Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-04 Bd Comm minutes Item Number: 4.a. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2024 Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission: May 2 Attachments: Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission: May 2 May 2, 2024 Approved Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission(TRC) Minutes Emma Harvat Hall,City Hall Commissioners present: Amos Kiche, Cliff Johnson,Louis Tassinary, Lauren Merritt, Chad Simmons, Chastity Dillard. Commissioners on Zoom: None. Commissioners not present: Wangui Gathua. Staff present: Redmond Jones, Stefanie Bowers. Recommendation to City Council: No. Meeting called to order: 7:02 PM. Reading of Land Acknowledgement: Merritt read the Land Acknowledgement. Approval of minutes from April 4,2024: Merritt moved, and Kiche seconded. Motion passed 5- 0. Debrief from presentation to City Council: Commissioner Dillard stated the presentation went well and there is work to do moving forward. Facilitators final report: Facilitator Annie Tucker stated there was a lot of effort put into the report in hopes it would be an important resource in the future. Tucker recommended that it be put on the website. V Fixmer-Oraiz shared that the intent was for the report to be accessible and helpful Dillard suggested putting the report on a fixture agenda for discussion to give time to commissioners to review the report. TRC budget& request for additional funds: Tucker said she will provide a job description and tasks for an assistant to the TRC. Redmond Jones provided an overview of the funds the TRC has spent to date, including the cost for facilitators and the TRC costs for events,rentals, and incidentals. Once all spending is processed there will be a final report that will be given to City Council. Commissioner Tassinary clarified that the budget reports$320,000 spent with a remaining $80,000. Commissioner Dillard clarified the additional $80,000 is in relation to the outstanding contract obligations of the facilitators including the final report. Next steps for phase three and four: Commissioner Kiche asked how many public events are planned and how much they may cost. Kiche also brought up collecting data from events like the education work group and social justice group in order to add information to the TRC's final report. Commissioner Dillard asked what the commission wants the end goal to be. Commissioner Simmons suggested to expand truth telling services to the community in October. This would allow the four months leading up to the event to be used as time to work and collect information. The months after October until the end of the year would then be used for organizing the information to be presented to City Council at the end of the year. Commissioner Tassinary suggested prioritizing areas of interest to allow for top priority projects to be scheduled and reported on first. Priority topics were discussed with the order being: 1. Social Justice 2. Affordable Housing 3. Economic Development 4. Education The concern of time was brought up with the suggestion of choosing one topic to really focus and report on.The idea of hiring someone to help with outreach/project organization was discussed. The responsibilities of an assistant were discussed along with other possible uses of the additional funds being requested. The TRC sent a request in January of 2024 to the City Council asking for an additional$250,000 to fulfill its duties. Jones provided an overview of how the TRC can request to be considered for a future City Council agenda. Councilmember Laura$ergus weighed in on the protocol it takes to get on a City Council's agenda. Commissioners will work in subcommittees to determine who reaches out to which City Council members to ask for their request for the additional$250,000 to be placed on a future agenda. Announcements of commissioners: None. Announcements of staff: Jones clarified that the remaining budget of about$80,000 includes payments to facilitators that have yet to be paid for their services. The meeting adjourned at 8:56 PM. The full meeting video can be viewed at this link. 2 h O N b b b V, N a O � n V � rr V W N A W o� F F' h �i F N N x Q ¢j! 0. .�I N N N N N N N N N (s] G L Item Number: 4.b. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2024 Airport Commission: April 11 Attachments: Airport Commission: April 11 i MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION April 11, 2024—6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Judy Pfohl, Ryan Story, Chris Lawrence Members Absent: Hellecktra Orozco, Warren Bishop Staff'Present: Michael Tharp, Jennifer Schwickerath Others Present: Carl Byers, Travis Strait RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None I DETERMINE QUORUM A quorum was determined at 6:00 pm and Lawrence called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Pfohl moved to approve the minutes from March 14, 2024 as amended, seconded by Story. Motion carried 3-0 PUBLIC COMMENT - ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION Lawrence moved that Story serve as acting Secretary for the meeting, seconded by Pfohl. Motion carried 3.0 (Bishop, Orozco absent) a. Airport Construction Projects: 1. FAA grant projects 1. Runway 12/30 Displaced Threshold/Relocation — Tharp stated that the contractor has started work. Tharp noted that they had several days of rain at the start. Otherwise, it appeared the project was going well so far. Byers noted that some electrical conduit i would be able to reused. 2. Terminal Area Study — Tharp noted that Byers was putting the final version of the study together for FAA. 3, Solar Power Project — Tharp stated that they opened bids on Monday and that they had 2 bids. Tharp noted that they were working with the low bidder to submit the necessary Buy-American waiver requests. Tharp noted that because of that he was recommending the Commission defer the award of the bid until they were further along in that process. Strait noted that the bid documents stated the Commission can hold bids for 90 days. I I Airport Commission Ap ri1 11,2024 Page 2 of 4 a. Consider a resolution accepting bids and awarding contract — Lawrence moved to defer to next meeting, seconded by Story. Motion carried 3.0 (Orozco, Bishop absent) b. Consider a resolution approving interconnection agreement with MidAmerican Energy Tharp noted that the two contracts in the packet are the interconnection agreements with MidAmerican Energy. Tharp noted these contract are how MidAmerican gives permission to the Airport to connect to the grid with the solar array so that they can resell excess power back to the company. Tharp noted that there were two contracts because there are two meters, Pfohl moved resolution A24.08, seconded by Story. Motion carried 3-0 (Orozco, Bishop absent) c. Consider a resolution approving interconnection agreement with MidAmerican Energy — Pfohl moved resolution A24-09, seconded by Story. Motion carried 3- 0(Orozco, Bishop absent) 1I. Iowa DOT grant projects 1. FY23 Program a. Terminal Building Improvements — Tharp stated that the week after next the contractor was planning to complete the terminal wall project. 2. FY 25 application —Tharp noted that Balton R Menk did send an estimate for some concrete in the box hangar area to fill in. Tharp stated that it would require $25,000 or so to match for a grant application. Tharp noted that he was still deciding if it would be best to hold off on grant applications until the terminal building results are known because of the large costs associated with that. Wolford asked about going even further with the concrete to which Tharp responded that they're still constrained by the possible terminal environmental study which would require$70,000 of matching funds for the year. b. Airport"Operations" 1. Budget—Tharp noted that they still had a couple of months left of the budget and still needed to collect the farm rent. Tharp stated the budget was going to be really close for the rest of the year. Pfohl asked if the basketball season hadanimpact. Tharp noted that they did see traffic for some games towards the end of the season and the first round of playoffs. III. Management— 1. Consider a resolution approving pay step increase for Airport Manager—Tharp stated that he and Orozco had met and finished the evaluation which has been submitted to Human Resources for the personnel file. Tharp stated he was eligible for a step increase if the Commission chose to approve it. Tharp also stated that his request was for the change to be effective when his evaluation was due. Story moved resolution A24.10, seconded by Lawrence. Motion carried 3-0 (Orozco, Bishop absent). Airport Commission April 11, 2024 Page 3of4 iii. Events—Tharp stated that the event calendar was completed for what they were planning. Tharp noted that the autocross group was going to be at the airport this weekend. Pfohl asked about room usage and Tharp noted people are still using the room. Tharp also stated that they would be hosting a luncheon event in October with the Think Iowa City group. 1. Autocross: April 14, June 9, Sept 15, Sept 29 2. Drive-In Movie: July 13 (Barbie) 3. Young Eagles: May 11 4. Pancake Breakfast(expected Aug 25) c. FBO( Flight Training Reports i. Jet Air — Wolford stated that there hadn't been a lot for Jet Air stuff. He noted that they took off the plows and got them put away. Wolford stated that he thought they only used the deicer material once during the season so they had a nearly full stock left over for the next season. Wolford stated they took 62 passengers to Indiana for the championship weekend. d. Commission Members' Reports e. Staff Report — Tharp reminded members that the Aviation conference was next week and that he would be out of the office. Tharp stated that Bishop and Orozco were scheduled to attend as well. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING— Members set the next meeting for May 9th, 2024 at 6:OOpm. Pfohl stated that she would be absent for the meeting. ADJOURN Story moved to adjourn, seconded by Pfohl. Motion carried 3-0 (Bishop, Orozco absent). Meeting adjourned at 6:25pm. lum �� t l � 2 Y CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission April 11,2024 Page 4of4 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2024 TERM O i N O N O O 2; EXP. w to o w a m m NAME w w w w ilao N w w N rt a a a Warren 06f30126 Bishop X X X X X X O/E X X O/E X X O/E Scott Clair 06134123 OlE X/E O/E Not a member i Christopher 06/30/25 X X I X X X X X X X X 0/E X X Lawrence Hellecktra 06130/24 OlE X X X X X X X X O/E X X O/E Orozco Judy Kohl 06/30126 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Ryan Story 06/30/27 Not a member X O/E X O/E X X X X X X Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E =Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time X/S = Present for subcommittee meeting O/S =Absent, not a member of the subcommittee Item Number: 4.c. CITY OF OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2024 Charter Review Commission: May 14 Attachments: Charter Review Commission: May 14 FINALIAPPROVED CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION May 14, 2024—5:30 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: John Balmer, Susan Craig, John Death, Makenzie DeRoo, Matt Hayek, Molly Kucera, Jennifer Patel Members Absent: Gerene Denning, Bijou Maliabo Staff Present: City Attorney Goers, City Clerk Grace (Videos of the meetings are available at citychannel4.com typically within 48 hours) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. MOTION TO ADOPT DRAFT MINUTES AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED Moved by Death, seconded by Kucera to approve the April 25, 2024, draft minutes as presented. Motion carried 7-0, Denning and Maliabo absent. 3. REVIEW OF DRAFT PROPOSALS FOR PREAMBLE, DEFINITIONS, ARTICLE I: POWERS OF THE CITY City Attorney Goers summarized the proposed changes in the May 9 memorandum which was included in the meeting packet. Chair Balmer suggested getting a consensus from the commissioners in attendance and circle back at a later date when everyone is present to approve. Commissioner Craig asked for clarification as to why the last few words of the original proposal for 1.a was left out of the revised proposal which was "in all aspects of life". Commissioners discussed reasons to include the language. City Attorney Goers noted that he had removed the language due to the phrase "equal opportunity" earlier in the sentence as to not suggest everyone will have equal opportunity in all aspects of life and gave examples. Commissioners discussed options to revise the language. Board members tentatively agreed on the addition of the following language for item number 1.a of the Preamble: Each individual shall have an opportunity to participate in the life of the city, including economic, cultural and intellectual. Goers reviewed the proposed language by Commissioner Denning which included protected classes noting that the protected classes in the Model Charter were not the same as the protected classes in Iowa law and Iowa City Code. Goers stated protected classes are subject to change and have over time and proposed tracking the language in Title 2 of the City Code to the following for the addition of item 1.b: Discrimination prohibited by Title 2 of this Code shall not be tolerated. The Commission tentatively agreed on the proposed language. Charter Review Commission May 14,2024 Page 2 The Commission had asked City Attorney Goers to review the Charter to search for uses of the term "Qualified Elector" to see if there was a good reason not to collapse that term into the definition of"Eligible Elector'. Goers noted that the term Qualified Elector appeared in the Charter eight times and several times in the City Code stating the understanding of the two different definitions, Qualified Elector as someone who is registered to vote, as opposed to an Eligible Elector as someone who posses all the qualities to be able to register to vote. Goers recommended leaving the definition of Qualified Elector in the Charter. Commissioner Deeth stated his concern for leaving the definition in. There was consensus by the Commission to leave Qualified Elector in the Charter. The Commission also asked City Attorney Goers to review the addition of Section 1.04 proposed by Commissioner Denning to reconcile it with Iowa Code Chapter 28E, and to explore whether the City contracts or otherwise partners with individual states other than Iowa as follows: Section 1.04. Intergovernmental Relations. The City may participate by contract or otherwise with any governmental entity of this state or any other state or states or the United States in the performance of any activity which one or more of such entities has the authority to undertake. Goers stated that Iowa Home Rule, Iowa Chapter 28E, and various federal laws already provide for the opportunity. Goers proposed to exclude the language due to the limitation it creates. There was consensus by the Commission to omit the proposed language. 4. REVIEW OF CITY CHARTER: ARTICLE II: CITY COUNCIL Chair Balmer suggested containing discussion to City Council and leaving Mayor for the next meeting. Balmer thanked Commissioner Deeth and Commissioner Denning for submitting their thoughts which were included in the May 141" meeting packet. DeRoo confirmed that the discussion would focus on Council districts. Commissioner Deeth summarized his submission and presented his view on district representation noting that if the representative body of Councilors were to remain at seven, he felt that two of those positions should be undergrad students from the University of Iowa. Death mentioned that there was not a good track record for electing students to the City Council, noting the permanent community will not vote for student candidates. Deeth would like to see smaller districts where smaller areas are voting on the candidates. Deeth gave an example of a city Council model in Wisconsin with a 25-member Council that was elected from small wards. Deeth stated there is a barrier of having to win city-wide to sit on the Council. Commissioners discussed the following: student districts, and the current University Student Government Liaison to the City Council. Vice Chair Kucera feels the voting should fall to the entire City and that if students want to run for City Council they should campaign. Kucera also stated that trying to elect a student position could become difficult over the years as they are being asked to vote on city-wide policies that would affect everyone long term. Kucera also questioned the definition of student as there are many different kinds of students in Iowa City. The Commission had additional discussion of students and student focus. Commissioner Craig stated she was not interested in going beyond seven City Councilors and was not in favor of carving out a seat for a particular group. Commissioner Patel would like to see candidates elected from the districts and suggested nine members. Commissioners discussed participation in government based on the number of Councilors, the student community, and the University student government. Commissioner Hayek agreed that seven is a good number and when you add to that you expand the logistics and cost to the community. Hayek disagreed that students are not represented and have the Charter Review Commission May 14,2024 Page 3 same right of representation as anyone else if they are living in the City limits. The lack of participation was also noted unless there is a particular issue of interest. Hayek is concerned that there are other groups that do not get represented and where do you draw the line when creating a seat for a group. The consensus among the commissioners present was not to create seats on Council for the student population. Commissioner Patel mentioned it is more comfortable to go to a Councilor that you are familiar with and is from your district rather than going to the entire Council. Chair Balmer asked the Commission to discuss the proposal to have the district candidates only elected by the district residents. Balmer stated when there is a primary election the district residents vote on the district candidates but when it comes to the general election the entire city votes on all of the candidates. Balmer gave some history of when the city Council went from five to seven members and having geographic balance is important. Balmer pointed out the last few elections where candidates went uncontested and questioned how to spread awareness and increase participation in elections. Deeth reviewed some of the information from the past election information provided by Chair Balmer in the meeting packet. Commissioner Patel discussed the lower costs, connections that can be made in district elections, and concentrated minorities that can be easily overridden by the city-wide voters. Commissioner DeRoo stated she would have concerns of parochialism if a Councilor only has to answer to those within the district they were elected. DeRoo also stated there are many issues that affect the entire city and how does that affect the decision of a district representative if it is not positive for that district—those issues could be hard to balance. Commissioners discussed the history of districts, balancing the populations within the districts, and district mapping using suitable polling places. Commissioner Hayek discussed election participation and city representatives versus district representatives being responsive to the entire community. Commissioners discussed the confusion between primary and general elections for the public, city representation, campaign costs. Individual commissioners expressed their views. Chair Balmer noted the two absent members and stated that the Commission would revisit this topic at a later date to finalize opinions. Balmer stated discussion regarding the Mayor would be held at the next meeting on Thursday, May 23rd 5. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE Chair Balmer requested changing the June 11th meeting date to June 171'due to an absence. Board members in attendance agreed to this change. City Attorney Goers noted he would be out of town but would send a representative from his office to the meeting. Commissioner Hayek noted he would be absent for the July 9 meeting and asked if available meeting dates could be provided to the Commission. City Clerk Grace will check meeting room availability and bring those dates to the next meeting. Commission Kucera asked if the summer schedule could be discussed at the next meeting. Grace will add the item to the agenda. Chair Balmer noted that the Charter Review Commission is a product of the City Council but emphasized they are independent and should be making decisions on their own and suggested not conversing with Councilors until such time as there is a final product. Balmer noted correspondence received from Councilor Dunn but stated they should be making their own decisions. City Attorney Goers clarified that correspondence from a Councilor would be I ust like any correspondence from the public and if they wished to communicate with the Commission they may do so. Charter Review Commission May 14,2024 Page 4 6. COMMUNITY COMMENT: No one appeared. Chair Balmer noted he had spoken with the City Clerk and asked how meeting information was communicated to the media stating there had not been any media coverage. Balmer asked how they could get the media to report on the meetings, more public participation and asked for suggestions. Vice Chair Kucera asked if the City would be able to put information on the website asking for participation and information about the City Charter and Commission. City Attorney Goers mentioned the City has a Communications Department that could help with getting the word out if that is what the Commission wanted. Commissioners discussed suggestions of information to provide. City Attorney Goers asked commissioners if they were comfortable with staff working with Communications or if they wanted to review at the next meeting. Commissioners agreed to let staff work with Communications. Vice Chair Kucera suggested having meetings at the Library once they have a draft product to solicit feedback from the public. Commissioner noted they are on the front end and have only had a few meetings suggesting an open house at a later date. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Deeth, seconded by Kucera to adjourn the meeting at 6:43 P.M. Motion carried 7-0, Denning and Maliabo absent. N O N G 93O x yO yU E � E UZ d � mw � r a 05114/24 X Xx O x X X X U 04/25/25 x I x X O x X x X 04109/24 X x x x x x X x x 04/01/24 X X x X X X x X X g in Ln in to LO u> W) an Ln d N N N N N N N N N UJ x r w o a N N E C Q E G X C o E Q' W cE 3 w O C 0 ai A w G .'l- aI at E to +t+ at w Y d A as m c E E E �N Z C1 y N % Y � -0 o m 2b < z O y S > E d Q ii ii Z r m O O at m O O d ata �� W 2 11 via v7 C7 12 m 1XOOz Item Number: 4.d. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2024 Housing & Community Development Commission: April 18 Attachments: Housing & Community Development Commission: April 18 MINUTES FINAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 18, 2024—6:30 PM FORMAL MEETING THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, James Pierce, Becci Reedus, Denise Szecsei, Kyle Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Horacio Borgen, Karol Krotz, Kiran Patel STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul, Sam Turnbull OTHERS PRESENT: Genevieve Anglin (UAY), Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House), Emily Meister(United Way), Nicki Ross (Table to Table), Thuy Nguyen (KW Legacy Group) CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Beining called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 21, 2024: Dennis moved to approve the minutes of March 21, 2024. Vogel seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the minutes were approved 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. FINAL PRESENTATION FROM AID TO AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE: Reedus stated this is a crucial step in ensuring that they continue to support the community effectively. She started out by introducing Nicki Ross, from Table to Table, who was one of the committee members and Genevieve Anglin, from UAY, is here also. Jenny Schmidt, from the Free Medical Clinic, was really active on the subcommittee but was not able to be here, Fred Newell, from Dream City, was at some meetings and they also had participation from United Way. Moving on to the presentation Ross began with an overview of what the process looked like and who was involved in that process. They had five committee members, the committee included commissioners and agency representatives, Iowa City staff and United Way leadership attended most meetings. She stated that probably the most impactful development of the process was that United Way is fully on board with updating the application and are embarking on their own process to identify needs of their applications and move to a two-year cycle. They held nine formal subcommittee meetings, 12 outside work sessions, had a nonprofit focus group and did a detailed review of the application and the associated rubric. They intended for this to be an iterative process and if approved they can test these changes in the next application but would expect they might need to come back and make additional adjustments based on feedback. Reedus stated the established goals that they had were to provide clarity in the eligibility and application process, establish basic funding qualifications and requirements, create an application process which collects all the information that can be scored equitably, create a plan to educate the Commission and community on the needs, services and impact, engage the Commission in communicating collective Housing and Community Development Commission April 18,2024 Page 2 of 12 impact and determine whether the Commission at HCDC continues to be the right venue for application review and funds allocation. Again, goal number one was the eligibility, naming, and funding clarification. It was just seen last month how there was some confusion over how agencies might be qualified so it's important to get that clarification of financial documentation and the funding levels. There is a proposal to rename the two groups of funding with the Legacy Aid to Agencies fund becoming Core City Steps Services Funding and the Emerging Agency funds would become the Iowa City Auxiliary Human Services funding. The committee thinks it is important to take away the Emerging name.The Legacy title may be more work for the Commission down the road, and they may decide that's a next step to talk about with eligibility and the process of how other organizations can apply but that's more of Commission recommendation. Next, they discussed aligning the funding guidance with a rubric score and will show the changes they're recommending. Again, it came up during last month's meeting, a score needs to mean something. If someone gets a high score what does that mean in terms of funding? The Committee took last year's Legacy Agency scores and looked at it. The agencies that scored in the area of 91 to 100 would get a larger increase. That could be something that the committee could determine. Reedus noted that the Cost of Living Adjustment(COLA)may be the best way to describe it similar to each year when City Council increases the funding, they do it around 3% which is basically a COLA increase. If they are able to work out a larger increase,they might be able to afford a 5% increase for agencies that score in that 91 to 100 range. Those that score in the second range would get that standard COLA increase, the third level 71 to 80 would mean that they wouldn't get any increase but they wouldn't be subject to a decrease because of their score either.The fourth range 61 to 70 would mean a decrease for their organization and the fifth range would be that they would receive base minimum funding of$15,000 and anything below that scoring level means that they would receive nothing. Vogel asked how they see a situation where somebody's already at base funding. If they fall in that low score range again, would they put them at no funding? If they're already at a base funding, would they go down into that next level where they just don't get any funding at all, or would they stay at the base? Reedus replied that she thinks that's a question for the Commission to answer when they talk about whether or not they want to change that base funding.The proposal to tie the scoring to the funding is not a recommendation to be put in place right now-she is just recommending that they take a look at how they're going to apply the scoring. Reedus noted that's not unusual in government granting systems or in a competitive grant process that if they've got one grantor and there's three applicants, it's usually the highest scorer that is going to be awarded the contract. For those who were here last month when the Commission grappled with some of the funding recommendations for Emerging funds and even the CDBG funds, one of the concerns she had was that they need to be consistent. They can't award a higher percentage of funding awards to a lower scoring applicant because otherwise why even score the applications? The scoring should provide some guidance in terms of the funding. Vogel noted that if they have multiple organizations that fall in the higher range, they can't increase everybody.A 3% increase looks very different for a large organization compared to a small one. He stated if they happen to have an extra $10,000, that may not make any difference for a large agency but it could make a huge difference for someone else. He concerned about getting locked into what is being proposed. Reedus commented that document that they provided is a first iteration recommendation to be tested. It's not final and the Commission's next step is to reevaluate. Vogel is concerned about them putting the Commission in a position where they create any kind of rule. Guidance is one thing, rules are another and he just wanted to confirm that this is more of a guidance. Reedus shared a slide showing how this proposal would have affected the last round of Legacy Agency funding. It shows the five agencies that fell into the top and the recommended funding increase. Also, depending on the amount of money that they have and the number of agencies at the top, it could be a 5% increase or it may be just a 1% increase. It would have to coincide with the City annual increase. But 2 Housing and Community Development Commission April 18,2024 Page 3 of 12 if the City gave 3% more funding for the total Aid to Agencies pot, then they would give the high scoring agencies 3% increases. Regarding those that fell into the zero-increase range, Reedus stated everyone else would get primarily the same allocation that they got the year before. There was nobody that fell into the decrease range or had that low of a score. Anglin stated another scenario that comes from the committee was to emphasize the importance of the flexible nature of the funding and how important general operating funds are for nonprofits. Writer and nonprofit advocate Vu Le, writes a nonprofit blog called Nonprofit AF and he talks a lot about multiyear general operating dollars and how important they are to nonprofits. In the current way that many of these questions are written they, whether explicitly or inadvertently, restrict funding even if the intent is flexible operational funding. Anglin stated as the committee went through the rubric, they noticed several instances of subtle wording changes and questions that help provide less restrictive guidelines for grantees. So instead of saying,for example, "tell us what you are going to use these funds for"the question would be something more like "tell us about what you do and how these funds are important to that". It sounds like a subtle difference but when they're talking to an auditor, that's an enormous difference. Instead of being restricted, it becomes unrestricted dollars. There's also a tendency among funders, not here necessarily, but in the wide world, to give preference to programmatic funds over general operation funds and one of the further goals of these recommendations is education for Commission members on issues like the importance of these funds. Anglin noted the fourth goal, which became the first thing that they looked at because they actually have to answer it before they can answer anything else, was that the most efficient way to continue this application process.The grantees like having one place to go, it's very helpful. It was determined that it would be best if they could just get everybody aligned on times and dates and things. The next goal was related to who scores the applications—one idea was to have a smaller group of HCDC score instead of the whole commission. However, when Reedus brought this to the Commission, the feedback was that the Commission would prefer a similar process to what is happening now with the whole Commission reviewing applications rather than relying on a few members of HCDC. The question then became how they can make this process easier and more efficient, not only for grantees, but for Commissioners and City staff. Ross stated goal two is to create an application process which collects information that can be scored equitably. The committee undertook a detailed review of all the application questions, the forms, the associated rubric and scoring guidelines, and it quickly became clear that making changes would be complicated. Many of the challenges they identified were symptoms of what they call "frankensteining"the application. Because it's for joint funders and to cover all the funders needs, there's many changes that have been made over the years that have affected how the rubric is applied. It also forces the City to align their goals with the existing question content. Defining a process to even make these recommendations was challenging and an "aha moment." It gave them a new appreciation for what the staff does during each cycle and why some Commissioners may have been challenged to review and score the applications. Ross reviewed some of the challenges that they identified. First, multi-question rubric scoring.The current rubric requires reviewers to reference multiple questions to do their assessment. For example, there might be a section where they had to read information from form B, form C, and see question 11 and question 12 for all applicants. There are 20 some applicants-that is just a lot and is a problem. The next thing was rubric alignment with the actual content. Some items on the rubric referred to information not even included in the application, which was requiring reviewers to have an understanding of past funding and performance history that may not be accessible. Some application questions don't align with what's being scored or require too much subjectivity in the scoring assignment. In some cases, none of the questions allowed the applicant to speak to the conditions being scored. 3 Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 4 of 12 Dennis asked since this is a joint application, the United Way application, how is the committee going to convince the United Way to have an application that fits what they want? Ross acknowledged that is a very pertinent question because one of the barriers in the past has been that it was difficult to make changes or to get buy-in from other funders. Ross stated she is happy to say that this committee has accomplished that after years and the new team at United Way is being super open to this idea and understanding what needs to happen. Reedus acknowledged there may be some differences on everybody's applications, Iowa City, Coralville, Johnson County, but the City staff have the ability when they pull information to only pull Iowa City specific information.The Commission won't be reading a question that was meant for United Way or another municipality. Ross next wanted to share a high-level summary of the application and scoring recommendations. The rubric scoring now references fewer questions and forms for each category, making it easier for applicants to provide clear and applicable content, and it's easier for reviewers to score content provided in fewer places. Six of the ten scoring sections now use calculations.These are things that the staff often are doing already, but now the only thing the staff has to do is summarize. Finally, the committee is recommending some scoring adjustments on content. If they reduce the narrative content to four questions, they have recommendations around scoring. If there's a question that references how the projects or organizations meet City Steps guidelines for Iowa City, that should be scored pretty highly as it's the primary focus of the funding. Szecsei noted they mentioned fewer narrative questions and asked about an invitation for storytelling. She liked the idea of actually connecting with the goals of the projects and seeing who's affected in more of a storytelling and compelling way. Ross replied she feels they will find that in the outcomes and measurement changes. Reedus next discussed the community needs and services. One thing they talked about a lot is the United Way System, which has a profile page for each organization and that profile page can be utilized for things that don't change much or things that change on an annual basis that can be done outside of the application process. Some histories and description of services can be updated by agencies on an annual basis, but not at time of the application. Reedus noted these applications are a beast to write and takes multiple days and some are spending weeks on it. Next, they removed the community need question from the scoring, the needs are already established by the City Steps so they recommended changing the services question to tell how their services to Iowa City are City Steps priorities and are represented in their operation. If the agency serves a regional area, then they are asked what percent of the overall clients are Iowa City residents. That is important because there are agencies that provide services to not just Iowa City specific or not even just Johnson County so the Commission needs to know how to allocate funds that will benefit Iowa City residents. Agencies will need to look at the City Steps document and describe how the priorities of City Steps, whether it's housing or food related, are represented in their operation and programs. Dennis asked if an applicant provides a percentage of clientele in Iowa City, will they get that percentage of their total operating budget as funding? Reedus stated whether it is based on their total operating budget or is program specific, this Commission wants to make sure that the Iowa City funding reaches Iowa City residents. She acknowledged that's not always black and white but hopefully staff can help with some of that through service statistics and what kind of residents or services they're funding that are Iowa City related. Reedus noted the whole point of the process is for agencies to get clear guidance from this Commission and City Council. This subcommittee has made some recommendations, staff can take the recommendations as guidance but then be able to give a scoring recommendation to a specific component of the application. Ross stated next in the demographics section, one of the major barriers that they found in feedback from partners in filling this out is there isn't an opportunity for organizations to provide"not provided by participant", which means that there's a number there, but they didn't identify themselves in the ways that 4 Housing and Community Development Commission April 18, 2024 Page 5 of 12 the demographic form does. That would also enable everyone to see a better picture because if they have to put a number in here, and half of them are unidentified, it looks like a smaller number of services. Therefore, the committee's recommendation is that each section will allow for that and then that would put enough information on the demographics form to score the two questions, the racial equity question and the performance measures question. Ross reiterated they reduced narrative content because they feel like a calculation gives an answer to some of those other questions. She shared an example from the form providing information to score benefits to low-income persons, how many are in each area of AMI. Also to score racial equity inclusivity in terms of service numbers and persons to benefit, how many people do you they service and what are the costs of their services?Then it is all right there in calculations, and they don't need to do that separately. Ross stated regarding Szecsei's question about more storytelling and hearing more from the partner or organizations about the work that they're doing and what impact it has, the former question really just made it difficult to fully get at that so the committee is recommending to allow for agency lead outcomes and indicator identification. Right now it's a picklist, which had some flexibility to talk about what it could be, but it was set by United Way. So if part of the process is for the agency to say how they measure the services they're providing, what they expect the outcome to be, what percentage of that outcome number will be Iowa City residents, Johnson County or Coralville- it makes it a lot cleaner to just see that and then gives them an opportunity to explain their rationale for their chosen metrics. Ross stated the next area is performance measurement with outcomes and indicators they are identifying this year, but then also tell about what they did last year.That's always been a part of the application and it always asked for a score on their previous performance, but that information was not in the application, so this is an opportunity for the applicant to summarize their previous outcomes and give some specific details. The committee members didn't want to take out the narrative, the applicants like to add extra things as the numbers don't tell the whole story. This gives the organization the opportunity to get to really know them and are better poised to tell what their impact is. Reedus noted with the Free Medical Clinic, one of the things that Jenny Schmidt talked about is it's not the number of people that they serve, it might be the number of services given to an individual, maintenance health services on a monthly basis. So the organizations can choose themselves what they want to measure. Reedus stated when they went through the old applications, there were a number of organizations that didn't fit into any kind of demographics so there were no numbers given and then the Commission couldn't look at an organization and see if it was doing better from one year to the next. Also in some past instances, organizations were rated low because they couldn't show any numbers because they didn't have a demographic to put with that number and so they would get a zero on that score and it would pull their score down and subsequently they get less funding. She thinks this will even that playing field a little bit as one of the things they tried to do here and in some other parts of the application. Szecsei stated there is the risk in allowing the applicant to choose a metric that might not be as appropriate and meaningful and that is why there should be an emphasis on the explanation of why this metric matters. Reedus noted if an agency submitted something that's maybe not in City Steps staff could contact them, or that the agency could contact staff prior to the application asking for feedback. That interactive process is invaluable information for agencies in writing the application. Szecsei stated additionally there's also an opportunity, once the Commission reads the drafts or the initial submissions, to be able to follow up with additional questions. Ross noted United Way hosts a training every year for applicants but that has been more technical assistance and the committee talked about United Way's willingness and eagerness to make that more 5 Housing and Community Development Commission April 18.2024 Page 0ufl2 than just technical assistance and 1utalk about the different questions, again encourage applicants tn contact City staff with questions. Anglin next discussed the topic mfleveraging funding. Currently the question reads"describe the local funding received by your organization to help leverage other revenue in the past fiscal year, identify and include specific grant/funding sources and amounts that were awarded using local funding as a match and include the specific local funds used as match". It's a good question except it's one of those questions that the wording of it restricts funds so they changed the wording of that question to open up those funds to less restriction.There is still a leveraging question in the application, but it is no longer onnnod. It's important information and an important question and people wanted to know this information but the inclusion of it in the scoring criteria meant that smaller and newer organizations were automatically at a disadvantage as they haven't had a long time to build those funds or to get a federal grant, etc. Szecsei asked then what is the goal of the question.Anglin used UAY as an example. They received federal funds for their homeless youth services and are required to have about a $30,000 match on a Q25O,0UOgrant from the federal government. That$3U.000inleveraging the$250,UOO. Dennis asked if the City uses any CDBG money for this pot of funds used for leveraging. Kub|ynep|iod they use CD8G toassist two arthree agencies ayear. Dennis noted that the applicant would have b/ know/that the percentage of the money that they're receiving through this process is either from general funds from the City orCDB/S10say what can baused aaamatch. Thu| explained that the City isn't necessarily requiring a match for public services projects for CDBG, but the HOME program does have a match requirement that's usually 25%. Ross next wanted to give a quick overview of the scoring changes recommendation all together, because they've just talked about itinquestions. At the beginning, they talked about removing that community need osascored question, and changing the services provided around City Steps. Then benefit tulow- income pernonoiothemunow' rmuio|equityand |nu|uaiviLyiuthaaarnm' ou1cnnlmnoaaourement identification is having agencies submit their past performance so the Commission will have new and better information. Persons to benefit is the same, collaboration same, agency financials and leveraging funds, the changes are in the leveraging question and putting more weight on the financials. She stated the guidance around the rubric for that is a lot clearer based on what information they actually have. For example, one of the things the Commission was asked to score on the financials was"does it seem like a reasonable use of funds and how are they paying for supplies, etc." and that's not even available in the budget so the Commission was being asked to score something that wasn't even on the application. So all that has been cleaned up. Then |nthe experience and success section, it's about historical compliance, competencies to do the work, service delivery in the past. That was one the committee wanted to recommend letting staff make their recommendation to the Commission on, again staff will have a lot of the history and understanding about what the relationship with the organization is throughout the year and such. Szecsei stated it would benefit the agencies to talk about that information as part of their story, rather than just relying on staff. She would like to hear it from the submission itself. Ross would expect tnsee that in the services question to allow them to say what's changed and the condition, Things like they are seeing a 63% increase in visits to food pantries, or that the Free Medical Clinic is not seeing aomany one-time visitors but more chronic folks with chronic illness, etc. She is unsure how they would provide this specific information without being able tutell their story. Ross noted they went back and forth, because one of the things staff has available to them is the reports and the Commission reads a lot of stuff already. Staff was firm in advocating for the Commission not having to do all that on top of what they already have to do. However, if the Commission is interested it could bemade available 1othem. Reedus feels that would take some of the subjectivity out which is the difficult part of scoring. When they don't have clear guidelines, they are putting subjectivity and some guesswork into it and that's not fair to 6 Housing and Community Development Commission April 18,2024 Page 7 of 12 anybody. She thinks overall what this does is it makes the work easier, not necessarily reducing the work, but it might reduce some time on it. It still will never be an easy task to score and to recommend funds, but the committee's recommendations will provide the Commission with some better guidelines and more concrete guidelines in scoring. Reedus noted they've had some difficulties in the past with commissioners, like in the last funding round for Legacy Agencies, getting everybody to get their scores in on time or even scoring at all.That led to the question in the very beginning of creating a smaller group of HCDC to commit to doing the work, perhaps having a couple from the Commission, along with City staff and maybe one or two representatives from City Council. They were thinking that if they had a smaller group, they could get those scores in on time. However, the Commission didn't like the idea when it was proposed so that's what led the committee down the path that they went with this whole thing. However, getting the scores in on time gives adequate feedback at the moment that the agency needs it. They need to what their score is and it's important to educate applicants and make sure that they know that they can get the feedback on how they were scored, and maybe having the opportunity to question somebody about that. Ross stated one of the last recommendations to address they consider to be an ongoing project between agencies and the Commission. They understand the Commission clearly supports the work they're doing for residents and the effort to meet the City Steps goals, so the agencies are looking for the Commission to consider the work together in meeting those goals as a partnership, and that some of these changes to the application better reflect that they are working together to do that. They did prioritize the application recommendations, because that timeline was critical, but they do feel an important part of the Commission's work is engaging and understanding everything that's happening with these services and helping them communicate those needs and what agencies are doing to address them to the community. The agencies would love to continue to work with the Commission on that piece. Finally, Ross addressed the timeline. The joint funders will convene for a discussion and alignment on some of these recommendations, depending on what the Commission thinks, and at the end of May final recommendations about is what is needed will go to United Way from all funders by August 1 in order to implement it for the September 1 application. Vogel asked about the recommendation to rename the Emerging funds to Auxiliary-are they also making a recommendation to change the purpose? The purpose is defined as operational funding intended to help new nonprofit organizations develop. By changing to Auxiliary, does that imply that they're no longer going to be putting the focus on Emerging organizations? He thought the reason that Emerging label was put on there was for people to understand that it is for new nonprofit organization development. Reedus thinks that may have been some of the thought originally, but she couldn't find anything in the rules that said an agency couldn't apply for it after two years or three years and there's no definition of what"new" is. Vogel stated that's what it actually says in the purpose. Reedus agreed but noted when they looked at the last rounds of applicants, Visiting Nurses was an Emerging applicant. Vogel asked is there going to be a recommendation as part of this, if they're changing the name, to either define what new name means or to change that wording in the purpose to help nonprofit organizations develop versus new? Reedus stated that should be discussed by HCDC at some point.They should discuss it all, the Legacy Agencies, the City Steps, naming the agencies, the whole process of how to get in that Legacy club and how agencies exit the club. Vogel's question was because they were changing the name-was the implication that they're changing this name to get away from the idea that they were going to be focusing on new agencies only, and it sounds like that's another discussion to have. If the first step is to change the name that's fine, but the work is not done, the Commission has to answer more questions. Vogel stated they also mentioned switching from quarterly reports to semiannual, right now quarterly reports are only for the Legacy Agencies so are they talking about making them do the semiannual reports the same as Emerging Agencies? Because then it doesn't cover the payments. In addition to quarterly reports, they get the money in quarterly payments. Is the recommendation to also change that? 7 Housing and Community Development Commission April 10.2V24 Page 0of12 Kubly stated staff looks at the reports before the subsequent payment and they could distribute the grants intwo payments instead offour. Vogel stated hahas come into this process never writing ogrant and never having 10request money. He came in fully from the side of just trying to figure out who deserves it and thinks all of this seems to make sense for the agency side to simplify that process. In addition, anything that makes it easier for staff and for the Commission to be able to sit down and make those decisions all makes sense. Dennis noted over the years, people have always been trying so hard to make this process more objective and more fair because there's never enough money and it is a lot of work to make it more objective so she applauds that. She added there's always going to be a little bit of subjectivity. Szecsei stated if they're not scoring the experience and success, they would be getting a number from staff, which is fine, along with the justification of any differential differences between applicants, Reedus stated it is good to have staff provide guidance on how the agencies are doing. Kubly noted they've been participating in the meetings and from their perspective, they are concerned about the timing of everything and if they can take this and start implementing in time for the application. If they are shooting for August for the application to come out, staff need to be getting ready for that funding cycle. Staff is also going through the consolidated planning process, and that will come to the Commission probably this summer sometime. That may be an opportunity to answer some of those other questions that haven't been resolved at this point as the City enter$ into the next five year plan. Kubly asked about input from the rest of the Agency Impact Coalition and if other agencies that are part of the Legacy group have provided input onthe recommendations. Ross replied yes and no.The committee did offer that check-in with AIC where they took input. She also sent the report out toeveryone but only got a couple of emails back from folks with some grammar stuff to fix or just like"looks good". She was a little alarmed that nobody answered with specific notes so she would just touch base with folks verbally and ask for their feedback. Kubly commented that another thing is the education piece that keeps coming up. That is a really important part of the Commission and for the agencies. If the Agency Impact Coalition has recommendations on how they implement that it would be great, because that's really difficult for staff to represent all ufthe agencies and educate the Commission. Pierce stated as a relatively new commissioner who went through the scoring process the first time in the last couple months, he likes a lot of the recommended changes because he was one of the people who initially voiced the hesitation of taking the scoring away from the whole Commission. He likes having something that is manageable and that would get them the information they need. It also needs to be something that somebody who just got appointed to the Commission can still digest and handle, 8winingthanked the subcommittee for their work and the presentation. UNSUCCESSFUL AND DELAYED PROJECTS UPDATES: Beining stated the City's policy requires careful management of the Community Development Block Grant funds and today they'll discuss the status of three projects, the FY22 Shelter House HVAC Improvements, the FY24 Shelter House Safety Improvements, as well as the FY23 DVIP Shelter Construction. Vogel stated he saw both the reports in the packet and asked is there any reason to be concerned that these aren't going to happen as presented, does staff have any concern?Thul explained that when projects are behind schedule staff review the circumstances and consider making a recommendation to recapture the funding ifnecessary. Staff are not recommending recapture for the projects noted. Buining noted that both organizations seem to be doing everything in their power to spend the money that they've been awarded suienot concerned. 8 Housing and Community Development Commission April 1S,2024 Page 9 of 12 DISCUSS RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE HCDC BY-LAWS AND CHANGE REGULAR MEETING TIME AND LOCATION: Beining stated this discussion is on reducing the Commission from nine to seven members which would subsequently adjust the quorum requirement from five to four. No vote will be taken until the next meeting.They'll also explore changing the time as well as location of the HCDC meeting. Vogel doesn't think it's a bad idea, there always seems like two seats that seem impossible to keep filled. Thul stated technically they do have nine people appointed right now. Reedus pointed out that when Kubly was answering question about staff concerns regarding the subcommittee work and upcoming Joint Application - it's April now and by September the applications are released. The subcommittee was supposed to present to HCDC in January but could not because there wasn't a quorum so the meeting was canceled. If they could do anything to be able to meet, she is fine with dropping it down to seven. It's nice to get a whole commission but in the three years she's been here they've, only had that once or twice. Vogel stated they absolutely have had numerous meetings where they've had trouble getting enough people here. Dennis asked if this change has to go through Council. Reedus replied it will and they may reject it. Vogel asked if they can nine members but change the quorum requirements. He stated it doesn't have to be a majority, a quorum can be any number, he has boards and associations where a quorum is 66% of the members and others where a quorum is 25% and then they just have to have a majority of the quorum present for something to pass but a quorum can be any number. Kubly doesn't believe they can do that. Beining asked where the proposed new location would be. Kubly stated they would really like to get to the Council chambers, Emma Havat Hall at City Hall, it's set up for meetings like this and they'd have screens so it won't be difficult to see the one screen. But the issue is a scheduling thing because there's another commission that meets the third Thursday of the month. Szecsei likes the number of nine, it gives more community input which is important, but she doesn't mind the date and the time and the location change. Thul stated staff also would like nine people, but it's been pretty tough to get people to come to meetings. As we said earlier, staff know that we are asking a lot of commissioners and we are looking at ways to make it easier. Reedus asked if the commission has lost more people this month. Thul responded that there was one person recently appointed that has not attended a meeting yet. Thul continued that nine people are currently appointed, but the average meeting attendance is about six people which is what we have tonight as well. Szecsei asked how many people are on the waiting list.Vogel responded that there isn't one. Thul added that City Council has deferred appointments in the past to allow for more applicants. Szecsei asked if someone participate via zoom would that count as present to have a quorum. Thul replied they have to have a quorum in person. People care participate via zoom but they don't count towards the quorum. Dennis encouraged commissioners to talk to people they know and encourage them to apply. Pierce noted they had a similar issue when serving on the Telecommunications Commission for the City. That group was only five and they had trouble reaching three of five to have a quorum. Thul agreed and commented that she does not feel it is a problem unique to HCDC. 9 Housing and Community Development Commission April 18,2024 Page 10 of 12 Szecsei asked if it was any better during COVID. Thul confirmed it was. On Zoom in 2021 was one of the last times they had all nine people attend a meeting. Commissioners appeared receptive to the idea of reducing the Commission from nine seats to seven and noted a quorum of four would be helpful given past challenges.The Commission will vote on a recommendation to amend the bylaws at the May 161h meeting. Next, discussing moving the date and time of the meeting. Tentative plans are to shift to the fourth Wednesday of the month at 6:30pm. The Commission will decide officially at the May meeting. STAFF&COMMISSION UPDATES: Thul stated the next meeting will be May 16, 2024. Turnbull introduced herself as a new member of City staff. Beining stated he had the privilege to join the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition bus tour and they were able to see a vast array of successful projects ranging all the way from Housing Fellowship Sabin Townhomes, which provides a 20-year affordability period, all the way to Inside Out Reentry home, which provides a 15-year affordability period. A couple of key takeaways he learned is the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County alone has served 1143 households since 2004 and about 540 of those have been since 2019. A statewide statistic is there are 27%of Iowa renters who are considered extremely low income of whom would benefit from the continued pursuit of affordable housing supply. He was also pleasantly surprised to see many members of the community from vast backgrounds on the bus tour. There were members from organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, Housing Trust Fund, a really vast array of people. Mayor Bruce Teague was there and Beining was greatly impressed with the extensiveness of the commitment of Mayor Teague's interest to the pursuit of affordable housing, not only in the short term development, acquisition, and support, but he seemed to have an immense care for the longevity of the affordable housing and the impact that they'll have on the community for years to come, particularly with those affordability periods. They received boatloads of information, but it was a heartwarming experience to see the level of support and to be reassured that they're not standing alone in the pursuit to increase the affordable housing accessibility as well as supply. Dennis stated she was privileged to attend the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County 50 Year Gala last Friday and just by reading these applications that they receive, it doesn't really scratch the surface of what these nonprofits are doing in this community because it was an amazing event and she learned a lot even though it seems like she's been around for a long time. Szecsei asked if there is a resource or website where say landlords or homeowners, property owners, can go to find incentives for offering affordable housing to residents. Kubly replied,yes, the City has affordable housing pages on the website. She doesn't know if it's necessarily for landlords but they have one for developers and implemented one for seekers of housing. Szecsei noted as a property owner, she'd be interested because there are not a lot of incentives available to private landlords. Vogel noted one thing that's become available recently is the risk mitigation fund, which does allow private landlords to accept someone who is at risk for not being able to be approved somewhere. It is administered through Shelter House and they have to be denied by three different property managers, or three different landlords to enroll in the program. Shelter House can use that as an incentive to get a landlord to go ahead and approve them and if within the first year they move out, or get kicked out for failure to pay or whatever. The cost involved in that move out is more than their deposit so the risk mitigation fund will cover those additional amounts up to$3,000. Vogel noted it's been in effect and he's only had one person they've been able to help because the problem is a lot of times the ones that they're seeing that do get denied, are getting denied for things that are beyond the risk that he can take even with risk mitigation-like the risk isn't whether they're going to be able to pay, the risk is they've 10 Housing and Community Development Commission April 18,2024 Page 11 of 12 got three or four evictions in the last year and he can't convince his clients that under any circumstance that's a risk he should take on their behalf. Szecsei noted it seems like supply and demand. If there's that much demand, then they should be coming up with some incentives to get landlords or property owners to increase the supply.Vogel stated that the most recent Cook Appraisal study is coming out and for the first time in history there is a 27%vacancy rate. Landlords have units available. If the City could give money to private landlords the way 501(c)3's get money, they can absolutely find houses and places for these people.Szecsei noted it's very hard for private landlords so that's why having those incentives to offset something to make it affordable for property owners is necessary. Vogel acknowledged there was absolutely a time 10-15 years ago where it was an issue of there were not units and the vacancy rate was less than 1% not many years ago. Many new beds have gone up in Iowa City and Coralville in the last seven years, all aimed at students at a time when the University of Iowa enrollment has gone down. So what's happened is the students are picking these new places and leaving a lot of older properties that were built between 1975 and 1981 empty. Szecsei would like to see more discussion on landlord incentives. Thul stated they can add that to a future meeting agenda. ADJOURNMENT: Vogel moved to adjourn, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. 11 Housing and Community Development Commission April 18,2024 Page 12 of 12 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record 2023-2024 Name Terms Exp. 1/19 2116 3/30 4120 5/18 7120 9/21 10119 11/16 3121 4118 Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X Dennis, Maryann 6/30/25 X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X Haylett, Jennifer 6/30125 X X O/E X O/E O/E Krotz, Karol 6/30/24 X O/E X X X X X X X O/E O/E Reedus, Becci 6130/24 XX X X X X X X X X X Vogel, Kyle 6/30/26 O/E X X O/E X X X O/E X X X Eckhardt, Michael 6130/25 X X X X O/E O/E Patel, Kiran 6/30/26 — O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E O/E Pierce,James 6/30126 — — — — — X X X X O/E X Szecsei, Denise 6130125 — — -- — _ X X X Bergen, Horacio 6/30/25 • Resigned from Commission KeY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Vacant 12 Item Number: 4.e. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2024 Human Rights Commission: April 23 Attachments: Human Rights Commission: April 23 Approved Minutes Human Rights Commission April 23, 2024 Emma Harvat Hall Commissioners present: Roger Lusala,Jahnavi Pandya, Doug Kollasch, Idriss Abdullahi, Mark Pries,Vianna Qaduora. Commissioners present via Zoom: Elizabeth Mendez-Shannon, Kelsey Paul Shantz. Commissioners absent:Sylvia Jons. Staff present:Stefanie Bowers. Recommendation to City Council: No. Meeting called to order:5:31 PM. Native American Land Acknowledgement: Pries read the Land Acknowledgement. Public comment of items not on the agenda: None. Approval of meeting minutes of March 4 and 26: Lusala moved; and Pries seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Pries moved; Pandya seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Updates on Outreach and Engagement by the Police Department:Tre Hall Community Outreach for the department provided updates on the group meeting with Georgian citizens on the topic of LGBTQ+ communities. Hall also gave an update on the peanut butter drive.The upcoming EMS Day camp was discussed and will take place on July 8-9 and July 11-12. Hall attended Community Intervention Training, which all police officers are required to attend and reported it was beneficial information/training.There was an update on working with the elderly population with a focus on scam prevention.There was a Community Violence Intervention (CVI)activity making door hangers with efforts to reduce gun violence.The final update was to do with the Disability Health and Safety event at the Rec Center that raised awareness of the loss program and project lifesaver that is offered by the department. Support for a Community Transportation Committee: Commission is waiting to hear from the committee. The committee is not present at this meeting. Funding request:Coralville Asian Festival:There was a discussion considering the fact that the event is based in Coralville,which may raise some concern that the commission is using money for Iowa City based events and groups for something taking place outside of Iowa City.The commissioners then considered the fact that Iowa City residents are likely to participate, and the commission has funded previous events that took place in Coralville. Commissioner Pries moved, Lusala seconded. Motion passed 7-0 to fund the event at$250.00. 1 Youth Awards:The event will take place on Wednesday, May 15. Commissioners should be there no later than 6:00pm as the dinner will start promptly at 6:30pm with the awards portion of the event starting at 7:00pm. Mayor Teague will deliver brief remarks at the event. Racial Equity and Social Justice Grant Updates:The Commission discussed the letter from DVIP that provided an explanation for the reduction in their request for funds.Staff informed the commission that DVIP received their funds due to a quick turn around from when their request was accepted to the event they were looking to fund using the grant money received. Houses into homes also had a letter that discussed the formatting of their youth volunteer academy which the Commission has funded in the FY23 grant cycle. Community Crisis Services and Food Bank provided a report to the commission regarding the grant they received in the FY23 grant cycle. The Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County also provided a report that staff will include in the May packet. Not all organization have submitted their required second quarter reports regarding the FY23 grants. The Council recently decided the FY24 grant allocations.At the meeting,there were concerns with organizations not funded.Also, at this Council meeting, Council members took issue with the process, disagreeing with the organization picked for funding.The Council will hold a work session in the future that will review the processes used by the commission, HCDC,and Climate Action. Commissioner Pries suggested keeping in contact with organizations who did not receive funding in FY24 so the commission can support them in other ways, such as marketing, attending events, etc.The commissioners discussed Pries suggestion, considering the intention behind reaching out and being sure not to make offers the commission could not fulfill. It was agreed to revisit the proposal at a later meeting in order to give time for more information/suggestions that will allow the commissioners to come to a final decision. Committee Updates: Building Bridges (Paul Shantz, Kollasch, Pandya)The committee will work with City Council moving forward with future grants. Reciprocal Relationships(Lusala, Pries)They will be finalizing how to reach out to organizations who did not receive a grant and what the commission's role is with those organizations. Breaking Bread (Dr. Liz.Caduora) Commissioner Mendez-Shannon reported it is the goal to figure out how to reach out to people/organizations who did not receive a grant. 2 Announcements of Commissioners: Paul Shantz reminded the commission of upcoming activities throughout the summer regarding sustainability and violence reduction goals that the community and city may benefit from. Pries spoke on his involvement in a training called "Why Are They So Loud" that had to do with conflicts in cultural context. Pries also spoke about his concern with Christian Nationalism in America. aduora updated the commission on the events held by the Mosque including `Breaking of the Fast"that occurred throughout the community and resulted in positive impact and feedback from those who participated. She also reported that the Mosque received AED kit and CPR training. Qaduora finished her comments by speaking about the April 12`h holiday event at Mercer Park with a turnout of 600+people and the Coralville Food Pantry meal event with a turnout of 570+people attending. Pandya updated the commission on the free daily psychotherapy training clinic with student involvement. Abdullahi updated the commission on his work creating a company that creates engaging content regarding recycling due to the lack of education and accessibility to recycling efforts. Kollasch reported on his attendance of the 501h anniversary gala for the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County, meeting with delegates from the country of Georgia regarding LGBTQ+rights, and the upcoming Rainbow Graduation at the University of Iowa. Announcements of staff: None. Adjourned: 6:54 PM. The meeting can be viewed at httos:Hcitychannel4.com/yideo.html?series=Local%2OGovernment. 3 / § Ko § u ( § @ x 4 x x x x x w w � \ D x 4 x x < x x x e @ a x x xx x x x = ƒ § \ \ 77 \ * aw ] « ■ e ( ± Item Number: 4.f. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2024 Library Board of Trustees: April 25 Attachments: Library Board of Trustees: April 25 ICWA CITY OWPUBLIC LIBRARY Iowa City Public Library Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes April 25, 2024 1st Floor— Meeting Room D Regular Meeting - 5:00 PM FINAL Tom Rocklin - President Joseph Massa John Raeburn DJ Johnk—Vice President Claire Matthews Dan Stevenson Hannah Shultz-Secretary Robin Paetzold Members Present: DJ Johnk, Joseph Massa, Robin Paetzold, John Raeburn, Tom Rocklin, Hannah Shultz. Members Absent: Claire Matthews, Dan Stevenson. Staff Present: Anne Mangano, Angie Pilkington, Katie Roche, Jen Royer. Guests Present: None. Call Meeting to Order. Rocklin called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Approval of April 25, 2024 Board Meeting Agenda. Johnk made a motion to approve the April 25, 2024 Board Meeting Agenda. Rocklin seconded. Motion passed 6/0. Public Discussion. None. Helmick entered 5:00 pm. Items to be Discussed. Policy Review: 805 Displays. Rocklin asked if passive discussion meant that people could write in responses. Helmick agreed. Raeburn asked if Trustees were wedded to the term passive discussion. Helmick clarified they were open to what made sense to the public. Raeburn suggested examination of the public. Rocklin felt the term wasn't easy to research and suggested using interactive displays as it could take many forms. Paulios entered 5:02 pm. Rocklin proposed, "...to engage the public through interactive displays relevant to society". Helmick agreed and thanked Rocklin. Paetzold asked for the proposed language to be repeated and Mangano replied. Johnk made a motion to approve Policy 805 as revised. Shultz seconded. Motion passed 6/0. t f you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting,please contact Jen Royer,Iowa City Public Library,at 319-887-6003 or Jennifer-royer@icpl.ora- Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. -A. &4 IOWA CITY PjW PUBLIC I IBRARY Policy Review: 706 Outreach and Bookmobile. Raeburn proposed eliminating "strategic partnerships" from the policy. Helmick appreciated and thanked Raeburn. Raeburn made a motion to approve policy 706 as revised. Johnk seconded. Motion passed 6/0. Election of Officers. Raeburn, representing the nominating committee, presented a slate of officers for FY25: President-Tom Rocklin, Vice President-DJ Johnk, Secretary- Hannah Shultz. Raeburn said overwhelmingly the current officers were requested to continue in their positions for one more year. Massa made a motion to approve the FY25 slate of officers.Johnk seconded. Motion passed 6/0. Review Third Quarter Statistics and Financials. Mangano said an internal document was accidentally included in the statistics portion of the packet. Mangano noted paper copies of the Type and Format report, which normally goes in the Board packet, was handed out at the meeting. Mangano shared the Circulation by Location Code report provided in the packet was very detailed and noted the Type and Format report shows a more holistic view of the statistics. Johnk asked if the library needed to do anything to budget for bookmobile repair and maintenance, noting overages. Mangano said the overages were chargebacks from the City of Iowa City. Mangano shared there have been a few unexpected expenses and noted the bookmobile is now 5 years old with normal wear and tear. Shultz asked how long bookmobiles usually last. Helmick said the industry standard suggests 12-15 years, Mangano said there is a replacement vehicle fund to cover a new vehicle when the time comes. Raeburn asked how many miles per year the bookmobile drives. Helmick said it is fairly low and estimated 250 miles per year. Helmick requested to confirm the exact mileage per year and report back. Pilkington said the bookmobile was seven years old. Paetzold said the COVID-1 9 years were weird in terms of bookmobile mileage. Raeburn asked if you needed a special license to drive the bookmobile. Helmick said not anymore. Rocklin said the formatting of the financial report was great. Raeburn said the Finance Committee met. Massa noted the committee didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Raeburn said the overages were thoroughly explained and things are in good shape. Rocklin asked if the Finance Committee meetings should be listed in the monthly agendas. Pilkington said the bookmobile currently has 30,781 miles on it. Helmick said the bookmobile is somewhere in the ballpark of 4,400 miles per year. Rocklin suspected the bookmobile will likely be outdated before it is worn out. Raeburn asked who made the bookmobile. Helmick said there are a few companies who manufacture bookmobiles and new orders typically take 18 months. Helmick said Summit is the largest of three bookmobile manufacturers right now. Pilkington said Summit made the Iowa City Public Library's bookmobile. Mangano shared she attended PLA conference and went to an Urban Library Council collection development summit. The group talked about developing world language collections, how to pay for digital materials and keep a robust print collection, and when to get rid of AV collections. Mangano said what was interesting to her, that though we are down in print circulation, some of the larger libraries such as San Francisco, New York, and Brooklyn Public Libraries are seeing drastic reduction in use of print materials. Mangano noted this was probably because of the way people are working now, with less people going downtown in cities. Mangano noted the Iowa City Public Library is not seeing those trends in the same way that some of the larger libraries are. Paetzold asked if there was a baseline and noted if you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting,please contactJen Royer,Iowa City Public Library,at 379-887-6003 or iennitgr-Mveraicylorg- Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. IOWA CITY oj'WPUBLIC LIBRARY that COVID -19 may have affected this. Mangano said libraries were comparing data from the COVID-19 period and noted ICPL has seen circulation bounce back. Mangano said the larger libraries are now working on a strategic plan that involves bringing people back into the building. Johnk liked the statistical reports. Mangano noted magazine circulation is up. Staff Reports. Director's Report. Mangano said Bonnie Boothroy will be oriented before the next Board meeting. Departmental Reports: Children's Services. Mangano said during the solar eclipse it was wonderful to stand in the Ped Mall and see droves of people all wearing the same exact solar glasses that they got from the library. Paulios said the library eventually ran out of solar glasses. Pilkington said 1,000 glasses were handed out before the day of the eclipse and an additional 1,000 glasses were handed out the day of the eclipse. Collection Services. None. IT. Johnk was excited about the scavenger hunt. Rocklin said media transfer is important and a heavily used service. Development Report. Roche noted book donations were coming in for the June book sale. Roche discussed a new partnership with the Landfill. Roche said the Landfill was previously recycling books. The Foundation will begin to take the books from the Landfill and send them to Thrift Books which will help divert waste and save money for the Landfill. Roche anticipates a passive income of $9,000-$12,000 per year from this partnership. Roche got this idea after attending the City's Climate Ambassador training. Miscellaneous: News Articles. None. President's Report. President Appoints to Foundation Board. Rocklin requested to move this item to the May agenda. Rocklin shared he accepted an appointment to the United Way Board of Directors. Announcements from Members. None. Committee Reports. None. Communications. None. Consent Agenda. Johnk made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Raeburn seconded. Motion passed 6/0. Set Agenda Order for May Meeting. Rocklin said at the May meeting Trustees will review the Event Board policy, Community Relations policy, appoint members to the Foundation, and review departmental reports. Adjournment. Rocklin adjourned the meeting at 5:29 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jen Royer Ifyou will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting,please contact len Royer,Iowa City Public Library,of 379-887-6003 oriennifer-rover(olicoLorcL Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. a x r x x x x R D x O X F X X X C O X O % x XOgX O % 0 O X F X X X X O O tW- 1-1 O % O O % N O O s x � X XkXO � % 0 % 0 Dx _ 000 � s00000 � � G 0 a Q w Z C I- O � a w o = Item Number: 4.g. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 4, 2024 Senior Center Commission: April 18 Attachments: Senior Center Commission: April 18 Approved Minutes April 18, 2024 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION April 18, 2024 Assembly Room, Iowa City Senior Center Members Present: Nancy Ostrognai, Angela McConville, Jay Gilchrist, Warren Paris, Betty Rosse Members Absent: Tasha Lard, Lee McKnight Staff Present: Kristin Kromray, LaTasha DeLoach Others Present: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Gilchrist at 4:05 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 21, 2024 MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the March 21, 2024. Motion carried on a vote of 4/0. Paris/Ostrognai PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: McConville joined the meeting. The May/June program guide is now available. The Senior Center, along with Johnson County Livable Communities and TRAIL will receive a proclamation for Older Americans Month on May 7th. Commissioners are invited to attend. The Senior Center will have a one-day Underground Railroad Trip on June 8th. Some of the funds generated from the Black History Ball will be used to help support the cost of the trip. Ostrognai asked about the accessibility of the trip. DeLoach noted the transportation would be assessable, but she would check in at the museum stop and lunch location to confirm accessibility. There will be a 1 Approved Minutes April 18, 2024 Soul Train Dance on July 20th. The Senior Center will close at 3 PM on Tuesday, April 23 for the Appreciation Event that will be held at Terry Trueblood Lodge. The exterior tuckpointing project will be finishing up the end of May. Window replacement will occur next year as the windows will need to be specially fabricated for the building. Landscaping will occur after the windows are installed. Staff is looking at updating the Linn St sign and the Washington St awning. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Gilchrist brought up the items from the Owner Goals in the building master plan document. He discussed section 7 of the document and brought forward some of the items that are highlighted. Commissioners discussed what a kitchen remodel could entail. Gilchrist went to the open house for the 21 S Linn St feedback session. He shared how feedback was collected and noted his personal preference. He stated he understands the piece of property is expensive and will likely need to be a revenue-producing location. Rosse had received feedback that some people did not know who was on the commission. Discussion about putting the names and/or photos of commissioners on the bulletin board. Rosse noted that many from Ecumenical Towers are generally not interested in Senior Center activities. The Commission discussed ways to potentially get more next-door residents interested in the Senior Center. Gilchrist requested that programming staff members occasionally attend commission meetings. Meeting Adjourned. 2 CN ~ \ 2 = e / < ^ a c a a a s 2 E < & / g , 2 \ � ^ / § f a / � a ] ) \ a a a a a a a B ° ° \ u Q ) § ] a § 0 \ w c a a a ± a \ / \ } \ cq cq cq cq cq c \ /\ � ) 'n z e ƒ 2 ƒ c