Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCanceled_Janaury 2024 HCDC PacketIf you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at bthul@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 21, 2024 (No February meeting) HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) January 11, 2024 Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM Iowa City Senior Center Assembly Room 28 S Linn Street AGENDA: 1. Call to Order 2. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 16, 2023 3. Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda Commentators shall address the commission for no more than five minutes. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items. 4. HOME-ARP Allocation Plan Amendment The City’s HOME-ARP Allocation plan has been revised based on HUD compliance requirements. Additionally, funding has been redistributed to eligible projects. Staff will provide an overview of the amendment and HCDC will consider a recommendation to Council for approval. 5. Final Presentation from Aid to Agencies Subcommittee HCDC formed a subcommittee on January 19, 2023 to review the Aid to Agencies process. The subcommittee has completed their work and provided a final report. The subcommittee will present their report to HCDC and staff for feedback. Information from the subcommittee and HCDC will be considered to determine next steps. 6. Staff & Commission Updates This item includes an opportunity for brief updates from staff and commissioners. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion on updates. 7. Adjournment CANCELED Housing and Community Development Commission Meeting Packet Contents January 11, 2024 Agenda Item #2 November 16, 2023 Draft HCDC Meeting Minutes Agenda Item #4 January 2, 2024 Staff Memo – HOME-ARP Allocation Plan Substantial Amendment #2 Revised HOME-ARP Allocation Plan Agenda Item #5 Aid to Agencies Subcommittee Final Report Agenda Items #6 FY25 Tentative HCDC Calendar MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2023 – 6:30 PM FORMAL MEETING THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Karol Krotz, Kiran Patel, James Pierce, Becci Reedus, Denise Szecsei, Kyle Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul OTHERS PRESENT: Crissy Canganelli, Sam Brooks, Erin Sullivan RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommends approval of the revised Aid to Agencies definitions and eligibility as presented by staff. By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommends approval of the FY25 application materials as discussed. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Beining called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM and welcomed new member Szecsei. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 19, 2023: Reedus moved to approve the minutes of October 19, 2023. Patel seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the minutes were approved 8-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. SHELTER HOUSE STREET OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW: Crissy Canganelli (Executive Director) is joined here by Erin Sullivan, housing services director and Sam Brooks, their outreach services specialist and they're here this evening to talk about street outreach services. They hope to have a conversation with the Commission about services, the impact that they're seeing, the changes that they're noticing, and respond to any questions. Canganelli began by contextualizing how they started street outreach services, they began in partnership with the City of Iowa City in the spring of 2021, so this is a relatively new service that has been offered in the community. They had long wanted to be able to provide street outreach services but just did not have the financial capacity to do so, and now due to the partnership with the City of Iowa City, who dedicates about $35,000 annually right now to do this work, they're able to leverage some additional federal funding that is available for shelter operations and are able to fund one full time employee, Brooks, who provides supports, resource materials, supplies, and a vehicle for his dedicated use to be able to meet the needs of the community. Canganelli noted the primary scope of work really is happening in Iowa City, although Brooks is available to respond to concerns that are happening throughout Johnson County. Agenda Item #2 Housing and Community Development Commission November 16, 2023 Page 2 of 11 2 Sam Brooks (Outreach Services Specialist) began by talking about the approach and philosophy behind street outreach. He noted it's critical that when they're working with the community's most vulnerable members to take into consideration the ways that they're engaging with them and the way that they're building trust and rapport for folks that have historically been failed by most of the larger institutions in some way or another. Therefore, the first step of street outreach and engagement is the engagement portion. A lot of the folks who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness have been staying outside for a significant amount of time, about a quarter of the folks who are engaged in street outreach are defined as chronically homeless, which is one year or more, and are in a place not meant for habitation such as a car, under a bridge, on the street in a tent, an abandoned building, or a parking garage and have a diagnosed disability. Brooks acknowledged those are two really important factors that they look at when they're working with this population because they understand how vulnerable things are. So, his initial goal is to build rapport through a mutually respectful relationship between himself and the person who's experiencing homelessness. It’s important they’re working together, whatever their identified goals are, to accomplish those goals, to navigate different systems, make sure that they can survive staying outside, and then make it to the ultimate goal of being housed permanently, stably with wraparound services so that they can end their experience of homelessness. One individual Brooks has been working with for his entire time on street outreach, during the first year the individual wouldn’t speak to Brooks, he barked at him, they didn't talk. Brooks and Sullivan would talk about ways that they can engage that were client driven as everything they do is voluntary, so ways that they can then provide services to this person. A lot of it was just about existing in the same space as them in a casual way until there was enough comfort that they could then progress to talking about very casual things. This individual now meets with Brooks every Friday, and they chat a lot about grappling mostly because that's what he chose to talk about. Grappling is like wrestling and jujitsu, martial arts, and that is what he loves to talk about. However, they’ve also been able to bring a medical provider out to come and give this individual a physical at a place he was comfortable at. So, it begins with a general initial engagement so that they can then refer to different providers in the community. A lot of what street outreach is, is collaborating with different community partners, different service providers, City staff, different City departments to help this person navigate all of these systems in the safest and have the least conflict and the least interaction with emergency services as reducing law enforcement contact and unnecessary arrests and unnecessary ambulance trips. Erin Sullivan (Housing Services Director) concurred with Brooks that it's a very delicate relationship as this is a group of individuals in the community that do not engage with services unless absolutely necessary. Then there are individuals who are experiencing homelessness who are utilizing the resources but just have a lot of barriers to potentially getting permanently housed. Brooks has to balance his time between those individuals who are seeking him out and those he is seeking out. Brook’s role is circular with the providers and the person experiencing homelessness to make sure that they continue to connect, how they communicate with one another, etc. Sullivan noted they want Brooks to spend more time really engaging with those individuals who are not seeking out those services but it’s a delicate relationship, so they are continuing to just navigate and figure out how to build that trust. Again, there are many individuals in the community who are experiencing homelessness and know how to access resources and do so every day and then there are individuals in the community who are not. The street outreach position is essential in reaching those individuals who are out there in the community and have been for a long period of time, probably decades, who just are not engaging. They want to make sure that they know that there are resources, and to provide some of those lifesaving resources to them like blankets and tents and things like that in a way be able to begin that relationship. Brooks spoke about outcomes and noted in the last year roughly of the 190 individuals who were enrolled in street outreach throughout the year 89 of those were then moved into permanent housing from the street either by accessing shelter eventually, or straight from the street to housing. He noted that's probably the big number as that is the outcome that they look at, the goal is to end the person's experience of homelessness. Krotz asked for somebody who’s unhoused if they're moving into housing or into shelter, especially housing, if they are experiencing a financial barrier how is that resolved. Sullivan stated there's a system Housing and Community Development Commission November 16, 2023 Page 3 of 11 3 in the community and across the state called coordinated entry and so when Brooks is talking about somebody moving into housing what that means is that they are enrolled into coordinated entry. Any human service provider in the community could put somebody in coordinated entry and on a weekly basis they have a meeting with all of these different human service providers to determine which housing intervention or which housing program would be best for that individual based on their needs. They might have a section eight voucher and just need assistance with a security deposit, CommUnity has a program where they could pay security deposits. Shelter House has a program called Rapid Rehousing that provides a security deposit and rental assistance. Those providers are all sitting at a table discussing the individuals for programs and which program can help them move into housing and providing whatever resources they might need from financial assistance, case management, accessing other mainstream resources, such as food stamps, Medicaid, and things like that. Krotz assumes the ultimate goal of the individual, as well as the program, would be for them to be self- sufficient. Sullivan confirmed that can be a goal. Each individual's goal plan is created individually and some individuals who maybe are experiencing short term experience of homelessness are going into a rapid rehousing type of program and probably will live independently in the community, whereas the individuals that Brooks is working with likely will need to receive wraparound services for a pretty significant amount of time as there's a reason people are outside for a long period of time. A big piece of that is housing related, and housing affordability, but there's also other kinds of mental health, physical health and substance use disorders that people need support to live in housing. Canganelli stated the goal isn't necessarily to be self-sufficient in so much as it is to be as independent as possible and that looks different for everyone. They are really trying to weave together the different services and resources that exist for people to help them to live as independently as possible in housing and to retain that housing successfully. She also wanted to clarify out of the 90 people, about 50% of those individuals that were engaged through street outreach had been living out on the streets, unsheltered with a high incidence of disability, co-occurring disabilities, 75% of them have a disability that is diagnosed, and often are co-occurring. These are any combination of serious mental illness, substance use, intellectual disability, brain injury, and physical disabilities. After years of homelessness being able to successfully get into housing, and the conduit of going through shelter, they don't consider that a housing placement it’s just people can go either through shelter to housing or straight from the street to housing. Dennis noted there’s also the matter of safety. When she was working, she dealt with a man who was chronically homeless and finally received an apartment that was furnished, but he never slept in the bed because he hadn't slept in a bed for so many years that he didn't feel comfortable, so he just slept on the floor all the time. Sullivan noted when they first opened Cross Park Place, the 24-unit apartment complex on Cross Park Avenue, those are individuals who were sleeping outside for years in the community and one of those individuals there slept on the bench in front of the building for probably a month before he actually moved in because he was uncomfortable sleeping inside. Reedus asked if a lot of the individuals that Brooks is working with go to either the 501 or Cross Park Place, is that the most direct route. Canganelli replied when they have housing opportunities, Cross Park’s 24 units are fully occupied, at 501 they opened 36 units in June and by August or September they were at capacity, so those units are fully utilized so unless a unit turns over, and the primary reason that they're seeing units turnover is really due to death of tenants, so the units don't turn over very much, then they're looking for units out in the community and that means finding landlords that are willing to work with them. Canganelli noted through the course of the pandemic, and in response to the pandemic, there have been some very specialized, additional small amounts of housing choice vouchers that have been made available, mainstream vouchers, emergency housing vouchers, and now seven stability vouchers. These are additional resources that they're trying to manage and prioritizing these different vouchers for these particular populations through coordinated entry has been imperative because it means that they get that housing subsidy as a resource because they don't have income, or they have extremely limited income. They are able to help them secure different mainstream benefits that they may qualify for and that was working until they lost that protection for individuals presenting a Housing Choice Voucher as a form of payment for rent, which occurred sometime in 2022. Because of that they are now experiencing a real additional barrier, even for those individuals who have a voucher, which is a precious resource, but are Housing and Community Development Commission November 16, 2023 Page 4 of 11 4 not able to use it as a form of payment for rent in the community because landlords are now requiring that these individuals demonstrate that they have 300% of the rent in cash income. She stated this is irrespective of whether or not they have a voucher, if they have a single person who has been on the street for decades, who has multiple disabilities and has a voucher in hand, a landlord can say sure he’ll rent to them but the unit is $800 so they must show that they have $2,400 in income to be able to rent the unit. Reedus first heard of this when she was down in Florida about four years ago and what blew her mind was because the minimum wage up here is still $7.25 or $7.50 an hour so that means that literally people who are low income can't qualify and to make that kind of money is very, very difficult. Reedus noted one of the things that bothers her is when she hears people say people are homeless because they want to live outside, they don't want to have a home. If remembering correctly it was demonstrated that there were 17 people involved in the fires recently who had vouchers that couldn't qualify for a place due to the income levels so that showed the community that homelessness is, it's not as simple as somebody doesn't want to be inside. Reedus stated when Canganelli met with HCDC and gave an update for the 501 project she discussed the gap and closing the gap with the project, but now it seems like a much wider gap exists and the need is growing a lot quicker. What do they have to do to prevent it from growing even bigger? Canganelli stated as they were even going into the 501 project, they felt that gap, they talk about this a fair amount in board meetings and within team meetings that it's hard to recognize or acknowledge the things that they're not seeing. They are seeing an increase, or at least what is feeling like an increase, of unsheltered homelessness that they're aware of in the community, there's certainly an increase in demand on shelter resources even given that they have implemented homelessness prevention resources and eviction prevention resources during the course of the pandemic. Hopefully they'll be able to sustain those after this recovery period and recovery funding ends as they’ve prevented hundreds and hundreds of households from entering the homeless response system and experiencing homelessness. They’ve also increased their capacity to provide permanent supportive housing by building some infrastructure with bringing Cross Park Place and 501 online with 60 units of permanent supportive housing. They've also increased capacity to provide housing through a scattered site modality by using local landlords and partnerships with the additional housing choice vouchers, 147 total housing choice vouchers. Canganelli noted they were ahead of the curve as far as some other Iowa communities in developing permanent supportive housing and advancing some of these resources so they’re not seeing the increase to the same degree that communities like Des Moines and Cedar Rapids are seeing. However, the fact is that they have a really major feeder in the community, which is the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, and the VA Health Care System which gives an incredibly complex population to work with, and they're seeing very significant discharge increases and complexity of issues of people being discharged to the streets. So, while they’re not to the point where some other municipalities are in the state they’re definitely not maintaining the ground she once thought they were achieving. There are other macro issues that are happening around them such as that change in the protection for housing, being able to present a housing choice voucher and have that being used as a source of income, that's a major hit. Krotz is really surprised by that and also alarmed and disgusted by it, she preaches a lot about how people on disability or SSI may only get $700 or $800 a month and even if they have a voucher, they're spending a significant amount of income on rent, and that's if they can find a place because of the price range. Now, there's another barrier that landlords are requiring, and she is just really appalled by that. Canganelli noted that barrier clearly has a disparate impact on veterans and individuals with disabilities and in so much as there's a correlation with poverty, and of course households of color. Other macro issues that they're seeing is the healthcare system that has been overrun and never recovered. They weren't in great shape when they went into the pandemic, and they've been overrun ever since. The emergency room department and psychiatric inpatient units are out of control. People are being discharged in all manner of conditions to the street and to shelter, there are significant changes in the numbers and the complexity of issues that they're seeing and receiving from medical institutions. Housing and Community Development Commission November 16, 2023 Page 5 of 11 5 Krotz asked how they receive information that somebody's being discharged but they have a special need. Canganelli stated they just show up at the door or in the parking lot. Sullivan stated that's something that needs to be improved, their communication and relations with the University of Iowa and the VA, because they know that they are discharging people to homelessness, but their social services department doesn't get involved and help to get the information transferred and they’ve seen a decrease in the social work department within hospitals and in doing the resource navigation work needed. Individuals are coming in with no referrals, not a lot of resources that they've been enrolled in, and things like Medicaid are really the only resource that they're coming to shelter with. Canganelli noted there are a number of different reasons why they are overwhelmed, the resources that used to exist in a continuum of care like housing placement services, residential care facilities are gone. Community based housing providers that are there that look like they should be able to provide ongoing housing and supports for individuals all number of barriers or rules in place that prevent people from being able to access those services that again push more people into shelter and then in line for permanent supportive housing. They have community-based housing providers that sit on vacancies and will not take people that have been referred who qualify for their services. There are also barriers that prevent them from accessing housing first and other entities that have become more out of reach due to system changes within the Department of Health and Human Services continuum. Entities that are paid for every billable unit of service to provide care and housing for people are finding ways not to. Canganelli noted however there have some really good things that have changed, some that may be minor, but changes within criminal justice system and the nation has moved towards adopting policies and interventions that are intended to reduce people who are suffering from a mental illness to the criminal justice system. By reducing overexposure to the criminal justice system, primarily meaning incarceration, as some of these interventions and policies have been implemented, and even locally, who was positively impacted by that change, well it wasn't wealthy people who had mental health issues being incarcerated, their lives haven't changed, it's the poor who were over incarcerated and are suffering from mental illness and their main provider treatment provider being the criminal justice system, prisons, but now those individuals are successfully not being incarcerated. However, where are those very poor individuals landing, they didn't build up the housing system to address the housing needs for these individuals that had been functionally housed in jails and prisons so now they’re on the street and in shelters. So that positive intention and that positive change is having this very significant impact and changing the world of homeless services and is having an impact on what they’re seeing as far as manifesting unsheltered homelessness because they're not able to accommodate folks in shelters. Canganelli noted they’re here to talk about street outreach, it's a new resource and intervention that's been deployed within this continuum of services that really is intended to create the system, a homeless response system, and part of this move to housing first, or working to end homelessness and rapidly prevent homelessness where possible and move people to housing immediately from the street. They have looked at communities where they have also been successful in deploying this homeless response system. Where homelessness is increasing, legislator policymakers are pointing to housing first as being the cause for creating this increase and that’s absolutely not the case. They can't build themselves out of this fast enough because they've languished and don't have enough housing opportunities in the market to address the needs of people who are at zero to 30% area median income. Trying to find those data points and find out what the real gap is difficult. She gave an example of Denver, she was there about a month ago, and it looks very different from just two years ago. There has always been a significant presence of unsheltered homelessness in Denver, but she’s never seen it like she saw it October. There were encampments, very large encampments, all in downtown areas and they've done a lot to increase permanent supportive housing opportunities for people. Their chamber of commerce, and their local news reporting, reported that 16% of the population of Denver has an income of $20,000 or less and that housing opportunities that exist in Denver, for individuals at $20,000 or less of income, there is a gap of between 70,000 units and 125,000 units based on the way that these different entities calculated what that gap is, so how do they address that. Dennis noted there's no incentive for politicians to address it. Housing and Community Development Commission November 16, 2023 Page 6 of 11 6 Reedus noted it's really disheartening to see what has become of housing and the expense to be housed and the lagging wages, it doesn't even have to do with a federally mandated minimum wage - there are places in states and cities that don't pay livable wages. She remembers 2, 3, 4 years ago when they started talking about $15 an hour minimum wage and the whole world was like, no they can't do that. Well, that's not even a livable wage anymore. A livable wage is above $20 an hour at this point to be able to afford the kinds of housing options that there are. Reedus noted they get about $35,000 from the city, is that part of the ARPA money or is it going to be an ongoing thing. She is interested in since Brooks and Sullivan and the street outreach program has started, how has that increased success. Sullivan gave an example of what street outreach has done, when they opened Cross Park Place it took six months for the all the units to be filled. Canganelli mentioned the length of time that it took to fill the 501 units, only two months, and that is almost entirely because of street outreach, because the street outreach specialist was out engaging with those individuals and reading them for housing. The amount of work that Brooks does in terms of helping people gather those essential documents, like a birth certificate, a social security card, an ID, and then also having those conversations of how to get into an apartment, talking them through that entire process was essential to moving very quickly and getting people housed and moving them into 501. That is a micro example of how street outreach was a huge benefit to moving people quickly into housing when it became available. In that situation there was multiple units available and now Brooks has the challenge of finding those individual units. Brooks noted now there's not this pool of units available so now he needs to create a support network and weave the services that Canganelli was talking about to help in the interim for when somebody has engaged in services and started to get to a place where they're ready for housing when housing is available, creating a support network in the interim. Because of street outreach they now know just about the majority of people who are living unsheltered the community where before it was sporadic engagement. Reedus noted it helps to meet them at their place of need. Sullivan acknowledged exactly, it's a very small community, word travels fast and so what Brooks experienced is that somebody will meet somebody who's experiencing homelessness and they'll be like, hey do you know Sam? And they’ll get them connected. Also because of the partnerships that they now have with the city where they meet on a monthly basis with numerous departments, they all know of the street outreach and know of Brooks and have his number so when there is somebody who needs resources, there clear partnerships that can reach out to Brooks and get him connected with that individual. That's probably one of the biggest changes, having a centralized person that everybody knows and can contact. Krotz was just talking with Thul today about this zero to 30% and just has to believe that there's something that they can do to help start a process as long as it may take to find some sort of solution to this because it seems to her, she feels it personally. She falls in that category and feels personally like Iowa City has become an exclusive place to live. She sometimes feels like she is not wanted, because she can only afford X amount of rent and that's even with assistance. She used to be really ashamed that she had to have help but is not embarrassed anymore. It is what it is because of her disabilities. But there's got to be something that they can do because she knows the city has a commitment to having affordable housing for people in a place where they want to live. Somebody who has a little bit of power maybe can start quantifying how many people this actually involves and trying to work out solutions. She is saddened to hear about the people that they work with who have the vouchers and still can't find a place. Pierce asked if that voucher change was a federal law change or a state law change or is it just something that's happened organically with landlords. Canganelli noted Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, and Des Moines all had a local ordinance in place that protected the use of a housing choice voucher as a form of income, which protected households that were presenting them. Then in 2022 the State legislature made the decision to remove the ability of municipalities to have that local control. Pierce noted it's part of that larger conversation of the State removing that control. Canganelli stated they had a Housing and Community Development Commission November 16, 2023 Page 7 of 11 7 rollout period, but they've definitely seen the impact. It was very disappointing to learn that it was a local landlord and high-profile individual in the community that led that campaign to the legislature and lead that effort for the policy change. Pierce noted it struck him that it was mentioned the turnover they see in the two particular complexes that they've developed is due to death, and wondered if they could talk more about that. Sullivan explained that at Cross Park Place they saw a number of individuals who passed away within the first 18 months of that program, probably due to a couple reasons. One is the population who live at Cross Park are definitely, at this point, aging in place. They're in older demographics - they are seeing individuals more from 60 to 80. Also, those were individuals who had pretty significant health care costs and those were individuals that were already frail from living outside for so long. While it is not necessarily proven medically, once people who have protected themselves for really long amounts of time outside to survive are getting their basic needs met on a daily basis, their tolerances for themselves and how to take care of themselves are pretty high. Once people move into housing and they start to let that guard down a little bit and start to engage in health care, which is positive. but the body doesn't have to protect themselves as strongly as they were outside. It would be really interesting to see what kind of studies are out there and whether if as permanent supportive housing continues to be evidence-based practice with long term results and outcomes. Reedus asked what other reasons they would leave other than death or incarceration. Canganelli stated they can stay forever; they have a renewable a lease. They have had a small number of people who have left housing when they've been able to take that project-based voucher and move it into housing in the community or locate closer to family and they consider those really successful exits. There have also been a very small number of individuals that have had preexisting criminal records and have been arrested and gone to jail. Sullivan added there's also individuals who need a higher level of care with that aging in place, and potentially need to just have more in home supports that they can't provide and will go to a higher level of care. Canganelli acknowledged that's where they're struggling now is seeing more people that have higher needs than really permanent supportive housing was ever intended to address and need 24/7 contact care and those resources do not exist anymore. Pierce noted he has also seen that people are needing a much higher need because that's something that he even saw a few years ago when he was on the board of an affordable housing provider, people would come to them but they couldn’t meet their needs. Sullivan stated the vulnerability of the individuals that they are serving, and not just based on their physical abilities, is significantly increased and is really challenging to watch and witness. Because as Canganelli mentioned there is the decrease in the institution beds available in the State and when entities have to decrease their beds from 54 to 16 because of rules that the State is putting out, and having to have certain ratios as they don't want too many people with disabilities living in the same space together, all that impacts where people can stay. So while there are all really good reasons for why the State has limits, like maybe the number of people who can live in a in a building together, what has happened instead is just reducing the number of beds and not adding any anywhere else. They also saw the next phase of de-institutionalization where they're closing these beds but not providing any infrastructure to the community-based services within those homes and within those other kinds of residential community settings, but not just in terms of the number of beds, but also the training that the staff in those buildings need. Then on top of that there was a pandemic that completely wiped out the workforce that is now needing to be rebuilt and retrained. They could sit here and talk probably for another hour of all of the examples of individuals whose needs are way beyond the scope of services in a shelter, and even in a permanent supportive housing building, but they are doing what they can because they have nowhere else to go. No matter where they are in the community, they are serving them, that's their mission. Krotz asked if Brooks anticipates that through the people he has worked with and met, that there will be some who won't want to go into the winter housing and rather stay where they are. Brooks replied yes, there's a small number of people who stay outside every year. The third weekend in January nationally there's a count done that homeless response services all participate in and it’s done then because it's the time of year when the most shelter emergency beds are available and they’re able to accurately count the Housing and Community Development Commission November 16, 2023 Page 8 of 11 8 number of people who spend the entire winter outside. What they can do to help those folks is provide survival items such as tents, sleeping bags, hand warmers, gloves, etc., those are all things that people need more consistently to make it through winter. Reedus said folks could look at their website to see the Amazon wish list if they want to participate. Canganelli noted the street count in Johnson County has stayed pretty much between 10 to 15 people during that last Wednesday in January. The Commission thanked Shelter House for their presentation as it was very informative. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO REVISE AID TO AGENCY DEFINITIONS AND ELIGIBILITY: Kubly stated last year during the Legacy funding round, there were two Legacy Agencies that were not awarded funds initially by HCDC and HCDC expressed that they wanted them to be able to apply for the Emerging funds at that point. However, staff learned that because of a resolution that's in place, they were not eligible. Therefore, this proposal is to revise the regulations and to allow Legacy Agencies to apply for Emerging funds if they were not awarded Legacy funding. She noted the previous resolution for Emerging agencies was done in 2018 and that was prior to some of the big changes to the program that took place in 2020 with the Consolidated Plan as the Consolidated Plan didn't really address the Emerging agencies. Again, what staff is proposing is if a Legacy Agency is not funded through the Legacy process, they would still be eligible to apply for Emerging Agency funding. Other than that, they didn't make any other substantial changes to the definitions that are different from how they're currently operating the program. Kubly clarified this is not the Aid to Agencies subcommittee's work - that's a separate process. This is just being brought forward now because the Emerging Agency funding round is coming up and staff wants to know if HCDC would recommend allowing the Legacy Agencies to apply for Emerging funding if they did not receive Legacy funding. Reedus asked what the criteria is for being eligible for Emerging Agency funds. Kubly explained they had a definition of Emerging Agencies from the resolution that was in the agenda packet and now it will be essentially any nonprofit that's not receiving Legacy funding in a given year, and they have to be a 501(c)3 in good standing as well. Reedus doesn’t have a problem with it as there's been sometimes in the past couple of years it felt like they didn't give as much money away as they could have and maybe there was available money left on the table. Kubly noted they can do up to 5% of the Aid to Agencies budget for Emerging Agencies. That name was kind of derived to be intended for new agencies, but then as the process evolved and Legacy Agencies were established, they realized that there were groups that weren't really fitting in either category. Emerging is now kind of a catch-all for anyone who isn’t a Legacy. Perhaps they need to change the naming. Dennis just wants to make sure that HCDC, as the reviewing body that recommends to the Council, do their due diligence, so does staff receive the ongoing reports or whatever from Emerging Agencies and does staff have any concerns about any agency that's received money? Because HCDC sees the applications, does the recommendations, and then that's it. They don’t always know about the follow through. She acknowledged the Emerging Agencies don't get a lot of money. Kubly noted if staff had any concerns about an eligibility or compliance, they would put in the staff notes for the commissioners. Krotz motioned to recommend approval of the revised Aid to Agencies definitions and eligibility as presented. Seconded by Dennis. Approved 8-0. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FY25 APPLICATION MATERIALS: Dennis asked regarding what they just recommended about the Emerging Agencies definition and eligibility as they must be a 501(c)3 - why then on the application does it say they can be public, for-profit faith based, CHDO or other? Thul responded that staff can update it. Housing and Community Development Commission November 16, 2023 Page 9 of 11 9 Dennis noted a comment on the HOME and CDBG application for the scoring criteria, on number five - the scoring criteria of 76% to 99% leveraging of funds is a lot. She is not sure how much is appropriate. Overall, it looks good, but will bring up same issue every year until stuff get changed. Thul stated they did not change the scoring criteria from last year but did change it the year before. Prior to that, the leverage question used to be a huge portion of the scoring and it really swayed the outcome if they didn't have a large amount of leverage so changing that last year did help with the distribution of the score. It took the weight away from that one question. Dennis asked about question number seven. If the agency does not have the resources or fiscal capacity to complete the project, she wouldn't give them any money or any points. But still, they could score pretty well and that's serious in her opinion. If someone gets a zero, she is going to recommend they don't get any money. Dennis stated she brings up every year part three, number eight and what income are they targeting. These are federal funds, and the federal government has regulations that everybody has to follow and comply with, which can be very time consuming. So why does the City put more regulations on top of what the federal regulations already are. She stated everybody has to be under 80% for CDBG and for HOME funds there's a formula that the federal government gives the applicant. For instance, rental housing is more restrictive. Dennis noted if there's an affordable housing provider that has a rental unit available, and the City said that the person that moves into that house has to be under 30% area median income. If a family that comes in and applies and they make $2 over the 30% AMI - there isn’t another place for them. They make too much money and don't qualify. Thul noted the hard part is using one application and one scoring criteria to address both housing and public facilities projects and asked if the commission has a revision they would like to make to the question. Dennis said they should just ask if everybody that they're going to serve is under 80% because the HOME program regulations, especially for rentals. The HOME application for homeownership is more than likely it's going to be between 50% and 80%, but for the rental, if there's so many units then so many have to be below 60%. She can't remember the whole formula, but there's a formula. Reedus suggested that question could state a primary percent of median income under 80%. Dennis noted the application should follow the federal rates/guidelines. The City is adding more stringent regulations than the federal government requires. Thul noted it really depends on how people submit their applications. This one is really just helping them score and determine who the project is serving. Anecdotally, some of the most recent projects they've done with The Housing Fellowship allow the max of 60% AMI. Dennis suggested if they’re going to do a rental project and want to make sure they can house everybody, they are going to say they will be serving everybody at and under 30%. Everybody's chasing points on these applications and if they say more than 30% AMI, they will lose points. Thul thinks the root of this was the last City Steps plan that incentivized serving 0% to 30% AMI. That could change next year with the new City Steps plan. Input from the commission will be requested. Vogel motioned to approve the FY25 application materials as discussed. Seconded by Patel. Approved 8-0. STAFF & COMMISSION UPDATES: Reedus gave a quick update on the Aid to Agencies subcommittee report. She stated they had a good meeting and really broke down the application. The biggest changes they are recommending is a profile information section that the agencies can do outside of the application process which will reduce the Housing and Community Development Commission November 16, 2023 Page 10 of 11 10 application. The second area would be the recommendation regarding an agency’s outcomes. Hopefully United Way will get rid of that portion and do something else to allow the agencies to indicate how they're going to measure their program, and how they define success. The subcommittee thinks that would help a lot to be able to get that information because if an agency has multiple programs and they're getting funding from multiple entities such as United Way, Iowa City, Johnson County, Coralville - they’re going to have different outcomes and their outcomes might not even match what Iowa City is giving money for. Next the subcommittee is going to be going through some of the rules and such. They will only have one or two more meetings and then she can make a final report to the Commission. The report is going to be recommendations of things that they'd like to see done. Reedus also noted the agencies were really engaged and there was some great comments and feedback in the report, especially with regard to the scoring process. Dennis proposed moving the January meeting ahead one week as she would not be able to attend at the current date proposed. Reedus noted the report from the subcommittee is going to be presented at that meeting and it would be nice to have Dennis here because she's got background and expertise. The Commissioners all agreed to move the January meeting to January 11. Thul put together a calendar for the upcoming FY25 cycle and included it in the packet. It is a little early to start thinking about it, but Thul wanted to place dates on their radar and give new commissioners an idea of what HCDC will be working on next during the funding cycle when it comes to reviewing the applications, getting scores turned in, and those kinds of things. Thul also noted they are trying something a little different. The question-and-answer session will be conducted in writing similar to what was done recently for Legacy Aid to Agencies. There will be no February HCDC meeting and instead staff have reserved time to meet one on one with any commissioners that would like help with scoring or reviewing applications. Reedus noted the questions are important and she always have questions that she submits for the Q&A and then has more questions when reviewing the responses. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a small work session before the questions go out where people who want to attend could, and the Commission could come up with the questions together. Her goal is to try and find a way to have more robust questions and to come up with all the questions that they need to have answered. Is a work session treated the same as a regular meeting in terms of public access and notification and all that. Thul stated if there's a quorum and they're discussing HCDC business, it would need to be a public meeting. The difficulty with an additional meeting would be timing. The January meeting is January 11 and the Q&A is in February. Reedus asked about as a secondary proposal that they submit the questions to staff, get answers, and then submit them to the Commission ahead of time. Kubly stated they do encourage anyone that wants to walk through the applications with staff to do so. That’s why they set up the office hours for February, especially given all the new Commission members. Staff can help walk through applications and maybe that will help develop questions as well. ADJOURNMENT: Vogel moved to adjourn, Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. Housing and Community Development Commission November 16, 2023 Page 11 of 11 11 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. 9/15 10/20 11/17 1/19 2/16 3/30 4/20 5/18 7/20 9/21 10/21 11/16 Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 O/E X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X Dennis, Maryann 6/30/25 O/E X X X X X O/E X X O/E X X Haylett, Jennifer 6/30/25 X O/E O/E X X O/E X O/E     Krotz, Karol 6/30/24 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X X X X X X X X X X X X Vogel, Kyle 6/30/26 X X X O/E X X O/E X X X O/E X Eckhardt, Michael 6/30/25 -- X X X X X X O/E O/E    Patel, Kiran 6/30/26 -- -- -- -- O/E X X X X X O/E X Pierce, James 6/30/2026 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X Subramanian, Saranya 06/30/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --    Denise Szecsei 06/30/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X Date: January 2, 2024 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Sam Turnbull, Grants Specialist Re: HOME-ARP Allocation Plan Substantial Amendment #2 Background The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 allocated HOME-ARP funds in the amount of $1,789,981 to the City of Iowa City to address the needs of households experiencing homelessness and other vulnerable populations. To receive these funds, the City must develop a HOME-ARP Allocation Plan as a substantial amendment to the FY21 Annual Action Plan and submit that plan for approval by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HOME-ARP Allocation Plan Revisions City staff have been working with HUD representatives to meet the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan requirements so that projects identified for funding can move forward. During this process, it was determined that two projects were not eligible as initially proposed. The HOME-ARP funded Supportive Services projects with Shelter House and United Action for Youth (UAY) were deemed ineligible because services were not specific to HOME-ARP funded sites. In addition, HUD expressed regulatory concerns about having preferences for serving youth ages 16-22 under the HOME-ARP program. Based on this feedback, staff removed the ineligible UAY project from the Allocation Plan and intend to fund UAY’s award of $45,000 with local funds instead. The City has been funding UAY’s supportive services for their Transitional Living Program (TLP) through the local Affordable Housing Fund while waiting on clarification from HUD about the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan. Staff plan to continue this local funding to fulfill the amount awarded under HOME-ARP. Staff met with Shelter House to discuss how the proposed Supportive Services Project could be revised to meet HUD requirements for HOME-ARP funds. The Amendment notes that Shelter House supportive services will have a preference for Qualified Population 2: “At risk of Homelessness”, but services will not be limited to those residing in Shelter House’s properties. As the Amendment was being drafted, the State of Iowa released details on available statewide HOME-ARP funds, which do not require a local match as initially anticipated. As there is no longer a need to have funds set aside for that purpose, this Amendment removes the Rental Housing Development line item from the budget. The above revisions left a total of $346,739 in unallocated HOME-ARP funds. Staff propose to reallocate those funds to increase the award of existing eligible projects based on their funding requests and scoring. The amended budget proposals can be found in the following table. Agenda Item #4 January 2, 2024 Page 2 Staff Proposed Budget Revision Agency and Project Prior Budget Amended Budget Shelter House Supportive Services $517,742 $671,981 Iowa Legal Aid Legal Services to Increase Housing Stability $157,500 $200,000 Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) Shelter Construction $500,000 $650,000 United Action for Youth TLP Expansion $45,000 $0 Rental Housing Development $301,739 $0 Administration $268,000 $268,000 Total $1,789,981 $1,789,981 Next Steps The revised HOME-ARP Allocation Plan will be made available for public comment from January 11, 2024 through February 6, 2024. City Council will consider approval of the revisions at their February 6th meeting and if approved, the revisions would be submitted to HUD for approval. HOME-ARP Allocation Plan City of Iowa City Neighborhood & Development Services This plan is subject to change pending HUD approval. Agenda Item #4 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 SIZE AND DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF QUALIFYING POPULATIONS.................................................................................7 QP1: Homeless .......................................................................................................................................................7 CURRENT RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO ASSIST QUALIFYING POPULATIONS & UNMET NEEDS .......................................................8 HOME-ARP Activities ..................................................................................................................................................9 THE METHOD FOR SOLICITING APPLICATIONS ....................................................................................................................9 USE OF HOME-ARP FUNDING .................................................................................................................................. 10 USE JUSTIFICATION ................................................................................................................................................... 10 HOME-ARP Production Housing Goals .................................................................................................................... 10 Preferences .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 USE OF PREFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 11 REFERRAL METHODS ................................................................................................................................................ 11 LIMITATIONS IN A HOME-ARP RENTAL HOUSING OR NCS PROJECT ................................................................................. 12 UNMET NEEDS OF OTHER QUALIFYING POPULATIONS ..................................................................................................... 12 HOME-ARP Refinancing Guidelines ......................................................................................................................... 12 The City of Iowa City does not intend to use HOME-ARP funds to refinance existing debt secured by multi-family rental housing. ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................................................. 13 COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC MEETING: ................................................................................................. 13 STAFF RESPONSE: ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC MEETING: ................................................................................................... 13 STAFF RESPONSE: ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................................................. 13 COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC MEETING: ................................................................................................. 13 STAFF RESPONSE: ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC MEETING: ................................................................................................... 13 STAFF RESPONSE: ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 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 one competitive funding round. 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 supportive services 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. Residents will receive at least 15-days notice of the Substantial Amendment hearings. Public hearings were held during the July 21st, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Housing and Community Development Commission , and at the August 16th, 2022 Regular Meeting of the City Council. Public hearings were again held during the July 20th, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Housing and Community Development Commission, and at the August 15th, 2023 Regular Meeting of the City Council. Public hearings for the Substantial Amendment will be held during the January 11th, 2024 Regular Meeting of the Housing and Community Development Commission, and at the February 6th, 2024 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 No response See Appendix A See Appendix A 7/21/2022 Public Hearing No response See Appendix A See Appendix A 8/16/2022 Public Hearing Noah Peterson commented See Appendix A See Appendix A 6 7/29/2023 Public Notice Newspaper ad to solicit public input on HOME-ARP Allocation Plan N/A N/A 7/29/2023- 8/15/2023 Public Comment Period No Response See Appendix A See Appendix A 7/20/2023 Public Hearing No response See Appendix A See Appendix A 1/11/2024 Public Notice Newspaper ad to solicit public input on HOME-ARP Allocation Plan 1/11/2024- 2/6/2024 Public Comment Period 1/11/2024 Public Hearing 2/6/2024 Public Hearing 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 2022 Point In Time Count (PIT), the 2022 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. *After consultation with the CoC Lead Agency, it was unable to be determined how many of the unsheltered count was located within Iowa City. Homeless Current Inventory Homeless Population Gap Analysis Family Adults Only Youth Victims of DV Family HH (at least 1 child) Adult HH (w/o child) Youth Victims of DV Family Adults Only Youth Victims of DV Beds Units Beds Beds Beds Units Beds Units Beds Units Beds Beds Emergency Shelter 0 0 70 0 29 15 Transitional Housing 0 0 10 15 8 5 Permanent Supportive Housing 12 3 184 0 0 0 Rapid Rehousing 77 21 72 0 15 5 Sheltered Homeless 11 135 161** 29 Unsheltered Homeless 0 12* 2 Current Gap 0 0 0 0 140 4 7 **Unable to determine the shelter status of youth presenting due to varying definitions of “sheltered”. See Explanation in “Size and Demographic Composition of Qualifying Populations; QP1: Homeless”. Non-Homeless Current Inventory Level of Need Gap Analysis # of Units # of Households # of Households Total Rental Units 15,980 Rental Units Affordable to HH at 30% AMI (At-Risk of Homelessness) 1,495 Rental Units Affordable to HH at 50% AMI (Other Populations) 980 0%-30% AMI Renter HH w/ 1 or more severe housing problems (At-Risk of Homelessness) 6,180 30%-50% AMI Renter HH w/ 1 or more severe housing problems (Other Populations) 2,465 Current Gaps 6,170 Data Sources: Point in Time Count; Housing Inventory Count; Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy; Consultation with Youth providers SIZE AND DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF QUALIFYING POPULATIONS QP1: Homeless Based on the January 2022 Point-In-Time (PIT) Count for Johnson County, there were 146 sheltered and 12 unsheltered homeless individuals identified. After consultation with the Institute for Community Alliances, the Collaborative Applicant and Continuum of Care Lead Agency and HMIS lead, it was unable to be determined how many of those identified in the PIT time count were located within Iowa City. Given that all of the sheltered population and shelter services in Johnson County are located within Iowa City, it was determined that all those identified would be most likely to receive services within the City and therefore the full count was included. Additionally, based on consultation with local providers, it was determined that one of the populations that is not entirely captured by the Point in Time Count is the population of Youth experiencing Homelessness as defined by the Runaway Youth and Homelessness Act (RHYA). To obtain an accurate depiction of the population, the City of Iowa City consulted with United Action for Youth (UAY) to obtain a snapshot of the referrals that they have received. From October 2021 to September 2022, 161 youth experiencing homelessness were referred for services, and 21 youth and 2 additional dependents were able to be served by the youth transitional living program. The RYHA defines homeless youth as “an individual who cannot live safely with a parent, legal guardian, or relative, and who has no other safe alternative living arrangement”. Due to the varying living situations of youth that qualify under this definition, it is unable to determine the sheltered status of the population according to McKinney-Vento definitions. QP2: At risk of Homelessness According to CHAS data for 2014-2018, 27.2% of all households have income less than 30% AMI. This represents 8,180 households of the total population. Based on the data, this significantly increases for renters. Of the total population, 51.3% of households, or a total of 15,465 reside in rental units. Of those renters, 47.1%, or 7,235 renters, have income less than 30% AMI. Of those households with income less than 30% AMI, a total of 5,690, or 69.6% have a housing cost burden greater than 50% of their household income. This increases to 71.9% when accounting for only the renting households. 8 QP3: Fleeing, or Attempting to Flee, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, or Human Trafficking According to the Institute for Community Alliances, approximately 13.6% of households in Johnson County who experienced homelessness as indicated on Point in Time Counts from 2019-2021 had histories of domestic violence or were actively fleeing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking. During the three-year period, this represented 507 households. QP4: Other Populations: (1) Other Families Requiring Services or Housing Assistance to Prevent Homelessness & (2) At Greatest Risk of Housing Instability Of the approximately 15,365 households identified by CHAS data who rent their home in Iowa City, 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 paying over 50% of their monthly income. This means that an additional 835 households who are not identified as being at risk of homelessness are at great risk of housing instability. The circumstances that qualify such a household under the HOME-ARP statutes have been significantly exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and it is likely that the data has not yet been captured to truly represent the number of households that would qualify in this category today. While Rapid Rehousing assistance is a significant need and facilitates the immediate housing stabilization of households experiencing homelessness, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted all residents, to include households served by Rapid Rehousing Programs prior to the pandemic. This means there is a high likelihood that without additional services, households who previously received assistance are at significant risk of returning to homelessness without additional supportive services. CURRENT RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO ASSIST QUALIFYING POPULATIONS & UNMET NEEDS QP1: Homeless There are currently 70 Emergency Shelter Beds available year-round for single adults within the City of Iowa City. During the winter months, there are an additional 40 units of temporary shelter for single adults. There are 101 Permanent Supportive Housing units available for single adults experiencing homelessness, as well as 72 “units” of Rapid Rehousing assistance for the same population. In addition, there are 16 “units” of Rapid Rehousing assistance for families with children. While the availability of housing units and shelter beds seem to be adequate for the community need, consultation with service providers indicated that there is a notable decrease in the availability of supportive services once these individuals are housed due to decreased funding and increased caseload. This represents a significant need in the community. There are 10 Transitional Housing beds available through the GPD program specifically for Veterans experiencing homelessness, however as of the 2022 PIT Count, only two of these units were being utilized. Due to the low utilization and the low identification of veterans experiencing homelessness (only 18 unsheltered Veterans were identified in the State of Iowa), Veteran-specific programs were not determined to be a critical need at this time. There are currently no Emergency Shelter opportunities for families with children unless the household has experienced domestic violence. However, there were no unsheltered families with children identified on the Point in Time Count. As a result, this gap was not identified as a priority during our consultation and needs assessment as the need is not determined to be critical at this time. There are an additional 13 transitional housing units for individual youth, as well as one 2-bed unit available for youth with children. According to local demand for services, there are nearly 12 times as many youths experiencing homelessness as there are available housing and services for this population. 9 QP2: At risk of Homelessness The number of assistance programs for individuals who are at-risk of homelessness were supported largely by emergency funds previously allocated because of the COVID-19 pandemic and are limited, one-time emergency assistance, or temporary in nature and do not serve to stabilize the household long-term. There are ongoing efforts by various nonprofit agencies to provide one-time rental assistance as well as legal assistance and eviction prevention efforts to avoid a household entering homelessness. Supportive services for individuals at risk of homelessness were identified as a largely unfunded need and gap in services. QP3: Fleeing, or Attempting to Flee, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, or Human Trafficking As of the 2022 Point in Time Count, there are 29 beds of emergency shelter, 8 transitional housing beds, and 9 units of Rapid Rehousing available to households fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking in the City of Iowa City. In 2021, local provider DVIP reports that they had to divert around 350 households to short term hotel stays due to the shelter being full. Furthermore, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have significantly exacerbated the concern regarding populations that qualify for services under this category. In September of 2021, a representative from Iowa Attorney General’s Crime Victim Assistance Division stated” the number of fatalities in the first nine months of 2021 is equal to all of those recorded in 2020, and with three more months to go, it is a sign of a tragic trajectory”. In May of 2020, DVIP hotline calls increased by 28% and have not decreased since. Due to the increase in need and safe housing solutions, last year DVIP started renting 6 apartments for families to live in with 24/7 trauma-informed care similar to the services offered at the emergency shelter. The needs assessment clearly demonstrates a significant gap in services for this HOME-ARP qualifying population. QP4: Other Populations: (1) Other Families Requiring Services or Housing Assistance to Prevent Homelessness & (2) At Greatest Risk of Housing Instability The services available in the community for this qualifying population are largely similar to those provided for households at-risk of homelessness. While some programs are specific to those who fit the McKinney-Vento definition of at-risk of homelessness, others provide rental assistance, legal assistance, and eviction prevention to low-income populations as well who are experiencing housing instability. However, funding for these programs is limited. As a result of the needs assessment, it became clear that housing stability supportive services is a significant need within the City of Iowa City. 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 was provided, 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. 10 USE OF HOME-ARP FUNDING Funding Amount Percent of the Grant Statutory Limit Supportive Services $838,594 Acquisition and Development of Non-Congregate Shelters $650,000 Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) $ 0 Development of Affordable Rental Housing $0 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 the priority needs for qualifying populations in the community, which are funds to support 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, additional supportive services to assist in stabilization of the household overall would be the most effective use of resources. HOME-ARP Production Housing Goals The City of Iowa City anticipates that HOME-ARP funding will be utilized to produce 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 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. 11 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 Based on the needs assessment and gaps analysis and consultation with local providers, the City of Iowa City will implement a preference for one or more qualifying populations in selecting which projects to award HOME-ARP funds through a competitive application process. Specifically: Qualifying Population 2: At Risk of Homelessness o Needs Assessment indicated that while housing and shelter beds are available for homeless households, the availability of adequate supportive services for these households decreases once they are housed. Qualifying Population 3: Fleeing, or attempting to flee, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, or Human Trafficking o Needs Assessment indicated that the already high demand has increased greatly due to the COVID- 19 pandemic. While individual projects will utilize the preferences mentioned, the City of Iowa City will ensure that funding decisions are made which will ensure that such projects are funded which do not have preferences and will serve all the qualifying populations without prioritization. This will ensure that all qualifying populations are eligible to be served by HOME-ARP funds, while also honoring the specific community needs as identified in the needs assessment. Additionally, the City of Iowa City has consulted with the HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to ensure the identified preferences do not constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act, See Appendix B for more details. HOME-ARP funds utilized for the development of non-congregate shelter will have a preference for qualifying participants in Category 3 – Fleeing, or Attempting to Flee, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, or Human Trafficking. This qualifying population was identified as lacking sufficient non-congregate shelter in the needs and gap analysis. One Supportive Services project will also implement a preference for Qualifying Population 2: At Risk of Homelessness. The City of Iowa City will also fund additional Supportive Services projects which do not implement preferences and will serve all HOME-ARP qualifying populations. As a result, the City does not anticipate this preference will have a negative impact on other qualifying populations accessing HOME-ARP funds. 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 Category 2 Qualified Populations will use several referral methods which include community and self-referrals. Services are provided on a chronological basis. 12 Programs with a preference for Category 3 Qualified Populations will use several referral methods which include referrals from the coordinated services region, community referrals, and self-referrals. Services are provided on a chronological basis. Programs operating without a preference will utilize an internal waiting list and will serve all qualified populations in chronological order. LIMITATIONS IN A HOME-ARP RENTAL HOUSING OR NCS PROJECT HOME-ARP funds utilized for the development of non-congregate shelter will have a limitation for qualifying participants in Category 3 – Fleeing, or Attempting to Flee, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, or Human Trafficking. 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. Due to the nature of the services provided, this limitation is necessary to ensure a safe, confidential, and secure shelter which is limited to participants in similar situations. 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 currently. 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, or Attempting to Flee, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, or Human Trafficking. The City of Iowa City does not anticipate the preference of populations served by one Supportive Services Project will negatively impact other qualifying populations as an additional Supportive Services Project will serve all qualifying populations. 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. 13 APPENDIX A CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The 27-day public comment period for the Substantial Amendment to the FY21 Annual Action Plan/HOME-ARP Allocation Plan began on July 21, 2022 and ended on August 16, 2022. The City Council held a public meeting on August 16, 2022. COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC MEETING: None. STAFF RESPONSE: N/A COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC MEETING: 1.Noah Peterson: Expressed concerns about the winter/temporary shelter opening later than expected. Requests that the City ensure the shelter opens sooner this coming winter. This represents a summary of the public comment(s) received. The full, recorded meeting is available online through a variety of platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and the City Channel 4 website. Links to Council documents and recorded meetings are available at icgov.org/councildocs. STAFF RESPONSE: 1.The proposed activity allocates HOME-ARP funds for the provision of supportive services for individuals experiencing homelessness. The winter shelter is not an identified beneficiary of the proposed activity, however, staffing shortages significantly contributed to the challenges that nonprofits experienced when opening the winter shelter in recent years. Further, the requested activity is not an eligible use of HOME-ARP funds, however additional funding for nonprofits serving those experiencing homelessness should provide additional financial stability to support timely operations. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The 18-day public comment period for the Substantial Amendment to the FY21 Annual Action Plan/HOME-ARP Allocation Plan began on July 29, 2023 and ended on August 15, 2023. The City Council held a public meeting on August 15, 2023. COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC MEETING: None. STAFF RESPONSE: N/A COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC MEETING: None 14 STAFF RESPONSE: N/A APPENDIX B Agenda Item #5 Tentative Timeline for FY25 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) Key Dates Date/Deadline Description HCDC Role December 29, 2023 CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to Agencies applications are available. NA January 9, 2024 CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop via Zoom 11:00am. Please note this covers CDBG/HOME only. Emerging Aid to Agencies applicants may contact staff directly with questions. Registration link available at icgov.org/grants. NA January 29, 2024 CDBG/HOME Applications and Emerging Aid to Agencies Applications due to City of Iowa City by noon (12pm). Staff will send you the application submissions after the due date. Once received, you can review at your own pace with the understanding that individual scoring and recommendations can be done any time prior to March 13. February 12, 2024 Staff will send you a summary sheet for each CDBG/HOME submission. Summary sheets contain scoring assistance, risk assessments, and other critical information. Review the summary sheets. February 15, 2024 There will be no February HCDC meeting. In lieu of the regular meeting, City staff will offer optional one on one assistance to help commissioners with any scoring questions. Sign up for a slot here or contact staff to reserve a time: https://www.signupgenius.com/go/10C0844ACA62FA2F5CE9- 45917322-meet One on one assistance meetings will be held at City Hall in the Helling Conference Room (410 E Washington St.) Sign up for an appointment if you need assistance. This is optional, but encouraged if you need help. You must sign up for a time to ensure staff are available and that we comply with open meetings laws. February 19, 2024 In lieu of an in-person Q&A, commissioners will submit questions for the applicants to staff. Questions must be submitted by February 19th to give applicants adequate time to respond. Questions should clarify information submitted on the application. Submit any questions for applicants to staff by the deadline. Agenda Item #6 Revised 11/6/23 Dates may be subject to change. Submitting questions is optional, but this is the time to ask applicants any questions. Commissioners should be prepared to make funding recommendations at the March HCDC meeting. Commissioners may not directly contact the applicants about their submissions. This keeps the process fair and ensures that everyone has access to the same information. February 29, 2024 Q&A responses due from applicants. Staff will compile and share. Read the responses from the applicants. March 1, 2024 Staff scores and funding recommendations for CDBG/HOME and EA2A will be provided to HCDC. Read the staff scores and funding recommendations. March 13, 2024 Deadline for commissioners to submit CDBG/HOME score sheets and Emerging Aid to Agencies funding recommendations to City staff for compilation. There is no score sheet for Emerging Aid to Agencies, but commissioners will submit funding recommendations. Submit individual score sheets and funding recommendations to staff by the deadline. Staff will compile and include a summary in the March HCDC meeting packet. March 21, 2024 HCDC 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. Be prepared to discuss scores and work together to develop funding recommendations. April 5, 2024 Public comment period of more than 30 days begins for draft FY25 Annual Action Plan. NA April 18, 2024 HCDC meeting: Review FY25 Annual Action Plan and consider recommendation to City Council to approve the document. Review FY25 AAP draft and provide any comments. May 7, 2024 City Council meeting: Public meeting for the Annual Action Plan and resolution finalizing awards. NA May 15, 2024 FY25 Annual Action Plan submitted to HUD. NA July 1, 2024 Fiscal year 2025 begins. Please note that HUD does not typically make grant funds available until approximately September. Once federal grant funds are available and environmental reviews are completed, the City can enter agreements with those awarded funds. NA