Loading...
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.