents of I owa City based on funding priorities set in the
City’s C onsolidated Plan (City Steps 2025). F unding is split between L egacy A gencies and
Emerging A gencies, where the bulk of the budget is allocated to L egacy A gencies and up to 5%
of the budget can be set aside for E merging Agencies.
L egacy A gencies are a core group of service providers who are eligible f or I owa City A id to
Agency funding. T he list of 19 agencies was approved by HC D C in J uly 2019 and incorporated
into C ity Steps 2025. The number of L egacy Agencies was limited in an effort to return the A2A
program to its original intent of providing an ongoing stable funding source for human service
agencies serving L MI residents based on the f unding priorities set in C ity Steps 2025. The
priorities as well as agencies allowed to apply were set to be evaluated with each new
Consolidated P lan (every f ive years) to address changing priorities or gaps of service in the
community.
Applications are accepted f rom L egacy Agencies every two years through the United Way joint
funding process, which streamlines the request for f unding through the City of I owa City, C ity of
Coralville, J ohnson County, and United Way. T he amount an agency receives in the 2nd year is
prorated based on the budget available. Staff and HC D C score the applications for City of I owa
City funding based on identified priorities, history of f unding, outcomes and capacity, and make
funding recommendations to C ity Council. L egacy A gencies have a minimum f unding amount of
$15,000. T he application for this f unding is extensive and agencies are required to report quarterly
on their progress throughout the year. I n S eptember of 2022 agencies will submit applications
through the joint f unding process for f unds beginning in F Y24. T he awarded agencies will
automatically receive a prorated amount of funding in F Y25 (2nd year) based on the approved
budget.
Emerging Agency funding is intended to help agencies grow and develop capacity through small
projects. Any nonprof it who is not a L egacy A gency is eligible, and applicants can request
between $5,000 and $15,000 through a simplified annual application process. T his program was
created by HC D C and is relatively new, with the first funds allocated in F iscal Year 2020.
I n F all of 2021, staf f received a request from Center for Worker J ustice to be added to the list of
L egacy A gencies in C ity S teps 2025 which would allow them to apply for an increased amount of
City A 2A f unds. B ecause this was the f irst request of this nature, staff presented it to HC D C at
their October 21, 2021 meeting to determine next steps. HC D C agreed to review the request, and
at their November 18, 2021 meeting, the commission developed a process f or how to proceed.
HC D C opted to hold an application process which would include any agency who has previously
received Emerging A id to A gency funds.
T he application process was held in D ecember and each of the f ive eligible agencies applied for
L egacy status (C enter for Worker J ustice, Dream City (f ormerly D ream C enter), Houses into
Homes, Successf ul L iving, and Unlimited Abilities). At the J anuary 20, 2022 HC D C meeting, the
commission voted to add three of the five applicants – C enter f or Worker J ustice, D ream City,
and Houses into Homes – to C ity S teps 2025 as L egacy A gencies. T he remaining two agencies
were excluded based on their services as housing providers who have access to other funding
opportunities that allow administrative fees.
Center f or Worker J ustice (C W J ) received $5,000 in Emerging A2A f unds in F Y20 to support the
F orest View Tenants’ Association and $15,000 in F Y22 to sustain their wage theft campaign.
Outside of A 2A, C W J has been allocated $62,500 in 2020 through the city’s affordable housing
opportunity fund to provide direct C O V I D relief to households ineligible for other state and federal
benefits; $23,750 in 2021 through the affordable housing emergency fund to pay f or bilingual staff
to help community members fill out applications f or rent and utility assistance; and $32,000 in
A R PA funding in 2022 f or staffing to help administer relocation assistance f or Forest View
residents. A request to the City for $85,000 in A R PA funds over five years for wage theft recovery
efforts is currently underway. D ream City received $10,000 in F Y22 Emerging A 2A f unds to staff
their Connections Academy which serves youth and adults. Houses into Homes received $5,438
in E merging A2A funds in F Y21 to optimize inventory intake and management, as well as $15,000
in 2020 from the affordable housing opportunity fund to meet operational and staffing needs.
T he addition of new L egacy A gencies is likely to impact the ongoing funding of the current group
of L egacy A gencies. The budget for A2A comes mostly f rom city general funds but also includes
15% of the C ity’s annual C D B G allocation (which is the maximum allowed for public services
under C D B G). I n 2018, Council approved a substantial budget increase to A2A at the request of
HC D C and agency leaders. T his resulted in an increase of over $200,000 to the A 2A budget
between F Y19 and F Y20. Since then, the general f und portion of the A2A budget has increased
at a rate of 3% annually. T he total budget f or F Y22 was $719,250, with $124,000 funded through
C D B G and $595,250 funded with city general fund dollars.
Staff provided hypothetical funding scenarios to HC D C at their J anuary meeting to demonstrate
how allowing additional agencies to apply f or A 2A might impact funding f or current L egacy
Agencies. W hile these are estimates and cannot account f or the amount of f unds agencies may
request, it is evident that adding agencies to the pool of f unding will ultimately reduce f unding for
current agencies. HC D C has expressed interest in reaching out to City C ouncil to request an
increased A 2A budget beginning in F Y24. However, in order for agencies to apply in the joint
funding process this September f or F Y24 funds, a decision to amend the list of L egacy Agencies
must be made prior to the F Y24 budgeting process.
A change to City S teps 2025 requires a substantial amendment which was recommended by
HC D C at their May 19, 2022 meeting. A thirty-day public comment period began on May 20,
2022 and will conclude on J une 21, 2022. No comments have been received as of the date of this
report. I f approved, the substantial amendment will be submitted to HUD for approval.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
A2A S taff Memo to HC D C 11.10.21
Current L egacy A gencies
City Steps 2025 public service priorities
A2A Historic A llocations
HC D C Minutes 10.21.21
HC D C Minutes 11.18.21
HC D C Minutes 5.19.22 (draft)
Resolution
Exhibit A
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.
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 Consolidated
Plan to address changing priorities or gaps of service as identified in the plan.
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.
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
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
MINUTES FINAL
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: SEPTEMBER 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.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 2 of 17
2
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
UNSUCCESSFUL AND DELAYED 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 vacancy
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 sixth 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 people 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 current 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 wacky 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 there 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 property 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 recent 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 from, 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 objective 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 organization 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 applicant 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, that
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 and 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 is 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, then 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 rankings 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 projects 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 program 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 take
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 equity 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 Unlimited
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 probably 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 supports
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 process. 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 current 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 know 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 for 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 not 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 agencies. 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
MINUTES FINAL
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 18, 2021 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Peter
Nkumu, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nasr Mohammed
STAFF PRESENT: Erica Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Heath Brewer (Habitat for Humanity), Karen Fox (Center for Worker
Justice), Roger Goedken (Successful Living), Caitlin McGowan
(Successful Living)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of Substantial Amendment #1 to the FY22
Annual Action Plan.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 21, 2021:
Dennis moved to approve the minutes of October 21, 2021, Reedus seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the minutes were approved 7-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Roger Goedken (Executive Director of Successful Living) thanked HCDC for their efforts and time on the
commission. Goedken wanted to point out that Successful Living met the vacancy benchmark requested
by HCDC at the October meeting. The Commission set a metric for Successful Living to go from 10
vacancies to seven or fewer, which they did meet and exceed. He acknowledged they’re not through all
the steps that they need to get through but are at the point where they hope to be able to move forward
with the underwriting and utilize the funds.
ANNUAL PROJECT MONITORING PRESENTATIONS:
Heath Brewer (Habitat for Humanity Executive Director) gave an update on their unexpended FY20 and
FY21 funds. They currently have a project with the foundation and some walls built and progress on that
place is slated to complete in June. He noted it’s a big project to get that going again when volunteers
ramp back. For the other three funds, they have roughly $25,000 without assistance for each. They have
five homes slated to be built on Indigo but will have to design requirements to make sure that they fit for
working with Homes for Iowa as for that project they were contracted to provide affordable housing with
their habitat partners and homebuyers, getting them some help cash flow and project management. That
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 2 of 13
2
is also slated to be built this next summer and completed by the fall. Brewer noted they were delayed in
using funds because of the pandemic, obviously, and then this opportunity was one that they couldn't
pass. The initial home design did not work with the people, the housing design criteria, so the next round
of homes that they have purchased for next year, they will work with the builder to get some of those
things changed.
Reedus asked if they are seeing more volunteers now, noting since the pandemic they obviously had
interruptions or loss of volunteers, so what is the percentage of returning volunteers. Brewer noted they
have been active throughout with Restore, so that hasn't been terrible for them, but in the home
construction areas it's probably 40% to 50% of what they would be expecting in a normal year, especially
considering groups such as the university or other community groups that come out and work on
weekends. They are reducing the amount of folks that are allowed on site to be safe.
OVERVIEW OF AID TO AGENCIES – LEGACY AGENCY REQUEST:
Drabek noted the Commission discussed in their last meeting a request from the Center for Worker
Justice to be added to the list of legacy agencies and the Commission expressed desire to look at how
this would work. Drabek met with Kubly and Thul a couple weeks ago and what came out of that was the
idea to give a presentation of the history of Aid to Agencies and then to have a discussion to put together
a vision for what these sorts of requests should look like how they should handle them.
Kubly gave an overview of the Aid to Agencies program since there were newer commissioners who
haven't been through the application process. Aid to Agencies may also be called the human services or
public services and is intended to provide a flexible operational funding for Iowa City nonprofits who
provide services to low-income residents based on the funding priorities set in City Steps. This
Commission typically looks at CDBG and HOME projects and those are for specific projects, whereas the
Aid to Agencies is operational funding that is not eligible through CDBG or HOME. This is for things like
staffing and is really desirable by agencies and it's really necessary for other projects. This is primarily
funded by the City's general fund but they also use 15% of the CDBG allocation for this purpose, which
ends up to be about $100,000 to $120,000 annually. That is the maximum that's allowed by CDBG to be
put towards Aid to Agency. The current CDBG budget is about $719,000.
Regarding the whole history of agencies, Kubly could not comment on that because she hasn’t been with
the City that long but she could comment on the recent changes over the past couple years. The first one
is that the Commission eliminated the high, medium and low funding priorities that were in the previous
City Steps 2016 - 2020. Previously homeless services was listed as high, senior services as medium and
legal services as low and the Commission had to categorize each agency but they found that was really
difficult because agencies don't fit neatly into a category and many provide a variety of services.
Additionally, they decided that all the agencies are high priority and put that in the new City Steps. The
other change was newer agencies were coming into the picture that really couldn't compete with the more
established agencies, so HCDC developed the Emerging Agency program and set aside funds for new or
emerging nonprofits. At that time they defined who the legacy agencies were in the five year Consolidated
Plan, City Steps 2025 and then HCDC and agency leaders worked with Council to increase the budget
substantially for the Aid to Agency program. Kubly noted on the spreadsheet that was included in the
Commissioner’s packet it shows that increase between FY19 And FY20 and right now they're looking at a
3% increase in the City’s budget annually. The emerging agencies were developed and intended to help
agencies grow and develop capacity. Because the legacy agencies are listed in the Consolidated Plan
and City Steps, essentially any nonprofit that’s not a legacy is eligible for emerging agency funds. Similar
to legacy they must provide services to low-income residents in Iowa City and meet a City Steps priority.
HDDC sets aside 5% of the total Aid to Agency budget for this purpose and that’s usually around
$30,000. Funding for the emerging agencies can be between $5,000 and $15,000 for an agency, and the
application runs alongside the CDBG/Home application annually. Kubly noted it is a much more simplified
application than the legacy application, the applications for emerging agencies will be due in January for
funding in the following July. The legacy agencies are a core group of agencies that are identified in the
City Steps 2025 Consolidated Plan and Kubly put a list of those agencies in the Commissioner’s packets.
The number was limited to return the program to its original intent of providing an ongoing and stable
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 3 of 13
3
funding source for those agencies. There's a minimum funding of $15,000. The agencies apply through
the United Way joint funding process, which is a pretty extensive application, and the City also has
questions specific to Iowa City within the application. HCDC reviews these applications and then make a
recommendation to Council, similar to CDBG and HOME. The City is accepting applications on a two year
cycle currently. There are 19 agencies in City Steps 2025, but the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County
doesn't currently apply because they receive funding through the City's Affordable Housing Fund for
operational costs.
Kubly next discussed the City Steps 2025, the current process is to review the legacy agencies every five
years during the consolidated planning process so the next timeline to do that would be 2024. Any
changes to the Consolidated Plan right now requires a substantial amendment with a 30 day public
comment period, HCDC will review the requests, and then make a recommendation to City Council.
As discussed at the last meeting, City staff received a request for an agency to be added as a legacy
agency, which then triggers that substantial amendment process. They provided a written request to staff
and staff then asked them for a description of services provided, their need for funding, how they meet
the priorities of City Steps, and the population that they serve, specifically in Iowa City. Kubly also shared
the scoring criteria that they use for the legacy agency applications, it's based on needed priority,
impacted delivery, and evidence of financial and administrative capacity.
Staff has listed some questions they have such as under what circumstances would an agency be
considered for legacy status, and if any agency comes along can staff vet those and decide when or if
they want to pass those onto HCDC or when they would maybe refer them to another funding source or
to emerging agency funds. When will HCDC review requests for legacy status, Kubly would recommend
those be no more often than every two years when they do the applications. Staff also wants to know any
other information that HCDC would want the agency to provide in the written request. Regarding the
timeline of the application process and the City budgeting process, she suggests the requests will need to
be reviewed before August for them to be eligible in the next application process but they won't know the
City's fiscal year budget at that time so the decision will have to be made without any budget
amendments.
Drabek asked if every five years there is a certain window where it would not require a more substantive
process to add an agency to the legacy list correct. Kubly replied every five years the City rewrites the
Consolidated Plan but they’ve never done this before because this is the first time that the legacy
agencies have been listed in the Plan. The Plan review does go through a whole public input process
and they could make the change as they develop the new Plan and that goes through HCDC and Council
similarly. It’s not really less of a process, but rather just intertwined into the consolidated planning
process.
Reedus stated she thinks it should be more frequent than five years but does agree it makes sense to
follow the two year funding cycles and that is then someplace in the middle where they open up the
process and do a public notice that they’re going to be considering agencies and have some sort of
formal process that's tied to the calendar.
Dennis asked if Reedus is suggesting the Consolidated Plan be done every two years. Reedus clarified
no, only the review of legacy agencies every two years. She has other issues that she would look at in
terms of the length of time an agency has been incorporated or operating, because it's closely tied to their
ability to succeed long term and they want their money to go to things that produce measured outcomes.
Five years is such a large window of time that none of them are going to have that history from one time
to the next so won't be a continuity, so to speak. The other thing is it would probably result in leaving
agencies who are really not ready to become legacy agencies to apply for it. It makes sense to her to tie
to the two-year funding cycle. She also thinks United Way operates like that with their partner agencies,
they have a period of time to become a partner, etc. That is what Reedus would recommend
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 4 of 13
4
Drabek agrees with the two-year idea as anything longer than two years would present the continuity
issues.
Drabek noted while this topic is open for discussion, they might start with essentially answering the three
questions staff presented. They are discussing the timeline and length of time of a cycle, but the second
question is what the criteria are needed to be considered legacy.
Alter agreed they need to discuss the criteria, Reedus had talked a little bit about the output in terms of
what the agency is providing, so what is the data needed and what is enough output and service, should
there be some version of what legacy agencies have to fill out. Since the emerging agency application is
a much-simplified smaller application than the legacy one. Some of the criteria that they might be
looking for is how many people they are serving, who they are serving and that type of thing. She
suggests they find some of the specific criteria of what are the hallmarks that they want to actually look at
and what they're asking legacy agencies to provide.
Reedus noted the first bullet point for under what circumstances would be considered legacy status can
be answered in two ways. One is based on experience, years ago she went to Community Foundation
Cedar Rapids and heard a presentation about life cycles for organizations and for new organizations they
keep the funding low for the first seven years because there's such a high rate of failure. Reedus believes
that is true and can name a couple of organizations that have tried for three or four years and then
realized they couldn’t get it done because they couldn’t get the infrastructure they needed. She is not
suggesting that an agency has to be around for seven years, but does think they should have cut-off, or a
point at which they should have been in existence for, maybe three years, five years or something, so that
they can take a look at their track record of performance. The other thing is, she knows from personal
experience a number of years ago a legacy agency came in and totally changed what they asked for and
it was one of those hot topics at the time like backpack food or one of those kinds of things were really hot
for a while. And so Council approved that agency to get the money and it took money away from elder
services, like $15,000 or $20,000, out of senior Meals on Wheels and then the next year the agency didn’t
apply for it again so to her that was just like taking that money and tossing to something new and not on
an ongoing program. She feels they do need to look at legacy agencies to make sure that what they are
using the funds for City Step priorities, are they purchasing shelter services, food services, youth
services, things like that.
Drabek agreed and stated they need to see how well the agency meets the City priorities, what are the
services and then also the continuity, he would expect a legacy agency to want to continue to be a legacy
agency for years to come and not just a one or two years thing.
Vogel noted this must have been discussed when the legacy agencies were created, which was not that
long ago, and 39 agencies got whittled down to 19, so what were the criteria then. What were the
requirements and what were the circumstances? He noted they should not be creating a new whole new
concept; this was all decided by a previous group at some point before.
Kubly stated they looked at who was funded over maybe the past 5-10 years and consistency of funding
and there was a clear number of agencies that received funding each year for the past five years so they
determined that those were legacy agencies.
Reedus noted prior to that it was handled in a different department, or maybe by the same department
but different individual and does anyone know what that criteria was because Reedus believes that staff
member directly gave recommendations to City Council.
Vogel noted ICARE, Red Cross, MYP were all organizations that were getting money every year and then
it just stopped and he is assuming that is maybe because of new requirements. He is wondering if there is
any documentation from staff at that time about a matrix that was put together to define a legacy agency.
He doesn’t feel they should be rewriting it all now.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 5 of 13
5
Reedus doesn’t believe there was every any criteria written and when agencies were defined as legacy
agencies there weren’t 35 or 40 agencies. Some of those agencies that dropped out some years ago was
due to lack of services, lack of funding priorities, maybe direction of Iowa City, but the legacy status only
happened prior to the Commission going to the Council and asking for more money in 2019. No agency
was considered legacy much before that, that’s relatively a new word.
Kubly confirmed the first year that they had legacies was FY20. At that time they came up with a list
based on past funding and they put it in the Plan and had everyone review the Plan. Essentially it was
based on prior funding but Kubly added all these agencies have to do reporting quarterly so staff looked
at their reports for trends and outcomes.
Vogel stated they could set a guideline of an agency having to be in existence for five years to be eligible
for legacy status, they could still get emerging agency funds during those five years.
Reedus noted they don't have to get any emergent agency funds in order to be added to legacy, she just
has a preference that they would just have to be in inexistence for a set number of years, say three years
or five years, to make sure the City is investing the money with an organization has got some sort of track
record of being able to handle it, do the reporting and use that money wisely. As public stewards of
money she thinks that's important.
Vogel agreed they need to set a baseline of an organization having been in existence, so should it be
three years, five years, seven years or what. It was noted earlier that seven years is normally the line
where organizations fail so there's more risk in the first seven years.
Reedus agreed there is more risk in the first seven years however the rest of that cycle is most
organizations also reinvent themselves every 20 years so every 20 years of an organization's life they
have some risk because they're reinventing themselves, which could be one of the reasons why some of
the old agencies on that list are no longer funded because they change.
Alter feels they need to look at an agency’s track record, who they're serving, and other such metrics
rather than a hard and fast rule of X amount of years, that doesn't necessarily account for all of the other
components that go into the success of an agency.
Reedus suggested the stated an organization must be in existence for at least three years, preference for
five year, to be considered legacy but to also note in those years have they met the metr ics used in
ranking other legacy agencies who are funded.
Drabek agrees, they could pull information from the current legacy agency application and write it as
these are the 12 things they're looking for and they'd like to see most of these before an organization can
be made a legacy and then HCDC would make a decision yes or no.
Alter noted it also could be contingent on budget availability, because adding legacy agencies will
decrease the amount every legacy agency gets unless Council increases the overall budget and they
don't want to penalize agencies by welcoming someone who deserves to be a legacy agency into the
fold. This is not something that Council has deal with but is something that does need to be thought about
on a regular basis. So while there should be a certain amount of criteria for an agency to become a
legacy agency, she feels there needs to be guardrails or caveats that may also be contingent upon
availability of funds in order to be fair to all of the agencies.
Reedus agreed, if they apply to become legacy and apply for funding and score high, there is a minimum
of $15,000 they will be requesting and will take a minimum of $15,000 from another agency's allocation.
Vogel asked then why the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund, which hasn't asked for any funding in the
last three years, or hasn't gotten funding in the last few years, still listed on the legacy list. They could
show up next year and request money that will also take away money from the other 18 that have been
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 6 of 13
6
receiving funding last three years. So if they are concerned about putting more people into the pool and
everybody less from the pool, that could happen now by the Johnson County Housing Trust Fund so he
doesn’t think that should part of the discussion of whether or not to add a new agency to the legacy list.
Either they are a qualified agency that deserves funding for their operating expenses, because they have
shown worth in this City, or they're not. City Council could just choose not to give anybody money in two
years, and that wouldn’t take away from an agency's value as a provider of services in the City. He
doesn’t like making a statement that they’re not going to give them legacy status/value, because it may
end up getting less money in other groups pockets. If an organization applies for legacy status, it is
HCDC’s place to determine whether they are a value and should be added to the list of legacy agencies.
Drabek agrees with that and is actually really sympathetic to a point and that point is where the second,
third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth applications get added to the legacy list and if the City
did not add funds it would really cut into the funding quite a bit. So he is sympathetic to having some sort
of clause that says that availability of City funds may be a factor the decision
Dennis suggested they also add if a legacy agency hasn’t applied for funding for a number of years, say
three years, they then have to reapply to be a legacy agency. It’s a unique situation for the Johnson
County Housing Trust Fund because they do still get funding, it just now comes from a different pot of
money.
Reedus noted another thing is there been a lot of new agencies or new services pop up because of the
pandemic because there's a lot of pandemic money to help with a little bit of this, a little bit of that and
unique special kinds of needs that popped up because of the pandemic. This is why it would be
necessary to see a mission statement and to be in existence for at least three years because it may be a
need that won’t be as necessary three years from now. It also raises the question of duplication and how
do they deal with duplicative services and that's something they should consider in the application, not
just is another agency doing it, but maybe the service is provided in some other way and it's just thinking
outside the box a little bit and taking a look at how people's needs can get met, not necessarily through
agency services, but in some other way.
Dennis noted these funds are for operational expenses and this Commission is the stewards of the
money in making recommendations to Council. So she feels there is value in asking what percentage of
the request that they're asking is their operational budget. Typically, the operational budget would be
about 25% of their overall budget. They need to look at what their budgets are, look at their most recent
990 and see what their operational costs was based on their entire budget. Dennis noted as
Commissioner’s it is hard to say which ones are more valuable than the others as far as what their
missions are, what they do for the community, and for the low-income people in this community. What
they need to decide the money part of their budget, their operational plan and are they getting other
funds.
Alter agrees the budget should be part of that consideration. Just to actually kind of summarize, they are
looking at minimum years of existence, without it being hard and fast, she likes the minimum of three,
preferably five, next to show the track record, a historical narrative, to show the consistency of mission,
and a consideration from the commission about whether it's duplicative services or not, where's the value
to the community, noting there are multiple ways in which the same populations can be served and finally
to consider budget.
Reedus asked if Houses to Homes is a legacy agency. Kubly replied no, they received funding once
through emerging agencies. Alter noted they are one of those truly unusual agencies because they're
only three years old and they have just exploded in terms of providing services.
Reedus agrees but wants to make sure that the services are needed, that they have the capacity,
because what she doesn’t want to have happen is for an agency to pass around the Commission and go
straight to the City Council because they have a budgetary crisis, because they weren't planning well, or
because of whatever reason they sought money out. Houses to Homes was one that did go around the
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 7 of 13
7
process because she thought that they had gotten $25,000, but maybe they did only get $15,000 as an
emerging agency. Kubly stated they only got $5,400 from emerging agency funding, but they also did get
a direct allocation from Council through the emergency request process and that was more like $25,000.
Reedus takes exception to that process and thinks Council should be directing agencies to come in
through the front door because it's just not fair to others.
Dennis noted when they are talking about duplicative it's also important to say how they may partner with
other similar agencies. For example, the Center for Worker Justice is an emerging agency as is the
Sudanese American Community Services, maybe they're related but if somebody walks into CWJ and
doesn’t feel they can support their needs, perhaps the CWJ directs this person to another agency they
have some working relationship with that is providing similar services.
Reedus thinks it's helpful to encourage collaboration, partnerships, and coordinated entry is an excellent
example of agencies working together to have a better outcome for client’s needs and that those that
need the help don't have dozens of application processes to go through. She would personally love to see
some collaboration grants, perhaps have a pot of money, for organizations who come forward with a
great opportunity to collaborate.
Vogel is questioning the role of the Commission overall in this process, the Commission is just making a
recommendation to Council. If there are three applications to legacy status and the Commission only
recommends one, can Council go ahead and approve all three. Kubly replied the Commission will make
their recommendation to Council in the form of substantial amendments and recommend that this one
agency gets added to the legacy list and the Consolidated Plan. However, Council is going to see all the
meeting minutes and are able to read the discussion so they can go with the Commission’s
recommendation, or they could change it and do whatever they chose. Most of the time Council takes the
recommendation of the Commission, even if the agency goes to Council directly.
Kubly feels staff now has a good list of everything the Commission wants to consider for adding new
legacy agencies and that seems like everyone's in agreement with those items. She did want to know if
the Commission felt it should be required for an agency to be funded through emerging funds first. Could
someone who has never even applied for emerging funds be eligible for legacy funds just right off the bat.
The Commissioners agreed they should apply to emerging agencies first as it would be desirable if
emerging agencies were 5 or 10 years old so the Commission has more of a track record to look back
upon. It will be a requirement that they have successfully received at least one year of emerging agency
funding before they can apply for legacy status.
Kubly thinks that'd be helpful and noted they do require reporting for emerging agencies and then could
provide that as part of the application.
Reedus noted they do have one agency that has indicated that they want to apply for legacy status, so
are they going to have an application process upcoming in the next few months and put that information
out so that others can also apply.
Vogel stated his opinion is Center for Worker Justice has already put in an application request and any
rules they make now should not be grandfathered back to them. His opinion is they just present and the
Commission figures it out.
Drabek asked if there is any existing language at all. Kubly replied no, she doesn’t believe the intention
was to have like an application route, it was just for those who expressed interest they would direct them
to this process. She added they did get an inquiry from another agency recently as well. So staff will go
through the checklist and see how the agencies compare with the categories. There isn’t an application,
staff just asks them to provide a written request.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 8 of 13
8
Reedus was suggesting at the onset that they actually have an application process and the reason why
she doesn’t like considering one at a time and that's exactly what they're doing. They're not put through
the same type of comparative process so she would advocate that they have an open door, whether
that's every two years, where they state they will be considering new applications for legacy agencies,
and then close the door. Otherwise, they could be doing one every single meeting, literally. She would
advocate that they create a process of a timeline for consideration, and then close that door until it
happens the next time again. She suggests every two years because that is also when the legacy
agencies are reviewed for funding, every two years.
Alter believes the question right now is specifically about CWJ, she agrees moving forward there should
be an application and process in place.
Kubly said they can make CWJ wait until an application process is open, but they just need to know
because the emerging agency cycle is coming up and they probably want to know if they need to apply
there.
Reedus stated the next legacy application process is not happening until next fall, the applications will be
next fall, so they should continue to apply for the emerging funds, because the legacy application process
is not until fall and the funding will not be until the next fiscal year, July of 2024. She also thinks they
need to get the word out to other agencies. It needs to be open and transparent for everyone. CWJ isn’t
going to get any additional funding by getting legacy now.
Staff will notify agencies that have received Emerging Aid to Agencies funds previously that HCDC will be
considering applications to become Legacy Agencies at the January meeting. The Center for Worker
Justice will be asked to fill out the application once developed to make the process fair for all qualifying
agencies.
{Vogel had to leave the meeting}
Reedus asked if Drabek or Alter had meet with the City Manager yet to talk about increasing the funding
for Aid to Agencies. Drabek replied he has just met with Kubly and Thul as discussion of the budget
would be at a much later time. Kubly confirmed the City hasn’t even approved the FY23 budget at this
time so they're not even thinking about FY24 yet. Reedus asked when the Commission makes decisions
recommendations for funding would that fall before budget requests go to the City. Kubly confirmed the
Commission would be making their recommendations prior to the City's budget being approved. Reedus
asked if the budget is going to be different if they have two new emerging agencies that become legacy
and therefore want more money for the budget. Kubly said they will be working off an estimated budget
that's not approved.
Drabek noted the date is next spring for when they will want to put in a request for an increase in budget.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT #1 TO THE FY22 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN:
Thul noted this is a vote on the updates the Commission recommended at the last meeting to the Annual
Action Plan.
Dennis motioned to recommend approval of Substantial Amendment #1 to the FY22 Annual Action
Plan to Council. Seconded by Drabek. Passed 7-0.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FY23 CDBG/HOME AND EMERGING AID TO AGENCIES APPLICATION
MATERIALS:
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 9 of 13
9
They began with the FY23 CDBG/HOME application materials. Drabek noted what they have is a
reworking of the current year's rubric. Thul noted staff tried to take some of the feedback that has been
mentioned in the last several meetings and adjust the criteria to hopefully respond to some of that.
Drabek stated the questions are more detailed and have more detailed criteria, and the number of points
is standardized at 20 for each question. Thul stated they also changed the weight distribution that was
discussed last time to make the sections more even, the previous scoring criteria didn't have very even
weight per section.
Reedus noted she could see some of her issues incorporated in here because during the last round she
struggled through how to do the income levels. She appreciates the more detailed questions and the
more detailed criteria for awarding partial points.
Drabek stated he didn’t want to comment too much on this because he is not going to be using this rubric
next year but he appreciated the offer to give staff scores for the a couple of very objective type
questions.
Dennis asked about the feasibility as far as the median income of the person is targeted. She has never
understood why the City would require applicants, especially for HOME funds, to be more restrictive than
what the HOME program allows. For example, if The Housing Fellowship came in and applied for HOME
funds and said that everybody they were going to serve that lived in those houses had to be zero to 30%
of area median income. What if they had a mother come into apply and be literally $2 over 30% of the
area median income and staff would have to say, sorry, you're over income. The rule is it has been under
60% so why did the City put even more restrictive criteria on that then what’s required by HUD.
Drabek believes that was an earlier commission that probably just wanted to put an extra emphasis on
zero to 30%. Dennis noted in her opinion that was a wrong decision.
Thul noted they did adjust the weight on that question, it used to carry a ton of weight in the scoring
criteria which really skewed the whole thing, so they did try to adjust for that to make it more fair.
Reedus agrees it is concerning to hear a $2 difference would cut somebody off from receiving something
because $2 at that level isn't doesn't make anybody stable, one can’t even buy a loaf of bread for that
much money.
Drabek noted the change in the real estate space being taken up by the LP AMI question, it went from 20
points out of 100 points to 20 points out of 320, so he was worried that that might have gone a little bit too
far. He thinks the issue Dennis is raising is a another one, which is do they need the fine-grained
distinctions within AMI, is there such a meaningful difference between zero to 30%, 31% to 50% and 51%
to 60%.
Dennis is stating that for the HOME funds, HUD has requirements, and the City has always added
additional requirements. They added more than what it requires and it’s HUD funds, so why was that, as
long as the project meets the HOME/HUD requirements.
Alter stated she can't say where that came from exactly but does know on previous commissions there
were some commissioners who really emphasized making sure that the lowest AMI’s got more funding.
That may be some of that community impact piece. But in terms of fairness and transparency it does
make sense to have it in sync with what the HOME requirements are and would allow for those horrifying
examples of being $2 over. Not to mention if they are concerned with affordable housing throughout,
there's the missing middle, and it's really expensive to live here. She would agree to put it to the HOME
requirements, there's a symmetry there that makes sense.
Thul also mentioned they are using the same scoring rubric to also score public facilities projects so that
makes it complicated.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 10 of 13
10
Reedus asked if those are the actual questions that are asked on the application. Thul replied they tried
to fine tune this to make it more parallel to the application, some of them are almost verbatim and some of
them are broader. For example, they added that third column to look at specifically what question it
relates to in the application.
Reedus asked regarding question number nine, will the project assist any special population, that is a
good question and she’d actually like to see more information than a yes or no, like how the agency will
demonstrate because oftentimes some agencies might eyeball something and she’d just like to know how
the agency gathers that information. She had a similar question about the racial equity, she would like the
organization to illustrate how the project promotes racial equality and inclusivity for marginalized
populations.
Alter recalls the question invites explanation, and this is one place where if an agency just does say yes
and they don't provide any explanation, as a commissioner, she would questions their judgment and
perhaps not give as high of a score.
Reedus agreed but then instead of having to wait until the meeting where the agency could explain, she
rather encourages that information up front.
Thul noted she changed the scoring on the application based on looking at other cities scoring criteria
that seemed easier to have a flat number, there's one question in here that still uses range, it doesn't
mean that they have to do it that way, but at the last meeting she heard Commissioners say that they felt
it was subjective, so this was just an idea to try to make it more straightforward.
Dennis noted she really appreciates number three where they get to a point where it says the budget
appears questionable and reasonable and the budget is substantially mathematically incorrect.
Reedus noted the criterial needed for number 12 is what she is looking for in back up in question number
nine, the project assists special populations, yes or no, but under 12 it states the proposal clearly
demonstrates some long-term efficient use of funding. She would like to see number nine have more like
three tiers of options, same with the question on racial equality and inclusivity.
Alter moved to approve the FY23 CDBG/HOME application materials as amended that the question
9 scoring criteria be changed from a two-tier score to a three-tier score. Seconded by Drabek. A
vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Moving on to the FY23 Emerging Aid to Agencies application, Thul noted it didn't change much from last
year, staff didn't make any major adjustments.
Reedus stated she knows they're looking for project budget but are they also looking for overall agency
budget. She’d like to see an overall agency budget and a project budget. She’d also like to see their
990 because that demonstrates what kind of operating funds they have and if they actually have the
financial capacity to do the programming. Additionally, she’d like to see the fund balance, if they have that
as that's something she is going to want to see from legacy agencies also because that's part of running a
strong organization.
Dennis asked if that wasn’t already part of the United Way application. Reedus said they should look at it
anyway because there can be times when an agency has too much money and then the question is are
they actually using the annual dollars to meet a need in the community or increase an agency's fund
balance. Even as a new organization these are things that they should be thinking about and it goes with
their financial competency to manage a program.
Alter stated to give a little bit of historical perspective there are certainly some agencies whereas they
talked about creating the emerging funds was to actually help some agencies get that first start. So while
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 11 of 13
11
asking for this demonstrates seriousness but the weighting of it should be taken into account. There was
one situation where they gave an agency a minimum of $5,000 just to get furniture to go into an office
space. They didn't have that in their budget, per se, and that’s why they were coming here to try and get
funding for furniture. So again, in the past, some of this was intentionally supposed to help some get up
on their feet rather than for them to demonstrate that they already were.
Reedus acknowledged that's a good point but question number nine is asking them to describe
sustainability because hopefully the City's money isn't 100% of their budget. She wants to see they are
writing other applications or have a fundraising plan and to show the goals they intend to raise.
Dennis suggested they asked for the list of board of directors, or board of trustees. Thul stated they can
add that as a requested field or make it required as an attachment. Dennis would like that added. Reedus
agreed, they want to see a level of no conflict and don't want just see friends of Becky in Becky's
organization that are going to vote her way instead of their right to vote for the good of the organization.
Reedus would also like more information on question number six, why is the project needed. She wants
to know did they start because of some need that came out of the pandemic and if so are they're still
going to see a need. She would like a little bit of background in terms of why they're still in existence and
how they morphed into something else, because she thinks that's going to be a big question for some
organizations who started during the pandemic, are those services still needed. She would like to see a
little bit more in the historic history. Also do they ask about duplication or working with partners. Thul
noted question seven asks about how the project fills a gap in the community, but not really about
partnerships.
Reedus noted Coordinated Entry is a partnership of agencies that utilizes a lot of their individual strengths
and each agency making some tactical type of issues and comes up with a great product that every
single agency benefits from and more importantly individuals in the community benefit from. Everything
doesn't have to be a defined collaboration or anything like that but just a note of who they are partnering
with. For example, Table to Table has over the past four or five years done a lot more special projects
with agencies where they might partner with a church or small program to help feed kids after school or
something like that. She feels it’s important for them to become part of that larger picture by partnering
with others if they can.
Alter agrees it’s great advice for an emerging agency to think of partnering but if they have only been in
existence for a year or so it might be too daunting to think of that.
Dennis agrees and again, if it's only $5,000 she thinks they are getting a little bit too much in the weeds
for an agency that's only been in existence for three years.
Reedus is concerned about duplicating services. Alter noted that can be discussed during the discussion
part, a lot of information can be found out during those informational sessions. Reedus wants to see a
budget and an attachment of 990 or financial statements.
The Commission agreed they should request additional attachments from applicants including agency
budget, board of directors list, and agency financial information (990 form, financial statements, or
similar).
Reedus moved to approve the FY23 Emerging Aid to Agencies application materials as amended.
Seconded by Drabek. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
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.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 12 of 13
12
Alter noted at the last meeting Council approved a lot of P&Z stuff. There was an explanation of fringe
areas, and basically how they work with the County to be able to expand in anticipation of City growth and
to how to create city-friendly growth in fringe areas. They also had the next voting for the South District
Plan, which has to do with rejuvenating the area in terms of building. Dennis stated this Commission will
have a presentation on the form-based code at some point. Council is doing a work session on the ARPA
funds and Council is allocating some funding to nonprofit agencies. Dennis asked if that will come
through this Commission. Kubly did not believe they would, however the HOME ARPA funds will come
before this Commission for distribution.
The Commissioners discussed who would attend upcoming Council meetings. Reedus volunteered to
watch the upcoming meetings in 2021 and Drabek will watch the January ones.
Reedus asked regarding the ARPA allocations she is assuming agencies that are involved will have to
submit to the Agency Impact Council a needs assessment. If that actually happens, can this Commission
get a presentation from the Agency Impact Council in terms of how they're going to do that because she
thinks it might be a good idea for somebody from this group to monitor that process because the needs
assessment will probably be a more in depth needs assessment than has been done a long time. She
thinks they plan on hiring a professional group or finance consultant to do it she has seen the proposed
funding options so it looks like it's going to be funded.
Reedus asked when Council is going to do the final vote on the APRA funds. Alter is not sure, they are
working with the County as a partner to figure out which things they should partner on and what they
shouldn't. After that then the City will work among themselves to distribute the rest of their monies.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Kubly noted at the last meeting staff got a request for a presentation about the South District form-based
code which was approved by Council this week. The planning and zoning staff have a meeting the same
night on Thursday nights as well so it's kind of challenging to get a staff to present but Anne Russett did
provide a memo about the code changes for this Commission to review and also the presentations that
they've given to Council and Planning and Zoning Commission are online as well.
Thul noted the next meeting is in January with project presentations. They are going to open the FY23
funding round on December 29th and it will be open until January 31.
The Commission vacancy is posted so Council will do an appointment for the next HCDC member in
December.
Drabek congratulated Alter for her election to City Council and thanked her for her three plus years of
service on this Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
Dennis moved to adjourn, Reedus seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 13 of 13
13
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2021-2022
• Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 8/19 9/16 10/21 11/18
Alter, Megan 6/30/24 X O/E X X
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X X
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X X
Mohammed, Nasr 6/30/23 X X X O/E
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X X
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X X
Vacancy 6/30/23
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
MAY 19, 2022 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Drabek, Karol Krotz, Elizabeth Marilla-Kapp, Nasr Mohammed,
Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Peter Nkumu,
STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House),
Trevor Conrad (MODUS), Charlie Eastham (CWJ), Karen Fox (CWJ),
Ashlee Hopkins (DVIP), Brian Loring (NCJC)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC recommends approval of the FY23 Annual Action Plan to Council.
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC recommends approval of the proposed Substantial Amendment to City Steps
2025 to Council.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS:
Marilla-Kapp introduced herself and noted she is mobile crisis responder at Community and what brings
her here is how often she sees the intersection between housing and mental health crises and she does a
lot of direct service so it's just pulling her to think about systems change in addition to suppor ting people
when it becomes an emergency.
Krotz introduced herself and stated she is here on the Commission because of her interest in low-income
housing and from personal experience has seen this section of the population that don't meet the ability to
pay fair market rent and fall way below way below poverty lines and sometimes it feels like they aren't
welcome in Iowa City. She is hoping at some point in her tenure they can discuss ways that the City
might be able to help people with housing needs beca use there are a lot of people that this affects.
AORTA MEETING FACILITATION:
This item was included in the agenda packet and the two new Commissioners should have received it in
their training. Drabek noted they should go back and take another look at it at some point but the idea
was to try to do what they can to bring out all the different voices of the members of the Commission and
think about what is the strength of HCDC what does it add to the City government that other facets do
not. HCDC has a unique reach into lots of different communities in Iowa City and this is to create a space
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 2 of 9
2
at the meeting where everyone can each bring their own perspectives and those guidelines are some
things to help.
Reedus would like to address how commissioners can get agenda items on the agenda because right
now the chair and the vice chair are setting the agenda but earlier in the year when the bylaws were in
the packet she had asked about them and noted she’d like to review them as a future agenda item.
Drabek noted the typical process is to let the chair know of any items and the chair will talk about it with
staff. Staff meets quarterly with the chair and vice chair so commissioners can bring items to the chair or
vice chair and they can bring it to staff to put it on the agenda.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 24, 2022:
Reedus moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 2022, Vogel seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and the minutes were approved 6-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
UNSUCCESSFUL AND DEL AYED PROJECTS UPDATES:
Neighborhood Center of Johnson County - FY22 Public Facility Improvements ($37,242 CDBG)
Brian Loring (Executive Director, Neighborhood Center of Johnson County) gave a quick update to say
they conducted their first project meeting with the contractor on May 4th for putting a new roof on the
Broadway Center and so the trajectory for completion is probably the end of the month or maybe the first
week of June. Bids are open for the repavement of the parking lot at the Pheasant Ridge Center and
that closes on May 27th. Loring did note things have been a little bit challenging in terms of finding
contractors but he thinks they will probably get a bid and hopefully that would be completed this summer.
Reedus asked is there any concern from staff with the agency's response in terms of HUD when a project
is delayed the concern for the money having to be repaid.
Kubly noted for these projects they haven't spent any money yet so they wouldn't have to be repaid, the
timeliness letter is a checkpoint that HUD gives cities and it's really for all of the CDBG projects at once
so if several projects are behind the City is not going to meet the HUD checkpoint because they haven't
spent enough money for these projects. Knowing they're moving forward staff is not concerned about
them being able to complete it within the next couple months and therefore aren’t recomme nding
recapture of these projects funds tonight. Staff did include that letter just so the Commissioners could get
an idea that when all the projects are behind for different reasons, not always at the fault of the agencies,
that can get the City in trouble with the HUD timeliness.
Reedus asked what's a total dollar amount for the two projects. Thul replied the Shelter House project
was $225,000 and both Neighborhood Centers totaled a little more than $37,000.
Drabek asked if the Commission decides to or recommends recapture then of course they would have to
take a vote but if they don't recommend recapture no vote is required for this item. Thul confirmed that is
correct, these are just updates, no action is required of the Commission. Kubly added the reason staff is
bringing these forward tonight is because they haven't spent 50 percent of their project allocation by a
certain time so that's what triggers their the checkpoint.
Shelter House - FY22 Public Facility Improvements ($225,000 CDBG).
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 3 of 9
3
Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House) introduced Trevor Conrad (MODUS) who is the expert on the HVAC
project. Conrad noted the construction industry has been difficult the past year and a half with staffing
challenges and everything but they're committed to getting this done and his goal is by the end of the
month to have documents ready to go, bid in June and they can start that project. Conrad acknowledged
the project is a challenge because of some of the compromises and design decisions they made with the
initial building 10 years ago and a lot of the issues they're running into is just phasing and how to keep
this building functional and occupiable for the tenants while this construction is going to happen so those
are just the problems and issues that they were running into. Conrad believes they have got that
resolved and again are shooting for the end of the month have documents prepared and ready to go and
then to bid in June. They’ve already had to do part of it as the water heaters in the building completely
failed a few weeks ago so as an emergency they had to get that done so they phased that part of the
project out.
Canganelli noted they used private dollars from the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County to pay for that
component as they didn't have any hot water.
Reedus asked once they get the bids back how long does it take to complete the project. Conrad replied
it really depends on availability of things, right now everything is unavailable as school work is about to
get started and the schools suck up a lot of material and equipment that's out there. He would like it to be
done towards the end of the year but they’ll have to see. They are in constant communication with
different vendors and contractors to see what's going on because it is a challenge right now trying to get
materials and long lead times of up to 32 weeks whereas prior to all the things that have happened it
would have been 8 to 12 weeks.
Mohammad noted he sees a lot of construction now going on at the Shelter House, is this project for the
new building or for the old building. Conrad stated it's for the existing building. Canganelli stated the new
building is just getting completed and they’re looking at potentially having occupancy around June 10th
Marilla-Kapp asked if they are planning to reduce the bed spaces for any length of time during the project.
Conrad noted the overall building is not going to change so but there will be phasing so components will
have to be taken out and there may not be heating and cooling for that particular area for a matter of
days, maybe hours, but overall nothing will change but there will be temporary inconveniences here and
there as they have to shut off things and replace them. Cangenelli stated they are hoping they can hit a
sweet spot where they won't need heating or cooling for certain periods of time like in early fall or late fall
but otherwise they do have the ability to go back into the winter shelter space and utilize that space to
provide any additional beds if they do have to shut down any areas. Conrad added they should be
available to avoid a lot of the heat of the summer at this point and get into that late summer/early fall
when it's starting to cool down again.
Vogel is personally not concerned that either of these projects are not going to be able to get the projects
done and expend the monies so he has no interest at all in recapture.
PROJECT MONITORING UPDATES:
Shelter House. Canganelli reported Shelter House received $78,800 for FY22 through Aid to Agencies,
$15,000 of which was resourced through CDBG funds and they dedicated those funds for the emergency
shelter which has a budget of a little over a million dollars. For the first three quarters of FY22 they have
sheltered 593 unique (unduplicated) individuals and in a typical year they'll have about 25,000 shelter
nights provided. 14% of the individuals served were children, 10% were veterans, and they had 51% self -
reporting at least one or more disabling conditions. All operations are ongoing with emergency shelter,
they are back at full capacity and has been for quite some time. Canganelli noted they have had some
recent very significant challenges, as previously mentioned they lost all hot water capacity for a number of
weeks and the HVAC system is in need of replacing, which should happen soon. Staffing continues to be
a real challenge, specifically second and third shifts, finding people who are interested in doing the work,
are willing to show up and follow through, they have increased pay rates and benefits, so they feel they
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 4 of 9
4
are very competitive for those positions. Things are starting to get a little better but been pretty heavy
especially as they're opening up another facility and that has t o be staffed 24/7.
Reedus noted it's a double-edged sword for agencies, on one hand it’s good to see the pay rates go up
and the better benefits but on the other hand a lot of contracts don't raise those rates. She asked about
the rate increase. Canganelli replied pre-Covid it was $11/hour for the frontline evening overnight shift
and now it is $15/hour.
Reedus noted it’s great that agencies are increasing the their pay and their benefits to become more
competitive but where is that money's going to come from so this Commission needs to be verbal and
proactive with the Council in terms of the pot of money that gets handed out to agencies, whether it's
emerging agencies or the legacy agencies, that's a huge concern that she has. Canganelli noted in the
short term they've been able to resource that through additional Covid related federal funds but long term
that's additional fundraising. She added it's a curiosity that they are providing an essential service a public
service and there's widespread understanding that they prevent people even through emergency shelter
from being in jail, from being in emergency rooms, from facing death, but they are supported as a charity
as opposed to other public services and facilities that are funded almost entirely, and this would include
Guide Link Center, through public funds.
Reedus agreed there should be a discussion about separating those activities out and is concerned about
how they're going to get through legacy agency funding again next year as they're still going to be
struggling with the same issues that they've had before in terms of the pot of money and will have new
legacy agencies which will be vying for money. She has a lot of concerns that they haven't really even
decided how they can address some of these issues.
Marilla-Kapp asked if these agencies funds are restricted to things like facilities or can those funds go
straight to staffing costs. Kubly replied they're operational funds so they're flexible and agencies can use
them how they see fit.
Mohammad thanked Shelter House for serving the community, those are incredible numbers and the face
of the City would be very ugly without the Shelter House services. He asked what the biggest challenge is
facing them right now. Canganelli replied the biggest challenges is continuing to grow and ensure that
they have trained, competent and fairly compensated staff, they're passionate but being able to retain
those employees and ensure that they are maintaining a safe work environment and living environment
for clients and for tenants weighs on them pretty heavily. They've got really good programming are
recognized statewide as a leader for the work that they're doing and are showing the impact in all of the
areas that HUD requires. The numbers within the population that they're serving is increasing, the
number of people who have systemic health issues, not just one disabling condition but multiple,
substance abuse, people are using poly substances in combination with serious mental illness and the
challenges of working with those individuals in congregate environments is challenging. When they get
them into housing it’s super exciting to see it all working.
Marilla-Kapp asked is staffing the biggest obstacle to running the low barriers year -round. Canganelli
stated all shelter is low barrier, the entire organization is low barrier, there's really little to no difference
between what is understood as the winter shelter and the 429 24/7 – 365 shelter, it's just additional
capacity and tends to really focus more on folks that just don't want to come into the other shelter and
don't want to be around families, so they see single adults in that winter shelter. Canganelli explained
that wasn't always the case, it used to be that there was a differential between, and that low barrier has
definitely increased the challenge and the need to make sure that they're preparing and supporting staff in
ways that they know how to work and engage with the individuals safely and supporting. They have
committed to housing first in low barrier, other systems and other entities with which they intersect and
with which clients and tenants they need to work, they haven't made those changes and they haven't
come closer so they have barriers and they have limitations and that's the next real big work they have
ahead.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 5 of 9
5
Domestic Violence Intervention Program - Ashlee Hopkins (Development Coordinator) reported these
funds go towards their shelter services and hotline. DVIP provides emergency shelter 24/7 - 365 and in
their shelter they house the hotline and provide housing assistance, safety planning, help with protective
orders and counseling for victims of abuse, human trafficking and harassment. DVIP does serve eight
counties, the shelter is here in Iowa City and the majority of the people that they help are in Iowa City.
They also do educational pieces within the community on relationships and how to help a friend. Most of
the people that seek their services hear about it through word of mouth and many call the hotline first so
it's always important to get that number out there. The hotline person is in the shelter, it's a full -time
position and in the last six months they've had 601 hotline calls taken. The hotline calls are a myriad of
questions from victim survivors, friends, families, and co-workers about how they can get help. In the
shelter they've served 85 people, 49 women, 1 male and 35 children in the last six months, with the
average stay being 40 days. Hopkins stated the funds received have always gone towards their shelter
services.
Krotz noted Hopkins mentioned that DVIP serves eight counties but did she have a rough estimate on
what percentage of the clients are from Iowa City. Hopkins replied about half are from Iowa City, in FY21
they served over 2,000 victim survivors in eight counties and 1100 were from Iowa City, about 1500 from
Johnson County.
Krotz asked what other counties they serve. Hopkins replied, Iowa, Washington, Cedar, Henry, Des
Moines, Van Buren and Lee Counties as well as Johnson County.
Mohammad asked if they are able to shelter of all the clients that seek their help. Hopkins replied yes
and explained as far as sheltering they do have to come up with different ways of supporting clients with
emergency shelter because their shelter is full 365 days a year, so they are finding hotel stays that are
temporary and then potentially working them into the shelter or looking at permanent housing solutions or
options. Since they serve eight counties it can also mean a bus ticket to families s omewhere else.
Sometimes it's just connecting someone with resources in the communities and a lot of safety planning
but emergency shelter is the number one request.
Reedus asked what are some concerns that they have coming forward. Hopkins stated this fiscal year
they are facing a 15% to 22% federal cut through VOCA funding, next fiscal year will there's been a
VOCA fix enacted that will reallocate those funds into the VOCA fund and so by next fiscal year they’ll be
back at where they were but that is going to be a challenge for them this year. Therefore, they’ve already
been trying to diversify their funding for the last several years to have more individual donors and to get
away from the state and federal funding but are still at about a 60/40 split on that so that is a huge
challenge.
Reedus asked about staffing. Hopkins replied they are having similar issues as the Shelter House is
having, she can't speak necessarily to the pay rate as she is just the development coordinator but could
note they are having some turnover issues and a lot of it is definitely burnout from Covid and just the
extra stress that the advocates went through and also the tremendous effects of Covid on those that they
serve. They saw a 25% increase in hotline calls in the last couple of years because of Covid and an
increase in those that they serve. Just in Johnson County it was a 300 person increase in those seeking
services and people reaching out for help.
Krotz asked if they have a core of volunteers who can assist when they are a little short on staff. Hopkins
acknowledged they do utilize volunteers and are talking about potentially having some more direct service
volunteer options. During Covid they were limiting the interaction in the shelter and with the clients to
very minimal interaction with outside public so volunteers were helping sort donations and things like that,
but the board of directors were discussing more volunteers doing direct service. Hopkins noted it does
take quite a bit of training to do direct service and a commitment of two year for a volunteer to do that, but
it is something being talked about.
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 6 of 9
6
Thul did their monitoring visit and while she can't speak to the project in specific detail she does know
their funding is on track to be spent and meet their accomplishment target by the end of the fiscal year.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF FY23
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN:
Thul stated the Annual Action Plan is basically a piece of the City’s Consolidated Plan and says what
they're going to do for the next fiscal year. The fiscal year starts July 1 and runs through June 30. This is
a document that contains the recommendations that HCDC just made recently and it's a long document.
Thul gave the preface that the format of this report is what is required by HUD in the federal database so
staff doesn't have a lot of flexibility in editing it or trying to make it more user friendly. Staff has tried to
make changes where they can and include extra tables that maybe make the information a little bit
clearer. The most interesting part of this for this Commission is probably append ix B, that's where HCDC
funding recommendations are. The public comment for this plan starts tomorrow and it will run through
June 21. The next step after the public comment period will be the plan going to Council for approval and
then submitted to HUD for approval. Once the plan is approved staff will then process the grant
agreements.
Drabek noted some of the things in the Action Plan are of course very promissory which is probably
because they're going to be decided later but he did want to ask about the section where the City owned
certain properties that may be used for affordable housing, one was on Muscatine and the other on
Ronald’s. Kubly replied there's a HUD question that they ask if there's any City property that's available
for affordable housing and the City just lists essentially what they own that could be developed and those
are two of the properties that the City has actually had for a little while. The Muscatine one is more suited
for economic development, more like a commercial property, and the Ronald's one had a dilapidated
structure on it and was demolished last week. Kubly is unsure of the plans but the City may be partnering
with another agency for housing.
Vogel asked if there was a final presentation of the steering committee's affordable housing plan. Kubly
replied there is a draft of the report and it has gone to Council but Council hasn't discussed it yet. Vogel is
interested in the section 12 AP75 where they're talking about tools to remove barriers to affordable
housing such as building codes, fees, charges, growth limitations, policies affecting the return on
residential investment, and he is curious if there's actually any action planned or proposed to address
some of those things directly. He noted sometimes it seems the City acts against its own interests, it
makes comments about increasing affordable housing and making rental properties more affordable but
the turnaround of that is $30,000 between properties last year for radon testing and radon mitigation for
what ended up being only a 1% of all properties actually had any radon issues. Switching rental permits
from every two years to every year for four units or less so instead of properties having an expensive
$300 every two years now that's $300 every year and from a residential investment side that gets passed
on through higher rents. He will be curious to see what that committee came up with for ideas to
somehow counteract what seems to be shooting ourselves in the foot a lot which is making these claims
that the City wants more affordable housing but they haven't seen the security deposit program that's
been talked about for years, they haven't seen the affordable housing, there was discussion at one time
for a maintenance pool of money for damages for HCV tenants or HCV properties, but none of it has
come to fruition.
Kubly noted they do have a security deposit program that's administered by Community which helps.
Vogel agreed they do help pay double deposits in some cases but it's not always available to e verybody.
They've had a lot of times where Shelter House can only pay two months’ worth of rent and that's just not
enough for people to get back on their feet and get an income started before HCV takes shape or may
there's only so many emergency housing vouchers because there's a limited amount of vouchers and
how many people are sitting out there on the waiting list. He is just curious if there's any intent to start
putting some of these monies into a more direct rent relief programs at the local level because at some
point the Iowa Finance Authority thing is going to disappear, they're already making it harder and harder
for tenants to get rent relief. So he is just curious if there's been any discussion from the housing plan for
more direct action.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 7 of 9
7
Thul noted she doesn't know all the ins and outs of the plans yet but knows it was just finalized in the last
month the draft plan just went to Council very recently so she can keep the Commission apprised of those
discussions.
Reedus asked why this affordable housing plan doesn’t comes to this Commission before it goes to
Council. Kubly explained the committee had representation from HCDC as part of that group (Peter
Nkumu was the representative) and the plan incorporated a lot of different affordable hou sing issues such
as land use issues and it didn't go to Planning & Zoning, there was just representatives from different
commissions on the committee. Council could bring different issues to HCDC once they have discussed
the draft report – the decision to bring things to HCDC is up to Council. Reedus agrees Vogel brought up
some good points.
Reedus noted this annual plan is a one-year document that is part of the bigger five-year comprehensive
plan so a lot of it was pretty routine reading but wanted to reiterated that if they’re going to make any real
changes in the way in which they fund legacy agencies, she believes the City should be contracting for
some services and some agencies can be treated a little bit differently because of the kinds of services
that are provided. This Commission needs to take some real time to explore that kind of thing and she
doesn’t want her three years on this Commission to be spent just coming to Thursday meetings and hand
stamping things, she wants to make some positive changes to the way in which the legacy funding is
allocated.
Thul made a quick note that the majority of this plan deals with federal funding and only a slice of that can
use for public services but the Commission will be diving into the legacy agency stuff coming up in the
next few months.
Reedus thanked staff for that but stated in Geoff Fruin's plan, 21 points for restructuring, there's still
money in there for a community needs assessment and that would give the Commission a
comprehensive look at the types of services that we do need in the community and she would like to see
HCDC involved with that in some way whether it's a liaison type of role or something.
Vogel motioned to recommend approval of the FY23 Annual Action Plan to Council. Seconded by
Reedus. Passed 6-0.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO CITY STEPS 2025, THE CITY’S CONSOLIDATED PLAN:
Thul noted this is a formality that starts the official amendment process. HCDC will make the
recommendation, it will go to Council for final approval. HCDC has already made their agency decisions
and had those discussions, however to inform the two new members - the Commission had a discussion
as to whether and how to add agencies to the legacy agency list and approved the adding of three
agencies and this is making it official by sending this along as a substantial amendment to the
Consolidated Plan which is called City Steps.
Drabek motioned to recommend approval of the proposed Substant ial Amendment to City Steps
2025 to Council. Seconded by Marilla-Kapp. Passed 6-0.
IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UPDATES:
Drabek noted he appeared about a month ago at a Council meeting to accept the mayoral proclamation
for National Community Development week.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 8 of 9
8
Reedus stated in the second meeting last month she noted Council did finalized the Forest View
relocation which doesn't really have anything to do with HCDC but is noteworthy to highlight. Also at that
meeting Council appointed Marilla-Kapp and Krotz to fill long-awaited vacancies in the Commission.
Marilla-Kapp volunteered for the June meetings.
STAFF UPDATES:
Thul noted staff would like to have the Commission’s feedback on an upcoming item so there will need to
be a meeting in June, likely June 23 but she will send out an attendance survey to see if they can get a
quorum.
Three more people were appointed last night to the Commission, Mar yann Dennis was reappointed;
Zachary Slocum and Jennifer Haylett were also appointment so the Commission will be back up to nine
on July 1.
Thul noted staff put a handout in the agenda packed of a quick guide that might help during meeting
discussions regarding so many acronyms and other things with federal funding. If there are other things
the Commission can think of that might be helpful for new commissioners definitely let staff know.
Kubly stated regarding the timeliness letter for CDBG funds they City can only have one and a half times
the current allocation in the HUD account. When they do a project the City funds it and then draws from
HUD and they reimburse the City, that's how that works. Ideally with CDBG they get the money for the
program year and they'd spend it all within one year, but as seen from the delayed projects report that
that doesn't always work out. The City has certain procedures in place to spend the money within the
year but for certain projects like the rehab program if they don't spend the set -aside within the year it gets
lumped back into the pool for the next allocation. Certain categories can only be spent within the year,
like the public services that are funded by CDBG they have to be spent within the fiscal year, as well as
admin which is like the staff salary fund, but when they get several projects that are delayed for whatever
reason they get this letter that they need to have less than one and a half times the allocation in the
account. The City received this letter in April that they had to spe nd down $168,000 and they were able
to that thanks to Thul hounding people and getting their invoices in and getting their projects done. The
consequences of not spending the money in a timely fashion is HUD can start reducing the yearly
allocations which they really don't want.
Reedus wants to get a review of the bylaws on the future agenda because there are certain requirements
of individuals, experience requirements on the Commission, but there's no requirement that anybody
have a non-profit background and so she suspects the bylaws were probably last approved before Aid to
Agencies became a function of this group and she thinks that there should be a requirement on HCDC for
somebody to have a background in nonprofit management administration.
ADJOURNMENT:
Reedus moved to adjourn, Vogel seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6 -0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
May 19, 2022
Page 9 of 9
9
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2021-2022
Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 8/19 9/16 10/21 11/18 1/20 2/17 3/24 5/18
Alter, Megan 6/30/24 X O/E X X * * * *
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X X X X X O/E
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X X X X X O/E
Krotz, Karol 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
Lewis, Thersea * 6/30/23 O/E O/E O/E * * * * * *
Marilla-Kapp, Elizabeth 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
Mohammed, Nsar 6/30/23 X X X O/E X X X X
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X X O/E O/E X O/E
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X X X O/E X X
Prepared by: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5230
Resolution No. 22-164
Resolution approving Amendment #2 to Iowa City's 2021-2025
Consolidated Plan (City Steps 2025).
Whereas, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) requires the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, to prepare and submit Consolidated Plan every five years, known as City Steps
2025, for City Fiscal Years 2021 through 2025, to plan the use of federal funds to assist lower
income residents with housing, jobs, public facilities, and public services; and
Whereas, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of Iowa City adopted the Consolidated Plan for
2021-2025, known as City Steps 2025, in Resolution 20-11; and
Whereas, City Steps 2025 was amended on May 5, 2020 by Resolution 20-118 to incorporate
an updated Citizen Participation Plan, fund activities to aid in the community response to
COVID-19, and amend the minimum amount fora public facility project to $25,000; and
Whereas, City Steps 2025 limits the applicant pool for Legacy Aid to Agencies funds to a core
group of service providers to ensure stability of funding; and
Whereas, the City accepted requests from agencies to receive Legacy Agency status and
received five applications; and
Whereas, the Housing and Community Development Commission reviewed the Legacy Agency
requests recommended three agencies to City Council for inclusion in City Steps 2025; and
Whereas, Substantial Amendment#2 to the Consolidated Plan revises the list of Legacy
Agencies eligible for Legacy Aid to Agencies funding; and
Whereas, the City has disseminated information, solicited public input, and held a public
meeting on Substantial Amendment#2 to the Consolidated Plan; and
Whereas, on May 19, 2022, the Housing and Community Development Commission
recommended approval of Substantial Amendment#2 to the Consolidated Plan; and
Whereas, the City Council finds that the public interest will be served by the approval of the
Substantial Amendment#2 to the Consolidated Plan and submission to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
Now, Therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. Substantial Amendment#2 to the City of Iowa City's Five-Year Consolidated Plan for City
Fiscal Years 2021-2025 titled City Steps 2025 is hereby approved and adopted.
2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to submit to HUD all necessary
certifications or documents related to the submission of Substantial Amendment#2 to
Iowa City's 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan, City Steps 2025.
RES. NO. 22-164
Page 2
3. The City Manager is hereby designated as the Chief Executive Officer and authorized to
act on behalf of the City of Iowa City in connection with Substantial Amendment#2.
Passed and approved this 21st day of June, 2022.
ys.1/47.A.A.c.4._
"2AjL—
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk City Attorney' Office
(Sue Dulek—06/14/2022)
Resolution No. 27-164
Page 9
It was moved by Alter and seconded by Taylor
the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Alter
X Bergus
x Harmsen
X Taylor
x Teague
x Thomas
X Weiner
EXHIBIT A
City Steps 2025
Substantial Amendment
May 10, 2022
The City offers funding for agencies providing public services to low-income residents of Iowa City
through the Aid to Agencies program. Applications for Legacy Agency funding are accepted on a
two-year cycle through the United Way Community Impact Funding Process. The majority of the
funding is local, while around 20 percent comes from federal CDBG dollars. Agencies eligible to
apply for Legacy Agencies funds are listed in the City's consolidated plan, City Steps 2025. The
City limits the pool of eligible agencies in order to ensure funding stability for a core group of
service providers in Iowa City.
The City received a request from a local agency to be considered for Legacy Agency status and
the request was brought to the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) in
November of 2021. In the interest of fairness, HCDC requested that staff open an application
window for eligible agencies to apply for Legacy Status. The Commission determined that
eligibility for Legacy Agency status would be limited to previous recipients of Emerging Aid to
Agency funds (funds set aside for newer agencies or those not listed as Legacy Agencies). Five
applications for Legacy Agency Status were received and reviewed by HCDC in January of 2022
and three were recommended to City Council for inclusion in City Steps 2025—Center for Worker
Justice, Dream City, and Houses into Homes. Inclusion in City Step 2025 is not a guarantee of
funding, but would allow the new agencies to apply for funds.
The City Council will consider this recommendation on June 21, 2022 following a 30-day public
comment period and an amendment will be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development subject to City Council approval.
Jurisdiction: City of Iowa City, Iowa Contact Person
Jurisdiction Web Address: Erika Kubly
http:/www.icgov.org/actionplan 410 E Washington Street
Iowa City Iowa 52240
319-356-5230
ekubly@iowa-city.org
Proposed Amendment
In 2019,the City modified its Aid to Agencies (A2A) process in July 2019 with the approval of the Housing
and 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 for
human service agencies serving LMI residents based on the funding priorities set in the Consolidated
Plan for public service agencies. To ensure stability of funding, this plan will identify and limit A2A
applicants 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
- Center for Worker Justice
- CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank
- Domestic Violence Intervention Program
- Dream City/The Dream Center
- Free Lunch Program
- Hawkeye Area Community Action Program
- Horizons, A Family Service Alliance
- Houses into Homes
- 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 agencies
identified above will be the only agencies allowed to competitively apply for Legacy Aid to Agencies
funds, comprised of both local and federal sources. Applications will be for a two-year cycle, and
funding amounts will be based on identified priorities, history of funding, outcomes, and capacity. This
process provides for stable funding for agencies with demonstrated capacity to effectively utilize A2A
dollars. The priorities and agencies allowed to apply will be reevaluated with each new Consolidated
Plan to address changing priorities or gaps of service as identified in the plan.
Public Comments Received with Staff Responses
A 30-day public comment period for the substantial amendment will be held from May 20, 2022
to June 21, 2022. The City Council s holding a public meeting on June 21, 2022.
Comments Received:
TBD
Staff Response:
TBD
Item Number: 15.
J une 21, 2022
Resol u tion adop tin g an assessmen t sch edule of court ord ered nuisance
abatement charg es and d irectin g th e Cl erk to certify the same to th e
Joh n son County Treasurer for collection in the same manner as prop erty
taxes.
Prepared B y:Susan Dulek, F irst Ass't. City Attorney
Reviewed By:Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Stan L averman, Sr. Housing I nspector
F iscal I mpact:none
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:resolution
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Executive S ummary:
I n the 3 proposed assessments, the Court authorized the City to abate nuisances and authorized
the costs to be assessed in the same manner as property taxes. T he C ity did abate the
nuisances and this resolution will assess the properties for the costs the City paid a contractor.
Background / Analysis:
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Resolution
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
fib ,
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, First Ass't. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240-319-356-5030
Resolution No. 22-165
Resolution adopting an assessment schedule of court ordered nuisance
abatement charges and directing the Clerk to certify the same to the
Johnson County Treasurer for collection in the same manner as property
taxes.
Whereas, the City Clerk has filed with the City Clerk an assessment schedule providing the
amount to be assessed against certain lots for the actual unpaid nuisance abatement costs in
the same manner as property taxes; and
Whereas, said schedule is attached as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated herein by
this reference; and
Whereas, Iowa Code § 364.13B authorizes the City Council to assess against the property said
abatement costs in the same manner as property taxes; and
Whereas, the City Council finds that the property owners listed in Exhibit A have received a
written notice of the date and time of the public meeting on the adoption of said assessment
schedule, in substantially the same form attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Exhibit A is adopted as the final assessment schedule pursuant to Iowa Code § 384.60(1).
The amounts listed in Exhibit A for unpaid nuisance abatement charges are confirmed and
levied against the properties listed in Exhibit A.
All unpaid assessments not paid within thirty (30) days after the first publication of the final
assessment schedule shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum, commencing on August
5, 2022.
Assessments are payable at Johnson Country Treasurer, 13 South Dubuque Street, Iowa City,
Iowa. Until August 4, 2022 payment may be made at the City Clerk, 410 E. Washington Street,
Iowa City, Iowa.
The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify the schedule as set out in Exhibit A to the Treasurer
of Johnson County, Iowa for collection in the same manner as property taxes. The assessment
cannot be paid in installments.
The City Clerk is further directed to publish notice of the schedule once each week for two
consecutive weeks in the manner provided in Iowa Code § 362.3, the first publication of which
shall be not more than fifteen (15) days from the date of filing of the final assessment schedule.
Passed and approved this 21st day of June , 2022.
RES.NO. 22-165
Page 2
/-11t4"----1
or fr-s----("g-IA-
Approved y
IP
Attest: ) ULL4'
City Clerk City Attorne s Office
(Sue Dulek- 06/16/2022)
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Bervis the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there was:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
x Alter
x Bergus
Harmsen
__x- Taylor
x Teague
x Thomas
x Weiner
Prop.Address Legal Description Parcel f! Appraised Val. Property Owner(s) Serv.Rendered Date of Serv. Serv. Cost Bal.0/S
90 Highland Ave. PLUM GROVE ACRES SUBDIVISION, PART ONE LOT 30 1015412014 $160,780 Stauffer,Sheila I Junk Removal 9/15/2021 $550.00 $550.00
▪Amhurst COURT HILL SCOTT BOULEVARD ADD PART 6 LOT 82 1012417010 $236,060 McDuffie,Warren Junk Removal 8/3/2021 $400.00 $400.00
McDuffie,Adriane
▪Amhurst COURT HILL SCOTT BOULEVARD ADD PART 6 LOT 82 1012417010 $236,060 McDuffie,Warren Tree Removal 9/18/2021 $3,180.00 $3,180.00
McDuffie,Adriane
UT
x
I
EXHIBIT 3 CITY IOWA CITY
June 13, 2022
Dear Property Owner:
This is to notify you that the City Council will be considering a resolution on June 21, 2022
that will assess against your property the cost that the City has incurred to clean-up
property and/or removed a tree pursuant to a court order. Enclosed for your information
is a copy of the bill. If the City Council approves the assessment against your property,
the amount will be collected by the Johnson County Treasurer in the same manner as a
property tax.
The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 pm and is held at Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E.
Washington St., Iowa City, Iowa. If you want to challenge the assessment. you are
advised to come to the City Council meeting. You may also submit a letter or email to the
City Council. The mailing address is: City Council, % City Clerk. 410 E. Washington St.,
Iowa City, IA 52240 and the email address is o r` ? _ Please note that all
communication with City Council is a public record.
If you pay the amount due in full before the City Council meeting, the resolution will not
include an assessment against your property. You can make the payment by mailing
or coming in person to the City Clerks office, 410 East Washington Street, between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. If property is assessed and the amount is not paid
within the specified 30 days, interest will accrue at a rate set by the City Council.
If you have any questions about the resolution, please contact my office at 356-5043.
Sincerely,
•
Kellie Fruehling
City Clerk
Enc.
Copy to: Stan Laverman-w/o enc.