HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03-24 Bd Comm minutesItem Number: 4.a.
INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 24, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Community Police Review Board: February 11
- ®-4r CITY OF IOWA CITY
. MEMORANDUM
Date: 3/11/20
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Chris Olney, Community Police Review Board Staff
Re: Recommendation from Community Police Review Board
At their February 11, 2020 meeting the Community Police Review Board made the following
recommendation to the City Council:
(1) Accept CPRB #19-05
Additional action (check one)
X No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
S:RECform.doc
Final/Approved
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — February 11, 2020
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Monique Galpin called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Latisha McDaniel, David Selmer, Orville Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sam Conaway
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Chris Olney, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford
OTHERS PRESENT: Iowa City Police Captain Denise Brotherton
Galpin introduced CPRB Liaison - Janice Weiner
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB #19-05
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Selmer, seconded by Townsend to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended.
• Minutes of the Meeting on 1/14/20
• ICPD General Order 99-08 (Body Worn Cameras & In -Car Recorders)
• ICPD General Order 89-02 (Department Disciplinary Philosophy)
• ICPD General Order 17-03 (Firearms)
Motion carried, 4/0, Conaway absent.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
Community Forum - Olney discussed the draft items for the forum included in the meeting packet and
asked if a discussion topic/presentation had been agreed upon. The Board and ICPD Captain
Brotherton agreed to a police presentation on new body/in-car cameras and discussion on the following
current community issues: Ring doorbell program, Police Chief hiring process and facial recognition
technology. Captain Brotherton will present a short demonstration of the cameras to the board at the
next meeting.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
ACLU Board members Martha Hampel, Caroline Dieterle, Jen Lee and Dean Able noted concerns
related to a recent incident involving social media and inquired on the Police Department's policy on
social media. It was also suggested that information on the process of hiring a new Police Chief,
clarifying City Managers role/relationship to law enforcement, the Ring door -bell program, body
cameras and facial recognition technology could be part of the Community forum.
Legal Counsel Ford suggested the individual involved in the social media incident could file a complaint
to the Board which would launch an investigation as part of the complaint policy process.
Galpin stated that the social media policy discussion could be added to next meeting agenda.
CPRB minutes
DRAFT
February 11, 2020
BOARD INFORMATION
Board Chair Galpin suggested adding new business items to next meeting agenda:
• Board member Conaway's absences and any recommendation to be considered.
• City/Police department social media policy discussion
STAFF INFORMATION
None
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Townsend, seconded by McDaniel to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section
21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or
federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's
possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential
personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school
districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized
elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are
made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to
the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of
government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to
that government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion carried, 4/0, Conaway absent. Open session adjourned at 5:51 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 6:08 P.M.
Motion by Galpin, seconded by Selmer to accept CPRB Complaint #19-05 as amended and forward
report to City Council.
Motion carried, 4/0, Conaway absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to channe)
March 10, 2020, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
April 14, 2020, 5:30 P.M. Helling Conference Rm
April 27, 2020, 6:00 P.M. IC Public Library (Community Forum)
May 12, 2020, 5:30 P.M. Helling Conference Rm
June 9, 2020, 5:30 P.M. Helling Conference Rm
Galpin will be absent April 14th but will address it at the March meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by McDaniel, seconded by Townsend.
Motion carried, 4/0, Conaway absent.
Meeting adjourned at 6:10 P.M.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2019-2020
(Meeting Date)
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
3/12/19
4/9/19
4/29/19
5/14/19
6/11/19
7/11/19
8/13/19
9/10/19
9/24/19
10/8/19
11/12/19
12/10/19
1/14/20
2/11/20
NAME
NO
QUORUM
QU
Donald
X
X
X
X
X
King
Monique
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Galpin
Orville
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Townsend
Latisha
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
McDaniel
David
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Selmer
Sam
X
X
X
X
O/E
O
O
O
Conaway
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
February 11, 2020
To: City Council "
Complainant
City Manager
Equity Director
Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #19-05
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #19-05 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or
local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public
report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a
clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either
"sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(5).)
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the
officer involved.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on September 3, 2019. As required by Section
8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investipgation.
'5
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on December 2, 2019.;4
The Board voted on January 14, 2020 to apply the following Level of Review to tt}e,ChiefsrReport: On the
record with no additional review, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(A)., , �' b
The Board met to consider the Report on December 10, 2019, January 14, 2029 -AN Februaly 11,
2020.';
Prior to the January 14, 2020 meeting, the Board reviewed videos of the incident, including the officer
body cameras worn by the officers on the scene of the investigation.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On August 30, 2019, the Iowa City police officers, whom are the subject of the complaint, (hereinafter,
"the Officers")0 were dispatched to the area of 900 West Benton Street to address a call that two
females were fighting near the bus stop there. Officer 1 arrived and made contact with the Complainant
and another woman, who were separated, but arguing. Officer 1 called for another unit, Officer 2.
When Officer 2 arrived, Officer 1 interviewed the Complainant. The Complainant stated that the other
woman asked her about her shoes and poked her. The Complainant stated that she told the other
woman to not touch her, and the other woman called her a name. The Complainant said she hit the
other woman, and then the other woman "smacked" her.
Officer 2 interviewed the other woman involved in the fight. She stated she asked the Complainant
where she got her shoes and the Complainant struck her in the face. She said that she tried to hit her
back to defend herself, but was only able to push Complainant.
Officer 2 asked others near the scene what they observed. From those interviews they weren't able to
learn how the incident started, only that there was pushing between the two women.
No injuries were reported or observed.
The officers then explained to each party separately that they had conflicting stories. The officers
explained that they could charge each of them with disorderly conduct, or let them go with a warning to
stay away from each other. They further warned that if they were called back, both the Complainant
and the other woman would be arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. Both the Complainant
and the other woman stated they were okay with a warning and agreed they would avoid each other.
The officers remained on scene while Complainant walked away.
On September 3, Complainant filed her Complaint alleging that the officers on the scene instructed her
to stop arguing on the scene, but did not give the same instructions for the other woman. Complainant
also alleged that the other woman continued to harass her, "pulling up in a car" on August 30, and
talking to someone else about the incident at the bus stop on September 3.
ALLEGATION 1 — Improper investigation.
There is no evidence to support this allegation. The Officers conducted a thorough investigation in a
manner consistent with the standards set forth in the Departmental policy and procedure. There was
insufficient evidence to identify whether one party was more culpable than the other. When the officers
explained the situation to the Complainant and the other woman involved in the dispute, and the option
to let them both go with a warning, both were content to leave with a warning.
Chief's Conclusion - Not sustained
Board's Conclusion - Not sustained
COMMENTS:
While Complainant states in her Complaint that the other woman involved in the dispute continued to
make contact with her, she does not present any evidence that she notified the Iowa City Police
Department of these additional contacts. Moreover, the record does not support that the Officers
subject to this Complaint ever had occasion to learn of any of this additional contact.
a
r,,5
Item Number: 4.b.
INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 24, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Housing & Community Development Commission: February 20
��
r
Date: 03/13/2020
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Kirk Lehmann, Housing and Community Development Commission Staff
Re: Recommendations from Housing and Community Development Commission
At their February 20, 2020 meeting the Housing and Community Development Commission made
the following recommendation to the City Council:
1. By a vote of 8-0 HCDC recommends to City Council the following FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies
budget totaling $650,000 and preserving $25,000 for Emerging Aid to Agencies:
CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank
$68,220
Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic
$24,611
4 C's Community Coord. Child Care
$24,610
Neighborhood Centers of JC
$54,142
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
$49,220
Shelter House
$83,674
Prelude Behavioral Services
$39,376
Big Brothers / Big Sisters
$24,610
Rape Victim Advocacy Program
$24,610
United Action for Youth
$32,485
Pathways Adult Day Health Center
$24,610
Inside Out Reentry Community
$39,376
HACAP
$24,610
Table to Table
$30,516
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
$24,610
Arc of Southeast Iowa
$19,688
Free Lunch Program
$17,719
Horizons, A Family Service Alliance
$43,313
Total Request:
$650,000
2. By a vote of 8-0 HCDC recommends to City Council that the City continue to support the 12
recommendations in the Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Report, with the additional
recommendation that the City assist with developing an acquisition plan to transition a private
manufactured housing park into a resident -owned cooperative to prepare for future possible
acquisitions.
Additional action (check one)
X No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2020 — 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
FINAL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Aguilar, Megan Alter, Matt Drabek, Charlie Eastham, Lyn Dee
Kealey, John McKinstry, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron
MEMBERS ABSENT: V Fixmer-Oraiz
STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly
OTHERS PRESENT: Jake Kundert, Susan Craig, Ally Hanten, Simon Andrew, Michelle Heinz,
Shirley Tramble, Whitney Stevenson, Lucy Barker, Jason Barker, Ron
Berg, Barbara Vinograde, Becci Reedus, Heath Brewer, Roger Goedken,
Ashley Gillett, Carla Phelps, Missie Forbes, Ronda Lipsius, Delaney
Dixon, Daleta Thurness, Michelle Cole, Lindsay Glenn, Chelsey Markle,
Michelle Lloyd, Brian Loring, Christi Regan, Tony Smith, Mark Sertterh,
Nicki Ross, Amanda Bloomer, Adam Robinson, Sara Barron
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 8-0 HCDC recommends to City Council the following FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies budget
totaling $650,000 and preserving $25,000 for Emerging Aid to Agencies:
CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank
$68,220
Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic
$24,611
4 C's Community Coord. Child Care
$24,610
Neighborhood Centers of JC
$54,142
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
$49,220
Shelter House
$83,674
Prelude Behavioral Services
$39,376
Big Brothers / Big Sisters
$24,610
Rape Victim Advocacy Program
$24,610
United Action for Youth
$32,485
Pathways Adult Day Health Center
$24,610
Inside Out Reentry Community
$39,376
HACAP
$24,610
Table to Table
$30,516
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
$24,610
Arc of Southeast Iowa
$19,688
Free Lunch Program
$17,719
Horizons, A Family Service Alliance
$43,313
Total Request:
$650,000
By a vote of 8-0 HCDC recommends to City Council that the City continue to support the 12
recommendations in the Johnson County Mobile Home Task Force Report, with the additional
recommendation that the City assist with developing an acquisition plan to transition a private
manufactured housing park into a resident -owned cooperative to prepare for future possible acquisitions.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 2 of 18
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Padron called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Anthony Smith (Little Creations Academy) wanted to comment on the application process. He has an
issue with the ranking criteria that looks at how much of a project's budget is CDBG or HOME compared
to the amount the agency has brought in. He believes there are agencies that want to be funded but may
not receive funds if this is their only resource to do a project because of the point system. They don't have
an equal chance to get CDBG funding. Smith asked the Commission to consider changing the ranking
system so agencies that can't get funding from other resources could still be funded with CDBG.
PRESENTATION ABOUT THE CENSUS 2020:
Susan Craig (Complete Count Census Committee) introduced herself and noted that the committee is
composed of representatives from Iowa City, Johnson County, North Liberty, Coralville and several
nonprofits. Lehmann is also on this committee. The committee is charged to work with people who they
may have a hard time reaching with the census. Craig showed a video that talked about the census.
From the video: the 2020 Census is written in the constitution and data is used for services such as fire
stations, schools, and clinics. Where there are more people there are more needs for public services.
That's why the Census is used by the government to make funding decisions each year. It's also used by
nonprofits to inform services, by businesses to create jobs, and even by students for school projects.
Understanding how the population changes helps us shape communities across the country for the
better. How does the 2020 Census affect representation? There are 435 seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Those get distributed to the 50 states by population and an accurate census response
helps decide that. How can a person take the 2020 census? In March 2020 everyone in the country will
receive invitation to answer a simple questionnaire and there are three ways to respond; (1) to complete it
online, (2) to call by phone, (3) to send in by mail. For those that do not respond a census taker from the
community will follow up. Is your 2020 census data safe? After sending your census response, your
personal information is kept safe. By law, it can't be shared with any other government agency, law
enforcement or landlord. So take your 2020 census with peace of mind.
Craig next emphasized a couple of things. Number one is how important the census is particularly to the
people in this room who need funding for a lot of good causes. Craig stated for every person that Iowa
does not count in the census, that's $28,000 they won't get from the federal government over the span of
10 years. If we do not count 1/10"' of 11% of the population of Iowa, over 10 years, we will lose $90 million,
$9 million a year. And the federal funds are so important to keeping the support services at the level that
they are in Johnson County.
Craig encouraged everyone to please take their census, encourage everyone they know to take the
census. Regarding the timeline, between March 12 and March 20 people will get an invitation in the mail
and it can be completed online or by calling the telephone number provided. If someone hasn't responded
by March 26, between the 26th and April 3, they will receive a reminder. If someone has not responded
by April 8, that next week, they will be sent another reminder that includes the paper questionnaire. A final
reminder will be sent between April 20 and April 27 and on May 1, enumerators start knocking on doors. If
you know of anyone who is looking for a part time job in Johnson County, the pay scale is going to be $21
an hour, go to 2020census.gov and apply.
Lehmann added that people who do not speak English can take the census over the phone in over 40
languages. There are also materials in different languages for a broad reach across the communities.
Alter asked if there was a one-page brochure that outlines the non -English-speaking opportunities for
enumerators needed for different languages. Lehmann confirmed there was a large need, but wasn't
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 3 of 18
aware of such resources. Generally the City looks for Arabic, Spanish and French speakers because
those are the largest foreign language populations. Mandarin is also a large population in Iowa City
Craig reiterated everyone should fill out the census, she acknowledged there is a lot of fear these days
associated with giving the government information. She confirmed there is no citizenship question on the
census and that no one will ask for that kind of information. So, there is no worry and it is totally
confidential for 72 years, after 72 years, the National Archives releases census form information.
DISCUSS FY21 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES WA) FUNDING REQUESTS AND CONSIDER BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Lehmann noted Social Justice Racial Equity Grant awards came out and those were in the Commission
packets. He stated Aid to Agencies budget was $675,000 for this year and that up to 5% of that can fund
Emerging agencies, but that is up to the discretion of HCDC for recommendation. Staff recommends
increasing Emerging funds slightly up to $25,000 then having $650,000 be for Legacy. Staff also provided
scores and recommended funding as was discussed so the Commission can find requests sorted by staff
score and alphabetically. Staff determined funding by providing full funding for everything above a score
of 75, below that took off $1,000, and lower scoring agencies had more funds reduced to account for the
percentage of the requested budget that was fulfilled and also total dollar amounts as well.
Alter asked about the demarcation line of 75, can Lehmann talk about what brought staff to that decision.
Lehmann stated it was based on a relatively simple gradient from full funding to less than full funding, and
they chose 75 because it fulfilled that need. It isn't a magic number.
Padron noted if the Commission follows that, then they only have 4% to the emerging agencies. If they
move the 75 up to 80 as a cutoff score then they would have more for emerging agencies. Lehmann
confirmed that is correct and noted the maximum for Emerging agencies at 5% of the budget is $33,750.
Padron would like to discuss scores because she has questions and thinks it is not perfect. She is most
concerned with Shelter House because according to the priorities shelter is number one but it scored low.
Eastham stated Shelter House received a score of 87.5 and staff is recommending full funding. Lehmann
said they scored it in the top quarter. Padron feels that score is low and in the persons to benefit category
it only scored two points and in equity scored 2.5. Lehmann acknowledged as they went through the
scoring they saw tweaks that are needed, especially equity needs to be reconfigured, it currently is based
on the percentage of nonwhite, Hispanic and persons with disabilities served. Lehmann stated it was not
calibrated properly when set up, and they realize that now. Others such as community need are written
where the full score of 15 is was almost impossible to get, so 5 was pretty much taken off the score of
everyone right off the bat and that's something else that needs to change in the next iteration. He
acknowledged it's not a perfect scoring system.
Eastham sees an easy recommended change to each agency from the Staff's recommendations which
would be to reduce the amount requested by each of these 18 agencies by about $570 a piece and that
would bring almost everyone up to what they requested. His concerns are with Table to Table and the
Free Lunch Program, food insecurity programs, he would prefer to have them at what they actually
requested. He looked at the Horizons application request carefully and personally doesn't see the
rationale for reducing their request by 10 plus percent. Eastham would ask the Commission again to just
reduce every request by about $570 which would bring the total to $650,000 and is a very small reduction
for each agency. He is not concerned about the scoring differences.
Alter stated one of her concerns is the applicants know that there's a scoring system and they're trying to
fill out the applications as best they can to obtain the highest score believing that that's how they're going
to get their money. If that is true, the Commission needs to make sure they're doing things in the best way
possible to give out funding. She is concerned about saying they need to tweak a score in order to justify
a funding decision. As they talk about modifying rankings, or how scores are applied, it needs to be made
clear to everybody what the criteria are, either they're going by staff recommendations and by a score or
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 4 of 18
they need to clearly state to everyone this is the guidelines for the Commission to make final decisions in
conversation so that it's not a matter of this is what the score is end of story.
Padron apologized if she wasn't clear, she is not trying to tweak the score so that Shelter House scored
higher she was just concerned that the equity points were not clear and are not fair to every agency.
McKinstry noticed that agencies conferred with one another this year before making requests and they all
kind of agreed, in some way shape or form, about the amount of requests, which is new and hasn't
happened before and he thinks it is a good thing. He respects the joint effort to give some scoring that's
objective because may have been too subjective before, making recommendations was not as much on
information and more based on how they felt that evening or something. He would like to weigh the joint
agency recommendations together as being important, because who understands their relationships with
each other and their own needs better than the people who were sitting around that table. McKinstry
stated that no objective criteria are ever going to be perfect but they can't just throw them out the window.
Alter agrees and feels it is just to make sure that there's a clear understanding among the group, staff and
the agencies that these scores are not in stone and there is going to be discussion and yet, they want this
to be sort of a strong fundamental baseline so that there is that objective criteria as best as possible.
McKinstry stated that what Eastman suggested is closer to weighing the agency requests that were made
jointly. Staff isn't far off from that, but it does significantly cut some agencies and $500 is important.
Eastham noted these are staff scores are not his scores so if they averaged all nine of them together,
they probably would come up with a noticeable different score ranking for the for these agencies. He
recommends lowering staff recommendations by $572.22 per agency.
Padron questioned taking the same amount from each agency noting it is not the same taking $500 from
the Free Lunch Program when they are only asking for $16,000 and taking $500 from Comm Unity which
is asking for $69,000. Eastham agreed and said if they want to pay a lot of attention to percent changes
than yes that is true, however in his experience he would not object to a reduction of $570 for any of
these requested amounts. He is open to hearing other suggestions or proposals as well.
Padron suggested a percentage from each agency.
Drabek said it would be roughly 1 % for each agency. Lehmann calculated what it would be per agency at
a 1.56% reduction. Kubly noted from a staff perspective it would be great for the allocations be rounded at
least to the nearest dollar. Padron noted if they used 1.5% for agency they would reach the $650,000.
McKinstry asked if there were a greater difference between the requests, the total of the requests and the
total allocation by the Council, he would be more inclined to put more emphasis on the scores. But
because he feels it's close, he would not object to a percentage reduction like this.
Drabek agreed his initial preference would be for that system of an equal percentage but questioned if
there are any problems that would cause. Lehmann pointed out that those agencies that requested more
money will now have a larger reduction and a lot of those are higher scoring agencies. But at the end of
the day it's the Commission's decision.
Padron opened the discussion for comment from anybody in the public.
Mark Sertterh (Shelter House) stated he doesn't object to the scores or the percentage reduction but
questioned if the scores don't have any weight on the final recommendations. Eastham stated the scores
are close enough together that there's not a significant difference between scores and that these are staff
scores and not Commissioner's scores. Sertterh is asking for clarification for moving forward in the next
couple of years and if scores of 65 and 93 are close enough. He is not disagreeing with the amounts, just
questioning the scores.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 5 of 18
Alter reiterated this is what she was trying to say that moving forward they need to make sure there is
some clarity about the significance of the scores. There is a larger question of how are scores being used
so everybody understands.
Eastham suggested in the future to compare Commissioner average scores and staff scores to be sure.
McKinstry also noted if there's a bigger discrepancy between what the requests are and what money they
have to allocate and if they had to cut significant amounts, percentage wise, they would be looking more
carefully at the scores to decide where the cuts would have to be. But since it's closer this year, and
because they have the agency's conferring with one another to begin with, he is confident with this.
Becci Reedus (Community Crisis Center/Food Bank) stated she agrees that this looks good and doesn't
think it matters a whole lot and 1 % is probably an equitable way and everybody can suffer a little bit.
However she writes grants toward a target and it feels like every time they come here they don't know the
target, it moves a little bit. It worked out fine this year but what would have happened if $300,000 more
had been asked for and the Commission started moving things around based on percentages and things
like that. Do scores matter, do you want to get rid of the scores, do the scores not work. She feels those
things need to be decided before the Commission starts distributing money. Again, this year it all worked
out but it could be different if agencies requested $300,000 more. She noted the agencies and coalition
are willing to help in any way they can but encourages that they communicate the way in which the
scores can be met, if its staff recommendation, if it's a Commission recommendation, ahead of time.
McKinstry noted they had a better conversation this past year between agencies and the City and the
Commission and the key is to continue the conversation and keep the channels of communication open,
starting a little earlier in the year in terms of budgeting to have that conversation, and trusting the process,
not necessarily just the scores on the objective side of things, but the process of you telling us next year if
the scoring system doesn't make any sense, or whatever.
Alter noted it sounds like some of it is in the interim, before the Commission scores again next year, that
they make decisions about how this works, and then communicate to the agencies in conversation. This
year they ran into having a conversation at the same time as having to allocate money or make decisions
and that's highly problematic. She feels they have moved forward in productive ways since that time, but
now it comes to being able to clearly say what are the expectations to reach certain scores and it's
something that they can work on over the course of the year.
Reedus noted this happened last year too, the scores didn't matter because the funding started at the low
priority, moved up to middle and high priority, so it didn't matter. There was a scoring sheet attached to
the application but they could have written a quicker application because it really didn't matter. Reedus
noted she will always strive to try and give the best information, give all the information they can and
maybe they can go through some of the recommendations and read them and give feedback.
Lehmann noted that staff and the Commission has gone through robust processes so far and when they
make decisions, they have to be willing to stand by the process they've made, which happens sometimes
but not all the time. So, as the Commission makes decisions through any new process, as they have
conversations, there has to be a will to follow through with the decisions they make. From the staff
perspective that's important; the Commission can write a perfect policy and Council can adopt it, but if the
Commission doesn't follow that policy 100%, then there is no point. He agrees with Reedus and Alter, that
a lot of what they want is predictability because as an agency without predictability it's impossible to plan.
McKinstry asked if the agencies would be getting together again in the coming year and making a joint
recommendation. Reedus confirmed they will, they have meetings scheduled and are going to have
regular meeting scheduled so they can put it on the agenda.
Brian Loring (Neighborhood Centers) wanted to thank the Commission because he knows last year was a
big deal, they left the room in January having a conversation about scarcity and feeling pitted against one
another and this Commission actually went ahead and made a bold request to Council that probably
wasn't easy to do. He just wanted to say thank you to the Commission for doing that.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 6 of 18
Alter moved to recommend the following FY21 Legacy Aid to Agencies budget to City Council
totaling $650,000 and preserving $25,000 for Emerging Aid to Agencies:
CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank
$68,220
Iowa City Free Medical/Dental Clinic
$24,611
4 C's Community Coord. Child Care
$24,610
Neighborhood Centers of JC
$54,142
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
$49,220
Shelter House
$83,674
Prelude Behavioral Services
$39,376
Big Brothers / Big Sisters
$24,610
Rape Victim Advocacy Program
$24,610
United Action for Youth
$32,485
Pathways Adult Day Health Center
$24,610
Inside Out Rentry Community
$39,376
HACAP
$24,610
Table to Table
$30,516
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
$24,610
Arc of Southeast Iowa
$19,688
Free Lunch Program
$17,719
Horizons, A Family Service Alliance
$43,313
Total Request:
$650,000
Aguilar seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
QUESTION/ANSWER SESSION FOR FY21 APPLICATIONS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME). AND EMERGING A2A
PROGRAMS.
Lehmann noted for CDBG/Home currently they have $448,000 HOME and around $94,000 CDBG for
next year. They received $653,767 in competitive CDBG and HOME funding requests. Staff prepared
ranking sheets and shared the allocations from the past three years. They also received the funding
amount from HUD, so for the upcoming fiscal year, in total, there are $697,678 in CDBG and $511,786 in
HOME which is slightly higher than they expected. Lehmann feels they might be able to bump up the
CDBG amount but the HOME that they had initially planned on was actually an aggressive amount so the
$448,000 is the same. Potentially HCDC could go up to $105,000 in CDBG for the competitive allocation.
Staff scored points based on the ranking sheet for CDBG/HOME as they did for Aid to Agencies, though
HCDC is must still do its own rankings as well. Staff's ranking sheet and a staff report for each applicant
and criteria were included in the packet which explains how staff scored applications. Lehmann stated
they may notice that there are duplicative applications and the reason staff had them submit multiple
applications this year was that in situations where there are multiples of one kind of activity with separate
funding sources, such as multiple acquisitions, breaking them into individual projects makes it easier for
the Commission to make funding decisions. Or example, Successful Living needs $48,000 to buy a
house, Habitat needs $30,000 for a house, and while that was known in the past, staff wanted that split
out more clearly. Lehmann stated the Commission will also notice that where there are duplicative
applications, they score differently because the timing is off on them by a little bit. For example with the
South District applications one project would be completed earlier, so the later one lost some points for
that. Lehmann included the rationale behind all of this and noted the Commission may not use the same
rationale as they go through their ranking process it's just a method to try and prioritize funds.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 7 of 18
Lehmann also asked while the Commission is making allocations next month to consider projects of more
than $50,000 first and then go into the rankings or however it is decided. This meeting is to ask any
questions of staff or the agencies to help make ranking and funding decisions.
Alter asked for clarification on the sheet Lehmann distributed, CHDO is listed for $24,000 and then under
Little Creations it said a minimum of $30,000, is that because it is the minimum project size for public
facilities. Lehmann confirmed the minimum project size for public facilities is $30,000 and the cap is set
higher to make sure the projects are making a more substantial difference.
Eastham noted he reviewed the Little Creations Academy application and stated his scoring will be
significantly higher than the staff scoring, he will score them in the 80s or so. One big difference is how he
assesses the project differently than staff for project leveraging of other financial resources. The applicant
notes money from the church that hosts the site and money from First Presbyterian Church in prior years,
which doesn't necessarily reduce the cost of this project. However, it is an indication of other financial
resources that are supporting the daycare center. This is a daycare center for low income families and
there's no other source of income to operate or capitalize the daycare center rather than public sources or
daycare fees and daycare fees for low income families can't be increased to increase leverage because
the idea is to have low fees. He also believes staff scored low in the terms of project completion and
capacity and he will score higher because the applicant is in the process of completing the previous
allocation. Eastham reiterated this is a center that's targeting very low-income childcare for very low-
income families and is something the Commission needs to support.
Lehmann commented briefly to the point regarding leverage, that's been a discussion before and he
based his scoring off what percentage was funds and to go to Smith's point at the beginning of the
meeting that may be something the Commission wants to explore next funding cycle. Eastman noted
leveraging as for this project, this center, is a much different than leveraging for some of the group home
projects, or some of the other applications too, it's just a different financial picture.
Alter noted that when she first came onto the Commission she questioned if it is a good thing that they're
able to bring in more money and yet then doesn't that send a certain message of if they can bring in
money from other funding resources, then why aren't they. Why should the Commission give them more
money when there may be agencies that can't bring in any money? It's a larger question about need and
allocation. There are many sides, there are the ways in which this is beneficial, as well as the ways that
maybe on a project by project basis and we have to understand the context of the agency, and what their
resources truly are balanced against their need. Alter would appreciate having more of a discussion about
that particular area because it's never been completely clear to her how it works.
Padron noted that with emerging agencies fundraising takes so much time and effort and these are small
agencies and sometimes they don't have the capacity to have a staff person write grants or go out and
fundraise. It is different for the legacy agencies, they have staff and more resources. The agencies could
note that don't receive money from other sources but may have volunteers that are donating hours and
reaching out to the community and consider other thing other than money.
Lehmann noted that some of this discussion should be brought up as they are looking at next year's
application process. For tonight, while the agencies are here, were there any questions the Commission
had on the applications. They could discuss agency by agency or Commissioner by Commissioner.
Padron suggested agency by agency and any Commissioner can speak up.
Eastham stated for group home applications, Successful Living and United Abilities are both supporting
group homes trying to expand their operation. He would like to ask them if they would comment a little bit
more about what the need they see now for additional group home rooms or group home beds.
Shirley Tramble (Unlimited Abilities) founded Unlimited Abilities about two and a half years ago to help
individuals with chronic mental illnesses. She had been doing this work about 15 years and has seen a
growing need in the services that they provide. She acknowledged on the online application they score
low and feels the scoring should be looked at more thoroughly because they don't have the experience
handling City funds, but as a new agency how do you get the experience if you never get a chance?
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 8 of 18
Unlimited Abilities has so much to offer in the community. Right now every home they have they lease
and take all the risk if there's damages. They will do great things for the community because within
almost three years of being in Johnson County, they've served almost 90 clients, and that's not even
counting their outreach clients, just the clients that are staying in the group home.
Lehmann asked in terms of need, how has Tramble seen the transition to the managed care
organizations affecting them, because he noticed some recent projects have had issues filling units, and
doesn't know if that's a demand issue where there aren't enough clients or a MCO transition issue where
there's no longer the funds to pay for it. Perhaps someone from Successful Living could speak to that.
Roger Goedken (Successful Living) noted that its more due to lack of staffing, they have seen an
increase in demand for services for the mentally ill population.
Tramble added she really loves what she does and would appreciate some support so she can continue
doing what she loves to do.
Eastham commented that from Unlimited Abilities application, their income targeting is good, less than
30% of AMI but looking at the leveraging question, staff scored fairly low on that because of the relative
low amount or nonfederal funds. His question are there other funds that the agency could apply for and
receive, or does she think they are not going to be able to receive any additional money from other
sources. Tramble stated they will not receive any additional funding because they're a newer agency, just
been in business two full years, and it's hard within the first couple years as a nonprofit to get funding
because everything is allocated to the agencies who've been established for a while.
Lehmann asked if Unlimited Abilities had Day Hab funding. Tramble replied they do not use Day Hab
funding now without but hope in the future, probably 2021, starting a Day Hab program because she is
seeing a big need for that currently they are just doing residential and community.
Michelle Lloyd (Systems Unlimited) stated the reason they asked for money was to build a fully accessible
house. The people with intellectual disabilities are aging and that's something that's different because as
a lot of you know not too long -ago people with intellectual disabilities didn't get to the age where they
needed accessible housing. However, now they are seeing they need to have more accessible housing
and in this town especially, it's really hard to find something to buy that is fully accessible.
Lehmann asked if they have land already. Lloyd confirmed they did. Lehmann asked in terms of moving
forward, could she talk about what it would look like if they weren't awarded full funding, how would they
approach construction, did they have a plan prior to applying for these funds, etc. Lloyd replied that they
didn't have a lot of discussion about it until they started filling out the grant but any funds that they didn't
get from the City they would probably do a mortgage for which would be a construction loan.
Carla Phelps (Successful Living) spoke about the need for additional people, they always have a long
waiting list. She noted it's a hard population sometimes to capture because when someone is chronically
mentally ill without any resources and often unmedicated it is hard to keep track of where these folks are
and they have to have experienced people doing it and their waiting list is around 20 people. The
homeless, whether they're homeless or they're in and out of the emergency department or in and out of
the shelter or wherever they happen to be, they never go away really. They have talked it over and feel
that a lot of it is due to the closure of the facilities around Iowa. There are very sick people out there.
Eastman next asked to hear comments from Pastor Smith about the Little Creations application.
Anthony Smith (Little Creations Academy) stated they originally made this request because their center is
in need of renovation in the kitchen because they serve hot meals to the children and the equipment that
they are currently using is an electric stove with no hood. Additionally the range they have can't handle
the capacity of what they do on a daily basis so they need to upgrade their equipment to commercial
equipment. With the current funds that they had received, they were able to purchase a commercial
freezer and a commercial refrigerator. They still need a range, hood and a commercial dishwasher that
also does sterilization because in daycare they have to have some sort of sterilization.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 9 of 18
Lehmann asked if that kitchen is exclusively used for the childcare or is it also used for church functions
as well. Smith stated every now and then they do use it but because the daycare has expanded the way
it has it has limited the ability to use the lower level of the church now. Lehmann stated they will have to
keep track of the amount that the kitchen is used for the daycare versus the church, because they can't
use federal funds on religious uses, they need to apportion it by time. So there is a chance that the ratio
of federal and nonfederal funds might have to change from what's in the application, if it's 8% of the time,
then it's about right. But if it's more than 8% of the time federal funds couldn't be used as much. Smith
said they use that kitchen every day for eight hours a day, Monday through Friday. The church would only
use it on a on an event basis, which could be once every six months or something like that, not a lot.
Lehmann said they will just have to document that if awarded funds, but it shouldn't be a problem when
the church uses it. Smith also noted there is a second refrigerator and that is designated for the church
with water and juices dedicated for church purpose.
Padron noted the total amount that the Commission has right now for the emerging agencies is $25,000
and Little Creations Academy is requesting $78,000. Lehmann clarified they are requesting that amount
of CDBG funds. Padron still wondered if Little Creations did not get fully funded would they still be able to
do some of the work they want to do. Smith responded that yes they could do some of the work but
would not be able to finish the project. Lehmann noted that Little Creations has a good scope of work laid
out as to what the work would cost in their application.
Smith added that on the previous project they had some difficulties with a general contractor, and they
are no longer using that general contractor but that is why they had such a delay to finish the project.
Smith noted that most of the contractors they reached out to would not work with them but they finally
found a contractor that they believe would do the work expeditiously. He wanted to make sure the
Commission was aware of this since that's part of the points and didn't want to get hacked for that too.
Padron moved on to questions for the applications for emerging agencies. Lehmann noted there are five
applications for emerging agencies. There is $25,000 in the budget and $49,288 in requests. He stated
they received two applications from Successful Living that total more than the $15,000 maximum awards,
and the minimum award amount is $5,000.
Lehmann briefly described each application. Grow Johnson County is requesting $10,000 for its FY21
season and they were funded last year. Houses into Homes is doing an inventory management project for
just over $5,400. Successful Living has a snow and mow application for $9,200 and a software
application for $13, 350 and Unlimited Abilities as an operations application for $11,300.
Eastham asked if the Houses to Homes could talk about if there's been any change in what they're seeing
for need for applications since they submitted the application.
Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes) commented on if they have seen a change in need in the one month
since they submitted their application and in February, they've had 20 referrals or requests. Two of those
were repeats from different agencies, but the need does not seem to have changed.
Eastham asked for an estimate of what dollar amount is for furniture that they're supplying to people or if
they have tried to calculate that. L. Barker stated that is hard to calculate, for example there is no market
for used mattresses. Even if they tried to figure it out on the cost of new mattresses it could vary
depending on if they are from McGregor's or Costco. The thinnest twin mattress somebody has
purchased for them was $200 just for a mattress and the bed frames are in the hundred -dollar range.
They also bought the ones that fold out into a platform so there is no need for a box spring and those
were $60 to $90 depending on the size.
Jason Barker (Houses into Homes) stated they tried to calculate what they do by going online and to do
mass estimates of material they've diverted from the landfill. There are apps that will estimate the weight
of a sofa, chairs, tables, box springs and everything. Barker stated those numbers are so high he
hesitated to put them in a grant application, it was over 70 tons.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 10 of 18
Padron asked if they applied for the climate action grant. Barker stated they did apply for that grant last
year, it's not up yet this year, but they will apply again this year as well. Lehmann noted that application
just opened on February 14.
Eastham asked if there were restrictions on the use of that money and does it adversely affect how they
can use it.
Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes) stated the application they turned in this year for the emerging aid to
agencies was the second step in the grant that they got from the Climate Action Plan last year, which was
optimizing efficiency. So they used those funds for an inventory software and iPad and other things like
crates and bags that they use to empty the homes and then bring back and reuse.
Padron asked about the grant because there are other agencies that will not be able to apply for the
climate action grant and don't have that option.
Eastham stated that any agency that's furnishing homes could apply for that grant because all of them are
diverting. Lehmann noted that possibly agencies could apply and stated some agencies such as Habitat
have used it to do energy efficiency improvements. A lot of housing agencies have used it in that
capacity, but not as much diverting from the landfill as much as it was energy efficiency, electrification or
switching to an air system that's way more efficient.
JOHNSON COUNTY MOBILE HOME TASK FORCE REPORT DISCUSSION:
Lehmann sent the Commission the link to the Mobile Home Task Force report. The Task Force was a mix
of elected officials, mobile home park residents and a couple advocates led by the Affordable Housing
Coalition. Lehmann also shared with the Commissioners staff comments on the recommendations, talking
about some of the challenges of different ones and some that the City's already doing. Council wanted
the Commission to talk about the report and provide them with any recommendations that HCDC had
about the report. Lehmann will begin by going through the staff comments and then have Sara Barron
from the Affordable Housing Coalition talk.
Lehmann noted there are 12 recommendations total in the Mobile Home Task Force report. The first
recommendation is to make rental assistance and/or relocation assistance available to residents harmed
by unexpected sharp rent increases. Currently the City has an affordable housing fund that can be used
for emergent situations, it's around $50,000 currently, it has been used in the past for similar things and it
generally follows URA standards which includes advisory services, moving expense payments, and
housing assistance up to $7,200. Lehmann noted there are a couple other programs that may assist in
such a circumstance like the security deposit program, which should be off the ground shortly, Johnson
County general assistance, and things such as rapid rehousing if they become literally homeless,
however, that emergent situation amount is not a lot, obviously, if someone is looking at $7,200 of lost
rent payments that presents a challenge. Lehmann also noted there are some challenges with budgeting,
especially as these things can't really be expected, so they can't fit into an annual budgeting process, but
in the past City Council has provided funds to support relocation efforts.
Alter noted this situation is not exactly the same as of being flooded out and yet, this would be an
emergency situation for a large number of people so wouldn't the funds allocated for emergencies be
available? Lehmann stated that is the same funds he is talking about, the emergent funds.
Sara Barron (Affordable Housing Coalition) noted that the recommendations were made to all the
municipalities within Johnson County, they went to Johnson County, Iowa City, Coralville, and North
Liberty primarily. In this case there are not any mobile homes located within Iowa City limits that have
been impacted by the unexpected sharp rent increases. There are two right outside of Iowa City limits
that are owned by out of state investment groups that have threaten the stability of those neighborhoods,
the others are in Coralville and North Liberty. Barron stated this recommendation is for the other
municipalities to look at Iowa City's model. Iowa City budgets annually for unexpected emergencies that
threaten the stability of people's housing at a large scale. Barron met with the Johnson County Board of
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 11 of 18
Supervisors about creating a line item for housing emergencies in their next budget process. She added
this is a more of a medium-term solution for some municipalities, however, it is worth remembering that
the emergency is being faced now. She feels it is still worthwhile to look and see if there are some funds
that can be available right now and maybe it's pooled across many municipalities or go to a private
institution that would want to do a charitable one time donation with the support of the local municipality.
Lehmann added the City is doing many of these things, so the audience of this report is often not the City.
McKinstry noted the City can require the people who want to do the rezoning and eliminate this housing
to make a contribution toward relocation. Lehmann confirmed and that will be discussed in point four.
Lehmann moved on to the next recommendation which is to partner with local banking institutions to back
loans to owner occupants of manufactured housing. The City currently provides grants to owner
occupants of manufactured housing to rehab properties, since FY18 they've done 20 mobile home repair
projects. Some of the challenges for the City is because they use federal funds, they must have the title
the property to participate and then also be a legal resident, which can be a challenge. Additionally, those
funds can only be used in Iowa City. When an applicant doesn't meet those criteria for some reason or
another the City directs people to ECICOG or to Habitat for assistance because they do have other rehab
programs, but those sources of funds are limited.
Barron added the Mobile Home Task Force has reconvened now to address some of the things outside of
the municipal lens that they started with, some of the other wraparound issues and some knitting together
other resources and services, including social services, legal services, etc. She added they renamed
themselves the Manufactured Housing Task Force because one thing that came to light during this
process is referring to them as mobile homes is not helpful because they can't be moved for the most
part. Barron noted the Manufactured Housing Task Force is looking at working with some private lenders
and they may look for municipal investment or at least some kind of backing for more secured loans or
grants. That would be a bigger pool that would be available to more people, not just in numbers of people,
but also in categories of people. Habitat has done a tremendous job with their Helping Hands program of
working in manufactured housing and they would like to do more with more resources. Barron noted one
problem in the past has been difficulty finding folks who would work on manufactured housing, because of
the specialized characteristics particularly in the older units, they're not built in the same way that a stick
built house would be. Now they have the partners lined up to do the work so it's more a matter of finding
the funding and making sure that families know about the resources especially for critical repairs, like
holes in a roof, holes in a floor, windows that are broken or missing, those kinds of things.
Lehmann stated recommendation three is establishing urban renewal districts through tax increment
financing, which can help mobile home communities purchase. He noted it is challenging with an urban
renewal district because it assumes two things; one, that there's a willing seller, if you have that great;
two, you have to rely on an increase in value to provide the funds. The second point was the challenge
the City saw because if we're looking to preserve existing homes and rents, there may not be an
increment, so that may not work in the context of what the Manufactured Housing Task Force is trying to
do. Lehmann stated also in extra jurisdictional circumstances, counties can also do urban renewal
districts so there isn't a need for the City to do extra jurisdictional TIF districts if the County is on board.
He also noted those efforts have to be led by motivated manufactured housing folks, because in a
resident cooperative model, they're going to be carrying that on to the future. Lehmann noted although it's
tertiary to this recommendation, one can do urban renewal districts in one area and use some funds in a
different area, such as is happening at Foster Road right now and that might be an opportunity to try and,
leverage funds in a different sort of way.
Barron stated one thing they were looking at is how to create a municipal investment without going before
the voters for a bond or something and urban renewal districts are one way to generate significant money
without going through a borrowing scheme or putting it before voters. She also noted lots of manufactured
housing communities are on the edges of existing communities so it depends on how large the boundary
would be drawn for the urban renewal district. There are some areas where future development could be
tied to the existing neighborhoods. Also, in continued discussions with the folks who do resident owned
communities, they're good at pulling together resources to finance the purchase of the manufactured
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 12 of 18
housing, the hardest part is finding willing sellers. The Manufactured Housing Task Force wants to be
prepared if the opportunity comes up, so they don't have to then scramble to find the resources.
Drabek asked if this is a proposal to establish an urban renewal district or is it a proposal for resident
cooperatives, which one is the core, it seems like the residential cooperatives is in fact the core of the
ideas and the rural urban renewal district is if there's some better method than you'd prefer the better
method. Barron confirmed that was correct. Drabek noted it's maybe worth stressing with this one, that if
something like this went well, and there was some way to have residential cooperatives in the medium or
long term that would make recommendations one and two almost totally unnecessary. Residential
cooperatives are not going to manifest themselves, or mass raise their own rent.
Lehmann moved on to recommendations four and five noting they are similar, one with zoning and one
with annexation and doing conditional zoning as part of that. As the report notes, the City currently has
zoning protections in place but is willing to participate in review to find additional protections that might be
available. It can be a double-edged sword because if you're trying to implement new parks and you have
to rezone it, then you run into the difficulty of opposition in the rezoning process. As staff talked about this
internally, when they first read the report, and they're not sure which direction that leads, they think it's
good for the existing ones, but it may be bad for future ones. For recommendation five similarly that
protection is generally in place. Upon annexation, the City requires upgrades to infrastructure that
matches a City scale, which can improve living conditions, but the City can phase in tax rates based on
State law and that can be used as a hook to get landlords more willing to maybe think about other things
such as more affordable rents over the long term. There have also been some more recent talks with
mobile home parks about coming into the City and the City has tried to bring up that affordability side of
things. However, the infrastructure issues sunk those annexations.
Barron agreed and stated the Task Force is continuing to talk with local governments about this, as she
earlier stated she was just talking to the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday and now has talked to Josh
Boussard, who's their planning and zoning person, he's going to help convene a meeting of Iowa City,
Coralville, North Liberty and Johnson County planning and zoning folks to comb through those zones that
are specifically for mobile home parks and look at best practices. Barron also said it is important to note
that one of the weapons that has been used against manufactured housing residents is the threat of
redevelopment. In other words, if you make this too much of a problem, we'll just take the whole thing
down and put up a new pretty building here instead. Barron reiterated it's important to have strong zoning
that protects their rights as much as possible, and to reaffirm the commitment to preserving those
neighborhoods. The new owners can't just decide to put something else up on the space because they'd
have to go before planning and zoning and the city council's before that change could be made.
Barron also stressed in the second paragraph that says, "looking at the zoning that might allow some of
the current lot lines, lease lines to be turned into owned property". They are talking about very initial
stages of a hybrid model where someone who owns maybe a manufactured housing community that has
200 lots, what would it look like for them to take even 50 of those and convert them to owned land under
an owned structure. If that is not allowed under current zoning regulations, that might be an example of
something that could be added in that would strengthen longer term protections and stability overall.
McKinstry stated if the most affordable private market rate housing are manufactured homes and there
continues to be a problem with the affordability of housing slipping away faster than wages are going up,
the prices of houses are going up faster than wages, then we have to make it make sense that we have
to make more room in the way we zone things for locating a variety of types of manufactured housing and
we're talking about high quality manufactured housing that meet normal regular zoning building
requirements. They'd be safe, they'd be energy efficient, and all that sort of thing. He mentioned the
Forest View development because of the experience that hopefully will be positive in the long run, when
people actually in the future get to own some of those properties themselves, the land underneath them
as well as the building on top of it. He does not see this problem going away and that it's going to be
more and more prevalent. McKinstry also noted that Habitat across the country is going in the direction to
be building manufactured housing units, more like modular housing, and not just things built on a
foundation. McKinstry thinks the task force hopefully would want to see is not always just rezoning but as
new land is annexed or redeveloped in large measure, and some of this has to do with the types of
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 13 of 18
housing that are allowed under the form -based code. There can be a half a block or a whole block in the
midst of other types of housing and other forms of housing, where it could be carved up into smaller lots
and have 20 houses instead of 10 on that block and have them be modular manufactured housing units.
Barron said if you look at an example like Forest View and a huge NIMBY concern of the Forest View
redevelopment that was expressed was the size of the lots. In manufactured housing communities, the
way they're zoned, the lots can be smaller than in areas that are zoned for single family homes, etc.
Some view that as a detriment to the neighborhood, but when thought about through the lens of
affordability and envisioning different types of communities with shared resources, they could offer a
counter vision that is a great step for thinking forward for the future.
Lehmann noted that the draft South District Plan proposes cottage court concepts that's a similar.
Lehmann moved on to recommendation six, which states to be specific about manufacturer housing as a
housing type when drafting plans, reports, etc. The City is trying to do that, they made changes in City
Steps. In terms of being specific about manufactured housing and programs, again one of the challenges
is a lot of manufactured housing is outside of the City, which can be confusing when they have Iowa City
addresses, they come to the City and we have to refer them elsewhere. There isn't really an answer to
that other than education and hopefully get resources and other jurisdictions as well.
Barron agreed noting it's tricky because Iowa City has federal money that they're allowed to allocate that
the cities of Coralville and North Liberty do not. The resources look different, although Iowa City also
contributes a significant amount of money from its general fund allocations, not just the pass-through
money from CDBG and HOME. The conversation now is to extend this to Coralville and North Liberty.
When she spoke with the Board of Supervisors about putting in money, one of the things they said was
they'd like to look at the rural areas outside of the incorporated cities. Barron suggested a match so that
it's not just one municipality funding these things and everyone is doing it more collaboratively.
Lehmann stated recommendation seven is committing to a regular review of manufactured housing
communities and their data. Generally, the City thinks it is important but it makes more sense at a higher
level like the task force, because there's so much outside of the City. So perhaps the task force or
Affordable Housing Coalition could maintain it, or maybe the County.
Barron added one thing which is to say that Len Sandler also identified a source at the State where you
can pull the number of units disaggregated by housing type, including manufactured housing, and also by
the age of the housing broken into groups. So if that's not a resource we're in the practice of looking at
frequently it'd be worth pulling that data and reviewing it every so often to get that reminder of what the
housing stock looks like for all of our housing, not just for manufactured housing.
Lehmann said he has pulled similar data, not for the manufactured housing specifically but for the age of
housing by housing type. Some time he would like to start doing more regular housing assessments that
aren't just part of the ConPlan, but other priorities take precedent.
Lehmann stated the next two recommendations are quick at least which is issuing a joint statement with
Johnson County elected bodies, staff believes City Council be willing to do it, especially in partnership
with others. Staff thinks that it would be especially important to have those partners in a joint statement
because Johnson County and Iowa City are often loud about those sorts of things at the State level.
Recommendation number nine is not investing in funds from private equity that generate returns for
investors using predatory manufacturing housing community management practices. The City is willing to
review its local investments, doesn't think that it's going to have any private equity because generally the
City looks at more stable sorts of conservative investment mechanisms. Pension investments are
managed at the State level.
Barron noted that if as customers of the State investment practices, they had growing interest in divesting
from those things, and to continue to think about the investment practices for the City and State employee
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 14 of 18
pension program. That might be a longer-term thing, but it's not something to lose sight of because our
retirement money could be being used right now to make these purchases.
Aguilar asked about number eight regarding the public joint statement among elected, particularly
because of what happened in Des Moines with the bipartisan bill not getting out of committee and was
wondering if there's been discussion already about issuing some kind of a statement about that. Barron
said they are going to issue a statement and also, they finally have come around to the fact that it's going
to take the form of proclamations. She reiterated the feedback she has gotten from both Johnson County
and Iowa City is, if we want this addressed at a State level, they might not be our best public allies. The
City of Coralville's lobbyists did register in favor of the protections when the bills were first introduced.
Johnson County and Iowa City have it on their legislative priorities. The Urban County Coalition
Association has it on their legislative priorities in person, they're talking to people when they're doing their
lobbying efforts, but they don't necessarily want to hang that red flag on it in the current political climate.
Lehmann stated recommendation 10 is to connect people with organizations, which is residents forming
cooperatives, it's got to be a resident lead transition, but the City can support it. The City has the
Opportunity Fund, which is part of the Affordable Housing Fund with $75,000 for FY21. While the
manufactured housing communities are good at getting money, a lot of these are valued at millions of
dollars so City staff is worried about the capacity and affordability to find the funds to pull this together.
Eastham noted this is the most important recommendation the Task Force, the only way to avoid rent
increases. Lehmann stated the City supports it. Eastman stated supports but timidly and he is looking for
a much more vigorous support by the City Manager. The amount of money is considerable, but
investment firms are finding ways to put that much money together to buy these parks and raise the rents,
so then the City could lead and guide and help a group of residents to do the same thing.
Barron stated her expertise is not discussing financial products but her understanding from talking to the
woman that is affiliated with ROC USA, a technical assistance provider, is that what you're looking for
contributions is more filling a gap and they are actually a CDFI and they put together financing packages
they do alone that's funded by a modest increase in the lot rent and most of the money is paid back over
time through that increase depending on the amount of infrastructure improvements associated with
buying the park and preparing it for the residents to manage. Because there is some amount of money
that's not usually covered by that they would be looking for other partners to provide those resources.
The Manufactured Housing Task Force is not asking Iowa City to give them the $8 million to buy a park
but to assist with helping fill some financing gaps.
Eastham stated the City could run a scenario through in a matter of a few months to determine feasibility
and what finance would actually look like and he is going to urge the Commission to recommend the
Council to do exactly that scenario and develop an acquisition plan that is ready in the event of an
annexation or an attempt by an outside firm to buy one of the parks within the city limits,
Lastly, Lehmann noted with recommendations 11 and 12 the City supports them, so feels like there's not
a whole lot else there to discuss. As previously mentioned, that bill has been tabled in legislature for this
year so the City will continue to actively support it at the state level.
Barron noted it's worth saying it has a bit of time for tweaks before the funnel closes so they could yank
the rent justification. Eastham stated the personal stuff is not going to prevent rent increases, the only
way to prevent rent increases is acquisition. Barron stated it is possible that they could still see a bill
move forward that, for example, simply prohibits no-cause eviction. It won't be the full comprehensive bill
that's proposed. She explained if others were not aware with the mobile home park legislation, there was
a bill introduced in both the House and the Senate to offer a range of protections largely shaped from the
recommendations referred to in the report, and even going a little further in some cases than what was
expected to be included in a bill. Barron noted there was bipartisan support.
McKinstry asked when the deadline for something to get through the funnel. Barron replied it has to
make it through the funnel by Friday, tomorrow. Eastham stated that legislature is not going to support
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 15 of 18
any new legislation that limits rent increases, they're not going to do that. Barron stated they're worried
that it would open the doors to rent justification and other housing types.
Eastham reiterated the only way to prevent rent increases is local acquisition. McKinstry agreed in the in
the current climate he certainly think that's true too.
Lehmann stated those were the staff comments on the different recommendations, generally a lot of them
the City's working towards or supporting. There are different recommendations there or tweaks on
recommendations that could also be beneficial as staff noted.
Drabek stated to do numbers three and ten successfully they would need an acquisition plan or urban
renewal plan.
Eastham said he would drop recommendation three, it's a financing mechanism and it's probably not
going to work well anyway. They have the potential funding financing partner and in ROC, USA, if not
money, they have the technical expertise to put together a plan.
Alter stated this is being prepared and given the priorities about affordable housing this is such a no
brainer to be prepared for this kind of situation since Iowa is such a target.
Barron stated that this same model they are proposing for manufactured housing communities, ROC,
USA is technical assistance providers also are offering this model for multifamily buildings, helping them
become resident cooperatives too. Given the current real estate market in Johnson County where the
vacancy rates are going up and more multifamily properties coming up for sale, beginning to understand
some of these different financing mechanisms in more detail might create other opportunities beyond
manufactured housing for resident acquisition or nonprofit acquisition. There are many different types of
ownership models that protect affordable housing from the private markets.
Eastham stated the City could do an acquisitions scenario by taking the park in North Liberty as a model,
you know what the cost was, you know what the lot rents are, you know what the numbers of units are,
and it's not that hard to develop a plan that would say given this situation or a similar situation this is how
it could go and do that in consultation with the hands on people at ROC, USA. Eastham stated they need
to avoid the Rose Oak situation where this Council was playing catch up and never caught up.
Kubly asked if this is something that the task force could provide the City for reaction or to see how they
could fill those gaps, or how can the City partner with the task force on something like this.
Barron stated they have already had one video conference with the technical assistance provider for folks
who were able to hop on and they maybe had 10 people just for that initial learning. To answer Kubly's
question, there are two potential ways to go. One is to offer a similar training opportunity for folks who are
interested in learning more about the financing structure and the second would be to do all the work
offline and then just say here's the budget. Barron can see benefits to both, depending on who wants to
be involved in the proposal. If they're talking about moving toward resident owned communities, it's
important to start involving residents and owners in this conversation now as well, it doesn't do any good
to have this conversation those stakeholders are not involved.
Barron stated the question for how to proceed is who they want to have involved in more serious
contemplation of what this model would look like and then go from there. Do we just look at numbers dryly
or do we want to look at the whole process?
McKinstry said it makes sense then that all the municipalities, including the county, could benefit from
having a very concrete scenario to show this is how it could be done.
Lehmann noted they are getting in the weeds, this more of a down the road conversation and HCDC
should focus now on what they recommend to Council.
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 16 of 18
Barron wanted to add one more thing before a recommendation is made noting she had the interesting
experience of going to all the different elected bodies and sharing these recommendations with them as
12 recommendations for action. The response then from the elected bodies is "it's a shame we can't do
anything about this". What that feedback means to her is that it's difficult for any individual municipality to
wrap its arms around these 12 recommendations and say "yes, we can take action on this tomorrow" and
part of that is because a lot of these are just mitigating recommendations, they can't stop or reverse the
harm that's already been caused, it's just putting more tools in the toolbox. She noted that eminent
domain was a consideration that didn't make it into the final report, but some cities and other places in the
country have used their eminent domain powers to say this is our land now and we'll pay for it.
Drabek asked if the reason eminent domain is not in the recommendations is because state legislature
will probably remove the power to use it. Lehmann said it is already removed for economic development,
there would need to be a very specific purpose to use it, and he doesn't think it would pass the courts.
Barron stated just fully embracing all of the recommendations to the best of their ability, like Iowa City has
shown interest in doing is doing something and when all of the communities in Johnson County take
those same steps, the power of that multiplies. Alter agreed stating if the different vectors are concrete
about this and then here's also a proclamation, that symbolism or words can be a layered effect and that
can be some momentum.
Barron agreed and said people being willing to put some dollars behind it probably takes the most arm
twisting, but it is also the one that's going to make the most immediate difference, so think about your
recommendations in terms of what do you want to see the City invest in this.
McKinstry moved to recommend to City Council that the City continue to support the 12
recommendations in this report, with the additional recommendation that the City assist with
developing an acquisition plan to transition a private manufactured housing park into a resident -
owned cooperative to prepare for future possible acquisitions. Alter seconded the motion, a vote
was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
Eastham feels this motion should give Council a chance to direct the staff to work on this and to follow up
to Kubly's working with the Coalition and elements from the Board of Supervisors would be a helpful
approach. Kubly asked if Eastham has already run the scenario. Eastham has not but he has talked to
this a couple of supervisors about the general concept of transitioning to residential communities but not
terribly specifically.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 19.2019:
Aguilar moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 2019. Kealey seconded the motion. A vote was
taken, and the motion passed 8-0.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Lehmann noted the next meeting will be not the third Thursday due to spring break, it will be on March 12.
The agenda will include monitoring updates from non -applicants, CDBG/HOME and Emerging Aid to
Agenccies budget recommendations, and discuss community development week activities. Prior to that
meeting, preferably by March 2, please give recommendations to Lehmann for the ranking sheet and also
at that time the budget scoring if that is done.
Lehmann stated now that they have Aid to Agency recommendations, they can start scheduling tours. He
will send out a signup sheet where there'll be a couple slots a month. Commissioners can then reconvene
with their agencies about what the best time is and then pass it back through Lehmann. McKinstry noted
some of the Commissioner terms end at the end of June. Lehmann said he will take that into
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 17 of 18
consideration and they can start doing the meetings and reiterating it's really just an opportunity for the
agencies to show the Commissioners what they do and to open up lines of communication.
Lehmann noted the FY21 applications for Climate Action Grants are open through March 3 with $50,000
available. The annual monitoring of rental projects is well underway, he's hoping to get a rental outcome
report out of this at the end of it and hopefully be able to share that with the Commission in the future.
Finally, Lehmann wanted to alert the Commission that the Council had asked about an emergency policy
and the Commission was going to talk about it at the last meeting. However, upon Council request, staff
developed a policy in the interim and Council approved. Lehmann handed out the Emergency Funding
Policy. It's based off HUD and Iowa Economic Development Authority requirements. This policy would
come into play with requests for funding outside of regular funding cycles. Some of the criteria are the
emergency must: alleviate existing conditions posing a serious and immediate threat to health, safety and
welfare; be the result of unforeseeable or unavoidable circumstances or events of relatively recent origin;
have no known alternatives or actions that are more feasible than the proposed project; and certify that
other funds aren't available. So that's what staff would look at during the review process and staff would
respond within five business days. It is a quick turnaround if it's within the City's budget authority, if not
then the City Manager would request Council for support.
ADJOURNMENT:
Drabek moved to adjourn. Alter seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 8-0
Housing and Community Development Commission
February 20, 2020
Page 18 of 18
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Terms Exp.
7/11
8/15
9/19
10/17
12/19
2/20
---
= Vacant
Aguilar, Peggy
6/30/22
0
X
X
O/E
X
X
Alter, Megan
6/30/21
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Drabek, Matt
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
Eastham, Charlie
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fixmer-Oraiz, V
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook
6/30/22
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
McKinstry, John
6/30/20
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Nkumu, Peter
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
Padron, Maria
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
• Resigned from Commission
Key.
X
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 24, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Library Board of Trustees: January 23
Item Number: 4.c.
s►,t IOWA CITY
PUBLIC LIBRARY
123 S. Linn St. • Iowa City, IA 52240
319-356-5200 • icpl.org
r+auas: Mon-Thurs 10-9, Fri 10-8, Sat 10-6, Sun 12-5
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
January 23. 2020
FINAL APPROVED
Members Present: Wesley Beary, John Beasley, Kellee Forkenbrock (in at 5:06pm), Derek Johnk,
Carol Kirsch, Robin Paetzold, Tom Rocklin, Hannah Shultz, Monique Washington (in at 5:10 pm).
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Elsworth Carman, Melody Dworak, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Anne Mangano,
Patty McCarthy, Elyse Miller, Brent Palmer, Jason Paulios, Angela Pilkington.
Guests Present: None.
Call Meeting to Order. President Beary called the meeting to order at 5:02 pm.
Public Discussion. None.
Items for Discussion/Action.
FY21 Downtown Building Calendar. There was a discussion about the Block Party this summer and
continuing to have extended hours at the library. A motion to approve the FY21 building calendar was
made by Rocklin and seconded by Johnk. Motion carried 8/0.
Policy Review: 802: Confidentiality. Rocklin asked if we have a records retention policy; Mangano said
we do and that is it public and available on our website. Johnk asked if we wished to consider when to
inform patrons about changes to the policy. Forkenbrock asked if we let patrons know that there has
been a change to the privacy policy. Logsden said she will post a blog about this but we don't send a
global notice to patrons. A motion to approve the policy as amended by staff was made by Johnk and
seconded by Kirsch. Motion carried 9/0.
FY20 Strategic Plan Update. Johnk asked about Drag Storytime. Pilkington said there was discussion
about live simulcast as an option. Carman said we could try to do two or three sessions if needed, but it
is not effective to use ticketing as a registration method. We continue to have a good problem, i.e., too
many people want to attend the program. Johnk asked if the Acorn TV trial is intended as an additional
streaming option, along with Kanopy. Both Carman and Mangano said yes.
If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Elyse Miller,
Iowa City Public Library, at 319-887-6003 or elyse-miller@iWt orq. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow
sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Fine -Free Update. Johnk loved the heat map that shows the cause and effect geographically. Rocklin
agrees. Rocklin noted it could be more useful if the same scale was used. Kirsch asked if it was
conceivable that the red would increase in 6 months because people get blocked from items not being
returned. Rocklin impressed by the small number of overdue materials. Rocklin also appreciated the
average percent check out statistic. In response to Beasley asking about the bottom line so far, Carman
said going fine free has increased access, and it is not having a significant effect on the general
availability of the collection. Carman said we are excited to report again in six months, when we have a
full year of data on which to report. Carman said fine free was discussed at IUPLA. Rocklin said the
anecdotes were meaningful to him despite being an advocate of quantitative data. He wonders if it
would be good to survey patrons in the future. Beasley would like to reward children with an ice cream
party if they return all their materials on time. Beary said we need to be conscientious about rewards.
Beasley proposed waiting until fall to present the year's data so staff have more time to work on it.
Staff Reports.
Director's Report. Carman said we received a letter from Pixsy, ("an online platform for creatives and
image owners to discover where and how their images are being used online," according to their
website) stating there was copyright infringement on an image on our Facebook account. City Attorney,
Eric Goers reviewed and responded.
The step outside the Ped Mall entrance was discussed. The Board may wish to communicate with the
City that they are not satisfied with the current solution and provide some alternative if it feels the step
is not sufficient. We have not had any reports of slips/falls since the weather changed. The planters
seem to be holding up. Beasley wants an architectural/engineering opinion that the solution currently in
place is the most appropriate way to make it as safe as possible. If there are other alternatives that
would make it safer, he would like to see those. Rocklin asked how the step and planters decision came
to be. He and is content to wait and does not believe we should design a solution. Paetzold asked what
we are liable for, as in "what is library and what is City." She would like this clarified; Carman will get a
statement from the City about responsibility. Beary thinks an explanation about how the decision was
made to put the planters in as a safety measure would be helpful as it seems arbitrary and we want to
have a better sense of our liability, if any. Johnk asked if everyone was okay with waiting until March for
the financials. Board members were fine with the response to Brandon Ross.
Departmental Reports:
Community & Access Services. Johnk pointed out a misspelling.
Development Office. McCarthy encouraged everyone to eat pizza tonight, and next Thursday, too, for
Eat Out to Read at Pagliai's.
Spotlight on the Collection. No comments.
Miscellaneous. No comments.
President's Report. The Evaluation Committee was optimistic about completed the Director's
evaluation. It will be delivered in February.
I f you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Elyse Miller,
Iowa City Public Library, at 319-887-6003 or elyse-miller@ Wl.ora Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow
sufficient time to meet your access needs.
2
Announcements from Members. Washington asked about Black History month activities at the library.
We have many programs and activities in support of Black History month, including a large display in
the gallery area. Beasley asked about replacement for Adult Services Coordinator. Carman said the
posting closed on 1/16. Applications were reviewed this week and will conduct interviews next week.
The position was open to both internal and external candidates. There will be a 90 -minute panel
interview with the leadership team and Brad Barker, City of Iowa City Recreation Superintendent.
Candidates will do a short presentation about a library relevant topic, and then receive a tour.
Committee Reports.
Friends Foundation. No meeting.
Communications. Response to Brandon Ross.
Quarterly Financial Reports. Kirsch asked about state funds, Open Access/Enrich Iowa. She said we
seem to be doing quite well and asked if the state ran out of money. Staff believe the state will not run
out of money. However, the State Library contracted with a courier service to deliver Interlibrary Loan
materials statewide this year, which may the state's financial situation next year. It was noted that server
and staff computer upgrades were up quite a bit. Carman said these costs will likely even out.
Quarterly Use Reports. Rocklin asked about the 300s; climate change, politics are in this Dewey
Decimal System range of numbers.
Consent Agenda.
A. Approve Regular Minutes of the Library Board of Trustees December 19, 2019 meeting.
B. Approve Disbursements for December, 2019.
A motion to approve the consent agenda was made by Paetzold and seconded by Kirsch. Motion
carried 9/0.
Set Agenda Order for February Meeting.
Director evaluation.
Nominating Committee.
Ped Mall safety.
Adjournment. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Beary. Motion carried 9/0.
President Beary closed the meeting at 6:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Elyse Miller
If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Elyse Miller,
Iowa City Public Library, at 319-887-6003 or elyse-miller@icpl.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow
sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees
ATTENDANCE RECORD
12 Month
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
Meeting Date
Name
Term
Expiration
3/28/19
4/25/19
5/23/19
6/27/19
7/25/19
8/22/19
9/26/1910/24/19
1 11/21/19
12/19/19
1/23/20
02/27/20
Diane Baker
6/30/19
X
X
X
O/E
Off Board
Wesley Beary
6/30/21
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
John Beasley
6/30/21
O
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
O
Kellee
Forkenbrock
6/30/23
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Janet Freeman
6/30/19
X
X
X
X
Off Board
Derek Johnk
6/30/25
Not on Boarc
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Carol Kirsch
6/30/23
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
Robin Paetzold
6/30/23
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Tom Rocklin
6/30/25
Not on Board
X
O
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Hannah Shultz
6/30/25
Not on Board
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Jay Semel
6/30/19
X
X
X
X
Off Board
Monique
Washington
6/30/21
O/E
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
Item Number: 4.d.
INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 24, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Public Art Advisory Committee: February 6
FINAL
MINUTES
PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 6, 2020 5:30PM
HELLING LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vero Rose Smith, Nancy Purington, Andrea Truitt, Eddie Boyken, Steve
Miller, Juli Seydell Johnson, Ron Knoche
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Bollinger, Wendy Ford, Camille Soleil
CALL TO ORDER
Rose Smith called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
There was none.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 16, 2020 MEETING
Miller made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Seydell Johnson seconded the
motion. Meeting minutes were approved.
NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Rose Smith announced that she will be moving to Chicago this summer and will be resigning
from PAAC in May. She stated that she is willing to serve in any capacity until that time.
Miller nominated Rose Smith to remain as PAAC Chair until she leaves in May. Seydell Johnson
seconded. There were no other nominations for Chair. Rose Smith was elected unanimously.
Seydell Johnson nominated Miller to serve as Vice Chair. Truitt seconded. There were no other
nominations for Vice Chair. Miller was elected unanimously.
There was discussion as to when the PAAC would submit the revised By-laws to the City
Council for approval, as well as PAAC approving the final revised Management Plan. Rose
Smith assured that she would like to help see those through before April, and that there will be a
new election for Vice Chair in May.
Rose Smith urged the members of PAAC to start recruiting now for the open position(s) on the
committee by the May meeting. Knoche asked for clarity on the timing of Rose Smith's
departure, as the Council would have to approved new members before the June meeting.
DISCUSSION OF ARTIST REGISTRY DATABASE
Bollinger presented that staff had been in preliminary communication with the City technology
department about the creation of a city -hosted Artist Registry. PAAC has talked about doing this
for years, and it is mentioned as part of the Strategic Plan. Purington recently wrote an email to
members of the committee asking for PAAC to look into this, and Bollinger stated that the City
now has the software to do a simple on-line database without having to hire an outside web
development agency.
There was discussion as to how to keep the database current, as w ell as what types of
information would be included.
Purington asked Bollinger to forward the web link to the Pittsburgh Artists Registry that Bollinger
showed as an example of a city -sponsored site.
There was discussion related to the geographic areas to be included, and the committee
supported the idea of limiting the registry to Johnson County. Also, expansion of several
categories, including "level of work" and "fields of work." Rose Smith and Purington both favored
having a place for artists to upload their vitae if possible.
Rose Smith asked the committee members to send feedback related to the categories and
parameters of this database to Bollinger by the next meeting.
REVIEW OF DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Bollinger asked to committee to review the areas highlighted in yellow on the handout.
Ford shared that she had taken the time to pull out and differentiate items that were appropriate
for coordinator/city staff responsibilities versus items within PAAC purview.
Rose Smith asked that the language on be revised and suggested using the words "evaluating
removal of or "offering guidance in" in reference to PAAC member responsibilities, and
Bollinger agreed to make another review through the document and clean up language
particularly for consistency.
There was discussion about the KidzTent that was mentioned in the Management Plan, as
some new members were not familiar with the event.
Knoche suggested changing the verbiage to "hosting a public event to showcase public art,"
rather than specifically mentioning the KidzTent, which may be too specific for the function of
this document. It was agreed to remove reference to specific events by saying something to the
effect of "provide activities at community events to raise awareness of the PARC."
On page 20, section 9 — Funding of Public Art-- there was discussion about what to include, and
it was agreed to keep the section about grants and public funding, and remove the sections
about developer fees, as it is the responsibility of Council to decide funding.
The Conflict of Interest section was revised and Bollinger stated that the City attorney said this
language is acceptable.
Purington asked if Bollinger had had an opportunity to ask the City Attorney about an alternative
phrase to the sentence "all things being equal" in the section on selecting art, and Bollinger said
that she had not yet.
Bollinger added that she had adjusted the section about PAAC member terms so that they will
be staggered, with new members added in July rather than January to avoid several new
members being added at any one time.
Rose Smith asked that any suggested edits be sent to Bollinger prior to next month's meeting
and thanked Bollinger for her hard work on this important document.
Bollinger reported that the City Information Technology department is helping put together a
database for art inspections which can include photos, notes, attach documents and
agreements that all the staff can access.
Rose Smith suggested that the staff member in charge of this looks towards accreditation
standards in museology, particularly the American Alliance of Art Museums. She shared that the
Getty has stringent language about conservation evaluation, as well terminology about how to
assess artworks that would be helpful as keywords in the City's database.
Purington thanked Bollinger for putting in page 30, the original City Council Resolution
establishing the Public Art program. Purington asked if the committee could start a discussion to
urge the Council to change this resolution to an ordinance, which was the original intent.
Bollinger noted that many public art programs do have ordinances. Rose Smith asked if it would
be appropriate to try to reformat this resolution as an ordinance in time to submit to Council with
the By -Laws in April. Seydell Johnson said that would probably be a question for legal staff and
Bollinger agreed and said that staff could do further exploration of that. Rose Smith asked
Bollinger to find out more by the March meeting.
PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION REGARDING ALLOCATION OF FY2020 FUNDING
Seydell Johnson updated on the Famers Market art. The artist who was originally contracted
had finally responded to the final letter which gave her 30 days to respond, and she is
scheduled to install it tomorrow (December 7). Thus, there will be no new Call to Artists.
Purington asked about the piece being installed, and Seydell Johnson reported that local artist,
Sara Montgomery will be installing a graphic sign above the entrance of ramp which says "Iowa
City Farmers Market" and includes a coffee cup, art, a strawberry, and there will be a large fork
and spoon on either side of the entrance, as well as an interactive photo frame.
The committee had reallocated $9000 from existing projects at the last meeting for the
upgraded Farmer's Market Call to Artists that was no longer needed. Bollinger reported that she
had just heard back from the artist of one of those existing projects and that artist would not be
able to execute the trail painting project "Hit the Ground." Bollinger said the committee could
either hire another artist to do a similar project or reallocate those funds.
Purington asked if this was one of those projects the committee created because there was
such as small budget and if so, since the budget has been increased, do we need to do those
tiny things so often now and can we focus on larger projects? Bollinger responded that those
funds were from FY2019 and needed to be used. Seydell Johnson said that the project also
supported the other community goals and tied into a number of community initiatives.
There was discussion on funding for the paint the trails project, and the roles of different
departments. Seydell Johnson said that part of the incentive for the project was to get art out to
the community, for kids and families to enjoy. Rose Smith noted that during the public input
sessions for the Strategic Plan many people in the public said they wanted to see more art in
community. $3,000 from the Hit the Ground project is available, the $6,000 for the Creekside
project will still be used for that project.
Purington shared some history of past projects and her concern that the public art funding has
dwindled so drastically, and that PAAC is spreading money into other departments.
Rose Smith appreciated the ideas that Purington shared, saying that as PAAC is working with a
larger budget now --and what a robust public art program that spends that budget looks like --is
something that the committee needs to redesign and have these conversations.
Bollinger pulled together this list of projects from past years as a starting point for this year.
Seydell Johnson suggested talking about it with percentage allocations, and Rose Smith and
Miller pointed out that such allocation is not part of the strategic plan or management plan.
Bollinger shared that over the years the matching funds have been popular. Rose Smith noted
that people said that they liked art in public places.
Miller asked for details on how last year's funds were spent, and Bollinger will put together a
sheet showing that by next meeting, as PAAC will have to decide by April how it would like to
distribute the funds.
Rose Smith asked for an annual report of our last year's expenditures, and asked Bollinger to
provide that to the committee a couple of weeks before our next meeting, that would be helpful.
Bollinger asked Seydell Johnson for help with prioritizing parks and trails.
Rose Smith added that it would be helpful for the committee to get a description of some of
these programs — for example, she is not fully aware of what the neighborhood art program is --
in preparation for the next meeting.
Rose Smith also asked that with the reporting out of how we spent funds last year, she would
also like to see the report of the public art matching grants with attendance, as well as numbers
of applicants of those programs.
Miller said that he would love to see that as a living document that the committee refers to every
meeting.
Rose Smith pointed out that in the Strategic Plan, PAAC says it will produce an annual report at
end of year, so having data available and publicly accessible.
Seydell Johnson encouraged the committee to prioritize types and locations of projects. Does
committee want to focus on smaller matching grants, one larger installation, projects for kids --
make it more of a policy discussion. Bollinger pointed out that the management plan calls out
policies and procedures and criteria related to the allocation of the annual funding.
Rose Smith said that it would be helpful for city staff to identify the top 5 locations where they
would like to see public art in the coming year — by next month. Miller said that this committee
could contribute to this list.
Bollinger and Seydell Johnson informed the committee about the Ashton House — a city -owned
property on the river that might be a potential venue for temporary presentations of 2D and
performance art, as well as tie it in with special events. Rose Smith reminded the committee
that there are environmental factors to consider — temperature, humidity when considering what
types of exhibits as well as the length of those exhibits.
COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR COMMITTEE REPORTS
None
STAFF REPORTS
Bollinger reported that staff is working with the artist about refurbishing the Dorothy sculpture for
placement across from City Hall.
Purington pointed out that that sculpture was the result of a grant written by local artists in
response to the city spending most of its money with non -local artists, and that the Dorothy
sculpture was the symbol for the epicenter cultural district that they had been developing at that
time and that she was excited to see it return.
ADJOURNMENT
Knoche motioned to adjourn. Seydell Johnson seconded. Adjourned at 6:57pm.
Public Art Advisory Committee
Attendance Record
2019-2020
Key:
X = Present
0 = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- = Not a member
Term
Name
Expires
317/19
4/4119
512/19
616/19
7/11/19
8/1/19
9/5/19
11/7119
12/5119
1116/20
2/6/20
Nancy
--
--
--
in ton
PurRon
1/1/2021
--
--
--
--
--
--
x
x
x
x
x
Knoche
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Juli
x
x
Seydell-
O/E
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Johnson
Vero
x
x
x
Rose
1/1/2021
x
O/E
x
x
x
x
x
x
Smith
Steve
2/1/2021
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Miller
Andrea1/1/2022
x
x
x
x
__
x
x
x
x
x
x
Eddie
1/1/2022
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
O
x
x
x
Bo ken
Key:
X = Present
0 = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- = Not a member