Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout_HCDC July 28, 2022 PacketIf you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at brianna- thul@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meetings Regular: September 15, 2022 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) July 28, 2022 Regular Meeting – 6:00 PM The Center Assembly Room 28 S Linn Street AGENDA: 1.Call to Order 2.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 23, 2022 3.Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda Commentators shall address the Commission for no more than 5 minutes. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items. 4.Welcome New Members HCDC will welcome one new member, Jennifer Haylett. This item provides an opportunity for new and existing Commissioners to introduce themselves. 5.Officer Nominations Per HCDC Bylaws, the Commission nominates and elects a Chair and Vice Chair each July. The Commission will nominate and vote for the two positions. 6. Discuss HOME-ARP Allocation Plan and Consider Budget Recommendation to City Council The City was awarded about $1.8 million dollars of HOME Investment Partnership Program –American Rescue Plan Act (HOME-ARP) funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Staff will provide a brief overview of the program and introduce the City’s HOME-ARP Allocation Plan. The City received four requests for HOME-ARP funds. HCDC will discuss and consider a recommendation to Council on approval of the plan and staff budget recommendations. Applications and the draft plan can be found online at www.icgov.org/actionplan. 7.Review and Consider Approval of FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies Application Materials Staff will provide overview of upcoming Legacy Aid to Agencies process. Commissioners will review and consider approval of the FY24 Aid to Agencies application materials. The application window is anticipated to open through United Way by the end of July. 8.Review and Consider Recommendation to City Council on Approval of Iowa City Housing Authority Annual Plan for FFY22 The Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) is required to update the Annual Plans under the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) of 1998. The Annual Report provides details about current programs, population served, annual application for grants to support improvements, and ICHA’s strategy for addressing housing needs of currently If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at brianna- thul@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meetings Regular: September 15, 2022 assisted families and the larger community. HCDC will discuss and consider a recommendation to Council on approval of the plan. The draft plan can be found online at www.icgov.org/icha. 9.Consider Recommendation to City Council on Approval of HCDC By-Laws Amendment The Commission will review the draft amendment to the By-Laws and consider making a recommendation to Council for approval. The amendment was discussed at the June 23, 2022 HCDC meeting and would expand the membership requirements to include, when possible, one member with nonprofit experience and one member with property management experience. Additionally, the amendment would encourage diversity in appointments. An amendment to the By-Laws requires a majority of at least five votes. If passed, the amendment goes to the City Council Rules Committee for approval and will then be placed on the City Council agenda. 10.Staff & Commission Updates This item includes an opportunity for brief updates from staff and Commissioners. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion on updates. 11.Adjournment Housing and Community Development Commission July 28, 2022 Meeting Packet Contents Agenda Item #2 •June 23, 2022 Draft HCDC Meeting Minutes Agenda Item #6 •The HOME-ARP Allocation Plan draft can be viewed online at: https://www.icgov.org/actionplan. •HOME-ARP Application submissions can be viewed online at: https://www.icgov.org/actionplan. •July 15, 2022 Staff Memo - HOME-ARP Staff Funding Recommendations •Application Summary Sheets for HOME-ARP submissions (4) •HOME-ARP Scoring Criteria Agenda Item #7 •July 15, 2022 Staff Memo - Upcoming FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies Process •November 10, 2021 Staff Memo - Aid to Agencies Legacy Applicant Process – Guide for Discussion •Legacy Aid to Agencies Best Practices •FY24 Aid to Agencies Application Draft •FY24 Aid to Agencies Scoring Criteria Draft Agenda Item #8 •The Iowa City Housing Authority Annual Plan for FFY22 draft can be viewed online at: https://www.icgov.org/ICHA. Agenda Item #9 •Draft amendment to the HCDC By-Laws •HCDC By-Laws MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JUNE 23, 2022 – 6:30 PM FORMAL MEETING THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Karol Krotz, Elizabeth Marilla-Kapp, Becci Reedus, Kyle Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Nasr Mohammed, Peter Nkumu, STAFF PRESENT: Erica Kubly, Brianna Thul OTHERS PRESENT: Ellen McCabe, Zachary Slocum CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 16, 2022: Vogel moved to approve the minutes of May 16, 2022, Krotz seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the minutes were approved 6-0 (Reedus not present for the vote). PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DISCUSS THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTION PLAN DRAFT AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO HCDC: Drabek noted in the agenda packet there was quite a bit of information that pertains to a historical discussion the Commission had on the preliminary recommendations. Vogel noted he watched Hightshoe’s presentation about the plans put together for Council to act on and thinks they hit important notes. One thing that struck him odd was there's one section about how staff should really make recommendations to HCDC before discussions, and he thought that was weird because staff has always given recommendations to the Commission and there has never been a decision without a recommendation from staff. He stated there was also some discussion about wanting HCDC to be more transparent. Drabek noted Kubly may have historical information on that because staff may have not always made recommendations to the Commission. Kubly confirmed that for Aid to Agencies, which they haven't gone through in about three years, and will this fall, staff hasn’t historically given recommendations for that program. Additionally in one of the more recent rounds of funding staff gave recommendations but the Commission chose to ignore the recommendations. With CDBG and HOME funding cycles, staff has historically always given a recommendation in that way or another. Reedus noted at one of her first meetings she brought it up because she just thought it was foolish not to have staff give their thoughts on things. Agenda Item #2 Housing and Community Development Commission June 23, 2022 Page 2 of 9 2 Dennis added historically, as someone who's been involved in the process for many years, there was a time where the Commission said they didn’t want staff recommendations, but she agrees it's very important, the staff are hired because they're educated and experienced and they know the rules. This is a volunteer commission and other commissions such as planning and zoning have staff recommendations, so it's a great recommendation and this was noted because historically it wasn't done. Vogel noted overall he thought the plan is great, obviously now it's going to come down to Council and staff having to figure out all the parts, finding the funding and making it work, a three percent increase every year is fantastic. From the private landlord side the discussion of the risk mitigation fund to help offset some of those risk concerns from landlords who don't take Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) is very important, the Greater Iowa City Apartment Association has been beating that drum for 10-15 years. He also loved the discussion of the LIHTC (Low-Income Housing Tax Credit) about taking away the zoning requirements if it's on a certain arterial road that it doesn't have to go through a secondary request that fits affordable housing, he likes the fact that they are talking about expansion to four bedrooms, the national level is four or five but Iowa City has ruled that LIHTC can be more than three which he can attest to how many families they cannot house because there are more than six people in the family and he can't put them in a three bedroom. Marilla-Kapp asked about the other issues in this letter about how the funding is allocated and the inconsistent scoring or lack of experience and other items in the second of the two recommendations about HCDC. Drabek stated to share a brief history basically it refers to the Aid to Agencies funding, which is now done every two years, there's usually some sort of imbalance in the amount of funds so the Commission has to decide what to do with the rest of the money and this becomes contentious in do they give it all to the high scoring agencies or do they spread it evenly. He believes that was a recommendation that they set some sort of consistent process for that which he would agree with and would recommend strongly that the Commission do that next time they do Aid to Agencies funding. Reedus asked if that that recommendation was referring to Aid to Agencies or the HOME funds. Vogel stated they didn’t specify it was just a vague mention in Hightshoe’s presentation, it might be more specified in the report. Reedus is not going to disagree and does think there are problems with the scoring and the funding and having been on the other side of the table for years she has had tremendous issues with decisions that this commission has made about who to start with, why be a high priority agency if the commissioners were going to decide to start with a low priority, but that's an Aid to Agencies issue and she hopes they can tackle that next year because that's the reason she’s here. Kubly confirmed the things Reedus has mentioned, things that have happened in the past such as agencies wanting to know how the scoring is going to take place is where that recommendation is coming from. For example, the Human Rights Commission have it set for the highest score to get the full requested allocation and they just work their way down with the scores whereas with CDBG and HOME this Commission might weigh other factors. So Kubly agrees this recommendation is mostly from Aid to Agencies, but the Commission would have to decide how they want to score. Kubly also noted that at the next meeting in July they are going to review the scoring criteria and the application for Aid to Agencies because that's starting up soon so those decisions will have to be made next month ahead of that funding round. Vogel stated he ignored both the recommendations entirely because if they have a committee of people who are going to sit down and have discussions as a community as to making the best decisions there can never be a completely non-subjective scoring system that just outlines well if this rule happens than this is the score. He has been on this Commission for a couple years and has never seen the Commission not be able to come to some kind of common agreement. Maybe that's not historically true and in the past, there may have been other problems, but even in those times that they have made some decisions to give money maybe to some of the lower scores because they want to give them a chance, in every single in situation, even the ones he didn’t always agree with, it was the right thing to do as a committee. Vogel acknowledged he is coming from standpoint having never had to be out here begging Housing and Community Development Commission June 23, 2022 Page 3 of 9 3 this committee for money, so he has never had to feel let down or cheated or screwed over because of a decision, he’s coming from purely a citizens committee member viewpoint of they're sitting here and trying to make the best decisions to recommend a Council for how money is spent. Drabek agrees they can't specify every rule in every scenario but there is one specific scenario that they’ve and a couple people have mentioned, which is to specify how to how to deal with the Aid to Agency money. Reedus remembers something Vogel stated at a recent meeting that if the City really wants to help take a look affordable housing they should look at the approval process for zoning permits so the City could help landlords make it a little bit cheaper to rent out housing, which is something she learned from him because she doesn’t know the housing side. That being said she does not like to hear that a funding process is junk because it's not just begging for money but it's livelihood and last month she specifically asked the agencies what they were paying their employees in effort to keep employees. For example Shelter House went from a pre-pandemic rate of $11/hour to a post-pandemic rate of $15/hour. That is a 40% increase and it's got to come from somewhere and this Commission has a responsibility to take a good hard look at that, they can't be just a group of citizens. If they need help in in figuring out how to come up with the best funding model possible and how to make those decisions, then they should get some training. The agencies are counting on this Commission for money. Vogel doesn’t disagree, his statement is what they have been doing is learning from each other, he has learned from Reedus and Dennis about what matters to these agencies and it does help him make decisions. His statement is simply the way it was presented was that this Commission just subjectively randomly throw dice into a bowl and that's the way it was presented in that presentation. He simply ignored that part of the presentation because he has sat here for two years and listened and had agencies and professionals come here and explain why things are important. Reedus apologized for misunderstanding Vogel’s statement. Dennis noted last year she was impressed how the Commission really tried to get it as non-subjective as possible and that's the message they can get to Hightshoe and to Council. The truth is it's never going to be perfect because they don't have enough money but she noted it's much improved over the last 30 years. Reedus stated one of the things that she has found helpful is having the agencies come in and give progress reports, but even for the ones they've just funded she would like to see some regular reports, maybe quarterly, they could be written reports or some sort of synopsis, but it would be good to see what an agency is doing versus what they said they were going to do. She acknowledged there are always changes, and City staff is really good about creating contracts for agencies with a little bit of wiggle room but she’d like to see regular reports if they are hitting the markers they said when applying for the money. Dennis agreed with Reedus on making sure projects they fund are working on time and hitting their markers however she thinks that's the job of the staff and that when staff have concerns they bring it to the Commission. Staff is receiving the quarterly reports and monitoring the projects and it’s not this Commission’s role to monitor every applicant every quarter. Reedus agrees and said it could just be a brief report, she just has serious some serious concerns about some of the applicants and whether they can meet their milestones. She doesn’t have to see the quarterly reports but perhaps just a staff report each month with a little bit of information about whether some of the projects are hitting their milestones. Kubly suggested the year-end reports that staff collects would be more helpful than quarterly if that's something the Commission wants to see, staff can put those on the website or get them to the Commission otherwise. Kubly did stated for Aid to Agencies she looks at the quarterly reports before she gives their next payment to make sure they're reporting and still doing everything they said they would. Staff then gets year-end reports from those agencies and prepares a report showing how many they've Housing and Community Development Commission June 23, 2022 Page 4 of 9 4 served. Reedus felt that would be helpful to see. Kubly noted the fiscal year is ending at the end of this month so in a month or two she'll have all those reports and be able to share. Dennis stated back to the Affordable Housing Action Plan she wanted to go on record to say it would be really wonderful if they would get rid of the affordable housing location model. Vogel noted that was recommendation number one and he agrees wholeheartedly. Drabek noted he felt both recommendations that applied to this Commission were good, the first one they’ve already been trying to implement which is that they see staff scores before they do the CDBG/HOME allocations. The second recommendation, so far as it applies to Aid to Agencies, he would encourage this Commission to implement some sort of process for that. He agreed with every word of what the recommendations say about this Commission with the notable exception of the following sentence: discrepancies with staff scores should be included in the final recommendations to City Council. Drabek stated no they shouldn't, absolutely not, if this Commission is functioning properly they will have already considered staff scores when making a recommendation to Council. The Commission receives the staff score, do their own scores, have a discussion and recommendations are then send to Council. He would encourage the Commission to not send staff scores to Council as it's just going to put the Commission in conflict with staff. Kubly stated it may not necessarily be the scoring that's really the situation with staff but there have been a couple instances and projects that this Commission has reviewed where staff had to recapture funding where staff recommended against the project and spent a year and hours and hours of staff time on this project to not have any accomplishments or any outcome or any spending. So if there's a discrepancy in staff's making a recommendation against a project she thinks Council should be considering that because it's based on staff’s knowledge of the federal programs and the timelines and the capacity of the agency. It's not really the scoring in particular but there are certain things that staff is looking and they know if a project might not be able to move forward. Kubly stated staff will have a memo with their recommendations explaining things that can't really be seen just from the score so the Commission would have that information. Drabek stated he could see there being a case for sharing a specific staff recommendation against funding a particular agency on certain grounds, that makes sense and that's defensible, he just wouldn't send all staff scores and wouldn't send all recommendations. Dennis noted Council gets all of the Commission minutes so they can read and see the scores and recommendations and discussions. Vogel agrees, if Council is actually going to look at a recommendation comes from this Commission that staff disagrees with, the implication there is that these people are dumb and made a wrong decision and Council should go with staff, that is the implication, and that's exactly what happens with Planning and Zoning. If Council wants to know staff scores they can absolutely at any point email Kubly or Thul and ask. Reedus noted however if there are real concerns about an application from staff this Commission needs to heed those recommendations so that there are not issues in the future, and if not then staff should go to Council and Council should probably override it. Zachary Slocum noted that looking through the Action Plan it clearly states here's what an individual is able to pay based on SSI or what a single person can pay for a one-bedroom apartment whereas prices in Iowa City continually go up because brand new buildings are being built and those have brand new appliances and he is just curious with this new affordable housing plan how the Council plans on bringing about more affordable housing, is it through generating better practices with construction, especially with the City trying to become more green and taking that into account as well. So what is the plans with building brand new construction and making it affordable to people coming in because the City is just growing and running out of housing. How do they plan on building brand new sustainable housing for everybody, especially considering the population is only continuing to rise within the community. Housing and Community Development Commission June 23, 2022 Page 5 of 9 5 Vogel noted that's a great question to ask the people who put the plan together which was not this Commission. Krotz agrees, they come back to all the time the word affordable and that is so subjective in itself, there are many people who don't make enough money to be able to afford the fair market rent which is what HUD puts out and so many landlords who have obtained tax financing for their buildings and then in return they have so many low-income units but if they put it at the fair market rental rate, which right now is $803, there's still a lot of people who can't pay that. Vogel did acknowledge if one goes through this whole packet they did get input from the home builders association, they did get ICAR input, and there is a lot of discussion about exactly what Slocum is talking about like putting money into “age-in” properties for people who want to be able to stay and how they make those changes so they don't have to get pushed out because now they need handicap. There are a lot of discussion about that and recommendations made to Council in the packet for development recommendations that address those issues as well as getting rid of that affordable housing location model that says they can only build in these specific spots and making some allowances for additional dwelling units (ADUs) which right now Iowa City has a very restrictive policy but that is addressed in the packet. REVIEW BY-LAWS AND DISCUSS PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE AN HCDC MEMBER WITH NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE: Drabek noted this is a discussion of adding a potential amendment to Article 4 Section B which is the list of um requirements for members of this Commission. They can't vote on it yet because it has to appear on two agendas, so this is the first discussion. Reedus reiterated this is regarding Article 4 Section B, membership, where it talks about the specific appointments of individuals and when possible at least one person with the expertise in finance, expertise in construction, one person who receives rental assistance, and she thought she had seen something else where they wanted somebody like Vogel with a background in housing, which she finds helpful and has learned actually quite a bit. This was last amended in 2017, which was about five years ago, and her suggestion is for the Commission to consider adding a person with non-profit management experience. Reedus thinks it's helpful to have somebody with a non-profit background on here because there are unique circumstances and learning that somebody has with a non-profit and a lot of the work is in terms of making decisions about non-profit budgets and funding approvals. Reedus also wanted to point out when they did emergency agency awards one of her big questions was with regard to the lack of submission of any funding from other municipalities or other sources and it looked like a hundred percent of the funds were going to come from Iowa City to do work in Johnson County and it was something she could easily identify because she had done so many applications over the years. And that’s why she feels it's helpful having somebody from non-profit management experience, who's written funding requests, to be here to give a different perspective. Krotz agrees with Reedus that this would be very beneficial to this Commission to have that kind of expertise because a non-profit person does have a special understanding of all the inner workings and day-to-day things of non-profits and can take a look at things in a more unique way such as what the strengths are in terms of completing projects that they're applying for funding. Marilla-Kapp asked when the agencies are applying, especially the emerging agencies, how much support the Commission or the staff gives those applicants in the application process in terms of grant application fluency, a lot of folks don't have the capacity to submit the best grant application but do have the capacity to do the project that they're proposing. If this Commission offers support of that kind to prospective applicants she thinks having folks with that experience in support roles for prospective applicants could be great. Housing and Community Development Commission June 23, 2022 Page 6 of 9 6 Reedus stated the Commission does not give that support, nor is there much support in the community either, they used to do some leadership trainings five or six years ago but that went away. She thought Community Foundation was going to do some training surrounding grant applications. However, being on the other side now, making decisions, she isn’t bothered by lack of information on applications, she will just ask questions, and she doesn’t believe the agencies feel like that, they get an opportunity to speak to the Commission. Dennis noted staff also offers training before the CDBG/HOME applications are due. Kubly confirmed but noted not for Aid to Agencies because that's through the joint funding process, but for the other programs staff does a workshop or an orientation. Dennis doesn’t think it would be the role of the Commission to provide support on application preparation and then decide who's going to get the money because that's sort of thing that can get muddy. Vogel stated if they are going to add in a clause of “whenever possible have someone from the non-profit sector” can they also add “when possible a member shall come from the private residential property management side”. Others agreed that would be a good addition as well. Drabek noted if they are looking for categories one that jumped out to him is an immigrant seat on the Commission as a group he would include. Reedus said that can be brought up as she wants to also discuss Section A of the bylaws, diversity. Vogel noted that part of this Commission’s responsibilities as well is to go over those regularly and make recommendations to the public housing authority and community development division and to recommend to City Council from time-to-time amendments, supplements, or changes and modifications to the Iowa City Housing Code, which is what he is dealing with on a daily basis as a residential property manager. Whether it's how many square feet of occupancy they need or how many parking spaces they have in order to get four people in a house versus three or how many times a year houses with more than four units get inspected, why is it every two years but if a duplex or a single-family property now has inspections every year. These types of discussions all tie into affordability, landlords who have seen their inspection costs double in the last three years will raise their rents. Also when talking about building properties, it's way easier to build it in Coralville because they inspect the place once and then don't show up again unless there's a complaint. Dennis suggested they change it to “when possible a property manager” it doesn't have to be private sector. Vogel would be fine with just using the phrase property management. Krotz just wanted to point out with regards to inspections, the low-income renters, especially the lowest lowest of the income, won't make a complaint because they need their housing and if they complain the chance of retaliation is very high and so a lot of times renters won't complain about something even if it's a really major issue. Vogel wasn’t suggesting changing to only inspecting when there are complaints, he was pointing out that up until two years ago every property in Iowa City was on an every two year inspection schedule and then two years ago they switched to single family and duplex being every year so there is an issue of increased cost, increased manpower, especially for those in the property management, and having to raise fees which causes rents to be raised due to the additional time and work which then has an effect on affordable housing. Reedus wanted to move onto a conversation that was had post-meeting with staff where she thought she had read someplace that there was reimbursements for expenses like parking or something like that. The section she is questioning is: all members shall be qualified electors in the City of Iowa City and shall serve as such without compensation but shall be entitled to necessary expenses including travel expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties so to her that could include parking and accommodating individuals. If they wish to have a diverse population, they may have a language barrier, a transportation barrier, childcare barrier and she thinks the City should be encouraging people of all diversity and any individual to participate in the commission process and the City would help with any accommodations that they would need that might preclude them being on the commission. Therefore, Housing and Community Development Commission June 23, 2022 Page 7 of 9 7 Reedus thought that maybe they could make a statement about promoting diversity and inclusion of individuals with different kinds of backgrounds, whether that's race or ethnicity or even just a single mom who needs childcare assistance. Is this something other commissions do. Kubly stated this came up with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and did go to Council and they opted not to provide funding. Reedus stated that was a totally different issue, they wanted to be paid a salary and she is suggesting something entirely different and thinks the City should be doing this Commission-wide city-wide. It would be helpful if somebody doesn't have transportation and has to take a bus but can't afford the bus fare, why can't the City reimburse for that. Thul think the City may do that and can look into it. Reedus asked if they can extend that to other things. Dennis points out the language does state necessary expenses including travel expenses so the current language would allow for it. Thul is unsure about other expenses but in the time that she’s been here there were discussions of City provided reimbursement for a bus ticket or similar. Reedus would like it to be better spelled out if it's beyond just travel expenses and that's where that inclusion comes in. Thul will take information based on the discussion today and flesh out something for next month’s agenda packet to discuss and vote on, she can also get some details on any travel reimbursement info and bring that to the next meeting. Dennis next wanted to discuss Article 4 Section F of the bylaws. Because she was appointed to the committee to fill an unexpired term it states: in such manner that the appointee shall continue in the position not only through the unexpired term but also through a subsequent regular term but she had to reapply. Thul believes Council tries to give preference to people that didn't get a full term. Dennis notes the language makes it sound like she didn’t have to reapply. Kubly stated that Council has the discretion. IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UPDATES: Marilla-Kapp reviewed last month’s Council meetings starting with the June 6th meeting where there was a lot of the public comment was about the recent video circulating of the ICPD using force on a young woman. Marilla-Kapp noted she thinks this is connected to the Commission’s work in so far as houselessness and rapid development of certain kinds gentrification are linked to over policing. Councilor Bergus was the only member of Council to address the incident and to remind the Council of their commitment in the summer of 2020 to change the equation regarding law enforcement funding relative to social services funding in the community which directly impacts activities here. Council also mentioned in that meeting that inflation is hitting City projects including those relevant to this committee, Escucha Mievos talked about their constituents’ experiences accessing direct payments funded in part by City ARPA funds and barriers to completion of the application. Marilla-Kapp suspects that some of that direct payment did go to housing for folks experiencing housing insecurity. City Council voted to deny the Catholic Worker House a social and racial equity grant for a Spanish language newsletter and education around political engagement. Marilla-Kapp explained the Catholic Worker House serves folks experiencing houselessness and are now offering showers and food and also coordinate protective accompaniments for those facing deportation defense and basic needs like food and rental assistance. The second meeting Marilla-Kapp reviewed was Tuesday June 21st and much of the public comment was around preservation of the Robert E Lee pool which is related to this Commission’s work in that it's helpful to consider what kinds of public amenities will or won't exist in neighborhoods where new affordable housing is being developed. Similarly there were discussions around the bike and pedestrian trail along Highway 6 in southeast Iowa City and connectivity there for modes of transportation other than vehicles. Then there were several items related to approval of the FY23 Annual Action Plan part of City Steps 2025 and the City passed resolutions based on this Commission’s recommendations for FY2023 CDBG and HOME projects as well as FY23 Aid to Agencies. Council members had questions about why there are so few applications for the emerging Aid to Agencies grants which were answered by staff who noted that adjusted for inflation these programs have lost funding over the years and showed a graph about trends and funding for these programs. Council concluded noting it will be a difficult upcoming budgeting Housing and Community Development Commission June 23, 2022 Page 8 of 9 8 year and that programs should expect their budgets not necessarily to grow in accordance with the stated goals for growth. STAFF UPDATES: Thul gave a couple updates, first the next meeting will be July 21st and at that meeting they'll do officer nominations and welcome two new members. At that meeting they will also review the Aid to Agencies process looking at the application materials. Staff initially intended to have HOME-ARP on today’s agenda. The HOME-ARP money is supplemental funding that the City received somewhat similar to the annual HOME funding but a larger pot of money with different rules. The City received applications in last week and had some IT issues and weren't able to fully review them so staff pushed it back a month to have more time to review. Additionally, staff is also learning that the State has some HOME-ARP money which may require a local match so they want to make sure that the applicants are able to access that State funding and might have to consider that in the allocations. Thul acknowledged this is Drabek and Nkumu last meeting and thanked them for their time on HCDC. ADJOURNMENT: Dennis moved to adjourn, Reedus seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Housing and Community Development Commission June 23, 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 6/23 Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X X X X X X X O/E X Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X X Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- X X X X X X O/E X Krotz, Karol 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X Marilla-Kapp, Elizabeth 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X Mohammed, Nasr 6/30/23 X X X O/E X X X X O/E Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X X X X O/E O/E X O/E O/E Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X X X X X Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X O/E X X X O/E X X X HOME-ARP Allocation Plan City of Iowa City Neighborhood & Development Services This plan is subject to change pending HUD approval. Agenda Item #6 1 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................2 Consultation ...............................................................................................................................................................2 CONSULTATIONS HELD .................................................................................................................................................2 SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK ..............................................................................................................................................5 Public Participation .....................................................................................................................................................5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS ....................................................................................................................................5 Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis ........................................................................................................................6 HOME-ARP Activities ..................................................................................................................................................8 THE METHOD FOR SOLICITING APPLICATIONS ....................................................................................................................8 USE OF HOME-ARP FUNDING .....................................................................................................................................8 USE JUSTIFICATION ......................................................................................................................................................8 HOME-ARP Production Housing Goals .......................................................................................................................9 Preferences .................................................................................................................................................................9 USE OF PREFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................9 REFERRAL METHODS ................................................................................................................................................ 10 LIMITATIONS IN A HOME-ARP RENTAL HOUSING OR NCS PROJECT ................................................................................. 10 UNMET NEEDS OF OTHER QUALIFYING POPULATIONS ..................................................................................................... 10 HOME-ARP Refinancing Guidelines ......................................................................................................................... 10 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Citizen Participation......................................................................................................................................... 11 2 Introduction The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARP”) appropriated $5 billion to communities across the U.S. to provide housing, services, and shelter to individuals experiencing homelessness and other vulnerable populations. These funds were allocated by formula to jurisdictions that qualified for funding through the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME Program) from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Eligible activities that may be funded with HOME-ARP include: • Development and support of affordable housing • Tenant-based rental assistance • Provision of supportive services • Acquisition and development of non-congregate shelter units Funds must primarily benefit individuals and households in the following Qualifying Populations: • Experiencing homelessness • At risk of homelessness • Fleeing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking or human trafficking • Other populations with high risk of housing instability The City of Iowa City received a total of $1,789,981 in HOME-ARP funding and expects to make $1,521,981 in HOME- ARP funds available for allocation in two competitive funding rounds. Consultation In order to inform the HOME-ARP allocation plan, the City of Iowa City consulted with agencies who serve the qualifying populations. This consultation was conducted via survey, virtual stakeholder meetings, in-person meetings, and conference calls. Specific consultations were held with the Iowa Balance of State CoC Lead Agency, Institute for Community Alliances; the Iowa City Housing Authority; and at the regular meeting of the Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board (LHCB). Additional individual consultation meetings were held with individual service providers upon request. CONSULTATIONS HELD • Local Homeless Coordinating Board Consultation o December 8, 2021 • Iowa Legal Aid Consultation o January 11, 2022 • Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) Consultation o January 17, 2022 • The Housing Fellowship (THF) Consultation o February 18, 2022 • Institute for Community Alliances Consultation o April 7, 2022 3 ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED: Agency/Org Consulted Type of Agency/Org Method of Consultation Feedback Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board (LHCB) Homeless Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting Feedback summarized by agency below. Shelter House Homeless Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting Rental rehab; pest control; Case management critical; prioritize below 30% AMI Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) Domestic Violence Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting; Survey Highest priorities: Rental Assistance Med/High Priorities: Development of Affordable Housing; Supportive Services Other: Overall decrease in DV shelters across the state; Lack of available units for families needing 3+ BR both in shelter and affordable rentals; Larger than recommended caseloads. Iowa Legal Aid Legal, Eviction Prevention, Fair Housing, Civil Rights Virtual Stakeholder Meeting Need for Supportive Services, homelessness prevention Iowa City Housing Authority Public Housing Agency Virtual Stakeholder Meeting; In person meeting Highest Priority: Supportive Services, TBRA Need for rent assistance, application fees, housing for larger families, agencies understaffed. Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition Affordable/Fair Housing Advocacy Virtual Stakeholder Meeting Highest priority: PSH Hawkeye Area Community Action Program (HACAP) CHDO, Homeless Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting General lack of affordable housing Inside Out Reentry Services for People in the Criminal Justice System Virtual Stakeholder Meeting; Survey Highest Priority: Development of Affordable Housing Med/High Priority: Rental Assistance; Supportive Services Other: Lack of 1br & Efficiency units; challenges with finding housing for individuals with criminal backgrounds; more funding for case management Johnson County Social Services County Government Virtual Stakeholder Meeting Renters are cost burdened. Shortage of affordable housing, specifically one bedrooms and units for larger families. Supportive services also needed. 4 Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County Housing Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting; Survey Highest Priority: Rental Assistance, Development of Affordable Housing; Supportive Services Medium Priority: NCS Other: Financial challenges in getting into housing (deposit, first month rent, etc.); shortage of affordable housing and operational financial support for service providers Waypoint Domestic Violence & Mental Health Virtual Stakeholder Meeting Suggestion for housing programs for victims of homicide and/or homeownership programs. (Not HOME-ARP eligible) The Housing Fellowship CHDO, Housing Provider Virtual Stakeholder Meeting Renters are significantly cost burdened. Highest priority is development of affordable housing followed by eviction prevention/rental assistance. Concerns about construction timing & costs due to supply chain challenges. Institute for Community Alliances CoC Virtual Stakeholder Meeting Supportive services and operating expenses are a high priority. Pandemic impacted workforce significantly and caseloads are high. Always need more affordable housing as well. Anonymous Organization addressing fair housing & civil rights Survey Highest priorities: Rental Assistance, Development of Affordable Housing Med/High priorities: Supportive Services, NCS Other: Low to middle income underserved, paying high rents. Veteran's Affairs Veteran's Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting No specific comments provided. Abbe Health Mental Health Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting No specific comments provided. United Action for Youth (UAY) Youth Services, Mental, Homeless Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting No specific comments provided. Amerigroup Healthcare Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting No specific comments provided. National Association for Mental Illness (NAMI) Mental Health Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting No specific comments provided. CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank Food Services, Mental health, Housing Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting No specific comments provided. Iowa City Community School District (ICCSD) School District/Youth & Family Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting No specific comments provided. Iowa City Free Lunch Program Food Services Virtual Stakeholder Meeting No specific comments provided. 5 SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK The most frequent response that we received was that the City of Iowa City’s affordable housing inventory is not meeting the demand. Specifically, the availability of affordable one bedroom and efficiency units is below demand as well as the availability of affordable housing for households requiring more than 3 bedrooms. In addition, service providers reported an increased need for funding for operations for case management staff to assist persons at risk of or experiencing homelessness. While this need is certainly documented, there was additional concern regarding sustainability of funding for supportive services outside of one-time funds. Other populations identified include those who are “rent burdened”, paying more than 30% of their monthly income in rent, in low to middle income brackets. Additional feedback received indicated that housing and services for special populations (specifically: victims of domestic violence, youth experiencing homelessness, & individuals with criminal backgrounds) and general rental assistance would also be beneficial in the community. Public Participation In accordance with Section V.B of the Notice (page 13), the City of Iowa City is providing for and encouraging citizen participation in the development of the HOME-ARP allocation plan. Residents will receive notice of the 27-day comment period via press release as required by the citizen participation plan. This includes notice posted on the City Clerk’s Bulletin Board on the First Floor of City Hall, publishing of notices in one or more newspapers of general circulation, and announcement on City websites including access to relevant documents for review. Documents are also available to the public at City Hall. Public hearings will be held at during the July 21st, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Housing and Community Development Commission meeting and at the August 16th, 2022 Regular Meeting of the City Council. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS Date(s) of Outreach Mode of Outreach Summary of Response/Attendance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted and Reason 7/21/2022 Public Notice Newspaper ad to solicit public input on HOME-ARP Allocation Plan N/A N/A 7/21/2022 through 8/16/2022 Public Comment Period TBD TBD See Appendix A TBD See Appendix A 7/21/2022 Public Hearing TBD TBD See Appendix A TBD See Appendix A 8/16/2022 Public Hearing TBD TBD See Appendix A TBD See Appendix A 6 Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis To assess the needs of HOME-ARP qualifying populations, the City of Iowa City reviewed the current shelter and housing inventory, the size of the populations, and the system of supportive services in the community. To conduct the needs assessment and gaps analysis, the City of Iowa City utilized current data, including the 2021 Point In Time Count (PIT), the 2021 Iowa Balance of State Continuum of Care Housing Inventory Count (HIC), the most recent Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, and consultation with the Institute for Community Alliances, who is the lead agency for the Iowa Balance of State Continuum of Care (IA BoS CoC) as well as the IA BoS CoC Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) administrator. The findings of this assessment can be found in the table below. HOME-ARP Qualifying Populations Relevant HOME-ARP Eligible Uses Housing Type/Status Current State Current Need Gaps 1.Homeless 3. Fleeing, or attempting to flee, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, or Human Trafficking Acquisition & Development of Non- Congregate Shelters Supportive Services Emergency Shelter (Congregate & Non- Congregate) Currently 78 emergency shelter units are available year-round with an additional 40 units of temporary winter shelter operating December through March annually. 10 units (20 beds) are dedicated to Victims of Domestic Violence. The remaining 68 are dedicated to single adults. Emergency Shelter opportunities for Families with Children and families fleeing Domestic Violence. However, there were no unsheltered families with children on the local PIT count. Gap identified specific for a qualifying population. Development of Affordable Rental Housing Supportive Services TBRA Transitional Housing Currently 6 units (9 beds) of Transitional Housing available for victims of domestic violence. And additional 10 units of Veteran's Transitional Housing available (GPD). An additional 7 units specific to homeless Youth (16-22) are available. Additional options for homeless youth. Referrals and waiting lists are increasing, particularly for youth in the LGBTQ+ community. Gap identified for a specific subpopulation. Development of Affordable Rental Housing Supportive Services TBRA Permanent Supportive Housing Currently 187 units (196 beds) of PSH currently or imminently available. Of these, 3 units are dedicated to families while 89 are for single adults and 95 are for single veterans. As of the 2021 HIC submission, only 99 units occupied. (Due to new construction, etc.) 2021 PIT Count identified 11 (sheltered) families experiencing homelessness. 2021 PIT Count also identified 68 (sheltered) and approximately 8 unsheltered single individuals. Gap in permanent supportive housing availability across the board, but specifically in the category of family housing. 7 2. At-Risk of Homelessnes s 4. Other Populations (Other families requiring services or housing assistance to prevent homelessness & at greatest risk of housing instability) Development of Affordable Rental Housing Supportive Services TBRA Cost Burdened Renters with Income <=30% AMI According to CHAS data for 2014-2018, approximately 15,365 households rent their home in Iowa City. Of those, 47.1% have income less than 30% AMI. For those renters who have been identified as having income <30% AMI, 71.9% are identified as having a cost burden over 50% of their monthly income. 71.9% of renters who have income that is <30% AMI are identified as having a severe cost burden, and additional 5.8% (total of 77.7%) are identified as having at least 1 of 4 Housing Problems as defined by the CHAS, meaning 77.7% of renters in this income category are at great risk of housing instability. While there are several assistance options for households experiencing literal homelessness in the community, the number of assistance programs for housed individuals with a significant cost-burden are limited, one-time emergency assistance, or temporary in nature and do not serve to stabilize the household long-term. 4. Other Populations (Other families requiring services or housing assistance to prevent homelessness & at greatest risk of housing instability) Development of Affordable Rental Housing Supportive Services TBRA Cost Burdened Renters with Income <=50%AMI According to CHAS data for 2014-2018, approximately 15,365 households rent their home in Iowa City. Of those 18.2% have income less than 50% AMI, but greater than 30% AMI. For those renters who have been identified as having income <=50% AMI, 29.9% are identified as having a cost burden over 50% of their monthly income. 29.9% of renters who have income that is <=50% AMI are identified as having a severe cost burden, an additional 56.3% (total of 86.2%) are identified as having at least 1 of 4 Housing Problems as defined by the CHAS, meaning 86.2% of renters in this income category are at great risk of housing instability. 8 HOME-ARP Activities THE METHOD FOR SOLICITING APPLICATIONS The City of Iowa City is soliciting applications for HOME-ARP funds. Applications will be reviewed by the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) who will make the final funding recommendations to City Council. The HCDC will not allocate funds to a subrecipient or contractor to administer the entirety of the HOME- ARP grant nor will funds be awarded prior to HUD’s acceptance of the HOME-ARP allocation plan. Prospective applicants were notified of the solicitation of applications via press release. An applicant guide and virtual Q&A sessions were held to assist applicants in learning more about the application process. The City of Iowa City will oversee the administration of HOME-ARP funds and will not administer HOME-ARP activities directly. The City of Iowa City will hold a second funding round for HOME-ARP funds to supplement and provide matching funds to Iowa City agencies seeking HOME-ARP funds from the State of Iowa. USE OF HOME-ARP FUNDING Funding Amount Percent of the Grant Statutory Limit Supportive Services $ 671,855 Acquisition and Development of Non-Congregate Shelters $ 500,000 Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) $ 0 Development of Affordable Rental Housing $ 316,739 Non-Profit Operating $ 33,387 1.87% 5% Non-Profit Capacity Building $ 0 0% 5% Administration and Planning $ 268,000 15 % 15% Total HOME ARP Allocation $ 1,789,981 USE JUSTIFICATION In accordance with the requirements in HOME-ARP Implementation Notice CPD 21-10, The City of Iowa City has utilized the consultation process and the needs assessment and gap analysis to determine that the priority needs for the qualifying populations in the community are an increase in the availability of affordable housing units and funds to support both new and existing supportive services programs serving qualified populations. As a result of this analysis, the funds have been allocated primarily to these activities. Based on the most recent Point In Time Count (PIT) and Housing Inventory Count (HIC), the number of general shelter beds appears to be meeting the needs of the community, therefore development of non-congregate shelter is not a priority at this time for the general population. However, based on consultations, victims of domestic violence have unique shelter needs and greatly benefit from a non-congregate setting. Additionally, while rental assistance was identified as a needed service in the community, it was determined that rather than TBRA, short to medium term rental assistance with additional supportive services to assist in stabilization of the household overall would be the most effective use of resources. 9 HOME-ARP Production Housing Goals The City of Iowa City anticipates that HOME-ARP funding will be utilized to produce three (3) to five (5) additional rental housing units for qualifying populations and seven (7) units of non-congregate shelter for individuals and families fleeing domestic violence. In addition to the new units proposed, HOME-ARP funds will be utilized to provide supportive services, including rental assistance, to over 1200 individuals in more than 500 households. Preferences A preference provides a priority for the selection of applicants who fall into a specific QP or category (e.g., elderly or persons with disabilities) within a QP (i.e., subpopulation) to receive assistance. A preference permits an eligible applicant that qualifies for a PJ-adopted preference to be selected for HOME-ARP assistance before another eligible applicant that does not qualify for a preference. A method of prioritization is the process by which a PJ determines how two or more eligible applicants qualifying for the same or different preferences are selected for HOME-ARP assistance. For example, in a project with a preference for chronically homeless, all eligible QP applicants are selected in chronological order for a HOME-ARP rental project except that eligible QP applicants that qualify for the preference of chronically homeless are selected for occupancy based on length of time they have been homeless before eligible QP applicants who do not qualify for the preference of chronically homeless. In accordance with Section V.C.4 of the Notice (page 15), the HOME-ARP allocation plan must identify whether the PJ intends to give a preference to one or more qualifying populations or a subpopulation within one or more qualifying populations for any eligible activity or project. •Preferences cannot violate any applicable fair housing, civil rights, and nondiscrimination requirements, including but not limited to those requirements listed in 24 CFR 5.105(a). •The PJ must comply with all applicable nondiscrimination and equal opportunity laws and requirements listed in 24 CFR 5.105(a) and any other applicable fair housing and civil rights laws and requirements when establishing preferences or methods of prioritization. USE OF PREFERENCES The City of Iowa City will not be implementing a preference for one or more qualifying populations. However, the City recognizes that individual applicants may implement preferences for their projects. To ensure a preference is not present in funding decisions and all qualifying populations are able to benefit from HOME-ARP funds, scoring criteria has been developed which awards the most points to programs who serve all qualifying populations. While projects with preferences may still be funded, the City of Iowa City will ensure that HOME-ARP funds are distributed so that they are accessible to all qualifying populations. The consultation process and needs assessment identified that while all populations are in need, there are specific populations which are underserved. Specifically, victims of domestic violence, youth experiencing homelessness, families with children, single individuals experiencing homelessness, and cost-burdened renters are the most in- need populations. While the decision for funding will not be impacted by the population served, we expect that individual applicants will have preferences for one or more of these groups. Funding decisions will be made such that all qualified populations have access to programs utilizing HOME-ARP funds. 10 REFERRAL METHODS Applicants for HOME-ARP funding from the City of Iowa City will utilize different referral methods for their programs as appropriate. Programs with a preference for chronically homeless individuals will utilize the Coordinated Entry (CE) system in place for the Johnson/Washington County Coordinated Services Region of the Iowa Balance of State. The CE system prioritizes participants based on acuity as well as chronologically according to the applicable VI- SPDAT. Applicants operating programs that do not utilize coordinated entry will operate a separate waiting list or referral system that is ordered chronologically. The City of Iowa City will ensure that funding decisions are made such that all qualified populations have access to programs utilizing HOME-ARP funds. LIMITATIONS IN A HOME-ARP RENTAL HOUSING OR NCS PROJECT The City of Iowa City anticipates that some applicants will implement a preference for their individual projects based on the specialized services that the applicant offers. Specifically, the City anticipates that funds utilized for the development of non-congregate shelter will have a preference for qualifying participants in Category 3 – fleeing domestic violence. Participants that have experienced these traumatic events require specialized care and consideration and are more likely to take part in and benefit from supports which are specific to their needs. According to numerous sources, including the World Health Organization, it has been seen around the world that domestic violence is increasing due to the pandemic. Victim-survivors have been forced to isolate in their homes with their abusers due to the pandemic which has in turn increased the lethality of domestic violence for many individuals served by these service providers. Non-congregate shelter offers not only the privacy and safety needed for these families to process their traumatic experiences with the support of service providers who have specialized training, but protection from concerns that result from the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, as participants are fleeing dangerous situations, their privacy is of the utmost importance. A safe, confidential, and secure shelter which is limited to participants in similar situations helps to ensure greater safety from perpetrators as access to the shelter is restricted. UNMET NEEDS OF OTHER QUALIFYING POPULATIONS The City of Iowa City does not anticipate that the limitation of populations served with the anticipated non- congregate shelter project will negatively impact other qualifying populations. According to the needs assessment and consultation, the community need for non-congregate shelter for the general population is not a priority at this time. The current availability of shelter beds is generally proportionate to the population identified in the Point in Time count. The identified need for non-congregate shelter was specifically limited to Category 3 – fleeing domestic violence. Additionally, other projects funded through HOME-ARP will serve all qualifying populations without these limitations in place. HOME-ARP Refinancing Guidelines The City of Iowa City does not intend to use HOME-ARP funds to refinance existing debt secured by multi-family rental housing. 11 APPENDIX A Citizen Participation (Note: To be inserted following public comment period.) Date: July 15, 2022 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Cassandra Gripp, Grants Specialist Re: HOME-ARP Staff Funding Recommendations Summary of Staff Scores & Funding Recommendations for CDBG/HOME: Agency and Project Score (300 Points Total) Request Funding Recommendation Shelter House Supportive Services for PSH 285 95% $517,742 $517,742 Iowa Legal Aid Legal Services to Increase Housing Stability 270 90% $157,500 $157,500 Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) Shelter Construction 258 86% $750,000 $500,000 United Action for Youth TLP Expansion 215 72% $60,000 $30,000 Reserves [Justification Below] $316,739 Total $1,485,242 $1,205,242 Staff Comments on Funding Recommendations for HOME-ARP: General Comments The City received four submissions for HOME-ARP funds. All four proposals clearly explain how the project will address a specific goal from the City’s consolidated plan, City Steps 2025 and addresses a need identified in the HOME-ARP Needs Assessment and Gap Analysis. The City of Iowa City must certify in the HOME-ARP Allocation plan that all qualifying populations are able to benefit from HOME-ARP funds. To ensure this, projects which serve all qualifying populations without prioritization are scored the highest. Projects which prioritize a specific subpopulation are eligible for HOME- ARP funds, but the prioritization must be demonstrated in the Needs Assessment. Shelter House – Supportive Services for PSH Shelter House has a demonstrated history of administering federally funded projects in the City of Iowa City. The agency is subject to the single audit requirement as they annually expend more than $750,000 in federal funds each fiscal year. The request utilizes a tiered approach to HOME-ARP funds understanding that the funds are likely available on a one-time basis and demonstrating significant planning for ensuring ongoing operation of the program beyond the funded period. As the highest-scoring application, staff recommends full funding be awarded to Shelter House ($517,742). Iowa Legal Aid Iowa Legal Aid has administered federal funds for many years to provide both Homelessness Prevention services and Rapid Rehousing Services. The agency is subject to the single audit requirement as they annually expend more than $750,000 in federal funds each fiscal year. Iowa Legal Aid will utilize the funds as a continuation of an already-existing supportive services program funded by Johnson County, Wells Fargo, and Agenda Item #6 July 15, 2022 Page 2 the Principal Foundation. As the second-highest scoring application, staff recommends full funding be awarded to Iowa Legal Aid ($157,500). Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) – Shelter New Construction DVIP has undertaken numerous federally funded projects through the City in prior fiscal years including both public facility improvements and public service activities. The agency is subject to the single audit requirement as they annually expend more than $750,000 in federal funds each fiscal year. The scope of the proposal is larger than prior projects, which does present additional risk. The budget submitted in the project proposal also notes that a large portion of the project funds are not officially committed. Due to the being the 3rd the highest scoring application, staff recommends two-thirds of the requested funding be awarded to DVIP ($500,000). However, the agency and HCDC should be aware that any delays in the project timeline could have an impact on the City’s timeliness status if the federal funds awarded are not expended as scheduled. United Action for Youth United Action for Youth has administered the federally funded Transitional Living Program (TLP) for over 20 years. In response to COVID-19, UAY chose to expand the program to include additional units in order to serve more participants in need. UAY is seeking HOME-ARP funding to ensure the expansion can be maintained through the federal grant period on the originally funded units. As the lowest scoring application, staff recommends one-half of the requested funding be awarded to United Action for Youth. While the application and requested supplemental documentation provides justification for the project in the community, the HOME-ARP Needs Assessment and Gap Analysis does not specifically identify homeless youth as a subpopulation in greatest need, however the assessment does specifically indicate a general need for supportive services for qualifying populations. Reserves Iowa Finance Authority has indicated that they are considering the possibility of requiring State HOME-ARP applicants to leverage Local HOME-ARP funding as match in their future HOME-ARP funding round. On last consultation with IFA, this decision was not yet made and likely would not be until at least December 2022. Staff is prepared to proceed with the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan submission process, but do not wish to run the risk of excluding local nonprofits from being eligible to utilize State HOME-ARP funds. Due to this, staff recommends holding $316,739 in reserves for a future funding round, to be conducted after the Iowa Finance Authority has announced their requirements for State HOME-ARP applicants. Cover sheets are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. HOME-ARP Funding Round Applicant Agency Domestic Violence Intervention Program Eligible Activity Development of Non-Congregate Shelter Qualifying Populations Served Applicant marked all qualifying populations. Staff notes that while there are certainly some clients who will qualify under the requirements for more than one qualifying population, DVIP specifically serves those fleeing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking. While this is an eligible activity, the project will be exclusive to one qualifying population. Goal Priority City Steps Goal and Priority Applicant marked “Serve those experiencing homelessness and reduce homelessness” and “Provide public services” priorities in City Steps 2025. Leveraging Resources/Budget Total Estimated Project Cost $6,000,000 Funds Requested $750,000 Funds Leveraged $5,250,000 Feasibility/Community Impact Primary Target Individuals fleeing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking. Projected Clients Served 700 individuals; 350 families Timeline 4/2023: Ground-breaking, Capital Campaign Launch 3/2024: Construction Complete Affordability Project must be operated as Non-Congregate Shelter for the 15- year affordability period. Capacity/History Past Projects CDBG and/or HOME funds received annually. Capacity DVIP currently operates a 29-bed shelter. Miscellaneous Considerations •While several sources of funding and pledges for funding have been identified, the total raised as of the application submission is only 34% of the budget. While the plan and timeline are detailed in terms of how this goal will be met, the risk of not securing the funding required to complete the project is still present. Agenda Item #6 Cover sheets are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. HOME-ARP Funding Round Applicant Agency Iowa Legal Aid Eligible Activity Supportive Services Qualifying Population(s) Served Applicant marked all qualifying populations. Goal Priority City Steps Goal and Priority Applicant marked “Serve those experiencing homelessness and reduce homelessness” and “Provide public services” priorities in City Steps 2025. Leveraging Resources/Budget Total Estimated Project Cost $268,350 Funds Requested $157,500 Funds Leveraged $110,850 Feasibility/Community Impact Primary Target Low-income Iowa City residents experiencing or at-risk of housing instability and/or homelessness. Projected Clients Served 1130 individuals; 500 households Timeline Through June 30, 2025 Capacity/History Past Projects CDBG-CV: $70,528. Project closed out 5/31/2022. Capacity Provides ongoing legal services to qualified populations. Miscellaneous Considerations •Project meets one of the priority needs identified in the gap analysis and serves all qualifying populations. Agenda Item #6 Cover sheets are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. HOME-ARP Funding Round Applicant Agency Shelter House Eligible Activity Supportive Services Qualifying Populations Served Applicant marked all qualifying populations. Goal Priority City Steps Goal and Priority Applicant marked “Serve those experiencing homelessness and reduce homelessness.” priority in City Steps 2025. Leveraging Resources/Budget Total Estimated Project Cost $1,564,976 Funds Requested $517,742 Funds Leveraged $1,047,234 Feasibility/Community Impact Primary Target Permanent Supportive Housing tenants. Projected Clients Served 110 individuals; 10 families Timeline Three-year funding through FY25 requested. Capacity/History Past Projects CDBG and/or HOME funds received FY17, FY19, FY21, FY22 Capacity Shelter House currently operates several PSH sites, a shelter, and has several service coordinators on staff trained to provide supportive services. Miscellaneous Considerations •Project meets one of the priority needs identified in the gap analysis and serves all qualifying populations. Agenda Item #6 Cover sheets are intended to be a high-level overview of key information and not a substitute for the full submission. Please consider all materials submitted by the applicant. HOME-ARP Funding Round Applicant Agency United Action for Youth Eligible Activity Supportive Services Goal Priority City Steps Goal and Priority Applicant marked “Serve those experiencing homelessness and reduce homelessness” priority in City Steps 2025. Leveraging Resources/Budget Total Estimated Project Cost $60,000 Funds Requested $60,000 Funds Leveraged $0 Feasibility/Community Impact Primary Target Youth (ages 16-22) experiencing homelessness Projected Clients Served 20 individuals Timeline Project Start: 10/01/2022 Project End: 9/30/2024 Capacity/History Past Projects Applicant did not provide on application, however per staff notes, UAY did receive CDBG-CV funds. Capacity UAY has operated the TLP for over 20 years. Miscellaneous Considerations •General supportive services was identified as a priority need in the HOME-ARP Needs assessment and gap analysis. However, Youth services were not individually identified. UAY has provided supplemental justification to illustrate the need for additional funding and services in Iowa City. Agenda Item #6 FY23 HOME-ARP Scoring Criteria I.General Information and Project Need Points Score Reference 1 Project description is clear and explains how the project will address a specific goal from City Steps 2025 Goal: Y/N Q2; Q3 2 Are there staff concerns that affect the agency's ability to successfully undertake the proposed project? Comment: Y/N Submission; Staff Experience 3 Does the project serve the qualifying populations? a. The proposal clearly demonstrates that the project assists all qualifying populations. 20 b. The proposal clearly demonstrates that the project assists one or more qualifying populations. 10 c. The project does not assist an eligible population or it is unclear if a qualifying population is assisted. 0 4 Does the project respond to the impacts of COVID-19? a. The proposal clearly demonstrates that the project responds to the impacts of COVID-19. 20 b. The proposal somewhat demonstrates that the project responds to the impacts of COVID-19. 10 c. The project does demonstrates that the project responds to the impacts of COVID-19.0 40 II.Budget and Resources Points Score Application Reference 5 Has the applicant provided an itemized project budget detailed enough to determine that the proposed expenditures have been researched, documented and are deemed reasonable? a. Based on Sources and Uses of Funds, budget appears accurate, comprehensive, and detailed. Costs are clearly documented and appear reasonable and justified. 20 b. Based on Sources and Uses of Funds, budget appears reasonable, but not clear, comprehensive, or detailed. The budget is substantively mathematically correct (i.e. minor errors noted), and/or does not appear complete. 10 c. Based on Sources and Uses of Funds, budget appears questionable and/or unreasonable. The budget is substantively mathematically incorrect. 0 6 Has the agency demonstrated that they have the resources and fiscal capacity to successfully complete the proposed project? a. The agency has clearly demonstrated that they have the resources and fiscal capacity to successfully complete the proposed project. 20 b. The agency has somewhat demonstrated that they have the resources and fiscal capacity to successfully complete the proposed project. 10 c. The agency does not have the resources or fiscal capacity to complete the proposed project or it is unclear based on the proposal. 0 40 III.Feasibility and Community Impact Points Score Application Reference 7 Will the project prioritize any special populations (Example: people experiencing homelessness or people with disabilities)? a. The proposal clearly demonstrates that the project assists all eligible populations. 20 b. The proposal clearly demonstrates that the project prioritizes one or more eligible populations. 10 Q5; Q5a; Q5b; Q5c; Q5d; Q5e Q5; Q17; Q18 Application Attachments Total Section II Points Q6 Total Section I Points Q2 Q4 Agenda Item #6 c. The project does not assist an eligible population or it is unclear if a special population is assisted. 0 8 Does the project meet community demand for housing type? a. Yes the project meets the current community demand for housing type. 20 b. The project does not meet current demand for housing type. 0 c. Not applicable, proposal does not include a housing activity (Example: supportive services projects). 20 8 Does the project meet community demand for service type? a. Yes the project meets the current community demand for service type. 20 b. The project does not meet current demand for service type. 0 c. Not applicable, proposal does not include a supportive service activity (Example: rental housing projects). 20 9 Does the project schedule adequately demonstrate the project will be completed within the required time period? a. The project timeline is realistic and the project will proceed when grant funds are available.20 b. The project timeline is somewhat realistic and will proceed within a reasonable time period. 10 c. The project timeline is unclear or the project is not ready to proceed.0 10 Will the project promote long-term, efficient use of funding (covering the compliance period at a minimum)? Non-Congregate Shelters: HOME-ARP Funds cannot be used for operating costs of non-congregate shelters. a. The proposal clearly demonstrates the long-term, efficient use of funding which meets or exceeds the required compliance period. 20 b. The proposal somewhat demonstrates long-term, efficient use of funding that covers the required compliance period. 10 c. The proposal does not demonstrate long-term, efficient use of funding and/or does not cover the required compliance period. 0 100 IV Capacity and Applicant History Points Score Application Reference 11 Has the agency successfully completed federally funded projects through the City of Iowa City of equal or larger scale in the last five years without compliance issues?Points a. Yes, the agency has completed federally funded projects through the City of equal or larger scale in the last five years without compliance issues. 20 b. The agency has completed federally funded projects through the City of a smaller scale in the last five years without compliance issues. 10 c. The agency has completed federally funded projects through the City of equal or larger scale resulting in compliance issues in the last 5 years. 0 d. The agency has not completed a federally funded project through the City of any scale. 0 12 Has the agency demonstrated experience with relevant project specific federal requirements that may apply to the proposed project such as TBRA? a. Yes, adequate experience demonstrated.20 b. Not applicable, project is not anticipated to have project specific federal rules such as Davis Bacon or Section 3 apply. 10 c. No experience or inadequate demonstration of experience with specific federal requirements that may apply to the project. 0 13 Has the agency adequately described their business/operations plan approach and explained the relevant factors to help verify demand for the proposed project? a. Yes, the agency has clearly described their business/operations plan approach and explained the relevant factors to help verify demand for the proposed project. 20 b. The agency has somewhat described their business/operations plan approach and explained the relevant factors to help verify demand for the proposed project. 10 c. The agency has not described their business/operations plan approach and/or explained the relevant factors to help verify demand for the proposed project or it is unclear based on the proposal. 0 14 Does the agency have sufficient staff resources, technical expertise, and experience to carry out the project based on the information provided? Score between 0 to 20 with 20 being the highest level of sufficiency, expertise, and experience. 0-20 80 V Bonus Points Points Score Reference 15 Letter/s of support for the project submitted from community organizations. 5 Application Attachments 16 Is the agency a certified Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) in good standing?5 Q1; Staff Information 17 Did the agency submit letters or other evidence of financial commitment for sources listed in the project budget? a. Letters or other evidence of financial commitment provided for all applicable sources listed in the project budget. 10 b. Letters or other evidence of financial commitment provided for some of the sources listed in the project budget. 5 c. Other sources of financing not committed or no documentation submitted. 0 18 What percentage of funds has the agency leveraged for the project? Leverage is determined by total request for City HOME-ARP funds divided by total project cost. a. 51-99 percent 20 b. 16-50 percent 10 d. 15 percent or less 0 40 Summary Total Section III Points Q17; Q18 Q18; Q19 100.00%Percentage of Maximum Score (300 Possible Points) Project Total Score Q10; Q20; Q21; Application Attachments 300 Total Section IV Points Total Bonus Points Q5; Application Attachments Q5; Application Attachments Q22 Q7; Needs Assessment Q11 Q12; Q15; Pro Forma Q8; Q9 Needs Assessment Date: To: From: Re: July 15, 2022 Housing and Community Development Commission Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Upcoming FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies Process Background The Aid to Agencies (A2A) program offers flexible funding for agencies providing public services to low-to moderate income residents of Iowa City. Agencies eligible for this funding source are identified in the City’s consolidated plan, City Steps 2025 (p.150). As you know, the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) is approaching the FY24 Legacy A2A process. The purpose of this memo is to provide a brief background on the history of A2A and guidance for next steps. Brief History The Aid to Agency allocation process has evolved over time, and the commission and staff have implemented several changes in recent years based on feedback provided by participating agencies. Below are some of the recent changes made to the allocation process: Priority Levels Under the previous Consolidated Plan (City Steps 2016-2020), public services were given a high, medium, or low priority. As part of the application review process, HCDC assigned a priority category to each agency and considered this along with application scores when determining the funding allocation recommendation. Assigning a priority level to each agency was challenging because many agencies provide multiple services that do not fit neatly into one category. Additionally, nearly all agencies provided at least one service that was a high priority. As a result, this process was not particularly helpful in determining which agency should receive funding. The commissioners at the time also grappled with how much funding to assign to each priority level, or whether they should only fund high priority services. This in turn, led to frustration from the applicants who felt that their allocations were not justified based on the criteria set forth. During the FY20 allocation process specifically, HCDC allocated funds to the low priority agencies first which left limited funds available for high priority agencies that scored higher on their applications. The priority levels have since been removed from the process beginning in FY21 with the implementation of City Steps 2025. Budget During the FY20 A2A allocation process, agencies expressed concern that their funding levels through the program have decreased over time while their scope of services and the city’s population was increasing. Additionally, a certain level of local funding was critical to serve as a match for other grants that many agencies rely on. Commissioners requested an increase to the city’s A2A budget to fully fund each agency’s request for that year. After a work session with HCDC, City Council approved the budget request which increased the pool of funding from approximately $393,000 to $625,500 that year. The city’s annual budget for A2A has increased 3% each year since then. Agenda Item #7 July 15, 2022 Page 2 Scoring Criteria In FY20, the scoring criteria for Legacy Aid to Agencies was revised to increase objectivity in the scoring process. However, due to the budget increase, all agencies were fully funded that year and the scoring criteria was not utilized. The same scoring criteria was used for the FY21 funding allocation. Staff scored the applications and provided funding recommendations to HCDC ahead of their funding allocation meeting. HCDC opted not to consider scores for their recommendation, and allocated funds based on the agency’s request amount and the total budget. Therefore, each agency received the same percentage of their request regardless of their application score. Due to the pandemic and a two-year funding cycle, FY21 allocations were carried through FY23 at a pro-rated amount based on the city’s annual A2A budget. The FY24 allocation will be the first funding round in three years and funding recipients will also receive a pro-rated award in FY25. Considerations for FY24 While Iowa City is fortunate to have many qualified nonprofits in the community providing critical services to our most vulnerable residents, this makes the A2A allocation decision difficult for HCDC. Staff recommends consideration of the following items ahead of the FY24 allocation process: 1.Legacy A2A is intended to be a stable funding source for core agencies. Major budget cuts from prior years can be disruptive for agencies that depend on the funding for ongoing operating expenses. 2.Staff feels that the current scoring criteria is adequate, but changes can be made as the commission deems appropriate. However, it is important that the commission follows through with any scoring criteria that is established. A significant amount of time is invested in developing grant applications so it’s important that HCDC honors the time and effort of the agencies by considering each proposal against the scoring criteria established in advance. 3.Staff recommends that HCDC consider how they will use the scores to allocate funds ahead of the application process: a.Will the highest scoring applications be considered first for funding? b.How will HCDC consider the amount of the request? (Note – the minimum application request is $15,000, but there is no established maximum.) c.Will scores from recently added Legacy Agencies be given the same priority as longstanding Legacy Agencies? 4.HCDC has expressed an interest in recommending that Council increase the Legacy A2A budget for FY24. HCDC has the flexibility to make the recommendation, but approval of the recommendation is up to the Council. HCDC should proceed with evaluating the submissions fairly in accordance with the criteria to prepare for the possibility that the budget may not be increased. 5.HCDC has expressed interest in revising the A2A process again. Staff recommend following the current process in FY24 to better understand what works and what could be improved. Staff propose compiling information through surveys at the conclusion of the process to elicit feedback from agencies and commissioners. Conclusion In recent funding rounds and monitoring discussions, HCDC has demonstrated an ability to be objective and make difficult decisions. FY24 is an opportunity to apply the same skills to the Legacy A2A cycle. Staff developed the Legacy Aid to Agencies Best Practices document to assist with the upcoming funding round. Additionally, staff will prepare summary sheets for each submission and will be available throughout the process to answer questions from HCDC and participating agencies. July 15, 2022 Page 3 Attachments November 10, 2021 Staff Memo Legacy Aid to Agencies Best Pract ices FY24 A2A Application Draft FY24 A2A Scoring Criteria Draft Date: November 10, 2021 To: Housing & Community Development Commission From: Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Re: Aid to Agencies Legacy Applicant Process – Guide for Discussion Legacy and Emerging Agencies Background: Aid to Agencies (A2A) provides flexible operational funding for nonprofits providing services to low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents of Iowa City based on funding priorities set in the City’s Consolidated Plan (City Steps 2025). Funding is split between Legacy Agencies and Emerging Agencies, where the bulk of the budget is allocated to Legacy Agencies and up to 5% of the budget can be set aside for Emerging Agencies. Legacy Agencies are a core group of service providers who are eligible Iowa City Aid to Agency funding. The list of agencies was approved by HCDC in July 2019 and incorporated into City Steps 2025. The purpose of limiting the number of Legacy Agencies was to return the A2A program to its original intent of providing an ongoing stable funding source for human service agencies serving LMI residents based on the funding priorities set in City Steps 2025. The priorities as well as agencies allowed to apply will be evaluated with each new Consolidated Plan (every five years) to address changing priorities or gaps of service in the community. Applications are accepted from Legacy Agencies every two years through the United Way joint funding process, which streamlines the request for funding through the City of Iowa City, City of Coralville, Johnson County, and United Way. Staff and HCDC score the applications for City of Iowa City funding based on identified priorities, history of funding, outcomes and capacity, and make funding recommendations to City Council. Legacy Agencies have a minimum funding amount of $15,000. The application for this funding is extensive and agencies are required to report quarterly on their progress throughout the year. Emerging Agency applications are accepted annually by nonprofits who are not Legacy Agencies. Applicants can request between $5,000 and $15,000 through a shorter application which is intended to help agencies grow and develop capacity through small projects. This program was created by HCDC and is relatively new, with the first funds allocated in Fiscal Year 2020. Questions for Discussion On November 18, 2021 the HCDC agenda will include a discussion on the process for an organization to become a Legacy Agency. Staff recently received a request from an agency to be included as a Legacy Agency in City Steps 2025 so that they would be eligible to apply in the next funding cycle. This addition would require a substantial amendment to City Steps 2025 which involves a 30-day public comment period, HCDC recommendation, and City Council approval prior to being submitted to HUD. This is the first request we’ve received for an agency to become a Legacy Agency and the process for inclusion is somewhat unclear. As such, staff would like HCDC to consider when and under what circumstances they will consider future additions to the Legacy Agencies identified in City Steps 2025. Agenda Item #7 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 Legacy Aid to Agencies Best Practices Overview Legacy Aid to Agencies offers flexible funding for organizations providing public services to low- income residents of Iowa City. Eligible organizations are those that are identified as a Legacy Agency in City Steps 2025, the City’s consolidated plan (p.150). Applications for Legacy Agency funding are accepted on a two-year cycle through the United Way Community Impact Funding Process. General Timeframe Step Timeframe 1 HCDC approves application materials July 2 Applications are received September 3 Question & answer session with applicants October 4 HCDC discusses scores, rankings, and staff recommendations November 5 HCDC considers budget recommendation to Council January Schedule is subject to change. Question and Answers Staff will provide an application summary that includes suggested questions that Commissioners may want to ask agencies. Commissioners are also encouraged to ask their own questions as it relates to the scoring criteria. Scoring •Staff scores and funding recommendations will be provided to HCDC for consideration. •Applications are reviewed and scored independently. Once scored, information is submitted to staff for compilation. Staff will provide a summary to aid discussion. Key Considerations •Aid to Agencies is a unique program. Iowa City is one of few municipalities providing substantial funding to nonprofits annually. •The Legacy Aid to Agencies budget is set to increase about 3% each year assuming an absence of financial challenges – an improvement from static funding levels of the past. •Aid to Agencies is intended to be a stable funding source for agencies serving LMI residents in Iowa City. •Grant writing is a time investment for agencies. Proposals are crafted based on the instructions and scoring criteria provided. By staying focused on the scoring criteria and prioritizing funding for high scoring agencies, HCDC can keep the process as fair as possible. •A highlight of Iowa City is the number of excellent organizations serving high need populations in the community. This can make funding decisions extremely difficult for the commission. Following the scoring criteria and honoring the priorities in City Steps 2025 that were developed through public participation helps the process fair and transparent. A low scoring agency, or an agency that receives less than full funding, is not a reflection on the agency’s value. •HCDC scores and staff scores will be presented to Council along with final funding recommendations. Funding recommendations that are not supported by an appropriate score must be explained. Agenda Item #7 Suggestions for Developing Funding Recommendations The following method is suggested based on what has been successfully implemented by other City boards and commissions that regularly receive funding requests that exceed the amount of funds available. 1.Following the Q&A with applicants, Staff scores and recommendations are provided to commissioners. HCDC independently scores applications and submits to staff for compilation. 2.Staff creates HCDC scoring summary and shares with HCDC. 3.HCDC reviews scoring summary, staff scores, and staff recommendations. 4.Agencies are ranked based on score. a.Commissioners compare the HCDC rankings to staff rankings. How are they similar and/or different? 5.HCDC develops final rankings based on scores and discussion of other factors. If other factors exist that change the rankings, they must be explained. An example of circumstances that could alter the rankings are an agency failing to meet their accomplishments from the prior year. 6.HCDC develops funding recommendations and makes an effort to prioritize the requests of top-ranking agencies as applicable. 7.Short of a major change in circumstances, HCDC should be careful not to drastically decrease funds for an agency from the prior year as the funds are intended to be a stable funding source. 8.HCDC makes final funding recommendations to Council. Final Thoughts and Tips •Everyone scores slightly differently – the important part is to be consistent in your individual scores. •Score based on the information provided in the submission and the Q&A process – avoid personal assumptions. •Consider taking notes as you score. Your notes may be helpful during later discussions. •Call or email City staff at any point in the process with questions! ***Test - FY24 Joint Funding ApplicationCommunity Impact Funding FY24 - Joint Application Application Status: Submitted Application Submission Details Executive Director: Patti Fields I certify that the information submitted in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge: Yes Submission Confirmation Email Sent To: vols@unitedwayjc.org Submitted By: Patti Fields on 7/14/2022 at 5:18 PM (CST) ***Test FY24 Joint Funding Application General Information Agency Name ***Test Executive Director Name Big Outcomes Board President Terri Anderson Requestor Patti Fields Phone (319) 338-7823 Email info@unitedwayjc.org Address 1150 5th Street, Suite 290, Coralville, IA, 52241, US Website Agency Mission Statement To spread joy and goodwill. Number of Years in Operation 100 Year Org Established 1922 United Way Community Priorities Please indicate the United Way Priority Areas that your agency services support: 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 1 of 13 SAMPLE Agenda Item #7 Income Education Health United Way Request for Funding If you are requesting funding from United Way, you are REQUIRED to include a total budget amount. United Way: Request for Funding FY24 Agency Total Budget United Way: % of Total Budget Iowa City Request for Funding If you are requesting funding from Iowa City, you are REQUIRED to include a total budget amount. To apply for Iowa City funding, Agency must Legacy Agency. Funding decisions from Iowa City will be for FY24 & FY25, Agency will receive same amount each year for two years (prorated for dollars available in second year). Iowa City: Request for Funding FY24 Agency Total Budget Iowa City: % of Total Budget Iowa City: Request for Funding for FY25 Coralville Request for Funding If you are requesting funding from Coralville, you are REQUIRED to include a total budget amount. Funding decisions Coralville will be for FY24 & FY25, Agency will receive same amount each year for two years (prorated for dollars available in second year). 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 2 of 13 Coralville: Request for Funding FY24 Agency Total Budget Coralville: % of Total Budget Coralville: Request for FY25 Agency Information Please complete the Salaries & Benefits chart for entire Agency (Form A), in addition to the questions below. 1. What specific need in the community is Agency addressing? (Describe the extent of the need--including current local data with source information and the major factors in the community contributing to the need.) x 2. Provide a description of services that will be provided with the United Way funding requested. Specific information is required, not a general agency description. x 3. Provide a description of services that will be provided with the Iowa City funding requested. Specific information is required, not a general agency description. x 4. Provide a description of services that will be provided with the Coralville funding requested. Specific information is required, not a general agency description. x 5. Please describe how Organization and your services have been impacted by COVID- 19? Please include any plans you have in place for FY24. This is your opportunity to describe how COVID-19 has continued to impact your budget and expenses. x 6. Please describe how Agency is collaborating with other service providers in the community to reduce costs, increase efficiency and improve services for consumers. x Client Information Please complete Client Demographic (Form B) in addition to the question below. 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 3 of 13 6. Provide a succinct, specific description of your primary target populations(s). Describe clients as a group in terms of their primary needs and strengths. What barriers to success do they face? If Agency serves a regional area, please provide % of overall clients that are Johnson County residents. x 7. Please explain how Agency promotes racial equity and inclusivity for historically oppressed and marginalized populations (including BIPOC, LGBTQ, immigrants/refugees, individuals with disabilities) through your services, for your clients and for staff. x Client Information Area Median Income 8. Organization serves clients who are at (Check all that apply): <30% AMI <50% AMI <80% AMI >80% AMI Please explain : x Financial Management You must complete the Budget Form C, in addition to the questions below. 9. Do you have a fee structure for services? If yes, please explain and describe services available for those without ability to pay. x 10. Describe how local funding received by your organization helped leverage other revenue in the last fiscal year. Identify and include specific grant/funding sources and amounts that were awarded by using local funding as match. Include the specific local funds used as match (United Way, Iowa City and/or Coralville). x Agency Accomplishments 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 4 of 13 The United Way and Local Governments work toward making our community a better place to live.  Please complete the Performance Measurement Form (Form D) in addition to the question below.  On Form D, please select from the indicators list, the Performance Measurements that will be used by the Agency to measure results of services. YOUR APPLICATION WILL NOT BE COMPLETE OR ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW WITHOUT FORM D. 11. Please provide a specific outcomes/performance measure your organization achieved in FY22. How are people/conditions better because of the services you provided? x 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 5 of 13 -- FY24 Form A: Agency Salaries & Benefits***Test FY24 Form A: Agency Salaries & Benefits Please provide the information for employees and volunteers in your agency. If you do not find the position on the list, please add the position in the "other" section. You will need to individually add positions in "other" category. Please indicate if the position has paid leave, Health Insurance or Retirement by playing a "1" in the box if the position receives that benefit. Employees Position Paid Leave Health Ins Retireme nt Plan  Average Salary FTE (Last Year)  FTE (This Year)  FTE (Next Year)  Volunteers Please indicate the number of volunteers active with your Agency. Last Year This Year Volunteers 1 1 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 6 of 13 -- FY24 Form B: Agency Demographics***Test FY24 Form B: Agency Demographics Provide the Agency summary of clients served during last two years and one projected year. If your Agency does not have a client count for any of the categories, please enter "0" in that box. DO NOT LEAVE ANY BLANK. (unduplicated client count) Gender FY21 FY22 FY23 Male 0 0 0 Female 0 0 0 Non-binary 0 0 0 Race/Ethnicity FY21 FY22 FY23 Asian 0 0 0 African American 0 0 0 Hispanic 0 0 0 Native American 0 0 0 Multi-Racial 0 0 0 Caucasian 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Age FY21 FY22 FY23 0-5 0 0 0 6-17 0 0 0 18-29 0 0 0 30-61 0 0 0 62-75 0 0 0 75+ Years 0 0 0 Area Median Income FY21 FY22 FY23 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 7 of 13 <30% AMI 0 0 0 <50% AMI 0 0 0 <80% AMI 0 0 0 >80% AMI 0 0 0 Geographic Location FY21 FY22 FY23 Johnson County (Combined, unduplicated) 0 0 0 Iowa City 0 0 0 Coralville 0 0 0 North Liberty 0 0 0 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 8 of 13 -- FY24 Form C: Agency Budget***Test FY24 Form C: Agency Budget Please complete ALL information. If there is an item that does not apply to your budget or the value is zero, you MUST enter a "0" in that box. DO NOT LEAVE AN ITEM BLANK. The columns have auto-calculation, but it does not auto-calculate until the information is saved. Please save information often to activate the calculated fields. For the items that require itemization, click the link to enter specific information in the itemization form. Budget Type Please enter in a corresponding number to indicate your Budget type: 1 = Agency Level 2 = Program Specific 3 = County Specific Budget Type 1.00 Agency Revenues FY21 FY22 FY23 Coralville Funding 0.00 0.00 0.00 Iowa City Funding 0.00 0.00 0.00 Johnson County Block Grant Funding 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Johnson County Funding (non-Block Grant Funding) 0.00 0.00 0.00 East Central Mental Health Region 0.00 0.00 0.00 UWJWC Allocation 0.00 0.00 0.00 UWJWC Designations 0.00 0.00 0.00 Community Foundation of Johnson County 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grants-Federal, State, Foundation 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fees for Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 9 of 13 FY21 FY22 FY23 Fundraising Events 0.00 0.00 0.00 Contributions/Donations (do NOT include in-kind) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest and Investment Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 *Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 Expenses FY21 FY22 FY23 Personnel (Salaries/Benefits) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operational Expenses 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance FY21 FY22 FY23 Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carryover Balance From Prev Year 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Operating Balance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Less Total Expenses 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ending Fund Balance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Less Restricted Balance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carryover Fund Balance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bd/Donor/Funder Restricted Funds FY21 FY22 FY23 In-Kind Support FY21 FY22 FY23 Services/Volunteers 0.00 0.00 0.00 Material Goods 0.00 0.00 0.00 Space, Utilities, etc.0.00 0.00 0.00 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 10 of 13 FY21 FY22 FY23 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reserve Funds FY20 FY21 FY22 Reserve Balance 0.00 0.00 0.00 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 11 of 13 Outcome Statement: Improve success for children and youth for school, post-secondary and work. # Indicator:# of children involved in early literacy programs % Indicator:% of children achieving kindergarten readiness ***Test - test - FY24 Performance MeasuresEducation 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 12 of 13 Outcome Statement: Improve success for children and youth for school, post-secondary and work. -- FY24 Form D: Performance Measures***Test - test FY24 Form D: Performance Measures You are required to select at least one area of Education, Income & Health to provide measurements. You may choose more than one area. To select an area, click the BLUE Cross next to section. In each area, there will be Percent (%) Indicator section and a Number (#) Indicator section. The sections are separated in order to use the appropriate reporting form. You must choose at least one Number (#) Indicator and one Percent (%) indicator for measurement and reporting. Education # Indicators Actual Measurement Quarter and Total Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Year Total # of children involved in early literacy programs Projected #500 % Indicators % Indicator Form Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Total for Year % of children achieving kindergarten readiness Projected #500 500 Projected # of Achieving 482 482 Projected Percent Achieving 96.40 96.40 Indicator Question Please identify how the data will be collected. participation forms and student evaluations 7/14/2022 5:18 PM CST © 2022 e-CImpact page 13 of 13 FY24 Aid to Agencies Scoring Criteria Agency: Amount Requested: Note: A high score on the rating sheet is not a guarantee of funding. City staff and the Housing and Community Development Commission considers the rating sheet one of many tools to help make funding recommendations to the City Council. The City will use other information and sources including but not limited to: needs identified through City planning processes, prior year reports, consistency with goals and priorities in the Consolidated Plan (City Steps), public input, working knowledge of the organization, and availability of funds, to assist in funding recommendations. Need and Priority Community Need (Q1) 15 Services Provided (Q4) 10 Impact and Delivery Benefit to Low Income Persons (Q6) 15 Racial Equity and Inclusivity for Marginalized Populations (Q6, Q7, and Form B) 5 Outcome Measures (Prior Year Reports and Q10) 10 Persons to Benefit (Form B, Form C, Q9 and Q10) 5 Evidence of Financial Capacity Collaboration/Operations Plan (Q6 and Form C) 5 Agency Budget (Q5 and Form C) 5 Leveraging Funds (Q10 and Form C) 10 Evidence of Administrative Capacity Quality of Application (Overall App) 5 Experience and Success (Past Performance, Form A, and Overall App) 15 Total 100 Agenda Item #7 2 NEED AND PRIORITY (25 Points) Community Need (Primarily Question 1) 15 pts Need is directly consistent with City Steps 2025. The goals and activities are innovative and clearly address this need. Applicant clearly and completely describes the significance of the need, and provides supporting documentation and statistics fully substantiating this need. The agency addresses the described need and successfully resolves the problem. The achievement of results is realistic and reasonable. 10 pts Need is somewhat consistent with City Steps 2025. The goals and activities are somewhat consistent with addressing this need. Applicant mostly describes the significance of the need and provides some supporting documentation and/or statistics substantiating this need. The agency somewhat addresses the described need and addresses the problem. The achievement of results is somewhat realistic and reasonable 0 pts Need is inconsistent with City Steps 2025. Goals and objectives appears questionable as to its significance and seriousness to the community. The agency does not clearly address how the described need would be addressed and/or the agency would be ineffective in resolving the described need or the achievements are unrealistic or unreasonable. Services Provided (Primarily Question 4) 10 pts Services are consistent with City Steps 2025. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need, and are identified activities. Information provided in the application is comprehensive and provides reasonable and clear indication that funding will help satisfy an unmet strategic goal and activity and will fully generate the expected outcome(s) as identified in City Steps 2025. 7 pts Services are consistent with City Steps 2025. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need, and are identified activities. Information provided in the application is not as clear and comprehensive, but it appears probable that funding will help satisfy an unmet strategic goal and activity and will generate the expected outcome(s) as identified in City Steps 2025. 5 pts Services are consistent with City Steps 2025. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need, and are identified activities. Information provided in the application is minimally sufficient; however, it also appears that funding will only somewhat help address, and it is unclear as to the degree of which it will satisfy, an unmet strategic goal and activity and generate the expected outcome(s) as identified in City Steps 2025. 2 pts Services are consistent with City Steps 2025. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need, and are identified activities. Information is incomplete, inaccurate or contradictory to the need it proposes to address OR the City Steps 2025 goal and expected outcome has already been fulfilled and/or the problem/ need has already been addressed. 0 pts Application is inconsistent with City Steps 2025 (does not address a strategic goal, problem/ need or activity identified in City Steps 2025). 3 IMPACT AND DELIVERY (35 Points) Benefit to Low Income Persons (Primarily Question 6) 15 pts Direct benefit will primarily serve extremely low-income persons (<30% AMI) or those at a similar standard income level (such as the poverty line). 12 pts Direct benefit will primarily serve very low-income persons (<50% AMI) or those at a similar standard income level (such as the approximately 150% of the poverty line). 9 pts Direct benefit will primarily serve low-income persons (<80% AMI) or those at a similar standard income level (such as the approximately 250% of the poverty line). 0 pts Direct benefit will not primarily serve low-income persons or those at a similar standard income level Racial Equity and Inclusivity for Marginalized Populations (Primarily Questions 6, Question 7 and Form B; specifically disabled, 65+, non-white, LGBTQ+, or other populations) 5 pts Applicant documents that it actively and robustly promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations. 90-100% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated. 4 pts Applicant documents that it actively promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations. 70-89% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated. 2 pts Applicant documents that it promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations. 30-69% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated. 0 pts Applicant documents that it does not promote racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations. <30% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated. Outcome Measurements (Primarily Prior Year Reports and Question 10) 10 pts Applicant met or exceeded the outcome objectives in the past five years. Agency also had a maximum impact and benefit for those served. 8 pts Applicant was close to meeting its outcome objectives in the past five years. Agency had a substantial impact and benefit for those served. 5 pts Applicant did not meet their outcome objectives in recent years. Agency still had at least a moderate impact on those served. 2 pts Applicant met some outcome objectives in recent years. Agency had minimal impact on those served. 0 pts Applicant met few or none of the outcome objectives in recent years or had no impact on those served. Persons to Benefit (Primarily Form B, Form C, Questions 9, and Question 10) 5 pts Cost of $1-$19.99 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resident OR provides strong evidence that the cost for the number served are highly cost effective for the extent of services. 3 pts Cost of $20.00-$49.99 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resident OR provides strong evidence that the cost for the number served are cost effective for the extent of services. 2 pts Cost of $50.00-$149.99 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resident OR provides evidence that the cost for the number served are cost effective for the extent of services. 1 pt Cost of greater than $150.00 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resident OR provides minimal evidence that the cost for the number served are somewhat cost effective for the extent of services. 4 EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL CAPACITY (20 Points) Collaboration/Operations Plan (Primarily Question 6 and Form C) 5 pts Application shows strong evidence of collaborating with other service providers to reduce costs and of utilizing community partnership to further goals. Application fully and thoroughly identifies the major critical factors to implement and maintain its objectives over the long term. The application addresses how factors will be resolved to sustain results and ensure continued success through funding or continued partnerships. The approach is sound and reflects a clear understanding of factors involved and how they will be resolved. 3 pts Application shows evidence of collaborating with other service providers to reduce costs and of utilizing community partnership to further goals. Application identifies most major critical factors to implement and maintain its objectives over the long term. The application somewhat addresses how some factors will be resolved to sustain the results and ensure continued success through funding or continued partnerships. 1 pts Application shows limited evidence of collaborating with other service providers to reduce costs and of utilizing community partnership to further goals. Application identifies some major critical factors to implement and maintain its objectives over the long term but does not address how factors will be resolved to sustain results and ensure continued success through funding or continued partnerships. 0 pts Application shows no evidence of collaborating with other service providers to reduce costs and of utilizing community partnership to further goals. Application does not address major issues to implement and maintain its objectives over the long term, nor how factors will be resolved to sustain results and ensure continued success through funding or continued partnerships. Agency Budget (Primarily Question 5 and Form C) 5 pts Based on agency revenues and expenses, budget appears accurate, comprehensive and detailed. Costs are clearly documented and appear reasonable and justified. 2 pts Based on agency revenues and expenses, budget appears reasonable, but not clear, comprehensive, or detailed. The budget is substantively mathematically accurate (i.e. minor errors noted), and/or does not appear complete. 0 pts Based on agency revenues and expenses, budget appears questionable and/or unreasonable. The budget is substantively mathematically incorrect. Leveraging Funds (Primarily Question 10 and Form C) 10 pts Funding needs are clearly identified to address the proposed needs. Other sources of funds have been secured and maximized. There are $5 (or more) of other sources of funds for every $1 requested in the application. (>5:1 ratio) 7 pts Funding needs are clearly identified to address the proposed needs, but not completely secured or additional funds could be leveraged. Plans to secure or leverage other sources of funds are underway and information is presented to conclude that it is probable other sources of funding will be obtained. There is at least $2 of other sources of funds for every $1 requested. (4-2:1 ratio) 4 pt Funding needs are clearly identified to address the proposed needs. The project is mostly reliant on requested funds to finance the project with minimal leveraging. (<=1:1 ratio) 0 pts Funding needs are identified to address the proposed needs. Plans to secure other sources of funds have been developed and/or underway, but it is questionable whether these funds will be secured and/or if they will be available upon approval of funds in a timely manner. Alternatively, funding needs are identified, but incompletely addresses the proposed needs. Funds would have little impact and no other resources are identified. 5 EVIDENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY (20 Points) Quality of Application (Overall Application) 5 pts Application is logical, clear, well written, accurate and attentive to detail, but also concise with appropriate statistical information and supporting documentation provided to thoroughly support any conclusions provided. 3 pts Application is adequately written, but statistics, observation and/or conclusions are not well documented, and inconsistencies and/or errors were noted. 1 pts Application is adequately written, but statistics, observations and/or conclusions are not well documented; inconsistencies and/or errors were noted; and some application instructions were not followed. The credibility of information and statistics provided appear questionable. 0 pts Application is poorly written, statistics, observations and conclusions are not documented, and apparent and substantive internal inconsistencies and material errors were noted. Most of the application instructions were not followed. The credibility of Information and statistics provided is questionable. Experience and Success (Past performance, Form A, and overall application) 15 pts Applicant clearly shows evidence of the necessary competencies, skill set, management capacity, professional experience and qualifications to successfully manage and implement the activities listed. Applicant has extensive experience with Grant Funds and/or other City funding programs. The applicant has been directly involved in 5 or more City funded projects within the past 5 years, 4 of which have been favorably completed. This applicant has had no problems with timeliness and/or compliance for past projects. This applicant has been timely, complete and accurate with reporting requirements. 10 pts Applicant clearly shows evidence of the necessary competencies, skill set, management capacity, professional experience and qualifications to successfully manage and implement the activities listed. Applicant has adequate experience with Grant Funds and/or other City funding programs. The applicant has been directly involved in 3 or more City funded projects within the past 5 years, 2 of which have been favorably completed. Applicant has realistically identified any problem(s) relating to its application, but they appear relatively minor and the applicant exhibits the understanding and capacity to address these concerns. The applicant has had some problems with timeliness and/or compliance for past projects, but any problems were fully resolved. The applicant has been timely, complete and accurate with reporting. 5 pts Applicant appears to have most of the necessary competencies, skill set, management capacity, professional experience and qualifications to successfully manage and implement the activities listed, but it is not well documented. Applicant has some experience with Grant Funds and/or other City funding programs. The applicant has been directly involved in 1 or more City funded projects within the past five years and has favorably completed it. The applicant may have difficulty complying with program requirements. Applicant has realistically identified action(s) and/or problem(s) relating to its application or other issues may exist. The actions are somewhat complicated to resolve, but the applicant has developed and implemented a plan and is in the process of addressing these concerns. The applicant may have experienced some problems in implementing past projects, but the problems were fully resolved. This applicant has had minor problems with timeliness and/or compliance for past projects. The applicant may have difficulty complying with program requirements. 3 pts Applicant appears to have some of the necessary competencies, skill set, management capacity, professional experience and qualifications to successfully manage and complete the activities listed (documentation is unclear). Applicant has little experience with Grant Funds and/or City funded projects. Applicant has realistically identified action(s) and/or problem(s) relating to its application or other issues may exist. The actions are complicated to resolve, but the applicant has developed a plan to address these concerns. The problems appear to be fully resolvable, but expending funds may be problematic. 0 pts Applicant appears to have minimal or none of the necessary competencies, skill set, and capacity to successfully manage the activities listed (documentation is unclear). Applicant appears to have no related professional experience with Grant Funds and/or other City funded projects or had extensive problems in 6 implementing past projects timely, substantiating compliance, and/or meeting reporting requirements or requests for information by the City. Extensive actions and/or problems have been identified or pose a potential significant concern. The applicant appears unsure as to how to address the issues and/or the problems do not appear to be fully resolvable without negatively impacting implementation. The applicant does not appear knowledgeable, committed, and/or able to complete the project. To improve quality of life, the Iowa City Housing Authority acts as a community leader for affordable housing, family self-sufficiency, and homeownership opportunities. Date: June 30, 2022 Annual Plan — 2022 Agenda Item #8 Page 2 Table of Contents Pages Staff 3 Executive Summary 4-5 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program 6 Public Housing Program 7 Family Characteristics 8-9 Public Housing Waiting List 10 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Waiting List 11 Promoting Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) & Homeownership 12-15 Funding for Calendar Year 2022 16 Housing Authority Funding Sources Summary 17-18 Partnerships and Community Collaborations 19 Staff Housing Program Assistant Robin Butler Housing Program Assistant Elaine Cooper Housing Program Assistant Carri Fox-Rummelhart Housing Program Assistant Diana Huff Office Manager Jennifer Gosch Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Coordinator Mary Abboud Public Housing/Homeownership Coordinator Pat MacKay Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program Coordinator Heidi Wolf Housing Administrator Housing Receptionist Georgia Black Housing Receptionist Jamila Shing-Hon Housing Program Assistant Lindsay Schuchert Annual Plan — 2022 Page 3 Page 4 Executive Summary The Housing Authority works to improve the quality of life for clients, acting as a community leader on affordable housing by providing information and education, housing assistance, and public and private partnership opportunities. The Housing Authority is a division of the City of Iowa City established in 1969 to administer housing assistance programs throughout its jurisdiction, including all of Johnson County, Iowa County and a portion of Washington County We currently assist more than 1,500+ disabled, elderly & low-income working families to acquire and maintain affordable housing through rental and ownership programs. The Annual Plan provides details about the Housing Authority’s current pro- grams and the resident population served, as well as the PHA’s strategy for ad- dressing the housing needs of currently assisted families and the larger communi- ty. The Annual Plan also serves as the annual application for grants to support improvements to public housing buildings (Capital Fund Program) Iowa City Housing Authority Rental Assistance Portfolio: Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) = 1,191 Veterans’ Supportive Housing Vouchers (VASH) = 95 Mainstream Vouchers = 78 Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHV) = 69 Project-Based Vouchers Cross Park Place = 24 Public Housing Units = 86 City-Owned Affordable Rental Units = 16 TOTAL Vouchers/Units = 1,559 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV): The Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) is designed with the intent of increasing affordable housing choices for elderly persons, persons with disabilities. & low-income working families. Partici- pants with a HCV voucher choose and lease safe, decent, and affordable private- ly owned rental housing. Applicant pool: Applicants are selected from a wait- ing list. Veterans Supportive Housing Vouchers (VASH): The VASH program implemented the Housing First concept for the delivery of services. Housing First places permanent housing with supports at the foundation for success and stability, including better access and outcomes with treatment services. The VASH program serves Veterans experiencing the most significant challenges to housing stability, including chronic homelessness, severe mental illness, and other significant barriers. Applicant pool: The Housing Authority receives direct referrals from Iowa City Veterans Administration Health Care System. Annual Plan — 2022 Page 5 Mainstream Vouchers: Mainstream vouchers Eligible participants are non- elderly persons with a disabling condition currently experiencing homelessness, previously experienced homelessness and currently a client in a permanent sup- portive housing or rapid rehousing project, or those at risk of experiencing homelessness. Applicant pool: The Housing Authority receives direct referrals from the Continuum of Care/Coordinated Entry Service Delivery System. Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHV): EHV vouchers are a Housing First concept for the delivery of services. Eligible participants are individuals and fami- lies who are (1) homeless, (2) at risk of homelessness, (3) fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking, or (4) recently homeless. Applicant pool: The Housing Authority receives direct referrals from the Continuum of Care/Coordinated Entry Ser- vice Delivery System. Project –Based Voucher Cross Park Place: Cross Park Place is Housing First project providing permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals/ households with a disabling condition. The Iowa City Housing Authority con- verted 24 of our HCV tenant-based vouchers to project-based vouchers to provide financial support to the project.. Applicant pool: The Housing Author- ity receives direct referrals from the Continuum of Care/Coordinated Entry Service Delivery System. Public Housing Units: Public housing provides affordable, decent and safe rental housing for elderly persons, persons with disabilities. & low-income work- ing families. The Iowa City Housing Authority owns and manages the units. Ap- plicant pool: Applicants are selected from a waiting list. City-Owned Affordable Rental Units: City Council approved the develop- ment of 16 Affordable Rental units to serve eligible persons whose income is below 80% of the median income for the household size. Peninsula Apartments contains 10 units and Augusta Place contains six (6). Applicant pool: Appli- cants are selected from a waiting list. Comparing the Iowa City Housing Authority to the other 71 Housing Authorities in the State of Iowa. Effective dates included: September 1, 2020—December 31, 2021: ICHA participants have higher average annual incomes - $14,613 vs. $13,231; The ICHA assists more working families – 38% vs. 28%; The ICHA assists fewer families receiving welfare – 3% vs. 15%; ICHA participants pay a higher average monthly amount of the contract rent - $346 vs. $311. HCV Economic Impact: For Calendar Year 2021 (CY21), the Housing Choice Voucher program paid approximately $8.3 million in Housing Assistance Pay- ments (HAP) to landlords/owners of rental properties in Johnson County. The vouchers in use, as of 1/4/22, in Iowa City (975) represents 5% of the total number of rental units (19,491) in the City of Iowa City. Following is the overall voucher utilization by geographic area: Housing Choice Voucher Program Page 6 Voucher Utilization by area, as of 1/4/2022 (total = 1,375) Total Population * % of Total Johnson County Incorporated Population Total Vouchers By Location % Total Voucher Utilization Iowa City 74,942 50.00% 975 70.9% Coralville 22,259 13.90% 221 16.1% North Liberty 19,227 13.40% 102 7.4% Other Johnson County Cities 5,179 6.00%27 2.0% Port Outs N/A N/A 50 3.6% Johnson County Total Population 150,685 Johnson County Incorporated 121,607 % of Johnson County Population Living in Incorporated areas = 81% * Source: U.S. Decennial Census and ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimate Public housing was established to provide affordable, decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, elderly persons, and persons with disabilities. The U.S. Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) distributes federal subsidies to the Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA), which owns and manages the housing. The eighty-six (86) Public Housing units are low-density and constructed to conform and blend into the existing neighborhood architecture. The 86 Public Housing units represent half (1/2) of 1% of the total number of rental units in the City of Iowa City. Public Housing Economic Impact for the City of Iowa City: Total CY21 rental income from Public Housing properties = $290,086 Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) paid to the Johnson County Assessor for the Public Housing properties in CY21 = $43,302 In CY21, the Housing Authority paid $451,324 to private sector Iowa City contractors for the capital improvement, general maintenance and repair of the Public Housing properties. Public Housing Annual Plan — 2022 Page 7 Public Housing Units by Iowa City Planning Districts Total by Location Total Occupied 6/1/2022 Northeast 5 5 Central 8 8 Southeast 32 29 Southwest 3 3 South 33 31 Downtown 5 5 TOTAL 86 81 Page 8 Family Characteristics Household Characteristics. Total Families as reported to HUD: September 1, 2020 — December 31, 2021 Family Type by Head-of-Household (HOH) Count % of Total Disabled and/or Elderly HOH 815 58% Non-Elderly/Non-Disabled HOH 597 42% Total 1412 100% Family Composition by Household Count % of Total Households without children 782 55% Households with Children 630 45% Total 1412 100% Race by HOH Count % of Total White HOH 664 47% Black/African American HOH 706 50% All Other Races HOH 42 3% Total 1412 100% Ethnicity by HOH Count % of Total Non-Hispanic HOH 1341 95% Hispanic HOH 71 5% Total 1412 100% ICHA Participant Characteristics. Definition of Participant (participant family): A person or family that has been admitted to the Iowa City Housing Authority’s HCV, VASH or Public Hous- ing program and is currently receiving housing assistance. Income Sources: Total Families = 1,412 as reported to HUD: September 1, 2020 — December 31, 2021 (All Family Members: Many Families Have Multiple Sources of Income): · Social Security (SS)/Supplemental Security (SSI) = 59% · Employment = 38% ·Family Investment Program (FIP/Welfare)= 3% · With any Other Income = 12% * · No Income = 11% *Child Support, Self-Employment, Unemployment Insurance, Other Non-Wage Sources. January 4, 2022 point-in-time count: Only 14 of the total 1,412 assisted households are reporting Family Investment Program (FIP) as the sole source of household income. FIP provides temporary financial and other assistance to low income families with children while they move toward self-sufficiency. This amounts to <1% of all currently assisted households. Length of Participation as reported to HUD: 1,412 as reported to HUD: Sep- tember 1, 2020—December 31, 2021 ·Less than 1 year = 297 (21%) ·1 to 5 years = 409 (29%) ·5 to 10 years = 339 (24%) ·10 to 20 years = 282 (20%) ·Over 20 years = 85 (6%) Annual Plan — 2022 Page 9 Family Characteristics (continued) Applicant (applicant family): A person or family that has applied for admission to the Iowa City Housing Authority’s Public Housing program but is not yet a participant. Eligibility for housing programs is not established until applicants reach the top of the waiting list and their Preliminary Application for Assistance is processed. The Iowa City Housing Authority’s jurisdiction is Johnson County, Iowa; Iowa County, Iowa; and, Washington County, Iowa, North of Highway 92. The general applicant pool from which the Housing Authority draws to determine program eligibility are elderly, disabled, and families with children under the age of 18 who are residents (have a legal domicile) or are employed, in our jurisdiction (Johnson County, Iowa County, and Washington County N of HWY 92). When vacancies exist, the Housing Authority draws applicants from this pool by date and time of application and only those applications of families who qualify for the bed- room size of the available Public Housing units. The eligibility determination process includes verification of residency, family composition, eligibility status, and a national criminal background check conducted through the Iowa Department of Criminal In- vestigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Page 10 Public Housing Waiting List May 18, 2022 Public Housing Waiting List Elderly, disabled, and families with children under the age of 18 who are residents (have a legal domicile) or are employed, in our jurisdiction. Number of Applicants by Head-of- Household % of Applicants by Head-of- Household 946* 100% Elderly 109 12% Disabled 403 43% Families w/minor Children 571 60% White Head of Household 334 35% Black/African American Head of Household 438 46% All Other Races/Multipl Races reported 174 18% Hispanic Head of Household 64 7% * An additional 11,609 applicants are on the list in lower preference categories (Head-of-Household totals do not add up to 100% because individuals can be counted in multiple categories): The HCV waiting list shares the majority of the characteristics described in the Public Housing section. There is a great deal of duplication as the majority of applicants apply to both lists. For HCV applications, bedroom size is not taken into consideration. When vouchers are available, the Housing Authority draws applications, by date & time of application, from the applicant pool that contains elderly, disabled, and families with children under the age of 18 who are residents (have a legal domicile) or are employed, in our jurisdiction (Johnson County, Iowa County, and Washington County N of HWY 92). The eligibility determination process includes verification of residency, family composi- tion, eligibility status, and a national criminal background check conducted through the Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Annual Plan — 2022 Page 11 HCV Waiting List May 18, 2022 Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List Elderly, disabled, and families with children under the age of 18 who are residents (have a legal domicile) or are employed, in our jurisdiction. Number of Applicants by Head-of- Household % of Appli- cants by Head-of- Household 1920 * 100% Elderly 277 14% Disabled 908 47% Families w/minor Children 1025 53% White Head of Household 789 41% Black/African American Head of Household 808 42% All Other Races/Multipl Races reported 323 17% Hispanic Head of Household 213 11% * An additional 26,157 applicants are on the list in lower preference categories (Head- of-Household totals do not add up to 100% because individuals can be counted in multi- ple categories): Page 12 Promoting Self-Sufficiency & Homeownership The Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Pro- gram: Promotes self-sufficiency and asset develop- ment by providing supportive services to partici- pants to increase their employability, to increase the number of employed participants, and to encourage increased savings through an escrow savings pro- gram. Through our Self-Sufficiency programs, the Housing Authority is helping low income families bridge the economic gap by building assets, improving employment opportunities, and tran- sitioning from renters of units to owners of homes. FSS Enrollment Data (CY2021): Total FSS participants = 225 Participants with an escrow savings account = 200 (89%) Average monthly escrow savings deposit (participants with an escrow balance) = $296 Households with increased income = 135 Percentage of households with increased income = 59% FSS Graduates = 32 FSS Point in Time Data (5/19/2022) Average monthly escrow savings deposit = $339 Average escrow savings account balance =$6,370 Highest escrow savings account balance = $50,867 Workshop Accreditations: “Money Smart”: Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation (FDIC). FSS Program Coordinating Committee: The FSS Program Coordinating Committee has been replaced with three (3) already existing wider-reaching networks that have lessened the duplication of effort in leveraging community resources to promote self-sufficiency among FSS program participants. The FSS coordinator has joined the Community Reentry Network of Johnson County Area which includes representatives from educational institutions, em- ployment services, government agencies, housing agencies, neighborhood cen- ters, labor programs and family services. Participating entities: Center for Worker Justice. Goodwill of the Heartland. Inside Out Reentry. Iowa City Housing Authority. Iowa Department of Corrections, 6th Judicial District. Iowa Works. Jane Boyd Community House. Kirkwood Community College. Labor Ready. Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County. Shelter House. Teamsters Local 238. The Iowa City Housing Authority is also a partner in the Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act (WIOA) one-stop career center service delivery system. WIOA reinforces the partnerships and strategies necessary for one-stops to provide job seekers and workers with the high-quality career services, educa- tion and training, and supportive services they need to get good jobs and stay employed, and to help businesses find skilled workers and access other sup- ports, including education and training for their current workforce. Participating entities: Kirkwood Community College. Iowa Workforce Development. Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation. Iowa Department for the Blind. Experience Works. AARP. Promoting Self-Sufficiency & Homeownership (continued) Page 13 Denison Job Corps. Ottumwa Job Corps. Proteus. Hawkeye Community Action Agency. Cedar Rapids Housing Authority. Iowa City Housing Authority. Interagency Case Management Sub-Committee of the Local Homeless Coordi- nating Board. This group meets to ensure coordination of services provided to families, improve collaboration of services, identify unmet needs, and seek solu- tions. Participating entities: City of Iowa City. Domestic Violence Intervention Program. Hawkeye Community Action Program (HACAP) Iowa City Community School District. Iowa City Housing Authority. Iowa Legal Aid. Johnson County Social Services. Prelude Behavioral Services. Salvation Army. Shelter House. United Action for Youth. Homeownership Programs: FSS Homeownership: Through our FSS program, many families have used their escrow savings accounts and private mortgages to attain homeownership independent of the Housing Authority programs. Sixty-two (62) FSS graduates have moved to homeownership. HCV Homeownership Program: Eligible participants have the option of purchasing a home with their HCV assistance rather than renting. Forty-eight (48) HCV Vouchers have been used to purchase homes since January 2003; Fifteen (15) HCV Vouchers are currently active. Tenant-to-Ownership Program (TOP): The Tenant-to-Ownership Pro- gram is funded by HUD. The TOP program offered opportunities for low to very low-income families to purchase single-family homes owned by the Housing Authority. Promoting Self-Sufficiency & Homeownership (continued) Page 14 Annual Plan — 2022 Promoting Self-Sufficiency & Homeownership (continued) Annual Plan — 2022 Page 15 Twenty-six (26) homes have been sold and ten (10) resold since May 1998. Affordable Dream Home Ownership Program (ADHOP): The Afforda- ble Dream Home Ownership Program is operated, managed and funded solely by the ICHA. It offers opportunities for income eligible families to purchase newly constructed homes, newer homes, or resale of homes purchased through the TOP/ADHOP programs. Sixteen (16) homes (10 “Universal Design” homes) were built and sold since May 1999. Down Payment Assistance Program — Grant Award $187,500: Funded with Fiscal Year 2009 HOME funds. First-time homebuyers with a household income of less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) may be eligible for a forgivable loan for down payment assistance. At the date of this publication: 20 families purchased homes (total funds expended) = $187,500 Families with household income 60-80% of AMI = 11 Families with household income <60% of AMI = 9 UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership: The UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership is an effort by the City of Iowa City focusing on neighborhoods located near the University campus that retain a single-family character and a demand for single-family housing, but that also have a large renter population. From May 2011 to May 2015, the Iowa City Housing Authority provided $102,276 in down payment assistance to sixteen (16) families purchasing a Uni- verCity home. In FY2014, the ICHA allocated $170,000 to the UniverCity Neighborhood Part- nership for the rehabilitation of homes purchased by the City of Iowa City. In FY 2015, an additional $20,000 was allocated for rehabilitation of homes. From June 2014 to September 2015, ICHA funds in the amount of $165,164.25 were used for the rehabilitation of eight (8) homes purchased by the City of Iowa City. Annual Plan — 2022 Page 16 Funding for Calendar Year (CY) 2022 The United States Congress allocates funding and passes laws for all housing programs. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) role in the locally administered housing programs is to allocate money to local housing authorities and to develop policy, regulations and other guidance that interprets housing legislation. Housing Choice Voucher Program CY22 Housing Assistance Payments = $8,313,683 Administrative Fees = $1,090,121 Family Self-Sufficiency Grant = $138,636 Fraud Recovery = $137,626 Total HCV Program CY22 = $9,680,066 Public Housing CY22 Operating Subsidy = $179,857 Rental Income = $260,930 Reimbursement of Expenses/Fraud Recovery = $12,627 Capital Funds Program (CFP)= $180,724 Total Public Housing CY22 = $633,778 Total Housing Authority Funding CY20 = $10,313,844 Page 17 ICHA income and cash sources. The uses of the cash sources are based on relevant HUD notices and signed agreements between the Housing Authority and HUD. Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Administrative Fees Administrative fees are available to the ICHA for the operation and manage- ment of the HCV program. Starting January 31, 2004, HUD and Congress, through the approval of the Annual Appropriations Act, restricted the use of ad- ministrative fee income to activities related to the HCV tenant-based rental assis- tance and related development activities (PIH Notice 2008-15). Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) HUD provided funds to cover the housing subsidy paid to owners/landlords directly by the ICHA on behalf of the participating family. The family pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. Under certain circumstances, if authorized by the ICHA, a family may use its voucher to purchase a modest home. HUD/Veterans’ Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) This is tenant based rental assistance funds targeting homeless veterans partici- pating in VA Case Management Services. Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) The FSS program is a tenant self-sufficiency work incentive program. ICHA estab- lishes cash accounts for FSS program participants that will be available to them if they complete the program. ICHA’s contributions to these accounts are funded by HUD through the ICHA’s regular funding process. FSS cash is not available to ICHA for any other use. Public Housing Operations Under Section 9(3) of the Housing Act of 1937, Operating Funds are available to the ICHA for the operation and management of the Public Housing program. These funds assist the ICHA in bridging the gap between the rent collected and the operating expenses of the program. Operating cash is only available for the use and benefit of public housing units and residents. Iowa City Housing Authority (ICHA) Funding Sources Annual Plan — 2022 Page 18 Housing Authority Capitol Fund Grants HUD provides funds to the ICHA to improve the physical condition, upgrade the management and operation and carry out other activities for Public Housing developments. These funds are primarily used for general maintenance and re- pair of the Public Housing units. As necessary, these funds will also be used to upgrade structures, interiors, HVAC systems and appliances. Capital Funds are calculated and allocated by an established formula. Affordable Dream Homeownership Program (ADHOP) On September 3, 1993, the ICHA entered into a Section 5(h) Agreement with HUD. The purpose of this program is to create affordable home ownership oppor- tunities throughout Iowa City. This agreement authorizes the ICHA to sell Public Housing units and use the sales proceeds to construct or purchase homes for reha- bilitation to continue the cycle. To ensure affordability, the ICHA provides a sec- ond mortgage for the homeowners. Broadway Sales Proceeds ICHA received approval from HUD for the sale of 18 units at 1926/1946 Broadway Street, Iowa City, Iowa. Per the approved plan submitted to HUD, the sales pro- ceeds were to be used for the development of 18 low-density scattered site re- placement units that would be more efficiently and effectively operated as lower income housing. There is no other permissible use of these funds per the agree- ment. Public Housing Tenant Security Deposits The ICHA holds security deposits until tenants vacate units. At that time, the ten- ants receive a full or partial refund depending on such factors as remaining rental or other charges outstanding and reimbursement of damage repairs. Tenant security deposit cash is not available to ICHA for any other use. Annual Plan — 2022 Page 19 Partnerships and Community Collaborations University of Iowa School of Social Work. Women's Resource and Action Center (WRAC). Montessori School. Goodwill of the Heartland. Habitat for Humanity. Iowa Women’s Foundation. Iowa City Junior Service League. Shelter House. Iowa State University (ISU) Extension. Iowa City Area Association of Realtors. Hawkeye Area Community Action Program (HACAP). Foster Grandparents Program. The Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC). City of Iowa City Parks & Recreation. City of Iowa City Neighborhood Services. Iowa City Public Library. Iowa City Human Rights Commission. Domestic Violence Intervention Project (DVIP). Johnson County Department of Public Health. Horizons Community Credit Counseling. Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board. Cross Park Place. Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act (WIOA) Partners. Veterans’ Administration. Kirkwood Community College. Reentry Network of Johnson County. Crisis Center. ABBE Center for Community Mental Health. Iowa City Community School District. Community Transportation Committee. Phone: (319) 356-5400 FAX: (319) 356-5459 Web: www.icgov.org/icha Page 20 We provide: Information and education, Housing assistance, Public and private partnership opportunities. Proposed Amendment to the By-Laws of the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) Article 4 MEMBERSHIP Section B. In order to satisfy the purpose and intent of this citizen commission, when possible, at least one person shall be appointed to the Housing and Community Development Commission with expertise in construction, and at least one person with expertise in finance, at least one person with nonprofit experience, and at least one person with property management experience. In addition, when possible, the Commission shall include one person who receives rental assistance. Appointments shall take into consideration persons of the various racial, religious, cultural, social and economic groups in the city. Agenda Item #9 Agenda Item #9