HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-2010 Housing & Community Development Commission
AGENDA
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, MEETING ROOM A
123 S. LINN STREET, IOWA CITY
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2010
6:00 P.M.
1. Call Meeting to Order
2. Approval of the January 28, 2010 Minutes
3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda
4. Staff/Commission Comment
5. Discuss and Review the Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects Policy
6. Discussion Regarding Applications for FY11 Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
Funding - Question/Answer Session
7. Adjourn
1 ~ 1
--= -~...
~~W!:~
~ _...~
....:
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
February 9, 2010
From:
Housing and Community Development Commission
Tracy Hightshoe, Associate Planner
February 16 HCDC Meeting
Re:
The February 16 meeting will be held at the Iowa City Public Library in Meeting Room A and
it will be structured around the Question/Answer session with the applicants for FY11
CDBG/HOME funds. The meeting will begin at 6:00 PM. A copy of the schedule for the
evening and the staff reports for each application are enclosed. The public service and public
facility applicants are allowed five minutes and the housing applicants are allowed ten minutes
to respond to questions.
The public facility application for Chabad Lubavitch of Iowa City did not qualify as a public
facility. The programming offered by Chabad Lubavitch is located in the parsonage (main
apartment) allocated to the Rabbi as parsonage for his duties.
The staff report includes concerns or issues that staff has regarding the proposed project. Staff
advised applicants not to submit written materials in response to staff concerns. If Commission
members have the same concern or any other concern, please ask the applicant during their
session. HCDC may ask applicants to submit additional information. If so, all received
information will be collected and staff will mail all HCDC members the materials after the
meeting to ensure all commission members have the same information. Please review the
applications and staff reports.
If staff had any concerns about the capacity of an organization or administration of a previous
project during the past five years, it is included in the report. The Financial Terms for
CDBG\HOME Applicants from the FY11 Applicant Guide is included in the packet. It clarifies
Council's policy on financing terms for CDBG/HOME assisted projects. The FY07 Location
Map identifying areas encouraged for affordable housing opportunities is also enclosed. As the
map does not apply to TBRA, CHDO Expenses and owner-occupied housing, staff either
entered Yes, No, Not Applicable or To Be Determined if a site location wasn't identified. The
maximum total points for housing is 95. We will discuss the map and site location for rental
projects at the March 11 meeting.
Staff will email the ranking sheets and proposed allocation form (excel format) to HCDC
members. The forms are due back to staff on Friday, February 26. If you prefer to have hard
copies of the forms, please contact staff. The forms can be delivered, faxed or emailed to my
attention. HCDC will meet March 11 & 25 to review the groupings and to make funding
recommendations. These meetings will be held at City Hall in Emma Harvat Hall.
Also included on the agenda is consideration of the revised Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects
Policy. Please review the enclosed policy.
If you have any questions about these items or will be unable to attend, please contact me at
356-5244 or by email at tracv-hiqhtshoe@iowa-citv.orq. See you the 16th!
I
I
I
/
"
~-iil~" ~~
~!L.;r D
L J1 ~f / , fr,i::'
\ ~\ [;"- ~ J ,~'
~~~~ :;~_::;, L I
~~ .,~~ ~\''5' ~ ~,
0." ~ ~~~" ,;.,"(' "', ~ ~ ~ e ~ - i"l
"- ~~ 10."-~"",,,,,, " ''-'-'" \A ~
\.: ,'~ <.>< ....\ V~/ ~ ~
~~;'." ~~ f=:} r* ~IJ\I Jfrrf 1 f< -
~, ,,,8: ~ ,$<~ '''-'' - i ~ . '"".. tJ n
~~ ,'(" ~ ~~~\~~" Sf L:. ~ . ...j- 11
""-,, s~, '" 1 ., Hi..
,"-.."-.., ~,~ ""-..~~ ); C ~I
~. '0 ~ '\~,,, ~ ~ ""'" ~ ~ IK'- .....
0: ~ ~'\~ ~ ~"'''+ l ) L-", ~
:::: ~" S' 0', -f1+'i: ~ ~
"'0~ ,,~ _~ .....,~ I~
\L- ~~~~" ,~- Ti'L er-'
~~,,~,~ ,n ~ J '-=-~~, M
01~~ ,,,", '''', ''''I ~
S8,~" '<<'~ ~ ~ T' \ '" ~ '-= ,-0."-" ~,"-~
,,~ ,'I' ~ ,,-, . I '" ~':o<' ~~~~~~ 4J
W v,,'" " , "" ''''''''' ." """
'~'\i., ~~ ~ .,,,,,,,, L~
p~,,,~,,< ~~~~~
~ ~~"" ~:::0 ~, ,~~ ~ t I
. ~~"~~,, '~",',
~ ~~'" ~~,
~ ~~""""" ~ ~ ~
.A. , I ~~:S! p~"
- -- e ^-.I I j~""~~ ~/'
~,~J""!..1~ if Lk l
/ r
,/
~ r(?\ I
('I ~ -'51
~ ;Q ~ e ~ '~
(W) ~ L, 7 ~. .r-;:;:.. ~
'v / \
L
-
c=
l
""'"
III
~
It
='
-
::::: III
Q.g -:5!
"' :::s It) :g 5
~ 0 Q ~t:o
Co Q ....
c:: C'l:g a:
.S! ~~.. ~ ~
.......- ,.. .e r:::
"'0 t 1J'~
U I .Q 11::0
o ~ e :;::.c:
-J.... CD ~ .!!
.......0- ~ ~-g
Q ~:3~
~; ~~
J2
~
EXHIBIT A
CDBG AND HOME PROGRAM INVESTMENT POLICIES
Economic Development
Economic development projects making application to the CDBG Economic Development Fund
will be reviewed by the Council Economic Development Committee. The Council Economic
Development Committee will make a recommendation to the City Council for each project
proposed for funding. Said recommendation shall include the amount of CDBG assistance to be
allocated and the terms of investment.
Typically, for-profit business projects will receive low-interest loans; whereas, non-profits may be
recommended for forgivable loans or grants. Decisions regarding investment terms for economic
development projects will be made based on the nature of the project including, but not limited to,
the risk, potential for growth, the number of and quality of jobs created for low-moderate income
persons, the ability to repay a loan and the amount of other funding leveraged.
Housing
Rental Housing. Except as noted below, the interest rate for rental housing activities will be zero
percent (0%) for non-profit owned projects and prime rate (determined at the time the
CDBG\HOME agreement is executed by the City) minus two points for for-profit owned projects
with an amortization period up to thirty (30) years or the period of affordability, whichever is less.
Homeownership. Except as noted below, assistance to homeownership projects will have three
repayment options as shown herein. 1. A 20-year loan that must be paid in full when the low-
moderate income homeowner sells, transfers title, moves or rents the property or the 20-year
term expires, whichever occurs first. No interest will accrue and no payments will be required to
be made by the property owner prior to payoff. 2. The homeowner has the option to make monthly
payments to the City or its designee in a form not to exceed a 30-year, zero percent (0%)
amortized loan, a 30 year amortized loan must start at the time the assistance is provided. 3. If
CDBG\HOME assistance is provided to a certified non-profit organization, for a Community Land
Trust project, the CDBG\HOME funds will be in the form of a grant.
Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA). All HOME funds provided for TBRA will be in the form
of a grant.
Exceptions. The City may grant a different interest rate and/or a different repayment option based
on the nature of the project including, but not limited to, the revenue generated, the ability to repay
a loan, the type of housing provided, the beneficiaries, the amount of other funding leveraged and
the location of the site.
Public Facilities
The City of Iowa City, as the recipient of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds,
utilizes these funds for "public facilities" projects as defined in 24 CFR 570.201 (c) that are
completed by the City and\or subrecipents. The following policy applies to CDBG assistance
provided to non-governmental subrecipients ("governmental" includes only jurisdictions with
taxing authority as provided for in Iowa Code).
Projects that receive an allocation by the City of Iowa City will receive an earned grant, as defined
herein, which will be secured by a mortgage or other comparable security instrument. The
compliance term of the earned grant will be determined by the formula also provided herein. At
the end of the applicable compliance term the lien or other security instrument will be released by
the City. If the real property is leased, the lease shall be for a period that matches or exceeds the
compliance term of the earned grant.
. Earned Grant: A lien against the real property being assisted, or other comparable
security, which is repaid only upon transfer of title, rental of the property, or termination of
services or occupancy as outlined in the applicable CDBG Agreement. If the subrecipient
fully satisfies the terms outlined in the applicable CDBG Agreement the mortgage against
the property, or other security instrument, will be released by the City following the
completion of the compliance period that begins on the date of execution of the mortgage
or security instrument.
. Earned Grant Formula: The total amount of CDBG assistance allocated to a
subrecipient in anyone City fiscal year for a "public facility" project divided by $3,000
equals the number of CDBG compliance years for the Earned Grant. (For example:
$17,000 in CDBG assistance divided by $3,000 would equal a compliance term of 5.67
years or 68 months). If the Earned Grant Formula results in a compliance term of less than
one year (12 months) the minimum compliance term shall be one year (12 months) and if
the Earned Grant Formula results in a compliance term of more than ninety-nine (99)
years the maximum compliance term shall be ninety-nine (99) years.
Public Service
Public Service projects as defined in 24 CFR 570.201 (e) shall receive CDBG assistance in the
form of a grant with a term of not less than one year.
Wpd/ppdcdbg/proinvestpolicies 1 0106
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JAN UARY 28, 2010 - 6:30 PM
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Chappell, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Michael
McKay, Rebecca McMurray, Brian Richman
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Charlie Drum, Andy Douglas, Rachel Zimmermann Smith
STAFF PRESENT:
Tracy Hightshoe
OTHERS PRESENT:
Libris Fidelis, Maryann Dennis
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council
action):
1) The Commission chose to make no recommendation to Council on the requested
site location change for the FY10 project proposed by The Housing Fellowship.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Brian Richman at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 3. 2009 MEETING MINUTES:
Gatlin motioned to approve the minutes. Murray seconded.
The minutes were approved 5-0 (Zimmermann Smith, Drum and Douglas absent; Hart not
present at time of vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
Hightshoe stated that HCDC applications were due on January 26, 2010, and that copies of the
applications, as well as a copy of the completed CITY STEPS document that will guide funding
decisions, have been distributed to Commissioners. Hightshoe noted that more documents and
packets will be forthcoming for the funding process. Hightshoe said that she and Steve Long
would be working on the staff reports for the applications and that they would e-mail those to the
Commissioners. Hightshoe said they would also contact Commissioners about potential dates
for site visits. Hightshoe noted that in the past Commissioners have not visited public service
projects in an effort to preserve the confidentiality of clients. Hightshoe noted that generally
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28,2010
PAGE 2 of 14
they do not have a quorum at site visits, but that if they do staff will simply take minutes.
McMurray requested that one of the days for site visits be either a Tuesday or a Thursday.
Richman asked if there had been any significant changes to the CITY STEPS plan other than
those discussed in their previous meeting on the subject. Hightshoe said that the City Council
had approved the plan with HCDC's recommendations, so no significant changes had been
made.
REVIEW OF THE FY11 ALLOCATION PROCESS AND PRO FORMA:
Proforma: Hightshoe said that each year the long term viability of rental housing projects are
evaluated. Hightshoe explained that when the Commission receives applications for rental
properties, they ask for a pro forma, which requires the developer to sit down and evaluate the
revenue they will generate from rent against expenses and debt over the next 20 years (new
rental construction projects have a required 20-year affordability period). Hightshoe said that
the debt coverage ratio (ratio of income over expenses) and equity/return on the investment, are
examined in an effort to compare different rental housing projects that are applying for funding.
The reasonability of expenses and vacancy rates are evaluated, as are the level of reserves and
maintenance costs. Hightshoe said that the staff reports will outline staff's evaluations of the
projects based on these and other criteria. She said that the Bankability Guide included in the
packet offers a general rule of thumb by which to measure the feasibility of projects. She said
the goal is to achieve a balance so that businesses are not running at extreme profit, but are
profitable enough to remain viable for the next 20 years.
Richman noted that if there are any applications for projects involving tax-credit financing, it
might be helpful for staff to briefly explain that process for Commission members as it is fairly
complex. It was determined that there likely are no such projects among the FY11 applications
as The Housing Fellowship (THF) is not applying for one.
Allocation process: Richman briefly outlined the typical application process. He explained that
after applications come in, Hightshoe and Long will prepare staff reports for the projects. After
that, the Commission will do some site visits. There will then be a series of meetings; the first
meeting, on February 16th, will be essentially a question and answer session with the applicants,
in which applicants will be given five or ten minutes and the Commissioners will be able to ask
questions about the project; after that, the Commissioners will complete ranking sheets for each
of the projects and individually come up with preliminary recommended allocations for each of
the projects; the March 11 th meeting will be to discuss project-by-project the individual
recommendations; after considering the input of others, the Commissioners will re-work their
allocations and spend the final meeting, on March 25th, coming up with final allocation
recommendations. McMurray said that the sooner the Commissioners can get the ranking
sheets the better. Hightshoe said she could certainly provide a blank ranking sheet soon. She
noted that applicants had been informed in workshops that some of the priorities had changed
with the new CITY STEPS, and that applications should reflect those changes.
Richman asked when Commissioners could anticipate getting the staff reports. Hightshoe said
she would estimate that the Commission should have them the week before the meeting.
Richman said it would be good if Commissioners could have them no later than February 9th,
and even sooner would be better. Hightshoe said she did not know if she could provide them
prior to the site tours.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 3 of 14
Hart said she did not receive the calendar/timeline. Hightshoe noted it was in the general
packet & provided her with a copy. Hightshoe noted that the February 16th meeting would be
held at the public library in Meeting Room A. The March 11 and 25 meetings will be held in
Emma Harvat Hall at City Hall.
Hightshoe explained that once the process was completed, the Commission would send its
funding recommendation to City Council for consideration. Staff will formulate an Annual Action
Plan that outlines how funds will be spent for the upcoming year. There will then be a 30-day
public comment period, after which the City Council will meet and review. The City Council can
accept the Commission's recommendations as-is or can change them. The Council will send
their recommendations to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Approved projects may begin July 1st (dependent on an agreement with the City and the
environmental review completed)
REVIEW SITE LOCATION FOR FY10 THE HOUSING FELLOWSHIP PROJECT
Richman noted that this agenda item had just been added in the last couple of days. Hightshoe
stated that in 2007 it was the consensus of the City Council that rental housing projects not
identified in areas encouraged for additional affordable housing opportunities (FY07 Location
Map) be submitted to Council for site location approval. Hightshoe noted that this guidance is
not a formal Council resolution. Staff includes this guidance in the applicant guide to alert rental
housing providers that site location must be reviewed by Council if not in the identified areas.
Hightshoe explained that THF has made a purchase offer on such a site. She said that the
City's Legal Department has advised that the item should be added to HCDC's agenda for this
meeting so that the Commission could either make a recommendation for approval or denial, or
refer back to Council without a recommendation. She said staff did not want to rush it through
HCDC; it was simply that the next meeting was not until March. The item, regardless of the
Commission's recommendation must go through Council.
Richman explained that this involved funding that had been approved last year. Richman said
that his understanding is that the Commission basically has two choices: 1) forward it to the City
Council with a recommendation to approve or not approve the project, or 2) forward it to the City
Council with no recommendation at all. Richman said he is happy to kick off the discussion by
saying that his feeling is that it should be forwarded without any recommendation. He said that
he feels that an item that comes before the Commission this late, without Commission members
having the opportunity to review it and study it, is not one that he can really have an informed
recommendation about it. Richman said that for him another issue is that the 2007 guideline
was never formalized into a policy; he said that, in his opinion, it should be. Richman said that
policies are usually established by the City Council, or Commissions are directed to help
formulate policies, but that establishing policies on an ad hoc basis as applicants come forward
with a project does not really make sense to him. He said that to his mind there is a need for a
policy here, but that this is not the appropriate situation for the Commission to be establishing
policy. He said he was, of course, happy to hear what everybody else has to say.
Gatlin asked how much time Council would have to look over the application before a decision
needs to be made. Hightshoe said that Council will receive the minutes of this meeting and
then it will be placed on a work session.
McMurray asked for clarification on the location of the project. Hightshoe said the site is at 2500
Muscatine, in census tract 14. Hart explained that it was across the street from the Towncrest
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28,2010
PAGE 4 of 14
area. Hightshoe said it was across the street from CVS Pharmacy. The cemetery is to the east
of the site and an apartment building is to the west.
McMurray asked if there were options in the area designated as under-served for low-income
housing. Hightshoe said that the map reflected the policy recommendations at the time by a
task force, however it is not ideal. For example the airport and the surrounding industrial zone
in census tract 104 is considered an under-served area on this map; however most or all of it is
not zoned for residential use. Census tract 1, block group 1 (just south of 1-80) is also identified
as under-served, however land prices are expensive with few lots available for sale. Hightshoe
said that scattered site, City assisted housing will be on an upcoming Council work session;
however that does not mean the issue will be resolved in the near future. For projects
previously approved developers will need to proceed to ensure they meet HOME's commitment
and expenditure requirements with acceptable sites. Sites will continue to be submitted to
Council until a policy is formalized. Hightshoe said it is not an easy decision and she is sure
there will be a lot of debate.
Chappell said that whether it is a guideline or a policy may be a matter of semantics, but the fact
of the matter is that the Council has indicated that they think enough of this map that if a
developer's site does not comply with the map they want to weigh in on it. Chappell asked what
has happened previously.
Hightshoe stated since 2007 there have been sites in areas not encouraged for additional
affordable housing opportunities identified on the map sent back for Council review. Habitat for
Humanity requested sites in Census Tract 18. Council approved the sites and amended the
guidance to not include owner-occupied housing. Later The Housing Fellowship (THF)
requested 16 affordable rental units in Census Tract 18 (Mount Prospect Addition). Hightshoe
stated best to her memory; HCDC did not forward a recommendation on this project to Council.
City Council approved the site after review at a work session. .
Chappell asked if the Commission had simply not been asked, or if the Commission had
explicitly not made a recommendation. Hightshoe stated she couldn't recall without looking
back through the minutes. Maryann Dennis of THF said that the Commission had not been
asked to review the previous application. Dennis said that what had happened this time was
that an Assistant City Attorney had advised that HCDC should review the matter. Chappell said
that much was clear from the e-mail.
Chappell said that he did not yet have an opinion as to whether a recommendation should be
made but that he would certainly be willing to listen to any presentation the applicant might wish
to make and have his questions answered in order to make a better informed decision.
Richman invited The Housing Fellowship to speak. Maryann Dennis, Executive Director of THF,
said that THF had applied for HOME funds to build affordable rental housing in Iowa City.
Dennis said that the City Council passed the budget with HCDC's recommendation that THF be
allocated $220,000 in order to purchase land in Iowa City. Dennis noted that THF had been in
business for 20 years, and that typically, once allocated funding, they go out and look for sites.
Dennis said THF has a process whereby the site is analyzed in terms of price, what can be built
there, and location. Dennis explained that THF mainly provides rental housing for families, and
does not own anyone-bedroom units. Dennis said they find this site to be very suitable for
family housing because of its proximity to many community services. She said that most of the
available land in the city is not within their price range.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 5 of 14
Hightshoe asked if it was correct that this was part of a low-income tax-credit project. Dennis
said that this particular site was going to be wrapped into a low-income housing tax credit
application, and would be combined with another THF site in North Liberty. Dennis said that
one important criteria of a low-income tax credit project is that the per-unit cost cap is set in
stone, and includes the land and the construction. Dennis said that the underwriting criteria for
their pro forma was very detailed, and that points are awarded for the units being close to
certain kinds of services such as schools, grocery stores, health care services, pharmacies,
banking, and public transportation. Dennis said the 2500 Muscatine location is an attractive one
as it meets the IFA location criteria, and is right across the street of the boundary for under-
served areas based on the 2007 map.
McMurray said this sounded like a good location to her and asked if the site would be lost if it
was not approved. Hightshoe said that if Council did not approve it, CDBG/HOME funds could
not be used. McMurray said she would hate to see THF lose the property. Chappell asked if
THF was tearing down the building. Dennis said that the seller is tearing down the building and
THF will buy vacant land. Chappell asked if that was part of THF's purchase agreement, and
Dennis said it is. Hightshoe asked if it was correct that THF intended to build six townhomes,
and Dennis said that was their hope. Hightshoe said it might be five units. Richman said
Dennis did not sound entirely optimistic about six units. Dennis said that they would like to
place six dwelling units on the land, but that they will have to work with planning staff and their
architect. Chappell asked if the area would have to be rezoned and Dennis said it would not.
Richman asked if the purchase price included the costs of demolition. Dennis reiterated that the
seller was paying for the demolition. Hightshoe said that THF would also have to go through
state historic preservation and do an environmental review before they can proceed with the
purchase.
Chappell asked if THF kept the under-served areas map in mind when looking for property, or if
they just happened to find a property they liked that was located where it happened to be
located. Dennis said THF does look at that as a factor, but that they also have to look at what
land is available and the applicable zoning. She noted again that THF has been doing this for
20 years, and that they are governed by a Board of Trustees, written guidelines on how to select
sites, and a Housing Advisory Committee. She said that it basically comes down to what is
available that they believe they can develop, place into service, and keep affordable, while
meeting all of the other requirements of all of their funding sources. She said there will probably
be between five and seven different sources of financing that comes into this project. Hightshoe
said she believed that all of the local affordable housing providers are aware of the map and try
to work with it. She said it is somewhat easier for affordable housing providers who are
acquiring an existing home or condominium to follow the map than it is for providers who are
looking for appropriately zoned vacant land upon which to do new construction. Vacant land is
usually located at the edges of town, which mayor may not be close to services such as
grocery stores, public transportation, banks, schools, etc. She said that what type of projects
the Council funds is a policy issue.
Richman asked Hightshoe if she recalled whether or not City Council had ever denied an
application based on the under-served area map. Hightshoe said that Council did not support a
project in Census Tract 18 for Anchor Housing in the Saddlebrook development. She said that a
developer called Anchor Housing proposed a 50 rental unit development at Saddlebrook.
HCDC denied funding and the developer requested financial assistance through City Council.
City Council denied the request.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 6 of 14
Dennis said that providing affordable rental housing is THF's primary purpose. She said that
they currently own 116 rental units in Iowa City and Coralville. Those 116 rental units are
located in 11 of the 13 elementary school districts. Dennis said that since its inception THF has
been committed to scattered site affordable rental housing. She said they would love to have
affordable rental housing in the Lincoln School area. She said they have it in the Horn area, but
not in the Lincoln area. She said that they were also very involved in the Scattered Site
Housing Task Force.
Chappell asked if it was known how concentrated with affordable housing the areas not
indicated as under-served are. Hightshoe said she was not sure.
Hart said she was with McMurray on this, in that while it is short notice as far as time to review
the matter, she always considers proximity to services and businesses, and by that measure,
this is a good location. Hart also pointed out that the site is just across from the area noted as
under-served on the map.
Chappell asked if it was correct that the current apartments to the west of the site are not City-
assisted. Hightshoe said the City has not assisted them; they are private rental apartments.
She said she did not believe that any apartments south of the site have been assisted with
CDBG/HOME funds. Hightshoe said that she knows Council will be taking up the issue of site
location and working on a more concrete policy to guide future development. She said it is on
their work session agenda; it will be taken back up in March and it will be a time-consuming
process. In the meantime, this policy serves as a red flag to the Council and gives them a way
to review it and approve or deny it.
Chappell said that ultimately he is with Richman on the issue, and that he does not think an
HCDC recommendation is appropriate. He said that any recommendation City Council will
receive will be just a "first impression" recommendation, and the same information can be
passed along by making the minutes available. Ultimately, Chappell said, the Council will
decide what the Council decides. He said he is comfortable not making a recommendation,
though he noted that he would not stomp his feet and abstain if there is a broad consensus to
make one.
Hart said she would be interested in knowing how other Commissioners felt on the subject. She
said that if the City Attorney's office has asked HCDC to consider it they must feel that the group
has something to add to the consideration of the matter. She noted that City Council can, of
course, take a recommendation or leave it. She said that it seemed to her that people were
generally favorable toward making a recommendation. She said that she would like to make a
recommendation but obviously if others felt it would not be appropriate that is fine too. She said
that since making a recommendation is within the prerogative of the Commission and they had
been asked to do so, she is interested in knowing if others are wished to make one.
McKay said he is somewhat in favor of making a recommendation. He said he doesn't know
what other information the Commission would get or need that would sway members one way
or the other. He said that at this point he is not sure what other information would change his
mind other than some legal or other technical problem. He said he does not know why they
should not make a recommendation.
Hightshoe asked if that meant that the Commission was 3-3 on whether or not to give a
recommendation.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28,2010
PAGE 7 of 14
Richman asked where Gatlin stood on the matter. Gatlin said that he thinks it is a good site and
that from what he has heard it could be beneficial to have it there, but that without doing further
research he does not feel it is something he could recommend. Gatlin noted that whatever the
Commission says, it is ultimately up to the Council.
Richman said the City went through this extensive process with the Scattered Site Task Force,
but the recommendations were never formally adopted by the City Council. And because the
City Council has approved exceptions to this policy each time that it has come before them, it
seems as though the policy needs to be reconsidered. He said he would be happy to address
the issue as a Commission, but that he did not feel it was appropriate to do so on an ad hoc
basis. Richman said that if someone wished to make a motion the Commission could vote on it;
however, four votes would be needed to carry a motion. Hightshoe noted that the Council will
get the meeting minutes as well.
Richman invited a motion.
Hart said the motion would simply be 3-3, so the Commission might as well just move on.
Richman asked if the rest of the Commission was alright with that, and the Commissioners
indicated that was fine with them.
Hightshoe summarized that there were three Commissioners who had wished to recommend
approval to the City Council and three Commissioners who did not feel it was appropriate to
make a recommendation of any kind to the City Council. Richman said that he would like to see
some guidance from Council as to how they wished to have the issue of under-served areas
and site location treated in the future.
Libris Fidelis asked the Commission if he could make a statement on the location of the
proposed project. Richman said that he could. He said that while he is not exactly sure what
building is being discussed, he does believe it is a suitable location for low-income housing.
Fidelis said there is really a critical shortage of affordable housing in this community, though he
noted that it is through no one in the City's fault. He said there are a lot of low-income people
who would like to have a good home. He said the location is near CVS, Walgreen's, and Hy-
Vee, as well as excellent bus service. He said it would really help low-income people to have
housing in that location, though he said again that he was not sure exactly where the location is.
Fidelis said that even five or six new units would help people out.
UPDATE ON PROJECTS PER THE UNSUCCESSFUL OR DELAYED PROJECTS POLICY:
FY08 BLOOMING GARDEN IHA LP - DOWNPA YMENT ASSISTANCE:
Hightshoe stated this project was approved for funding in FY08. The COBG agreement
required 2-4 homes be built by October 31, 2009. COBG funds would provide down payment
assistance to income eligible homebuyers. In May, 2009 the applicant received design approval
to build up to four units on Catskill Court; however, they did not get a building permit and did not
proceed. Hightshoe said that staff has been in discussions with Jesse Burns of Burns & Burns
to try to determine if the project will proceed. Hightshoe said that Burns recently e-mailed to say
that they would be terminating their agreement. Hightshoe explained that Burns expressed a
fear that their project would be competing for prospective homebuyers with the City's Single
Family New Construction (SFNC) Program that came about as a result of the floods. Burns
indicated that they might be willing to move forward with the project if HCOC was willing to
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28,2010
PAGE 8 of 14
provide the same financial terms provided to SFNC buyers as it is more competitive than their
approved terms.
Chappell asked if it was the case that that money would go back into this year's allocation pot.
Hightshoe said that it was and that this would add $80,000 back in to be reallocated. A
termination agreement has been sent to Blooming Gardens for signature.
FY09 DOLPHIN INTERNA TlONAL LLC - DOWNPA YMENT ASSISTANCE:
Hightshoe explained that HOME requires the recipient to enter a written agreement and commit
the funds within two years. Dolphin received funds in FY09 and FY10 for down payment
assistance for owner-occupied units. Hightshoe said that last year Dolphin realized that in the
present market their potential buyers could not get secondary financing and so the project could
not proceed as an owner-occupied project. They came before the Commission to ask to have
the project changed to a rental project and the Commission denied the request. Dolphin was
told that they could apply for rental rehabilitation during the FY11 CDBG/HOME funding cycle.
FY10 THE HOUSING FELLOWSHIP - RENTAL HOUSING:
The delayed projects policy states that if a project relies on other financing, such as low-income
tax credit, those funds must be applied for in the immediate next round. Hightshoe said that
THF is going to apply for funding, but not in the next available round because with low-income
tax-credits site control must be obtained prior to application. Hightshoe asked Dennis if she
wished to give a brief update. Dennis said that the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) considers a
signed purchase agreement to be "site control." Dennis said that THF has not applied because
of the economy and its effects on the tax-credit market. Dennis said that it used to be the case
that Fannie Mae represented 80% of the investment funding for low-income tax credits. Since
these allocations took place, however, Fannie Mae has gone totally out of the market. Dennis
said that THF fully plans to commit to a tax-credit application; they work with a consultant out of
Omaha and a non-profit syndicator, both of which currently recommend against submitting an
application because they do not believe THF can sell the credits to an investor at this point to
make the project viable.
Richman asked if there was any sense of who is potentially going to step into the market to buy
tax-credits. Dennis said there was not. She said the big syndicators are saying that they want
big projects, 80-150 apartments. For Aniston Village, Dennis said, the syndicator received a big
bridge loan in order to provide the equity, with an assurance from Wells Fargo that Wells Fargo
will come in. Dennis said the biggest investors right now are the big banks, which is all in flux
due to the irregularities in the banking industry. Dennis said that THF did two tax credits on
their own in 2006 and sold the tax credits for $0.84 on the dollar; Aniston Village is $0.65 on the
dollar. Dennis said that they think they will continue to lower in value.
Hightshoe noted that the final occupancy date is set as 2013, which would still be within the
required five years for HOME funds. Richman said that the obvious question is whether or not
in the next 12 to 24 months there will be a market for these tax-credits at a price that makes the
project viable. Chappell asked if the failure to apply in the immediate funding round will require
the City to recapture the funds. Hightshoe said in the past it has nott. She said that while
HCDC could recommend recapture to Council, typically if the timeline looks reasonable an
extension is granted for a specific timeframe. Chappell asked for clarification on the policy.
Hightshoe acknowledged that while the written policy requires recapture, it has not always been
the practice. Staff acknowledged the policy needs to be taken back to Council. Staff was
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28,2010
PAGE 9 of 14
planning to do this in April, when several CDBG/HOME matters are reviewed by Council;
however for this policy we may have to send it to Council in the very near future. Chappell said
he was trying to understand if this is just an update or if there is some action the Commission
needs to take. Hightshoe said that in the past the applicant has updated the Commission and
the Commission has allowed the applicant to continue to use the funds for the purpose within a
specified timeframe.
Richman asked if it was correct that for all three projects the Commission has the option of
recommending recapture of the funds or of extending the deadlines. Hightshoe said that was
correct. Chappell asked Richman if he too interpreted these items as action items, and
Richman indicated that he did. Hightshoe said that Blooming Garden is returning the funds and
that a termination agreement has been sent. Dolphin International is essentially returning the
funds to their line of credit and asking the Commission to reallocate them for FY11. McMurray
asked for clarification on the Dolphin application. She asked if the $188,000 they are returning
is part of their $584,000 allocation request for FY11; Hightshoe said that it is. Richman said that
his feeling on that is that the cash should go back into the pool of money and there should be no
sense of commitment to Dolphin for that funding. He said that to him the appropriate course of
action is to recapture the funds. Chappell agreed. Richman asked what the dollar amount was
for the THF project. Hightshoe said it is $220,000 for FY10. Richman said he would like to get
a sense of what is going on in the tax-credit market and whether there is a likelihood that it will
recover enough to make this project feasible within the necessary timeframe. If not, Richman
said, then at some point the Commission needs to think about recapturing the funds so other
projects can go forward.
Hightshoe asked Dennis if the project could proceed without the low income housing tax credit
funding. Dennis said that financing would have to be re-examined but that it might be possible.
Dennis noted that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act contains provisions for a Tax-
Credit Assistance Program (TCAP) which could help close the gap in equity which resulted from
recent market forces. Aniston Village, Dennis said, just received $1.6 million in TCAP funds;
they were awarded $597,000 in tax credits, which generates $5.9 million in equity. With the
combination of THF's syndicators and the TCAP funding, THF was able to raise enough equity.
Richman asked if the TCAP money was a loan or a grant. Dennis said that grants are not
available for tax-credits, only loans. Dennis said that if a tax-credit gets a grant it reduces the
eligible basis for credits. She said that the TCAP loan terms are what is called "cash-flow
repayment." Dennis said that she did not wish to mislead the Commissioners by saying that she
thinks the tax-credit program is going to go away. She said that it is a complicated program.
She said that the policy that the City of Iowa City has adopted which says that applicants need
to submit a tax-credit application in the next available round pretty much sets up any applicant
for failure to comply with the policy. Dennis said that it is practically impossible because the
time-tables simply do not match up well. She noted that this policy was set by the City Council.
Hightshoe said that staff intends to edit this language, and take the Council earmarks, the
Citizen Participation Plan, the Commission occupancy policy, and other issues before the
Council in April or May; then staff will bring it back to the Commission.
Chappell asked if THF did not want to apply to this round because they are afraid they will not
get the money, or because they are afraid they will get the money and everything else will not
be ready. Dennis noted that she did not say she was afraid to apply. Chappell acknowledged
this, but pointed out that she did not intend to apply. Dennis said that THF was allocated FY10
HOME funds to purchase land in order to apply within the next round of tax-credits. Dennis said
she did not say they were afraid to apply for the next round; rather she had said that it was
virtually impossible to do so because of the timing and the amount of work that goes into the tax
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28,2010
PAGE 10 of 14
credit application. Chappell said he understood her to have said that their advisors were
recommending against application. Dennis said that was another issue, but that he was correct.
Dennis explained that there is an annual round. Hightshoe noted that this had happened with
the last low-income housing tax-credit project because tax-credits require site control at the time
of application and the application process is an extensive one. Hightshoe said that previous
projects had come back to the Commission and was granted an extension. Hightshoe said that
HCDC funding is available July 1 sl and the low-income tax-credit applications were typically due
in November. Hightshoe said this basically gave an applicant three months to find land,
purchase it, and go through the extensive tax-credit application process which involves market
research and analysis. Dennis pointed out that there must also be plans and specs drawn up
by an architect before applying for the tax-credit. She said the application is approximately
1,200 pages and requires input from engineering, legal, architects and other experts, making it a
very expensive and time-consuming process.
Richman said that it seems to him there are two issues. First, there is the ongoing issue of the
requirement to apply in the next funding round, which, Richman said, Dennis is saying is not a
reasonable requirement. Secondly, there is the specific issue of whether or not there is actually
a market for tax credits at this time and whether it would make sense to go forward with an
application even if it could be done within the required timeframe. Chappell asked when the
funding round takes place that THF would be required to apply for under the current policy.
Dennis said it depends on when the IFA says tax-credit applications are due; for FY10, the due
date is March 31, 2010. Richman asked if applications were accepted just once a year; Dennis
said that was correct. Chappell asked if it was correct that the expectation for FY10 funding
would be that it would be spent in FY10. Hightshoe said that housing projects are given two
years to commit; housing agencies have two years from the time they are approved to find a site
and enter an agreement; they have five years to spend the money.
Chappell said that he understands how onerous the application for low-income housing tax-
credits is, and that he does not have an issue with the idea that this policy may be completely
unworkable; however, his concern is that unless he is somehow misreading it, he does not see
a way that the he can support a recommendation of anything other than the funds being
recaptured. Chappell said he is open to being educated as to how he is misreading the policy,
but as it stands, it is a pretty clear directive from the Council to keep things moving. Chappell
said that as he reads the policy, the agency is supposed to apply for the next funding cycle, if
they do not get the tax-credit status there is a contingency, and at that point the Commission
has some discretion; HCDC can allow funds to be retained in the event the agency applies and
is not awarded tax-credit status. Chappell asked if the language that states "the first applicable
application period offered" might offer some wiggle room. Richman clarified that Chappell's
concern is that the policy as written requires something to be done. Chappell said that his
concern is that the policy as he reads it seems to pretty clearly require the recapture of funds.
Hightshoe said that if the next funding application is not due until March, the applicant is not out
of compliance yet. Staff will revise the policy and forward to HCDC and the Council for review.
Staff had planned to make the revisions in April, but can simply move up the date. Dennis said
that THF cannot apply by March. Hightshoe said she was talking about revising the policy
before March so that THF would not have to apply within the next funding cycle. Chappell
asked if Hightshoe was saying that HCDC's decision could be deferred until City Council made
a change to the policy. Hightshoe said that was correct.
McKay noted that the Commission had just declined to make a decision because they wanted
stronger policy guidance from City Council, and now the Commission was deferring a decision
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 11 of14
until they could get weaker policy guidance from Council. McKay suggested the Commission
should get on the same page and do one or the other or they would look like they were being
quite subjective. Hightshoe said that the issue will be put on the Commission's February
agenda, and would go to Council right after that. She said that given the complicated
application process involved with low-income tax credits, recapturing funds from an agency for
not hitting the first round after allocation is not realistic. The policy was written before the
Commission and staff had much experience with L1HTC projects. Hightshoe said that she
thinks that the policy can be changed by staff and reviewed by Council before the March
application deadline. She said that the policy should be changed because it is not realistic or
consistent with other HCDC policies.
Richman said he has no problem simply recommending an extension for the applicant.
Hightshoe said that she was not sure exactly how the language became so rigid or by whose
directive, but that staff had talked about the need to have it changed. Chappell said that for
what it's worth, if staff thinks this is a bad policy and has a plan in place to get it changed, he
does not mind waiting. Hightshoe noted that the March 315t application deadline has not yet
passed, and therefore, THF is still in compliance. Chappell said he did not mind waiting, but
that he would be uncomfortable voting in direct contradiction to the policy, regardless of what
staff thinks of the policy. Richman said that his concern is just for the logistics of it. He said that
allocation meetings that take place in February and March are extremely long and that his
preference would be to take care of the matter now rather than tacking an extra hour onto a five-
hour meeting. Chappell said he has no problem voting now; he was simply explaining how and
why he would not vote for an extension. McKay said he feels the same way. Hart says that if
the Commission agrees with the request but would wind up voting no because of the policy then
it seems reasonable to wait. Hart said she would vote to grant an extension. Richman said that
he too would vote to extend with the caveat that he would like staff and the applicant to study
what the future of the tax-credit market is.
Hart asked why the Commission would vote down a measure that they favored if they have
reason to believe that the policy will be changed. Hightshoe noted that THF was not out of
compliance presently, and so nothing really needed to be done at present. Richman asked
what McMurray and Gatlin's feelings on the topic were. McKay reiterated that the Commission
cannot reasonably defer a decision because they want stronger Council guidance while
blatantly disregarding strong Council guidance on another matter. Gatlin said he agreed that
the policy should be followed as written, whether he personally liked it or not. Chappell said that
if the Commission wanted to wait to vote then someone should make a motion to defer the item.
Hightshoe said this is just an update and a deferral is not really necessary. Chappell said that is
why he had asked her in the beginning if this was an action item or an update. Richman said it
seems that there is not majority support for an extension right now and that what has to happen
is that staff needs to go back to City Council and address the policy. Hightshoe said that might
mean the Commission needs to add this item to the February 16th agenda. Richman said that
what he believed would be helpful is for the draft policy to be distributed in a timely manner so
that people could look at it. McKay said he would rather see another hour long meeting added
to the schedule so that the issue could be given due attention but would not interfere with the
allocation process. Hightshoe said she and Long could draft the policy, send it out via e-mail,
take comments, and then put it on the agenda. Richman said that sounds like what needs to
happen.
Richman asked if it was correct that with respect to THF no action would be taken that evening;
Commissioners indicated agreement.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28,2010
PAGE 12 of 14
With respect to Dolphin and Blooming Gardens, Richman said, it is clear that neither project will
be proceeding as originally approved. Chappell asked if a motion was needed to recapture the
funds for those two projects. Hightshoe said she did not believe a motion would be required for
Blooming Gardens because they have agreed to terminate.
Chappell motioned to recommend termination of the agreement with Blooming Gardens
for their FY08 CDBG funding allocation for the reasons outlined by staff.
Gatlin seconded.
The motion carried on a 6-0 vote (Zimmermann Smith, Drum, and Douglas absent).
McKay moved to recommend the recapture of the FY09 HOME funding allocation for
Dolphin International LLC.
Hart seconded.
The motion carried on a 6-0 vote (Zimmermann Smith, Drum, and Douglas absent).
MONITORING REPORTS:
. COMMUNITY MENTAL HEAL TH CENTER - FACILITY REHAB. (McMurrav): HCDC
had awarded CMHC $23,504. They have resurfaced their alley and parking lot area and
will replace sidewalks in the spring.
. MECCA - FACILITY REHAB. (Gatlin): HCDC allocated $32,199 to MECCA for FY09.
They are approximately 15% done with their security upgrades. and are still in the
bidding process for the project. They are down to deciding between two vendors and
anticipate completion by December 2010.
. FY09 & FY10 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS OF JOHNSON COUNTY - FACILITY
REHAB. (Gatlin): HCDC allocated $14,600 to NCJC for a deck covering. The project
required an architect, and the agency is 10% complete with that project. The FY09
allocation of $26,601 for window replacement was completed in June of 2009.
ADJOURNMENT:
Gatlin motioned to adjourn.
McMurray seconded.
The motion carried 6-0 (Zimmermann Smith, Drum and Douglas absent).
The meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
DRAFT
Housing and Community Development Commission
Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy
From time to time there may be Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and/or HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) projects that do not meet
the anticipated schedule for implementation as presented to the Housing and
Community Development Commission (HCDC).
HCDC recognizes the need to utilize CDBG, HOME and other funding as effectively
and efficiently as possible to meet the needs of low-moderate income household for
housing, jobs and services within Iowa City.
To assist HCDC in evaluating a project's status and ability to proceed the following
policy is hereby adopted effectively immediately:
1. All CDBG projects will have entered into a formal agreement with the City of
Iowa City for the utilization of federal funds by September 30 each year.
Should a recipient fail to meet this threshold, the project will be reviewed by
HCDC to evaluate if extenuating circumstances exist. HCDC will determine
at its sole discretion whether extenuating circumstance exist in each
particular case. If extenuating circumstances exist and it is anticipated the
project will proceed, a new timeline will be established for the completion of
the project. If circumstances do not warrant an extension of time, HCDC
may recommend the recapture and re-use of the funds to the City Council.
2. All CDBG projects (except applicants for L1HTCs) will have expended a
minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the assistance provided for the proposed
project by March 15 each year. This provides the recipient with
approximately 255 days following the start of the fiscal year to reach this
threshold for CDBG projects. Should a recipient fail to meet this threshold,
the project will be reviewed by HCDC to evaluate the timeliness of the project
and its ability to proceed. If extenuating circumstances exist, a new timeline
for expenditure will be established. If circumstances do not warrant an
extension of time, HCDC may recommend the recapture and reuse of the
funds to City Council.
3. All HOME recipients have 24 months to enter a written agreement with the
City of Iowa City. All HOME funds must be spent within five years. Should a
recipient fail to show adequate progress towards meeting the timetable as
identified in its housing application or the statutory requirements of the
HOME program, the project will be reviewed by HCDC. If a HOME recipient
is unsuccessful in obtaining funds identified in the application, HCDC will
review the project and determine its viability without the proposed funds.
HCDC may recommend the recapture and reuse of the funds to City Council
based on extenuating circumstances.
Current policy with yellow highlights to show sections
proposed to be amended for new policy
Housing and Community Development Commission
Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy
Adopted by City Council March 2, 2004 in Resolution. 04-68
From time to time there may be Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and/or HOME
Investment Partnership Program (HOME) projects that do not meet the anticipated schedule for
implementation as presented to the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC).
These circumstances may be due to unforeseen events (e.g. unfunded applications for other
financing).
HCDC recognizes the need to utilize CDBG, HOME and other funding as effectively and efficiently
as possible to meet the needs of low-moderate income household for housing, jobs and services
within Iowa City.
To assist HCDC in evaluating a project's status and ability to proceed the following policy is hereby
adopted to begin with Fiscal Year '04 projects beginning July 1, 2003:
1. All CDBG and HOME projects will have entered into a formal agreement with the City of
Iowa City for the utilization of federal funds by September 30 each year. Should a
recipient fail to meet this threshold, the project will be reviewed by HCDC to evaluate
if extenuating circumstances exist. If extenuating circumstances exist and it is
anticipated the project will proceed, a new timeline will be established for the
completion of the project. If circumstances do not warrant an extension of time,
HCDC may recommend the recapture and re-use of the funds to the City Council.
2. All CDBG projects (except applicants for L1HTCs) will have expended a minimum of fifty
percent (50%) of the assistance provided for the proposed project by March 15 each year.
This provides the recipient with approximately 255 days following the start of the fiscal year
to reach this threshold for CDBG projects. All HOME projects will expend their funds on.a
timely basis per the applicable HOME regulation. Should a recipient fail to meet these
thresholds, all unexpended CDBG/HOME funding will be recaptured by the City of Iowa
City and recommendations be made by the HCDC for re-use of the funds or HCDC may
allow the recipient to retain the funds for the previously approved Ploject.
3. If housing projects are applying for other funds through various state or federal agencies,
the recipient must apply for those funds in the first available application period offered.
Should a recipient fail to meet this application threshold, all CDBG/HOME funding will be
recaptured by the City of Iowa City and recommendations be made by_ the H9DC for re-
use of the funds.
4. Should a recipient be unsuccessful in obtaining the funds listed in the application in the
application round immediately following the allocation of local CDBG\HOME funds, and the
project will not be able to proceed without the aforementioned funds, all CDBG/HOME
funds will be recaptured by the City of Iowa City and recommendations be made by the
HCDC for re-use of the funds or HCDC may allow the recipient to retain the funds for the
previously approved project. If the project is unsuccessful in obtaining the required funQ,s
listed in the application after two consecutive funding rounds following the allocation of
local CDBG/HOME funds, the City of Iowa City will recapture all CDBG/HOME funds.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FYu QUESTION/ANSWER SESSION
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, MEETING ROOM A, IOWA CITY
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2010
TIME AGENCY NAME CONTACT PHONE # E-MAIL
....L"L:n ......... .. .........
. ................'" ,...,...
6:10 pm Extend the Dream Foundation Jeff Edberg 530.8765 ieff@ icrealestate .com
6:15 pm Iowa City Free Medical Clinic Sandy Pickup 337.9727 spickup3@mchsLcom
6:20 pm Mayor's Youth/FAS TRAC Roger Lusala 344.0060 r.lusala@myep.us
6:25 pm EccoCast Communications Amos Petersen 936.3309 a.petersen@eccocast.com
6:30 pm Arc of Southeast Iowa Bill Reagan 351.5017 wmreaaan@iowatelecom.net
6:35 pm Crisis Center BecciReedus 351 .2726 beccireedus@iccrisiscenter.ora
6:40 pm Shelter House Crissy Canganelli 530.8706 crissy@shelterhouseiowa.ora
6:45 pm Isis Investments LLC Salome Raheim 530.4375 Salome-raheim@att.net
.... ",.- ... ..
... ....
7:00 pm Isis Investments LLC Salome Raheim 530.4375 Salome-raheim @att.net
7:10 pm Shelter House/NAMI Crissy Canganelli 530.8706 crissy@shelterhouseiowa.ora
7:20 pm The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Maryann Dennis 358.9212 mdennis@housinafellowship.com
7:30 pm The Housing Fellowship - Rental Maryann Dennis 358.9212 mdennis@housinafellowship.com
7:40 pm Iowa Valley for Habitat for Humanity Mark Patton 337.8949 Markpatton22@amail.com
7:50 pm Iowa City Housing Authority/DVIP Steven Rackis 887.6065 Steven-rackis@iowa-citY.ora
8:00 pm Dolphin International LLC Vijay Bhatt 847.707.8207 bhattvi23@msn.com
8:10pm Chabad Lubavitch of Iowa City Avrohom 358.1323 chabadiowa@msn.com
RII'!!;of!;kv
BREAK
PQ.~ltcFaciIity ..
8:40 pm Extend the Dream Foundation Jeff Edberg 530.8765 ieff@icrealestate.com
8:45 pm Domestic Violence Intervention Program Kristie Doser 351.1043 dvip@dvipiowa.ora
8:50 pm Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program Roger Lusala 344.0060 r.lusala@myep.us
8:55 pm MECCA Ron Berg 351.4357 rbera@meccaia.com
9:00 pm Johnson Co. Extension/ Big Brothers Big Sisters Gene Mohling 330.4681 mohlina@iastate.edu
9:05 pm Iowa City Free Medical Clinic Sandy Pickup 337.9727 spickup@mchsLcom
FY11 CDBG/HOME EVALUATION CRITERIA
Housing Applications
I! I '" Q.
--= -. 'iij :E '"
!~4!i~"l: '" ~ .,;
~ --.mi;. .q; Q) 10
]j c ~
-........ ]j ~ 0.
C 0
CITY OF IOWA CITY c Q) 0
Q) Q)
]j D:: D:: E ]j ]j 0 ..
'" 0 0 c:
c :I: c c ::c
Q) () Q) Q) Q) Q)
D:: '" , D:: D:: ~ D::
...J '" ~
...J III 0. 0.
.<: (ij 1': 'c () ~ ~ :E
u c '" -' ~
.- 0 '" E -' .q; ~
> c
'" ., Q) :J l'l ~ .Q
.c '" :I: 0; 0;
E f- c Q)
:J Q) '" U- U-
-' $ c.. .E S :J '" '"
'0 .= :> ~ '" 0 c: c:
:I: 'iij 'iij
'" c ~ Q) ~ :J :J
'" :E .c > 0 0
.c '" .= ::c ::c
'" Q. :I: :I: '" Qj Q) Q)
.<: 0 ~ ;:: ~ .<: .t: .t:
() 0 Vl f- f-
I. Need Priority (max. 20 points)
Meets Identified Need in CITY STEPS? Yes or No
If Yes:
1 What priority level in CITY STEPS? (High = 10. Medium = 6, Low = 3)
2 Has the applicant documented the ability of the project to meet this need?
(Yes = 10. No = 0)
Subtotal
II. Leveraging Resources/Budget (max. 20 points)
Project Budget is Justified? Yes or No
If Yes:
1 Project leverages human resources? (Yes = 7, No = 0)
2 Project leverages private financial resources? (0-8 points. See Below)
0- 25% Private Funds (0-2 points)
26 - 50% Private Funds (3-4 points)
51 to 75% Private Funds (5-6 points)
76 to 99% Private Funds (7-8 points)
3 Has applicant documented efforts to secure other funding?
(Yes = 5. No = 0)
Subtotal
III. Feasibility (max 20 points)
1 The level of public subsidy is warranted? (Yes = 10. No = 0)
2 The project will be completed within the required time period?
(Yes = 5, No = 0)
3 Project utilizes community partnerships? (Yes = 5. No = 0)
Subtotal
TBD Yes
~1!lli
10 10
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
~~
10 6 10 10 10 10
10
10 10
6 10
10
10
10
TBD Yes
-
Yes TBD Yes TBD Yes Yes
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
IV ImpacUBenefit (max. 25 points)
1 Primarily targets low-income persons?
(0-30%=10.31-50%=6.51-60%=4,61-80%=1 )
2 Project produces adequate benefits to community related to
costs? (Yes = 5. No = 0)
3 Demonstrates innovative solution to problem (Yes = 5. No = 0)
4 Project pays full property taxes (5) or a payment in lieu of/reduced taxes (3)?
(Yes = 5 or 3, No = 0)
5lp7O.iect is located. in .an area enco~raged by Cit;Counci/ as identified on the . '.
Fy'07 Lqcation.Map.'L- _ _ _ _Ctp~, .No)_...___--Y!!S_~t:-J..Q_tJA,._~e._y.es_T,,El.Q
Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0
V Capacity/History (max. 10 points)
Applicant can maintain regulatory compliance through the project. including
the affordability period? Yes or No
If Yes:
1 Applicant has strong financial skills? (Yes = 4, No = 0)
2 Applicant has the administrative capacity to complete this project?
(Yes = 4. No = 0)
3 Applicant attended a FY11 CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop?
(Yes = 2. No = 0)
Subtotal
(Maximum Points: 95)
GRAND TOTAL:
.Nb TBD'
o 0
TBD Yes Yes
--
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
-~
o 2
o 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
12 12
8 12
12
12
12
FY11 CDBG/HOME EVALUATION CRITERIA
Public Facility Applications
1 ~ I c: .ci
0 '"
--= -,.. U .r::
!:~~!!:"t Q)
~ --';if~ 2 a:
c: Vi U
-....... .Q c: '"
CITY OF IOWA CITY c: 8
g ~ "-
'Uj :0 ~ E
'5 '" ~ '"
8" .r:: C,
Q)
<( a: Q e
~ (l. c:
c: (/) c: .Q
c: 0 '0 10 ~
,Q ~ '" 10 Q)
~ "0 "- 10 E :0
c: C Q) '"
:> u ~
:0 0 0 .r::
'" "- :~ 'Uj Q)
.r:: U c: c. a:
Q) E Q) E ~
a: '" "iij Jj W
~ ~ u .r:: '0
0 '6 8 '5 '"
'0 Q) Q) 0 "-
'" 5 ::;; >- ..(
"- c: '"
"0 Q) 0
Q) '" 'I... U
(l. c: 0
Q) Ii: c: >- U
'> Jj .r:: '" W
0 S2 .!l ::;; ::;;
I. Need/Priority (max. 15 points)
Meets Identified Need in CITY STEPS? Yes or No
If Yes:
1 What priority level in CITY STEPS? (High = 10, Medium = 6, Low = 3)
2 Has the applicant documented the ability of the project to meet this need?
(Yes = 5, No = 0)
Subtotal
II. Resources & Feasibility (max. 15 points)
Project Budget is Justified? Costs are documented/reasonable
Yes or
If Yes:
1 Project leverages other financial resources? (0 - 5 points)
0- 25% Other Funds (1)
26 - 50% Other Funds (2)
51 to 75% Other Funds (3)
76 to 99% Other Funds (5)
2 Applicant has documented efforts to secure other funding?
(Yes = 5, No = 0)
3 Project will be completed by the end of the fiscal year, 6/30/11?
(Yes = 3, No = 0)
4 Project leverages human resources? (Yes = 2, No = 0)
Subtotal
III. Impact/Benefit (max. 20 points)
Does the project help persons gain self-sufficiency? Yes or No
If Yes:
1 Primarily targets low-income persons?
(0-30%=6,31-50%=4,51-80%=2)
2 Project utilizes community partnerships to further projects' goals?
(Yes = 5, No = 0)
3 Project has a measurable impact in the community? (Yes = 3, No = 0)
4 Produces adequate benefits to the community related to its cost?
(Yes = 3, No = 0)
5 Demonstrates innovative solution to problem (Yes = 3, No = 0)
Subtotal
IV. Capacity/History (max. 10 points)
Applicant can maintain regulatory compliance? Yes or No
If Yes:
1 Applicant has strong financial skills & board commitment?
(Yes = 4, No = 0)
2 Applicant has the administrative capacity to complete this project?
(Yes = 4, No = 0)
3 Applicant attended a FY11 CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop?
(Yes = 2, No = 0)
Subtotal
( Max/mum Points: 60)
GRAND TOTAL:
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
.~~
6 6 3 6 10 10
6
6
3
6 10
10
Yes TBD Yes
---
Yes
Yes
.
TBD
-
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
.~~
o
o
o
o
o
o
Yes TBD Yes Yes Yes Yes
~~~~
o
o
2
2
2
2
o
o
2
2
2
2
9
11
8
9 15
15
FY11 CDBG/HOME EVALUATION CRITERIA
Public Service Applications
Ul
& ~ t Ul c:
0
--= -.. c: '" Ul
!~4fii;!!:"I: 0 e c:
--== --'~~ '" " 0
e a. Ul '"
E " 0 c: Ul e
-...... " a. 0 c: "
CITY OF IOWA CITY E 0 ~ '" 0 a.
III '" 0
a. J, 0 Iii e
.:; c: '" a. " Ul
0- '" 0 III 0 a. U c:
";l c: '" .., 0 C2 0
0 III c: '"
III ~ " ::l " e
.c 0 U f-
~ Iii "- :~ "
::l ...J <fJ a.
a. E E C3 ...J <( 0
"' 0 E III lij '" "-
III 8 " " E ~ "
" Iii 0 'g " Ul
-5 5 ::l ::l
::l E "' " ::;; ~ 0
0 ~ 8 -5 ~ :I:
<fJ .., ~ > Ul
'0 '" '- .'l
0 c: .E 0
~ .iij " " "- '" >. Qj
.C: " :B ~ III .<::
<( U w ~ ::;; <fJ
I. Need/Priority (max. 15 points)
Meets Identified Need in CITY STEPS? Yes or No
If Yes:
1 What priority level in CITY STEPS? (High = 10, Medium = 6, Low = 3)
2 Has the applicant documented the ability of the project to meet this need?
(Yes = 5, No = 0)
Subtotal
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
.l~~
10 10 6 10 6 10 10 10
10
10
6
10
6 10
10
10
II. Resources & Feasibility (max. 15 points)
Project Budget is Justified? Costs are documented/reasonable
Yes or No Yes Yes Yes TBD Yes TBD Yes Yes
Project will proceed and all funds expended by 6/30/11? Yes or No
If Yes to Both Questions:
1 Project leverages other financial resources? (0 - 5 points)
0- 25% Other Funds (1)
26 - 50% Other Funds (2)
51 to 75% Other Funds (3)
76 to 99% Other Funds (5)
2 Applicant has documented efforts to secure other funding?
(Yes = 5, No = 0)
3 Project will be sustained after CDBG funding ends?
4 Project leverages human resources?
(Yes = 3, No = 0)
(Yes = 2, No = 0)
Subtotal
III. ImpacUBenefit (max. 20 points)
Does the project help persons gain self-sufficiency? Yes or No
If Yes:
1 Primarily targets low-income persons?
(0-30%=6,31-50%=4,51-80%=2)
2 Project utilizes community partnerships to further projects' goals?
(Yes = 5, No = 0)
3 Project has a measurable impact in the community? (Yes = 3, No = 0)
4 Produces adequate benefits to the community related to its cost?
(Yes = 3, No = 0)
5 Demonstrates innovative solution to problem? (Yes = 3, No = 0)
Subtotal
IV. Capacity/History (max. 10 points)
Applicant can maintain regulatory compliance? Yes or No
If Yes:
1 Applicant has strong financial skills & board commitment?
(Yes = 5, No = 0)
2 Applicant has the administrative capacity to complete this project?
(Yes = 3, No = 0)
3 Applicant attended a FY11 CDBG/HOME Applicant Workshop?
(Yes = 2, No = 0)
Subtotal
(Maximum Points: 60)
GRAND TOTAL:
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
\R. ._ ~~~-.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
~~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Yes Yes
-
TBD TBD Yes Yes Yes Yes
~~
2 2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
12
12
8
12
8 12
12
12
I ~ I
~~5._......
~~~~'"'-
:::~_.,~
.....-.1&..
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page The Arc of Southeast Iowa
Number Page 162
Project Address 2620 Muscatine Ave
Activity Type Public Service
CITY STEPS Priority High - Child Care Services
Childcare: support affordable childcare (P. 78); Self Sufficiency:
CITY STEPS Goal promote programs that support self-esteem enhancement,
Achieved family and parental counseling, skills development and
communication skills. (P. 79)
0-30% MFI 44%
Beneficiaries 31-50% MFI 13%
51-80% MFI 19%
Over 80% MFI 23%
Amount Requested $3,184
Repayment Terms Grant
Period of Affordability N/A
Percent of Project 99%
Funded by CDBG
Leveraging City Funds $0.01 in other funds for each COSG dollar requested
Property Taxes Tax exempt
I ~ 1
.::;~=_.....
:t~~l!:'"t.
::: .-.,
.........-AL.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
Project Coordination
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
The Arc of SE Iowa has provided services for over 50 years to
children and adults with developmental disabilities and their
families. Services include Respite Care, Supported Community
Living, Supported Employment, Summer Day Camps, Sibship
(a support program for brothers and sisters who have a sibling
with disabilities) and advocacy.
Applicant is requesting funds for the purchase and installation of
Sensory Integration indoor therapy equipment (Vestibulator III).
This is to be utilized by children with disabilities.
Volunteers are utilized for four hours at $10.00/hour. The use of
the volunteers is not clearly explained.
Applicant has partnered with the City of Iowa City Parks and
Recreation and with the Iowa City Community School District.
Applicant has received CDBG funds for public facility
improvements in FY09 and FY10 and successfully administered
these funds.
1) Federal procurement rules apply.
2) Please clarify the use of volunteers for this project.
2
I ~ 1
-...= -.....
~~~~'"!.
::::: ".,~
....... -.U...
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Crisis Center . Emergency Assistance Program
Number Page 172
Project Address 1121 Gilbert Ct.
Activity Type Public service
CITY STEPS Priority High - Rental Assistance
CITY STEPS Goal Prevention and Outreach Activities: Assist low-income
Achieved households in maintaining and retaining their existing housing.
(P. 93)
0-30% MFI 93%
Beneficiaries 31-50% MFI 6%
51-80% MFI <1%
Over 80% MFI <1 %
Amount Requested $10,625
Repayment Terms Grant
Period of Affordabi/ity N/A
Percent of Project 9%
Funded by CDBG
Leveraging City Funds $9.56 in other funds for each CDBG dollar requested
Property Taxes Tax-exempt
1 ~ I
--= -.....
!~ji!:'"t.
~~"_I~
..................
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
The Crisis Center offers basic emotional and material support
through trained volunteers and staff in an accessible, non-
judgmental and caring environment. The Crisis Line is available
24 hours per day, 7 days a week and 365 days per year and
provides walk-in and phone-based short term crisis counseling
and information and referral services. The Food Bank and
Emergency Assistance provide weekly supplemental food bags
Documentation of and emergency financial assistance. Each week a lottery is
Project Need held on Monday. Typical requests include past due rent, past
due utilities, employment needs (clothing or work boots) and
medical needs.
Project is to cover 25% of the salary increase for the Food Bank
Assistant Director position, which has had its hours increased
from 30/week to 40/week due to the emergency needs of
families in Johnson County.
Volunteers include skilled labor (client interviewers) valued at
Project Budget $19.50/hour for 832 hours. This creates a total of $16,224.
Discussion These interviewers assess client need and determine eligibility
for financial assistance.
Project Coordination Applicant partners with the Consultation for Religious
with Existing Services & Communities, St. Anthony's Bread, and others particularly in the
other Services Available
in the Community faith community.
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully Applicant has received CDBG funds for public facility projects in
Complete the Proposed the past and successfully administered these funds.
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
2
I ~ I
~~~_It...
!:~~~'"t.
~ ....,
....~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page EccoCast Communications, NetReach
Number Page 178
Project Address 322 E. Bloomington Street
Activity Type Public Service
CITY STEPS Priority Medium - Senior services
CITY STEPS Goal Education/Job Training/Self-Sufficiency skills, services
Achieved coordination
0-30% MFI 75%
Beneficiaries 31-50% MFI 21%
51-80% MFI 4%
Over 80% MFI 0%
Amount Requested $8,320
Repayment Terms Grant
Period of Affordability N/A
Percent of Project 13%
Funded by COBG
Leveraging City Funds $6.54 in other funds for each COBG dollar requested.
Property Taxes For-profit
I ~ j
.:::~=_.....
!~~!:~
~ .....~
......~ -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
ProjectCoordina60n
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
NetReach provides internet access to those who cannot
otherwise afford it. Applicant states that this internet access can
assist the community in terms of employment, quality of life, and
service coordination. The program focuses particularly on
assisted living developments and housing for the elderly and
disabled.
Volunteers are used in the form of unskilled and skilled laborers.
Unskilled labor works for 520 hours at $10/hour. Skilled labor,
including maintenance, network deployment, and service calls
works 1,040 hours for $36/hour.
Applicant has worked with local organizations such as UA Y and
Systems Unlimited to help improve services.
Applicant has not received COSG funds previously. Applicant
claims that due to the extensive experience of the staff, in both
technical matters and business administration, they should be
able to accomplish their goals. Notes that because of the nature
of wireless infrastructure, short timelines should be expected.
1) Do the proposed end users at the service locations have
computers or the necessary computer skills?
2) Will the end user have a password or are there monthly
fees?
3) Is this project sustainable after the first year?
4) How will applicant verify/document low-to-moderate income
benefit?
2
I ~ 1
.:::.~'5._"a..
f~~~'"!.
~ ..-.,
...............
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Extend the Dream Foundation - Financial Management
Number Support (Page 188)
Project Address 401 S. Gilbert St.
Activity Type Public Service
CITY STEPS Priority High - Employment training
Strategy: Education/Job Training/Self Sufficiency Skills.
CITY STEPS Goal Development of programs that support job training (Page 79)
Achieved Continue to support agencies that provide outreach programs to
persons with drug and alcohol addiction (Page 82)
0-30% MFI 76%
Beneficiaries 31-50% MFI 15%
51-80% MFI 0%
Over 80% MFI 9%
Amount Requested $3,600
Repayment Terms Grant
Period of Affordabi/ity N/A
Percent of Project 50%
Funded by CDBG
Leveraging City Funds $1.00 in other funds for every CDBG dollar requested.
Property Taxes Tax Exempt
,~ 1
--= -.....
~~~l!=~
~ ....,
.................
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Applicant is seeking assistance with a part-time contract
Documentation of accountant firm and a QuickBooks specialist to improve their
Project Need financial management system. They are asking for funds to pay
for half of these services, which they will match with other funds.
Project Budget Volunteer contribution is in the form of an executive director
Discussion who is valued at $25/hour for 750 hours.
ProjectCoordinaffon Applicant has partnered with Access to Independence, Elderly
Services, Ecumenical Towers, the University of Iowa, the AA
with Existing Services & community, Shelter House, STAR program, Riverside Music
other Services Available
in the Community Cooperative, Tate School, the Sixth Judicial District, and
Goodwill.
Applicant has received CDBG and HOME funds in the past for
various projects. During prior monitoring visits, various items
were noticed that were not in compliance with HUD
requirements. The most important item being that EDF must
have a financial system that provides control and accountability
over funds and assets, identifies the source and application of
federal funds, provides source documentation, has basic
Applicant History or accounting records, and ensures an adequate separation of
Capacity to Successfully financial duties. EDF has worked to resolve some of these
Complete the Proposed issues; however the organization must incorporate a financial
Project management system operated on a long term basis that will
meet federal standards. Currently, the organization is run by
volunteers. Applicant plans to hire a director this July to take
over the duties performed by the volunteer Executive Director,
who will remain as a volunteer consultant.
Applicant received CDBG operational funds in FY06, 07, 08 &
09.
Summary of Items 1) The applicant states they are reviewing their use of
to be Addressed independent contractors for persons paid through the various
business enterprises (Question 15). What is the status?
2
I ~ 1
~~~~'t
~ -..,
.......,.........
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Iowa City Free Medical Clinic/Dick Parrott Free Dental Clinic
Number Pharmacy/Pharmaceutical Assistance Program (Page 198)
Project Address 2440 T owncrest Drive
Activity Type Public Service
CITY STEPS Priority Medium - Health Services
CITY STEPS Goal Prevention and Outreach Activities: increase accessibility to
Achieved physical/mental health care (p. 71)
0-30% MFI 16%
Beneficiaries 31-50% MFI 39%
51-80% MFI 36%
Over 80% MFI 9%
Amount Requested $10,000
Repayment Terms Grant
Period of Affordability N/A
Percent of Project 2.3%
Funded by CDBG
Leveraging City Funds $40.89 in other funds for each CDBG dollar requested
Property Taxes Tax exempt
I ~ I
.:::~~_.....
!~;t~!:"t.
~ ....,
...........1.1- -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
ProjectCoordinauon
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
The Free Medical Clinic/Free Dental Clinic (including pharmacy,
lab, chronic and acute care) treats over 2,600 patients annually.
The clinic provides free medical and dental services to
uninsured low to moderate income persons. The number of
patients utilizing the services increases each year, with 43% of
all patients seen in the first six months of FY10 being new
patients. Access to affordable heath care is a critical
component to family and financial stability.
The project will provide medication to 250 patients with
diabetes, high blood pressure, or other chronic medical
problems. Last year 457 patients were enrolled in the program.
Project will utilize volunteers in the form of pharmacists who will
work for 250 hours valued at $35/hour for a total of $8,750.
The Free Medical Clinic has a long history of working with a
variety of agencies and organizations in Iowa City such as
Hospice, Church of the Nazarene, Shelter House, U of I
Hospitals and Dental program, MECCA, Johnson County Public
Health, Healthy Kids School Clinics and many private health
care professionals. FMC has received funds from the Iowa Drug
Repository and Mercy Hospital in Iowa City.
In the last five years, agency has received a CDBG award and
has successfully administered these funds. The applicant
received CDBG operational funds in FY05, 06, 07, 08, 09 & 10.
1) How will applicant locate funds for operational costs in the
future?
2
I ~ I
--= -..~
~~~;!=~
~ -..,
.....~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Isis Investments, LLC - Affordable Homes Family
Number Investment Project, Page 209
Project Address 6 E. Benton Street, c/o Taxes Plus
Activity Type Public service
CITY STEPS Priority High - life skills and Financial literacy
Education/Job Training/Self Sufficiency Skills: promote
CITY STEPS Goal programs that support self-esteem enhancement, family and
Achieved parental counseling, skills development and communication
skills. (P. 79)
Beneficiaries 0-30% MFI 100%
Amount Requested $8,000
Repayment Terms Grant
Period of Affordability N/A
Percent of Project 59%
Funded by CDBG
Leveraging City Funds $0.69 in other funds for every CDBG dollar requested.
Property Taxes For-profit entity
I ~ I .
~,~~;!:ar
~ ..~~
.......~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
Project Coordination
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
Isis plans to support financial literacy training, mentoring to
increase self-sufficiency skills, English-Spanish interpretation
and translation services, and counseling and service
coordination to promote family preservation. Isis also employs
two social workers to provide case management and services to
promote self-sufficiency and family preservation.
Project utilizes a professional volunteer valued at $30/hour for
50 hours to provide financial literacy training to those
participating in the program.
Project will cooperate with Heartland Investments as a part of
the financial literacy training.
Isis Investments, LLC has received and administered
CDBG/HOME funds for affordable rental housing projects in the
two previous fiscal years. Agency notes the extensive and
relevant experience of their staff as an indication that they have
the capacity so successfully complete the project.
1) This project may be eligible under HOME - Tenant
counseling. If eligible under HOME, may not be counted
towards the CDBG public service cap.
2) Applicant currently owns 7 rental units, however the
application states services will be provided to 10 households
(units). Applicant has applied for FY11 funds for additional
rental units.
3) Applicant states they will provide $12,000 in salary for tenant
counseling. How many staff hours would be provided?
4) Can Section 8 tenants receive some of these services from
other providers such as the Iowa City Housing Authority?
2
I ~ I
--= -It
~~ji~'t
~ ,,-~,
....,-..&a-
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program (MYEP) Youth
Number Leadership Program (Page 217)
Project Address 1060 Cross Park Ave.
Activity Type Public service
CITY STEPS Priority High - Employment training
CITY STEPS Goal Strategy: Education/Job Training/Self Sufficiency Skills.
Achieved Development of programs that support job training (Page 79)
0-30% MFI 49%
Beneficiaries 31-50% MFI 16%
51-80% MFI 20%
Over 80% MFI 15%
Amount Requested $8,332
Repayment Terms Grant
Period of Affordability N/A
Percent of Project 94%
Funded by CDBG
Leveraging City Funds $0.06 in other funds for every CDBG dollar requested.
Property Taxes Tax Exempt
I ~ I
,::::~~_.....
f~~;!:'"!.
~~..-.,
............I.L.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
ProjectCoordinauon
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program (MYEP) provides
services to about 30 area at-risk youth through their Youth
Leadership program. There are four areas of the program -
integration of family, peers and the community, positive adult
and youth interaction, and work-based learning with area
businesses and community services.
Applicant requests funds to purchase equipment and supplies to
establish employment opportunities for at-risk youth. This
project provides summer employment and teaches good work
behaviors, habits and develops student's work skills.
Project calls for 50 volunteer hours valued at $1 O.OO/hour.
Project creates employment opportunities by allowing youth to
sell products at festivals like the Iowa City Jazz Festival, Iowa
Arts Festival, and other events.
Applicant has a Business Manager and Executive Director to
oversee accounting and expenses. MYEP has administered
county and state contracts close to $1,000,000 yearly and has
financial checks and balances in place.
1) Please clarify the use of the volunteers.
2) What is the program's relationship with FAS TRAC?
3) Will there be staff supervision at work sites?
2
I ~ 1
~~=_It..
f~~!:'"!.
~ ....,
...... .....I.L.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Shelter House STAR Program Cash Match/Client Services
Number Page 225
Project Address 331 N. Gilbert Street
Activity Type Public Service
CITY STEPS Priority High - Employment Training
Strategy: Education/Job Training/Self Sufficiency Skills.
CITY STEPS Goal Development of programs that support job training (Page 79)
Achieved Continue to support agencies that provide outreach programs to
persons with drug and alcohol addiction (Page 82)
Beneficiaries 0-30% MFI 100%
Amount Requested $10,000
Repayment Terms Grant
Period of Affordability N/A
Percent of Project 2%
Funded by CDBG
Leveraging City Funds $55.26 in other funds for every CDBG dollar requested.
Property Taxes Tax-exempt
I ~ 1
--= -II'
~~ji!:'t
:::: _.,~
...,., ..........
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
The applicant is requesting CDSG funding for a cash match for
the STAR program to provide support for their. 75 FTE Client
Services Coordinator at the Shelter House. This person
coordinates outreach and ensures that all demographic and
outcome data is managed. Applicant intends to use funds to
Documentation of maintain the existing accessibility of staff at the Shelter House.
Project Need
This project focuses on creating self-sufficiency among its
clients in an attempt to prevent homelessness. The applicant
notes significant increases in employment and permanent
housing placement by those who have participated in the
program.
Volunteers are used for 750 hours and valued at $10.00/hour.
Project Budget Volunteers answer phones, take messages, schedule
Discussion appointments, assist with data entry, and perform a variety of
other miscellaneous tasks.
STAR Program is part of the Johnson County Continuum of
Project Coordination Care, coordinating with treatment facilities, substance abuse
counselors, psychiatrists, and others. Also, many clients are
with Existing Services & referred through organizations such as DVIP, HACAP, Jail
other Services Available
in the Community Alternative of Johnson County, Iowa Legal Aid, 6th Judicial
Department of Corrections, Mid-Eastern Iowa Community
Mental Health Center, and the Salvation Army.
Applicant History or Applicant received funds in FY10 for this position, which were
Capacity to Successfully used to leverage $448,000 for supportive services for the
Complete the Proposed homeless of Johnson County. Applicant received CDSG
Project operational funds in FY05, 06, 07, 08, 09 & 10.
Summary of Items 1) How will applicant locate funds for operational costs in the
to be Addressed future?
2
I ~ I
;:::.~=_..~
~~~!='"t.
::: ...,~
.............
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP)-
Number Facility Rehabilitation
Page 108
Project Address Confidential
Activity Type Public Facility
CITY STEPS Priority Medium - Homeless Facilities
CITY STEPS Goal Strategy: Improve and maintain existing shelter facilities (Page 70)
Achieved
Beneficiaries Presumed benefit (Nature of Activity)
Amount Requested $76,000
Repayment Terms Earned Grant. Compliance period of 25.3 years
Period of Affordability NA
Percent of Project 88%
Funded by CDBG/HOME
Leveraging City Funds $ 0.14 in other funds for each CDBG dollar requested
Property Taxes Tax exempt
I! I
~~=_....
!~~;!:'"!.
~ ....,
......,...........
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
ProjectCoordinauon
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
DVIP provides emergency shelter (up to 90 days), crisis intervention,
advocacy and support services to victims of domestic violence and
their children. A critical aspect of the program is to provide a safe
environment while the client moves beyond the initial stages of crisis.
The shelter has housed more than 5,400 women and children since
the facility was constructed in 1993. Applicant requests funds to
replace the handicap accessible ramp and railing to maintain the
integrity of the building foundation.
CDBG funds make up approximately 88% of the project's budget.
Applicant secured a bid for the work proposed.
DVIP collaborates with a wide range of community groups working on
housing issues and support services, such as Shelter House, Iowa
City Housing Authority, STAR, The Housing Fellowship, Home Ties,
DHS, Iowa Workforce Development, Johnson County Coalition
Against Domestic Violence and the Local Homeless Coordinating
Board.
DVIP has received a number of CDBG funding awards, including
funds to construct and subsequently rehab the current facility. In the
past, DVIP has shown sufficient capacity to complete the projects.
Applicant received CDBG (public facility) funding in FY05, 06, 07, 08,
09, & 10.
1.
Applicant has requested funds over the last several years for
small repair/maintenance items that could possibly be funded
by a coordinated capital campaign for all building needs. Has
DVIP completed a comprehensive review of the facility to
review its capital needs to maintain the facility?
2. All work will be subject to federal labor provisions (Davis
Bacon "prevailing" wages) and must comply with federal
procurement standards (competitive bids) for the proposed
work.
2
I! j
!~~~*t
~ ",-~,
...............
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Extend the Dream Foundation - Building Acquisition
Number Page 118
Project Address 209 N. Linn St.
Activity Type Public Facility
CITY STEPS Priority Medium - Handicap Centers
Strategy: Education/Job Training/Self Sufficiency Skills.
CITY STEPS Goal Development of programs that support job training (Page 79)
Achieved Continue to support agencies that provide outreach programs to
persons with drug and alcohol addiction (Page 82)
0-30% MFI 59%
Beneficiaries 31-50% MFI 23%
51-80% MFI 6%
Over 80% MFI 12%
Amount Requested $200,000
Repayment Terms Earned Grant. Compliance period of 66.7 years
Period of Affordability NA
Percent of Project 37%
Funded by CDBG/HOME
Leveraging City Funds $ 1.60 in other funds for each CDSG dollar requested
Property Taxes Upon purchase, applicant will apply for tax exemption. Current
annual taxes for the property are $15,774.
I ~ I
~~~_.a.,
!~~i!:~
~~"'.L'
.....,..,.....a.L.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
Project Coordination
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
Applicant started Uptown Bill's Small Mall in 2001 as a micro-enterprise
incubator for low income person with disabilities at 401 S. Gilbert. The
current facility houses four business centers that are directed and
operated by persons with disabilities. The facility also provides meeting
space for disability groups and provides a music venue. Due to
escalating rent prices, the applicant requests funds to purchase and
renovate a building at 209 N. Linn Street to provide a permanent space
for the organization and contribute to their continued viability.
CDBG funds make up approximately 37% of the project's budget. The
budget consists of $520,000 to acquire and renovate the space. No
construction estimates were provided. How much for acquisition and
how much for renovation? Applicant states a $53,400 volunteer
contribution for this project. How will volunteers be utilized for this project
(acquiring and renovating the proposed building)? Applicant budgets
$12,000 in realtor costs to purchase a building. What costs are included
in this estimate?
Extend the Dream Foundation (EDF) works with several community
partners through referrals for micro-enterprise and hosting meeting
spaces for various non-profit organizations. EDF has partnered with
Access 2 Independence, University of Iowa, MECCA, Elder Services,
STAR homeless outreach, Sixth Judicial Court and others.
Applicant has received CDBG and HOME funds in the past for various
projects. During prior monitoring visits, various items were noticed that
were not in compliance with HUD or local requirements (reporting and
financial management, meeting building code requirements in a timely
fashion and income documentation). The most important item being that
EDF must have a financial system that provides control and
accountability over funds and assets, identifies the source and
application of federal funds, provides source documentation, has basic
accounting records, and ensures an adequate separation of financial
duties. EDF has worked to resolve some of these issues; however the
organization must incorporate a financial management system operated
on a long term basis that will meet federal standards. Currently, the
organization is run through volunteers. Applicant plans to hire a director
this July to take over the duties performed by the volunteer Executive
Director, who will remain as a volunteer consultant.
1.
The budget did not separate the cost of acquisition and the
renovation cost. All work must be completed in conformance with
the City's building code.
Is the organization committed to paid staff/Director for the
compliance period?
All work will be subject to federal labor provisions (Davis Bacon
"prevailing" wages) and must comply with federal procurement
standards (competitive bids) for the proposed work.
2.
3.
2
I ~ j
--= -......
~~ii!=~
~:-r.._I~
........-.&L. ~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Iowa City Free Medical Clinic/Dick Parrott Free Dental Clinic
Number Facility Rehabilitation
Page 128
Project Address 2440 Towncrest Drive
Activity Type Public Facility
CITY STEPS Priority Low - Health Facilities
CITY STEPS Goal Prevention and Outreach Activities: increase accessibility to
Achieved physical/mental health care (p. 71)
Beneficiaries 0-30% MFI 88%
31-50% MFI 12%
Amount Requested $97,975
Repayment Terms Earned Grant. Compliance period of 32.7 years.
Period of Affordability NA
Percent of Project 100%
Funded by CDBG/HOME
Leveraging City Funds $0.00 in other funds for each CDBG dollar requested
Property Taxes Applicant will pay full property tax ($50,863 annually) until the
applicant receives tax exemption status (up to two years)
I ~ I
~~'S._....
f~~!='"!.
~ _-L'
.......,........
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
Project Coordination
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
The Free Medical Clinic/Free Dental Clinic (including pharmacy, lab,
chronic and acute care) treats over 2,600 patients annually. The
clinic provides free medical and dental services to uninsured low to
moderate income persons. The number of patients utilizing the
service increases each year, with 43% of all patients seen in the first
six months of FY10 being new patients. Access to affordable heath
care is a critical component to family and financial stability. Applicant
requests funds to replace the building's HV/AC, complete exterior
improvements, remodel the basement and other facility
improvements.
CDBG funds make up approximately 100% of the project's budget.
Applicant secured a bid for the work proposed. The bid outlines the
cost of each improvement requested.
The Free Medical Clinic has a long history of working with a variety of
agencies and organizations in Iowa City such as Hospice, Church of
the Nazarene, Shelter House, U of I Hospitals and Dental program,
MECCA, Johnson County Public Health, Healthy Kids School Clinics
and many private health care professionals. There are no other free
medical clinics in Johnson County.
The Free Medical Clinic has successfully administered CDBG funds
in previous years. Additionally, the clinic has a 30-plus year history of
operating the clinic and overseeing renovations funded with grants
and donations.
1. 100% of the budget is CDBG funded. Does the applicant
have any building reserve funds to be used towards this
project?
2. The City is considering the Towncrest neighborhood for an
Urban Renewal district. There is the possibility of a developer
acquiring this parcel for redevelopment in subsequent years
based on the willingness of the applicant to sell the property.
3. All work will be subject to federal labor provisions (Davis
Bacon "prevailing" wages) and must comply with federal
procurement standards (competitive bids) for the proposed
work.
2
I! j
~:.=_It...
~~~!:'"t.
~ "-'m~
..............
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Johnson County Extension Office/Big Brothers Big Sisters
Number New Construction (Page 137)
Project Address Oak Crest Hill Rd SE (adjacent to the Johnson County
Fairgrounds)
Activity Type Public Facility
CITY STEPS Priority Medium - Youth Center
Childcare: support affordable childcare (P. 78); Family
Preservation: support programs focusing on preventive
CITY STEPS Goal intervention and outreach (P. 78); Self Sufficiency: promote
Achieved programs that support self-esteem enhancement, family and
parental counseling, skills development and communication
skills. (P. 79)
0-30% MFI 55%
Beneficiaries 31-50% MFI 35%
51-80% MFI 5%
Over 80% MFI 5%
Amount Requested $200,000
Repayment Terms Earned Grant. Compliance period of 66.7 years.
Period of Affordability NA
Percent of Project 13%
Funded by CDBG/HOME
Leveraging City Funds $6.71 in other funds for each CDBG dollar requested
Property Taxes Tax Exempt
I ~ j
~~~_.....
!~~!:'"!.
~ "-'m~
..................
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
ProjectCoordinaffon
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
Johnson County Extension serves 2,300 youth in elementary after-
school programs with science based educational activities and in-
school nutrition education. The applicant provides over $250,000 of
in-kind support to Big Brothers Big Sisters of Johnson County
(BBBSJC) including free office/rental space, utilities, equipment, office
supplies, bookkeeping, clerical support and other services. BBBSJC
provides youth programming and one-on-one mentoring to at-risk
youth. Applicant requests funds to construct a new 12,000 SF facility
to house the applicant and Big Brothers Big Sisters. The applicant's
programs focus on crime prevention, child care, youth programming,
life skills, literacy, mental health and abuse prevention.
CDBG funds make up approximately 13% of the project's budget.
Other sources include revenue generation, property taxes, donations,
grants and volunteer contributions.
Big Brothers Big Sisters has a history of partnerships that include the
cities of Iowa City and Coralville, United Way of Johnson County, the
Iowa City Community School District, Neighborhood Centers and
Johnson County to provide youth services to those in need.
Johnson County Extension has the capacity to implement and
complete federal awards. The applicant and BBBSJC are audited
annually.
1. The applicant requests $200,000. Does the $200,000
represent the cost to construct the facility space for the Big
Brothers Big Sisters program?
2. The applicant anticipates serving 782 clients. Is this the
anticipated number to be served by Big Brothers Big Sisters?
3. The timeline states site preparations will be completed in April
15, 2010. No work that disturbs the ground (grading, installing
utilities, etc.) can begin until July 1, 2010 and the applicant
enters a CDBG agreement with the City.
4. Site has to be in Iowa City's corporate limits to receive CDBG
funds. When does applicant expect to be annexed into Iowa
City?
5. All work will be subject to federal labor provisions (Davis
Bacon "prevailing" wages) and must comply with federal
procurement standards (competitive bids) for the proposed
work.
2
I ~ I
f~~~'t
::::: ....,
..... ......I.L..
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program - Facility Rehab.
Number Page 147
Project Address 407 Highland Court
Activity Type Public Facility
CITY STEPS Priority Medium - Handicap Center
High - Child Care Center
Childcare: support affordable childcare for children with
disabilities (P. 78); Self Sufficiency: promote programs that
CITY STEPS Goal support self-esteem enhancement, family and parental
Achieved counseling, skills development and communication skills (P. 79)
Education/Job Training/Self Sufficiency Skills. Development of
programs that support job training (Page 79)
0-30% MFI 49%
Beneficiaries 31-50% MFI 16%
51-80% MFI 20%
Over 80% MFI 15%
Amount Requested $97,237
Repayment Terms Earned Grant. Compliance period of 32.4 years.
Period of Affordability NA
Percent of Project 100%
Funded by CDBG/HOME
Leveraging City Funds $0.00 in other funds for each CDBG dollar requested
Property Taxes Applicant will pay full property tax ($19,246 annually) until the
applicant receives tax exemption status (up to two years)
,~ j
-....= -.....
~~~!:"t.
~ _..~
.................
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YS/S
,
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
ProjectCoordinauon
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
Applicant provides services to 150 persons with disabilities and at-risk
youth annually. Through the Iowa Medicaid waiver for individuals
with disabilities, applicant provides respite care, supported community
living, job coaching and placement, prevocational services, adult day
services, direct attendant care, and after school care to children from
kindergarten to high school. Applicant also provides employment
opportunities and supportive services for at-risk youth through their
Youth Leadership Program.
Applicants purchased a vacant building in 2009 to house their
organization and operations. After purchase they contributed
$170,000 to renovate the first floor of the property to accommodate
their programs (Phase 1 improvements). They anticipate moving into
the facility in April. Applicant states due to the cost of Phase I, they
are cash strapped and need assistance with the building's exterior.
Applicant requests funds to replace the roof, soffit and facia, air
conditioning, siding and various other improvements.
CDBG funds make up approximately 100% of the project's budget.
No construction estimates were provided; however applicant states
they have been working with a local architect firm for the proposed
improvements.
Applicant has partnered with the Department of Human Services,
Mental Health and Disability Services and the Iowa City Community
School District to provide services for persons with disabilities and at-
risk youth.
Applicant has the capacity to implement and complete federal
awards. Applicant administers close to $1,000,000 annually in state
and county contracts.
1. All work will be subject to federal labor provisions (Davis
Bacon "prevailing" wages) and must comply with federal
procurement standards (competitive bids) for the proposed
work.
2
I ~ 1
~:.=-_......
!~~;!:'"!.
~ -..,
........,.........
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page MECCA - Facility Rehabilitation
Number Page 155
Project Address 430 & 438 Southgate Avenue
Activity Type Public Facility
CITY STEPS Priority Low - Health Facilities (430 Southgate)
Transitional Housing - High (438 Southgate)
Prevention and Outreach Activities: increase accessibility to
physical/mental health care (p. 71)
CITY STEPS Goal Homeless and Homeless Prevention: Support substance abuse
Achieved counseling to persons at risk of becoming homeless (P. 64).
Support transitional housing and sober living options for individuals
with substance abuse issues coming out of treatment (P. 85).
0-30% MFI 61%
31-50% MFI 9%
Beneficiaries 51-80% MFI 3%
Over 80% MFI 27% (includes 849 clients that did not disclose
income)
Amount Requested $15,850
Repayment Terms Earned Grant. Compliance period of 5.3 years.
Period of Affordability NA
Percent of Project 100%
Funded by CDBG/HOME
Leveraging City Funds $0.00 in other funds for each CDSG dollar requested
Reduced rate paid for 12 housing units at 438 Southgate:
Property Taxes $25,000/year
430 Southgate: Tax Exempt
I ~ 1
-....= -It
!~ji'!:1It
~ -..,
..............
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
Project Coordination
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
Applicant provides substance abuse counseling and treatment along
with HIV/AIDS services to approximately 3,200 persons a year.
MECCA offers 12 transitional housing units and houses a 32 bed
inpatient residential facility.
Applicant requests funding to replace the residential double doors and
make parking lot repairs/replacement at 430 Southgate (residential
treatment) and replace the carpet at 438 Southgate (transitional
housing).
CDBG funds make up approximately 100% of the project's budget.
No estimate was provided to verify project's costs.
MECCA collaborates with a wide range of community organizations
such as the Johnson County Empowerment Board, Juvenile Crime
Board, DVIP, Iowa City Schools and receives referrals from the US
Probation Office, Iowa Dept. of Corrections, Bureau of Prisons and
DHS.
MECCA has received a number of CDBG and HOME funding awards,
including funds to construct the current facility in 1985 and the
transitional housing facility in 2001. Applicant has received federal,
state and local funds to administer programs. Applicant employs a
professional administrative staff. Applicant received CDBG (public
facility) funding in FY07, 09, & 10.
1 . 70% of the clients served by applicant live outside Iowa
City/Coralville. 30% of the clients have Iowa City/Coralville address,
thus the % of Iowa City residents could be lower than 30%. Are there
other funding sources available?
2. Does applicant have a building reserves budget? Applicant has
requested funds over the last few years for small repair/maintenance
items that could possibly be funded through reserves.
3. Question #14. Clients that won't disclose their income, must be
considered over 80% of median income when calculating the Low-
to-Moderate income (LMI) benefit. Over 70% of the clients served
are considered LMI, even when including those that didn't disclose
their income.
4. All work will be subject to federal labor provisions (Davis Bacon
"prevailing" wages) and must comply with federal procurement
standards (competitive bids) for the proposed work.
2
I ~ I
:;::~=_..>>
~~~!:~
~ ..-'~
................
Cl1Y OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Chabad Lubavitch of Iowa City, Rental Housing
Number Page 1
Project Address 420 E. Jefferson St.
Activity Type Housing
CITY STEPS Priority High - Low Income Related Renter Households
CITY STEPS Goal Development of Affordable Housing: Utilize CHDOs and non-profit
Achieved organizations to develop housing for extremely low, very low and low
income renters (P. 48)
Beneficiaries 0-30% mfi - 100%
Amount Requested $23,500
Repayment Terms Forgivable Loan
Period of Affordability HOME regulations require 5 years.
Percent of Project 100%
Funded by CDBG/HOME
Leveraging City Funds $0.00 in other funds for each (City) HOME/CDBG dollar requested
Property Taxes Tax Exempt
I ~ I
:::;~"5._.....
!~~!:~
~ "_I~
...... ..&L.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YS/S
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
Project Coordination
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
Rental housing for income eligible households is a high priority under
CITY STEPS. Chabad is a house with two apartments. Q. 17
identifies the renters as students.
Chabad Lubavitch of Iowa City is an International Jewish
Organization whose mission is to educate and bring an awareness of
Judiasm to others. The organization provides social and educational
programs that are available to the public. Applicant requests funds to
make energy efficiency improvements and to upgrade the facility
(insulation, air conditioning, siding, winterizing and sidewalk repairs.)
The applicant proposes a forgivable loan. The proforma is not
complete as only the first year identifies debt service. No construction
estimates were provided. A completed proforma would be necessary
to review. Staff does not have enough information to review financial
terms.
Applicant is a recognized student group at the University of Iowa.
Applicant identifies that the organization has a director and co-
director. The applicant does not list any prior city, state or federal
funds received or administered.
1.
Issues regarding the separation of church and state. One of
the apartments is where Chabad programming is provided.
Program eligibility will need to be reviewed.
Applicant states the upper unit is rented to students and
available to anyone. The main apartment is allocated to the
Rabbi as parsonage for his duties.
Does applicant have the capacity to administer federal funds if
eligible? Federal procurement rules apply as well as minimal
financial standards, income documentation and reporting
requirements.
2.
3.
2
I ~ 1
.::;....=--.a..
!~~~'"t.
~~"'.I'
................
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Dolphin International LLC - Rental Housing
Number Page 14
Project Address 2401 Highway 6, Iowa City
Activity Type Housing
CITY STEPS Priority High - Low Income Related Renter Households
CITY STEPS Goal Rehabilitation of Existing Housing Stock: Promote the rehabilitation
Achieved and preservation of Iowa City's existing housing stock. (P.48)
0-30% mfi 34%
Beneficiaries 31-50% mfi 52%
51-60% mfi 14%
Amount Requested $584,000
Repayment Terms Forgivable Loan
Period of Affordability HOME regulations require 10 years, applicant proposes 10 years
Percent of Project 100%
Funded by CDBG/HOME
Leveraging City Funds $ 0.00 in other funds for each local HOME/CDBG dollar requested
Property Taxes $24,772.50 Annually
I ~ I
~~5._.....
!~~;!:'"!.
~".I'
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YS/S
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
Project Coordination
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
Rental housing for income eligible households is a high priority under
CITY STEPS. At the public needs hearing it was noted that
affordable SRO/efficiency units are needed for low income renters.
Applicant received $188,000 in FY09 and FY10 funds to provide
downpayment assistance to eligible homebuyers. Applicant's original
intent was to renovate the apartment complex and sell the
townhomes/units as owner-occupied units. Due to an economic
downturn and an inability to receive buyer financing, the project is
unable to proceed as planned. Applicant requests that these funds
plus additional FY11 funds be allocated to this project as a rental
rehabilitation project. Applicant has renovated 64 units at the
property, hired a security firm to patrol the grounds, and increased
screening procedures. Applicant requests funds to renovate Building
#14. The building will have 28 efficiency apartments and one one-
bedroom apartment.
The proposed budget shows an average $20,134 cost per unit. Debt
coverage ratio is 1.25 - 14.3. Applicant proposes a forgivable loan.
Repayment of the loan is recommended.
Applicant accepts referrals from Shelter House - STAR, persons with
disabilities and persons transitioning out of shelters.
The principals of the project have experience with distressed
properties and the architect and consultant have worked with HOME
funds to redevelop property.
1) What rents will be charged for the efficiency units and will the
tenant's have any utility expense? Will need to determine if the
rent structure proposed is below the fair market rent.
2) Lead based paint provisions will apply. Lead safe work practices
and clearance of units will be required.
3) Rehabilitation will be subject to federal labor provisions (Davis
Bacon "prevailing" wages).
2
I ~ I
-...= -lit
~~ji;!:tt
~ ....,
................. -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Iowa City Housing Authority - Tenant Based Rental
Number Assistance (Page 26)
Project Address Johnson County
Activity Type Housing
CITY STEPS Priority High - Rental assistance
Priority Housing Needs: ICHA will continue its Section 8
CITY STEPS Goal Housing Choice Voucher Program and provide rental
Achieved assistance to low income households. ICHA will prioritize
victims of domestic violence under the HOME TBRA Program
(page 37).
Beneficiaries 0-30% mfi 100%
Amount Requested $40,000
Repayment Terms Grant
Period of Affordability NA
Percent of Project 58%
Funded by HOME
Leveraging City Funds $ 0.73 in other funds for each local HOME dollar requested
Property Taxes Indirectly, private owners/landlords providing rental units pay
property taxes.
I ~ I
-....= -It
!~ji!:'t
~ -..,
....",.....I.L.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
ProjectCoordinauon
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
CITY STEPS recognizes that cost burdened renters need decent
affordable housing, and that extremely low income households have
the greatest needs for continued assistance in the form of a subsidy
or an affordable unit.
The proposed project will assist 4 low-income households
participating in the Domestic Violence Intervention Program
Transitional Housing Services program over a two year period for a
total of 96 unit months. Victims of domestic violence are recognized
as persons at risk of becoming homeless and as in need of services
to prevent homelessness.
CITY STEPS recognizes three primary justifications for the use of
HOME Funds for TBRA including: 1) the high demand for affordable
rental housing for non-student households, 2) the waiting list for
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers with an average waiting time of
12 - 14 months, and 3) that federal funding for the federal Section 8
Housing Choice Voucher program has been severely decreased in
the recent past with no indication of increased budget authority in the
near future (page 87).
In the proposed project, participants receive an average $400.00
voucher for 24 months. The ICHA estimates that tenant contribution
will reach $29,088 over the term period based upon full funding for 4
households. The HUD calculated per unit cost is $720/month. The
tenant is responsible, on average, for approximately 42% the contract
rent to private landlords scattered throughout Johnson County.
Households participating in the proposed project will be participating
in the Domestic Violence Intervention Program's Transition Housing
Services program.
ICHA received and administered $200,000 in TBRA funds in FY07. In
FY09, ICHA received $60,000 and in FY10 received $148,632 for
TBRA. Applicant is currently administering these funds. The ICHA
maintains 81 public housing units and administers the Housing
Choice Voucher Program. The ICHA has received HUD's High
Performance designation status for 10 consecutive years.
1.
HOME rules allow the applicant to use TBRA outside of Iowa
City, what limitations would applicant set regarding portability
and how many clients would be served outside of Iowa City?
Will applicant have a minimum tenant rent level?
2.
2
I ~ I
-....= -..
~~~~'t
~ -..,
............... -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
I S~~R~~T
Project Name & Page Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
Number Page 36
Project Address 4 units in census tract 18; 1 unit in census tract 17.
Activity Type Housing
CITY STEPS Priority Medium - Owner-occupied housing, any housing problem with
household income < 50% of median income.
CITY STEPS Goal Priority Housing Needs: Elderly and small family owner households
Achieved experience high degree of housing problems, especially cost burden.
Beneficiaries 31-50% mfi 100%
Amount Requested $190,000
Repayment Terms Loan at 0%
Period of Affordabi/ity Recapture Provision - if the home is sold, the loan is repaid with net
proceeds.
Percent of Project 30%
Funded by CDBG/HOME
Leveraging City Funds $ 2.36 in other funds for each local HOME/CDBG dollar requested
Property Taxes Estimated at $11,000 per year (5 homes)
1 ~ I
.;:;.~'5_"a..
~~~~!:'"!.
~~-_.,
......-.&L.. -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
Project Coordination
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
CITY STEPS recognizes the cost burdens of homeownership on low
to median income households.
Applicant requests funds to purchase lots to construct four affordable
homes and to acquire one home to rehabilitate and sell to an income
eligible household. All new construction would be handicap
accessible, energy efficient, with maintenance free exteriors.
Applicant states the mortgage payments with utilities included will be
significantly less expensive than a comparable sized rental unit. The
average monthly payment in 2009 for a Habitat home was $580.
The program will place recapture provisions on the homes. If sold,
the loan is fully repaid from net proceeds to the City at 0% interest.
The estimated cost per unit is $128,000. Applicant's budget includes
$50,000 to acquire a single family home in Census Tract 17. Are
properties available at $50,000? Applicant also includes a developer
fee of $20,000 or $4,000/unit. Does this cost get transferred to the
buyer under the HOME lien (under the recapture provision)?
Applicant's use of funds includes $6,000 for reserves. What
expenses are included under reserves?
The applicant proposes to provide $240,000 in private equity and will
seek $150,000 in HELP loans to cover the estimated project costs. In
addition to these funds, the applicant has commitments for $35,000 in
volunteer labor and $25,000 in gifts-in-kind.
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity works with volunteers, donors,
agencies, churches, and businesses to build permanent, safe housing
for persons under 50% of median family income.
The applicant has been awarded $220,000 in FY07 and $117,000 in
FY08, with homes expected to be completed in the summer of 2010
and 2011 respectively. The applicant is currently working to resolve a
zoning violation on a FY08 purchased lot and proposes to do so by
April 30, 2010.
1. Applicant has been resistant to incorporate elements of the
Affordable Housing Design Guidelines approved by HCDC
(October 2006) to the proposed homes. Will the proposed homes
meet the Affordable Housing Design Guidelines in terms of
building entrances, individual identity and street facing facades?
Will applicant incorporate access to the home's backyards?
2
I ~ 1
~~5._.....
~~~!:'"!.
:::: -..,
....,..,.........
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Isis Investments, LLC - Rental Housing
Number Page 46
Sites in Census Tracts/Block Groups that have been identified for
Project Address additional affordable housing opportunities (City Council FY07
Location Map)
Activity Type Housing
CITY STEPS Priority High - Low Income Related Renter Households
CITY STEPS Goal Rehabilitation of Existing Housing Stock: Promote the rehabilitation
Achieved and preservation of Iowa City's existing housing stock. (P.48)
Beneficiaries 0-30% mfi - 60%
31-50% mfi - 40%
Amount Requested $250,000
Repayment Terms $242,500 30-year loan with 0% interest, 15-year deferment; $7,500
developer fee grant
Period of Affordability HOME regulations require 15 years, applicant proposes 15 years
Percent of Project 35%
Funded by CDBG/HOME
Leveraging City Funds $1.85 in other funds for each HOME/CDBG dollar requested
Property Taxes Yes. The applicant estimates annual tax payments of $12,000.
I ~ I
~~5_"",
t~~;.!!:'"!.
~ ....~
......... ..&L.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
ProjectCoordina60n
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
The applicant proposes to acquire and rehabilitate five (4 - three
bedroom and 1 - four bedroom) homes to rent to low income
households. Households will be allowed to spread their security
deposit and utility deposits over several months to provide greater
access to affordable units. Applicant references several studies
documenting the need for additional affordable housing units in Iowa
City. The project addresses Iowa City's current and projected
demand for affordable housing for low-income households, removes
the barriers for security and utility deposits and supports families in
developing skills to manage and maintain a single family home.
Creating affordable housing from existing stock is cost-effective.
Applicant will offer the opportunity for the household to purchase the
home after being a tenant for at least 12 months.
Applicant requests funds for the downpayment of five single family
homes. The proposed budget shows an average cost of $142,600
per unit.
Proforma Concerns: The debt coverage ratio varies from 1.17 to less
than 1.0 over the 20 years. The cash flow after tax is for the most
part positive during the 20-year proforma. The proforma did not
budget for reserves. Staff recommends that reserves be funded for
long-term viability. Staff calculates the first mortgage (private loan)
annual payment based on terms provided at $35,882. Proforma
states $41,580. This difference will improve the debt coverage ratio
and allow for reserves.
The applicant will work with the Iowa City Housing Authority to assist
tenants with asset-building and homeownership. Qualified families
will be identified prior to purchasing a home and will be encouraged to
participate in all stages of the acquisition process as each tenant will
have the opportunity to purchase the home if interested.
The Managing Member has extensive administrative and financial
management experience. Applicant owns and manages seven local
properties and hires a social worker to serve as property manager.
The property manager also works with tenant families to assist with
gaining skills to maintain their homes.
1 ) Staff encourages applicant to budget for reserves for the assisted
units. HCDC may request a revised budget that includes
reserves.
2
I ~ I
~~~~*t
~ "!!!!.L'
.......~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page Shelter House/National Alliance on the Mentally III of Johnson
County - Affordable Rental Housing
Number Page 62
Project Address No site selected at this time (Iowa City)
Activity Type Housing
CITY STEPS Priority High - Non-student renter households under 50% of median income
CITY STEPS Goal Chronic Homeless Strategy: create new permanent housing beds for
Achieved chronically homeless persons.
Beneficiaries 0-30% mfi - 100%
Amount Requested $200,000
Repayment Terms Forgivable Loan
Period of Affordability HOME regulations require 15, applicant proposes 20 years
Percent of Project 50%
Funded by CDBG/HOME
Leveraging City Funds $1.00 in other funds for each HOME/CDBG dollar requested
Property Taxes Tax-Exempt
I ~ I
~~~_.....
!~~;!:~
:::: ".L'
............. -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
Project Coordination
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
CITY STEPS identifies permanent supportive housing as a high need.
The proposed project would assist chronically homeless individuals
with a disabling mental illness with permanent housing.
The applicant proposes to build a single family home with six
bedrooms to provide a communal living environment with continued
supportive services based on prior successful models. The
residents/tenants will share in running the household, including
chores, buying and preparing food. Research shows that many
clients fail in permanent housing placements due to not only
inadequate income but social isolation and lack of adequate support.
50% of the project is publicly funded. The applicant proposes to buy
a house with sufficient space for 6 bedrooms at $160,000. They
estimate using $217,400 for site improvements and construction/
rehabilitation. No developer fee is included. The cost is $400,400 for
the single family home; the per unit (by bedroom) cost would be
$66,733.
Proforma Concerns: The rent charged based on the proforma is
$340/month per bedroom (unit). The fair market rent for SRO units is
$366. There is an estimated $50/mo tenant contribution in addition to
rent. What does this amount consist of?
The debt coverage ratio is 1.6 to 2.1 over the 20 years. Applicant
requests a forgivable loan. Repayment of a portion of the loan is
recommended. Staff also recommends reviewing if project costs can
be reduced.
The applicant has a history of working with several area partners.
This project will rely on partnerships with Goodwill, Housing Trust
Fund, Community Mental Health Center, the Consultation of Religious
Communities, ICHA, Dept. of Veteran Affairs, NAM', Tasks Unlimited
and several others.
Shelter House successfully administers federal and state funds.
Applicant has received funds for various public facility and public
service projects; however this would be the applicant's first project
concentrating on permanent rental housing.
1) Shelter House is currently constructing and will then operate a new
homeless shelter for up to 70 persons. Does applicant have the
capacity to successfully support and manage both projects
simultaneously?
2) Project costs appear to be high. Can applicant reduce costs to make
the project more feasible?
3) Please review the budQet concerns mentioned above.
2
I ~ I
f~~i:*t
~ ..~!-,
~ -.aa..
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page The Housing Fellowship, CHDO Operating Expenses
Number Page 77
Project Address 322 E. 2nd. Street, Iowa City
Activity Type Housing
CITY STEPS Priority High - CHDO Operating Expenses
CITY STEPS Goal Priority Housing Needs: increase the capacity within non-profit
Achieved organizations that develop affordable housing (P. 40)
Beneficiaries Agency wide. Owns and manages 116 affordable rental units.
Amount Requested $40,000 or 5% of the final HOME entitlement allocation
(Amount of HOME entitlement not know at time of application)
Repayment Terms Grant
Period of Affordability NA
Percent of Project 9% of the calendar year administrative expense budget.
Funded by HOME
Leveraging City Funds $9.83 in other funds for each HOME dollar requested
Property Taxes Tax Exempt
I! I
--= -......
~~jii!:'"!.
~ "!!:L~
...... ....a.L..
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
ProjectCoordinaffon
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
The Housing Fellowship (THF) has been in operation since 1990.
THF now owns and manages 116 affordable rental units occupied by
low-income households, developed and sold 17 owner-occupied
homes into a land trust to ensure permanent affordability and
administers a revolving loan fund for low-income renters to pay for
security deposits. The financial management responsibilities have
grown extensively. THF manages four separate limited partnerships.
THF currently has six full time employees. THF has experienced
cash flow problems over the last few years. The CHOO funds
requested will help THF achieve financial stability and provide
adequate replacement/repair reserves. The 2007 Affordable
Housing Market Analysis encourages the City to increase the capacity
of non-profit housing providers that develop affordable housing.
The project is an operational grant allowed under the HOME program.
The HOME program caps CHOO operating expense to 5% of the
HOME allocation. Funds allocated for CHOO operating expenses
are not an eligible cost for CHOO set-aside funds. This project can
also be funded partially through COSG funds as a public service
project; however any COSG funding provided would be subject to the
COSG cap on public services.
The applicant has a long history of working with a variety of agencies,
organizations and private businesses. HACAP, the Neighborhood
Centers, Shelter House and Four Oaks/Youth Homes are permanent
members of the Housing Fellowship.
Applicant has successfully managed hundreds of thousands of dollars
of COSG and HOME funded projects. THF has experience and a
successful track record with the acquisition, construction and
management of affordable housing. THF qualifies as a Community
Housing Oevelopment Organization (CHOO). Applicant received
CHOO operating funds in FY08, 09 and FY10.
1. THF received CHOO operating funds for the last three years.
How will THF increase their financial stability in subsequent
years?
2
I ~ j
~~=-_.....
~~~~~!='"!.
~ __I~
.....~ -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
FY11 CDBG/HOME APPLICANT REVIEW
STAFF REPORT
Project Name & Page The Housing Fellowship, Affordable Rental Housing
Number Page 88
Homes located in the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership's
Project Address designated neighborhoods (neighborhoods close to the downtown
and the University campus)
Activity Type Housing
CITY STEPS Priority High - Low Income Related Renter Households
CITY STEPS Goal Development of Affordable Housing: Utilize CHDOs and non-profit
Achieved organizations to develop housing for extremely low, very low and low
income renters (P. 48)
31-50% mfi - 20%
Beneficiaries 51-60% mfi - 70%
61-80% mfi - 10%
Amount Requested $682,443
Repayment Terms Conditional Occupancy Loan
Period of Affordabi/ity HOME regulations require 15 years, applicant proposes 20 years
Percent of Project 33%
Funded by CDBG/HOME
Leveraging City Funds $2.05 in other funds for each (City) HOME/CDBG dollar requested
Property Taxes Tax Exempt
1 ~ I
~~5._......
!~I~!='"!.
~_~I'
.................
CITY OF IOWA CITY
STAFF ANAL YSIS
Documentation of
Project Need
Project Budget
Discussion
ProjectCoordina60n
with Existing Services &
other Services Available
in the Community
Applicant History or
Capacity to Successfully
Complete the Proposed
Project
Summary of Items
to be Addressed
CITY STEPS states there are 7,364 renter households experiencing housing
problems. The 2007 Affordable Housing Market Analysis completed by
Mullin & Lonergan Associates identified a need of 2,739 affordable housing
units for 2007-2012. Rental housing for income eligible households is a
high priority under CITY STEPS.
The applicant proposes to acquire 10 existing homes close to the University
campus to rent to income eligible households. The UniverCity Neighborhood
Partnership has identified areas in need of investment and improvement and
plans to improve the balance of single family and student rental housing
within these neighborhoods. Applicant will substantially rehabilitate the
homes and provide reduced rent for working families without relying on
additional subsidies. Proposed rents for the two-bedroom units will be $625
(fair market rent is $734 and based on the 2009 Cook Appraisal Rent
Survey, average rent for this area is $722).
The proposed budget shows an average $208,144 cost per unit. Debt
coverage ratio is 1.20-1.33 through years 1-20.
The Housing Fellowship will receive a developer fee of $271 ,493 for the
$2,081,443 project (13% of the total project cost). Developer fees are
allowed under the HOME Program. Under the L1HTC program, the Iowa
Finance Authority caps developer fee at 17% of the total project cost minus
land, developer fee, consultant fees, developer overheard and profit and
project reserves for acquisition/rehabilitation projects. IFA allows a higher
percent for this type of project as opposed to new construction. Partial
repayment of the loan is recommended, payment may be deferred until Year
10.
The applicant has a long history of working with a variety of agencies,
organizations and private businesses. The Housing Fellowship will be an
active partner in the UniverCity Neighborhood Project. The University of
Iowa, City of Iowa City, neighborhood representatives, various lenders,
realtors and members of the Home Builders Association are partnering to
increase affordable housing opportunities, both owner occupied and rental
(non-student households), in neighborhoods in need of reinvestment close to
downtown and the University campus.
Applicant has successfully managed millions of dollars of CDBG and HOME
funded projects. THF has experience and a successful track record with the
acquisition, construction and management of affordable housing. THF
qualifies as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO).
1. Homes built before 1978 require compliance with lead based paint
provisions. In cases where rehabilitation will exceed $24,999 applicant
will have to complete lead abatement. Does applicant have experience
with lead abatement?
2. To clarify the financial terms proposed, applicant stated the State
HOME funds requested are in the form of a 20-year balloon payment.
The $3,000 (deferred for 3 years) debt payment in the proforma is for
the HTFJC. Based on a 30 year term, the annual payment would be
$10,000. Is the balance a balloon payment at the end of 30 years?
2
I ~ 1
~~5._~...
~~W~~
~~ ~rIII.'
-.-
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
Re:
February 8, 2010
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SUSAN DULEK, ASS'T. CITY ATTORNEY ~
OPEN RECORDS AND OPEN MEETINGS
From:
Given that the Commission is beginning the allocation process, I believe that it is an opportune
time for me to discuss some matters related to open meetings and open records. This issue
has come up with various City boards and commissions in the past, as well as with City Council.
Open MeetinQs and emails. Email communications between Commission members raise issues
under Iowa's open meetings law found in Chapter 21 of the Iowa Code. If a majority of the
Commission simultaneously communicates electronically about Commission business, a "meeting"
may occur. A "meeting" is any time a quorum discusses Commission business. Because of the
capacity for instant communications provided by electronic mail, e-mail communications may rise to
the level of a meeting. While the Iowa Supreme Court has not addressed this issue, cases in other
jurisdictions suggest that the question of whether a meeting has occurred turns on how
simultaneous the communication among the majority of the group has been. To determine whether
a violation of the open meetings law has occurred, any such occurrence would have to be
examined on its own facts. However, due to the instantaneous nature of e-mail communication,
use of e-mail to communicate amongst yourselves is problematic, and you should be very cautious
when doing so. The best practice is to rely on City staff to transmit information of interest to other
Commission members.
I have previously advised staff not to communicate with the Commission via email as well except for
a ministerial matter, such as setting a time to meet.
Open Records and emails. All electronic and written communication, with limited exception, to you
and from you related to your position as a Commission member is an "open (or public) record"
under Chapter 22 of the Iowa Code. Consequently, any person for any reason may request copies
of this communication. Doing work on your personal computer or on your work computer does not
make it "private" or "confidential" or shield it from an open records request. For example, a reporter,
or anyone, could request copies of all communication having to do with one of pending applications
for CDBG/HOME assistance and copies would need to be provided.
Commission members' replies to e-mails should advise the senders that their e-mail
communications and the Commissioners' responses may be public information.
If you have questions about this Memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact me at 356-
5030.
Copy to:
Steve Long
Tracy Hightshoe