HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 2023 HCDC 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 Meeting
Regular: March 30, 2023
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION (HCDC)
February 16, 2023
Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM
Iowa City Senior Center Assembly Room
28 S Linn Street
AGENDA:
1.Call to Order
2.Welcome New Members
HCDC will welcome one new member, Kiran Patel. This item provides an opportunity for new and existing
Commissioners to introduce themselves.
3.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 19, 2023
4.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.
5.Question and Answer Session for FY24 Emerging Aid to Agencies (EA2A) Applicants
Submissions can be found online at icgov.org/actionplan. At this meeting, HCDC will host a question-and-
answer session with FY24 EA2A applicants. Applicants are encouraged to send a representative to answer any
questions. No action will be taken this meeting. HCDC will make funding recommendations to City Council at the
March 30, 2023 meeting
6.Question and Answer Session for FY24 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME
Investment Partnerships (HOME) Applicants
Submissions can be found online at icgov.org/actionplan. At this meeting, HCDC will host a question-and-
answer session with FY24 CDBG/HOME applicants. Applicants are encouraged to send a representative to
answer any questions. The scoring criteria found in the Applicant Guide will focus questions. No action will be
taken this meeting. HCDC will make funding recommendations to City Council at the March 30, 2023 meeting.
7.Discuss National Community Development Week
National Community Development Week 2023 is April 10-15. Staff would like input from HCDC on how to
acknowledge the week in Iowa City. Duties of HCDC include actively publicizing community development and
housing policies and programs.
8.Staff & Commission Updates
This item includes an opportunity for brief updates from staff and Commissioners. Commissioners shall not
engage in discussion on updates.
9.Adjournment
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 16, 2023 Meeting Packet Contents
Agenda Item #3
January 19, 2023 Draft HCDC Meeting Minutes
Agenda Items #5 and #6
FY24 Emerging Aid to Agencies submissions can be viewed online at
icgov.org/actionplan.
FY24 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership
Program submissions can be viewed online at icgov.org/actionplan.
Staff Memo and Attachments – Next Steps for FY24 Funding Rounds
o Initial Summary of Applications Received
o Staff Summary Sheet for FY24 CDBG/HOME Submissions (7)
o Revised FY24 Calendar
o FY24 CDBG/HOME Score Sheet Template
o FY24 EA2A Recommendation Sheet Template
o Computer Resources – ICPL
Agenda Item #8
Staff Emails Regarding the Eligibility of Legacy Agencies for Emerging Funding
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 19, 2023 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Michael Eckhardt, Jennifer Haylett,
Karol Krotz, Nasr Mohammed, Becci Reedus
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kyle Vogel
STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Genevieve Anglin (UAY), Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes), Crissy
Canganelli (Shelter House), Charlie Eastham (CWJ), Missie Forbes
(4Cs), Christi Regan (HACAP), Adam Robinson (RVAP), Nicki Ross
(Table to Table), Jennie Schmidt (Free Medical Clinic), Mazahir Salih
(CWJ), Daleta Thurness (BBBSJC),
PRESENT ON ZOOM: Kristie Fortmann-Doser (DVIP), Michelle Heinz (Inside Out Reentry), Kai
Kiser (Free Lunch Program), Shelly Zabel (Community and Family
Resources), Barbara Vinograde (Free Medical Clinic)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends the following FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies budget
recommendations to City Council (see page 9).
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Beining called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 17, 2022:
Reedus moved to approve the minutes of November 17, 2022, Dennis seconded the motion. A vote was
taken, and the minutes were approved 6-0 (Krotz not present for the vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Shelly Zabel (Community and Family Resources) stated they had a merger and Prelude and Prelude
came under Community and Family Resources on July 1st. At some point she would like to come back
and make a more formal presentation but at this time wanted to let them know some of what the merger
has entailed. Both agencies provided similar services and had been able to streamline management
which provided cost savings to both agencies. They are looking at the strengths from each side and trying
to move forward implementing different processes that maybe Prelude did a better job of than Community
and Family Resources did so they can learn from each other. While this merger just happened in July,
they actually had begun the process of providing consultation services back in September 2020, right
after the pandemic began as it was also at a time that the agency director for Prelude was beginning to
contemplate retirement. Zabel noted those were some of the reasons for merger and will be happy to
come back and do a more formal presentation in the future.
Agenda Item #3
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 19, 2023
Page 2 of 9
2
DISCUSS FY24 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES (A2A) FUNDING AND CONSIDER A BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Dennis went back and read through everything again, including the staff comments and
recommendations and thought about some of the discussion last time regarding applicants that are late
and when their scores are pretty low. Dennis feels they may want to talk a little bit more about not funding
Community and Family Resources or not funding Center for Worker Justice because some of the
agencies did get cut.
Reedus feels that allowing late applicants to compete and to get funding is unfair, especially when the
application deadline was clear. She acknowledged they may have had technical problems, but she really
believes what happened is that they ran the clock down too far and did not leave enough time to get it in.
In the past if they didn’t get it in at five o’clock, they’d have to call and have it accepted. She
acknowledged that part of the response from the agencies was it took them some time to get a hold of the
person, because there are probably a number of agencies trying to get some assistance at the last
minute, but that still doesn't change the fact that they were late. If there were real technical difficulties in
getting the application submitted like loss or power or their computers went down, they should have
called. So again, she does not think it's fair to any of the other applicants if they allow late applicants to
be able to continue to compete for funding.
{Krotz joined the meeting}
Dennis noted again, she went back and looked at the scoring and they have a cluster of scores from 82 to
87, and there are several agencies that were cut. They need to be totally equitable and have a rationale
of how they decide these things so she would put Center for Worker Justice back to zero.
Krotz agrees and also had been troubled a little bit the past couple of months with funding Center for
Worker Justice. It has nothing to do with anything other than the scoring not the late application. Going
back and reading staff recommendations there were a number of things listed that supported their
decision to suggest it not be funded and would ask the commission members to consider that also when
making their decision. One example is them was asking for money for which the grant wasn't intended.
Kubly believes that was one of the things Center for Worker Justice clarified later is that they wouldn't be
using funds for things that weren't eligible for outside of Iowa City.
Haylett was wondering - with the late applications could they just provide like a little bit more detail. How
late it was and was it the case that they just didn't turn it in, and someone reached out to them, or what
exactly happened in that situation? Thul noted these applications are accepted through United Way and
not directly by the City. Two applications were submitted late, within 30 minutes of the deadline. The
agencies stated they had technical issues and reached out to United Way. That's the reason that United
Way accepted it.
Mohammed thinks the applications being accepted means they should come to the floor for discussion.
He doesn’t think it's that a technical glitch for about 30 minutes or so should void their status.
Reedus stated they would then have to define what else can fall outside guidelines, is 45 minutes too
late? Is an hour too late? Is midnight too late? What does an application deadline mean?
Dennis noted they are still a Legacy Agency, so they'll come back every year. Additionally, they will also
be reviewing the HOME and CDBG applications soon and a lot of the agencies that they're dealing with
tonight will probably come in for an application for HOME and CDBG. That's a hard and fast rule from the
City that they have to have them in on time or they're not considered. For this process, they can't do
anything about what United Way does. Her biggest concern is cutting Habitat, Aging Services, RVAP and
Horizons when they could use that $15,000 from CWJ and add more to them.
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 19, 2023
Page 3 of 9
3
Beining asked if they are suggesting they take away the funding from Center for Worker Justice and
disperse it amongst the others, or would they like to honor the funding that they had decided in
November?
Reedus stated they have two options. Either they can disperse that $15,000 by taking it away from the
recommendation of Center for Worker Justice, or they could also reach a little bit into the Emerging
Agency fund.
Beining would be a proponent of taking the funds away from the Center for Worker Justice allocation and
dispersing them amongst the others. Dennis had suggested, possibly even utilizing the previous score
rankings to come up with a distribution amount.
Reedus suggested they break that down into first deciding on Center for Worker Justice, and then
another decision separately on how to handle the $15,000 it if that passes.
Haylett asked if the reason folks want to take the money from the Center for Worker Justice is the
lateness only, or is it something in addition to that?
Beining thinks it would be a good idea to take it away because as others have spoken - where do they
draw the line of acceptable versus unacceptable on deviance from what the application says? So, it may
be most equitable to consider it late, because it was late - even if it was minuscule and disperse it to
those who were able complete the application on time.
Eckhardt is a bit apprehensive about just removing their funding. The Commission agreed last time that
the Center for Worker Justice is still sort of new to the process and they did have difficulties and they
were not very late. Regarding exactly how late is too late, that's where a commission should be able to
do - to make that judgment. If they could write down exactly rule for rule what to do in every single case,
well, then they wouldn't really have a role for this commission. He is apprehensive about just simply
removing the funding. He absolutely wouldn't give them more than the minimum right now but does
believe that they provide an important service for the community. It would not be good giving them no
funding.
Dennis noted again that they can't control what the United Way does as far as accepting applications, but
they can consider the City's policy about accepting late applications. Dennis is really concerned about
applicants who scored very high and got cut. The Center for Worker Justice is still a Legacy Agency and
they'll come back next year, so she votes to not fund them.
Reedus wanted to clarify if they would be eligible for second year funding since Legacy funding is a two-
year application. Kubly confirmed the year two allocations will be prorated based on FY24 allocations.
Reedus stated that doesn’t change her mind at all and noted this is not a happy decision on her part as
she advocated for them to become a Legacy Agency. A rule is a rule, and she will not be in favor of
allocating Center for Worker Justice or Community and Family Resource Center any funding because of
late applications.
Mohammed is in favor of funding the Center for Worker Justice.
Krotz is in favor of not funding them at this time for all the reasons previously stated and thinks that it not
only amounts to fairness to the other applicants, but also fairness to all the applicants to come for the
other grants that this Commission helps distribute.
Haylett agrees that if they were in control of the applications and they were being submitted directly to the
City with a firm deadline in terms of not accepting things late, then she would be for it. But because
United Way accepted it and put it front of this Commission, that complicates things. She can imagine
situations in the future where people would be late. They would not get the application and wouldn't even
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 19, 2023
Page 4 of 9
4
know that they were late because that message wouldn’t be conveyed. She is actually against taking
away the funding.
Kubly noted staff can see when an application was submitted because they are time stamped. When it
was noticed they were late, staff reached out to United Way to ask about it and they stated there were
technical difficulties, so staff accepted the applications based on the information from United Way.
Beining noted that makes it four to three commissioners in favor of not funding Center for Worker Justice.
Mazahir Salih (Center for Worker Justice) stated actually they were not late. They were ready to submit
the application almost 10 minutes before the deadline, but it was not submitting. When it became like
seven minutes left, she freaked out and called the United Way to ask what happened - they said
sometimes, like when everybody is submitting at the same time, this happens. While she was on the
phone with United Way, they suggested to get out and get in again and do this and do that, and then
another person called because they have also had trouble submitting. Their application was ready to be
submitted and they had been working all day long on that day to submit it. Again, she contacted United
Way seven minutes before the deadline to get help and they told her it was definitely a technical difficulty.
Beining finds it unfortunate but does still stick with his vote for no funding.
Beining has noted four in favor to remove the funding and three in favor to keep it so now they have to
decide how they would like to disperse the money that was allocated towards Center for Worker Justice,
or if they would like to refill the Emerging Aid Agencies pot.
Krotz would like to see it go back to the Emerging Agencies.
Beining and Reedus agrees.
Mohammed is in favor of putting the money back towards Emerging Agencies. He noted they have
currently $24,300 in the emerging agency pot, if they put the $15,000 back in, they will go above the 5%
and he is okay with that.
Reedus asked if a Legacy Agency who receives zero funding in this process eligible to ask for Emerging
Agency money. Thul stated she believes Legacy Agencies would be ineligible for Emerging Aid to
Agencies funding. Reedus asked if that’s an actual rule that's written someplace, noting part of her
problem with this whole process is she doesn’t know what the rulebook is. Kubly is unsure if it is written
anywhere so if the Commission wanted to provide input on that they could consider it.
Haylett asked what the Emerging Agency budget is for. Thul replied the Emerging Aid to Agencies
budget can be up to 5% of the total Aid to Agencies pot, and that funding goes towards agencies who are
not Legacy Agencies, so newer nonprofits. Emerging Aid to Agencies started around FY20 and in the
last couple years it has been about a budget of about $30,000. Haylett asked if there is a deadline to
apply for those funds, or is it a rolling thing? Thul explained the application opened at the end of
December, and applications are due at the end of January. The Commission will be seeing those come
through next.
Dennis asked typically when the Emerging Agencies apply, is there money left over, or is there usually
more asked for than they have to distribute? Kubly stated typically there are more applications than
funding, but it varies by year and how much agencies will request is an unknown.
All were in favor of replenishing the Emerging Agency budget with the money remaining from the Center
for Worker Justice.
Reedus motioned to make the following FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies budget recommendations
to City Council Seconded by Krotz. Passed 7-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 19, 2023
Page 5 of 9
5
Reedus also would like to propose that they allow any agency that did not receive money to apply in the
Emerging Agency funding round. Others agree.
Kubly noted the applications for Emerging Aid to Agencies are due on Monday, January 30 at noon, and
that they are available online.
*Recommendations show a decrease in funding for CommUnity and UAY from FY23 to FY24. Please note this is due to a decrease
in agency request.
Agency FY23 Allocation FY24 Request
HCDC Average
Score
Staff Funding
Recommendations
HCDC Funding
Recommendations
Change in
Allocation from
FY23 to FY24
Based on HCDC
Recommendations
Shelter House $90,810 $99,790 96 $99,790.00 $99,790.00 $8,980.00
Neighborhood
Centers of Johnson
County
$58,759 $110,000 95 $70,000.00
$70,000.00 $11,241.00
CommUnity*$74,037 $69,086 95 $69,086.00 $69,086.00 -$4,951.00
Free Medical Clinic $26,709 $40,000 94 $34,954.00 $40,000.00 $13,291.00
DVIP $53,418 $60,000 91 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $6,582.00
United Action for
Youth*
$35,256 $34,500 89 $34,500.00
$34,500.00 -$756.00
Table to Table $33,119 $45,000 89 $34,774.95 $40,000.00 $6,881.00
Big Brothers Big
Sisters
$26,709 $27,125 88 $27,125.00
$27,125.00 $416.00
Iowa Valley Habitat
for Humanity
$26,709 $30,000 87 $28,044.45
$27,029.00 $320.00
4Cs $26,709 $30,000 86 $28,044.45 $28,000.00 $1,291.00
Aging Services
(Pathways)
$26,709 $27,000 83 $27,000.00
$15,000.00 -$11,709.00
Houses into Homes $0 $15,000 82 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
RVAP $26,709 $30,000 82 $28,044.00 $28,000.00 $1,291.00
Horizons $47,007 $47,007 82 $40,000.00 $38,000.00 -$9,007.00
Inside Out Reentry $42,734 $45,000 81 $40,000.00 $31,000.00 -$11,734.00
Arc of Southeast
Iowa
$21,367 $30,000 80 $22,435.35
$22,400.00 $1,033.00
HACAP $26,709 $27,510 80 $27,510.00 $27,270.00 $561.00
Dream City $0 $30,000 76 $15,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Free Lunch $19,230 $25,000 72 $20,192.00 $15,000.00 -$4,230.00
Community and
Family Resources
(formerly Prelude)
$42,734 $41,788 52 $0.00
$0.00 -$42,734.00
Center for Worker
Justice
$0 $45,000 52 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
HTFJC $0 $0.00 NA NA NA NA
Total $705,434 $908,806 $721,500.20 $712,200.00
HCDC - FY24 Legacy Aid to Agency Funding Recommendations
DISCUSS CREATION OF A SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE AID TO AGENCIES PROCESS:
Beining stated this agenda item is to see if they have a consensus on willingness to create a
subcommittee, and then to identify commissioners to serve. They may also want to decide how the
reporting would be handled, how often they would meet, and how often they’d report to the full
Commission.
Dennis noted this was her first time to go through this process with Emerging and Legacy Agencies and
feels there is a lot of confusion. Dennis thinks a subcommittee is a great idea. She does have one
suggestion for the makeup of the committee, because these Legacy Agency applications go through the
United Way, she feels it behooves them to ask the United Way to have a representative at these
meetings because they've talked a lot about how the application needs to change, that they're not getting
the information that they need to make good decisions. If a lot of agencies that fill out the United Way
application are also filling it out for Legacy Agency money, it just makes sense to get them on board also.
Krotz wondered if it is necessary for the United Way and this Commission to be joined on the application,
or is it possible to sever that?
Reedus noted this Commission went through the application and made specific recommendations for
changes and that United Way didn’t want to make them all. She is in favor of splitting the process from
United Way and doing their own application and process. Also thank you to Agency Impact Coalition for
providing them with the correspondence regarding how this funding process began, back before the
pandemic. It is was the result of some big changes made in the amount of funding that was allocated to
the Aid to Agencies process. Those recommendations from the Agency Impact Coalition were spot on in
terms of having site visits which would be beneficial to make sure that there's a flow of information of the
successes to meet community needs, etc. Anyway, she is in favor of doing this as their own
subcommittee of just HCDC, and once they're down the line and start talking about the application, if they
want to include United Way in those discussions fine, but starting with their own subcommittee, with staff,
HCDC members, and maybe a couple of representatives from AIC if people are willing to serve on the
subcommittee.
Mohammed is in favor of creating this subcommittee but would like to know more about the purpose on
the scope of the subcommittee and what they would like to see on the application.
Krotz motioned to form a subcommittee of HCDC to review the Aid to Agencies process.
Seconded by Eckhardt. Passed 7-0.
Next to decide on parameters, such as the how often they should report - are they reporting when they
have a recommendation, or is it a report at every meeting? They should also specify exactly who is
volunteering for that subcommittee making sure it is not enough to have a full quorum.
Eckhart asked how often a subcommittee would meet.
Reedus thinks that depends, her hope would be in 30 to 60 days to come up with a goal and a calendar
or a timeline of activities.
Reedus, Krotz and Eckhart volunteered to participate.
Next to establish parameters around when they would meet, or when they would update. Or should they
simply form the subcommittee and then figure that out at a later time?
Reedus suggested deadlines are good. Why don't they ask for a for a report on timelines by the March
meeting giving 60 days to get it together?
Krotz asked how they going to include the other organizations in terms of their membership on the
subcommittee?
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 19, 2023
Page 7 of 9
7
Reedus asked if they should ask two members or AIC to appoint two members to attend? Kubly noted
not all of the Legacy Agencies that apply to this program are on the AIC, so how do they want to consider
other agencies and their involvement?
Dennis stated the subcommittee would also need to have minutes so all of the Legacy Agencies could
receive the minutes at least. Otherwise, it's going to be a pretty big committee of everybody who could be
involved, which is going to take more than 60 days.
Reedus noted Adam Robinson and a couple other people from AIC are here so does he think it would
that be sufficient for everybody if AIC reached out to all agencies and AIC will appoint a couple of
representatives? Robinson agreed.
Reedus volunteered to chair the subcommittee - to organize the meetings, and to keep the Commission
updated on information.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO AUDIT POLICY:
Kubly shared that in about 2018, the City Council asked staff to come up with an audit policy for
accountability with the agencies that they would be funding with public funds. The current audit policy is
based on the agency's total annual budget. If they are less than $100,000, the City requires year-end
financial statement signed by the director and board president. From $100,000 to $499,999, they require
a review by a certified public accountant annually. If the budget is over $500,000, they would require an
actual audit. Staff has been reviewing this requirement because with COVID funding, some of the smaller
agencies are having a larger budget and that's triggering the audit requirement. There were some
instances where maybe the City is only funding about $15,000 for their project and the rest is COVID
funding or other funding. For these smaller agencies, an audit can cost up to $10,000 and so staff is
feeling that this policy is going to be burdensome on agencies potentially. Staff is proposing to revise the
policy and instead of the different levels of budget for all agencies, it will be the same requirements which
would be to see copies of their 990 tax forms and then a year end profit and loss statement approved by
the board. Many agencies already do audits and staff will be able to review those. To be fair to all
agencies and not cause a financial burden, staff is proposing to Council to revise this audit policy.
Reedus agreed it can be financially burdensome, however, is concerned about the plethora of differences
that they get in the application process and wonders if the financials are correct. She is concerned,
especially about the smaller agencies and their ability to provide accurate profit and loss statements.
Maybe there is a way there can be some sort of fillable form or guide for some of the smaller agencies.
Otherwise, she is in favor of the changes, although she does think audits are good.
Dennis noted in her experience, audits are very expensive and if the revenue of a nonprofit is less than
$50,000 in one year there's no 990. It’s just a postcard that is sent into the IRS. She feels it is good to get
profit and loss statements, but thinks they should require a balance sheet as well. Dennis noted it's up to
the boards of the nonprofit's because they're the ones that have the fiscal responsibility. If the nonprofit
doesn't have the board capability to oversee their fiscal activities, then that would be a concern to even
give them any money.
Krotz stated 501 C(3) are required to have a board of directors.
Reedus noted but that doesn't mean that they see their financials so again would suggest there will be the
creation of a simple fillable form type thing. She likes the board approval as that was one of her
recommendations during the process that they require a year-end financial statement that's been
approved by the board, but she would also ask them to include a copy of their minutes that shows that the
financial statement were reviewed and approved by the board.
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 19, 2023
Page 8 of 9
8
STAFF & COMMISSION UPDATES:
Thul stated that they are now moving on from Legacy Agencies to the next funding round. At the end of
January, the CDBG and HOME applications will be due. Those projects will be affordable housing and
public facility projects. Additionally, the Emerging Aid to Agencies applications will be coming through for
the newer nonprofit agencies. When staff receive those, they will send them to the Commission for review
along with the staff review sheets. Staff review sheets will summarize things and help with calculations for
the scoring.
Thul also wanted to mention was there will need to be a slight adjustment to the timeline that was in the
agenda packet. The March meeting was originally going to be on the fourth Thursday of the month due to
spring break, but there's a conflict with the meeting space. There are five Thursdays in March, so staff is
proposing to meet on March 30 instead. Commissioners agree.
ADJOURNMENT:
Krotz moved to adjourn, Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken, and the motion passed 7-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
January 19, 2023
Page 9 of 9
9
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2022-2023
Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 7/21 9/15 10/20 11/17 1/19
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X O/E X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/25 X O/E X X X
Haylett, Jennifer 6/30/25 X X O/E O/E X
Krotz, Karol 6/30/24 O/E X X X X
Marilla-Kapp, Elizabeth 6/30/23 X O/E * * * * * * *
Mohammed, Nasr 6/30/23 X X X X X
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 O/E X X X O/E
Eckhardt, Michael 6/30/25 -- -- X X X
Date: February 9, 2023
To: Housing and Community Development Commission
From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner
Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Re: Next Steps for FY24 Funding Rounds
FY24 Funding Rounds
The purpose of this memo is to provide an outline of next steps for the FY24 funding cycles. As
you know, two funding opportunities closed January 30, 2023 at 12pm:
FY24 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) & HOME Investment
Partnership Program (HOME).
o $700,000 HOME (housing activities including acquisition, rehabilitation, new
construction, or direct assistance for renter- or owner-occupied housing).
o $78,000 HOME Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)
reserve (housing activities).
o $240,000 CDBG (housing activities or public facility projects).
FY24 Emerging Aid to Agencies (EA2A).
o $37,575 estimated available following final Legacy Aid to Agencies
recommendations. EA2A provides flexible operational funding for qualifying
nonprofits providing public services.
Submissions for both opportunities were made available for your review January 31, 2023. As a
reminder, applications and associated materials can be viewed online at icgov.org/actionplan.
To aid in your review, staff have provided summary sheets for each CDBG/HOME submission.
Printed materials are available upon request and information on public computer access at the
Iowa City Public Library is attached.
Next Steps
The following provides information on next steps for HCDC:
1. A question-and-answer session with CDBG/HOME and EA2A applicants is
scheduled for the February 16, 2023 HCDC meeting. This is an opportunity to clarify
any points of the submissions that are unclear.
2. Following the February meeting, Commissioners should begin to score
CDBG/HOME submissions using the criteria attached. There is no score sheet for
EA2A so each commissioner will make their individual funding recommendations on
the sheet attached.
CDBG/HOME score sheets and EA2A funding recommendations must be
submitted by March 16, 2023 for staff to compile data ahead of the March
30th meeting. The original deadline of March 2nd has been extended due to
the change in meeting date for March. This adjustment will give
commissioners an additional two weeks. A revised tentative timeline is
attached.
Agenda Items #5 and #6
February 9, 2023
Page 2
Commissioners can submit information to staff via email, mail, or drop off at
City Hall. Information can be typed or handwritten.
3. Staff will provide composite scores and funding recommendations to commissioners
for review by March 3rd, 2023.
4. HCDC will meet March 30
th, 2023. This meeting will include a budget
recommendation to City Council for FY24 CDBG/HOME and EA2A funding.
Opportunities for Assistance
Staff are available to meet with Commissioners via Zoom, phone call, or in-person to help
answer questions that arise during the review and scoring process. As mentioned, summary
sheets have been provided for CDBG/HOME submissions and staff will make funding
recommendations for HCDC consideration by March 3rd. For assistance during this process,
please contact Brianna Thul at bthul@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5240.
Attachments
Initial Summary of Applications Received
Staff Summary Sheet for FY24 CDBG/HOME Submissions (7)
Revised FY24 Calendar
FY24 CDBG/HOME Score Sheet Template
FY24 EA2A Recommendation Sheet Template
Computer Resources - ICPL
Initial Summary of Applications Received
Staff will provide analysis and recommendations after reviewing submissions.
FY24 CDBG/HOME Submissions
Agency Activity Amount Initial Notes
City of Iowa City, GreenState, & Hills Downpayment Assistance $300,000.00
DVIP Shelter New Construction $350,000.00 CDBG Eligible Only
Habitat Downpayment Assistance $80,000.00
Iowa Legal Aid Legal Services $60,000.00 Ineligible - not for HCDC consideration.
Shelter House Shelter Rehab $240,000.00 CDBG Eligible Only
The Housing Fellowship Rental Rehab $78,000.00 CHDO reserve eligible.
The Housing Fellowship New Construction $200,000.00 CHDO reserve eligible.
The Housing Fellowship Rental Acquisition $320,000.00 Withdrawn - not for HCDC consideration
UAY Acquisition and Rehab $400,000.00
Total $2,028,000.00
Link to CDBG/HOME Submissions:https://www.iowa-city.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=2112996&dbid=0&repo=CityofIowaCity
Estimated CDBG/HOME Available
CDBG $240,000.00
HOME (not including CHDO reserve)$700,000.00
HOME CHDO Reserve $78,000.00
Total $1,018,000.00
FY24 EA2A Submissions
Agency Activity Amount Initial Notes
Community Transportation
Support for research to identify gaps in
late night transportation services. $15,000.00
Healthy Kids School Based Clinics
Operational support for programs
providing health services.$15,000.00 Funded in FY23 through EA2A
Iowa City Compassion
Operational support for programs
supporting culturally diverse LMI
families. $15,000.00
Iowa City Sober Living
Sober living residence manager salary
for 6 months. $12,500.00
Iowa Legal Aid Operational support for legal services $12,500.00
TRAIL
Operational support for scholarships to
LMI seniors to receive TRAIL
services/membership. $9,000.00
Total $79,000.00
Link to EA2A Submissions:
Estimated Available
EA2A $37,575.00
Total $37,575.00
https://www.iowa-city.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=2113097&dbid=0&repo=CityofIowaCity
Agenda Items #5 and #6
FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary
Application summaries 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.
Applicant Agency City of Iowa City, GreenState Credit Union, & Hills Bank
Eligible Activity Downpayment Assistance
I. General Info and Project Need
City Steps Goal and Priority Support homebuyer activities. High priority.
Staff Concerns Timeliness if funded with CDBG.
II. Budget and Resources
Total Estimated Project Cost $3,845,000
Funds Requested $300,000
Funds Leveraged $3,545,000
III. Feasibility and Community Impact
Primary Target 70% of estimated beneficiaries between 61-80% AMI. with 30% of
total estimated beneficiaries between 51-60% AMI.
Special Populations None
Encouraging Housing Distribution The program allows the buyer to choose the location of their home as
long as within the approved HUD certified census tracts.
Timeline Project to be completed by January of 2025 unless funds are
depleted sooner.
Affordability/Compliance Period Affordability period for assistance of $15,000 requires a 10-year
period of affordability.
IV. Capacity/History
Past Projects The City currently administers a downpayment assistance program
through a partnership with GreenState with federal funds.
Capacity
Iowa City receives a single audit (low-risk auditee). The City has
administered federal funds for over 40 years. GreenState Credit
Union has provided residential mortgages in Iowa since 1938. Hills
Bank has provided residential mortgages in Iowa since 1904.
Equity
Project designed to serve those in underserved neighborhoods and
households who have not been able to qualify for a mortgage.
Applicant anticipates that the program will increase the number of
homes acquired by persons of color, but the program won’t be limited
to only persons of color.
Questions and Considerations
Disclosure: Staff preparing the summary sheets also work directly with the City’s downpayment
assistance programs.
Eligible for both CDBG and HOME.
Maximum purchase price limit for existing homes is currently $259,000. Inventory of units available at
this price point is a consideration along with increasing interest rates.
What education is available for potential buyers?
Staff Calculations
Percentage of funds leveraged.
(II.5) 92% - 20 points
Primary percentage of median
income persons targeted. (III.8) Majority between 61-80% AMI - 5 points
Experience with applicable federal
requirements. (IV.14) Yes, adequate experience demonstrated – 20 points
Agenda Item #6
Application summaries 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.
Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may
perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission.
Staff Risk Assessment Key
Points Risk Level
0-3 Low
4-10 Moderate
>10 High
Bonus Points (V) 2 points (letters of support)
Staff Risk Assessment
Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments
Has the applicant been subject to
recapture of funds in the last five
years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have more than
one other federally funded
projects currently underway?
☒Yes (1 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)1
Has the applicant triggered the
City’s Unsuccessful and Delayed
Projects Policy in the last five
years (for reasons beyond factors
such as the COVID-19 pandemic)?
☐Yes (2 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
In the last five years, had the
applicant demonstrated reporting
issues for other City projects (e.g.
late reports, incomplete reports, or
failing to submit required
reports)?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant experienced
turnover in key staff in the last 12
months?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have a lack of
experience undertaking projects of
similar size and scale
successfully?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Are factors present that indicate a
concern for financial capacity
such as audit findings?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant demonstrated
issues with long term compliance
for projects during the period of
affordability or compliance period
in the last five years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Are other factors present that
indicate risk? Is yes, explain.
☐Yes (1-3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Total Points 1 Point – Low Risk
FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary
Application summaries 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.
Applicant Agency Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP)
Eligible Activity Public Facilities – New Construction
I. General Info and Project Need
City Steps Goal and Priority Serve people experiencing homelessness/reduce homelessness.
High priority.
Staff Concerns
CDBG timeliness. The City must expend funds in a timely manner to
meet deadlines from HUD. $425,000 of CDBG was awarded in FY23
that has not been expended to date (as of 2/9/23).
II. Budget and Resources
Total Estimated Project Cost $6,574,777
Funds Requested $350,000 (Exceeds the amount of CDBG available)
Funds Leveraged $5,299,777 (Not including FY23 CDBG or HOME-ARP award)
III. Feasibility and Community Impact
Primary Target 64% of estimated beneficiaries below 30% AMI with 79% of total
estimated beneficiaries below 50% AMI.
Special Populations People experiencing intimate partner violence.
Encouraging Housing Distribution NA – this is not a housing activity.
Timeline
Project is slated to break ground in May of 2023. Typically, a project
starting before the fiscal year begins would be ineligible, but the City
has already completed the environmental review work for the project
due to the previously awarded CDBG funds.
Affordability/Compliance Period Varies based on CDBG funds awarded. Example: $225,000 = 20-
year maximum compliance period.
IV. Capacity/History
Past Projects
Applicant has completed numerous public services activities with
CDBG funds. Recently, DVIP was awarded FY23 funds for the same
construction project and the applicant also completed a public
facilities rehab project in FY20 with $120,000 in CDBG funds.
Capacity Applicant has a 10-person board and receives a single audit (low-risk
auditee). Scale of project is larger than prior CDBG project.
Equity
Applicant notes serving victims of intimate partner violence, stalking,
and human trafficking and does not discriminate based on sexual
orientation, gender identity, race, color, age religion, political beliefs,
disability, economic standing, or other beliefs and affiliations.
Questions and Considerations
Applicant has experience successfully undertaking other CDBG projects, however, the scale and
scope of this proposal is larger than previous projects.
Timeliness and spending deadlines.
The proposed activity was also awarded $500,000 of HOME-ARP funds. The agency has also applied
for ARPA nonprofit capital funding in the amount of $1,000,000.
Project is not eligible for HOME funds.
Agency did not attend the applicant workshop but has discussed the project and associated
requirements with staff.
Applicant notes the first round of CDBG will be spent on materials. What specifically will the newly
requested funds be used for?
Do any other funds invested in the project have spending deadlines that may impact CDBG spending?
Agenda Item #6
Application summaries 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.
Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may
perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission.
Staff Calculations
Percentage of funds leveraged.
(II.5) 80% - 20 points
Primary percentage of median
income persons targeted. (III.8) Majority under 30% - 20 points
Experience with applicable federal
requirements. (IV.14) Yes, adequate experience demonstrated – 20 points
Bonus Points (V) 2 points (letters of support)
Staff Risk Assessment
Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments
Has the applicant been subject to
recapture of funds in the last five
years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have more than
one other federally funded
projects currently underway?
☒Yes (1 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)1
Has the applicant triggered the
City’s Unsuccessful and Delayed
Projects Policy in the last five
years (for reasons beyond factors
such as the COVID-19 pandemic)?
☐Yes (2 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0 The next checkpoint is March
2023.
In the last five years, had the
applicant demonstrated reporting
issues for other City projects (e.g.
late reports, incomplete reports, or
failing to submit required
reports)?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant experienced
turnover in key staff in the last 12
months?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have a lack of
experience undertaking projects of
similar size and scale
successfully?
☒Yes (3 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)3
Applicant has successfully taken
other federally funded projects,
but the size of this project is
substantially larger.
Are factors present that indicate a
concern for financial capacity
such as audit findings?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant demonstrated
issues with long term compliance
for projects during the period of
affordability or compliance period
in the last five years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Are other factors present that
indicate risk? Is yes, explain.
☒Yes (1-3 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)1
Due to the amount of CDBG
invested in this project, any
untimely expenditures may
impact the City’s compliance with
HUD spending deadlines.
Total Points 5 Points – Moderate Risk
Application summaries 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.
Staff Risk Assessment Key
Points Risk Level
0-3 Low
4-10 Moderate
>10 High
FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary
Application summaries 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.
Applicant Agency Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
Eligible Activity Downpayment Assistance
I. General Info and Project Need
City Steps Goal and Priority Support homebuyer activities. High priority.
Staff Concerns Timeliness if funded with CDBG.
II. Budget and Resources
Total Estimated Project Cost $538,100
Funds Requested $80,000
Funds Leveraged $458,100
III. Feasibility and Community Impact
Primary Target 100% of estimated beneficiaries between 51-60% AMI.
Special Populations Other; Applicant mentions larger households of five people.
Encouraging Housing Distribution Project is located in proximity to existing affordable housing units.
Timeline Applicant anticipates the sale of one unit in 2024 and the second unit
in 2025.
Affordability/Compliance Period
$40,000 per unit = 10 years, but affordability period may vary based
on the amount of assistance the buyer is eligible for based on
underwriting.
IV. Capacity/History
Past Projects
Applicant has completed numerous similar projects in the past. Two
units will be sold to eligible buyers in 2023 with HOME downpayment
assistance. FY20 funds were voluntarily returned to the City due to
pandemic disruptions.
Capacity
Applicant has a 11-person board and has undertaken similar projects
of size and scale successfully in the past. Financial statements
submitted – agency does not expend enough federal funding annually
to require a single audit.
Equity
Applicant serves, a significant number of permanent US
residents that were born in other countries and takes steps to design
and construct homes that are adequate for persons of varying
physical abilities.
Questions and Considerations
Downpayment assistance is eligible for both CDBG and HOME.
Maximum purchase price for a newly constructed home is $261,000. Will the unit be sold under this
threshold given the cost of construction?
Increasing interest rates are also a consideration.
What education is available for potential buyers?
Staff Calculations
Percentage of funds leveraged.
(II.5) 85% - 20 points
Primary percentage of median
income persons targeted. (III.8) All between 51-60% AMI. - 10 points
Experience with applicable federal
requirements. (IV.14) Yes, adequate experience demonstrated – 20 points
Agenda Item #6
Application summaries 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.
Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may
perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission.
Staff Risk Assessment Key
Points Risk Level
0-3 Low
4-10 Moderate
>10 High
Bonus Points (V) 2 points (nonprofit housing developer in good standing)
Staff Risk Assessment
Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments
Has the applicant been subject to
recapture of funds in the last five
years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have more than
one other federally funded
projects currently underway?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant triggered the
City’s Unsuccessful and Delayed
Projects Policy in the last five
years (for reasons beyond factors
such as the COVID-19 pandemic)?
☐Yes (2 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
In the last five years, had the
applicant demonstrated reporting
issues for other City projects (e.g.
late reports, incomplete reports, or
failing to submit required
reports)?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant experienced
turnover in key staff in the last 12
months?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have a lack of
experience undertaking projects of
similar size and scale
successfully?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Are factors present that indicate a
concern for financial capacity
such as audit findings?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant demonstrated
issues with long term compliance
for projects during the period of
affordability or compliance period
in the last five years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Are other factors present that
indicate risk? Is yes, explain.
☒Yes (1-3 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)1 FY20 funds voluntarily returned.
Total Points 1 Point – Low Risk
FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary
Application summaries 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.
Applicant Agency Shelter House
Eligible Activity Public Facility Improvements. High Priority.
I. General Info and Project Need
City Steps Goal and Priority Serve people experiencing homelessness/reduce homelessness
Staff Concerns
CDBG timeliness. The City must expend funds in a timely manner to
meet deadlines from HUD. $225,000 of CDBG was awarded in FY22
that has not been expended to date (as of 2/9/23).
II. Budget and Resources
Total Estimated Project Cost $307,200
Funds Requested $240,000
Funds Leveraged $67,200
III. Feasibility and Community Impact
Primary Target 100% of estimated beneficiaries below 30% AMI.
Special Populations People experiencing homelessness.
Encouraging Housing Distribution NA – this is not a housing activity.
Timeline
Project is anticipated to be completed before the end of the calendar
year. Applicant notes project would go out for bid in June, which is
before the beginning of the City’s fiscal year.
Affordability/Compliance Period Varies based on CDBG funds awarded. Example: $225,000 = 20-
year maximum compliance period.
IV. Capacity/History
Past Projects
Applicant has successfully completed numerous federally funded
activities such as public services, rental acquisition, and rental
construction. Recently, the applicant completed the 501 Project which
provided 36 units of permanent supportive housing. The applicant
does have one CDBG public facilities project currently behind
schedule. $225,000 of FY22 funds have not been expended to date
(as of 2/9/23).
Capacity
Applicant has a large board and receives a single audit (low-risk
auditee). Scale of project is on par with projects completed in the
past, however, new Section 3 requirements may apply.
Equity
Applicant notes serving a wide variety of clients from different
backgrounds and abilities. Examples of populations served include
women, children, transgender people, nonbinary people, veterans,
people with disabilities.
Questions and Considerations
Project is not eligible for HOME.
Timeliness and spending deadlines. Staff has concerns about the applicant’s ability to expend funds
within the project year. Delays on large projects substantially impact the city’s overall timeliness status
with HUD.
Project schedule – if awarded funds, applicant would need to make sure they do not take any choice
limiting action before an environmental review is completed.
Typical Davis Bacon and procurement requirements apply. Depending on the amount of funds
awarded, additional federal requirements such as Section 3 may also apply. Additional requirements
increase project complexity and require additional staff time.
Agenda Item #6
Application summaries 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.
Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may
perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission.
Shelter House has requested ARPA nonprofit capital funds in the amount of $837,477 for this and
other facility improvements.
Staff Calculations
Percentage of funds leveraged.
(II.5) 22% - 5 points
Primary percentage of median
income persons targeted. (III.8) Majority under 30% - 20 points
Experience with applicable federal
requirements. (IV.14) Yes, adequate experience demonstrated – 20 points
Bonus Points (V) 2 points (nonprofit housing developer in good standing)
Staff Risk Assessment
Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments
Has the applicant been subject to
recapture of funds in the last five
years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have more than
one other federally funded
projects currently underway?
☒Yes (1 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)1
Has the applicant triggered the
City’s Unsuccessful and Delayed
Projects Policy in the last five
years (for reasons beyond factors
such as the COVID-19 pandemic)?
☒Yes (2 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)1 FY22 HVAC improvements.
In the last five years, had the
applicant demonstrated reporting
issues for other City projects (e.g.
late reports, incomplete reports, or
failing to submit required
reports)?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant experienced
turnover in key staff in the last 12
months?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have a lack of
experience undertaking projects of
similar size and scale
successfully?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Are factors present that indicate a
concern for financial capacity
such as audit findings?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant demonstrated
issues with long term compliance
for projects during the period of
affordability or compliance period
in the last five years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Are other factors present that
indicate risk? Is yes, explain.
☐Yes (1-3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Total Points 2 Points – Low Risk
Application summaries 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.
Staff Risk Assessment Key
Points Risk Level
0-3 Low
4-10 Moderate
>10 High
FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary
Application summaries 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.
Applicant Agency The Housing Fellowship
Eligible Activity Rental Rehab
I. General Info and Project Need
City Steps Goal and Priority Rehab/improve renter occupied housing units. High priority.
Staff Concerns No major concerns. Staff to verify that noise level at potential project
site is within HUD’s required threshold.
II. Budget and Resources
Total Estimated Project Cost $100,000
Funds Requested $78,000
Funds Leveraged $22,000
III. Feasibility and Community Impact
Primary Target 100% of estimated beneficiaries between 51 - 60% AMI
Special Populations None. Applicant notes need for units that can accommodate large
families.
Encouraging Housing Distribution Project is located in proximity to existing affordable housing units.
Timeline Project anticipated to be completed within the fiscal year.
Affordability/Compliance Period 15-year affordability period.
IV. Capacity/History
Past Projects Applicant has successfully completed numerous projects in the past
of similar size and scale. The agency is also a certified CHDO.
Capacity
Applicant has a board that meets the CHDO requirements. Financial
statements submitted – agency does not expend enough federal
funding annually to require a single audit.
Equity
Applicant notes that 65% of their tenants identify as a person of color.
Agency operates a number of accessible units and also works with
immigrant families.
Questions and Considerations
Project is CHDO reserve eligible. Eligible for both CDBG and HOME.
Site is in close proximity to railroad and Highway 6. Site must be within HUD noise limits. Staff will
review.
Developer fee appears reasonable at 10% of request.
Fair Market Rent for a three bedroom is currently $1,510 (minus tenant paid utilities). Applicant plans
to charge $950.
Applicant notes that one unit is currently occupied, will tenants be required to temporarily relocate to
complete rehab work?
Federal procurement regulations apply. Davis Bacon will not apply unless funded with CDBG.
Applicant did not attend applicant workshop but has discussed project with staff.
Staff Calculations
Percentage of funds leveraged.
(II.5) 22% - 5 points
Primary percentage of median
income persons targeted. (III.8) 100% between 51-60% AMI - 10 points
Experience with applicable federal
requirements. (IV.14) Yes, adequate experience demonstrated – 20 points
Agenda Item #6
Application summaries 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.
Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may
perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission.
Staff Risk Assessment Key
Points Risk Level
0-3 Low
4-10 Moderate
>10 High
Bonus Points (V) 4 points (CHDO and nonprofit housing developer in good standing)
Staff Risk Assessment
Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments
Has the applicant been subject to
recapture of funds in the last five
years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have more than
one other federally funded
projects currently underway?
☒Yes (1 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)1
Applicant has closed many
projects that were delayed due to
the pandemic in the last year.
Has the applicant triggered the
City’s Unsuccessful and Delayed
Projects Policy in the last five
years (for reasons beyond factors
such as the COVID-19 pandemic)?
☐Yes (2 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
In the last five years, had the
applicant demonstrated reporting
issues for other City projects (e.g.
late reports, incomplete reports, or
failing to submit required
reports)?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant experienced
turnover in key staff in the last 12
months?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have a lack of
experience undertaking projects of
similar size and scale
successfully?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Are factors present that indicate a
concern for financial capacity
such as audit findings?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant demonstrated
issues with long term compliance
for projects during the period of
affordability or compliance period
in the last five years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Are other factors present that
indicate risk? Is yes, explain.
☐Yes (1-3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Total Points 1 Point – Low Risk
FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary
Application summaries 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.
Applicant Agency The Housing Fellowship
Eligible Activity Rental New Construction
I. General Info and Project Need
City Steps Goal and Priority Increase affordable rental units. High priority.
Staff Concerns No major concerns. Implementation of Section 3 is a consideration.
II. Budget and Resources
Total Estimated Project Cost $400,000
Funds Requested $200,000
Funds Leveraged $200,000
III. Feasibility and Community Impact
Primary Target 100% of estimated beneficiaries between 51 - 60% AMI
Special Populations None. Applicant notes need for units that can accommodate large
families.
Encouraging Housing Distribution Project is located within the northside of Iowa City – a traditionally
expensive neighborhood.
Timeline Project schedule anticipates completion in 2024.
Affordability/Compliance Period New construction requires a 20-year affordability period.
IV. Capacity/History
Past Projects
Applicant has successfully completed numerous federally funded
projects in the past. Projects completed with HOME funds are
typically rehab or acquisition, however, the agency did complete a
complex LIHTC development project within the last five years of a
larger scale. The agency is also a certified CHDO.
Capacity
Applicant has a board that meets the CHDO requirements. Financial
statements submitted – agency does not expend enough federal
funding annually to require a single audit.
Equity
Applicant notes that 65% of their tenants identify as a person of color.
Agency operates a number of accessible units and also works with
immigrant families.
Questions and Considerations
Project is CHDO reserve eligible. Not eligible for CDBG.
Project is located within a historic district and will require review from State Historic Preservation
Office as a part of the environmental review.
Fair Market Rent for a three bedroom is currently $1,063 (minus tenant paid utilities). Applicant plans
to charge $800. Achieving this rent target on a new construction project would require a large subsidy
to keep the monthly debt service low.
Affordable Housing Design Guidelines apply.
Federal procurement regulations apply. Davis Bacon will not apply if funded with HOME. Depending
on the amount of funds awarded, additional federal requirements, such as Section 3, may also apply.
Additional requirements increase project complexity.
Applicant did not attend applicant workshop but has discussed project with staff.
How did the applicant determine the estimate for construction cost?
Staff Calculations
Agenda Item #6
Application summaries 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.
Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may
perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission.
Percentage of funds leveraged.
(II.5) 50% - 10 points
Primary percentage of median
income persons targeted. (III.8) 100% between 51-60% AMI - 10 points
Experience with applicable federal
requirements. (IV.14) Yes, adequate experience demonstrated – 20 points
Bonus Points (V) 4 points (CHDO and nonprofit housing developer in good standing)
Staff Risk Assessment
Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments
Has the applicant been subject to
recapture of funds in the last five
years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have more than
one other federally funded
projects currently underway?
☒Yes (1 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)1
Applicant has closed many
projects that were delayed due to
the pandemic in the last year.
Has the applicant triggered the
City’s Unsuccessful and Delayed
Projects Policy in the last five
years (for reasons beyond factors
such as the COVID-19 pandemic)?
☐Yes (2 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
In the last five years, had the
applicant demonstrated reporting
issues for other City projects (e.g.
late reports, incomplete reports, or
failing to submit required
reports)?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant experienced
turnover in key staff in the last 12
months?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have a lack of
experience undertaking projects of
similar size and scale
successfully?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Are factors present that indicate a
concern for financial capacity
such as audit findings?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant demonstrated
issues with long term compliance
for projects during the period of
affordability or compliance period
in the last five years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Are other factors present that
indicate risk? Is yes, explain.
☒Yes (1-3 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)1 Section 3 reporting requirements.
Total Points 2 Points – Low Risk
Application summaries 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.
Staff Risk Assessment Key
Points Risk Level
0-3 Low
4-10 Moderate
>10 High
FY24 CDBG/HOME Application Summary
Application summaries 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.
Applicant Agency United Action for Youth
Eligible Activity Acquisition and Rehab.
I. General Info and Project Need
City Steps Goal and Priority Serve people experiencing homelessness/reduce homelessness.
High priority.
Staff Concerns Agency experience and financial stability of the project.
II. Budget and Resources
Total Estimated Project Cost $800,000
Funds Requested $400,000
Funds Leveraged $400,000
III. Feasibility and Community Impact
Primary Target 100% of estimated beneficiaries below 30% AMI.
Special Populations People experiencing homelessness.
Encouraging Housing Distribution Unknown as a property has not yet been identified.
Timeline Anticipated completion in 2024. Six months estimated for rehab work.
Affordability/Compliance Period Likely 20-year maximum compliance period for CDBG or HOME.
IV. Capacity/History
Past Projects
Applicant successfully completed a CDBG-CV public services project
recently but has not undertaken a federally funded housing project
with the City since FY12. HOME program regulations have changed
significantly during that period.
Capacity
Applicant has a 10-person board. Does not currently require a single
audit. Financial statements on file. Scale of project is larger than prior
CDBG project.
Equity
Applicant notes serving victims of intimate partner violence, stalking,
and human trafficking and does not discriminate based on sexual
orientation, gender identity, race, color, age religion, political beliefs,
disability, economic standing, or other beliefs and affiliations.
Questions and Considerations
Eligible for both CDBG and HOME.
Applicant does not have any funding secured for this project at the time of application and is not
contributing any agency funds.
No proforma was submitted. It is unclear how this project will meet City underwriting requirements or
cashflow as no rent is charged.
This project has the potential to trigger many complex federal requirements including lead-based
paint, procurement, relocation, and/or Section 3. Davis Bacon would not be triggered unless funded
with CDBG.
Applicant did not attend the applicant workshop – is the agency aware of the scope of federal
requirements that would apply to this project? Does the agency have the capacity to administer?
Staff Calculations
Percentage of funds leveraged.
(II.5) 50% - 10 points (if awarded HTFJC)
Agenda Item #6
Application summaries 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.
Note: Risk assessments are intended to be general guidance. Staff cannot determine definitively how an applicant may
perform in the future. Risk is assessed based on the information available at the time of the submission.
Primary percentage of median
income persons targeted. (III.8) Majority under 30% - 20 points
Experience with applicable federal
requirements. (IV.14) Inadequate experience demonstrated/unclear – 0 points
Bonus Points (V) 0 Points
Staff Risk Assessment
Risk Factor Staff Response Points Staff Comments
Has the applicant been subject to
recapture of funds in the last five
years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have more than
one other federally funded
projects currently underway?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant triggered the
City’s Unsuccessful and Delayed
Projects Policy in the last five
years (for reasons beyond factors
such as the COVID-19 pandemic)?
☐Yes (2 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
In the last five years, had the
applicant demonstrated reporting
issues for other City projects (e.g.
late reports, incomplete reports, or
failing to submit required
reports)?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Has the applicant experienced
turnover in key staff in the last 12
months?
☐Yes (1 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Does the applicant have a lack of
experience undertaking projects of
similar size and scale
successfully?
☒Yes (3 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)3
Applicant has successfully taken
other federally funded projects,
but the size of this project is
larger and more complex.
Are factors present that indicate a
concern for financial capacity
such as audit findings?
☒Yes (3 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)3
No funds are currently committed
to this project. Request if 50% of
total project budget.
Has the applicant demonstrated
issues with long term compliance
for projects during the period of
affordability or compliance period
in the last five years?
☐Yes (3 pts.)
☒No (0 pts.)0
Are other factors present that
indicate risk? Is yes, explain.
☒Yes (1-3 pts.)
☐No (0 pts.)3
Proforma not submitted, lack of
experience with similar projects,
and complexity of regulations
applicable.
Total Points 9 Points – Moderate Risk
Application summaries 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.
Staff Risk Assessment Key
Points Risk Level
0-3 Low
4-10 Moderate
>10 High
Tentative Timeline for FY24 CDBG/HOME and
Emerging Aid to Agencies
Dates may be subject to change.
*Please note the March meeting is the 5th Thursday of the month to accommodate for spring break.
December 28, 2022 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies applications are available.
January 10, 2023 CDBG/HOME Virtual Applicant Workshop via Zoom 12:00 PM.
•Please note: Emerging Aid to Agencies Applicants are not required
to attend.
•Registration link available at icgov.org/actionplan.
January 30, 2023 CDBG/HOME Applications and Emerging Aid to Agencies Applications
due to City of Iowa City by noon (12pm).
February 16, 2023 Housing and Community Development Commission meeting:
•Question and answer discussion with CDBG/HOME and Emerging
Aid to Agencies applicants. Applicants are strongly encouraged to
attend.
March 16, 2023 Housing and Community Development Commission members submit
CDBG/HOME score sheets and Emerging Aid to Agencies funding
recommendation to City staff for compilation. There is no score sheet for
Emerging Aid to Agencies.
March 30, 2023** Housing and Community Development Commission meeting:
•Review and discuss the score summary for CDBG/HOME
submissions. Commissioners will make award recommendations
to City Council for CDBG/HOME funding.
•Review and discuss Emerging Aid to Agencies submissions.
Commissioners will make award recommendations to City Council
for Emerging Aid to Agencies funding.
April 1, 2023 30-day comment period begins for draft FY24 Annual Action Plan.
April 20, 2023 HCDC meeting:
•Review FY24 Annual Action Plan and consider recommendation to
City Council to approve the document.
May 2, 2023 City Council meeting:
•Public meeting for the Annual Action Plan and resolution finalizing
awards.
May 15, 2023 FY24 Annual Action Plan submitted to HUD.
July 1, 2023 Fiscal year 2024 begins.
September 15, 2023 Execute CDBG and HOME agreements with grant recipients.
Agenda Items #5 and #6
I.General Information and Project Need Points Suggested Reference
IC/GreenState/Hi
lls
Downpayment
Assistance
DVIP
Shelter
Construction
Habitat
Downpayment
Assistance
Shelter House
Shelter Rehab
The Housing
Fellowship
Rental Rehab
The Housing
Fellowship
Rental
Construction
United Action
for Youth
Acquisition &
Rehab
1
Project description is clear and explains how the project will address a specific goal from City
Steps 2025
Goal:
Y/N
Q2/3 - Project information
Q4 - City Steps goal and
description
2 Are there staff concerns that affect the agency's ability to successfully undertake the
proposed project?
Comment:
Y/N
Submission; Staff experience
II.Budget and Resources Points Suggested Reference
IC/GreenState/Hi
lls
Downpayment
Assistance
DVIP
Shelter
Construction
Habitat
Downpayment
Assistance
Shelter House
Shelter Rehab
The Housing
Fellowship
Rental Rehab
The Housing
Fellowship
Rental
Construction
United Action
for Youth
Acquisition &
Rehab
3 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 mostly accurate, comprehensive, and
detailed. Costs are mostly documented and appear reasonable and justified.
15
c. 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
d. Based on Sources and Uses of Funds, budget appears questionable and/or unreasonable. The
budget is substantively mathematically incorrect.
0
4 Did the agency submit evidence of financial commitment (Example: loan commitment letter
from a bank) for sources listed in the project budget?
a. Evidence of financial commitment provided for all applicable sources listed in the project budget. 20
b. Evidence of financial commitment provided for most sources listed in the project budget.15
c. Evidence of financial commitment provided for some of the sources listed in the project budget. 10
d. Other sources of financing not committed or no documentation submitted.0
5 What percentage of funds has the agency leveraged for the project?
Leverage is determined by total request for City CDBG/HOME funds divided by total project cost.
a. 76-99 percent 20
b. 51-75 percent 15
c. 26-50 percent 10
d. 25 percent or less 5
6 Does the project leverage community partnerships and/or volunteer resources?
a. The project proposal demonstrates numerous community partnerships and/or volunteer resources
and they are described in detail.
20
b. The project proposal demonstrates some community partnerships and/or volunteer resources. 15
c. The project proposal demonstrates few community partnerships and/or volunteer resources.10
d. Proposal does not demonstrate community partnerships and/or volunteer resources.0
7 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 mostly demonstrated that they have the resources and fiscal capacity to
successfully complete the proposed project.
15
c. The agency has somewhat demonstrated that they have the resources and fiscal capacity to
successfully complete the proposed project.
10
d. The agency does not have the resources or fiscal capacity to complete the proposed project or it
is unclear based on the proposal.
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FY24 CDBG/HOME Score Sheet
Project
Score
Q5 - Source of funds
Q6 - Use of funds
Q5 - Source of funds
Total Section II Points
Q5 - Source of funds
Application attachments
Q5 - Source of funds
Q6 - Use of funds
Q14 - CDBG/HOME received
Application attachments
Q5 - Source of funds
Agenda Item #6
III.Feasibility and Community Impact Points Suggested Reference
IC/GreenState/Hi
lls
Downpayment
Assistance
DVIP
Shelter
Construction
Habitat
Downpayment
Assistance
Shelter House
Shelter Rehab
The Housing
Fellowship
Rental Rehab
The Housing
Fellowship
Rental
Construction
United Action
for Youth
Acquisition &
Rehab
8 What primary percent of median income persons are targeted?
a. 0-30 percent 20
b. 31-50 percent 15
c. 51-60 percent 10
d. 61-80%5
9 Will the project assist any special populations (Example: people experiencing homelessness
or people with disabilities)?
a. The proposal clearly demonstrates that the project assists one or more special populations.20
b. The proposal somewhat demonstrates that the project assists one or more special populations. 15
c. The proposal mentions that the project may assist one or more special populations, but it is not
certain.
10
d. The project does not assist a special population or it is unclear if a special population is assisted.
0
10 Does the project encourage housing through all neighborhoods?
a. The project clearly demonstrates that it will support the goal of encouraging housing and
residential facilities through all neighborhoods in Iowa City. The project expands access to
neighborhoods that traditionally lack affordable options and the applicant provides useful data to
support their conclusion.
20
b. The project somewhat demonstrates that it will support the goal of encouraging housing and
residential facilities through all neighborhoods in Iowa City. The project somewhat expands access
to neighborhoods that traditionally lack affordable options and the applicant provides some data to
support their conclusion.
15
c. The project provides housing in neighborhoods that have a concentration of affordable housing
opportunities.
10
d. Not applicable, proposal does not include a housing activity (Example: public facility
improvements).
20
11 Does the project schedule adequately demonstrate the project will be completed within the
required time period?
CDBG projects must be completed within the City fiscal year which runs from July to June.
a. The project timeline is realistic and the project will proceed immediately when grant funds are
available.
20
b. The project timeline is mostly realistic and/or the project will proceed soon after grant funds are
available.
15
c. The project timeline is somewhat realistic and will proceed within a reasonable time period.10
d. The project timeline is unclear or the project is not ready to proceed or the project is likely to
cause CDBG timeliness concerns.
0
12 Will the project promote long-term, efficient use of funding (covering the compliance period at
a minimum)?
a. The proposal clearly demonstrates the long-term, efficient use of funding which meets or exceeds
the required compliance period.
20
b. The proposal mostly demonstrates the long-term, efficient use of funding which meets or exceeds
the required compliance period.
15
c. The proposal somewhat demonstrates long-term, efficient use of funding that covers the required
compliance period.
10
d. The proposal does not demonstrate long-term, efficient use of funding and/or does not cover the
required compliance period.
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IV Capacity and Applicant History Points Suggested Reference
IC/GreenState/Hi
lls
Downpayment
Assistance
DVIP
Shelter
Construction
Habitat
Downpayment
Assistance
Shelter House
Shelter Rehab
The Housing
Fellowship
Rental Rehab
The Housing
Fellowship
Rental
Construction
United Action
for Youth
Acquisition &
Rehab
13 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
Score
Q8/9/10 - Housing questions
Q13 - Description of how the
project will provide affordable
housing or assistance at rates or
prices lower than those in the
market
Q11 - Proposed project timetable
Q7 - Income breakdown
Q7 - Income breakdown
Q22 - Description of primary
target population and explanation
of how agency promotes racial
equity and inclusivity for
marginalized populations
Q15 - CDBG and/or HOME funds
received; organizational
experience/capacity and
identification of unspent funds;
expending over $750,000 in
federal funds
Q12 - Description of how the
project will promote efficient use
of funding over the long term
Pro Forma (if applicable)
Score
Total Section III Points
b. The agency has completed federally funded projects through the City of a smaller scale in the last
five years without compliance issues.5
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
14 Has the agency demonstrated experience with relevant project specific federal requirements
that may apply to the proposed project such as TBRA, Davis Bacon or Section 3?
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
15 Has the agency effectively described demand for project and explained the relevant factors to
help verify need for the proposed project?
a. Yes, the agency has clearly described the demand and explained the relevant factors to help
verify need for the proposed project.
20
b. Yes, the agency has mostly described the demand and explained the relevant factors to help
verify need for the proposed project.
15
c. The agency has somewhat described the demand and explained the relevant factors to help verify
need for the proposed project.
10
d. The agency has not described demand and/or failed to demonstrate the need or it is unclear
based on the proposal/lacks evidence.
0
16 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
17 Does the project promote racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations?
a. The proposal clearly documents that the project will promote racial equity and inclusivity for
marginalized populations.
20
b. The proposal mostly documents that the project will promote racial equity and inclusivity for
marginalized populations.
15
c. The project somewhat promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations.10
d. The project does not promote racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations or it is
unclear based on the proposal.
0
18 Does the project incorporate sustainability initiatives (Example: Energy Star appliances or
solar)?
a. The project proposal strongly incorporates sustainability initiatives where possible that support the
City's climate related goals and actions outlined in the Climate Action Plan.
20
b. The project proposal mostly incorporates sustainability initiatives where possible that support the
City's climate related goals and actions outlined in the Climate Action Plan.
15
c. The project proposal somewhat incorporates sustainability initiatives that support the City's climate
related goals and actions outlined in the Climate Action Plan.
10
d. The project proposal does not include sustainability initiatives or it is unclear based on the
proposal.
0
19 Overall quality of submission.
Score between 0 to 20 with 20 being the highest quality of submission. 0-20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q15 - CDBG and/or HOME funds
received; organizational
experience/capacity and
identification of unspent funds;
expending over $750,000 in
federal funds
Q16 - Description of
organizations experience and key
staff
Q19 - Description of organization
strategies and recent activities
federal funds
Q16 - Description of
organizations experience and key
staff
Q17 - Policies in place
Q19 - Description of organization
strategies and recent activities
Q21 - Description of
sustainability initiatives
Q18 - Description of demand
Q22 - Description of primary
target population and explanation
of how agency promotes racial
equity and inclusivity for
marginalized populations
Q15 - CDBG and/or HOME
funds received; organizational
experience/capacity and
identification of unspent funds;
expending over $750,000 in
federal funds
Q16 - Description of
organizations experience and key
staff
Q17 - Policies in place
Q19 - Description of organization
strategies and recent activities
Application Attachments
Total Section IV Points
V Bonus Points Points Suggested Reference
IC/GreenState/Hi
lls
Downpayment
Assistance
DVIP
Shelter
Construction
Habitat
Downpayment
Assistance
Shelter House
Shelter Rehab
The Housing
Fellowship
Rental Rehab
The Housing
Fellowship
Rental
Construction
United Action
for Youth
Acquisition &
Rehab
20 Letter/s of support for the project submitted from community organizations. 2 Application Attachments
21 Is the public facilities project documented in City Steps 2025?2 City Steps 2025
22 Is the applicant a certified Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) in good
standing?2 Q3; Staff Information
23 Is the applicant a nonprofit housing developer in good standing?2 Q1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Summary
IC/GreenState/Hi
lls
Downpayment
Assistance
DVIP
Shelter
Construction
Habitat
Downpayment
Assistance
Shelter House
Shelter Rehab
The Housing
Fellowship
Rental Rehab
The Housing
Fellowship
Rental
Construction
United Action
for Youth
Acquisition &
Rehab
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%Percentage of Maximum Score (340 Possible Points without Bonus)
Score
Total Bonus Points
Project Total Score
HCDC Individual Reccomendations for Emerging Aid to Agencies (EA2A)
There is no scoresheet for EA2A. Minimum recommendation is $5,000. Maximum is $15,000.
FY24 EA2A Submissions
Agency Activity Amount Requested Funding Recommendation
Community Transportation
Support for research to identify gaps in
late night transportation services. $15,000
Healthy Kids School Based Clinics
Operational support for programs
providing health services.$15,000
Iowa City Compassion
Operational support for programs
supporting culturally diverse LMI
families. $15,000
Iowa City Sober Living
Sober living residence manager salary
for 6 months. $12,500
Iowa Legal Aid Operational support for legal services $12,500
TRAIL
Operational support for scholarships to
LMI seniors to receive TRAIL
services/membership. $9,000
Total $79,000 $0.00
$37,575.00
Link to EA2A Submissions:
Estimated Available
EA2A $37,575.00
Total $37,575.00
https://www.iowa-city.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=2113097&dbid=0&repo=CityofIowaCity
Agenda Item #5
Agenda Items #5 and #6
1
Brianna Thul
From:Erika Kubly
Sent:Tuesday, January 24, 2023 4:10 PM
To:'michelled@cfrhelps.org'; 'shellyz@cfrhelps.org'
Cc:Brianna Thul
Subject:Emerging Aid to Agencies eligibility update
Attachments:2018-07-17 Resolution signed.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Michelle & Shelly,
Since the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) meeting last week, the city attorney’s office has
reviewed the Emerging Aid to Agencies eligibility criteria and determined that Legacy Agencies are not eligible for
Emerging funds. This determination was based on resolution 18-214 passed by City Council in 2018 which defines the
funding sources (attached). As shown on page 3, Emerging Agencies are defined as “any agencies that have not existed
as a legal entity for at least two years or have not received A2A funds in any of the last five years”. Community and
Family Resources would not meet this criteria.
While HCDC expressed interest in allowing agencies that weren’t recommended for Legacy funding to be eligible for the
Emerging fund, we must follow city policy as adopted by city council. I’m sorry for the confusion. Please let me know if
you have any questions.
Thank you,
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Erika Kubly AICP
Neighborhood Services Coordinator
She/her/hers
p: 319-356-5121
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
Agenda Item #8
1
Brianna Thul
From:Erika Kubly
Sent:Tuesday, January 24, 2023 4:04 PM
To:'Mazahir Salih'; Brianna Thul
Cc:Charlie Eastham; Emily Cray
Subject:RE: HCDC Meeting A2A Follow-up
Attachments:2018-07-17 Resolution signed.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hi Mazahir,
Since the HCDC meeting last week, the city attorney’s office has reviewed the Emerging Aid to Agencies eligibility criteria
and determined that Legacy Agencies are not eligible for Emerging funds. This determination was based on resolution
18-214 passed by City Council in 2018 which defines the funding sources (attached). As shown on page 3, Emerging
Agencies are defined as “any agencies that have not existed as a legal entity for at least two years or have not received
A2A funds in any of the last five years”. Center for Worker Justice would not meet this criteria.
While HCDC expressed interest in allowing agencies that weren’t recommended for Legacy funding to be eligible for
Emerging fund, we must follow city policy as adopted by city council. I’m sorry for the confusion. Please let me know if
you have any questions.
Thank you,
Erika Kubly AICP
Neighborhood Services Coordinator
p: 319-356-5121
From: Mazahir Salih <mazahir@cwjiowa.org>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 5:45 PM
To: Brianna Thul <BThul@Iowa-City.org>; Erika Kubly <ekubly@iowa-city.org>
Cc: Charlie Eastham <eastham@outlook.com>; Emily Cray <emily@cwjiowa.org>
Subject: Re: HCDC Meeting A2A Follow-up
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or
attachments. **
Hello Brianna,
I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to inquire about the Emerging Aid to Agencies
grant. From our review of the application, it seems that this grant is primarily intended for project-
based funding, while Legacy funding is typically allocated for general operations. Given that the HCDC
has made an exception for legacy organizations that have not been included in their recommendation
for funding for Fiscal Year 24 to apply for the Emerging Aid to Agencies grant, we were wondering if it
would be possible for us to apply for general operation funding through this application as well.
Agenda Item #8