HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober HCDC PacketIf you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at brianna-
thul@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meetings
Regular: November 18
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION (HCDC)
October 21, 2021
Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM
Environmental Education Center
2401 Scott Boulevard SE
AGENDA:
1.Call to Order
2.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 16, 2021
3. Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda
Commentators shall address the Commission for no more than 5 minutes. Commissioners shall not
engage in discussion with the public concerning said items.
4.Unsuccessful and Delayed Projects
Commissioners will hear a status report from Successful Living on HOME funded activities, including
the lease-up of the FY20 Hickory project and the inspection and rental permit progress for the FY21
Hollywood project as requested at the September HCDC meeting. Agency will be invited to provide
an additional update on vacancy rates in November ahead of the next funding competitive round.
5.Discuss FY22 Mid-Year Funding Requests (CDBG/HOME) and Consider Budget
Recommendation to Council
FY22 CDBG/HOME applications are available online at www.icgov.org/actionplan. At this meeting,
HCDC will discuss applications, rankings, and funding amounts. HCDC will consider a funding
recommendation to City Council. Applicants are strongly encouraged to attend. City Council will
provide final funding allocations in November.
6.Legacy Agency Request – Aid to Agencies
Staff received a request from Center for Worker Justice to be included as a Legacy Agency which
allows them to apply for annual Aid to Agency funding. Approval of this request requires a substantial
amendment to the City’s Consolidated Plan, City Steps 2025, and a 30-day public comment period.
This item includes a brief discussion on when the Commission would like to review the request from
Center for Worker Justice. The next application cycle for Legacy Aid to Agencies funding will begin
in fall of 2022 with funding available in FY24.
7.Iowa City Council Meeting Updates
Commissioners volunteer each month to monitor Council meetings. This agenda item provides an
opportunity for brief updates on City Council activity relevant to HCDC business. Commissioners shall
not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items.
8.Housing and Community Development Information
Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items.
9. Adjournment
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 21, 2021 Meeting Packet Contents
Agenda Item #2
• September 16, 2021 HCDC Draft Meeting Minutes
Agenda Item #5
• HCDC Scoring Summary for the FY22 Mid-Year Funding Round Memo
• FY22 Mid-Year Funding Round Staff Recommendations Memo
• HCDC Rankings and CDBG/HOME Allocations: FY18-FY21
Agenda Item #8
• Board and Commissioner Training Opportunity
• Public Outreach Results
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 – 6:30 PM
FORMAL MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Matt Drabek, Nasr Mohammed, Peter
Nkumu, Becci Reedus
MEMBERS ABSENT: Megan Alter, Theresa Lewis, Kyle Vogel
STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul
OTHERS PRESENT: Sara Barron, Crissy Canganelli, Simon Andrew, Simon Fall, Anthony
Smith, Caitlin McGowan, Kevin Sanders
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Drabek called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 19, 2021:
Nkumu moved to approve the minutes of August 19, 2021. Mohammed seconded and a vote was taken
and the motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Sara Barron (Affordable Housing Coalition) noted the State of Iowa had the opportunity to give out $195
million to residents of Iowa and as of a few weeks ago they had made it through about $5 million. Barron
stated that tells them a few things, none of which are that not very many people need this help, but rather
that they have been pretty slow to operationalize and support this. The good news is that the process is
improving, they have probably hundreds, if not 1000 or more households, now that in Johnson County
that have received this support, but they continuously see even among need for the support and ask for
the Commission’s continued assistance in getting the word out to anyone in Johnson County that not only
is there more help available now than there has ever been for people who have lost income and are
unable to pay their basic housing bills, but also that there are places where they can go to get that
support. They can make appointments at Johnson County Public Services for help filling out all those
applications as well as general assistance, there's expanded support for this program at Community and
of course Shelter House. In addition, Iowa City Alliance for Worker Justice is available every Wednesday
at 6pm to help people complete these applications now until the end of October. So even if someone has
not accepted this assistance yet, it's definitely not too late. Now that the moratorium is lifted it's especially
important that they do more communication with landlords and learn how to sell this program because
people can be removed from their homes.
The other thing Barron wanted to let the Commission know about is that the Johnson County Affordable
Housing Coalition and its board of directors made a suggestion to all of the city governments and the
county government about how to send their American Rescue Plan dollars and their board identified the
top priority to be the preservation of affordable housing, and acquisition and rehabilitation and
construction of more affordable housing. When we see units come up for sale in the private market, they
don't currently have a great way to acquire those units and keep them affordable or make them more
affordable. If the City and the County and the other cities put about 45% of their rescue plan allocation
Agenda Item #2
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 2 of 15
2
into a single fund, they can mobilize that fund for no or low interest loans or even grants for some projects
and could acquire a large number of units at a suitable time to preserve affordable housing, rehabilitate if
needed, and then keep that housing permanently affordable. It also allows them to get back some of
those units that are vulnerable to the private market and put them under the management and support of
a local nonprofit, a resident owned cooperative, or some other organization whose mission is to preserve
affordable housing. They can't do that without a large commitment that can allow them to respond to the
private market. Their other recommendation is that money is given directly to households who have not
benefited from other stimulus programs, because they see a large number of people coming to them who
did not have stimulus checks or rent assistance and those folks are getting debt and borrowing money
from family and friends directly. Barron closed by saying if anyone has further questions or wants more
information they can contact her at the Affordable Housing Coalition.
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION FOR APPLICATIONS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS ( HOME) PROGRAMS:
The first application is the City down payment assistance program. Reedus stated she is brand new to
this process and noted this is a down payment assistance program with the City but there's another one
with Green State that the City was partnering with so what is the difference between the two. Kubly
replied this is a third phase of a program that the City already offers in the South District neighborhood.
The City has been acquiring duplex properties and converting them to condos and selling them for
homeownership. They also rehab the unit so they're ready to purchase and ready to move in. This
application for funding would allow the City to continue that program and would provide home down
payment assistance for those buyers. They try to cater to residents that live within the South District,
specifically people who are already living on Taylor Drive and Davis Street in the South District area and
give the opportunity for homeownership. The Green State program is similar, it’s down payment
assistance with HOME funds however, it's not directly to City owned units or directly to the South District,
but it is limited to low-income census tracts. The City is partnering with the credit union to provide down
payment for people who are purchasing homes in those areas who would also qualify for the HOME
income guidelines. An individual would not be able to use both programs, they are two separate
programs.
Dennis asked if they had any applicants. Kubly noted as of today they have 13 people on the applicant
list, she wouldn't say they're ready because they have not finished all the steps to apply for the program
and don't all have preapproval for lending but they're working through those steps and they have a couple
of people that are just about ready to purchase the existing homes that the City has. Dennis asked how
the City screens the applicants. Kubly stated they have to income qualify for the HOME funds, 80% of
the area median income, so they do an income verification, they have to take a homeownership
education course through Horizons, that costs $99 but the City reimburses that amount, and then they
have to get preapproval for a loan for the cost that's not covered by the down payment assistance. The
City doesn’t run the credit score, but the lender of course would do that, so the City tries to work with
people to help them get set up and working with a lender.
Nkumu asked if this just for first time homebuyers. Kubly said it is for anybody, but they do have
preference categories such as a geographic preference for people who live in the neighborhood that
they're working in. They also have a preference for people who are on the Housing Authority’s Family
Self-sufficiency Program so if they are interested in purchasing a home and have been working with that
program they might get a priority.
Mohammed asked why give priority for people to are on the Housing Authority Family Self-sufficiency
Program. Kubly noted those people have been working with the Family Self-sufficiency Program
coordinator with the City and setting goals for homeownership so they just expanded it to that group of
people. Mohammed stated the priority should be to the people who need it the most. Kubly stated the
initial goal with the program was because this neighborhood has a higher proportion of the renters versus
owner occupied units and so they're trying to get those renters opportunities to purchase within their own
neighborhood. They have a quite a few properties and plan to continue to program and if they get to a
point where there's no eligible applicants in the immediate neighborhood, they would expand out.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 3 of 15
3
Dennis asked if they anticipate any of the recovery money coming in for something like this. Kubly does
not believe so, with the pace that they're moving their regular HOME funds would serve the purpose of
this program the best. They have properties purchased to continue the program and have used local
funds for that.
Mohammed acknowledged they said they had 13 applicants and wondered if there is enough housing for
them. Kubly stated right now the City owns three properties that are under rehab, and then they
purchased 16 more, so there are enough units for all applicants, they're just not ready for homeownership
yet and it's going to be a longer-term program over several years.
Reedus noted the application stated three units have already been sold, and another two units they
anticipate the sale by June 2022 so that's the whole target, like seven units. Kubly stated they have six
right now but are saying they’re going to do four more on top of that. Reedus asked if the timeline for that
is in the City Steps Plan, so if it wasn’t funded this year it could still be eligible next year. Kubly
responded it just depends, right now some of the properties that they own are rented out and so
availability will depend on people vacating those units, because the City is not going to have anyone
move out if they don't want to. Once they get a duplex and can vacate both sides, they'll start with the
rehab.
Mohammed asked if this housing program is limited to geographically the South District and not if people
can find housing outside of the South District. Kubly replied for this program they are specifically looking
for the duplex homes on Taylor and Davis. The next application, with Green State, is for throughout the
City but limited to low income census tracts.
Reedus asked if people from other areas can participate in the program by purchasing the home itself if
they're eligible, correct? Kubly confirmed yes if they don’t have anyone in a preference category. People
who live there would have the highest preference but if they don't find buyers within the preference
category, they will open it up to a broader area.
Drabek noted the second application is the City of Iowa City and Green State, Kubly will also speak to this
application as no one from Green State is present.
Drabek asked if the main goal is to close the racial homeownership gap and the method is by targeting
certain neighborhoods and income groups and he is assuming that there are legal regulatory reasons
why that might be the simplest way to target a racial group. Drabek asked if they were able to measure
the race of buyers or applicants and who the assistance goes to. Kubly stated the will be tracking
demographics of who they’re serving, they are also require to do that for federal funds.
Reedus asked if staff can provide a couple of examples on the flexibility allowed for the requirements for
the lending. Kubly stated they would maybe consider a lower credit score than they might have previously
considered or consideration for certain credit issues that someone might have in their report that would
give them a lower score, a lower required down payment, which of course the City is going to help with
via the HOME assistance and then the other thing is the job-life tenure, so if someone has been
consistently employed but maybe they have moved around jobs that might negatively impact their
applications. Overall, they're taking a longer look at some of these things to see how they can help. After
looking at these expanded guidelines if people are still not eligible, they're also partnering with Horizons
to offer homeownership or financial education courses and pay for that.
Nkumu asked how many this funding will support. Kubly stated they have applied for 10 households for
HOME down payment assistance. If they got less funding, they would do fewer but as much as they can
with that amount of money, and then maybe apply in the future.
Mohammad asked how is this different than UniverCity program. Kubly replied the UniverCity program
was similar to the South District program where the City purchased properties and rehabbed them and
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 4 of 15
4
resold them. They didn't necessarily have down payment assistance for that program but the rehab costs
were forgiven so that's how it made it more affordable for buyers. For this program they’re not doing any
rehab, it's just assistance for financing and then down payment assistance to make it more affordable for
the buyers.
Drabek stated the next application is Shelter House.
Crissy Canganelli (Shelter House) first had a question about funding projects underway, Shelter House
staff contacted City staff to see if this would be an allowable goal under this program because normally
the City does not use CDBG grant funds to projects underway. Kubly confirmed they could make it work
confirming normally if the project is underway, they're unable to fund it but it sounds like how this one is
set up with other federal funding already that they probably could.
Dennis noted it looks like Shelter House is asking for all of the funds that are available. Canganelli
confirmed that was correct. Dennis asked if there a requirement for a CHDO. Thul stated they do have
about $77,000 of CHDOs set aside separate from the $500,000 available for this round.
Dennis asked then if the Shelter House doesn’t receive funds from this Commission, or a
recommendation from this Commission, what programs fall short. Canganelli stated the construction loan
would revert to a long-term mortgage and what they're trying to do is reduce that debt burden on the front
side of the project so that they're not taking out a mortgage because that does weigh heavily on their
success for the project. She also noted it's not just the construction of the units as an expense but also
the operating expenses for managing the facility and 24/7 case management and support services that
are provided. Otherwise, they're patching together from myriad of different funding sources and
fundraising activities, and they are continuing to move forward with fundraising efforts to overall reduce
that effort.
Dennis asked about the National Housing Trust Fund deadline being extended. Canganelli replied they
are just now extending the deadline, but construction is to completed by June.
Dennis asked if there is any concern about that deadline. Canganelli said there's no concern, they're on
schedule in spite of supply chain issues but costs are increasing over three quarters of a million dollars
since they started.
Drabek noted what stands out about this application is it is to provide housing to individuals that have
been chronically homeless for years and decades. Canganelli agreed and noted Cross Park Place was
the initial example and they've been successful. Dennis asked if there are there any vacancies at Cross
Park Place now and Canganelli replied no.
Reedus asked what the anticipated length of time is to be at full occupancy. Canganelli replied their goal
is to have occupancy by June and by mid-July be completing full. They will use the winter shelter period,
through the course of that season, to really be meeting with folks, encouraging them, getting any financial
documents that require research, project-based vouchers, etc. and getting all of that work done in
advance.
Canganelli stated this is targeted and just has to do with homelessness and the number of episodes
within a certain period of time, and about 100% of the people have serious illness, substance abuse
histories and brain injury, intellectual disabilities, chronic health issues. As far as reducing homelessness,
the real goal here is reducing crime in society that will be very close to ending crime. As a service
provider they talk about ending homelessness an say that they're at functional zero and functional zero
means that they're getting to a position where anyone who presents themselves as homeless and wants
to be housed, they can help them. They’ve retooled and realigned their resources with Community so
that they can meet with that person and get them housed, if they so choose housing within them. The
challenge for community members is that they believe that when they see people on the streets with the
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 5 of 15
5
signs that say that “I'm homeless” when oftentimes they are not and that creates some cognitive
dissonance from the data and from the understanding or research work.
Canganelli states is a new radically process to help people maintain their housing. The key to this type of
housing is to work closely with the City Housing Authority that has dedicated project-based vouchers for
the project, so every unit has a voucher that is attached to the unit. The Housing Authority has reduced
the technical requirements in and around criminal histories, credit, and different things that often are
barriers for the folks that they are working with. The only the federal limitations that stand are the persons
cannot be on a national registry with a sex offender status. Many of the tenants have $0 in income so it's
their work as the provider case managers to work with folks to rapidly get people connected to the
benefits, whether it's social security disability benefits or whatever so they do have a revenue source.
Canganelli stated the lease is an annual reviewed, the project-based voucher is theirs, there are two
income recertifications on a regular basis, but as long as they don't break those federal requirements,
they can keep the voucher and be eligible. Otherwise, the Housing Authority has gone one step further
and created what's called in the homeless service world “move on strategy”, meaning that when people
are tenants that they stay for at least one year and then if from that point forward are interested in moving
on from this permanent supportive housing project that project-based voucher converts to tenant based
rental assistance and they help relocate people interested.
Reedus noted The Housing Fellowship is asking for $160,000 for this particular project and that does not
the $78,000 in CHDO. Dennis replied it does because the Housing Fellowship is the only agency that's
eligible for that $78,000 and oftentimes with an application like this they would be asking for utilization
from one of their existing properties.
Simon Andrew (The Housing Fellowship) noted there have been additional expenses for materials for
contractors at the three locations they've been doing this year but that's another challenge that probably
waiting for next year for a rehab project is a better thing as they’ll get more bang for their buck that way.
This is envisioned as purchasing a home that requires several months with the estimated target in mind
depending on the applications, but they are targeting a six-person household because most of the
applicants that they are turning away right now need three or four bedrooms so that's what they're really
looking to target. They do have some vacancies, but this is where they're staying focused as that's what
they view as one of their key contributions to a neighborhood community. Affordable for more than a
decade is what contributes to stability. They are targeting another 15 years of affordability because then
that’d be the duration of the loan, but they also use the equity in their organization to continue to provide
affordability in perpetuity for those dollars.
Drabek moved onto the next application from Unlimited Abilities.
Dennis noted the application said they plan on serving 40 people, how many people does Unlimited
Abilities serve now.
Simon Fall (Director of Operations, Unlimited Abilities) said this would add to that 40. Dennis asked if
there are any vacancies at any other properties. Fall replied no, right now they have record waiting list for
openings and actually serve individuals with coordination between Unlimited Abilities and Successful
Living and can retrieve a few people coming from different places.
Reedus noted before they had a project funded in fiscal year 21 so what is the progress on that project.
Fall stated the project is fully leased. Thul stated the completion report needs to be submitted, and then
the period of affordability begins. Staff have not received the completion form yet.
Fall states they will finalize the purchase by February 1. Sometimes placement will take three weeks and
sometimes months. They are currently talking to a couple of clients who rely on the community and being
able to discharge today. For example, they have two people because of the mental illness their landlord
is shutting them out.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 6 of 15
6
Drabek had a question for staff, he did see the one application was not eligible so is there a reason as to
why the application wasn't HOME eligible the way it was submitted. Thul stated they’ve funded that
specific COVID related activity before with CDBG-CV, which was a little bit more flexible funding, but it
didn't fit with these funds.
Nkumu had a question for Unlimited Abilities, the application states they have $50,000 pending status.
What would happen if approved, do they have a plan B for that? Fall stated he just received all the stuff
from the bank and it's pretty much going to be approved.
UNSUCCESSFUL AND DELAYED PROJECTS POLICY:
Drabek noted they are looking at two projects, one is the Little Creations Academy project and the other
is the Successful Living Project. They will first discuss the Little Creations Academy project.
Pastor Anthony Smith (Little Creations) stated he did receive the notification from the City stating that he
had to give a project updated. He did resubmit the project to two bidders but didn't get a return on the bid
work for the project, so they were unable to do the project. They finally got a third bid and Kennedy
Construction came through. He did turn in the annual reports and as of right now there's nothing
stopping him. The biggest hurdle was that there was no time from the time that she had submitted that
letter to the time to actually give the contractors enough time to get react. What's not written on paper is
they appreciate more time to talk. Pastor Smith also wanted to reflect back on some of the other things
that he doesn’t know if the Commission knows. He already had an agreement with the City ready to be
signed but the bid that came through was at $119,000 and he was only allocated $78,000. He wanted to
share that because he was not sure if his allocation was mentioned at the last meeting. He wanted to
mention that because there has been progress on this on this project. One of the drawbacks was the
putting the hood installed in the kitchen, the original design was supposed to come out of the side of the
building and then go up to the roof and the City changed the guidelines and they had to change the
engineering and now the exhaust has to go through three floors and that wasn’t in the budget. Since they
were way over budget they went back to the drawing board and met with the City Inspector and they gave
guidelines to move forward. Now instead of using a commercial hood they were able to downgrade to a
top of the line residential and could go out the side of the building.
Thul noted that the memo summarizes staff perspective on the situation. Kubly notes that the issue they
had with the recent bid was that the bid was only open for four business days so they felt that wasn’t an
open and fair bidding process and it didn't meet the City’s procurement guidelines so it will have to be bid
again for an appropriate amount of time.
Reedus noted that was a question she had, they’ve got Kennedy set up, but it was a short timetable, so
now they have to go and bid again. It seems like one step forward and two steps back. She also noted
one of the concerns that she has, and she likes the project and is sympathetic to all that has happened to
this point, but what is the timetable now after delay after delay. Do they need to recapture the funds?
Kubly noted from staff’s perspective there's not a specific deadline for each project but collectively they
have to spend so much CDBG money every year or the City will be out of compliance for HUD. So they
try to format the CDBG projects to be one year projects and when they have projects that are larger, or
multiple projects that will go past one year that gets them closer and closer to their compliance mark and
why they have the unsuccessful and delayed projects policy. They have checkpoints and need to make
sure things are moving forward. Thul added it’s a lot more complicated if the project does move forward
and partial funds are expended if something else happened, then it's harder to cancel a project and get
those funds back.
Reedus asked if the amount of money they were awarded was $78,000 and the bid from Kennedy
Construction was $70,000. Smith replied he’d have to check the project agreement to see how much
match was put up but he thinks the total project was around $86,000 in the agreement.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 7 of 15
7
Reedus asked then at this point what is a normal timeline for putting projects out to bid, and to have
submitted some sort of documents to the City for approval. Thul explained staff typically review the
packets before it would go out for bid.
Reedus asked what Kennedy said in terms of being able to start the project. Smith stated Kennedy is
ready to go, but they have to order the equipment so as soon as he can order the equipment they can get
started. However, if they now have to repeat the whole project over again it is going to take some time.
The Commission asked him to have the project underway so he did all he could do within the time limits.
Smith stated that signing the agreement takes time to get all the signatures.
Thul commented that they have already entered the project agreement prior to the last HCDC meeting
and that was when they secured the mortgage. At this stage a construction contract was needed. Thul
explained the next steps are to get the construction contract and do the pre-construction conference
meeting. They have also only received three quarters of the CDBG quarterly reports and the project has
been over a year now so they are missing a couple quarters. The City requires quarterly reports from
CDBG grantees.
Pastor Smith requested they be allowed to continue with this project because of the climate that they're in
right now, their daycare capacity is has, has grown exponentially, when he first started this project they
only had 12 kids, they have over 30 now, and use the dishwasher and the three sink compartment as a
means of sterilizing all of their equipment and it takes lots of man hours. They need to continue on with
this project.
Reedus doesn’t want to see a repeat of delays so if there's a timeline she’d like the City's perspective if
the Commission decides to abandon last month's decision and not pull funds for the project.
Kubly stated from staff’s perspective, their annual funding round starts in December so if they were to pull
funds, they want to do it ahead of that because then they can put those funds back in the pool for people
to apply for. Reedus would like to see a really firm timeline with Pastor Smith because he has to go back
out to bid again and there are some steps to go through. She just doesn’t want it to be November and
they’re thinking about this question of recall again.
Drabek states that it is his view that if they do not accept the staff’s recommendation, they are going to be
here talking about this again in November.
Pastor Smith questioned if all he has to do is re-bid the project. He was not aware of these other reports
he also needed to do.
Kubly stated they have quarterly reports due every quarter, they are behind on the July report and then in
October they will generate another quarterly report. Kubly stated the next steps after the bidding would be
to approve contracts and then they’ll have a pre-construction meeting with the contractor or
subcontractor.
Smith asked how long does it take? Thul stated it depends on the length of the bid but they could
schedule the conference any time.
Dennis noted that all of the City requirements are outlined in the agreement and that things might have
gone better if they were submitted as required by the agreement versus later.
Pastor Smith stated he was only given two weeks by the Commission to do it before and if that wasn’t
correct they shouldn’t have given him that deadline, it wasn't attainable. He acknowledged he made
some mistakes but if they take away his funds and have to reapply they won’t get this done until June.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 8 of 15
8
Reedus stated he is spinning the story and for the benefit of the people who are listening to this, she
doesn’t want there to be a misunderstanding that he only had two weeks to comply with this. She is
sympathetic to the fact that there were a lot of problems in getting this started and daycare center are one
of those programs she does want to see funded but does have a concern with the fact that the program is
so far behind. She thinks not having a report last month made an impact because they were expecting
some sort of report or appearance from him in August so that has impact and at least one reason on her
decision to put forward that motion. Reedus just wants to make sure that that Pastor Smith understands
that this project is way beyond deadline. If he had to reapply in January, he couldn't start the project until
July but certainly would have a lot of planning time to get that done.
Thul wanted to echo what Reedus said, these funds were awarded in July of last year. She
acknowledged there were some issues early on, before they signed an agreement. Staff wanted to get
some monitoring documentation from Little Creations and that took a long time to be submitted and that
was something that delayed the project several months. Also, there was a time when Little Creations
needed to submit the SAM registration and that was another project delay. All subrecipients receiving
federal funds are required to register in the federal SAM database. She feels that it's a bit of a
misrepresentation to suggest that staff haven’t been working on this because they have spent a lot of time
trying to make this project work and noted staff don’t take any pleasure in this situation either.
Kubly confirmed that they’ve spent a lot of staff time on this and there's certain federal requirements that
they have to meet and make sure the project is following the CDBG rules. The fact of the matter is they
could have started this a year ago if those steps had been taken concisely.
Nkumu would like to know what is really realistic for this project and for them to possibly complete this
project. Pastor Smith replied it would depend on how long it takes the contractor to get in and do the
project. He stated the only thing holding up the project right now is ordering product because of COVID
and there's a backlog on building materials. He can't submit for materials until the project was started.
Reedus moved to recapture the funds and invite them to reapply at the next round. Dennis
seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Drabek moved onto Successful Living. Thul noted there were FY21 funds allocated to Successful Living
originally to acquire three homes. So far they've acquired one home and there's some vacancy issues so
it is brought forth to the Commission to decide if the two remaining projects should go forward, or if the
fund should go back in the pot. There are some other issues that Successful Living is working through not
only with vacancy, but previous projects. The FY20 Hickory project is vacant still but may be close to
being leased up based on the most recent information, and with the last FY21 project on Hollywood
typically there's a six month window that project's lease up in and that project has not leased up and it
does not have a rental permit to date.
Caitlin McGowan (grants and development director, Successful Living) and Kevin Sanders (housing
director, Successful Living) were present to answer questions. McGowan noted Sanders, herself and the
intake coordinator are all new in their roles so with regards to the Hickory project, they believe that they
will have that completed soon. They also have two referrals and are just in the process of waiting for their
funding from their case managers for services. So those three residents should be moving in soon. Then
over at Hollywood, one of the issues they ran into was that the recommended contractor that they bid it
out to just stopped responding. They waited a long enough time to give them the chance to respond but
ended up having to rebid the project. The concrete work has all been done and they've now applied for
the rental permit. They have also developed more of a marketing plan and are both going back out to the
community within the next couple of weeks and access other referral sources. One of the major issues
they ran into with having these vacancies is just the transient population that they work with, adults with
chronic mental illness, but also due to COVID. A lot of their referrals come from Integrated Health Homes
through Abbey Center as well as the central region and during COVID they had a lot a lot of turnover with
case managers. Successful Living definitely saw a huge impact with that in just claims being served and
having referrals sent out for housing and mental health support. Per HUD guidelines, they can't have a
client move in if they're not able to pay for the rent, or they don't have an ability, they have to collect rent,
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 9 of 15
9
and the East Central Region changed their parameters for rental systems significantly and it's pretty
nonexistent for their client population now. It has caused a major issue with clients who have no income,
being able to initially move in, once they have the services, Successful Living certainly can get them set
up with Social Security Disability for all systems, but it does cause a significant delay.
Reedus asked if they have to have some sort of income before they can move in. McGowan stated per
guidelines they have to charge rent and can't have someone coming in and not collecting rent.
Reedus also asked about the contractor delay, is that on the current home. McGowan said it was on the
one they purchased and ended up delaying them getting the rental permit and the inspection setup over
at Hollywood Boulevard. Reedus asked about the other homes that need to be purchased, what's the
status of those. McGowan replied they’re working with realtors but a lot of them are going to require a lot
of work to be able to fit in to the requirements they have for HOME funds and being able to have
residents in there. However, they are fully prepared to purchase more homes, they just wanted to focus
on getting Hickory filled before moving forward.
Thul stated the total awarded was $144,000 and they’ve spent $44,990 so there's about $99,000
remaining.
Dennis noted if they purchase the homes, and then you have to rehab that means a lot of vacancies and
she understands that they also get Medicaid. McGowan replied for their residents who are mentally ill
they receive Medicaid, but that's not for property that's for providing mental health counseling and
services and staffing. Dennis stated it doesn’t make sense to go forward to buy two more homes if they
still have these vacancies. McGowan explained it’s within recent months to have these vacancies, they
have seen referrals increasing. They getting more creative on where they’re looking for referrals and
changing their tactics going forward. Other agencies have better staffing so they are giving them a lot
more referrals. McGowan also noted that during COVID she was home and was unable to even know
whose case manager was who because it was changing so often. They are now seeing more stability that
way and referrals are increasing in the recent months.
Reedus noted she is a little concerned about what they're still working on because a third of the money
essentially has been awarded and they don't have a third of the project done. She asked what the
timeline is for finishing that other stuff extending out of the $99,000. Reedus wondered if they are able to
modify to funds spent at this point based on what they have done, and then recapture the other $99,000.
Thul confirmed that is the direction staff is looking for, what should be done with that remaining $99,000.
Thul added for all HOME projects they have to do HOME underwriting and vacancy rate is a part of that,
they have to make sure the project can cash flow, so the higher the vacancy rate the more difficult it is to
underwrite. She explained with the high vacancy rates, they wouldn't be able to underwrite one of these
new projects at the moment. She did acknowledge that the vacancy rates have improved, but at one
point it was almost 50%.
Dennis asked then they could keep the house on Hollywood and then come back in and reapply for the
others. Kubly confirmed staff is not recommended anything with the property that they already went
through the acquisition, only the ones that haven’t proceeded yet.
Dennis asked if Successful Living has the rental permit inspection. McGowan replied yes, Dennis asked
how many bedrooms was the house. McGowan replied three bedrooms, She added they were hoping to
maybe come back and revisit in this in December because just in the last couple weeks, with new staff
coming in and getting creative with referrals they’ve got three people scheduled to be at Hickory and
satisfy that creative affordability and so it was their hope that they could continue to try and do everything
they can and maybe come back and revisit and discuss their progress in December.
McGowan and Sanders explained they have been with the organization for years, in other positions, so
they do have the history. Another thing they are trying to implement is reaching out to the City and try
and figure out a way that they can utilize vouchers in their houses, they would hopefully be able to find a
creative way to be able to have clients utilize vouchers.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 10 of 15
10
Dennis feels perhaps they should go ahead and get the rest of money back and then Successful Living
can come back in because if they don't get an update until December that's really too late to figure out the
budget for the next round. Kubly stated they usually put the applications out mid-December, so it'd be
kind of around the same time.
Drabek noted as they are seeing these projects one goal is using the money in the best way possible.
With this case what gives him reservation is the best practice would probably be to recapture along the
lines staff recommends, but he also feels there might be more they could do, this is the first time they are
talking about this project, they haven’t been talking about it for months like the other one. He wondered if
there is a way to recapture projects and put a note in there saying that the agency is eligible for the next
application round and not hold the recapture against the agency.
Reedus agreed she doesn’t think it necessarily is a bad mark but just for whatever circumstances they
haven't been able to successfully launch the project so isn't it better to give the money to projects that can
get off the ground.
Dennis agrees and stated that nobody should get a bad mark for what's happened over the last year
because it's been a very challenging year and Successful Living has a good track record, they have a
budget, they have everything in order, they just haven’t been able to fulfill what needs to be done so it
won't be very difficult to come back in for the next round.
McGowan acknowledged they can understand the reservations. It's their understanding that the deadline
for purchasing houses is June 2022 so they still have quite a bit of time to locate and then get those
properties ready to go and start a period of affordability after that's approved. The deadline for filling
Hickory is December and just in the last couple of weeks they have identified and located three clients
that will be hopefully moving down there soon.
Dennis asked if they can invite Successful Living back next month to see what's going on in November
and then see where these projects stand.
Kubly noted that would be fine it just gives them less time to make progress but if they would know their
inspection status by November that’s two months out.
Reedus stated the reason why she would want to go into November is because they gave Little Creations
two months, she would like to see a progress report in November.
McGowan noted presenting a progress report in November would be very doable for them, they could
also come back in October if needed.
Reedus asked staff about the vacancy rates and issues with underwriting. Thul replied the Hickory
project is in danger of having the funds invested returned to HUD because there's an 18 month deadline
and if the project isn't leased up then the funds invested in the vacant units have to go back to HUD. Also,
they have to have a reasonable vacancy rate to be able to underwrite, usually that's around 5% to 10%,
and right now their vacancy rate is 29%. Reedus noted it might be tough to see an improvement in 30
days but she is willing to do a 30 day check in and then maximum two months to see if there is progress.
Drabek stated a benchmark would be the vacancy rate, especially in a big gap between 5% to 10%.
Reedus noted some presenting applicants tonight have talked about being able to close that gap pretty
quickly, so that may not be a problem.
Reedus stated if they were to give Successful Living two months with the check-in period at the October
meeting, that would still create enough time to recapture those unspent funds. She is not as concerned
about the vacancy rate but rather really concerned about being able to find houses because real estate
moves so quickly and that's a huge issue. McGowan said they’ve seen enough come through that they
are confident to eventually being able to time the right ones, they might take a little modification, but they
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 11 of 15
11
previously bought five-bedroom houses and now may need to change the model in what they look for in a
house to be able to find the right kind of parameters. So, they're trying to look at every avenue and at
other ways they can help their clients or residents getting rental assistance and other programs available
that maybe they're underutilizing or are not fully aware of.
Beining moved to invite Successful Living to the October 21 HCDC meeting to provide a status
update on HOME funded activities, including the lease-up of the FY20 Hickory project and the
inspection and rental permit progress for the FY21 Hollywood project. Nkumu seconded the
motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE & EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER):
Drabek notes that the next agenda item is the CAPER and state that our main goal here is to provide any
comments on the report.
Reedus states that the report was interesting and that it is a lot of reading moving between the report and
the various links. Doesn’t have any comments.
Drabek inquired about the shelter projects which appeared to be form of an unbudgeted surprise sort of
expense and asked if there are plans to budget accordingly to prevent that in the future. Thul notes that
the winter warming shelter project was funded with CDBG-CV through one of the competitive funding
rounds for nonprofit public services. Kubly states that the City does budget for the winter overnight
shelter.
Reedus states that she would love to see essential services through Aid to Agencies move towards a
process of funding rather than an application. If she could make that happen during her 3 or 6 year term
on HCDC that would be great. Reedus does have one question about the requirements to become a
Legacy Agency after being an Emerging Agency.
Kubly states that all the Legacy Agencies are listed in City Steps. A new agency would need to apply to
be a Legacy Agency and the City Steps plan would be amended if approved. Kubly notes that there is an
agency interested in applying and that they were asked to apply during the next application for Aid to
Agencies to revisit at that time.
Drabek notes that in the practical category there is a spelling error on page 38 where the Iowa City Police
Department is referred to as the Policy Department. Thul thanked Drabek.
Mohammed inquired about the delay on the two City parks projects. Thul explained that the derecho
storm and the pandemic delayed two neighborhood improvement projects and that both projects have
since been completed. Both activities will fall in FY22 for completion.
Kubly confirmed that they were not closed out in time to include in the FY21 CAPER.
Drabek states that nonhousing community development activities did not get as much attention and
wondered if the delays related to the parks projects had something to do with that. Thul confirmed.
Drabek moved to approve the CAPER as amended (typographical error correction). Beining
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
OVERVIEW OF SCORING CRITERIA:
A review of the scoring criteria. This is brought up especially for first year commissioners to see if anyone
has questions.
Dennis noted this is her first meeting as a commissioner however, when she was working she filled out
these applications for many years and it can be frustrating as an applicant. The City HOME and CDBG
applications were not the only funding application that she prepared in my career, but this particular
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 12 of 15
12
scoring criteria was really more of suggestions for the commissioners who are scoring applications. Every
other funding application she ever submitted had hard and fast scoring systems. So when an applicant is
preparing a project, especially when it's a housing project, because that takes a lot of time and content,
they can score the project before they even send in the application to see if it's even worth pursuing to try
and get funding. For this particular system, applicants prepare an application according to these
guidelines and then they get to the meeting, where commissioners have scored everything, and it's all
over the map. There's not a lot of consistency in the scores. So she would like to either see some
changes or also to see more of the goals for City Steps be used because City Steps is a prescribed
document. The City's able to do some narrative but really, HUD says this is what has to be included in
that report. So the scores need to match more to what the City Steps requires.
Reedus agrees 100%, she has done many applications also and honestly when writing applications, they
pay attention to scoring criteria. She urges them if they're going to include scoring criteria then they take it
seriously. If the City wants the Commission to meet the highest impact areas of service then they need to
start with high impact years of service. Reedus asked if the with the HOME loans is there a matching
dollar amount required. Thul confirmed the City must match 25% for HOME. Reedus stated then
nowhere does it ask if the agency is meeting the 25% match, if that is a hard and fast rule then they
should be sticking to it. Dennis stated it's really the City that has to prove the HUD that the City has
provided the information.
The match can come from many forms, for instance if Neighborhood Centers received some HOME funds
for rehab for their childcare, but the childcare is free, and they don't get any revenue from those they are
providing the services to, they can say to the City that’s their 25% match. Thul confirmed the City has to
demonstrate 25% match to HUD. She showed an example from the CAPER on how they calculated the
match for FY21. They took several of the projects that were completed and were able to calculate the
amount of property taxes that were forgiven as an eligible form of match. Dennis noted the match can be
carried forward to future years if there is more than required.
Dennis feels there should be more weight given to the applicant having the capacity to successfully
complete the project. To be good stewards of the money when they provide recommendations to City
Council they should make sure that the applicants have good capacity to work with staff and carry out
their projects. That should be weighted a little bit more.
Drabek’s sense is that they all likely disagree with at least one of the ways the scoring document weighs
things. He thinks those other financial resources should be weighted less than it is and then does the
project provide a long-term solution to identify should be listed, but probably one of the difficulties that
they tend to have and shows some of the good and bad of the criteria is telling the difference between a
really good project and a really low scoring project. Looking through some of the history of allocations is
pretty rare for anything to be scored under about 60. In most years they denied everything that is was
scored under 60, but then it starts to get really tricky between the 70s and 80s, there's rarely a meaningful
difference between those projects. He stated they use the scores as a starting point and bring the
scores to the table and where they see some small differences, that's when they start getting into the
strengths and weaknesses of particular application and looking at more details such as finding a long
term solution to the problem or leverage of other financial resources.
Sara Barron (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) stated there are nine individual
commissioners whose scores translate into those means scores and that is really where the variability
happens and where the test of the rubric as a tool happens because nine scorers should use this tool and
come up with mostly similar scores if the tool is a reliable way to assess. She has not seen that action,
she has seen flat scores, so that's something for them to think about, the validity of the tool. The other
thing she wanted to emphasize is the City used to give money to people who provided the essential
services and didn't send it through this whole process. That may have been more for the Aid to Agencies
process and not HOME or CDBG. Barron noted they keep having these conversations each year
because the process is still not quite right, but as Reedus and Dennis have noted nonprofits really
depend on these local resources to execute projects, they put a lot of work into the applications and then
in the fourth quarter the Commission comes up with wildly different ideas about the same application. It's
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 13 of 15
13
pretty disruptive with that variance, so she just wants to reinforce some of those methods and the best
thing that can happen is to be as clear and as consistent as possible in letting people know what they're
doing and what are those benchmarks.
Drabek acknowledged they have discussed this for a long time in a number of different ways and does
feel like the point system probably provides a misleading impression, and the impression that there is a
precision of some kind that probably doesn't exist. He looks at it as a way to guide conversation. He
stated they discuss what they want to prioritize and the answers they come up with here each year are
fairly consistent. The highest scores get funded the largest percentage of funds.
Reedus stated she will have to sift through this process and see how it goes, her only point of reference
was as an applicant for Aid to Agencies and to be honest she didn’t know what the heck those scores
meant. One year she was upset because the as the former director of Community they had the highest
score and were high impact and were getting one of the biggest cuts. She will sit through this first year
process and see what happens, but she won't sit passively if she thinks something is unfair.
Kubly stated when they do the regular annual allocation, at one of the meetings before they put the
application out, the Commission will have to approve the scoring criteria so that'll be a good time to
implement any changes
Reedus asked if this Commission will be doing a special funding round of ARP funds. Kubly replied
probably at some point but don’t know yet when.
Nkumu stated what he is hearing is that the scoring system is probably subjective but does wonder if
there a better way to do this.
Thul stated if they want to get in the weeds on changing the scoring criteria they should probably put it on
an agenda, because this agenda item was just intended to be an overview. If it's something they want to
revisit for an upcoming funding round, they can put it on an agenda for approval or adjustment.
Reedus suggested in addition to scoring the applications it would be helpful to have a comment section to
spark conversations and help the Commission to go back to the application and maybe reread something
a little bit differently.
Beining asked if applicants are required to submit a engineers projected budget. Thul said they typically
ask for a scope of work with a CDBG project and people will submit bids or an estimate. Thul also noted
for example, if a project is funded, for the underwriting they have to see certain documentation of fiscal
capacity and those kinds of things to be able to underwrite the project. So technically even if a project is
awarded, it's possible that the project wouldn't go forward if they couldn't demonstrate those things for
underwriting. Kubly confirmed that staff includes those types of notes on the cover sheet for the
Commission.
The Commission reviewed scores from previous funding rounds and Thul noted the Little Creations
project from FY21 didn't really have a great score and perhaps that could have been an early indicator
that there may have been problems later. Drabek noted that did come up at the time and that score was a
factor and there was disagreement about the score, the prioritization, or consideration of trying to find a
wide range of agencies that might be able to reach varied populations.
Reedus thinks those kinds of issues might come into play more with the newer emerging organizations or
with organizations like Little Creations they might agree it is a high need area. However, if the agency
doesn't have capacity to manage the project then they end up recapturing the money.
Drabek noted in summary everyone should take the scoring criteria seriously, though, they're certainly not
required to follow them exactly, it's always important to look at things seriously and correlate them with
funding levels.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 14 of 15
14
Reedus noted if there is a project for a specific, vulnerable population, maybe it needs to be higher score,
there's some targeted areas the City would want to fund, and maybe that needs to be higher scored to
pull them out.
Dennis noted but even that that's subjective, what applicant ever comes in here that doesn't provide some
sort of service to a vulnerable population. Reedus noted priorities are listed in City Steps but she wouldn't
mind the City giving this Commission a little more direction and guidance.
Nkumu stated he first has to look at the information provided on the application and then first look at the
higher scores and go through the process from there.
Drabek is skeptical of the idea of removing the human element and doesn’t think they will ever come up
with some score and just go with it. If this is put on a future agenda they need to come up with a plan on
what they want to see. Overall he thinks the system works okay.
Dennis noted the staff cover sheet is very good and wondered when they will get to see
recommendations from staff. Thul said staff will share their recommendations at the next meeting. She
will need the scores early, maybe a week before the next meeting, and then staff could get the staff score
and recommendations out to the Commission.
Reedus stated it would be helpful to have the staff scores and recommendations and cover sheet before
the commissioners do their scoring. Thul said the next meeting is the October 21st so they could try to
have staff scores by the seventh and the Commission could submit their scores by the 14th and that gives
everyone a week to digest.
IOWA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UPDATES:
Two Commissioners are assigned each month to monitor Council meetings and this agenda item
provides an opportunity for brief updates on City Council activity relevant to the HCDC business.
Commissioners will not engage in discussion with one another concerning said items.
No updates covered at the meeting.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Thul put a calendar together for HCDC showing an overview of the funding rounds. In November they’ll
review the FY23 application materials.
ADJOURNMENT:
Reedus moved to adjourn, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 15 of 15
15
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record 2021-2022
• Resigned from Commission
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant
Name Terms Exp. 8/20 9/17 10/15 11/19 1/21 2/18 3/11 4/15 6/17 8/19 9/16
Alter, Megan 6/30/24 X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E
Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X
Drabek, Matt 6/30/22 X X O/E X X X X X X X X
Dennis, Maryann 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
Lewis, Theresa 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X O/E O/E O/E
Mohammed, Nasr 6/30/23 X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X
Nkumu, Peter 6/30/22 X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X
Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X
Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 X X O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E
Date: October 15, 2021
To: Housing & Community Development Commission
From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner
Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Re: HCDC Scoring Summary for the FY22 Mid-Year Funding Round
Staff Comments:
The following data provides a summary of scores submitted by the Housing and Community
Development Commission (HCDC) for the FY22 mid-year competitive funding round for affordable
housing activities. Staff scores are available in a separate memo and are not included in the calculations
below.
1.Summary of Commissioner Scores by Project:
Agenda Item #5
October 15, 2021
Page 2
2.Chart of Average Commissioner Scores by Question and Project:
3.Table of Average Commissioner Scores by Question and Project:
October 15, 2021
Page 3
4.Table of Score Range by Question and Project:
Note: Calculated by subtracting the smallest score from the largest score for each question. Larger
numbers indicate the most range between Commissioner scores.
Date: October 7, 2021
To: Housing & Community Development Commission
From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner
Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Re: FY22 Mid-Year Funding Round Staff Recommendations
Summary of Staff Scores & Funding Recommendation:
Agency and Project Score Request HOME
Funding
Other
Funding
Total
Funding
Shelter House
Rental Construction 95 $500,000 $250,000 NA $250,000
City of Iowa City
Downpayment Assistance
(South District Program)
78 $100,000 $50,000 NA $50,000
City of Iowa City & Green State
Downpayment Assistance 71 $150,000 $120,000 NA $120,000
Unlimited Abilities
Rental Acquisition 68 $125,000 $0
$78,000
Recaptured
CDBG
$78,000
The Housing Fellowship
Rental Acquisition 59 $160,000 $80,000
$77,000
CHDO
Reserve
$157,000
Total $1,035,000 $500,000 $77,000 $655,000
Staff Comments on Recommendations:
Shelter House – Rental Construction
Shelter House is a high capacity organization with substantial experience carrying out federally funded
housing activities. The project will serve 36 individuals who are chronically homeless with permanent
supportive housing. Funds will not reduce rent or increase affordability because the tenants will receive
project-based vouchers. However, funds will assist Shelter House with internal cash flow by reducing
their payable debt on the project. The project is currently underway which may cause some
administrative complications. Because there is other federal funding invested, staff understands the
project is still eligible for additional HOME funds. Based on the high score, staff is recommending that
the largest portion of funding be awarded ($250,000) to Shelter House.
City of Iowa City – South District Downpayment Assistance
This request is a continuation of the City’s South District Homeownership Program, which rehabs duplex
units in Iowa City’s South District Neighborhood and sells them as affordable owner-occupied units for
Agenda Item #5
October 7, 2021
Page 2
residents of the South District. HOME funds are used for down payment assistance for qualified buyers
of these units. While the City recently acquired properties for this program, the time frame for property
rehabilitation is unknown because several units are currently occupied and the City will not displace any
tenants. Staff recommends $50,000 of funding to proceed with one duplex, while deferring the
remainder of the request to a future funding round based on readiness to proceed.
City of Iowa City & Green State –Downpayment Assistance
The City is requesting funds in partnership with Green State Credit Union to provide down payment
assistance for home buyers in low-income census tracts. While this is a new project, both organizations
have substantial experience and funding can begin immediately upon award. Staff recommends partial
funding in the amount of $120,000 which will serve eight households rather than ten.
Unlimited Abilities – Rental Acquisition
Unlimited Abilities applied for funding for rental acquisition funding in the initial FY22 funding round, but
the request was deferred by City Council based on staff concerns about agency capacity. Staff has the
following ongoing concerns:
•FY21 project triggered HOME Vacant Unit status. This occurs when new projects are not fully
leased and closed out within six months. All units have recently been leased.
•Project close-out monitoring revealed discrepancies in the agency’s General Ledger (accounting
report). Federal programs require that agencies follow specific accounting policies and
procedures. Staff is working with the agency and their accountant to determine the issue.
•Inconsistencies in information provided to staff.
Staff do not recommend funding Unlimited Abilities with HOME funds due to long-term affordability
requirements. The City has recently recaptured $78,000 in CDBG funds which may be allocated to this
project. The agency would be required to successfully complete FY21 HOME project close-out
monitoring and provide documentation of funding commitments for the remaining project costs.
The Housing Fellowship – Rental Acquisition
The Housing Fellowship serves as the City’s only active Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) and undergoes annual certification to maintain this status. CHDOs are a critical
component of HOME funding and without an active CHDO the City would not be eligible for HOME
funding. A portion of each year’s HOME allocation must be set-aside for CHDO housing activities
(known as the “CHDO reserve”). The Housing Fellowship has requested funds for a project that is
eligible for CHDO reserve funds and staff recommends funding $77,000 of this project through the
CHDO reserve.
Staff additionally recommends that $80,000 of the competitive HOME funding be awarded to this
project. While the Housing Fellowship received the lowest score, the agency has capacity to
successfully complete their current projects and the proposed rental acquisition within the HOME
program timeline. In addition, staff feels it is important to support the required CHDO reserve activity.
HCDC RANKINGS AND CDBG/HOME ALLOCATIONS: FY18-FY21
Project Name
Ave. Score
(Max. 100) Requested Allocated
Percent
Allocation
Unlimited Abilities Acquisition 61 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 100% *Not allocated by Council
NCJC Public Facilities 72 37,242 $ 37,242 $ 100%
Shelter House Public Facilities 80 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 100%
Project Name
Ave. Score
(Max. 100) Requested Allocated
Percent
Allocation
Little Creations Academy Kitchen Rehab 62 78,160 $ 78,000 $ 100%
City South District #1 73 50,000 $ 47,000 $ 94%
City South District #2 74 50,000 $ 47,000 $ 94%
Habitat Downpayment Assistance #1 82 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 100%
Habitat Downpayment Assistance #2 81 30,000 $ 27,000 $ 90%
Habitat Downpayment Assistance #3 82 30,000 $ - $ 0%
Successful Living Acquisition #1 90 48,000 $ 48,000 $ 100%
Successful Living Acquisition #2 90 48,000 $ 48,000 $ 100%
Successful Living Acquisition #3 90 48,000 $ 48,000 $ 100%
Systems Unlimited New Construction 81 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100%
Unlimited Abilities Acquisition 66 121,607 $ 60,000 $ 49%
The Housing Fellowship CHDO Operations 84 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 100%
Project Name
Ave. Score
(Max. 100) Requested Allocated
Percent
Allocation
DVIP - Shelter Repair 72 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 100%
Little Creations Academy - Renovation Phase 3 53 51,968 $ - $ 0%
Old Brick - ADA Improvements 59 40,553 $ 36,000 $ 89%
Old Brick - Structural Fortification/Water Mitigation 58 67,670 $ - $ 0%
Habitat - Lot Acquisition 69 120,000 $ 53,000 $ 44%
MYEP - Lot Acquisition 79 200,000 $ 186,000 $ 93%
Successful Living - Rental Acquisition 78 240,000 $ 173,000 $ 72%
Successful Living - Rental Rehabilitation 63 75,000 $ 62,000 $ 83%
THF - CHDO Operating 66 26,500 $ 22,000 $ 83%
THF - Rental Rehabilitation 64 69,108 $ 74,000 $ 107%
Project Name
Average
Score (Max.
100) Requested Allocated
Percent
Allocation
Arthur Street Healthy Life Center 80 100,000 $ 51,000 $ 51%
NCJC Siding Improvement 68 51,467 $ 41,000 $ 80%
THF - CHDO Operating 88 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 100%
THF - Rental Acquisition 76 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100%
Habitat for Humanity - Ownership 83 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 100%
MYEP - Rental Acquisition 81 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 100%
Successful Living - Rental Acquisition 80 310,000 $ 194,000 $ 63%
City of Iowa City - South Dist. Part.59 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100%
Prelude - Transitional Housing Impr.62 82,010 $ 34,000 $ 41%
Unlimited Abilities 21 200,000 $ - $ 0%
Habitat - Lot Acquisition 1 NA 40,000 $ - $ 0%
Habitat - Lot Acquisition 2 NA 40,000 $ - $ 0%
MYEP - Lot Acquisition NA 80,000 $ - $ 0%
THF - Rental Rehabilitation (Round 2)NA 91,362 $ 87,034 $ 95%
Shelter Housing - Rental Acquisition (Round 2)NA 185,000 $ 93,966 $ 51%
Project Name
Average
Score (Max.
100) Requested Allocated
Percent
Allocation
FY22
FY21
FY20
FY19
FY18
Agenda Item #5
HCDC RANKINGS AND CDBG/HOME ALLOCATIONS: FY18-FY21
Crisis Center Food Pantry 83 100,000 $ 85,000 $ 85%
Successful Living 81 72,000 $ 72,000 $ 100%
CHDO operations - Housing Fellowship 75 25,000 $ 18,000 $ 72%
Habitat for Humanity 74 90,000 $ 50,000 $ 56%
The Housing Fellowship Rehab 67 100,000 $ 86,000 $ 86%
Housing Authority Rent Assistance 62 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 100%
Little Creations Academy Daycare 54 107,934 $ 73,000 $ 68%
MYEP Facility 52 60,000 $ 31,000 $ 52%
Mid-Year Habitat for Humanity N/A 70,000 $ 35,000 $ 50%
Mid-Year THF Rental Construction N/A 245,000 $ 100,000 $ 41%
Mid-Year MYEP Rental Acquisition N/A 75,000 $ 50,000 $ 67%
Mid-Year Successful Living Rental Rehab N/A 74,895 $ 50,000 $ 67%
Mid-Year Successful Living Rental Acqusition N/A 100,000 $ - $ 0%
BOARD/COMMISSIONER
TRAINING 101
Open Meetings &Public Records
Wednesday, December 8 at 6PM
via Zoom.
Register here
https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZEpdOyqqjgjHNwSf8iJbh3o
DsxFEEK-znYc
854 3524 3968
Presenter Mickey Shields, Iowa League of Cities.
Agenda Item #8
Affordable Housing Steering Committee
Public Outreach Results
•American Rescue Plan Act Citywide Survey & Listening
Post ( Page 2)
•Outreach Activity (Page 8)
Wetherby National Night Out
Fairmeadows Party in the Park
CommUnity Crisis Services Food Bank Distribution
Iowa City Compassion Food Bank Distribution
•UISG Representatives (Page 9)
9/23/21 Meeting Minutes
•Disability Services Coordinating Committee (Page 10)
9/24/21 Meeting Minutes
Agenda Item #8
Date: September 2, 2021
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rachel Kilburg, Assistant City Manager
Re: American Rescue Plan Act State & Local Fiscal Relief Funds: First Tranche Update
Background
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) established the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Fund (SLFRF), which provides significant resources to state and local governments to
respond to impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible uses of funds fall within four broad
categories: responding to negative public health and economic impacts, premium pay for
essential workers, replacing lost government revenue, and necessary water, sewer, and
broadband infrastructure improvements.
In addition to significant funds provided to the State of Iowa, Johnson County and other local
municipalities, the U.S. Treasury has allocated $18.3 million to the City of Iowa City. The City
received approximately half of these funds in May 2021 and anticipates receiving the remaining
balance in May 2022. All funds must be obligated by the end of December 2024 and spent by
December 2026.
At the May 18, 2021 work session, City Council adopted guiding principles to inform the process
of prioritizing ideas for use of funds which are outlined below:
Leverage partnerships and outside funding; avoid duplication with other relief programs
Restore financial stability to support future governmental operations
Retain flexibility to address evolving emergent community needs
Seek opportunities to make lasting change in physical and social infrastructure
Ensure funding decisions help mitigate racial inequities
Pursue actions that contribute toward the City’s climate action
Limit operational investments without identified sustainable funding sources
Demonstrate compliance and transparency through regular public reporting
Public Input Summary
Since the City’s ARPA funds are delivered in two tranches, the City anticipates a multi-phased
public input process and recently conducted an initial phase of public input this summer.
City staff presented a plan for this first phase of public input at the June 15, 2021 City Council
work session. Following this work session and through the end of August, staff employed the
following strategies to collect public input:
Online survey (available in English, Spanish, French, and Arabic) was open from mid-
July through the end of August.
E-mails (residents encouraged to submit messages in their preferred language)
Listening Session, Mercer Park – August 11, 2021
Diversity Market, South District – July 10, 2021
Farmer’s Market, Chauncey Swan – July 24, 2021
City Boards, Commissions, and Committees invited to share ideas
Neighborhood Associations invited to share ideas
Translated informational flyer and survey links were shared with the non-profit and social
service agencies e-mail list, for dissemination to those they serve
September 7, 2021
Page 2
The City initiated meetings with the following targeted stakeholders:
o Catholic Worker House/Excluded Worker’s Coalition
o Agency Impact Coalition (coalition of Iowa City based social service agencies)
o Open Heartland, members of the Latino population
o Community and economic development organizations (Iowa City Area
Development Group, Think Iowa City, Iowa City Downtown District, and the Iowa
City Area Business Partnership)
o Iowa Flood Center
Public input collaboration and data-sharing with Johnson County, including the non-profit
roundtable and urban communities’ session
Various informal meetings/conversations with individuals and non-profit organizations
Opportunities to provide input were promoted through official City channels, including news
releases, social media platforms, and Cable TV programs. An informational flyer available in
multiple languages was also disseminated through various methods to further spread
awareness.
In total, the City received 1,892 responses to the online survey through August 15 (including
682 open-ended comments), over 20 e-mails, and countless ideas and stories shared through
meetings and listening sessions. A list is attached to this memo, summarizing the ideas
collected through the survey, meetings, e-mails, and other conversations. The raw survey
results are also attached. Other documentation such as emails and input forms or notes from
events is not attached but are available upon request and reflected in the summarized idea list.
While we are pleased with the amount of input received, we also recognize that many voices
were likely not heard and that we must continue to seek to understand the needs of residents
and make expenditure decisions that will create opportunities to meet the most acute needs in
our community.
Based on the results of the online survey, respondents ranked addressing public health and
economic harms as the top preference for spending the City’s ARPA funds. Considering these
categories address a broad range of possibilities, this is also reflective of what staff heard
through meetings, conversations, and listening sessions:
September 7, 2021
Page 3
The most common suggestions staff heard throughout the survey, listening sessions, and
meetings include:
Direct financial assistance to those in need who did not receive direct federal stimulus
checks and unemployment benefits
Premium pay for frontline, essential workers
Improved access and affordability of high-speed internet
Investments in long-term affordable housing solutions
Expand and strengthen mental health and behavioral health services
Infrastructure investments, including water and sewer
Assistance to help businesses re-hire and increase minimum wage to $15/hour
Invest further in climate actions and community resiliency
Financial support for small businesses, non-profits, arts-based organizations,
entrepreneurs, entertainment venues, and other organizations impacted by COVID-19
Rent, eviction, and foreclosure assistance
Comprehensive non-profit needs assessment and capital planning/funding
Enhanced public transit
Common concerns staff heard throughout the survey, listening sessions, and meetings include:
Ensure aid/assistance is delivered to those most in need
Prioritize low-barrier access for programs serving households, with eligibility guidelines
and applications that ensure residents lacking documentation can participate and are not
overly burdened by accessing the program
Recognize there are urgent, stabilization needs for households, businesses, and
organizations
Local COVID-19 Relief Programs
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City has dedicated both local and federal relief
funds towards expanding or developing financial assistance and relief programs. These
allocations were largely intended to provide stability for households, non-profits, and businesses
facing emergent financial pressures:
City of Iowa City Past/Existing COVID-19 Relief Programs
Program Allocation Status Assisted*
Emergency Housing Assistance (administered
by CommUnity/Shelter House)
616,000 Ongoing 153
Non-profit grants for expanded social services
addressing COVID-19 impacts
17 non-profit recipients; delivering food
assistance, childcare assistance, homeless
services, mental health services, and legal aid)
536,532 Ongoing 8,659
Business Grants
Small Business Retention Grants, Project Better
Together BIPOC Business Grants)
448,678 Ongoing 48
Security Deposit Assistance Grants
administered by CommUnity)
175,000 Ongoing 66
Shelter Diversion Grant
emergency hotels to reduce crowding at onset of
COVID)
10,800 Completed 10
Local Eviction Prevention Program
additional funds for existing program
administered through Shelter House)
125,000 Ongoing n/a
September 7, 2021
Page 4
Emergency Essential Needs Assistance
administered by Center for Worker Justice)
62,500 Completed 157
Courthouse Eviction Prevention Program
administered by Shelter House/Iowa Legal Aid)
41,000 Ongoing n/a
Beneficiaries reported when project completed
In total, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the City has allocated over $1.9 million in
new local relief programs, including $1 million for housing assistance, $536,532 for expanded
social services, and $448,678 for small business support. Thus far, these programs have served
376 households, 8,659 individuals, and 48 total businesses (additional household/individual
beneficiaries will be added as funding is depleted/program closes). This relief does not capture
other relief funding sources that were administered directly by the State or received directly by
local non-profit organizations.
In addition to City programs, Johnson County has recently made changes to their General
Assistance Program to improve benefits and expand eligibility. Additionally, the County
dedicated up to $2 million in federal relief funding toward the program. General Assistance
payments are made by the County on behalf of the recipient for needs limited to rent, utilities,
provisions, prescription medications, medical supplies, transportation, pet supplies, and funeral
expenses.
Revisions to Johnson County General Assistance Program (Approved 7/29/21)
Guideline Previous Policy New Policy
Program type “Short Term” and “One-Time”
Assistance Programs
Combined into one program
Duration of assistance
within 12 mo. period)
3 months for 0-50% FPG^ (“Short
Term”) or 1 month for 50-130%
FPG (“One-Time”)
3 months for all eligible households
0-200% FPG)
Income eligibility 130% FPG for one-time assistance
50% FPG for short-term assistance
Up to 200% FPG
25.7K for a one-person household
or $53K for a four-person household)
Supplemental
emergency assistance
Not available May be granted per Director’s
discretion
Eligible expenses Rent, utilities, provisions, some
medical, transportation, and funeral
expenses.
Maintained existing eligible
expenses. Added gas vouchers and
pet food as eligible assistance.
Expanded expenses eligible for
certain health and medical care
supplies.
Applicant
Documentation
Application requested immigration
status
Application no longer requests
immigration status; eligibility
extended to any County resident who
meets program guidelines.
FPG = Federal Poverty Guidelines
Other notable eligibility changes include eliminating the rent cap and expanding eligibility to
include those receiving federal/state benefits (such as FIP, SSI, unemployment, etc.). In
addition to the General Assistance Program, Johnson County offers an Interim Assistance
Reimbursement Program, which provides ongoing assistance for those who have applied for
September 7, 2021
Page 5
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits, until they are approved. Eligibility for this
program was also expanded -- from 50% to 100% FPG.
Households, non-profits, and businesses may have also benefitted directly from various state or
federal pandemic relief programs, but the City has no way of quantifying or identifying those
recipients. Anecdotally, staff understand local programs have been more accessible particularly
among immigrant and refugee populations than state and federal programs.
Finally, Iowa City is fortunate to have a strong network of social service agencies, who have
continued to serve clients throughout the pandemic, especially as need and demand increased.
The impact of these agencies is expansive and invaluable.
Partnerships
City staff believe two key partnerships will play an integral role in efficient and effective spending
of ARPA funds:
Johnson County: City and County staff have been in regular communication and
collaboration to share and streamline public input and identify potential areas of
overlapping interest. The County has signaled interest in continuing to collaborate as
spending decisions are developed. Careful coordination with the County is needed to
ensure relief dollars are stretched as far as possible and have the greatest impact on
residents.
Social Service Agencies: The City has had considerable success partnering with local
agencies to administer assistance programs both prior to and throughout the pandemic.
Multiple agencies have again expressed interest in partnerships to roll out ARPA funds.
City staff capacity is unlikely able to support the administration and compliance and reporting
management of multiple new programs. For any new programs that the City administers, it
should be expected that additional staff will be required for such effort. A 5% administrative set-
aside is standard for large federal grants with robust compliance and reporting guidelines.
Next Steps
Staff is developing recommended priority projects based on an assessment of the public input
collected, the U.S. Treasury guidance, and project/program’s relationship to the guiding
principles set forth by City Council for the use of these funds. Those recommendations will be
presented at your September 7th work session.
The recommendations will identify top priorities based in two general areas
1) Emergent community need projects
2) Strategic investment projects
The recommendations will include initial estimates for potential funding levels that exceed the
City’s $18.3 million allocation. This acknowledges that there will likely by some overlap in
City/County priorities and that continued close collaboration will be needed to identify areas
where City funding is most needed. Similarly, it acknowledges that the future decisions by the
State of Iowa with regards to their $1.2 billion may impact funding needs at a local level.
Staff will be seeking guidance from the City Council at the work session. Specifically, whether
Council is comfortable with the recommended priority projects and staff beginning to work on
execution details for emergent needs, while initiating planning for the strategic investment
projects.
Attachments
Summarized list of ideas obtained through public input
Copy of the survey
Raw survey results
ARPA Input - Summarized List of Public Input Ideas by Category. Housing Suggestions:
Initial Summary of Staff Recommendations. Final plan will be impacted by funding choices made by the
State and Johnson County. Iowa City will focus on emergent needs first.
Wetherby National Night Out 8-3-21Fairmeadows Party in the Park 8-19-21CommUnity - Food Bank 8-31-21IC Compassion - Food Bank 9-23 & 9-29TotalAffordable housing for low-moderate income households
(owner-occupied or rental) 18 8 24 27 77
Affordable housing for seniors or those with disabilities 10 10 14 18 52
Downpayment assistance to purchase a home 16 9 9 11 45
Financial counseling to improve credit to buy or rent a home 22 7 2 12 43
Utility (gas, electric, and/or water) assistance 12 6 9 12 39
Housing discrimination prevention (based on race, voucher status,
disability, have children, etc.)13 1 4 3 21
Affordable student housing 1 2 8 9 20
Security deposit assistance 5 3 5 2 15
Ongoing rent assistance (similar to Section 8/Housing Vouchers)1 2 4 8 15
Mobile home park cooperative 7 3 3 1 14
Housing rehabilitation, including accessibility improvements, for
homeowners 2 4 1 2 9
Eviction prevention/legal services 1 1 2 5 9
Increased supportive services such as housing placement and counseling 3 0 2 2 7
Housing rehabilitation, including accessibility improvements, for rental
housing 1 1 3 1 6
Other: Please identify in a separate post it note1
4 0 0 0 4
Total Votes 116 57 90 113 376
Estimated Participants 39 19 30 38 125
1Other responses included (one vote each):
Homeownership program for undocumented immigrants
Affordable medical insurance program for undocumented immigrants (partnership with local hospitals and clinics)
Responsible housing - green homes and specs, solar panel support
Recycling options
Survey translated into English, Spanish, Arabic and French for food bank/pantry sites. Spanish translator present for Wetherby & Fairmeadows events.
If the City were to invest additional funds for housing, what would
help your household’s situation best? (Select up to 3)
University of Iowa Student Government – 9/23/2021
In attendance: Anna VanHuekelom, UISG City Liaison, Ellie Miglin, UISG Deputy City Liaison, Von Stange,
UI Assistant V.P. for Student Life & Senior Director, University Housing & Dining, and Tracy Hightshoe,
NDS Director
Identified the following needs for University Students living in Iowa City:
•Affordable rental units for students near campus. Full time students under the age of 24 are
eligible for Riverfront Crossings units if they are married, have a dependent child, military,
disabled, their family (including parents) are income eligible or if they are independent of their
parents (not claimed as a dependent) and show sufficient income to rent the unit.
•A service or database for students to know what units might be affordable, the rent charged and
student eligibility requirements.
•Students expect to pay $400-$1,200 for a unit. Many believe $400-500 for rent is the lowest
they can get for rent in the downtown community. This is typically a shared house with
multiple roommates, each get their own bedroom. For many students the cost of dorms is
more expensive as you must buy a food plan. A dorm contract is typically 9 months. Units
available at a lower rent are needed.
•Students requested that the University look at campus apartments near the University for junior
and senior students. Possible locations included Mayflower, former Bank Field or Parklawn
apartments. Strange commented that the University will probably not be looking at additional
housing in the immediate or near term due to debt from most recent dorm construction
projects and due to the financial loss from refunding and releasing students from their dorm
contracts during COVID. Parklawn will be part of the new development as the former units
were not ADA compliant and the old band field is under planning.
•University considered live-in student housing requirement for freshman and sophomores but
would need 2,000-3,000 more units. Due to concerns about what that would do the local
housing market and costs, they did not proceed. The University currently has dorm capacity for
additional students.
•Strange commented if a student is in need for financial assistance, it runs through their financial
aid office. Housing costs would be considered, on or off campus. UISG requested an advisory
service for off campus housing. The service could discuss housing options, costs, location, etc.
Reviewed some alternative possibilities. Hightshoe mentioned a model in other college communities
where an agency matches college students with an owner (senior or empty nester) with more house
than they need that can provide a room for reduced rent in exchange for lawn maintenance, snow
removal, etc. UISG representatives felt that some students would be interested if cheaper rent. Some
students may sacrifice distance to the campus for affordable living/less student debt.
More education for students about off campus housing and how to avoid problems. Many students are
leasing in private market for first time and need guidance. City developed a Tips for First Time Renters
flyer and weblink last year. Emailed to UISG representatives and Stange for distribution. Students
stated there is a lack of support for off campus housing.
Disability Services Coordinating Committee – 9/24/2021
In Attendance: Alissa Voss, Dave Leshtz, Megz Stroback, Mary Vasey, Brad Neumann, Keisha Fields, Sara
Barron, Rachel Kilburg, and Tracy Hightshoe
Identified the following needs for those 55+ and those with disabilities in the Iowa City community:
•Lack of affordable, accessible options throughout the City. Need this type of housing in more
than just a few neighborhoods.
•Need additional LIHTC – Senior properties that are affordable.
•Improvements needed to existing rental properties to address accessibility. First floor (entry
level) laundry facilities if not in unit, accessible exterior door handles, no step entries, grab bars,
wider entries, etc.
•Better snow maintenance on site/better property management
•Few seniors or those with disabilities aware of City rehab programs or how to file a
complaint/address a concern about a reasonable accommodation for a disability. Many do not
know how to advocate for themselves.
•SSI and Social Security Disability pay about $700 to $1,100 per month. Need rent of
approximately $300 to be considered affordable.
•Many find more affordable, accessible units outside of Iowa City.
Emailed comment from member not able to attend: If I were to share any thought it would be to
explore the notion of requiring all spec developed properties to have X percentage of units that contain
some of the fundamentals of accessibility. For instance, no step doorways to the outside, wide interior
doors that are framed in and trimmed out, extra framing in the bathroom for handrails and no step
showers. It would also help a great deal to have bathrooms with 5 ft free circle of space. These are
fundamental elements that are difficult to change after the fact. Not only do they meet the needs of
those with various disabilities they also meet the needs of those advancing in frailty as they age.
As follow-up, emailed CMO for distribution to committee members the City’s housing rehabilitation and
Human Rights complaint info. flyers to distribute to committee members.